John Butler

Thanks for the comments Bernie, I occasionally do something snarky just to bring folks like Josephs out of the woodwork. I’m supposed to be on his ignore list. Obviously, not. On the “kinder gentler forum” folks like him are not allowed to express their true self. The worst ad hominem attack I have received on the forum came from him. And, I mean a vile attack. It might be that he is jealous. I know he can’t tell time. He’s the fellow that said in the PM thread that the Darnell or Weigman film is before the presidential limousine came through. The Zapruder scene is also from before the presidential limousine came through. And, before the Moorman Polaroid was taken from down Elm. Let me take it slow for that fellow. Zapruder first then a few seconds later Moorman. Zapruder Mannequin Row vanishes in the Moorman Polaroid. It can’t be explained naturally.

Bursts of Cosmic Improbability The Universe is bigger and more mysterious than we can imagine. Bursts of Cosmic Improbability began to flash off an on in Dealey Plaza beginning about 12 noon on the 22nd of November, 1963. These bursts showed differing, alternative versions of reality. This just didn’t happen for one place. But, we will for the purposes of this discussion concentrate on one. Can you see what is going on in the next photo imagery comparison. The Motorcycle Policeman in both of these scenes is Glen McBride. The left-hand photo from Mary Moorman was taken not much more than a couple of seconds after the Zapruder scene. I believe the Moorman photo is taken in the Zapruder Gap. In this short period of time the group of people I call Mannequin Row has disappeared from the Morman Polaroid. Since there is a lot of people on this forum who do not believe in photo or film alterations of the media of Dealey Plaza, I have come up with an idea to explain this situation to the No Alterations group. We are looking at some mysterious universal force allowing us to see two versions of reality. If this is not true, then we seriously have to consider widespread photo editing in Dealey Plaza. This is all I have to say about that. I won’t argue the point. There are some that say don’t pay attention to that man he’s just playing us for fools. That’s not the intention at all. The intention is to point out inconsistencies in the visual record that no one has noticed in over 50 years. Or, at least any who have noticed these things they haven’t mentioned it.

Paz, What DiEugenio is saying is expressed in this photo. It is a bit messy. But, it gives one a good understanding on why that particular motorcade route was chosen. It is totally insane to think a narrow killing zone in front of the Grassy Knoll is optimal. I have tried to explain this in the following: http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2017/09/06/the-best-place-to-shoot-to-in-dealey-plaza/

From Wikipedia: “Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another. Managing the audience's attention is the aim of all theater; it is the foremost requirement of theatrical magic”. Michael’s notion is seemingly plausible. But, it is simply another of the endless misdirections that show up on this site when one doesn’t have an argument or, you don’t like the idea presented. He first says a few sensible things and then leads you astray. I don’t think the assassination planners cared one way or the other where Oswald would be. He would be where they placed him. They had control of the cover up and things would be shown as they wanted it to be shown. They had the resources to rewrite what happened that day. They did and we are still arguing about it. Michael, have you ever thought why so many of the things that we see in the visual record is blurred, distorted, blacked out, and otherwise in a condition where nothing is generally clear. Surely, there were not that many defective cameras or camera operators in Dealey Plaza that day. What happened to all of the photographer’s cameras and materials that would have shown the passenger side of the presidential limousine? All along Main Street, Houston Street, and Elm Street there are just a few views of the passenger side of the presidential limousine. When we get to Elm Street the only source of what happened is Zapruder. Don’t you find that suspicious? Were there no photographers at the intersection of Houston and Elm or on the north side of Elm Street? How’s that for misdirection?

Bart, Thanks for your comments. I think Andrej has become frustrated with trying to convince folks of his model. I hope it is nothing I have said that helped him toward that decision. I feel if he could develop a model showing Prayer Man as Oswald, that would be a good thing. I see a lot of alterations in the visual record of Dealey Plaza. It is everywhere. But, trying to convince others is another story. Oft times, the imagery is to vague to make a good argument. Currently, I am working on a way to identify Harvey and Lee Oswald photos. The HSCA "forensic anthropologist" the committee used basically, said that all photos of Harvey and Lee are one person, Lee Harvey Oswald. His was a scientific study using an array of measurements. I guess he didn't measure or look at their earlobes or, lack of. Here are a couple of links to information that refutes the finding of the "forensic antropologist" of the HSCA. http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/04/07/who-was-lee-harvey-oswald-is-it-really-all-about-earlobes/ http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/05/05/who-was-lee-harvey-oswald-the-oswald-project-part-i/ This is off topic. But, I feel it relates because understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a bigger picture helps with not being rigid in one's thinking when something new is introduced about Prayer Man or, the Doorway Man and who they could possibly be.

