Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Miles Massicotte said:

If you look at the arm position, the object in their hands, to me it looks identical to Prayer Man.

 

 

The hairline is completely different. Prayer Man has a somewhat receding hairline, whereas this person does not. Plus this person's hair is poofy, whereas Prayer Man's isn't.

This person looks like a woman. Prayer Man  looks like a man.

 

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Greg, two women claimed to be on the top step: Stanton and Saunders. If the woman to Frazier's left is Stanton, then who's to say Prayer Person isn't Saunders? Has she been identified elsewhere? It would make a bit more sense, moreover if it was Saunders, seeing as Frazier couldn't ID Prayer Person, and he may not have known Saunders. 

Pauline Saunders (11-24-63 FBI report, 22H844) “advised she arrived at work at 8:45 A.M. on November 22, 1963 and immediately reported to main office where she was employed...she went outside to watch the presidential parade about 11:25 A.M...she stood in the last line of spectators nearest the door to the School Book Depository building…she could not recall the exact time but immediately after the Presidential parade passed she heard three loud blasts and she immediately realized that the shots or whatever it was came from the building above her…Mr. Campbell, Office Manager, arrived shortly after the police officer entered the building and she told him the blasts came from the upper part of the building however he insisted the shots came from the embankment.” (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H672) “I am a caucasian female...I...was born November 6, 1908...At approximately 12:20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the presidential motorcade which I knew was due to pass the Depository about 12:30 PM. I took up a position at the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others. Mrs. Stanton is likewise an employee of the Texas School Book Depository. To the best of my recollection I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at any time on November 22, 1963, and although I knew him by sight as an employee of the building I did not know him by name and had never spoken to him at any time. I do not recall seeing any strangers in the Texas School Book Depository Building at any time on the morning of November 22, 1963. After the motorcade car carrying President John F. Kennedy passed, I remained a moment on the steps, then walked out to the concrete island in front of the Depository Building to see what had happened. I remained there a moment and then returned to the Depository Building through the main entrance. I then walked to the second floor where I usually worked.” 

 

Pat S. (bold added): "Greg, two women claimed to be on the top step: Stanton and Saunders. If the woman to Frazier's left is Stanton, then who's to say Prayer Person isn't Saunders? Has she been identified elsewhere? It would make a bit more sense, moreover if it was Saunders, seeing as Frazier couldn't ID Prayer Person, and he may not have known Saunders."

Pat, yes, Pauline Sanders has been identified in a Darnell photo, by Stancak, as a figure, very short (therefore a woman), standing at the far east end of the top level of the landing, in the exact position Pauline Sanders says she was standing.

The software will not let me post the photo here but see it at this page on Stancak's site: it is the upper photo of his Figure 3 on this page: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com//?s=sanders .

Compare that with Pauline Sanders' description of her position:

"she stood in the last line of spectators nearest the door to the School Book Depository building" (FBI, Nov 24, 1963)

"at the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me," (FBI, March 19, 1964)

Sarah Stanton "standing next to me" becomes Large-Framed Figure to her right and Frazier's left, in agreement with Frazier locating Sarah Stanton to his left.

Incidentally, trivia detail but a minor correction to Stancak's reconstruction of the posture of the man standing in front of and just below Large-Framed Figure (Sarah Stanton). Stancak has that man shielding his eyes from the sun by having his right arm and forearm up and shading his eyes, with left arm hanging down at his left side.

I am convinced from looking at the photo that the man has both of his arms up over his head involved in the shielding from the sun. His left arm is raised with his left hand wrapped around the back of his head or back of his neck for support, and his left elbow jutting upward at his left. His right arm is up and right forearm shielding his eyes as Stancak has it. As reconstructed, it was tiring to have the right arm held hanging in mid-air that way for an extended period. The left elbow up and left hand around the back of the neck for support enables the right hand to rest on the inner left arm at the left bicep. If you can follow my word description. The point is, a certain mark at the front of LFF (Large-Framed Figure) looking like it might relate to LFF's clothing is actually the raised left elbow of the man in front of her.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

His book is based on a Rorschach test ... everybody is free to see in that fuzzy picture what he wants to see ... 

I suspect you are correct about this. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Pat S. (bold added): "Greg, two women claimed to be on the top step: Stanton and Saunders. If the woman to Frazier's left is Stanton, then who's to say Prayer Person isn't Saunders? Has she been identified elsewhere? It would make a bit more sense, moreover if it was Saunders, seeing as Frazier couldn't ID Prayer Person, and he may not have known Saunders."

Pat, yes, Pauline Sanders has been identified in a Darnell photo, by Stancak, as a figure, very short (therefore a woman), standing at the far east end of the top level of the landing, in the exact position Pauline Sanders says she was standing.

