Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/26/2023 at 10:19 AM, David Josephs said:

 

 

@David Josephs By "different versions" of the frame, what I mean first is which frame of Wiegman/Darnell is chosen, and second by what filtering is done. We've all seen many different versions of Prayer Man.

I wish Bart would have chosen a better version for the front cover of his book. For example, the one you posted (which I show above). I can easily see where the face would be if the photo had greater detail. I can see the hairline and the right ear. And of course the right arm and both hands.

I can't make anything out on the version Bart chose.

Maybe Bart felt that, to be honest, he couldn't perform any filtering at all. I don't see it that way at all. Even the camera itself and the film development system perform filtering operations. Natural ones.

The only harm filtering does is that excessive filtering can created false images.... like seeing images in clouds. That's what happened to one of our  forum members, whose name I don't recall. He sees a lovely woman's face. And then there's Duncan, who see's a Frankenstein woman with fake buttons on her fake coat.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have some problems with it, like I do not know why authors print large blocks of testimony instead of simply excerpting it or using ellipsis.  It really slows things down, makes it dull.

 

I certainly agree with that.

Does Bart at least highlight the relevant or most-important parts in blocks of testimony? So that you skip over the unimportant parts?

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

@David Josephs By "different versions" of the frame, what I mean first is which frame of Wiegman/Darnell is chosen, and second by what filtering is done. We've all seen many different versions of Prayer Man.

I wish Bart would have chosen a better version for the front cover of his book. For example, the one you posted (which I show above). I can easily see where the face would be if the photo had greater detail. I can see the hairline and the right ear. And of course the right arm and both hands.

I can't make anything out on the version Bart chose.

Maybe Bart felt that, to be honest, he couldn't perform any filtering at all. I don't see it that way at all. Even the camera itself and the film development system perform filtering operations. Natural ones.

The only harm filtering does is that excessive filtering can created false images.... like seeing images in clouds. That's what happened to one of our  forum members, whose name I don't recall. He sees a lovely woman's face. And then there's Duncan, who see's a Frankenstein woman with fake buttons on her fake coat.

 

This could be a language thing, so be patient with me :-) 

What kind of "filtering" do you mean ?  Because in enhancing there's basically only the HF and LF noise reduction (in relation to filtering).  HF noise results in a spotty/grainy picture, to remove this from a digital picture one use a noise reduction "filter", most camera's have that on-board when using high ISO values, but sometimes you would need a little extra and apply noise reduction to your RAW file, etcccc.   Modern high-end camera's have very little HF noise problems, they can go up to 50,000 (apossible expansion up to 100,000 !)

Just asking, because in the case of PM we are talking about an analog film.  It is my believe the very first step(*) would be a high quality digital scan of a number of those frames shownig PM.  But if the analog film grain is no good... the scan won't be better....

I do not know when the film in use now was digitised ? Makes a huge difference in options to go with.  The thing is, if the basic material to work with is no good, an enhancement will not add a lot

(*) display the film as it was made for (projection on a screen) would be more logical ofcourse, on could project frame per frame, zoom in, etc   could be an eyeopener.... but from what I understand the film is not available...

But I do not know what is currently available (if it's a scan from a decades ago... auch... the one that David shows is probably as good as it gets

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

@David Josephs By "different versions" of the frame, what I mean first is which frame of Wiegman/Darnell is chosen, and second by what filtering is done. We've all seen many different versions of Prayer Man.

I wish Bart would have chosen a better version for the front cover of his book. For example, the one you posted (which I show above). I can easily see where the face would be if the photo had greater detail. I can see the hairline and the right ear. And of course the right arm and both hands.

I can't make anything out on the version Bart chose.

Maybe Bart felt that, to be honest, he couldn't perform any filtering at all. I don't see it that way at all. Even the camera itself and the film development system perform filtering operations. Natural ones.

The only harm filtering does is that excessive filtering can created false images.... like seeing images in clouds. That's what happened to one of our  forum members, whose name I don't recall. He sees a lovely woman's face. And then there's Duncan, who see's a Frankenstein woman with fake buttons on her fake coat.

 

The answer to your original question about why Bart chose the image he did for the cover is in the title of the book, Sandy.

It would be important if the figure in Darnell and Wiegman can be identified as Oswald.  If accepted that indeed would destroy the WR.  But the research into Oswald's innocence, particularly by Bart's stupendous effort as laid out in the book, does not depend solely on that.  Hence the title.  The book is about more than the fuzzy picture on the cover.

