Prayer Man with a rounded collar.

I first saw this a few years ago and thought it was an image altered by someone in Duncan's crowd to poke fun at those who support Prayer Man as a man. Note the feminine collar.

But yesterday a guy name Alan Ford posted it on EF (here) and said that Bart Kamp published it "a while back." Then he claimed that a James Hackerott had predicted years earlier that the neckline on PM would prove to be a problem for Prayer Man supporters. (He had seen the copy of Darnell frames at the Sixth Floor Museum.)

What do you guys think about this?

The image AF has selected is of course one out of the full sequence of PM images included in the series of frames that is the Darnell film. AF has selected a frame that occurred when Darnell was rapidly panning back to the left after having panned right in following Baker's run. If one examines and compares the full set of frames in Darnell, one can see that the faster the camera pans, the more blurred and lesser exposed all of the objects and individuals are compared to the several frames in Darnell where the camera slows the pan to the right and changes direction to pan back to the left. In those frames the detail and exposure is far superior to the fast pan frames. The PM image in AF's published image is a distortion of PM as well as all the other people. Check BWF's image. He is unrecognizable yet he's clear as a bell in the better frames. Does the blurred image mean that is actually what BWF looks like? Of course not. To see the stark differences refer to Bart's site at prayer-man.com, click "camera'' on the upper menu strip, then click James Glen Darnell. Scroll down. You will find two frames from Darnell. One is distorted like AF's is. Bart has used it to show Sara Stanton's location. The other frame is far clearer and appears above the blurry one. In the clearer frame one can easily identify BWF and one can also see the LHO stance, posture, and male hair line of PM. AF is strutting around like a rooster on a pile of dung crowing that he has destroyed PM and wants to send the gullible on a wild goose chase. The paper bag woman is interesting and puzzling, but utterly separate from PM as LHO. PM is LHO. Just ask his widow.

Hey Jake,

Thanks for spending the time explaining that. Makes a lot of sense.

Do you mind if I quote your explanation on the EF forum?

I guess these are the ones you meant Jake?

PM has something to say


Looks like Serbian, which I don't speak. But according to Google Translate. he is saying "Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"

Wonder why he is speaking in Serbian?  Regardless, it is a dose of reality as welcome as the Freo Doctor on a stinking hot day. 

I would only add that we have always said we are prepared for it not being Oswald. Chances of that very very low, but still a possibility - though that possibility is even lower if you are claiming it is a female. Sarah Sanders for example was a fair dinkum Sheila - defo not gender fluid - she had mobs of hair and a bosom. 

It really is hard to take the claims of anyone seriously when one of the claims is that the space between shadows under the mailbox is an actual object when all it is is the white wall behind the mailbox.



Alan Ford: "There's something on the ground in front of the west mailbox, going up as high as the words 'U.S. MAIL'. Perhaps it belongs to the lady, and she has placed it down to pick up the long paper sack?"

Perhaps you need new glasses?

And a history lesson.

PM has zero to do with any controversy over the Altgen6 photo. 

It grew out of a desire of Sean Murphy to find photographic evidence to support my research into Oswald's alibi - research that began over 20 years ago - after reading Baker's affidavit. The PM figure is the cherry on the growing pile of documentary evidence added to in no small measure by such luminaries as Barto and Ed LeDoux.

And lastly -- how fucking long is that alleged sack? Looks long enough to hold a fucking bazooka. 

sandylarsen wrote:Hey Jake,

Thanks for spending the time explaining that. Makes a lot of sense.

Do you mind if I quote your explanation on the EF forum?

You're welcome Sandy. I don't mind you quoting me.

Yes Vinny. Those are the ones. Thank you.

One hypothesis surrounding the apparent paper or fabric by the mailbox puzzle that is certainly as feasible as any offered by AF is based on the fact that there was street work. Two barrier stands, perpendicular to each other with one on the sidewalk, one on the street were there. One can also see what appears to be construction materials. It looks as though there could be plywood and/or fabric of some kind over the curb and onto the street. It might have been there to protect some concrete work beneath it. I don't know if the street itself was concrete, but the curb, sidewalk, and perhaps a curb gutter were. If there was curing concrete formed as a curb gutter, then the fact that it was rainy all morning could have caused the need to put down some burlap or canvas curing blankets, in strips perhaps along with some plywood to hold it in place over the gutter. There may also have been the need to add a means of diverting water from the existing upstream gutter to flow out into the street and around the new work. This all could have involved a quick and dirty assembly of plywood, 2x4's, curing blankets, and even a some sandbags. 