The software will not let me post the photo here but see it at this page on Stancak's site: it is the upper photo of his Figure 3 on this page: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com//?s=sanders .

Compare that with Pauline Sanders' description of her position:

"she stood in the last line of spectators nearest the door to the School Book Depository building" (FBI, Nov 24, 1963)

"at the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me," (FBI, March 19, 1964)

Sarah Stanton "standing next to me" becomes Large-Framed Figure to her right and Frazier's left, in agreement with Frazier locating Sarah Stanton to his left.

Incidentally, trivia detail but a minor correction to Stancak's reconstruction of the posture of the man standing in front of and just below Large-Framed Figure (Sarah Stanton). Stancak has that man shielding his eyes from the sun by having his right arm and forearm up and shading his eyes, with left arm hanging down at his left side.

I am convinced from looking at the photo that the man has both of his arms up over his head involved in the shielding from the sun. His left arm is raised with his left hand wrapped around the back of his head or back of his neck for support, and his left elbow jutting upward at his left. His right arm is up and right forearm shielding his eyes as Stancak has it. As reconstructed, it was tiring to have the right arm held hanging in mid-air that way for an extended period. The left elbow up and left hand around the back of the neck for support enables the right hand to rest on the inner left arm at the left bicep. If you can follow my word description. The point is, a certain mark at the front of LFF (Large-Framed Figure) looking like it might relate to LFF's clothing is actually the raised left elbow of the man in front of her.

Wait, it appears that Stancak has your Large-Framed Figure as Shelley.  Is that correct?

From looking at the Altgens photo, it appears your Large-Framed Figure could be two people: what I assume to be Joe Molina and Shelley. Not one. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Wait, it appears that Stancak has your Large-Framed Figure as Shelley.  Is that correct?

Yes that is correct that is what Stancak says. I believe that is incorrect and that Large-Framed Figure is Sarah Stanton for reasons argued. I believe Stancak's identification of Pauline Sanders, distinct issue, is correct. 

[James DiEugenio]

3 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

His book is based on a Rorschach test ... everybody is free to see in that fuzzy picture what he wants to see ... 

Will you stop this.  I mean its really embarrassing, although you do not seem to care one way or the other.

Have you read the book?

Have you tried to secure the original film or a closer copy?

Then stop saying this stuff. Its pure arrogance born from ignorance.

Edited September 30, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Karl Kinaski]

  

Quote

 @Jim DiEugenio said, quote: Stop this ...

Provide a better pic and I will stop this. Otherwise it is the same thing as meditating about a fuzzy picture of Yeti or Bigfoot ... and, sorry to be repetitive: A Rorschach test ... no discussion about testimony etc. will change the number of pixels in this "Mandala" of Bart Kamp and the Prayerman community.  

 I am reading that book right now ( kindle format) and I can say this: it  is not a book but a guide about internet-links to Amazon JFKA books , JFKA forums, the Mary Ferell foundation JFKA related fotos, films and newspapers etc etc.  

I clicked on half that links and I found nothing new ... 

I already discovered a number of broken or wrong named links in that book ( so I suppose in some sense  I already know more about PMMTAFP than you and Bart Kamp himself😉) -- a "book" wich does a very good job to add to the confusion and division  within the CTer community of which this thread is a very good example ... 

Anyway I will stop talking about the fuzzy picture and maybe provide a review here if I am not bored to dead by PMMTAFP. 

IMO the JFKA is a rich source of getting wise, and there is no need to become an admirer of a particular CTer theory: Badgeman, Prayerman, Harvey&Lee etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Jean Ceulemans]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So you admit you saw a screening. Did you find the arguments convincing? 

This is not the first time I've heard about a screening, but I haven't seen it being discussed anywhere ??

What the heck is it all about ?

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let's talk about this NDA. If Buell Frazier made you sign an NDA, and then told you he made up the bit about the paper bag, would you honor it? Would you respect someone who did? 

If there are more NDA's around we might as well stop talking about the entire case.

How can we push the government to open up and the same time keep secrets ourselves.

I can understand an NDA being usefull awaiting a publication, but otherwise ???

Edited September 30, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

This is not the first time I've heard about a screening, but I haven't seen it being discussed anywhere ??

What the heck is it all about ?

 

I've been led to believe there is a first generation copy of the Darnell film in private hands, and that some researchers were granted a screening. This was like 4 or 5 years ago. Although it's been purported that this screening proved Oswald is Prayer Man, I suspect that's smoke, seeing as so many dedicated servants of the truth have refused to reveal what they saw. I mean, the purported purpose of the NDA is to preserve value.  IF word gets out that this film is not conclusive, well, the owner's chance of selling it are reduced. He has suffered a loss. But...IF word gets out that the film is conclusive, as has been purported, well, then it ADDS value, and may actually trigger a sale. 