Andrej Stancak's model has now proved in a conclusive fashion that Prayer Man is standing one step down from the landing. As far as I am concerned the argument is over. Stancak's model has cleared up this situation: 1.) Prayer Man is a composite insert that was inserted as a too small image then given the illusion of depth with airbrush shadowing. This is like the too small image of Mary Moorman in the Nix film. Or, 2.) Prayer Man is standing one step down from the landing and therefore due to the vagueness of the frame appears not to be. Or, 3.) Prayer Man is not Sarah Stanton due to height issues. One look at the forearms of Prayer Man should say PM is a man rather than a woman. I guess you could argue she was a weight lifter, or a MMA female wrestler, or an Amish woman who has done hard farm work since she was a child. He should be able to go on with his main concern of showing that PM is an Oswald without harassment.

Andrej. Your latest post using columns in a model explains the Prayer Man height problem to perfection. You need to do nothing else to convince others your idea is correct. Any rational person once they understand what you are saying cannot argue against your presentation. If someone doesn’t have a serious criticism just ignore them. The “kinder and gentler” forum still has the same thugs who are limited these days in their attacks. Thanks to Mr. Gordon for that. Most people do not see complex details in an image. It is not because they are lacking they simply do not have the training and experience to analyze an image in detail. Your model needs no suggestions for improvement. It is perfect as is. However, for those people who have problems seeing complex details in an image I would suggest putting a 7 inch, red block on the 5’2” inch grey column. This would show people that if Prayer Man was standing on the landing his height would be correct in relation to Buell Frazier.

Andrej, You don't see the differences in direction that the shadows in Darnell and Weigman present? One nearly vertical and the other slanting significantly to the picture right? The Marine Oswald you chose is solid for your work. Even though he doesn't appear to be Harvey Oswald, the man killed by Jack Ruby, he is. Age and weight make up the apparent differences. When you check facial features and other traits this is Harvey Oswald. I mention this because an earlier post questions whether you can recognize Lee Oswald from Harvey Oswald under John Armstrong's notion of two Oswalds. Harvey Oswald or folks disguised as Harvey Oswald make up most of the visual record.

Speaking of shadows on the TSBD landing. They are different in the Weigman and the Darnell frames. There are side by side comparisons available to view. Weigman has a shadow from the wall on a Billy Lovelady figure that is nearly vertical. That is different from the wall shadow in Darnell which slants off to the right. They are not at the same angle.

From Andrej's earlier post: "Prayer Man is the unknown man standing close to the western wall in Darnell’s and Wiegman’s films. Sean Murphy [1] has demonstrated that the most logical explanation of Prayer Man’s identity was that the man in question was Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of President Kennedy. The possibility of Oswald being Prayer Man has been opposed by several researchers arguing that Prayer Man was a woman of 5’3” or a man 5.6”; these two solutions assumed that Prayer Man or Woman stood on the top landing, in the shadow cast by the western wall". Sarah Stanton is a red herring. It is a created idea to detract from the possibility of Prayer Man might be Oswald. And, it should be dismissed out of hand. The shadow problem in determining where Prayer Man is standing is created by a photo editor's air brush. The shadows as they are shown are an artist's illusion creating a false sense of depth. The first step down from the landing is 7 inches. Add that 7 inches to Prayer Man's height and his height is right in comparison to Buell Frazier and not as shown in an earlier animation. Photo manipulation is show in Darnell by the false direction of the shadows on the TSBD landing. Photo manipulation is shown in Weigman by blocking out the lower portion of the body of Prayer Man. The light on the upper half of the body is brigher than the lower half. They should be the same if the shadows were real.

Andrej, I think I understand the elbow pit reference. The field of anthropology has a large data set on human measurement. My memory is somewhat vague but, if you have one human body part then from that you can predict other body parts. Say, if you have a femur you can accurately determine body height. That can be reversed also. Femurs can tell you the length of the leg and also if you have the leg length you will know the arm length. It is a study that went on for centuries. It turned a weird with phrenologists and the Norway study of the Master Race and determining by body measurements whether you were a member of the Master Race. As far as Sarah Stanton is concerned, there is a lot of literature discussing her in many places. She is mentioned continually in this thread. To understand her better perhaps solving this riddle can lead to a better understanding of her. If Sarah Stanton was born in March, and she was on the landing of the TSBD after the assassination of President Kennedy, what would she be and what color would she be?

