Chris Bristow
-
Posts
1,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Chris Bristow
-
-
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.
-
4 hours ago, John Butler said:
Chris,
Many years ago, during my misspent youth in college, I took a psychology class, Physiological Psychology, in which we studied the human head, bones of the skull, brain structures and functions (as known at that time), major blood vessels, and nerves of the brain, spinal cord, and body, both pyramidal and extrapyramidal.
That said, my memory of those things is very shallow. But, upon thinking about and researching those memories came back. Well, enough to be useful. So, when you said,
“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?”Dr. Clark was correct on the wound call. IMO, he could have called this at the first instance. The first statement about not getting any muscular or neurological response and no heart beat is due to the brainstem and portions of the cerebellum were destroyed. Dr. Clark knew this from the very beginning. If I am recalling correctly, some of the doctors at Parkland noticed a portion of the cerebellum protruding or at least visible through the wound cavity at the occipital/parietal area. The following description from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Brainstem, area at the base of the brain that lies between the deep structures of the cerebral hemispheres and the cervical spinal cord and that serves a critical role in regulating certain involuntary actions of the body, including heartbeat and breathing. The brainstem is divided into three sections in humans: the midbrain (mesencephalon), the pons (metencephalon), and the medulla oblongata (myelencephalon).
The brainstem houses many of the control centres for vital body functions, such as swallowing, breathing, and vasomotor control. All of the cranial nerve nuclei, except those associated with olfaction and vision, are located in the brainstem, providing motor and sensory function to structures of the cranium, including the facial muscles, tongue, pharynx, and larynx, as well as supplying the senses of taste, equilibrium, and hearing. The brainstem also has nuclei important for sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomic functions. All efferent and afferent pathways between the cerebrum and cerebellum course through the brainstem, and many of them decussate, or cross, within this structure.”
In other words, you can’t live with the brainstem and portions of the cerebellum destroyed. Things in the body will simply not work due to nerve damage in that area.
The moment President Kennedy was shot in the head he was killed. It may have taken the body a few moments to realize that. Essentially, he was dead on arrival at Parkland. The Parkland Doctors did what they were trained to do in trying to resuscitate the body, but it was a hopeless cause. Dr. Clark called a halt to the proceedings when, I would say, most knew the outcome of their efforts.
I made this statement long ago to a somewhat hostile reception. I will repeat it again. President Kennedy was shot and killed at the moment that rifle round went through his head. The major functions of his brain was destroyed.
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.
-
2 hours ago, David Lifton said:
DSL Response, 10/02/2021 6:30 PM PDT: Outside of the HSCA, I believe I was the first person to interview the late Paul O'Connor, a Bethesda medical technician present at JFK's autopsy, on the night of 11/22/21.
The date of my interview --a phone interview --was late August, 1979. I concealed from O'Connor the tremendous legal significance of his observations, because I did not want my questions to frighten him, or effect his responses. O'Connor told me that --when the body bag in which KFK's body arrived was opened, "the cranium was empty." This information was so critical that my publisher --Macmillan -- agreed to finance a re-interview, this time (October 1980) a professionally filmed interview with O'Connor. The film was to be utilized when my book was published (Jan. 1981) . The result was a 37 minute documentary film, now available on the Internet. (See: "Best Evidence: The Research Video.")
A cautionary note: Some years after Best Evidence was published (in January 1981) --O'Connor was invited to a number of JFK research conferences; by which point he had transformed himself from an important -- but rather shy - witness, to an important "researcher" in his own right.
The result: when asked to comment, he was no longer the "naive witness" that I had interviewed . He now was a "media star" of sorts. He had his own views, and was not shy about expressing them. Of course, I would have preferred if O'Connor remained the "naive witness" that he was when I first met him. but life moves on. Paul O'Connor died in August 2006.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, but my experience with doctors--both those involved in JFK research and those involved in my cancer treatment--has led me to believe--no, scratch that...KNOW--that doctors frequently talk out of their butts and use big words in an effort to show how smart they are, when they are frequently relying upon mis-impressions and faulty memories.
There is no way most doctors--outside those fresh out of medical school--would pass an anatomy test. It was explained to me years ago that doctors routinely use the words temporal to mean the side of the head and occipital to mean the back of the head, and not specifically low on the back of the head--the location of the occipital bone. In such case, Jenkins' claim the wound was temporal and occipital would mean the wound was on the side of the head toward the back.
