PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

 

19 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...

PM might be a woman. PM might not be an employee working in the TSBD building. PM might be a CIA agent. PM might be one of the conspirators. PM might be my uncle. As they say, anything is possible.

But it all comes down to statistics. Odds are high PM is a man who works in the TSBD building. Odds are low that he's a CIA agent or a conspirator. I'd bet the farm he's not my uncle.

So while it is true that PM might be a woman, beginning with the assumption that he is what he looks like -- a man -- is more likely to lead to a correct identification. (BTW, I'm confident that a good majority of people would say PM looks like a man.)

Of course, there is nothing wrong if someone wants to follow the Oswald-is-a-woman hypothesis.

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

15 hours 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 ....

Andrej is using the scientific method when he hypothesizes that PM is Oswald. I personally believe that that hypothesis is justified by the photographic evidence.
 

14 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

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.

Light is transmitted from the viewfinder out the top lens.

 

14 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

... 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.

Most people don't hold their hands up like that for as long as PM is shown to be doing so, unless they are holding certain things. (I think that two films indicate PM has his arms up like that for at least 30 seconds.)

Most people don't hold a coke bottle with two hands for more than a few seconds at a time. Some do when holding a mug that is almost full. But the bright spot from a mug wouldn't be a circle. (Is the bight spot in the videos a circle?) As for a camera, I've seen many people holding a larger camera with two hands.

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

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.

 

Andrej,

Can you tell me what the height of the door opening was back then?

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm confident that a good majority of people would say PM looks like a man.

 

Sandy,

Have you ever known a woman who looks like a man? I have.

I have a hard time attracting better-looking ones.

 

[Michael Clark]

------

Edited February 15, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Sandy,

Have you ever known a woman who looks like a man? I have.

It's all about statistics, Ron. What percentage of women in 1963 looked like men? Very few. Most women in that era had the customary long hair.

If PM looks to you like a woman because of his height, I'd say it's more likely that he was a short man than a woman with short hair. There were a lot of short men back then.

BTW, I measure PM to be close to 5 ft. 6 in. in height. The assumptions for my measurement are 1) that PM is standing back near the glass entryway, and 2) that the height of the door is 86 inches. If the door is taller, then PM is taller. (Note that I had to determine on the photo precisely where the bottom of the door meets the concrete landing. I didn't spend a great deal of time doing that. If I ever find out what the true height of the door is, I'll spend more time trying to accurately determine PM's height.)

[Michael Clark]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's all about statistics, Ron. What percentage of women in 1963 looked like men? Very few. Most women in that era had the customary long hair.

If PM looks to you like a woman because of his height, I'd say it's more likely that he was a short man than a woman with short hair. There were a lot of short men back then.

BTW, I measure PM to be close to 5 ft. 6 in. in height. The assumptions for my measurement are 1) that PM is standing back near the glass entryway, and 2) that the height of the door is 86 inches. If the door is taller, then PM is taller. (Note that I had to determine on the photo precisely where the bottom of the door meets the concrete landing. I didn't spend a great deal of time doing that. If I ever find out what the true height of the door is, I'll spend more time trying to accurately determine PM's height.)

And, since the girth of PM has been mentioned several times, I'll note that there were far fewer portly people back then. Also, in the interest of alternate alliterations, we could say "far fewer fat folk".

[Ron Ecker]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If PM looks to you like a woman because of his height, I'd say it's more likely that he was a short man than a woman with short hair.

I haven't really thought about his or her height. I think it could be a woman because it looks like she's wearing a dress. Or course it could be a man with a loose work shirt (and matching pants) too. IMO it's either Stanton or Oswald. As with so much else in this case, there's no way to reach a conclusion.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

Sandy:

my estimate of the door height (inner plate)  is 83 inches. One needs to take into account the distance of Prayer Man from the door as a person standing closer to the front of the top platform will be looking 1 or maybe slightly more than 1 inch taller than a person standing right at the glass door. If Prayer Man stood too far to the back, his right hand would not reflect the light, and his right elbow would be too far from the brick column, Also, one needs to take into account the elevation of Darnell's camera. The relative heights of two objects not being on the same plane will change with changing elevation of the camera. Finally, any height calculation should also take into account  that the man may not be standing erect. Any bending of the head or curling the body unless compensated in the estimate would cost few inches. How was Prater Man bent or curled? I am testing the possibility that Prayer Man actually stood as Oswald used to stand: carrying the weight of his body on his right leg which is pushed backwards and having his left leg slightly bent in the knee joint and pushed forwards. This would be Oswald's backyard photograph pose. You may remember the discussion about Oswald's pose in one of backyard picture threads. This is why I asked you some weeks ago  if you would agree that Prayer Man was bending his left leg - it is about the template onto which a preliminary manikin's pose can be fit.

