Sandy Larsen

Baker's Revised Path Baker's path veered to the right as he approached the sidewalk on the other side. This becomes clear when we consider footsteps 2 and 3. And also when we analyze the direction of his final step. Unfortunately that one step is hidden behind the man in the suit nearer the camera. However it is not difficult to estimate quite closely where Baker's foot will land. To help me analyze Baker's final footstep, I drew in red the path of a young lady who is approaching the sidewalk just before the clip ends. Just find the girl whose footsteps touch the red line. I did this because 1) I noticed that her path was parallel to Baker's at first, and 2) Baker's path actually crosses over hers' on his final step. This means that Baker had by then changed direction by close to 70 degrees, in my estimation. In the clip below I have also drawn a gray line representing the base of the curb. This is useful because a person's shadow will rise the face of the curb as it nears the sidewalk. This is precisely what we see with Baker's shadow as he passes behind the very tall man. At that point he is still approaching the sidewalk, though at an angle, and we see his shadow rise up the face of the curb. This shadow is most easily seen in the bottom-most video of this post. (Studying this requires a lot of concentration, or the use of a animated GIF single stepper.) Click to enlarge! Baker's Last Step I believe that I have fairly estimated the location of Baker's last step in the clip, and that the blue line above fairly represents his path. His destination clearly was not the TSBD. For those skeptical of my estimated location of Baker's final step, I post here a useful repeating clip that can help each individual in determining where they believe Baker's final step was. I am confident that nobody will conclude a footstep location that puts Baker on a path anywhere close to the the TSBD entrance. Click to enlarge! From studying this clip, it is clear to me that Baker is now running close to parallel with the curb (gray line). In contrast, the young woman is running toward the curb. You can see this by comparing the two in this repeating clip. They are running close to perpendicular to one another. Still Not Convinced? If you're not convinced that Baker is running perpendicular to the path of the young lady, ask yourself this simple question: Why is it we see primarily the woman's rear end, whereas we see primarily Baker's right side? (Look again at the last video.) The woman is running toward the sidewalk, and if Baker were doing the same (near the end of the clip) then we'd be seeing his rear end too! They are running in perpendicular paths. Shadows What do the shadows in this video reveal? What I first noticed is that a lot of the people on the road are walking/running along the axis of their shadows. This was my first clue that they weren't moving in haphazard directions. My second clue was that there seemed to be no common destination... just someplace to the right of the TSBD entrance. It was when I found the picture of the crosswalk that my suspicion was confirmed that they were all merely following the crosswalk. Which, of course, makes sense. The significance of this is that Baker was also following the crosswalk... the left side of it. He likely did so to a large extent because not following the crosswalk would have meant colliding with those in the crowd. To me it is seems clear that Baker was interested in something to the right of the TSBD, and that in his estimation the quickest way of getting there was to follow the crowd across the crosswalk, and then turn toward his desired destination after passing the bulk of those in his crosswalk. That is a speculative comment. But I think there is no speculation in pronouncing that: Marrion Baker was not headed for the TSBD. Not to go inside. No way. Other Observations Note that the lengths of people's shadows in the clip are pretty close to their heights. Since Baker's shadow had just "touched" the curb at the end of the clip, we know that he was roughly 6 ft away from the curb. The width of the sidewalk is 10 ft. So he was still 16 ft away from the TSBD entrance when the clip ends. At this point in time he was located right in front of the postal mail receptacle on the right side of the TSBD entrance. We know that because he was crossing the young woman's path (red line) at that time, and that woman was headed toward that mailbox, as indicated by extending her red line up on the sidewalk. (See Tom Neal's Post 119 on page 8 for an accurate calculation of shadow length, and my Post 125 on page 9 for info on taking curb height into account for shadows, and for a calculation of Baker's distance from the curb. These show that Baker's shadow length was actually about 9.75 ft and that he was actually located about 7.7 ft from the sidewalk.) In order for Baker to enter the TSBD after the video clip ends, he would have had to back up several feet and make an abrupt left turn before resuming his mad dash.

