Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.)

Wouldn't it be accurate to say the existing photo information of Prayer Man is already close to individual-recognition-match quality, just not close enough? For example there seems to be a hairline, it looks male pattern (receding hairline at the temples, early stage male baldness progression), but just hard to be certain. Just a slight sharpening of that hairline could do wonders, rule in or out large numbers of individual TSBD employee possibilities including the one of interest, no? There already is enough clarity to establish Prayer Man is not wearing a necktie like many of the TSBD male employees--that is something already (and since everyone else on those steps, without a single known exception, is a TSBD employee there is a good argument that Prayer Man probably was too).

And does Prayer Man have long-sleeved shirt sleeves rolled up to his elbows similar to the way Buell Wesley Frazier has his sleeves rolled up in the same photos? Seems to maybe look that way but hard to be sure--just a slight increase in sharpness could do wonders there, in addition to distinguishing a shirt from a dress, and maybe clarifying the neckline and whether a T-shirt is visible under a partly open shirt at the neckline. And this is only anecdotal, but a person with photographic expertise told me privately that although he said it was uncertain due to the poor quality photo he thought Prayer Man looked heavyset to him. But a couple days later after running one of the online Prayer Man photos through some basic photo processing and sending me examples he said he now no longer thought Prayer Man was heavyset, that there was blackness around the hips area that may be making it look that way illusorily.

From an article titled "Scanning film -- What is different?"

"Simply put, scanning film often gives better results than scanning prints. One obvious reason is because the film is the original image instead of a second generation copy. This means that film contains much greater detail than is possible in prints. Film also has much greater dynamic range (contrast) than prints. Prints have already been manipulated, some tonal range lost, some color data has been modified, the total area has been cropped, etc, and we cannot get that data back from prints. These differences are very real, and critical commercial work normally scans film, usually slides." (https://scantips.com/basic13b.html)

Imagine on a scale of 1-10 in sharpness that one can get to recognition of some individual humans at a threshold of, say, 4.0, and Prayer Man right now is at say 3.5. The gap in increased sharpness needed may not be that much. But digital scans of the original Darnell and Wiegman films have never been done, at least to anyone's knowledge, or if they have been done are not accessible for professional analysis of experts like Andy Saunders the maestro of NASA photos fame. Your saying "some already have" seen this "for themselves" does not seem accurate, since no one has been able to work with, digital scans from the original Darnell film because none are known to exist. From an article from a Manhattan photo processing business: "Scanning your film negatives versus prints--What's better?":

"The negative film strips preserve the original information from when the image was first captured and are the best option to scan. Even though negatives may look odd to the naked eye because the colors are inverted, they contain the recorded image data needed for a quality print or digital copy. Go straight to the source material if you have it!" (article, , https://www.dijifi.com/blog/scanning-your-film-negatives-vs-prints-whats-better)

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Miles Massicotte]

As I read all of the Prayer man hate because it is a fuzzy picture, I am wondering if anyone bothered to read the subtitle to Bart's book. "More than a fuzzy picture." 

Look I am still not 100% sold on Prayer Man, but compare it to something like Badge Man. Badge man is truly just a fuzzy picture, a real Rorschach test, with almost no real evidence to back it up that has stood the test of time. Prayer Man on the other hand makes a very convincing case that, besides the photo itself, one can argue strongly that the figure must be Oswald if you assume that the figure is a TSBD employee. 

I think all of the criticism that the images of PM are not detailed enough are really missing the point entirely. And besides Bart's research, what actual harm could be done by putting a little effort into getting high res scans of the originals? In the absolute worst case scenario, we will have better copies of two important assassinations film. We may even get a little bit closed to identifying the PM figure (the article that Tom Gram posted that shows just how much incredible photo restoration work can be done by using the NASA moon landing photos is a great example of what is possible). We may even find out it is Oswald.

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Wouldn't it be accurate to say the existing photo information of Prayer Man is already close to individual-recognition-match quality, just not close enough? For example there seems to be a hairline, it looks male pattern (receding hairline at the temples, early stage male baldness progression), but just hard to be certain. Just a slight sharpening of that hairline could do wonders, rule in or out large numbers of individual TSBD employee possibilities including the one of interest, no? There already is enough clarity to establish Prayer Man is not wearing a necktie like many of the TSBD male employees--that is something already (and since everyone else on those steps, without a single known exception, is a TSBD employee there is a good argument that Prayer Man probably was too).

