Jump to content
The Education Forum

Andrej Stancak

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Andrej Stancak

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/02/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,788 profile views
  1. Thanks, Ray, for reading my posts and your comment. Here is a mold of the head wound prepared by Tom Wilson. According to Don Phillips's book "A deeper, darker truth", Tom worked on this 3D representation of Kennedy's head wound, that he was able to see in Mary Moorman picture, for three months. Tom allegedly scanned the picture in a similar way as a CT or an MR would scan the brain. I would love to know what parameters of lighting and recording was Tom changing, obviously in some systematic manner. The top panel shows the head wound (Tom's mold) whereby the missing space represents the lost tissue. This is a view posterior transversal view (as if you would have your eyes about behind the back of President's head and would look toward the wound. The right is on the right. The bottom panel is a 3D representation of the same wound (obtained from the same copy of Mary Moorman's picture) reconstructed from my experiments. Both reconstructions have a lot of common. There are two tunnels possibly due to two bullets or two fragments of one bullet, however, there is only so much detail one can extract from this image and it is also possible that one bullet caused one big wound with this geometry. The right tunnel is taller than the left tunnel but the left tunnel appears to be broader than the right tunnel. Both tunnels expand towards the rear. The two tunnels are separated by tissues which create a wall and that wall is orientated in about 15-20 degree angle toward the right. If the two holes and the tunnels would be due to to particles (bullets or bullet fragments), the right particle would likely continue straight backward and the left particle would go leftward toward the two motorcycle officers riding at the left fender of President's limo.
  2. To continue the exploration of President's head wound in Mary Moorman's picture and of course, to see if it would be possible to reproduce Tom Wilson's data, I made own photographic experiments by shooting Mary Moorman's picture under different light conditions (xenon flashes at 5 Hz with background light, produced by halogen lamps, varying in 5-s cycles) and recording video using a machine vision near-infrared camera. The camera has an expanded spectral range for wavelengths above visible light (>780 nm) up to about 1150 nm. I also use different optical band-pass filters. This is the setup which I currently use. The camera is the small gadget on the massive tripod in the right-hand side part of this picture. Here I would show data from plain recordings of Mary Moorman picture (no added lights) taken under a diffuse bright daylight using a slow frame rate of 10 Hz and allowing a long exposition time. These images have very little noise. Further, the recording was made using a 12-bit mono format yielding 4096 levels of grey instead of the standard 256 levels. This high dynamic range and recording images in the whole spectrum (up to about 1150 nm) allows to sample the levels of grey contained in the image with a much finer resolution of grey tones than a human eye can ever offer. Here is an example of such recording. The top panel is the digital copy of MM picture and the lower panel is a cropped view of the printed MM picture after averaging 20 s of recording (200 images). One can see more signal at the location of the wound compared to the original digital copy and a couple more details which I could show next time. This image as it is (so, no processing at all, just averaging the video frames) was then analysed using ImageJ program. One of the remarkable features of this program is that it allows to reconstruct the gradations of grey according to the brightness gradient and shows the gradations as a 3D volume. Here is a volume-rendered, brightness-coded (inverted), image of JFK's head in MM picture. Please note absence of any structure at a site which I delineated with red line in the lower picture. This is obviously the region where both the scalp and skull are missing. The blue line tentatively delineates the total damaged area. I took this volume reconstruction and placed it onto the intact head of President Kennedy to see where approximately the damage would be. The blue line shows the entire damaged area and the red line shows the deep hole spot. It is also possible to explore the detailed topography of the head wound. Here I prepared a coloured texture representation of the wound. In accord with Tom Wilson's data, there appear to be two tunnels expanding toward the rear suggesting exit of the missile. Whether there were two bullets (one entering in the frontal region of the head in the hairline behind and above the right eye and another in the right temporal region above and slightly in front of the right ear) or whether one bullet has split into two with each part causing one tunnel, I do not know. The JFKA pictures are often difficult to interpret. It may be useful to have a look on the natural structure of President's hair and copy some features onto MM picture. The picture below shows two natural paths in Kennedy's hair, traces of which can be recognised in the reconstructed MM picture. It is maybe only a detail but a useful one as it provides some orientation in what otherwise appears a non-structured mess in Mary Moorman's picture. The top pictures offers a full view of Kennedy's hair and the lower pictures contain lines corresponding to the two hair paths.
