Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Bristow

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chris Bristow

  1. Chris I think the white thing in the red box on the left under Hill's arm is Officer Martin's front fender and just above is his headlight. There are many other frames of both Hargis and Martin that give a good comparison of the headlight/fender image . Hargis's front fender, headlight and windshield also give us a map to determine where Martin's front fender and headlight would be relative to his windshield, and it is imo a perfect match.
  2. I have one question. How often does she say that? Couldn't resist, sorry just kidding.
  3. I was already aware of the Nova documentary when I saw this clip. It was black and white and the style and everything suggested it was the 1960s. I must conclude I just had a bad memory if nobody knows of this. Thanks for the links.
  4. There were so many separate instances of coercion. I wonder if anyone has put that all together in a single Paper, would love to read that.
  5. There is an old film clip from maybe 1964 where approx 5 to 7 of the Parkland doctors are sitting at a long table after viewing the official x-rays. The press asks them for their opinion now since they have viewed the autopsy x-rays. As I remember each doctor said almost the same thing "X-rays don't lie so I guess we got it wrong". The last one is Dr Clark who adds something like "We never got a a good look". Their demeanor, as I recall, is that they all seemed to be eating crow. But the incredible part was Dr Clark saying they didn't get a good look when one of his 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation was the mortal head wound. How could he claim he didn't get a good look?? I think it supports the notion that there was coercion going on back then as I am sure several of the doctors have done a 180 in the years after. I found that clip on Youtube maybe 7 years ago and can't find it since. Has anyone seen this before?
  6. I always wondered about Jackie's motive for crawling out on the trunk. Now I don't think I would call it crawling as much as stretching and reaching. I say that because she never brings her knees up on the trunk. If she did it to escape being shot I think she would have brought her whole body up on the trunk in one single move, sort of a jump. But she seems to be stretching to reach something much more than moving to avoid something, imo. ITEK did an analysis years ago and claimed they identified a piece of skull moving back along the trunk but it had several problems. 1) It starts at the right front corner of the trunk and moved straight back along it. Real bone from JFK's head would have to take an angled trajectory to the far side of the trunk from JFK's head which was in the middle of the seat, but the supposed bone fragment comes from behind Jackie and moves in a straight line to the rear. 2) It moves slowly along the trunk at almost* the same speed as the reflections. All the other bone we see is ejected at 100 mph upward in 313. ("Almost" as fast as the reflection because there is parallax involved as explained below.) 3) When it reaches the antenna in frame 329 it does not bounce off it passes right through. It appears to jog left or inbound a bit but all reflection take that slight jog after the antenna, I think that is because the trunk starts to slope there. 4) if compared to the white piece of trash on the lawn it appears to slow as the gap between the trash and the supposed bone fragrant lessens toward the end. This is consistent with the image being a reflection of the top left side of the South Paristyle on Main street. Just like the bottom of the left side of the North Paristyle on Elm appears in the trunk around frame 279, The top part of the left side of the North Paristyle appears in the trunk from 326 to 331. The parallax between the trash and the North paristyle causes the distance between them to decrease. The distance between Z, the trash and the North paristyle almost exactly matches the distance between Z, the new lampost on the south side of Elm and the paristyle directly behind the lamppost. Several Youtube videos reproduce Z's pan across the parastyle and the parallax between the lamppost and pillar match the amount we see between the supposed bone fragment and the trash on the ground. I think these facts prove the ITEK bone fragment is just a reflection.
  7. As Sean pointed out those are 3 of the 4 antenna on the trunk.Check out frame 349 of the Groden set to verify.
  8. After hearing Facebook's algorithms are designed for making people mad at other people, I see articles like the WoPo article in a different light.
  9. Good observation! I see the direction of the cross hatching pattern does not match everything around it.
  10. While I disagreed with you about the distortions in the photo like the curb angle and image jump through the side window I still consider the disappearing 'flower' to be of interest. The other distortions seem to be consistent with the page of the magazine not being flat when photographed. The uneven top of the un cropped image supports that notion. I don't think it is the button or whatever on Nellie's lapel as it should not be visible from Z's position. I favor the collar theory at the moment. It is very strange that the flower/collar disappears when the saturation of other reddish things like the back of her dress are so intense. In the flower image the saturation is much less but the flower is clear. The only thing that supports a natural explanation is that in the non flower image Jackie's right arm and the front of her dress have a dark cast but in the flower image they are much brighter in comparison. If we assume a similar effect over the flower image it would be darker and maybe the effect is greater and it disappears. Maybe that is a stretch but the possibility that the printing of other copies had a localized error that didn't allow the reds and yellows to be reproduced at that location is something I can't fully rule out. The question for me would be what version of the Z film can we see that is the closest to the camera original and does not have the flower.