The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 90 seconds of the shooting. Officer Baker had to have run immediately and straight for the TSBD in order for this to have occurred so quickly. And indeed the Darnell film does seem to show Baker doing just that. But it's a mere illusion, as I will show here in this post. Baker didn't run straight for the TSBD. Not to its entrance. Over the last several years questions have arisen as to whether the second-floor encounter between Baker and Oswald really took place, or if it was just a part of the Warren Commission cover story. Interrogation notes taken by Dallas Police Chief Will Fritz indicate that Oswald informed him that he had been out on the steps of the TSBD during the shooting. These notes were kept secret till 1997. Even Baker, in his first-day statement, said nothing of a lunchroom encounter. Numerous JFK researchers have since come to believe that the second-floor lunchroom encounter was a cover story designed to detract from the truth -- the truth being that Oswald was really on the first floor near the front entrance of the TSBD during the shooting, and may have actually been standing out on the front landing of the entrance! If the so-called "Prayer Man" is Oswald, Oswald is seen in a couple of film clips that survive to this day. I will now proceed to prove that officer Baker had no intention of running into the TSBD when he began his mad dash. (I will NOT show that he never entered the TSBD... I believe he did, later.) As you will see, this is yet one more nail in the coffin of the Baker-Oswald second-floor lunchroom encounter myth. The key to following the path taken by Baker is to follow his footsteps. As obvious as that sounds, it has surprisingly never been done as far as I know. At least not seriously. I will start off by pointing out the three steps that can be clearly identified in the Darnell clip. In each one Baker is on tippy-toe, and so his toe points to where his foot is touching the ground. Please click images and video clips to magnify. Footstep One Footstep Two Footstep Three Note that these footsteps can readily be made out by single stepping through the video clip. By connecting these three points, one can get a rough idea as to Baker's intended path. But in doing so I found that the path didn't line up with Baker's footsteps that are hidden behind others in the film. I discovered that I could pretty accurately interpolate those locations. What I did was 1) visually estimate the locations, 2) mark them, and 3) draw a straight line intersecting all the estimates. To double-check my work, I also drew a path of the top of Baker's helmet. For this, I marked the top of each peak (between each step where neither foot is in contact with the ground) and connected these to get a straight line. I then confirmed that the helmet path was parallel to the foot path I had estimated. Note that the conclusions drawn from this analysis do not depend upon the validity my estimated footstep locations. I use these estimates merely to gain a more accurate understanding as to what Baker's intended path was. Baker's Initial Path The blue lines in the video represent Baker's path as he crosses the Elm Street extension. The line drops with the curb on the left. The upper blue line represents the path of the top of Baker's helmet. Click to enlarge! It is obvious that Baker was not headed for the TSBD entrance. (He was headed to the right of it.) But if not, what explains the path he is taking? Compare his path to the crosswalk in this (modern) photo: Officer Baker was simply following the crosswalk. The truth of this will become more apparent as we move on. Go to the next post for Part 2 of this presentation.

Jim, I wish also to thank you for writing this important article. It is very well written, and very informative. As usual. I'm looking forward to reading Part 2. Thanks goodness your "stay tuneds" are measured in hours/days and not years/decades! (Just poking a little fun at another esteemed researcher posting here.)

Don, From my experience here, your summary appears to be spot on. I happen to agree with nearly all of it. But I wouldn't lament the fact that a good deal of debate goes on here between adherents of the various theories. It is because of those debates that a newbie, such as myself, can bring himself up to speed and decide for himself which theory has merit and which doesn't. Think about how important it is for those in younger generations, who have interest in the JFK case, to be exposed to all this. I suppose it could be argued that all this debating merely serves to confuse the uninitiated. To that I would reply that those most likely to benefit "the cause" -- the scholars and writers of the world -- will be those who welcome the debate.

