X Rays

[Pat Speer]

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.

Aw shucks, Tim. You're too sweet. But not sweet enough for me to consider Castro a prime suspect.

But seriously, I think the only way we can get at the truth is by taking what others have written and learn from them. I don't consider the research of others to be in error if their research leads me or John Dolva or Larry Hancock into a discovery. I learned quite a bit from reading Dr. Mantik's writings. A number of his observations proved most helpful. I'm hoping that he or John Hunt or Dolva or whomever will take what I've done, and build upon it, until we nail all the evidence down. One of my fears has been that my presentation is too abrasive and that it will lead people to respond the way they responded to Posner's work. My other main fear has been that my two years of hard work will be ignored and amount to nothing. By putting it out there, I took a leap of faith.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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...

My Compliments!

Now, those who have interest in the frames of the Z-film should do the same thing.

It is not likely that either of these items was photographed/X-rayed at the angles shown.

In fact, looks as if the Presidential Motorcade was travelling uphil.

The "angle" change is merely another of those items which has sent many into frustration.

Tom

P.S. Still only one shooter

[John Dolva]

(Once I have some conclusions to compare with I'll certainly look at others work. In the meantime any input that steers in a correct direction appreciated.)

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)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Very interesting. The reminder of keeping the films in mind noted.

Continuing to look at the evidence as presented by the commissions.

I feel fairly confident that the Sella Turcica is correctly identified on the AP.

Many features are easy to identify on the AP xray. To find one that clearly corresponds on the Lateral xray is not so easy. In order to correctly approach the orientation of the xrays by this method one needs a second point of reference.

The frontal sinus is clearly visible on the lateral. I suggest that this (red) on the right here is the sinus on the AP

Edited December 10, 2005 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

Hi Again, John,

I believe you have correctly identified the frontal sinus in both x-rays, but I'm not an expert in this area.

***********

On another note:

I had the crazy idea of overlaying the lateral skull x-rays with some important frames in the Z-film just to see what came of it. I did *not* fully correct for skew, so there may be some minor problems as a result.

I've combined 4 frames into one image below. To the left is the unaltered z-image, and to its right is the same image showing the skull x-ray overlay. No conclusions yet -- just some more ideas to mull over.

[Frank Agbat]

One additional observation:

Z-335 shows what I believe to be missing skull area. If you observe the sequence below, note that you can see Jackie's left shoulder where skull should be. At least, that's the current theory under which I am operating. Like they say about the weather in certain areas of the country, "wait 15 minutes and it will probably change..."

[John Dolva]

One additional observation:

Z-335 shows what I believe to be missing skull area. If you observe the sequence below, note that you can see Jackie's left shoulder where skull should be. At least, that's the current theory under which I am operating. Like they say about the weather in certain areas of the country, "wait 15 minutes and it will probably change..."

Interesting observation Frank. What you're doing here certainly needs to be done. (I'm still struggling with shifting the second reference point towards some degree of certainty. Some things come to mind and the weekend being over can now check.)

I think you're right in both of these presentations apart for some reorienting for preciscion. The shoulder is visible where, with an intact skull/head it wouldn't be. Here is a profileshot (mirrored) next to the frame area for reference.

[John Dolva]

When taking into account the 20% a-p dimensional distortion some things are beginning to make sense. A review of the sella turcica location derived as per above technique using 3d modelling and cancelling out bone structures that belong posterior gives a location as in diagram:

[John Dolva]

I may have completely misplaced the sella. ?? The images usually show a side view. Top views seem to place it much more inside the skull.

An orientation that makes sense of various features that depends on an oblique projection at 20% anterior to posterior size difference:

Edited December 12, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

*edit see below

Edited December 12, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Assuming a similar projection of the side of the head but not oblique. Here with the head placed facing left to right and xrayed from right to left.??

[Pat Speer]

Assuming a similar projection of the side of the head but not oblique. Here with the head placed facing left to right and xrayed from right to left.??

John, since you seem to want to work this out on your own, I'll give you suggestions without being too specific. Hint: one of the the things I exposed in my presentation was that the mysterious "slice" on the back of the head was not on the back of the head at all. It was right where Dr. Humes said it was...

Edited December 12, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

Assuming a similar projection of the side of the head but not oblique. Here with the head placed facing left to right and xrayed from right to left.??

John, since you seem to want to work this out on your own, I'll give you suggestions without being too specific. Hint: one of the the things I exposed in my presentation was that the mysterious "slice" on the back of the head was not on the back of the head at all. It was right where Dr. Humes said it was...

Thank you Pat, you bring a big smile to my face. You got it, I do want to do just that. I figure that should I be able to muddle my way to an answer in public like this then those who, with guidance by those who have already walked the path follow along, will all benefit. If I can understand it and make a vocabulary/concept set that bridges the gap to this confusing subject then anyone can.

So all your hints are much appreciated.

[John Dolva]

..mysterious slice...

Pat could you pinpoint (pref with a thumbnail) the 'mysterious slice' so there is no confusion about what you mean?

Edited December 12, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

..mysterious slice...

Pat could you pinpoint (pref with a thumbnail) the 'mysterious slice' so there is no confusion about what you mean?

I'm taking this slowly step by step before making any conclusions. The most important bench mark seems to me to have an accurate interpreatation of the orientation. I think the Frontal Sinus and the Sella Turcica appears sufficiantly clearly in both xrays for an interpretation to be made.

_______________________________

An attempt at understanding the xray machine. (see Tom's post on xrays + Pat's on the placing of the head for reference) I'm at the moment interpreting this info as follows.

One could perhaps visualise the xray machine as a giant flashlight.

On the unehanced head xrays there are what looks like markers on the right margin. If these were fixed then taking into account the interpretation of an oblique projection of the front to back (anterior-posterior) AP xray and assuming a perpendicular one for the lateral or side xray, one way this could happen is if the head/body in being turned from one orientation to the other was shifted away from the central focus of the machine ins this way the central focus for the AP was rougly over the hyoid bone. (Perhaps the body was in this position and the upper body xray was taken just then as well.)

[John Dolva]

I'm going to have to leave this one for a while in order to let the thinking level out. An example of how confusing the xrays CAN be is the following:

A suggestion::

In this orientation a whole bunch of features match up : except for the plate of bone on top of the head. The interesting thing is that when the low end grayscale values are selectively extremely enhanced on the AP xray a feature appears that does match this plate. And then there appears to be no features that don't match in some way.(similarly an enhancement of the lateral reveals semiopaque detritus lodged in the hair . A careful look at this could give hints of how the explosive cavitation dispersed matter)

By subtracting the premortem lateral xray grayscale values from the post mortem one a bright spot as indicated matches the bright spot on the AP.

The round dark spot on the lateral is the tunnel at the sella turcica and not the oval area on the AP. This oval is the perimeter of the brain pan the perimeter is easily percieved once understood and its full perimeter is interpolated through fainter shadows.