Heads Up!

[Michael Cross]

Given Albert/Brian's insistence on ignoring the detailed rebuttals offered here, I thought I'd roll up the heavy lifting done by David Josephs. Alan's done a nice job of rebuttal as well; my contributions in this thread are just observations about what can be PROVEN from the extant image - nothing. Of course we've been through this all before with the prayer woman debacle. But this series of posts is more than enough to stop the endless proffering of junk proof Albert/Brian:

I'm weary of this discussion in general, but I will say this: Unless and until an early generation SCAN of the original film can be obtained, and some researchers are endeavoring to do so, NOTHING can be proven about PM, other than who he isn't, based on the confirmed location of other individuals known to have been in the area.

Mr Cross,

I'm not sure if you are aware that I've already proven Prayer Man can't possibly be Oswald via a direct height comparison in Darnell. If you compare heights between Prayer Man and Frazier in the Darnell frame it is plainly visible that Prayer Man is 6-7 inches shorter than the 6 foot tall Frazier making him 5 foot 5 or 6. Since Oswald was 5 foot 9 this precludes Oswald from being Prayer Man by simple analysis.

I'm not sure why this discussion is not allowed here since it is no different than any other discussion, however if it is arbitrarily disallowed I have proven this against all doubters at MacRae's forum and ROKC was not able to refute it.

I'd be glad to discuss this over there if you like.

Sigh. So you were somehow able to render exact measurements for every person, step and architectural feature present in the frame, in the required three dimensions, from a tiny amount of poorly rendered digital information? Amazing. Or did you travel back in time and place laser measuring devices on site to allow for such precise information?

No, I won't be joining you elsewhere to discuss any of the "research" done on the tiny two dimensional Darnell frame. Ever.

Exactly Albert...

Which Photogammetry software did you use on this 2d representation of 3d space to arrive at accurate data?

And one final note - the ACTUAL SIZE of this frame and PM within this frame - it is from these crystals that you are concluding what you are...
Wesley is by the front of the landing and PM is near the back - this creates perspective distortion multiplied by the focal length of the lens.

Look at the image at the bottom to see how that works - for now, this image represents a single frame from a film having 3.5mm x 4.8 mm sized

The "Actual Size Negative" gives you some idea of the size of the frame and then within that tiny frame PM occupies a tiny fraction of the image.

For as small as it is, the detail is amazing... but any other work on this image needs more math than you're bringing to the table Albert.





Ferrie on the left is not 2 feet larger than Oswald - cameras play tricks... you can't eyeball the image and claim Wesley is X # of inches taller - you need photogammetry

On the contrary, Mr. Doyle, your height "evidence" is built upon quicksand

You've been invited to show so. Please do so in direct response to the specific facts I listed as I described them.


You got away with this last time. So far you are not answering what I wrote short of saying "quicksand" (I think you've already defaulted).


If you honestly answered what I wrote you would realize 1) There is no getting around the fact Prayer Man is in the same arc curve as Frazier in distance from Darnell's camera. Therefore there's no excuse for not making a direct height comparison between the two. 2) There's no getting around the fact there's a 6-7 inch difference in height between the two subjects. Use the aluminum frames behind both subjects as gauges.


You are forcing moot points vs proven facts.

I'm only going to do this once Albert.

Your photographic understanding and analysis is severely flawed. You're using your eyes to judge distance and size in a 2d representation of 3d space.

You are plain and simply - wrong about your conclusions which are based on a severely faulty process... eyeballing.

Maybe you think there's "no excuse for not making a direct height comparison" but you remain the only one not understanding the concepts of light, lens, focal distance and angles.

I posted the Ferrie/Oswald camp image to show that items at the front of an image cannot be compared to images anywhere else on the image without understanding photogammetry.

No Albert the sun does not revolve around the earth even though it appears that way as the sun moves thru the sky.

You cannot measure distance of any sort - accurately - within a photo - without that math.

That you dont understand the difference between the front or back of something is again, not our fault but your poor understanding and/or application of basic photographic rules.

1) the same arc? where do you get this gobbledee-goop?

Do you understand that higher focal lengths cause more distortion in the image? The greater the distance as well...

When you move Wesley over without a shift in depth you can easily see that he cannot be compared to PM - the depth is wrong and he is distorted when moved next to someone farther away.




2) Since you cannot compare distances and lengths within a photo using 2d analysis you need to understand why you remain so incredibly wrong about the images you are analyzing and coming to conclusions which are completely worthless.

you then write: "Use the aluminum frames behind both subjects as gauges"

Which is yet an even more egregious error in measurement within a photo and yet another version of the topic you butcher terribly.


