Andrej Stancak

... however, Prayer Man pushed back like you show will not have the back of his right hand reflecting the sunlight, and his right elbow will be farther away from the red brick column. After overlaying then Prayer Man on your location there would be a gross misalignment between Darnell and the 3D model.

It is not possible to move Prayer Man more to the back only because there is a space there. He would not meet at least two constraints: 1. the dorsum of his right hand would not reflect the sunlight should he stand more to the back, 2. If he stood further back on the top landing, his right elbow would be too far from the red brick wall.

It is a comfortable and stable posture, please try it yourself.

Tommy: Lee Harvey Oswald actually used to stand like this, placing the weight of his body on his right foot and pushing his left leg slightly forwards. I have placed examples of this in several threads in the past, however, the threads are somehow gone and forgotten. Let me show some examples of Lee's posture in which weight of his body is on his right foot. The manikin representing Buell Wesley Frazier was modified from a manikin downloaded from Sketchup Warehouse. It is a good manikin, however, his genesis is different from the manikin representing Prayer Man. The Prayer Man manikin was produced in Poser11 and it is a more accurate and faithful human model than a model downloaded from the 3D warehouse. It is much more work to model a human in Poser and this is the reason for modeling only Prayer Man in this way. This explains the differences in appearance of Frazier's and Prayer Man's figures. The Prayer Man's stance proposed in my model is actually quite comfortable. Of course, I have tried it myself few times and experienced no discomfort. I can stand like this for whatever time needed. It is a stable posture. The posture proposed, with one foot down on the second step, is not a random solution. It is the only solution satisfying all constraints: 1. The Darnell plane (the plane paralleling the axis of Darnell lens and connecting with the vertical pole of the door frame, 2. The shadow plane, 3. The height plane defined as a horizontal plane crossing Frazier's neck/shoulder line, 4. The right elbow plane defined as the plane connecting Darnell camera with the edge of Prayer Man's right elbow. These four planes define bounding a box into which Prayer Man can be fitted. Anywhere else in the doorway and outside the box delineated by the four planes Prayer Man would not match Darnell's still. As far inseam is concerned, I have not adjusted the manikin to have the inseam in the same height as Prayer Man because I struggled to identify it unequivocally in the blurred Darnell stills. Please find here few examples demonstrating Oswald's stance with placing the weight of his body on his right foot.

Tommy: It is not easy to explain all details regarding Prayer Man's stance without properly documenting every aspect. I have started to work on a detailed analysis of Prayer Man's location and height but then changed priorities and began a 3D reconstruction of Altgens6 scene. I did not know how much time would it take. However, the analysis which was posted on April 19, 2016 in "Prayer Man in Darnell Film" basically holds ( https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ ). The new analysis will benefit from a much-improved doorway model which now relies on realistic measurements of the doorway (thanks to Bart) and original 1964 dimensions of the doorway posted by Gary Murr. Thus, the current 3D model allows accurate overlays with historic photographs and the much-improved height and location estimates. It is, therefore, necessary to update the 2016 analysis of Prayer Man's height and location using the new model. This will entail also a new model of Prayer Man which is accomplished in Poser11 program (unlike all other human manikins). Since Prayer Man is modelled differently to have a complete control over his stance, head tilt, and hands posture, it also "feels" to be different compared to other manikins. However, his body proportions in the current model are those suggested by Poser11 and these are simply proportions of an average male. Of course, both legs are of equal lengths. Before providing updated estimates of Prayer Man's location and height using the current (new) 3D model and a new manikin, it may be useful to explain some doorway features which logically lead to Prayer Man's location and height. 1. The depth of the doorway was only 3'9''. 2. Prayer Man cannot stand right in the angle created by the western wall and the glass window because the pole of the vertical door frame would not cross Prayer Man's head the way it does. 3. Prayer Man needs to stand in the front of the top landing else his right elbow would be too far from such landmarks as e.g., the red brick column or Lovelady's head. 4. If the back of Prayer Man's hand(s) reflects sunlight, this can be achieved only if he is at a certain location which is an intersection of at least two planes: the plane crossing Prayer Man's head and body and is aligned with Darnell camera lens (D-plane), the shadow plane (S-plane) securing that only the back of PM's hands and his left thigh but not his chest or head would be covered by the sunlight. Furthermore, the Prayer Man's right elbow needs to be in a certain specific distance from the red brick column and the top of his head needs to align with the plane crossing Frazier's shoulder line. Thus, there are four planes that need to be considered, plotted and visualised. 5. Prayer Man's height can only be 5'9'' which is the height of Lee Harvey Oswald or 5'2'' which would be a body height qualifying Prayer Man to be a woman. The location of PM determines the body height. If he stood with both his feet on the top landing, he would be 5'2'', however, s/he would not meet the constraint of the distance between his/her right elbow and e.g. the brick column to be exactly as it is in Darnell. 6. Prayer Man cannot stand with both his feet on the 2nd step because his right elbow would be too close to the red column brick and his chest would be covered with sunlight, unlike the Darnell scene. It is not that easy to visualise all these geometric constraints, and this is why I plan to address the problem once more using updated 3D model and a new manikin (fitted to this new 3D model).

