REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Beowulf at July 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM

Thanks for answering Andrej's question for me. And I'd suggest to Andrej it's worthwhile reading that thread from the beginning, as the saying goes, Sean Murphy is dropping truth bombs like its the end of days. :o)

"dropping truth bombs like its the end of days"

That is quite funny, Beowulf.

It deserves 3 Stans at least.

Andrej Stancak at July 21, 2015 at 4:21 PM

I have looked on Captain Fritz testimony and his notes once more. In my opinion, Captain Fritz actually knew about Oswald having a lunch in the doorway during the shooting, and he even tried to communicate this to the Warren Commision, although he was not persistent enough.

I have put some ideas to my blog:  http://astancakblog.blogspot.co.uk/ , however, here are two main points leading me to this interpretation:

1. The relevant part of Captain Fritz notes traditionally read as "out with Bill Shelley in front".  However, a more natural and logical woold be to read them as follows: "had lunch out" and "with Bill Shelley in front". That would be the Prayer Man - standing in the doorway and drinking&eating.

2. Captain Fritz, in accord with his notes, testified for the Warren Commission what Oswald told him about his whereabouts during the shooting: 1) Oswald was having lunch, 2) he was at a place where some (more than 1 or 2) employees were also present, 3) he saw all the excitement. Oswald could not see the excitement while staing in the 2nd floor, no signal there. There were no other employees in the 2nd room lunchroom during shooting as pretty everybody was out or hanging in south windows. The three points contained in Captain Fritz statements are met by somebody having a lunch in the doorway during the shooting - and that was the Prayer Man.

I am not sure If this observation already popped up in a previous comment of someone else, whch goes on the account of not having enough time to familiarise myself with all the good work of fellow researchers.

I think the notes should be read like this...

Claims 2nd floor coke when off...came in to 1st floor...had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front.

I think what LHO was articulating was that when he got off for lunch, he stopped on the second floor to buy a coke, proceeded to the first floor, retieved his lunch and took it outside where he saw all the excitement. I don't think he said anything about officer Baker. At least nothing Capt. Fritz put in the notes. JMHO

I think Mandrake is on to something, I for one believe that LHO told Capt. Fritz that he was on the stairs when JFK was shot, ofcourse they did not believe him but when the papers did print a photo of LHO ( Lovelady ) standing in the stairway, the FBI and SS got there fingers out and studyed the picture ,also they got a message about this picture from a photographer on one of the bigger papers in the US where he said that he had a picture of a person standing on top of the stairs ( PM ) but beore he got to show it to anybody the FBI was out talking to Lovelady and he told the papers that when he confirmed that th guy in the photo was him he could see a big smile on the agents faces, and a big big relief that he was the person in the first picture.

if Cpt Fritz meant...Claims 2nd floor coke when off (officer) came in...I think he would have abbreviated it "ofc" for officer or PO for police officer.

"Claims 2nd floor coke when off...came in to 1st floor...had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front."
Could be read as,

Claims second floor - Where the shots came from the Dal Tex bldg.
Coke when off - Snorts cocaine when not working. (or your take works too Mandrake, actually yours is best)
Came in to first floor had lunch - He ate in the domino room 1st floor.
Out with Bill Shelley in front - He went out to watch excitement stood on steps near Bill.


Anyways can you bolster this with Bookouts notes Mandrake?
Keep going!

Sean Murphy tackled this before in the Oswald Leaving the TSBD thread....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

Stan Dane at July 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM

Linda Z: There's a lot of discussion on cameras in this thread. On page 14, I'm holding my old Kodak Duaflex III which is similar to Oswald's and I can vouch - just checked this - I can vouch for the fact that when the view cover is raised, the top lens is like a flashlight when facing it!!!!!

 

PS: Loved your meme in your thread! You and Barto are going to put me out of business!

 

Hi Stan! This is the first i've been on this particular thread (ended up here by accident...don't ask me how...i was multitasking and had 20 tabs open! LOL!) and i just found and read your post above! Sorry i'm replying to your comment several months late!  