  11. After staring at that disappearing flower I think it may not be a flower but the rear part of Nellie's collar. The color is closer to her collar with the Sun falling on it and in earlier frames and seems to have a similar look with a shadow through it. It looks to be a little lower than I would expect in that frame but at the same time it is such a different color than the yellow roses I see in all other images of the bouquet.
  12. I think several doctors had stated it was hopeless from the start. But you're not going to just give up on the president without going through the motions. They agreed the wound was mortal so to me it doesn't matter much exactly when they consider him dead or what qualifications they put on declaring him dead. The wound being mortal he was as good as dead from frame 313 on.
  13. I have never tried to unravel the strange varying reports of people present at the autopsy. The timeline of who left then returned or the observation of the body before and after Custer and other were asked to temporarily leave is confusing. How Jenkins ends up weighing a nearly complete brain when Connor said the brain was mostly gone is a mystery.
  14. Pat, this is long but only the first part is in response to your post. I go on to address other popular Parkland issues for whoever is interested. Dr Grossman made the same point that the term occipital is used in a general way to mean back of the head. This argument does not hold water when trying to explain the Parkland issue. First, most of The Parkland staff used the more specific term 'occipital parietal'. Second many of them have been photographed showing the location and others have done drawings. Whatever term they used they disagreed with the official location. The Parkland issue would have been resolved decades ago if it was just a matter of loose terms being used. The first time any of those doctors saw the official location they would have simply said "Yes that's the location I meant regardless of the term I used at the time." But they do not agree with the official location to this day. It was not just confusion regarding what they meant to indicate. Regarding Dr Jenkins letter calling the wound temporal and occipital I find it strange that he would not use the term parietal since the official wound was almost all in the parietal. There are several hypothesis about the staff not being good at anatomy or not having the time to locate the wound or not being accurate because JFK was in a supline posture. I know you did not mention the supline position but I mention that argument because I want to point out that pretty much every patient that they have treated in the ER was in a supline position. So it does not make sense that his posture would throw them all off. Because 20 of 25 staff who claimed to see the wound disagreed with the official location I find very unlikely that they would all place the wound in similar positions within a couple inches if they were all mistaken. I'm sure we would agree sometimes some people talk out their ass but 20 of 25 is far too many staff to claim they were just all talking out their ass. I have heard similar arguments like 'they just lied" or "they got it wrong and were so embarrassed that they continued the lie for decades". To support these arguments there has to be more than a hypothesis about the doctors lack of integrity. There has to be examples of these doctors and staff being dishonest in the past. But not just accusations against a few of them. I would accept that maybe as high as 4 out of every 20 people may have the lack of character needed to lie. But that fails to explain 20 of 25. It does not even start to explain the high numbers. All the explanations are unsupported ad hominem hypothesis with nothing to support the fact that 20 of 25 lied or all made the same mistake. I do not see how your example about your own head injury adds to your point. If you were hit in the back of head many times it is likely that at least one hit glanced off after hitting the back of the head or just missed the head and raked your ear. If you had injuries in both places it could simply mean you were hit in both places. If you mean you thought the strikes were back of the head but were on the side it is just the impressions you experienced while being beaten. What your body told you was happening is a world apart from the doctors looking at a persons wounds. There is no plausible explanation for the high number of staff that disagreed with the official version. 20 staff is too high a number to be explained away as them being dishonest or bad at anatomy. I'm going to touch on some very popular skeptics claims that you did not bring up. If you have an opinion feel free but I am not posing theses question as a challenge for you to address. The most repeated skeptics claim seems to be that they just never got a good look. To me that is a zombie lie that will not die. The fact is Dr Clark cited 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation efforts after inspecting the head wound. 1.) The efforts thus far had not gotten any muscular or neurological response. 2.) the Electrocardiograph showed no heartbeat. 3.) THE HEAD WOUND WAS MORTAL! How could anyone ever claim they did not have time to see the wound when the monumental decision to call of the resuscitation of the president was based in part of Clark's conclusion that the head wound was mortal? Many skeptics point to the sound bites from the famous Nova doc of the doctors at the National Archives inspecting the x-rays and or photos. Dr's Jenkins and McClellend explain why they would not have looked closely at the wound. But Dr McCellend was referring to the beginning when they were trying to establish the airway and breath. He is right it is unethical and irresponsible to go looking at the head when they are still trying get the patient breathing. In Dr Jenkin's sound bite he says it would have been wrong to inspect the head wound but he specifically says 'after the president was dead'. Those two soundbites mislead people because Clark's head wound inspection was after inserting the tracheotomy tube and before he was pronounced dead. Often Dr Perry's statement that he was not able to do a