Andrej Stancak

9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

Myers didn't assume anything.

You are wise to doubt his timeline.

No opinion necessary, just a matter of excised frames.

 

 

 

Chris:

sure, Mr. Myers correlated Wiegman's frame 15 with Z-frame 257, it was myself who assumed (based on Mr. Myers's timeline) that the frame Z-255 would be Wiegman's frame 14 or 15.

Would you like to comment on the excised frames? Would it matter Zapruder's film or Wiegman's film or both? The temporal coordination of Altgens6 and Wiegman's film is essential for reconstruction of Prayer Man and other people in the doorway.

5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I don't think taking measurements from a copy of the layout of the TSDB, made on the 22nd November 1963  is wise. 

Ray:

the sketch by Mr. Fratini, even if based on a WC diagram, needs to be taken into account else there is a risk of  committing a mistake. I would design the doorway model with three doorway depths: 3'6'', 4', and 4'3'', and check how each depth fares when the model is overlaid onto Altgens6, Wiegman's still, Darnell, and couple of other pictures. I am pretty sure that the correct depth lies between 3'6'' and 4'3'', inclusive.

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Andrej the guy with one leg down on  the  lower step is that supposed  to  be  PM or BL?

I agree with the  person  who said hat and tie man in Altgens is Shelley. The guy  in photo  looks older and  has a  hat too and looks beefier. 

Hello Michael:

in my analysis, it would be Prayer Man having one foot on the second step. Billy Lovelady most likely stood with both his feet on the top landing in Altgens6 picture and Wiegman's film. 

As per Bill Shelley, he testified (and others) to stand on the top landing. The  man with a tie, in my view, was most likely Bill Shelley. The old photographs are often blurry and it makes it then difficult to read details of their bodies. This man did not wear a hat - it is the sharp transition between burned light tones and a very dark shadow which make sthe impression that this man wore a hat. 

6 hours ago, Robin Unger said:

Tony Fratini calculation has the depth of the top landing at 4.3'

This was the sketch I started with when building the model. However, I was not happy with the accuracy of the map because of the thickness of the lines, and some irregularities. If a line is thick, taking the measure from the edge of the line or the middle of the line already yields an error. The steps do not look like being equal, and the small recess at the second step is not accurate either. The proportions of the three partitions of the glass door do not correspond to real proportions, in my opinion.

Yet, it is a useful sketch and a good indication  for also testing the model with the depth of 4'3''.

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Hi Andrej, just for info, the nice people at the TSDB were unable to tell me how deep the original top landing was, as there didn't appear to be any tangible signs of where the original doors were. Maybe there are some holes or scars that they missed when looking that one of of researchers could find.

Thanks, Ray, your effort is much appreciated.

2 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

If line number 1 was extended all the way down and through the drawing of PM I feel that it highlights that PM's position may be erroneous as it doesn't match the Darnell frame above.

Alistair:

the manikin I used back then when this version of the doorway model was made could not be adjusted accurately. This is the reason for employing Poser11 in the current work as only this program allows for fine modelling of every subtle detail of Prayer Man's posture, including the arms.  

The top landing was likely several inches deeper than 3'. The reason is that the three parts of glass door were divided roughly but not perfectly as thirds of the 3.51 m (real world measure) or 3.56  m (my estimate).  Although the middle part was slightly narrower than 117 cm (an ideal third of 3.51 m), it was certainly wider than 91.4 cm (3'). Therefore, the depth of the doorway had to be slightly larger than 3' to accommodate the width of a fully open door. This is how I came to 108 cm (~3'6'') . Of course, it is still only an estimate, and I would be happy for having a figure based on some direct measurement of the original "1963" doorway.   

The small difference of 2'' between the model and the real world measure will be accommodated in the next revision of the model.

31 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Mr. Andrej Stancak,

Since I'm not all "techno-geeked" up and therefore don't think in terms of milliseconds (lol) about this particular sub-subject, I'm not going to go into this with y'all in any great detail.  Suffice it to say that my "scientifically-sloppy" little theory here is based on the following evidence-based observations and assumptions:

1 )  Red-shirted Lovelady was standing next to the left wall (near his soda pop / lunch ?) in that segment of Hughes which shows the limo turning (or getting ready to turn? -- going from memory here) left onto Elm Street.

