Andrej Stancak

9 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

From Frazier's HSCA interview...certainly sounds like Frazier knew he did....

This may explain Buell Wesley Frazier's posture in Darnell. He appears frozen and not optimising his view of the scene with hastily departing motorcade at the Triple Underpass area. In one of his interviews, Mr Frazier mentioned to stand deliberately at his spot on the steps because he saw police officers with guns around and he was scared.

The only other person who similarly remained frozen and not looking where the rest of doorway occupants looked was that unknown person standing with his back to the western wall of the doorway.

Thanks for posting this short excerpt from Frazier's HSCA testimony, it was new to me and it is very important.

26 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

In my limited experience with curtain rods, my early married life consisted of low-rent apartments and TELESCOPING curtain rods. Say, if the window was 32 inches wide, the telescoping curtain rods would be around 18"-20" long when not extended, depending on the type of ends on the curtain rods. My mom's 1928-vintage farmhouse has 1940s/50s vintage telescoping curtain rods at every window.

So a 22'-24" long bag would make sense for curtain rods for 32" windows.

A good point. Telescopic curtain rods would explain the package length of 22'' inch. But why would then both Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle claim that the package was 27''-28'' long, too long to be carried the way Mr Frazier has described? And why would Mrs Randle say seeing a bulky bottom of the package to almost touch the ground while Lee held the package below the top of the package? Three curtain rods would not cause any bulky end and would not require a width of the paper bag to be 5-6''.

However, I admit that the bag which Mr Frazier claims to have seen (it would have to be shorter than 2 feet though) could be flat, it could be 5-6'' wide and it could contain three thin telescoping curtain rods of 22'' length.  The question is then the length of the package (27-28'') and its bulky end.

Why would Lee Oswald deny carrying a package containing curtain rods?

Is it possible to arrive at some conclusion regarding the curtain rod story?

Some facts first:

1. Both Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister claimed that Lee Oswald has carried a long brown paper back on Friday morning. Lee Oswald denied carrying any such bag except of a lunch bag of unknown size.  Mr Frazier did not confirm that Lee Oswald would carry a smaller paper bag on his lap during the morning ride.

2. Mr Frazier claims that Lee Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods. Lee told Wesley Frazier about his intention to bring curtain rods for his rented room on Thursday afternoon, and Mr Frazier told his sister about the curtain rods also on Thursday.

3. Both Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle testified for the Warren Commission that the package was 27''-28'' long. Mrs Randle told that she measured it before her hearing, so she was prepared for the question.

4. Mr Frazier described in his Warren Commission testimony the way how Lee carried the package. One end of the package was stuck under the armpit and the other end rested in the cupped hand.

5. The required length of Curtain rods for Lee's rented room was 32'' inch, about 4'' longer compared to the length of the package which Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle claimed to have seen.

6. A package of 32'' but also a package 27''-28'' could not be carried by Lee Oswald in the way described by Mr Frazier.

7. Mrs Randle claimed to have seen Lee holding the package below the top of the package with the bulky end of the packed almost touching the ground. However, a package of 27''-28.5'' would only reach to the knees.

8. The rented room had three windows and therefore, Lee could only need three curtain rods. The curtain rods would not create a bulky end on package.

Safe implications:

1. Lee Oswald did not carry any curtain rods to work on Friday morning. The package as described by both Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle could not accommodate the curtain rods, and curtain rods would not necessitate a bag 5-6'' wide. The curtain rods would stick out of the package and Frazier and Randle would have to see a part of curtain rods.

Correction: the telescoping curtain rods would not stick out from a package 27-28'' long.

2. The package as described by Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle could not hold the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle either.

3. Mrs Randle's description of how Lee Oswald carried the package and that the package had a bulky end was not consistent with the length of the package given by Mrs Randle and Mr Frazier. The bulky end of the package would not be consistent with the methods of carrying the package described Mr Frazier in his interview with Tom Meros.

Questions:

1. Did Lee tell Mr Frazier about fetching the curtain rods but carried something else in the package, something which would neither be curtain rods nor the rifle? What would it be and why he would not tell Mr Frazier and the Police about the content of such package? If it was not a rifle, why did Mrs Randle hurry up on Friday afternoon to tell the Police about the long package?

