Bill Miller

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Bill,

Stabilized videos show that the steps to the TSBD entrance were indeed crowded. And so Baker would have had to bump elbows to get up the steps.

But that's a moot point because Baker wasn't even headed for the TSBD entrance when he ran across Elm Street extension.

Proof is given here:

Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?

I saw what was said on that thread. I think Baker made it pretty clear that when he said that as soon as he first heard the shots that he felt they came from either the TSBD or the Dal-Tex Building, but before parking his motorcycle - he looked up he saw the pigeons fly from the roof of the TSBD. When I look at the angle of the back of the parked cars beyond Baker - he looks to be relatively on the same angle as they are seen and with his statement given the same day as the shooting ... I have no reason to believe he wasn't headed for the entrance of the TSBD, Whether he followed someone or people moved out of the way to let him by -  Marion, nor anyone else ever mentioned him shoving people out of the way. And if he did bump anyone ... it really wouldn't mean anything so speculating about it is as you would say - a moot point and certainly not anything conspiratorial that I can wrap my head around.  

On 4/18/2016 at 2:08 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Sandy,

I think we've discussed this before.

Truly changes the trajectory of Baker's run. See gif.

He does appear to be running past the steps (could have been a split second decision). If he was going to run up the stairs initially, he more than likely would have entered on the left side of the handrail where the others are moving through. The right side is much too congested.

chris

Hi Chris!

Perspective is everything. You are correct that the woman is moving up the steps quite easily and that it appears the people on the right side of the image appear congested, but some of that congestion has to be attributed to the angle at which the camera is looking at the doorway.

Note sure what the confusion is about Baker's angle during his run other than perspective in the cause of it as didn't Marion say that his seeing pigeons flying from the roof of the TSBD is what caused him to believe the shots came from there.

Mr. BELIN - All right.
I wonder if we could go on this plat, Officer Baker, and first if you could put on here with this pen, and I have turned it upside down.
With Exhibit 361, show us the spot at which you stopped your motorcycle approximately and put a "B" on it, if you would.
Mr. BAKER - Somewhere at this position here, which is approximately 10 feet from this signal light here on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
You have put a dot on Exhibit 361 with the line going to "B" and the dot represents that signal light, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You, on Friday, March 20, parked your motorcycle where you thought it was parked on November 22 and then we paced off the distance from the nearest point of the motorcycle to the stop light and it was 10 feet, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, I show you Exhibit 478 and ask you if you will, on this exhibit put an arrow with the letter "B" to this stoplight.
Mr. BAKER - Talking about this one here?
Mr. BELIN - The stoplight from which we measured the distance to the motorcycle. The arrow with the letter "B" points to the stoplight, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN - And you stopped your motorcycle 10 feet to the east of that stoplight, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN - We then paced off the distance as to approximately how far it was from the place your motorcycle was parked to the doorway of the School Book Depository Building, do you remember doing that, on March 20?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - And it appears on Exhibit 477 that that doorway is recessed, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is correct, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how far that was from the place your motorcycle was parked to the doorway?
Mr. BAKER - Approximately 45 feet.
Mr. BELIN - This same stoplight appears as you look at Exhibit 477 to the left of the entranceway to the building, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is correct, sir.

1 hour ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Don't waste my time.

Robert,

Let me see if I got this right ...

You first ask me if I saw Baker run up the steps. I assume you don't feel that you were wasting my time when you asked that question even though none of what you asked has anything to do with establishing who prayer man is.

On the other hand I go on to show that the 6 or 7 people on the steps from the bottom step to the doorway of the TSBD had gaps between them when seen from a more frontal view. I also mention that I have never found a single shred of evidence of Baker saying he had to force his way by anyone to enter the TSBD, nor have read or heard where any eye witness has ever said they saw Baker push anyone out of his way or was pushed by Baker as he ran up the steps and into the TSBD. So I thought that maybe you have found some evidence that would support your theory that Baker was pushing and shoving his way into the TSBD and simply asked that you share that information with me to which your only response was to tell me not to waste your time.

