Andrej Stancak

Chris's scenario of a shooter stashing the rifle into the trunk of a car standing feet away from the shooter appears a plausible solution of GK shooter's escape problem. Josiah Thompson in his last book "Last second in Dallas" suggested the same scenario, proposing that the car stayed until evening of that fateful Friday.

However, how can this scenario be reconciled with the testimony of deaf-mute witness Ed Hoffman? Hoffman saw a well dressed man, possibly the shooter, to hand over the rifle to a man dressed like a railroad man, and that man knocked down and hid the rifle, and walked away in direction across railroad tracks. Did Hoffman invent his story? Nobody has confirmed Hoffman's version, yet this does not mean it was made up. 

I am convinced that publishing FInal Charade now, even if maybe not finished in a definitive way, would be a big contribution to the JFK case. The book will contain new, so far unknown information, and this is what counts. It is difficult to do a better book in JFKA realm than Best Evidence, and it may be difficult for David himself. Anyway, I cannot wait reading new interviews, facts and data which this book surely will bring to light.

I have also spotted that many conspiracy videos (JFK, 9/11 ...) disappeared from results lists returning by the YouTube search engine. The videos are still on YouTube, however, you would need a direct link to a particular video to be able to view it. What worked for me was to Google the topic first, and use a direct YouTube link which Google has returned in YouTube.

Here are a couple of Doug Horne's video, in case they could not be located on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/J_QIuu6hsAc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWpmN7ZEaRA

I wonder if anyone from surviving DRE or Miami Alpha station members could still be contacted. Maybe someone would be willing to spill confirmatory information, e.g., after reading David and Larry's  article, if they know how much is already known. 

Congratulations to David and Larry for a significant piece of research. It certainly makes a lot of sense that DRE, on behest of CIA, would be tasked with painting Lee Oswald as a Castro sympathiser and a dangerous person. Members of DRE members were mostly Cubans and understood the working of both pro- and anti-Castro activists well enough to accomplish this part of the plot. The DRE interest in framing Oswald prior to assassination may be the reason for not releasing the CIA documents pertaining to DRE. If those documents were released, it would be much too clear that there were intelligence games, led by DRE and CIA, with Lee Oswald during the time leading to the assassination. How close and how far we are to reveal the truth!

Two points in this account are not clear to me. First, I thought that the airplane that departed from Red Bird airfield on Friday afternoon, November 22, was actually meant to transport assassination-related persons, possibly even Lee Oswald. This was perhaps the line of reasoning followed by Matthew Smith in his book Second Plot. The present account suggests that the airplane departed for an unrelated mission. This airplane was supposed to be revving on the tarmac for a long time as if it would be waiting for passengers.

The other unclear point is the absence of any mention of Sergio Arcacha Smith. I thought this was the person who spent time with Banister in 544 Camp Street during summer 1963 and was a member of DRE. Could he be one of the Cubans participating in painting Lee Oswald as pro-Castro sympathiser? 

Greg:

Thanks for transcribing this piece of interview, I appreciate. At places, I am not sure whether Shields understood the course of events properly. It is interesting that Shields hinted Lovelady stood on two steps ("both steps") which may possibly be related to Lovelady stepping down the steps later as evidenced in Wiegman film. I cannot but mention that Prayer Man actually stood both on the top landing and the step below ("both steps"), with his left foot on the lower step and his right foot on the top landing.

The rest of interview appears to be full of misundrestanding both on Shields's and the interviewer's side. If Oswald told Mrs. Reid that the President has been shot, he would have to come from the first floor to the second floor lunchroom after the shooting and then return to the first floor. This would be in accord with the possibility that Lee Oswald was in the doorway just after the shooting and returned to the building within a minute or so. Only if he was outside the building could he know that the President has been shot.

I only watched "Unacknowldeged" very recently, and then recalled seeing a thread of the same title on the Forum. 

Doug has maybe posted this already, however, NASA announced about last summer several sightings of flying objects which defied any explanation. Several newspapers in the UK have reported.

Here is a video documenting the sightings of unidentified flying objects by the US pilots.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/nasa-study-ufos-after-high-24309368

These pieces of data cannot be dismissed, and I think the time when UFOs were ridiculed is over. In many aspects, Doug's data and some of his explanations pertaining to the Kennedy case have been vindicated by NASA's recent disclosures, and should be taken seriously. That said, a proof of alien presence as the reason of Kennedy's demise will be difficult to corroborate with further data. We just do not have access to all documents. 

