Jump to content
The Education Forum
Andrej Stancak

Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Sanders, where are you?

Recommended Posts

Here is something I noticed while looking at Robin Unger's Hughes frame.  Maybe he can sharpen and clear these frames from Hughes.

Is this Oswald or Lovelady and does this have any relevance for the location of either?  It looks like another Doorway Man controversy.

hughes-comparison-lovelady.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John:

this should be Billy Lovelady. Not only because it would be unlikely for Oswald to be at this place at that point of time but also because of the man's hairline. I am pretty familiar with both Lee Oswald's and Billy Lovelady's hairline after spending days modelling their heads. Here is Billy Lovelady's head with its 3D model. 

lovelady_mug.jpg

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrej,

Once again the photography betrays one.  The Hughes frames are not detailed enough to say that this is Lovelady positively or, Oswald positively.  I will explain what I mean in just a second. 

Great work in your modeling.  Good work in getting the essential outline details of Billy Lovelady in your model.

I agree that Oswald should not be there at this time.  This is about 5 minutes, possibly more, after the assassination.  Hughes has had time to come off of Main St. and wonder into the railroad yards and then onto Elm to take these frames. 

The problem is as I see it in your photos Lovelady is wearing his striped short sleeve shirt.  Lovelady said this is what he wore that day.  The figure in the Hughes frame is wearing what appears to be a solid shirt reminiscent of the shirt worn by Doorway Man in Altgens 6.  Also, the shirt appears to be open showing his T-shirt as is shown in Altgens.

To me, one frame looks like Oswald and the other looks like Lovelady. 

I'll go back and try to find a frame showing the shirt and T-shirt in more detail. 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrej,

Robin Unger has posted excellent visuals that I think widen the problem.  If I am reading Robin correctly, please correct if not, he is saying Lovelady was wearing a different shirt.  So, a brown shirt like Oswalds, as in Altgens 6, a short sleeved striped shirt as in your models, and a checkered patternted shirt shown in Robins.  Some claim the shirt shown in Robins visuals is the same as in Altgen 6.  Hence, it is Lovelady not Oswald.

I think this has been discussed several times without resolution.

Another difference I noted is that Lovelady has a pronounced bald spot and Oswald does not.  There is so much alteration, in my analysis of Dealey Plaza, it is hard to tell whether Loveladys bald spot has been touched up or not.  I suspect it is the difference in lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John:

thanks for your detailed comments. Billy Lovelady had a balding spot on his head, however, it is not seen in my model in the views provided. The shirt is an evergreen problem. I think it is always the same shirt, a plaid one, reddish-brown, and with open buttons except maybe the lowest few buttons. The man emerging from the shadows in Hughes (the early part with motorcade in front of the building) and the one in Altgens are one and the same person. He might have buttoned his shirt later on, e.g. when he was brought to the police station. He also seemed to need a good shave. I did not assume a shirt with vertical strips - I only used the FBI picture to model Lovelady's head and hairline, not the shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrej,

Claim and counter-claim is the saga of Dealey Plaza.  Robin Unger has provided more information high lighting the notion.  The red patterned shirt is not the same color as Oswald's brown shirt.  Which, if you follow the story Oswald picked up after he left the TSBD and went back to his apartment and changed clothes.  Supposedly, he was wearing a white t-shirt at the TSBD and some kind of jacket.  There is an argument there also.

Others say that the short sleeve striped shirt that Lovelady wore in the Feb, 9, 1964 FBI photo is what he said he wore that day.  Robin says not.  He was wearing the red patterned shirt shown.  Many have tried to match that shirt to the Oswald / Lovelady figure in Altgens 6.  To me it is not a good match.  Oswald's shirt:

lhoshirt2.jpg

This version of Altgens 6 seems to show a shirt closer to Unger's version.