2 )  A few seconds later, as shown in the larger of the two Weigman frames in the two-frame GIF (i.e., the one with the two cars in the foreground and in which Billy is still standing upright), Lovelady has "departed from" that wall (leaving his precious soda pop / lunch unattended !?) and moved a few feet away to his left so that he can get a better view from the center hand railing (which hand railing prevented him from going even farther to his left and getting an even better view).

3 )  Still standing next to the center hand railing in the other frame of two-frame GIF, Lovelady in now leaning forward (as is Doorman-Lovelady in Altgens6), having evidently heard a shot or a shout or a scream (as, interestingly enough, has "Prayer Person" heard said shot or shout or scream as indicated by his or her lowering his-or-her camera from his-or-her face in order to better see what the heck's goin' on around him-or-her).  Having said all of that, I suppose you want to know why Lovelady decided to lean forward?  Well, although Lovelady's leaning forward probably didn't help him to see or hear any better what was goin' on down on Elm Street, I believe that it was a normal human reaction in that situation the sound of a shot or a shout or a scream, and that leaning forward like that might even have been his (unconscious?) way of "pointing out" to the other people on the steps that "Hey!  Somethin's happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear, could there be a man wit a gun over there?" in this particular Altgens6-correlated Weigman frame (i.e., the one without the cars in the foreground).  To answer your question in a very roundabout and scientifically-sloppy (but at least non-geeky) way.

--  Tommy

Thanks, Mr. Tommy, for both correcting my clumsy English and sharing with us your insights.

However: leaning forwards is not what mammals, including humans, would do in response to a startling event, such as a gun shot. The startle reaction is a primitive neural response aimed to stabilise the head upon an impact from the front. It is, therefore, associated with contractions of back and neck muscles which prevents an animal or human to fall back. You may have been thinking of an orienting response, a primitive neural response to novel stimuli, which aims to amplify the sensory input. Turning head towards the source of a novel stimulus, dilation of pupils, adjusting earlobes (e.g., in cats), and tuning the tension of tiny muscles in the ear which increase the sensitivity to sounds are all components of orienting response.

21 minutes ago, Gerry Simone said:

I might have other pictures from previous visits.  How do you mean extended for the top landing?

The current depth of the doorway does not match the one of the 1963 doorway because the door was changed and pushed back into the building during the major refurbishment works. This has extended the depth of the top platform, and the current measurement of the depth does not apply to historic photographs. 

1 hour ago, Robin Unger said:

Jack White 35mm Wiegman slide.

In this Wiegman's frame, Carl Jones's angle of vision appears to be consistent with his Altgens6 angle of vision. The enlarged and mildly processed view of Carl Jones (below) shows that he was actually gazing towards Houston Street in this frame. Could this be the Wiegman's candidate frame for Altgens6? I have checked Robert Groden's version of Wiegman's film, and it is actually frame 1 of the first sequence in which the film shows the depository doorway. It occurs, therefore, sooner than frame 14 or 15 which would match Z255 (Altgens6) according to Mr. Myers.

Should  Carl Jones maintain his gaze neither west nor east (neutral straight) as in frame 14/15, Altgens6 would not show him looking sharp east as it does. This is illustrated with a 3D simulation in which Carl Jones in the left panel stands and views straight as in W-14. The resulting figure of Carl Jones after rotating the doorway in Altgens6 perspective is shown in the right panel.

  Carl Jones: W-Frame 14                   The same after rotating to Altgens6 view

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Guys,

I don't know if what I have to say is germane to your conversation, but you do realize don't you that the Weigman frame (above, in an earlier post) in which Lovelady is leaning forward equates time-wise to Altgens 6?

Yes, Altgens 6, in which Cinque's / Fetzer's "Doorman / Oswald" is actually Billy Nolan Lovelady, who, having heard the first shot ring out and / or some shouting down the street, is leaning forward near the center handrail (having moved to that position from the left wall just a few seconds earlier), leaning forward, I say (not going down one step), in order to "get a better view" of and / or "hear more clearly" what the heck was going on down there on Elm Street?

--  Tommy

Tommy:

This is one one of the most important points in the reconstruction of the events occurring in the doorway during the time of assassination. Would you not mind posting the Wiegman's frame which you think would be the one corresponding to Altgens6?

