Andrej Stancak

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.

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?

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?

Well done Chris for confirming The Death Of "Prayer Man"

Here She Is

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".

Chris, in post#280 it appears you have put the PM issue to 'bed'. The photo enhancement technique you used, though rather simple shows PM to be a woman holding a coffee cup (someone else suggested this, but I can't help but agree). I have a suggestion. Every experiment has a 'control', this helps minimize variables. Forum members I'm sure will agree with 99% confidence, "we know where Lovelady and Frazier are standing". Chris, would you mind using the same enhancement techniques on Lovelady and Frazier as you used on PM. If the clarity of results are similar for Lovelady and Frazier, then it would help bolster the confidence of the results you got on PM.

Regards

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.

Something to think about. If PM was holding a Coke bottle, it would be held vertically in front of him. When he raised it to drink, it would be held horizontally. Wouldn't we see a rather longish glowing reflection when it was vertical, and a roundish glowing reflection, when we were looking only at the round base of the Coke bottle?

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.

Something to think about. If PM was holding a Coke bottle, it would be held vertically in front of him. When he raised it to drink, it would be held horizontally. Wouldn't we see a rather longish glowing reflection when it was vertical, and a roundish glowing reflection, when we were looking only at the round base of the Coke bottle?

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.

I like it.

The elbows are an even better match with the camera. imo

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.

I apologise for not being able to show the solution for Prayer Man (5'9'') for Wiegman at this moment. This relates to my job duties which take up my time until late evenings and also whole weekends. While it is relatively easy to just write how things are, it is a time consuming affair to provide some supporting evidence using 3D modelling.

Andrej, I look forward to your work. Your other 3D models have looked great. I think if there's any way to recreate things in three perspectives it's with SU. I agree, too, it's a very time consuming process. Looking forward...

Thanks Michael, I will notify you about any progress.

Andrej, I too am looking forward to the next phase of your fine work.

Diverging a bit from Andrej’s hypothesis, I’ll repeat a suggestion I’ve made before on other threads: The round bright area we see in PM’s hand is the light mounted to his movie camera. One of his alibis was to create a continuous strip of film of the people he was with at the time of the shooting. To make this work, he would also have taken some selfies, which would have required a light, since he was sitting on a stool in the shadows.

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?

Hello Sandy and Ray:

We have no unequivocal evidence from Darnell's or Wiegman's frames about the exact object(s) Prayer Man held in his hands. I am aware of the possibility that Prayer Man held a camera. I am referring to very subjective analysis of both films. In Darnell, the hands are held in front of the chest and are separated, the left hand positioned slightly lower and backwards compared to the right hand. The right hand in Darnell appears to hold an object (else no reason for having the hand in this position). I would reason that holding an object in front of the chest has the advantage that the content of that object, should it be a bottle, would not spill. Further, the right hand holding a bottle in front of the chest suggests the intention of that person to drink from a bottle. And indeed, the right hand in Wiegman's film does show the trajectory of motion towards the head. My analysis of both films does not suggest that the left hand would do the same. This is quite obvious in Darnell's still, however, I can see this in Wiegman's "drinking" GIF animations. The Prayer Man's left hand in Wiegman's frames also appears to point towards his head, however, it is Prayer Man's right hand showing some range of motion. The range of motion displayed by the left hand is much smaller than that of the right hand.

As per light reflection, the sun light would reflect from any light-reflecting object held by any person standing in the doorway. A glass bottle is a good candidate for reflecting the light, especially the bottom of the bottle. The bottom of a bottle is circular and therefore, the light reflection will likely be also of circular shape. And this is what I see in Wiegman's frame, a bright circular object moving towards Prayer Man's head.

In my 3D analysis, a short bottom part of the object held in Prayer Man's right hand is out of the shadow, in the zone of a strong sun light. To answer your question why I think it was the bottle what Prayer Man held in his hand(s), I say it is a combination of my subjective visual analysis of Darnell's and Wiegman's stills, and my pilot models of both scenes. I hope to be able to strengthen this subjective view by presenting updated reconstruction of Darnell's scene and later of Wiegman's scene.

