Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Thomas Graves and 60 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 196145 times)

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #80 on: April 22, 2018, 09:13:23 PM »
In reply, and still getting used to this format, LarryTrotter posted:

As I recall, some years back now, probably about 2013, I read a claim on another forum that the virtually impossible to identify image seen in shadow on the Elm St entrance landing to the Texas School Book Depository was actually accused Lone Gunman Assassin LeeHarveyOswald.

For various reasons, I failed to see any validity for said claim, especially being made some 50 years after the 11/22/'63 assassination of USP JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and critical wounding of TG JohnBowdenConnallyJr. It just doesn't seem possible for LHO to have been among several occupants, most, if not all who knew him, or at least recognized him, and yet after 50 years to then be "discovered" standing on the landing as the shooting occurred, and therefore could not have been a LGA.

To me, the image as viewable, appears more likely female and not male, but there is sufficient landing area occupants/eyewitnesses that testified that LHO was not on the landing at the time of filming within seconds of the shots being fired.

But, there is more evidence that the pictured/filmed image is not LHO, as DPD Motorcycle Officer MarrionLewisBaker, along with TSBD Building Superintendent RoySansomTruly testified that they encountered LHO on the 2nd floor, at the lunchroom, at about 90 seconds after the last shot. And, he was there when they reached said floor.

To claim that the image is of a male is one thing, but to promote the LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory is to me in defiance of common sense. Far too much evidence indicates otherwise.

That said, I base my conclusion about PrayerWoman on what little I see, added to known area occupants/eyewitnesses testimony regarding the steps/landing area at or about 12:30pm CST on 11/22'63. And, said conclusion indicates to me that Ms PaulineRebmanSanders and Ms SarahDeanStanton are  the two most likely candidates, with a slight edge to Ms Stanton as PrayerWoman.

That said, I have yet to place any accuracy and/or validity to any "produced picture enhancement" that I have seen so for. But I do wonder, as I wander, if any effort has and/or can be made to "enhance" the shaded entrance landing area as seen in the Tina Towner Film of the JFK Sr Motorcade as it turns onto Elm St just seconds before the shots were fired.

For clarification, I make no claim to be the first to dispute the LHO as PM Theory. And, I am confident that I am not. However, I do not recall ever not disputing said theory, and I am confident of that as well.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 07:33:34 PM by Larry Trotter »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #80 on: April 22, 2018, 09:13:23 PM »


Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2018, 09:54:32 PM »
As time flies, with all said and done
Be not surprised, should she be the one




Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2018, 05:53:06 AM »
Can't be because she isn't heavy set and that white scarf would show like a flare...

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2018, 05:53:06 AM »


Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 219
    • JFK Assassination Videos
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #83 on: April 27, 2018, 01:47:14 PM »
Below: I've cropped, enlarged & enhanced the crucial area of Chris Davidson's animated Gif.


Offline Denis Morissette

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #84 on: April 27, 2018, 04:00:27 PM »
Impressive!

Below: I've cropped, enlarged & enhanced the crucial area of Chris Davidson's animated Gif.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #84 on: April 27, 2018, 04:00:27 PM »


Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 219
    • JFK Assassination Videos
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #85 on: April 27, 2018, 05:58:09 PM »
Thanks Duncan but your image from two years ago was sharper...

I can only work with what Chris made available in his original Gif.

I've sharpened the frames a little more and added a little bit of color to them.

The detail simply isn't there to enhance any further without degradation taking place.


Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
Prayer Woman
« Reply #86 on: April 28, 2018, 10:12:24 PM »
    Stancak responded to Graves on the Education Forum:


           
Quote
" I can have a look at the leg length problem in my next version of any work which will include Prayer Man.  People differ in the height of their inseam and my model appears to have the inseam high. I paid some attention to it, but in order to measure inseam height, one needs to measure besides the body length also the length of the inner leg from the sole of the foot to the perineum. This cannot be achieved from Lee Harvey Oswald photographs in which he wears loose pants, and in no case from Darnell still because it is blurred and does not show full legs. The leg-to-body ration varies from 45% to 50% in the population, and my model has a proportion which goes to the higher end of the range.