2. Did Lee Oswald carry his rifle to work and both Mrs Randle and Mr Frazier saw it? This possibility connects most of the dots: it explains why was Lee Oswald vulnerable after the shooting and why would Mr Frazier want to detach himself from the rifle by inventing the curtain rod story. There was no need for inventing curtain rods story unless there was a rifle problem.

Mr Frazier demonstrated how Lee Oswald  has carried the package in an interview with Tom Meros. Mr Meros and Mr Frazier prepared a package which was exactly 2 feet long (this is less than 27-28'' which he and Mrs Randle told the Warren Commission). Even if a package was only 24'', shorter than the one they (Frazier and Randle) reported, and even if Mr Frazier had longer arms than Lee Oswald due to being 3 inches taller, and even when the paper bag folded slightly under Mr Frazier's arm during his demonstration, Mr Frazier could not hold it in the cupped hand. He carried it with the two distal phalanges of his extended fingers. A paper bag, if carried it as demonstrated by Mr Frazier, would need to be very thin as the base was not the cupped at his hand but only two phalanges. 

Mrs Randle's memories would be spot on if Lee Oswald had carried a rifle instead of a package 28'' long. The picture below shows a mannequin James2 morphed to have the same body proportions as Lee Oswald. The mannequin holds the Mannlicher-Carcano of 40.1'' modelled according to the Warren Commission photographs. The butt of the rifle is indeed close to the ground and it could have been maybe even closer at some parts of the walking cycle.

This is what Mrs Randle told the Warren Commission about how Lee had carried the package.

Mr. BALL. Was he carrying any package?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; he was.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

And this is how would Lee look like with a package 27.5'' long. The package would never be close to the ground, it would be above the knee level or slightly lower depending on where exactly was the grasp. 

Mrs Linnie Mae Randle gave away quite a lot. She was the first to bring Police's attention to a long package which Lee Oswald allegedly had carried to work on Friday morning. If I remember correctly Jim Bishop's book "The Day When Kennedy Was Shot", this happened about on Friday, 22nd of November, around at 3 PM. Mrs Randle went to Paine's house and met the police detectives who came to search Paine's house; she volunteered information about the package without being even asked. Clearly, the package was something she needed to unburden herself from. I do not have access to Bishop's book at the moment, however, I remember that Mrs Randle spoke first about a package 3 feet long which would be closer to the length of a rifle than her subsequent 27-28.5''.

Here is how Mrs Randle described the weight of the package:

Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.

So, the package was more bulky toward the bottom (like a riffle butt?) but this would not be consistent with  the package containing just three thin curtain rods - curtain rods do not have any bulky part at their bottoms, they are of homogeneous mass and diameter all their lengths through.

Mrs. Randle wanted to say that Lee Oswald has carried a rifle and she also wanted to clear her brother from being associated with that rifle by claiming the package was only 27-28'' long, not long enough to carry a rifle. She wanted the Police to learn this version of the story right away so she made sure she spoke to Police as soon as possible.

The question is why were Mrs Randle and Mr Frazier so keen to invent the curtain rod story? Were they afraid that the Police would not believe that they did not know about Lee Oswald's sinister intentions when they saw him carrying the rifle?  

The mannequin shown below is James2, a Poser 11.2. human avatar, morphed to match the body proportions of Lee Harvey Oswald. This was done using Lee Oswald's mug shot photograph taken by the New Orleans police department in July 1963 (not shown).

The mannequin with body proportions of Lee Harvey Oswald holds a paper back with three curtain rods. The brown bag is 27.5'' long and the three rods are 32''. The mannequin has his left hand in a cup posture, the one which Mr Frazier allegedly saw when Lee Oswald was carrying his bag to the Depository on that fateful Friday. The bottom of the bag was placed into the armpit and the bag with curtain rods is parallel with extended left arm and should end in the cupped hand. 

The curtain rods of 32'' would be helplessly too long for an arm of a man 5'9'' shaped to match Lee Oswald. Worse than this, even the bag 27.5'' (70 cm) would be about 4 inches too long.

