"My New Thread"

[Andrej Stancak]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Your story above is actually pretty good and kudos to you for writing it. Still, it just seems too far-fetched that all of this planning would have been ruined by allowing Oswald to lurk out there.

The story has been largely suggested by Mr. Walt Brown in his excellent book "Treachery in Dallas" (Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1996), I have added few details to this scenario. The scenario is internally consistent and it does not object any known evidence pertaining Lee Harvey Oswald's movements. I will elaborate the story with accurate quotations and data in the future.

My statement "He travels to his rooming house, ...." avoids the disputes about whether Oswald travelled via the bus-taxi route or was taken by car right there on the Plaza which dispute is of lesser importance than the scenario itself. 

While it appears incomprehensive that Lee Harvey Oswald would pop up in the doorway, I find it very logical and consistent with what he was doing from his young age of 15 or 16. Whatever he did had two ends. He read Marx and communist literature, however, he never seeks close collegiate relationships with members of communist or socialist party. He is handing over pro-Castro leaflets which are stamped 544 Camp Street, the office of Guy Banister. There are many more examples to his actions which are often difficult to read. 

Addition: I may not have answered the seemingly unexplained courtesy of Lee Harvey Oswald when he offered the taxi to an old lady. Lee Oswald assumed he had some time until his name would eventually pop up in the news. He had to be in the Texas Theatre at a certain time (after 1PM? ) at which time the rifle was not even discovered, and therefore his name could not have perspired. It would eventually happen, however, not sooner than maybe in the evening. If not the Tippit shooting, finding the rifle and the name A.J. Hiddell would still not connect to Lee Harvey Oswald. Another investigation would be necessary to link Hiddel with Oswald. Thus, Lee Harvey Oswald could still pretend that he was not in a hurry, and offer the cab to the old lady. However, he then asked the cab driver to stop about a block past his rooming house - this is his typical conspiracy behaviour.

People naturally excel in some activities. Some people are excellent tennis player because they combine their natural talent with dedication and lot of training. Other people can excel in science, chess, or some odd activities like long and accurate spitting. Lee Harvey Oswald excelled in acting in a covert manner in such a way that any of his actions had two (or more) different meanings or goals. He acquired his "skill" based on the combination of his upbringing and watching and learning the role seen in "I led three lives". Lee saw maybe all of about 100 episodes and reprises of this TV series. I watched few episodes of this series to understand what it would do with a 15-16 year old boy who did not have any other positive template or goal in his life. The spy who worked for the FBI and infiltrated the communist circles, a double agent, behaved exactly as Lee did so often. The small detail of asking the cab driver to drive him past his rooming house is as if cut from "I led three lives".

  

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Davidson]

On 5/2/2018 at 10:54 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

thanks for an interesting and useful overlay. Would you like to see the mannequin to match the exact posture and body contours of Lee Harvey Oswald as he was photographed by the NO PD? I was happy with the body proportions which, as the horizontal lines indicate, match in both figures quite well. Or, do you think that the body proportions of James Poser do not match well Lee's body? I would be only worried if the latter would be the case and, of course, I would make a correction.  

The more exact you are, the better.

For instance: What is the distance of the combined gaps?

[Andrej Stancak]

18 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

The more exact you are, the better.

For instance: What is the distance of the combined gaps?

 

In the meantime, I have prepared a better version:

And the Darnell still:

 

The revised figures are shown in http:/thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com .

[John Butler]

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.

Edited May 7, 2018 by John Butler
cleaning up errors

[John Butler]

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.

