You're just re-entering the same argument. I have already told you that the height argument pre-empts everything you wrote and demands to be answered by the rules of evidence.
Not only do all the main players like Parker, Kamp, and Unger say that Prayer Man is at the front of the landing but all the forensic indicators I listed do too. You have no right to ignore this. What this proves is that, contrary to what Josephs and Cross are alleging, Prayer Man is close enough to the same arc curve in distance from Darnell's lens that no appreciable perspective shift occurs in the Darnell frame that can be used to discount the obvious difference in height between Frazier and Prayer Man. That height difference scientifically excludes Oswald from being Prayer Man at the current available resolution. No metadata or magical ROKC equivocating and spinning is needed to process or realize this.
This evidence finally resolves the Prayer Man issue. Please answer it directly.
Quote:Amazing that your eyes can detect height and height differentials from mere photos...
I find this less than honest. There's a clearly visible 6-7 inch height difference plainly visible in your own Darnell enlargement on page 5 in this thread. Surely you are not denying this right in its face? What does Josephs always say? "Who are you going to believe, Mr Ford or your own lying eyes?"
An analyst more mindful of his credibility and not seeking the first quick excuse would take notice that the aluminum frames could be used as gauges for Prayer Man's and Frazier's height. This evidence is irrefutable.
You're just re-entering the same argument. I have already told you that the height argument pre-empts everything you wrote and demands to be answered by the rules of evidence.
Not only do all the main players like Parker, Kamp, and Unger say that Prayer Man is at the front of the landing but all the forensic indicators I listed do too. You have no right to ignore this. What this proves is that, contrary to what Josephs and Cross are alleging, Prayer Man is close enough to the same arc curve in distance from Darnell's lens that no appreciable perspective shift occurs in the Darnell frame that can be used to discount the obvious difference in height between Frazier and Prayer Man. That height difference scientifically excludes Oswald from being Prayer Man at the current available resolution. No metadata or magical ROKC equivocating and spinning is needed to process or realize this.
This evidence finally resolves the Prayer Man issue. Please answer it directly.
On the contrary, Mr. Doyle, your height "evidence" is built upon quicksand; however, the only facts needing more adequate attention, you somehow avoid like the plague:
Prayer man is the only figure--male or female--not accounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381 (put your measuring tape away and address that concrete truth)
Prayer Man is "not a stranger" (so, again, put your measuring tape away and address that concrete truth)
continuing to play with your measuring tape will only keep you remaining in denial.
Hey Shaq, Kobe, Bird, Magic and Michael (23) tell the incoming rookies no official physicals needed this season, just take a picture together and let Mr. Doyle determine their heights and weights.
Alan Ford Wrote: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.
Alan Ford Wrote: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.
Whenever the spirit moves you, Mr. Doyle, feel free to share your questionable findings w/me via PM mode. Until you share more than suspect "evidence", I'm left with no choice but to see it as the desperate distortion and distraction it is (desperate times call for desperate measures they say...so, I understand it's not easy to trust your own eyes and the aforementioned concrete evidence right in front of you). To wit: the wrongfully accused is where his airtight alibi says he was; he is the only person unaccounted for upon that entrance landing in CE 1381; and, for good measure, he "is not a stranger".
Alan Ford Wrote: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
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Albert Doyle Wrote:You're way overcomplicating it.
No, he's not. You are so out of your depth it's comical. You either have no understanding of the subject at hand, which after all this time I find hard to believe, or you have a hidden agenda.
This post is spot on:
David Josephs Wrote:
Michael Cross Wrote:
Albert Doyle Wrote:
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
I don't know what you're up to Albert but you and Duncan continue to peddle this snake oil as proof while IGNORING the input of trained photographers/photo analysts. You've proven nothing. You can NOT PROVE anything with the available data.
Alan Ford Wrote: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
David Josephs Wrote: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.
Not true. I have made arguments that rely on some very firm reasoning like the sun plane illuminating Prayer Man's hand in a spot that could only be located at the front of the portal. You are failing to answer it with your overly-general response. I think your response is deliberately overly-general because you are trying to avoid answering my evidence.
What you wrote is provably wrong and I am using firm forensic landmarks like the sun plane that can only be in one place and is exactly the opposite of what you claim as being "eyeballing". The sun plane is literally set in stone by the portal west wall edge and 12:30pm sun angle. Science says it can only be in one place.
Sorry David but you are condescending to me while offering an argument that avoids answering what was said. Your 2 dimension image in a 3d space is pure sophistry that does not answer the simple argument I made. My forensic landmarks do answer the 3d requirements and were articulated in such a way as to do so.
David Josephs Wrote: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.
This doesn't answer what I wrote. I have provided adequate evidence that Prayer Man is at the front of the landing. Parker, Kamp, Unger and others agree Prayer Man is forward in the landing so it is actually you who is in the minority. In fact the main ROKC proponents of this even say Prayer Man is on the first step down (which is even more forward). The sun glow caused by Prayer Man sticking his hand into the sun plane is the best evidence of this. What this reasonably proves is that, contrary to what you write, Prayer Man is well within the same arc curve of distance from Darnell's lens. I will not back off of this because it is provably correct and you have failed to answer for it while speaking down to me. You've already tried to get away with a false comparison while lecturing me on high tech photo analysis, which is totally irrelevant to what we are talking about and doesn't answer the points.
"Light, lens, focal distance, and angles" is so irrelevant to what I wrote and so overly-general that it is indirect confirmation of my argument. Meanwhile if you bothered to read the MacRae website thread it is actually myself who has offered the best arguments on triangulation etc. Including here.
David Josephs Wrote: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.