So why are most of those in attendance keeping their silence on this matter? I have concluded it's because the film is not conclusive. It appears that Jim was there. and is afraid of violating the NDA. Oh well. We can fill in the blanks. 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I've been led to believe there is a first generation copy of the Darnell film in private hands, and that some researchers were granted a screening. This was like 4 or 5 years ago. Although it's been purported that this screening proved Oswald is Prayer Man, I suspect that's smoke, seeing as so many dedicated servants of the truth have refused to reveal what they saw. I mean, the purported purpose of the NDA is to preserve value.  IF word gets out that this film is not conclusive, well, the owner's chance of selling it are reduced. He has suffered a loss. But...IF word gets out that the film is conclusive, as has been purported, well, then it ADDS value, and may actually trigger a sale. 

So why are most of those in attendance keeping their silence on this matter? I have concluded it's because the film is not conclusive. It appears that Jim was there. and is afraid of violating the NDA. Oh well. We can fill in the blanks. 

 

Thank you, that indeed makes sense.

And projecting the film (or a 1st generation copy) is what is was made for, and would show the best image possible to start with, freeze one frame, zoom and add a little extra  light (*), would do the trick. 

(*) In the old days there was a risk of burning the film while looking at a still, nowadays there are other lightsources

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I've been led to believe there is a first generation copy of the Darnell film in private hands, and that some researchers were granted a screening. This was like 4 or 5 years ago. Although it's been purported that this screening proved Oswald is Prayer Man, I suspect that's smoke, seeing as so many dedicated servants of the truth have refused to reveal what they saw. I mean, the purported purpose of the NDA is to preserve value.  IF word gets out that this film is not conclusive, well, the owner's chance of selling it are reduced. He has suffered a loss. But...IF word gets out that the film is conclusive, as has been purported, well, then it ADDS value, and may actually trigger a sale. 

So why are most of those in attendance keeping their silence on this matter? I have concluded it's because the film is not conclusive. It appears that Jim was there. and is afraid of violating the NDA. Oh well. We can fill in the blanks. 

 

It’s not really some big mystery. There are scans from that alleged first-gen copy of Darnell on Bart’s website. It’s definitely inconclusive. There’s also supposedly a first-gen copy of Darnell at the 6FM, which has been reported as also inconclusive. 

That doesn’t change the fact that NBC is still withholding the original films. HD scans of the original Darnell and Weigman films with modern image processing should be more than enough to identify features in PM that would rule out Oswald as a candidate, if those features actually exist.

EDIT: Here’s an informative article posted on ROKC a while back that shows what’s possible these days with image restoration. ROKC members actually reached out to this guy, and he supports the effort to identify PM, but stated that obtaining the original films is a “must” as a starting point. 

https://emulsive.org/articles/projects/one-giant-leap-remastering-high-resolution-images-of-nasas-race-to-the-moon

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It’s not really some big mystery. There are scans from that alleged first-gen copy of Darnell on Bart’s website. It’s definitely inconclusive. There’s also supposedly a first-gen copy of Darnell at the 6FM, which has been reported as also inconclusive. 

That doesn’t change the fact that NBC is still withholding the original films. HD scans of the original Darnell and Weigman films with modern image processing should be more than enough to identify features in PM that would rule out Oswald as a candidate, if those features actually exist.

EDIT: Here’s an informative article posted on ROKC a while back that shows what’s possible these days with image restoration. ROKC members actually reached out to this guy, and he supports the effort to identify PM, but stated that obtaining the original films is a “must” as a starting point. 

https://emulsive.org/articles/projects/one-giant-leap-remastering-high-resolution-images-of-nasas-race-to-the-moon

Very interesting Tom!

Digital scans of the original film being a "must", but the possibility of information from that is breathtaking--if one finds it of interest to check for the first time by means of photographs Oswald's claim in interrogation that he was out front, which if that were true would be expected to show up in photographs. 

Those for whom it is of no interest to see done a first-ever-in-history check of Oswald's alibi claim done from film footage of the front of the Book Depository entrance, or who are opposed to checking for the first time a dead man's claimed alibi after the man has been duly and justly convicted in court (oh, wait...), can skip over the below.

But for those who think the accused Oswald's claim of an alibi merits a first-ever check against photographs showing the only figure he could be if he were there, Prayer Man, in posthumous fairness to the deceased suspect and in the interests of history, the below should be a shocker. The below should put to rest claims confidently voiced even by some here that there is not and never will be anything to see in Prayer Man beyond an indeterminate Rorschach Inkblot.