I fully respect your alternative explanations (a camera?), and propose to add further analyses that may clarify the issue. However, every research follows certain ad-hoc accepted and probable explanation called hypothesis. And so, my hypothesis would be that it was a bottle what Prayer Man held in his right hand. I just cannot find an explanation that would score better than the bottle.

Dear gentlemen, Robert, Richard, and Robin,

I was able to reconstruct Wiegman's scene with Prayer Man being 5'9'', and it nicely and logically fits with the solution which I have proposed for Darnell's still. It is better to take Roy Lewis than Billy Lovelady as the reference landmark in Wiegman's still as Roy Lewis almost did not move (only his head rotated) whilst Mr. Lovelady changed steps and his stance and angle of his trunk (leaning). Thus, it is difficult in the 3D space, as the doorway was, to evaluate what was the absolute height of Prayer Man by using Lovelady's body height as the reference height.

I apologise for not being able to show the solution for Prayer Man (5'9'') for Wiegman at this moment. This relates to my job duties which take up my time until late evenings and also whole weekends. While it is relatively easy to just write how things are, it is a time consuming affair to provide some supporting evidence using 3D modelling. For Wiegman's scene, I would certainly need to place Roy Lewis on the thirds step and reproduce his body posture. To model the details of his or Lovelady's clothing (especially Lovelady's clothing is important), I need to change surfaces (meshes) which cannot be done in Sketchup itself but in a plugin called Artisan. I will post new data once I believe they are complete and as perfect as possible. However, the first thing would be to complete the analysis of Darnell's still which can be done in a more illustrative way compared to my previous posts. I would then launch a more comprehensive project which would reconstruct the locations and movements of all human figures in the doorway during the shooting. Wiegman's stills are central to this effort.

As to the depth of the doorway: Prayer Man in Wiegman's still has his trunk and head in the shadow, only the the bottom of the bottle he held in his right hand was exposed to the sun. Thus, Prayer Man could only be at one and very distinct point within the depth of the doorway. Should he stood further back, the bottle bottom would not be hit by the sun. Should he be located further to the front, his trunk and particularly his left shoulder would be in the sun light. There is simply no wiggling space in Wiegman's still, as it was not in Darnell's still, to fit Prayer Man. Once you follow the landmarks (including shadows) derived from the picture in question, the correct solution pops up automatically.

Thank you Andrej I look forward to receiving your PM when you're ready. One other thing - I used to think doorway man was Oswald. I was so sure of it I made a video about it back in 2013 that you can see here:

https://youtu.be/KOA7QOCJtv0

You'll see in the above video how I thought LHO was the man in the doorway. But with all of the work that's been put into PM now, I realize it was Lovelady who was the man in the doorway and LHO is PM.

Hello Michael,

I like your video. There are some interesting moments in it that were novel to me, in particular the point that Umbrella man lifted his umbrella to capture President's attention. Maybe I am too a conspiracy nut but I somehow never accepted the HSCA explanation of the umbrella being a symbol of Chamberlain's appeasement politics against Hitler to which Joseph Kennedy encouraged Chamberlain. And the protest, ventilated against Joseph's son Jack some 25 years after the fact, happened right in the moment when the President was being murdered. What a construction... It could be used in the funny TV series "Did it happen or not?" in which 5-6 strange stories are presented, and the listener decides whether it could have happened or not, and the "true" scenarios are revealed at end of the program.

I let myself carried away, and would not like to drive this thread away from its topic, I apologise.

Hello Sandy:

so pleased to read that there are fellow researchers who would also consider the possibility that Altgens6 may have been altered. I have also spotted the features (shoulder, relation to the other man) you mentioned in your post. However, the more I look on the picture and try to model it, the more it looks to me that there may actually be nothing wrong with Lovelady's shirt, posture and his relation to the men in black suit next to him (Bill Shelley - he was on the top landing and wore a suit which is evidenced in Couch film).