detailed examination is used to prove they never got a close enough look to really see the head wound. Dr Perry starts the sentence with the word "but". That is often left out of the quote. Perry first gives a very accurate description of the wound consistent with the other reports and testimonies, it's location and size, its avulsed nature and the brain tissue being visible. Then he continues with "But I was not able to do a detailed examination." That fact he says he did not do a 'detailed' examination, yet still provided all those facts that corroborate the other staff members, should prove that a detailed examination was not needed to located and describe the wound. Some claim they got the location wrong because the scalp was shoved back. But the fact that JFK's face and right ear were not mutilated or displaced gave the Dr's an easy road map to the location of the wound relative to the ear. Last point is about the variance of the exact location by different staff members. I have a clip(Can't find it right now) of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. When his hands first touch his head it is very low temporal occipital. Then as he feels his fingers on the back of his head he readjusts the wound upwards twice and ends up about 2 1/2 inches higher. I saw a similar thing with Aubrey Bell. When they have to feel around on their head for the right location it suggests the wound location can vary some even when they all looked at the same patient. We should expect them to vary a bit but none of them come close to the official location even when you allow for the variance. For all of them the bottom of the wound was nowhere near the official location. in the well known image of a dozen staff from Parkland and Bethesdsa the skeptics point to Theran Ward because it looks like he is pointing to the right ear as the location. In his statement he said the wound was in the back of the head(He was not a doctor) and never mentions the ear. But I think it is clear he is touching the wound location with his 4 fingers and is landing on the mastoid. That puts the palm of his hand over the ear but his own words support where the 4 fingers were touching.
  15. I always thought Nellie's and JBC's account combined with his turn around well after 226 while still clutching his hat, put the issue beyond reasonable doubt for me. Your piece on the lack of real evidence for the bullet tumbling was another great addition to the knowledge base. It also highlights the dishonesty of the WC and folks who supported that myth. Dr Shaw having done surgery on 900 WW2 solders is another great factoid that you noted. Personally I think John Costella's Stemmons pincushion distortion argument may be absolute measurable proof the Z film is tampered with. Even solid theories can fall as time goes on but no one has debunked it. I keep looking for ways to test it and it always holds up. The other issue for me is Oswald's lean in 133a. The stance could be duplicated but you are on the verge of falling over and the right knee hurts bad. That is if you allow the right hip to angle back at 20 to 30 degrees. That has always been the standard and even the Dartmouth stability model put the hips back around 30 degrees. But there are two measurements possible in 133a that both show the hips were almost straight forward, no more than 5 degrees angled. First as you move the right hip back your center line marked by the fly flap or the button above it skews off the to the right by 1 3/4 inches when the hip is just 22 degrees back. The fly flap in 133a shows the pants button is only 1/2 inch off center. The second proof that gives the same result is the shadow of the telephone lines across Oswald's hips. It is 9 degrees off of the shadow on the ground that emerges from his hip shadow. If Oswald was facing West (22 degrees away from the camera) the long axis of his hips would be parallel to the telephone lines and the shadow on his hips would also be parallel to the shadow on the ground from the cameras view. But turning his hips 22 degrees to face the camera causes the shadow to rise up 9 degrees relative to the ground shadow. This confirms his hips were facing almost directly towards the camera. Not angling the hips back at least 20 degrees makes the stance impossible. I think it takes it beyond reasonable doubt when you try to match the hip angle. I know people will point to photographs of the stance being duplicated but I have never found a case in which the parameters of the stance were correctly reproduced. the biggest fail is how far they swing the right foot out. when perspective distortion is accounted for his right foot swings 45 degrees out from the cameras view(The distortion causes it to read about 65 degrees). But if a person swings their foot way out to maybe 70 degrees it becomes very easy to exceed Oswald's lean because you can put weight on the ball of the right foot. 1) Right foot should be at 45 degrees 2)right shin should align under the right knee. 3)Center line of body at the waist(The pants button) should be no more than 1 inch to the right(Camera views right) of the vertical shin/knee alignment line. 4) The last and weirdest alignment is that although Oswald is leaning so far as to be almost falling over he does not counter balance his upper body at all! You can draw a line from his Adams apple right down to the waist and below the fly flap to the ground and when it passes the waist it is perfectly centered. This only happens when the upper body has no counter lean and when the hips are not angled back. So the straight line from throat to waist and through the fly flap is another proof of the hip angle. When you try to duplicate the stance and find how absurd it is the fact he does not counter balance at all is just nuts. Stand in a position where you are almost falling over and try not to automatically counter balance, it really is nuts. My original thread on this is a few years old so I had to rant about it again. I still think it is crazy and maybe measurable proof of the stance being impossible with the hips at 5 degrees angle. The graphic below illustrates the mechanics of the shadow angles. The diagrams on the left are overhead views of the photo on the right.
