Andrej Stancak

Here is the doorway scene in Darnell film with provisional name labels. At least as I understand them currently. Happy to change if we can gather convincing evidence.

Hello Bart: it has been only about 30-40 seconds after the last shot when the doorway scene seen in Darnell was filmed. Almost all the players are still in the doorway. If anything like that (an assassination) happens, people are in the state of shock and, unless feeling a threat to their lives, they just stay frozen. Under the shelter of the doorway, the people there stared at the direction of the Tripple Underpass and did not need to throw themselves on the ground or flee. Some doorway occupants, sooner or later, moved to a better spot or even left the doorway but it was maybe still after a while. Carl Jones stood in the lower west corner and I cannot see him in the scene, so he may have left which was easy for him as there was no one in front of him obstructing his moves. Billy Lovelady moved a step or two down and to the west. He was constantly on the move, so he went closer to the spot which allowed him to view the events on Grassy Knoll/Tripple Underpass. His space was filled with Buell Frazier who moved a step or two forwards. Maddie Reese appeared to step up few steps. Mr. Williams still stays where he was in Altgens6, he only switched arms - he was shielding off his eyes with his right arm in Altgens6 and with his left arm in Darnell. His shirt is a long-sleeved shirt, unlike Mr. Molina's shirt which was a short-sleeved one. Mr. Molina stepped down one step in Darnell which allowed to see the short lady in the east part of the doorway. This long comment wants to say that there was no reason for Mr. Shelley to run away from the doorway just yet. He is still there almost at the spot he had occupied in Wiegman and Altgens6. It is is a man showing the same body height in Altgens6, Wiegman and Darnell, and he wore a suit. There was only one person in the doorway in the suit - this one depicted in my model is him. He stood close to the edge of the top landing, and therefore only the lower part of his face is illuminated. This is also seen in Altgens6. I am aware that my reconstructions may cause ripples in some theories, however, this is the strength (and the risk as well) of photographic data - they always beat the self-reports which may be tainted by memory lapses, emotions etc. The timing reports given by witnesses during the shooting is sometimes difficult to accept. Mr. Molina is in my view the man visoring with both arms connected in front of his head, the one with a white short-sleeved shirt. As far as other ladies are concerned, I did not find it necessary to add still more people. I have no idea about their clothes and believe that they actually did not stand on steps. I cannot see how adding other people who were close to the doorway would help the case. Of course, it would be nice to model the whole Dealey Plaza! Your comment on Altgens6 is interesting. The point is that the light object is just too large to be a continuation of Billy Lovelady's face, and too large to be just a photographic artifact. If you would think it was an artifact, could you find a similar artifact in Altgens6 which would be at the level of human heads? However, I understand fully that resolving geometrically the Altgens6 scene is very difficult. It is the last task in the sequence of my project: the next will be Wiegman, and then only Altgens6. Altgens6 was shot with a telephoto lens from quite a long distance. The doorway is a small section in that photograph, however, we view it enlarged as if it was shot from just a few feet distance. The geometry we expect to see in a standard photograph does not apply in Altgens6, and things which appear impossible can actually be possible. That said, I understand fully your comment about the geometric impossibility of an extra person to be between Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley.

Hello Thomas: I also thought for a while that the lady in white had her arm wrapped around the lady in dark. However, then I viewed several previous and subsequent frames and it turned out that the lady in white was in constant motion, she did not stop or slow down. Instead, the lady in dark does not seem to be moving up the steps. Still, I modeled in one of the working versions of the scene exactly the situation with the arms of these two ladies inter-twined. The problem was that the head of the lady in white, in that case, was too close to the head of the other lady and the scene did not hold when overlayed. I can have a look if I maintained the version with the two ladies close to each other with their arms intertwined, however, I usually overwrite imperfect versions because of the disk space. Thanks for looking through my posts and for your comment.

Mr. Gary Murr kindly sent one more sketch of the depository doorway with invaluable information about the depth of the Depository doorway. Gary's contribution is highly appreciated as until today we all have only guessed what could the depth of the top landing be. If I read the sketch correctly, the depth of the top landing was 3'9''. In the context of the work presented in my earlier posts, no revision is needed because the estimated (3'8'') and the measured (3'9'') values different only by 1 inch. This small difference could not affect the findings or the figures. Credit: Gary Murr, February 3, 2018. The sketch was made by the FBI agent Brent Hughes on December 5, 1963.