  3. Thanks, Ray, for posting Tom Wilson's findings related to Mary Moorman picture. Tom was even able to prepare a 3D mold fitting the head wound based on extensive analysis of this picture. While my work on Tom Wilson's method is still ongoing, I can share some findings which actually do not require Tom Wilson's method and yet support his work. First, I took a high-quality picture of President Kennedy that was recorded just briefly before the shooting (however, I do not know which film or picture was it). The picture was downloaded from a web site JFK Place (Deannie Richardson) which does not exist any longer but can be still visited via waybackmachine.org. This picture is the lower of the two in the montage below. The top picture is a cropped view of JFK and First Lady in a high-quality FBI version of MM. The bottom picture shows the President from a very similar angle as the MM picture while the head is intact. Therefore, I was able to cut the head from the bottom picture and overlay it onto MM. The purpose of this small exercise was to find out what are the true contours of JFK's head in MM and what would be the tissue loss in Kennedy's head in MM picture. The next picture shows overlays of MM and the intact head from the picture above at different rates. 0% means that MM does not penetrate into the picture with intact head and the increasing percentages point to a stronger propagation of MM from behind the intact head. The blending of 50% and 75% are especially useful for evaluation of the size of damage to President's head. In the context of this thread, the light-coloured flap on the right shoulder does not appear to be a part of President's body. I would not speculate at this stage about the origin of this shape.
  4. David: it may be too much to ask, however, many people who are seriously involved in analysis of JFK photographic materials would appreciate very much the possibility to work with a certified copy of Mary Moorman's picture. Unfortunately, this photograph circulates in too many versions on Internet and no one would dare to draw any conclusions from such copies not knowing which version is valid. If it would be possible, could you please have your negative of Mary Moorman be scanned digitally in colour mode (even if it is a black-and-white picture) with a resolution of at least 1200 dpi and saved in a TIFF format (in no case a jpeg format). One way of granting access to the digital copy of MM picture would be to post a link to Dropbox or a similar sharing service. The file, if prepared this way, may be very large (about 100 Mb) and could hardly be emailed. Thanks for considering my request.
  5. The conversation between Bill Lynch and James Curtis Jenkins in "At the Cold Shoulder of History" may be of relevance here. Bill Lynch used to assist at the autopsies at Bethesda morgue like Jenkins, however, November 22 was not Lynch's watch. The conversation raised the issues of a head block (Bethesda morgue did not use metal plates to support the head), tiles, the location of the phone and the stretchable phone cable. However, it seems that these two gentlemen discussed a different photograph than the one showed by David. It could be the photograph showing the President from the left profile. All in all, it seems entirely possible that the initial set of pictures (before the U incision was made on the chest) was taken somewhere else. Late edit: I just saw the picture posted by Sandy, that was the one I was thinking of.
  6. Scepticism is a healthy attitude which protects against unwarranted conclusions based on poor evidence. The real problem is the lack of proper description of image analysis method by Tom Wilson himself which would allow straightforward verification of his findings. Only retracing Tom's steps would allow to say whether Tom's findings, some or all, were sound. However, this is not an easy task. It is certainly easier to say that that I believe Tom's method or results were not sound than going to the bottom of it, studying the theory of photonics, Tom's archive, reading books which were in Tom's possession, analysing his interim digital data, setting up specific lights, evaluating which type of camera sensor would do the same job as Tom's camera, figuring out which of the current image analysis methods would be the closest to Tom's method, and a lot of experimenting and programming on top of it. Enter funds because the camera ,filters, lights, electronics and computer programs are expensive. I understand fully why people better say they do not believe in Tom's findings rather than attempting to reconstruct the method and replicating the findings.