The evidence disputing the WR, it seems to me, has recently been accelerating in pace.  Latest example is the talk to be given at Duquesne U in November about the probability of two head shots, close together, not one. 

Bart's book has added a lot to that effort even if it can be definitely shown someone else is Prayerman.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

This could be a language thing, so be patient with me 🙂

What kind of "filtering" do you mean ?  Because in enhancing there's basically only the HF and LF noise reduction (in relation to filtering).  HF noise results in a spotty/grainy picture, to remove this from a digital picture one use a noise reduction "filter", most camera's have that on-board when using high ISO values, but sometimes you would need a little extra and apply noise reduction to your RAW file, etcccc.   Modern high-end camera's have very little HF noise problems, they can go up to 50,000 (apossible expansion up to 100,000 !)

Just asking, because in the case of PM we are talking about an analog film.  It is my believe the very first step(*) would be a high quality digital scan of a number of those frames shownig PM.  But if the analog film grain is no good... the scan won't be better....

I do not know when the film in use now was digitised ? Makes a huge difference in options to go with.  The thing is, if the basic material to work with is no good, an enhancement will not add a lot

(*) display the film as it was made for (projection on a screen) would be more logical ofcourse, on could project frame per frame, zoom in, etc   could be an eyeopener.... but from what I understand the film is not available...

But I do not know what is currently available (if it's a scan from a decades ago... auch... the one that David shows is probably as good as it gets

 

Jean,

For my masters degree in electrical engineering I specialized in digital signal processing (DSP). While the types of filtering you talk about (low-pass and high-pass) are the most commonly talked about types of filters, there are in fact an infinite number of theoretical filters.

The filters I spoke of in my earlier post are the natural ones -- ones that result from taking photographs and processing them -- and non-natural ones -- those made available via Photoshop and other such programs, for example.

There are also sophisticated filters that can be made to provide a variety of useful functions. For example, if you have a photo that is out of focus, it can be filtered to bring it back into focus. (Unfortunately, due to the limited size of the blurry photo, deblurring it will introduce distortion referred to as edge effect.)

 

[James DiEugenio]

A couple more comments from someone who is reading the book.

Most of us know how problematic the whole Geraldine Reid story is, especially when confronted with the Geneva Hine testimony, the woman who did not leave.  Something I forgot: Reid worked for Truly, was his secretary.  Bart does not push this angle but he does make it an interesting connection.

Judy McCully is someone I did not know about.  Bart says the FBI made her change where she was from the 4th floor to outside the building.  This aspect is something really interesting.  He maintains that there was simply too much important stuff going on on that floor and the authorities wanted to get rid of corroborating witnesses to the Adams/Styles actions.

This is something that I never heard of before.  Has anyone else?  

What he is doing is methodically going through the entire building, floor by floor, covering just about every person there with whatever testimony he can find, affidavit, WC, FBI, SS etc.  A really systematic approach.

Edited September 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

A couple more comments from someone who is reading the book.

Most of us know how problematic the whole Geraldine Reid story is, especially when confronted with the Geneva Hine testimony, the woman who did not leave.  Something I forgot: Reid worked for Truly, was his secretary.  Bart does not push this angle but he does make it an interesting connection.

Judy McCully is someone I did not know about.  Bart says the FBI made her change where she was from the 4th floor to outside the building.  This aspect is something really interesting.  He maintains that there was simply too much important stuff going on on that floor and the authorities wanted to get rid of corroborating witnesses to the Adams/Styles actions.

This is something that I never heard of before.  Has anyone else?  

What he is doing is methodically going through the entire building, floor by floor, covering just about every person there with whatever testimony he can find, affidavit, WC, FBI, SS etc.  A really systematic approach.

