Jump to content
The Education Forum

"My New Thread"


Recommended Posts

John:

Sarah Stanton, like other doorway occupants, changed her location across films and Altgens6 picture. In Darnell, she stood just behind Mr. Shelley's right shoulder. I have dressed her in a white shirt in my reconstruction, however, this I cannot know or confirm. Mrs. Stanton might have her right forearm raised in Darnell's still which I can depict in the next revision.     

whole_scene_front_reduced.jpg?w=768                           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To validate James Poser's body proportions, I have adjusted his posture to match young Lee Oswald. While I was mostly interested in seeing if James would match Lee Oswald in another photograph in such landmarks as the height of inseam, the height of the head and neck and the length of the arms, the model also provides some insights into how Lee Oswald used to stand. 

The figure below is young Lee photographed on a sunny day (the left-most panel) and James Poser adjusted to match Lee's body (the right-most panel). The panels in between of these two panels are overlays of the two images at blending rate of 30% and 50%. 

 

yo_all.jpg?w=768

After seeing what I hope is a very good match, James was rotated in different directions to check what would his stance look like from other angles. The figure shows a top view, top-left view, and top-front view. It is interesting to see that Lee stood, when offered to pose for a picture and assumed his natural stance, with his right foot backward and rested his body weight on his right foot. The right-most panel shows James (in Lee's pose) from approximate Darnell's view. There are remarkable similarities of this stance with the one Prayer Man shows in Darnell: the right foot is backward, the body torso is tilted towards his right, the right shoulder is dropped, and his head slightly tilted towards his right. Give James steps and he will drop his right foot on the lower step to get even more support. His right foot was his pivot.

yo_varia.jpg?w=768

 

The way we stand is our signature. It refers to a motor program stored in subcortical structures within our brains and unless volition is employed to overcome these motor programs, we tend to show the same style. My point is that the pose displayed by young Lee Oswald is his typical pose. Cannot help myself, who else from the Depository employees besides Lee Oswald would stand the way Prayer Man did?

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..."obtuse abuse"...

An apt description.

I don't think we will know conclusively who Prayer Man/Woman [PMW] was unless some new evidence comes forth. I believe Chris and Andrej, who believe differently about the identity of PMW, are headed in the right direction to bring a degree of clarity to the topic.

And so I applaud their work, and I have little regard to those who belittle their experiments in trying to get body dimensions in the photos to match known norms.  That's a WHOLE lot more complicated than simply sitting back and belittling them without actually doing any similar experiments yourself that might refute their work.

In other words...lead, follow or get the heck out of the way. I'm following their work with great interest because it MIGHT clarify some unknown. I have no investment in whether PMW is Oswald, Stanton, or Hamilton, Joe Frank or Reynolds...or anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us look at early childhood photographs depicting Lee Oswald's stance. I browsed Robert Groden's book: The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald (Penguin Studio Books, New York, 1995) to locate Lee's child photographs.

The picture below (page 5 in Groden's book) shows little Lee holding a catch while on a fishing trip. Lee could have been 3 or 4 years old. The following details of Lee's stance are of interest:

Lee stood with his right foot backward and his right foot is rotated slightly outward compared to his left foot which points straight forward. His weight rests predominantly on his right foot causing slight arching of his body toward his right. Please note his unusually long forearm. Lee's figure was retouched from the waist below, perhaps to create an illusion that he wore pants to avoid some embarrassment from the fact that he was naked.

littlelo_1.jpg?w=768

 

The next picture with little Lee shows him on the yard of the Ridgley West Elementary School (page 9 in Robert Groden's book). Lee seems to have his right leg slightly backward, his hips tilted slightly towards his right, his torso leaning slightly backward, his right shoulder maybe dropped a bit. Interestingly, Lee's left hand appears to be in approximate Prayer Man posture. 

