Thomas Graves

25 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thomas:

Prayer Man, indeed, could stand the way I show with one foot on the second step and the other foot on the top landing. If you would review all Darnell frames carefully as I did you would find out that there is no frame showing Prayer Man's left foot with enough details allowing to decide about the exact position of his left foot. It was therefore up to me to figure out about his left foot. Two years ago, I suggested it could be twisted and the foot would rest on toes. In the more recent analysis, I had the left foot flat on the top landing. It could be both ways. What Darnell stills say is that the left leg was bent and it was not only the right hand which was illuminated with the sunlight but also the knuckles of Prayer Man's left hand and his left thigh. 

Please consider also the H-plane (the horizontal plane crossing Mr. Frazier's shoulder line) and the E-plane, the plane connecting Darnell's camera with Prayer Man's right Elbow. Those four planes define a bounding box in which Prayer Man could be (the antero-posterior dimension of the chest closing the box). 

Please consider this: it is not the same for Prayer Man's appearance to be a man 5'9'' and effectively standing on the second step or to be a person 5'2'' and standing one step higher (7''). In both cases, Prayer Man's head would touch the H-plane, however, the location of arms and the width of the body (including elbow-to-elbow width) would not be the same. The short Prayer Man would have his/her arms about 2 inches higher than Prayer Man 5'9'' standing with one foot on the second step.

Please consider that a plausible model of Prayer Man needs to reproduce the relationships with the rest of doorway occupants. My model does it. If Prayer Man's location would be in error, you would see clear mismatches relative to Prayer Man's neighbours or doorway landmarks. There are none, therefore, I was able to overlay the whole 3D scene onto Darnell still. Since all figures including Prayer Man match the original Darnell still, how can Prayer Man's location be wrong?

The quality of the model does not appear to you to be a strong argument at all. You give greater weight to your subjective and false views about how unpleasant the suggested posture is than to a solid 3D reconstruction in which all occupants match their originals. Again, you cannot achieve a match I show unless Prayer Man's location was correct.

The time which Prayer Man spent in the one-foot-down posture was between 1 and 2 minutes. We do not see him at his location in Hughes (despite all efforts I was not able to detect a clear figure of Prayer Man in Hughes film), however, he is at his post in Wiegman and Darnell. We do not know how long did Prayer Man stay in the doorway. He could stay for several seconds after Darnell stopped filming and theoretically, he could leave the doorway before Office Baker entered the building. We just do not know. My point is that Prayer Man kept his posture for a very short period of time. Again, please try the posture by yourself as I did many times. It is a stable and comfortable stance which would not cause any problems holding for few minutes or longer.

I am copying again one of my earlier comparisons of Poser11 manikin and Prayer Man in Darnell. Can you see any similarities?

 

 

People differ in the height of their inseams. For instance, the musician in the right-hand side of the Rolling Stone picture posted in your last message has an unusually high inseam. I did not adjust the inseam of Prayer Man to look as in Darnell because I struggled to identify it reliably from the blurred images. After all, my blog article to which you refer was about Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Stanton, not about Prayer Man. As I explained several times already, I will re-analyse Prayer Man's location with the new, realistic model of the doorway which I hope will clear your doubts.

 

 

Andrej

It just seems to me that you're going to great and implausible lengths to make so-called Prayer Man a " 5' 9"  man " on the steps/landing in Wiegman and Couch-Darnell because you know that Lee Harvey Oswald was 5' 9" tall (5' 9.5", actually), and for some reason you don't want Oswald inside the building proper.

Once again, why would Oswald or anyone else have stood like that, Andrej?

"Well, because he could and he did, Thomas!"

Laughing Out Loud

--  TG

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

From the perspective of the Walker-did-it CT, the main member that I fully agree with on this thread is David Von Pein.   

All of the TSBD employees told the truth to the WC, as they remembered it.   Not one of them outright lied.   Some were mistaken about timing, but that is normal under the circumstances (i.e. they were asked to testify months later).

To solve the JFK Assassination aporias, we must be finally willing -- after 55 years -- to recognize that it was (1) the Dallas Police Department heads; (2) select DPD detectives; (3) Sheriff Decker; (4) Dallas Deputies; (5) the Dallas FBI; (6) the Dallas Secret Service; (7) the Dallas Postmaster; and (8) anyone connected with General Walker, who outright lied.

Unless we focus on them, the JFK Assassination will remain as unsolved tomorrow as it was 55 years ago.   Put all this energy on the correct suspects!

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

You do realize, don't you, that Shelley's and Lovelady's later statements and testimonies were quite different from their first day's statements?