While it is possible to apply a simple calculus to calculate Paryer Man's height, it should be understood that it is within the limits described here as all factors (relative distance of Prayer Man and the glass door, camera view angle, exact body posture) affect the height estimate.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Andrej is using the scientific method when he hypothesizes that PM is Oswald. I personally believe that that hypothesis is justified by the photographic evidence.
 

Light is transmitted from the viewfinder out the top lens.

 

Most people don't hold their hands up like that for as long as PM is shown to be doing so, unless they are holding certain things. (I think that two films indicate PM has his arms up like that for at least 30 seconds.)

Most people don't hold a coke bottle with two hands for more than a few seconds at a time. Some do when holding a mug that is almost full. But the bright spot from a mug wouldn't be a circle. (Is the bight spot in the videos a circle?) As for a camera, I've seen many people holding a larger camera with two hands.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's all about statistics, Ron. What percentage of women in 1963 looked like men? Very few. Most women in that era had the customary long hair.

If PM looks to you like a woman because of his height, I'd say it's more likely that he was a short man than a woman with short hair. There were a lot of short men back then.

BTW, I measure PM to be close to 5 ft. 6 in. in height. The assumptions for my measurement are 1) that PM is standing back near the glass entryway, and 2) that the height of the door is 86 inches. If the door is taller, then PM is taller. (Note that I had to determine on the photo precisely where the bottom of the door meets the concrete landing. I didn't spend a great deal of time doing that. If I ever find out what the true height of the door is, I'll spend more time trying to accurately determine PM's height.)

Sandy:

Prayer Man did not have his hands connected in Darnell's still and therefore could not hold any object (Coke) with both hands. Prayer Man is lifting his right arm toward his head in Wiegman which would be consistent with an act of drinking. The light reflecting object would then be the bottom of a bottle. Prayer Man could have left the bottle in the recess next to his right foot as proposed by Bart. This could occur between Wiegman's and Darnell's film. In Darnell, I cannot see any object in any of his hands but I may be mistaken or the picture quality is just not sufficient. Therefore, it is unlikely that Prayer Man held a camera. Where did the camera go in Darnell? While it is possible to explain the disappearance of a bottle, it would be hard to do with a camera.

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest]

Yeah, let's go round and round.......bring on the camera again.....and again.

Speculate some more please. This thread and the other one are utterly bastardised these past few months with hardly any significant and above all valuable finds.

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

7 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Ron, I just put that 'quote' from you above here, so that you would get a notification about this post, in case it passes you by. Regards.

 

Here is an image I found on Google of the Altgens 6 (top) and Weigman frame (bottom) on which someone else has put the letters A to G on to  match up those people. One has to consider the difference in perspective of where each image was taken (they were both taken at relatively at the same time).

(NB: the C in the Altgens 6 should probably be placed more to the right hand side as we look at it and more to 'beneath' the A).

A = Molina
B = Williams
C = Dean
D = Reese
E = Shelley
F = Lovelady
G = Jones
(NB: Frazier is not seen in these images because he is too much in the 'shade')

As we move on let us say that;
H = Frazier
I = Davis
J = McCully

At this junction here is the Couch/Darnell sync from which the 'Darnell frame' comes from. It is approx 30 seconds after the time of the 'Altgens6/Weigman frame' picture.

Couple of things to look out for there. First the two people walking away are claimed to be Shelley and Lovelady (*although there is some doubt about that) and secondly the man that arrives at the 'traffic light pole' is Jones.

Here is a quick image I knocked up of the Darnell frame on which I have put the letters on to match the people from the 'Altgens 6/Weigman frame' picture.

A (Molina), B (Williams), C (Dean) and D (Reese) haven't really moved that much in the previous 30 seconds. As mentioned above* E (Shelley) and F (Lovelady) have moved away from the steps and G (Jones) has made his way across to the 'traffic lights pole'. H (Frazier) has now 'come out of the shadows'.

Based on the location that Davis said she stood (on the lower steps) with McCully, and McCully said she was with Davis, I have I as Davis and J as McCully (but it might be the other way round to be honest).

*In the Darnell frame you can see 3 people in the position that Jones had been 30 seconds previously. None of them were in that position at the time of the shots, and from looking at the following gif an argument can be made that both 'all black' and 'all white' people are returning to the building (ie had been outwith that vicinity at the time of the shots. As for 'white head' person (Who appears to be facing down and talking to 'all black person), I don't know who it is or where they came from to be honest - (some people have made the claim that it is Lovelady and he hadn't left the steps by that time, but that could be a moot point in terms of this discussion anyway.)

 

It has to be stated that the 'Prayer Man' figure is viewable in both the Wiegman frame and the Darnell clip.