Mr. Dale Myers reconstructed the time axes of different films, and assumed it was Wiegman's frame 14/15 which matched with Altgens6. However, I doubt Myers's time reconstruction at this particular point for a very simple reason: we see Carl Jones viewing east in Altgens6 but to the west in Wiegman's frame 14 or 15. Of course, the image quality of Groden's version of Wiegman's film available to me is very poor to determine the Mr. Jones's gaze axis. Anyway, I wonder what are the opinions of forum members about Carl Jones viewing towards the Tripple Underpass in frame 14/15 and eastwards in Altgens6.

Mr. Dale K. Myers's reconstruction of Wiegman/Zapruder time alignement can be found in his document "Secret of Homicide...", page 114, downloadable at:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/report_download.html

20 hours ago, Robin Unger said:

If Prayer man were standing close to the front of the top step, he would be lit by direct sunlight, and we would see him more clearly in this wiegman frame

Robin:

I appreciate your posts. It is possible to stand close to the front edge of the top platform and yet to have only the object held in the right hand exposed to the sun light. Your recent doorway images with a shaded western wall actually illustrate well that Prayer Man's right elbow was about at the level of the front edge of the top platform. It is all just-just about Prayer Man's location, and this is the reason for people arguing a lot about his exact location. We speak about an inch of two deciding about the plausibility of each alternative.

As far as the missing proof for one-foot-down-one-foot-up hypothesis is concerned, a reasonable way forwards is to ask about Prayer Man' left leg. The hypothesis of one-foot-down-one-foot-up assumes that Prayer Man's left leg was bent in the knee joint and covering objects in the background. The object in the background is the heater. I see a smaller portion of the heater than expected in early Darnell's frames before the ladies ascended the steps far enough to cover what could be Prayer Man's left leg. I made a full analysis including overlays of the model and an early Darnell's still during Christmas break but need to check if I have the files on this or my other laptop. I was able to conclude that the grey blob where Prayer Man's left leg could be actually was his left leg.

This the Darnell's still I have in mind:

And this is a 3D reconstruction of a possible Prayer Man's stance:

Am I mistaken in my recall of you saying in some of your past posts that Prayer Man stood in the front part of the top platform? Naturally, researchers are fully entitled to change their minds.

3 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

 

I find it quite intriguing as to why there is the necessity for PM to be standing one step down but with one foot up on the top landing... why not just be standing fully on the one step down...

Also, I find it quite intriguing that an alternative 'scenario' under consideration is of a short 5'2" person standing on the top landing... considering the height of the step is 7 inches that carries the implication that PM then must be standing at maximum body height...

*With regards to BL being closer to the camera... by what factor? The picture may be taken at an angle but it's also taken from a distance and let's be honest, the proximity of BL and PM is relatively close. Also that the picture was taken from a slight bottom up angle is somewhat moot as it applies to both PM and BL...

You mention that apparent height differences cannot be accounted for by comparing the 'actual' body heights of these two people... I don't disagree - relatively. However, regarding your image of PM and Frazier, is it not a case that Frazier's actual body height of 6ft is factored and then to explain the 'apparent height difference' seen between Frazier and PM that the consideration given is between either a 5ft2 person standing on the top landing or a 5ft9 person standing one step down... but with the latter there is a need for one foot to still be on the top landing to explain the apparent standing further back than a person would be if they were fully on the one step down... fundamentally, are you not comparing the actual body heights of those two people to draw a conclusion also...... it's not that I think you are wrong, per se... it's just I have to be honest with myself and say that I have looked at the extant photographs and can't see any real justification for having PM stand one step down but with one leg still on the top landing... although I do understand (I think) the 'need' for it to be that way...Anyroads,

just wanted to throw something out there... what if BL wasn't as tall as 5ft8? Sure there is documentation putting him at that height (which Bill Miller posted earlier, and repeated below)...

http://s366.photobucket.com/user/bmjfk63/media/Billy L height_zpsrlpguvfx.jpg.html

The thing is though, they wouldn't have measured him they would have merely asked him and he said he was 5ft8 - it's not unusual for people to 'exaggerate' their height, so what if he was actually shorter... In an interview that Buell Frazier did he was asked about Lovelady and he claimed that Lovelady was quite short, and Frazier puts him as low as 5ft 4... personally I don't see him being that short, but it does, to me, perhaps, call in to question the 5ft8 claim... also maybe of impostance is to consider that Frazier said that Oswald and Lovelady were like 'Mutt and Jeff' - that Oswald was taller and thinner and Lovelady was shorter and wider...

