Martin Hinrichs

I thought that the increasment of the images from Robin does help to exclude the presence of Oswald idea

but the opposite is the case.

The new Darnell frames shows somebody in the doorway who really can be Oswald.

Without the frames i would be silent. But now...........

The more i look at it, the more Oswald.

Martin

question:

Since prayer man appears to be back in the shadows, how does the sun reach the ( camera lense, coke bottle bottom ? ) to make a sunlight reflection ?

Good call Robin but.....

there is something close to his face anyway.

I mean, we can ask questions over and over but where is the answer?

It is a bright white spot. It is there and visible.

-Ok, there was a man who liked to take pictures in shadow because of his lense and find the doorway

to be the perfect spot. Melting in was not a problem cause there was no police or such.

Shooting pictures with one hand is not a problem for Mister X.

-There was an employee who's name is meanwhile forgotten. He shot pictures for the family.

-It was Frazier. His was nervous by the testimony stating some false origin.

He was the man at the wall. He drunk a soda bottle but have not mentioned it.

-It was Oswald, he had a coke bottle in his hand and a sandwich taking it during the frames.

After he was finished, he was going back to the second floor by the front stairs to be seen by another witness and encounters

Baker and Truly on his way to the lunchroom to get back some stuff he laid down there.

He did not buy a coke cause he had already one in his hand. He goes back to the same way he already did to go out of the TSBD entrance some 3 minutes later. He then choosed to join a bus to go home.

Many theories are raising in the meantime. Lot of speculations by many who pay attention and post.

I like to deal with the photographic evidence cause it can be proven.

This person who is called Prayerman held something high to his face before the fatal shot.

The Wiegman film started some 4 seconds before the last sho(i)t.

One arm high,one arm half down with some thing highlight at his face.

In the movies he did not move.

He was standing on the last step before the landing of the stairs directly at the wall.

He did not change his position until the Darnell film.

The Darnell film starts at 20.14 sec after the HS and ends at 26.55 seconds after the HS showing Officer Baker runned into the doorway.

This are the facts among other person in that area like Lovelady.

Now i'am going to speculate....

Martin

Ray, if Prayer man is clapping his hands, what is the white reflection?

Correct question Ray Mitcham.

The white spot is static within the moving sequence in Wiegman.

Thats not clapping hands. They would move.

The idea of a bottle is reaching my mind more and more. Even it appears to be strange when thinking of Oswald.

But we try to deal with facts and this is photographic evidence.

Is that a bottle?

Martin

Just a thought re the Wiegman.........Assume that Prayer Man is holding a bottle of Coke in his right hand. As Prayer Man proceeds to take a sip from the bottle, he brings it up to his mouth and tilts the bottle back (so that the bottle is almost horizontal as he is taking his sip). The round, light area in front of Prayer Man's lower facial region could be a reflection of light off of the round base of a Coke bottle.

Good argument Michael.

I was in 2011 and 2012 often in contact with Gerda Dunckel. We chatted often via PM.

You know, we speak the same language.

But since a half year she did respond anymore. Thats truly sad. She made some great stuff.

Thank you Martin.

Do you think this could be our Gerda?

LUDWIG HILDA GERDA Gunckel

http://www.comtur.cl/comtur/index_2.php?p=2&emp=855022

I don't think so Ray. To my knowledge she used an Alias.

Martin

Here a closeup crop of the Wiegman film:

Superb stuff, Martin.

Looks to me like Prayer Man's right hand is significantly higher than his left here.

Contrast the 'join' in Darnell:

My money is still on a Coca-Cola--taking a swig in Wiegman, return to two-hand clasp by Darnell.

Yes Sean, you are correct. My idea of a camera in his hand is apparently invalid.

Has someone created an overview in map to show all the people in the doorway?

To me it looks like Prayerman was standing directly at the wall but not on the top pedestal.

Most likely one step lower.

When looking closely at the stable Darnell (not Couch as i stated falsely) sequence from me

i see the right glass door being operated. Opended most likely. But thats just a side note.

best to you

Martin

This person has what looks like a camera up to his face in Wiegman....lowered down in Couch.

But i surely don't know what that strange behavior with the arms is.

Hello Martin, and thank you for that amazing clip. I am writing an article about the discovery of Prayer Man,

and would like to find out more about Gerda Gunckel. Does anyone have her photo?

We know that Prayer Man Lee was a fan of JFK.