GrodenAnnot-one-half14.jpg

This version looks more like Oswald's shirt.  It looks like the shirt Oswald wore at the police station and worn the same way.  But, if his story is correct about changing clothes then it's not Oswald.  It's part of the reason I say the Oswald / Lovelady figure in Altgens 6  is not really identifiable.  I see a Lovelady face mask (photo shot of Lovelady's head) placed on the figure there who could be Oswald except for the shirt. 

altgens-6-crop-oswald-figure-shirt.jpg

Claim and counter-claim is the saga of Dealey Plaza as found in the records of the assassination.   And, then you have this from John Martin which some people can't see.

martin-oswald-camera-1-flash-a.jpg

One would think this is Howard Brennan sitting on the retaining wall but, he is sitting in the wrong place.

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John:

Lee Oswald did not wear the dark red-brown shirt CE150  in the morning and just after noon on that fateful Friday. He changed his shirt and slacks. In the morning, he wore a light red, button-down collar shirt CE151. That shirt if converted to into grey scale gives the grey appearance of Prayer Man's shirt in Darnell. The point is that the FBI pinned the wrong shirt to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by allegedly finding few fibres on the butt of the rifle which matched the darker CE150. The dark shirt could not be the source of the fibres found on the butt because Lee changed his shirts at his rooming house. The best analysis of the shirt problem. to the best of my knowledge, was provided by Pat Speer (patspeer.com, Chapter 4b) who also needs to be credited for obtaining from NARA the coloured picture of CE151 in 2016. The best proof of CE151 being worn by Lee in the morning are Lee's own statements reproduced by his interrogators and Buell Wesley Frazier's statement recorded by the FBI.

43612921_2162001787144391_56057223590392

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrej,

Thanks.  Now 4 shirts in the argument.  I have never seen CE 151 or heard of it in various arguments I have read.  That's so typical of the Dealey Plaza story that the threads from one shirt CE 150 do not match the shirt really worn at the TSBD.  A real cluster______ as Clint Eastwood would say.  But, of course that word describes much of the evidence of the assassination.

It may be the answer to one of the questions I have about Prayer Man on Elm St. in the John Martin film.  Why a red shirt?  In a poor quality color film with enhancements a light red maybe seen as a red shirt. 

Thanks again for trying to straighten out whose who at the TSBD. 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the relevant statements speaking strongly in favor of a light-red button-down shirt being worn by Lee during the time of shooting:

Cpt. Will Fritz's notes, dated 23rd November 1963: “Says 11-22-63 rode bus/got trans same out of pocket…Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clotheslong sleeve red sh + gray tr.” (retrieved from https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=7&tab=page)

Cpt. Will Fritz's narrative  "Interrogations of Lee Harvey Oswald": “During this conversation he told me he reached his home by cab and changed both his shirt and trousers before going to the show” (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=6&tab=page).

Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley (CD87 p375).: “He said he went home, changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a drawer. This was a red shirt, and he put it in his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having a button down collar and of reddish color. The trousers were grey colored.” ("First interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald", retrieved from http://www.prayer-man.com/secret-service/thomas-j-kelley/#lightbox[group]/0/ ).

FBI agent James Bookhout:  "stated that after arriving at his apartment he changed his shirt and trousers, because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved shirt with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers"  (Commission Document 5, page 100, retrieved from https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=103&tab=page).

Special Agents Bardwell Odum and Gibbon McNeely interviewed Buell Wesley Frazier and recorded the following: "As Frazier recalls, Oswald was wearing a reddish shirt and a gray jacket, waist length." (WCH vol. 24, 408-410, retrieved from https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0213b.htm).

Lee Oswald's shirt is an essential point in context of Prayer Man problem as the dark brown shirt CE150 would not be compatible with Prayer Man's clothing.  In contrast, the light red shirt CE151 not only fits Prayer Man's shirt also burries any possibility of erroneously attributing  Lee' shirt to Lovelady (Altgens6).

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It is time to set few things straight concerning Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Stanton as the problem of their whereabouts is grossly misinterpreted by one of our present and one of past Forum member.  Unfortunately, these misinterpretations also involve personal and derogatory statements about my person and my work which, fortunately, are not ventilated here. It is not the disagreement of opinions but the total lack of respect to other fellow researcher's work which occurs to me as a character failure.