Just throwing that out there...

Bill, if you are about you may be able to answer this question... did the door of the TSBD, at that time, only open outwards?

 

 

Alistair:

there are quite a few points in your post to answer. I'll try my best.

Query: "I find it quite intriguing as to why there is the necessity for PM to be standing one step down but with one foot up on the top landing... why not just be standing fully on the one step down...

 Answer: Prayer Man could not stand with both his feet on the first step below the top landing because his body would be aligned in parallel with the plane crossing the glass door. However, he is orientated almost in parallel (not completely though) with the western wall (in Darnell). This could not be achieved should he stand with both his feet on the step below the top landing. Further, the left part of his body (shoulder and left arm) would be lit by the sunlight which they it is not. 

Query:  "Also, I find it quite intriguing that an alternative 'scenario' under consideration is of a short 5'2" person standing on the top landing... considering the height of the step is 7 inches that carries the implication that PM then must be standing at maximum body height..."

Answer:  Yes, there may be some small height reduction due to Prayer Man very slightly bending his head and having (in my opinion) his leg apart. However, his body is stretched along the axis of his right leg. The about one inch reduction from 5'9'' is very small given how blurry the images (Wiegman and Darnell) are - one inch inaccuracy is within the uncertainty limits of contours drawn around the heads of the important figures in the doorway.

As far as the scenario of a person 5'2'' and standing on the top landing is concerned, I guess that every alternative, including the one with a fat and stocky woman dressed as a worker and drinking from a bottle (?), should be given equal weight and opportunity. 

Query: *With regards to BL being closer to the camera... by what factor? The picture may be taken at an angle but it's also taken from a distance and let's be honest, the proximity of BL and PM is relatively close. Also that the picture was taken from a slight bottom up angle is somewhat moot as it applies to both PM and BL...

Answer: I do not know the "factor" as a number for Mr. Lovelady and Prayer Man. However, the small exercise presented in my previous post illustrates the principle: the bottom-up angle to a certain extent smears the height differences.   

Query: "You mention that apparent height differences cannot be accounted for by comparing the 'actual' body heights of these two people... I don't disagree - relatively. However, regarding your image of PM and Frazier, is it not a case that Frazier's actual body height of 6ft is factored and then to explain the 'apparent height difference' seen between Frazier and PM that the consideration given is between either a 5ft2 person standing on the top landing or a 5ft9 person standing one step down... but with the latter there is a need for one foot to still be on the top landing to explain the apparent standing further back than a person would be if they were fully on the one step down... fundamentally, are you not comparing the actual body heights of those two people to draw a conclusion also..."

Answer: That example was meant to demonstrate that the relative body heights in a 2D image may not correctly inform about the real height differences. I am testing the hypothesis that Prayer Man is Oswald and therefore place a manikin 5'9'' into the doorway. There is enough circumstantial evidence to take this possibility as a plausible explanation and for this reason I work with a man 5'9''. A person 5'9'' and standing upright and on the top landing would be too tall relative to e.g. Mr. Frazier and other doorway landmarks. To answer your query, I really use the realistic and known body heights but rotate the model in such a way that it matches a particular scene. There, the body heights would be already relative, as in pictures.

Query: "it's just I have to be honest with myself and say that I have looked at the extant photographs and can't see any real justification for having PM stand one step down but with one leg still on the top landing... although I do understand (I think) the 'need' for it to be that way.."

Answer: The "need" in my thinking is a plausible hypothesis that needs to be tested. If Prayer Man was Oswald then a man 5'9'' should match all ad-hoc criteria derived from Darnell's and Wiegman's scenes. To say "need" implies a sort of wishful thinking on my part which would eventually always yield only one outcome. This intention I can exclude.

Query: "just wanted to throw something out there... what if BL wasn't as tall as 5ft8? Sure there is documentation putting him at that height (which Bill Miller posted earlier, and repeated below)..."