Lee Oswald could not hold the elongated package containing curtain rods fitting the windows in his room at 1026 North Beckley, and he even could not hold a bag 27-28'' long in  a way described by Mr Frazier.  Why, then, does Mr Frazier insist on seeing Lee Oswald carrying a package in this specific way?

So, what is the curtain rod story about? Obviously, Mr Frazier knew how curtain rods looked like. He worked in a department store before coming to Irving and this may be his source of the curtain rod story. Only, he did not know how wide was the window in Lee Oswald's room and he therefore reported the width which may apply to most windows, and that width of 27-28'' was about 4'' shorter than required if curtain rods should fit Lee Oswald's windows. 

There are multiple scenarios regarding Mr Frazier's curtain rod story:

1. Lee Oswald carried three curtain rods 32'' long and they were wrapped in a grocery bag. This is not likely given how insistent Mr Frazier was about the length of the package. He would have to see the rods extending from the bag and he did not.

2. Lee Oswald carried a rifle and a lunch bag. To distance himself from the rifle, Mr Frazier extended the grocery bag with lunch which Lee Oswald had on his lap from about 1 foot or less to 27-28''. He would then deny the lunch bag, and the extended 2 feet+ bag replaced the rifle. The bag was short enough to claim he believed the curtain rods were in the bag without being asked why did he not recognise the rifle. The Warren Commission did not question the silly curtain rod story as it should. The commissioners should have implement the window width measurements and ask Mr Frazier why he did not see a part of curtain rods  sticking out of the bag. 

This explanation makes both Mr Frazier and Lee Oswald vulnerable as to their complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy. If there was no rifle in Mr Frazier car that morning, there was no reason for inventing the curtain rod story.

3. Lee Oswald did not carry any rifle to work that morning, only his lunch. Mr Frazier and his sister needed to associate a long package with Lee Oswald else some other possibility of their involvement in the framing of Lee Oswald might have perspired, for instance, that Mr Frazier on a different day had the rifle in his car and was asked to bring it to the Depository.

However, I am not too inclined to believe in this option. It does not look that Mr Frazier would be capable of such crime but also: Lee Oswald had a guilty knowledge which he would not have should there not be his rifle in the building. His early departure from a site where all action was happening only to go to the cinema and taking a gun to the movies (why?) is unusually suspicious. Lee Oswald was fleeing and fleeing fast. What else than the rifle could be the reason for him to leave fast?

A picture is worth more than a thousand words. Here is a model of a grocery bag sized 27.5'' x 5.5'' x 4'' holding three curtain rods 32'' each.  Clearly, the bag needed to be wrapped around the three rods, however, the curtain rods would still be visible. If there were curtain rods for Lee's room in the bag, Mr Frazier had to see about 4 inches of them. The paper back would be tightly wrapped around the three rods, and the size would be about 2'' x 2'' x 32'' (with 27-28'' covering the rods).

Curtain rods became a mantra in JFK assassination research. Mr Frazier claimed he had witnessed Lee Oswald bringing a paper bag 27-28 inches tall and 5-6 inches wide and made from a brown paper, allegedly a grocery type of bag (were those bags only 5-6 inches wide?). Let us examine the details.

If Lee planned to bring curtain rods for his rooming house, they needed to be of particular length and number. The pictures below show that Lee Oswald's room had three windows of equal widths. There would be three curtain rods, each for one window, and a very long rod spanning the whole length of the room. Lee Oswald supposedly brought only the short curtain rods, and there would then be three of them. Curtain rods are made of light materials (although there can be vintage, old-fashion rods made from solid metal, e.g., bronze). Three rods, this is what Lee needed to bring.

Let us examine the length of the rods. Of course, a curtain rod needs to be long enough to cover the whole width of a window. Curtain rods are of the same length as the window width or an inch or two longer. Using the photographs of Lee Oswald's room and the bed as a meter, it is possible to estimate the window width without measuring it directly. Two windows and one vertical frame panel and one edge were of the same length as the bed in Lee Oswald's room. A standard length of a bed in the USA is 75 inches (190 cm). After subtracting 20 cm (vertical frame panel) and 10 cm (wooden edge) would give the width of two windows of 160 cm and one window 80 cm = 31.5 inches. Thus, if Lee needed curtain rods, the rods would need to be about 32 inches long to fit his windows. 