[Andrej Stancak]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

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 top of Prayer Man can be seen in the Darnell still I used, and it is crossed by the yellow line in my drawing. 99% of human bodies fit with 7 1/2 ratio. As you could see, I have checked if Oswald's body fitted the 7 1/2 rule and it did (this is the picture with Lee Oswald taken by the NO PD). I did not make Prayer Man a dwarf. He was a tall man because he stood effectively on the second step and yet he reached to Buell Wesley Frazier's shoulder line. I have measured this height in my 3D model. The 7 1/2 ratio method does not give any absolute height value at all, it only shows where to would Prayer Man's feet reach if the 7 1/2 rule applied. It is a simple and approximate method, yet it provides one more independent clue that Prayer Man stood on the second step (with one foot only as my 3D reconstruction shows).

I see no signs of alterations of Prayer Man or of anyone else in Darnell.

My measurements did not make Prayer Man a dwarf unless you want to say that a man 5'9''  can be labeled a dwarf.

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

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.

John,

Thanks for your analysis and your thoughts on this.

I don't think Andrej has represented their heights correctly.

Something about perspective, and the fact that Wiegman's and Darnell's camera lenses were below the level of the landing. 

Can't quite put my finger on it ...

Regardless, instead of (paranoiac, IMHO) "film alteration," have you considered the fact that in a videotaped 2013 interview, Buell Wesley Frazier said that he turned towards (not "around," mind you) and spoke with a "Sarah," who was near him on the landing, when a "crying girl came by the steps" and proclaimed that JFK had been shot?  That, plus the fact that that "Sarah" was undoubtedly TSBD employee Sarah Stanton, and that Sarah Stanton probably was considerably shorter than the 5' 9.5' Lee Harvey Oswald (Shaun Murphy's and Andrej's "Prayer Man"), and that the mysterious person caught in Wiegman and in Darnell probably wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald (standing awkwardly with one foot on the top step and the other kinda on the landing, and with a strangely arched back), after all, but a 5' 4" or so Sarah Stanton (standing on the landing, far enough from the wall and close enough to the top step to get sunlight on her right hand), instead?

 

--  T.G. 
 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[John Butler]

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 10^th in the motorcade.  Darnell was in camera car #3 which was 12^th 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 6^th 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.  

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by John Butler

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

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 10^th in the motorcade.  Darnell was in camera car #3 which was 12^th 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 6^th 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.  

 

 

John,

 

Thank you very much, but I was referring only to your (paranoiac, IMHO) belief that the Weigman and/or Couch-Darnell clips were altered.

Also, thank you for explaining everything to me, but I do understand the implication that if "Prayer Man" was Oswald, then Oswald couldn't have been up on the sixth floor, and therefore probably didn't shoot Kennedy.  (sarcasm)

It is interesting, however, that you apparently do not countenance the possibility that "Prayer Man" was a significantly-shorter-than 5' 9.5"  Oswald ... Sarah Stanton.

Is there a reason for that?

Do you really agree with Andrej that Stanton is represented by a widdle "blob" in Altgens 6, and that she therefore must be tall enough tall enough to crane "her head" forward enough as to obscure the rear right of Shelley's head, and simultaneously itself be mostly obscured behind Lovelady's cheek?

Do you really believe that, as per Andrej, Sarah Stanton decided to watch the motorcade by standing behind some (significantly taller than her) people on the landing?

 

--  T.G.

PS  As to your allegation that there was a sufficient amount of time between Wiegman and Darnell for Oswald to do this and that, I would like to point out that there was also plenty of time between those clips for Sarah Stanton (aka "Prayer Man") to have turned towards Frazier the 70 or so  degrees that she did, and that, interestingly enough, she must have done that right about the time that a crying Gloria Calvery came by the steps and announced that JFK had been shot.  Something for Stanton and Frazier to talk about, indeed.



 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[John Butler]

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.

[Thomas Graves]

30 minutes ago, John Butler said:

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.

 

Dear John,

 

It seems as though the name "Sarah Stanton" is anathema to you in this conversation.

--  T.G.

 

PS  Alteration, Smalteration

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Davidson]

On 5/6/2018 at 8:46 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

 

In the meantime, I have prepared a better version:

 

 

 

 

 

Andrej,

This graphic has been scaled so the measuring increments (at left of the rightmost Oswald) equal 1inch per one increment = 69 increments/inches = the 7.5 blocks.