Is the purpose of the new releases of NASA records on pilots sightings of unidentified aerial objects to prepare the public for a more significant event?   

James:

I thought of extending the available amount of money beyond a 12-month period to reduce any worries if donations would be picking up slow in the next years - there would be a three month cushion allowing for more time to take actions. If we decide for a bit higher threshold than $600, we would need to assemble more money than $600 only this year, thereafter only $600 because anything beyond $600 would not be spent. It is only a suggestion, the primary target should be $600 anyway.

My donation to the Forum has just failed, however, this was more due to a failed two-stage verification process by PayPal - they seem to have a wrong phone number. I will sort it out next week after returning to the UK.

Thanks for your continuing care allowing this outstanding Forum to exist.  

I am sure we can keep the Forum alive with our donations without the funding of the website being a recurrent issue for James. If James would be so kind to keep the standing order linked with his account, we would just need to know early January of every new year what is the target amount allowing us to run the website comfortably for  the next 15 months. If James could then let us know by January 31 (or when the target amount has been accumulated if it would be before January 31) whether the target has been reached, we would be able to put this issue to rest until next January. 

We should be able to start this system this year once the Paypal route to James's account has been established because the target amount is already known ($600). 

The book proposes that "Duvall" (if it is Duvall) refers to Judge Jesse C. Duvall from Fort Worth. However, as De Mohrenschilds were in Haiti on November 20, it is more likely that Duvall actually means Duvallier.

There is a dash after "DPD" in November 20 record, and it seems that the writer used to put a dash both infront and after a phrase. Thus, "(Duvall)" may be unrelated to the critical phrase "riffle into building - yes/ok/DPD". 

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The parenthesis makes me think it’s the source of the info, possibly someone in DPD. 
 

PauI: I agree the word may contain information about the person in DPD associated with bringing the rifle to the building. What would I give for deciphering the word in brackets.

Late edit:

In the process of cleaning the diary pages, I spotted a possibility that the word in brackets was actually a repetition of the word "Duvall" (or maybe "D. with") 4 lines above the word of interest. Here is a cleaned version of the November 20 record. It is a cropped record, there are 2 more lines above the lines shown here.

While it may be my subjective interpretation, I see a possibility that "Duvall" (or "D. with" ?) in the top line was also written in the bottom line, in brackets. 

I wonder if anyone could decipher the last word in brackets in the November 20 record. The book presents it as "Rifle into building – yes/ok/DPD”, however I can see that the phrase continues with one more word. As this record is really important, I would like to know how the phrase ends.

This example illustrates once more the necessity of viewing high-resolution images of the diary pages. While Authors may have reasons to truncate this important record, others would wish to read the records with their own eyes and employ their own reasoning. 

9 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

agreed with your points 1 thru 6 before reading Coup in Dallas.

Chuck:

you certainly know more about the case than I know if you could figure out the rifle in the building a couple days before the shooting.

In my less experienced thinking about the case, all possible scenarios are given the same weights initially until there is a strong piece of evidence strongly in favor of one of the possibilities. Basically, the research community knows what happened as all scenarios have been outlined already, we just do not know which of the possibilities would irrefutably be true. Pierre Lafitte's note from November 20 could be that single missing piece of data to accept the possibility that Lee Oswald was just a patsy with no foreknowledge of the assassination. 

That said, Lee Oswald may have been led by the plotters along the Cuba project that started in summer in New Orleans, and he may have been following the script of that "second plot" in which he was supposed to meet his contact (in Texas Theatre?) and depart for Cuba from Red Bird Airfield on Friday afternoon. This would explain Lee Oswald's a bit strange behaviour on the day of assassination, such as leaving money and a ring to Marina on Friday morning, leaving the Depository within minutes of shooting, retrieving his pistol from 1026 North Beckley, or going to the Texas Theatre.

While I hope the Authors will be willing to engage in arranging high-resolution, coloured plates of individual pages of Lafitte's diary, I see no reason to avoid highlighting some remarkable records in the diary.

In my view, the record: “November 20: rifle into building – yes/ok/DPD” is one of the most significant bits of information in the entire diary as it reveals the mechanism of Lee Oswald's framing.

