Andrej Stancak

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.

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

I haven't really thought about his or her height. I think it could be a woman because it looks like she's wearing a dress. Or course it could be a man with a loose work shirt (and matching pants) too. IMO it's either Stanton or Oswald. As with so much else in this case, there's no way to reach a conclusion.

 

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. 

7 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Ron, I just put that 'quote' from you above here, so that you would get a notification about this post, in case it passes you by. Regards.

 

Here is an image I found on Google of the Altgens 6 (top) and Weigman frame (bottom) on which someone else has put the letters A to G on to  match up those people. One has to consider the difference in perspective of where each image was taken (they were both taken at relatively at the same time).

(NB: the C in the Altgens 6 should probably be placed more to the right hand side as we look at it and more to 'beneath' the A).

A = Molina
B = Williams
C = Dean
D = Reese
E = Shelley
F = Lovelady
G = Jones
(NB: Frazier is not seen in these images because he is too much in the 'shade')

As we move on let us say that;
H = Frazier
I = Davis
J = McCully

At this junction here is the Couch/Darnell sync from which the 'Darnell frame' comes from. It is approx 30 seconds after the time of the 'Altgens6/Weigman frame' picture.

Couple of things to look out for there. First the two people walking away are claimed to be Shelley and Lovelady (*although there is some doubt about that) and secondly the man that arrives at the 'traffic light pole' is Jones.

Here is a quick image I knocked up of the Darnell frame on which I have put the letters on to match the people from the 'Altgens 6/Weigman frame' picture.

A (Molina), B (Williams), C (Dean) and D (Reese) haven't really moved that much in the previous 30 seconds. As mentioned above* E (Shelley) and F (Lovelady) have moved away from the steps and G (Jones) has made his way across to the 'traffic lights pole'. H (Frazier) has now 'come out of the shadows'.

Based on the location that Davis said she stood (on the lower steps) with McCully, and McCully said she was with Davis, I have I as Davis and J as McCully (but it might be the other way round to be honest).

*In the Darnell frame you can see 3 people in the position that Jones had been 30 seconds previously. None of them were in that position at the time of the shots, and from looking at the following gif an argument can be made that both 'all black' and 'all white' people are returning to the building (ie had been outwith that vicinity at the time of the shots. As for 'white head' person (Who appears to be facing down and talking to 'all black person), I don't know who it is or where they came from to be honest - (some people have made the claim that it is Lovelady and he hadn't left the steps by that time, but that could be a moot point in terms of this discussion anyway.)

 

It has to be stated that the 'Prayer Man' figure is viewable in both the Wiegman frame and the Darnell clip.

From looking at the photographic evidence of Altgens 6, Wiegman Frame and Darnell Frame, and cross referencing it with the 'testimony' of those who said they were on the steps at the time  it's reasonable to say that 10 of them have been identified; Molina, Williams, Dean, Reese, Shelley, Lovelady, Jones, Frazier, Davis and McCully.

Who is left over? Stanton and Sanders

If we look at what each of them said as to where they stood;

Stanton: says she was with Sanders, Shelley, Lovelady and Williams.
Sanders: says she took up a position on the top steps and that Stanton was standing next to her.

*Point of contention: Sanders said she was on the top step at the 'East' entrance!

*A point of interest; Molina: says he stood at the railings on the 'east side' of the building but does not recall who stood beside him but does know that Sanders viewed the motorcade.

As we look at the photographic evidence of the steps, the 'east side' is the right hand side as we look at it, and the 'west side' is the left hand side as we look at it.

Molina was certainly correct about being on the 'east side' as that is backed up by the photographic evidence, Sanders can't be beside him because he mentions her after saying that he does not recall who stood beside him! From the photographic evidence the two people that stood 'beside' him look to be Williams (up left as we look at it) and either Davis or McCully (down right as we look a it). So when Sanders said she was at the 'east' entrance that is not backed up by the photographic evidence...

... what if then, when Sanders said 'east' she actually meant the opposite side from where Molina is. How could she make such an error? Look at a compass, which side is East as you look at it? To the right hand side! What if, then, Sanders, when she said she was on the 'east' side she meant the 'right hand side' (from her perspecitve - facing out) and thus she was in real terms standing on the 'west side' of the steps.

 

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.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Andrej is using the scientific method when he hypothesizes that PM is Oswald. I personally believe that that hypothesis is justified by the photographic evidence.
 

Light is transmitted from the viewfinder out the top lens.