During the parade and subsequent chaos these materials could have been moved by the people who wanted to stand along the curb by the street to watch the presidential parade. They may have simply moved some of the materials back to the mailboxes behind them. The person in Darnel might have been simply pulling a strip of curing blanket out of their way after it was in some way impeding his or her walking on the sidewalk.

In response to AR: Why do you choose to ignore the subsequent frames in Darnel where the image in question transforms into the image recognizable as LHO? You take your analysis to the point of supporting your hypothesis, then stop when the evidence changes to point in a different direction. Even if blur is not the cause (I must admit that I thought the image occurred later in Darnell), that does not change the fact that as more light strikes the figure due to the figure changing position, it looks more like Oswald's collar than it does a rounded neckline.

Alan Ford isn't as dumb as some of you guy's think he is. That white vertical thing under the mailbox actually covers up part of the mailbox, and therefore isn't simply light between two shadows:



And he's making me look like a fool as I try to defend Prayer Man. He claims that the Darnell frame that shows a woman's collar 1) comes from a frame that is in Bart's possession and was posted by him; and 2) that frame is a special one from a higher quality copy than any other available to us; and 3) that's the only frame we/Bart has from that high quality copy of Darnell... just that one. In addition he claims that a guy by the name of James Hackerott studied the copy of Darnell at the Sixth Floor Museum and he says that all the frames are clear (like the one Bart has) and all the PMs on the frames have the woman's collar.

Check our exchange out if you want. It starts on this page:
     https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29771-those-front-steps/page/4/

I do not believe this changes the relevance of PM one bit. We should still seek to learn exactly who that is to the exclusion of everyone else accounted for from the TSBD.

BC_II wrote:I do not believe this changes the relevance of PM one bit. We should still seek to learn exactly who that is to the exclusion of everyone else accounted for from the TSBD.

Bullshit should never change the relevance of it.

sandylarsen wrote:Alan Ford isn't as dumb as some of you guy's think he is. That white vertical thing under the mailbox actually covers up part of the mailbox, and therefore isn't simply light between two shadows:



And he's making me look like a fool as I try to defend Prayer Man. He claims that the Darnell frame that shows a woman's collar 1) comes from a frame that is in Bart's possession and was posted by him; and 2) that frame is a special one from a higher quality copy than any other available to us; and 3) that's the only frame we/Bart has from that high quality copy of Darnell... just that one. In addition he claims that a guy by the name of James Hackerott studied the copy of Darnell at the Sixth Floor Museum and he says that all the frames are clear (like the one Bart has) and all the PMs on the frames have the woman's collar.

Check our exchange out if you want. It starts on this page:
     https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29771-those-front-steps/page/4/

Looks like it is real only because of the box around the imaginary object. It is an illusion on a blurry photo.

To be an actual object, it has to be in the exact same spot as the light between the shadows and must be the same width. If you want to buy into that, be my guest.

Jake_Sykes wrote:In response to AR: Why do you choose to ignore the subsequent frames in Darnel where the image in question transforms into the image recognizable as LHO? You take your analysis to the point of supporting your hypothesis, then stop when the evidence changes to point in a different direction. Even if blur is not the cause (I must admit that I thought the image occurred later in Darnell), that does not change the fact that as more light strikes the figure due to the figure changing position, it looks more like Oswald's collar than it does a rounded neckline.

The most salient point you made (imo) is that Buell is distorted in this frame, but is clearly recognizable in other frames. 

Mr. Ford is betting the farm on the word of James Hackerott. Did James note in those clearer frames, the presence of a bosom? Big hair? 300 pound girth? 180 pound girth? Glasses? Wigs? Purses? Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in  gnarled hands rifling through a purse? Anything at all that might indicate a female book company employee dressed appropriately for work.

Here is a better representation of what they claim is there. A 300 pound bald guy in a muumuu.  



Case closed.PM was Homer Simpson. This is him practicing his PM poses at home before making his appearance on the steps.

greg_parker wrote:

sandylarsen wrote:Alan Ford isn't as dumb as some of you guy's think he is. That white vertical thing under the mailbox actually covers up part of the mailbox, and therefore isn't simply light between two shadows:



And he's making me look like a fool as I try to defend Prayer Man. He claims that the Darnell frame that shows a woman's collar 1) comes from a frame that is in Bart's possession and was posted by him; and 2) that frame is a special one from a higher quality copy than any other available to us; and 3) that's the only frame we/Bart has from that high quality copy of Darnell... just that one. In addition he claims that a guy by the name of James Hackerott studied the copy of Darnell at the Sixth Floor Museum and he says that all the frames are clear (like the one Bart has) and all the PMs on the frames have the woman's collar.

