Andrej Stancak

Paul: I think you may have visited Dallas just recently because both Google Maps and Google Earth show 214 West Neely on their Jnauary 2016 pictures. The three pictures allow to identify the yellow house as 214 West Neely. There are actually two appartments in the house, 212 and 214. The door to the right was 214, the appartment rented by Mr. Oswald.

Google Earth still does show 214 West Neely house, and it looks to me compatible with the yellow house. This location is what I need to know as this would allow me to conctruct the house and the backyard and place it exactly on the marked house via Google Earth flat map.

Well, Andrej, I've been to Dallas and looked for myself. This is a photograph of the Oswald's old address at 604 Elsbeth Street. This is not the house where the Back Yard Photograph was taken. This house is around the corner from the next Oswald address at 214 West Neely Street, at which the original Back Yard Photograph was taken. Also, the house that used to be there on 214 West Neely Street has been razed to the ground some years ago. It no longer exists. There is only an empty lot there, as of late last year, when I was in Dallas. The duplex on 604 Elsbeth Street is still there -- pretty much in the same shape. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul: thanks for your comment which, however, confuses me. I found the following building to be 602-604 Elsbeth: This should be the duplex mentioned in your message. It has been photographed by Mr. Holga in 2012, and it is in a pretty bad shape. http://www.mrholga.com/2013/03/602-604-elsbeth-lee-harvey-oswald-slept-here/ The picture of the house I posted, which house may not exist anymore, appears to be, according to a number of pictures available on internet, the 214 West Neely and it does contain the backyard, the small gate and the wooden wall. Thus, I would still believe that the light-colored house is 214 West Neely. This particular backyard photograph interests me in context of Prayer Man discussion. The stance of Prayer Man bears a striking similarity with the stance of Oswald in this picture: the right hand holds the full weight of the body, the right hand is above the left hand. I found at least two or three pictures of Mr. Oswald with a similar stance. Thus, Mr. Oswald had a habit to assume a specific stance across a variety of situations, which is a minor but still a useful detail supporting the view that Prayer Man and Mr. Oswald were one and the same person.

Sandy: Thanks for your clear explanations of lens distortions and your view of how the vertical lines have been altered. The tilting of the photographic paper plate during the positive process ("keystoning" in Mr. White's video) could have been made as an additional safety latch if man's face would look too good and not show any obvious alterations. Once a manipulation such as impossible vertical lines would be proven the picture would not be admissible in the court. However, I also found a relatively recent picture of the backyard which has quite successfully reproduced the backyard scene. The vertical lines in the right part of the image do diverge as in the backyard picture. A closer inspection of the contemporary scene shows that the two posts in the middle of the picture are actually further away from the gate and the brown wooden wall, and the gate and the wall as if run towards the camera. So, the perspective may be in play, and there can be a natural explanation of some pecularities seen in backyard pictures after all. Source: http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/john-f-kennedy-then-now-photos/2013/11/20/id/537800/

If this is the house on 214 West Neely where the backyard pictures have been taken then it should be possible to verify the shadow cast by the man in the discussed backyard photograph. I now see from images available on internet that it might actually be this house: The photographs were taken with the man standing with his back towards the dark brown wooden wall and the small white gate.