I want to to thank you for this little tidbit...which answers an important question about my research i've had for a month or more now (my emphasis with the unlining etc...):  

Linda Z: There's a lot of discussion on cameras in this thread. On page 14, I'm holding my old Kodak Duaflex III which is similar to Oswald's and I can vouch - just checked this - I can vouch for the fact that when the view cover is raised, the top lens is like a flashlight when facing it!!!!!

About a month or so ago,  Robt Prudhomme posted a comment - in a very snarky way - about my PM/IR620 research over in a thread on the EF. I was so shocked, I've not replied to him because frankly i've been too pissed, not about the idea he put forth (which is excellent!) but about what he said after that (i'll get to that) which was a huge slam on me, my intelligence and my integrity!  

The thrust of what he said was that the "reflex light" we see eminating from the reflex lens is NOT - as i had postited - COMING IN THROUGH the reflex lens and being reflected, via the 45 degree angle mirror, partially UP to the viewfinder AND partially back OUT THROUGH THE REFLEX LENS. He said it had to be COMING DOWN FROM ABOVE THROUGH THE VIEWFINDER, striking the 45 degree mirror, and being reflected OUT through the reflex lens. 

As soon as i read it i thought "AH HA!!!! That's entirely possible!!"  That had never even occurred to me when i was doing my research!  I was and am totally open to considering that possibility - but since i don't own a TLR i couldn't do the little experiment necessary to prove that is what was happening -  I needed somone w/ a TLR to close the viewfinder hood and see if the bright white light from the reflex lens ceased.

Well, thank you, my man!! You just answered my question!! And this proves that Robert is correct - the light is coming DOWN THRU THE VIEWFINDER and going out!  I must revise my theory, here and now! So, as you said "when the view cover is raised, the top lens is like a flashlight", conversely if the hood is closed the reflex lens will go black.

OR...if the photographer has his/her head bowed down over the viewfinder tightly to get a close look at it, as we often see PM, and other TLR photographers doing - a great deal of that incoming light could be blocked out partially - to entirely, so the reflex light emitted would become dimmer to nonexistent! And indeed, here are a few examples of that i had included in my PM/IR620 photo file! The reason i had posted them in the first place was to demonstrate the numerous TLR holding stances people use (i had heard many people saying TLR's are held at waist level! Not so! The stances are as varied as necessary!) I didn't even notice the lack of light from the lens at the time!
 


There you see they are completely blocking the light from above - so the reflex lense is BLACK!  

And, was it you Stan, or someone else here that did a little experiment for me with his TLR a month or 2 ago, and had  his son standing in his south facing entry way (in Australia) with his camera to see how the reflex light changed  with various angles of the camera to the viewer.  Well, he didn't see any reflex light at all! Which totally baffled me, as i know this phenomenon exists! Well, now it's apparent why that happened!! Yes, he was facing south toward the sun but he was standing in deep shadow in that entryway and it looked like there was a lot less reflected light in his entryway than in the TSBD entryway (as seen in Darnell) - AND there were NO lights on in the ceiling of the entryway as at the TSBD which, i  know now is where the reflex light comes from - ABOVE or behind and above and down thru the viewfinder! So ...that explains that conundrum! Hurray! 

Back to PM - sometimes we see PM's light is very dim (as in Wiegman) - yet that round white light is still there. This is for several reasons. He is standing in dim light compared to the other TLR cameraman on the steps (Molina, IMO) who is standing down a step or 2  in strong sunlight. We even see him trying to shade his eyes with his one hand while he looks down thru the viewfinder. That being said - the doorway/landing may not be as bright as where Molina is standing, but it is NOT dark as a tomb like appears in Wiegman! (That must have to do with Wiegman's film speed, camera settings or something, because in DARNELL, only seconds later, we can clearly see PM, Frazier etc...and the doorway is lit up with lots of reflected light!  So there is plenty of indirect, reflected light - if not direct light -  bouncing around that area!  Light that can be - and was - reflected down PM's viewfinder!  

