Jump to content
The Education Forum

Andrej Stancak

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Andrej Stancak

  • Birthday 07/02/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,183 profile views

Andrej Stancak's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

  1. Ben: I will prepare some images related to Connaly's injury behaviour later on (too much marking at the moment...). I think Connally was hit twice. Once around the time when Kennedy was shot (manifested in Kennedy lifting his hand toward his neck) and than again, into his wrist, around frame 328. This latter event is described in the latest Josiah Thompson's book Last Second in Dallas.
  2. Yes, the rotation of Connally's body to his right is a part of the process of falling down toward his wife after being shot. The frame 276 does not show what Connally had described as trying to view Kennedy by turning to his right. Connally told he has not been able to see Kennedy after turning to his right; he would be able to see him in frame 276 though. At least, this is what I read in Z-film.
  3. Ben: my visual analysis of Z-film tells me that John Connally showed signs of distress possibly from being shot around frames 239-241. While I agree that the President was hit earlier than Connally, it may be that the shot that had hit Connally came before frame 284. Frame 284 shows him turned toward the President, however, this was not how he described the shot. He was in the process of turning to his left (i.e., facing the front of car) when he registered being shot. Of course, I may be wrong as my is just an observation from Z-frames.
  4. Chris: is there any link to Part 1 to the The South Knoll Gunman? I only found a link to Part 2. I would be grateful for posting the link to Part 1, if possible. Thank you.
  5. Do I miss something? The switched-on microphone was supposed to be on Officer McClain's motorbike, not Hargis's motorbike.
  6. Well, I read this lengthy article and it turned out that the crictics cannot account for "I'll check it" being synchronous in both channels (as per James Barger's novel analysis, Appendix A). Ramsey panel in their report attempted to suppress this event. The digital analyses under the auspices of Ramsey panel used a too along time window to compute the pattern cross-correlation (PCC) and failed to detect it. Now, Richard Mullen in Appendix B accomplished it by using an appropriately short window and here the PCC shoots high when "I'll check it" pops up. Mr. Nalli wanted to weaken this finding by claiming the background noise was higher for "Check" than for "Hold" event, however, the level of noise will always be larger (or signal-to-noise ratio smaller) if the spectral window is reduced because less averaging is used to estimate the power spectra. As "I'll check it" event cannot be refuted (and it excludes "Hold" as being a genuine cross-talk), the critics aim on every possible aspect of Thompson's work. Their own acoustic analyses refrain to what they could hear with their own ears in the recordings, like that "I'll check it" is actually a completely different statement. Sure, Sgt. Bowles who was tasked with the trancripts of original audio recordings clealy heard "I'll check it" and assigned an ID of "4" (Deputy Fisher) just by mishearing it. The Ramsey panel report reproduced Bowles's transcription by replacing "4" with "?" and added "(discounted by sound spectrogram)" (the wrong spectrogram though, the one with a long spectral window which could not detect this short phrase"). That says it all.
  7. Larry: many thanks for reminding me your 2010 book. Of course, I read it, but it was some three years ago and I could not remember that January's stody was also mentioned in your previous JFKA book. I will consult it immediately. It is a sheer pleasure to read your and other researchers' posts in this thread that reveal both deep research and in-person investigations. Tipping Point is on myreading list. Will a Kindle version of your book be also available and is it reasonable to wait for it? Would you know or be able to guess who was the woman that came to negotiate with Wayne January on Wednesday, November 20? There were not many women associated with the case as potential co-conspirators and her identity could tell a lot about who were Lee's handlers in Dallas during this very sentitive period of the assassination plot.
  8. Thanks for reminding me, James Douglas had indeed described Wayne January's story in his book. Your memory serves you well. The possibility of two parallel plots, one to send Oswald to Cuba in the immediate aftermath of assassination and one to kill the President looks very logical and coherent to me. Lee Oswald played his spy games, he was led to believe he was in a plot against Castro, and he did not know anything about the other plot. This explains why he was genuinely surprised of being arreigned for killing the President when paraded in front of newsmen in Dallas Police headquarters. There is one more interesting aspect to the other plot. Lee Oswald likely issued a clue during 12 hours of his interrogation of him being associated with one or more intelligence agencies - those that handled him during the summer. This may have been the reason for not having taken any notes, or stenographic or audio recordings during the interrogations. If Captain Fritz gave a call to Langley to check up on Lee Oswlad, he would hear a clear denial but also a strict order not to take any records during the interrogations.
