Prayer Man

[Tom Gram]

40 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thanks, Pat, for clarifying it further, however, I am not interested in this story any longer. I do not care who allegedly saw this or that and whether he/she was certain about Prayer Man's identity or not because I want to have a high-resolution copy made from the original film on my hard drive. I would analyse the film in a very detailed manner and for an extensive period of time by myself, I would reconstruct Prayer Man's figure with even more realism than I was able to do, and only then I would draw any conclusions as to whether the footage is conclusive or not, and if there is enough evidence for accepting the hypothesis of Lee Oswald being that unknown person standing at the western wall.

As it stands now, it is possible to say a lot about various features of Prayer Man's figure, however, a high-resolution copy would add important details such as a more precise shape of the dark pattern seen on Prayer Man's shirt which may be a decisive clue in accepting or refuting Oswald as Prayer Man.

 

 

 

 

I honestly think a clear copy of the Weigman film might reveal PM’s identity better than Darnell. If you check out the Sprague negative print on Bart Kamp’s site, you can see features of the figure’s face, shirt, arms etc. It’s blurry as hell and inconclusive, but just a slightly better copy might be enough to get an identification.

Amateur photo interpretation is basically a Rorschach test, which is why we need better scans, but there are forensic image experts who “enhance” and extract meaningful data from shitty photos all the time. Can any useful data/features be pulled from the Sprague negative, or any of the other currently available images? It’s image number 2 in the Prayer Man gallery: 

http://www.prayer-man.com/galleries/

Basically I feel like it should be possible to run the currently available films through some sort of forensic enhancement process and extract meaningful data, but I have no idea what I’m talking about so maybe I’m wrong. 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

OK. The story as I was told had a number of prominent researchers being shown a clear copy of the film. Some thought it showed Oswald, some thought it was inconclusive. My point is that if those who thought it showed Oswald really believed it showed Oswald, to a certainty, they would have arranged for the purchase of the film, or found some other way to get it or a similar copy of the film released. They didn't. They all moved on to other things. This suggests to me that a crystal clear copy of the film is inconclusive, at best. 

As to why these men have kept their silence... The owner of this film was trying to make money. He didn't want word to leak out that the film was inconclusive, as it might cut into its future value. So he made at least some of those in attendance sign NDAs in which they promised to not disclose what they had seen. Pretty awful, I know. But it appears to have worked. I know that at least one of those in attendance has read this thread. And has opted to say nothing... 

This is a travesty. As the story stands, an owner of a primary artifact holding it secret away from the eyes of experts who would be capable of analysis of it, hostage for a large sum of money. Pure evil, I don't care how normalized this is as a business practice.

A detail in this hearsay story of interest: of those who allegedly saw this "clear copy" of a Prayer Man film, "some thought it showed Oswald", which I understand as meant in the sense: in contrast to the existing public not-as-clear copies which are ambiguous.

On the argument that a lack of serious fundraising effort by those persons to pay the hostage-keeper's exorbitant price, pay the extortion, as indicative that the ones who thought they saw a clearer image of Oswald were not so confident in that, (a) irrelevant (to either the Prayer Man identification issue or the issue of whether that clearer image should be made accessible to researchers without extortionate payoff prerequisite), and (b) not an obvious or necessary conclusion to draw from fact cited. There are reasons why someone might not turn their life's energies over to paying an outrageous extortion fee to an extortionist, than that they do not think the item is valuable or want it made accessible to the world of expert analysis.

If the story is true, some investigative journalist for one of the courageous, edgy big-city weeklies in America that still break investigative stories should dig out the facts on this story and make a name for himself or herself. Not focusing on attempting to answer the question of who Prayer Man is, but going to the question of why is this kind of extortion preventing expert analysis of a clearer image of a photo happening and why has it not come to light and been exposed already. 

However that is assuming there is something to the story you were told Pat. But is it even true? No other known corroboration, right? (Have you had this confirmed from anyone else who claims to have seen the image or was present at the viewing?) Do you think it can be excluded that you were given "false information" (disinformation), spreading a rumor that has nothing to it, just to confuse things or for sport--since you are one of the weightier researchers? Do you think it is possible someone was "playing" you or your source who told you, with a bogus story? Which, if believed, has you as the credible unwitting carrier of a bogus message: there is nothing in a clearer image that will make any difference, and the existing image cannot settle the question, so "give it up"? 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

This is a travesty. As the story stands, an owner of a primary artifact holding it secret away from the eyes of experts who would be capable of analysis of it, hostage for a large sum of money. Pure evil, I don't care how normalized this is as a business practice.