The thin blue lines(at right) slice Oswald into 8th's.

Can you tell us what the inseam length is on Oswald and what you used as your endpoints?

Below is another forum where somebody is talking about inseams in regards to cycling:

https://www.bikeforums.net/2153505-post31.html 

[Andrej Stancak]

Chris:

I have not evaluated or measured the height of inseam in my model or in Lee Harvey Oswald because wearing loose slacks precludes seeing the perineum which is a prerequisite for measurement of inner leg length. We cannot have precise measurement of the height of inseam from the photograph I posted. However, I was able to align the approximate "inseams"  on the pictures above by drawing horizontal lines which cross through the homologous points on the Poser mannequin and Lee Oswald's figure. The line which is the closest to inseam is the horizontal line between the one crossing the waist and  the one crossing the knees.

I am not sure why did you draw the 8-division lines. The second blue line from the top should delineate the face but it does not. Thus, 7 1/2 works better than 8 because the height of the head (if known) can be used to extrapolate the body height in absence of clear view of the full body. Do I miss something?

[Chris Davidson]

Andrej,

I"m assuming the bottom of the lower block to the top of the upper block represents 69 inches.

The splice into 8th's should provide the approx mid-point in height for 69 inches. (My inseam is half my height. I'm 72.5 inches tall.)

The inseam on the mannequin appears to be approx 28 inches representing somebody who is 69 inches tall. (See bike link previous posting)

That seems quite low.

If you were to place the bottom of the lower block even with the tip of Oswald's shoe, the distance to the inseam on the mannequin now becomes 32 inches, much closer to the shortest inseam mentioned in the bike forum response for someone who is 69.5 inches tall.

 

 

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

I"m assuming the bottom of the lower block to the top of the upper block represents 69 inches.

The splice into 8th's should provide the approx mid-point in height for 69 inches. (My inseam is half my height. I'm 72.5 inches tall.)

The inseam on the mannequin appears to be approx 28 inches representing somebody who is 69 inches tall. (See bike link previous posting)

That seems quite low.

If you were to place the bottom of the lower block even with the tip of Oswald's shoe, the distance to the inseam on the mannequin now becomes 32 inches, much closer to the shortest inseam mentioned in the bike forum response for someone who is 69.5 inches tall.

 

 

 

 

Chris:

I fully agree that the "inseam" in Lee Harvey Oswald is very low. The point is that we do not measure the inseam height as you, myself or people on the cyclist forum would do by measuring the inner length of their legs (from the sole of the foot or from the ankle). We cannot do it on the NO PD photograph because Lee Oswald wore pants which were not tailored to copy his legs; instead, they create a bag and move his pants "inseam" very low. I can lift his inseam but cannot simulate the hanging pants in Poser, and actually, what matters is how Lee looked with his pants on. My original mannequin had inseam close to 50%  and the hight of inseam was suggested the Poser program. Poser had it certainly right, however,  a mannequin with shorter legs than an average man fitted the Darnell still much better. I took it as one more hint that Prayer man could be Lee Harvey Oswald. 

I will prepare two more mannequins by pushing the inseam in two steps (about 2 and 4 inches ) higher and would be grateful if you could have a look and say which would be the best. However, I assume that I am not modeling Lee Oswald's true inseam height (because I cannot measure the length of his inner leg)  but rather the  "pants inseam", the one we see in his NO PD photograph and which is much lower than his true inseam.

What I also can do is to model a reasonable inseam (e.g., 32 inch) and then sculpt his pants to drag a portion of the pants down to reproduce his NO PD figure. However, this can only be done outside Poser.

Thanks for taking time to analyse the inseam problem, I really appreciate. I am postponing the final export into Sketchup, which is a lengthy process, till agreed what height of the inseam would be optimal.

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Andrej Stancak