Frank Agbat

John, I think you've got the right turn spot-on in this MRI image, and I agree that there is probably more front-back tilt. The "block" is probably near the hairline. I believe that large, thick bone you have emphasized on the back of the MRI is the bone seen in the lower left of the BE7 photo as we have it oriented on this post. However, I want to emphasize that with my current line of thought, that I do NOT place the BE7 "thick bone on lower left" down by the hairline, but rather higher up the skull.

John, I ran out of steam last night after messing around with Jack White's fake Z-Frame. Here is an animated GIF showing the effects of the equalization process on this particular image. Of course, the one displayed here is too small to work with -- it is included to show the areas in question. My photobucket page has the equalized version in the same size as the one you originally provided. I'm out of image space, so I'm going to have to clear out some of my CD pictures. I can put them on photobucket if you still have use for them.

Bill, I'll give this one a go, too. 1 -- (A robin feathering) -- you've pointed this one out for us. 2 -- Penguins are ever so slightly transparent. 3 -- Mary and Bert's feet are not quite fully gounded on the floating turtles. The gap between shell and foot changes, with Bert's foot subtlely sinking into the shell at one point... 4 -- I'm not 100% sure on this one, but the bird's lower beak is shadowed or translucent in the first frame, open in the second. 5 -- Looks to me like the matte and cut around Mary shows some bedspread where there shouldn't be bedspread. 6 -- You've noted most of them on this picture. Why, oh why, did Mary have to punch that poor cow?? Oh -- and Bert's cane has been moved (probably by Gerald Ford) to support the Government's "Da Sheep Done It" theory (Single Baaaa Theory?). The presence of a shadowy hen in the foreground clearly shows a barnyard conspiracy.

Jack, Good one with Toni Foster. Now that you mention it, and I look at the gif I did again, her size change is noticeable. I just didn't catch it the first time around. I noticed something was going on with Greer/Kellerman, but wasn't quite sure what you had actually done to make the change. One point we should all take away from this exercise, whether or not you believe alteration was possible and/or occurred, is that the evidence MUST be looked at with a critical and careful eye and that there are multiple ways to end up with the same result. It is also important to understand how our brains process images, and this exercise brought forth several examples of that (I would NOT have noticed the height changes in Moorman and Hill without looking very closely. One was made shorter, the other taller, but due to their orientation and proximity to one another, the brain might dismiss the changes as a "net zero" and overlook this form of alteration). I had a lot of fun with the exercise -- thank you for providing it. Regards, Frank

John, Equalizing the image, while increasing some inevitable jpg artifacting, also helps reveal some additional background features. I take special interest in the lower left portion of the picture where what might be a block object is visible. (I'm almost out of space, so I'm going to dump larger images up to photobucket for the time being) http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fra...at/0d505aac.jpg No -- your starting point isn't silly. It is proper procedure to cover the basics. That way, there are common and agreed starting points. Well begun is half done, as Mary Poppins would say! Yes -- the wound is somewhere on the head, and I believe it is safe to say that we are looking at a portion of the head. ** Every time I look at this picture, I get different notions of things... I'm just going to "think outloud" for a few lines and see what everyone thinks. 1 -- Tonight, with the equalized image, I think that the head may be situated more-or-less as it was in the stare-of-death photo-- face up. 2 -- The head is tilted slightly to the right. The reflected scalp runs ear to ear, and it is higher on the left side of the picture. 3 -- The picture is taken from the left, looking right, so we are seeing the right hemisphere but the shadow and light falloff obsure most of the left. Also, this is supported by the reflected scalp looking much more intact on the left of this photo. 4 -- the "ear to ear" cut to initiate the scalp reflection did NOT run right across the skull cap, but appears to have run posterior of that (maybe halfway up from the hairline in the back). I say this because the I believe that the right ear is visible on the right of this photo (perhaps just down and left a bit from the drain hole). The forward reflection already shows scalp material, so I think that they stopped near the top of the head to take this photo. 5 -- I believe that this does not show the whole wound well, as the slight skew of the head, the angle of the photo, and the closeness of the lens to the head obscures some of the additional wounding in the right anterior. 6 -- I think the white piece (almost triangular) jutting out on the right, and showing evidence of hair is NOT the president's cheek as the other author indicated, but is the "wing" that shows up over the ear in some other shots. 7 -- I'm working on a way to show that this orientation can be shown to be consistent with the AP X-ray, and that we're looking mostly at parietal bone. There are two features that I believe support this conclusion. I will attempt to post something that shows what I think I see... 8 -- the hairline itself is not visible. However, I believe that we are looking at the hairline from the inside, so to speak. ** I'm very tired and may not be making much sense!

