Sandy Larsen Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 (edited) Sandy, I was wrong. It appears the person in Weigman is a woman, holding a coffee mug, out in front of her mouth. Chris, it would be nice if you'd explain what you have done to this photo. I see you have pasted an extra Lovelady between PM and the Lovelady belonging to this photo. The one you pasted is from the other frame in that animated gif. That frame/photo is in much better focus, which you can tell by comparing the two Loveladys here in this composite. My question for you, Chris, is what did you do to de-blur PM so that we can even make out one of his eyes. And I see the white spot is bigger now, but more importantly is quite square with definite edges. How is that possible, given that the original is so out of focus and void of such detail? I know that de-blurring of an out-of-focus picture is possible. But it has its limits and I'm fairly certain that de-blurring of this photo would not bring out an eye. And you think this is a woman??? What makes you say that? You're joking, right? Edited May 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 One hand not two, and who looks through a camera with their mouth? There is nothing that obscures his throat or above, his face, on top of the reflection! From this and Chris's latest blow-ups, the white spot looks square. More like a coffee mug than a coke bottle. Do you have an explanation for that Bart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Sandy, I was wrong. It appears the person in Weigman is a woman, holding a coffee mug, out in front of her mouth. Chris, it would be nice if you'd explain what you have done to this photo. I see you have pasted an extra Lovelady between PM and the Lovelady belonging to this photo. The one you pasted is from the other frame in that animated gif. That frame/photo is in much better focus, which you can tell by comparing the two Loveladys here in this composite. My question for you, Chris, is what did you do to de-blur PM so that we can even make out one of his eyes. And I see the white spot is bigger now, but more importantly is quite square with definite edges. How is that possible, given that the original is so out of focus and void of such detail? I know that de-blurring of an out-of-focus picture is possible. But it has its limits and I'm fairly certain that de-blurring of this photo would not bring out an eye. And you think this is a woman??? What makes you say that? You're joking, right? Sandy, It appears you recognize the left eye of this person, as did my wife (who could care less about the assassination) and myself, almost immediately. Otherwise. I don't believe you would have asked this question: My question for you, Chris, is what did you do to de-blur PM so that we can even make out one of his eyes. I did not de-blur anything. The process was simple: Photoshop: Image: Adjustment: Shadow/Highlights: Amount 75 Tonal Width 75 and then: Photoshop: Curves: RGB Channel: Output 35 Input 85 In other words, lighten the shadow area, then create contrast within. Done deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 (edited) Sandy, I was wrong. It appears the person in Weigman is a woman, holding a coffee mug, out in front of her mouth. Chris, it would be nice if you'd explain what you have done to this photo. I see you have pasted an extra Lovelady between PM and the Lovelady belonging to this photo. The one you pasted is from the other frame in that animated gif. That frame/photo is in much better focus, which you can tell by comparing the two Loveladys here in this composite. My question for you, Chris, is what did you do to de-blur PM so that we can even make out one of his eyes. And I see the white spot is bigger now, but more importantly is quite square with definite edges. How is that possible, given that the original is so out of focus and void of such detail? I know that de-blurring of an out-of-focus picture is possible. But it has its limits and I'm fairly certain that de-blurring of this photo would not bring out an eye. And you think this is a woman??? What makes you say that? You're joking, right? Sandy, It appears you recognize the left eye of this person, as did my wife (who could care less about the assassination) and myself, almost immediately. Otherwise. I don't believe you would have asked this question: My question for you, Chris, is what did you do to de-blur PM so that we can even make out one of his eyes. I did not de-blur anything. The process was simple: Photoshop: Image: Adjustment: Shadow/Highlights: Amount 75 Tonal Width 75 and then: Photoshop: Curves: RGB Channel: Output 35 Input 85 In other words, lighten the shadow area, then create contrast within. Done deal Well if I didn't know any better and just saw that circled enhanced area, I'd think I was looking at a woman raising a mug as if toasting to somebody's good health. But I'm sure that that is not her eye... it is some kind of artifact. And I wouldn't count on the bright object being square, though it might be. And I don't think she is necessarily a woman. Anyway, thanks for explaining what you did. Edited May 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You are looking at a 5th/6th or even a 7th generation image, contrast is being increased every time. Shadows grow darker and whites become even whiter. Mug? Who attested to drinking coffee outside, plus what woman would be standing outside in the 60's with a coffee mug outside? The bottle makes more sense as it was seen in the Allen pix and as per Oswald's testimony. Besides the woman thing was killed off months ago http://www.prayer-man.com/the-death-of-prayer-woman/ Any way you can debate about this until the cows come home.........and until someone shows a better image