Sandy Larsen

Chris, I didn't even know about this thread. You mentioned it, but I assumed it was an old one before my time because I hadn't seen it. (Till right now.) I haven't any idea what you are doing with this. I don't know what you're goal is or what you are trying to prove. All this is completely new to me. Does it have to do with the limo slowing way down, possibly to a complete stop, for the head shot? As many witnesses said? Ollie mention the number 48 FPS and I had no idea what he was talking about. Why would a camera have running at 48 FPS. Later as I continued to read the thread I came to realize it was in a WC reconstruction. So okay, that makes sense. But still, I have no idea what you guys are doing. But it looks interesting.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area. Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C. "The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure." Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate". ​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you? Hi Ray This brings back the same old problem with so much of the evidence in this case. When Perry stated the incision was two to three centimetres, was he referring to the incision in the throat, or was he referring to the incision in the trachea itself? As Perry stated that part of the tracheotomy was for exploratory purposes to ascertain damage to blood vessels and other structures, an incision this small through the skin of the throat hardly seems adequate, if you consider that these blood vessels are located toward the rear of the trachea. Also. the trachea was deviated somewhat to the left and hidden under the left strap muscles, forcing Perry to sever one of the left strap muscles to locate it. Could this have been done through such a small incision? Robert, Yes, but did you get the main point, that the reason for switching from the endotracheal tube to the tracheostomy may indeed have been "because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area?" (Quoting myself.) Or am I reading too much into this?

Hey, that's pretty slick Chris. I assume you copied frames and then moved the new ones ones along with the motion of the cars. Hey wait... that wouldn't work. Anything stationary would wiggle and thereby be blurred. Please explain what you did. EDIT: Oh sorry, I need to explain myself. I was thinking that if you did what I think you did (which is, made repeated copies of frames and then moved each slightly to match the movement of the cars. or in other words interpolated frames) then this looked like a promising technique to help with altering the Z film such that the slow-down of the limo could be removed. First remove frames from where the limo slows down in order to make it appear not to slow down, and then do your interpolation technique to put all the stationary objects back into their correct locations. I then realized that your technique (if I understand it correctly) wouldn't work so well on the stationary objects. it would make them wiggle, thus blurring them. Sandy, I'll reverse the process for you. 48fps slow motion, two thirds of the frames removed in a one second span. How fast are they running? How fast would a limo appear to move at this frame rate (48fps slow motion with frames removed), going 15mph. Chris, I'm sure I would really like what you're wanting to demonstrating to me... if only I could follow what you are saying. I'll try to reply to your post and maybe you'll be able to figure out what it is I'm not understanding. You asked: Well, first off, 48 fps wouldn't be slow motion for the Z film. That would be 48/18 = 2.67 time faster than normal. Now if you removed two out of three frames and ran the Z film at normal 18 fps speed, the film would run 3 times faster than normal. Combine the two, and the film would run 2.67 x 3 = 8 times faster than normal. So the limo would appear to be moving at 15 x 8 = 120 mph. Hmmm... something tells me this is not where you wanted me to go with this. And BTW, the runners appear to be jogging (at a typical pace), not running. At what speed, I don't know. I guess my most important question would be, what is "48 fps slow motion?" Maybe what you mean is that the subject is filmed at 48 fps and played back at -- what? -- 18 fps. If that's what you mean, and this is done, then the runners would appear to run 18/ 48 = 0.375 times their normal speed. Yes, slow motion! Removing two thirds of the the frames then would make the runners appear to run at 3 times their normal speed. Doing both would make the runners appear to run at 0.375 x 3 = 1.13 time their normal speed, so only 13% faster. (As a whole, this exercise seems merely to be the waste of film and the cost of a high speed movie camera. But maybe it is meant to teach me something. So I will proceed.) Assuming this is how you wanted me to think (and you need not read any further if it is not), what does this principal tell me about the Z film? Well, if the limo slowed way down, that would be equivalent to the camera filming at a much higher FPS. The limo could be made to move faster (normal speed) either by running the film projector faster, or by removing frames. The latter is what I suggested in my original post. Well I give up. I'm not sure what I am suppose to learn from this. Should we start a new thread? (Poor Greg.)

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area. Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C. "The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure." Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate". ​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you? Brilliant post Ray, on more than one count! I assume that the stare-of-death photo was taken after the throat wound was manually probed, and that the probing is what caused the tracheotomy incision to gape. Or maybe what we see was created during the pre-autopsy autopsy for some reason. Presumably the latter because Humes claims in the autopsy report that the tracheotomy was gaping. Oddly he calls it a wound. But later he explains how it came about:

Robert, check out the description of the scalp laceration from the bullet hitting near the EOP: The laceration is only 6 mm wide (no surprise, I guess) but is 15 mm long. I wonder if that is a sign of the bullet skidding along the base of the skull just prior to it being deflected downward. Or something along that line of thought. I often wonder how the bullet made its way down the neck, if it did.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

[deleted]

Jim, Wow. Is that all documented fact? Or is there some speculation or connecting the dots? Because if it is documented fact, then it proves the motive for the assassination. And that the CIA was involved. If it's documented fact, then why are there still some WC critics with other theories?