 

littlelo2.jpg?w=768

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sarah Stanton, like other doorway occupants, changed her location across films and Altgens6 picture. In Darnell, she stood just behind Mr. Shelley's right shoulder. I have dressed her in a white shirt in my reconstruction, however, this I cannot know or confirm. Mrs. Stanton might have her right forearm raised in Darnell's still which I can depict in the next revision.   

There are many anamolies here.

First, is about Stancak's latest 3D picture - the one above showing the figure to the left - and could not be Oswald.  Stancak is trying to convince us that taking a 5-9 figure and dropping one leg down onto the lower step will make someone shrink that much. The figure looks way too small to be anatomically or "real world" correct and should be "taller. Watch Oswald grow in the GIF below:

growing-oswald.gif

Second, it's obvious that all on this kinder and gentler forum who really REALLY want to believe in this theory have lost all sense of plausibility or reality. The reason why I say that is because here we see a plot to murder the president.  They've planned it out since March '63, getting their patsy to publicly show how he's a hothead Communist (in NO), they get him into position in the building one month before Kennedy visits, yet they let him step out of the building right when the president is being shot and shortly thereafter. I mean - really, kinder and genter EF members? Does that not sound just a little bit too far fetched?  I think it does and many other researchers (but not on this forum but on other forums) think the same thing.

Third, Stancak is trying to show some photos of Oswald when he was younger, especially the muscular Oswald, that he stood on his back foot a lot.  That's fine but there simply is not enough photo evidence to prove this.  But now Stancak is also trying to say that because he does that a lot - stands on his back foot a lot - that it makes him shrink enough to fit the PM height. I mean - WOW - what an incredible leap of faith Stancak is taking here.    

Fourth, that muscular Oswald - according to many kinder and gentler members here - is NOT the so-called Lee Lee Oswald - it's the Hungarian clone that was found roaming the streets of Europe (Hungary?) right after WWII. He was plucked from the streets along with his Mom by fedora-wearing secret agents, who brought him back to the US and trained him to be the impostor of the Texas born Oswald.  And it just so happened that this Europe (Hungary?) born Oswald's Mom looked exactly like the US born Margeruite except she was frumpy and never smiled. So Stancak needs to be careful about using photo comparison techniques or it will upset the alternate world view of kinder and gentler members here.

Fifth, I'm finding it very hard to believe that in the Stancak image, taken from news footage that also shows Baker running toward the entrance of the building, that that would be Oswald up there (see #2 above) and also because LHO was supposedly found in the lunchroom where he was confronted by Baker and Truly. He cannot be in two places at the same time. So #2 and #5 are real dot connectors for me.

prayermandesh12fps100c4k1m.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

..."obtuse abuse"...

An apt description.

I don't think we will know conclusively who Prayer Man/Woman [PMW] was unless some new evidence comes forth. I believe Chris and Andrej, who believe differently about the identity of PMW, are headed in the right direction to bring a degree of clarity to the topic.

And so I applaud their work, and I have little regard to those who belittle their experiments in trying to get body dimensions in the photos to match known norms.  That's a WHOLE lot more complicated than simply sitting back and belittling them without actually doing any similar experiments yourself that might refute their work.

In other words...lead, follow or get the heck out of the way. I'm following their work with great interest because it MIGHT clarify some unknown. I have no investment in whether PMW is Oswald, Stanton, or Hamilton, Joe Frank or Reynolds...or anyone else.

It's not belittling that folks who don't agree with PM are doing, Mark.  Folks who don't believe in this baloney have a real sense of plausibility and real-world mind speak in them.

I mean, really, Mark - do you REALLY think half of the crazy theories on this kinder and gentler forum could have happened?  Did you watch any of those police detective shows I mentioned to you earlier (I'm guessing not)?  If so, did you zoom in and listen to how they talk - "it's impossible to have happened that way" and "it doesn't make sense." It would do you some good to watch a few and hear how these seasoned police detectives talk, then maybe come back here and look through the archives and find how outrageously fake (or a kinder and gentler word would be "implausible") they are.