I submit that we see here

a man APPLAUDING his

FEARLESS LEADER!

who has just passed by.

Elementary,

my dear Watson!

A pleasure Ray.

I was in 2011 and 2012 often in contact with Gerda Dunckel. We chatted often via PM.

You know, we speak the same language.

But since a half year she did respond anymore. Thats truly sad. She made some great stuff.

best

Martin

Martin, I was thinking that it looked like a person taking pictures as well. IMO, he had to get in the shade to do so, because otherwise in the sunlight he would only get glare and would be unable to see what he was attempting to get a picture of. As much as I think that prayerman looks like Oswald and thought we had the smoking gun, I do believe a camera in his hands would remove him from consideration. (that is, of course, if it is a camera that he is holding)

Sure Terry, i was thinking the same.

But on the other hand Sean's and Richard's arguments are convincing.

None of the TSBD employees standind in the doorway reported to have taken pictures and

the left arm of this man is considerable lower in Wiegman.

I would use both arms holding a camera.

I don't know what that white piece in front of his head is in Wiegman...in Darnell it is gone.

Just the arms are noticeable lower.

What is that?

best to you

Martin

Martin, I don't know where we'd be without you and Robin (and Gerda, if only she'd report back for duty...).

Is that a jerk in Prayer Man's arm??

While you're there--would you know how one might go about evaluating and if necessary correcting the Darnell frames for aspect-ratio distortion?

Thank you Sean.

Sean, the aspect ratio in all frames is the same. What makes it difficult to examine, is the odd heavy blur in some frames.

Gerda erased them too as far as i know. I just wanted to show both version.

For Research purpose, i would use this vesion with all blurry frames erased:

In this version, this person is still frozen. Thats a really strange fellow.

This person has what looks like a camera up to his face in Wiegman....lowered down in Couch.

But i surely don't know what that strange behavior with the arms is.

Here a closeup crop of the Wiegman film:

best to you

Martin

I don't know if this of help, but i stabled the short Darnell sequence myself, taking care of the rotation in the frames.

This is a GIF with all frames incl all heavy blur frames:

and here the same but all blurry frames been reased:

Martin

Your point is valid and what you wrote is good.

To me, it is very strange, while reading the testimony of Couch, that he did not record the crime scene even when knowing it.

He was hinted by Jackson to look up to the TSBD because Jackson saw a rifle.

Couch did and confirmed to saw the rifle.

Then Couch searched for his camera on the footroom of the car with success, beginning to film the Grassy Knoll???

That makes zero sense to me.

To see a rifle after hearing shots and then to neglect the source?

No go for a camera man.

This is a good example of guided testimonies of the WC.

I had never really thought of it from that perspective before, Martin. Not a bad point. But, on the other hand, we must consider other things too -- the fact that Couch was riding in a moving car as he filmed. I guess he could have jumped out of the camera car [as Wiegman did] and rush inside the TSBD to film in there or film the upper floors of the building where he saw the gun. But in the latter possibility, Couch knew the gun had already been pulled back inside, so he might have thought "What's the point of filming an empty window?" (even Dillard wasn't fast enough with his camera to capture the gun or the assassin in the window, and he snapped his picture just seconds after Bob Jackson shouted "There's the rifle!").

Plus, Couch could easily see that a lot of confusion was taking place near the Grassy Knoll (the direction his camera car was taking him anyway), so what was he supposed to do under those circumstances? He merely filmed what was handy to film at that chaotic moment, and he'd already passed the Depository.

And this quote of yours, Martin, is not an accurate (or fair) remark at all:

"This is a good example of guided testimonies of the WC." -- M. Hinrichs

How do I know it's not a fair statement? Because we don't need to rely ONLY on what Mal Couch told the Warren Commission months after the assassination. Fortunately for us, we've got the audio of Couch saying that he saw the rifle sticking out of the "fifth or sixth floor" window of the TSBD. And he said that on live WFAA-Radio within just an hour or two of the shooting on November 22nd. Listen to him say it below:

DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/MAL COUCH

BTW, after Couch's camera car went under the Triple Underpass, he did jump out of the car and run back to the Depository:

Mr. BELIN - Did you take any pictures of the School Book Depository Building itself?

Mr. COUCH - Not of the south side at the moment. After we went, say, 50 to 75 feet on down Elm, uh - we began to hang on because the driver picked up speed. We got down under the - I think there's three trestles there, three crossings underneath the - uh - at the very bottom of Elm Street -

Mr. BELIN - Is that what they call the triple underpass?