In all my years as an investigator - when someone will post what you did instead of sharing what evidence they have to support their theory or opinion ... it is usually because they had no evidence to share in the first place. Now I ask you - Who then is wasting who's time?

3 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Did you see him climb the steps?

Did you see him pushing or moving anyone out of the way?

Did you read any witness statements that suggested that Officer Baker pushed or moved anyone out of his way from the time he left his cycle to the time he entered the building?

Years ago I had read every witness statement and/or testimony who had given one. Over the years I have watched every documentary and listened to every witness who that my research made me aware of that has had anything to say. If you have anything besides a theory that has no evidence to support it, then I would like to know about it if you are willing to share it.

Thanks Robert!

3 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

If you find it odd that no one on the steps reported seeing Oswald on the steps, how odd do you find it that only one witness on the steps recalled seeing a white helmeted motorcycle cop run up the steps? Frazier would have been standing in front of the door and this cop (Baker) likely would have had to move him out of the way, yet Frazier et al have no recollection of seeing Baker.

I assume we have watched the same film showing Officer Baker running from his motorcycle towards the TSBD and at no time did I see him have to move anyone out of his way. The Couch film doesn't show any obstructions for Baker on his way past the line of folks who were along the street so can you direct me to a film, photo, or testimony, that offers evidence to the contrary as the Wiegman film looks as though there are about 7 people near or on the steps. There appears to be plenty of room for Baker to maneuver himself or have time for any of those people to move out of his way depending on where he went up the steps. And depending on what Frazier was watching at that moment - he very well not have seen or remembered seeing Baker as his attention could have been drawn elsewhere down by the knoll. There are many avenues to speculate on and one or none of them being correct.

^^

I hope the spacing issue of some of the people in Altgens 6 compared to the Wiegman film was helpful in some way.

Also thanks for the civil responses as this so-called Prayer-Man was new to me since I had last been to this site. I could have read the entire thread, but I am not interested in debating anyone or being involved in any (for a better terminology) 'non-productive tinkling matches'.

I don't recall any witnesses saying that Oswald was on the landing as the President passed by. My own personal research reminds me that one witness's statement that she saw Lee Oswald sitting in the lunchroom eating his lunch on her way out to view the motorcade moments before the arrival of the motorcade and Officer Baker was running up the steps within 10 seconds or so after the shooting, thus making the most deplorable image known as 'Prayer-Man' not possibly being Oswald in my mnd.

I have stated on this and other forums that there was without a doubt in my mind a conspiracy carried out in the murder of JFK by others and that I have serious doubts based on all the evidence I have seen that Oswald was a shooter on 11/22/63. Having said this, it was recently brought to my attention as to what some rather vulgar individuals from another web site had to say pertaining to the few simple postings I have made here. I do not know where their low-brow venom and inability to be civil comes from unless derived from their own insecurities over allowing others to have an opinion or to freely seek specific information concerning a topic of interest such as this involving JFK's Assassination. It is such nonsense I was informed of pertaining to another site that allows me to appreciate the manner of cooperation I have witnessed in my inquiry here.

Thanks again.

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What I see in this video is Lovelady in the shadow, then walking out into sunlight where he lifts his hand to shade his eyes from the sun. Then he steps backward, back into the shade.

And since he's in the shadow created by the west wall of the TSBD, he must therefore be on the top landing.

Does anybody else see what I've described here.

I see what you see. There are at least two other people on that landing besides Lovelady in Altgens 6. At the angle at which this photo was taken ... even the dark skinned man is partially hidden by the wall. The same angle makes the dark skinned man and Lovelady appear to have one man in front of the other, but they are actually several feet apart. 

(Note:  In this crop of Altgens 6 - someone had wanted Lovelady to be Oswald so badly that they moved Billy over and placed him in a white short sleeved shirt with no regard to the evidence of what Lee was shown to be wearing when arrested.)

