Jump to content
The Education Forum

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Bill:

as your style is, you again slip photogammetry as a tool to reconstruct and maybe measure Prayer Man's body or at least torso. However, to do photogammetry, one needs to have an object to be photographed from at least two quite different angles. The more angles the better the result. Would you please explain, since you propose it repeatedly, how can photogammetry be done with having Prayer Man photographed (although one can say repeatedly) from one and the same view angle? Or will you evade again as if nothing happened?

"Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points. It may also be used to recover the motion pathways of designated reference points on any moving object, on its components, and in the immediately adjacent environment. Photogrammetric analysis may be applied to one photograph, or may use high-speed photography and remote sensing to detect, measure and record complex 2-D and 3-D motion fields ......"

My understanding is that if one knows the camera lens type and size, along with known measurements within the photograph .... distances and sizes of other objects in that photograph can also be determined. I know of one person who is experienced in Photogammetry and I have seen it applied to still 2D images. If I am wrong, then it should be easy for you to merely speak to someone skilled in that field to see if you are correct.

 

 

 

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

39 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

"Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points. It may also be used to recover the motion pathways of designated reference points on any moving object, on its components, and in the immediately adjacent environment. Photogrammetric analysis may be applied to one photograph, or may use high-speed photography and remote sensing to detect, measure and record complex 2-D and 3-D motion fields ......"

My understanding is that if one knows the camera lens type and size, along with known measurements within the photograph .... distances and sizes of other objects in that photograph can also be determined. I know of one person who is experienced in Photogammetry and I have seen it applied to still 2D images. If I am wrong, then it should be easy for you to merely speak to someone skilled in that field to see if you are correct.

 

 

 

Thanks, Bill, for your explanation. The software packages mentioned at Wikipedia from which you seem to quote look very complicated and actually require multiple photographs.

Are you sure that photagammetry would work with this low-resolution picture in which it is difficult to recognise details of the body? 

It would be your big contribution to the Prayer Man topic if you could employ photogammetry to Prayer Man's figure. As you know, I work on 3D reconstructions using different approach and cannot embark on another project. We can then compare our findings obtained using photogammetry and 3D modelling.  Maybe you would you be able to contact the person familiar with photogammetry to ask about his/her view about the possibility to reconstruct Prayer Man from Darnell's still. In my experience, one cannot get more information from an analysis than that which the input data potentially contains. If we do not see e.g. the Prayer Man's left shoulder, how can we reconstruct his chest as a volume. However, I may be wrong and it may be all possible to do...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of 'girth'...

... earlier on (either in this thread or in the other PM thread) the point was raised that the apparent look of the 'girth' of PM was too wide to be Oswald, the answer that was given to that was that the additional 'girth' was something of an 'illusion' caused by a woman standing lower down the steps in front of PM. However it has now been shown that there was no woman standing lower down the steps in front of PM that could explain the additional 'girth' - that is to say all the 'girth' belongs to PM.

Personally, I don't see the 'girth' in and of itself being an issue, inasmuch as, even with it all being PM's it doesn't preclude it from being Oswald because the 'girth' could be explained another way. (For example, as Andrej says about the 'loose' clothing)...

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Oswald wore a worker type of shirt and slacks. Both were loose and the shirt wings appear to be over the slacks. Since they were of practically the same colour and owing to the really bad signal in that portion of the picture, it is very difficult to draw the contours of legs and waist.

However, and considering this thread raises the question of whether Prayer Man may actually be Prayer Woman, it shouldn't imo be ruled straight out that it wasn't a woman...

... earlier on in this thread it was mentioned that 'evidence' of it being a woman was that there was 'buttons' synonymous with a woman's clothes, but that evidence was wholly debunked as the same 'buttons' were all over the image. In the same way that the 'no woman standing in front of PM causing the 'extra girth'' doesn't preclude it from being Oswald, the debunking of the 'buttons' doesn't preclude it from being a woman.

Earlier on in this thread it was stated that:

Quote

The gender is a given

The body shape is a given

The hairline is a given

All signposts point to one man. That is what has been proven.

There are those who claim that all of that has indeed been proven - and they no doubt believe it has been proven - and there is nothing wrong with that. ;)
On the flip-side though, as shown by others raising questions about the 'body shape', is it really a case of the 'body shape is a given'. Considering the 'quality' of the image/clip in question is it really a case that the 'hairline is a given', and as such is it really a case that the 'gender is a given'.