It seems that almost all contributors to this thread agree that there was something wrong with the backyard pictures, the difference in views is more about how much and how. Here are three different scenarios of what had happened: Scenario 1: the pictures were created without Mr. Oswald's knowledge by having someone else to pose in the backyard of their previous house at Nealy Street. Mr. Oswald's head was mounted to this foreign body. Mrs. Marina did not take the pictures, she was pressed to admit it. The rifle used was never in Mr. Oswald's possession, and it might or might not be the same as the one found in the Depository. The backyard pictures were intended to paint Mr. Oswald as an aggressive leftist who might have killed a politician for ideological reasons. This has been carefully planned with the intention to use it as incriminating evidence in killing President Kennedy. This scenario has a variation: the backyard was photographed on a different occassion than the man. Therefore, it was neccesary to artifically copy man's picture onto the backyard scene, and also to replace his head with Mr. Oswald's head. Scenario 2: Mr. Oswald colluded in the preparation of the backyard pictures with his intelligence handlers to build his profile of a likely political assassin. He consented to this risky and compromising scenario under the condition that safety breaks would be implanted. For instance, it would be his figure and his head, however, his head would be tampered with as shown by Mr. Jack White's research. The rifle itself would be similar but not identical (e.g., the sling mount or the length would differ) with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor. Mr. Oswald knew what safety breaks were planted, and he was therefore confident during his interrogation about what has been manipulated, and that he would be able to prove a manipulation. This would make the backyard pictures worthless as forensic evidence. Scenario 2 would assume Mr. Oswald's full knowledge of the fact that a false image of himself is being created (distributing pro-Castro leaflets would be another expample of his active self-incrimination), and it also supposed a contact with his handlers. Mr. Oswald might or might not help with manipulations of backyard pictures, which might or might not be taken by Mrs. Marina. Scenario 3: Mr. Oswald made the pictures on his own because he himself and alone has been creating a picture of a potential political assassin. He did it as he was irresponsible and derranged, and he wanted to make himself attractive to some strange people or organisations. Mrs. Marina took the pictures, and she was experiencing a strong conflict during her testimonies for the Warren Commission because she was worsening Mr. Oswlad's image while she was admitting her role in this incriminating affair, which threatened to increase her vulnerability. Mrs. Marina attempted to at least reduce the number of pictures taken and reluctantly admitted two of them. Mr. Oswald was supposed to have the infamous rifle in his possession. The rifle was most likely given to him by his handlers (only an agency or organisation can arrange such a trap as a money order which never would be cashed in by seller), and Mr. Oswald might then produce the pictures on his own initiative. He would then add some safety breaks to the pictures by himself as in Scenario 2. However, the rifle would have to be identical with the one found on the 6th floor as it is unlikley that Mr. Oswlad had owned two similar Mannlicher Carcano rifles. In Scenarios 2 and 3, there would be no geometric problems with the backyard pictures as it would be Mr. Oswald who was photographed. Only details of his face and the rifle would be manipulated as safety breaks. The man's pose could have been perfectly fine as the pose itself was not a safety break. The man's pose could be a problem only in the variation of Scenario 1 in which the body of someone else would be pasted onto a blank backyard scene. What scenario would you pick?

Andrej, Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images. I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO. (When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.) -- Tommy Thomas: thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try. This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all... Andrej, His whole right leg, especially when compared with his straight left leg, his overall body's orientation, and the direction his right foot is pointing, looks rather impossible. Like a Klein Bottle, or an Escher drawing. Like an optical illusion, if you will. Like it couldn't exist in 4-dimensional nature. Or 11, for that matter. -- Tommy And looking at it again, the whole thing looks phony because he has his left leg so straight and streched out-looking that it looks like only the toes and ball of that foot are touching the ground. Tommy: All right, whilst I will have some work to do with the model maybe you would let us know in the meantime what is this picture about: did someone just paste this man's body from a different picture violating the principles of geometry? Or would someone construct piece by piece the man and commit some mistakes?

Andrej, Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images. I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO. (When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.) -- Tommy Thomas: thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try. This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all...

Robert: I am afraid that we are talking too lightly about quite physical aspects of photography. The combination of pincushion distortions and the perspective may give very unexpected views. It is not sufficient only to say that the image is optically impossible. There is a divergence of vertical lines, especially at the periphery and in distant objects in backyard pictures, however, they can have a natural explanation. For instance the post in the centre of the middle picture of the three pictures in the first link (jfk007) appears to be perpendicular. Getting the Imperial camera allegedly used to take the pictures, installing it on a tripod, and asking the present owner of the property to allow taking some stills of their yard would be the way to continue.

Robert: My analysis only refers to the plausibility of the man's posture, and here I find the posture stable and anatomically appropriate - this is evidenced by the panel showing the model from the side view. It is very likely that this and/or other backyard pictures have been tampered with. My post addresses the doubt about the inclination of man's body contained in the title of this thread. As far as slopes of the gate and gate posts are concerned, I find it hard to decide whether the picture as a whole is plausible. For instance if the camera lens was a junk, the vertical lines may show just such disparities in vertical lines as seen in this backyard picture, especially at the periphery of the lens. Objects in the centre of the lens would be affected less than those projecting at the periphery. Besides the optical quality of the lens, there is also a problem of perspective which is related to the focal length of the lens. What would be your interpretation?