Jack, I have to have a break for a few hours. I'll return to this in detail then. For now, looks to me like various layered cutpaste feather flatten equalisations. I need to look in detail later. Possibly some parts just shifted in various ways. How detect. Put a transparent negative over a positive and that which is the same goes uniformely gray. Even just a single pixel out of place will jump out at you. Thanks, John...an ingenious method. Unfortunately, though I have PhotoShop, I never use it, and the program I use cannot do LAYERS, or I might have figured how to do it as you did. You detected most of the MAJOR alterations. At a larger size you might have detected the rest of them. I did not think about the possiblity of detecting ALL the alterations at one time. You are correct that I just copied and pasted. I was tempted to put Mary Moorman IN THE STREET, but that would have been TOO obvious. I did not do "feather flatten equalizations" and would not know how. It was ALL copy and paste, move and resize. Thanks for your expertise. Jack Photoshop has the built-in capability to create a resulting image that is the difference between two layers. Anyway -- I'm always interested in topics such as this, so I came up with a list of stuff that I found (an animated GIF also comes in handy. I'd post it but I'm nearly out of space...) 1) Mary Moorman has been made taller in the fake 2) Mary Moorman has moved slightly to her left (our right) 3) Jean Hill has been made shorter 4) JBC has been moved more toward the rear of the limo 5) JBC's wife has also been moved more towards the rear of the limo 6) Driver's orientation/position changed 7) Kellerman's position changed (shadows etc. for 4,5,6,7 corrected to match new orientation) 8) Female witness in tan coat has been moved to our right (shadow corrected to match) 9) Three following witnesses (torso-less) have been moved to our right (shadow corrected) 10) One additional following witnesses feet appear in the fake, as does his shadow 11) Two additional witness shadows added near the top of the frame, angles correct, etc. 12) As a result of these operations, several black-spots / blemishes have been cleaned up. EDIT: here is a link to photobucket with the animated GIF comparing the two: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fra...at/970a9e5d.gif

Robin, There seem to be any number of images circulating around out there. Some are better than others, and some are cropped. I had a cropped version where it was very hard to see the drain holes. The uncropped version that John posted makes it much easier to see. John, *If* the same camera was used to take the "blowout" wound photo as was used to take the others, then I'm reasonably certain that we have the *photo* orientation correct (based on lighting, etc, etc.). Now we need to understand how the head could be placed on rest or on a block to show these features. There are any number of possible tilts, turns, leans, etc, that could have been used to expose this wound for photography.

John, Would it be possible to post one that does not include the distortion correction? Also -- this link was posted in another thread: http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000033.htm I would be interested to hear your comments on it.

John, I agree. Additional review indicates that your orientation is more consistent, in my opinion. I believe the photographer was attempting to photograph the cavity. However, the picture center is above the cavity, and with the flash being above and to the right of the lens, the majority of the light ended up hitting bone and reflected scalp -- leaving the cavity largely in darkness. I now need to re-visualize the head orientation that makes this picture possible.

John -- honestly, I'm not sure what the curved gap is. I'm still hunting to see if I can obtain a better image that is not cropped. However, I'm of the opinion that there are only two possible orientations for this picture based upon the lighting characteristics. One is the one you posted, and this one is the other. The difference is a vertical flip of the image. Both seem fairly consistent in terms of lighting and shadow on a cursory inspection. I'm sure something subtle, but telling, will reveal the ultimate answer.

