Michael Cross Wrote: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
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
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.
David,
You're way overcomplicating it. You show your resistance by going backwards and showing the larger image when the enlargement that Sean Murphy presented shows accurate information. Please, you never once protested when Sean Murphy used the enlargement. Again, you never held Sean Murphy to any photogrammetry demands.
You are stating wrong information. Prayer Man is not at the back for two reasons. First is the sunlight seen on his hand and forearm in Wiegman. This sun glow could only occur at the front of the landing where the sun plane transects the portal. Prayer Man lifts his hand to his head and doing so pushes it forward just enough to illuminate from the sun plane. This is a forensic locator that places Prayer Man at the front of the portal edge where a parade watcher would be more likely to stand while watching the motorcade. The second evidence is more subtle. In the glowing hand frame in Wiegman you can see a space between Prayer Man's head and the aluminum frame. You can also see Prayer Man's right elbow's proximity to the brickwork. If Prayer Man was further back there would be no space between his head and the frame by triangulation. His elbow would also be in a different place in relation to the brickwork. The only place these conditions would occur would be at the front of the landing. Robin Unger and Bart Kamp both said Prayer Man is at the front of the landing. Even Parker added Prayer Man was on the first step down. And Parker said he thought so because he admitted Prayer Man was too short (with no protest from you or demands for technical proof). DiEugenio posted that when he first saw Murphy's claim he thought Prayer Man's body wasn't right for Oswald. It was Unger who said the brickwork puts Prayer Man forward in the portal.
Over on MacRae's forum Tony Fratini posted the Allen crop of the portal taken at nearly an identical angle to Darnell. In it there is a man just inside the glass who has to be standing at the same level as the portal landing since the foyer and landing are on the same level. Fratini made a very important discovery with this because it proves Prayer Man is standing on the landing. Fratini took a cut-out of Prayer Man in Darnell and juxtaposed it with this man just behind the glass in Allen. The two were of identical height. This proves Prayer Man is on the landing because for him to be on the first step down would require a grotesque extension of his legs from the shins down. The body proportions between Prayer Man and the man behind the glass proves Prayer Man is on the landing. Parker never responded to Fratini's proof that Prayer Man was on landing - which, in turn, proves (by Parker's own words) that Prayer Man was too short.
Sorry David but both MacRae and Unger showed film clips of Prayer Man. In both clips Prayer Man is clearly at the front of the landing and never moves. I suggest you read MacRae's Prayer Man thread. You can see plain as day that Prayer Man is standing up at the front in both clips.
In my mind going backwards and showing the less detailed unenlarged original is an attempt to avoid discussing what is legitimately visible in the enlargement. You do realize that legitimate evidence can be derived from enlargements? A height comparison is one of the most basic types of evidence - which is the beauty of this proof. Your going backwards to a less detailed original does nothing to answer the legitimate comparison of height seen in Murphy's otherwise uncontested enlargement.
David, I am quite capable of proving this and itch for the ability to do so where I can answer insults like "cut the crap" and "not bringing enough to the table" as they deserve to be answered. However I can only do so if moderators are not allowed to unfairly curtail discussion. You are wrong and when correct analysis is allowed there is no perspective difference between Prayer Man and Frazier. At most there is a 12 inch depth difference between the two that is negligible at a 6-7 inch height difference. At these correct terms there's a clearly visible 6-7 inch height difference that automatically excludes Oswald that no perspective excuses can overcome. Correct analysis would realize this 6-7 inches is such a large difference that it overcomes all potential perspective variances in the portal. Variances that are not an issue in this case due to the said forensic indicators. It is you who lacks the correct data.
If this isn't welcomed here I would be glad to prove this in a venue of free discussion. But I don't see why it wouldn't be welcomed here since it is provably accurate. You also don't realize that when my correct information is inputted your Civil Air Patrol photo actually proves my point.
Michael Cross Wrote: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
Considering the smallness of the TSBD porch/doorway area, what is being said here? The cookout photo has the LO image some distance farther from the camera than the DF image, so matching feet areas appear to me to prove nothing. I believe I may know who PrayerPerson is, but that also proves nothing, IMO. Quite likely, WF may be slightly closer to the camera than PP, but the difference appears considerably less than the cookout has for DF and LO.