The question of whether the man shown in this particular backyard photograph could have assumed this particular pose has been addressed by researchers at Dartmouth university: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf. The research of this group concludes that the pictures were plausible in terms of posture and lighting, however, the authors then falsely generalise in writing that the backyard pictures were not manipulated and are not composites.On this forum, the thread "Body pictures" is useful: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18109&page=2 . Let us check Oswald's pose using an anatomically constraint human model in Poser 11. The picture below shows the backyard photograph in the left panel. The middle panel is a Poser 11 reconstruction of man's posture using Andy as the human model. The advantage of Andy is that one can visualise every joint of his body which otherwise would be covered by clothing if a full human model would be used. The posture has been modelled with Inverse Kinematics method enabled for both legs. Inverse Kinematics ensures that whenever a figure is bend, moved, or rotated, the rest of the body follows in an anatomically appropriate manner. The right panel shows the same pose from the side view. To check whether the pose would fit Mr. Oswald's figure, the next picture shows an overlay of the original backyard picture and Andy with the transparency of Andy's model set to 34%. You can judge for yourself whether the match is good or not. As a CT researcher, I would be inclined to believe that the backyard pictures were all faked to incriminate Mr. Oswald. However, let us stick with data. The backyard pictures may have been tampered with, however, the allegedly wrong or impossible pose in this particular picture would not be enough to believe this was the case. Lee Harvey Oswald incriminated himself actively as a pro-Castro activist and leftist on a number of occasions. Who would willingly distribute pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans in 1963? A father of a young family? Well, only someone who wished that his pro-Cuba credentials were well spotted, and the one who saw a very good, maybe a noble reason in doing so. A similar reason may apply to the rifle and the backyards pictures. "You will get a rifle from us, and you will show it as your rifle on few occasions. However, you can always deny owning the rifle if anything happens because we will arrange a faked postal order, and it will be possible to prove that you have not purchased any rifle.The postal officers will testify that they never handed over any rifle to you because they never did. However, you need to send a postal money order because if you would just buy a rifle at a gunsmith shop, we would not be able to plant this deniability trick. With the pictures, we need you to play a militant leftist, a communist capable of killing someone with this rifle for the ideals of communism. Again, do not worry, we make some small tricks with the pictures so that you will always be able to prove that the pictures have been manipulated, for instance that part of your head has been mounted on someone else's body."

