Andrej Stancak

14 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

 I think this note supports the note that Ruby wrote to his second attorney, wherein he admitted that his claim that he killed Oswald to spare Jackie a trial was false and was fed to him by his first lawyer. 

In the Maddox note, I think Ruby was saying just what he meant regarding his motive: that his reason for shooting Oswald was to silence him. I think his comment about being "framed for the assassination" referred to his being painted as insane at his trial, being double-crossed, and being given the death penalty. I believe he had been led to think that he would get off with a light sentence or even acquitted. 

Michael: there may be also another interpretation of the "framed for assassination" phrase. Ruby could have participated in the JFK assassination plot in some important way and he could have been threatened by the conspirators to be exposed, and that was used as a vehicle to make him silence Lee Oswald. It appears they had something on him related to the main plot, therefore, he wrote he had been framed.

He wrote he went to silence Lee Oswald, not just to kill him. He wanted in the first place that Lee could not speak. This means Lee Oswald would reveal details of the plot in which he (Ruby) was also involved and was framed for.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Andrej,

Greg Parker has an answer to your question:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2730-for-andrej-stancak-the-ed-forum

(No, this Lynn isn't Karen Carlin.)

Thanks, Jeremy and Greg, for shedding light on the identity of the two people mentioned by Jack Ruby.

I've stumbled upon a YouTube video posted by Vince Palamara two years ago. It is a 1992 TV show 'The Kennedy Assassinations: Coincidence of Conspiracy? 1992'. 

Link to the video: https://youtu.be/kUryjXhLzFs

Around the time 42:00, former Dallas sheriff Al Maddox was presented as a guest to the show. Al Maddox was a guard to Ruby from 1963 until the very last days when Ruby fell ill with pneumonia. Jack Ruby secretely handed over a short letter to Al Maddox, and Maddox brought the letter  to Larry Howard after 25 years. The letter was authenticated as Jack Ruby's letter by a handwriting expert on the program.

Part of the letter was shown on TV screen, and I managed to get a screenshot (below). However, Al Maddox read the whole letter out loud, and here is the transcript:

"You've known me for a long time and you know've known how I struggled make my clubs go. Also Lynn has known me up to this time I've that I've gotten into trouble. Johny Crank, myself, and Lynn have been out to dinner many times and I'm sure they know what kind of person I am. Well, this all adds up to what I'm going to tell you. That I've been framed for the assassination, that my motive was to silence Oswald. I know you think I'm crazy. But keep this note for the later day and you will then know what I am saying here. Keep your eyes open and maybe you will notice some things."
 

I wonder if anyone knows where the original of the letter is. This letter causes a really big crack in the official version of JFKA as it confirms conspiracy to kill Oswald and use Ruby for that. Does anyone know who Johny Crank and Lynn were? 

8 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

e the jfk saga -- i solved the whole thing (ie what happened in Dealey Plaza on that day) in late 2022 -- but i do glance at the forums -- there have been a number of revelations etc by some very clever members.

But revelations karnt of course change what [i said] happened in Dealey Plaza -- what [i said] happened being 100% true.

Marjan:

Where can we read about your version of JFK assasination?

As advertised before, I completed my analysis of temporal alignment of Wiegman and Zapruder film. Unless I made some horrible mistake in choosing the film frame rates, my analysis suggests that Zapruder film needed to be several seconds longer than the extant film. 

My analysis is very simple. Since the frame rates of Wiegman and Zapruder film are known and the frames when both films showed the same scene (Z447 in Zapruder film and W265 in Wiegman film), it was possible to count back to another instant occurring earlier (Altgens6) and check the identity of the scenes depicted in Wiegman film stills and Altgens6. This analysis showed that a period of 10.49 s (or 192 Z frames) would correspond to 252 Wiegman film frames, meaning Wiegman started filming 13 W frames and 10 Z frames before Z255. Logically, there should be at least one frame in Wiegman film, possibly W13, that would show the same locations and postures of people standing in the Depositiry doorway.