Thanks for that tip T.G. Let's see if I have got it right because, I want to remember this. You change the contrast and you can reduce / change the shadows. And, this explains why there are different shadow directions in the frame. Got it. You keep mentioning Sarah Stanton. I don't know anything about Sarah Stanton. Can you fill me in why she is important.

So, there are shadow problems. I posted a shadow problem several years ago that is similar to the problems in this Darnell frame. It concerned people walking and running up on the Grassy Knoll just after the presidential limousine cleared the area. The people on Elm Street shadows went off to their right. The shadows of people climbing the hill went directly in front of them. This photo was taken outside with the sun as the only light source. Therefore, all shadows should move in the same direction. Shadows going in two different directions said that there was two different times present in one photo. This is a physical impossibility. The same problem is present in the Backyard Photos with shadows moving in 3 directions. When I pointed this out in the photo concerning shadows on the Grassy Knoll some wag said well of course their shadows are going straight uphill because they are. The same problem exists in the Darnell frame. David Josephs points this out on page 2 of this thread. Only, he didn’t go far enough in his reasoning in my opinion. I don’t think he looked at the angle of the shadow as versus the angle of the shadows of the people on the street. Bart Kamp pasted this photo on prayerman.com. The notes explain some of the thinking on how these shadows are not quite correct. Notice that the shadow’s angle inside the doorway of the TSBD landing is much steeper than the shadows of people on the street. Inside the landing the ceiling shadows are lighter (picture left) and should be darker than the shadows (picture right) where they should be lighter. When you blow this scene up you will see that there is a problem with the shadows of Prayer Man’s lower body. There is a darker black square there for the lower body with a lighter square for the upper body. Why? These shadow problems suggest tampering with the photo to conceal something. That something may very well be the identity of Prayer Man as Oswald.

Thanks T.G. for that info. So, Buell Frazier is 6 feet and ½ inches in height. If you relate that to Prayer Man then Prayer man could be short. In an earlier post, I said Prayer Man appeared to be short. I rarely ever do pin point accuracy because generally there is no way to do that. If you draw a line from the top of Prayer Man’s head to Buell Frazier then you will see that Buell is head taller than Prayer Man. He looks really tall in comparison. If Prayer Man was Harvey Oswald he would be 3’.05” shorter than Buell Frazier rather a head shorter. The height of the first step going down from the landing in the doorway is 7 inches. The average length of the male human head is 9.4 inches which covers 99% of all human males. If we add 7 inches to Prayer Man standing on the first step this would put him more in tune with the height of Buell Frazier. There is some variance there. If someone is interested they can do the math. What I am saying here is that Andrej’s supposition that Prayer Man is Oswald might be the way to go. And, he is doing a thorough job of fleshing out his idea. My personal belief is that Prayer Man is Harvey Oswald. This comes from doing countless comparison of objects in my art work. However, due to the vagueness of the imagery there is no way to prove that. Now that I think I understand what Andrej is doing, I have to give him a thumbs up and keep up the good work. There are some shadow problems with that frame's imagery.

Does anyone know Buell Frazier's height. I did at one time but, have lost track of that. I'm having a hard time finding that on the internet. Is that meaningful?

T.G. The John Martin film is altered. You can see this on Houston Street with the transparent helmets of the Motorcycle Police. I’m not sure I said anything about Weigman, Darnell, and Couch being altered. Although, certain Couch frames are interesting, as example a train on the Triple Underpass, it is generally not interesting because of the quality of the film. I tend to avoid those films because of their quality. For instance, I think I see the Newman family in the wrong place. And, the film quality is so bad you can't make a proper statement on that. I don’t know the height of Prayer Man. He appears to be short. As for Prayer Man being Oswald and shooting the president? Prayer Man did shoot on Elm Street. But, with film. Does that make him Oswald? Since, Prayer Man is an event after the assassination, due to relevancy, I haven’t given any thought to characters who may be there in the Doorway or not. All of this stuff has been gone over in that huge thread on Prayer Man that was unlocked and moved down the viewing list. With something over 4,000 comments, I don’t think much was missed, except the John Martin film.