Albert - we're all terribly sorry that reality and physics, light and 2d representation of 3d space confuses you so that you need to refute facts with tautology and non-sequitur.

If you want to continue to spout nonsense about your measuring skills and techniques - enjoy yourself... if others wish to debate with you about this have at it.

You might as well be pointing out that we will fall off the world when we reach the horizon because ships you visually watch disappear once they cross over.
Astute observation yet similarly incorrect once you have the facts

oy friggin vey ::headbang::



What was the focal length of the lens being used?

http://expertphotography.com/understand-...asy-steps/


These cans are the same size
Depending on the Focal Length of the lens (and the distance to the subject since the higher focal length, the farther away the camera has to be from the subject to retain the same framing).. we can make the can in front seem almost twice as tall, while a zoomed lens does the opposite.





How far away from each other are the cans based on the 300mm image?
Different than the 24mm? of course.


That BS you are peddling about arcs on a circle and some relationship between these distances is very amusing Albert. It confirms you not only haven't the first clue related to photography but you'll make up anything you think will aid in your selling such tripe.

If we took our string that was stretched exactly to the center point of Frazier and walked it over to Prayer Man we would see that Prayer Man's center pole was no more than 12 inches further back from the lens in distance
...
You would find that, being generous, a 12 inch depth difference at that distance from Darnell's lens would account for a 1/2 inch perspective shift at the most, and that is probably stretching it

Unmitigated bullsh!t buddy. Fetzer and Cinque could use a man like you!

PM is only 12 inches (maybe even 6) further back that the Wesley? - didn't your fingers get all stinky pulling that out of your a$$?

You don't have the first clue about the distances that separated them just as you would tell me the can in the back is at varying distances from the front car - depending on which photo I showed you.

If I took the focal lengths off this image you'd be telling me the cans moved - brilliant!

It's okay to be wrong Albert. Okay to admit you are making a mistake and simply don't understand measurements and distance of a 3d representation on 2d space.

or you can keep on guessing and throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

One gives you a slight bit of class and self respect - the other just keeps your hands and fingers stinky...



::


::evilpenguin::

The distance from the landing steps to the doorway appears to be no more than 3 feet, looking at the picture from the lobby. So, to me it appears that PP can't be far from the steps, and not much farther inward than BWF. The camera angle may slightly distort the relative heights of PP and BWF, but I would think it is a minimal distortion.
As for PrayerPerson, I have yet to see convincing proof that the person pictured is a male. And, what appears to be possibly a left arm may not be that, as possibly it is a purse. Also, I am having trouble determining the direction PP's head is facing, as seen in the still/picture.
Regarding BWF, I have to wonder, as I wander, if maybe he is sitting on, or leaning on a handrail that appears to be in the center of the porch/landing stairway. That being said, I do believe there is a measurable height difference between PP and the taller looking BWF.
And then there is LHO, and the question of his whereabouts at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, as well as presented evidence that indicates the possibility that he was a shooter during the assassination of JFK. But, even if it could be proved he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD during the shooting, to me the presented evidence is well short of proof that he was a shooter.
While I do not wish to continue participation in this discussion, and hopefully avoid any argument as well, I am amazed it continues. I do believe, as do others much smarter than I, that this issue is long ago settled. And, IMO not at all pertinent to current understanding. In any event, JMO, FWIW.

Can you or anyone please post a photo of Wesley in that spot prior to Darnell?






This I believe is even more critical.

When did Lovelady move from the far left to the middle of the landing...?

In the HUGHES film frame capture we see Altgens' Lovelady character far to the left of the landing as the limo turns the corner
In WEIGMAN, from virtually the same angle, Lovelady is now in the middle of the landing...

It was at this turn that Truly claims the limo swung WIDE and almost hit the island curb, almost stopped, and then swung back.

It is missing from Zap and somehow is not shown in Towner.

So 3 questions -

1) where's tall Wesley
2) when does Lovelady move and
3) how does he show up in Martin when by his own admission he and Shelley were in the back by the loading dock for quite a while after the shots.

Brilliant, Mr. Josephs, what have these people done in the name of "national security"?

Your three questions are indicative of what a genuine investigation into this matter would have laid out in a fair and square manner right from the very beginning.

Am venturing over to Mr. Kelly's (Bill) to determine if he may have some floor plans/dimensions of the TSBD entrance way. Enjoy your day, Mr. Josephs, Cheers!

Albert:

I think the landing is 4 feet wide because the glass door doesn't go past it when opened if you look at photos of the portal.

A decent guess but off by 25%.










Albert - Place the man wherever you want - doesn't change the simple facts about the photo or how wrong you are about dimensions and perspective.


I'll ask you then Albert - where is Wesley in Altgens?

