Andrej Stancak

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.

Sure, the contrasts in the Wiegman image you posted are so strong that it is not possible to actually see the contour of Lovelady's right body. Without fine gradation of grey tones this unfortunate image is worthless as to determining the exact shape of Lovelady's figure. And what is your explanation of the "impossible shadow" if you insist it is a shadow that rendered Lovelady right side of the body invisible?

Alan: so how could that happen, that "impossible shadow"? In my view, the Wiegman frame I posted clearly shows the right arm hidden behind Lovelady's own chest, and the frame above does not show Lovelady with enough details to be able to say anything, therefore, I would assume that my explanation also holds for this frame, only it cannot be verified for objective reasons. Anyway, if my explanation of absence of right shoulder in Lovelady's figure does not satisfy you and you want to say it is a shadow that somehow causes Lovelady's right shoulder invisible, how comes a shadow line would be so far central in Wiegman?

Impossible to do in my view, given the quality of this image. If you disagree with my explanation, what would be your view?

Alan: have you considered the possibility that Lovelady in Wiegman was pictured from the east direction and since his body was orientated in general direction of Wiegman's view angle, we cannot see Lovelady's right shoulder; it is masked by his own body. Here is a 3D humanoid model depicting Lovelady's stance in Altgens6 overlaid on Lovelady in one Wiegman film frame. The image below was designed to check if Lovelady could have his right shoulder effortfully lifted or if he stood in a normal, relaxed stance. The left image is correct based on how the avatar's hand overlays with Lovelady's hand in Wiegman. The contrasts in Wiegman film are very sharp, so it is tempting to think shadow was somehow cast on Lovelady's right arm while in reality it was not. I hope this helps to accept this mundane explanation.

I can figure out how some extra details can be seen better in a good-quality copy of a Darnell frame in some of the doorway occupants, however, I cannot see how a smudge-like Prayer Man's neck can be seen as a smooth line by just increasing the resolution. Frazier's head can be seen in blue-ray version and it can maybe seen even better in the red-arrow version. However, information in Prayer Man's head and neck is highly distorted in blue-ray version, and there is no chance to arrive from a smudge of this sort to a smooth neckline without manipulating the picture. To show some more examples how aggressively was the red-arrow picture handled, I have extracted three examples. First, the ceiling lamp behind the glass door is intact in blue-ray version but broken in the red-arrow version. This is a new shape of the lamp, not just an enhancement of contrasts or a similar adjustment. Second, the young man standing in front of the east pillar of the doorway has smooth hairline in blue-ray version but the sampe hair gets horns in red-arrow version. Again, this is a new shape of an object which cannot be seen in the original image. The lady in the foreground provides an insight into what happened to the red-arrowed image. The lady has intact hair in the blue-ray version of this still, however, it lacks the back of her head and receives a masculine looking face in the red-arrowed version. The two black spots look disturbing in the red-arrowed version of the still. Thus, the red-arrow version of Darnell still is a problematic image. I would advise caution when drawing any conclusions on identity of Prayer Man using this image.

But we cannot see the superior "Kamp" version of Darnell film in toto. We only see one still of unknown provenience. You argue it is a superior copy of Darnell's still and I am pointing to some glaring problems with this frame in the significant area of the still - the Prayer Man figure. If the red-arrow frame was that superior, we should see the contours of Prayer Man's head, separation from backround, enough details in light tones (i.e., the lady wearing a white scarf), and the same thickness and length of arms in Prayer Man figure in the reference frame (the left one in my previous post) and the red-arrow frame. The red-arrow still is poorer on details in the area of Prayer Man than the reference image even if the whole picture looks appealing. I hope I was able to explain my point clearly.

Alan: I did not expressed my preferences in my previous post, I never wrote 'I prefer the old version', you have made it up. I posted side-by-side Prayer Man in two frames which originated from supposedly good quality versions of Darnell, and spotted- several differences which suggest that the red-arrow picture was processed: the bright tones look burned out and there are no midtones in the background. This the does not allow to evaluate the contours of Prayer Man's head in red-arrow picture. Iterative adjustments of contrasts and brightness may explain the differences seen between the two images. Please find the comparison below: By inspecting the two critical frames in Unger's version of Darnell, the one from which the red-arrow image originated is significantly more blurred than the version showing Oswald's feature. The region of Prayer Man's head in the "red-arrowed" still is specifically more blurred than other section of the still; for that reason I assumed it was motion blurr, but I cannot be sure.

Alan: for your record, I wrote to NARA back in 2019 and asked them to provide me with the original photograph of shirt CE151, the maroon one which Owald took to work on that fateful Friday. They obliged and sent me the coloured picture of this shirt and I posted it on this forum on June 15, 2019. This is the coloured version of the shirt photograph taken in 1963. I hope this helps.

The still brought by Alan was already discussed on this formum in a different thread back in September 2022; I remember Chris has brought it here from Duncan's forum. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/ The picture with the light-coloured circled area around the neck is from a different frame compared to the one showing a person resembling Lee Oswald. In the original film frames (Robin Unger's version), the one with rounded neck is noticeably more affected with motion blur than the one that shows Lee Oswald's feature more clearly. The "red arrow version" still appears processed a lot. Here is a side-by-side comparison of Prayer Man in the still showing Oswald's features and the one in "red-arrow" frame (right-hand panel). The right arm appears thinner, all light tones strongly enhanced (e.g., on the lady in white scarf), and the dark tones in the background (behind Prayer Man's head) showing no details. It is possible, using multiple iterations of contrasting and changing shadows-lights to arrive at a picture which changes the appearance and shapes of parts of photographs. It is difficult to make any conclusion from a sole still without knowing its provenience and what happened to it in terms of processing. And processed it was.