This doesn't answer the true perspective in Darnell that Drew seems to understand. You don't seem to realize that Prayer Man is well within the distance from Darnell's lens that would make him comparable to Frazier. Credible analysis could do the math that shows the perspective ratios involved at the distance from Darnell's camera when considering the depth difference between Frazier and Prayer Man. Since Prayer Man is no more than 12 inches or so further back than Frazier in this arc curve, at Darnell's distance there is no appreciable perspective shift between Frazier and Prayer Man when applying this valid applicable science. I have already pointed out that when you consider the 6-7 inch height difference seen in Darnell that this miniscule perspective shift is not enough to invalidate this difference. It is me who is being patient here not you. You are just referencing overly-general photogrammetry citations without describing how it applies.
David Josephs Wrote:1) the same arc? where do you get this gobbledee-goop?
From the evidence you are ignoring. I have adequately described forensic landmarks like the brickwork and aluminum frame in Wiegman that Unger stated showed Prayer Man was forward in the landing. I have cited Unger's and MacRae's film clips that undoubtedly show Prayer Man forward in the landing (Seen at MacRae's forum). Prayer Man's hand illuminating in the sun plane is also another firm forensic landmark. Simple analysis of the portal shows that once you correctly place Prayer Man forward in the landing that a scientific arc curve measured from Darnell's lens places Prayer Man and Frazier at a similar enough distance to exclude any invalid perspective shift excuses.
David Josephs Wrote:Do you understand that higher focal lengths cause more distortion in the image? The greater the distance as well...
Rubbish. You're not answering my specific arguments that make this moot. There are no relevant focal length distortions that affect what I said and my arguments are sound. You're making excuses David - and poor ones at that.
David Josephs Wrote: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.
What are you talking about David??? Frazier is in a fixed position in Murphy's Darnell image. We are talking where they are in Darnell at the more than adequate resolution they are at.
I've already answered this. Prayer Man is no more than 12 inches further back according to all known evidence. According to science 12 inches at that distance is not enough perspective shift to preclude any direct comparisons between Prayer Man and Frazier. Especially with the large 6-7 inch height difference that is plainly visible in Darnell. You're simply not living up to the evidence here David.
David Josephs Wrote: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.
Why? Because you say it? With Prayer Man and Frazier being separated by 12 inches in depth max I'm afraid the aluminum frames are valid gauges and you haven't shown otherwise besides self-pronouncements. There's an inarguable 6-7 inch height difference between Frazier and Prayer Man that you are obviously taking pains to avoid admitting.
David Josephs Wrote: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
I think smart and honest people will detect the difference in our offerings. Drew and Trotter did, so I'm not sure what exact group you are referring to instead of directly answering the arguments. Ignoring people is no intellectual boasting point. Responding well to valid evidence is. I think people will notice that I reference very specifically-detailed evidence and arguments directly related to specific things in the portal. You, on the other hand, offer regressive brow-beating-type generalities pointing towards some kind of haughty photo science without ever detailing how that applies to my points? Don't play dumb David, all the credible evidence points toward Prayer Man being at the front of the landing (Not to mention two film clips that show it directly). This deserves a serious direct answer. I see you never gave that. Even ROKC says Prayer Man was so far forward that he was on the first step down (Proven incorrect by my Fratini evidence you ignored while chiding my ability). Simple common sense tells you that once you confirm Prayer Man was forward on the landing that he was therefore in the same distance plane from Darnell's lens as Frazier. This means a direct height comparison applies and the obvious 6-7 inch difference between Prayer Man and Frazier cannot be ignored.
I'm sorry David but this is the bottom line and you have failed to credibly answer it. It proves Prayer Man cannot be Oswald.
David Josephs: "Who are you going to believe, ***** or your own lying eyes?"
"You are plain and simply - wrong about your conclusions which are based on a severely faulty process... eyeballing."
08-03-2016, 09:57 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2016, 11:59 PM by Alan Ford.)
Prayer Man and Mr. Frazier aren't even aligned side by side, nor are they on the same angle plane (A true comparison in height differential has to at the very least address and compensate for both of these issues).
At least if they were actually side by side, one could fairly make an educated guess at a height differential, but they aren't even aligned side by side, Are they?
Toss in the major angle differences between the two, and we are left to wonder how that also impacts the reality as oppose to the perception. They aren't evenly aligned in the same angle plane either, Are they?
Still awaiting a clear answer how the proponents of this distortion & distraction definitively know beyond any shadow of doubt if Prayer Man isn't simply reposed in a more drooping state as oppose to fully erect.
While we await a direct, specific answer to these three challenges, visiting "Guests" please avoid being sidetracked by height comparisons void of equal measuring planes, and for more about Prayer Man venture here ----> http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq just the plain simple facts, no distortions or distractions.
*come back to this exchange if needed...
Mr. BALL - Right in there?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I say, shadow from the roof there knocked the sun from out our eyes, you wouldn't have any glare in the eyes standing there.
*since 1963 it has been noted that Buell Wesley Frazier has changed his position on those stairs no less than six times...
**notes for tomorrow/Wednesday, March 9, 2016 ---->
Warren Commission Exhibit (examine this perspective 3/9/16)
Albert, I honestly don't believe you're as dense as you appear when replying to those of us that don't agree with you on THIS SUBJECT. On other topics you do not appear deliberately obtuse. In this one area you either have a blind spot, or an agenda.
David Josephs couldn't have been clearer in his two posts. An objective observer will wonder what you're on. Now you want us to believe you don't understand how placement in three dimensions affects apparent two dimensional size? Bollocks. Yes, this is just my opinion, but I simply cannot reconcile your obtuse responses to very clear, very well explained rebuttals of your various spurious claims about what has been "proven" about Prayer Man.
You can prove nothing from that image Albert. Nothing.