A detail in this hearsay story of interest: of those who allegedly saw this "clear copy" of a Prayer Man film, "some thought it showed Oswald", which I understand as meant in the sense: in contrast to the existing public not-as-clear copies which are ambiguous.

On the argument that a lack of serious fundraising effort by those persons to pay the hostage-keeper's exorbitant price, pay the extortion, as indicative that the ones who thought they saw a clearer image of Oswald were not so confident in that, (a) irrelevant (to either the Prayer Man identification issue or the issue of whether that clearer image should be made accessible to researchers without extortionate payoff prerequisite), and (b) not an obvious or necessary conclusion to draw from fact cited. There are reasons why someone might not turn their life's energies over to paying an outrageous extortion fee to an extortionist, than that they do not think the item is valuable or want it made accessible to the world of expert analysis.

If the story is true, some investigative journalist for one of the courageous, edgy big-city weeklies in America that still break investigative stories should dig out the facts on this story and make a name for himself or herself. Not focusing on attempting to answer the question of who Prayer Man is, but going to the question of why is this kind of extortion preventing expert analysis of a clearer image of a photo happening and why has it not come to light and been exposed already. 

However that is assuming there is something to the story you were told Pat. But is it even true? No other known corroboration, right? (Have you had this confirmed from anyone else who claims to have seen the image or was present at the viewing?) Do you think it can be excluded that you were given "false information" (disinformation), spreading a rumor that has nothing to it, just to confuse things or for sport--since you are one of the weightier researchers? Do you think it is possible someone was "playing" you or your source who told you, with a bogus story? Which, if believed, has you as the credible unwitting carrier of a bogus message: there is nothing in a clearer image that will make any difference, and the existing image cannot settle the question, so "give it up"? 

My primary source for the story was one of those who believed the film showed Oswald. This was not his area of expertise, however. He was astounded that those who had pushed the Prayer Man possibility that saw the film did not pursue it further after seeing what he had seen. It is my conjecture that they knew from what they saw that the film, no matter the clarity, was not a smoking gun. So they moved on. 

As to the film itself, it was not the original film, but.a first generation copy in the hands of a collector. It was, even so, reportedly crystal clear. The original films, Darnell and Wiegman, to my understanding, remain in the archives of news agencies. These films could almost certainly be accessed and studied should someone with clout (i.e. moolah) approach these agencies and offer them money. But no one has done so, and at least one in the position to do so opted not to do so, once he saw the first generation copy of Darnell. 

As to the truth of the story...it came from one of the most reliable sources in all of research land, which is one of the reasons I don't want to reveal any more details. Some of those in attendance who have said nothing might feel that he has betrayed them by revealing their presence at the screening, and, of course, there's those pesky NDA's. 

As to what you and Andrej and others should take from this... You should take from this that if you want to see and study clearer versions of the films, you need to approach the owners of the original films and see what it would take to gain access. No rich and powerful CT will do it for you. They have had their chance. And they all passed...

Edited August 7, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

My primary source for the story was one of those who believed the film showed Oswald. This was not his area of expertise, however. He was astounded that those who had pushed the Prayer Man possibility that saw the film did not pursue it further after seeing what he had seen. It is my conjecture that they knew from what they saw that the film, no matter the clarity, was not a smoking gun. So they moved on. 

As to the film itself, it was not the original film, but.a first generation copy in the hands of a collector. It was, even so, reportedly crystal clear. The original films, Darnell and Wiegman, to my understanding, remain in the archives of news agencies. These films could almost certainly be accessed and studied should someone with clout (i.e. moolah) approach these agencies and offer them money. But no one has done so, and at least one in the position to do so opted not to do so, once he saw the first generation copy of Darnell. 

As to the truth of the story...it came from one of the most reliable sources in all of research land, which is one of the reasons I don't want to reveal any more details. Some of those in attendance who have said nothing might feel that he has betrayed them by revealing their presence at the screening, and, of course, there's those pesky NDA's. 