  16. Many of the topics in the JFK issue scream conspiracy yet the debates become rabbit holes with no resolution. Complicated subjects like the magic bullet have longstanding threads that go back decades. The same debate is repeated every few years. There is enough wiggle room to create 1% of doubt and then the debate hits a wall. Just how much did the shirt and coat bunch up? Exactly where did the bullet enter JFK's back? Can a bullet slow down enough so it won't deform and still have enough energy to break the radius bone in two? Why has it been impossible to duplicate the near pristine magic bullet for the last half century? Those are rhetorical questions because like most folks here I already have a strong personal opinion. Some smart person once said that if a group of people are 100% convinced of something they will take action on it. But if even a slight doubt is injected the group won't take any action at all. I think this is why some skeptics arguments look absurd on the face of it but if it creates even an iota of doubt the issue becomes clouded. When the skeptics argue that the Parkland doctors never got to look at the head wound because they were too busy trying to save JFK's life you just have to laugh. (Maybe the whole thing is too morbid to laugh at their crazy statement, ok) The ABC's of resuscitation would prevent them from doing any detailed examination until the airway, breath and circulation is established. But the WC testimony alone completely and utterly refutes claims that they did not take a look at the head wound before they left the room. They have to add the caveat "detailed" examination but it still does not fly. Doctor Perry said he only did a cursory examination of the head wound but noted it was a large avulsive wound in the right occipital parietal with lacerated scalp and missing bone with a serious laceration of the brain. This statements ruins the skeptics argument that we can't trust the Parkland staff because they never did a "thorough examination". Perry's statement is proof that they could ascertain the basics of the wound without any detailed examination. further proof lies in the consistency of so many of the staff's testimony. The most compelling testimony that should bury that skeptical argument is what doctor Clark stated. When he decided to call of the resuscitation he cited three reasons for doing so. 1) the cardiograph showed no heart beat. 2) JFK had shown no muscular or neurological response to their efforts. 3) The head wound was mortal! The absolute fact that Dr Clark based his decision in part on the head wound being mortal should have ended the crazy talking point about the doctors never getting a good look at the head wound. It is a complete refutation of their argument. But the argument is a zombie lie in that it will not die. I have driven that point home in discussions with skeptics and then a couple months later they are back to repeating the crazy lie. Their goal is to create that 1% doubt in the uneducated not to resolve the issue. Every point the skeptics try to put forth to explain why 20 of the 25 staff who expressed an opinion on the wound support the Ct not the official wound location, falls flat. Even if we eliminate a half dozen of those 20 staff for minor inconsistencies in their testimony the score is still 14 to 4. Then if we apply the same scrutiny to the 4 doctors who support the official record we have to loose Dr Carrico who did a total flip after 20 years, completely contradicting his sworn statement in the WC and HSCA and his notes on 11/22. Then we have Dr Jenkins letter on the 22nd contradicting his official story(Maybe we just put an asterisk next to that one). The skeptics can't afford to be too critical as they only have 4 doctors on their side to start with. If we really want to be critical the score may be 12 to 1. There is just no way for them to explain away the Parkland doctors testimony. Not a single argument holds water. I think it is the most compelling evidence of a second shooter and a cover up of the medical evidence that exists in the JFK conspiracy issue.