Answer: Mr. Lovelady's body height has been documented early on in this thread. In my analysis, it is possible to fit Mr. Lovelady's figure in Hughes by a man 5'8'' well. Lovelady's body height appeared in an FBI record, it is not a hearsay.

The door opened both outwards and inwards. You can see an inward opening of the glass door right in some Darnell's stills.

9 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The modelling you have done is impressive indeed.

Anyroads,

the stance of PM (one foot, one step down) that you have chosen is entirely supposition and is not borne out by any extant photographs, and I understand why you have chosen that height, and in terms of the comparison to Frazier's height (from the Darnell frame) then it does add up...

... I just don't think it adds up when put against the gif showing Lovelady go from the top landing down one step. Firstly because the 'body position' looks uncomparable with the stance and secondly, (no real measurements are needed and the 'perspective' and/or 'elevation angle' are somewhat negated by the close proximity of PM and BL) just from eye-balling it something doesn't (in my opinion) add up... it looks to me, again, just from eye-balling it, that BL when on the top landing looks approx. half a head taller than PM, and when he steps down one step he looks approx half a head shorter... PM's relative height doesn't seem to change...

...

... I would like to see a graphic representation of that doorway with the focus on BL and then a few different alternative's in PM's height, to see which one most closely matches that gif... easier said than done of course.

May I ask, what programme do you use for your 'graphics'?

Regards

Alistair:

if you keep viewing your GIF or an individual still from this GIF for a while you may realise that Prayer Man stood  at the very front part of the top landing. Please note how close his right elbow is to the brick column. It is possible to stand with one leg on a step and have the body aligned with the front of the top landing

As far as your height estimates are concerned, Mr. Lovelady is leaning forwards while stepping down. He is also closer to the camera, and the doorway was shot from a slight bottom-up angle. The apparent height differences cannot be accounted for by comparing the ideal (maximum) body heights of these two persons.

As per further 3D pictures of Darnell's, Wiegman's and Altgens's scene, this will have to wait until I have enough time to complete. We speak about weeks of contiguous time necessary to complete the work which I do not have at this moment due to my job and family commitments.

I use different programs: Poser11, CorelDraw, CorelPaintshop, SketchuUp, and few extensions and toolboxes such as Artisan. At this moment, had I enough time, I would be finalising a high-resolution Poser11 model of Prayer Man, and importing it into Sketchup. Also, I am testing simultaneously two other scenarios besides the "one-foot-down" one: a man 5'9'' on the top landing and curled which was originally suggested by Greg Parker (I have reasons to think that the "curling" could be in Backyard Picture style), and of course the short 5'2'' person standing on the top landing. Unless all three possibilities are finished to perfection, I would not post any further screenshots from the new work. 

13 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Part of the out-copping hides a portion of the wall from view.

And there is no sunlight hitting PM's hand as it takes computer generated lighting to see his hand at all.

Please see Alistair's post with the GIF and you will see the shining object in Prayer Man's hand. If not the sun reflection, the hand/object would have the same tone as the rest of Prayer Man's figure.

5 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Andrej says there are no measurements of the depth of the top platform, but what has he really done to find out?  I would bet that Dale Myers who made a 3D model of the plaza will know the measurements of the landing/steps/doors/wall/etc -  and if he doesn't know them - the TSBD Museum will have them archived somewhere.

This is where Gary Mack is truly missed for he would go out of his way to get this kind of information of a researcher.

Actually, Bart was kind enough to share  with me his measurements of the doorway last autumn. My estimates fitted the measured dimensions with a maximum error of 2 inches. The depth of the 1963 top landing is not known. It is worthy to write to the Sixth Floor Museum if they would have this figure. However, the depth will not be far from  3'6'' (108 cm in my model), give or take an inch.

1 hour ago, Gerry Simone said:

Here's a bit of what the entrance looked like last November (that's me assuming the Billy Lovelady position).  It is somewhat deep behind me.

Gerry:

the top landing has been extended many years ago. The glass door is not there as well. Anyway, thanks for posting this image which shows other aspects of the doorway clearly.

