Xrays revisited

[John Dolva]

A suggested interpretation:

Lateral

The unenhanced xray is larger than the enhanced one.

If one takes this unenhanced one and enhances it there are faint indications of the upper jaw and the top part of the mandible where it is socketed in the skull.

Using a standard caucasian skull indicates that faint outlines are correctly interpreted as part of the skull.

Taking the postmortem mandible xray and placing it in relation to the skull xray fits the picture.

This then makes sense of the apparent offset of the placing of the enhanced xray in relation to the unenhanced one.

Also separating and enhancing the lower part of the enhanced xray outlines the mandible.

_________

AP

Repeating as above.

Again this makes sense of the apparent 'misplacing' of the enhanced xray in relation to the unenhanced one.

_________

Realising

that the AP xray was taken with the head tilted back AND swiveled clockwise.

and

The lateral xray was misplaced differently, tilted top and rear.

places the 'dot' on the side of the skull and the crack as shown. Scaling is now correct.

_____________________

Conclusion: the xrays are not altered.

They are selectively enhanced and presented incorrectly in order to support the official view. Hence the difficulty of making sense of them, because they do not make sense without the above realisations.

Further: cross referencing the xrays is only possible when considering the differing orientations of the skull for the two xrays. ?????????????

Edited December 22, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

There is a furrow leading to the fragment that appears on both xrays indicating the fragment gouged into the bone from a front rear-top down direction.

__________________________

Wound descriptions from various shootings:

"....portrays Platt from a left side view looking over his left shoulder while he’s sitting in a slightly hunched over position. Mireles shot number 2 is shown striking the forehead above the right eye (about 11 o’clock position in reference to the eye socket). The bullet fragment is depicted penetrating the skin, glancing off the outer surface of the curvature of the right side of the forehead and traveling between the skin and the outer surface of the skull for about 2 inches where it lodged under the scalp over the right temple."

"At another Case of a Large caliber bullet, entering the Head, circumscribing the Skull inside, then exiting the Entry wound went different: The patient completely recovered and never lost Conciouseness."

"There are rare circumstances -- for instance, there are circumstances in which the bullet enters the skull and because of low velocity of the bullet, it will travel along the inner path of the skull coming around to this side."

"gutter fracture : a fracture of the skull in which the depression is long elliptic in form; often caused by a missile passing along the outside or grooving the inside of the skull"

____________________________

AP and lateral crops of the fragment with path/groove emphasised. The darkening of the groove to (anterior) and around (posterior) the fragment indicates the tunnelling into bone.

Edited December 22, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

this scaling correction helps locate woundings shown in photos

[John Dolva]

this scaling correction helps locate woundings shown in photos

please refer to above posts.

Those who choose to look at this suggestion with a critical eye may find that the basic suggestion is indeed correct.

What is needed is:

A copy of the whole image presented by the HSCA as an enhanced lateral xray. This includes the lower portion often left out in analysis.

A copy of the unenhanced lateral xray. This includes areas not shown in the enhanced xray.

A copy of the postmortem lateral dental xray depicting mandible and maxilla.

A copy of a standard caucasian skull and a copy of a standard lateral xray. (this will approximate but for this purpose is sufficient.)

If one takes the enhanced and the unenhanced Kennedy xrays and shifts the black-white points to the extreme of the grayscale spectrum, gamma corrects and does a histogram equalisation, the structures previously not recognised will be revealed.

Superimpose the unenhanced and enhanced and one finds that the enhanced is an enhancement of the left area of the unenhanced, (also not including segment surrounding this).

On the enhanced xray on the lower panel other features appear that may or not be relevant but according to this analysis become of interest.

If one groups or flattens or merges transparencies of this duo and superimposes this on both a standard skull and a standard xray one finds that the features previously omitted match portions of skull such as maxilla and mandible.

Doing this without regard to expectations reveals that the enhancement presents a false view of the evidence.

It makes sense now of the displacement of the enhancement and the apparent displacement of the unenhanced. :: It is NOT displaced, it is centered. The enhanced xray is however selectively ignoring features that if included helps to explain apparent anomalies. :: there are no anomalies. The xrays are easy to understand.

It appears it may be a fundamental sleight of hand.