From Wiegman's angle ..........

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Bill,

Yes, some believe it is Oswald and others don't, based on different criteria.

I find it hard to believe that while people were waiting for the President to show up that Oswald was standing near Lovelady and no one saw him. In fact, the motorcade made two unplanned stops which made it late arriving to the plaza. Who doesn't look around and observe the people around them when waiting for a once and a lifetime opportunity like seeing JFK pass by them.

 But rather than to talk human nature ... how long after the shots were fired that Hughes filmed the so-called 'praying-man' would you estimate it was?

^^

Chris, you have been discussing this 'prayer-man' - so can you tell me why this individual is important. No one is suggesting that he is Oswald - are they?

I asked this previously, but not certain anyone answered it. Can someone tell me why this individual being referred to as 'prayer-man' is important. No one is suggesting that he is Oswald - are they?

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

This is one of the advantages of using stabilized video, as opposed to still frames or photos, if the same time period is covered.

The reason I use "lean forward" and not "moving" is, at this point, Lovelady is not on the top landing. I believe those steps don't have enough depth for someone to move forward, if they did, one would be stepping down or up and we would see it in the video. I don't see Lovelady's elevation change in the video compared to the African-American fellow below him. Imo

I am familiar with the advantages of stabilization of  moving film and still images.

To better understand what you are saying - Is it fair to say the landing is the surface between the entrance door to the TSBD and the edge of the same landing before having to start down the steps?

27 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Yes, Lovelady.

The video I provided is from Hughes. The limo is turning the corner from Houston to Elm at that time, same as your single frame. 

This occurs many seconds before Altgen's 6.

Thanks for clearing that up. So it appears that Lovelady moved forward as the President was passing by his location.

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

In Hughes:

He leans forward, out of the shadows and then back.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OemhFSmFyNlR0cEE/view?usp=sharing

You are still talking about Lovelady - correct?  In Altgens 6 - the first shot(s) had just been fired less than a second ago. It appears in the movie clip you posted that Lovelady reacted by stepping back for a moment after he realized shots were fired and then back into the sunlight. Is that what you were saying, Chris?

50 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Bill,

if you check this thread and the images then you can see that Lovelady gradually moved to get a better view while the limo was going down Elm.And he eventually left the steps and moved West with Bill Shelley.

From Hughes to A6 to Wiegman to Couch.

Yes ... after the shots were fired. I still don't get what is the point of this poor degraded image of 'prayer man'? Is it being implied that this is Oswald?

And what is the time-stamp given to this 'prayer man' image?

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

No Bill.

Lovelady stood next to Prayer Man in Wiegman and in Hughes Prayer Man stood behind Lovelady at that time.

Lovelady moves up the steps and to the right and leans to look out while limo makes its way down Elm.

Moved up the steps - When was this supposed to have happen?   Hughes filmed Lovelady in his red shirt as JFK's car was turning the corner. The shirt is open midway/up exposing the white T-shirt Lovelady wore underneath it. In the same image if one looks closely in this Hughes image, the black man seen in the Altgen's 6 photo is is in the same spot just below the red-shirted man (Lovelady). This was before the shots started and both men remained in position when Altgens 6 was taken.

Hughes image

Altgens 6

Not sure what all the "prayer-man" issue is about anymore than I know who Robert Prudhomme means by "they" in his last response where he says "They never give up, Bart.".

FWIW ....    http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/index.html

Can't recall at this time what magazine it was in, but years ago I posted a scan of an enlarged image from the Hughes film that was in color and showing Lovelady wearing his red shirt and standing right where this very poor image being discussed shows what someone called 'praying-man'. It's the same man some thought to be Oswald at this location in the Altgen's photo, which was beyond question - Billy Lovelady.

Gary made it clear to me that when the time came for him to leave the Sixth Floor Museum - he would then be able to finally write and publicly talk about his experiences there and to go into depth about what he really believed had transpired in the killing of our 35th President of the United States. There certainly would have been a lot of suprised people (especially his critics) who would have had their eyes opened to what Gary Mack really thought.

