New Photographic Proof: Todd's Initials on 399!

[Mark Ulrik]

Top: Crop of NARA evidence photo (Photo_naraevid_CE399-2) from the MFF website, resized by 575 %. This photo was apparently used by Hunt for his "Phantom Identification" article.

Bottom: Crop of one of the closest matching NIST photos (399_5899) from the NARA website.

Even without enhancement, apart from the resizing, I think the "T" is faintly but clearly visible in the top image.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Mark Ulrik
Tightening language a bit

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi David VP, good to see you back.

Thanks for offering your thoughts and photo editing for my perplexing problem.

I can more easily explain what is bothering me with one of your montages. (BTW, this has nothing to do with initials, other than my use of initials for landmarks sometimes.)

 

We're looking straight at the gouge in the NARA photo, and a side-view of it in the NIST photo. Here's what's bugging me... the NIST photo shows the gouge extending right up to the tip of the bullet. The NARA photo doesn't show that at all. In that photo the gouge doesn't extend anywhere near that high.

[Note: I'm writing this paragraph as an afterthought. I think that the following paragraphs correctly explains the optical illusion. There is really nothing to gain by reading the following unless you too are trying to figure this out.]

I have a potential solution to this... anybody, tell me what you think. To help me explain this, pretend that the NARA bullet is an owl. The gouge we see in that photo forms the stern eyes and beak of the owl.

Looking at NIST photo we see only the left eye of the owl, and we see it from the side (profile view). It is the DARK part of gouge in the NIST photo. It is only the LIGHT part of that gouge that troubles me. It corresponds to the forehead of the owl in the NARA photo. Problem is, the owl's forehead in NARA seems to have a normal convex shape... not the concave shape we see in NIST.

Now here is what I think might be making an optical illusion: I think that maybe the owl's forehead in NARA has been flattened (perhaps through scraping?) from the eyebrows to  the top of the head. The flattened forehead is tilted back in order to follow the rounding at the to of the head. The flattened part can't be seen from the front view, i.e. NARA, but it can be seen from the side view, NIST.

Actually, maybe the forehead is a little bit concave, but not near as concave as the eyes are. The transition from convex to shallow-concave in NARA is gradual. That along with the lighting makes it hard to see in NARA. The lighting in NIST makes it easy to see.

Q.E.D.

 

[David Von Pein]

Hi Sandy,

Once again, I think these concerns you have with the "gouge" all come down to perspective and the angle that the camera is to the bullet. Perspective can play such a huge role in our perception of things, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Here (below) is another NIST photo (which I posted once earlier today), which shows the gouge in relation to the very top of the bullet. As we can see, the gouge is not right AT the very top of the bullet. There's some distance between the gouge and the bullet's top.

I'm not sure this picture below will resolve any doubts you have about the gouge's location, but I think it goes to show (once again) that perspective is huge in photographic matters like this.

Also --- When trying to reconcile the perceived differences in the "gouge locations" between the various CE399 photographs, what would a reasonable "CTer" alternative be?

Would a reasonable alternate conclusion be that we're really seeing two different bullets in the various photo montages that have been posted in this thread (with both bullets displaying other characteristics that are identical in nature)?

I don't think any "2 bullet" alternative answer is a reasonable one.

[Mark Ulrik]

The gouge from different angles.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Mark Ulrik
Typo

[Micah Mileto]

What about the issue in the RFK assassination where the neck bullet was reportedly changed from having the initials TN31 to TNDW?

[Mark Knight]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Hi Sandy,

Once again, I think these concerns you have with the "gouge" all come down to perspective and the angle that the camera is to the bullet. Perspective can play such a huge role in our perception of things, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Here (below) is another NIST photo (which I posted once earlier today), which shows the gouge in relation to the very top of the bullet. As we can see, the gouge is not right AT the very top of the bullet. There's some distance between the gouge and the bullet's top.

I'm not sure this picture below will resolve any doubts you have about the gouge's location, but I think it goes to show (once again) that perspective is huge in photographic matters like this.

Also --- When trying to reconcile the perceived differences in the "gouge locations" between the various CE399 photographs, what would a reasonable "CTer" alternative be?

Would a reasonable alternate conclusion be that we're really seeing two different bullets in the various photo montages that have been posted in this thread (with both bullets displaying other characteristics that are identical in nature)?

I don't think any "2 bullet" alternative answer is a reasonable one.

I believe you're exactly correct. The difference in perspective, lighting, and photo quality account for the differences in what we see between the NARA and the NIST images. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

The gauge from different angles.

 

The gouge looks different at every angle it is rotated. I absolutely cannot grasp what the gouge is really like. I'd need the bullet in my hand to have any sort of feel for the gouge shape.

