Andrej Stancak Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 4 hours ago, Tony Krome said: I have no experience in this field, but after reading the above, is there any way that you can enter all frames, that show PM, into some graphics software, that could generate an optimum single image? Tony: averaging images would help if the problem would be a random digital noise which could be cancelled by averaging. Unfortunately, the random noise is not the problem in Darnell, it is the motion blur waht makes problem. Motion blur unlike random noise deforms objects in specific directions and therefore, averaging would only strengthen the problem. Darnell should be motion-blur corrected, however, the present film quality - to my layman eye - does not make this possible. I am not an expert in removing motion blur in films. A great expert could maybe accomplish it with the current version. The frame we use, fortunately, has a minimal motion blur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Good luck in ever getting an UNALTERED high-resolution copy of the Darnell film from the National Archive or Sixth Floor Museum! See the following: Your link is broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Good luck in ever getting an UNALTERED high-resolution copy of the Darnell film from the National Archive or Sixth Floor Museum! See the following: The link works for me. But here's the plain link just in case if the fancy version doesn't work: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25562-proof-that-the-coverup-is-ongoing/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 10 hours ago, Tony Krome said: I have no experience in this field, but after reading the above, is there any way that you can enter all frames, that show PM, into some graphics software, that could generate an optimum single image? After extensive work... (done years ago)... the hairline and stature appears to match pretty well... as for combining frames to find the best, etc... we need to remember something I posted a while back... the size of that area of the negative is minuscule given the size of an 8mm frame... and then, within the small frame size, Prayerman is maybe 1/100th of the area.... I kinda think we was right all along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Apparently, on this forum (whose moderators are conspiracy believers) conspiracy theorists can insult those who disagree with them at will, They can mock whomever they want. They risk nothing. But if I post just a bit of humor, Mister Mark Knight feels the need to block the thread and then threatens to expell me from the forum (so easy to brag through a computer screen !…).OK.I'm leaving.For good.I bet some people will be happy.Good luck to everybody ! I wish you well ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Krome Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) My first thought when I saw this picture, was that person had just taken a photo with a very small camera, and had just lowered his arms Edited February 19, 2019 by Tony Krome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 11 hours ago, Tony Krome said: I have no experience in this field, but after reading the above, is there any way that you can enter all frames, that show PM, into some graphics software, that could generate an optimum single image? If it ever falls into ones lap. I haven't been successful obtaining it. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zo0ui7TIPMw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Tony... a few people seemed to have that thought... If you take the time, as I'm sure you do, and look at all the Oswald images you can.... the arms are almost always bent significantly... and the shoulders are square, not sloped... and the hairline matches very well.... for as blurry as the image is.... it sure does strongly suggest Oswald.... That photo with Marina is almost exact... the one at the far right, shirtless, is about the only one I've seen with his arms at his side.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said: We will see about it. I am sure we can do a lot for clarifying the possibility of Lee Oswald being Prayer Man even with the versions of Darnell available now, and even more if a high-resolution copy of Darnell film will be available to researchers. I would not recommend using the copy of Darnell's still which pops up after hitting the link in your message. I am afraid this version is already a processed image in which the contrasts have been increased. My preferred Darnell images are those obtained by disassembling Darnell film into individual frames. Well, I have some other versions of the Prayer Man image saved on my computer too [below], if they will help. (You might not believe me, but I too would like to be able to find out who "Prayer Man" is, if at all possible.) Edited February 19, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 I also just today realized that I have in my video archives a fairly high-quality (enhanced) version of the NBC-TV coverage that aired on 11/22/63, and that coverage includes the news film taken by NBC cameraman Dave Wiegman. I'm not sure if my enhanced NBC coverage contains the Jimmy Darnell footage or not, but it might, because Darnell was employed by an NBC affiliate, WBAP-TV in Fort Worth, at that time. I'll go look now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Krome Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 27 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: If it ever falls into ones lap. I haven't been successful obtaining it. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zo0ui7TIPMw Now that's what we need! I'm trying to get my head around how this works. Every frame must contain minute varying degrees of focus that the software isolates. The final touch is to de-blur. How exciting would it be to see the whole Wiegman film and others put through that process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) Linked below is one of my NBC-TV videos which shows the Wiegman film being broadcast on live television for the first time (narrated by Charles Murphy of WBAP-TV). Skip to about 37:00 to see the Wiegman footage. I can't see the "Prayer Man" figure at all in this video footage, but perhaps some of the photographic experts/wizards at this forum can extract the "PM" out of this footage. Note --- This version below of NBC's assassination coverage is probably the very best and highest visual quality you will likely ever come across for this videotaped material. It was sent to me in 2015 by a Facebook friend who didn't want to be identified, and he gave me permission to post his enhanced footage anywhere I wanted on the Internet. The video below is a "raw file" that has not been re-processed by me or anyone else after I received it in 2015, which makes it a little clearer than my edited version that I've placed on my websites and elsewhere. To see all five "Raw" parts in my NBC-TV series, Click Here. The Wiegman film is shown at least two more times by NBC later in the day on November 22nd, including in Part 5 of my series, when a very brief segment of the Darnell film is also seen (but not Darnell's footage of the TSBD, however).... http://drive.google.com/ Video File / NBC-TV Coverage On November 22, 1963 (Part 2) Edited February 20, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 hours ago, David Von Pein said: Well, I have some other versions of the Prayer Man image saved on my computer too [below], if they will help. (You might not believe me, but I too would like to be able to find out who "Prayer Man" is, if at all possible.) David: The top picture is the same or very, very similar to what I use. The one you posted previously shows Prayer Man with eyes which I was never ever able to see or achieve in the original pictures or enhancements made using original pictures. David Joseph's projection of Lee Oswald's hairline on Prayer Man shows an excellent match, would you agree? The identity of Prayer Man as Lee Oswald is in probability terms unless clear facial features will pop up after a high-res copy shows them. However, with the matches listed in my previous post, a preliminary probability estimate in terms of odds ratio comes to about 1:700,000 (this figure may still change as different features are being added or withdrawn). This would be the odds that any random person would show the same matches with Prayer Man as Lee Harvey Oswald. 1:700,000 is the chance of dying due to being hit by a meteorite. The number of inhabitants in Dallas in 1963 was about 670,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Tony Krome said: My first thought when I saw this picture, was that person had just taken a photo with a very small camera, and had just lowered his arms I saw a few similar overlays of Lee Harvey Oswald's heads onto Prayer Man, however, yours appears to show the best match. I do not know how much enhancements were put into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) Andrej, You're just inventing those "1 in 700,000" odds. It's being based on data that YOU think is correct. While others might disagree with your data. For example, you've decided that PM is a MALE. But we don't KNOW that for a fact. It could be a female. In which case, your "1 in 700,000" figure would change dramatically. Anyway, I don't place much stock in "odds" reached by CTers----especially since the "1 in 100 trillion trillion" junk (or whatever the number was) that came from the CT crowd many years ago re: the "Mysterious Deaths", which we now know was totally bogus. Edited February 20, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now