Those Front Steps

[Chris Davidson]

The proper name:

[Greg Doudna]

56 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

The proper name:

Corrected.

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Then there is the "red arrow" photo of uncertain provenance and origins, which shows the appearance of a woman's scoop neckline. On the provenance issue, the following was commented in Sept 2022 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/)

"... thanks for posting the Darnell picture. It is obvious that the photograph submitted by Alan Ford has been heavily worked out, this is not the original Darnell still. It is a great risk to use photographs of uncertain origin (we know Alan retrieved it but where from?), and it even opens the possibility that someone squeezes in a tampered version of the photograph. I would only use Prayer Man related pictures from jfkassassinationgallery.org or from prayer-man.com. If there are other sources of validated photographs, we should be able to review the history of these pictures."

The bit I've highlighted in red is kinda ironic, given the image was actually published by Mr. Kamp!

[Alan Ford]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It’s not the tie. Look at the original .gif you posted of the bag, and the high contrast version Chris Davidson posted. The apparent twirling object is near the very end of the actual bag. If you post a crop of the end portion of the alleged bag I bet you’ll see it. It’s moving much faster than the rest of the object. 

Ah, sorry Mr. Gram, I thought you meant the black object!

Before I make a suggestion as to what the object you mean (pink circle) might be, I'm trying to establish whether it's related or unrelated to what's going on movement-wise in the green circle area:

[Andrej Stancak]

I can figure out how some extra details can be seen better in a good-quality copy of a Darnell frame in some of the doorway occupants, however, I cannot see how  a smudge-like Prayer Man's neck can be seen as a smooth line by just increasing the resolution. Frazier's head can be seen in blue-ray version and it can maybe seen even better in the red-arrow version. However, information in Prayer Man's head and neck is highly distorted in blue-ray version, and there is no chance to arrive from a smudge of this sort to a smooth neckline without manipulating the picture. 

To show some more examples how aggressively was the red-arrow picture handled, I have extracted three examples.

First, the ceiling lamp behind the glass door is intact in blue-ray version but broken in the red-arrow version. This is a new shape of the lamp, not just an enhancement of contrasts or a similar adjustment.

Second, the young man standing in front of the east pillar of the doorway has smooth hairline in blue-ray version but the sampe hair gets horns in red-arrow version. Again, this is a new shape of an object which cannot be seen in the original image.

 

The lady in the foreground provides an insight into what happened to the red-arrowed image. The lady has intact hair in the blue-ray version of this still, however, it lacks the back of her head and receives a masculine looking face in the red-arrowed version. The two black spots look disturbing in the red-arrowed version of the still.

Thus, the red-arrow version of Darnell still is a problematic image. I would advise caution when drawing any conclusions on identity of Prayer Man using this image.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Andrej Stancak

[Alan Ford]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:28 PM, Alan Ford said:

 

You will agree, I think, that Mrs. Reese is standing in full sunlight, yes?

Well-------------------why isn't Mr. Lovelady?

As in-----------why wasn't Mr. Lovelady standing in shadow less than a minute ago?

How in the heck does he present thusly in Wiegman?:

It was Mr. Barry Pollard who first spotted the problem.

A bunch of folks assured us emphatically that it is due to the angle of the sun, and that Mr. Lovelady is catching shadow from the western column of the doorway.

Bah, humbug!

Here's Mr. Stancak's reconstruction of the scene in Darnell. It will serve perfectly well to show the sunlight in the doorway less than a minute earlier in Wiegman. The green line shows where the shadow line actually was @ 12:30pm on Friday 11/22/63:

Mr. Lovelady in Wiegman is over near the center rail, v. close to where we see Mrs. Madie Reese in white at her Darnell position above. Mr. Lovelady in Wiegman is nowhere near that shadow line. He is not catching any shadow from the western column. None.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

52 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

However, information in Prayer Man's head and neck is highly distorted in blue-ray version, and there is no chance to arrive from a smudge of this sort to a smooth neckline without manipulating the picture. 