[deleted]

Jim, I'd never heard of these frames being excised from the Z film. When were they removed? Is there evidence of their removal? I take it you saw the film before those frames were removed. Pat Speer says on his website that the hit at Z190 is clear, but I can see nothing despite trying for 20 minutes, looking at various films and frame-by-frame. JFK gets blurry right at Z190 and stays blurry for a few frames. (I'm not saying there's nothing to see there... I'm saying only that I don't see it.) I do see his waving hand move to his forehead before he goes behind the sign.

Andrej, Moving PM away from the west wall (as you did) can indeed make it look like he is further back toward the glass.... that is, if we don't see his legs and feet. But I have a new criticism. (Sorry.) With one foot on the landing and the other one step lower, I have a hard time believing PM would maintain that awkward pose for an extended period of time. Yet we see him in what appears to be a static position, first as the procession is passing by, and then again after the shooting, when officer Baker is running toward the TSBD. If PM truly was near the front of the landing, I think it's more likely that he had both feet one step below the landing. That said, I am still of the opinion he was back close to the glass. FWIW.

Andrej, I think you are not seeing the problem I am seeing. It is a big problem. Let me explain the issue more precisely. On your drawing, imagine a plane that is parallel to the glass and located at the junction of the column of red brick and the gray tile wall. Prayer Man's leg and right torso are located within just a few inches of the plane regardless of how you (reasonably) adjust his posture. In contrast, if you imagine the same plane on the photo, PM's leg and right torso are at least two feet from the plane, and his elbow at least 1 1/2 feet away.

Okay, but what about PM standing further back, near the glass? Wouldn't that make him look quite short, as illustrated by Tie Man in the Allen frame here? (Posted by Toni Fratini on this page.) Wouldn't a 5' 9" Prayer Man appear to be about the height of Tie Man if he were standing back near the glass? If not, what height of man would?

Hi Andrej, You do such fine, detailed work that I hate to be the one pointing out the fly in your ointment. However, someone has to do it. (And perhaps I am wrong and you can show me how). In the drawings you've posted, you have PM far too close to the front of the landing. Here's your closeup: I've compared this drawing closely to photos and find that the entrance as depicted here very closely models the real thing. There is a column of brick just behind (toward the glass) the decorative column. You depict it here in red. Between that and the glass is the west wall of the entrance. It appears in photos to be tile, though it could be brick. You have it a dark gray in your drawing. The problem is, where you have PM located, his right side (to our left) is very close to the junction between the gray tile and red brick. Compare that to where PM really is relative to that junction: You see? It is clear to me that PM's elbow is no less than a 1 1/2 feet back (toward the glass) from that junction. Am I mistaken? P.S. I just noticed that you ended today's posts with this sentence: "However, this is not the end of the Frazier-in-the-doorway problem ..." That implies that your work on this is ongoing. So maybe I'm jumping the gun with my criticism.

Richard, I have found the following analysis (posted by Toni Fratini on this page at 12:30:28 PM) to be very compelling: Apparently the guy standing to our left of the door is the person called "Tie Man" on that thread. Note how short he looks. Fratini goes on to show that Prayer Person is roughly the same height as Tie Man, with the assumption being that he is standing as far back, close to the glass, as Tie Man is: I've read just a few posts on that thread, but was able to gather that (as I understand it) Albert Doyle disputes the analysis, asserting that Prayer Person was standing much closer to the front of the landing, as is Buell Frazier. (Being closer to the camera makes a person look taller due to perspective.) Albert's proof is that the sun is hitting PP's hand (or something he is holding?), thus causing the "bright spot," something that could not happen if he were standing back near the glass entryway. This is a very easy argument to understand. Please let me know if I got it wrong. Assuming I am understanding this correctly, then whether or not PP is a woman (or a very short man) hinges on whether or not the bright spot on PP's hand is due to sunlight hitting it. It is that simple. Can you tell me what proof or line of reasoning Albert Doyle uses to conclude that the bright spot on PP's hand is due to it being exposed to direct sunlight?

Thanks Chris.