Hello Rick: the scene depicted in my post refers to one and only one frame of Darnell film. In that film, Carl Jones cannot be seen at his Altgens6/Wiegman spot. I agree with Robin that it is Carl Jones. I have already modelled Carl Jones in Altgens6 and although the full analysis will be presented later along with the search for the missing lady (Mrs. Stanton), I see no reasons for not showing Carl Jones in Altgens6. In my reconstruction, Carl Jones stood with his left foot on the third step and his right foot on the second step from the bottom. Only this location ensured seeing his face exactly as it is seen in Altgens. Should he stand with both feet on the second step (as in Wiegman), he would be too much out of the doorway and his face would be too large. Figure legend: Mr. Carl Jones in Willis8, Altgens6 and a 3D model of the doorway. A. A cropped view of Willis8 photograph [ftn] showing a tall Afro-American man, Carl Jones, standing in the doorway. B. A cropped view of doorway occupants from the composite Altgens6 picture shown in Figure 2. C. Overlay of Mr. Carl Jones's figure in Altgens6 composite and the 3D model. D. The figure of Mr. Carl Jones in the 3D model. E. Mr. Jones's figure from a southeast view. F. Mr. Carl Jones with the measuring stick (7') paralleling the vertical axis of his body. The checkerboard squares on the measuring stick correspond to inches. Mr. Jones measured 6'2'' - 6'3''.

He sure does, in my analysis. After completing the analysis of Altgens6 I will return to the Prayer Man height/location.

In fact, it seems that not only Billy Lovelady is on steps in Darnell but also, not surprising, Bill Shelley. Bill Shelley stands at the spot on the top landing which he also occupied in Altgens6 and Wiegman film. The lady wearing a dark headscarf appears to stand as if talking while the lady wearing a white headscarf is moving continuously up the steps over successive frames in Darnell.

Sandy: there is a thread on this forum on this topic called : "Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Stanton, where are you?", and this contains the reconstruction of figures of both ladies. You can also read the full story here: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ . These sources also specify the only Darnell frame which shows a person who I believe was Mrs. Sanders. I am currently working on a 3D reconstruction of Altgens6 scene because some fellow researchers doubt that a person (Stanton?) could stand in the space between Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley. I thought I would be finished in some two weeks and now I see that 2 months may not be enough. The thing is that accuracy is required and this costs a lot of time. For instance, I never knew that Billy Lovelady had a slightly exaggerated kyphosis causing his forward head posture and a slightly rounded neck. This small detail actually contributed to the V-shape shadow in Lovelady's neck region which is something that puzzled many researchers analyzing Altgens6. I will post the full reconstruction of Altgens6 on "Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Stanton...?" thread in few weeks time. Here are some pictures documenting Billy Lovelady's forward head posture (not too relevant in the context of this thread...):