So what, Mr. Stancak? Simply stop assuming that the Kamp version must have been 'arrived' at 'from' the JFK BluRay version, and your problem goes away.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I can figure out how some extra details can be seen better in a good-quality copy of a Darnell frame in some of the doorway occupants, however, I cannot see how  a smudge-like Prayer Man's neck can be seen as a smooth line by just increasing the resolution. Frazier's head can be seen in blue-ray version and it can maybe seen even better in the red-arrow version. However, information in Prayer Man's head and neck is highly distorted in blue-ray version, and there is no chance to arrive from a smudge of this sort to a smooth neckline without manipulating the picture. 

To show some more examples how aggressively was the red-arrow picture handled, I have extracted three examples.

First, the ceiling lamp behind the glass door is intact in blue-ray version but broken in the red-arrow version. This is a new shape of the lamp, not just an enhancement of contrasts or a similar adjustment.

Second, the young man standing in front of the east pillar of the doorway has smooth hairline in blue-ray version but the sampe hair gets horns in red-arrow version. Again, this is a new shape of an object which cannot be seen in the original image.

 

The lady in the foreground provides an insight into what happened to the red-arrowed image. The lady has intact hair in the blue-ray version of this still, however, it lacks the back of her head and receives a masculine looking face in the red-arrowed version. The two black spots look disturbing in the red-arrowed version of the still.

Thus, the red-arrow version of Darnell still is a problematic image. I would advise caution when drawing any conclusions on identity of Prayer Man using this image.

Very interesting Andrej. From your second and third examples, it looks like the creation of the "red arrow" version involved increasing contrast which can "create" illusory black spots not representing real items or profiles. Since the only basis for the eye "seeing" what looks like a white border on a woman's dress's scoop neckline in that photo ... is specifically caused by the creation of a black blotch in Prayer Man's throat area in that photograph, there may go the bright white scoop-neckline border on the alleged woman's dress. What is left, then, is the profile of the neckline itself but that is ambiguous between a woman's neckline or a neckline which Oswald could have at present resolution of photographs, since TSBD laboring men such as Oswald and Lovelady wore their shirts with the top unbuttoned and wide open over a white T-shirt underneath, with roughly similar outline or appearance to a woman's dress scoop neckline.

The frame that Hackerott saw, which may or may not be the source for the "red arrow" enhanced and somewhat degraded copy of a photograph of it, probably does not have the full black splotch that the "red arrow" one does. Corroboration of that may be this: Hackerott in all three of his three sittings sketched seeing not a black splotch but a vertical line. The enhancing or processing done in the "red arrow" photo has created phantom black areas (or expanded upon some smaller shading that might have existed), in this case in the area of Prayer Man's upper chest/throat area, illusorily.

But the vertical line itself that Hackerott saw (or thought he saw), what was that? Is it possible it was nothing actually?

I am unable for technical reasons to show the common photos of Oswald at the Dallas Police station after his arrest, wearing a white T-shirt, but please check those images and verify this (e.g. such as this Associated Press photo of Oswald, Nov 23, 1963: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/oswald-and-the-jfk-assassination/; or this Getty Image here: https://nypost.com/2017/11/04/latest-jfk-files-say-no-evidence-of-cia-links-to-oswald/amp/, or this, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369886/original/file-20201117-19-155n0v5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip). Look at Oswald's throat from his Adam's apple down. See how a black-and-white video or still camera not in good focus could pick that up as a darker shaded vertical area. 

Therefore here is a proposed interpretation of the "red arrow" image of Prayer Man: the scoop neckline appearance would be the way Oswald wore his shirt, his faded-maroon-colored dress shirt, CE 150. The "red arrow" photo has artificially had the contrast heightened, making brighter whites and creating illusory dark areas or expanding the size of real ones in the photo. The white above and all around the neckline in that photo could be Oswald's white t-shirt. The vertical "line" Hackerott saw, or the exaggerated and artificially expanded in size black splotch in the "red arrow" image, is actually really the slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat seen in b & w photos of Oswald wearing his T-shirt at the Dallas Police station.

In other words, the vertical black line seen by Hackerott is not a bolo tie, not a pendant on a choke chain, and it is not Hackerott misinterpreting seeing an actual huge black blotch on the "red arrow" photo. It is none of those. It is nothing other than a slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat in normal b & w photos, artificially made blacker and expanded in size by the processing done on the "red arrow" photo.