And does Prayer Man have long-sleeved shirt sleeves rolled up to his elbows similar to the way Buell Wesley Frazier has his sleeves rolled up in the same photos? Seems to maybe look that way but hard to be sure--just a slight increase in sharpness could do wonders there, in addition to distinguishing a shirt from a dress, and maybe clarifying the neckline and whether a T-shirt is visible under a partly open shirt at the neckline. And this is only anecdotal, but a person with photographic expertise told me privately that although he said it was uncertain due to the poor quality photo he thought Prayer Man looked heavyset to him. But a couple days later after running one of the online Prayer Man photos through some basic photo processing and sending me examples he said he now no longer thought Prayer Man was heavyset, that there was blackness around the hips area that may be making it look that way illusorily.

From an article titled "Scanning film -- What is different?"

"Simply put, scanning film often gives better results than scanning prints. One obvious reason is because the film is the original image instead of a second generation copy. This means that film contains much greater detail than is possible in prints. Film also has much greater dynamic range (contrast) than prints. Prints have already been manipulated, some tonal range lost, some color data has been modified, the total area has been cropped, etc, and we cannot get that data back from prints. These differences are very real, and critical commercial work normally scans film, usually slides." (https://scantips.com/basic13b.html)

Imagine on a scale of 1-10 in sharpness that one can get to recognition of some individual humans at a threshold of, say, 4.0, and Prayer Man right now is at say 3.5. The gap in increased sharpness needed may not be that much. But digital scans of the original Darnell and Wiegman films have never been done, at least to anyone's knowledge, or if they have been done are not accessible for professional analysis of experts like Andy Saunders the maestro of NASA photos fame. Your saying "some already have" seen this "for themselves" does not seem accurate, since no one has been able to work with, digital scans from the original Darnell film because none are known to exist. From an article from a Manhattan photo processing business: "Scanning your film negatives versus prints--What's better?":

"The negative film strips preserve the original information from when the image was first captured and are the best option to scan. Even though negatives may look odd to the naked eye because the colors are inverted, they contain the recorded image data needed for a quality print or digital copy. Go straight to the source material if you have it!" (article, , https://www.dijifi.com/blog/scanning-your-film-negatives-vs-prints-whats-better)

 

Well said Greg. The quality of the existing images are really not that far off from revealing features like the hairline, shirt, etc. that could tell us a lot about PM’s identity. 

You are also correct in saying that Pat’s statement of “some already have” is inaccurate. I’m not sure why, but Pat keeps trying to equate a screening of an alleged first-gen copy of only one of the films in question to a professional analysis of the original negatives. It’s not even close to the same thing. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Well said Greg. The quality of the existing images are really not that far off from revealing features like the hairline, shirt, etc. that could tell us a lot about PM’s identity. 

You are also correct in saying that Pat’s statement of “some already have” is inaccurate. I’m not sure why, but Pat keeps trying to equate a screening of an alleged first-gen copy of only one of the films in question to a professional analysis of the original negatives. It’s not even close to the same thing. 

We do not know what they used in that (if any) screening Pat referred to. 

That's what I would like to know

I have seen some pretty good results with even a "moderate"  scanning device and projection, during the process one could follow the scanning on a TV screen, and if desired make adjustments frame per frame (a lot of trial and error...).    

 

[Tom Gram]

14 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

We do not know what they used in that (if any) screening Pat referred to. 

That's what I would like to know

I have seen some pretty good results with even a "moderate"  scanning device and projection, during the process one could follow the scanning on a TV screen, and if desired make adjustments frame per frame (a lot of trial and error...).    

 

We do know that it was not the original film from NBC. That’s kind of the point. I’m not in-the-know on this, but what’s trickled out so far is it was a guy who wanted an exorbitant amount of money for what he claimed was a first-gen copy of Darnell. There is footage from that copy that had not previously been seen by the public from when Darnell started filming, and that footage is now available online. There are also scans of individual frames from that film on Bart’s website. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

12 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

We do know that it was not the original film from NBC. That’s kind of the point. I’m not in-the-know on this, but what’s trickled out so far is it was a guy who wanted an exorbitant amount of money for what he claimed was a first-gen copy of Darnell. There is footage from that copy that had not previously been seen by the public from when Darnell started filming, and that footage is now available online. There are also scans of individual frames from that film on Bart’s website. 