To check the identity of Wiegman frame W13 (actually, W12 because for that frame I was able to locate a high-resolution still from jfkassassinationgallery.com) and Altgens6, I compared the locations and postures of the people in the Depository doorway in both stills. I found the following: 1) Carl Jones standing at the western wall of the Depository doorway was standing with his back parallel to the western wall and gazed eastward in Altgens6 but he changed his body orientation about 90 degrees in Wiegman film, so that he stood in parallel with the steps and gazed toward the Tripple Underpass area.  2) Bill Shelley changed the direction of his gaze from eastward in Altgens6 to south-south-west in Wiegman film. 3) Mrs. Stanton, located in the space between Lovelady and Shelley's right shoulder in Altgens6 slipped back behind Lovelady which was a location she also held in Darnell still. The quality of Wiegman stills is very poor, especially in the back of the doorway, so the change in Sarah Stanton's location could only be determined tentatively according to the light-coloured patch above Shelley's head, corresponding to Sarah Stanton's light-coloured hair.

I could not find one single Wiegman frame that would yield the same doorway scene as Altgens6 which cannot be were the temporal integrity of Zapruder film intact. The doorway scene seen in any of Wiegman film frames is younger than the scene seen in Altgens6 which means that Wiegman had to start filming seconds after Altgens6 picture was snapped. The only explanation is that an unknown but substantial number of frames in Zapruder film were eliminated, possibly the frames showing the stoppage of the limo. The transformation of the doorway scene from Altgens6 to Wiegman suggests a minimum period of 2 seconds that had to elapse between the instant when Altgens6 was snapped and the start of Wiegman film, but possibly even 3-5 seconds.

All details of my analysis are here: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2023/04/10/the-timing-of-wiegman-film-and-altgens6-photograph-questions-the-continuity-of-frames-in-zapruder-film/

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Interesting article you’ve written. I have had problems over the years with the concept of an abort team or teams sent to thwart the assassination. They certainly failed. How do you suppose they would have acted had they been on such an assignment? Passively viewing the events surely doesn’t qualify. 
i do think that a real assassination plot superimposed on a fake attempt fits the scenario rather well. In general, a fake or unsuccessful attempt later pinned on Castro would have accomplished the political goal of turning the Administration firmly towards ousting Castro. An actual kill team would accomplish a. much wider goal - getting rid of a President whose plans for peaceful coexistence abroad and civil rights at home were unacceptable.

I think the role of an abort team in Dealey Plaza would be to mingle with the crowd before the arrival of the motorcade and watch for spotters, guns, or suspiciously behaving individuals. I would make sense to have multiple abort teams or one larger team. 

As your comment "... a real assassination plot superimposed on a fake attempt.." is concerned,  I am also inclined to believe that this is what happened. It is obvious, at least to me, that Lee Oswald behaved suspiciously on a number of occasions not only on that fateful Friday but even in weeks and months before. Why would anyone think of going to watch a movie with a gun in his pocket within 30 minutes of killing the President of the U.S.A? Why would anyone with socialist views be collaborating with David Ferry or Guy Banister and simultaneously handing over pro-Castro leaflets?  

There is a very reasonable scenario of two plots explaining two parallel plots, introduced by Matthew Smith in his book "JFK The Second Plot" published in 1991. The idea of two plots was that Lee Oswald was involved in the "second" plot but was unaware of the primary plot of killing the President. The second plot was a plan to fly Oswald from Red Bird airfield on Friday afternoon under the cover of President's visit which visit would distract the law enforcement in Dallas. The story largely rests on the account by Wayne January who conferred to the author about the events he had witnessed at the airfield prior to and on the day of assassination. It is possible that Lee Oswald acted within the script of the second plot which entailed being at Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff around 1 PM, so he needed to leave the Depository whatever happens. As he was a clever young man, he did figure out that his role may not have been so much to be flawn to Cuba that day but rather to take the blame for the assassination. After his arrest, he continued playing his second plot role in the clandestime operation and did not reaveal any details of that plan. However, he did deny his involvement in the primary plot by shouting out "I am just a patsy".  He was maybe hopeful that somebody from the second plot circuit would step forward to save him. 

