X Rays

[John Dolva]

For some reason only the enhanced xrays are generally used. The HSCA published pre and post enhanced. Some features are missing from the enhanced. Also the gray scales are shifted and the information different. For some reason they choose not to orient the xrays in size and angle which makes them confusing. (they're confusing enough as it is.).

An attempt at rectifying this:

[John Dolva]

X-rays are high energy photons and the white areas are the displayed result of shadows cast by material of different density. Black or near black doesn't necessarily mean no material but depending on the length of exposure and the format used to present the final result (in this case downloaded PDF files of printed copies enhanced by someone.)

In order to make sense of them forensic anthropologists spend a lot of time just looking at them. The longer you look, and apply anatomy knowledge slowly a 3D picture appears in the mind.

(read anything by the fascinating 'body farmers' and Clyde Snow and others)

I dont have this knowledge/experience so here is an attempt to make sense of things by using my computer and the images presented.

A slice of the lateral xray corresponding with a quadrant of the frontal.

The lateral contains the information that belongs to the rear on the left and front on the right. The frontal xray contains both of the front and back (and inbetween) so it's all jumbled up. If one takes the lateral and wraps it onto a 3d head and turns it facing forward and snapshot it, one gets an image of the features of the frontal xray that are from the front half.(

Selecting the dark areas of this and superimposing it on the frontal quadrant then theoretically 'blanks out' those features of the frontal that belong to the rearward. This seems to help locate the hookshape better and aids in orientation.

*of course the lateral contains info from left-right, but I'm going to see if this also can be 'cancelled' by applying this technique to all corners and building up a composite)

[Pat Speer]

John, chapter 6 of my presentation will help you, or anyone else interested, make sense of the x-rays. After looking at the things for years, it all began to make sense a few months ago. The x-rays are not faked, and are consistent, and are strong evidence for a second gunman.

http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

JFK: A New Perspective (2005)

[John Dolva]

John, chapter 6 of my presentation will help you, or anyone else interested, make sense of the x-rays. After looking at the things for years, it all began to make sense a few months ago. The x-rays are not faked, and are consistent, and are strong evidence for a second gunman.

http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

JFK: A New Perspective (2005)

No worries Pat, I'll check that and other suggestions by other people once I start to reach conclusions or reach a dead lock. In the meantime I try to keep focused on just the 'evidence' as used by the HSCA and WC and refer to medical texts for explanations. I woould appreciate your and other persons considered opinion on the suggestions here.

As of now I'm inclined to agree with you that the xrays and photos are not altered beyond processing and have often been misinterpreted. It is possible to isolate the teeth fillings. I believe there are some premortem dental records available.

[Pat Speer]

John, the x-rays are incredibly difficult to orient because 1) the A-P (front-back) x-ray was taken with the beam too close to Kennedy's face. As a result his face is distorted by 20% when compared to the back of his head. The other major problem is that the techs couldn't figure out how to prop up Kennedy's head, so they didn't. As a result his head is tilted back at a sharp angle, some will argue by as much as 30 degrees. In my presentation I argue that it was really only 14 degrees.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

X-rays are high energy photons and the white areas are the displayed result of shadows cast by material of different density. Black or near black doesn't necessarily mean no material but depending on the length of exposure and the format used to present the final result (in this case downloaded PDF files of printed copies enhanced by someone.)

In order to make sense of them forensic anthropologists spend a lot of time just looking at them. The longer you look, and apply anatomy knowledge slowly a 3D picture appears in the mind.

(read anything by the fascinating 'body farmers' and Clyde Snow and others)

I dont have this knowledge/experience so here is an attempt to make sense of things by using my computer and the images presented.

A slice of the lateral xray corresponding with a quadrant of the frontal.

The lateral contains the information that belongs to the rear on the left and front on the right. The frontal xray contains both of the front and back (and inbetween) so it's all jumbled up. If one takes the lateral and wraps it onto a 3d head and turns it facing forward and snapshot it, one gets an image of the features of the frontal xray that are from the front half.(

Selecting the dark areas of this and superimposing it on the frontal quadrant then theoretically 'blanks out' those features of the frontal that belong to the rearward. This seems to help locate the hookshape better and aids in orientation.