You say get out of the way - that sounds about right coming from you on here, Mark.  There have been many many good solid plausible rebuttals that I'm guessing you've never bothered to read on this forum from many people who don't bother posting any more.  You know why they don't post any more, Mark?  Because of the "get out of the way" attitude you show toward them, Mark.

Sadly, it's either "get out of the way" or all of the True Believers of fantastical theories simply cover their eyes up by clicking on their magic Ignore button. Like I said earlier this entire forum is going downhill.  No reasonable, sane people post rebuttals any more because the crazies don't even bother reading them any more.  I'm finding myself more and more going to other forums, not to join and post but simply to read there because there, you can still see vigorous debate there, not "get out of the way" and people covering their eyes up like the current state of the kinder and gentler EF. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Stancak is trying to convince us that taking a 5-9 figure and dropping one leg down onto the lower step will make someone shrink that much. The figure looks way too small to be anatomically or "real world" correct and should be "taller. Watch Oswald grow in the GIF below

The height of Prayer Man cannot be over 5'2'' (should he stand on the top landing) or over 5'9'' (should he stand on the second step) because the top of Prayer Man's head in such case would exceed the shoulder/chin line in Mr. Frazier's figure. I have listed the constraints and landmarks which can be used to identify Prayer Man's location and body height in my 2016 post (Figure 2):

https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/prayer-man-in-darnells-film/

I will address the problem of Prayer Man's body height again using a realistic doorway model (and also a new Lee Oswald's mannequin) which measures were not available to me at that time. 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Andrej's earlier post:

"Prayer Man is the unknown man standing close to the western wall in Darnell’s and Wiegman’s films. Sean Murphy [1] has demonstrated that the most logical explanation of Prayer Man’s identity was that the man in question was Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of President Kennedy. The possibility of Oswald being Prayer Man has been opposed by several researchers arguing that Prayer Man was a woman of 5’3” or a man 5.6”; these two solutions assumed that Prayer Man or Woman stood on the top landing, in the shadow cast by the western wall".

Sarah Stanton is a red herring.  It is a created idea to detract from the possibility of Prayer Man might be Oswald.  And, it should be dismissed out of hand.  The shadow problem in determining where Prayer Man is standing is created by a photo editor's air brush.  The shadows as they are shown are an artist's illusion creating a false sense of depth.  The first step down from the landing is 7 inches.  Add that 7 inches to Prayer Man's height and his height is right in comparison to Buell Frazier and not as shown in an earlier animation.

Photo manipulation is show in Darnell by the false direction of the shadows on the TSBD landing.  Photo manipulation is shown in Weigman by blocking out the lower portion of the body of Prayer Man.  The light on the upper half of the body is brigher than the lower half.  They should be the same if the shadows were real.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of shadows on the TSBD landing.  They are different in the Weigman and the Darnell frames.  There are side by side comparisons available to view.  Weigman has a shadow from the wall on a Billy Lovelady figure that is nearly vertical.  That is different from the wall shadow in Darnell which slants off to the right.  They are not at the same angle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

It's not belittling that folks who don't agree with PM are doing, Mark.  Folks who don't believe in this baloney have a real sense of plausibility and real-world mind speak in them.

I mean, really, Mark - do you REALLY think half of the crazy theories on this kinder and gentler forum could have happened?  Did you watch any of those police detective shows I mentioned to you earlier (I'm guessing not)?  If so, did you zoom in and listen to how they talk - "it's impossible to have happened that way" and "it doesn't make sense." It would do you some good to watch a few and hear how these seasoned police detectives talk, then maybe come back here and look through the archives and find how outrageously fake (or a kinder and gentler word would be "implausible") they are.

You say get out of the way - that sounds about right coming from you on here, Mark.  There have been many many good solid plausible rebuttals that I'm guessing you've never bothered to read on this forum from many people who don't bother posting any more.  You know why they don't post any more, Mark?  Because of the "get out of the way" attitude you show toward them, Mark.

