Andrej Stancak

Sandy: there is nothing which can create any doubt in your mind, so I leave you with your camera.

Alistair: I may be looking at a completely different picture else I do not understand. The picture below the GIF in your post, this is a Darnell's still. In it, you have a red line associated with letter B - that man in my view is Shelley, standing on the top landing. The same man who is seen in Altgens, he wears a suit. There is then another man below him, one white speck - that one in my view is Williams. If you would recognise the man below Shelley, you would have an arrow pointing to it, but there is no such arrow in your picture. Therefore I assumed you have missed this other man in your map.

I did some search around Sarah Stanton. Her address was 227 North Ewing Street, Oak Cliff. Maybe two block's from Ruby's appartment at South Ewing. Close to Noth Beckley. How odd this looks.

Ron: in a way, you may be right that there is no way to reach a conclusion (Stanton vs. Oswald). The effort should be to find out any photograph of Sarah Stanton. Roy Lewis and Beull Wesley Frazier are alive - they could say how tall Sarah Stanton was. While it is possible to view everything as being ambiguous, there are details which in my view comulatively tilt the weights towards Oswald. She was an office lady - would she wear a shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbows? Would she drink from a bottle in public? How likely would be that Stanton's hairline matched a male (Oswald's) hairline.

Alistair: you may wish to look again on your allocation of names to individual persons in Darnell's still. Otis Williams is still there, in my view, in front of the man in a suit. That man on the top landing wearing a suit could be Shelley. The contours of Otis Wiliams are less clear but he is the white spot in front (below) and slightly to Shelley's right. We do not see his head because he is shielding his eyes with his right forearm and hand. The man in suit (B in your scheme) cannot be Williams because Williams wore a long-sleeve white shirt - please consult Altgens6. Further to the recent discussion, it may be that Lovelady is the man at a spot previously occupied by Carl Jones. It would make sense to have both Lovelady and Shelley on the steps in Darnell as if Lovelady is still there how could Shelley leave sooner if he stood in the back of the doorway. Both men could leave the doorway in the next few seconds, still in the range of 15-20 seconds.

Sandy: Prayer Man did not have his hands connected in Darnell's still and therefore could not hold any object (Coke) with both hands. Prayer Man is lifting his right arm toward his head in Wiegman which would be consistent with an act of drinking. The light reflecting object would then be the bottom of a bottle. Prayer Man could have left the bottle in the recess next to his right foot as proposed by Bart. This could occur between Wiegman's and Darnell's film. In Darnell, I cannot see any object in any of his hands but I may be mistaken or the picture quality is just not sufficient. Therefore, it is unlikely that Prayer Man held a camera. Where did the camera go in Darnell? While it is possible to explain the disappearance of a bottle, it would be hard to do with a camera.

Sandy: my estimate of the door height (inner plate) is 83 inches. One needs to take into account the distance of Prayer Man from the door as a person standing closer to the front of the top platform will be looking 1 or maybe slightly more than 1 inch taller than a person standing right at the glass door. If Prayer Man stood too far to the back, his right hand would not reflect the light, and his right elbow would be too far from the brick column, Also, one needs to take into account the elevation of Darnell's camera. The relative heights of two objects not being on the same plane will change with changing elevation of the camera. Finally, any height calculation should also take into account that the man may not be standing erect. Any bending of the head or curling the body unless compensated in the estimate would cost few inches. How was Prater Man bent or curled? I am testing the possibility that Prayer Man actually stood as Oswald used to stand: carrying the weight of his body on his right leg which is pushed backwards and having his left leg slightly bent in the knee joint and pushed forwards. This would be Oswald's backyard photograph pose. You may remember the discussion about Oswald's pose in one of backyard picture threads. This is why I asked you some weeks ago if you would agree that Prayer Man was bending his left leg - it is about the template onto which a preliminary manikin's pose can be fit. While it is possible to apply a simple calculus to calculate Paryer Man's height, it should be understood that it is within the limits described here as all factors (relative distance of Prayer Man and the glass door, camera view angle, exact body posture) affect the height estimate.