Mrs. Avery Davis (11-23-63 interview with FBI agent Nat Pinkston recounted in an 11-29-63 memo found in the Dallas FBI files at the Weisberg Archives) "On 11/22/63 she was standing on the front steps of the building when the president passed and she then heard three explosions. She did not realize they were shots and did not see anyone with a gun and immediately returned to the building and to the elevator to her fourth floor offices. She does not recall ever having seen Oswald before." (11-23-63 interview recounted in 12-10-63 FBI report, CD7 p.23) “she was standing on the front steps of the building when the president passed and she then heard three explosions. She did not realize they were shots.” (2-18-64 report of the Dallas Police Department, box 3, folder 19, file 6 of Dallas JFK Archive) "She saw the motorcade pass her location. From her location she heard the three shots but thought they came from the railroad to the west." (3-20-64 statement to the FBI, 22H642) “I am a caucasian female born April 13 (1916?)...At about 12:15 P.M. on November 22, 1963, I left the depository building and took up a position on one of the lower steps of the building entrance to view the Presidential motorcade as it passed on Elm Street. I recall that Judy McCully...was standing by me, I believe, on my left...A moment after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed, I heard three explosions. At first I did not realize these explosions were gun shots…I did not know from which direction the shots had come but thought they were from the direction of the viaduct which crosses Elm Street west from where I was standing.” 

Judy McCully (11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p. 432) "On November 22, 1963, McCully was watching the Presidential Procession from the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building and just after the Presidential Car had passed the building, she heard a noise, which she thought to be a shooting. She did not know from which direction the shot was fired. At that time, she did not observe any suspicious activity on the part of anyone in the Texas School Book Depository Building, or among the persons in front of this building. McCully stated she is not acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald and does not recall ever having seen him in the Texas School Book Depository Building." (2-18-64 report of the Dallas Police Department, box 3 folder 19 file 13 of the Dallas JFK Archive) "Miss McCully stated that on November 22, 1963, she and Mrs. Avery Davis were standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30 PM, and were watching the Presidential parade. She saw the President's car go by, and as the car proceeded down toward the triple underpass, she heard three shots. The shots sounded like they came from the right side of the building in the arcade. She stated that she started running to see what was happening and saw the President's car speed off. She heard a woman scream, and then she went back into the building. She then started to leave the building and was stopped by the police who had entered the building after the shooting..." (3-20-64 statement to the FBI, 22H663) “I am a white female, born on August 13, 1943...On November 22, 1963...I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository Building with Mrs. Charles Davis, also an employee of Scott-Foresman, to watch the motorcade bearing President John F. Kennedy pass by the building. As the motorcade passed, I heard some shots fired, but did not know the direction from which they came...(Additional note following her statement) Miss McCully advised that when she was previously interviewed by FBI agents on November 24, 1963, she recalls telling them she was standing on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository watching the Presidential motorcade pass by the building; however, she stated she wished to clarify this point by stating she was actually standing on the steps of the main entrance to the building and immediately following the shooting returned to the fourth floor."  

Edited September 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Pat,

You spoke too soon. Bart brings up Davis in this same context.

This is what I mean about not reading the book. 

[Micah Mileto]

Edited September 28, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Karl Kinaski]

 

 Some problems I have with Bart Kamps book: ( I have read 20 percent of it, the beginning, the end and some other parts ...)

A.   80 percent of it (at least) is circumstantial evidence of Oswalds innocence which has nothing to do with that fuzzy picture, or Oswald in the doorway during the shooting. 

B.  It provides no political context. 

C. It is rather a guide leading the reader through a bunch of internet-links  than a book. (and 80 percent of the links have nothing to with the fuzzy picture.)

D. It tries to substitute circumstantial evidence for Oswald's innocence (the Baker/Truly enncounter) with a so called "prove" of Oswald innocence with a fuzzy picture of no forensic value. 

E. It dismisses the very real possibility that Oswald was "out with Shelley" after the Truly/Baker/Reid enncounter and before seen by Roger Craig entering a station wagon at 12h40 to 12h 45 ... ( If you believe Craig. And Bart Kamp does.)

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Greg Doudna]

On 9/25/2023 at 12:59 PM, Pat Speer said:

It's a mystery to me why so much energy has been spent on this issue. The figure can not be identified as Oswald. And the closest person to the figure has specified numerous times that it is not Oswald. 

Pat I reread some on your site, and have done a little more thinking about this. You say Prayer Man could be Sarah Stanton whom you say has not been satisfactorily placed or identified anywhere else. You write (bold added by me):

"she [Pauline Saunders] says she stood on the east side of the top step, and noticed Sarah Stanton standing next to her. This places Sarah Stanton on the very top step of the stairs, a fact that was corroborated by Buell Frazier. Well, so what, you might say. Big deal. Sarah Stanton was on the top step. Amazingly, a cult of researchers has convinced themselves that a shadowy figure on the top step near Frazier was in fact one Lee Harvey Oswald. That this figure was more probably Stanton--who they can't quite place anywhere else--eludes them." (at discussion of witness Pauline Saunders, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-8-pieces-of-work)

You know Frazier said Stanton, a very large woman, was to Frazier's left, next to him on that top landing--so close to him that he spoke back and forth to her standing next to him.