The implications of this record are numereous:

1. Lee Oswald did not bring his rifle to the Depository on November 22.

2. Lee Oswald was unaware of his rifle being in the building during the assassination.

3. Lee Oswald, not being aware of his rifle being in the building, could not even think of being a sixth-floor shooter.

4. The three spent cartridges found in the sniper's nest were planted, possibly by the Dallas Police.

5. Neither Buell Wesley Frazier nor his sister could witness Lee Oswald carrying his rifle on the morning of November 22 because the Mannlicher-Carcano was already in the building. If Lee Oswald carried any package on Friday morning, it would have been a small sack with sandwiches and an apple, exactly like he told the investigators. The consequences as to the veracity of Mr. Frazier's testimony are dire.

6. Dallas Police, themselves planting the rifle and the spent shells, navigated the interrogation of Lee Oswald to frame him for the assassination. 

It is interesting that it was actually a member of Dallas Police (possibly Patrolman Paul K. Wilkins) who found the rifle on the sixth floor, and happily let others (FBI agent Eugene Boone) to take the credit for finding the rifle (Ian Griggs, No Case To Answer, Chapter 31).  

A note to Authors: information contained in Lafitte's diary is of such importance that the authenticity of the diary and the notes must be determined at the very start. May I ask Authors to post all diary pages presented in the book as high-resolution, colour images. Readers of the book but also wider public should be able to download the images for their reading, evaluation and interpretation.

The quality of digital copies needs to be beyond the quality of a PDF posted by Anthony Thorne on November 24. If Authors do not have any high-quality digital copies of individual pages, may I ask Authors to approach the Lafitte family again and have the relevant pages photographed professsionally. Obviously, the family had consented to the publication of selected pages of the diary and therefore, there should not be any copyright issue.

My note is not intended to question the research or profile of any of the Authors. However, the primary data need to be seen first before any interpretations are elaborated. The content and importance of Lafitte's notes are mind-boggling but we all want to be able to follow the original notes from the very start. 

Thanks for posting the video with the lady.

I was able to look it up at the time mark around 15:39, suggested by Greg. This lady is very tiny which can be seen when her figure is  compared to the figure of a police officer standing behind. I do not know if she could make it to 5'2'' - 5'3'', however, even that height of 5'2'' - 5'3'' would exclude her as Prayer Man. The missing white spot in the middle of the upper chest and her light-coloured skirt contrasting with her dark blouse (no such contrast can be seen on Prayer Man's figure) finish things up. Prayer Man does not wear a skirt, I should add.

Even if some forum members would like to continue submitting this lady as Prayer Man, I choose not to comment on this lady as Prayer Man candidate any longer.

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

Andrej. I thought I’d jump back in as there’s a new image. 
just a few counter points . 
1 - If the image is taken later then on a windy day you would expect bushy windswept hair relative to earlier . 
2 - As discussed , there is no white T shirt in Darnell, the exposed area is skin tone . Your own blog images show this best. 
3 - did I miss an image or link ? I don’t see a skirt in my images. 
Height - do you know what heel height she was wearing ? Do you know she isn’t 5’9 ? How many inches did you compensate for the slouching we see in Darnell relative to your data point of the bolt upright, and slightly closer, Buell Frazier ? 

Jake:

please find here a side-by-side comparison of the lady in question and Prayer Man. I have arranged the photographs in a way that the heads of both figures match approximately. I have also added two arrows. One arroow point to the lighter colour of lasdy's skirt. The other, yellow, arrow points to the white region on Prayer Man's upper chest which is clearly missing on the lady's chest. 

I am afraid I cannot give you better explanations of why this lady cannot be Prayer Man. Please mind that one mismatch is enough to reject any candidate whether it is this lady, Oswald, Sarah Stanton, or anyone else.

Thanks, Chris, for posting another photograph of the lady who is being considered as Prayer Man candidate. This larger view of the lady in question excludes her as Prayer Man safely: 1. She has bushy hair, unlike Prayer Man., 2. There is no white triangular shape in the middle of the upper chest that continues to the neck in this woman's figure. This white shape on Prayer Man's figure was very likely due to unbuttoned top of the shirt.  3. This lady's skirt was of light colour whereas her blouse was much darker than her skirt; however, Prayer Man does not show such contrast. Only one of these mismatches would be enough to exclude her as Prayer Man.