The exact posture of Prayer Man's legs is uncertain just because they cannot be seen reliably in any of the frames. So, I had to design a leg posture myself, and actually I have suggested two leg postures, one in 2016 and one more recently. I certainly can test another leg posture which may possibly appeal better to you. The Darnell model included 15 human figures and I spent time mostly with the new figures. "


This ruminating run-round of Stancak's is typical...He mouths the photo science terms of the issue but doesn't answer the point that is being made...What Stancak fails to answer is the fact his excessive inseam that is 2.5 inches longer than Frazier's has to contain a leg that is far beyond the parameters for tolerable variation...Stancak once again gets away with a non-answer that doesn't address the technical point that is being made...He fails to answer a provable fatal flaw in his model that dismisses his claim and by default proves ours...

What Stancak doesn't seem to realize is he has presented modeling tool measuring sticks with his figures...He has metered very precise height measurements for Frazier and Prayer Man at the tops of their heads that lock them in to the known heights for Oswald and Frazier...Stancak does not address that the step is a known 7 inches in height and when combined with the shown head height for Prayer Man must establish a very precise height for his Prayer Man figure...Plus we already know Oswald's general body proportions from photographs...

What Stancak is not answering here is the image on page 1 of that thread with the measuring stick metered heights for Frazier and Prayer Man doesn't provide any more wiggle room for reducing Prayer Man's height in order to adjust for the overly long inseam...Like I said in another post...Stancak's graphics are actually very precise in certain areas...Because of that Stancak has trapped himself with his own precision and locked himself into highly restricted boundaries of evidence that he can't get out of as easily as he pretends...

What Stancak is getting around answering in the above response is that Prayer Man's leg is too long in his graphic, not just his inseam...Stancak correctly points out that the real measure is not the inseam but the physical body length from the perineum to the heel...But after pointing out the correct forensic methodology he then ignores the fact that it is impossible for a leg to reach from Prayer Man's crotch, as shown in his graphic, to the heel of his foot planted on the step without being at least the length required to do that...

This is the science Graves was getting at but not articulating quite clearly enough...Stancak is still at the same impasse and after offering a ruminating voicing of the scientific problem involved he never quite gets around to answering the serious issue with his evidence...This has nothing to do with photos of Oswald showing his legs...Instead it has everything to do with Stancak's own height illustrations with correct height measurements assigned to both Frazier and Prayer Man...We may not have photos of Oswald to compare but we do have a very precise measurement of Prayer Man's height at 5 foot 9 as Stancak shows in his image...The question then stands if this measurement is very accurate (which it is), and Prayer Man's leg is 2.5 inches too long, then where is Stancak going to get his height reduction from?

If he reduces Prayer Man's leg by the necessary 2.5 inches he is going to have to lift Prayer Man's foot off the step by 2.5 inches and have it floating in the air...Andrej has made the mistake of being too accurate in his computer graphics and therefore trapping himself within his own scientific constraints...He has no wiggle room at the top of Prayer Man's head because his measuring meter shows a very precise 5 foot 9 inches for Prayer Man (Oswald's height)...And he can't use the differences in Oswald's claimed height because he will be going beneath the lower 5 foot 9 height...And he can't use Oswald's 5 foot 11 height because he has locked himself into Frazier's correct 6 foot 1/2 inch height and can't violate the height difference that is visible in Darnell...