Now, about the back. I've done a lot of reading and thinking and writing about this and it's quite clear that people say the back of the head when they mean the top and/or side of the head, particularly if the blow came from behind. I was mugged once and the bastard kept hitting me on the back of the head, except when we looked at the cut his ring left on my head the cut was right behind my right ear--which most would call the side of the head.
So, yep, unfortunately, a lot of the confusion about the medical evidence comes from the imprecision of language, and people wanting to believe doctors are above such imprecision. When experience tells me the opposite...that doctors are no more likely to be precisely correct about such things as your average layman...
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.
-
On 9/30/2021 at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Cole said:
Chris B.--
I largely agree with you, but there has been some progress on recent decades regarding the JFKA.
1. CE 399 has been debunked beyond reasonable doubt by the work of Gary Aguilar, John Hunt, Josiah Thompson and others. The CE 399 bullet was almost certainly, and beyond reasonable doubt, entered into the evidentiary record by the FBI.
2. A review of the Z film shows JBC was shot by about one second before Z-313, the fatal head shot. Ergo, the narrative of one gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle does not hold water.
3. Recently re-surfaced are photos of the rear bullet hole in JBC's shirt, at the Texas Archives, but also excellently photographed by researcher Gary Murr. The bullet hole in the JBC shirt rear was measured by the Texas Archive at 3/8ths of an inch by 3/8ths of an inch, and that measurement was after cloth was removed for testing. Ergo, the tumbling bullet striking JBC on its long side narrative cannot hold water. The weight of evidence, again approaching the beyond reasonable doubt standard, is that JBC was shot directly, and from behind.
4. Researchers such as Larry Hancock and John Newman have deepened the background on LHO and the Miami office of the CIA, through real primary document research and interviews.
So, yes, the real story, the actual mechanics the JFKA remain agonizingly out of reach. And yes, we often chase our tails here on the EF, and I plead guilty to some of that.
BTW, Larry Hancock is preparing an article entitled "Red Bird" that will likely add to the understanding of the JFKA on practical levels.
So, not all is wrong with the world. A lot, but not all. Anyway, I felt like saying something positive.
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. -
14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0137a.htm
Here is a link, for anyone looking.
Same day, contemporary testimony, by all appearances done without fear or favor, just telling it like it is.
Can anyone explain the extant purported JFK skull x-rays, and yet observations such as those of Jenkins?
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.
-
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. -
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. -
59 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
That's why I put the word "was" in bold text.
What are the odds that the frames beyond 313 are not in there?
Anyways, if you want examples of what is in there, magnify the thumbnails here:
And no, this website is not my source.
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?
-
21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
The "no flower" Life frame was in this edition:
Could not find any frames after the head shot in this issue.
-
17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
I showed the Life edition that contains the flower frame. It is the earliest dated (12-14-1963) verifiable material I know of related to the extant zframe we are discussing.
No other source that I've seen contains the flower.
There are no sprocket holes included in the flower frame. If there were, I'm sure the obvious would be revealed.
I'm highly skeptical pertaining to this area.
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. -
6 hours ago, John Butler said:
I went back and measured the shadows with a more sophisticated tool. Here is the results:
IMO, there is just too much variation for distance and perspective. We are looking at for the most part less than 20 feet. The shadow for Altgens bag was measured, not added to the frame. It was 4.90°.
The range for variation in these shadows is 4.90° to 36.38° in roughly, less than 20 feet. OBTW, no converging shadows here.
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 -
12 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:
" Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree?"
Chris, GIMP will allow you to alter angles by tenths of an angle. i.e. .10 degrees.
Thanks I'll look it up, and sorry I called you Mitch.
-
10 hours ago, John Butler said:
Ray,
I do find shadows in Dealey Plaza confusing. But, not for the reasons you mention. I rejected your notion of converging shadows back then and still do now. I can't see any converging shadows in any of the frames I used. I don't think being vertical or non-vertical has anything to do with how the sun casts shadows. We can't dismiss Jackie's arm shadow when it should be a body shadow with the greatest angle difference. And, we can't reject different angles in different films simply because they are not a panoramic. The 3 frames/films were all taken within a minute of the JFKA. The angle of the sun changed minutely in that time period. Different places, different perspectives didn't change the shadows being parallel and at the same angle in each frame except Z 347. It is not impossible to measure that.
