"My New Thread"

[Andrej Stancak]

Can you measure the height of the step  - it needs to be 7 1/8''.  Please  place a 5'9'' column on the second step and a 5'2'' column on the top landing, and please keep the 6' one at Mr. Frazier's location. Then please show. It does not matter that you cannot make humans (this takes the most of time). You can indicate  using colour ) about 9'' 6/10 (or just 10'') as a square on the 6' column - this would correspond to Mr. Frazier's head. 

I wish that you stop accusing me of frauds immediately. These are serious accusations and you need to have a solid proof before saying it to the whole board. I expect your apologies. This cannot continue as if nothing happened.

[Andrej Stancak]

I have now checked your downloaded model and did what my  own model does. The height of the step in the downloaded model is 0.5 cm smaller compared to real measurements, however, this is a small difference. I have placed a person 5'2'' on the top landing (pink), another person 5'9'' on the second step (green) and Mr. Frazier as a white column (6'05''). The red rectangle on the while column corresponds to the size of Mr. Frazier head. The doorway is shown from approximate Darnell's perspective. The camera field of view needs to be on 16.

Where do you see any problem, any difference compared to my analyses? Please confirm that you can or cannot replicate what I have done with the downloaded model. Please note that if you draw a horizontal line through the bottom of the red square you meet the top edges of the two other columns.

 

 

 

[John Butler]

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.

[John Butler]

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.

Edited May 14, 2018 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

8 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I have now checked your downloaded model and did what my  own model does. The height of the step in the downloaded model is 0.5 cm smaller compared to real measurements, however, this is a small difference. I have placed a person 5'2'' on the top landing (pink), another person 5'9'' on the second step (green) and Mr. Frazier as a white column (6'05''). The red rectangle on the while column corresponds to the size of Mr. Frazier head. The doorway is shown from approximate Darnell's perspective. The camera field of view needs to be on 16.

Where do you see any problem, any difference compared to my analyses? Please confirm that you can or cannot replicate what I have done with the downloaded model. Please note that if you draw a horizontal line through the bottom of the red square you meet the top edges of the two other columns.

 

 

 

Andrej,

Can you double check the height difference between the top of the (red and green) columns in relationship to the height difference between (PM and Frazier)?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ia6AHXs9NlbXXPeXmz5dXJysiYCKag3C/view?usp=sharing

 

[Andrej Stancak]

Chris:

the doorway you overlayed is not my doorway. The doorway dimensions on the downloaded doorway are not correct. It is not my business to correct them. What the example shows is that when you draw columns of 6', 5''9'' and 5'2'', there will be a reproducible relationship between the columns such that the two shorter columns will match the line corresponding to the lower edge of the head on the tall column. The downloaded model is not suitable for an overlay of the kind you show. I will not spend any time on the downloaded doorway, sorry.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Davidson]

Andrej,

When I scale the blocks (337%) to coincide with the Oswald ruler at 100% (each increment representing 1 inch), BWF should be taller.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

Chris:

My intention with that doorway was not to be accurate. This was an approximate arrangement of columns to show that Prayer Man on the second step could not reach where he was shown in the post accusing me of a fraud. The blocks do not stand on the positions as they should in Darnell, the boxes should not be boxes because a box has a different depth than the head and is not rounded, and the view angle was only approximate. Sorry, but I will not develop anything around this example. You are wasting your time and I will not respond to this doorway model anymore.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Davidson]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/190JzmbnyCNkeLi7VdAAtyKqinCjXzkjK/view?usp=sharing

The steps are 7 inches heigh. 

The steps are 12 inches in depth.

The photos are taken approx 75 ft from the front step.

My wife is 70 inches tall.

I am 72.5 inches tall.

I raised my heel up to create an approx 3.5 inch difference between us.

 

 

[Guest]

On 5/14/2018 at 12:47 PM, John Butler said:

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.

Well said John, I mentioned Oswald standing one step down a few years back already which certain peeps took issue with, but besides Doyleisms thrown back at me without any effect or providing one iota of evidence as they had no expertise or plain common sense to process that info. And from the looks of it they still do not. Harping on and on with inferior quality imagery when better quality images are about. They even deliberately faked the images to such an extend purely to mislead others.

Great work Andrej, now just remove Shelley and Lovelady from those steps as per Darnell and you are pretty much spot on

[John Butler]

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]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

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. 

Thanks, John. I appreciate your interest. I will resume posting when I have the doorway model fitted with the "new" mannequin which is based fully on Lee Oswald's body proportions. In the meantime, I am enjoying reading posts in several very interesting threads on this Forum . I wish you the best of luck with your analyses.  

[Michael Walton]

People do not stand with one leg down for extended periods of time - it's a very unnatural thing to do. We simply do not know or never will know who that is on the stoop - we can continue to go back and forth with 3D animations and low-res extreme blow ups of pixelly images to claim it's a man or woman, Oswald or a female employee. But there is simply not enough hard evidence to prove that it's Oswald up there.

And no one seems to ask themselves the significant question because if they do, it will put doubt in their mind.  That question is:

If the plan was to murder Kennedy and set up Oswald to be the patsy, WHY would they allow their patsy to be out there during  these critical moments, risking the whole conspiracy? The planners knew that there was going to be cameras outside during the parade.  They most certainly wouldn't want the person they had set up to take the blame for the murder to be anywhere NEAR these cameras.

Of course, Andrej, Bart and John will totally ignore this because you DO have to take this into consideration, but instead they prefer to just ignore it and go on with their conspiracy belief that it's Oswald up there seconds after the shooting.

[John Butler]

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?

[Michael Clark]

17 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

Michael’s notion is seemingly plausible. 

This question that Michael Walton likes to repeat over and over and over, is largely ignored, for good reason. It assumes too much. Let's say Oswald took a holiday on 11-22. Do you think that the operation would have been  called-off? No-way. Likewise, the planners did not chain LHO down on the sixth floor, he was free to roam, and be off-base if it suited him. The cover-uppers worked with the pieces left over, and they were able to fit LHO in the scenario that became the Warren Report.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Michael Clark