Okay, that helps a bit. But the fudged frame numbers in the table above are off by only a few frames. Doesn't seem to be related. Sandy, Incremental changes are created for exactly that reason. There is a triangle formed which must be in sync/accurate (leads back to the 6th floor snipers nest) to prove WC/FBI/SS truthfulness. On Elm St, part of the triangle formation is rate x time = distance Entries for Zframes 161-166 and 168-171 are indicative of adjustments made to create the desired triangle. chris Can you tell me what the three points of the triangle are? If I were to assume (for sake of argument) that the three points are: Sniper's nest, at the end of the rifle barrel. JFK's head wound. The spot directly below Point 1, at the elevation of Point 2. (This would probably be underground.) (BTW, If it is not obvious, this would make a right triangle. Though this type of triangle makes sense to me, it is not relevant to the point I want to make here.) It is obvious that adjusting the frame number by a few frames in this example would make little difference in the triangle. So I'm guessing that the triangle you are referring to is nothing like mine. (Reading ahead, I see that JFK's wound is not one of the three triangle points. Rather, the point would be the X on the road representing the location of the rear bumper of the limo at the time of the shot. That's fine, but note that would have little effect on my triangle, and so that doesn't change what I say and ask here in this post.) Again, my question is, can you tell me what the three points of the triangle are?

I don't know why they chose those particular fame numbers. The aren't evenly spaced (by number or frames lapsed, or time). They aren't evenly spaced by distance the limo traveled. That's obvious by seeing that frames 207 and 208 are in the table and there are zero frames between them, yet there are ~57 frames missing between 255 and 313. I recognize some special frame numbers, 313 head shot of course. 225 for supposed throat shot. (I say supposed because I believe that shot was actually to the back, and that it caused a collapse lung, and that Kennedy is struggling for air.) Frame 255 is when the Altgens 6 photo was shot. But I don't know about the others. So naturally I have no idea why the WC changed some of the numbers. Okay, I just found and read a little background in "Assassination Science." The frame numbers were just "selected," for whatever reason. From reading the book it appears this is related to the WC exhibit which shows the head shot was like 40 feet further down Elm than shown on Zapruder. Okay, that helps a bit. But the fudged frame numbers in the table above are off by only a few frames. Doesn't seem to be related. My mind is wandering.... I don't know what to make of this. I'll read the thread from now on and hopefully I'll catch on.

Chris, I didn't even know about this thread. You mentioned it, but I assumed it was an old one before my time because I hadn't seen it. (Till right now.) I haven't any idea what you are doing with this. I don't know what you're goal is or what you are trying to prove. All this is completely new to me. Does it have to do with the limo slowing way down, possibly to a complete stop, for the head shot? As many witnesses said? Ollie mention the number 48 FPS and I had no idea what he was talking about. Why would a camera have running at 48 FPS. Later as I continued to read the thread I came to realize it was in a WC reconstruction. So okay, that makes sense. But still, I have no idea what you guys are doing. But it looks interesting.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area. Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C. "The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure." Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate". ​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you? Hi Ray This brings back the same old problem with so much of the evidence in this case. When Perry stated the incision was two to three centimetres, was he referring to the incision in the throat, or was he referring to the incision in the trachea itself? As Perry stated that part of the tracheotomy was for exploratory purposes to ascertain damage to blood vessels and other structures, an incision this small through the skin of the throat hardly seems adequate, if you consider that these blood vessels are located toward the rear of the trachea. Also. the trachea was deviated somewhat to the left and hidden under the left strap muscles, forcing Perry to sever one of the left strap muscles to locate it. Could this have been done through such a small incision? Robert, Yes, but did you get the main point, that the reason for switching from the endotracheal tube to the tracheostomy may indeed have been "because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area?" (Quoting myself.) Or am I reading too much into this?