Thanks, getting as close as possible to the original is indeed a must

[Miles Massicotte]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

The quality of the existing images are really not that far off from revealing features like the hairline, shirt, etc. that could tell us a lot about PM’s identity. 

The hairline is the big one for me. It is so hard to distinguish anything in the current photos. Even just a couple more pixels could tell us a lot. Why not pursue getting high resolution scans from the original negatives? I don't see the harm that could be done.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

We do know that it was not the original film from NBC. That’s kind of the point. I’m not in-the-know on this, but what’s trickled out so far is it was a guy who wanted an exorbitant amount of money for what he claimed was a first-gen copy of Darnell. There is footage from that copy that had not previously been seen by the public from when Darnell started filming, and that footage is now available online. There are also scans of individual frames from that film on Bart’s website. 

I am not bound by an NDA but I don't want to get anyone in trouble. 

Nevertheless, I will tell you that

1. It was a first gen copy that was shown and studied.

2. The images were still quite blurry--nearly identical to what is in the public domain.

If one wants to get access to the original film, and have it studied, then fire away. Get on it. But I'm not aware of anyone who'd attended that screening believing further study will prove anything. Just saying...

 

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Miles Massicotte said:

The hairline is the big one for me. It is so hard to distinguish anything in the current photos. Even just a couple more pixels could tell us a lot. Why not pursue getting high resolution scans from the original negatives? I don't see the harm that could be done.

Looking to prove definitively that it was Oswald outside and not shooting?

What harm?   Two quick examples of those who stuck to their stories:  Ralph Yates and Andrew Bolden

I've been focusing primarily on images for the 25 years I've been doing this.

 

 

I don't believe you can make the argument that all the the darkness under the arm is that person's body.  From the shoulder down to the area representing the mid section widens based on the pixelated view we have.

 

 

I was given images of an Alpha 66 meeting and took some time looking as it was said OSWALD was there.  From my experience looking at OSWALD and the way his body language seems to fall..  this is him.

FWIW

 

You will rarely if ever see a photo of OSWALD with his hands at his sides.  Bent arms almost always... hands in pockets like the Minsk photo, the Ferrie cadets photo and even back to the Bronx zoo photo when he was 13 almost 14.

By taking this photo of Oswald and flipping it, we get almost a perfect fit for the hairline and stance of OSWALD.  The bent arms and way he is holding his body suggest to me after looking at his photo for all these years, there is a significant chance that is OSWALD.  The FBI 6 question BS about seeing Oswald "during the assassination" they had so many sign does not remove him from being there...  

The complete lack of anyone, ever saying anything about OSWALD being there immediately afterward, when they actually turned around.  Were they simply too dazed as they went back in to notice this person?

 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by David Josephs

[Jean Ceulemans]

@David Josephs the file you have worked with, is that available somewhere ? Download/share ?

I have been looking around but most are low res compressed jpeg "as is", not the files themselves

 

[Pat Speer]

53 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Looking to prove definitively that it was Oswald outside and not shooting?

What harm?   Two quick examples of those who stuck to their stories:  Ralph Yates and Andrew Bolden

I've been focusing primarily on images for the 25 years I've been doing this.

 

 

I don't believe you can make the argument that all the the darkness under the arm is that person's body.  From the shoulder down to the area representing the mid section widens based on the pixelated view we have.

 

 

I was given images of an Alpha 66 meeting and took some time looking as it was said OSWALD was there.  From my experience looking at OSWALD and the way his body language seems to fall..  this is him.

FWIW

 

You will rarely if ever see a photo of OSWALD with his hands at his sides.  Bent arms almost always... hands in pockets like the Minsk photo, the Ferrie cadets photo and even back to the Bronx zoo photo when he was 13 almost 14.

By taking this photo of Oswald and flipping it, we get almost a perfect fit for the hairline and stance of OSWALD.  The bent arms and way he is holding his body suggest to me after looking at his photo for all these years, there is a significant chance that is OSWALD.  The FBI 6 question BS about seeing Oswald "during the assassination" they had so many sign does not remove him from being there...  

The complete lack of anyone, ever saying anything about OSWALD being there immediately afterward, when they actually turned around.  Were they simply too dazed as they went back in to notice this person?

 

 

Let's be clear. You have super-imposed Oswald's face and shirt onto Prayer Person. Someone just passing by might think you have cleaned up the photo and voila! that's Oswald. But that's not the case. 

[David Josephs]

20 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

@David Josephs the file you have worked with, is that available somewhere ? Download/share ?

