Prayer Woman

[Alan Ford]

Alan,
I've misplaced my master for that GIF and redid one, this time using blue registration lines to distinguish from the earlier one. There could be a slight difference in the two as I had to remake it from scratch.

As to reasons for your noted difference I believe the major source could be due to how I generate the figure. My mannequins are basically cookie-cutter, with provisions for shoulder and elbow articulations for individual cases. What is available for individual cases (e.g. Frazier) is ability to scale the basic form in a way that makes the desired height. I can also change the width and breadth of the form. This I did for the Frazier stand-in by changing his width and breadth to 80% of normal ? to give the tall, lean look. Unfortunately,.that scale change also resized the Head. So we have a tall, lean model with a miniature head. For the next gif have changed his body form (and head) to normal proportions. This gives his head to reflection size more like we see in the Darnell frame. The animation displays the Darnell reference frame, then with Frazier at the landing, back 6? and west about 2? and back 12? and west 4-5?. To me, the landing and 6? back give results hard to distinguish, with 12? back seems to much for me. Of course, the blurring that is present in the source frames never help.

I will try the imgur.com link to see if it works here.

Brilliant, James, much food for thought here------------thank you! 

[Alan Ford]

Shadow only on his right side, while the left side of his neck is in direct sunlight along with his ear.
It's just his own head blocking his right side from the sun.
As that same man puts his head down the very tip top of his it's western side(perhaps) enters the shadow from the wall.
That's not too far from Wiegman's Lovelady.

Barry, do you mean not too far in location from Wiegman's Lovelady or not too far from what we see 'shadow'-wise on Lovelady?

[Alan Ford]

I concluded that there was nothing provably reliable to indicate PrayerPersonImage represented any male, which of course eliminated the viability of the LHO/PM Theory.

Non sequitur!!

A logical version of your sentence would read:

I concluded that there was nothing provably reliable to PROVE PrayerPersonImage represented any male, which of course, IF SAID CONCLUSION WERE INDEED SOUND, WOULD LEAVE the LHO/PM Theory AS YET UNPROVEN.

 

[Chris Davidson]

How far back?

[Larry Trotter]

Non sequitur!!

A logical version of your sentence would read:

I concluded that there was nothing provably reliable to PROVE PrayerPersonImage represented any male, which of course, IF SAID CONCLUSION WERE INDEED SOUND, WOULD LEAVE the LHO/PM Theory AS YET UNPROVEN.

 

You want to talk about LOGIC? Does your LOGIC embrace the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory? If so, find someone capable of believing your LOGIC.

I see nothing logical about claiming, against all testimony, by multiple witnesses, and after one-half century, all of a sudden, a PersonImage, aka PrayerPersonImage, on the TSBD Bldg entrance landing represents accused LoneGunmanAssassin LHO, although said PPI is in shadow and unidentifiable without additional information as filmed, from a hand-held motion picture camera as the camera person rode in/on a moving convertible automobile in the motorcade some vehicles behind the limousine occupied by PresidentJohnKennedySr and MrsKennedy, as well as GovernorJohnConnallyJr and MrsConnally, during or just after the fatal shooting of JFK Sr, and critical wounding of JBC Jr.

Not only do I conclude there to be nothing provably reliable as proof, I maintain my conclusion that there is nothing provably reliable 'indicative' that PPI represents any male. Why would "soundness' be required to leave any theory unproven?

Your statement, IF SAID CONCLUSION WERE INDEED SOUND, WOULD LEAVE the LHO/PM Theory AS YET UNPROVEN", will NOT effect my conclusion that PrayerWomanImage quite likely represents MsSarahDeanStanton.

[Alan Ford]

How far back?

According to James and Andrej's respective simulations,
------------the lintel shadow puts Frazier front of landing.



If James & Andrej are right (and they seem to be) Billy Lovelady cannot be on the landing in Wiegman or his face would be half-shaded. Lovelady, at 5'8.5", is NOT a full head smaller than Frazier at ~6'!:



It would be outstanding if someone could produce a scaled Wiegman-to-Darnell gif so that we could make a height comparison of
UPPER LOVELADY (in Wiegman) & PRAYER MAN (in Darnell)!

i.e. something a bit more SOPHISTICATED than this crude effort of mine!



 

[Chris Davidson]

Scale four people on west side steps using the later Weigman frame.
Clone Lovelady from later frame onto earlier frame.
Align the face of PrayerPerson in Weigman/Darnell.
Use a digital densitometer to measure Prayerperson's forehead/right forearm in early Weigman frame.

[Alan Ford]

Scale four people on west side steps using the later Weigman frame.
Clone Lovelady from later frame onto earlier frame.
Align the face of PrayerPerson in Weigman/Darnell.
Use a digital densitometer to measure Prayerperson's forehead/right forearm in early Weigman frame.

Cloned Lovelady is too high in Darnell, Chris-----compare heights of glass doorway's vertical aluminium strip!