Hey, that's pretty slick Chris. I assume you copied frames and then moved the new ones ones along with the motion of the cars. Hey wait... that wouldn't work. Anything stationary would wiggle and thereby be blurred. Please explain what you did. EDIT: Oh sorry, I need to explain myself. I was thinking that if you did what I think you did (which is, made repeated copies of frames and then moved each slightly to match the movement of the cars. or in other words interpolated frames) then this looked like a promising technique to help with altering the Z film such that the slow-down of the limo could be removed. First remove frames from where the limo slows down in order to make it appear not to slow down, and then do your interpolation technique to put all the stationary objects back into their correct locations. I then realized that your technique (if I understand it correctly) wouldn't work so well on the stationary objects. it would make them wiggle, thus blurring them. Sandy, I'll reverse the process for you. 48fps slow motion, two thirds of the frames removed in a one second span. How fast are they running? How fast would a limo appear to move at this frame rate (48fps slow motion with frames removed), going 15mph. Chris, I'm sure I would really like what you're wanting to demonstrating to me... if only I could follow what you are saying. I'll try to reply to your post and maybe you'll be able to figure out what it is I'm not understanding. You asked: Well, first off, 48 fps wouldn't be slow motion for the Z film. That would be 48/18 = 2.67 time faster than normal. Now if you removed two out of three frames and ran the Z film at normal 18 fps speed, the film would run 3 times faster than normal. Combine the two, and the film would run 2.67 x 3 = 8 times faster than normal. So the limo would appear to be moving at 15 x 8 = 120 mph. Hmmm... something tells me this is not where you wanted me to go with this. And BTW, the runners appear to be jogging (at a typical pace), not running. At what speed, I don't know. I guess my most important question would be, what is "48 fps slow motion?" Maybe what you mean is that the subject is filmed at 48 fps and played back at -- what? -- 18 fps. If that's what you mean, and this is done, then the runners would appear to run 18/ 48 = 0.375 times their normal speed. Yes, slow motion! Removing two thirds of the the frames then would make the runners appear to run at 3 times their normal speed. Doing both would make the runners appear to run at 0.375 x 3 = 1.13 time their normal speed, so only 13% faster. (As a whole, this exercise seems merely to be the waste of film and the cost of a high speed movie camera. But maybe it is meant to teach me something. So I will proceed.) Assuming this is how you wanted me to think (and you need not read any further if it is not), what does this principal tell me about the Z film? Well, if the limo slowed way down, that would be equivalent to the camera filming at a much higher FPS. The limo could be made to move faster (normal speed) either by running the film projector faster, or by removing frames. The latter is what I suggested in my original post. Well I give up. I'm not sure what I am suppose to learn from this. Should we start a new thread? (Poor Greg.)

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area. Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C. "The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure." Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate". ​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you? Brilliant post Ray, on more than one count! I assume that the stare-of-death photo was taken after the throat wound was manually probed, and that the probing is what caused the tracheotomy incision to gape. Or maybe what we see was created during the pre-autopsy autopsy for some reason. Presumably the latter because Humes claims in the autopsy report that the tracheotomy was gaping. Oddly he calls it a wound. But later he explains how it came about:

Robert, check out the description of the scalp laceration from the bullet hitting near the EOP: The laceration is only 6 mm wide (no surprise, I guess) but is 15 mm long. I wonder if that is a sign of the bullet skidding along the base of the skull just prior to it being deflected downward. Or something along that line of thought. I often wonder how the bullet made its way down the neck, if it did.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

[deleted]

Jim, Wow. Is that all documented fact? Or is there some speculation or connecting the dots? Because if it is documented fact, then it proves the motive for the assassination. And that the CIA was involved. If it's documented fact, then why are there still some WC critics with other theories?

Bob, What reason(s) has convinced you for many years that the wound is WELL below the collar? Tom Show me in this diagram where the thyroid cartilage covers any of the tracheal rings (tracheal cartilage). Robert, I think what Tom said was that thyroid tissue (part of the gland) covers the first and second tracheal rings. Not thyroid cartilage. I may have said something like "thyroid covering the rings" in one of my posts and caused this confusion. If so, what I meant was "thyroid gland tissue covering the rings.