I have been looking around but most are low res compressed jpeg "as is", not the files themselves

 

The background file above is a 1" x 1.2" 1000dpi image I created from the same originals we all work with at 72dpi.
As I wrote @Pat Speer it is a reversal of the Kramer photo in Minsk that fits into the Prayerman's available info, enhanced.

As I posted earlier... the area of the 8mm frame we are talking about is unimaginably small yet if we could have access can be scanned to a 1120 dpi resolution - yet even that will be limited based on the size of the area.

Photoshop's resolution increasing processes are well understood and it is clear we are not adding information from thin air but from the data in the images offered.

This is the same file at 2000 dpi with added contrast and brightness.  While now exaggerated, the hairline, ear, neck, shirt, shoulders, even the left arm outline can easily be seen without feeling as if we've created something out of nothing.

[Jean Ceulemans]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

The background file above is a 1" x 1.2" 1000dpi image I created from the same originals we all work with at 72dpi.
As I wrote @Pat Speer it is a reversal of the Kramer photo in Minsk that fits into the Prayerman's available info, enhanced.

As I posted earlier... the area of the 8mm frame we are talking about is unimaginably small yet if we could have access can be scanned to a 1120 dpi resolution - yet even that will be limited based on the size of the area.

Photoshop's resolution increasing processes are well understood and it is clear we are not adding information from thin air but from the data in the images offered.

This is the same file at 2000 dpi with added contrast and brightness.  While now exaggerated, the hairline, ear, neck, shirt, shoulders, even the left arm outline can easily be seen without feeling as if we've created something out of nothing.

Thank you for the clarification, I am very aware of the 8mm negatives and the tiny part PM is in that.  Like you I really feel a better scan could/should result in a better image compared to what is available to work with now.    I found Robin Unger’s gif also very interesting in seeing the movements of the hand

Edited October 1, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Greg Doudna]

Some more comments on Prayer Man and the seeming oddity of lack of witness identification of Prayer Man either as Oswald or not Oswald

Because of Prayer Man's holding his right arm up in a position similar to the way women's arms look in photos holding purses, I went through every woman employee of TSBD systematically, one by one (Bart's site is a great help in collecting documents relevant to each TSBD employee from a scroll-down menu at top), just to see if possibly some woman possibility had been missed. I found every one is accounted for other than in Prayer Man's position; every woman TSBD employee is ruled out as Prayer Man. Sarah Stanton I have shown why she is Large-Framed Figure to the left of Frazier in Darnell. Pauline Sanders said she was at the far east end with Stanton to her immediate right, which makes Pauline Sanders the short figure (therefore a woman not a man) at the far east end in Darnell, correctly so identified by Stancak.

Ruth Dean with distinctive dark or black hat and dark or black coat was on the steps but is visibly identifiable in both Wiegman and Darnell approximately second step up in the middle of each of those photos, so she was not Prayer Man. And Madelaine "Madie" Reese who accompanied Ruth Dean is identifiable in Altgens6 standing at about the lowest step level, top of her head over the parade car. 

Avery Davis said she was on the steps and has not otherwise been identified elsewhere on the steps, but she is ruled out as Prayer Man because of photos of her in the minutes and hour or so following the shots. Her ear does not show under her hair whereas Prayer Man's ear shows. Her neckline up around her neck does not look like Prayer Man's which is compatible with either a lower round neckline or the way Oswald and other working men wore shirts with the top button or two unbuttoned over a white T-shirt underneath. And Avery Davis told of seeing Clint Hill run to the limousine which would not be possible standing where Prayer Man is. 

As for where Avery Davis was on the steps, she said she started to run west after the shots along with other people, which would account for her not being in Darnell. She would have been on the steps when Altgens6 and Wiegman were taken.

Lacking a better identification, one possibility is that a trace of Avery Davis might be just behind Lovelady's left ear in Altgens6.

I spent a lot of time puzzling over what Fetzer used to always claim was evidence of tampering of Altgens6 due to Lovelady's left shoulder and I wondered at one point whether there was a white towel over Lovelady's left shoulder covering part of the shoulder in front. I finally realized that was no towel or tampering in that location. There indeed is a long necktie of a man with a white shirt and jacket on either side of the necktie. A particular print of Altgens6 shown on Bart Kamp's page for Lovelady clears up the optical illusion and shows nothing of the white in front of Lovelady's actual left shoulder. Instead there is blackness above Lovelady’s actual left shoulder that illusorily looks like part of his shirt in other prints (see here: http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/billy-nolan-lovelady/). 