35 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

I have a problem with your cartoon landing. Having been on the landing myself on several occasions - I find it deeper than your cartoon image has it. Prayer Man is further back in the corner and couldn't be located at that location and have his right foot on the first step down from the landing. The doors open to the outside and they do not hang out over the steps when open from what I remember. See below ....

 

 

There are seven steps to take before reaching the landing ...

The front entrance door demonstrates just how deep the landing is ...

In the cartoon model - PM is too far out from the corner so to have the appearance that he is standing with a straight leg on the first step down. However, the real world image of PM shows him backed up in the shade in my opinion.

 

The door in my model can open outside without touching the central railing. Unfortunately, there is no data about the depth of the top platform as it was before the refurbishment of the doorway, therefore I have to rely on estimates which are then subsequently verified by overlaying the model with the pictures of the doorway taken from different angles.

Yet, the deeper the doorway is and the closer you place Prayer Man to the glass door, the bigger is your problem as Prayer Man's right elbow will be still further away from the brick column.  Also, should he stand right in the corner he would not hit any sun light with the back of his hand or with an object held in his right hand.

I am familiar with the photographs you posted and have used these and many other pictures while building the model.

1 hour ago, Gerry Simone said:

 

It's a mystery why nobody said they saw him out front.  Is there any possibility that Oswald was out in front but sometime after the assassination, such that nobody made a fuss about it?  IOW, not at 12:30 when the shots rang out but soon thereafter.  Could Oswald have meant that "out with Bill Shelley", meant moments after the assassination?

Didn't Oswald also bump into a news reporter who was looking for a phone, as he was leaving the TSBD?  You'd think people would've seen him out front then.

I don't know why nobody at the JFK Lancer NID Conference asked Frazier back in 2015 who Prayer-Man was.  I didn't know about Prayer Man back then, otherwise I would've asked him.

Gerry:

your point asking why nobody said seeing lee Harvey Oswald in the doorway is a valid one. It has been discussed thoroughly in the other Prayer Man thread which has been moved to JFK Research folder but is still available for viewing. There, in page 55, you find the start of the last wave of this discussion before the thread has been moved. It culminated in discussing thoroughly the witness credibility of Mr. Frazier who should be the prime witness as far as the identity of Prayer Man is concerned since Mr. Frazier literally stared at Prayer Man in Darnell's film. 

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Althought the GIF does indeed show PM being shorter when BL is on the top landing and taller when BL steps down one step... I am not seeing how that is fully consistent with 'one-foot-down-one-foot-up theory' (with PM being 5ft 9), and the reason I say I am not seeing how that is fully consistent is because if it were then, in overly simplistic terms, with BL being 5ft 8, for PM to be 5ft 9 and in a 'one-foot-down-one-foot-up theory' then when BL is on the top landing he should appear to be 6 inches taller than PM and then when he steps down one step he should appear to be 1 inch taller than PM...

... from looking at the gif (below) it does not look like BL is 6 inches taller when on the top landing and it does not look like he is only 1 inch shorter when he steps down...

 

Alistair:

my post from yesterday, the one with the picture demonstrating effects of shooting angle, explains your queries. I would even add one more adjustment: Prayer Man (Oswald) stands, in my opinion, with his legs apart (one leg on the step below the top landing and therefore, his apparent body height would be a little smaller than 5'9'', maybe 5'8''. This last figure would need some modelling to verify which I think I did but forgot since I last touched the doorway models.

I am afraid it is not possible to apply the known body heights of Mr. Oswald and Mr. Lovelady as fixed figures and do some simple subtractions. Your post indicates that you actually agree. The doorway is a 3D object, and factors such as perspective or elevation angle do count. Further, none of the two people in question stood perfectly straight precluding the comparisons of their body heights based on simple math calculations. The pictures are blurry, and it is sometimes even difficult to get the body heights right by drawing a line across the tops of the heads. And sometimes the line itself contributes to erroneous estimates due to miniature size of objects under study. I speak from many months of work spent on modelling the doorway and each figure in it, but am open to useful comments as it is a complicated problem in which it is easy to commit a mistake.

12 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

PM is in the corner and cannot be there and have his left foot on a lower step because he never moves and is a half a head taller than Lovelady when Billie went down a step as demonstrated in the Gif animation.