As to what you and Andrej and others should take from this... You should take from this that if you want to see and study clearer versions of the films, you need to approach the owners of the original films and see what it would take to gain access. No rich and powerful CT will do it for you. They have had their chance. And they all passed...

Thanks for clarifying Pat. 

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I honestly think a clear copy of the Weigman film might reveal PM’s identity better than Darnell. If you check out the Sprague negative print on Bart Kamp’s site, you can see features of the figure’s face, shirt, arms etc. It’s blurry as hell and inconclusive, but just a slightly better copy might be enough to get an identification.

Amateur photo interpretation is basically a Rorschach test, which is why we need better scans, but there are forensic image experts who “enhance” and extract meaningful data from shitty photos all the time. Can any useful data/features be pulled from the Sprague negative, or any of the other currently available images? It’s image number 2 in the Prayer Man gallery: 

http://www.prayer-man.com/galleries/

Basically I feel like it should be possible to run the currently available films through some sort of forensic enhancement process and extract meaningful data, but I have no idea what I’m talking about so maybe I’m wrong. 

You are right Tom.

We are limited with what we have to work with, which is not a reflection of the great research many have accomplished.

It is mainly a reflection of "greed". imo

Anyhow, here's a manipulation of the Bart Kamp discovered, Bernabei frame, from Wiegman.

btw, a few years back, I came across something similar to your desired forensic enhancement process.

He was an engineer for NASA who created the program specifically for photo/films.

I emailed him, but never received a response.

If you want to pursue this, I can pass along his previous email info to you along with the program name.

 

 

 

 

[John Deignan]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

You are right Tom.

We are limited with what we have to work with, which is not a reflection of the great research many have accomplished.

It is mainly a reflection of "greed". imo

Anyhow, here's a manipulation of the Bart Kamp discovered, Bernabei frame, from Wiegman.

btw, a few years back, I came across something similar to your desired forensic enhancement process.

He was an engineer for NASA who created the program specifically for photo/films.

I emailed him, but never received a response.

If you want to pursue this, I can pass along his previous email info to you along with the program name.

 

 

 

 

Prayer Man is now officially espresso dude

[Paul Bacon]

Thank you Pat Speer, I understand...

[David Josephs]

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

You are right Tom.

We are limited with what we have to work with, which is not a reflection of the great research many have accomplished.

It is mainly a reflection of "greed". imo

Anyhow, here's a manipulation of the Bart Kamp discovered, Bernabei frame, from Wiegman.

btw, a few years back, I came across something similar to your desired forensic enhancement process.

He was an engineer for NASA who created the program specifically for photo/films.

I emailed him, but never received a response.

If you want to pursue this, I can pass along his previous email info to you along with the program name.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Chris...  Expand the picture...  look back at how Ozzie here virtually always carries his arms and hands..  The soda bottle left on the steps... etc.

The bottom line is there will never be enough information in that tiny portion of those tiny frames to say definitively who that is...  With all those people just walking by this person, not a single soul every states they see Oswald on that landing (better yet most are not directly asked but asked a series of questions that satisfy the inquiry but do not answer any questions about Oswald during the shooting)

Oswald himself says he was in the 1st floor lunchroom when he heard the crowds and the limo pass... Eddie Piper puts him on the first floor eating lunch starting around 12:00 (in my very first ever essay I discuss how Oswald would or would not know the motorcade was on time or not...  based on the luncheon starting between 12-12:30 the motorcade "should" pass by the TSBD by 12:15 or even earlier... yet our man is on the ground floor sitting eating a lunch and NOT retrieving a hidden sack with a rifle, assembling it and then praying the sight is close to accurate - BS)

Maybe a laser enhancement of this .068sq mm of a frame would provide a better image...  or as other threads have tried... name someone else that could be...  it's not Molina and it's there during the shooting...

I'd simply ask that reading and rereading the Shelley and Lovelady testimony over time with Lovelady claiming he was a few steps down from the top landing, where Frasier says the same thing.  In the image below he somehow moves from his place in the WEST-end a few steps down to the top landing of the entrance by the center handrail by the time we see him in Couch/Darnell.  He also should be gone from the stairs and wandering with SHELLEY in the above Prayerman image yet many claim he is the balding man on the right just above the woman's head.