And speaking of "long necktie man" next to Lovelady, I see that man commonly identified as Shelley, but I think that is Molina. The man is heavyset, and Shelley was lean or skinny whereas Molina was heavyset. That has to be Molina I conclude. 

But between Lovelady and Molina (necktie man), next to Lovelady's left ear, there is something there that I believe Stancak correctly identified as a trace of another person—is it a trace of a face looking toward the street and camera direction, the rest of that person covered up by Lovelady and necktie man (Molina) in front of that person? Sometimes I almost think I can see two eyes but that is probably artifacts from poor photo quality and/or imagination. Prayer Man is probably ruled out as that person due to how low the line of sight is.

Could that be the otherwise-unidentified Avery Davis? Avery Davis needs positioning somewhere on the steps, and that unexplained person behind Lovelady and Molina (necktie man) needs identification, q.e.d.?

Avery Davis said she was on the steps with Judy McCully who was to her (Avery's) left, but Judy McCully has never been identified, and is a very strange case in that she (Judy McCully) told the FBI first she was on the fourth floor not on the steps, then months later told the FBI that was wrong, she wanted to correct that, and she was on the front steps with Avery Davis (as Avery Davis said). That is truly bizarre and there has been no satisfactory explanation for that change in Judy McCully's statement of where she was.

The enigma of Judy McCully

That Judy McCully might have been Prayer Man herself I believe is ruled out because: photos of her show her with glasses but Prayer Man does not seem to have glasses; she said she started running immediately after the shots to see what was happening but hearing a woman screaming (Gloria Calvery?) returned back into the building, which is inconsistent with Prayer Man who has not moved in position in Darnell (ca. 20-30 seconds after the shots); and Avery Davis said Judy McCully was to Avery's left (east) on the steps, which is not possible as Prayer Man in the top west corner. 

And why would Judy McCully possibly want to lie about being in Prayer Man's position, if it was her? McCully's change in her story makes no sense on that hypothesis.

Bart Kamp discusses that puzzle and contacted and spoke with McCully's daughter about it in later years. McCully's original FBI statement, in which she told that she was on the 4th floor and also denied knowing who Oswald was and denied ever having seen Oswald in the building ever, was taken by two FBI agents one of whom by coincidence was her uncle. According to Kamp, McCully's daughter said her mother did not talk about it but had changed her story on advice of the FBI. That could go a couple of ways in interpretation, but here is one interpretation: 

• McCully was on the steps (testimony of Avery Davis; and later testimony of McCully herself)
• Her original prevarication/denial stating that she was not on the steps in her initial statement had to have some compelling reason; why would an everyday woman TSBD employee lie about something like that?
• A clue to that reason may be in another change in her two stories: the change in whether she had ever seen Oswald before. No, never, she said originally, not that day or ever (in the statement in which she said she was on the 4th floor not on the front steps). Yes, she later says, in her correction statement in which she says she was on the front steps, not on the 4th floor.
• Since there is no other good explanation for the very odd behavior of falsely denying where one was when the presidential parade passed by--to deny she was on the front steps--is it too much to suggest: could it have been because she saw Oswald on those front steps? (Scared her to death?)
• She later says she did recognize Oswald by sight and had seen him on a number of occasions in the preceding weeks (she still sticks to she did not see him on the day of the shots when she was on the steps). But her later statement that she did recognize and had seen Oswald numerous times in the past is undoubtedly truthful, and establishes that if she was on the front steps (which she was), and if she had seen Oswald standing in that corner (Prayer Man), she was capable of recognizing him. (Contrary to her original FBI statement in which she would not have recognized him.)
• My proposed interpretation of the strange change in stories, and the role of her uncle FBI agent who took her original FBI statement, is this, in the absence of a better explanation: she saw Oswald, and as the news came out about the assassination was scared to death by that. On her own, she lied saying she was not on the steps when she was. On her own, she lied saying she had no recognition of Oswald and had never seen Oswald in previous days either. Later, she has pangs of conscience, she tells someone, maybe her uncle the local FBI agent, who advises her to make the correction and how to do it, advises her once she has made the correction then just say no more to anyone about it. (Or, it could work the other way, in which her uncle cooperated with her telling the original false story, and she on her own had pangs of conscience when asked later by different FBI agents taking statements, and told most of the truth then--except for the detail about having seen Oswald on the steps, the original cause for her falsely stating she had never seen Oswald, and not having been on the steps where she was, when she saw him that morning.)