Bill, did Gary share with you what he "really thought"?

If so, I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear about it.

Thanks for asking, but I came here to respond to a thread that I believed was about the passing of Gary Mack. It's now being turned into a circus which is why I stopped wasting my time trying to reason with some of the people who participate in these discussions.

I think I still have every email I got from Gary - the endless discussions on the phone are still in my head as if they happened yesterday. What some individuals are not getting after all these years is that there were two Gary Mack's. The Gary Mack who believed there was a conspiracy and who said to me that he still stood behind the work he and Jack did on the Badgeman. But Gary also knew that only went so far and that he could not prove everything needed to say with 100% certainty that he was correct. In fact, the 6th Floor Museum wasn't keen on his participation in TMWKK concerning he and Jack's work, but it was eventually allowed. But when Gary was working as their historian on the assassination, then he had to tow a fine line, His job was then to only cite the history as it was recorded and not to allow his peronal beliefs to come into play. In our conversations he used terms like - 'don't repeat this' and/or 'this is off the record'. So what I am saying is that he had his own thoughts on the assassination that he could not allow to be known as the Curator of the 6th Floor Museum. I will say this - While I was privleged to see even a fraction of the things he had seen .... if I could have had the chance to trade places with him, then there is no way in hell I would have risked my opportunity to have access to those materials. And had Gary of lived to write a book on what he had seen and believed based on that information - I would have been buying the first copy.

Bill Miller

I was brought to tears when I heard that Gary had died. Gary was a unique individual and I doubt there will ever be another one like him.

It took me a while to get to know Gary well and to understand that there were two sides to this man. One side of him believed there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy while the other side of him was a historian of the assassination per the Sixth Floor Museum. How he managed to balance the two was beyond me, but he did it well.

I think there were a lot of people who just didn't appreciate the position Gary was put in when he took on the challenge of being Curator for the Sixth Floor Museum. That job allowed him access to a wealth of information that was beyond anyone's comprehension. I was given the privledge to browse the photo and film records on several occasions and seeing the best of the best images, not to mention never before relased images, was mind boggling to say the least. I quickly came to understand and appreciate why it was so important to Gary to not to do anything to risk losing his position there despite what he personally believed happened to JFK on November 22, 1963. Gary made it clear to me that when the time came for him to leave the Sixth Floor Museum - he would then be able to finally write and publicly talk about his experiences there and to go into depth about what he really believed had transpired in the killing of our 35th President of the United States. There certainly would have been a lot of suprised people (especially his critics) who would have had their eyes opened to what Gary Mack really thought.

For me personally - I respected and admired the man - I loved him as a fellow human being - and was proud to call him a friend. He has my eternal gratitude for the all the time he spent with me pertaining to JFK's Assassination.

Bill Miller

I was brought to tears when I heard that Gary had died. Gary was a unique individual and I doubt there will ever be another one like him.

It took me a while to get to know Gary well and to understand that there were two sides to this man. One s

Very interesting analysis.

Is there somewhere I can view the documentation (heights, distances, ect.) for this?

It's probably in both this forum and Lancer's archives. It was a simple test to check Moorman's view of the passing cycles. What was needed to know ...

1) Moorman's photo was unaltered when shown on TV on the afternoon of the assassination. The alignment of the cycles as seen against the background of the knoll are indisputable due to Moorman's photo being in her possession when it was filmed in Dallas.

2) A DPD bike's windscreen stands 58" off the ground. This measurement was taken from a DPD bike being sold as having been in JFK's motorcade. The same measurement was achieved whether or not a rider was sitting on the bike.

So to do a test ... we needed a DPD cycle ... or something representing the height of the DPD cycles windscreen. Two 58" tall wooden stands were constructed and placed in the street. A Moorman replica photo was taken at Fetzer and White's claim of 54.5" off the ground for Mary's lens height and from where Moorman was seen in the Zfilm, and again from the street next to the curb.