*Don't get me wrong, as I have stated earlier, I can look at the image and see it being a man that looks like Oswald, and can explain the 'girth' as being caused by 'loose clothing'. But that in and of itself doesn't prove anything.

Earlier on in this thread it was stated that: " No one admitting seeing anyone at all in the PM position" and that "no one admitted being in the PM position". It is true that none of the people who were on the steps at the time  either stated they were in the position or who was in that position... however from looking at what each and all of them actually stated about who they were standing with or near and in which location and then trying to match that with what we can see in the different images available of the doorway then we can start 'filling in the gaps' with regards to what each and everyone of them have said...

... and maybe, just maybe, by the process of elimination it might just show something of interest.

*I realise that there are those who are dead-set on it being Oswald, and that's fine, I have no problem with that at all. It is predicated on it being a man though, and I haven't yet ruled out the possibility of it being a woman.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alistair:

You hold both explanations (Prayer Woman or Prayer Man) open, and this is a fair standpoint. However, it becomes a bit different if you would like to dig deeper and beyond  this evaluation. You would maybe find out that you need an initial assumption, such as Prayer Man was Oswald, to navigate your research and test different discrete predictions. It would be difficult to assume that Prayer Man was just anybody and to do any research on that base because such standpoint would not generate any testable prediction. How can one "prove" that Prayer Man was just anybody?

While holding the view that Prayer Man was Oswald I do not claim I have proven it, only that there is enough cues to assume so and to direct my research in that direction. 

It would be a fair view to assume that Prayer Man was a woman. If anyone would hold this view, we would need to see the same effort as exerted by those trying to test that PM=Oswald. What would be the candidate woman? What testimonies support this prediction? Any pictures, any details about her body height? Would she drink from a bottle in public as Wiegman's frame shows? Or did she drink from a mug? Where this mug went to if it is not seen in Darnell's still? And so on, and so forth. I offered some researchers a collaboration on testing their assumption about Prayer Woman if they would let me know how tall she was and where exactly she stood. However, this has never been responded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Alistair:

You hold both explanations (Prayer Woman or Prayer Man) open, and this is a fair standpoint. However, it becomes a bit different if you would like to dig deeper and beyond  this evaluation. You would maybe find out that you need an initial assumption, such as Prayer Man was Oswald, to navigate your research and test different discrete predictions. It would be difficult to assume that Prayer Man was just anybody and to do any research on that base because such standpoint would not generate any testable prediction. How can one "prove" that Prayer Man was just anybody?

Personally I'm not sure if it's a good idea to start with an initial assumption such as Prayer Man was Oswald and it's certainly not about proving that Prayer Man was just anybody! Of course, there does have to be a starting point from which to 'narrow the field'. My starting point has always been that Prayer Man, because of their position, has to have been someone from the TSBD building. To narrow that field down further I would thus make the assumption that it either has to be one of the people who stated they were standing on the steps or A. N. Other (and that with all things considered would be Oswald)..

14 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

While holding the view that Prayer Man was Oswald I do not claim I have proven it, only that there is enough cues to assume so and to direct my research in that direction.

I appreciate what you are saying there Andrej. :)

With regards to the things that point towards it being Oswald, I have read this thread and the other PM thread and some of the things don't quite add up imo and maybe aren't actually useful things to use to point to it being Oswald...

... for example, what was PM holding? Perhaps not holding anything? Some have pushed the idea that it was a camera, but I haven't seen evidence to back that up. Some have pushed the idea that it was a 'coke' bottle - and as evidence of that they mention the 'coke' bottle and lunch bag still visible on the steps later on. Where is the link though? How do they know it belonged to PM? It could have belonged to someone else - for example: Lovelady testified to being on the steps for a period of approx. 30 minutes before the shots, during which time he ate his lunch and drank a bottle of 'coke'. His position on the stairs was closer to the location of the lunch bag and bottle caught in photos and although he doesn't mention leaving it, he also doesn't mention taking it with him - a very good inference can be drawn then that the lunch bag and bottle caught in the photos were actually Lovelady's...

... as much as it may look like PM is holding something in their hand there remains the possibility that they are holding nothing. The image just isn't clear enough to make a definite call on it.

17 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

It would be a fair view to assume that Prayer Man was a woman. If anyone would hold this view, we would need to see the same effort as exerted by those trying to test that PM=Oswald.

For those trying to test that PM = Oswald, the 'burden of proof' is on them to prove it is Oswald, and in doing so they have a starting point that is the same as what I have mentioned above - that PM is either someone who said they were on the steps at the time or Oswald. It appears that some of those trying to 'test' that PM = Oswald have ruled it out as being a woman because it looks like a man.