Based on the theory from my previous posting, I'm considering the following orientation for the infamous picture: Some comments: 1 -- consistent with previous hypothesis, this places the lighter portion, generally on the right hand side of the picture. 2 -- the photograph is taken too close to the subject. The reflected scalp present in the lower left hand portion of this picture is TOO CLOSE to the lens to be in focus 3 -- the bright area in the bottom right of the picture is closer to the lens than the areas above it. It is catching more light AND is less in focus. 4 -- the President is face DOWN in this picture, and his head is rotated slightly. (From his perspective, he would be 'looking' slightly leftward 5 -- the photograph is taken from the left of centerline relative to the head, and is looking slightly downward. This places the drainhole in the correct location. 6 -- the angle of the photograph obscures the undamaged left hemisphere of the head 7 -- the reflected scalp is blocking our view of the right ear **** I will post some overlay pictures later, or tomorrow, depending on how the rest of my afternoon/evening unfolds.

Okay -- I'm certainly not done with this analysis, but I'm feeling fairly certain that the hypothesis I'm about to present is sound. If it holds up to scrutiny, then I believe it (along with the other concepts we have been discussing) will lead us to the proper orientation of all the autopsy photographs. Hypothesis: We can use the principles of light to ascertain the physical and operational characteristics of the camera employed for the photographs. From this, we can apply this principle to orient those pictures that create confusion. To illustrate, and hopefully prove this theory, I have included a picture that bears certain characteristics that should be fairly easy to agree upon. The following annotated picture illustrates what I am attempting to prove: 1 -- the camera uses a flash assembly that is above the center line of the lens (a fairly common configuration) 2 -- the flash is mounted on the right hand side of the lens (right from the photographer's perspective) 3 -- the shutter speed is fixed at 1/60th second when in flash mode (fairly common mode of operation) 4 -- the camera is operating with a fairly open aperture, and has an expectedly short depth of field Please consider the following: The green intersecting lines represent the center of the picture, and are very likely to represent the lens' center axis line. A -- Note the bright reflection to the left of marker A. This is the flash reflecting back off of a metal object . The reflection is above and to the right of the centerline. Additionally, the metal object in the distance is out of focus, supporting the notion of a wider aperture and a shorter depth of field. B -- The reflection from the holding bracket is to the left of the bracket itself, indicating a right-hand light source. C -- This shoulder is brightly lit -- expectedly so since it is closer and more on-axis with the flash. Also note the lateral elongation of the drainage hole below marker C. The fact that it is stretched significantly in the right-left direction indicates that the camera is not elevated substantially above this line. This is confirmed by the centerline in the photograph. D -- This shoulder is darker (less light) and features a shadow which is cast by the head. Again, the location and shift of this shadow confirms that the light that produced it came from the right and slightly above. Both shoulders are also out of focus, while the top of the head is well focused. This leads to the conclusion that the depth of field for this photograph is less than 12 inches. E -- Although this may be patently obvious, with this case *nothing* should be left to assumption. These are blood drops which fell down onto the cloth. Blood drops do not fall up, or sideways, so this should confirm that we are looking at this photograph with the correct orientation. F -- Notice the light fall-off on this side as opposed to marker B. To me, this not only assures right-sided flash, but also indicates that the reflector used for the flash is fairly narrow. Additional unlabeled features that bolster the hypothesis: The right side of the nose is brighter than the left (indicating right-side light), yet the tip of the nose is also well lit (indicating a raised light source.) The fact that the shoulders cast shadow onto the table also supports (but does not solely confirm) a slightly elevated light source. ******* If these statements are considered to be sufficient proof of the camera and flash characteristics, I believe we can apply the same principles to the other pictures to produce proper orientation.

Hi John, I'll try to take some pictures later today that better illustrate another distortion added by camera lenses as it relates to distance. In short: items closer to the lens generally appear artificially larger, and may experience other distortions due to the construction of the lens. A common distortion is "fisheye". Other common issues when the lens is placed too close to its target include overexposure of some or all of the photo due to excess light provided by the flash. Still another problem is near objects may be too close for the lens to focus (if it is not a macro lens). Lenses have both a maximum AND a minimum distance from which they can focus. I believe that this photo exhibits most of these characteristics. Picture B from my CD grid shows this concept a bit. The meterstick appears to be wider on the top (right hand side of the picture) and narrows as it nears the floor. This, obviously, is not the case. The meterstick is the same width throughout. --------- Another thought: The proposed orientaton of the head relative to the round rails that you presented ends up placing the head at the corner of the table. I'm not sure that this necessarily matches up with expected reality. If one assumes that the purpose of this photo was to show the avulsed area of the skull and to provide scale (via the terribly overexposed ruler), then the body would have to be rolled (face up, face down, perhaps neck twisted) so as to allow the doctors to reflect the scalp and access the wound. In other words, the body could be laying on its back, but the head facing left and placed on a block (right-side up orientation). We need to consider how the doctors would have oriented the head and body to best inspect the wound. On your software concept: I believe this approach to be sound, as long as the software is provided accurate information. Newer 3d modeling and animation software is *very* good at perspective, projections, and the like.