The question of identities of the two ladies can only be speculated, however, there are no doubts in my mind that the two newly disclosed human figures on the top landing are the two missing ladies, Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Sanders. Here is a paragraph from my blog post at https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ : “If we interpret the witness testimonies literally, the shorter of the two ladies standing close to the glass door in the east part of the doorway would be Mrs. Sanders. Mrs. Sanders reported that she has stood "in the last line of spectators nearest to the door" in the east part of the doorway [3] which would suit better the shorter of the two ladies. Mrs. Sanders saw Mrs. Stanton as standing the closest to her which matches the reconstructed doorway scene (Figure 10). The taller of the two ladies would then, logically, be Mrs. Stanton. Her location at the center-east part of the top landing would corroborate the testimonies of Mr. Lovelady and Mr. Frazier. Mr. Frazier reported that Mrs. Stanton has stood next to him [6-7] and that he had changed words with her [7]. Indeed, the taller of the two ladies was Mr. Frazier's closest neighbour on the top landing in Darnell film (Figure 10). Quoted footnotes: [3] The FBI report on Mrs. Pauline Sanders, Commission Exhibit 1434, 11/24/1963: "She said on the morning of November 22, 1963, she went outside to watch the Presidential parade at about 11:25 a.m. She said she did not see OSWALD during this time and she stood in the last line of spectators nearest the door to the Texas School Book Depository building. She advised she could not recall the exact time but immediately after the Presidential parade passed she heard three loud blasts and she immediately realized that the shots or whatever it was came from the building above her. She said within a matter of ten seconds a uniform police officer in a white helmet ran into the building but she did not observe him any further and could not state where he went in the building. ... She advised that she did not pursue the matter any further and she entered the building within five minutes of the blast. She said she did not observe Oswald in the lobby but the lobby was crowded with people at this time." [6] From Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony in Clay Shaw trial, February 13, 1969, New Orleans, Louisiana: Q: Mr. Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade? A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the top of the stairs I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there beside me when we watched the motorcade. Q: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you? A: Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there. [7] From the interview with Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier for the Sixth Floor Museum, dated August 27, 2013 (33'50''). Mr. Fagin: In the chaos that followed the shooting, did you see Oswald at all? Mr. Frazier: I did. This was all... I do not know exactly how many minutes later, but the lady I was standing next to. Some of the people, Bill Shelley and Mr. Billy Lovelady, they went down towards the Triple Underpass because before they went down there, a lady come by, a woman came by, and she was crying and she said "Somebody has shot the President". And so we looked bewildered. And I turned to Sarah: she said "She said somebody shot the President", I said I doubt that's what she said. She said that she did say that. 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.”

As a bonus, please find here different views of the Depository doorway with all occupants as seen in frame #20130908-003922. First, a view matching quite well the view of Darnell's camera: And a southwest view: Followed by a top view: And a view through the glass door:

The location of the other of the two missing ladies is a bit trickier to demonstrate. Mr. Alistair Briggs, who was keenly interested in identifying the two missing ladies in pictures and films while he was around, correctly wondered if the ladies could have been in plain sight from the beginning. Indeed, they could. I hope that Alistair will have a chance to read and comment. The other missing lady can be seen in any of the better versions of Altgens6. The figure below shows Robert Groden’s enhanced version of Altgens6. A face can be seen in the space between Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley. The red line in the bottom right panel delineates the face of a so far unaccounted person standing on the top landing. It can also be seen in the version of Altgens6 purchased from the Associated Press: The face of a person standing behind Billy Lovelady is delineated with a red line in the bottom middle panel. Obviously, the owner of this face stood on the top landing close to Bill Shelley and just behind Billy Lovelady. This person was shorter than Bill Shelley but tall enough to be able to peek over Shelley’s right shoulder. The real challenge is to find out if both newly disclosed persons standing on the top landing would be also seen in the company of Prayer Man. The frame #20130908-003922 shows the short lady standing in the east part of the doorway and Prayer Man close in the west part of the doorway. Can we find a human form in the space surrounding Mr. Shelley’s right shoulder which space would be at or close to the spot occupied by this person in Altgens6? The next picture shows a zoomed view of the top landing with Buell Frazier, Bill Shelley and the short lady standing in the east part of the doorway (top panel). The bottom panel is an enhancement of the same picture. The presence of a person standing behind Bill Shelley can be inferred from the light blob as if attached to Shelley's right face. Maybe a better separation of Shelley's and another face is offered in the next picture because it says what in the white, burnt out blob is Bill Shelley's face and what belongs to a different face. The body height of this new person was again reconstructed using a 3D model of the doorway. The body height of this person according to the present analysis was 5’4’’. This body height would quality this person for a comparatively tall lady. The body height obviously allowed this lady to peek over Mr. Shelley’s right shoulder. More importantly, this tall lady can be seen in the same frame in which both the short lady and Prayer Man can be seen. The reconstruction of the body heights of Prayer Man, Bill Shelley, Buell Frazier, the short lady and the new person is shown here:

This thread aims to analyse the locations of two ladies, Sarah Stanton and Pauline Sanders, on the top landing of the Depository doorway. One of the findings presented here was posted earlier in “Oswald leaving TSBS?” thread on November 10, 2017. However, I have added some more research since, and amended few details mentioned in the original post. Therefore, I start with the finding of a short lady in the east part of the doorway which was first mentioned in the main Prayer Man thread on November 10, 2017. You can read a more detailed account of this research on my blog: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ The short lady who stood on the top landing can be seen towards the end of Darnell film in frame #20130908-003922: The next figure presents a zoomed and enhanced view of the person standing in the east part of the doorway. This picture was first posted in "Oswald leaving TSBD?" thread last November. The presence of the lady is obvious from the enlarged picture. It was a short person, a Caucasian, and stood in the shadow and very close to the glass door. The body height of this person was estimated by aligning Darnell still #20130908-003922 with a 3D model of the doorway made in Sketchup program. The dimensions of the doorway in the model rely on measured dimensions of the doorway except for the depth of the doorway. The depth of the doorway was set to 3’8’’ in this analysis. The next figure shows the alignment of the doorway with the 3D models with all occupants included. It is an overlay of the original Darnell still and the 3D model at a blending of 75%. After aligning Darnell still and the model, it is possible to measure the body heights of all figures. This is what the next figure shows. It is a zoomed view of the doorway with four manikins representing Prayer Man, Buell Wesley Frazier, Bill Shelley and the unknown person. The newly disclosed person measured 4’11’’ and it could only be a woman, actually a woman of sub-average body height. The average body height of women born in the 20th of last century would be 63’’. The average body height of men born in the 20th of the last century (measured in 1963) was 68’’. Thus, the person seen in Darnell’s still was a woman, a quite a short woman.

David: would you please share your knowledge about Cabell Textron/Bell Helicopter links with us also. Thanks Andrej

Michael: the second of the two links is relevant to my post. It appears to be an account based on Vincent Bugliosi's book, and it matches quite well William Manchester's book: The Death of a President, which is my reference. The thing is that the removal of President's body was illegal. Dr. Rose, JP Theron Ward and the police officer standing next to Dr. Rose were right. Corrupt Henry Wade's views or his "consent" with the removal of the body out of the state Texas were irrelevant. While Mrs. Kennedy's wish was understandable, it does not justify the violation of the law. In case of a homicide, the spouse's view cannot overcome the legal requirement of the autopsy being performed in the state of Texas. As Dr. Rose commented, it would only take three hours. The body was moved illegally, the chain of evidence was broken decisively and there is just no remedy for this. Of course, Dr. Rose could not have been manipulated to produce a botched autopsy as were Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only chance was, and this is what David Lifton seems to propose, that Dr. Rose was actually a part of the conspiracy and he had fought hard to get to the President's body to do all to obfuscate the evidence. This is a novel view, at least to me.