--  TG

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Reply to Tom on Nosenko - I’m neutral on him. He may very well have been sent post assassination because the USSR wanted to distance themselves from Oswald. That doesn’t necessarily mean Oswald was the KGB’s guy. At least Nosenko didn’t come swearing that all subsequent defectors would be false ones, didn’t start naming names in a way sure to divide western powers and keep them scrambling for decades. That was Golitsyn.

  .......

Paul,

Tennent H. Bagley, himself, didn't think KGB had sent Nosenko to try to "fool" us into thinking Oswald hadn't killed Kennedy for the KGB, but did think Nosenko was trying to prevent or discourage CIA from looking into the possibility that Oswald had had a relationship with the KGB before he defected to the USSR in 1959.

Regarding Golitsyn, you need to realize that "vintage" Golitsyn (pre mid-1964, iirc) was "gold," and that he got a widdle carried away after that, and things kinda started going sideways.

--  TG

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Tommy, do you think that, perhaps, you mistook your single paragraph for two? Do you think it is correct to start-off a sentence with "Here's one small example:"? And lastly, do you think maybe your penchant for using long, rambling, difficult-to-follow sentences ends-up cunfusing, ahum, even, ..gasp.., you?

Michael,

My, how insightful.  (Actually, I tried breaking it up so even you could read it.)

Regardless, would you care to comment on Deriabin's concluding that Nosenko was a false defector, and "Jeff" Morley's somehow failing to mention that in his book although he somehow had the presence of mind to use a quote from Deriabin to impugn the character of another Nosenko critic, Golitsyn, in said book?

--  TG

Is that too long a sentence for you, oh allegedly an English Literature major at one of the 64 CUNY campuses?

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I finally had the time to read the whole book and to take notes.

The strength of the book is how it outlines Angleton's relationship to the Oswald file.  I do not understand why he left out the Hunt  memorandum.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jefferson-morley-the-ghost-the-secret-life-of-cia-spymaster-james-jesus-angleton

 

James,

Here's the short "review" I wrote about it on Amazon on 11/30/17:

This book is reasonably well written as far as the prose is concerned, but to anyone who has read (former CIA Soviet Russia Division counterintelligence officer) Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars," Jefferson Morley comes across as being unreasonably biased against Angleton, as exemplified by the way he selectively presents facts surrounding the incredible challenges Angleton was up against trying to counter the Soviets' intelligence services during the Cold War.

Here's one small example: True KGB defector Pyotr Deriabin interviewed controversial defector Yuri Nosenko for many hours after Nosenko defected to the U.S. in January,1964, and came to the unshakable-for-him conclusion that Nosenko was "fake," yet in Morley's book, Deriabin is mentioned only once, and not to criticize Nosenko or to support Angleton or to support Angleton's (and Bagley's) favorite defector, Golitsyn, but to point out, on page 107, that Golitsyn had, in so many words, a reputation back in the KGB to exaggerate and brag a lot. One wonders how much time Morley had to spend to find that "anti-Golitsyn" quote by Deriabin, and how he could, in good conscience, not mention that, especially as regards the all-important "Golitsyn versus Nosenko" issue, Deriabin was an Angleton supporter, not an Angleton detractor as Mr. Morley would apparently like for us to infer from his book.

Like I said, just one small example. The book is full of them.

--  TG

PS  Going from memory here, but doesn't it say in the Mitrokhin Archives that the Hunt Memorandum was a KGB forgery?

PPS  Maybe-off-topic-but-not-off-subject, but you do realize, don't you, that our very own patron, John Simkin, believes that Alger Hiss was a spy for the Soviets?

Anybody know what the focal length of the lens on Darnell's camera was?

Did it have switchable/interchangable lenses?

--  TG

On 3/28/2018 at 6:33 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

On 3/28/2018 at 10:31 AM, David Von Pein said:

  On 3/27/2018 at 11:11 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

And the only thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald where he said he was during the shooting -- on the first floor -- is that the people whose testimonies created the 2nd floor encounter were l.y.i.n.g.

That would include Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, and Jim Bookhout. (And if Fritz and Bookhout weren't lying, then Oswald himself lied about encountering the policeman on the SECOND floor.)

Now, I wonder which one of these options is more likely to be correct:

All of the above people were liars....or....Victoria Adams simply made an honest mistake about exactly how long it took her to get to the first floor?

Is that really a tough choice for you, Sandy?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

David,

While you comfortably sit on your LNer tush assuming that Victoria Adams made that mistake, a number of us here are PROVING that those who testified against her statement l.i.e.d.