In other words, the highly odd saga of Judy McCully's untruthful denial that she was on the front steps, then doing the right thing and telling truthfully later that she was, calls for explanation. Her untruthful denial that she had ever recognized or remembered seeing Oswald ever before, later corrected, calls for explanation. What is the explanation? 

Could the explanation be the same for both untruthful representations in her original statement--that she had seen Oswald on the front steps in the position of Prayer Man, and was terrified by that since that wasn't supposed to be true from all that she knew and heard on the news? And this was how she coped with that?

Some thoughts on how so many witnesses on the front steps could say they had not seen Oswald there, if he were Prayer Man

One factor could be because of the effect of the sun blinding the eyes or causing poor vision in the dark shaded area where Prayer Man was standing. 

Another factor could be sheer accident of not noticing. One TSBD woman witness (don't recall which one at the moment) testified that she was standing next to some fellow employees but did not pay any attention who they were and could not say. 

A third factor could be the kind of fear that in extremis led one witness, Judy McCully, to falsely deny she was even there on the steps.

For example, Molina (as long-tie man next to Lovelady in Altgens6) was standing right below Prayer Man. He says after the shots he looked around, and he says he did not see Oswald that day. Molina repeated that to HSCA in 1978 (that he did not see Oswald that day). While I assume that is probably a truthful statement on Molina's part, perhaps explicable from not noticing Prayer Man at all, Molina was given much grief that weekend over accusations aired in public that he was a communist at the height of the Cold War in the Deep South, and as such, suspected of involvement in the assassination itself. It is not far to imagine Molina deciding he did not need to pile on more grief to himself and his family.

Frazier, who pointedly does not identify Prayer Man as anyone else (but also does not remember Oswald being there), may have a factor not previously given much attention. Frazier tells somewhere that upon hearing the shots he moved to the west in direction from where he was standing at the top (or next-to-the-top) step (with Stanton and Pauline Sanders to his left/east). Also, Frazier refers to speaking back and forth to Stanton standing next to him to his left, meaning except for when he was facing the parade some of the time he was facing east--toward Stanton, away from Prayer Man--and also a little more physically distant from Prayer Man than in Darnell after he may have moved a little westward.

These are all factors, added to the poor vision looking into shade/darkness after eyes adjusted to bright direct sunlight, and not paying attention, which could go some way toward accounting for witnesses not noticing Prayer Man, or Oswald as Prayer Man if so, if Oswald was there on the steps (briefly, and in the shade and darkness, and behind most of the witnesses).

Every single other person on the front steps was a TSBD employee, yet all women and nearly all if not all other men TSBD employees are ruled out as Prayer Man. Who then was Prayer Man? The little that is apparent of Prayer Man's physical description agrees as far as it goes with and does not clearly falsify that it was Oswald, and Oswald spoke to his interrogators of being out front. Lacking a different solution to the identity of Prayer Man it is a live issue, and for reasons stated the objection that nobody noticed Oswald there is less substantial than it may at first seem.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Some more comments on Prayer Man and the seeming oddity of lack of witness identification of Prayer Man either as Oswald or not Oswald

Because of Prayer Man's holding his right arm up in a position similar to the way women's arms look in photos holding purses, I went through every woman employee of TSBD systematically, one by one (Bart's site is a great help in collecting documents relevant to each TSBD employee from a scroll-down menu at top), just to see if possibly some woman possibility had been missed. I found every one is accounted for other than in Prayer Man's position; every woman TSBD employee is ruled out as Prayer Man. Sarah Stanton I have shown why she is Large-Framed Figure to the left of Frazier in Darnell. Pauline Sanders said she was at the far east end with Stanton to her immediate right, which makes Pauline Sanders the short figure (therefore a woman not a man) at the far east end in Darnell, correctly so identified by Stancak.

Ruth Dean with distinctive dark or black hat and dark or black coat was on the steps but is visibly identifiable in both Wiegman and Darnell approximately second step up in the middle of each of those photos, so she was not Prayer Man. And Madelaine "Madie" Reese who accompanied Ruth Dean is identifiable in Wiegman from standing at about the lowest step level, top of her head over the parade car. 