A curtain rod has a diameter of about 2 cm (4/5 of an inch) and Lee needed only 3 curtain rods. It is not clear why would Lee use a bag which would be shorter that the curtain rods, from which the curtain rods would stick out and which would be too wide for three curtain rods. Lee would have to wrap the paper bag around the three rods but then the bag would not be 5-6 inches wide, it would be less that 3 inches wide, and it would be a light package.

How credible is the curtain rod story in the light of this simple analysis?

10 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

Andrej, I have encountered The JVB on quite a few occasions. I admit that I've never read Me & Lee, as, honestly, I've never been that interested in that angle, and, like with The Inheritance, I find the myriad claims so fantastic as to be almost too fitting. Yet, I will admit that I've spent zero time researching The JVB's story. But I will also admit to liking Haslam and DMM. I'm glad you brought up the idea of "belief." Having encountered her more than a few times, and knowing many who've encountered her even more, I can tell you that I fully believe that SHE believes her own story.  When she talks about her story, I believe she's talking about it as something that, to her, seems true. Now, there could be quite a number of reasons this is true. I do not believe, at all, that she is talking about her story knowing it isn't true. Now, that doesn't mean I believe most of it. But I do believe its been created and then etched into her own believed autobio. So, as long as she believes it, we are never going to get that "gotcha" moment. We're also going to never see her "admit" anything that works against her story. 

Imagine what your reaction would be if you "KNOW" you went to Thomas Jefferson High School (I'll use fictional names here), but then a research community is telling you that you went to County High School. They are telling you there is no record of you being at TJSH, yet you believe you were and you have stories that you can tell, stories you remember vividly. Imagine what that causes in your mind. I think that's what goes on in her mind.

I can say this as long as I don't mention the researcher's name, but someone who knows her well also once explained to me that her difficult personality is caused by Aspergers. Look up the topic of lying and Aspergers/Autism. They manipulate greatly, but they have a hard time lying - some even find it impossible to lie or lie well. I would add here "...UNLESS they believe it." Unless there is something else happening mentally that causes them to believe what they've created. Now, I have no proof that she has Aspergers. Just hear-say from someone who knows her well but won't deal with her anymore. 

I don't know if this post ads anything to the mix of value, but I think there are more possibilities and layers (mental) than, say, the James Files story.

Dear S.T.:

thanks for contributing with your own experience of witnessing Judyth Baker's behaviour. I did not say in my last post which of the two alternatives I am inclined to prefer, and it would be the latter - Mrs. Baker truly believes in all what she says. Her experiences regarding Lee Oswald are erotic, conspiratorial, persecution-like, grandiose - is is a mixed type of beliefs. The belief of having a relationship with Lee Oswald along a personal and intelligence lines is the centre of her current life. It looks to be fitting a different pattern than Asperger syndrome, however, it is not appropriate for me to speculate.

I have had a few encounters with Judyth Baker in late 2014 when I resumed my interest in JFK assassination, first slowly, then more. Actually, my first encounter was with Mr Ralph Cinque who even invited me to join their small community believing that Lovelady in Altgens6 was Lee Oswald. This lasted about 10 weeks until I found out that that story was false. I then was a member of a Facebook page (maybe I am still a member but not contributing for years)  promoting Lee Oswald's innocence (a similar page title to that of Mr Cinque's page) and I was able to read and even comment  a few times. I remember defending her from very nasty, personal and brutal attack by A.J. Weberman. Whatever anyone claims, s/he should not be exposed to the vulgarities presented by Mr Weberman. However, I then started to ask Mrs Baker a few questions and it started to change very rapidly. The point when I withdrew was when she claimed that Lee Oswald did not took any photograph of them in New Orleans because Lee was told by the CIA not to take any photographs at all, not even of his own family. That was not true, there are  a few pictures from their New Orleans period.