 

Most people don't hold their hands up like that for as long as PM is shown to be doing so, unless they are holding certain things. (I think that two films indicate PM has his arms up like that for at least 30 seconds.)

Most people don't hold a coke bottle with two hands for more than a few seconds at a time. Some do when holding a mug that is almost full. But the bright spot from a mug wouldn't be a circle. (Is the bight spot in the videos a circle?) As for a camera, I've seen many people holding a larger camera with two hands.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's all about statistics, Ron. What percentage of women in 1963 looked like men? Very few. Most women in that era had the customary long hair.

If PM looks to you like a woman because of his height, I'd say it's more likely that he was a short man than a woman with short hair. There were a lot of short men back then.

BTW, I measure PM to be close to 5 ft. 6 in. in height. The assumptions for my measurement are 1) that PM is standing back near the glass entryway, and 2) that the height of the door is 86 inches. If the door is taller, then PM is taller. (Note that I had to determine on the photo precisely where the bottom of the door meets the concrete landing. I didn't spend a great deal of time doing that. If I ever find out what the true height of the door is, I'll spend more time trying to accurately determine PM's height.)

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.

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

You sound like the person to ask since you've done the research. I'm wondering about the possibility that someone on those steps could have said that Oswald was there, but that any such reference was deleted from their testimony. That would be easy to do if "testimony" refers to FBI statements, since we know that the FBI liked to play around with statements and evidence. It's more complicated if "testimony" refers to statements before the Warren Commission. In the latter case anyone who had said Oswald was there would have been told or pressured to lie to the commission. Would you comment on the possibility of any statements being suppressed regarding Oswald's presence on the steps?

 

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 ...

26 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Prayer Man's height is only really testable if one knows exactly where he stood and how he stood.

Sarah Stanton was 'heavy-set and stocky'... are people not debating earlier the 'girth' of PM.

Pauline Sanders stood in the east part of the top landing... what if she mistook 'east' for 'west.

As I said, look at the testimony of all the people on the stairs and see where they put themselves and who they said they were near; have a look at the photographic evidence and see who is actually where and who is actually standing near each other and who is not, cross check it all and see if anything 'pops out' as being of interest.

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.

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Personally I'm not sure if it's a good idea to start with an initial assumption such as Prayer Man was Oswald and it's certainly not about proving that Prayer Man was just anybody! Of course, there does have to be a starting point from which to 'narrow the field'. My starting point has always been that Prayer Man, because of their position, has to have been someone from the TSBD building. To narrow that field down further I would thus make the assumption that it either has to be one of the people who stated they were standing on the steps or A. N. Other (and that with all things considered would be Oswald)..

I appreciate what you are saying there Andrej.

With regards to the things that point towards it being Oswald, I have read this thread and the other PM thread and some of the things don't quite add up imo and maybe aren't actually useful things to use to point to it being Oswald...

... for example, what was PM holding? Perhaps not holding anything? Some have pushed the idea that it was a camera, but I haven't seen evidence to back that up. Some have pushed the idea that it was a 'coke' bottle - and as evidence of that they mention the 'coke' bottle and lunch bag still visible on the steps later on. Where is the link though? How do they know it belonged to PM? It could have belonged to someone else - for example: Lovelady testified to being on the steps for a period of approx. 30 minutes before the shots, during which time he ate his lunch and drank a bottle of 'coke'. His position on the stairs was closer to the location of the lunch bag and bottle caught in photos and although he doesn't mention leaving it, he also doesn't mention taking it with him - a very good inference can be drawn then that the lunch bag and bottle caught in the photos were actually Lovelady's...

... as much as it may look like PM is holding something in their hand there remains the possibility that they are holding nothing. The image just isn't clear enough to make a definite call on it.

For those trying to test that PM = Oswald, the 'burden of proof' is on them to prove it is Oswald, and in doing so they have a starting point that is the same as what I have mentioned above - that PM is either someone who said they were on the steps at the time or Oswald. It appears that some of those trying to 'test' that PM = Oswald have ruled it out as being a woman because it looks like a man.

As much as I can agree that from looking at it it does look like a man, that alone doesn't rule it out as a woman!

One of the ones that said they were standing on the steps at the time!