Let's try it this way Albert: Based on your irrefutable "scientific" evidence, overly the frame with the three dimensional rendering you are using in your "research". Take that tiny two dimensional image and show all of us who are ignorant exactly the dimensions of each architectural/structural element, the distances, the precise placement of the people with respect to elevation, distance from whatever landmark you've chosen. Illuminate us on how you've made this 2D rectangle of shades of gray into a precisely rendered irrefutable 3D model. I'll be waiting . . .

My science is obviously sound because it can't be any other way.

I'm right because I'm right because I'm right?

It is a violation of Deep Politics to ignore good science.

It's a violation of common sense to allow you to continue representing FAITH, BELIEF and JUNK SCIENCE as FACT... but the mods are doing so anyway.

If you were to look back and the early moments of Duncan's original PW posts - he admits he did it just to watch people like you trip over themselves to support junk science... and laugh while doing it.
To see who would take the bait. Wasn't it PT Barnum who said a sucker is born every minute?

It's all a show - all you need do is go spend some time at his JFKAssassination Forum to get a flavor.

You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know Albert... and your eyeballing trust of other's work since you dont seem to be able to do any of the analysis on your own leaves you open to the whim and fancy of those you are supporting.

I suppose you also support Dale Myers misrepresentation of the event as well?
Posner and Bugliosi on your "must read" list this year Albert?


One last try - there is simply not enough information from the image to tell who this is. So the earlier declaration that "PW" is wearing horned rimmed glasses and therefor a woman.. you can make those out can you?

You and Monet buddy... nobody else.

My science is obviously sound because it can't be any other way.

I'm right because I'm right because I'm right?

It is a violation of Deep Politics to ignore good science.

It's a violation of common sense to allow you to continue representing FAITH, BELIEF and JUNK SCIENCE as FACT... but the mods are doing so anyway.

If you were to look back and the early moments of Duncan's original PW posts - he admits he did it just to watch people like you trip over themselves to support junk science... and laugh while doing it.
To see who would take the bait. Wasn't it PT Barnum who said a sucker is born every minute?

It's all a show - all you need do is go spend some time at his JFKAssassination Forum to get a flavor.

You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know Albert... and your eyeballing trust of other's work since you dont seem to be able to do any of the analysis on your own leaves you open to the whim and fancy of those you are supporting.

I suppose you also support Dale Myers misrepresentation of the event as well?
Posner and Bugliosi on your "must read" list this year Albert?


One last try - there is simply not enough information from the image to tell who this is. So the earlier declaration that "PW" is wearing horned rimmed glasses and therefor a woman.. you can make those out can you?

You and Monet buddy... nobody else.

Sorry David this is just flaming and ridicule.


You skipped answering my last post to you in this thread that detailed the scientific particulars. You don't have any right to do that and I find it demeaning of your credibility.


Please go back and seriously and directly answer my points in the post you ignored. We're dealing specifically with my height arguments and you're not answering what I'm writing. Drew seems to be able to manage. Nobody is above science.

I prefer to ignore you from now on Albert...

You continue to illustrate how NOT to approach science or fact.

Last time - point out Wesley in the doorway prior to Darnell. And how does this testimony corroborate what we see in the images prior to Darnell when Wesley is nowhere to be seen.

Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also. Now we both know that Lovelady is at the center of the landing by the railing and Shelley is behind him, also in the middle. If Wesley is down one step and Lovelady is down a few steps and also over by the wall... who is the person in the bottom image on the right with "In Front" written over him?






Maybe also look at why Shelley lied - or Viles did - about who was where. Lovelady lies or that's not Lovelady in Martin.


Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.








Mr. Trotter - I realize I replied using your post yet it was by no means an attack... You mention that Wesley appears taller than PP... I agree completely - he was a tall man in general compared to everyone else.

But that doesn't put him where he claims he was at the time. Altgens is only half that image... the bottom shows the entire landing.. do you see a head sticking up above the rest?

Who is that in the left hand corner of the landing as we face it looking like Oswald, when Lovelady is supposed to be in the center and further down the steps?






And for Albert - Lovelady and Wesley are almost the same size when at the front of the stairs. Lovelady also appear much taller than PM due to the depth of field and focal lengths involved.







Can you explain how Lovelady is in the Martin film when according to his testimony he was in the TSBD? Was Martin more than 30 minutes after the shooting and why does Lovelady not ever say he was back on the steps in front?

All I'm saying is AD here is using his eyes to guess about distance... he's guessing about heights, guessing about details and just plain guessing about everything and trusting others to do his work.

