Autopsy Table

[John Dolva]

Hi Robin, to quote the infamous pollie a la OZ : pls explain?

I hope this is it with the panels themselves:

shallow inverted u-channels. Makes sense for strength and rigidity, and explains the 'bevelling' better.

[Robin Unger]

Hi Robin, to quote the infamous pollie a la OZ : pls explain?

The image i posted of the Bethesda morgue was to show the similarity of the floor tiles to Allan's Pitzer photo, and to highlight the floor space and surrounding area as clearly as possible.

To the right of the image looks to be what some have called the X-Ray machine, also just too the right of that appears to be some sort of step.

Is that part of the gallery, or is it part of the tile wall with the phone on it. ?

[John Dolva]

My first guess is a wide skirting to keep wheeled machines, trolleys off the wall.

_________________________________________________________

(As far as the table goes

One can even make a good guess as to the width of the stiffening lip if one (reasonably) assumes large sheets of SS where the holes are stamped out first in a uniform grid. Then halfway between every 3rd and 4th hole the sheet is gillioutined into strips which then has the corners cut in on the long side and the curve rolled. Then the edges are folded down. Simple, efficient and economical. Then finer machining to remove burrs etc...)

Now with regards to the drainage holes. The important thing is that we have a flat table and that the holes are round.

This means that when viewed head on the holes appear round and as one views more and more obliquely they are more and more elliptical WITH THE WIDEST DIMENSION PERPENDICULAR TO THE LINE OF SIGHT!!!

This is so important to realise. It is an indisputable fact. A benchmark of the highest order.

It means that

a photograph that contains an obliquely viewed round hole on a flat surface parallel with the surface of the earth or horizontal

is correctly orientated

when a line drawn from side to side along the widest part of the ellipse is level.

Am I right?

[Robin Unger]

QUOTE:

Am I right?

That sounds correct to me, i see that in the image of kennedy taken from behind with his right shoulder propped up.

The drain hole near his shoulder appears "OVAL" in shape HORIZONTALLY.

John.

I will do a search, and try to find images of autopsy tables with a similar construction.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Allan Eaglesham]

Hi Robin, to quote the infamous pollie a la OZ : pls explain?

The image i posted of the Bethesda morgue was to show the similarity of the floor tiles to Allan's Pitzer photo, and to highlight the floor space and surrounding area as clearly as possible.

To the right of the image looks to be what some have called the X-Ray machine, also just too the right of that appears to be some sort of step.

Is that part of the gallery, or is it part of the tile wall with the phone on it. ?

Robin:

I believe it's a step to the gallery. The wall with the telephone was opposite, i.e. on the other side of the autopsy table that was on the right-hand side of those sitting in the gallery.

Below is Paul O'Connor's sketch of the autopsy room. My arrow indicates the approximate location of the wall telephone.

Allan

[Robin Unger]

Thanks Allan.

Exellent.

I have been trying to pin point the location of that phone for some time.

That helps me greatly to orientate the various autopsy photo's.

[John Dolva]

My first guess is a wide skirting to keep wheeled machines, trolleys off the wall.

_________________________________________________________

(As far as the table goes

One can even make a good guess as to the width of the stiffening lip if one (reasonably) assumes large sheets of SS where the holes are stamped out first in a uniform grid. Then halfway between every 3rd and 4th hole the sheet is gillioutined into strips which then has the corners cut in on the long side and the curve rolled. Then the edges are folded down. Simple, efficient and economical. Then finer machining to remove burrs etc...)

Now with regards to the drainage holes. The important thing is that we have a flat table and that the holes are round.

This means that when viewed head on the holes appear round and as one views more and more obliquely they are more and more elliptical WITH THE WIDEST DIMENSION PERPENDICULAR TO THE LINE OF SIGHT!!!

This is so important to realise. It is an indisputable fact. A benchmark of the highest order.

It means that

a photograph that contains an obliquely viewed round hole on a flat surface parallel with the surface of the earth or horizontal

is correctly orientated

when a line drawn from side to side along the widest part of the ellipse is level.