Sadly, it's either "get out of the way" or all of the True Believers of fantastical theories simply cover their eyes up by clicking on their magic Ignore button. Like I said earlier this entire forum is going downhill.  No reasonable, sane people post rebuttals any more because the crazies don't even bother reading them any more.  I'm finding myself more and more going to other forums, not to join and post but simply to read there because there, you can still see vigorous debate there, not "get out of the way" and people covering their eyes up like the current state of the kinder and gentler EF. 

 

You totally misinterpreted my post.

If you can effectively rebut the research these people are doing, that would be LEADING. BUT if you won't lead and you refuse to follow, you are only obstructing.

Show me YOUR OWN RESEARCH that disproves what Andrej and Chris are doing...not just "I disagree, so they're wrong,wrong, wrong."

Show me something beyond mere argument. Rebut them with research. Otherwise, it's nothing but obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Weigman has a shadow from the wall on a Billy Lovelady figure that is nearly vertical.

John:

the little I know about Billy Lovelady's location in Wiegman film tells me that he stood close to the central railing and that area would be covered by shadow maybe at some 5 PM on that fateful day. Wiegman film is all right, no tampering in my opinion.

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrej,

You don't see the differences in direction that the shadows in Darnell and Weigman present?  One nearly vertical and the other slanting significantly to the picture right?

The Marine Oswald you chose is solid for your work.  Even though he doesn't appear to be Harvey Oswald, the man killed by Jack Ruby, he is.  Age and weight make up the apparent differences.  When you check facial features and other traits this is Harvey Oswald.

I mention this because an earlier post questions whether you can recognize Lee Oswald from Harvey Oswald under John Armstrong's notion of two Oswalds.  Harvey Oswald or folks disguised as Harvey Oswald make up most of the visual record.    

Edited by John Butler
clean up errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

You totally misinterpreted my post.

If you can effectively rebut the research these people are doing, that would be LEADING. BUT if you won't lead and you refuse to follow, you are only obstructing.

Show me YOUR OWN RESEARCH that disproves what Andrej and Chris are doing...not just "I disagree, so they're wrong,wrong, wrong."

Show me something beyond mere argument. Rebut them with research. Otherwise, it's nothing but obstruction.

This is about the fifth time you've said this, Mark - that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying. And FYI - I just showed my own version of why it can't be a 5-10 guy with one foot down on the lower step.  Someone's height doesn't fall that much, Mark. And earlier up I made my own graphics showing that the leg Stancak made is too long.  You obviously didn't read it.

And I've done more than enough work on the Oswald clone story and how Zapruder's film was NOT filmed in 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames were removed. Yes, you've read that correctly, Mark. I've made videos and illustrations. Those, too, are either ignored or someone goes on a rant about how clueless I am instead of further debate on their theory. In other words, they revert to name calling.

The biggest problem with the JFK story, Mark, is one of bias. I've asked some other researchers on this and they agree - WHY do these people believe in such nonsense? And it seems like the consensus is many of them have a hatred of the US government. In other words, the big, bad government is terrible, always wrong, always sinister and therefore, lies about everything.

EXCEPT - when the written record somehow fits their crazy theory.  Then, they'll quote page upon page of whatever's in the official record, probably grudgingly, but they do anyway.

Folks who don't buy into the craziness, on the other hand, have the ability to question the THEORY, not the JFK story. They have the ability to say - wait a minute. We're expected to believe that around crying people, passersby and news cameras that when the body left PMH that the Bad Guys squirreled away the body either at Love Field or some other undisclosed location, took the body out of the coffin and threw it into the cargo hold, then snuck it out the back door of 26000 and onto a helicopter, in full view of live TV cameras, family members, and others upon arriving at Andrews? I mean...really, Mark?  Do YOU believe in a fantastical story like this?