Mr. BALL - How did you happen to go down there?
Mr. LOVELADY - I don't know, because everybody was running from that way and naturally, I guess---
Mr. BALL - They were running from that way or toward that way?
Mr. LOVELADY - Toward that way; everybody thought it was coming from that direction.
Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.
Mr. BALL - How many steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Twenty, 25.
Mr. BALL - Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building.
Mr. BALL - And enter from the rear?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people on the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, yes; by that time there were more; a few of the guys had come in.
Mr. BALL - And you stayed on the first floor then?
Mr. LOVELADY - I would say 30 minutes. And one of the policemen asked me would I take them up on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - Did you take them up there?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; I sure did.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Lovelady, your testimony will be written up and it can be submitted to you for your signature if you wish and you can make any changes, or you can waive signature and we will make this your final---
Mr. LOVELADY - I want this to be the final one.
Mr. BALL - All right; you waive signature?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Thanks very much.




If that is Lovelady (the shorter man in the plaid shirt) with Shelley - then he is much shorter than Wesley... and was telling the truth about leaving the stairs.

(I believe this is Gerda's work yet I'm not sure)

Mr. Doyle -

This has gone on long enough.

Where we are in this discussion is David used exaggerated reasoning to falsely claim no judgments of distance relationships could be made in Darnell. This is not correct as the reasoning I offered

As explained before - while you were covering every orifice making sure nothing got in - eyeballing a frame or photo to determine distances cannot be done.

It truly is not our fault that you remain stubborn and stupid when the concepts have been explained and there is an entire internet available for you to learn how wrong you remain.

Will you now argue that the baby's head is larger than Lovelady when you still do not know the distances involved, the lens involved or anything about the properties of light, depth and perspective.

If you knew the size of the baby's head, you believe you can determine the size of Lovelady's head using your eyeballing process of comparisons and guessing?





Forgot this example as well?

How much taller is the can in the front, in the 24mm image, than the can in the back Doyle? at 70mm? 135mm? & 300mm?

Are they using 4 different sets of different sized cans or one set Doyle?

At 300mm, how far to the left and back is the can on the left compared to the front and middle can? at 24mm? at 70mm? 135mm?

If you only saw the 300mm image - would you then spend 20 pages arguing that the cans are all next to each other?

Is the can in the 24mm image farther away from the front can than in the 135mm image? if so, by how much?






And finally - simply because you know the size of the cans does not mean you can measure distance unless you employ one of a number of photogrammetry algorithms.

FYI - the can in the 24mm image is just under 2" in this image... how much shorter is the can in the back? and in the 135mm image?


answer the questions in bold... show off that big brain of yours Doyle and extrapolate your expertise at measuring distance from the PM images to the one above.

You get this right and maybe we make it into an after school special ::thumbsup::

Mr Josephs, you have unfairly ignored the best evidence and arguments and violated the premise of Deep Political inquiry.

Arthur Canon Brian Albert Doyle or whoever the $%@#$ you claim you are for today's posts...

Your intellectual dishonesty makes McAdams and Myers look like saints.
Your inability to see beyond your own inability to grasp these concepts remains laughable.
Your ongoing argument against the laws of nature betrays your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a POV that precludes independent thought of any kind

Your insistence that others haven't fooled you into believing you and they can make out detail is a miniscule area of a 3.8mm x 4.5mm film frame proves you'll buy most anything as long as you don't need to understand it.

In answering the questions I posed about that can image Doyle, you may find out how wrong you are about everything you've posted.


Then again - you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know. And you surely don't want to learn about this.


btw - Duncan admitted it was a joke in a reply to me which is no longer in the thread...

Greg P got it...:

Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:51 PM Yeah... you got me Duncan. Should have seen that this was a "joke" thread.

Bravo David.

Edit:
HA! And I missed the latest!

Thanks guys...

Couple things to remember

1. We cannot tell what happened using the evidence available
   
2. We will NEVER find a witness statement claiming PM was Oswald
   
3. Wherever you go - there you are.....
   
   Everybody was somewhere, yet one and only one "somewhere".
   

Based on the Evidence of the Conspiracy it is not impossible for PM to be Oswald since the Evidence cannot put Oswald at that window at that time.

If Baker's 3rd floor man is not Oswald, and the Lunchroom never happened, and the man Mrs Reid sees in a Tshirt looking like Oswald is not Oswald...

Until someone claims to have been in that spot - or until someone addresses why Shelley lies about who is up there with him on the steps...

and until someone finds Wesley in an image of the TSDB doorway PRIOR to the shooting and explains why he too claims that Lovelady was on a lower step in front of him and not in the exact spot he claimed to be in Weigman, he too cannot be relied upon for accuracy.

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

Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by.
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL - I see.
Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL - Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago. Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.

BRAVO DAVID!