  17. Watching this Youtube video of Dr Jenkins I was surprised to hear what he says at the 7min mark. He states, "You hear accounts of how many doctors did a thorough examination, that's not true", but he adds "I think everybody took a look but not a thorough examination by any means." The fact that "everyone" got a look at the head wound before they left the room sends some of the skeptics claims to the trash bin. Skeptics say the room was too crowded for many people to see the head wound. In effect they call their WC testimony into question. They claim they never got a chance because resuscitation required all there attention. Well at some point "everyone"(Lets just say a bunch of them) took a look at the head wound.
  18. Dr Jones is asked about the accuracy of movies recounting that day and he says that one film portrayed the scene by showing or claiming that blood was squirting everywhere. He disputes this by saying when someone has died blood is not pumping. The WC testimony has more than one doctor saying that blood was gushing out of what must be a major laceration in the brain as a result of the heart message Dr Perry was doing. I think Baxter is quoted as seeing the blood gushing out and onto the curtains and saying to Perry "My god Mac what are you doing?". One of the nurses mentioned putting towels on the floor so the doctors would not slip in the blood around the head of the gurney. Many doctors said there was lots of blood and brain matter that had come out of the hole in the skull. Dr Clark estimated that JFK lost 1500 cc of blood based on what he saw in Trauma room one. That would be 30 % of your blood.
  19. Ok, I glossed right over the 'WAS'. I had checked that issue on the Google books site and yes the photo is no longer in that issue. I assume since we can find no other versions with the flower that you took the image right off the actual magazine page?
  20. Could not find any frames after the head shot in this issue.
  21. I am with you on the flower oddity. The missing portion of the sprocket hole seems to be deliberate. There is bit of the ghost sprocket above it there but I guess they darkened it in. So did you photograph the no flower frame directly from the magazine? whether you did or the image came from another person who photographed the page it could definitely distort the overall image.
  22. Bothun and the guy behind him and the couple at the top are all fairly accurate. although I would measure the guy behind Bothon from the head to a point in between his front and back leg. That is because he is in the middle of a step and his head is not over either foot. So I take a couple degrees off his angle. The couple at the top are leaning left as seen in Nix so I would subtract a few degrees from that shadow. Malcom Summers can't be used as anyone with any lean will change the shadow angle. The lean is always reflected in the shadow unless they are leaning straight towards the Sun or directly away from it. Jackie looks to be leaning towards the camera so it is hard to tell how much. We can't use her either because of the lean. Altgens is the tricky one. Motion blur of a shadow over something bright like the curb top totally changes the angle. In the link below you will see frames 352 and 353 compared. The insert is fr 353 and the shadow angle has moved almost 90 deg! Any motion blur will start to move the shadow on the curb top so the angle in fr 347 is distorted to a steeper angle. The other problem is the curb is lower than the grass so the shadow takes a jog right when it hit the curb. Next, Altgens right leg is stepping forward and the lower leg is leaning forward and that steepens the shadow of the right leg. The truest shadow is of his left leg but only the part on the grass. The grass being darker than the curb it does not erase and alter the shadow like the bright curb which eats part of the shadows and changes the look of the angle. Notice in the insert(Fr 353) the shadow angle is almost 90 degrees different than fr 352. But the bit of shadow of his left leg that is on the grass(The dotted line) is very close to Bothun's shadow angle. I expect the shadows to move towards the horizontal as the people are farther and farther away. That is what we see in Altgens, Bothun, the guy behind and the couple at the top after making some minor correction for lean. There is only a difference of about 5 degrees from the couple at the top and Altgens at the bottom and that seems to be about right. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yavjr-PItcTdC4NwszUqYbCTrbUIlLEo/view?usp=sharing