Bob, What reason(s) has convinced you for many years that the wound is WELL below the collar? Tom Show me in this diagram where the thyroid cartilage covers any of the tracheal rings (tracheal cartilage). Robert, I think what Tom said was that thyroid tissue (part of the gland) covers the first and second tracheal rings. Not thyroid cartilage. I may have said something like "thyroid covering the rings" in one of my posts and caused this confusion. If so, what I meant was "thyroid gland tissue covering the rings.

The reason I asked about your engineering degrees/experience has NOTHING to do with your anatomy or ability to locate it.If you read my post 622, you can see that it has to do with math/engineering/science experience in the following: tensors Calculus vector analysis matrix rotations CAD experience Photoshop experience Did you read my post 622? You didn't answer any of the 3 questions I asked - do you intend to? Oh, so that's why you were asking for a high definition death-stare photo. I did read post 622. I feel completely unqualified to say almost anything about the wound in that photo. Not only that, but one of my weaknesses is 3D visualization. As well as I did in college, I actually froze up when taking a test in a drafting class that covered the drawing of three sides of an object projected onto a plane.I failed the test... didn't even get past the first problem. (Good thing it was only a 0.5 credit hour class... otherwise it would have ruined my GPA and I would have lost my scholarship.) I don't know if you want me to comment of my experience or understanding on each of those six items. But here goes: tensors Though I had heard the term before, I had to look it up. I recall having a high level math class that covered something that looked like that. But I don't believe the word tensor was even used. Just a mathematical concept. I didn't understand the need for learning it. And I never used it. But then, I never used most the stuff I learned in graduate level math classes. Calculus Naturally I learned high-school level differential and integral calculus. And Laplace and Fourier transforms which are based on integral calculus. And how to solve homogeneous linear differential equations with constant coefficients. (That one is very important for analog engineers.) But I've hardly touched any of that in thirty years. vector analysis Nope. RF engineers learn this because they need to understand Maxwell's equations. (I've often wondered how James Clerk Maxwell went about predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves twenty years before they were actually discovered.by Heinrich Hertz. I mean, why did it even enter his mind. Brilliant!) matrix rotations Nope. Never had a need for that in my profession. CAD experience Yep, a ton of experience with CAD. Problem is, I'm sure you're thinking of mechanical design. I've only done printed circuit design. Photoshop experience Never used Photoshop. But I've used some cheap substitutes. I must say, after writing my resume for you I was feeling rather smart. But now I'm feeling rather stupid! I am very impressed If you are capable of doing these things.

Hey, that's pretty slick Chris. I assume you copied frames and then moved the new ones ones along with the motion of the cars. Hey wait... that wouldn't work. Anything stationary would wiggle and thereby be blurred. Please explain what you did. EDIT: Oh sorry, I need to explain myself. I was thinking that if you did what I think you did (which is, made repeated copies of frames and then moved each slightly to match the movement of the cars. or in other words interpolated frames) then this looked like a promising technique to help with altering the Z film such that the slow-down of the limo could be removed. First remove frames from where the limo slows down in order to make it appear not to slow down, and then do your interpolation technique to put all the stationary objects back into their correct locations. I then realized that your technique (if I understand it correctly) wouldn't work so well on the stationary objects. it would make them wiggle, thus blurring them.

I think DVP could, if he were here.

Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 225. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 225. It matches to a tee. The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens. I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want. Thanks Greg, that helped a bunch. (Though you meant Z255, not Z225 for the Altgens 6 shot.) Now I understand better what Robert's points were, I think. As I understand it now, there is a question as to when the shots quit, due to Moorman''s statements. And as for Altgens, his statement (that he was 15 ft from the limo during the fatal head shot) indicates that the head shot really occurred further down the road than where Z313 shows it. This is better than how I earlier understood Robert's post. Because rather than most the Z-footage being altered, it looks like just the latter part of it was. I assume it was altered to remove the limo-stop. The limo-stop would be pretty damning for the Secret Service. This is pretty obvious so I'm sure it's been discussed a lot. But it seems that removing frames to speed up the limo during the limo-stop would be the way to go, followed by a good deal of touch-up work to remove jerkiness. By removing the limo-stop that way, the film would be shortened. The effect would be that the final shot on the revised film would occur closer to the TSBD than it really did. The problem is that this process would also move everything closer to the TSBD. And so, for example, Altgens should be seen in Z313. Which he isn't. Back to the drawing board.

[Duplicate deleted.]