Whilst Prayer Man will remain a subject of fierce debates for a while, may I point for a change to an interesting similarity between the postures of Prayer Man and Mr. Oswald in one of the infamous backyard photographs (right panel) in which he holds “his” rifle and two newspapers in front of his chest. It is highly conceivable that Prayer Man held some objects in his hands, which raises the question about the style of hands and body posturing of Mr. Oswald should he be placed into a Prayer Man situation (both hands holding objects in front of the chest). The two pictures in the left panel show James – a 3D Poser11 human model which I use to model Prayer Man’s posture in Darnell’s still. Mr. Oswald in the backyard picture has his left leg forwards and bend in the knee joint. His right leg is backwards and firmly stretched. Mr. Oswald’s right hand is slightly higher than his left hand. Interestingly, Prayer Man in Darnell viewed from the front (top left panel) shows some remarkable similarities with the posture of Mr. Oswald in the backyard photograph: Prayer Man’s right hand is slightly above his left hand, his left leg is forwards and bend, and his body is resting on the stretched right leg. Obviously, the ground is flat in the backyard photograph unlike in Darnell’s still where the two legs balance on steps. It is, therefore, of even more interest that the poses of Prayer Man and Mr. Oswald are similar in some major aspects. People’s gestures and postures tend to be similar across situations since they express automatic, subconscious motor plans hard-wired in their brains. Thus, we have one more indication, although a minor one, supporting the view that Prayer Man was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Lance, not everyone in the vicinity of the Depository of the building was an employee of TSBD, however, every of the doorway occupants being there during the moments of shooting was an employee. This is evidenced by individual testimonies and the correspondence between the testimonies and visual evidence. You may have noted that Prayer Man was at his spot in Wiegman’s film which we know overlaps with part of the shooting period. The same man continues to be seen in Darnell’s film, he changed only his posture. As far as the height argument is concerned, it is true that the relative heights of two people standing in a space such as a doorway may provide misleading information about their actual heights due to effects of perspective. You may be interested in my 3D reconstruction of Prayer Man’s location which I have posted earlier in this thread and on my blog. This analysis supports the hypothesis that Mr. Oswald was Prayer Man because the body height of the fitted person could only be 5’9’’. Any person smaller that 5’9’’ would not satisfy the height criterion which criterion can objectively be inferred from Darnell’s still. https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ As far as the hair line is concerned, it may be feasible to overlay a realistically 3D reconstructed head (and body) of Mr. Oswald on Prayer Man’s figure and observe the similarities. I already have such preliminary data, however, I would like to wait with their posting until the full story can be presented. Naturally, this analysis alone would still not be enough as evidence for Prayer Man being Mr. Oswald. To exclude with a reasonable statistical confidence (e.g., probability of P=0.05) that no one else than Mr. Oswald was Prayer Man, the 3D+overlay analysis would need to be done with a large sample of randomly selected human heads (e.g., 500 males and 500 females, age range from 18 to 65, any height). It would then be possible to quantify the goodness of fit of every individual head (one of which would be Mr. Oswald’s head) and to evaluate whether at an adopted confidence level (e.g., better than 5%) would Mr. Oswald’s fit outplay any other person’s fit. It is an objective procedure as the statistical error would be accounted for. This analysis in its outcomes resembles the acoustic analysis performed during the investigation of the House Select Committee which was in terms of probabilities at which different solutions (shots) could have occurred. In contrast to your opinion, I think the analysis briefly described here would be needed even if we have a better version of Darnell’s film. Viewing a better version of Darnell’ still may be sufficient for e.g., you to be convinced that Prayer Man was Mr. Oswald, however, it would still be a subjective opinion of one observer and would not be enough as a scientifically sound evidence to convince the US law institutions to reopen the case. The work of researchers aiming to elucidate the identity of Prayer Man is important as it creates further pressure towards revealing all remaining evidence (planned for October 2017) and may prompt those who are in possession of original films and pictures to also put their original materials into public domain. I would like to recall one of Mr. Harold Weisberg’s comments on visual evidence in which he pointed out that allowing the public to view only blurred images was also a part of cover up. The obvious unwillingness of legal owners to provide access to original Wiegman and Darnell films is equal to a continuing cover-up.

Dear Lance, I am one of those who lean toward the hypothesis of Prayer Man's identity being Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald. The Prayer Man's figure can be best modelled by a male figure measuring 5'9''. His hair line very much conforms Mr. Oswald's hair line. The man came to his location in Darnell's and Wiegman's films from inside the building. There are simply no other candidates among the Depository employees who would satisfy 1) the height, 2) the hair line, 3) coming from inside the building criteria than Mr. Oswald. Here I would refer to the original posts of Mr. Sean Murphy in the original Prayer Man thread, e.g. the one in response to Mr. Speer in which Mr. Murphy asked to identify from the list of Depository employees someone other than Mr. Oswald who could be Prayer Man. I agree that it is a bit frustrating at this stage not to be able to convince just everyone with showing Darnell's stills that Pray Man was Oswald. However, this situation represents a challenge to do more research and put more effort than has been currently done. One line, pursued by fellow researchers at Reopen Kennedy Case forum, attempts to obtain a better copy of Darnell's film than the currently available copy. Other lines attempt to add some more objective elements into this difficult perceptual decision task. Sooner or later, unfortunately not right away at this moment, the identity of Prayer Man will be determined unequivocally. Thanks to the progress of science, we have statistical data analysis methods allowing to decide about the probability with which Prayer Man was or was not Oswald. It would be wrong to say that it is a piece of cake to carry out such analyses though. I find your comments disproving the possibility of Prayer Man being Mr. Oswald based on the assumption that the plotters would not allow his presence in the doorway as premature and speculative. There can be a number of explanations of why Mr. Oswald occurred in the doorway (if he did), however, I see no merit in responding to speculations with even more speculations. This would only yield a flury of posts of which none would shed any new light on the problem.