I have posted the figure of a person in Darnell still, whom I was initially not completely certain who that person was, on November 10, 2017 on this Forum, in the thread "Oswald leaving the TSBD?". The person stands in the eastern section of the doorway, in the shadow, meaning close to the glass door. Here is the initial picture:

detailedframes.jpg?w=768&h=384

I then added the finding of a shape between Lovelady’s and Shelley’s heads which I first spotted in 2015, and went through different interpretations of what that shape might have been, some of them wrong, some maybe not. That oval shape and the discussion on both Mrs. Sanders and Stanton were posted in my blog article on https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ on January 31, 2018. This article contains two versions of Altgens6, one which I purchased from the Associated Press and the other being enhanced version of Atgens6 produced by Robert Groden. In both versions of Altgens6 (and in any other good-quality version of Altgens6), a light semi-oval object is seen behind Shelley’s head and aligns with Lovelady’s left cheek. This object is too large to be a photographic artefact. An explanation that this object was due to a reflection from the back of Shelley’s head is completely unrealistic and physically impossible as dark hair causes no light reflections into a plain space.

Here is the object of interest which I believe is a partial human face (Robert Groden's version of Altgens6):

altgens_sanders_groden.jpg?w=768&h=929

 

I would like to point to the following:

1.      Mrs. Sanders stands in the eastern section of the Doorway and she is short. Please note that the top of her head reaches only to the shoulders of Mr. Shelley, the same man which is seen at this central spot on the top landing in Altgens6. I have estimated her body height to 5' or 5'1''.

2.      In contrast, the oval object in Altgens6 is well above Shelley's shoulder level and it therefore belongs to a person who is much taller than Mrs. Sanders standing in the eastern part of the doorway. This partial face, I assume based on elimination of potential candidates, belongs to Mrs. Stanton who indeed herself said that she was in the vicinity of Frazier, Lovelady, Shelley and Sanders. I have estimated, back then in January 2018, that this person was 5’4’’ without knowing that the true height of Mrs. Stanton was 5’6’’ – this information surfaced only half a year later.

3.      There was no possibility for the short Mrs. Sanders to cause the semi-oval object seen between Lovelady and Shelley. She was covered by Mr. Shelley’s and Lovelady's bodies completely. I have tested this possibility by placing into Altgens6 scene the figure of Mrs. Sanders at her spot in Darnell, and her figure was  indeed completely covered by Shelley's and Lovelady's bodies.

4.      It is important to point out that there was enough space for Mrs. Stanton to stand behind Lovelady as she stood on the top landing. In contrast, Billy Lovelady stood on the second step (in spite of his description in his testimony for the Warren Commission). If you do not trust my 3D reconstruction shown here, please employ simple reasoning. The lower aspect of Lovelady’s chin is below the lower aspect of Shelley’s chin. This could not be if both man were on the same platform because Shelley was shorter than Lovelady.

In the figure below, (A) shows Billy Lovelady if he stood on the top landing. He would appear too tall relative to Bill Shelley. (B) is correct. This analysis is the reconstruction of all doorway occupants lest Mrs. Stanton. (C) shows an overlay of the 3D model and Altgens6. It serves as a verification of my analysis. If all doorway features and all doorway occupants match, my analysis is plausible. In (D), a zoomed view of the same.

l4plots.jpg

 

This an overhead view of Altgens6 with all occupants except Mrs. Stanton and Frazier. Please note the space on the top landing between Lovelady and Shelley which was available to Mrs. Stanton.

overheadviews.jpg

 

The last figure shows an exclusive logical OR overlay highlighting the region next to Lovelady's left cheek which could not be accounted by either Shelley's or Lovelady's head. One more unexplained spot is above Lovelady's right shoulder, and this is where Mrs. Stanton shoulder is seen as she was leaning to get her face to the space allowing her to view the street below. She was looking down eastwards, while Shelley was looking straight or up and also eastwards.  In (A), a standard overlay of the 3D model and Altgens6. In (B), the logical exclusive OR overlay, and in (C) 