Michael Cross Wrote: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.
If you paid more careful attention people have already made those measurements and they are known. Your 'tiny amount' is as self-serving as it is inaccurate. There is more than enough photo data and resolution to see a plainly visible 6-7 inch difference between Frazier and Prayer Man. If you discuss the evidence instead of making excuses you will see this is true. You are obfuscating because the measurements I am citing are easily determinable by sight and do not need any laser accuracy. I have provided enough forensic data to safely place Prayer Man at the front of the landing. Unger and MacRae posted two film clips where the movement allows the eye to see outright that Prayer Man is at the front of the landing. Unger agrees, as do Parker and Kamp. Once you reasonably determine Prayer Man is no more than say 12 inches further back in depth from the lens the perspective difference in not enough to overcome the plainly visible 6-7 inch difference between Prayer Man and Frazier. You are asking for high tech proof while ignoring low tech simple proof. The rules of evidence are wonderful. Low tech validity beats high tech excuses.
I'm afraid this is a done deal if you follow this evidence honestly and accurately.
Michael Cross Wrote: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
Well said, Mr. Josephs, an apt analogy sir; no great surprise considering the source.
Michael Cross Wrote: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.
If you paid more careful attention people have already made those measurements and they are known. Your 'tiny amount' is as self-serving as it is inaccurate. There is more than enough photo data and resolution to see a plainly visible 6-7 inch difference between Frazier and Prayer Man. If you discuss the evidence instead of making excuses you will see this is true. You are obfuscating because the measurements I am citing are easily determinable by sight and do not need any laser accuracy. I have provided enough forensic data to safely place Prayer Man at the front of the landing. Unger and MacRae posted two film clips where the movement allows the eye to see outright that Prayer Man is at the front of the landing. Unger agrees, as do Parker and Kamp. Once you reasonably determine Prayer Man is no more than say 12 inches further back in depth from the lens the perspective difference in not enough to overcome the plainly visible 6-7 inch difference between Prayer Man and Frazier. You are asking for high tech proof while ignoring low tech simple proof. The rules of evidence are wonderful. Low tech validity beats high tech excuses.
I'm afraid this is a done deal if you follow this evidence honestly and accurately.
"follow this evidence honestly" eh?
*photo credit Mr. Purdy
*by doing so one would honestly have to note the obvious: the gentlemen in the far left corner w/his bare arms exposed is the only individual--male or female--not accounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381.
*Further honesty would require one to note he is "not a stranger" per the sworn statements of all of his fellow employees shared within the aforementioned CE 1381
*Taking honesty even a bit further would require one to refrain from making distortions and distractions about he's a woman clutching a purse, or how tall he is as oppose to someone else standing a considerable distance from him.
*Genuine honesty would require one to honestly see just who is standing there. He is not a female, nor a stranger...
Hey Arlen Spector, Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles, etc. al, you got a second? ("National Security"?! playing the coward card eh?)
08-03-2016, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2016, 02:43 PM by Drew Phipps.)
You don't need photogrammetry to know that the single most important factor in determining the size of an image is the ratio between the size and the distance from the camera. It's called "forced perspectice" (I think). That's how your thumb is able to blot out the moon.
The difference of distances between "Prayer Woman" and Frazier is very small compared to the distance from the camera (roughly a city block). Therefore, their relative actual image sizes are less affected by "forced perspective" than, say, the "cookout" photo (if that is the Civil Air Patrol photo) where the camera is roughly 20 feet or so away, and the difference in distance from the camera between Oswald and Ferrie is, therefore, far more significant in their resulting image sizes.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Drew Phipps Wrote:You don't need photogrammetry to know that the single most important factor in determining the size of an image is the ratio between the size and the distance from the camera. It's called "forced perspectice" (I think). That's how your thumb is able to blot out the moon.
The difference of distances between "Prayer Woman" and Frazier is very small compared to the distance from the camera (roughly a city block). Therefore, their relative actual image sizes are less affected by "forced perspective" than, say, the "cookout" photo (if that is the Civil Air Patrol photo) where the camera is roughly 20 feet or so away, and the difference in distance from the camera between Oswald and Ferrie is, therefore, far more significant in their resulting image sizes.