Of course, there are further mismatches, such as Prayer Man was 5'9' 1/2'' and this lady just does not look like to be that tall. If she was 5' 2'' - 5'3'', she theoretically could be considered to stand on the top landing. However, in that case her figure would not fit Prayer Man's figure for reason I explained couple of times already. 

Deleted.

Deleted

If proving Lee Oswald's presence in the doorway about 30 seconds after the last shot would be possible, it would break the whole case wide open because this single fact would destroy the whole Warren Commission report, and the case would need to be opened again. It is beyond the power of amateur researchers to secure justice for JFK and other victims such as Lee Oswald. At the end of the day, this can only be done under the auspices of official investigative bodies. What we can do is to present evidence that merrits reopening the case. The case of Prayer Man's figure is just this type of evidence.

While we still do not have a high-resolution copy of Darnell film, it is my belief that extracting information about Prayer Man's figure from the existing copy may contribute to engage more people, especially influential figures, in the effort to acquire a high-quality copy of the film. It may not sound like much, however, it is at least a small step toward a noble goal.

Jake:

Thanks for your comments to my points. If you read my post carefully, I did not claim that the white area below Prayer Man's neck and just above his crossed arms was a T-shirt.

I wrote: "Would you think it could be due to this person wearing a white T-shirt underneath his shirt and have the upper buttons on his shirt open? Why does the woman with the camera not show such white triangle? Please let me know if you want me to draw the light-shaded area on Prayer Man's upper chest in case you would not know what I am pointing to."

If you think that it was not a T-shirt causing the light-coloured spot of interest, I would not argue as there is hardly a way of discerning a T-shirt from the skin tone in a blurred image in which the transition between two light shades fades away. We agree on that.

Thanks for commenting on my views. It certainly helped me to revise the stuff that has been discussed earlier on this Forum. I look forward to reading your work.

28 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Light section at top of shirt ? Maybe the lady is wearing a white T shirt or blouse ? Pretty straight forward . Or maybe it’s her chest and the contrast shows it as white ( like the face) . 
Height - I’m sorry , I’ve read your analysis but pointing out height down to a quarter of an inch from that quality photo and a slouching position is just not possible. I saw a tv show recently on forensic mistakes that lead to convictions and a mans height had been mistaken by almost a foot , by professionals, using methods very similar to yours and with a much better image and known parameters. If you can show me an image of the receding hair with out the blur behind it in a uniform and consistent fade, one that matches the ear fade perfectly ( remember that the bit between the ear and temple is hair and so will show no fade so essentially what we’re seeing the a fade/ blur of the whole head as it turns) I will happily change my opinion . I remain open minded and look forward to more analysis. 

Jake:

your candidate lady does not show any triangular shape on the upper chest as Prayer Man does. Therefore, this lady cannot be Prayer Man. It is that simple. That lady's underware is irrelevant as her blouse is continuous and buttoned high up at the neck - unlike in Prayer Man.

As per my height analysis, of course I am giving data from my analysis as accurately as I am reading them in Sketchup, however, there is also a limit to the accuracy of my height estimates. The top of Prayer Man's head can be anywhere between 5' 2'' and 5' 3'' relative to the floor plane of the top landing.

If you do not trust my height analysis, you can always subtract the height of a head of a man 6' 1/2'' tall (Frazier) which dimension is between 9.7'' and 10'' because that plane aligns with the lower aspect of Frazier's chin or shoulders in Darnell.

Please check the height of males and female heads for different body heights here. The relevant head dimension is "14":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_head

If you subtract  10'' from 6' 1/2', you end up with a height of 5' 2 1/2'', and slightly more if you subtract 9' 7'' but still very close to 5 '2 1/2''. This will tell you that the top of Prayer Man's head is at the height of around 5' 2 1/2'' and it matches my height estimate of 5' 2 1/2'' accurately. 

And if you want to have another independent verification of my heigh estimate, you can use the following online tool to compare the level of a person 5' 2 1/2'' relative to a person 6' 1/2'' :

https://www.mrinitialman.com/OddsEnds/Sizes/compsizes.xhtml  

Thus, there are three independent ways how to check the height of the plane crossing Prayer Man's top of the head relative to the plane of the top landing. All estimates point to the height around 5' 2 1/2'', very tightly around this value. Maybe now, after seeing the independent height estimates, you can trust my height estimates obtained from a 3D model a bit more.