Check our exchange out if you want. It starts on this page:
     https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29771-those-front-steps/page/4/

The object looks like it is only because of the box around the imaginary object. It is an illusion on a blurry photo.

To be an actual object, it it has to be in the exact same spot as the light between the shadows and must be the same width. If you want to buy into that, be my guest.

"Alan Ford isn't as dumb as some of you guy's think he is." 

Few of us are really as dumb as others think we are, or as smart as we ourselves think.

Not sure it applies to sandgropers, though.



a literal and figurative displaced sandgroper searching for its buried brain.  


Look at the pic again and note that the shadow bleeds into the imaginary thing he has outlined as an object.

I see Oswald's T-shirt and its bright white collar,,, which I assume was even less distorted and shall I say "round" before the cops roughed him up and his clothing.

Billy Lovelady gif, enlarge on your screen and Watch as Billy leans out as Limo rounds the corner placing right hand over his eyes peering out at the limo. He drops his hand, and then leans back, turns to his right and then his head turns to the right and behind him twice, as if speaking to someone behind him and then back to front. Billy was either looking back at or conversing with PM.
TSBD entrance

https://gifyu.com/image/S8sXM


Besides that Billy moved.
Billy not just moved a bit... Billy moved to the other side of the railing,,, between time the limo passes the entrance and Weigman filmed, Billy moved from shaded side of railing to sunny side, or from left side of the entrance past PM up around the railing and over to the right side. He is now next to the ladies.


There are then two documented instances where Billy had either interacted with or went by PM.
That or Billy jumped the railing which no one mentioned.

Good Luck Mr. Ford
Cheers, Ed

Those are poor quality or overly adjusted images.
Why have a conversation about something that isn't there. Just check any photo of the mailbox at that time.
I've got some high quality ones that actually show debris and rubble under it. Like part of the building has always been falling down. Maybe it fell on bonnie williams too, but it's a lot of concrete type rubble there underneath the mailbox. But there certainly was nothing around or front of it.

So far I see nothing that indicates that it is not Oswald.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:


Those are poor quality or overly adjusted images.
Why have a conversation about something that isn't there. Just check any photo of the mailbox at that time.
I've got some high quality ones that actually show debris and rubble under it. Like part of the building has always been falling down. Maybe it fell on bonnie williams too, but it's a lot of concrete type rubble there underneath the mailbox. But there certainly was nothing around or front of it.

This issue came up on Duncan MacRae's forum some time back.

As you say, the footage has been excessively adjusted in brightness/contrast. Certain stills that were reproduced on that forum originate from versions of Darnell that have undergone some form of filtering.

The 'rounded collar' only appears on one frame and - given the presence of artifacts elsewhere in the image - has to be viewed as an anomaly.

Imho Redfern has nailed it.

Armstrong knows I certainly ain't no photo analyst , but the frame just looks so phoney. Where has Prayerman's white T shirt/ undershirt gone? It's visible in all the other frames/ stills- bar this one.

Given the dubious provenance ( anything emerging from t, or remotely connected with he workshop of Le Stinkee must be subjected to the most stringent examination)and , bearing in mind Le Stinkee's admitted penchant for " pranks', who can forget the so called " woman's face " abomination? I'm inclined to treat this latest abhorrence with extreme caution 

Plus (and I'm not questioning Chris's ethics or motives) ive lost whatever meagre respect I had for Davidson's photographic ability. Whatever talent he may once have possessed,  imho he's pissed it all away,  wasting his time on frivolous alterationist bullshit -anyone in the mood for looking at a gif of a bush?. Or how about 30+ pages of equations that would make even Mr Noseybonk's bonk of a nose do cartwheels across the paisley patterned psychedelic sky....

I find Chris Davidson's work highly unconvincing. Sometimes I get the impression he himself has no real idea of what exactly it is he's attempting to " prove "  I just don't think he possesses unparalleled skills and a savant like insight,  enabling him to illustrate and illuminate that which has remained occluded for 60 years. 

Once you start meddling with an image then , imho , it looses whatever forensic value it may once have possessed. 

I'm sorry,  until and unless he provides his data and until his images have been successfully reproduced, I'm highly dubious. How come he and he alone can conjure up images that fly in the face of 60 years worth of photographs,  with well established , traceable provenance. 

This is yet another example of the malaise that erodes the cognitive faculties of so many otherwise intelligent people,  " oh some guy on a website has produced a highly manipulated photo with zero falsifiable data?...I'm sold, science schmience "

I would have absolutely no problem if Prayerman turned out not to be Oswald.  Ive always admitted there remains a lingering element of doubt. But,  in all good conscience,  shite like this doesn't wash.

The image has clearly been manipulated,( and badly imho) I'll leave it to those more qualified to underline the specifics. 