(Thanks for the Moorman quotes, Pat.) Well this is odd. Moorman talks as though she is taking a picture of the president from the FRONT. Yet her famous photo shows Kennedy from BEHIND. What am I misunderstanding here? Also, I thought she took the photo at the time of the first shot. Wikipedia says it was at Z313, and indeed the Moorman photo looks like ~Z312 but from the other side. (With Kennedy slumping and Jackie leaning over him.) Taking only the Moorman photo, the Z-film, and Moorman's testimony into consideration, it seems like she took the same shot as ~Z312, and somehow thought that what she heard was the FIRST shot, and that for some reason she heard a couple of shots after that. Am I understanding this right? This is confusing. EDIT: Greg answered my second question. (Thanks Greg!) But what about my first question?

Tom, The anatomical structure around my trachea may indeed be far from the norm. I don't know because my sample size is only two... three if you include Kennedy. It certainly is different from the diagrams I see on the Internet. But no, I am not misidentifying body parts. I certainly know what cartilage feels like and I can easily make out my thyroid and cricoid cartilages As for my credentials (I assume that's the reason you ask about my degree)... well, I obviously am not a doctor. But I believe the following count toward my credibility in this matter: I took an anatomy class in college which was quite tough. (Lots of memorizing.) We learned not only bones, muscles, and organs, but detailed features like articulations, projections, and depressions on bones. We had a lab with cadavers, which we used both for learning and for tests. I got high nineties on all my tests and led the class with the highest total score. I graduated with a masters degree in electrical engineering. My GPA was 3.9 on a 4.0 scale. I was a top MRI surface coil designer in the early1990s. I designed coils for several regions of the body (neck, wrist, shoulder, TMJ, breast, and others). If you do a google search on my given name, Sanford Larsen, along with keywords like MRI surface coils, you may find remnants of my work. The relevance of this is not only the fact that I had to be precise with anatomical structures, but also with complex three dimensional mechanical design. I had my own manufacturing business (New Wave Instruments) for which I did my own design work including both electronic and mechanical. I sold precision instrumentation to Fortune 500 companies and government agencies worldwide. (I am now all but retired due to health issues.) I am not a hack... I know what I'm doing. And I have no trouble with critical thinking. If I am imprecise in some of my posts it's because I am a bit cavalier in my speech and mannerisms. Plus, I'm not here to write a dissertation. I AM very careful when I feel its important and if I'm up to it. (Poor health.) That is correct. Though an ideal tracheostomy (between rings 2 and 3) may be possible with my head tilted all the way back. I don't know because, as I said, I couldn't feel any rings with my skin stretched tight.

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin. And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony. But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot. The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part. Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.) (Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Tom, The location of tracheal rings is apparently highly variable from person to person. If I probe my trachea and locate my cricoid cartilage, then "touch" the bottom (inferior edge) of the cricoid with my fingernail, my finger is located in my suprasternal notch. This is when I am sitting up straight. Even if my finger pushes down hard on the skin covering my suprasternal notch, it is still above (superior to) tracheal ring 1. If I tilt my head back as far as possible (still in a sitting position), in the suprasternal notch area I feel soft tissue, which I'm sure is thyroid. When doing this, the distance between the top of my suprasternal notch and bottom of my cricoid is about 1.5 inches. (This measurement does not include skin tissue... that is, it is the distance that would be measured if all flesh were removed from that area.) I cannot feel any tracheal rings because my throat skin is stretched too tight. If I allow my throat skin to relax a bit, all I feel is thyroid tissue. BTW, here is a link showing an actual tracheostomy being performed. The incision is made either between rings 1 and 2, or 2 and 3. My guess is the latter. (The instructions on the page say to choose one of those two locations, but the location chosen by the surgeon isn't given as far as I can tell.) Even with the man's head tilted back, the location of the incision is quite low. I estimate about an inch above the suprasternal notch.

Many witnesses heard two shots right on top of each other at the moment of the head shot. It is quite possible two bullets hit JFK's head at the same instance, with one entering low in the back of the skull. If you watch Kennedy's head movement carefully, you will see that it drops very abruptly by two or three inches (from Z212 to Z313) right before the back-and-to-the-left motion. I believe that that movement was caused by the bullet hitting the base of the skull. And that that was followed quickly by the shot to the temple. Here are instructions on how to single step through the Zapruder frames with a browser: Load this frame, which is frame 311. Advance to the next frame by changing 311 in the browser address field to 312 and hitting Enter. Advance to frame 313 the same way. Now hold your computer's Alt key down and hit the right and left arrow keys to step the frames forward and backward. Maybe somebody knows of a web page designed for more readily doing this..

Hi Sandy The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313? Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699 It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26). Wow, that is crazy! But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

I did my best to AVOID that, AND I went out of my way to further avoid what you are calling a miscommunication. If you choose to answer my questions I will respond... Okay, good. I'm truly sorry. I have to leave, but might have time to respond before leaving. To say what you have said requires you to know the answers to these two question, and I have asked for ONLY yes or no answers with no elaboration. Both questions can be answered yes or no without a hint of a "Do you still beat your wife?" my answers: 1. yes 2. no Hmmmm... No for #2? You mean because the trachea moved some time after the tracheostomy?