Inspector Sawyer's testimony suggests that he most likely knew the person who had communicated the description of the suspect. In particular, the answer " Except that he was--I don't remember what he was wearing." suggests that Inspector Sawyer started to report a detail of who the man was but then he backed and continued in his "I do not know" style. If he was able to say who the man was based on the man's clothing, the man in question might have been a uniformed police officer. If the witness who gave the description of the suspect to Inspector Sawyer was a police officer, the question would be why would Inspector Sawyer choose to conceal the identity of the witness. I wonder if there was any escort to bring the man to Sherriff Office, or who was in the escort should there have been any. Mr. BELIN. Do you know this person's name? Mr. SAWYER. I do not. Mr. BELIN. Do you know anything about him, what he was wearing? Mr. SAWYER. Except that he was--I don't remember what he was wearing. I remember that he was a white man and that he wasn't young and he wasn't old. He was there. That is the only two things that I can remember about him. Mr. BELIN. What age would you categorize as young? Mr. SAWYER. Around 35 would be my best recollection of it, but it could be a few years either way. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was tall or short, or can't you remember anything about him? Mr. SAWYER. I can't remember that much about him. I was real hazy about that. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where he said he was standing when he saw the person with the rifle? Mr. SAWYER. I didn't go into detail with him except that from the best of my recollection, he was standing where he could have seen him. But there were too many people coming up with questions to go into detail. I got the description and sent him on over to the Sheriff's Office. Mr. BELIN. Inspector, do you remember anything else about this person who you say gave you the primary description? Mr. SAWYER. No, I do not, except that I did send him with an escort to the Sheriff's Office to give fuller or more complete detail. Mr. BELIN. Do you know if he was taken there to see a lineup at the police station? Mr. SAWYER. No. Mr. BELIN. Did you ever see him again? Mr. SAWYER. Not to my knowledge.

Pauline Sanders was asked where she was standing during the assassination. The images being used by everyone contributing here and elsewhere, show the entrance to the TSBD after the assassination. She could easily have moved from East to West during the short time frame. Duncan, the problem is that the prayer person in Darnell's stils is the same as the one we see in Wiegman's film. Thus, the person stood approximately on the same spot both during and after shooting. So, Mrs. Sanders could not be the prayer person - she stood at the east part of the doorway during the shooting.

Hello Duncan, thanks for posting the link to your blog which provides answers to some of my questions, however, not to all questions. My take from your article is that the person in question was a woman 5'3'', holding a purse, wearing a long coat with large buttons. You seem to indicate that this person stood on the top platform, which is supported with a 2D drawing of the doorway showing the doorway scene from the front. However, I am still at loss what was the cause of the bright spot at the location of the right hand which is best seen in Wiegman's still - how could a purse reflect light with such intensity? The long coat: I can see the forearms of the person in question naked - this does not seem to be compatible with wearing a long coat. Your doorway drawing does not offer an accurate evaluation of the height of the person in question. First, the image is of too a small size and poor resolution. Second, it shows the doorway from a front view. In contrast, Darnell's still shows it from an angle, and the doorway is slightly tilted to the left. The relative position of the prayer person and Mr. Frazier needs to be clarified as once their locations are not perfectly aligned with the door plane (i.e., these two people would stand in different distances from the glass door), their relative heights cannot be read from a 2D picture. especially if the view is not a perfect front view. I have actually tested the 5'3'' person in my 3D model. A person of this height would be too tall (by about 2'') relative to Mr. Frazier's neck line. Please find this reconstruction on my blog: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ . I am also not sure about your suggestion of Pauline Sanders being the prayer person. This lady stood nearest to the glass door - this is not the prayer person's location. Further, there is Mrs. Sanders's FBI tetsimony dated March 19, 1964: "I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance." So, if you would agree that it is unlikely that the allgeed woman was Mrs. Sanders, who else could it be?