ALSO, just behind and above PM, the ceiling light is on in the LOBBY (the one above the landing is OFF at this time). So he was getting some light from there as well.

The 2nd reason his light is relatively dim, is that he often has his head close to the hood to see the teensy viewfinder. He's looking south into the bright mid-day sun, then back down into the relatively shady area of the landing at a viewfinder and picture that is only 17/16" X 17/16" square! The size of an overgrown postage stamp!





It takes time for one's eyes to accomodate to this change in lighting - he didn't have much time as the motorcade passed by him giving him only a brief few seconds to snap photos. So, this is why we see him holding the camera up so high close to his eye most of the time, IMO. Efficiency! Or the ability to get pictures at all!

The 2nd TLR cameraman on the Steps (Molina, IMO) is standing out in the very bright sunlight to shoot. His light is absolutely brilliant! It even remains brilliant when we see, on extreme closeup, that his head is bowed down close to (but not completely blocking) the viewfinder. He is in such strong sunlight that his reflex lens light is still brilliant even though he's probably cutting off a great deal of the light to the viewfinder. I think this is because he is in such intense light AND we still see a gap between the hood of his camera and his forehead that the sunlight can, and is, reflecting off of and down into the viewfinder and out the reflex lens. IOW, his viewfinder is not totally covered as in the  3 photos i posted above. 

Now, the fact that the "reflex light" coming from PM's camera is taking a different route than i initially posited and is coming down thru the viewfinder,  in NO way invalidates the fact that this round, white light we see is coming from his TLR camera (his IR620)!  It's not a reflection from an apple, sandwich, waxed paper etc... And.... for godsakes! It's NOT from a pop bottle!  Really.... think about it!

We see him constantly holding this "thing" between his two hands and raising it to his face with 2 hands. Now....seriously people, who drinks like that?! That is just r*tarded! Who holds a bottle with 2 hands and raises it to their lips?!  Oh! BABIES DO! That's right... the only humans known to drink like that are babies holding their bottles or sippy cups! (And maybe recovering stroke victims!) Does anyone here think Oswald was at the sippy cup stage in life?! Or had recently had a stroke?! That alone should lay the "pop bottle" idea to rest once and for all. 

Now as I said, i haven't even replied to Robt's post at EF yet because i was sooooooo pissed at how he worded it!  Not at the suggestion of this new theory of where the light comes from - i'm quite open to that - but from how he stated it. Paraphrasing he said something like:

"Some people will do anything, even distort science to try to prove their pet theory they believe in!"  

The "some people" he referred to was ME! Grrrrrrrr........ First of all i am a very scientifically and mathematically inclined person and always have been. I was a biology major as an undergraduate an had TONS of chemistry, physics, statistics, calculus etc.... In working through my TLR theory I believed I was basing it on "science"! I had posted an optics diagram of a TLR camera with it's inner workings (mirror etc) and all the reflected light rays. In studying that schematic - i believed it showed that some of he light going in the reflex lens was reflected off of the 45 degree mirror and back out the "reflex lens" - which is always wide open  in a TLR, unlike a rangefinder camera, or a SLR or DSLR camera like we use today! I was not trying to "distort science" or make shit up - as he implied - to prove my PM/TLR  theory!  

And as i said above, his idea of where the light originates from and how it is reflected DOWN thru the viewfinder and out the reflex lens,  in no way invalidates the FACT that light is being reflected OUT of the reflex lens of the PM's TLR camera! Or that this is the source of the round, bright white we see between his hands, which are being held in his "prayer man" stance  - which is a a typical TLR holding stance - we could call it the "baby bottle stance" too!  

At any rate...i just wanted to correct the record on this... the light is coming from above down thru the viewfinder and is then reflected off the 45 degree mirror and out the reflex lens. Thanks for confirming this, Stan!

Ciao! 

PS: And thanks for the compliment on my meme! Glad you got a laugh out of it! I assume you mean the JFK, Jackie, Ethel photo with he TLR i changed up? 

This post is relevant for the idiots who think they can argue against.

Bumped solely for that reason!