People involved in a mock security exercise involving shooting but not killing John Kennedy would have a foreknowledge of some kind of shooting, and would behave differently during and after shooting compared to people who had no foreknowledge at all. People with foreknowledge of a fake assassination attempt would not show surprise when hearing shots and would not need to stay at Dealey Plaza to explore the scene. I have written an essay on the topic, albeit skewed toward Oswald's behaviour. 

https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2021/03/28/symptoms-of-foreknowledge/

On 3/30/2023 at 5:48 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The evolving manipulations.

It helps when someone recognizes the "red flag warnings" and connects them for you.

 

 

Thanks, Chris. I believe the frame rate of Wiegman was 24 f.p.s. However, if frame rates were 24 (W) and 18.3 (Z) f.p.s., there are then problems to synchronise the two films. I am still working on one of examples of failed Z-W synchronisation but need to re-check before posting. 

Thanks, Chris, it should have been a 24 Hz frame rate in Wiegman fim. 

Chris: 

what was the frame rate in Wiegman film? Dale Myers in his online book on acoustic evidence used a frame rate of 25.6 Hz for Wiegman film while you have used a 24 Hz frame rate (page 1 in this thread). What is the evidence for one or the other frame rate?

I peeked into the sample of the book Amazon provides. Larry Rivera conferred in the book that he had proven Lee Oswald was in Altgens6 picture, and that Buell Wesley Frazier was removed from Altgens6. I am afraid that individual biases and errors have been left unchallenged in this book. I did message to Mr. Rivera a while ago to also look at my analysis of Altgens6 picture, however, there was no response. 

Several of Lance's points are useful and may stimulate an interesting debate. However, the onus is on the defendants of the official version as outlined in the Warren Commission report to prove unequivocally that Oswald killed the President including explaining in credible fashion his motives for his alleged crime. This has not been accomplished thus far. Even such a seemingly simple thing as Lee Oswald's whereabouts from 12noon till he left the building has not been explained using persuasive evidence. 

I may try to follow Lance's points in the future; for now I can only apologise for not giving it a try as I do not have enough time and focus at the moment to elaborate a succint account.

We live in the 21st century and have advanced computers and computer programs at our disposal. Why would it not be possible to determine with reasonable accuracy the features of Prayer Man such as the body height or posture from the stills available? Why would it not be possible to extract information about the type of his hairline and darkness of his hair? While too many frames in Darnell film are affected by the motion blur, there are a couple of stills which are steady, albeit do not show the facial features clearly enough to help with Prayer Man identification. 

Data on Prayer Man extracted from Darnell stills and the Hosty notes together give enough reasons to further explore the possibility of Lee Oswald being out for a short period of time during the assassination of Preseident Kennedy. Keeping this possibility open is important as it gives reasons to acquire first generation digital copies of Darnell and Wiegman film, i.e., the initiatives by Roger Odisio and/or the team of US lawyers including our own Larry Schnapf. The mills of truth turn very slowly to the taste of all of us, however, they turn and turn, and one day we will get access to both critical films.

There is still one feature in Prayer Man's figure that has not been explored sufficiently enough, and I am also guilty of that, and it is the large dark spot  seen on Prayer Man's shirt which appears to match the dark areas on shirt CE151 - the shirt Lee Oswald wore on Friday morning before changing it for the darker shirt CE150. If it is possible to match the dark spots on Prayer Man's shirt and the shirt CE151, the list of Prayer Man features matching Lee Oswald's figure would basically allow to claim identity even without being able to use the facial features owing to burnt-out white tones in Darnell still.

The research on Prayer Man continues on different fronts in parallel in a seemingly unrelated fashion; each valid bit of data, each detail and each testimony will eventually be taken into account before we can individually and as a community decide if Lee Oswald was out there standing at the western wall of the Depository doorway when President Kennedy was killed. 

17 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

https://i.imgur.com/eJcykr6.mp4

Quite convinving in my view. Overlaying a model with the original photograph/frame is an ultimate proof of goodness of fit.  I have extensive experience with fitting my doorway models onto Altens6 and Darnell; it is exteremely punishing to try to overlay a wrong model onto the original photograph as the disparities between the two are for everyone to see. In contrast, if the model matches the original accurately, one can be sure that the model is an adequate fit of the original scene.