The thing is, however, that Prayer Man could not be a person 5'2'' standing on the top landing because: 1) his figure would not match Prayer Man's figure in Darnell. For instance, Prayer Man's right elbow joint would be too far from the brick colum that can be seen on the western wall. 2) his body proportions, being a short person, would not match that of Prayer Man. Notably, his shoulders and arms would be about two inches too high relative to what we see in Prayer Man in Darnell. Therefore, there is only one solution of Prayer Man body height and it is very close to 5' 9 1/2'' with Prayer Man standing effectively on the step below the top landing. I can post a picture of a fit of a person 5' 4'' in Darnell if you would like to check a glaring mismatch once the location and the body height of the candidate person deviates from my suggested location and body height.

I hope this helps to clear your doubts about my height estimates.

Jake:

I am afraid you see things you want to see only to somehow get the woman to be Prayer Man. While some of Danell film frames are heavily affected with camera motion blur, this frame is surprisingly steady in this aspect. The figure of Prayer Man is blurred though and many detaild we would like to verify are simply not availlable. However, the relatively large spots on Prayer Man's figure can be seen and interpreted.

If you think that the male type II baldness seen on Prayer Man is actually only an artefact resulting from head motion, maybe you would be able to also explain somehow the large light triangular spot below Prayer Man's neck, basically in the middle of upper chest. Would you think it could be due to this person wearing a white T-shirt underneath his shirt and have the upper buttons on his shirt open? Why does the woman with the camera not show such white triangle? Please let me know if you want me to draw the light-shaded area on Prayer Man's upper chest in case you would not know what I am pointing to.

The average height of females in the USA in 1963 for population aged about 40 was 5' 2 1/2'', and the standard deviation was 1''. Thus, practically all females (99%) would fit to +- 3'' relative to this mean. However, Prayer Man was 5' 9 3/4''. Furthermore, as he stood with his right foot on the step below the top landing, his left leg was bent in the joint knee. Could this be the way how this lady appeared as Prayer Man?  

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

Height - I have seen the height analysis of PP but have to confess I don't think it stands up ( ba-dum !) .  The person there is shorter and more petite than Frazier or the man in front.  

Jake:

you appear to have already made your mind about Prayer Man not being Lee Oswald and if you would like to end the story, you are free to do it. Others are free to explore this possibility further. I was not prompting you to write on this topic, and I did not even reopen it.

It is not enough to say that the person in question is "shorter and more petite" than Frazier, you would need to provide a qualified estimate of Prayer Man's body height while also giving details of your methods. Prayer Man stood effectively one step below Frazier and therefore, he naturally would appear short if you would assume he stood on the top landing. However, Prayer Man could not stand on the top landing because his figure would not fit that of Prayer Man. This is something which can be argued until you see a 3D reconstruction of Darnell doorway. There are precisely defined distances of various body features (e.g., right elbow) from the doorway landmarks and those only hold if the person in question would stand on the first step below the top landing. There is only one possible solution for how and where Prayer Man stood, not two or more solutions. This is because we see a snapshot of space and people (objects) with real dimensions recorded at one particular moment in time. 

If you want to say that I erred in my reconctruction of the doorway and Prayer Man's location and height, please show your empirical analysis that refute it, not your subjective impressions. I am more than happy to check your analysis.

As per Buell Wesley Frazier, please see my earlier posts (and other people's comments in those threads) although they do not cover my more recent thoughts on Mr. Frazier. I am not calling Mr. Frazier a l.i.a.r as there may be other explanation for Mr. Frazier changing his accounts of his and Lee Oswald's movements over the years. 

Late edit:

One more reason for Prayer Man not being able to stand on the top step are the body proportions. Having forearms arms extended in front of the chest as Prayer Man had would give a different height of arms in person 5'2'' standing on the top step and a person 5'9'' standing with one foot on the step below. The top of their heads would be at the same height, on the plane crossing Frazier's lower aspect of the chin or top of his shoulders. However, the shorter person 5'2'' standing on the top landing would have his arms higher than the tall person 5'9'' standing on the step below. If you do not trust my analysis, you can always take a selfie of yourself in Prayer Man posture, extract your figure from the picture and overlay it onto Darnell's still in such a way that the top of your figure would exactly match Prayer Man's top of the head.

In the meantime, please find here a graphic illustration of the unequal arms heights in two people, one 5'2' and the other 5'9'', separated by a height of one step (7 1/2'').