T.G., others Don’t get me wrong. Take a close, analytic look at Z frame 157, as an example. When you see that which is really there you will give up thoughts of “paranoiac film alteration”. It is real. It exists. Another thing is an earlier post a fellow spoke of the Prayer Man incident as occurring before or during the assassination. Not true. Weigman was in camera car #1 which was the 10th in the motorcade. Darnell was in camera car #3 which was 12th in the motorcade. Witnesses, I believe, spoke of a delay or stop in the motorcade due to people running across the street, Elm Street, in the direction of the Grassy Knoll. Just the normal passage of 10 to 12 vehicles at the motorcade speed would account for a significant delay. In the Zapruder film the Advance Motorcycles took 7 or more seconds to pass through part of the intersection. The two camera men didn’t get into the intersection until sometime later. It is uncertain how much time passed after the shooting. Perhaps, as much as a minute. The Prayer Man incident is not that relevant. Why? You can’t prove Oswald is Prayer Man or, that Oswald is not Prayer Man. The images are just to vague. And, no amount of camera tricks can get past that. It is better to think about whether shots were fired from the sixth floor. You cannot prove that either beyond a reasonable doubt. And, that should be the standard used. If you can prove that Oswald (I use the last name here because of doubles) is Prayer Man then it becomes relevant because he was not on the 6th floor. According to John Martin, he was on Elm Street filming the president as he passed the TSBD. The speed of the motorcade gave him enough time to return to the TSBD doorway and be filmed by Darnell and Weigman when they arrived. The Robert Hughes film has a very blurry and vague frame with Toni Glover standing on a wall or pedestal framed in the TSBD doorway. Also, there is a very vague image of Doorway Man / Lovelady / Oswald there as the limousine is in the intersection in front of the TSBD. It is not enough to say Prayer Man was in the doorway during the assassination. The differences in that figure’s clothing and Prayer Man’s clothing are significant. There is no time available to roll up sleeves and button a shirt even if they wanted to. You can clearly note the clothing aspect even if you cannot identify the person.

Consider a head size variation of 1 inch caused by thick hair or thickened hair to cover incipient balding. Let's say the wrong measurement makes the head 1 inch larger. How does this translate to the body. The person being measured becomes 7.5 inches taller if you are using a 1:7.5 ratio. Oswald, if Prayer Man is Oswald, then he could now become 6'6.5" as a top height.

The human anatomy is variable. In considering an unknown, a range of variation is better than a single figure. The ratio of the human head to the body is also variable. Generally, that range is 1:6.5 to 1:8. For an extra heroic figure the ratio is 1:9. Somewhere, I have learned an incorrect measurement of 1:6, probably out of an old drawing the human anatomy book. If Prayer Man is not Oswald than how tall is he? If he is Oswald or a double is he 5’7”, 5’9”, or 5’11”? Mr. Stancak’s measurements have made Prayer Man a dwarf. Classical anatomical measurements come from the Vitruvian Man concept of Leonardo Da Vinci. In this the height of the head is measure from the base of the chin to the forehead where the hair begins. Hair thickness can throw off a head’s size significantly. This ratio is 1:10. The center point of the body is the crotch. Or, as it is said “the root of the penis”. This is why Mr. Stancak’s portrayal of Prayer Man indicates he is a dwarf. I maybe wrong in this but a greater range of variation should be used. This is not Mr. Stancak's failure. He has done excellent work. Prayer Man appears to be a dwarf in the film frame. Which leads me to my favorite speculations, this may be an altered film. But, I have no way to prove that or even make a reasonable speculation.

People on the Underpass An earlier post shows a frame from the Bell film, A Dillard photo, and Altgens 7. All of these images show two relevant things. There are people on the railroad bridge and there is no train there. There are signs instead. The problem with these images is they are not true. They are fakes. There are other visual records that show there was no one on the railroad bridge and a train is on the Triple Underpass during the assassination and directly afterwards. And, there are other problems with those images posted that suggest they are frauds. Bell film- Just prior to the scene posted from Bell showing the presidential limousine going under the railroad bridge there are other frames that show there is no one on the bridge. This is just a couple of seconds before the Bell scene posted. In these frames the limo is just going under the railroad bridge. In other Bell frames a train can be seen clearly just exiting the railroad bridge. Hughes film- Robert Hughes at the last part of his film has scenes that show no one on the railroad bridge. There is a train on the bridge. And, Officer Foster is standing off the bridge over the embankment leading up to the most northern part of the bridge. The presidential limousine and the security vehicle has left the area. This makes it less than 30 or so seconds after the Bell scenes. Dave Weigman film- The Weigman film has frames showing no one on the bridge as the press vehicles move toward the Triple Underpass. Malcom Couch film- The Couch film has frames showing no one on the railroad bridge as the press vehicles move in that direction. The presidential limousine has already left the area. John Martin film- The Martin film has frames showing a train on the railroad bridge and no people are standing there on the bridge. Those frames were taken as the motorcade vehicles before the press vehicles are moving toward the Triple Underpass. There is evidence from these five films that no one was on the Triple Underpass when the presidential limousine passed through there. Most of these 5 films show a train on the underpass. You can believe the Bell film frame, the Dillard photo, and Altgens 7 images if you want. There are plenty that do. Or, you can research deeper into the question and see what is really shown in those films. For the images described above you can go to: http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/04/01/mass-perjury-at-the-triple-underpass/