  23. Thanks I'll look it up, and sorry I called you Mitch.
  24. John. when it comes to shadows and alteration in these films we can all have differing opinions. But some of the things you disagree with are not opinions but hard science. You said you do not accept vertical changes could change the shadow of the Sun and that is true, they do not. But they DO change your perceived angle of the shadow. perspective will change shadow angles. That is NOT an opinion it is very hard science. It is observable, measurable and there is non theoretical scientific explanation for all of it. A few minutes on google maps street view and over head view will prove this. I posted a link to a video of a tourist duplicating Z's film. There are many of these on Youtube so I hope we can agree they are not all fake. Look at the 8 second mark. you will see the tree on the left and lamppost on the right have different shadow angle. At the 10 second mark you will see the flagpole and lamppost in the foreground have mismatched shadows. At the 13 second mark you will see every lamppost has a different shadow angle. you can tell from the glare that the Sun is over the East side of the Annex building, The shadow to the left of the Sun angle left. The shadows to the right of the Sun angle right. The shadow of the 2nd flagpole Between Main and Commerce point almost straight to Z because it is almost lined up with the Sun. This is all perfectly consistent with the science of optics. If you switched to a view from above the plaza in google maps you will see all lamppost shadows actually point to the same direction. But as you lower the angle of view the shadows will start to diverge outward. If you simply drop the elevation you you will start to see a similar effect. This is because as you drop you are still directly above the objects directly below you. But you are at an angle to the objects off the the side of the image. So from above all shadow angles match. As the angle becomes more shallow they start to diverge and do not match. As you go from high above to lets say Dormans shallow angle from the 4th floor the shadows diverge more and more. They gradually go from matching to diverging the lower the angle is. Again this is not opinion or theory it is hard science. We know exactly why that occurs and if it did not, that would be the mystery. If you want to know if something is fake you must also understand all the ways it can look fake but be actual perspective changes. you need to fully grok the perspective issue so you can eliminate those and see if anything is left. consider this thought experiment. If I look at a pole and the Sun is directly behind it the shadow will point straight to me. but if I walk 20 feet to the left the Sun will no longer line up right behind that pole. Where does the shadow point now? Obviously it can no longer point to me because the pole, Sun and me are not on a straight line after walking 20 feet to the left. At that point the shadow will not point to me. If it points to me in one position but not the next position it is the very definition of different angles. That is due too perspective. Regarding Mitch's statement about all shadows converging is correct, they do. From high above all shadows in the plaza look to be parallel but they are not.They actually converge 93 million miles away at the Sun. That is too far for us to measure any convergence. it is just too small an angle. The angle you view a shadow from will change the perceived angle and the distance to the shadows is a factor too because the farther away it is the shallower the angle to it.
  25. I noticed many different distortions between the two versions of 347. The trunk is stretched in the flower copy. Each copy is rotated to a slightly different axis. It is less than one degree so I can't correct it. Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree? The entire image has a sort of a crinkle in it. As you flip between photos there is an obvious distortion causing the left side to change it's axis relative to the right side. The two axis meet under Altgens feet. So the curb on the right changes axis compared to the curb on the left side of the image. Did the copies you are using come from the internet? I have to wonder if they photographed 347 right off the magazine page. That may explain some of the distortions but not the flower. The displaced curb as seen through the side window imo should be a matter of refraction. Curved windows will displace an image. Even a flat window will do it if it is thick enough and you view it from a steep angle to the glass. A non prescription glass like a window has parallel surfaces. A ray of light hitting the front surface at a 40 downward angle will pass through the glass and hit the back side at the same 40 degrees so no change in the angle of light happens. But as the light passes through the glass at the 40 degree downward angle it travels down and hits the back surface at a lower position. It leaves the glass at the same 40 degree angle but now it is a bit lower than when it hit the front surface. That causes the image you see through the glass to be displaced downward. It is a result of the thickness of the glass and the angle the light enters at. A curved window will cause even more displacement. The front and rear surfaces are still parallel but when the light travels down it exits at a point where the curvature of the glass is not at the same angle as where the light entered the front surface. That change of angle mimics a prescription lens that has different front and back curvatures. The result is even more displacement. Actually depending on exactly where the light hits it may cancel out the displacement because every different angle of incidence creates different refractive angles. The displacement we see in the side window occurs in many frames leading up to 347. If we had the exact curvature and thickness of the side window we could fairly accurately calculate just how much displacement we should see and in what direction from Z's point of view. But we know that the window will displace images and because it happens in many other frames I have to conclude it is most likely due to refraction. Since we can't find any other copies of Z that show the flower or have the same distortion it is crucial to know how the flower version was obtained. If they did take it right off a magazine page and did not flatten the page out by placing glass over it then there would be distortion. Still does not readily explain the missing flower but would probably explain the distortion. We know how a magazine page is shaped when sitting on a table. The portion near the binding raises up initially then flattens out as it approaches the outer edge. If the trunk occupied the area of the page near the binding and the stretched part of the trunk is at the highest point of the page it would explain the stretched trunk very well.
  • Create New...