Andrej Stancak

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Andrej Stancak

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/02/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

912 profile views
  1. To illustrate the geometrical issues more clearly, I have prepared a comparison of a 3D model of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (with an open bolt though) in Figure 1. In the upper panel, the bottom rifle is laying perfectly flat, and the other two rifles are inclined at an increasing angle. The bottom panel is a top view of these three rifles. The total length of the rifle gets shorter with an increasing inclination angle while the length of the scope changes only a little. This is illustrated in Figure 2 in which the lengths of scopes were equalised in the flat and the most inclined rifle. As the result of matching the scope lengths in these two rifles the total lenght of the inclined rifle shrunk. Figure 1: Three rifles with different inclinations. Figure 2: The flat and the most inclined rifle from Figure 1 were equalised based on the length of scopes. Please note the locations of the tips of butts in both rifles.
  2. Alberto: did you also consider in your example the location of the scope on an inclined rifle? The center part of the rifle, the fulcrum, will remain relatively unchanged relative to a perfectly vertical (or horizontal) rifle, while the butt and the tip of the barrel would be either further away or closer relative to a perfectly vertical (horizontal rifle). Thus, the error will be observed in the most proximal and distal parts of the rifle. If you equalise the lengths of scopes of one and the same rifle taken from two different angles, the mismatch would be most apparent at the tips of the inclined rifle whilst the scope, since it is at the center of the rifle, will be comparatively unaffected.
  3. Chris, thanks for the challenge and for kindly answering it yourself. Frankly, I have studied neither Towner's nor Z-film to the great detail which would allow me to spot missing frames right away. Mr. Myers's synchronisations of various assassination films was a good achievement, and something we can start with. It is the time now to offer corrections to Mr. Myers's timelines which may contain flaws. The missing frames in Towner's film is obviously something which Mr. Myers has overlooked or underestimated. Good spot.
  4. Chris: sure, Mr. Myers correlated Wiegman's frame 15 with Z-frame 257, it was myself who assumed (based on Mr. Myers's timeline) that the frame Z-255 would be Wiegman's frame 14 or 15. Would you like to comment on the excised frames? Would it matter Zapruder's film or Wiegman's film or both? The temporal coordination of Altgens6 and Wiegman's film is essential for reconstruction of Prayer Man and other people in the doorway.
  5. Ray: the sketch by Mr. Fratini, even if based on a WC diagram, needs to be taken into account else there is a risk of committing a mistake. I would design the doorway model with three doorway depths: 3'6'', 4', and 4'3'', and check how each depth fares when the model is overlaid onto Altgens6, Wiegman's still, Darnell, and couple of other pictures. I am pretty sure that the correct depth lies between 3'6'' and 4'3'', inclusive.
  6. Hello Michael: in my analysis, it would be Prayer Man having one foot on the second step. Billy Lovelady most likely stood with both his feet on the top landing in Altgens6 picture and Wiegman's film. As per Bill Shelley, he testified (and others) to stand on the top landing. The man with a tie, in my view, was most likely Bill Shelley. The old photographs are often blurry and it makes it then difficult to read details of their bodies. This man did not wear a hat - it is the sharp transition between burned light tones and a very dark shadow which make sthe impression that this man wore a hat.
  7. This was the sketch I started with when building the model. However, I was not happy with the accuracy of the map because of the thickness of the lines, and some irregularities. If a line is thick, taking the measure from the edge of the line or the middle of the line already yields an error. The steps do not look like being equal, and the small recess at the second step is not accurate either. The proportions of the three partitions of the glass door do not correspond to real proportions, in my opinion. Yet, it is a useful sketch and a good indication for also testing the model with the depth of 4'3''.
  8. Thanks, Ray, your effort is much appreciated.
  9. Alistair: the manikin I used back then when this version of the doorway model was made could not be adjusted accurately. This is the reason for employing Poser11 in the current work as only this program allows for fine modelling of every subtle detail of Prayer Man's posture, including the arms.