Am I right?

No! wrong. This applies when the hole is viewed directly from the center point of the photograph. When it is off to the side it will no longer mean that a line through the centre of the hole along its longest axis when turned to level will give the orientation of the camera when the photograph was taken.

One also needs to know the center.

What it does mean is that one can know that one is looking at a horizontal plane and that all other perspectives, lines, inferences derived obey in set ways.

Right?? ...any input? It's important.

Edited January 24, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Got a bit ahead of myself there..backtrack a bit. one 'myth' at a time.

The widest dimension is perpendicular to the direction that the hole was seen by the camera.

These holes and other items on the table exist in specific geometry.

Definites::

A horizontal, flat table with a uniform grid and straight uniform tubular shapes around its perimeter.

These items appear on photos either right in front of, off to the left or off to the right, above or below an xy coordinate centered on the center of the photo, and nowhere else.

Therfore one can say which orientations of the photos are definitely wrong.

EDIT:: I'm leaving the erroneous statements on this in other post as they might trigger off a train of thought that may enable someone to state succinctly what is trying to be said here. Once clear, perhaps one can go on to the next step

Edited January 24, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

"So if one knows the centre of the photograph then every such circular hole to the right of this centre must tilt clockwise..."

Lines that appear as vanishing away from the observer on a horizontal plane such as a line from the observer through the center of the hole and in this instance the curved plate joint will intersect at a point from which one can project upwards a vertical line that will intersect the centre of the camera lens.

Then, rotating the image and extending lines around the intersection of the vertical line and the plane (in this instance the table top) until the center of the picture lines up with the vertical line one then has the correct orientation of the photograph.

This is the theory.

The line from the hole to the observer is at right angle to a line through the widest part of the elliptical hole.

Estimating this is a matter of image resolution and has an element of error.

One needs a second line away from the observer. This can be estimated from two circles at the joint.

This again has an element of error.

_______________________________

Some things need to be established prior to continuing..

1. Is that the plate joint...

2. Once a second line is had and an orientation is estimated, is the error significant?

1... looking into it

2... I don't think it needs to be. The result one is looking for is to do with some simple options as to the body positions. Once that is established one moves on to the next step..

...interpretation. But not yet.

[John Dolva]

1. The theory behind the orientation seems ok to me. The item that looks like the gap between the plates over the pipe has all the features of the known gap. The way that the edge of the far plate is shining on to the pipe and that reflection blocked by the near plate is consistent enough to offer a suggestion as to orientation.

2. There is a small range of error as to the exact rotation but I think one can say it is like this with an error margin less than plus or minus 5 degrees.

I agree largely with Robins simple description: "That sounds correct to me, I see that in the image of Kennedy taken from behind with his right shoulder propped up. The drain hole near his shoulder appears "OVAL" in shape HORIZONTALLY."

I would add that his head is also propped up, tilting towards the camera.

The hole is visible in the area that is cropped out of the standard image available. This may have been done intentionally in order to perpetuate a false view.

There is a strip on the left that is also usually cropped out. There is a table top underneath the interlocking plates table top. I suggest that the items visible there is something that has been placed on that lower table top and now projects into view.

The photo is not a standard 5x7 which means there are still missing bits. It would not surprise me that if one had these missing bits all would become much more obvious.

Edited January 24, 2006 by John Dolva

[Robin Unger]

[Frank Agbat]

John,

I really hope this post adds, rather than detracts, from the discussion at hand...

Photography is, essentially, the projection of a 3d object (or objects, of course) onto a 2D surface. Because one cannot go from 3d to 2d without, essentially, loss of information, there will always be something that is "sacrificed" when the picture is taken. One dimension (or more) will be compromised in some way, as is required by the projection. Our brains are well-versed, however, in dealing with this concept. It uses shading, coloring, light fall-off, converging lines, etc, to establish and, effectively, recreate the "errored" dimension.