To draw an analogy from the (semi-fictional) story of Galileo's opponents being urged futilely by Galileo, and refusing, to "please, just look through the telescope, please?".  

The telescope in Galileo's time, capable of making possible visual verification to the human eye of what Galileo was arguing in the absence of visual verification made possible by the telescope, is analogous to the work the expert below has done on NASA photographs and could do with the Darnell film of Prayer Man if allowed to make a digital scan of the original which exists and use the same expertise on Prayer Man. A difference is Galileo had looked through his telescope before asking opposing scientists, whereas in the case of Darnell no one is known to have yet looked through this telescope. 

Is there a willingness to allow a "look through the telescope" to allow a first-time check against existing photographs of Oswald's long-ago claimed alibi. Is there willingness to allow a first check of a suspect's claimed alibi that could easily be done, in the interests of history, even though it is too late for the suspect himself who was killed long ago in police custody before be could be brought to trial. Is there willingness to look through the telescope on a matter of historic significance which a majority of Americans at all social and political levels has long believed remains not fully explained: the John F. Kennedy assassination. Does a suspect morally deserve, even posthumously, to have his or her claim of innocence in the form of a claim of a specific alibi checked out via photographs, if such can easily be done? Or not? Read of this amazing work on NASA-archived photographs carried out in recent years, and marvel at what could be possible with analysis of a digitized image of the original of Darnell:

START EXCERPT (bolding is added) from the article "One Giant Leap ... Remastering high-resolution images of NASA's race to the Moon" (https://emulsive.org/articles/projects/one-giant-leap-remastering-high-resolution-images-of-nasas-race-to-the-moon)

AS [Andy Saunders, photograph detail expert]: The real driver, and the thing that started it all was my frustration for many decades with the absence of a decent image of Neil Armstrong undertaking arguably the most important event in the history of humankind! As he held the camera during EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity) on the Lunar surface, all the photographs, bar a few glimpses of Neil’s back, or foot etc., are of Buzz Aldrin. Also, the video footage we typically see is the air-to-ground live footage which is notoriously fuzzy/ghostly.

How could this be? Can you imagine if this happened today, especially in this selfie/image-driven era?

Fortunately one more source existed — one of two Maurer 16mm DACs (Data Acquisition Cameras) recorded the EVA from the window of the Lunar Module (LM). When this was transferred to HD by Stephen Slater in the early 2000s, a glimpse of a face I’d noticed years earlier on SD copies of this small format film led me to re-examine the film, frame by frame.

I found a magic moment where Neil’s gold visor is briefly up (as he’s partly in shadow) and his head is tilted forward in his visor — it’s right at the beginning of the moon walk. He’s also close to the LM / camera and the angle of the sunlight illuminates his face such that subtle facial details are briefly visible. This still wasn’t enough for a decent image but crucially he’s so focused on the task that he remains almost motionless long enough for me to be able to lift several separate clean frames from the film.

I then had the idea of stacking the frames on top of each other and optimising the image by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. This is a technique used by astronomers to reveal details of distant objects. If it works for Mars why not for Neil Armstrong!? When I then started to process and enhance the output, I simply couldn’t believe the detail that I was able to reveal — I could even see his eyelid. 

More importantly, I could recognise Neil himself. It was an amazing moment and I almost felt like I’d gone back in time and was the only person watching this incredible historic moment unfold. Perhaps a little like an archaeologist brushing the dust off some long forgotten artefact.

Above, the image created from a stack of multiple 16mm ‘movie’ frames. The recognisable features of Neil Armstrong can be seen clearly for the first time, 50 years later.

I became hooked on improving more of the imagery from this incredible era and when it became front page news I realised there continues to be a fascination among the wider public too.

~ ~ ~ END EXCERPT ~ ~ ~

[Greg Doudna]

Another way to put it: there are ten thousand theories on the JFK assassination, and half of America has never been convinced the full truth is known on the JFK assassination. Given that, would it be worth doing a simple check from available photographs on the theory of Oswald as to Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shots?

Is Oswald's theory of where Oswald was, worth a check of the photos? If for no other reason than out of an abundance of caution, or to humor quaint, old-fashioned notions that a suspect's claim of a verifiable exculpatory alibi merits checking?

It is not as if the theory of Oswald as to where he was, is conveniently unverifiable.

It is not that no photographs exist by which Oswald's theory can be checked.

It is not that Oswald's theory concerning his whereabouts at the time of the shots has already been checked and refuted long ago by the photographs that exist.