I have personally proven that Shelley and Lovelady lied. (As have others.) All you have to do is read Officer Baker's first-day affidavit and WC testimony to see that he lied.  Several people lied in the coverup.

 

Sandy,

Interesting rebuttal.

Our and Prudhomme's discovery that Lovelady is visible on the front steps in Couch-Darnell (and Andrej's assertion that Shelley is visible there, too) tends to undermine the later statements of Lovelady and Shelly, which later statements cast serious doubt on Vicki Adams' memory and/or veracity.

--  TG

9 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Bumped for Thomas Graves for us all to see his  analyses, calculations, drawings, and conclusions.

Go on Tommy Boy, make Doyle proud!

Bart,

I'm way too busy arguing with him at the moment to do that, if you can imagine that.  And regardless, I wouldn't want to get banned from the Forum for "shilling" for a former member.

But I am trying to understand the phenomenon of "Prayer Man" if that's okay with you, and if my efforts to do so involve communicating with Andrej and posing questions to him that I've thought up all by my widdle self while arguing and talking with ... (gasp) ... Brian Doyle, then so be it. 

In case you're wondering, I do agree with something that Doyle has pointed out to me and which he says he discovered but is getting no credit for having done so -- that PM's position can be determined by computing a triangulation of the line of an aluminum window frame with the plane of sunlight falling on PM's right hand,  and that the results of said computation preclude's 1) PM's being back in the corner,  or 2) his or her leaning against the wall. 

Regardless ...

Just by using my own common sense, it's obvious to me that PM's right leg couldn't have been 2 1/2" to 3" longer than the other one, and neither could he or she have had disproportionately long, giraffe-like legs (as Andrej apparently wants us to believe). 

In other words, he or she couldn't have been standing in either of the two ways Andre has PM standing in his two different graphics models (which both have PM standing with one foot on the top step and the other on the landing).  To wit, neither: 1) by balancing the toe of his or her left shoe on the landing, nor 2) in order to have that foot flat (or at least flatter) on the landing, having to bend his or her left knee in an awkward, leg-splaying manner.

Which of those two (In My Humble Opinion) highly implausible positions do you prefer, Bart?

Hey, maybe the final result of my collaborating with both Doyle and Stancak will be that not only I, but the whole "research community," will benefit! 

Maybe even you, Bart.  I mean, you know, ... in the really, really, really, really, really, really long run?

--  TG 

On 3/24/2018 at 10:07 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

This is incredible.

Brian Doyle has been claiming for months if not years that Gloria Calvery (who we all know -- or should know -- was a large woman) is the same person as Running Woman (who we all know -- or should know -- was a slender woman). I don't know why he thought that, but he did. And you know Doyle... he NEVER changes his mind once he makes it up.

And then a miracle happens... Doyle changes his mind! Why? Because he got the truth from someone who would know... Gloria Calvery's own son. Her son pointed to the very same woman in (Betzner 3) who Thomas, Prudhomme, and I have been pointing to for a year as the woman we believe to be Gloria Calvery.

And so now what? We have Bart saying Doyle is fibbing? Oh come on man! Why would Doyle do that?? I can't even imagine the amount of pride Doyle had to swallow to make that admission. It just makes no sense.

Everything points to the large young woman in the Z-frames being Gloria Calvery. Bart Kamp is the only holdout.

 

That's right, Sandy.

(Where did Bart go, by the way?

Haven't heard from him or Linda for awhile now.)

--  TG

14 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Gentlemen:

I was challenged by Thomas to explain the reasons for placing Prayer Man at a specific point in the doorway and assuming a specific posture. I see you are not convinced. Please feel free to continue your debate by explaining how exactly and where Prayer Man stood using your research and data. I will outline my point again using the current, realistic 3D model when the times comes albeit in a different thread. Please read my first post to Thomas's challenge if you wish to understand the complexities of the problem and reasons for placing Prayer Man at a particular location in the doorway. 

Andrej,

In a nutshell, it's easier for me to believe that "PM" is a person about 5' 6" tall, either male or female, who's standing on the same flat surface as 6' 1/2" Frazier, and who appears to be dwarfed by Frazier only because he or she IS probably only about 5' 6" and standing somewhat behind, and a few feet farther from the camera than Frazier, ...

... than it is for me to believe that "PM" is a man of average height (or a tall woman) who is awkwardly standing with one foot about 7" inches below the other one.

--  TG

On 3/28/2018 at 12:22 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Look at the girl above with light-colored hair.

 

Which of the following two girls matches her best?