Preliminary 'final' using above. Here with background peripheral items (table, prop, towel, floor...) separated from the actual body parts. One thing I will say about the picture: I'm looking at it from the perspective of exposure, and depth of field. Knowing what type (make & model) of camera was used would be helpful, especially where the flash mounts to the camera. I'm going to guess that this camera syncs to the flash with a shutter speed of 1/60 second (a fairly common sync speed). The lens does not appear to be a macro lens, and the depth of field is fairly short -- indicating a more open aperture (f2.8, f4?). I'll have to do some digging -- the camera was discussed during the HSCA, I think.

John, I'm certainly not at a "conclusion" state on much of anything yet. Still assembling some concepts and ideas and trying to increase understanding. Today has been fortunate in some regards, and less so in others. I have been fortunate enough to get access to some equipment that may help us understand the wounds a bit better in addition to helping with the photographic analysis. I managed to get some preliminary work started during the day, and had planned to use the evening on some initial, presentable materials. However, most of my evening has been unintentionally consumed on other, non-productive endeavors. Such is the way of things, sometimes. Regards, Frank

Okay -- sorry for the delay in posting this -- work beckoned (loudly). Here is a "quick and dirty" 2D diagram that will describe the elevation above the floor and the angle of the lens: (this example shows the 45-degree angle, but the trig is essentially the same for the 25-degree flavor.) The rules of trigonometry tells us that: sine(45 degrees) = length of "opposite side" (height) divided by the length of the hypotenuse (the ruler) so: sine(45 degrees) = height / 1.0 meters solving this equation for height gives us a camera height of about 0.707 meters (about 70cm above the ground). For the 25-degree angle picture: sine(25 degrees) = height / 1.0 meters solving this gives us a camera height of about .423 meters (about 42 centimeters above the ground).

Hi John, I did not use the viewfinder on the camera to create alignment. I used the LCD preview screen and attempted to center the image that way. The viewfinder, however, WOULD introduce parallax errors , as it is not a TTL (through-the-lens) viewfinder. However, the LCD preview screen IS looking through the lens, so it provided better results. There *is* a slight centering error on this image, but only in one direction (it appears to be aimed a tad low). I attribute this to two possible causes: 1 - image cropping done by the camera itself (the LCD image is slightly smaller than the actual image produced). 2 - my intense focus on getting the angle relative to the x-axis correct. Another item of interest: the camera's flash is not centered above the lens. This is actually noticeable if you compare the green lens-vector with the flash reflection in the CDs -- they diverge ever so slightly. You asked: EDIT:: let me guess, you used a tripod and it is one meter off the floor? No -- the camera is only precisely 1 meter off the floor in picture D. In the other pictures, the hypotenuse (the ruler) is precisely 1 meter. We must use the Pythagorean theorem (or trigonometry) to compute height. I'm working up an example -- will post shortly...

...and while I'm producing confusion.... Here is image G with some lines and notes added. The red lines represent reference X and Y axis. The blue lines outline the grid. The green line shows the "skew" of the camera relative to the Y axis (no skew would produce a straight-on shot, like in D and F). (for you purists, the green line would be the lens vector's projection onto the XY plane) If I placed these same lines on the overhead shot, the blue box would be a perfect square, and the red lines would be oriented like a plus sign (+). (Also note the artifacting and color bleeding on my lines and letters. This is due to jpg artifacting and loss, and is why it is so important to always work from the best quality digital scans you can get!)