As much as I can agree that from looking at it it does look like a man, that alone doesn't rule it out as a woman!

34 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

What would be the candidate woman?

One of the ones that said they were standing on the steps at the time!

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

What testimonies support this prediction?

First, what testimonies support it being Oswald? None. Not one person mentioned Oswald being there! Could Oswald have been there unseen? Could he have 'sneaked' in to that position and not be noticed by anyone? How could he have done that? Consider the positions of the other people and consider how the door opens; the likliehood is that no one could have 'sneaked' in to that position unseen. What's left then? That he was seen and the people just didn't mention it? Wouldn't mention it? Couldn't mention it? For whatever reason... OR the reason no one mentioned Oswald being there is because he wasn't. What other testimony supports Oswald being there? Not Fritz, or Bookhout, or Holmes - ah, but they were making things up, right!

Anyway, all the testimony of all of those who were standing on the steps is very easily available and can be cross-referenced with each other to get an idea of who was where and with whom etc. The photographic evidence starts to rule certain people out straight away. Process of elimination shows who is left over, and they need to be somewhere don't they. Looking at who they each said they were standing with or near can further help pinpointing the locations of each. I've done it it all and narrowed it down and let me put it this way, if one of them has just mistaken 'left' for 'right' then that could go a long way... 'proving' it, well selling the idea to the 'masses' is a whole different matter.

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Any pictures, any details about her body height? Would she drink from a bottle in public as Wiegman's frame shows? Or did she drink from a mug? Where this mug went to if it is not seen in Darnell's still? And so on, and so forth.

How tall Prayer Man is, what their body height is, what their size is, what they are holding or not holding is all relatively moot because of the 'quality' of the image. If a better quality image ever surfaced all of those things would still be relatively moot as the better quality image would no doubt show whether it was Oswald or not - and of course, it doesn't really matter who it actually was if it wasn't Oswald, because if it was shown not to be Oswald then it is not Oswald...

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I offered some researchers a collaboration on testing their assumption about Prayer Woman if they would let me know how tall she was and where exactly she stood. However, this has never been responded.

Whilst we may know how tall Oswald was, we don't know exactly where PM stood, or indeed how PM stood, so not sure why those things would be an issue if testing it as not Oswald.

Setting all of that aside...

... find out all those that said they were on the steps, and consider them all, don't rule out the women. Look at where each of them said they were and who else they saw or who they were with. Use all of that to get an idea of where everyone was, cross check that with the different photos (Altgens 6, Weigman frame, Darnell frame) and see whether they moved or not. Start to identify each and every one from the photos and rule them out... see who is left over and then try and see where they could possibly be in the photos.If they can be unequivocally be placed in other positions then they can't be in the PM position, but if one of them can't be unequivocally placed elsewhere, then where must they be by definition... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Personally I'm not sure if it's a good idea to start with an initial assumption such as Prayer Man was Oswald and it's certainly not about proving that Prayer Man was just anybody! Of course, there does have to be a starting point from which to 'narrow the field'. My starting point has always been that Prayer Man, because of their position, has to have been someone from the TSBD building. To narrow that field down further I would thus make the assumption that it either has to be one of the people who stated they were standing on the steps or A. N. Other (and that with all things considered would be Oswald)..

I appreciate what you are saying there Andrej. :)

With regards to the things that point towards it being Oswald, I have read this thread and the other PM thread and some of the things don't quite add up imo and maybe aren't actually useful things to use to point to it being Oswald...

... for example, what was PM holding? Perhaps not holding anything? Some have pushed the idea that it was a camera, but I haven't seen evidence to back that up. Some have pushed the idea that it was a 'coke' bottle - and as evidence of that they mention the 'coke' bottle and lunch bag still visible on the steps later on. Where is the link though? How do they know it belonged to PM? It could have belonged to someone else - for example: Lovelady testified to being on the steps for a period of approx. 30 minutes before the shots, during which time he ate his lunch and drank a bottle of 'coke'. His position on the stairs was closer to the location of the lunch bag and bottle caught in photos and although he doesn't mention leaving it, he also doesn't mention taking it with him - a very good inference can be drawn then that the lunch bag and bottle caught in the photos were actually Lovelady's...

... as much as it may look like PM is holding something in their hand there remains the possibility that they are holding nothing. The image just isn't clear enough to make a definite call on it.