 

[Mark Ulrik]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The gouge looks different at every angle it is rotated. I absolutely cannot grasp what the gouge is really like. I'd need the bullet in my hand to have any sort of feel for the gouge shape.

 

Perhaps the 3D data could clear it up for you, but I only kept the 2D images. Why is this even an issue? Doesn't seem likely that NIST switched bullets during the CE 399 "shoot".

[Sandy Larsen]

57 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Why is this even an issue?

 

If I see something that makes no sense, I want to understand why. That's just the way I am. (Which is why I became a research engineer.)

 

[Richard Price]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If I see something that makes no sense, I want to understand why. That's just the way I am. (Which is why I became a research engineer.)

Sandy, I agree with your assessment.  I didn't become a research engineer, but I also am led to research things which just don't seem to add up.  I know different people/agencies made the pictures.  It would seem to me that if you wanted to prove the initials are on the bullet, that you would take pictures from as close to the perspective in the older photos as possible to avert the possibility that there are two bullets.  This to me would be similar to identifying the lands and grooves on a subject bullet.  I know it is not quite as simple as it is shown on tv, but when it is shown, the bullet is shown magnified on two screens then the screens are placed side by side to show the whether they match.  With my not being able to see a similar match, I am not convinced these pictures are of the same bullet.  I guess I should have been born in Missouri instead of Georgia.

[Mark Ulrik]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If I see something that makes no sense, I want to understand why. That's just the way I am. (Which is why I became a research engineer.)

 

Fair enough. But is it really that surprising that the gouge looks different from different angles?

[Chris Bristow]

On 6/30/2022 at 2:50 PM, Mark Ulrik said:

Fair enough. But is it really that surprising that the gouge looks different from different angles?

EDIT: I refer to the darker areas as shadows but they are really just reflecting less light due to the angle of the gouge changing at the demarcation of darker and lighter areas.

  I think a most confusing part of understanding these two images is the reversed shadows. The top image illuminates the left side and leaves the right side darker because it sits at a slightly different angle to the light. The bottom photo is taken from farther right and illuminates the top right side and puts the left side of the ridge in shadow.
That left side is out of focus and the shadow line in not clear but it appears to lean a bit more than the bottom demarcation. That would be the effect of the camera being a little more to the right in the bottom image.
     In the bottom photo the far right side of the mark has an almost vertical edge. In the top photo that same edge leans maybe 15 degrees to the left.
   The bottom photo is looking straight at that vertical edge and so you can't see the top of it is leaning directly away from the camera. It is leaning away from the camera because the bullet gets smaller as you get closer to the tip.
 But in the top photo you see that vertical edge from the side. The bullet narrows towards the top and the slightly oblique angle reveals that. That is why it appears to lean left more in the top photo.
 The mark having multiple angled surfaces makes the lighting of different parts change form one photo to the other. Beyond that there are maybe a dozen markers that match between the two images.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

18 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

EDIT: I refer to the darker areas as shadows but they are really just reflecting less light due to the angle of the gouge changing at the demarcation of darker and lighter areas.

  I think a most confusing part of understanding these two images is the reversed shadows. The top image illuminates the left side and leaves the right side darker because it sits at a slightly different angle to the light. The bottom photo is taken from farther right and illuminates the top right side and puts the left side of the ridge in shadow.
That left side is out of focus and the shadow line in not clear but it appears to lean a bit more than the bottom demarcation. That would be the effect of the camera being a little more to the right in the bottom image.
     In the bottom photo the far right side of the mark has an almost vertical edge. In the top photo that same edge leans maybe 15 degrees to the left.
   The bottom photo is looking straight at that vertical edge and so you can't see the top of it is leaning directly away from the camera. It is leaning away from the camera because the bullet gets smaller as you get closer to the tip.
 But in the top photo you see that vertical edge from the side. The bullet narrows towards the top and the slightly oblique angle reveals that. That is why it appears to lean left more in the top photo.
 The mark having multiple angled surfaces makes the lighting of different parts change form one photo to the other. Beyond that there are maybe a dozen markers that match between the two images.

Chris,

Are there any other markings such as other initials on the bullet?  Shouldn't there be markings by Secret Service, FBI lab, or other police folks who handled the bullet before Elmer Todd?

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Are there any other markings such as other initials on the bullet?  Shouldn't there be markings by Secret Service, FBI lab, or other police folks who handled the bullet before Elmer Todd?

The markings of both Frazier and Killion are visible on the bullet in this gif image posted earlier by Mark Ulrik:

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Are there any other markings such as other initials on the bullet?  Shouldn't there be markings by Secret Service, FBI lab, or other police folks who handled the bullet before Elmer Todd?

I assume that but am not that familiar with the issue.