  9. I have not read Tipping Point yet, however, the close association between anti-Castro Cuban intelligence activities and Lee Oswald and the lack of understanding of his own role has been elaborated in "JFK The Second Plot" by Matthew Smith in 1992, and it kind of matches the discussions here. Lee Oswald was led through a labyrinth of anti-Cuban operations that summer 1963 and after his attempt to get to Cuba in September 1963 failed (it was never really planned to succeed but Lee did not know), he was sent to Dallas to wait for the opportunity to be flawn to Cuba directly using a small aircraft. He was told that this clandestine operation would best take off when the President is in Dallas as nobody will pay any attention to what aaircraft departs from the Red Bird airport. Contrary to my working hypothesis of Oswald involvement (Lee taking part in a mock shooting attempt by bringing his rifle), Lee Oswald hurried from the Depository only because he had a randevous to make, with J.D. Tippitt supposed to provide a transfer to the airport. In the meantime, there was a an APB roughly matching Lee Oswald, and Tippitt became suspicious of possible Lee Oswald's involement in Presindent's killing. The person who lured Tippitt to tranfering Lee Oswald to the airport (Roscoe White?) was at the scene (possibly even brought Lee from North Beckley in a car) and it was that person who shot Tippitt. He had to do it because Tippitt would get to know too much about both plots and who was behind and could point directly to the person who asked for the transfer. Miss Acquilla Clemons's account would match this scenario quite well. The scenario rests on the author's interview with Wayne January who described in great detail the visit of three persons (Oswald sitting in the car and not present during the talking) at Red Bird airport aimed to rent a small plane with a pilot for flight; the two people told January enough for him to understand that this plane would be hijacked on route, and he declined the contract. However, people in Red Bird airport area complained about an aircraft revving its engine the whole afternoon as if waiting for a hasty departure. Thus, Lee Oswald, according to "The Second Plot" , did not know anything about the plot to kill the President, however, he knew a lot about the second plot and that would be enough to expose the assassination plot. Also, the second plot was based totally on the intelligence operations involving the CIA and the anti-Castro Cuband during summer of 1963. The whole purpose of the second plot was to fly Oswald to Cuba right after the assassination and then pin all guilt on him. The result would be a request of the public to attack Cuba.
  10. Steven: I guess the wound of the size of a baseball in the right parietal region of the head described by Parkland doctors cannot be seen in Marry Moorman picture; that wound would be on the right side of the head as a part of the blown-off bone flap. I guess what happend was that a large amount of brain tissue has been torn off from the rest of the brain, basically the whole of the right parietal lobe and a part of the occipital cortex. Therefore, it would have been possible to see the remaining brain tissue through the large wound, and that would be the cerebellum. Unfortunately,we lack a proper 3D reconstruction of President's head and the head wound in Z-film or Mary Moorman picture which would be of great help.
  11. Paul: As far as I can see, the Z-film shows very clearly a flap of bone hanging over the right ear. I may be wrong, however, my interpretation is that a part of this flap, the back portion of this flap, separated from the skin and fell onto the backseat. The remaining flap of bone was turned back, it could even be Jackie who did that, basically closing the enormous wound on the right side of the head. However, since the back portion of the flap was already on the backseat, the Parkland staff saw the back part of the wound; the wound was in reality much larger than the wound that Parkland doctors and nurses saw. It is a speculation on my part, however, I can envisage that the portion of the flap of bone seen in Z-film that was found on the back seat was retrieved by the SS agents and brought to Bethesda. The flap of bone hanging over the right ear can only be the result of a tangential shot (if this flap was pushed out by a radial force, there would be an entry wound above the left ear) and such a shot most likely had an entry in the right front temple and exit in the parietal region slightly medial relative to the large flap of bone seen in Z-film. I guess this is what Tom Wilson and I were able to reconstruct from Mary Moorman photograph. Detail of the exit wound in Mary Moorman photogaph: Location of the exit wound in Mary Moorman picture: Could the whole purpose of the apparent surgery to the head mentioned by agents Sibert and O'Neill be adding the missing part of the bone to cover up the tangential shot which would cast doubts on a shot from the back?
  12. Mark: I am not sure if you have read Josiah Thompson's book. The book would address your points better than I can. The microphone on a motorbike was certainly switched on as it recorded engine sound (this would not be case if the motorcycle were parked somewhere miles away from Dealey Plaza). I was satisfied that it captured "I'll check it" (which occurred only seconds before the shooting) and the motor slowed down right after this message for about three seconds, possibly because the motorcycle was doing the sharp turn to Elm Street. The shots rang out just after "I'll check it" and after about 3 seconds of the motorcycle slowing down. The clue "I'll check it" occurred on both channels due to the crosstalk and there was zero lag (or perfect synchrony) between the channels if simulcast, voice-independent impulses were used to synchronise both channels. This was demonstrated by James Barger in 2018, and he has a chapter describing his analysis in Josiah Thompson's book. The array of microphone was