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. -
7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
Here's a different way of looking at it.
Why was the same frame from two publications of Life Magazine printed at 2 different angles?
In this case, a 1.3° difference.
The misalignment of two curbs(red arrow)shows the difficulties involved when merging/compositing/slicing /dicing/matting/optical printing multiple frames.
The bottom composite(non-Life) just confirms it.
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. -
4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
LIFE vs LIFE
Are both versions of frame 347(with and without the flower) printed in the same issue? I find no flower in the MPI version on Lightbox and no flower in the Official Archives copy. I find no similar image of that flower anywhere in the Z film. Did you take the flower image from a photo of the magazine image? I know many versions of the cover photo of 133a are taken from photographing the magazine laying on a table and that distorts it because they don't have the magazine pressed flat. Still a distortion may erase a flower but it sure isn't going to add a flower! So where that fr 347 with the flower originated from is very important. Very very strange.
-
2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
LIFE vs LIFE
A little bit of rotation difference and a fair amount of distortion. When the flower disappears a darkening of Jackie's right arm occurs. That may be related to the disappearing flower. Nothing else is affected but her arm and the single flower. I guess it could be due to some error in the printing but it is very weird.
-
14 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
Besides the same frame with/without the flower:
The Life frame should have a small part of the lower sprocket hole showing even with the crop used, unless they manually filled it in.
Just compare it to the layered matching frame(without the flower)beneath it, in the gif previously provided.
The crop at the top of Bothun's head in Life is going to eliminate the couple's legs so no determination on that aspect.
My use of the phrase "composite of two consecutive frames" doesn't exclude the removal of frames in between.
It's just a description of what I'm showing at the present time.
Another interesting observation. They did do something to the eliminate the sprocket hole. The ghost sprocket that sits on top of the lower sprocket hole is still slightly visible in the MPI frame. I wonder if the printer could be set to not process objects above a certain brightness?
-
57 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Back to magic shadows.
In Z345 Bothun's shadow is 10 degrees. The man behind is 8 degrees. The people at the tops shadow is 8 degrees. And, the person diving for the ground to the left of Altgens is 12 degrees. I used a simple method to arrive at the varying numbers of degrees. Not very scientific, but I'm sure there is not that much of an error in computing the various shadow degrees. This with the Dorman/Zapruder comparison on the SW corner raises a number of questions.
I am going to assume whoever put this film together would have done it at a place similar to Jaggers, Chile, Stovall.
I'm not saying this was done at Jaggers, etc. But, it may have been done at a superior photo lab such as the Hawkeye Works. We see in Jaggers, etc many machines with different operators. Different operators may have done their bit to a frame, lets say insert Bothun (the Altgens copy) that was passed on to them from a different work station and once they had done their work passed it on. Errors could creep in when different folks inserted their character and then painted in the shadow.
David Healey is the master here and he can straighten out my speculative thinking in no time.
It looks like your measurements are correct. As a person walks they lean a bit forward as they put weight on the front foot. Even a person standing still can shift weight from the heels to the ball of the foot. I write off small differences due to that effect.
What is certain is that Observing shadows in the plaza from different angles absolutely changes the shadow angle. In Z 405 the shadows from the lampposts point downward to the right side of the frame. At frame 221 the shadow of the tree is pointing to the left and is almost horizontal. This is because Z is panning and changing his camera angle to the Sun. He does not move to a different location, he simply changes the direction the camera is pointing.
If your going to consider the possibility that the shadows are an incorrect alteration of the film, you first have to calculate what differences you should see due to perspective and subtract that from the perceived anomaly. That is not a vague estimation of distortion. We know the height and angles very well so we can determine exactly what distortion we should see. If you subtract the real world distortion and there is still some anomaly left, then you have a hypothesis to work with. But so far the natural differences in camera height and angle to the subject, and to the Sun, provide a accurate explanation for the different shadow angles in Z and Dorman. -
47 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
MPI frames are numbered at the end of the DVD "JFK-Image Of An Assassin"
I've already given an example of the Life frame(Easy Like Sunday Morning) from another source other than MPI and the flower is not there.
So, referring to the same frame content, two iterations that match each other and the Life magazine version that doesn't.
The frame numbers are just a diversion.
There is a more egregious example of this involving another pair of frames, in due time because it coincides with the "Unveiling the Limo Stop" thread.