For those trying to test that PM = Oswald, the 'burden of proof' is on them to prove it is Oswald, and in doing so they have a starting point that is the same as what I have mentioned above - that PM is either someone who said they were on the steps at the time or Oswald. It appears that some of those trying to 'test' that PM = Oswald have ruled it out as being a woman because it looks like a man.

As much as I can agree that from looking at it it does look like a man, that alone doesn't rule it out as a woman!

One of the ones that said they were standing on the steps at the time!

First, what testimonies support it being Oswald? None. Not one person mentioned Oswald being there! Could Oswald have been there unseen? Could he have 'sneaked' in to that position and not be noticed by anyone? How could he have done that? Consider the positions of the other people and consider how the door opens; the likliehood is that no one could have 'sneaked' in to that position unseen. What's left then? That he was seen and the people just didn't mention it? Wouldn't mention it? Couldn't mention it? For whatever reason... OR the reason no one mentioned Oswald being there is because he wasn't. What other testimony supports Oswald being there? Not Fritz, or Bookhout, or Holmes - ah, but they were making things up, right!

Anyway, all the testimony of all of those who were standing on the steps is very easily available and can be cross-referenced with each other to get an idea of who was where and with whom etc. The photographic evidence starts to rule certain people out straight away. Process of elimination shows who is left over, and they need to be somewhere don't they. Looking at who they each said they were standing with or near can further help pinpointing the locations of each. I've done it it all and narrowed it down and let me put it this way, if one of them has just mistaken 'left' for 'right' then that could go a long way... 'proving' it, well selling the idea to the 'masses' is a whole different matter.

How tall Prayer Man is, what their body height is, what their size is, what they are holding or not holding is all relatively moot because of the 'quality' of the image. If a better quality image ever surfaced all of those things would still be relatively moot as the better quality image would no doubt show whether it was Oswald or not - and of course, it doesn't really matter who it actually was if it wasn't Oswald, because if it was shown not to be Oswald then it is not Oswald...

Whilst we may know how tall Oswald was, we don't know exactly where PM stood, or indeed how PM stood, so not sure why those things would be an issue if testing it as not Oswald.

Setting all of that aside...

... find out all those that said they were on the steps, and consider them all, don't rule out the women. Look at where each of them said they were and who else they saw or who they were with. Use all of that to get an idea of where everyone was, cross check that with the different photos (Altgens 6, Weigman frame, Darnell frame) and see whether they moved or not. Start to identify each and every one from the photos and rule them out... see who is left over and then try and see where they could possibly be in the photos.If they can be unequivocally be placed in other positions then they can't be in the PM position, but if one of them can't be unequivocally placed elsewhere, then where must they be by definition... ;)

Alistair:

"Whilst we may know how tall Oswald was, we don't know exactly where PM stood, or indeed how PM stood, so not sure why those things would be an issue if testing it as not Oswald. "

The point of Prayer Man's body height is actually testable. The body height estimate goes hand in hand with Prayer Man's exact location. Prayer Man's  body height is a crucial point which practically makes the alternative hypothesis (Prayer man was a women) hard to defend. Sarah Stanton was "heavy-set and stocky", surely not 5'9''. Pauline Saunders stood in the east part of the top landing, far from Prayer Man's location. What other woman could be a candidate? There are not that many...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thanks, Bill, for your explanation. The software packages mentioned at Wikipedia from which you seem to quote look very complicated and actually require multiple photographs.

"Photogrammetric analysis may be applied to  one photograph"

I have been on  forums where it was applied to a single film frame .... and the same when National Geographic did a similar examination.

From my understanding - it is 3D model creations that require multiple views.

 

Quote

They also say in the same

Are you sure that photagammetry would work with this low-resolution picture in which it is difficult to recognise details of the body? 

Hasn't seemed to stop supporters of Oswald being Prayer-Man when looking at the same image. But yes, I believe when it comes to girth that a measurement can be obtained within a small degree of error.   I will however suggest that these questions be given to someone who is actually skilled in Photogammetry.  

 

Quote

It would be your big contribution to the Prayer Man topic if you could employ photogammetry to Prayer Man's figure. As you know, I work on 3D reconstructions using different approach and cannot embark on another project. We can then compare our findings obtained using photogammetry and 3D modelling.  Maybe you would you be able to contact the person familiar with photogammetry to ask about his/her view about the possibility to reconstruct Prayer Man from Darnell's still. In my experience, one cannot get more information from an analysis than that which the input data potentially contains. If we do not see e.g. the Prayer Man's left shoulder, how can we reconstruct his chest as a volume. However, I may be wrong and it may be all possible to do...