And you know Pauline Sanders said she was on that top landing at the far east end; and that Pauline Sanders said Sarah Stanton was immediately next to her right also on the top landing--i.e. that Sarah Stanton was between her and Frazier.

And I think you know Stancak has credibly identified a short woman in Darnell standing at the east far end of the top landing as Pauline Sanders, as a perfect match to where Pauline Sanders said she was at that position. Nothing too controversial, or should be, in any of this so far.

The $64,000 question: you know in Darnell there is a very prominently visible large-framed person standing immediately to Frazier's left, in between Frazier and Pauline Sanders at the east end, a figure who can be either a man or a woman. Let us call this figure Large-Framed Figure, LFF for short. 

Who do you think Large-Framed Figure is?

What about that large-framed figure is other than a perfect match for Sarah Stanton, in exactly the position where Frazier said she was (to his left next to him, on the top landing) and exactly where Pauline Sanders said she was (to her right next to her, on the top landing)?

What could be more obvious? What not to like about that identification?

Look how wide that figure's body is. Sarah Stanton was very obese. 

"The large stature of Mrs Stanton was also confirmed to me by Mrs Stanton's grand-daughter, Wanda in our email exchange dated April 4, 2020: "My grandmother was obese to the point she could barely fit through a doorway."  (Stancak, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/page/5/)

Then look at the height. The height of Large-Framed Figure matches Stanton's height exactly, here's how:

Sarah Stanton's height: 5'4 to 5'6.

Buell Wesley Frazier's height: either 6'0" or 6' 1/2".

Hairline (at top of forehead) of LFF in a horizontal line crosses Frazier at about Frazier's mouth level, between Frazier's nose and chin.

1" from level of LFF hairline to top of LFF's head (height).

7" from top of Frazier's head to between Frazier's eyes.

1" from between Frazier's eyes to bottom of Frazier's nose.

1" from bottom of Frazier's nose to horizontal line of LFF's hairline.

Frazier and LFF are standing on the same level, the top landing, so from Frazier's known height can be calculated the height of Large-Framed Figure: 5'4" or 5' 4-1/2", not counting how high her hairstyle would have gone above her head (more for a woman than for Frazier's man's hair combed flat) which could add the appearance of another inch or two in height: appearance with hair included about 5'5" or 5'6" height, good agreement with Sarah Stanton.

Agreement in height. Agreement of the wide body frame with a large woman.

And above all, the location is exactly matched to Sarah Stanton, exactly where Frazier said she was. 

What say you Mr. Pat? 

If that known, visible figure in Darnell to Frazier's left is Sarah Stanton, does that not mean your judgment that Prayer Man probably was Stanton was in error? 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Is it certain there is a Prayer Man in the Weigman film at all?

The cover of Bart’s book is from a Weigman frame. There’s definitely someone there. The timing would be pretty tight but I guess it’s not impossible that there were two different people in that spot. 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

The cover of Bart’s book is from a Weigman frame. There’s definitely someone there. The timing would be pretty tight but I guess it’s not impossible that there were two different people in that spot. 

I know that’s the book cover but that’s my question: not could it be a different person in the Weigman film, but is it certain there is a person there in Weigman at all? How is that known? 

[Chris Davidson]

56 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I know that’s the book cover but that’s my question: not could it be a different person in the Weigman film, but is it certain there is a person there in Weigman at all? How is that known? 

Discovered that person in Wiegman for Sean Murphy way back in 2007, then used what's called "shadow contrast" to enhance the image.

[Greg Doudna]

3 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Discovered that person in Wiegman for Sean Murphy way back in 2007, then used what's called "shadow contrast" to enhance the image.

You discovered the existence of a person in the Darnell Prayer Man’s position in Weigman, Chris?

Why is it on all the photos of the Weigman stills on Bart Kamp’s website that I checked, I can’t see any person there, only that spot of light?

Are you sure anything of a person is there other than that light? Explain please? Using a photo(s) of Weigman alone please?