What I have not seen is where this prayerman person goes after these images...  anyone have an image of this person moving at all?

Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also.

Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.

 

 

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

He also should be gone from the stairs and wandering with SHELLEY in the above Prayerman image yet many claim he is the balding man on the right just above the woman's head.

David:

I would concur with your proposition that the man on one of the lower steps and close to the western wall in Darnell was Lovelady. Billy Lovelady did dance around the doorway a lot over the period of time covered by Hughes film-Altgens6-Wiegman-Darnell. In Darnell, Shelley should be the man in the centre of the doorway, on the doorway landing. 

Here is my solution from my earlier reconstruction of the best still from Darnell film:

 

And here is Shelley's description of what he was doing right after the final shot (this time period was covered by Darnell film):

Mr. SHELLEY. Sounded like a miniature cannon or baby giant firecracker, wasn’t real loud.

Mr. BALL. What happened; what did you do then?

Mr. SHELLEY. I didn’t do anything for a minute.

Mr. BALL. What seemed to be the direction or source of the sound?

Mr. SHELLEY. Sounded like it came from the west.

Mr. BALL. It sounded like it came from the west?

Mr. SHELLEY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Then what happened?

Mr. SHELLEY. Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said “The President has been shot” and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute. 

------------------

It is possible that the lady in dark clothes facing the man standing on the steps could be Gloria Calvary. The important point is though that both Lovelady and Shelley are still on steps in Darnell fillm, and only then, after a very short period of time, they started their excursion toward the railroad yard.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[David Josephs]

Thanks Andrej...

At some point Shelley and Lovelady are in the north-east corner of the 1st floor by the electrical panel (the power goes out in the TSBD for a bit right after the shooting)

I have to disagree slightly with your labeling in that the man with the tie/jacket behind Lovelady in Altgens is Molina... I no longer think PM was Molina

Mr. BALL. Where were you standing?
Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door.
Mr. BALL. Outside the front door?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me.

 

Shelley and Lovelady have gone...  and I believe they lied about where they went in terms of their going all the way to the "tracks" as we know them by the Overpass..  as you can see, there are tracks much closer to the TSBD... as well as there being an entrance back into the TSBD by turning right at the white arrow... this is the entrance those who parked in that small covered lot would take... O. Campbell for example.

I see those 2 men in the building well before they claim as alos bolstered by Vickie Adams' earliest statements.  Also do not agree that is Lovelady any longer...

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=989 is CE369 where Frazier marks Lovelady in Altgens...  

Somebody here is mistaken...  And as I mentioned, I think Shelley and Lovelady were back in the building on the 1st floor very quickly...  

Any ideas where this prayerman is after the dark corner of the landing?

DJ

Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL - Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.

Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.
Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yeah.
Mr. BALL - When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I asked who told her. She said he had been shot so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or--she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn't know how serious it was and so the crowd had started towards the railroad tracks back, you know, behind our building there and we run towards that little, old island and kind of down there in that little street. We went as far as the first tracks and everybody was hollering and crying and policemen started running out that way and we said we better get back into the building, so we went back into the west entrance on the back dock had that low ramp and went into the back dock back inside the building.
Mr. BALL - First of all, let's get you to tell us whom you left the steps with.
Mr. LOVELADY - Mr. Shelley.
Mr. BALL - Shelley and you went down how far?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I would say a good 75, between 75 to 100 yards to the first tracks. See how those tracks goes---
Mr. BALL - You went down the dead end on Elm?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And down to the first tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anything there?
Mr. LOVELADY - No, sir; well, just people running.
Mr. BALL - That's all?
Mr. LOVELADY - And hollerin.
Mr. BALL - How did you happen to go down there?
Mr. LOVELADY - I don't know, because everybody was running from that way and naturally, I guess---
Mr. BALL - They were running from that way or toward that way?
Mr. LOVELADY - Toward that way; everybody thought it was coming from that direction.
Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.
Mr. BALL - How many steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Twenty, 25.
Mr. BALL - Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building.
Mr. BALL - And enter from the rear?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.