I could ask, but someone needs to get the measurements needed to do the job. Width of the doors - the extension - the stairs - the vertical step surfaces - the height of the doorway and so forth. Dale Myers may already have those figures. I can only say you should seek the answers to this person's girth before doing other work on the matter so not to waste more time that you may already have.

My schedule is not free to for me to do the work to run down measurements. The 6th floor Museum may have the figures for the building.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The point of Prayer Man's body height is actually testable. The body height estimate goes hand in hand with Prayer Man's exact location. Prayer Man's  body height is a crucial point which practically makes the alternative hypothesis (Prayer man was a women) hard to defend. Sarah Stanton was "heavy-set and stocky", surely not 5'9''. Pauline Saunders stood in the east part of the top landing, far from Prayer Man's location. What other woman could be a candidate? There are not that many...

Prayer Man's height is only really testable if one knows exactly where he stood and how he stood.

Sarah Stanton was 'heavy-set and stocky'... are people not debating earlier the 'girth' of PM.

Pauline Sanders stood in the east part of the top landing... what if she mistook 'east' for 'west.

As I said, look at the testimony of all the people on the stairs and see where they put themselves and who they said they were near; have a look at the photographic evidence and see who is actually where and who is actually standing near each other and who is not, cross check it all and see if anything 'pops out' as being of interest. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Prayer Man's height is only really testable if one knows exactly where he stood and how he stood.

Sarah Stanton was 'heavy-set and stocky'... are people not debating earlier the 'girth' of PM.

Pauline Sanders stood in the east part of the top landing... what if she mistook 'east' for 'west.

As I said, look at the testimony of all the people on the stairs and see where they put themselves and who they said they were near; have a look at the photographic evidence and see who is actually where and who is actually standing near each other and who is not, cross check it all and see if anything 'pops out' as being of interest. ;)

Alistair:

not only myself but many other researchers did a detailed analysis of who was standing where in the doorway. This is all contained in the original Prayer Man thread. I did not get from your last message that you actually recommended to me personally, perhaps thinking that I do not know, to read the testimonies and look on photographic evidence. I can assure you that I have a pretty good idea who was where, and do not need to go over the whole stuff again and again. I understand that you are new to Prayer Man problem and would like to rehearse for yourself. If you go to Bart's Prayerman webpage http://www.prayer-man.com/, you can get the testimonies with a brief description of locations of all witnesses in the doorway with one click.

As per where Prayer Man stood, you can check my earlier analysis: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/  . This article tests only two options (Prayer Man 5'2'' on the top landing and Prayer Man 5'9'' standing in the very front of the top landing with one leg on the step below) and using a low-resolution manikin whose pose could not be adjusted too well, However, the article lists all the useful markers which define Prayer Man's height and location. I work on a more advanced version using a much better manikin which I have elaborated in Poser 11. The new manikin allows the arms, head position and similar to be modelled very accurately.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

not only myself but many other researchers did a detailed analysis of who was standing where in the doorway. This is all contained in the original Prayer Man thread.

I have read the original Prayer Man thread a few times in its entirety. ;)

14 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

 I did not get from your last message that you actually recommended to me personally, perhaps thinking that I do not know, to read the testimonies and look on photographic evidence.

Didn't mean you personally ;) I meant it that any 'watchers' should go and do their own digging and not just take 'our' word on it. ;)

15 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

 I understand that you are new to Prayer Man problem and would like to rehearse for yourself.

Relatively yes... ;)

16 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

If you go to Bart's Prayerman webpage http://www.prayer-man.com/, you can get the testimonies with a brief description of locations of all witnesses in the doorway with one click.

I have spent much time on Bart's Prayerman site and I have on numerous occassions said that I like it very much. ;)

*Of course one can go to the source testimony for themselves and see it there for themselves and work it out for themselves

All relatively beside the point though...

... in the 'photographic' evidence where is Sanders and Stanton? If they are to be ruled out then it must be shown where they are. ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I can assure you that I have a pretty good idea who was where, and do not need to go over the whole stuff again and again

You sound like the person to ask since you've done the research. I'm wondering about the possibility that someone on those steps could have said that Oswald was there, but that any such reference was deleted from their testimony. That would be easy to do if "testimony" refers to FBI statements, since we know that the FBI liked to play around with statements and evidence. It's more complicated if "testimony" refers to statements before the Warren Commission. In the latter case anyone who had said Oswald was there would have been told or pressured to lie to the commission. Would you comment on the possibility of any statements being suppressed regarding Oswald's presence on the steps?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...