One highly suspect image and one " commentator" with a proven track record of supporting unconscionable crackpottery,  doesn't change a damn thing. 

To try and say the so called " scoop necked dress image " is a woman,  specifically Sarah Stanton,  is downright insulting. 

None of these intrepid self styled photo experts have managed to show us where poor old " Prayerwomans" reclusive Garbo like cleavage is,  maybe she was unlucky enough to have been cursed with invisible,  camera shy titties. 

I bet Alan Ford feels right at home in the palace of the 13 inches headed,  after all he's one of a pair of doppelgangers,  who obviously enjoys a healthy fantasy life, dreaming up a load of surrealistic gibberish

Redfern wrote:

Ed.Ledoux wrote:


Those are poor quality or overly adjusted images.
Why have a conversation about something that isn't there. Just check any photo of the mailbox at that time.
I've got some high quality ones that actually show debris and rubble under it. Like part of the building has always been falling down. Maybe it fell on bonnie williams too, but it's a lot of concrete type rubble there underneath the mailbox. But there certainly was nothing around or front of it.

This issue came up on Duncan MacRae's forum some time back.

As you say, the footage has been excessively adjusted in brightness/contrast. Certain stills that were reproduced on that forum originate from versions of Darnell that have undergone some form of filtering.

The 'rounded collar' only appears on one frame and - given the presence of artifacts elsewhere in the image - has to be viewed as an anomaly.

I'm in the non-expert category, but the "scoop neck" image looked to me from the very start that it had undergone some type of filtering to give it an artsy/pastel look. 

And others are right. The concrete has had something covering it to protect from rain while it cured. No fucking 3 meter bag, no object rested against the fucking mailbox.

Frazier was caught off guard  by Albert Rossi in Sep 2014. 

Albert reported the exchange as follows:

Hi all. I was at the AARC. I figured I might as well try it again, so I approached Buell with the Robin Unger enhancement of the Darnell frame on my laptop desktop, and asked him

1. if that was him

2. who the other figure was.

He admitted 1. was him.

He said 2. was not clear enough for certain identification, but it probably wasn't Lovelady because by that time he had taken off with Shelley for the RR yard.

Since then Frazier has been schooled in how to handle the question. 

But what this exchange leaves us with is two people who actually knew Lee Oswald.  Quite a different situation to any of us here, the Thirteen Inch Head Emporium, Stinky's Piss Palace or the Deep Foo - Marina and Buell - both confirming the figure is male - and in Marina's case confirming it is Lee - while Buell confirms that it someone who resembled Lee by ruling Lovelady out only by virtue of Lovelady being elsewhere. 

No doubt you may get a different result by using the anomalous frame where not even Buell could be easily identified.

alex_wilson wrote:

Plus (and I'm not questioning Chris's ethics or motives) ive lost whatever meagre respect I had for Davidson's photographic ability. Whatever talent he may once have possessed,  imho he's pissed it all away,  wasting his time on frivolous alterationist bullshit -anyone in the mood for looking at a gif of a bush?. Or how about 30+ pages of equations that would make even Mr Noseybonk's bonk of a nose do cartwheels across the paisley patterned psychedelic sky....

I find Chris Davidson's work highly unconvincing. Sometimes I get the impression he himself has no real idea of what exactly it is he's attempting to " prove "  I just don't think he possesses unparalleled skills and a savant like insight,  enabling him to illustrate and illuminate that which has remained occluded for 60 years. 

Once you start meddling with an image then , imho , it looses whatever forensic value it may once have possessed. 

I'm sorry,  until and unless he provides his data and until his images have been successfully reproduced, I'm highly dubious. How come he and he alone can conjure up images that fly in the face of 60 years worth of photographs,  with well established , traceable provenance. 

Did you miss the running woman's shadow under the mailbox or the paper bag? swaying.
Sometimes there is nothing to prove.
Were these frames scaled, stabilized and contrasted to bring forth a better viewing experience?
Was the existing scenario somehow altered after these changes were implemented?
You might think long and hard about questioning someone's abilities when you haven't a clue as to what is being presented.
So the image in Wiegman(which I brought forth from the shadows) and pointed out to Sean some 16 years ago is a figment of everyone's imagination because I used a shadow contrast filter to lighten that area. lol
Maybe someone else can explain to you what is in the Bell frames and its importance if that's your reference to bushes.
It's obvious you have no clue as to how an equation would be implemented to alter a film, but believe me, sooner rather than later, you'll be finding out.
It's called "thinking outside of the box"
So question whatever you desire about my work, but since you're pretty much clueless to what is being presented, I take your disposition with a grain of salt.