Comments please.

[Pat Speer]

John, one of the many curiousities of the HSCA is that they cropped Kennedy's teeth and jaw off the lateral x-rays (supposedly because they looked too much like Kennedy), but used the teeth and jaw to confirm the authenticity of the x-rays. They even printed them in the testimony of Lowell Levine. So we're left with the conclusion that the teeth and jaw only looked like Kennedy when combined with the rest of his skull... It's absolutely idiotic.

The x-rays started making sense to me when I isolated one bullet fragment on the forehead in the lateral x-ray and matched it in size to the same fragment on the A-P x-ray. I noticed at that time that the fragment supposedly on the back of the head was in the eye socket, right where Humes said it was, and almost exactly where it is depicted in Rydberg drawing CE 388.

Hope this helps.

Edited December 24, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

John, one of the many curiousities of the HSCA is that they cropped Kennedy's teeth and jaw off the lateral x-rays (supposedly because they looked too much like Kennedy), but used the teeth and jaw to confirm the authenticity of the x-rays. They even printed them in the testimony of Lowell Levine. So we're left with the conclusion that the teeth and jaw only looked like Kennedy when combined with the rest of his skull... It's absolutely idiotic.

If I'm following you right, you're trying to ........use the contrast of the A-P to match it to the lateral....... I don't think that's possible. The x-rays were taken at different settings of the skull from different angles. The lateral has an area of three layers of bone that confuses everything. The x-rays started making sense to me when I isolated one bullet fragment on the forehead in the lateral x-ray and matched it in size to the same fragment on the A-P x-ray. I noticed at that time that the fragment supposedly on the back of the head was in the eye socket, right where Humes said it was, and almost exactly where it is depicted in Rydberg drawing CE 388.

Hope this helps.

If I read correctly, there may be a misunderstanding here. For my part could you clarify 'contrast ...' please.

Rereading my posts will show there is no disagreement regarding different positions of the head at the time of the xrays.

My suggestion is that if one takes the UN-enhanced xray and the enhanced xray of both the AP and the lateral, one will see that the area selected for enhancement is not centered on the unenhanced. However, and this is what I'm trying to show here, if one selects the prevously deselected area one finds through enhancements that there are structures indicating that the head WAS centered on the original xrays. However through the type of xray they are and through sloppy or deliberate selection of areas to present to the commission important areas were neglected.

IF one goes ahead and INCLUDES these areas (namely: maxilla and forehead outline and other structures on the lateral xray and the lower portion of the enhanced lateral xray(this area is contentious but the surprising thing is that the areas revealed by selectively enhancing as per above post reveals structure just where one might expect the mandible and spine to be.) one finds that the location of the structures presented by the enhanced xray actually belong further back on the skull. The consequence of this also as shown above is that the large wound IS in fact rearward, however its a gutter wound and I'm not really trying to interpret things at this stage, I just want to get this particular point cleared up.

_______

Now if one takes into account this AND the different poses of the head,(see image 1st post) the xrays while correctly recognised as impossible to directly cross reference, CAN be crossreferenced to properly orientated skulls and these skulls can have structures recognised and thus cross referenced by inference.

_______

(The dental xrays are available in the HSCA volumes. see section IV authenticity (vol 7)

The full set of released xray copies in vol 7 (kennedy pdf))

Edited December 24, 2005 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

You're right, John, that sentence was nearly nonsensical. I'd totally misunderstood what you were doing. For some reason I thought you were trying to match the white spots on one x-ray to the other, on the basis of how white they are. I was trying to explain that there are other factors effecting the relative whiteness, or opacity, such as the settings on the x-ray machine.

In my presentation I compared the enhanced and unenhanced A-P x-rays and found that the bottom inch or so of the unenhanced x-ray was not enhanced. Dr. McDonnell says in his report that the enhancements were done at his request so I guess he's to blame. I share your suspicions that cutting off this region--the region closest to where Humes said there was an entrance wound, would serve no purpose beyond hiding something... perhaps McDonnell was afraid it would show an entrance near the EOP and prove the Forensic Pathology Panel and Clark Panel wrong...