The GIF with two snapshots in page 213 shows Prayer Man being smaller when Mr. Lovelady is on the top landing, and taller when Mr. Lovelady steps down one step. This is fully consistent with one-foot-down-one-foot-up theory.  Prayer Man is close to the western wall but not that backwards to stand at the glass door. Should he stand right in the corner, his right elbow would be too far from the brick column in front of the top landing. Further, if standing in the corner close to the glass door, there would be no sun reflections from the back of Prayer Man's hand (Darnell) or from the object held by Prayer Man in his right hand (Wiegman).  The top landing was only about three feet deep. If one stands with one foot on the top landing, he or she already covers a large part of the depth of the top landing.

The landmarks to observe when positioning Prayer Man in the doorway were also described in my April 19, 2016 blog post at thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com. 

Lovelady's body height = 5'8''

- subtract 2-3'' due to his leaning towards his left

------------------------------------ Lovelady total 5'5-5'6''

Oswald's body height = 5'9''

-subtract 7.5'' to account for standing with his stretched right leg one step below Lovelady's plane

------------------------------------ Oswald total ~5'2'' (relative to Lovelady)

The difference is roughly 4'' in favor of Lovelady and therefore, Lovelady will appear as being taller than a person 5'9'' standing one step below. However, the net difference of 4'' is moderated further by the fact that Wiegman shot his film with a slight bottom-up elevation. Two objects of equal height, one of which is closer to the camera than the other, will not appear as equally tall.  Thus, the ~4'' difference between Oswald and Lovelady was reduced slightly by the elevation factor.  

To illustrate the effect of the shooting angle on relative body heights, panel C  in the picture below shows the height difference between Prayer Man and Mr. Frazier at zero elevation angle. In other panels, this height difference varies as a function of the elevation angle. The picture illustrates how misleading it can be to apply the simple 2+2=4 calculus when evaluating body heights in 3D scenes.

Those who came later and would like to read about Prayer Man's body height estimates, please visit my blog,  thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com .

Hello Tommy:

You are most welcome. I have seen your comments on Hungarian and other languages in one of the Harvey and Lee threads, and appreciated your deep knowledge.

Your personal message turned my attention to what I wrote when joining the Forum. I made some progress with the reconstruction of the doorway and all the occupants, however, would only post my work when I feel it is finished. If there are imperfections in my work, they would be used to discredit whatever the results suggest. In the current atmosphere around Prayer Man, I just do not feel like wanting it.

Please keep doing your good job in the Forum, I will keep reading your messages.

Best

Andrej

49 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, it does not exclude the building as being the Southland Center. But it should exclude authors and researchers from categorically stating as a fact that it was that building as has become the norm. As for Johnson, it is obvious to me that he is attempting to "insert himself into history" ala Judyth Baker. Anyone who is interested inn the truth should disregard him until he can provide some proof of his assertions other than his word.

As per Mr. Veciana's memory recall, it would be still useful to show him some contemporary 1963 pictures of various hotels and buildings from Dallas and other cities, and to tape record this small experiment. Maybe this is what Mr. Fonzi did? 

Mr. Wynne Johnson is now a member of the Forum, and has all chances to address your points. I am aware of the risk that old autobiographic memories can be tainted by subsequent information and experiences, and agree that at least some objective, third-party corroboration is necessary for every testimony, including Wynne's late testimony. The difference in our standpoints is that I am willing to give Mr. Johnson the time he needs to gather some evidence, and am not attributing any dishonest motives for coming out with his testimony so late. 

My original post was meant to have Mr. Johnson's remarkable testimony recorded for the history, and if no further corroborating evidence is found to support Wynne's testimony, his testimony will remain as an interesting but unproven part of the JFK assassination history. 

It is possible that Veciana did not remember the name of the building during the interviews made by Gaeton Fonzi. Even if Mr. Veciana himself did not give the name of the building in any of his public appearances or interviews, this does not exclude this building as the venue. As Chris pointed out, Mr. Veciana offered enough clues to Mr. Fonzi, so that Mr. Fonzi was able to identify the name building from different clues.

Mr. Johnson can perhaps add more details about Mr. Veciana's memories of  the building because they met and discussed this encounter few years ago.

In this recording, Mr. Fonzi says that the building was later determined to be the Southland building. The relevant section is at 38 min 30 sec.