  7. John: I only had a front view of Mrs Stanton's face and therefore, I could not sculpt all her facial and body features as you would wish. Mrs. Stanton was a huge lady, indeed, and this is reflected in her figure. You can say that her body looked like a body of a huge female you mentioned. I have contacted a member of Mrs Stanton family with a polite question if they would have some other pictures showing Sarah Stanton in her business clothes and from different angles, and I hope such pictures will be available in due course. This would allow to model Mrs Stanton even better than I managed to do so far. However, the exact facial features of Mrs Stanton are not required to test if a female like herself could stand in the space between Lovelady and Shelley and if there was, actually, any space between the two men. Altgens6 shows only a partial face of that person anyway. However, I am afraid that you misunderstood my work completely as your sentence "The Oswald figure with the Lovelady face mask is definitely a male" says. My video says that if you model Lovelady's face and his body according to his photographs (and I used the FBI pictures showing him both from profile and front), there will not be any disparity between Altgens6 and my model which validates the presence of Billy Lovelady at that spot (he only erred in saying that he had stood on the top step - he could not stand on the top step as my model shows). The extra patches near his face belong to another person but that person was real - it was not a photographic manipulation. I presented my video in a different thread and it may be more appropriate to continue the debate on my work there. On a more general note, to the best of my knowledge, there is no other way of learning about the locations and body postures of people in the doorway than the 3D modelling. It is near impossible to re-enact the photograph for many reasons, and just staring on Altgens6 does not give you any more information than you have. That said, I am amazed by the collective blindness of generations of researchers who failed to spot and properly investigate the bright oval object seen next to Billy Lovelady's face. I surely must look like a fool for spotting it and investigating it for five years. The usual reaction of researchers facing this finding is: "It cannot be there because I saw this picture so many times in the past and did not see it, so how can it be there?". Likewise, I could dismiss this shape by saying: "Thousands of people before me looked at the doorway in Altgens6 and no one said there was a bright object next to Lovelady's face, so I also do not see it, it is not there, it would have been reported long time ago". Anyway, this gives me some hope that other pictures may show similarly inconspicuous but clearly visible and maybe important details.
  8. While I would also like to voice my recommendation for being cautious in claiming manipulations with JFKA photos and films, there is also a scope for revealing details in old photographic documents using novel image analysis tools. Returning the thread to its origin, this is what Tom Wilson had in mind when he had applied his methods for non-destructive testing of materials to JFKA photographs. In fact, I believe that if there is any smoking gun out there, it would be in films and pictures because people back then in 1960' could not even figure out what information could be retrieved from visual data.
  9. Not really, I just had to respond to John's post in response to my post in which John wrote that Altgens6 was manipulated the same way as backyard photographs. I had to resist and this is how Altgens6 got into this thread.
  10. This essay provides as close as possible picture of the group of anti-Castro Cubans and CIA operatives that eventually embarked on the Kennedy assassination mission. The question is whether some members of AMWORLD also took part in actual shooting or were they just around to provide a likely but false lead? I was intrigued by the appearance of Hal Feeney in one of the photographs shown in the article because his head bears some similarity to the partial human figure discovered by Robert Groden in one of Dillard pictures. We have a thread about Hal Feeney on this Forum:
  11. This image is a 3D reconstruction of the doorway scene. Why would it be so bizarre? How else if not through the presence of a person standing behind Lovelady can you explain the bright oval object next to Lovelady face? And if you agree that the object was a partial face, there are only two candidate persons: Sarah Stanton and Pauline Sanders. The image you find bizarre refers to the preferred solution having Sarah Stanton as the person standing in the space between Shelley and Lovelady. Not sure why do you find it bizarre.
  12. John: I analysed Altgens6, at least the critical section of the doorway, for a long period of time. Initially, I was also tempted to interpret any intriguing aspect of Lovelady's figure as an alteration. However, when you think there was tampering with a photograph, you need to employ more questioning and testing: could a particular feature which looks so strange be actually explained naturally? I hope I was able to explain every single aspect of Altgens6 doorway in my 3D reconstruction of Algens6 as being natural and unaltered. If you have any doubts about Altgens6, please describe them step by step using a high-quality version of Altgens6 and please test alternative explanations before jumping to the simple conclusion of Altgens6 being altered. Here is a link to my Atgens6 video once again in case you have missed it.
  13. Jonathan: Tom had the best copy of Mary Moorman's picture (made from a negative which FBI took from a fresh Mary Moorman's picture) and the best quality Fox pictures related to President's autopsy (possibly from Dr Wecht). Tom received images to analyse from Oliver Stone and Oliver Stone had access to superb copies of many JFKA images. I am not sure about the backyard pictures, however, those were given to Tom by Jack White and they surely were the best pictures of that sort available. Tom did some very initial analyses (in 1988) on pictures he made from video tapes, however, later he had access to high-quality copies of JFKA pictures. He was very much aware about the necessity to use good copies of images for his analysis.
  14. Please find here Tom Wilson's analysis of the 133-B backyard photograph from the book A Deeper, Darker Truth by Don Phillips.
  • Create New...