John, one of the many curiousities of the HSCA is that they cropped Kennedy's teeth and jaw off the lateral x-rays (supposedly because they looked too much like Kennedy), but used the teeth and jaw to confirm the authenticity of the x-rays. They even printed them in the testimony of Lowell Levine. So we're left with the conclusion that the teeth and jaw only looked like Kennedy when combined with the rest of his skull... It's absolutely idiotic.

If I'm following you right, you're trying to ........use the contrast of the A-P to match it to the lateral....... I don't think that's possible. The x-rays were taken at different settings of the skull from different angles. The lateral has an area of three layers of bone that confuses everything. The x-rays started making sense to me when I isolated one bullet fragment on the forehead in the lateral x-ray and matched it in size to the same fragment on the A-P x-ray. I noticed at that time that the fragment supposedly on the back of the head was in the eye socket, right where Humes said it was, and almost exactly where it is depicted in Rydberg drawing CE 388.

Hope this helps.

If I read correctly, there may be a misunderstanding here. For my part could you clarify 'contrast ...' please.

Rereading my posts will show there is no disagreement regarding different positions of the head at the time of the xrays.

My suggestion is that if one takes the UN-enhanced xray and the enhanced xray of both the AP and the lateral, one will see that the area selected for enhancement is not centered on the unenhanced. However, and this is what I'm trying to show here, if one selects the prevously deselected area one finds through enhancements that there are structures indicating that the head WAS centered on the original xrays. However through the type of xray they are and through sloppy or deliberate selection of areas to present to the commission important areas were neglected.

IF one goes ahead and INCLUDES these areas (namely: maxilla and forehead outline and other structures on the lateral xray and the lower portion of the enhanced lateral xray(this area is contentious but the surprising thing is that the areas revealed by selectively enhancing as per above post reveals structure just where one might expect the mandible and spine to be.) one finds that the location of the structures presented by the enhanced xray actually belong further back on the skull. The consequence of this also as shown above is that the large wound IS in fact rearward, however its a gutter wound and I'm not really trying to interpret things at this stage, I just want to get this particular point cleared up.

_______

Now if one takes into account this AND the different poses of the head,(see image 1st post) the xrays while correctly recognised as impossible to directly cross reference, CAN be crossreferenced to properly orientated skulls and these skulls can have structures recognised and thus cross referenced by inference.

_______

(The dental xrays are available in the HSCA volumes. see section IV authenticity (vol 7)

The full set of released xray copies in vol 7 (kennedy pdf))

[John Dolva]

Pat? I've spent the last few weeks looking at topdown ap and lateral mri scans to try and learn the internal structure of the skull and am coming towards a conclusion that either:

The white dot is where you say. (I've yet to make sure of how far it 'should' be from the frontmost part of the skull (which is not clearly visible on the xrays)

The next obvious place is on the left rear wall of the skull (left from the point of view of observer). For this a more careful analysis of the gray scale values is under way.

Do you have any idea of what this dot is made of, it seems to me it's not lead, so would it be brass or copper?

OR it's a piece "free floating" within the skull. If so there is not a lot that could be said except perhaps to see it as a marker of the brain cavitation.

[Pat Speer]

Pat? I've spent the last few weeks looking at topdown ap and lateral mri scans to try and learn the internal structure of the skull and am coming towards a conclusion that either:

The white dot is where you say. (I've yet to make sure of how far it 'should' be from the frontmost part of the skull (which is not clearly visible on the xrays)

The next obvious place is on the left rear wall of the skull (left from the point of view of observer). For this a more careful analysis of the gray scale values is under way.

Do you have any idea of what this dot is made of, it seems to me it's not lead, so would it be brass or copper?

OR it's a piece "free floating" within the skull. If so there is not a lot that could be said except perhaps to see it as a marker of the brain cavitation.

The "slice" of bullet which was purported to be on the back of the head was the lead bullet fragment removed from behind Kennedy's right eye. The FBI performed tests on this fragment. As a result, the fragment entered into evidence by the WC is much smaller than the fragment seen on the x-rays. Researcher and Forum member John Hunt has made copies of the FBI pictures of the fragment made before the testing, and he showed these in Dallas. Perhaps he can upload it here so you can compare it to the shape on the x-ray.

Edited January 1, 2006 by Pat Speer