First, what testimonies support it being Oswald? None. Not one person mentioned Oswald being there! Could Oswald have been there unseen? Could he have 'sneaked' in to that position and not be noticed by anyone? How could he have done that? Consider the positions of the other people and consider how the door opens; the likliehood is that no one could have 'sneaked' in to that position unseen. What's left then? That he was seen and the people just didn't mention it? Wouldn't mention it? Couldn't mention it? For whatever reason... OR the reason no one mentioned Oswald being there is because he wasn't. What other testimony supports Oswald being there? Not Fritz, or Bookhout, or Holmes - ah, but they were making things up, right!

Anyway, all the testimony of all of those who were standing on the steps is very easily available and can be cross-referenced with each other to get an idea of who was where and with whom etc. The photographic evidence starts to rule certain people out straight away. Process of elimination shows who is left over, and they need to be somewhere don't they. Looking at who they each said they were standing with or near can further help pinpointing the locations of each. I've done it it all and narrowed it down and let me put it this way, if one of them has just mistaken 'left' for 'right' then that could go a long way... 'proving' it, well selling the idea to the 'masses' is a whole different matter.

How tall Prayer Man is, what their body height is, what their size is, what they are holding or not holding is all relatively moot because of the 'quality' of the image. If a better quality image ever surfaced all of those things would still be relatively moot as the better quality image would no doubt show whether it was Oswald or not - and of course, it doesn't really matter who it actually was if it wasn't Oswald, because if it was shown not to be Oswald then it is not Oswald...

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.

Setting all of that aside...

... find out all those that said they were on the steps, and consider them all, don't rule out the women. Look at where each of them said they were and who else they saw or who they were with. Use all of that to get an idea of where everyone was, cross check that with the different photos (Altgens 6, Weigman frame, Darnell frame) and see whether they moved or not. Start to identify each and every one from the photos and rule them out... see who is left over and then try and see where they could possibly be in the photos.If they can be unequivocally be placed in other positions then they can't be in the PM position, but if one of them can't be unequivocally placed elsewhere, then where must they be by definition...

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.

39 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

"Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points. It may also be used to recover the motion pathways of designated reference points on any moving object, on its components, and in the immediately adjacent environment. Photogrammetric analysis may be applied to one photograph, or may use high-speed photography and remote sensing to detect, measure and record complex 2-D and 3-D motion fields ......"

My understanding is that if one knows the camera lens type and size, along with known measurements within the photograph .... distances and sizes of other objects in that photograph can also be determined. I know of one person who is experienced in Photogammetry and I have seen it applied to still 2D images. If I am wrong, then it should be easy for you to merely speak to someone skilled in that field to see if you are correct.

 

 

 

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...

3 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

To start with - I don't think any girth was ever considered previous to now .... there certainly do not seem to have been any body size ratio comparisons made to that of Lee Harvey Oswald.  Also, if I had a lot of work involved in trying to make a case for Oswald being Prayer-Man, then I too would not be so quick to accept the girth observation.  The thing now is the girth has been raised and sooner or later someone skilled in Photogammetry will answer that question, thus leaving little wiggle room one way or the other on this issue.

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?

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

To my eyes PM's torso (his body below the arms) is lighter than the shadows around him. Does anyone disagree? And doesn't that torso look rather wide (certainly wider than Oswald's)?

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Ian Lloyd said:

I believe that quite a few years ago Robin Unger identified that there was a woman standing in front of Prayer Man on the lower steps - as you say, if you look closely enough, you can see the bottom half of her legs . The overall effect is to make Prayer Man appear to be much 'bulkier' than he might be (that's not to say he wasn't bulky; obviously, we can't tell when there's a woman in front blocking the view). Not sure if it was Robin who first identified that there was a woman there but he was the first I was aware of.

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?

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

I agree with most of what you said here -- with only some minor diversity:

(1) I agree that the problem of the degree of local plot, simple plot, complex plot or external plot still has much energy.

(2) I agree that no consensus yet exists within the CT community on these points.

(3) I agree that we should strive to minimize our anger at each other over this fact of life.

(4) I also hope that the new documents to be released by October 2017 will shed new light the case.

(5) I believe many CTers will be surprised to learn that the locus of the JFK plot was Dallas, and not Langley.

(6) While LHO was evidently involved with the ONI in the USSR, and was also involved with David Atlee Phillips in New Orleans, Mexico City and Dallas, nevertheless, it remains clear that LHO was never offered a full-time job with US Intelligence, but always remained at best a trainee (ONI) or a mercenary (CIA).  LHO was never a CIA Agent -- but LHO was a CIA-wannabe.

(7) If I am correct, then there was no role of US Intelligence in the JFK assassination plot.

