Prayer Man

Vinny wrote:As for Frazier - one of his biggest allies took him to task over a particular new claim in his book - no - not one he has presented at conferences or anywhere else - his response? You gotta give the readers what they want!

 Was that the stuff about the man with the gun, Greg?

barto wrote:Oswald's outline visible for the first time. Terrible quality and the pixelation does funny things with his neckline, face etc but once again he ain't no 350lbs heffer wearing a wig for professional reasons either.
Doyle must be foaming at the mouth once again. It is not easy being outclassed and outgunned time and time again....
It is not easy being a delusional CTer twat.

Keep trying Doyle maybe one day......

JFK_FNG wrote:

barto wrote:Oswald's outline visible for the first time. Terrible quality and the pixelation does funny things with his neckline, face etc but once again he ain't no 350lbs heffer wearing a wig for professional reasons either.
Doyle must be foaming at the mouth once again. It is not easy being outclassed and outgunned time and time again....
It is not easy being a delusional CTer twat.

Keep trying Doyle maybe one day......

What’s the deal with this neckline business - cause if these were the only frames I’d ever seen of Darnell I’d honestly guess I was looking a woman. Yes I know the quality is shit and that it’s just a blurry image etc. etc., but it seems pretty questionable to advocate for PM as Oswald based on the distinctly Oswaldian hairline in one frame while stating that the distinctly rounded neckline in another frame is just a pixelation artifact, IMO.

AS IF THERE IS NO PIXELATION.
WHICH FRAME IS YOUR WOMAN IN?


I SEE;

A) LEATHERFACE





B) KID FROM MASK


C) ET


D) ALF



NONE APPEAR FEMALE AS THAT IS INDETERMINENT FROM THE IMAGES.

YOU SAY THAT THE HAIRLINE DOESNT MATCH THE OTHER PM IMAGES... DUH ITS PIXELATED THEREFORE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT USE.
IT IS OKAY TO DETERMINE BODY SHAPE FROM THE FRAMES AS THAT PORTION IS NOT PIXELATED OR DISTORTED.
COMPARE THE BODY VS FACIAL ACROSS THE SIX FRAMES... DOES THE BODY GROW EXTRA LIMBS OR CHANGE DRAMATICALLY.
NO.


If skin tone can spread out so much and so evenly during the digitization process across PM’s upper chest,

ARE YOU SAYIN LEE IS TOPLESS
OR HAS CHEST SHOWING????
WHAT IMAGE HAS THIS?

PM WEARS A WORK SHIRT WITH A TSHIRT UNDER IT. WHAT CHESTICLES ARE VISIBLE?


surely it could do the same thing on PM’s head. Also, the hairline in these frames does not appear to be receding very far, and I don’t see any features that look particularly masculine to me at all. 


THEN GET A BETTER IMAGE... SHEESH THISCIS FOR BODY PORTIONS NOT FACIAL RECOGNITION FFS!


I want PM to be Oswald as much as anyone,

SOUNDS DOUBTFUL.

and I think the evidence suggesting that Oswald was by the front entrance around the time of the shots is very compelling,

COMPELLING? ITS IN BLACK AND WHITE, BOTH ON FILM AND IN DOCUMENTS...

but where do we draw the line with image interpretation?

THE IMAGE ITSELF

What determines whether or not a particular aggregate of pixels represents an actual feature vs. Rorschach test bullshit?


THE IMAGE AND SURROUNDING FRAMES TELL YOU THAT INFORMATION.

How clear does a frame need to be before it provides a reasonable basis for questioning PM’s identity without getting criticized for making a simple observation? 

WHEN THE IMAGE SUPPORTS THE CLAIM


I think that obtaining better scans of Darnell and Weigman should be the number one priority of the JFKA research community, and I’ll support that effort in any way I can - but this forum could really use a rational dissenting opinion on PM every now and then.

GREAT GO FIND ONE. 

I think the questions I’ve asked here are pretty rational, so hopefully someone will attempt to answer them. 


NO. YOU ARE USING BAD IMAGES TO MAKE A BAD CASE FOR PM.

In a nutshell, my question is this: why is it acceptable to use the apparently receding hairline in one blurry frame of Darnell to support the notion that PM is Oswald while rejecting equally apparent features in other frames that support a non-Oswald identification?


BECAUSE THAT FRAME IS NOT BLURRY ITS RELATIVELY SHARP COMPARITIVELY.
YOU ARE USING THE BLURRY ONES TO TRY TO MAKE A False equivalence.

BEING OBJECTIVE RATHER THAN SUBJECTIVE HELPS.
CHEERS!
ED

greg_parker wrote:You beat me to it, Ed. It is the quality of the images that makes the difference. The Darnell frame used according to Mick, is actually pretty sharp.

But I do agree with Tom that anyone looking at those images above is more than likely going to "see" what appears to be a female. We know better because we know these are poorer quality images than those used by Barto and others. I would go so far as to say, much poorer.

I also agree with Tom that we could be helped by honest questions and rational dissent  It is not that we bar either of those. The problem, Tom is that what we get in opposition, is lunacy, trolling, or agenda-driven bullshit. 

In fact, I cannot think of any opposition to this that does not fit one of those categories.  That is not being overly dramatic or exaggerating.  

Your questions I am certain were honest, but do make better sense as ones made from the Devil's Advocate viewpoint. It is a preview of what we are going to see more and more of on other forums. 

Even as I type, I am sure Mr Doyle will be posting that we now adnit it is a female.

JFK_FNG wrote:

greg_parker wrote:You beat me to it, Ed. It is the quality of the images that makes the difference. The Darnell frame used according to Mick, is actually pretty sharp.

But I do agree with Tom that anyone looking at those images above is more than likely going to "see" what appears to be a female. We know better because we know these are poorer quality images than those used by Barto and others. I would go so far as to say, much poorer.

I also agree with Tom that we could be helped by honest questions and rational dissent  It is not that we bar either of those. The problem, Tom is that what we get in opposition, is lunacy, trolling, or agenda-driven bullshit. 

In fact, I cannot think of any opposition to this that does not fit one of those categories.  That is not being overly dramatic or exaggerating.  

Your questions I am certain were honest, but do make better sense as ones made from the Devil's Advocate viewpoint. It is a preview of what we are going to see more and more of on other forums. 

Even as I type, I am sure Mr Doyle will be posting that we now adnit it is a female.

Thank you Greg. I guess since these are “new” images posted by Barto I thought they were of equal or greater quality than the “classic” PM frame that shows the receding hairline - and I honestly can’t tell much of a difference just by looking at them on my computer, which could be my cracked screen’s fault. 

My suggestion would be to a create high-res comparison of the two frames/versions and address the scoop neck issue directly. As you know, the scoop was allegedly corroborated by some guy who viewed the 6FM digital scan of Darnell, so it might be a tough sell to say the scoop is an artifact but the receding hairline is legit without some way to quantify and/or demonstrate a difference in scan quality. Basically my point is I’m not the only one who won’t be able to tell, especially those viewing on mobile or with literally broken computer screens like me. 

I have no agenda, support PM, and loudly advocate for better scans and attempt to debunk bullshit whenever the topic comes up, so you can understand my advance frustration with some of the criticism I knew I’d get for asking a reasonable question - and thanks for providing an explanation. It is literally my job to scrutinize shit as much as humanly possible and find flaws in arguments, so if I’m skeptical about something I won’t hesitate to ask - but there’s never any ulterior motive or any crap like that. I just want to know. Thanks again for explaining.

barto wrote:If that is NOT pasted on then I'd say that is the clearest photo of Oswald being Prayer Man Mick.