(By referring to checking photographs, of course what is meant is the kind of analytical professional work that could be done with digital scans of the Darnell original analogous to what was done with the NASA archives photographs, of the article Tom Gram cited above.)

It is of no relevance Oswald's brief answer in the hallway to a reporter's shouted question asking if he was in the building answered with "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir". 

Because: what is relevant is that Oswald told his interrogators under interrogation that he was out front, and that is an absolute fact, and nobody is denying that or can deny that, because it is in handwriting of Fritz, and handwriting of Hosty. 

"to 1st floor had lunch/ out with Bill Shelley in/ front/ left work..." (Fritz notes)

"O stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. Parade" (Hosty notes)

Is Oswald's verifiable theory of what Oswald was doing at the time JFK was assassinated, this terrible crime in American history, worth checking? 

Is that an unreasonable request on the part of a suspect?

To ask for a check of a verifiable alibi in photographs that are known to exist?

But it requires a digital scan of the original of the relevant Darnell frames, not digital scans of prints or copies of the original, according to the experts on this.

In order to do a check of the JFK assassination suspect's verifiable claimed alibi for the first time from photographs which have existed since 1963.

From an original of Darnell which exists.

And this could be done, if the right one or two or three persons in positions of authority in America decided to do so, just like NASA let professional Andy Saunders work on its archived photographs with amazing results. To discover what is there, in the interests of history, in the interests of a public interest in knowing the truth of a high-profile crime in our nation's history, and in the interests of long-overdue delayed fairness to the suspect and the living family members of that suspect, who was denied a trial by being killed while in police custody. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Another way to put it: there are ten thousand theories on the JFK assassination, and half of America has never been convinced the full truth is known on the JFK assassination. Given that, would it be worth doing a simple check from available photographs on the theory of Oswald as to Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shots?

Is Oswald's theory of where Oswald was, worth a check of the photos? If for no other reason than out of an abundance of caution, or to humor quaint, old-fashioned notions that a suspect's claim of a verifiable exculpatory alibi merits checking?

It is not as if the theory of Oswald as to where he was, is conveniently unverifiable.

It is not that no photographs exist by which Oswald's theory can be checked.

It is not that Oswald's theory concerning his whereabouts at the time of the shots has already been checked and refuted long ago by the photographs that exist.

(By referring to checking photographs, of course what is meant is the kind of analytical professional work that could be done with digital scans of the Darnell original analogous to what was done with the NASA archives photographs, of the article Tom Gram cited above.)

It is of no relevance Oswald's brief answer in the hallway to a reporter's shouted question asking if he was in the building answered with "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir". 

Because: what is relevant is that Oswald told his interrogators under interrogation that he was out front, and that is an absolute fact, and nobody is denying that or can deny that, because it is in handwriting of Fritz, and handwriting of Hosty. 

 

"to 1st floor had lunch/ out with Bill Shelley in/ front/ left work..." (Fritz notes)

"O stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. Parade" (Hosty notes)

Is Oswald's verifiable theory of what Oswald was doing at the time JFK was assassinated, this terrible crime in American history, worth checking? 

Is that an unreasonable request on the part of a suspect?

To ask for a check of a verifiable alibi in photographs that are known to exist?

But it requires a digital scan of the original of the relevant Darnell frames, not digital scans of prints or copies of the original, according to the experts on this.

In order to do a check of the JFK assassination suspect's verifiable claimed alibi for the first time from photographs which have existed since 1963.

From an original of Darnell which exists.

And this could be done, if the right one or two or three persons in positions of authority in America decided to do so, just like NASA let professional Andy Saunders work on its archived photographs with amazing results. To discover what is there, in the interests of history, in the interests of a public interest in knowing the truth of a high-profile crime in our nation's history, and in the interests of long-overdue delayed fairness to the suspect and the living family members of that suspect, who was denied a trial by being killed while in police custody. 

While I am not an expert on photography I feel certain there is a zero chance of clarifying the Prayer man images to the point one can make a convincing positive identification. There just aren't enough pixels. The NASA images are of relatively close-up objects. By increasing the contrast and layering the images, details can be brought from the shadows. But the Prayer Man image is not buried in darkness. It is simply too small to be enlarged and clarified. 

On my website, I have dozens if not hundreds of evidence photos. One can zoom in and find new things on the hi-res large format Dallas Police photos. (Thank you, UNT!) But you cannot zoom in on the low res images published by the Warren Commission and find anything new besides blurry blobs. A 16 mm film taken from a moving car is not gonna have a clear image of someone a hundred feet away. But I guess people will just have to see this for themselves. (I know some already have.)