*of course the lateral contains info from left-right, but I'm going to see if this also can be 'cancelled' by applying this technique to all corners and building up a composite)

=====================================================================

X-rays are high energy photons and the white areas are the displayed result of shadows cast by material of different density. Black or near black doesn't necessarily mean no material but depending on the length of exposure and the format used to present the final result (in this case downloaded PDF files of printed copies enhanced by someone.)

=====================================================================

Actually John;

X-Rays are as stated!

X-Ray film is normally a clear plastic film which has been covered with a light sensitive/radiation sensitive emulsion which in the old days was primarily a silver halide emulsion.

In preparation of this emulsion, grain size of the crystal halide solution is an extremely critical factor, as the smaller the grain size of the light/radiation sensitive materials, the finer the definition of the exposure.

In the case of the X-ray films, there are a variety of factors which ultimately affect the final quality. These include:

a. Emulsion type and grain size of film as mentioned above.

b. Source to subject matter distance

c. Angle of exposure

d. Single or double image exposure.

e. Source to film distance.

f. Subject matter to film distance.

g. Intensifying screen materials and thickness.

h. Radiation source strength and beam homogeneity.

i. Quality of film development chemicals.

j. Proper developing of film and treatment in the "fix" solution.

k. Age and quality of film.

What is observed on the final product represents various shades which range from virtually pure white, to absolute black.

The white is created by some form of "mass" which lies between the radiation/light source and the film, thereby blocking the film from being exposed.

The less radiation/light that can get through the mass, the whiter the image on the final X-Ray.

Therefore, bone creates a "white" image, and two layers of bone create an even whiter image on the film.

Conversely, the darker areas of the X-ray represent those areas where either limited or no mass of any type lies between the radiation/light source and the X-Ray film.

Therefore, the film becomes highly exposed at this point and this in turn "exposes" the silver halide/chemical emulsion which ultimately results in the darkened image when the film is developed.

Therefore, the whiter/lighter the image, the greater the mass/density of materials through which the radiation/light must pass in order to ultimately strike the film, which causes restriction/reduction of the radiation/light source strength striking the film emulsion, which ultimately results in less exposure on the film emulsion.

As a final note, without some form of penetrometer reference on the film, it is virtually impossible to determine the true and absolute quality of the final product and what items may be present and not seen due merely to film/x-ray quality.

John, the x-rays are incredibly difficult to orient because 1) the A-P (front-back) x-ray was taken with the beam too close to Kennedy's face. As a result his face is distorted by 20% when compared to the back of his head. The other major problem is that the techs couldn't figure out how to prop up Kennedy's head, so they didn't. As a result his head is tilted back at a sharp angle, some will argue by as much as 30 degrees. In my presentation I argue that it was really only 14 degrees.

=====================================================================

In my presentation I argue that it was really only 14 degrees.

=====================================================================

Which as stated, is much closer than any "tilt" of 30-degrees.

[John Dolva]

Does anyone have a problem with the part in red (ap xray) being identified as the hook shape in the lateral xrays? Is it called the sella turcica

Edited December 10, 2005 by John Dolva

[Tim Gratz]

The problem with the X-rays was Hoover's fault. Lynne told me so.

[Frank Agbat]

Does anyone have a problem with the part in red (ap xray) being identified as the hook shape in the lateral xrays? Is it called the sella turcica?

John,

I think you've got it. Sella Turcica (aka - Turkish Saddle) is the structure that holds the pituitary gland.

Here is an image of two saddles -- the one on the left is from a child, the one on the right from a 27YO man, and has some anomalies.

This link may also provide some reference (helps with the orientation of things, I think):

http://rad.usuhs.mil/rad/radbrowser2/head/...m/zrsuture.html

it is part of MedPix (note the URL and savor the irony):

http://rad.usuhs.mil/medpix/medpix_home.html?#top

Keep up the good work, John! Always a pleasure to read your posts.

Regards,

Frank

[Frank Agbat]

Okay, John, you've got me thinking about this (always a dangerous thing...)