***

I had the opportunity to take some pictures that might (hopefully!) illustrate some of these notions... I needed some round objects arranged in a grid. Lacking anything better, I created a grid from some old CDs. They're round objects, manufactured with reasonable tolerances, etc, etc, and should do a decent job of illustration. I have a meter-stick included in the photographs to force scale and perspective. All are taken with a fixed zoom lens, all from the same distance.

I'll discuss each pic below. (When I refer to the X-Y plane, think of it as the floor, with the Z-axis extending upward).

A. A overview of the 5X5 CD grid, taken from more-or-less overhead.

B. Overhead shot of the grid taken from directly above the center from a distance of 1 meter. All the CDs retain their circular shape. In this case, two of the three dimensions are nearly perfectly intact. Note however, that depth is lost, in reality. We *know* that the meter stick is standing vertically... or do we? Is it a meterstick standing vertically, or a v-shaped piece of wood that I laid on top of the CDs from left to right? Well, in this case, it is standing vertically (converging lines, light falloff, etc, helps our brain with this one). This picture can be said to be taken from a position that is perpendicular to the X-Y plane of the grid.

C. In this picture, I started from the position in shot B and skewed the camera to the right approximately 45 degrees. The camera is still looking down on the grid, and is centered in one dimension. The distance from lens to center of grid is again 1 meter.

D. In this picture, I started form position B and moved the camera down -- reduced the z-axis (height above grid) value -- and decreased the y-axis value (moved toward the front of the grid). The angle above the X-Y plane in this picture is about 45 degrees, while remaining perpendicular with the Y-Z plane. In other words, I'm shooting at the center of the grid from the front and above. Distance is 1 meter. As expected, in this picture, two distortions become obvious. Lines which should be more or less parallel (the edges of the grid) noticeably converge in the distance, and the roundness of the CDs becomes distorted and oval -- in this case, they stretch in the x-axis directions and compress in the y-axis direction.

E. This picture starts from position D and is taken from the right front of the grid looking left. The angle relative to the X-Y plane remains about 45 degrees, but I am no longer perpendicular with the Y-Z plane.

F. This picture is the same as D with a lower angle above the X-Y plane. The nature of the distortion is the same as seen in D, but more extreme.

G. This is picture F, but the camera is no longer perpendicular to the Y-Z plane. We are now looking at the grid from the front and left.

***

Hope this is somehow useful!

[John Dolva]

Frank, that's fantastic. Knowing the angles and distances is 'just what the doctor ordered'. I'll take the time to study in detail.

I have difficulty understanding the difference between C and D. I think I got it but 'centered in one dimension' may need more explaining?

___________

Very useful. A number of these are very relevant to the discussion.

I'm going to see to what extent things change by manipulating the images in various ways.

I think it helps to understand the relationship of things according to where the camera is pointing. In other words I can extrapolate in all dimensions but if I lose the center I get thrown and false distortions creep in.

One question with the autopsy hotos is that with the cropping that has gone on : How sure can one be of the 'centers'?

And how significant is it? I think this presentation goes a long way towards answering,

Edited January 24, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

The guy is taking a light reading, but if you take a line from his eyes you have...

the edge of jaw/chin

the edge of shoulder

the hole near shoulder

the gap between plates

a standard autopsy reflection

...a VERY large hole to the right rear. Just as described...

The pose is anatomically correct, as can be seen from prayer meeting.

EDIT:: just to separate the speculations from the 'hard evidence' :: "The stirrup cradle is a suggestion where the head is wedged side on onto the cradle holding it snugly with the left wing curving up to the left of head giving it a good position to work on and explaining the photopgraph." This is just an idea. There is slight evidence on the photo to support this, But the idea is that the head is tilted as shown. This helps to explain a number of features on the BODY PARTS themselves. The tilt can be achieved by many other prop types.

Next is to move on to look at some of the body parts. Starting peripherally and working from there.

Edited January 24, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

Hi John,

There really isn't any different other than orientation between C & D. In retrospect, I could have skipped C!