Mr. COUCH - Right. And - uh - I think, as I recall, right after we made the turn on Elm, one or two of the fellows jumped out. But after we got all the way down underneath the three trestles we finally persuaded the driver - who wasn't to anxious to stop - to stop and - uh - we all jumped out. And I ran, I guess it was about 75 yards or a little more back up to the School Depository Building and took some sweeping pictures of the crowd standing around. I didn't stay there long.

Good points again David.

Couch was in Camera Car 3. The last camera car in that motorcade.

Yes, the car did move. Is that a problem for a camera man in an open automobile?

He can switch the perspective very easy.

Sure, it is an unfortune that we can't see what Couch thinked.

But his action is still not locical to me.

David, i believe Couch. I believe that there was a rifle in the sixth floor.

I'am sure a shot or more come from this direction.

Maybe even Oswald.

But he was obviously distracted by a last shot form the grassy knoll.

That makes sense.

best to you

Martin

In reality, of course, Oswald was inside the building when those Couch (or Darnell?) and Wiegman images were taken. Lee Harvey, at that time, was in the process of hiding his rifle between boxes on the sixth floor and then hurrying down the back stairs after having just fired three shots at the President.

It was Malcolm Couch and Dave Wiegman who filmed the Elm street sequence close to the shots.

Darnell started to film later capturing the Elm spectators.

Wiegman started to film approx 4 seconds before the headshot and Couch roughly some 10 sesonds after.

Your point is valid and what you wrote is good.

To me, it is very strange, while reading the testimony of Couch, that he did not record the crime scene even when knowing it.

He was hinted by Jackson to look up to the TSBD because Jackson saw a rifle.

Couch did and confirmed to saw the rifle.

Then Couch searched for his camera on the footroom of the car with success, beginning to film the Grassy Knoll???¿¿¿

That makes zero sense to me.

To see a rifle after hearing shots and then to neglect the source?

No go for a camera man.

This is a good example of guided testimonies of the WC.

Martin

Mr. Colby

Thank you for the instructions. Here is z313 with the debris circled for you.

To be honest I think they are not distinct enough to tell what they are it could just be discoloration of the grass. I doubt the skull fragments would have followed such a trajectory. But let's say you're right, what would it prove?

Len, the circled parts from Robert in frame 313 is really debris from JFK's head.

Martin...

The third law of physics is well understood... the skull MUST move to resist the frontal shot... a shot from behind carries with it much more baggage...

Using the available evidence... please explain WHERE the shot entered the back of the head... WHERE it exited... HOW that trail of particles is left that high up...

and WHY doesn't this xray show the bone as seen in the photos from the same time?

A shot from the rear, from the 6th floor, exists his face... WHY do we not have a single Parkland witness say there is any damage to the face, front or top of the head and yet can have Boswell give us this

"approximation" showing virtually the entire skull missing?

Well, David. I'am aware of the Boswell drawings to the skull.

And i've read the witnessess saying their statements.

All what i did is to show the pictures from some frames.

Pictures who telling a true story. Unaltered in Raw output.

I have an idea what can happen to JFK's skull after 313 and what makes his head moved so sharp backwards.

Will see what i can do with the following frames or not.

Martin

Now at least i'am posting a GIF based upon the frames 312-315 again in stable form.

I believe it was shown also from Chris Davidson a while ago.

It shows a bone piece from JFK's head moving fast towards the front and down into the SS-100-X footroom.

Frame 314 is the frame showing the bone piece.

Frame 315 is the moment JFK's head started to move backwards.

Here the GIF:

Strong evidence of a shot from behind hitting JFK's head.

Martin

Now i'am going to show a stable GIF which have only one fix point

and this is JFK's head.

To say the least a desperate attempt to stable this frames with the agenda prove JFK's head did not moved forward.

I better let pictures talk:

You see in this wrong GIF a somehow static head from JFK from a horizontal point of view. But it nod down.

Now look at the other parts of the frames. No part of the frames line up. The fix points are beyond.

To me, out of disscusion. Nothing fits here.

Martin

That is one of the most dishonest and manipulated gifs I have ever seen.

And anyone can see why.

Jim, say what you like about Craig but his stable GIF is accurate as it can be.

It's not manipulated in any way.