[Chris Davidson]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

The bottom line is there will never be enough information in that tiny portion of those tiny frames to say definitively who that is...  With all those people just walking by this person, not a single soul every states they see Oswald on that landing (better yet most are not directly asked but asked a series of questions that satisfy the inquiry but do not answer any questions about Oswald during the shooting)

 

David,

The gif was, in no way, meant to represent a particular person.

It was to give Tom an idea (in terms of photo enhancing tools- Topaz Labs filters) along with shadow contrast adjustment, what is capable with the Wiegman frame he referenced, along with possible head/body orientation(Bernabei drawing) and what’s in his hand.

All speculative on my part.

Yes, I agree. The quality we have to work with is not adequate and never will be.

And, I surely don’t believe he was shooting JFK.

Is it Oswald in Darnell/Wiegman, a preponderance of the research would indicate it is, but I’ll wait until
the opportunity arises and someone acquires a clear image. Which will probably never occur.

Good to have you back.

 

[David Josephs]

On 8/8/2022 at 12:28 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Good to have you back.

Thanks Chris... 

I think the answer to who that is lay in the authenticated evidence leading up to that moment.  Like the oft forgotten Ms ARNOLD placing Oswald within proximity of PM location within 10-15 minutes of his appearance there. 

 

I think Shelley, like Frasier, is not seen on the steps in any of the pre shots images.  the bottle of ? sitting in the far west corner of the stairway after the fact MAY have been PMs but then SAWYER (the oft lying about key locations) has a bottle in his hands destroying any and all fingerprints

 

 

then both Bookout and Fritz recall in their notes how Oswald mentions "1st floor lunch, 2nd floor Coke, out front with

Shelley"...  The asking of witnesses "Did you see Oswald DURING THE SHOOTING" precludes them from answering they saw him afterward... nor do I think their answers were accurately recorded...

I think that's Harvey Oswald.. IMHO.

DJ

Edited May 4, 2023 by David Josephs

[Pat Speer]

47 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks Chris... 

I think the answer to who that is lay in the authenticated evidence leading up to that moment.  Like the oft forgotten Ms ARNOLD placing Oswald within proximity of PM location within 10-15 minutes of his appearance there. 

I think Shelley, like Frasier, is not seen on the steps in any of the pre shots images.  the bottle of ? sitting in the far west corner of the stairway after the fact MAY have been PMs but then SAWYER (the oft lying about key locations) has a bottle in his hands destroying any and all fingerprints

 

then both Bookout and Fritz recall in their notes how Oswald mentions "1st floor lunch, 2nd floor Coke, out front with

Shelley"...  The asking of witnesses "Did you see Oswald DURING THE SHOOTING" precludes them from answering they saw him afterward... nor do I think their answers were accurately recorded...

I think that's Harvey Oswald.. IMHO.

DJ

There's no reason to believe the bottle in Sawyer's hand was the bottle found on the sixth floor. That bottle was taken out of the building by Montgomery and Johnson a bit later. The bottle in Sawyer's hands is most probably a beverage bought with his own money for his own use. Cops get thirsty, too. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks Chris... 

I think the answer to who that is lay in the authenticated evidence leading up to that moment.  Like the oft forgotten Ms ARNOLD placing Oswald within proximity of PM location within 10-15 minutes of his appearance there. 

I think Shelley, like Frasier, is not seen on the steps in any of the pre shots images.  the bottle of ? sitting in the far west corner of the stairway after the fact MAY have been PMs but then SAWYER (the oft lying about key locations) has a bottle in his hands destroying any and all fingerprints

 

then both Bookout and Fritz recall in their notes how Oswald mentions "1st floor lunch, 2nd floor Coke, out front with

Shelley"...  The asking of witnesses "Did you see Oswald DURING THE SHOOTING" precludes them from answering they saw him afterward... nor do I think their answers were accurately recorded...

I think that's Harvey Oswald.. IMHO.

DJ

Possibility using other avenue's?

Does there appear to be more than one person in RED apparel upon those steps as the limo passes by?

Bell's LOS puts both objects to the WEST end of the entrance.

A mere coincidence?????

 

[Michael Davidson]

The PM figure looks to me like he has his arms folded and reminds me of some footage from one of the TMWKK episodes