However, I agree completely about the shadows problem, and think that shadows could have been easily added in few minutes, directly on the negative. I would prefer not commenting on this issue until I know how would Lovelady fare in the 3D model and whether it is possible that he would show the shadows we see in Altgens6 for natural reasons.

Hello Michael, thanks for your comments and for viewing my blog...

Sounds great, Andrej, I look forward to reading more on your blog. As I said you've done a really nice job with Sketchup. I made a short SU clip a while back of my patio area:

SU 3D animation sample

...so I know you can make some very detailed and precisely measured models with it. I agree about the time consuming process too. It does take a long time to set stuff up in SU.

Is there any way you can alert me to let me know your blog has been updated? Maybe send me a PM through the EF messenger?

Hello Michael,

you made a great animation of your patio. I appreciate your knowledge of the process of making a SU model. I will send you a PM once I have anything to show, I hope in some near future. Thanks again for your comments which reflect your own experience with SU modelling.

Dear Richard, - I admit that I do not understand why you would be "buddying" me like a python...

Andrej,

I just read your blog and you did a great job of re-creating the doorway scene in Sketchup. I, too, have used Sketchup and because you can make precise measurements in this software, your work confirms for me that Oswald was Prayer Man and is taking a single step down, which is why it makes him to appear shorter than he really is (5-9).

The only thing I'm wondering though is PM is shown in the film and seconds later, too, in the exact same position so would someone have continued to stand with one leg down the steps all of that time? It just seems like an awful long time for someone to stand that way which can get quite uncomfortable.

Also, and for what it's worth, I disagree with you about the Altgens photo being altered. I just don't think there was a need for it to be altered because the government's proof of showing that the doorway man was not Oswald and was instead Lovelady is that it *was* a case of mistaken identity. Therefore, there was no need to alter the photo.

Also, the photo was in the public domain within hours of the murder so there's no way that they could have forged it anyway.

But great job on the Sketchup work.

Michael Walton

Hello Michael,

thanks for your comments and for viewing my blog. I will continue presenting my work on EF, however, the blog offers more space to post supplementary images, data and details of methods. It may be a good idea to post enough material on EF but also provide supporting images and further information on a blog.

We tend to think that Prayer Man stood in one particular pose for a long time. However, it may not be true - Prayer Man shows a bit different stance in Wiegman's film than in Darnell's film, and the films were only maybe some 10 seconds apart (if we take the time difference between the last doorway frame in Wiegman and the first doorway still in Darnell's film. Darnell's film is short too, and we cannot know for how long did Prayer Man remain in the way suggested in Darnell's film. Then, within about 2 minutes, Occhus Campbell already sees Oswald in the small storage room next to the main lobby.

I appreciate also your comment on Altgens6 doubting that the picture was altered. I think it was altered but in a much less dramatic way than I thought back then, few months after I started my research on Kennedy's assassination. To understand Altgens6, every (and I mean EVERY) single detail of the doorway, particularly details seen in human figures, need to be modelled as accurately as possible which is a time consuming process. The geometry of the doorway is so tricky than one can easily misunderstand the relations between the figures depicted. It will be a privilege to post my final thoughts on Altgens6 here on EF once I fully understand this picture. In the meantime, I hope my wife keep taking pictures of me in different postures, from different angles, in different lights, and wearing different shirts. After I finish my analysis of the doorway, the conclusion may also be that Altgens6 was not altered after all and I will be able to clear my doubts about e.g, shadows in the neck and V area and the one below Lovelady's right nostril. I really want to know.

Michael,

You are ignoring the benchmarks I outlined in my synopsis of the Doyle-MacRae photo-argument. Their result is that you get a good approximation of PrayerMan's height, and it's far too short to be Oswald. That rebuts any propaganda to the contrary.

Andrej,

I meant what I said, that you did the best job I had seen anywhere explaining Doyle's sun-plane argument (even though I knew it was his). I still have hopes for you doing the correct computer graphics on this project. That's why I was "buddying" up to you, like a python, hoping to suffocate the ROKC propaganda out of you.