my money is on Lee Oswald. There is no other candidate it is no woman It is no stranger The deductions end with Lee Oswald being the Prayer Man, until proven otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 If it was a camera and it was Oswald, what happened to the camera subsequently? Good question. Either nobody knows or nobody is talking. P.S. Your white mug idea is not bad. Assume that Lovelady had the white object in hand and he raised it up. Where/how high does the white object get raised to in relation to Lovelady's face? i.e. eyes, forehead, nose As you can still see his forehead in the raised photo, Chris, I assume it is somewhere near his mouth. If it was a camera i.e an SLR, or something similar I would assume it would hide the power part of his forehead. But as other have already said, until we get a rally sharp copy, it is all speculation. However the results you have achieved, are remarkable, Chris. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Hate to disagree, Sandy, but if you magnify the gif, you will see that his left elbow stays in the same position in both views. His right arm lifts whatever it is but the left arm doesn't. IMO I don't know why you are disagreeing with me, Ray. Because I believe exactly what you just said, and I've said so more than once. What I said is that his left elbow is stationary and is acting as a pivot. His left forearm rotates clockwise (clockwise from our perspective) a little, and because of that his left hand rises and moves to his left. Apologies, Sandy. I misunderstood what you were writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) More nails in the height issue coffin. Note the length of Oswald's shirt. He was standing one step down. Credit: Tony Fratini Willis 8, reflective strip, credit: BK From Robin Unger's gallery Edited May 20, 2016 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) More nails in the height issue coffin. Note the length of Oswald's shirt. He was standing one step down. Credit: Tony Fratini Willis 8, reflective strip, credit: BK From Robin Unger's gallery Holy crap, Bart, what a very obvious yet ground shaking discovery! I would have sworn PM was on the top landing, way back in the corner, but this changes everything. It would be interesting to see what our friends "Dumb & Dumber" over at the other forum would say when confronted with this. P.S. Bottom photo, guy in the suit, centre of photo; doesn't he look like a dead ringer for the late and missing Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa? Edited May 20, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) I need to make a correction here, Fratini's collage doesn't add up. The horizontal lines are digital artefacts as the lines are also on the left which is the wall. Then the radiator is not it, it's the hair and coat of the lady whose foot is visible a few steps below. My apologies. Be that as it may, while looking at the position of the strip and the coppers on the landing in the Allen shots I am still of the opinion that Prayer Man was standing one step down, the pix above and the Lovelady position are until a better scan arrives enough that Oswald is still the prime candidate and that Doyle's non existent evidence is a complete waste of time. Edited May 22, 2016 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 I need to make a correction here, Fratini's collage doesn't add up. The horizontal lines are digital artefacts as the lines are also on the left which is the wall. Then the radiator is not it, it's the hair and coat of the lady whose foot is visible a few steps below. My apologies. Be that as it may, while looking at the position of the strip and the coppers on the landing in the Allen shots I am still of the opinion that Prayer Man was standing one step down, the pix above and the Lovelady position are until a better scan arrives enough that Oswald is still the prime candidate and that Doyle's non existent evidence is a complete waste of time. I am really, really glad that the radiator turned out not to be the radiator. Because I've just done some work indicating PM's height -- assuming he's back in the corner -- and I couldn't reconcile the height of the so-call "radiator" with my findings. It was driving me bonkers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 That radiator would be slightly to the left of the hair of the steps lady and being obscured by pm below his hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 A woman by the name of Linda Giovan on this page of the ROKC forum, claims that she can see the outline of a camera in some "improved PM" photo. Does anybody know what photo this is and where I can find it? Bart? Anybody? I'm skeptical, but I'd like to take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 (edited) 220/120 film (the size you reference) was common in that era for amateur photography. 35mm and smaller films were a later trend. Edited May 26, 2016 by Michael Cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Barnabe Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Chris, in post#280 it appears you have put the PM issue to 'bed'. The photo enhancement technique you used, though rather simple shows PM to be a woman holding a coffee cup (someone else suggested this, but I can't help but agree). I have a suggestion. Every experiment has a 'control', this helps minimize variables. Forum members I'm sure will agree with 99% confidence, "we know where Lovelady and Frazier are standing". Chris, would you mind using the same enhancement techniques on Lovelady and Frazier as you used on PM. If the clarity of results are similar for Lovelady and Frazier, then it would help bolster the confidence of the results you got on PM. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts