Andrej Stancak

11 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

RO:  They were planted?  If Oswald was not on the 6th floor, did not shoot anyone, and did not go down the stairs after the murder, this is a question of less importance than whether those things are true.  It is a question of the identity of the shooters and their location. While not unimportant, it pales in comparison to the questions that remain.  Who planned the murder and who orchestrated the framing of Oswald and the coverup of what happened.

Well, I see the question of Oswald's whereabouts during and after shooring and the question of who arranged the rifle and the spent cartridges or maybe even used the rifle to shoot from the sixth floor as on equal footing. If someone planted items of Oswald's guilt on the sixth foor, that person knew for whom he had worked or who had asked him. Proving that someone else than Oswald was on the sixth floor during the shooting is of equal importance, in my mind, to proving Lee Oswald was Prayer Man; one outcome strengthens the outher outcome. I would prefer commenting more on the sixth floor "evidence" or shooter(s) after somehow completing my research.

12 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

RO:  Fascinating stuff, Andrej.  What do you make of Garner's further story that she was still in a position near the steps on the 4th floor to see or hear Oswald descending the steps, when Truly and a cop reached the 4th floor. *After* they supposedly encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor.  Garner said she neither saw nor heard Oswald while she was there.

 

That claim first appeared in the Martha Joe Stroud June 2 letter to J. Lee Rankin that was not only not followed up by Belin, at least officially, but was buried until Ernest uncovered it. You can bet Belin looked into it, if he did not already know what Garner had said.

 

To me that has always been the crucial fact that blows up the whole Oswald story. Regardless of what lie the WC used to discredit Adams, or Adams' veracity.

 

Are you still in touch with Ernest?  I posted a message on his facebook page asking for his comment on Adams' '66 TV interview, but so far it only has attracted a couple of rants from Brian Doyle.

 

Does Ernest still use that page?  Can you ask him for his reaction to the TV interview? How it contradicts what he wrote that Adams told him many years later? He obviously knew about it.  He mentioned it twice in his book.  There is also the loose end of Styles emphatically saying in the book that she didn't see S&L on the first floor either. 

 

AS:  However, I am not disputing a part of Baker's and Truly's encounter with Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, albeit in a different scenario. In my view, Lee Oswald went to the 2nd floor from the first floor via the front stairwell once he realised Kennedy has been shot. However, this is for a different thread.

 

RO:  This was the scenario advanced here a while back by Greg Doudna. After the murder, when Oswald was on the first floor or the front steps, he went up the stairs to the 2nd floor on his way out the back entrance when he encountered Truly and Baker.

 

The importance of this is, if true, it is another way to establish that Oswald did not come *down* the steps from the 6th floor when he encountered Truly and Baker. It's another way to do this, besides the Darnell and Wiegman films. It is consistent with Garner's story of seeing Truly and Baker coming up the stairs but not Oswald going down. It is consistent with Oswald's alibi.

 

 

Roger:

I am familiar and agree with your account on Dorothy Garner and the Stroud document.

I did not have any email exchange with Barry for about a year or so which is related to the lack of time for JFK research over past two years. I retired from my job couple of months ago and hope to revive my JFK research in due time, which includes the modelling of movements of important players across the TSBD in moments following the final shot. 

I also wrote to Barry to let him know about the Mort Sahl interview in case he did not register it.

As far as who first proposed the scenario of Lee Oswald as Prayer Man walking up the front stairwell to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom, I remember Greg took it from me just one day I posted it. It is not that important but I will send you a private message for you to see. However, I was not the one who invented this scenario. It has been discussed right at the start of the original Prayer Man thread ("Oswald leaving TSBD?"), around page 7 of that thread. Sean Murphy fleetingly touched upon this possibility and considered it tight from the timing perspective. It is this "tight" that requires further exploration. There is no realistic chance to reenact different scenarios in the Depository building any longer, and therefore what remains is a computer reconstruction with parametrically adjusted velocities and pauses in movements of individual people. I started this work during the Covid-19 lockdown periods but eventually was unable to complete due to so much load brought about by the new style of teaching at my University.

There is one more catch in Vicki Adams story: if no one has used the stairs or any of the lifts to descend from the sixth floor right after the shooting, how comes that a rifle and spent cartridges were found on the sixth floor? This branch of JFKA case took the most of my time and efforts since I embarked on JFKA research in 2015 with results not strong enough, in my view, to be publicised. 

On 12/30/2023 at 12:40 PM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Read my long explanation of Oswald's use of the stairs earlier in this thread. This is the only solution. No other solution exists or possibly exists.

Re Adams & Styles....... they left the window after say 10 sec. They firstly went to their office lift & then lost another say 10 sec. Then they probly exited the lift area & entered the storage area via a door near their lift (rather than going back into their office & using their office door to enter the storage area). Then once in the storage area they would have klomped to the rear stairs (praps they intended to use the lifts if available)(they were not available). Garner (in the office) would have heard their klomping as they passed along the office/storage wall along the near side of the storage area, & Garner herself then entered the storage area (to look throo the western windows to see the commotion near the grassy knoll carpark).

Adams' & Styles' klomping would have drowned out any noise made by Oswald. 

Marjan:

where did you get information about Adams and Styles going first to the lift before heading to the stairwell? This diversion was not mentioned either in her WC testimony or in her exchanges with Barry Ernest, or in the audio recording from 1966 which opened this thread. 

I am involved in reconstructing movements of Vicki Adams, alleged Oswald's movements, and the trajectories of Truly and Baker using a computer technology and realistic (measured) time estimates of individual nodes of movements such as opening the door leading from the stairwell to the 2nd floor or durations of descending/ascending a flight of stairs by a male or female. I have been consulting Barry on details of Vicki's and Sandra's departure.

This is what Barry wrote to me in April 2021:

"Vicki estimated she left the window between 15 and 30 seconds after the shots. Both she and Sandra told me they remembered seeing Clint Hill rush to the car, and they started away from the window  before the car entered the Triple Underpass. This may be a rather imprecise way of figuring it, but if you look at the single frames of the Z-film, you'll see Hill reach for the limousine's rear hand-hold at about Z-342. The car is close to entering the Underpass at Z-462. That leaves 120 frames which, at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second, gives us 6.5 seconds.

Since Vicki was not included in any of the timed tests, absolutes are difficult."

This conversation led me to assume a 10-second interval between the time of the last shot and Vicki Adams leaving the window on the fourth floor.

The two girls took the shortest possible route to get to the entrance to the stairwell and that route would be shorter than the presumed Oswald's route from the most east corner of the sixth floor plus the time required to stash the rifle among the books. Therefore, there was no chance that Lee Oswald, should he be on the sixth floor, could descend via the stairs ahead of Adams and Styles. In the SS reconstruction of Oswald's movements, agent Howlett (Oswald) was walking while moving from the sniper's nest window to the entrance of the stairwell. In contrast, Vicki and Sandra were running both to reach the stairwell and to descend to the first floor, which adds additional seconds to their advantage.

I have also enquired with Barry about movements of Mrs. Garner. Dorothy Garner moved to the north-west part of the 4th floor immediately after Adams and Styles left. If Oswald would be following the two girls, both girls would hear his steps, and Garner would either see Oswald or for sure hear hist steps. Nothing of this happened. 

The only conclusion is that nobody was using the starirwell to escape from the sixth floor in the seconds or a minute elapsing after the last shot.

However, I am not disputing a part of Baker's and Truly's encounter with Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, albeit in a different scenario. In my view, Lee Oswald went to the 2nd floor from the first floor via the front stairwell once he realised Kennedy has been shot. However, this is for a different thread.

6 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission.

Marjan:

your timeline suggests that Adams' and Styles' descending followed Oswald's who already was on the second floor when Adams and Styles started their descend. But Adams and Styles left the 4th floor within about 10 seconds after the last shot and had a shorter path to the stairwell than Oswald who also needed to stash his rifle among the book boxes. Thus, Adams and Styles could only be ahead of Oswald. However, they would be able to hear Oswald if he followed him about three flights of stairs (one flight of stairs takes about 7 seconds to pass) as the stairs produced all kind of noises. 

Mrs. Garner moved to the vicinity of the stairwell right after Adams and Styles left and therefore, she was able to register Baker and Truly as they ascended the stairs; this is entirely all right. However, Garner did not hear or see anyone descending the stairs after Adams and Styles left and before Baker and Truly reached the fourth floor. 

The only solution to accommodate these circumstances is that nobody was descending through the stairwell after the shooting, neither Oswald nor anyone else. 

There is no possibility in my mind that all Parkland staff, the doctors and nurses, would err in reporting the large gaping hole in the right parietal area. I wondered how could autopsy pictures of Kennedy's head not show a hole corresponding to Parkland staff's reports. 

The answer may be that the back of the head in autopsy pictures was manipulated to hide the gaping hole in the right back of Kennedy's head. This could have occurred by matte technology well known and often used for film tricks in 1963.

However, a photographic manipulation may not be perfect and I therefore followed the possibility of residuals of the original head picture could still be retrieved from the altered image. 

Here is the method and the result:

On 11/16/2023 at 3:35 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

I have, in my possession, the Pugibet datebook. 

I came across it totally incidentally, and through someone who had no idea of my interest in the JFKA. 

Unfortunately, I have signed NDA with a filmmaker, and this datebook will not be available to be authenticated. 

Pugibet was behind the wooden fence, armed with CVA Scout v2 pistol, that fires 6.5 WCC rounds. He placed this pistol under his waistband.

Pugibet immediately left the ground behind the wooden stockade, then met a Dallas police officer and then a sheriff, but showed them Secret Service ID. Puginet wrote that into his datebook on 11/24, before it was known to the public that such an encounter had taken place. 

The datebook has an 11/20 entry, "Op +'ed by AD" which means the operation was approved by Allen Dulles. 

 

 

 

 

Ben:

when will we be able to see the film presenting Pugibet's story? Will the details (the datebook itself) be made public after the film is out?

On links between Rothman and Pugibet, and Pugibet's associations with Dallas and Dominican Republic. I apologise for repeated posting in case some has already posted the link to this 2017-release document.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32299962.pdf

13 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Andrej, could you provide a link to the early forum Bill Shelley thread you mention?

I would really appreciate it.

Also, when looking at that photo of Thomas Beckham that L. Hancock thinks is the Oswald Trade Mart background man I see some discrepancies that seem so obvious to me.

1. The Beckham fellow is much younger looking than Shelley at that time.

2. His hair is much darker than the Trade Mart background photo man. And the Shelley look-a-like man has a paler skin tone.

3. The Trade Mart photo man's face is much, much more boney and cheek sunken in and brow bone protruding than Beckham.

4. Beckham' nose is more pointy on the end than Shelleys. The Trademart man's nose seems more flattened on the end like Shelleys.

5.  I don't know what this Beckham fellow did for a living but it looks to me that he is not a "suit and tie" type person.

He looks like a carney more than a suit and tie wearing professional person.

Beckham has a similar hugely high Everly Brothers/Elvis pompadour type hair style true. But I do not see the very prominent "widows peak" top of the forehead hair line Shelley had and the Trade Mart persons hair line seems to also depict. However Beckham's hair does drop down to cover his forehead to obscure any widows peak I admit.

 

Joe:

I was referring to this thread and Larry's posts within:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22417-real-evidence-for-a-change-–-what-is-it-with-these-pictures-of-oswald-leafletting/page/3/

A very impressive piece of work. I wonder if this advanced refutation of the single bullet theory will make any impact on main stream media or law enforcement. There seems to be a large gap between evidence that had been gathered by independent researchers over the years and the legal state of the case which remain the same from the day Lee Oswald was killed.

(I see resemblance between Knott Lab's work and my digital reconstruction of the Depository doorway in using the original photographs as templates which a 3D model must match accurately. Any models not tested for goodness of fit with original image (s) have little value researchwise.)

47 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

It's not a superior copy, Mr. Larsen. 'Superior' is just Mr. Stancak's word for images that upset him less.

The print I used from the Weisberg archive (which I found on the prayerman site btw-----one of only two sites Mr. Stancak has said contains images worthy of his expert attention!) is far crisper:

But it's no great odds. Both versions are a disaster for Mr. Stancak's claim.

Incidentally, I took the more blurry frame that Mr. Stancak posted and simply zoomed in. The result is on the left, Mr. Stancak's heavily processed crop, by contrast, on the right---------------

Perhaps Mr. Stancak might share with us what he did to the image?

Unfortunately for him, though, no amount of fiddling with the image can get rid of the thing he knows and we know is such a calamity for his 'right shoulder hidden behind his head' nonsense: the white tshirt.

For Mr. Stancak's posture explanation to have a chance, that white shirt shouldn't be where we see it.

It's the reason I have asked Mr. Stancak to do up a digital model and show us. I'm guessing he won't dare!

Alan:

I reduced the dark tones a bit, basically, increased the contrast, and I sharpened the cropped image very slightly, all using SmartPhotoFix procedure in CorelPainshopPro v. 7. The reason was to show the contour of the right side of Lovelady better. I see no problem with this procedure.

The dark (black) version of Wiegman is of course of much worse quality than the one I downloaded from jfkassassinationgallery.com. In the one I brought, it is possible to see the details in the depth of the doorway which is a prerequisite for figuring out the orientation of Lovelady's body. This version even shows the faint figure of Prayer Man while the "black" copy, which obviously has been arranged by scanning some old print, does not show Prayer Man.

It is a pitty that you cannot understand Lovelady's posture in the cropped views of his body I prepared. It is not that difficult, just try again. But if you think I will spend weeks modelling this Wiegman frame to satisfy you, you are very wrong.

No doubt you really wish to have your blackened-out Oswald next to Lovelady in this frame and there is no reasonable argument that would change your view. So, the thread once again is all yours and I would really appreciate if you and Sandy stopped calling my name or quote me in this thread. If not, I will delete all my posts in this thread.

Consider this: even if the area of this Wiegman frame would somehow be intentionally darkened (which it was not), how can one know who or what was in that area if there is nothing to be seen in there? And, why only this frame was blackened out and not the rest of Wiegman film frames? Maybe it now dawns on you what nonsense are you pursuing.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Andrej,

The "impossible shadow" is present even on the superior copy that you found.

Somebody has blacked out Lovelady's right side.

 

I feel sorry for you, Sandy. You are now in Alan's web of wild conspiracy. Of course, there was no blackening in Lovelady's figure.

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh, I see what you're saying. That the part of Lovelady's over-shirt with his head above it is his shoulder and arm.

I don't think so, Andrej. What you are calling his shoulder and arm is really the right part of his chest.

 

It can; but the point really is that the posture is natural and entirely possible. No blackening of Lovelady's right side of the body.

9 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Lol. Given that you have the person in question's sex wrong, we know how seriously to take your assurance on this point.

Here is 3D model of the man shielding his eyes with his hands for everyone to see and judge how well or poorly it fits the original Altgens6.

I cannot see any feminine features, obesity or dense grey hair in this figure justifying a consideration of Sarah Stanto as a candidate. Can you please highlight the features in Altgens6 which would compell people to accept Sarah Stanton being the man shielding his eyes?

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

But I did robustly criticize his photo-analytical work. Because it's so staggeringly inept.

You have no idea what you are talking about when categorising my work this way. 

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

His posture-'explanation' for the darkness down Mr. Lovelady's side remains as absurd as the image itself.

This is now for other people to say. I have laid my arguments, provided an explanation, found another picture of the "black" frame, drew lines around Lovelady's body. It is for everyone to see if Lovelady's right side of the body was masked by blackening to hide the figure of Lee Oswald passing by next to Lovelady.

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

inability to curb his self-confirming subjective impressionism

I am using original pictures and draw any lines in separate panels for the reader to be able to verify the shapes I see. I have implemented a 3D modelling approach to test different hypotheses about the locations, postures and sizes of different people in the doorway. This is a quantitative, objective approach aimed to avoid dicsussion of the sort you fancy.

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

opportunistic habit of favoring inferior images when it suits him

No, I retrieved two full-size images of the frame in question from the jfkassassinationgallery.com and compared them. The one you claim shows a painted-in shadow is of much worse quality than the one I posted today. Nothing has been painted in in any Wiegman frame - if any painting had to make any sense, all Wiegman frames would need to be painted over in the critical area of the doorway but no single one has been. You have no case.    

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

3. Mr. Stancak appears unaware of the horizontal lintel shadow that kicked in for those on the landing. His 'Stanton ID' remains D.O.A.

The man shielding his eyes with both hands and wearing white shirt did not stand on the top landing in Altgens6. I am well aware of all types of shadows in the doorway since I modelled them using Google Earth engine as early as 2016.  

6 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.......................

Mr. Stancak responded very badly indeed to having the staggering ineptitude of his 'Stanton ID' in Altgens exposed:

a) misreading of her sleeves

b) misreading of Mr. Williams' trousers

c) inventing a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton

d) ignoring what Mr. Lovelady told Mr. Bonafede

e) ignoring that the fall of shadow throws an object into-------shadow

f) misnaming Mrs. Stanton as Mr. Molina

g) misnaming Mr. Molina as Mr. Shelley.

And now he's back to demonstrate that, sadly, he has learned precisely nothing. The issues listed above are just ignored. Mr. Stancak's infallibility as an interpreter of the visual record must not be questioned.

It is painfully clear that, on the question of Mrs. Sarah Stanton's position in the doorway in Altgens, Mr. Stancak is not to be taken seriously. His impressive abilities with digital reconstructions are not, alas, matched by corresponding competence on the photo-analytic side. There it's all just self-confirming subjective impressionism run amok. This kind of thing does great damage to JFKA research.

-----------

Speaking of which: Wiegman.

Mr. Stancak disparages the Weisberg archive print------------showing Mr. Lovelady at lower level with a ridiculous darkness blanketing his right side-----------as a copy not worthy of his attention. This despite the fact that he has in the past been happy to work with frames from a far inferior version of Wiegman.

Why does he do this? Simple: because he hates what it shows. Again, nothing must be allowed to perturb the Stancakian Reality Distortion Field. (We saw him play the same I-refuse-to-acknowledge-this-image card when confronted with the Kamp Darnell frame.)

Mr. Stancak then writes:

[H]e stood with his shoulder at a an angle more parallel with than perpendicular to the western wall of the doorway, and as he was on his way down to the lower steps, he may have his left foot one step down relative to his right foot, causing his right shoulder to be a bit higher than his left shoulder. This configuration would cause his body to appear narrow and his right shoulder hidden behind his head.

I'm sure you've already noticed what Mr. Stancak has managed to studiously ignore: the position of the white tshirt and left shirt collar!

If you want a good laugh, friends, look at Mr. Lovelady here and repeat Mr. Stancak's words: "his right shoulder hidden behind his head". But please, don't try replicating Mr. Stancak's hallucination in front of a mirror---------------you're liable to do yourself an injury!

Alan:

you are some photo expert and researcher if you can ridicule me personally, my work and my views so thoroughly. If anyone reads your criticism, s/he would think that you are right and I am wrong, and the readers would not even wonder how can Sarah Stanton's hair be obstructed by her hands as she was allegedly shielding her eyes (not hair) in Altgens6. 

So far, you could not demonstrate one single Wiegman film frame showing Oswald passing by next to Lovelady. You were taught a lesson yesterday from hands of Mart Hall who clearly and calmly showed you a better version of a Wiegman frame which allegedly had been manipulated to hide Oswald.

So you came up with another frame, a cropped view of a very poor-quality frame which clearly was copied from a paper medium. These copying steps automatically degrade information in a picture but you would not listen to it: the only truth is what you see at the moment, and if you cannot see the object which you think should be there, it was because of somebody painted it over.

While I encouraged Sandy to try to find a better version of the Wiegman frame you like to challenge Forum members with, I saw no positive response either from him or you. Therefore, I made my search and found a better version of the image with black doorway on jfkassassinationgallery.com:

And I cropped this picture to zoom on Lovelady, and brightened the cropped image a bit so that you and Sandy, two best image analysis experts, had a chance to check Lovelady's posture. The right inset shows the a few contours of Lovelady's body, in particular the right arm which turns into a partly visible shoulder. This Lovelady's posture is entirely plausible.

I do not expect you to agree with me; I whote my answer for other Forum members and interested guests so that they do not need to spend time refuting your silly theories. Equally though, please do not expect me to be involved in your thread.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well Alan, you're right.

Only Andrej tried to give an innocent explanation, saying that if the frames weren't so contrasty, we'd be able to see Lovelady's right side. But that's hogwash.

The reason the shaded corner is black is simply because the things out in the sun are extremely bright compared to the shaded area. The camera aperture is closed way down so as not to let so much light in that the film is overexposed.

That said, if we look at the people out on the street we see that there is a wide range of gray tones. This tells us that the photo is NOT contrasty. The only things that show up as black in the photo are black or very dark things. Oh, and the shadowed area.

Now look at Lovelady. Lovelady is out in the sun just like all the other people. There is no reason why the right side of his body should be any darker than his left side. But even if it was a little darker, it would appear in the photo as just that... a little darker. The only (innocent) way Lovelady's right half could show up on the photo as black is if his right half were painted black, or a very dark color.

I'm amazed the Andrej can't see the folly in his explanation.

Those frames have been tampered with.

 

 

Sandy:

I took the decision not to take part in this thread any longer after seeing the style of posting and the arguments used. I only respond to your post now because you are one of the administrators of the Forum, and you are bound to protect the standards of an educated debate, and also because you called my name.

After I observed that oval shape between Lovelady's and Shelley's head in Altgens6 years ago, I worked for five years to get to the bottom of it, resulting in my Youtube video. It was up to me to figure out what that shape was. Thus, if anyone here thinks he/she just made a breaking discovery of seeing Oswald in the doorway walking through the dooraway with a paper bag and wearing a white shirt, please post the finding after checking all possibilities and after gathering strong evidence of support of such a claim. We have had enough of false claims in the JFK assassination case. It is not the role of the Forum members to refute false statements, especially if a poster does not care about the integrity of the photographic materials.  

As per the picture you and others in this thread challenged the Forum members and specifically myself to explain, I have already offered an explanation. The frame in question displays too strong contrasts in the depth of the doorway creating very sharp separation of Lovelady's figure from the background. It may be an overall bad quality of the source figure causing such sharp contrasts. For instance, if the cropped view of the doorway was from the picture below, I would not even bother analysing it as it is clearly something like a copy of a paper copy of Wiegman's frame. Subsequent steps fo copying via paper medium made this picture worthless as to the analysis of details in the doorway. It is a poor image and I would advise refraining from making any conclusions based on it. So, what was the source image you used to present the cropped view of the doorway? You may understand it is an important question.

As per Lovelady's figure in the picture of interest, he stood with his shoulder at a an angle more parallel with than perpendicular to the western wall of the doorway, and as he was on his way down to the lower steps, he may have his left foot one step down relative to his right foot, causing his right shoulder to be a bit higher than his left shoulder. This configuration would cause his body to appear narrow and his right shoulder hidden behind his head. Add to this Lovelady's forward head posture (often causing unusual appearance of the location of his head relative to the trunk in 2D photographs), and you have an explanation of Lovelady's figure in this frame. Maybe there is a better version of this frame which could shed further light on Lovelady's posture in the picture above?

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Classic projection.......................

Take your latest error: Mr. Williams' trousers go way higher in the Allen photo than in your computer model. From this error, you proceed to invent a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton.

So, to recap, your identification of Mrs. Stanton in Altgens is based on

a) misreading of her sleeves

b) misreading of Mr. Williams' trousers

c) inventing a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton

d) ignoring what Mr. Lovelady told Mr. Bonafede

e) ignoring that the fall of shadow throws an object into-------shadow

f) misnaming Mrs. Stanton as Mr. Molina

g) misnaming Mr. Molina as Mr. Shelley.

Which is to say, your identification of Mrs. Stanton in Altgens is a misidentification. You need to correct it and move on.

Your posts would be funny if not being damaging to the standing of this forum. You are now on your own with this thread; you would not hear to any arguments to the contrary of your views anyway. 

This thread and the one on Carl Jones's arm are the two biggest lows of Educational Forum.

14 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

So you don't want to acknowledge the rudimentary errors you made and which I have pointed out? You're happy to just carry on regardless of reality?

Noted.

And no, I don't need to check your identification of Mr. Williams out. But thanks anyway.

Alan:

the reality is that you spew your fantastic inventions in rapid succession and run away once confronted with data. 

Otis Williams was photographed by William Allen when standing behind the glass door at some point after the shooting. Therefore, we have good idea about his appearance: he wore a white shirt and dark (black?) tie, and he had a nice belly.

There is only one candidate for a person with these features in Altgens doorway - the man standing close to the central railing and visoring his eyes. Here I have overlaid my reconstruction of Otis Williams's figure with Altgens6. You may agree it is a good match. At least I am not aware that anyone else has questioned it.

After reconstructing Williams' figure, it is possible to check the colour of the trousers of the other man visoring his eyes and standing behind Williams. That small bit of trousers is below the bent left elbow of Otis Williams. It is difficult to spot such minute details by viewing Altgens6 picture without assistance of a 3D model.

I would prefer if you called me Andrej instead of Mr. Stancak. The latter sounds polite but my impression is that it only hides your unnecessarily challenging and personal style of interacting in a debate.

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

Good grief, every single statement here is pure nonsense:

----"a white shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbow (or short-sleeve shirt)". Really, Mr. Stancak? Is that what the pink arrow points to?

----"dark (black?) trousers"? Where on earth are you getting that from? And have you even tried to work out what belongs here to the corpulent Mr. Otis Williams' dark (black?) trousers?

----"No trace of Sarah Stanton's blonde hair too". Her hair is in shadow, duh

----"most likely Joe Molina"? Nope, that would be the man seen just behind Mr. Lovelady (whom you no doubt have mis-identified as Mr. Bill Shelley, despite the fact that he said he was out of shot in Altgens)

Please  check my video on Altgens6 for identification of Otis Williams - he was photographed on that day, so his identification was quite straightforward. This was the man also in white shirt and dark trousers and wearing a tie.

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Nope. In early '64, Mr. Lovelady pointed Mr. Dom Bonafede to a woman in Altgens shielding her eyes as a lady who worked on the second floor. He later told WC that beside him at the time of the shooting was 'Sarah' (the only woman he mentions). His 'memory' of who was where on the steps was obviously influenced by his viewing of the Altgens photograph, in which Mrs. Stanton looks like she's standing right beside him.

Here she is:

 

It seems there was some misunderstanding in Lovelady's identification of Sarah Stanton as you present it. The guy you highlighted has man's clothes - a white shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbow (or short-sleeve shirt) and dark (black?) trousers. No trace of Sarah Stanton's blonde hair too. 

This man was most likely Joe Molina. He stood on one of the top steps as this man does. We have no photograph of Joe Molina from 1963, unfortunately, but his body height is known (5' 8'').  Molina told the Warren Commission to have stood next to Otis Williams and Pauline Sanders. The location of the man under your green arrow would match this location. Also, there is simply no other man in the doorway besides Jones, Lovelady, Frazier and Shelley than Molina. As the locations of other male occupants are known, this guy could only be Joe Molina.

11 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

In which case, we might turn to Altgens----------taken just a couple of seconds before this--------and identify this item, which has been generally misunderstood as Mr. Lovelady's left ear, as in fact part of the about-to-descend Mr. Oswald's face (or even his ear?):

It is easy to be tempted into thinking Oswald was in the back and responsible for the shape you highlighted, and back then before I was able to analyse Altgens6 using a 3D model, I was considering this possibility too. Such ideas come from misunderstanding of the relationships in the doorway and from not linking vague photographic interprestations with witness testimonies. There was a huge lady, Mrs. Stanton, up there in the centre of the doorway, on the top landing, and it so happened that part of her face, some curles of her hair and her right shoulder can be seen as separate from Lovelady's body in Altgens6. 

I have studied this shape for years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Hwt-cIGq4&t=367s&pp=ygUmdGhlIGNhc2Ugb2YgYSBtaXNzaW5nIGxhZHkgaW4gYWx0Z2VuczY%3D