Andrej Stancak

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Alan: Lovelady appears to gaze straight at a spot in front of the doorway but his body is orientated in a similar way as in Altgens6 (I do not claim that the two postures are exactly the same in this frame and in Altgens6); Lovelady was leaning to his left and front, so his right shoulder appears comparatively backward relative to his left shoulder. I see nothing unusual with this picture.

Can you please post individual frames, not GIF? I cannot analyse constantly moving frames. However, my post was in response to your claim that no Wiegman frame shows th right side of Lovelady's body. After I showed you such a frame, you now want something else?

Alan: you missed the bulk of my post that referred to the integrity of the red-arrow picture. I cannot know if it was or was not photographed at the sixth floor museum. But I questioned the data integrity of the red-arrowed picture back then and now too.

Alan: I did not imply alterations in the red-arrowed picture, I proposed a heavy digital processing being performed with this picture. The fallouts of such processing are evident in altered shapes of several objects; I have flagged up three obvious examples: the ceiling lamp in the vestibule behind the glass door is intact in the blue-ray version but broken in the red-arrow version. Also, the young man standing next to the mail boxes has horns in his hairline in red-arrow version but an intact, smooth and continuous hairline in the blue-ray version. But the most damning example was the missing back of the had in the figure of a lady in the foreground, appearance of two dark spots and male-looking face which was displaced to the front in red-arrow picture but not in blue-ray picture. You do not seem to be concerned by the presence of these phenomena in red-arrow version of Darnell frame. The other frame which shows Prayer Man manifesting a number of Lee Oswald's features was not affected by any processing, neither in the better version or the blue-ray version of that still. It is the question of data integrity; one cannot only select bits of picture that somehow support a certain claim and ignore glaring problems in other parts of the picture. Prayer Man's head and neck are one smudge in blue-ray version of the picture under discussion but become suddenly clear in the red-arrow version. This cannot be because just improving resolution of an image does not alleviate the smudge problem. The smudge was owing to a motion, possibly of the subject, and I doubt it was possible to arrive at a clear neckline without extensive digital processing.

Alan: here you have a Wiegman frame showing Lovelady's right side of the body all right. You can see his right hand and the contour of his right arm. Of course, Lovelady was photographed from south-east direction and since his body is turned almost in parallel with the view angle of Wiegman's camera in that frame, Lovelady's right shoulder cannot be seen in full.

Alan: you suggested in our recent exchange to quit the discussion on the topic of missing information on Lovelady's right body in one of Wiegman frames, and I obliged thinking it is wise to stop a discussion which cannot be resolved. You decided to call my name and raise the same problem again; I did explain why Lovelady's right body cannot be seen in that particular frame (but it can be seen in other frames quite well), and there is nothing else to be added. Simply, photographic materials on JFK assassination often have unknown provenance and show different levels of adjustments. In this particular image, the contrasts were made that sharp that we only can see basically one level of black with no gradations. Once the contrast has been strengthened that much as in the frame you are posted repeatedly, there is no information in the background and therefore, the transition between right side of Lovelady's body and the western wall of the doorway and other objects in the doorway got lost. Lovelady's right body could not be in shadow in that frame as he was still comparatively close to the central rail in that frame. I now understand that you want to propose a photographic manipulation with this frame - to achieve what? If this Wiegman frame was altered to obfuscate Lovelady's right side of the body, why other Wiegman frames showing Lovelady's right body all right were not altered? Too many conspiracy thoughts kill the JFK assassination case. Your suggestion of photographic alteration in Wiegman film is similar to the claim that Lovelady's shirt in Altgens6 was flushed with a different colour to obfuscate Carl Jones's extended arm. It is beyond embarassing.

unfortunate ... owing to unusually sharp contrasts precluding separation of Lovelady's figure from the background as the whole backgroups appears solid black. With no gradations of grey tones, this image is useless for answering certain questions, such as what was the appearance of Lovelady's right side of his body, or details of Prayer Man's figure.

l` Alan: you brought the question of "impossible shadow" here. I explained clearly what I think about the right side of Lovelady's figure. That is it.