capturing the sounds of shots along the path of the motorcade which could not occur just by chance. The sounds of shots were modelled to match the test shots fired at Dealey Plaza with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The specific architecture of buildings in Dealey Plaza offered several reflecting surfaces which affected the shape of the sound waves produces by a rifle shot. It would not be possible to take the sound wave template, run it through the dictabelt recording and receive statistically significant verifications of the shots by chance (false positives), for instance by falsely detecting electrostatic spikes or other abrupt sounds; the false positives are prevented by implementing statistical analysis which was indeed the case. I have registered the criticism of acoustic evidence that no picture or film showed officer McLain and his bike at an appropriate location where he would be expected if his microphone registered the shots. Frustrating as it is, the absence of a picture or film showing officer McClain at a certain location is not enough to refute the acoustic evidence. To refute the acoustic evidence, there should be a positive evidence, a picture or film, of officer McLain being somewhere else, e.g., in Parkland area or far ahead of the motorcade.
  13. I have completed my reading of "Last second of Dallas" and am very impressed by this book. I will read it again more slowly, however, there are a couple of points which immediately caught my attention: 1. The analysis of post-Z313 frames pointing to a head shot coming from the rear was new to me. This shot seemed to have occurred in frame Z328, about 0.71 s after the earlier head shot from the front. In all fairness, even Josiah Thompson could not identify this shot for some 30 years. It was discovered by Keith Fitzgerald around 2005. The shot from the rear explains the forward and downward slump of Kennedy after being thrown earlier to the left and back by the frontal shot. The occurrence and latency of this shot fits with the acoustic evidence. 2. The novel details and analyses of the acoustic data are extremely valuable and add to the strength of the visual evidence. This includes in the first place a new proof of a synchronising event "I'll check it" which occurred simultaneously in both channel 1 and 2 just seconds before the shooting. (Interestingly, the noise caused by the motorcycle engine showed a drop for about 3 seconds just before the shooting, consistent with slowing down during the hairpin turn to Elm street). However, the book, thanks to contributions of James Barger and Richard Mullen (BBN Technologies), also shows that the previous criticism of acoustic evidence based on a almost 1-minute delay in occurrence of "Hold everything" between channel 1 and 2, used by the Ramsey panel to discredit the HSCA conclusions, was wrong: this mismatch was due to copying "Hold" from one channel onto another at a later stage, possibly by mistake. This overdub of "Hold" at a later stage was demonstrated by examining the presence of multiple frequencies of the humming sound in channel 1 which could only happen by copying "Hold" from the other channel including its unique noise frequency (the recordings and copies were made on the Audograph machines each having a unique speed which shifted the 60 Hz noise frequency in a specific manner).
  14. I understand the acoustic and acceleration arguments for two head shots occurring in rapid succession, however, what the Z-film and the MM picture both tell point to only one head shot with an entry probably on the right temple behind the eye and exit probably in the parietal region of the skull, as reconstructed in Mary Moorman's picture. This shot was tangential and caused a large flap of bone to detach from the rest of cranium and hang by the skin. The brain matter including blood and cerebrovascular fluid was discharged upward in various directions - directly upward, slightly to the front and also to the back, creating a wedge. The left-riding motorcycle officers were hit as they arrived at a spot to receive the brain matter and bone particles falling down. I just cannot see evidence in terms of the head wounds (on the autopsy pictures or in Z-film) proving another head shot while I admit there may be another shot around the time of the fatal head shot that missed. The flap of bone hanging over the President's right ear in Z-film suggests a large gaping wound in the right parietal region of the head and this could be the wound that all Parkland medical staff had witnessed. I wonder if the bone loosened from the flap and remained in the limousine, was retrieved by the SS agents, brought to the Bethesda hospital, and was crudely mounted back in what was later seen as "apparent surgery to the head" by the FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil.
  15. Steven: I was thinking a lot about your comment about the timing of Mary Moorman's picture. If Mary Moorman snapped her famous picture before the head shot, the photographic analysis shown in this thread would hang in the air. I am currently reading Josiah Thompson' Last second in Dallas, and the book claims the picture was shot 1/9 second after the head shot (presumably Z313). This would justify seeing the two holes in the right parietal area of the scalp in Moorman's picture. My current working hypothesis would be that the two small holes seen in Moorman's picture would be the exit holes from the frontal head shot to the right temple, and this tangential shot would cause flipping of a large portion of the skull that would hang by the skin over the right ear. I guess, this is seen in Z film frames after Z313. Could this flap have separated from from the head and remained in the limousine?
  • Create New...