Prayer Woman

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 1137166 times)

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #728 on: July 26, 2018, 09:01:29 PM »
Friends!

Here's a nice blend of Wiegman and Darnell that (if memory serves) Chris Davidson put together:



Look at Billy Lovelady. He is one step down from where he was in the earlier Wiegman frames.
Look at Buell Wesley Frazier. He's on the landing.


Now! Compare their heights. Can anyone seriously believe that the 5'8.5" Lovelady is here only one step down from the ~6' Frazier? Yet that is what those trying to put Lovelady on the landing in the earlier Wiegman frames would have you believe!
No way. No how!

The above is the best way to look at it because BL is without doubt two steps lower than BWF.
In the looping Wiegman gif, Lovelady descends less than the height of his head, one step.
So I'm officially off the fence, I was already once before when I said there's no shadow on BL's head but that alone wasn't enough and I almost got back on it.
Cheers Alan. 

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #729 on: July 26, 2018, 09:26:53 PM »
Altgens might be useful if you could replicate it accurately and prove your point Brian but that ship may have sailed if the steps have been refurbished, at this stage you can only guess, I myself cannot tell from Altgens alone and refer you back to what you just quouted.

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #730 on: July 26, 2018, 09:55:47 PM »
You cannot tell with one frame of Wiegamn alone, that's the problem Brian.
Stick with Altgens, you have a point but I would want to see it proven.
Two things to consider;
Lovelady is probably on the toes of his right foot.
He's also probably stood closer to the camera than we thought, not by the railing at all but halfway between it and the wall.

You don't need Dallas to prove this, just a set of steps with 7" risers. Go for it.

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #731 on: July 26, 2018, 10:00:57 PM »
RE: blob of pixels.
John, I've thought it looks a little like LHO but I've never had to use the pixels to do it.
That's what you need to see female features not male ones.
Blobs and pixels are what was shown to Stanton's family(allegedly).

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #732 on: July 26, 2018, 10:50:25 PM »
Luckily for me, up on the toes on just the one foot while leaning is not too jarring, in fact it's the most natural thing to do the further I lean.
Perhaps it makes no difference to what we see but the ball is in your court, you have a point to prove.

Wiegman says he's two steps down and only came down one, ie. not on the landing, are you going to go on record as not being able to see that?

Offline James Hackerott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #733 on: July 26, 2018, 11:42:34 PM »
I have entered comment and graphics related to Lovelady in Wiegman & Altgens in the Photographic forum.
Where was Lovelady Standing in Wiegman and Altgens6?

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #734 on: July 26, 2018, 11:47:40 PM »
Brian, remind yourself of the efforts made to find a shadow on anyone in any image, anywhere near the railing's west side(virtually nothing found).
Then remind yourself how close Altgens and that hIgh Lovelady frame is in time(he cannot have moved much).
Then remember what you told me, how the angle might be misleading me, when I myself said he looks close to the railing.

Now you have to be kidding, after all that you're still claiming he's close to the railing but now even worse, behind the end of it, for what!?  To support the "he's on the landing" claim that then proves PM is not Lee?
How will you prove that?  Certainly not with words.