But rest assured, the 347 example is only a part of it.
Okay I went back to page one and looked at the composite you have. You hinted that there were things wrong but I did not see the flower disappear at the time. It is very interesting because it does really disappear. The saturation levels are very different but I don't think that would explain it, so it is very interesting.
You said it was a composite of two consecutive frames. So you're saying the MPI image has something added to it's left side for sprocket holes and at the top which reveals the legs of the couple standing back behind Bothun?
-
5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
Alteration Simplified:
The top image from Life Mag is frame 347 and the bottom image is frame 346. Maybe Life put the wrong frame number? You listed the bottom image as an MPI version but I have never seen any MPI versions that include the sprocket holes. I did notice that the register of the Life image is narrower that the bottom image. Maybe Life shrunk the width a bit to fit multiple images on the page.
-
I just started posting my images from Google Drive but they appear as links not photos. Anyone have a quick answer for that?
-
7 hours ago, John Butler said:
This is what I think. Altgens had his camera bag with him. He had extra cameras, attachments, and different film. He may have been using a flash since he was not facing the sun, but had the sun behind him. Regular highlights from the sun are what you see on his coat, trousers, and camera bag.
John to correct for the elevation of the Sun being too high to be reflected to Z consider that all you have to do is tilt the camera down a bit as Altgens would have to do to shoot towards Jackie and JFK. If the Sun is at 36 degrees high and the line from Bothun to Z is 20 degrees, then all you have to do is tilt the camera forward by about 16 degrees. That means the top surface would receive the sunlight at about 20 degrees and bounce off at the same 20 degrees. 20 degrees would take the reflection straight to Z.
I don't understand why a flash would be the same color as the light below it. I think both are reflections. I think the 'watch' is the cuff of his white shirt. also the camera is not up to his face so he is taking a photo without looking in the viewfinder?
One little factoid that may or may not effect this. He was using his personal camera that day because he was off work.
Some photo shoots will use a light in the daytime but it is many times larger than a flash attachment. It is used to fill in shadows that occur from the single light source of the Sun. no one uses a flash attachment in the bright sunlight regardless of the direction they face. A photog might have a flash attachment on because the story might take him indoors. But Altgens was there to get outdoor shots of the motorcade. flash equipment was big in those days and it is clear from one of the Bothun photos that Altgens did not have one on his camera.
-
I think I have the Dorman issue sorted out. In the map below the blue lines represent the sun's angle through the plaza. The azimuth was only 8 degrees West of South but the entire plaza and Huston St are not aligned to the compass points. Huston points 15 degrees East of North. The map however does not represent this, it shows Huston as horizontal(North South) on the map. So the Sun's line through the plaza and the shadows sit at about 23 degrees on the map.
I am going to reference all shadow angles from the perspective of the camera. Bothun's shadow is 60 degrees away from pointing straight to Z's camera. Dormans two lines of sight to the shadows are 28 and 50 degrees off the camera as noted on the map. In a world without distortion we would see the same angles represented in the photos. If the photos were taken from directly above we would see the true shadow angles. But the lower the angle of the camera the more perspective will take all angled lines and bend them towards the 180(Horizontal). Lines above the middle of the image will bend down to the middle and lines below the middle will bend upwards to the middle. This is why Bothun's angle is 60 but measures as about 16 in the Z film. It is bent up towards the middle of the image. The top red line of Dorman's is really 50 degrees away from Dorman as seen on the map but in the photo it is bent up towards the center to 75 degrees from the bottom. The lower red line for Dorman is 28 degrees from the bottom but it is bent upwards to 40 degrees. The more angle the more distortion you get. A line that points more downward or upward will deviate much more than a line that was close to horizontal to begin with. Lines that are completely vertical to start with do not change at all.
I think this explains why we see different shadow angles in Dorman. This also demonstrates the amount of distortion from the actual Shadow angle to the Z and Dorman distorted perspectives.
When Z has his camera pointing to the tree and unknown couple in frame 222 his angle to the shadow angle is 90 degrees. That is why the shadow of the tree and the people both run horizontal across the screen. This is a good example of how the angle of the shadows in any frame are relative to the camera angle to that shadow.
https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipPn4be3w9NHeGERqhRm51fEJS_b3vWmWjWxf2TC
JACKIE ON THE TRUNK- NIX VS ZAPRUDER
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.