Ron: this is a very valid question, and my view on this is only a layman's guess. You certainly know much more than I know about witness testimonies and the Warren Commission. Your question aims to the point that if Prayer Man was Oswald and stood there in plain sight then how comes that no one was willing to convey this information to the FBI/WC. Here is what I think, and I realise that my thoughts may not satisfy you or anyone doubting Oswald standing there close to the western wall: 1. In my analysis, Oswald came to the doorway from behind the glass door at a moment allowing to be captured during Wiegman's film and during the following Darnell's film. My estimate would be that this would be an interval from about 30-45 seconds as the shortest time and 120 seconds as the longest time. This longest possible interval is based on an early report by Occhus Campbell who remembered to see Oswald in the small storage room in the vestibule about 2 minutes after the last shot. This is a short time interval given that people were in the state of shock and still watched the events enfolding in front of them. 2. During this short time interval, some of the doorway occupants, e.g. Carl Jones, did not look back to check who is behind him, they rather focused on the dramatic events evolving in front of them. The same holds for people standing in the immediate vicinity of the doorway. Even if they would briefly look back, such glimpse would not make a memory trace. 3. The FBI was actually very concerned about Oswald being in the doorway during the shooting. They visited Lovelady on Friday evening with a large blow-up of Altgens6 and were allegedly very relieved when Lovelady confirmed that it was indeed him. Thus, it actually could be someone advising the FBI that Oswald was in the doorway. 4. The people standing on the top platform and on the first step below saw Prayer Man and knew who he was. This would be Lovelady, Shelley, Frazier, Stanton, Saunders, and maybe Molina. Those who left while Prayer Man stood at his spot may or may not see him (e.g., Otis Williams). For instance, Frazier was less than three feet away from Prayer Man and Prayer Man was in his field of vision. 4. Of these, Stanton and Saunders only gave an FBI affidavit, as brief as possible, and were not called to testify under oath. Frazier had a hard time during Friday evening and night with the Dallas Police. 5. I think that some kind of deal was made between Frazier on one side and the DPD and FBI on the other side in which he would not be prosecuted for helping the accused assassin and in return Frazier would never confer the truth about things like curtain rods or Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting. In Darnell's still, Frazier and Prayer Man are frozen, practically not moving at all. Frazier later said that he had seen police officers with guns and allegedly told himself not to move and stay where he was. I think he, as Lee Harvey Oswald, was pondering what had happened and what to do next. I think it was all around the rifle as this was an obvious framing tool which both Oswald and Frazier understood immediately. Lovelady was visited by the FBI on the night of assassination and he had an earlier criminal record. Could his history be the reason for taking him to the Dallas Police headquarters early afternoon? How can a man standing in the doorway (Lovelady) be deemed suspicious? Maybe he was brought to the headquarters to explain him about his testimony. Shelley did not admit to see Oswald after about 11.50 on that Friday, except later at the police station. This was his testimony for the Warren Commission. ? Molina had a hard time with the FBI for his alleged communist ties, there was some strong lever against him. 5. For all witnesses, if they decided to say that they had not seen Oswald, they would be in peace. This is what they opted for. Shelley, Saunders and Stanton fall into this category. The alternative was to start saying that they actually saw the accused assassin in the doorway, that assassin who was seen by an eyewitness in the sixth floor window, whose rifle was used to kill the President, who was a communist, who also killed Officer Tippit, and about whom Captain Fritz told the whole country that they had the perpetrator on both counts. Such witness would be explained that he/she was wrong and that this did not happen, and that they would get into trouble if they continue saying such things. It would be one person against the whole machinery and objective "evidence". Who would come forward? There is a story of one Velma (80) who called a radio program in 2006. After 43 years and by preserving her anonymity, Velma told interesting things happening in the parking lot behind the Depository. She explained that she had a family and had feared of her and her family lives, and therefore she never came forward with her testimony. This is how serious it was. I posted the case of Mr. Wynne Johnson few days ago. He and his girlfriend, both 15 years old then, allegedly met Oswald, Bishop and Veciana in Southland Center in September 1963. Wynne was immediately explained by Vicki's mother to forget the thing forever else "they" would kill Vicky. And Wynne kept his silence for almost 50 years. 6. Let us now forget the doorway for a moment as no one witnessed Oswald to stand there. Well, how comes that no one had seen him anywhere else after the shooting? No one had seen him leaving the building. There were people both in the doorway and in the vestibule, someone surely would see him leaving. If he was not in the doorway, he was on the first floor, and he was there also when e.g. Officer Baker and Superintendant Truly came in. Or, Otis Williams and few other people (according to Geneva Hine) came to the second floor just 2-3 minutes after the last shot. They had to go through the first floor vestibule and use the stairs in the front part of the building leading to the second floor, and this is when they could meet Lee Harvey Oswald. If not these people, then maybe Eddie Piper or Jack Dogherty who in the meantime came down to the first floor using the elevator. My point is that there is a complete blindness as to sighting Lee Harvey Oswald during or after the shooting. We only have the impossible second floor encounter between Officer Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald. From a witness perspective, the situation would be very similar in claiming to have seen Oswald in the doorway or witnessing an encounter between Oswald and Baker in the first floor. No one dared.