I'am familiar to stable frames since years and did the same with this Zapruder frames 312 and 313.

I used some four fix static points on the limo (Craig used more) but the output is very similar.

Here is my turn:

Clearly to see that JFK's head moved forward by some +/- 2 inches during 312 and 313.

I wonder why Josiah stepped away from his research regarding this, seen in his speech in the Video.

Martin

This is the clearest back yard photo i have.

It shows the ring on the right hand.

Click on image to view full size

Good eye Robin, as always.

Apart from that, the ring in the arresting picture you've posted above on the left hand, would look by far more dominant on the right hand

in the backyard photo.

best to you

Martin

The clothes doesn't matter but the geometry which proves is doesn't happpend that way.

Myers know it.

It's amazing how most CT and LN are much more interested about the issue of where Moorman was standing, than about the fact that she heard two shots after the head shot.

Let's drive that point home. She would be a great witness for the defense in a hypothetical trial against LHO.

Thats a real good point, Andric.

David, she stood in the street as McBride passed by and took her #3 photo that day

but went a moment later back onto the grass to take photo number 5. The famous one.

I made a 3D study of it some time ago. I spend of lot of time for it.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=pages;sa=2<br />

In case you don't have access to the Article, please let me know.

You have to be registered on Duncan's Forum so see it.

best to you both Andric & David.

Martin

So typical of you mickey, we all hear you proclaim...I'm gonna do 'X" and we wait and wait and it never happens. You are just the little boy who cried wolf.

But I do so hope you actually do publish what you say you will. Since I did what I said I did with "my camera, my lenses and my applications", your little gambit is going to backfire on you. What's gonna happen is the world will see just how incompetent your really are. It's gonna get bloody and it will not end well for you mickey. You are right, the public does deserve to know...just how bad you are at all of this mr. "I'm 3d expert, just believe me". ROFLMAO!

I have a huge pile of new photographic proofs to show your continued incompetence. I gotta thank you for that silly dvd cover exercise you produced. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

So bring it on mickey...I am ready and waiting. Maybe I should publish just a bit of your sillyness to set you up. We will see.

Let's Dance.

Now back to the subject at hand in this thread..your failure to understand something as simple as how perspective works.

I suggest you prove your point for once about the Myers animation.

Oh wait, that will never happen. "

All we ever get from your is "I'am 3D artist since 1992 and know what i'am talking about".

ROFLMAO!

Read and listen to my already provided links and try to learn Craig.

Try to become a better human.

Call me Mickey or whatever you will...i call you by your name.

Sigh.....

Read this and learn to become a better human, Craig.

http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/quotes/williamson/our_deepest_fear/

Martin

Martin, Craig's post is revealing in a number of ways.

1. He always claims to be an agnostic about the Kennedy assassination, and only interested in the photographic evidence. And yet, here he offers up a rare bit of info, that only those who've studied the case would know, which is unrelated to the photographic evidence. Either he's studied the case more than he'll admit, or someone tipped him off.

2. That bit of info is that there's a reason Myers' Connally appeared to be a midget in the animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet. And the reason is that the producers of the program filmed Myers' animation off a monitor...from the side! This changed the relative proportions of Kennedy and Connally.

3. By offering up a "sigh" Craig suggests that the Connally midget is a harmless anomaly, when it is almost certainly a deliberate deception. When I first brought up the Connally midget some years ago, Myers responded in a similarly condescending manner, and suggested that only an idiot would not realize that the producers of the program--for no good reason whatsoever--would FEATURE an animated depiction of the Kennedy assassination filmed at an angle off a monitor. Fortunately, a few of Myers' biggest defenders, including David Von Pein, admitted that they too had been fooled, and that they had never suspected that the close-up views of the animation--in which the the borders of the monitor had been cropped off--had been filmed at an angle.

4. Craig also fails to admit that, by admitting the animation was filmed at an angle, he is admitting that the single-bullet shot doesn't align. You see, the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital trajectory line over the distorted animation, and GUESS WHAT--it pointed back to the sniper's nest! Even die-hard lone-nutters should be able to see that this means that the trajectory would not align if the figures had not been distorted.

I know that all Pat.

Craig is a LN'er as the night is dark.

Good sign is he didn't rephrased it again in the last time.

A small step forward.

best to you

Martin

Sounds more like the Warren Commission to me!

Sounds similar Tom, sure.

Martin