(8) There were rogues in the CIA who were involved -- and who even confessed -- namely, Howard Hunt and David Morales.  They were not very highly placed.

(9) On the contrary, recent FOIA releases of CIA documents published by Bill Simpich (2014) reveal that the CIA was dumbfounded by the Impersonation of LHO in Mexico City, linking his name with Valeriy Kostikov   This impersonation was known by the CIA 15 minutes after the impersonation occurred.  A CIA Mole Hunt began immediately and was never solved.  This, IMHO, proves the CIA innocence in the framing of LHO in the JFK assassination. 

(10) Whoever impersonated LHO in Mexico City was inside the CIA, but working for a CIVILIAN plot, localized in Dallas, with a limb in New Orleans.  Dallas remains the locus of the JFK plot.  This is what I believe will be revealed in October, 2017.

(11) Joan Mellen named several people who were mercenaries for the CIA who confessed to a role in the JFK assassination -- but I will insist on the fact that they were mercenaries, and not CIA Agents.  I think Joan Mellen glosses over this crucial fact.  Frank Sturgis, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Thomas Beckham, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringiuer, Eladio Del Valle, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour, and so many others -- they all confessed at some point to some role in the JFK saga, but they were all mercenaries, and would fight for any anti-Castro group -- they weren't CIA Agents.

(12)  I agree that Dick Russell did brilliant work.  Yet what I take away from the mysterious Richard Case Nagell is that LHO was never a CIA Agent.

 (13) I disagree about Peter Dale Scott, who is too politically inclined, and takes the "big picture" approach.  "Deep Politics" amounts to ordinary politics.  IMHO, his work is an excuse to exploit the JFK assassination for his liberal political bias.

(14) I am ambivalent about John Newman, since in the 1990's he offered more data on the CIA than anybody else, so he is heroic in that sense; however, his work has been obviated after the actual publication of the Lopez Report (2003) and is really out-of-date today.  To keep citing him is to ignore the facts as they have been revealed in the Lopez Report.  That's my take on it.  John Newman was also biased politically, IMHO.

(15) Since LHO was never actually an employee of the CIA, it is sheer guesswork, sheer speculation, sheer fantasy, that invents scenarios of a CIA Oswald.

(16) I know Ron Lewis personally, and Ron Lewis didn't believe that LHO actually worked for the US Government.  Ron Lewis told me that LHO worked for Guy Banister, a right wing politician and expert blackmailer, and also that Guy Banister was blackmailing LHO because he found out that LHO took that potshot at General Walker, his personal friend. 

(17)  I am delighted, Andrej, that you recognize the major role of the Dallas Police in the framing and silencing Oswald.  I hope to convince you further that they were central in the JFK assassination itself.  

(18) I agree with you that the Dallas Police in 1963 were right-wing, segregationist, anti-communist, Birchers', KKKs and Minutemen.  This was demonstrated by the late William Turner (Power on the Right, 1971), a former FBI agent and former member of this FORUM.

(19) I do agree with you this far -- if Dallas acted alone, then this assumes that the CIA, FBI and SS were looking the other way -- and this was in itself a passive role in the JFK conspiracy.  That has already been charged of the SS by many writers.  I myself accuse James Hosty and James Bookhout of participation in the local Dallas plot.  

(20) The WC testimony is full of explanations for the breakdown in US Government communications between the Secret Service and the local FBI in Dallas.  The PRS is the admitted weak spot in the entire US Government protection of JFK.   They are not blameless, by any stretch.  So, aside from David Morales, a few elements in the US Government had a passive role.  Yet, to focus on the US Government (and so-called "Deep Politics") takes our attention away from the core of the JFK Plot, namely, the Dallas Police, led by the Radical Right wing there in Dallas. 

(21) In my view, Guy Banister was working closely with Joseph Milteer and General Walker.  Walker had been tracking LHO since the April shooting.  George De Mohrenschildt told Natalie Voshinin on Easter Sunday that he suspected LHO of the shooting.  She told the FBI that day, and James Hosty, IMHO, told General Walker that day.  So, Walker began tracking LHO on Easter Sunday, 1963.

(22) IMHO, General Walker called Guy Banister who called David Ferrie who knew LHO since childhood.  David Ferrie invited LHO back to New Orleans, and only a few days after the Walker shooting, LHO was back in New Orleans.

(23) What LHO didn't know was that Guy Banister and General Walker were working together to frame LHO as a Communist through the Fake FPCC at 544 Camp Street.  Most of the people at 544 Camp Street were ignorant of this plot. They were all preparing for new attacks on Fidel Castro.  (This is where David Atlee Phillips came in.)