Tommy: There were only two women on the top landing during and immediately after the shooting: Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Stanton. Both these two women both can be seen in one and the same frame of Darnell film in the presence of Prayer Man. So, how can Sarah Stanton be Prayer Man? Mrs. Stanton did not say that she stood alone in the western part of the doorway where Prayer Man can be seen or did she? Please read the testimonies of the relevant persons and conclude for yourself if anyone gave any indication that Mrs. Stanton had stood in the western corner: 1. Mrs. Sanders: "To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others." (3/19/1964). This testimony implies that Mrs. Stanton could not be too far from Mrs. Sanders who stood in the east part of the doorway. Thus, Mrs. Stanton could stand at best in the center-east part of the doorway to allow Mrs. Sanders to say that Mrs. Stanton stood next to her. 2. Mrs. Stanton: “When President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository Building with Mr. William Shelley, 126 South Tatum, Dallas, Mr. Otis Williams, 3429 Southwestern, Dallas, Mrs. R.E. Sanders, 4226 Delmar, Dallas, and Billy Lovelady, 7722 Hume Drive, Dallas. (3/18/1064) This testimony says that Mrs. Stanton stood in a cluster of people seen in the center of the doorway: Williams, Lovelady, Shelley, and Mrs. Sanders (she cannot be seen in Altgens6). Mrs. Stanton does not say that she stood close to the western wall or that Mr. Frazier was her closest neighbour which would be the case should she stand at Prayer Man's location. 3. Mr. Shelley for the Warren Commission: Mr. SHELLEY – Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them. Mr. BALL – And who was out there? Mr. SHELLEY – Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she’s with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards. Mr. BALL – You were standing where? Mr. SHELLEY – Just outside the glass doors there. Mr. BALL – That would be on the top landing of the entrance? Mr. SHELLEY – yes. Mr. Shelley says that Mrs. Stanton stood with them just in front of the glass door, not that she stood alone in the western corner. Mr. Shelley in no case admitted that Mrs. Stanton stood in the western corner of the doorway, away from the group of three people in the center of the doorway. Billy Lovelady's testimony is equivocal in the sense that it is not entirely clear if Mrs. Stanton stood to his left or to his right, however, in every case he wanted to say that she stood behind him. So, we have witness testimonies of two ladies and other doorway occupants saying that both ladies stood far away from the western corner of the doorway, and we have a photographic evidence (Darnell frame) showing both ladies in the presence of Prayer Man. Can this be enough data to convince you that Mrs. Stanton was not Prayer Man?

Tommy: if we can believe Mr. Frazier, he was at a spot from which he could see people coming from the loading area of the Depository building along the Houston street. Apparently, he was on the first step from the bottom and even further down on the sidewalk approaching Houston Street when he allegedly saw Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the transcript of his interview for the Sixth Floor Museum: "So we stood there for a few minutes, and, and I walked down to the first step, where Billy was standing down there, by myself so I looked around. And it was just total chaos there. And then from there I started to go down to see if I could find Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady, there was so much chaos down there. I said, well, I better go back to work, go back to the steps, so now, and I did, I walked back to the bottom of the steps, and then I walked out to the corner of the building right there where Houston comes up beside the building. And I was talking to someone, it was a lady, and I looked to my left, and come walking along the side of the Texas School Book building was Lee Oswald.Mr. Fagin: walking along this side of the building?Mr. Frazier: Yes.Mr. Fagin: Houston Street" What Mr. Frazier claims in this interview is that he did not return to the Depository and straight into the basement (his Warren Commission testimony) but that he exited the doorway and walked towards Houston Street where he saw Lee Harvey Oswald as he was leaving the Depository building. You have a choice to decide which of Mr. Frazier's two scenarios was correct and true, the one he conferred to the Warren Commission or his later interviews. In the interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Mr. Frazier also claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not bring a lunch to work which contradicts Lee's own statements he made during his interrogations. Mr. Frazier's denial of a lunch sack in Oswald's possession has certainly worsened the things for Lee Harvey Oswald. Now, where is any guarantee that Mr. Frazier would truthfully disclose the identity of Prayer Man?