John, Yes -- I'm reviewing that thread with great interest. Here is an "uncropped G" -- complete with background chair and coffee spill in the background! (at some point, I should re-do these with more precise equipment, etc, etc. however, the opportunity presented itself this morning so I went ahead). Note -- the ruler isn't pointing to the center CD -- it is running parallel to the centerCD-lens vector, but it is offset by the width of the camera. More for reference and angle than anything else. Regards, Frank

John, I'm not 100% sure that I follow your question... (is the term you are looking for perhaps "vector"?) The camera lens in these pictures is always aimed directly at the center hole of the center CD in the 5x5 grid and is always 1 meter away (except for the overview picture, which was just to show the layout). And, because we are dealing with 3d space, I will have to give angles relative to one or more planes. B, C, D, and F are simpler -- only one angle is being introduced: Picture B: The camera lens is 90 degrees (perpendicular) relative to the floor (which is our X-Y plane). The vector representing the patch of light from the center of the lens to the center of the cdgrid has only a changing z component (it is straight up and down) Picture C: The lens angle is approximately 45 degrees. The "lens to cd vector" in this case has both a Z and an X component, but no changing Y component. Picture D: The lens angle is approximately 45 degrees relative to the floor plane. The "lens to cd vector" in this case has both a Z and an Y component, but no changing X. So the lens is above floor level, pointing downward at the center CD at a 45 degree angle. Picture F: The lens vector angle is approximately 25 degrees relative to the floor plane, with the same parameters as D. Picture E: This is more complex to describe. The angles in question are both approximately 45 degrees. The lens is looking DOWN at 45 degrees and LEFT 45 degrees. Picture E: As in E, this is a more complex view. The angles in question are both about 25 degrees. Down 25 degrees, RIGHT 25 degrees (approximately). (I did the best I could to maintain the angles).

Tom, ...So you're basically saying that the WC got it right?

Could we get this absolutely clear. I think it might be important. If one keeps the angle of the lens the same but moves closer so that z is the same but x changes on c then one is the same distance from the plane of the cd's but the lens captures the image differently so that the 'distortions' are different. So the 'centered in one dimension' becomes a statement I cannot understand. Could you explain what you mean , please. John, I'll try for a better explanation! First -- just to make sure that we are talking about the same axis and plane references. Take your left hand, stick your thumb straight up in the air, extend your index finger away from you (this forms the child's 'gun with your hand' position). Lastly, take your second finger and point it to the right. Your thumb (up and down) is the Z axis. Your Index finger (away and toward you) is the Y axis. Your second finger (left and right) is the X axis. In image C, the camera's Y-axis coordinate remained unchanged and was over the center of the CD grid. That is what I meant by 'centered in one dimension' -- the Y axis value was unchanged. The Z coordinate reduced, while the X coordinate increased. By using the meterstick, I was able to make sure that the lens was always 1 meter from the center CD. (the meter stick is the hypotenuse of the triangle) Going back to the autopsy table -- this would be a picture shot from overhead, but with the camera off-center and tilted to get the lens pointing back at the center of the table. In image D, the camera's X-axis coordinate remains fixed (with the center of the grid), and the Y and Z axis values change accordingly (again, the meter stick is the hypotenuse). This is the effect of someone standing at the head of the autopsy table. The camera would be centered left-to-right on the table, but the person taking the picture is taller than the table height, so the camera is tilted down to take the appropriate image.

Hi John, There really isn't any different other than orientation between C & D. In retrospect, I could have skipped C!