Mrs Baker is unusually well read in the JFK assassination case, one of the best experts in the field. I read somewhere she took classes in creative writing in the 90th and that might have been a part of how she moved in her life. Forrest Gump was released in 1994 which would coincide with the beginnings of Mrs Baker's story. In my view, it is possible to elaborate such fiction story with enough time and effort invested. There are parts in Mrs Baker's story which can be neither proved nor disproved and here she is on a safe ground. It is maybe 90% of data in the book. Can anyone prove or disprove that she was in a pub with Lee about at end May and Lee was in a gloomy mood feeling bad things may happen to Kennedy? However, Mrs Baker made a big mistake in an area she trusted herself the most - the cancer research. Here she told too much and in too many details and that part of her story can be easily disproved.

Whatever Mrs Baker claims, I hope the community can approach her with understanding and if the understanding is sound then even with sympathy. She is a person of great mind which has driven her astray. It can happen.

It is possible to create a fictitious story in which own personal life events are intertwined with lives of famous people. Forrest Gump movie is an excellent example of creative writing of this sort. However, there is a problem if the author of a fictitious story presents it as something real. There are then only two possibilities: the author knows his/her story is a scam and wants to mislead the public, and this alternative would be what the psychic detectives do. Psychic detectives know dead well that all what they say is aimed to mislead people. The other alternative is that the author is convinced that the fictitious story was real and speaks the truth as it exists in his/her own mind. It is important to differentiate between these two types of deception to understand Mrs. Baker's motives for writing her story.

One thing which is difficult to conceive is that Bonnie Ray Williams should be on the sixth floor around 12:15 PM which was the time when Arnold Rowland saw a slender man with a gun through a semi-open sixth-floor window in the western part of the building. The man Rowland had seen allegedly stood about 15 feet from the window. Bonnie Ray Williams had to see that man. There was an alley along all south-wall windows and it was possible to see through the space adjacent to every of the south windows from any two south corners or windows. If Bonnie Ray Williams sat there and had his lunch remains of which were found on a box at the south-east window, there could be no one standing close to the south wall without being seen by Bonnie Ray Williams. So, how could Bonnie Ray Williams not see the man Arnold Rowland saw? Of course, the same logic applies to anyone allegedly standing in the "nest" at the first south-east window, a person standing that close to Bonnie Ray Williams would have to be spotted by him.

Well, it appears that EF has fallen victim to some nefarious IT activities. My advice would be to stop temporarily the whole site, investigate the issue, and chop off ruthlessly all EF chapters contributing to the recent spiking of the traffic. The EF in its current form is not sustainable due to the IT risks involved. EF was designed for a bit different world, and that world is no longer here. After the site reopens, it could prepare for a final trimming so that we have a good control over membership and posts.

In my view, any non-moderated parts of EF should be either taken over by one or more new moderators who would then negotiate with Invision the funding of their parts of EF. Basically, they would also create a new EF group which would, however, be independent from the JFK Debate group. If parts of EF are not moderated, I am afraid that those cannot be sustained because of a number of risks.

I am not sure if separating JFK Debate from the rest of EF can be accomplished, however, if it could happen, the rest of EF should have e.g., a month grace period to download and archive their materials or sort out their future with Invision.

One solution maybe to stay with Invision as a "JFK Educational Debate" or similar group and decouple from the rest of EF, the large EF would be closed in due time. Invision would setup the new Debate group and move all JFK-related threads and archives to the new interest group before closing down the existing EF. We would continue existing in the same format and under a viable funding regime. We cannot pay for unrelated topics after the fee has been raised so dramatically.  

Sandy:

the colour shirt CE151 from the Warren Report shows a yellowish tint due to ageing of the photographic material. Actually, the NARA officer was apologetic  about it in his email from June. Therefore, I removed the yellow tint as well as I could and the shirt looks, of course, more natural and light red. However,  I have posted the original photograph in the first place as this is the untouched original and it should never be altered without making sure that it is not confused with the original picture.