This is an impressive piece of modelling work which will allow to test all possible hypothetical scenarios of the shooting. I am not concerned about the exact location of the President and the Governor because the researchers clearly have a good understanding of all aspects of the modelling problem, and it is unlikely they would fit the two men to wrong locations.

Maybe unrelated to their work, my model of the Depository doorway and testing the locations of the doorway occupants based on fitting the model onto a historic photograph is a very similar approach. However, instead of using a laser scan of the doorway, I used an archictectonic model of the doorway that was based on real measurements of the doorway. I will contact Mark Johnson regarding the possibility of joining our efforts to verify my reconstruction of Darnell's and Altgens's doorways.

In case somebody would be interested in a 3D reconstruction of the Depository doorway in Altgens6:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Hwt-cIGq4

My reading of M.J. Gagne's article tells me it is a superficial insight into minds on people who question the official narrative of JFK assassination. The Author's point: "What conspiracists seek, ultimately, is not truth in the form of a set of objective facts, but validation of their feelings of alienation, a validation that rests on a set of presumed facts."  has been disproven by the work and lives of many JFK researchers. JFK researchers do seek data, facts, pieces of evidence. We are not psychologically affected by mythical thinking - we just want to know the truth. If the truth is that Lee Oswald alone killed the President, so be it. But what shall we do with a large number of pieces of evidence which suggest otherwise?

The JFK researchers seek the truth in form of evidence: written documents, audio recordings, photographs and films. Somehow, almost 60 years after the fact, the Governement still conceals the most relevant documents. Shall I feel ashamed for questioning the official narrative and avoid being considered a myth-follower, or shall I demand all the documents pertaining the case be made available to the public? Most of us have made their choice.   

4 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Also, Ferrie spoke of Lee Oswald
for the first time. He said that Bertrand had done a lot for Oswald and that it
was only because Oswald had fouled up that he was killed. Oswald was an
agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, Ferrie claimed, and had received
money from him and Shaw at one time.

It would be very useful to know in what way did Lee Oswald go wrong. I read about Oswald going wrong in the plot couple times before. Anyway, this story suggests that Lee Oswald could have some foreknowledge or maybe even play a part in JFK's assassination. 

10 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Changing the subject slightly:

Re: 

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

My answer (DSL answer): When I first interviewed Nurse Bell -- on camera - in 1971 (approx.)  We went over this --repeatedly-- because I was fully cognizant of its importance.

... to add on the source of Audrey Bell's statements on the location of the head wound, here is an excerpt from Dr Aguilar's chapter from "Murder in Dealey Plaza" book edited by J. Fetzer (2000):

"The Globe immediately refuted that speculation, reporting. "But others, like (Dr. Richard Dulaney) and (neurosergeon Dr. Robert) Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, therefore exposing the head wound". Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn't see JFK's head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry. "Where was the wound?", Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound". During sworn interviews with the ARRB in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported , "(anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.) Jenkins said, "Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you'd better step up here and look at his brain." And so at that point  I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President's head...". The ARRB's Gunn inteviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, M.D. on March 21, 1997. reporting, "He (Grossman) and Kemp Clark (Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland) (sic) together lifted President Kennedy's head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President's head." (page 193).

Quoted from Aguilar, G, The converging medical case for conspiracy, In: Murder in Dealey Plaza, J. Fetzer (ed.), Chicago Press, 2000.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Andrej, I don't think Chris is comparing Prayer Man to Lady in Pink. I think he is comparing Prayer Man to the woman standing between Lady in Pink and the police officer to her left. She's behind the opened glass door. Notice that, in Chris's animated gif, that woman and Prayer Man are in the same spot as the doorway alternates violently back and forth.

 

Sandy:

this thread is going back and forth. Seeing a gif in response to the ongoing arm height discussion, I thought Chris was discussing the pink lady on the the top landing. The other lady behind the glass door was discussed too in this thread. Her hair is not compatible with Prayer Man's hair. I have posted this bit also on September 11. The picture below shows highlighted contours of Prayer Man's hair and that lady's hair.