I cannot wait to read the Final Charade which will shed light on what happened at Parkland just before President's body was illegally transferred out of the state of Texas. It was my understanding thus far that the good guy was Dr. Earl Rose who would deliver a perfect forensic autopsy and not allow tampering with the body, bullets etc. According to this scenario, Dr. Rose was not allowed to do the autopsy because the pre-planned cover-up dictated that the body needed to be in full and complete possession of Washington and in no case could remain in Dallas. Should the body remain in Parkland and were it subject to a forensic autopsy by Dr. Rose, Parkland doctors would be able to liaise with Dr. Rose and it would be difficult for Dr. Rose to suppress the large defect in the parieto-occipital region of the head which miracously disappeared in the official autopsy report. With the body a thousand miles away, there was no way for Parkland doctors to confront Dr. Rose because he did not do the autopsy.

Thanks, Ron, for your detailed information. I will read the book, although will keep a cautious eye during reading as you have some doubts about the book. I find most as most extraordinary that Decker, Wade and Cabell partnered high members of Mafia in Zuroma club. This means that there was only one in-between connection between Mayor Cabell and Jack Ruby. Cabell admitted in his testimony for the Warren Commission to have heard about Ruby, and it were Earle Cabell and Elgin Crull who pressed Curry to parade Lee Harvey Oswald in front of cameras in the basement of Police department on Sunday morning.

Ron: is there any source for your interesting remark about Henry Wade and Earl Cabell visiting the Zuroma Club? It looks like Cabell and Wade shook hands with Dallas mafia. Any details on this line would be of great interest.

Thanks, Michael, for responding to my previous posts. Placing a warning would be all right if the distressing content would be the only issue. The further issues which the warnings do not alleviate are the protection of family members from displaying publicly the execution of their relative to which they did not have a chance to consent, and the fact that the video was recorded with an evil purpose by a criminal organisation, and by posting their video you say it does not matter to you. You are right that we wish to solve the murders of President Kennedy, Lee Oswald, and J.D. Tippitt. However, in the process of doing so, we cannot refer to materials such as this execution video.

Well, thanks for letting me know your opinion. I have checked the EF rules on this point, and they appear not cover this specific case. Time to ask the administrator.

Sandy: the man who was shot while the video was made had a family, maybe children and a wife, and certainly parents. You would need to go and ask them if they are happy to display in slow motion this man's shooting by a criminal organisation such as ISIS for the purpose of discussions among lay people. If the video is continued to be displayed, those forum members knowing but ignoring and not protesting this fact actually continue the spreading of ISIS crimes. The research ethics says that a researcher cannot have any advantage (e.g., in showing some novel findings) from unethical conduct. It is very unethical to display ISIS killings in slow motion for "educational purposes" as if this was an educational material. I have suggested Michael to find alternative ways to demonstrate his point. This could entail a visit to the university library and search through the medical forensics books which teach the doctors how different gunshots appear on the head. Michael could have a chance to go deeper into the problem and maybe the rest of community could benefit from his knowledge. I am familiar with dead bodies since I went through a one-year neuroanatomy course which included working with cadavers and detailed inspections, particularly of the brain. I also work with chronic pain patients and know what human suffering means. It is not about my personal sensitivity, it is about differentiating what is ethical and what is not. Michael: may I request again to remove the video or the section showing the ISIS execution of someone who was innocent in our eyes.

Michal: I like your comments in various threads and appreciate your interest in resolving the assassination case. However, I find your video showing the execution of a man in an orange dress, resembling an ISIS execution, as horrible and distressing. I would like you to remove the video or the part showing the execution. If you would like to make your point about the type of entry wound, please describe it and maybe use a screenshot of only the entry wound from some other gunshot case, maybe from a forensic book. This website is about restoring justice and humanity which had been shattered by three murders, and we cannot use crimes to illustrate our cases. Thanks for considering my request.