I think Paz Marverde is on to something. My personal opinion is the assassination decision was made when Lyndon Johnson recieved the nomination to be Vice-President. The assassination planning began in earnest with the murder of Marilyn Monroe in August, 1962. Her death gave J. Edgar Hoover a black mail handle on Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy who was the Attorney General would have to go along with anything Johnson and Hoover wanted. It explains to me why Bobby Kennedy said he supported the Warren Commission findings until the day the died.

Let's go back to Officer Marion Baker. Did he have a walkie-talkie? The Couch film doesn't show that. It is too vague. Probably the only hand radio around at that time was the military AN-PRC-6. It is a large clumsy instrument not of much value. I think there is a civilian version available at that time. So, scratch the idea of a hand radio. Officer Baker had a radio on his motor bike. It was probably similar to the military AN-PRC-25. This was the military platoon radio and quite good. Officer Baker was on the second floor in about 1 minute 30 seconds after the assassination. Let's give him 2 minutes and say he was confronting Oswald at 12:32 in the 2nd floor break room. That's the official story. But, is it true? Let's say that he and Roy Truly traveled to the 7th floor and back down to the first floor in 10 minutes. It is now 12:42 and 6 minutes before the APB goes out with the description at 12:48. Does Baker now have enough time to call in his description of the man met on the 3rd or 4th floor from his motor bike radio and a decision be made down at headquarters to put out an APB? Is there enough time for this? I don't think so but, it is a possibility. What I think happened is later that afternoon or evening when Officer Baker made his 11-22-63 statement he simply used the common description that was out and about for his description of the man he and Truly met on the 3rd or 4th floor. This is the real nub of the Baker / Truly problem. The meeting of the man on the 3rd or 4th floor was changed to the meeting of Oswald in the 2nd floor break room. Roy Truly knew who this man was. He never said who it was. And, he was never asked by anyone. The 2nd floor break room story is a hoax designed to cover the identity of the 3rd or 4th floor man and switch the attention to Harvey Oswald, the man killed by Jack Ruby. Roy Truly could have identified this man because he told Baker that he was an employee.

Just a speculation: I speculate that there was an original script of the assassination authored by folks like Edward R. Landsdale. He, or others like him, were there perhaps on the second or third floor of the Court House so that they could see the events of Main Street, the Main and Houston intersection, Houston Street, and Elm Street. Things didn't go as planned. A new script had to be authored within hours of the assassination and sent to the various coverup groups such as the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Dallas Police, Dallas Sheriff's Office, witnesses who would say what they were told. The difference in interpretation of this new script led to all the errors and contradictions we see about the assassination and just after the assassination. Witness 1st statements are more reliable than ones that come later as these errors were straightened out by the various coverup specialists.

One last thing. If anyone has a 1st generation copy of this photo "Alfred of Cuba" then post a high resolution copy and let's compare and seen if there are differences. Or, you can use the "Unger Method" and use software to smooth out a photo and claim it is a better copy.

Jim, I don't know the significance of this photo also. I suspect there is some purpose otherwise why alter the photo to show an unknown as Oswald? I speculate the purpose was to show Oswald had Cuban connections in Minsk or developed Cuban connections in Minsk. If the photo was altered in Minsk then the purpose would be to put Oswald in the frame for the upcoming assassination. If it was altered after Oswald's return then it would serve the same purpose. My original thought on this was that the unknown person was part of the Project but, did not closely resemble Oswald. There were many people moving in and out of the Oswald identity in Minsk. What they were up to is anybody's guess. Oswald face masks seem to be a favored technique of the editors. It is now demonstrated in Russia, and in New Orleans, and lastly in Dallas.