It is about time that members stood up and disallowed these bogus forced perspective entries. My evidence is sound and Prayer Man is at the front of the landing due to the correct information I cited. The bottom line is the alleged perspective shift between Frazier and Prayer Man in Darnell does not exist and a plain view comparison between the two can be made. You can simply see with the naked eye that there's a 6-7 inch difference in height between Frazier and Prayer Man which excludes Oswald. This settles the issue using sound analysis and common sense. The science these gentlemen cite is actually the science that disproves them.
If you tried to use the cookout photo for your side the people resisting this would be the first to say they were different cameras at different distances with different subjects and a different lens etc, which would all be true. Meanwhile the evidence in the portal places Prayer Man in the same curved arc as Frazier in relation to Darnell's camera. I hope people learn the lesson that metadata and tech browbeating do not defeat or replace a good common sense gum shoe analysis.
Alan Ford Wrote:*by doing so one would honestly have to note the obvious: the gentlemen in the far left corner w/his bare arms exposed is the only individual--male or female--not accounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381.
*Further honesty would require one to note he is "not a stranger" per the sworn statements of all of his fellow employees shared within the aforementioned CE 1381
*Taking honesty even a bit further would require one to refrain from making distortions and distractions about he's a woman clutching a purse, or how tall he is as oppose to someone else standing a considerable distance from him.
*Genuine honesty would require one to honestly see just who is standing there. He is not a female, nor a stranger...
Hey Arlen Spector, Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles, etc. al, you got a second? ("National Security"?! playing the coward card eh?)
This reply makes no attempt to answer the height argument that refutes Murphy's theory pre-emptively.
There are some obvious ROKC proxies on this site who have been given free reign and are not answering good facts.
Mr Ford: Genuine honesty would answer the height argument and admit there is no perspective shift in Darnell. Everything you write is moot compared to the height argument you are conspicuously evading here.
Alan Ford Wrote:*by doing so one would honestly have to note the obvious: the gentlemen in the far left corner w/his bare arms exposed is the only individual--male or female--not accounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381.
*Further honesty would require one to note he is "not a stranger" per the sworn statements of all of his fellow employees shared within the aforementioned CE 1381
*Taking honesty even a bit further would require one to refrain from making distortions and distractions about he's a woman clutching a purse, or how tall he is as oppose to someone else standing a considerable distance from him.
*Genuine honesty would require one to honestly see just who is standing there. He is not a female, nor a stranger...
Hey Arlen Spector, Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles, etc. al, you got a second? ("National Security"?! playing the coward card eh?)
This reply makes no attempt to answer the height argument that refutes Murphy's theory pre-emptively.
There are some obvious ROKC proxies on this site who have been given free reign and are not answering good facts.
Mr Ford: Genuine honesty would answer the height argument and admit there is no perspective shift in Darnell. Everything you write is moot compared to the height argument you are conspicuously evading here.
Is this possibly why Murphy abandoned his theory?
I try to avoid stepping into dog smit every chance I can, Mr. Doyle.
Now, here are a couple of facts for you: Prayer Man is the only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381; and, in addition, he is "not a stranger".
Moreover, taken into consideration the wrongfully accused's own airtight alibi (which was quickly hidden away from public view/consumption for decades) he places himself "out front", even going so far as to share specifically who he was with/near "out front"...therefore, he wasn't guessing, nor making up where he was or who he was with. He simply was there. The available evidence on record within CE 1381 places the individual he says he was with in the same vicinity of where he would have known he was there.
As difficult as it may be, Mr. Doyle, you may want to put your measuring tape away, and set your focus upon more obvious questions:
Why of all people was this figure not accounted for?
Why does this figure match precisely the wrongfully accused's alibi stating where he was when a barrage of gunfire erupted in Dealey Plaza?
Why was his airtight alibi hidden away from public view/consumption?
Why he cannot be/isn't a stranger? (see CE 1381)
Why (though you will ignore the obvious, but somehow perceive his height) does this figure bear a striking resemblance to a man, who just happens to look like someone you cannot bring yourself to say? John 8:32
Amazing that your eyes can detect height and height differentials from mere photos...