Thanks, Robin, for posting one more Hughes frame which has the advantage that it can be properly linked to a source. I have looked into the possibility to spot anything in the region of interest in the western part of the doorway only to find a black hole. This is illustrated in the figure below. The left-hand side panel is a cropped view of the doorway from the posted picture, and the right-hand panel shows the same picture after adding light to the dark part of the doorway. The Life Magazine frame was clearly retouched because the horizontal metal separator between the top window and the three large glass windows can only be seen in the east part of the doorway. There is no natural explanation for not seeing this part of the door frame also in the west section of the doorway. Instead, there is a light object there which in theory could be some residual light from the ceiling lamp behind the glass door, however, not from the lamp which was right behind the glass door. The missing part of the door frame is highlighted with two yellow dot lines. The Life Magazine may have touched the doorway for esthetic reasons or for other reasons, we may never know. However, their role in the cover-up (e.g., sitting on the Zapruder film for more than a decade, publishing a retouched backyard photograph) is hard to overlook, and so we are left with the same uncertainty as in many other aspects of the assassination case. Did Life retouched the west but not the east part of the doorway to cover up the presence of someone who should be on the sixth floor and shooting the President? Or is it just a coincidence and an innocent attempt to enhance the picture? Unless good-quality copies of Hughes stills with a proven birth certificate are available, I would say that Hughes film cannot conclusively prove or disprove the presence of Prayer Man in the doorway during the particular time instant when the motorcade was passing in front of the Depository. I would be glad to be proven wrong though.

I found another frame in Hughes' folder at jfkassassinationgallery. It is again a picture of superior quality compared to the quality of frames obtained after disassembling Hughes film into frames. The picture below shows a cropped view of the doorway from the picture above. The section above Lovelady's head was enhanced by resampling it, reducing shadows, and increasing the contrast. Similar to the frame in my preceding post, something resembling a human figure having his/her right arm in front of the chest and the small light object can be seen. Due to noise, there are several other specks in the inset too. The problem is that we are zooming into a very small area of the film in pictures which appear to be processed pictures. There is a risk that a previous processing has simply produced an object from the noise. The picture below is a sample frame to illustrate what would be the initial pictures. Are we actually able to resolve the presence of Prayer Man in the doorway in Hughes film?

I have analysed the partial frame with Hughes doorway picture from the composite posted by David to maybe answer the point if Prayer Man could be seen in Hughes film. His presence in Hughes film would be highly relevant as to the question of when did Prayer Man arrive at his spot in the doorway. The picture below is the enlarged part of Hughes frame from David's composite. A faint object of something which potentially could be a human face can be seen in the region above Lovelady's head. The next figure is the same picture after reducing shadows. And the same enhanced picture with contour lines roughly delineating Billy Lovelady, Buell Frazier and what maybe could be a human figure. If there is a human figure there, it would be someone showing his/her profile, and having his/her arm in front of the chest. A small light object in front of the person's face associates a light-reflecting bottom of a bottle held in this person's hand. A phantasy?

David: your Hughes frame (the top picture in your composite) is of excellent quality compared to what I was able to obtain by disassembling the film into frames. Where did you find it? Your frame appears to show Prayer Man at his spot which is something I was never able to determine from film frames available to me. I would be grateful for pointing to the source of this image and maybe for posting the picture without any arrows and further panels. This would be is a very important finding as it would help to get a better idea of the arrival of Prayer Man into the doorway. Also, the frame of this quality is easy to model which I am happy to do in a few days time. Your Hughes frame also shows that Lovelady's shirt was open down to his waist which is something I need to correct in my manikin model of Lovelady.

Hello David: I agree that one cannot read the head size from this type of picture because it is a 3D problem. It is easier to claim a photographic manipulation than to search natural explanations. However, to prove that Groden's picture could have been genuine I would need to model it, and I just do not have time and energy to do these time consuming but minor tasks. "Noticeably shorter?" This refers to statements of one or two Depository employees who knew both Oswald and Lovelady and said that these two guys resembled each other in some features but Lovelady was shorter than Oswald. It was a noticeable height difference. I think it was Buell Frazier in one of his interviews.

This picture is actually from Robert Groden's book. Groden pointed to the 13'' head but he did not say the picture was tampered. Whether the picture is valid or not, Oswald was noticeably taller than Lovelady, and Lovelady was 5'8''. Would you agree?

Sandy, the body height is all right 5'9'' in this image. One cannot measure the head hight from a front view such as this.