In December 2016 I called Andrej out on the Education Forum and challenged him to post a computer graphic of Prayer Man with a foot on the step...I knew he wouldn't be able to make it work...I was banned without explanation when I made that challenge...I have been claiming for many years that Prayer Man would have to have grotesquely long legs to have a foot on the step...You can go back and read posts from over 3 years ago of me saying this...Stancak took 14 months but he finally put out his graphic of the Darnell frame...Let's get down to it...What is happening here is Andrej created computer graphics science that was accurate enough to prove what I was saying and refute Stancak's foot on the step claim...The only credible scientific conclusion that can be made from this is Stancak can't get a correctly-proportioned Prayer Man's leg to reach the step...He has refuted himself and proven my case...And, as his above reply shows, he has failed to credibly account for it when challenged...     

No one on the Education Forum asks Stancak where he is going to get those extra 2.5 inches from? And now Graves has lost the ability to ask...
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 10:30:58 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Prayer Woman
« Reply #86 on: April 28, 2018, 10:12:24 PM »


Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #87 on: April 28, 2018, 11:15:23 PM »
Quote
The location of Prayer Man with one foot down is determined not by his feet but by the relation of his figure to different landmarks in the doorway. These relationships dictate Prayer Man location, and there is just no wiggling room there. Prayer Man could not stand with both his feet on the top landing (in Darnell) because he would not fit the shape of Prayer Man body (being too tiny and having arms located higher compared to what is seen in Darnell) and more importantly, his right elbow would be too far from the edge of the red brick column. Of course, I have tested this variation in my pilot analyses, and will show it in the next work which will address Prayer Man's location and body height.


Stancak speaks Hungarian so I will give him a break for not speaking English as his first language...However the above statement has zero scientific validity...

Stancak is not correct that Prayer Man's body proportions as seen in Darnell preclude him from standing on the landing...There is absolutely no scientific credibility to that claim what so ever...

What Stancak is trying to say is that Prayer Man cannot be standing on the landing because he is visibly too short to be Oswald...And that his arms would be higher if Oswald were up on the landing...Obviously Stancak is restricting his scientific input to only that which conforms to Prayer Man being Oswald while ignoring everything else...That right there alone dismisses Stancak from credibility because valid science is always objective and goes by what is empirically seen and not by what is assumed...What Stancak is saying is he dismisses possibilities simply because they don't match Oswald while forgetting he has shown no proof that it is Oswald...This would usually disqualify a scientist from normal consideration amongst peers in any credible forum...

Stancak forgets that he still hasn't answered the overly long leg issue and that it is still the best determiner of whether Prayer Man is on the step...He's not registering that Prayer Man has to be on the landing because he himself has already proven Prayer Man can't be on the step by his failure to get that leg to reach...

His distance of the bricks from Prayer Man's arm claim is completely without merit...The answer to that is Prayer Man is on the landing and the distance from the bricks is what you see in Darnell...
 

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #88 on: April 29, 2018, 10:45:26 PM »
I wish somebody would tell Stancak that he's drawn a bent left leg over the radiator in his latest offering on the Education Forum...

I have seen a clearer version of Darnell and it shows that what Stancak is representing as a bent left leg in his Prayer Man graphic is actually the radiator in the front entrance window...

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #88 on: April 29, 2018, 10:45:26 PM »


Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #89 on: April 30, 2018, 09:13:01 AM »
I can only work with what Chris made available in his original Gif.

I've sharpened the frames a little more and added a little bit of color to them.

The detail simply isn't there to enhance any further without degradation taking place.



For clarification, I only see what I see, and am unable to embrace Mr Davidson's "enhanced" PrayerWoman. And, I continue to base my conclusions about the image known as PrayerWoman/ PrayerPerson/PrayerMan on what I do see, un-enhanced, and a sufficient amount of eyewitness/occupant statements/testimony, including statements that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the TSBD entrance landing at the time.

That said, I maintain agreement with others that the image is that of a female, and base said agreement on my own conclusions, as well as testimony as to who was not present on the landing, added to testimony as to who was there. And, the most likely candidates for the image aka PrayerWoman are Ms SarahStanton and Ms PaulineSanders, with a slight edge favoring Ms Stanton, IMO.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 06:41:54 PM by Larry Trotter »