The dark spots on CE151 can be explained by the job of the person who wore the shirt. Lee Oswald was lifting quite large and heavy book boxes during his work day. He lifted a box and carried it a bit just to place it on a trolley. When you lift a box, the chest offers an opportunity to relieve a bit of weight if one or two corners of the box rest on the chest or even hip. About this way:

And so a dusty box would leave smudges diagonally across the shirt. If Lee Oswald had his work shirt CE151 pulled out of slacks, the left front facing of his shirt and the upper right chest just below the clavicle would smear the dust from the box and would appear dark. 

You have a good eye to spot that there are differences between CE151-2016 (the one which Pat obtained) and CE151-WC (coloured or black-and-white). The dark spot just below the right clavicle appears weak or missing in CE151-2016 and that dark spot is very prominent in Prayer Man's shirt. There are also some problems with the texture of the photograph in the front facing of the shirt; ageing may be a problem but there may have been also some cleaning done on that shirt and this is reflected in the 2016 version. How innocent it is? I do not know but I wonder why the things are always made in such a way that it is just more difficult to get to the truth. Just think that the high-res Darnell is in the possession of the 6th floor museum but it is not available for independent research. A new railing is placed into the doorway and the top pole of the railing prevents to reproduce the most likely Prayer Man's stance. And the shirt CE151 which can actually prove the identity of Prayer Man is not accessible to researchers for 56 years (although I was lucky to obtain it by some miracle). Of course, it all can be completely random and unintended. Or not?

Pat:

you may remember that I wrote you an email about the coloured CE151 about in March saying that I would wish to see more pictures of CE151 you may have for the purpose of 3D modelling of Lee Oswald's figure including the shirt he wore during the shooting. I followed the issue because I realised that the black-and-white CE151 differed from the CE151 you were sent in the distribution of dark and light spots. Since I was not certain what was going on and since the black-and-white copy of CE151 was of pretty bad quality and the issue of the dark spot was of such importance, I have contacted NARA about end May. 

After receiving the picture, I posted it without delay on this Forum as this is a photograph which was never showed to the public in good quality before.

Here is the link to my June 15 post referring to my contacts with the NARA.

And here is the photograph itself again, for those who overlooked it when I first posted it.

Here are the dark specks on CE151, a version obtained by Pat in 2016 and  the original version as shot in 1963/1964 which I was able to obtain from NARA this June:

My point is that Prayer Man's shirt appears to show dark specks at identical regions as CE151-WC (the one which is in the Warren Commission report).

Here is a shirt-by-shirt comparison of Prayer Man's shirt and CE151. Of course, one would like to see Prayer Man's shirt at a finer resolution and with some better gradation of dark tones.

Bart:

I hope you can agree that we are much farther in the understanding of Prayer Man's location  than saying that Prayer Man was on steps (and not in the corner of the top landing). However, Sean showed a very good feel for the geometry and was able to exclude the corner location outright.

I agree that we will not hear anything from Mr Frazier that would help us to clear Prayer Man's identity.

We are left with pictures which I believe can still reveal some more information that would help us to decide if that man was Lee Oswald or not. A great possibility is the shirt, CE151, which have dark specks in specific regions and the dark speck pattern on Prayer Man's  shirt could be decisive if matched with CE151.  I did some work along this line in the thread Prayer Man is a Man' in June but since the issue is critical, I am working on extracting layers of information from Prayer Man and his shirt using Tom Wilson's method.

It would be very significant for this part of the JFKA research to obtain the high-resolution digital copy of Darnell which is currently on display at the Sixth Floor Museum. Does anyone has an idea as to how to make this happen? 

David:

with some effort, it is possible to identify the contours of Buell Wesley Frazier at his spot close to the glass door in the western part of the doorway in Wiegman, so he was where he told he was and he did not seem to change his location. He might have moved about a foot closer to the front of the top landing in Darnell compared to Wiegman which was only possible because that spot was previously (in Altgens6) occupied by Mrs Stanton, and she left that spot at some point after Altgens6 was shot. In Wiegman, Frazier's entire body is in shadow but in Darnell the lower part of his trunk and arms are in sunlight - that can only be if he moves a bit away from the glass door.