Tommy: The possibility that some researchers, including myself, pursue is that Prayer Man was Lee Harvey Oswald. You asked the right question: who was Prayer Man if every of Depository employees' whereabouts is well known and none of them reported to stand in the western part of the doorway, It is the matter of debate and research to establish the body height of this person which I believe was 5'9''. This body height would qualify this person to be a man. So, we likely have here a Caucasian, a man, measuring exactly as Oswald measured, and displaying a hairline similar to Oswald's hairline. Mr. Frazier, to my knowledge, was not able or willing to say who Prayer Man was, however, he clearly testified something which was not true during his Warren Commission testimony: how can then be trusted in this particular issue? To recall, Mr. Frazier said that he has returned to the Depository and went to the basement soon after the shooting. However, in his later interviews, Mr. Frazier said he actually had seen Oswald walking on the Houston street because he (Mr. Frazier) was in front of the Depository entrance. While Mr. Frazier always spoke nicely about Lee Oswald, all his statements, including those regarding the package Oswald brought to work, were very damning for Lee Harvey Oswald. My point is that Mr. Frazier still covers his role in framing Lee Harvey Oswald and he would not answer the question who Prayer Man was even if it were Lee Harvey Oswald.

Tommy: there were two ladies on the top landing who have been missing for 54 years. They were Mrs. Sarah Stanton and Mrs. Pauline Sanders. One of the ladies was short and was standing very close to the glass door in the eastern part of the doorway. This lady was not seen in Algens6 because the view of her figure was obstructed by Bill Shelley. She was not seen in in Wiegman film because this film never captured the eastern part of the doorway where she stood. The short lady was not seen in most frames of Darnell because she was behind Mr. Molina who just happened to step down one step and that was the reason for seeing her in one of the final frames of Darnell film. This short lady, according to the testimonies, could be Pauline Sanders. The other lady who by exclusion was Mrs. Sarah Stanton is seen in Altgens6. Her figure is largely hidden by Billy Lovelady, however, a small bright blob located between the heads of Mr. Lovelady and Mr. Shelley suggests that there was a person in that location in Altgens6. There are faint contours of that lady in the shadow behind Mr. Shelley's right shoulder can be seen in Darnell. The point is that that frame in Darnell shows not only the short lady )Sanders) and this other lady (Stanton) but also Prayer Man. Thus, Prayer man could not be Mrs. Stanton as there were no other ladies besides Stanton and Sanders on the top landing. You can read details here: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ or in the thread on this forum: "Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Stanton, where are you?"

Barring the payments to the website host cover the service till May 11, can we discuss the practicalities allowing the EF to continue. As it is turning out, EF will be sustained by voluntary donations of forum members and/or members of the public. The most simple solution would be having a functioning donation option on this website, and a donation meter showing the current balance. It would then be enough for one of the moderators to monitor the balance and issue a timely request to Forum members in case the balance would not cover the maintenance costs for few months ahead.

Thanks, James and all moderators, for keeping this Forum going. I did not answer the question whether the manners and language matter because I am a relatively new member and thought that senior members should speak first. Of course, the language does matter. This Forum is extremely important for the entire JFK assassination research and should continue. As per donations, I have tried to make a donation about a month ago but I was not successful - some glitch in the software? The language in our posts is important. It is every Forum member's duty to learn how to disagree. Politeness, ability to admit the conditioned and only probable value of every (even own) statement, and addressing substantial questions are needed. Some Forum members take this Forum as a kind of FaceBook and spend basically their whole waking day on the Forum, answering compulsively to any thread. After a very short time, their messages become shallow and have no substance. They then often revert to a very personal, intrusive style of posting. This Forum could be much better if people consider the value of their post first. Posting less may improve the quality of the posts of many members. Posting less would also give more time to the frequent posters for own research and elaboration of topics. Again, please let us know how could standard members help in keeping this Forum to be a place where knowledge and information on a delicate topic is exchanged freely. My recommendation would be that, besides language, less posting and observing the content and objective of own posts could be a way forward.