From looking at the photographic evidence of Altgens 6, Wiegman Frame and Darnell Frame, and cross referencing it with the 'testimony' of those who said they were on the steps at the time  it's reasonable to say that 10 of them have been identified; Molina, Williams, Dean, Reese, Shelley, Lovelady, Jones, Frazier, Davis and McCully.

Who is left over? Stanton and Sanders

If we look at what each of them said as to where they stood;

Stanton: says she was with Sanders, Shelley, Lovelady and Williams.
Sanders: says she took up a position on the top steps and that Stanton was standing next to her.

*Point of contention: Sanders said she was on the top step at the 'East' entrance!

*A point of interest; Molina: says he stood at the railings on the 'east side' of the building but does not recall who stood beside him but does know that Sanders viewed the motorcade.

As we look at the photographic evidence of the steps, the 'east side' is the right hand side as we look at it, and the 'west side' is the left hand side as we look at it.

Molina was certainly correct about being on the 'east side' as that is backed up by the photographic evidence, Sanders can't be beside him because he mentions her after saying that he does not recall who stood beside him! From the photographic evidence the two people that stood 'beside' him look to be Williams (up left as we look at it) and either Davis or McCully (down right as we look a it). So when Sanders said she was at the 'east' entrance that is not backed up by the photographic evidence...

... what if then, when Sanders said 'east' she actually meant the opposite side from where Molina is. How could she make such an error? Look at a compass, which side is East as you look at it? To the right hand side! What if, then, Sanders, when she said she was on the 'east' side she meant the 'right hand side' (from her perspecitve - facing out) and thus she was in real terms standing on the 'west side' of the steps.

 

Alistair:

you may wish to look again on your allocation of names to individual persons in Darnell's still. Otis Williams is still there, in my view, in front of the man in a suit. That man on the top landing wearing a suit could be Shelley. The contours of Otis Wiliams are less clear but he is the white spot in front (below) and slightly to Shelley's right. We do not see his head because he is shielding his eyes with his right forearm and hand. The man in suit (B in your scheme) cannot be Williams because Williams wore a long-sleeve white shirt - please consult Altgens6.

Further to the recent discussion, it may be that Lovelady is the man at a spot previously occupied by Carl Jones. It would make sense to have both Lovelady and Shelley on the steps in Darnell as if Lovelady is still there how could Shelley leave sooner if he stood in the back of the doorway. Both men could leave the doorway in the next few seconds, still in the range of 15-20 seconds.

 

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

I haven't really thought about his or her height. I think it could be a woman because it looks like she's wearing a dress. Or course it could be a man with a loose work shirt (and matching pants) too. IMO it's either Stanton or Oswald. As with so much else in this case, there's no way to reach a conclusion.

 

Ron:

in a way, you may be right that there is no way to reach a conclusion (Stanton vs. Oswald). The effort should be to find out any photograph of Sarah Stanton. Roy Lewis and Beull Wesley Frazier are alive - they could say how tall Sarah Stanton was.

While it is possible to view everything as being ambiguous, there are details which in my view comulatively tilt the weights towards Oswald. She was an office lady - would she wear a shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbows?  Would she drink from a bottle in public? How likely would be that Stanton's hairline matched a male (Oswald's) hairline. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sandy:

my estimate of the door height (inner plate)  is 83 inches. One needs to take into account the distance of Prayer Man from the door as a person standing closer to the front of the top platform will be looking 1 or maybe slightly more than 1 inch taller than a person standing right at the glass door. If Prayer Man stood too far to the back, his right hand would not reflect the light, and his right elbow would be too far from the brick column, Also, one needs to take into account the elevation of Darnell's camera. The relative heights of two objects not being on the same plane will change with changing elevation of the camera. Finally, any height calculation should also take into account  that the man may not be standing erect. Any bending of the head or curling the body unless compensated in the estimate would cost few inches. How was Prater Man bent or curled? I am testing the possibility that Prayer Man actually stood as Oswald used to stand: carrying the weight of his body on his right leg which is pushed backwards and having his left leg slightly bent in the knee joint and pushed forwards. This would be Oswald's backyard photograph pose. You may remember the discussion about Oswald's pose in one of backyard picture threads. This is why I asked you some weeks ago  if you would agree that Prayer Man was bending his left leg - it is about the template onto which a preliminary manikin's pose can be fit.

While it is possible to apply a simple calculus to calculate Paryer Man's height, it should be understood that it is within the limits described here as all factors (relative distance of Prayer Man and the glass door, camera view angle, exact body posture) affect the height estimate.

Okay, thanks.

I really need the correct height, not an estimate. 83 inches is too short for this style of door. It could be 84 inches. These days they come in heights up to 96 inches and taller.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

I did some search around Sarah Stanton. Her address was 227 North Ewing Street, Oak Cliff. Maybe two block's from Ruby's appartment at South Ewing. Close to Noth Beckley. How odd this looks.

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Andrej Stancak