Avery Davis said she was on the steps and has not otherwise been identified elsewhere on the steps, but she is ruled out as Prayer Man because of photos of her in the minutes and hour or so following the shots. Her ear does not show under her hair whereas Prayer Man's ear shows. Her neckline up around her neck does not look like Prayer Man's which is compatible with either a lower round neckline or the way Oswald and other working men wore shirts with the top button or two unbuttoned over a white T-shirt underneath. And Avery Davis told of seeing Clint Hill run to the limousine which would not be possible standing where Prayer Man is. 

As for where Avery Davis was on the steps, she said she started to run west after the shots along with other people, which would account for her not being in Darnell at all. She would have been on the steps when Altgens6 and Wiegman were taken.

Lacking a better identification, one possibility is that a trace of Avery Davis might be just behind Lovelady's left ear in Altgens6.

I spent a lot of time puzzling over what Fetzer used to always claim was evidence of tampering of Altgens6 due to Lovelady's left shoulder and what I wondered at one point whether it was a white towel over Lovelady's left shoulder covering part of the shoulder in front. I finally realize that was no tampering at all (in that location anyway). That was indeed a long necktie of a man with a white shirt and jacket on either side of the necktie. A particular print of Altgens6 shown on Bart Kamp's page for Lovelady clears up the optical illusion and shows nothing of the white in front of Lovelady's actual left shoulder. Instead there is blackness above Lovelady's left shoulder that illusorily looks like part of his shirt in other prints (see here: http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/billy-nolan-lovelady/). 

And speaking of "long necktie man" next to Lovelady, everywhere I see that man identified as Shelley, but I think that is Molina. The man is heavyset, and Shelley was lean or skinny, whereas Molina was heavyset. That has to be Molina I conclude. 

But between Lovelady and Molina (necktie man), next to Lovelady's left ear, there is something there that I believe Stancak correctly identifies as a trace of a another person, what may be a face looking toward the street and camera direction, the rest of that person covered up by Lovelady and necktie man (Molina) in front of that person. I almost think I can see two eyes but am not sure whether that is artifacts from poor photo quality and/or my imagination. Prayer Man is probably ruled out as that person due to how low the line of sight is.

Could that be the otherwise-unidentified Avery Davis? Avery Davis needs positioning somewhere on the steps, and that unexplained person behind Lovelady and Molina (necktie man) needs identification, q.e.d.?

Avery Davis said she was on the steps with Judy McCully who was to her (Avery's) left, but Judy McCully has never been identified, and is a very strange case in that she (Judy McCully) told the FBI first she was on the fourth floor not on the steps, then months later told the FBI that was wrong, she wanted to correct that, and she was on the front steps with Avery Davis (as Avery Davis said). That is very bizarre and there has been no satisfactory explanation for that change in Judy McCully's statement of where she was.

The enigma of Judy McCully

That Judy McCully might have been Prayer Man herself I believe is ruled out because: photos of her show her with glasses but Prayer Man does not seem to have glasses; she said she started running immediately after the shots to see what was happening but hearing a woman screaming (Gloria Calvery?) returned back into the building, which is inconsistent with Prayer Man who has not moved in position in Darnell (ca. 20-30 seconds after the shots); and Avery Davis said Judy McCully was to Avery's left (east) on the steps, which is not possible as Prayer Man in the top west corner. 

And why would Judy McCully possibly want to lie about being in Prayer Man's position, if it was her? McCully's change in her story makes no sense on that hypothesis.

Bart Kamp discusses that puzzle and contacted and spoke with McCully's daughter about it in later years. McCully's original FBI statement, in which she told that she was on the 4th floor and also denied knowing who Oswald was and denied ever having seen Oswald in the building ever, was taken by two FBI agents one of whom by coincidence was her uncle. According to Kamp, McCully's daughter said McCully did not talk about it much but had changed her story on advice of the FBI. That could go a couple of ways in interpretation, but here is what I think is the "most likely" interpretation: 