Vanessa,

I think you need to re-read this thread through to learn of the individual effort I attempted to get this film scanned.

Robert,

It is impossible that there is only a 3-inch difference in the TSBD individual steps, therefore it is impossible that PM is Oswald. Darnell's was a standard news camera without distortion.

Bart,

I'm in no hurry to meet your photo-demands. My next day off I will hopefully acquire Wiegman stills and add to those in the photo-section at jfkinsidejob.com. I'm not a geek, and doubt Albert Doyle is either, so maybe you should play to the crowd and show us the height differential between PrayerMan and Lovelady. Otherwise you're going to have to wait, and wait.

Two years ago, one of your ROKC compatriots threatened physical violence upon me, which is a cybercrime. You are seriously-skewed if you think I'm hurting from that lunchroom hoax debate; I cleaned your clock on it here at the EdForum.

ROKC has become a viper's nest that I will continue to fight against. Greg Parker has brought hooliganism to the JFK discussion table, his moral fiber completely dissolved in ethanol. He has forfeited his place as far as I'm concerned.

I can hardly wait for your resignation, but don't do ultimatums, and have to work for a living.

Dear Richard,

I admit that I do not understand why you would be "buddying" me like a python, and why you find necessary to "suffocate the ROKC propaganda" out of me. I joined ROKC because of their goals and basic premises that resonate with mine: it would be good the assassination case to be reopen, and: Prayer Man was Oswald. I am consistent in pursuing these two ideas, and after spending more time on trying to understand the geometry and locations of different people in the doorway, I am even more convinced that Prayer Man was a man 5'9'', which means it could only be Lee Harvey Oswald. However, I respect your different view. I hope there comes a day when your and my solutions would be tested in a well-planned photographic reenactment of Darnell's and Wiegman's scenes.

I have noted that you again question Prayer Man as a man 5'9'', this time based on some height difference in Wiegman's film. I can assure you that there is an elegant solution for Prayer Man (5'9'') in Wiegman's film as it was the case in Darnell's scene. I will post it when I decide that my work is complete and perfect enough, however, it will not be in this thread. This thread is yours, Richard, you made it so as you do not to know how to disagree.

I have summarised my analysis of Prayer Man's location in Darnell' still on my blog, and also included alternative solutions such as Prayer Man being a man 5'9'' but standing on the top platform, or a man 5'6'', or even a person 5'3''.

https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/

Thanks, Chris- I had Lovelady's movements backwards.

Bart, you do not address the point I raised. Lovelady, when he is on the 1st step, is a good 4 inches below the top of PrayerMan's head. If the 5'9" Oswald and the 5'8" Lovelady were both standing on the 1st step, their heights would be approximately the same. They're not, and so they're not both on the 1st step. Only Lovelady is.

Ray, unbeknownst to your daddy, "Buttons" Doyle, I was playing Stancak like a python. You seem more interested in spreading malicious gossip, rather than admitting that Doyle's simple insights completely refute Murphy's misbegotten thesis.

If Sean had done a height analysis before he went off and running with eliminating TSBD employees one by one, this PrayerMan debacle would've been nipped in the bud two years ago. Now it's grown into a politically-charged monster, where it's become dangerous to express a dissenting opinion, at the risk of ROKC's ClockworkOrange-style intimidation. Nincompoop blowhards who should be kept miles away from mainstream assassination research. They bet the farm on this and lost. It's going to take some serious character growth for them to acknowledge this loss and move forward.

"I was playing Stancak like a python"

Sorry to read this, Mr. Gilbride. You clearly do not realise that your attitudes towards other forum members are very problematic.

My preliminary result is 41.34 inches. Thanks John for getting me thinking about right triangles again, I knocked myself out with 3 other methods like the ancient Greeks. I will doublecheck my measures and explain my technique tomorrow, I think it's correct. There's a little bit more than a 4/3 ratio between the radiator height and distance of the near corner to the plate glass.

Dear Richard:

I appreciate your effort. It seems we eventually arrived to at least one point on which we both can agree as your preliminary estimate appears to match the size of 3’6’’ applied in my model. Please let me know if you would like to place some specific human figure at some specific location in the doorway to test how it would fare.