I understand (all too well) the connundrums at work here... I'm still struggling with them. Boiled down, though, they come out to: 1 - I don't see the rear avulsion in Zapruder, either. I see skull shape distortion -- perhaps this is even more noticeable in Nix, but I honestly don't see the "blowout" that is frequently mentioned. Bill Miller frequently cites this as being fairly obvious, and I have tremendous respect for Bill's knowledge and experience, but I just don't see the blowout/rear avulsion on Zapruder. I'm not exactly untrained or inexperienced in the fields of photography and physics, and I think I have a reasonably astute eye. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong area or am locked-in on an unimportant feature while missing a major one. I just don't know -- my mind is certainly open on the subject. 2 - At the same time as I don't see the blowout, I also see (very clearly) the blood splatter patterns that Sheri Gutierez discussed on Lancer (and that Bill has shown with the tomato picture). 3 - The autopsy photos and x-rays lead me in the direction of Pat's conclusions. They *seem* consistent with the z-film. I agree with Pat, that if these photos/x-rays are genuine, the angles and trajectory to the TSBD for all shots is utterly destroyed. 4 - At the same time, I cannot dismiss the eyewitness testimony. It is too "Warrenlike" (to coin a phrase) to take a fairly large, well-documented collection of witnesses and proclaim them "in error." It is reasonable to assume that some of them probably *are* mistaken or confused (or there is a terminology problem at work), but *all* of them falling into this category is statistically unlikely. 5 - I have not yet come up with a plausible explanation for the back and to-the-left motion. I've *never* seen anything like that (outside of hollywood). 6 - If there was a shot from the front (traditional north knoll location), why wasn't there left-hemisphere damage to JFKs skull (unless the bullet went in, bounced around a bit, and came back out in the same direction it entered)? Likewise, a shot from the TSBD should cause massive forhead/eye socket damage, which also is not indicated by *either* pictures or witnesses. 7 - I've never seen a good 3-d diagram considering a south-knoll shot, so I cannot fully comment on it. This theory strikes me as under-researched, but that could be my own relative newness in this field. **** So, there *has* to be an explanation. The event occurred -- of this, there is no doubt. If I were working on this as a science project, I would consider a few things: 1 -- the working hypothesis may be wrong. 2 -- the information used in testing the hypothesis may be wrong or corrupt. 3 -- the information used may be incomplete. 4 -- the interpretation of the results may be flawed.

John, I really hope this post adds, rather than detracts, from the discussion at hand... Photography is, essentially, the projection of a 3d object (or objects, of course) onto a 2D surface. Because one cannot go from 3d to 2d without, essentially, loss of information, there will always be something that is "sacrificed" when the picture is taken. One dimension (or more) will be compromised in some way, as is required by the projection. Our brains are well-versed, however, in dealing with this concept. It uses shading, coloring, light fall-off, converging lines, etc, to establish and, effectively, recreate the "errored" dimension. *** I had the opportunity to take some pictures that might (hopefully!) illustrate some of these notions... I needed some round objects arranged in a grid. Lacking anything better, I created a grid from some old CDs. They're round objects, manufactured with reasonable tolerances, etc, etc, and should do a decent job of illustration. I have a meter-stick included in the photographs to force scale and perspective. All are taken with a fixed zoom lens, all from the same distance. I'll discuss each pic below. (When I refer to the X-Y plane, think of it as the floor, with the Z-axis extending upward). A. A overview of the 5X5 CD grid, taken from more-or-less overhead. B. Overhead shot of the grid taken from directly above the center from a distance of 1 meter. All the CDs retain their circular shape. In this case, two of the three dimensions are nearly perfectly intact. Note however, that depth is lost, in reality. We *know* that the meter stick is standing vertically... or do we? Is it a meterstick standing vertically, or a v-shaped piece of wood that I laid on top of the CDs from left to right? Well, in this case, it is standing vertically (converging lines, light falloff, etc, helps our brain with this one). This picture can be said to be taken from a position that is perpendicular to the X-Y plane of the grid. C. In this picture, I started from the position in shot B and skewed the camera to the right approximately 45 degrees. The camera is still looking down on the grid, and is centered in one dimension. The distance from lens to center of grid is again 1 meter. D. In this picture, I started form position B and moved the camera down -- reduced the z-axis (height above grid) value -- and decreased the y-axis value (moved toward the front of the grid). The angle above the X-Y plane in this picture is about 45 degrees, while remaining perpendicular with the Y-Z plane. In other words, I'm shooting at the center of the grid from the front and above. Distance is 1 meter. As expected, in this picture, two distortions become obvious. Lines which should be more or less parallel (the edges of the grid) noticeably converge in the distance, and the roundness of the CDs becomes distorted and oval -- in this case, they stretch in the x-axis directions and compress in the y-axis direction. E. This picture starts from position D and is taken from the right front of the grid looking left. The angle relative to the X-Y plane remains about 45 degrees, but I am no longer perpendicular with the Y-Z plane. F. This picture is the same as D with a lower angle above the X-Y plane. The nature of the distortion is the same as seen in D, but more extreme. G. This is picture F, but the camera is no longer perpendicular to the Y-Z plane. We are now looking at the grid from the front and left. *** Hope this is somehow useful!