For all we know processing could have been done on what became the "red arrow" photo until, out of a spectrum of processings available to choose, that one was chosen for leaking to the JFK assassination research community which made it most look like a woman's scoop neckline of a dress with a bright white hem or border. It isn't that, but that is the kind of illusion that can happen with heightened-contrast creating or expanding the size of a darker area on a b & w photo.

Again, the sketches of Hackerott who saw a superior quality image to that of the red-arrow photo, fail to confirm the black splotch of the size on the "red arrow" photo, although Hackerott did see, or thought he saw, something vertical. But what Hackerott saw was thinner and perhaps not as emphatic or dark as in the large blotch in that area in "red arrow". The suggestion is that what Hackerott saw is superior to and prior in importance to the processed "red arrow" photo, and what Hackerott saw--without benefit of zoom--could be simply the normal darker shade of Oswald's throat as it would be expected to appear on a b & w film, on analogy with known Oswald b & w photos.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Alan Ford]

3 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

How in the heck does [Mr. Lovelady] present thusly in Wiegman?:

Mr. Lovelady in Wiegman is standing with his front body bathed in direct sunlight. Yet there is a remarkable, miraculous shadow down his side.

Please bear this fact in mind while I return to PM/Wiegman.

As indicated a few posts back, this is tricky territory we're entering into now. So I'll try to keep this first speculative exploration as simple as I can.............

----------------->

As already made clear, I believe Red Shirt Man in Hughes is Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald:

Now--------------------I invite you to ponder the following thought experiment:

Imagine if Mr. Oswald, some 15 seconds after the end of Hughes (i.e. at the time Wiegman starts filming the doorway), is still standing in the same spot as in Hughes.

What headache might Wiegman's footage of the west side of the doorway, on such a scenario, create for those 'investigating' authorities charged with suppressing Mr. Oswald's alibi?

What would that west side of the doorway be showing to Wiegman's camera?

Edited October 28, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Very interesting Andrej. From your second and third examples, it looks like the creation of the "red arrow" version involved increasing contrast which can "create" illusory black spots not representing real items or profiles. Since the only basis for the eye "seeing" what looks like a white border on a woman's dress's scoop neckline in that photo ... is specifically caused by the creation of a black blotch in Prayer Man's throat area in that photograph, there may go the bright white scoop-neckline border on the alleged woman's dress. What is left, then, is the profile of the neckline itself but that is ambiguous between a woman's neckline or a neckline which Oswald could have at present resolution of photographs, since TSBD laboring men such as Oswald and Lovelady wore their shirts with the top unbuttoned and wide open over a white T-shirt underneath, with roughly similar outline or appearance to a woman's dress scoop neckline.

The frame that Hackerott saw, which may or may not be the source for the "red arrow" enhanced and somewhat degraded copy of a photograph of it, probably does not have the full black splotch that the "red arrow" one does. Corroboration of that may be this: Hackerott in all three of his three sittings sketched seeing not a black splotch but a vertical line. The enhancing or processing done in the "red arrow" photo has created phantom black areas (or expanded upon some smaller shading that might have existed), in this case in the area of Prayer Man's upper chest/throat area, illusorily.

But the vertical line itself that Hackerott saw (or thought he saw), what was that? Is it possible it was nothing actually?

I am unable for technical reasons to show the common photos of Oswald at the Dallas Police station after his arrest, wearing a white T-shirt, but please check those images and verify this (e.g. such as this Associated Press photo of Oswald, Nov 23, 1963: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/oswald-and-the-jfk-assassination/; or this Getty Image here: https://nypost.com/2017/11/04/latest-jfk-files-say-no-evidence-of-cia-links-to-oswald/amp/, or this, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369886/original/file-20201117-19-155n0v5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip). Look at Oswald's throat from his Adam's apple down. See how a black-and-white video or still camera not in good focus could pick that up as a darker shaded vertical area. 