Alistair: 53 years already passed and somehow no one saw them...

"... in the 'photographic' evidence where is Sanders and Stanton? If they are to be ruled out then it must be shown where they are." Alistair: I am afraid you may wait for very long time for this ...

Alistair: not only myself but many other researchers did a detailed analysis of who was standing where in the doorway. This is all contained in the original Prayer Man thread. I did not get from your last message that you actually recommended to me personally, perhaps thinking that I do not know, to read the testimonies and look on photographic evidence. I can assure you that I have a pretty good idea who was where, and do not need to go over the whole stuff again and again. I understand that you are new to Prayer Man problem and would like to rehearse for yourself. If you go to Bart's Prayerman webpage http://www.prayer-man.com/, you can get the testimonies with a brief description of locations of all witnesses in the doorway with one click. As per where Prayer Man stood, you can check my earlier analysis: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ . This article tests only two options (Prayer Man 5'2'' on the top landing and Prayer Man 5'9'' standing in the very front of the top landing with one leg on the step below) and using a low-resolution manikin whose pose could not be adjusted too well, However, the article lists all the useful markers which define Prayer Man's height and location. I work on a more advanced version using a much better manikin which I have elaborated in Poser 11. The new manikin allows the arms, head position and similar to be modelled very accurately.

Alistair: "Whilst we may know how tall Oswald was, we don't know exactly where PM stood, or indeed how PM stood, so not sure why those things would be an issue if testing it as not Oswald. " The point of Prayer Man's body height is actually testable. The body height estimate goes hand in hand with Prayer Man's exact location. Prayer Man's body height is a crucial point which practically makes the alternative hypothesis (Prayer man was a women) hard to defend. Sarah Stanton was "heavy-set and stocky", surely not 5'9''. Pauline Saunders stood in the east part of the top landing, far from Prayer Man's location. What other woman could be a candidate? There are not that many...