Here's a perfect example of what I mean.  I know the researcher who posted the thread below is well respected on this forum. But this guy confirmed to me a while back that, to put it simply, he doesn't like the government.  Period.  Do you not think this kind of bias doesn't cloud a person's judgement?  It does, Mark.

the-post.png

I've removed the name of this researcher from the above graphic to abide by the kinder and gentler nature of the new EF.  But the above is what he posted on another forum.  Not a single person bothered to even reply to his post there.  I took a look at it and it was one of those head-shaking and eye-rolling moments for me as well.  Do you remember the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory, Mark?  When the guy has his walls covered in foil, photos overlapping photos with scribbles, names and drawings on them, Mark?  If you can find the above post and take a look at it, Mark, you'll understand why it was yet another head-shaking, eye-rolling OMFG moment for me and the 326 others who looked at it.

And yet, all I hear about on here is how "well-respected" this guy is. Not everything happened like you and others think happened, Mark, on 11/22.  The law of averages and life in general just don't have this huge convergence of stolen bodies and faked films and cloned assassins (from Europe) like folks like this well-respected researcher and others think happened.

But back to this thread, Mark.  As another researcher who's not allowed to post here said - if you were really looking for truth in this thread, Mark, why haven't you asked Stancak to recreate the character with his over-stretched leg to be anatomically correct?  In other words, reduced by 3 whole inches? Stancak said his future work would concentrate on dealing with correcting that but we've yet to see it. And if you, yourself, were not biased here, you'd be asking him when that was going to happen instead of turning around and telling ME why don't I do my own research and post it, when I already have ad nauseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Stancak said his future work would concentrate on dealing with correcting that but we've yet to see it

Actually, I have already posted the new James Poser mannequin with shorter legs (only about 1/2 inch longer than the very final version achieved in collaboration with Chris) in one of my previous posts. It is the last post with series of graded overlays. The new mannequin with short legs matched Prayer Man very well. 

To avoid any arguments about leg size in future and to save any revision work, I waited until the James Poser model settled down. Chris approved it about two days ago, and I still wished to check if the final James Poser model would fit Lee Oswald's body in some other picture, which I did yesterday. 

You need to wait to see James Poser in Sketchup which is maybe what you are asking for. This is a lengthy process and I will post results when I am satisfied with the Sketchup  model. To explain, I need to reduce the number of triangles as Sketchup cannot handle a large number of triangles exported from Poser 11.1, and this step alone takes quite a lot of time. Then, I need to change colours manually in small patches using a brush tool. The most difficult part though is sculpting the figure using Artisan4Sketchup to achieve the best match of the mannequin's head with Lee Oswald's head. It is similar to sculpting in clay. I am not sure you understand how much work this process entails, however, I hope you trust that after working on this project for almost three years I would not give up the opportunity to place an as-accurate-as-possible model of Lee Oswald into the doorway for the first time.  

I would appreciate if you would reconsider your style of posting which is becoming increasingly personal. Why don't you make a blog and write down your ideas or your findings? It may help you to find a balance and be absorbed by projects which have some value. For the rest of us, it would allow us to understand your ideas and your work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Actually, I have already posted the new James Poser mannequin with shorter legs (only about 1/2 inch longer than the very final version achieved in collaboration with Chris) WHERE IS IT? ARE YOU PUTTING IT ON ANOTHER THREAD AND NOT MENTIONING IT HERE? in one of my previous posts. It is the last post with series of graded overlays. The new mannequin with short legs matched Prayer Man very well. 

Andrej,

I used to have the full blown Sketchup. I now only have the web-browser free version but it keeps crashing. And I don't have the ability to add people.  But I was able to make *something* in it painfully.  Regardless, I found TSBD and imported it and then drew some pillars to the exact heights of the people up there.  Just for the hell of it I drew another one to use as a general reference for a person with a height of 5-6.  Watch the animated GIF below to get the heights:

sizes-on-steps.gif

Here are two different views of this scene, Andrej. See how much higher the 5-10 on the lower step looks compared to yours? This is because I'm not fudging the heights or stretching any legs on the characters to misrepresent someone standing up there leaning on their back foot (because like you said, IF Oswald stood on his back foot in some photos, THEN it just HAS to be Oswald). And I'm also not fudging by stretching a character's leg to make it fit the scenario.

steps1.jpg

steps2.jpg

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to comment
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...