Therefore here is a proposed interpretation of the "red arrow" image of Prayer Man: the scoop neckline appearance would be the way Oswald wore his shirt, his faded-maroon-colored dress shirt, CE 150. The "red arrow" photo has artificially had the contrast heightened, making brighter whites and creating illusory dark areas or expanding the size of real ones in the photo. The white above and all around the neckline in that photo could be Oswald's white t-shirt. The vertical "line" Hackerott saw, or the exaggerated and artificially expanded in size black splotch in the "red arrow" image, is actually really the slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat seen in b & w photos of Oswald wearing his T-shirt at the Dallas Police station.

In other words, the vertical black line seen by Hackerott is not a bolo tie, not a pendant on a choke chain, and it is not Hackerott misinterpreting seeing an actual huge black blotch on the "red arrow" photo. It is none of those. It is nothing other than a slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat in normal b & w photos, artificially made blacker and expanded in size by the processing done on the "red arrow" photo.

For all we know processing could have been done on what became the "red arrow" photo until, out of a spectrum of processings available to choose, that one was chosen for leaking to the JFK assassination research community which made it most look like a woman's scoop neckline of a dress with a bright white hem or border. It isn't that, but that is the kind of illusion that can happen with heightened-contrast creating or expanding the size of a darker area on a b & w photo.

Again, the sketches of Hackerott who saw a superior quality image to that of the red-arrow photo, fail to confirm the black splotch of the size on the "red arrow" photo, although Hackerott did see, or thought he saw, something vertical. But what Hackerott saw was thinner and perhaps not as emphatic or dark as in the large blotch in that area in "red arrow". The suggestion is that what Hackerott saw is superior to and prior in importance to the processed "red arrow" photo, and what Hackerott saw--without benefit of zoom--could be simply the normal darker shade of Oswald's throat as it would be expected to appear on a b & w film, on analogy with known Oswald b & w photos.

Greg,

You could also find others to compare to Prayerperson as I did over a year ago using one of the Willis photos.

Since humans are symmetrical I just took half her available image and horizontallly flopped and reattached her.

Then sized her to appear over PrayerPerson in the "red arrow" Darnell frame.

Before finding this frame, I had applied the scoop neck(doesn't have to be exact) description to the red arrow version.

I'm not saying this is PrayerPerson(designating male or female) but I am saying the collar/neck match is close enough to make one pause and consider.

And I'll bring this up again,that a majority of the photographic record(around the TSBD steps) shows more men with "long sleeve" suits/jackets/shirts on. Whereas there are more females with short sleeves on.

Did PrayerPerson roll up their sleeves in Darnell, I don't know because the frame quality is lacking.

Added to this is James' description from his 6th floor museum viewing and their are still doubts. imo

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Chris who is that woman next to the two police officers supposed to be? Do you know?

[Chris Davidson]

I don't know who she is.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

I regret to say, I think some photos are just too blurry to be definitive. 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

22 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

I don't know who she is.

I looked up the original photo before your doubling-reconstruction. I don't think that is Prayer-Person, here's why. Only the left side (viewer's right) of her is visible and she looks young and attractive (ca. 25?); with dark mostly straight hair down to her shoulders not with Prayer Man's hairline; and does not look heavyset to me as in your image. I suspect the heavyset of your image could depend on how much you doubled. If you doubled say 55% of her width that would make her 110% as wide as she really was. From the left side of her that is visible, there is some curve inward at the waist compared to the bust area suggesting a normal rather than heavyset weight. And finally, her dress drapes hanging loosely going down on her upper left arm at her side only partway, maybe two-thirds of the way between shoulder and elbow. But on Prayer-Person, the upper-body garment goes down lower, to the elbows.

Benjamin Cole is right that "some photos are too blurry to be definitive", but it seems to me there is sufficient information in this particular case to exclude that this woman was Prayer Man or Prayer Person, from the last point named. Most likely she is one of the young women employees of TSBD, and supposedly the young women employees of TSBD are all accounted for as to their whereabouts elsewhere at the time of the assassination. 

[James DiEugenio]

After having read all this, i have to conclude, especially after reading Greg and Andrej, someone has been fiddling with images.

And it looks like it was deliberate.