Hello Duncan, I have few questions which, if answered, would allow me to explore your hypothesis further. Would you please be able to name the woman? We know the names of female employees standing on the top platform or on the lower steps. No one from the people standing in the doorway had admitted to stand that close to the western wall. How tall is this woman? Why does the bright spot move across frames in Wiegman's film, and what does the alleged woman hold in her right hand? Does she stand on the top landing or on the step just below? If she stands on the top landing, what would be the distance between the frontal plane crossing her body and the front edge of the top landing? Is any part of her body lit by the sun light? As far as your enlargement is concerned, I am afraid that the poor quality of the original picture does not allow to decide unequivocally about the identity of this person, which is one of the reasons why this debate continues. Various "shapes" seen may be photographic artefacts which our mind assembles into a "gestalt".

Dear Claude, I would be interested to know what leads you to believe that post No. 280 is such a strong argument for PM being a female drinking from a cup. I am also relatively new to the EF, however, spent some time already on analysis of the doorway pictures. I just struggle to identify any such features in Wiegman's frame which would justify the conclusion that the figure in question was a woman. You seem to accept the Prayer Woman explanation which is all right as far your individual view is concerned. However, would you then be also able to follow up? Who was this woman? The list of all male and female doorway occupants is very well known and therefore, there should not be a problem to eventually name the woman that allegedly stood at that particular spot. Did this woman also hold a purse or not? How tall she was? Is there any photograph available to compare this woman with the figure in question? Sorry to bombard you with my questions and would fully understand if you would prefer not giving any answers. However, some of readers want more than accepting an explanation without properly justifying it with details.

Robert, this is a good point. It depends on the volume of the fluid remaining in the bottle. If there was some half or third of volume remaining, the bottle could have been tilted, whilst in the position in front of Prayer Man's chest, just enough to expose the bottom of the bottle to the sun light. Seriously, Andrej? Do you hold a bottle of Coke tilted on its side when it's out in front of you? Robert, did you actually read my brief comment? It says that one can tilt a bottle if it is not full.

Robert, this is a good point. It depends on the volume of the fluid remaining in the bottle. If there was some half or third of volume remaining, the bottle could have been tilted, whilst in the position in front of Prayer Man's chest, just enough to expose the bottom of the bottle to the sun light.

Interesting photo, Chris. His right eye appears to be closed, and his left eye is behind the viewfinder hood. Is it possible there was an opening in the hood he was looking through with his left eye? Robert, if Prayer Man would hold a camera as the man on this picture, his left arm would have to move in parallel with his right arm, and the left hand would reach even slightly above the right hand. I am not sure that this picture would be an accurate representation of Prayer Man's gestures.

Here we get to the point when both sides will fiercely defend their truth (bottle or camera) whilst the images just do not have the capacity to prove or disprove any of the two possibilities. I would still advocate the bottle, although I appreciate the arguments in support of the camera, because I can see the bright spot only reaching to about chin or mouth level, never the eye level. Chris'ses overlay may not be accurate as Prayer Man does not show the same arm angle as the overlay. The overlay person holding the camera has his right forearm in about 60 degrees angle relative to the plane crossing the western wall, whilst Prayer Man's forearm gives an angle of about 45 degrees. This is a substantial difference, one that decides. I am not sure how the image supports the view that the left had also held the camera if the right forearmarm swung but not the left forearm, and there are no real details in the image. The very slight displacement of the left hand upwards may have been due to an non-volitional adjustment of the position of the left forearm whilst the right arm was lifting. I am also not so much fond of the camera explanation as such a large and reflective object would likely be seen in Darnell's still, however, it is not. This camera-bottle dispute can continue ad infinitum as the images appear to contain enough ambiguities.

Thanks Michael, I will notify you about any progress.

Tom, I have a great sympathy for your puzzles and their solutions pointing to a hidden world of the assassination. I suspect that the possibility you advocate (a stool + camera) must have popped up as a solution in some puzzle. Please, bring it on if you can, or please point to the post in which you have described it - I will certainly read it. The stool: no one has ever mentioned there was any stool in the doorway, is it not a problem?