• McCully was on the steps (testimony of Avery Davis, and later testimony of McCully herself)
• Her prevarication/denial that she was on the steps in her initial statement had to have some compelling reason; why would an everyday woman employee lie about something like that?
• A clue to that reason may be in another change in her two stories: the change in whether she had ever seen Oswald before. No, never, she said originally, not that day or ever (in the statement in which she said she was on the 4th floor not on the front steps). Yes, she later says, in her correction statement in which she says she was on the front steps, not on the 4th floor.
• Since there is no other good explanation for the very odd behavior of falsely denying where one was when the presidential parade passed by--to deny she was on the front steps--is it too much to make a suggestion here: could it have been because she saw Oswald on those front steps? (Scared her to death?)
• She later says she did recognize Oswald and had seen him on a number of occasions in previous days (she still sticks to she did not see him on the day of the shots when she was on the steps). But her later statement that she did recognize and had seen Oswald numerous times is undoubtedly truthful, and establishes that if she was on the front steps (which she was), and if she had seen and recognized Oswald standing in that corner (Prayer Man), she would have recognized him. (Contrary to her original FBI statement in which she would not have recognized him.)
• My interpretation of the strange change in stories, and the role of her uncle FBI agent who took her original FBI statement, is this suggested scenario, not as certainty but as reasonable possibility in the absence of some better explanation of the facts: she saw Oswald, was scared to death. On her own, she lied saying she was not on the steps when she was. On her own, she lied saying she had no recognition of Oswald and had never seen Oswald in previous days either. Later, she has pangs of conscience, she tells someone, who tells someone, maybe her uncle the local FBI agent, who advises her to make the correction and how to do it, advises her once she has made the correction then just say no more to anyone about it. (Or, it could work the other way, in which her uncle cooperated with her telling the original false story, and she on her own had pangs of conscience when asked later by different FBI agents taking statements, and told most of the truth then--except for the detail about having seen Oswald on the steps, the original cause for her lying about never having seen Oswald, and not having been on the steps where she was, when she saw him that morning!)

In other words, the highly odd saga of Judy McCully's untruthful denial that she was on the front steps, then doing the right thing and telling truthfully later that she was, calls for explanation. Her untruthful denial that she had ever recognized or remembered seeing Oswald ever before, later corrected, calls for explanation. What is the explanation? 

Could the explanation be the same for both untruthful representations in her original statement--that she had seen Oswald on the front steps in the position of Prayer Man, and was terrified by that since that wasn't supposed to be true from all that she knew and heard on the news? And this was how she coped with that?

Some thoughts on how so many witnesses on the front steps could say they had not seen Oswald there, if he were Prayer Man

One factor could be because of the effect of the sun blinding the eyes or causing poor vision in the dark shaded area where Prayer Man was standing. 

Another factor could be sheer accident of not noticing. One TSBD woman witness (don't recall which one at the moment) testified that she was standing next to some fellow employees but did not pay any attention who they were and could not say. 

A third factor could be the same kind of fear that in extremis led one witness, Judy McCully, to falsely deny she was on the steps.

For example, Molina (as long-tie man next to Lovelady in Altgens6) was standing right below Prayer Man. He says after the shots he looked around, and he says he did not see Oswald on the steps. Molina repeated that to HSCA in 1978 (that he did not see Oswald on the steps). While I assume that is probably a truthful statement on Molina's part, perhaps explicable from not noticing Prayer Man at all, Molina was given much grief that weekend over accusations aired in public that he was a communist at the height of the Cold War in the Deep South, and as such, suspected of involvement in the assassination itself. It is not far to imagine Molina deciding he did not need to pile on more grief to himself and his family.

Frazier, who pointedly does not identify Prayer Man as anyone else (but also does not remember Oswald being there), may have a factor not previously given much attention. Frazier tells somewhere that upon hearing the shots he moved to the east in direction from where he was standing at the top (or next-to-the-top) step (with Stanton and Pauline Sanders to his left/east). Also, Frazier refers to speaking back and forth to Stanton standing next to him to his left, meaning except for when he was facing the parade some of the time he was facing east--toward Stanton, away from Prayer Man--and also a little more physically distant from Prayer Man than in Darnell after he had started moving a little westward.

These are all factors, added also to the poor vision looking into shade/darkness after eyes adjusted to bright direct sunlight, and not paying attention, could go much of the way toward accounting for at least some of the witnesses not noticing Prayer Man, or Oswald as Prayer Man if so, even though he was right there on the steps (but briefly, and in the shade and darkness, and behind most of the witnesses).

Every single other person on the front steps was a TSBD employee, yet all women and nearly all if not all other men TSBD employees have been ruled out as Prayer Man. The little that is known of Prayer Man's physical description does not falsify that it was Oswald, and Oswald spoke to interrogators of being out front. Lacking a different solution to the identity of Prayer Man, it is a live issue, and for reasons stated the objection that nobody noticed Oswald was there is less substantial of an objection than it may at first seem.

Look at the Altgens photo. Your large figure person is two people. Probably Shelley and Molina.