I have noticed something quite unexpected that hopefully will lead to a precise estimate of the width of the landing. In the Entrance Lobby photo, the reflection of the radiator in the entranceway glass extends almost exactly to the edge of the landing. So that the distance calculation of the near-edge of the radiator to the glass gives the width of the landing.

I'm working on getting a precise formula together, but taking the radiator to be 2.5 feet high, a 4-foot-wide landing seems a safe eyeball guess at the moment. See Robert Prudhomme's post #1799 on p. 120 at the famous PrayerMan thread at http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=120(this link isn't cooperating- this is at the bottom of p.5 of the topics)

On p. 116 you'll find Ray Mitcham's photo of the width of the stair treads. Robert's adjacent photo contains a modern-day landing but the red-line simulating the original width seems incorrect.

Andrej, you don't seem to realize that putting Oswald with one foot down doesn't resolve the height question. Listen to what the phenomenon is telling you, rather than telling the phenomenon how to behave. And your graphic representation is not accurate. Where in Darnell is the bent knee in the sunlight? Where in Darnell is the soda pop bottle? The Wiegman gif is a 2-frame, 4-second differential that only seems like someone drinking.

Andrej Stancak: Prayer Man's right hand was lit by the sunlight on a very small spot, and due to the natural blurring of the picture (distance, resolution, film material) this small bright spot got averaged with the darker part of the rest of his hand, causing the hand looking brighter than the forearm.

Good one. This is the best explanation I've seen yet.

Dear Richard,

I look forward to learning your estimate of the doorway depth. Were you able to measure the dimensions of the radiator, of the same radiator which stood in the lobby? If not, your "safe eyeball guess" may lead to a wrong estimate after you apply your formula...

I have commented on how the model was constructed and tested in my response to Ray (157).

As per your comment that I do not realise that my solution does not solve the height question - in a way you are right as I am not using my model to provide the height estimates, I use it to test assumptions (hypotheses). I would also test the model for your hypothesis if you would describe it for me: is it still a lady 5'3''? Does she have a purse in her hands or not? Are there any further details I should take into account when reconstructing her location? Please, let me know - after all, are you not interested to see how your preferred hypothesis would fare if projected in the model?

The pose of PM's left leg is optional. We do not see Prayer Man's legs in Darnell due to some blurred human figures obstructing the view. If you would indicate kindly Prayer Man's posture by tracing contours of his legs, I would be keen to correct the position of his left legs accordingly.

As per the light reflection from the back of Prayer Man's hand: the constrain I applied refers only to the position of Prayer Man's hands, this constrain does not define the location of Prayer Man's body. The location is unequivocally defined by Prayer Man's relation to the corner rail and to the height of Frazier's neck (or the horizontal door rail). These two constrains plus the exact Darnell's view implicate where Prayer Man stood. He stood so close to the shadow line cast by the western wall that his hand was either minimally hit by the sun or received some reflection of nearby objects being fully exposed to the sun. As I have explained in my previous response to Ray, it would be possible to model the position of Prayer Man's hands not to reflect the sun light whilst maintaining Prayer Man's location where he is depicted in the 3-D model.

As per the bottle: I assume that Prayer Man in Darnell was the same person as we see in Wiegman's film, and anyone can see that Prayer Man is lifting his arm as the bright object moves upwards from the prayer posture level towards his head. The likely explanation of the phenomenon is that this man was drinking. If drinking, then the question is from what? I reckon it was a bottle he drank from. And as the person in Wiegman was the same person as we see in Darnell, I have placed a bottle into his hands. You are right it cannot be seen because the picture is too blurred. I can hide the bottle with one click. The bottle in Prayer Man's hands just underlies the continuity between Prayer Man in Wiegman and Darnell. Now, it could be your turn to explain the bright spot around Prayer Man moving in Wiegman. I would be keen to learn what you think is what it only "seems" to be a drinking act. Will we learn your explanation?