Lovelady was on the second top step in Altgens6 and also in the first part of Wiegman (he moved several inches closer to the middle of the doorway in Wiegman compared to Altgens6) and he is seen descending from that second step in the late part of Wiegman. There are researchers, including myself, who believe that the man facing the lady wearing a dark scarf and standing on the bottom second step in Darnell was also Lovelady. This would be the location which Frazier mentions in one of his interviews when he says that Lovelady stood below him as if he was supporting the western wall.

And yes, the Warren Commission and the HSCA did not really want to hear about that man standing at the western wall.

I would not like to carry this thread away, however, I did not ask the question regarding Mr. Frazier's statements of not seeing Lee Oswald in the doorway. It would be very helpful to ask Mr Frazier who was that man at the western wall matching Lee Oswald in a number of features such as body height, the way he stood, hairline and possibly the shirt. My view is that Mr Frazier experienced a psychological trauma on that fateful Friday and was compelled to change and even suppress few details, and the presence of Lee Oswald in the doorway would be one of them. 

To elaborate more, he and his sister Linnie Mae Randle claimed that the package Lee carried that morning was about 2 feet long, give or take an inch. Mr Frazier even demonstrated how Lee had held the elongated package with the butt resting on his palm. However, such a package could not contain a rifle which is what the Warren Commission claimed. Something has to give, so let us say that Lee carried a package longer than 2 feet and the Warren Commission was right and Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle did not speak the truth. Or, the Warren Commission altered the truthful statements of Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle, in which case we have Lee carrying something  2 feet long (curtain rods???) what Lee denied and what was not found either missing from Paine's garage or present in the Depository building. In my view, Lee actually brought his rifle to the Depository (I am aware of all the disputes surrounding the purchase of the rifle) and Mr Frazier and his sister invented a curtain rod story to allow Mr Frazier to distance himself from transporting the rifle to the building (= they did not speak the truth). If there was no elongated package in Lee Oswald's hands at all, why then was it necessary for Mr Frazier and Mrs Randle to say that Lee did carry a long package to work?

Mr Frazier was interrogated by the Dallas Police for hours as to his possible complicity in the assassination and it was a rough and shocking experience which could have caused symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Memory lapses and avoiding discussing certain parts of events  are known symptoms in post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Mr Frazier claimed in his Warren Commission testimony not to see Lee Oswald after (if I remember correctly) 10-11AM on that fateful Friday. He claimed to stand on the same spot on the top landing after the shooting and to proceed to the basement to eat his lunch. However, this appears not to be the truth as starting 2002, he claims to even walk down the steps after the shooting, going to the corner of Elm and Houston and witnessing Lee Oswald coming from the north of Houston and disappearing in Elm street.  Mr Frazier changed his Warren Commission testimony which he gave under oath. Mr Frazier is able not to speak the truth about the events of assassination.

Taken together, Mr Frazier can say anything and it is not clear what was actually the truth. If he did not see Lee in the doorway, it would be necessary to say who that man whom we call Prayer Man was and we should be able to verify Mr Frazier's identification. If he says he was not aware that anyone had stood at that spot, fine, but in that case it could be Lee Oswald and Mr Frazier simply experienced attentional blink. My calculations, based on the novel tool Motorcade63 by Mark Tyler, suggest that if Lee Oswald was Prayer Man, he would occupy that spot at the western wall only for about 35 seconds. People were focusing on the motorcade and the pandemonium after the shooting, and it was therefore possible to slip to the doorway and leave quickly without being noticed.

There are several witness statements as to who was on the upper steps in the critical moments of the assassination (Shelley, Lovelady, Frazier, Stanton, Sanders, Williams, Molina). None of these witnesses mentioned Prayer Man, a person who can be seen both in Darnell and Wiegman. Either was Prayer Man in the doorway for a very brief period of time and was not spotted by any of the people standing on the top steps, or he was spotted and the people who could see him had a chance to say who Prayer Man was. But they did not in spite of an unknown person standing there in their company.

Pat:

I guess I understand why you have experienced being lit by sunlight when you tried to reproduce the one-foot down pose in the Depository doorway. The railing has been installed so handily that it prevents anyone to stand exactly as my model predicts - the vertical pole of the railing on the top step interferes. You had to stand slightly to the east (away from the western wall) because the rail did not allow you to come close enough to the wall.