Jim: Do you consider Dr. Crenshaw a reliable witness? Similarly, would you think that Dr. Mantik would place into his meticulously prepared book information about an encounter which did not happen?

Dr. Mantik in his e-book "John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis - And a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment" (2015) in Appendix L reports on an interesting encounter between a Rochester Institute Technology senior photographer Quentin Schwinn and an unknown visitor. The visitor brought several color transparencies pertaining the autopsy, and the pictures appeared to show the state of Kennedy's wounds before alterations happened. One of the pictures showed an entry wound in the right forehead, and what could have been the pre-autopsy appearance of the neck wound. The picture below is a reconstruction of Mr. Schwinn's recollections of what he witnessed. The following text refers to the neck wound (Appendix L in Dr. Mantik's book): "The horizontal one (incision, A.S.) was about an inch long and the vertical was about 1 1/2 inches. The resulting four corners of skin looked thick and were curled back at the tips. There were two clean cuts at right angles to each other. There was no tearing or ripping or missing skin, just curled back corners from the two cuts and a small hole in the middle."

Dr. Crenshaw on the size of the frontal neck wound, at 4' 55'' :

Steve's comment aims at the same point which popped up in my mind after viewing the way how a casket weighing 280 kg (with the body inside) could be moved up the stairs by 4 men only. The posture and the way how the casket was held by one of the two men on stairs in the photo posted yesterday seems incompatible with the burden of 280 kg. Which poses a question if the body was in the bronze casket while the coffin was loaded on AF1. I am sure that David has explored in his analyses the possibility of dissociating the body from the bronze casket already at Parkland hospital.

Jim: the collar incision in the drawing shown in Mrs. Cranor article appears lower in the neck than the incision/gash seen in the autopsy photograph.

Dear Mrs. Cranor: My name is Stancak, for your information. Dr. Perry could not see the mediastinum , the lungs or the pleura, from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring. This area is still in the neck, not in the chest. A wide incision at the level of the 2nd tracheal ring would not help in seeing the mediastinum either. Please view the anatomical sketch I posted in my previous post. I am not a surgeon, however, I have conducted several tracheostomies in rats during my junior lectureship period at a medical faculty. I know how bleeding in the vicinity of trachea looks like. You now see that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough for Dr. Perry to see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries, and in particular to check if there was any bleeding from the carotid arteries. As there was none, it was not necessary to make a longer incision than 3-4 cm. Even if Dr. Perry made your collar type of incision, which he never admitted doing it, he would not see the mediastinum from that level of the trachea. I have quoted Dr. Perry's statement which confirms this view. Dr. Perry saw frothing of blood with bubbles of air. The air could only come from the trachea or from the punctured lungs. He could exclude the trachea, and he could then infer on the source of the bleeding and air bubbling from their direction. It was on the right side, so it could only be the right superior mediastinum. I am copying again the relevant part of Dr. Perry's testimony: Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung. My mistake of not realising that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough to inspect the carotid arteries in the vicinity of the gunshot was admitted by me. I thought for a moment, from your description of the collar incision theory, that a wide incision was necessary to view the arteries on sides of the neck, and only later I realised that this was not necessary because the carotid arteries run in parallel with the trachea. A moment of stupidity on my side for which I apologise. Of course, there is a variety of contradictory testimonies and also different views about the appearance of the frontal neck wound, and your view is one them.