Alistair: You hold both explanations (Prayer Woman or Prayer Man) open, and this is a fair standpoint. However, it becomes a bit different if you would like to dig deeper and beyond this evaluation. You would maybe find out that you need an initial assumption, such as Prayer Man was Oswald, to navigate your research and test different discrete predictions. It would be difficult to assume that Prayer Man was just anybody and to do any research on that base because such standpoint would not generate any testable prediction. How can one "prove" that Prayer Man was just anybody? While holding the view that Prayer Man was Oswald I do not claim I have proven it, only that there is enough cues to assume so and to direct my research in that direction. It would be a fair view to assume that Prayer Man was a woman. If anyone would hold this view, we would need to see the same effort as exerted by those trying to test that PM=Oswald. What would be the candidate woman? What testimonies support this prediction? Any pictures, any details about her body height? Would she drink from a bottle in public as Wiegman's frame shows? Or did she drink from a mug? Where this mug went to if it is not seen in Darnell's still? And so on, and so forth. I offered some researchers a collaboration on testing their assumption about Prayer Woman if they would let me know how tall she was and where exactly she stood. However, this has never been responded.

Thanks, Bill, for your explanation. The software packages mentioned at Wikipedia from which you seem to quote look very complicated and actually require multiple photographs. Are you sure that photagammetry would work with this low-resolution picture in which it is difficult to recognise details of the body? It would be your big contribution to the Prayer Man topic if you could employ photogammetry to Prayer Man's figure. As you know, I work on 3D reconstructions using different approach and cannot embark on another project. We can then compare our findings obtained using photogammetry and 3D modelling. Maybe you would you be able to contact the person familiar with photogammetry to ask about his/her view about the possibility to reconstruct Prayer Man from Darnell's still. In my experience, one cannot get more information from an analysis than that which the input data potentially contains. If we do not see e.g. the Prayer Man's left shoulder, how can we reconstruct his chest as a volume. However, I may be wrong and it may be all possible to do...

Bill: as your style is, you again slip photogammetry as a tool to reconstruct and maybe measure Prayer Man's body or at least torso. However, to do photogammetry, one needs to have an object to be photographed from at least two quite different angles. The more angles the better the result. Would you please explain, since you propose it repeatedly, how can photogammetry be done with having Prayer Man photographed (although one can say repeatedly) from one and the same view angle? Or will you evade again as if nothing happened? Coming to the question whether Prayer Man's torso looks thick: the problem is that we do not see Prayer man's torso as a spatial object, and therefore the side of his trunk is simply added to one large-looking 2D region. Instead of seeing how the front of the chest and abdomen bends towards the side, we see it as one flat area. It is that simple. The same applies to the lack of any clear boundary between the torso and legs. Oswald wore a worker type of shirt and slacks. Both were loose and the shirt wings appear to be over the slacks. Since they were of practically the same colour and owing to the really bad signal in that portion of the picture, it is very difficult to draw the contours of legs and waist. I have modelled Prayer Man's figure extensively, and know that Praye Man's contour in Darnell's stills can be fit with a normal-weight man. The discussions of late in Prayer Man's threads are only about subjective interpretations of individual perceptions which lead the contributors to argue what could happen and what not, who someone was and who not. I am not sure that this is the way forwards. I am adding the picture of Oswald's shirt and slacks again to explain my point re. the transition between the shirt and slacks in Prayer Man's figure one more time:

I would like to turn the attention of Forum members to a remarkable testimony of Mr. Wynne Johnson. Wynne was 15 years old in 1963, and had a girlfriend Vicki. Vicki and Wynne liked to visit the roof of the Southland Center to view the scenery of Dallas. And so they did on September 7, 1963. As unexpected and unbelievable as only the life can pose, these two children became witnesses of an event which researchers of the President Kennedy assassination consider as a clear and undisputed proof of a direct contact between Oswald and Maurice Bishop alias a CIA asset David Atlee Phillips: their meeting in Dallas in September 1963. Thanks to Gaeton Fonzi’s research, we know that that meeting also included Antonio Veciana, one of the chief representatives of anti-Castro movement in Miami. It was Veciana who told Fonzi and the House Committee about the Bishop-Oswald meeting. Wynne and Vicki were approaching the Southland Center when a taxi cab passed and a young man, Lee Harvey Oswald, stepped out. Oswald entered the main lobby, met with Phillips and both men started to talk. Shortly, Veciana came in via a different entrance. And while the three men stood together in the lobby, Wynne and Vicki also entered a long corridor and headed towards the three men. Mr. Wynne Johnson recorded details of their encounter with Oswald, Phillips and Veciana in three video sequences. Wynne followed every possible lead to support his story. More than fifty years which elapsed could have taken its toll on the vividness of Wynne’s memories. However, Mr. Wynne Johnson had the courage to come forward and speak. Mr. Johnson, in my view, is an honest man and seeks neither fame nor money. Wynne also shows a certain type of charming naivety in his approach towards researchers and certain books owing to the fact that he did not research the assassination case for fifty years. This only strengthens Wynne’ testimony in my eyes. Mr. Wynne Johnson posted his story on YouTube, and this is how I came to it. I decided to suggest Wynne to present his story to the Forum members since his story is also a part of the history of the assassination case, and as such it has to be preserved. I would therefore appreciate if those researchers who disagree or have doubts about this comparatively recent testimony could express their views in a polite way – about the same polite way as it was the custom in old Forum posts from 2005. Please find here the links to Mr. Wynne Johnson’s YouTube videos: Southland Center 1963, part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKw_ELuXYj8&t=5s Southland Center 1963, part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO1-Ezw6Qkw Southland Center 1963, part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhxMlnkeFV4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wrote a message to Wynne few weeks ago. I wanted to know what could be the reason for Lee Harvey Oswald to undertake a long trip from New Orleans to Dallas and not to spend any time to converse with Phillips. This is what Mr. Wynne Johnson wrote back. I am copying the relevant part of his email with Wynne’s approval: Mr. Wynne Johnson, 9-10/2/2017: “With a certain qualification, the only people at that end of the lobby arrived in the order: Phillips, Oswald, Veciana, and then, simultaneously, Wynne and Vicki. Oswald had a very short amount of time with Phillips before Veciana came in. This is known from Oswald himself in phone conversation with Judyth Vary Baker. See her book Me & Lee. I myself know that Phillips and Oswald did not have much time together before Vicki and I came in, but slightly longer than you might think, because Vicki and I came down the long corridor at an exceptionally slow walk. … It is true that Oswald was supposed to meet with Phillips that day, but Phillips sent him away, back to New Orleans, as soon as the three of them got outside. We know this both from what Veciana told Fonzi (see his book) and what Lee himself told Judyth. What they did not know is the probable reason why Phillips changed his mind about talking to Oswald then. The reason is me. Phillips suspected that 15-year-old -- in fact, probably both of us 15-year-olds. I assure you that this actually happened. I saw Veciana in person in Miami in October, 2015. He does not remember the encounter well. We spoke entirely in Spanish. Although I did not ask him, a good friend of his had told me by e-mail that he did not know English very well in 1963. Therefore, he could well have been in a kind of foreign-language fog, so that he did not understand what was said and whatever he heard would have become easy to forget.”

Bill: I asked you because in none of your previous posts on Oswald clothing, which you have slipped here and there after my post specifying details of Marina's testimony and providing links to Commission Exhibits, did you actually provide any details about the alleged witness reporting that Oswald wore black pants on the day. You wrote it this way: "One witness when asked about the color clothing Lee had worn on the day of the shooting had said that Oswald wore dark/black' pants. Prayer Man seems to have a similar tone to his lower body as he does his upper body. " Not only that you have not provided sufficient details about the alleged witness and source of your information in your previous posts, you fail to do it even now after being asked. You can question Warren Commission testimonies one by one like many other researchers. However, Marina had seen Lee before he left for work after he had his coffee and came back to their bedroom (details in Priscilla Johnson-McMillan's book: Marina & Lee). Therefore, she knew what shirt and pants he had worn on Friday morning. Are you questioning her testimony on this point? I am still waiting for your explanation about how can a photogammetry be done with only one view angle picture. You not only have advocated it to the community but also challenged those who support Prayer Man=Oswald hypothesis to deliver. Please explain.