Chris:

the doorways in different photographs need to be aligned, not flipping violently. If you straighten the western-most post of the aluminum door, as much as it is possible, to be vertical and also make sure that the height of the horizontal bar on the western side matches in both pictures (the second yellow line), you would see that the pink lady is too short to be Prayer Man. Since she would be too short, her arms would be lower compared to a person standing on the top landing but reaching the top of Prayer Man's head. 

I posted this analysis in this thread on September 11:

May I also ask you to eventually answer my question whether your large person (5'10'') or short person (5' 3'') fits Prayer Man? Only one of the two can. It is the problem of unequal arm heights for such two people with the shorter standing 7'' lower than the tall person, but also the distance of the edge of the right elbow (olecranon ulnae in Latin) from the red brick column seen on the western wall. If you place the short person almost one foot of a distance to the inside of the doorway, as this person would stand with both feet on the top landing, the distance between the elbow joint and the red brick column would increase. I only obtained a good match for this distance with Prayer Man being 5' 10'' (5' 9 5/8''to be exact) and having his right foot on the step below the top landing but not for a short person standing fully on the top landing. 

Again, only one of the two persons can match Prayer Man's figure, not both of them.

Chris:

the height of inseam has nothing to do with the distance between the top of the head and the elbow or forearm of  crossed arms. You do need to see the peron's inseam to decide whether two persons standing on different plaforms 7 inches apart but having their heads at the same height would have or not their arms at the same level.

Thanks for trying anyway.

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

Are you trying to convince me that there are individuals who don't possess longer torso/shorter leg ratios?

For instance, what does your research show BWF 6ft body ratio to be?

Mr. BALL - How tall are you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I am 6-foot, a little bit over 6-foot.
Mr. BALL - Do you know what your arm length is?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - We can probably measure it before you leave.

I assume this is without shoes on, but who knows for sure.

Chris:

Frankly, I have difficulties following your posts (and the gifs), even if I know something about the height aspect in Prayer Man figure.

Can you please clearly answer my question if it would be a short person (5'3'') or a tall person (5'10'') that would match Prayer Man? Only one of them fits Prayer Man because the arm heights would be unequal in spite of the tops of their heads being on the same plane.

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Not necessarily. imo

The BWF/Oswald photos set a short person at 5'3 1/2" and the taller at 5"10 3/4"

 

Chris:

I took the liberty of using your lovely wife's photograph to explain my point. A person 5'10'' would have his/her arm noticeable higher than a person 5' 3'' but standing on a 7'' elevated platform. The tops of both heads would be on the same plane, yet their arms would not. Therefore, only one of the two would fit Prayer Man. Which one of the two body heights would you think allows a good fit with Prayer Man's figure?

(I exceeded my image quota, and using an URL link truncates the image vertically. I hope my point is clear though).

58 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Not necessarily. imo

The BWF/Oswald photos set a short person at 5'3 1/2" and the taller at 5"10 3/4"

 

Chris:

does you analysis take into account that the short person (5' 2 1/2'' - 5' 3'') would have his/her arms too high compared to Prayer Man in Darnell? And did you take into account that only one of the two persons (short and tall) would have his right elbow in a correct distance from the red column seen on the western wall? 

In my analysis, I assume that Frazier did not stand completely straight in Darnell still - he had his abdomen slightly forward exagerating the latural lordosis, and he compensated it by bending his head slightly forward. It is for that reason that my the height of the plane crossing the top of Frazier's head is at 6' rather than 6' 1/2'' or 6' 1''. I measure the apparent body height as manifested in Darnell, not a value that has been reported.

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Cudos to the wife.

She is 5'10" tall without shoes.

She is 5'10 1/2+ with those shoes on.

Standing on the mini tailgate of a 99' Landcruiser which is 34" above the ground.

Shot using an Iphone12 with the 26mm wide angle setting.

Approx 67ft away.

76ft was preferred, but there was a parked car in the way.

 

 

 

I guess we can agree that Prayer Man could not be a short person around 5'3'' (with shoes on) standing on the top landing?