 

Girl #1:                Girl #2:  

 

(Ignore insets and notes.)

 

3/29/18 Update:  

So far the tally is:

Girl #1:  David Andrews, Sandy, Andrej, Tommy, Michael W., Joe

Girl #2:  Bart

--  TG

 

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

What I mean is, AS wants us to think that this guy just stood there with one leg down comfortably on the step.  This is how he compensates for the figure to be "small."

But it's possible to put both legs onto the top like most normal people stand and move him back away from the camera.  This will also make him look smaller.  AS said it's impossible but in his top view there seems to be room.  And the "lean" I mention is not a huge one - just a casual lean on the wall.  See the animated GIF below:

Also, if you look at this clip of the unedited footage PM was hardly noticeable in it and someone had to edit it to bring him out.  What's that tell you?  It tells me he that he seems to be more back in the shadows. Notice too that the footage below is PM *before* his supposed very comfortable putting his leg down onto the step.

If you look at it, he's in pretty much the same position as when the woman in all white is going up the steps which is 30-60 seconds later.  And we're expected to believe that PM stood there with his leg down on the step comfortably? 

Michael,

Excellent points all, but I would like to point out that Woman-All-In-White (Reed? Hicks?) was "captured" going up the steps in Couch-Darnell (and trying to pull Gloria Calvery with her; note how WAIW's left shoulder dips and her torso twists counter-clockwise in C-D as she pulls Calvery's right arm up) only about 20 to 25 seconds after the assassination.

But, granted, even just a few seconds is an awful long time for PM to stand with one foot on the step and the other on the landing, with either:

1) his left foot balanced on the toe of his shoe (see Andrej's graphic in my previous post, above), or

2) flat-footed, and with his left leg splayed way back there and his knee bent in an awkward-looking way.

Which graphic "2" -- showing only PM and Frazier -- Andrej posted about six months ago, but which I now cannot seem to locate.

Perhaps Andrej would be kind enough to re-post it here?

--  TG

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Andrej,

 

But why would he have stood there like that instead of back a foot or so, up on the level (and less precarious) entryway landing?

To be closer to the action?  (sarcasm)

To improve his view of Elm Street by a couple of feet to the right down there (maybe)?

Could you please create a graphic showing us what, exactly, he could see down there from that vantage point, and how it would have been better than from  his traditionally assumed position, back there in the corner? 

How much lower is his head in your model than it is up on the landing and on the edge of that step?  Pretty much the height of the step, right?  What was that?  Six or eight or ten inches?

Why would he have sacrificed that height advantage as it pertains to POV?  "To get a more sweeping view" of Dealey Plaza and Elm Street? 

Etc.

 

--  TG

 

PS  It just seems to me that you're artificially placing 5' 9.5" Oswald there in that semi-dangerous "perch" because whoever it is back there in the corner (i.e., "PM") is too short by far, compared to Frazier, to have been 5' 9.5" Oswald.

And that you feel compelled to keep Oswald in the Weigman, et al., "scene" somehow, in order to banish the thought that he just might have been inside the building, instead.

In my humble opinion, it's all too contrived in order to "exonerate" Oswald, Andrej.

Not unlike what Fetzer was doing a couple of years ago on this very forum with his "Oswald Was Doorman" theory.

 

How long do you think anyone would stand on a step-and-landing combo like that, Andrej?

--  TG

8 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

  ..... it's  impossible  to move a guy a foot or two back so he can lean?

Michael,

Why would he (or she) lean if they were perched on the edge of the landing above that step?

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

--  TG

46 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

It is a comfortable and stable posture, please try it yourself.

Andrej,

But why would he have stood there like that instead of back a foot or so, up on the level (and less precarious) entryway landing?

To be closer to the action?  (sarcasm)

To improve his view of Elm Street by a couple of feet to the right down there (maybe)?

Could you please create a graphic showing us what, exactly, he could see down there from that vantage point, and how it would have been better than from  his traditionally assumed position, back there in the corner? 

How much lower is his head in your model than it is up on the landing and on the edge of that step?  Pretty much the height of the step, right?  What was that?  Six or eight or ten inches?

Why would he have sacrificed that height advantage as it pertains to POV?  "To get a more sweeping view" of Dealey Plaza and Elm Street? 

Etc.

--  TG

PS  It just seems to me that you're artificially placing 5' 9.5" Oswald there in that semi-dangerous "perch" because whoever it is back there in the corner (i.e., "PM") is too short by far, compared to Frazier, to have been 5' 9.5" Oswald.