Bill: any details about your witness and his/her testimony?

Oswald's shirt and slacks on Friday morning were compatible with Prayer Man's clothing. The composite figure shows the shirt and slacks which were chosen by Marina Oswald during her testimony for the Warren Commission. I have mounted the shirt over the slacks as this would explain the lack of form of Prayer Man lower body. Please note the loose slacks which are torn in the seam. Marina asked why were the slacks torn but received only promise to learn. Mary Bledsoe correctly pointed to a tear on the slacks but also on the right elbow. I wonder why she was the only person spotting and remembering such details. Would Oswald go to work in this bad shape?

Ron: as far as your comment on Prayer Man's torso is concerned, have you considered the possibility that Prayer Man wore a worker type of shirt, rather loose, bottom of the shirt out of slacks. This would make him look wider compared to the pictures in which he had a T-shirt or a nice elegant shirt. Since he was bending slightly to his right, this loose shirt would hang at some distance from his trunk. As far as sleeves are concerned, my analysis tells me that his shirt was a long-sleeve one, and sleeves were rolled up to (maybe tiny bit below) his elbow joints. This again would make an impression of quite massive upper arms. And since Prayer Man had his arms flexed in front of his body (a "prayer" gesture), it also looks that his upper body was massive.

Bill: would you know about an example of a photogammetry analysis in the area of JFK assassination? I am not familiar with the method but I assume that at least two (the more the better) photographs of the same object taken from different view angles are necessary to reconstruct a 3D object. In Prayer Man case we only have one angle and cannot see the entire body. Is photogammetry actually feasible in this case?

Bill: I am afraid that your lines are completely wrong. You are comparing the man on the pavement with Prayer Man (and two ladies). The man had a suit which makes his shoulders to look wider. Prayer Man is orientated differently than the man on the pavement. It is a 3D problem, and it also includes the factor of perspective (more distant objects looking smaller than close objects of the same size). It is difficult to determine the width of Prayer Man's shoulders in this picture.

What about a different type of exercise: the alleged woman stood on the fourth step (counting the top landing as the first step), and her leg was about 2 feet apart from the central railing. That part of the doorway was lit by sunlight, and any shadow there was cast by people on lower steps. However, their shadows would not cover the upper part of the woman's body because she stood on a higher step than them. Therefore, we should see the lady illuminated pretty nicely at her left shoulder, and we should also see her head as a plastic 3D object, similar to other people in the doorway. If there were a human figure where the alleged woman stood (would somebody advocating this please draw a contour around her body), a shadow cast by her body would be seen on the rightmost part of Mrs. Reese's figure, however, it does not seem to be there.

Andrew and Ian: would it be possible to draw a contour around the alleged woman's body? The shape on the step indeed makes an impression of a human leg. However, where is a leg there is also a trunk, and where is a trunk there is also a neck and head. I just struggle to identify the contours of this alleged woman. I would therefore appreciate demonstrating to the community the contour of the alleged woman since maybe I am not the only one who fails to see the head under Prayer Man's arms. Would not this women be some kind of a giant?

Thanks, Paul, for your detailed and well-elaborated comments. There may be one problem with the new documents to be released in October 2017, and that is that there may not be actually any paper document clearly pointing to the local limb of the conspiracy because that part had never been captured in any official materials. Unlike the FBI which had a system for archiving reports from agents and detectives, the local limb composed of rogue police staff members worked by the word of mouth. There may be some slips in the FBI records on e.g., Hosty's role but hardly any full and revealing reports. I am afraid that we will need to read between lines again. Actually, there may be much more documents from the CIA archives explaining maybe the roles of Bishop and Angleton, or even the whole Russian affair. I hope that the new US government will not allow any documents to be withheld.