  10. The top landing was likely several inches deeper than 3'. The reason is that the three parts of glass door were divided roughly but not perfectly as thirds of the 3.51 m (real world measure) or 3.56 m (my estimate). Although the middle part was slightly narrower than 117 cm (an ideal third of 3.51 m), it was certainly wider than 91.4 cm (3'). Therefore, the depth of the doorway had to be slightly larger than 3' to accommodate the width of a fully open door. This is how I came to 108 cm (~3'6'') . Of course, it is still only an estimate, and I would be happy for having a figure based on some direct measurement of the original "1963" doorway. The small difference of 2'' between the model and the real world measure will be accommodated in the next revision of the model.
  11. Thanks, Mr. Tommy, for both correcting my clumsy English and sharing with us your insights. However: leaning forwards is not what mammals, including humans, would do in response to a startling event, such as a gun shot. The startle reaction is a primitive neural response aimed to stabilise the head upon an impact from the front. It is, therefore, associated with contractions of back and neck muscles which prevents an animal or human to fall back. You may have been thinking of an orienting response, a primitive neural response to novel stimuli, which aims to amplify the sensory input. Turning head towards the source of a novel stimulus, dilation of pupils, adjusting earlobes (e.g., in cats), and tuning the tension of tiny muscles in the ear which increase the sensitivity to sounds are all components of orienting response.
  12. The current depth of the doorway does not match the one of the 1963 doorway because the door was changed and pushed back into the building during the major refurbishment works. This has extended the depth of the top platform, and the current measurement of the depth does not apply to historic photographs.
  13. In this Wiegman's frame, Carl Jones's angle of vision appears to be consistent with his Altgens6 angle of vision. The enlarged and mildly processed view of Carl Jones (below) shows that he was actually gazing towards Houston Street in this frame. Could this be the Wiegman's candidate frame for Altgens6? I have checked Robert Groden's version of Wiegman's film, and it is actually frame 1 of the first sequence in which the film shows the depository doorway. It occurs, therefore, sooner than frame 14 or 15 which would match Z255 (Altgens6) according to Mr. Myers. Should Carl Jones maintain his gaze neither west nor east (neutral straight) as in frame 14/15, Altgens6 would not show him looking sharp east as it does. This is illustrated with a 3D simulation in which Carl Jones in the left panel stands and views straight as in W-14. The resulting figure of Carl Jones after rotating the doorway in Altgens6 perspective is shown in the right panel. Carl Jones: W-Frame 14 The same after rotating to Altgens6 view
  14. Tommy: This is one one of the most important points in the reconstruction of the events occurring in the doorway during the time of assassination. Would you not mind posting the Wiegman's frame which you think would be the one corresponding to Altgens6? Mr. Dale Myers reconstructed the time axes of different films, and assumed it was Wiegman's frame 14/15 which matched with Altgens6. However, I doubt Myers's time reconstruction at this particular point for a very simple reason: we see Carl Jones viewing east in Altgens6 but to the west in Wiegman's frame 14 or 15. Of course, the image quality of Groden's version of Wiegman's film available to me is very poor to determine the Mr. Jones's gaze axis. Anyway, I wonder what are the opinions of forum members about Carl Jones viewing towards the Tripple Underpass in frame 14/15 and eastwards in Altgens6. Mr. Dale K. Myers's reconstruction of Wiegman/Zapruder time alignement can be found in his document "Secret of Homicide...", page 114, downloadable at:
  15. Robin: I appreciate your posts. It is possible to stand close to the front edge of the top platform and yet to have only the object held in the right hand exposed to the sun light. Your recent doorway images with a shaded western wall actually illustrate well that Prayer Man's right elbow was about at the level of the front edge of the top platform. It is all just-just about Prayer Man's location, and this is the reason for people arguing a lot about his exact location. We speak about an inch of two deciding about the plausibility of each alternative. As far as the missing proof for one-foot-down-one-foot-up hypothesis is concerned, a reasonable way forwards is to ask about Prayer Man' left leg. The hypothesis of one-foot-down-one-foot-up assumes that Prayer Man's left leg was bent in the knee joint and covering objects in the background. The object in the background is the heater. I see a smaller portion of the heater than expected in early Darnell's frames before the ladies ascended the steps far enough to cover what could be Prayer Man's left leg. I made a full analysis including overlays of the model and an early Darnell's still during Christmas break but need to check if I have the files on this or my other laptop. I was able to conclude that the grey blob where Prayer Man's left leg could be actually was his left leg. This the Darnell's still I have in mind: And this is a 3D reconstruction of a possible Prayer Man's stance: Am I mistaken in my recall of you saying in some of your past posts that Prayer Man stood in the front part of the top platform? Naturally, researchers are fully entitled to change their minds.