And that you feel compelled to keep Oswald in the Weigman, et al., "scene" somehow, in order to banish the thought that he just might have been inside the building, instead.

In my humble opinion, it's all too contrived in order to "exonerate" Oswald, Andrej.

Not unlike what Fetzer was doing a couple of years ago on this very forum with his "Oswald Was Doorman" theory.

22 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Absolutely right Steve, while they were limited in documents especially compared to post ARRB and what is on MFF now, as far as some of the Dallas meterial they were much closer to it and a lot of great stuff has sort of fallen out of the online conversations going on now.  In addition to the Third and Fourth Decade journals I would also recommend the JFK Assassination Chronicles for some of the things that don't circulate these days:  http://www.jfklancer.com/Chronicles.html

 

 

 

Just curious.

Has any of that early research been debunked or amended with little caveats at the bottom?

-- TG

2 minutes ago, Josh Cron said:

Sorry Tommy

But she was practically deaf, right?

--  TG

9 minutes ago, Josh Cron said:

Edna Case

 

-

Statement to FBI, 11/23/63 (CD5, pg.431)

 

At the time the President’s motorcade passed, she advised she was on the third floor of the building at her desk. She stated that she was looking out the west side of the building and not the front. She said she had not heard the shots.

 

Josh,

Gosh Darn It.

--  TG

20 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Andrej does  a nice job with his 3D work. But I'm  finding  it  very hard to believe  PM standing there for  the  longest time  with that leg down.

On his website there's  a  top view and it appears there's  room to put PM back toward the corner. He may also  be casually leaning  his shoulder on the wall.

Regardless  that makes sense to  me  more than a person with a leg down on the step.

Also, if PM were standing like that, would his shoulders have been as parallel with the ground as they appear to be in the film (or films)?

--  TG

16 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

  .....

Andrej,

Thanks, but I don't understand WHY Prayer Man would stand with almost all of his weight on his right foot like that, as though he's ready to tumble (or be inadvertently bumped into by somebody and tumbled) down the steps.

Not only that, but there's something unnatural about the model of him that I can't quite put my finger on.

Are the lengths of his legs, as measured by his inseams, the same and/or in correct proportion to his torso, as Frazier's DO appear to be?

Etc.

Thanks,

--  TG

14 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Tommy, what, in your opinion, might this thread accomplish? 

Michael,

In others words, why, IN MY OPINION, did I post this place?

(LOL; You really DO crack me up sometimes, Michael.  Do you fancy yourself the Forum's de facto watchdog?)

Well, to answer your rather queer query (nice alliteration, eh?) ... one WOULD think it would be rather interesting to know (assuming that shots were fired from *somewhere* in the TSBD) whether or not it was possible for someone who was where Oswald *claimed to have been* during the assassination (wherever THAT was, Old Boy) to HEAR said shots, and if the answer to THAT question is "yes," then how Oswald answered the question, "Did you hear any shots, by the way, Old Chop?" (if, indeed, he was queried said ... query.

I mean, don't you think that would have been interesting, and possibly even probative, to ask him that bloody question, Michael?

Is it plausible, even, that they could have done, but decided to withhold that little tidbit from the WC ?

"Yes, I heard them coming from Mr. Truly's office, or some such thing!" 

Regardless, why do YOU ask, if you don't mind my ... asking??

(Is it that you are sitting on "pins and needles" waiting for my next brilliant observation and/or thoughts provoking ... revelation?)

--  TG

Andrej,

Question #1:  Can you think of any reason PM would stand the way he's standing in your model, with one foot on the top step and the other on the landing?

         In other words, did he stand like that for a reason, or simply because he could stand like that?

Question #2:  Isn't his right leg longer than his left one?

Question #3:  Aren't his legs too long for his torso?

Thanks,

--  TG

Just wondering -- was Oswald asked if HE'D heard any shots?

"Naw. That noisy Coke-Cola machine musta drowned 'em out!"

--  TG

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

[Y]ou might want to check the available space in your PM box? I got an error message saying I couldn't send you a message.

Done.

--  TG

11 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Sandy,

 

We must ask ourselves why in the world Stella Mae Jacob, who worked in the billing department of the Texas School Book Company, is hanging out with "Westbrook" of the Southwestern Publishing Company, and "Calvery" of the Southwestern Publishing Company, a minute or two after the assassination, instead of with her Texas School Book Company colleagues Gloria Jeanne Holt (who also worked in the billing department), and Sharron Simmons (who worked as a clerk for said Texas School Book Company), especially since they had witnessed the tragedy together.

 

--  TG

 

edited and bumped