3parts_missing-1.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To provide few more explanations to my previous post:  Mrs. Sanders stood in the shadow which was cast by the top front edge of the doorway. In contrast, the bright semi-oval object between Shelley's and Lovelady's heads is lit by the sunlight. Anything in Altgens6 which was not directly illuminated bu sunlight appears as dark, almost black.This can be visualised on Shelley's head which looks as if cut into two parts by the shadow plane; it is hard to recognise any detail in the top part of his head which is in the shadow. This again refutes any possibility that the partial face next to Lovelady's left cheek could belong to Mrs. Sanders.

As Altgens6 was photographed from a slight bottom-up angle (due to the slope of south Elm street of about 3 degrees), objects standing on the same plane but one in the back and one in front would appear to be of different sizes. The perspective factor needs to be taken into account when comparing the heights of Shelley and Lovelady, but it also contributes to a further suppression of Mrs. Sanders' figure.

In 2016, in response to Richard Gilbride's query, I prepared a picture illustrating effects of different view angles on relative perceived body heights of two doorway occupants. It was posted in the old thread "Prayer Person - Prayer Man or Prayer Woman: a research thread" which is currently in \JFKResearch folder. The relevant post is dated April 6, 2016. 

rg_aligned_doorways1.jpg

 

Briefly, the view angle varies in panels A-D from a very bottom-up view (A), to a slightly less bottom-up (B), to straight (C) and top-down view. The relative heights of two people of whom one is slightly in front (Prayer Man) of the other (Frazier) is back varies as a function of the view angle. If it is a bottom-up angle, the front figure appears higher than he is in reality (the horizontal purple line). In contrast, if we would look at the scene from a top-down angle, the man in front would appear shorter than the man behind. If applied to Altgens6 which was taken from a bottom-up angle, Lovelady standing on the second step (front) would appear as being taller compared to if he was shot from a straight angle. This explains why we do not see the full difference of one riser between Lovelady and Shelley - one was front and the other was back and the scene was shot from a bottom-up angle. 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to Mrs. Stanton and where she can be seen in the assassination documents, I wondered about her body height which was given as an estimate by her family members to be 5'4''-5'6'' (interview by Mr. B. Doyle in June, 2018). I compared her body height with that of her son Larry in their family picture, downloaded from jfkassassinationforum.com , whereby Larry was 6' or 6'1'', also according to Mrs. Stanton's relatives. A simple calculation using known relationships in sizes of different intervals in human heads confirmed that Mrs. Stanton was either 5'6'' if Larry was 6' or 5'7'' if Larry was 6'1''. 

Now, Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier was about of similar body height as Larry, 6' or 6' 1/4''. In the figure below, a yellow line crossing the tip of the light-colored hair of a person in the centre of the doorway crosses Mr. Frazier's face a bit too high, at the level of his eyes. So, either was Larry 6'1'' or, if Larry was 6', there should be some other explanation for seeing the top of the person with light-colored hair at Mrs. Frazier's eyes. I watched recently "Rush to Judgement" film by Mark Lane and in it there is an interview with Mrs. Nancy Hamilton who was once employed by Jack Ruby and told about his relationships with the Dallas Police. Mrs. Hamilton had her hair, possibly a perm, showing unusually tall front creating some kind of a wall, at least 3 inches, possibly 4 inches, high. I wonder if Mrs. Stanton could simply have her hair done in that style too on that fateful Friday and her hair could then easily be at least 1 inch higher than in her family photograph. Just this type of perm can inflate the height estimate by an inch or two. Further inflation of her body height could occur by wearing different shoes, possibly shoes with a slightly taller heel at work compared to when being at home, which very likely the case in most people. These two small details  together can yield 2 inches above 5'6'' which is what is seen in Darnell still.

hamilton.jpg 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...