On the left is a lateral head xray. I flipped the image horizontally to align directionally the features with the autopsy x-ray you posted earlier.

I've got them more-or-less aligned so the distinctive saddle is visible and provides some sort of a landmark.

I must go ponder things further and re-read Pat's fantastic presentation. 30 minutes ago, I was leaning one way, now I'm not so sure...

To me, right now, this x-ray shows massive loss of bone, but more anterior than I previously visualized it. But interestingly, note the fracturing in the occipital and occipital parietal areas, but no massive blow out. Yet the parkland doctors seem to indicate occipital or occipital parietal...

Must ponder more...

[John Dolva]

A second point of reference is needed to correctly angle the xrays. (apart from sizing problems as indicated by Pat above because of the location of the machine etc.)

I wonder if the frontal sinus can be located. If this is correct then prior to any resizing or scaling a preliminary suggestion is that the 14 degrees suggested by Pat is closer to the correct one than the roughly22 degrees suggested by me in the first image. In faact (and some prescicion work is needed on this) it could be between 10 and 14 degrees. However, sizing needs to be done as well, also confirmation re frontal sinus which is clear on the lateral and faint but with a sharp out line on the AP (or so it seems to me)

In the lower part of this illustration is the suggested sinus to sella orientation. This is after straightening the AP (which leans to the left, and not doing any sizing)

[Shanet Clark]

Okay, John, you've got me thinking about this (always a dangerous thing...)

On the left is a lateral head xray. I flipped the image horizontally to align directionally the features with the autopsy x-ray you posted earlier.

I've got them more-or-less aligned so the distinctive saddle is visible and provides some sort of a landmark.

I must go ponder things further and re-read Pat's fantastic presentation. 30 minutes ago, I was leaning one way, now I'm not so sure...

To me, right now, this x-ray shows massive loss of bone, but more anterior than I previously visualized it. But interestingly, note the fracturing in the occipital and occipital parietal areas, but no massive blow out. Yet the parkland doctors seem to indicate occipital or occipital parietal...

Must ponder more...

Notice it is bright bright bright white,

ie retouched...........

[John Dolva]

ahh... Shanet, actually no, it's a lossy jpg saved for web and thus the grayscale values are compressed, there is a deal of value there still though percieved by adjusting gamma. The 'original' shows a lot more detail but is in the order of 5 mb size. This is for illustration only.

EDIT for further illustration here is area in3Dmap with values stretched across spectrum(also the little white area on the AP)

Edited December 10, 2005 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

Shanet, in my presentation I explored Dr. Mantik's theory that the "white spot" was retouched, and discovered something which should have been obvious to all. The "white spot" is where the "wing" of bone overlaps solid bone behind the ear, thereby creating three levels of bone as compared to the area where the "wing" of bone was sprung, which only has one. The x-ray techs didn't take this extra thickness into account and as a result the lateral x-ray has a much larger relative density than a normal x-ray.

One of the other things I uncovered was that the skull in the lateral x-ray was tilted 10 degrees forward in the x-ray. Joe Durnavich on the McAdams site says the lateral matches the A-P x-ray when tilted 23 degrees. I found it matched better at 24. John says he found a match at 22. They're all in the same ballpark. Since the skull was 10 degrees forward in the lateral, however, this 24 degree turn means the skull in the A-P x-ray was tilted 14 degrees away from the beam. This is in line with a skull sitting flat on the film.

I matched up the bullet fragments in the forehead and eye socket to correctly orient the x-rays. It was only when I realized that the large "slice" supposedly on the back of the head was really in the eye socket, where Humes and Boswell always said it was, that the x-rays began to make sense.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat is good! He discovers errors made by doctors! What an asset he is to this Forum!

You know, I don't want to brag and please don't take it this way but i have commented that sometimes I think hunches and instict can be important. In that regard, I remember suspecting that Pat had a lot on the ball when I read one of his first posts about ten ideas that he was developing, some of which were contrary to "the conventional wisdom".

IMO, to solve this case we need people willing to "think outside the box". I think Pat does that.