(24) As Howard Hunt himself confessed, he was "only on the sidelines" in the JFK plot.

(25) David Morales was apparently active at multiple levels of the JFK plot -- but he was not the leader, and he was not reporting to any CIA leaders -- his new leaders were the Radical Right, because they at least had the courage to strike out against an alleged Communist Conspiracy.   This is my reading of it.

(26) The entire Mexico City farce was planned by Guy Banister. Guy Banister knew very well that the paltry resumé of LHO as an FPCC officer would be laughed out of the consulates and Embassies of Mexico City.  But it was the final stage of the Frame-up of LHO as a Communist.  David Morales was probably the impersonator (Simpich, 2014).  The impersonation was the main purpose of the Mexico City trip.  (Kudos to Bill Simpich for clarifying this.)

(27) Finally, Andrej, I'm delighted that you have cited Walt Brown's landmark CT book, Treachery in Dallas (1995). Combined with Jeff Caufield's work (2015), we can finally see that the real solution to the JFK conspiracy has been right in front of us for 50 years, but we never looked directly at it.

(28) Why not just wait for the JFK Information Act in October, 2017 and take a rest?  Because, I believe it will be too much of a shock for many Americans to read the truth, unless they are prepared for it.  To blame the Dallas Police for the murder of JFK has never been a popular CT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

Paul:

the question is if the assassination plot was a local, single-limb or a multi-limb affair. I am afraid we do not know all what we need to decide. Frustrations from not being able to elucidate the aspects of the case we would wish to know create anger and denial, basically negative emotions. I hope very much that the new documents to be released in October will shed light on what was the role of intelligence in the assassination plot. The intelligence (ONI, FBI, CIA - e.g., Phillips) certainly had something to do with Oswald on a long term basis. I would give credit to the work of, among others, Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, and Dick Russel who did find a number of connecting lines of national intelligence unis with Oswald. The Raleigh call - that certainly pointed to Oswald's intelligence connections. Scott's assertion that Oswald worked for the intelligence by actually working for a private intelligence organisation (Banister?) which was tasked by the government/FBI/CIA/ONI would make a very good sense. Oswald (and also Ron Lewis or Richard Nagell) thought he worked for the government.

There cannot be any dispute that local elements, particularly the Dallas police, had a major role in framing and silencing Oswald and maybe even killing the President. They were also right-wing, segregationist, anti-communist, Birchers', KKKs, Minutemen.  If they would act alone, that would assume that the intelligence forces lost any interest in Oswald after the September Mexico trip, and he was left at disposal to the local plotters. How and whether the local plotters were at some point coordinated with the intelligence is not known, however, it is likely. Oswald was likely left in piece after Mexico to avoid being flagged up and eliminated from the plot due to his publicity (Simpich) which would make the appearance that only the local forces were responsible. 

The true links between various limbs were not known to the individual plotters themselves. As Walter Brown describes in the book you often advocates (Treachery in Dallas), the different limbs actually did not know about each other, and therefore sometimes it looked as if the Dallas Police and the FBI stood against each other whilst in fact both these institutions had at least a foreknowledge and did everything to cover up all the details of the assassination. 

Why not wait for new documents and decide then what were the roles of local and national intelligence organisations in the plot? In the meantime, I would like to thank you for emphasising the local limb of the assassination which is your important contribution to the forum discussions.

P.S.

By the way, an interesting three-part video series popped up recently. If true, it certainly supports Bishop-Oswald connections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKw_ELuXYj8

19 hours ago, John Butler said:

David Andrews,

The front tire is a composite image.  The last thing I put up on the Marie Muchmore post has information on what I see in Altgens 5.

Rather than go over that again please go to that post and read it and tell me what you think.

John:

there may be a natural explanation for the apparently disproportionate shape of the front tire. The limo has just turned onto Houston street and the driver wanted to straighten the car which might appear to him to be too much to the west, and so he mildly and for a short moment turned the wheel to the right. This caused the front tire, in contrast to the rear tire, to be orientated more along the axis of the camera lens. Therefore, we see more of the back part of the front tire than, the front part of this tire is hidden.

I have added some light to see the contours of this tire better. Please note the shadow at a spot where the tire touches the road; the shadow is cast by the tire itself. The rest of tire appears normal to me. 

Also, what would be the purpose in altering the appearance of the front tire?