One view matched the gap issue concerning the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window, and also the height of the DPD windscreens when overlaid onto Moorman's Polaroid ... the other was so far off that it cannot even be argued concerning the gap issue and the way the cycles would have stacked up against the knoll.

Summary ... 54.5" in the grass makes Mary's lens high enough to see over the cycles windscreens, which causes them to stack upwards in Moorman's field of view the further from Mary they are.

54.5" off the street and looking at the 58" tall stands raises them much higher in Mary's field of view and causes each to stack downward in Moorman's field of view the further from Mary they are.

Moorman's unaltered photo and Fetzer's law of nature proved without a doubt that Moorman was above the curb when she took her famous photo. In the past decade ... no one has been able to dubunk my test and data. Fetzer was asked several times recently to address those stands and the law of perspective and he sits in silence.

To date, Fetzer still pushes Moorman being in the street by using what has been proven to be false and/or mistaken information.

Having film break was not an uncommon occurrence. It being called a splice is another matter, which is what is done to a film when putting the two broken ends back together. So the original film was broken and then repaired. The copies made before the original was damaged were not broke, thus they still show what is missing from the original.

"36 frames have been removed ...." ??? Have you thought what the limo's rate of progression would look like had the type of frame removal you described had been accomplished?

When one reads the eyewitness statements it rapidly becomes clear that no one statement is accurate, but that they overwhelmingly describe what is shown in the Z-film. This is as one should expect. The human mind is not a camcorder.

Al Carrier once made the point that several people can be witness to a stimulus and each once record it differently in their mind. I often use Brehm for an example for at least two shots into the assassination - Charles still has his arms raised and clapping.

I cannot believe that even the most fanatic alteration supporter would still continue debating whether Moorman was in the street or not. Whether it be David Lifton - Fetzer - or Drunky the Clown ... the position of the cycles in Moorman's photo tell the story. I do not care if Mary had thought she was laying flat of her back in the street when she took her famous Polaroid ... her photo that was filmed for TV not 35 minutes post assassination and while having been in Mary's possession the entire time shows the cycles in relation to her said lens height as they are in every copy print that I have seen. In other words, Moorman could have misspoke, but the camera did not!

Now what is there about this test that the alteration supporters cannot understand ... ??? The alteration claimants have 54.5" for Moorman's lens height. I set a tripod so the camera was 54.5" off the ground. I took a photo from where Moorman is seen in the grass and another from in the street. The results speak for themself! (see below)

It's now been 10 years since that test was conducted and no one has presented a recreation test of their own showing a different result. Are these alteration supporters so inept when it comes to "perspective" that they cannot comprehend what the cycles windscreens would look like against the background of the knoll and colonnade? If so, then that does not constitute alteration, but rather a personal comprehension problem.

Here once again is Moorman's photo in question and where the 58" stands were when seen by Mary Moorman standing in the grass. I only ask that if Lifton or anyone else still doestn't understand the significance of this data, then I can maybe find a simpler way to demonstrate it.

Bill

I may be wrong, but, I read a book by Wm. Manchester about 30 years ago and in it I remember Manchester describing, moment by moment, the details of how Greer nearly came to a stop turning onto Elm from Houston, and how he nearly had to back the car up in order to negotiate the turn.

Where did he get his information from? Witnesses or a film? If it was from film, he might have seen the "other film". I am currently unable to obtain the book to find the answer.

When the Towner and Doorman films show the motorcade in continuous motion and alteration has not been shown to a possible factor, then another film that no one can cite, let alone confirm ... the Greer stopping during the turn onto Elm Street can only be seen in error.

The same can be said about what one person may have said Vs the hundreds of witnesses who didn't say any such thing.

How do you know that Jackies smoking was a "huge issue"?

You dont know

This thread is useless, all it is is your opinion about smoking

This time I totally agree with Dean.