I agree with the innocent interpretation of the casket selection problem. It is interesting that only two men (one using one arm) were able to lift and hold the front part of the heavy casket with the body. Obviously, it was possible. ------------------------- This ceremonial casket was disposed of in 1966. An original document on the whole process and background is described here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/mystery-jfks-casket-0?page=1 According to this document, the casket and three sandbags, 80 pounds each, weighed 660 pounds. This gives 660-240 = 420 pounds or 200 kg. The casket with the President's body weighed 280 kg.

If things regarding President's body happened as David suggests, I wonder if the selection of the bronze casket to transport the President's body was a random choice. Suppose that the coffin would be a plain metal casket: it would weigh some 40 kilograms. In such a case, it would be difficult to pretend that the body was in the casket as the body would weigh at least double of that weight. Even a heavier wooden casket with no ornaments on it would weigh only some 80 kg, and it would still be possible to find out that the body was not in the casket. Only a casket weighing maybe 200-250 kg (the ceremonial bronze casket) would be heavy enough to cover up for the absence of a body in it because adding e.g. 80 kg to a casket weighing 250 kg would not be such a difference as adding 80 kg to a casket weighing 80 kg.

Jim: I may be wrong but the 3-4 cm slit was enough to see bleeding from carotids. The carotid arteries run on sides of a trachea which has a diameter of 1.5-2 cm. If you add 1 cm to each side of an incision above the trachea, you may see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries and certainly, it is possible to determine if any of the two carotid arteries was bleeding in association with the gunshot wound. This is consistent with what Dr. Cranor quotes: "I also made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea..." "Big enough" to see carotid arteries (or rather bleeding from these arteries) was 3-4 cm, you do not need a 7.5 cm incision. The mediastinum is the soft connective tissue separating organs in the thorax, it is not a neck structure. It was not visible or accessible from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring, however, the top aspect of the mediastinum could probably be seen from a 3-4 cm incision at the level of the third tracheal ring. What Dr. Perry said in his testimony was that he did not see any injury to the carotid arteries which would explain the bubbling and frothing of blood through the neck wound, and therefore, he inferred the presence of blood and air in the right mediastinum. Thus, he did not explore the mediastinum directly (via the alleged collar type of incision). Dr. Perry himself did not see that area of the chest, he only inferred on an injury there from the direction of the bubbling air and oozing and accumulation of blood that it was coming from the right superior mediastinum. His inference of an injury to the lungs by inference was possible as he could not see any bleeding from the carotid arteries, and the only remaining possibility was the right superior mediastinum. Dr. Perry was concerned about the possibility of a pneumothorax, and therefore further tubes were introduced to the chest. Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung.Since the morbidity attendant upon insertion of an anterior chest tube for sealed drainage is negligible and the morbidity which attends a pneumothorax is considerable, I elected to have the chest tube put in place because we were giving him positive pressure oxygen and the possibility of inducing a tension on pneumothorax would be quite high in such instances. Dr. Perry knew what a collar type of incision was, however, he never reported making it. Dr. Perry distanced himself from causing a gash in the throat in his interview with Robert Groden in the 80th (more on this in David Lifton's posts). It appears, from at least two testimonies, that President's body arrived at Bethesda with a neat, connected incision wound with a round opening in the middle. This would be consistent with some 3-4 cm incision made by Dr. Perry of which the residuals can still be seen in the gash (my drawing posted yesterday). Please find here an illustration of trachea and carotid arteries which run close to each other at the level of the second thracheal ring. This illustration demonstrates that Dr. Perry did not need a 7.5 cm incision to inspect the carotid arteries. Please convey my thanks and best regards to Dr. Cranor, I appreciate her response. P.S. I was wrong in saying that Dr. Perry did not explore the carotid arteries, although he said this in an indirect way. The reason for my mistake was that I did not recall the exact course of the carotid arteries and believed that one would not be able to explore the carotid arteries through a 3-4 cm iincision in the lower part of the neck. I only remembered the locations of carotid arteries on each side of the neck which is, indeed, true in the upper part of the neck.