Autopsy Table

[John Dolva]

Hi John,

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

Could we get this absolutely clear. I think it might be important.

If one keeps the angle of the lens the same but moves closer so that z is the same but x changes on c then one is the same distance from the plane of the cd's but the lens captures the image differently so that the 'distortions' are different.

So the 'centered in one dimension' becomes a statement I cannot understand. Could you explain what you mean , please.

[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.

In the Body Parts topic a question was asked to point out the drainage hole, so to follow up and make sure this is clearly understood:

This drainage hole was at some point in the history of this photograph cropped out. Those who are familiar with this history should consider at which point this was done. Without it the orientation of the photograph becomes a big question.

With it, there are only two possibilities. As indicated or its vertical mirror. When considering the lightsource and looking at the reflection on the lip of the drainage hole there is only one way: as indicated...

Edited January 25, 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!

Could we get this absolutely clear. I think it might be important.

If one keeps the angle of the lens the same but moves closer so that z is the same but x changes on c then one is the same distance from the plane of the cd's but the lens captures the image differently so that the 'distortions' are different.

So the 'centered in one dimension' becomes a statement I cannot understand. Could you explain what you mean , please.

John,

I'll try for a better explanation!

First -- just to make sure that we are talking about the same axis and plane references.

Take your left hand, stick your thumb straight up in the air, extend your index finger away from you (this forms the child's 'gun with your hand' position). Lastly, take your second finger and point it to the right. Your thumb (up and down) is the Z axis. Your Index finger (away and toward you) is the Y axis. Your second finger (left and right) is the X axis.

In image C, the camera's Y-axis coordinate remained unchanged and was over the center of the CD grid. That is what I meant by 'centered in one dimension' -- the Y axis value was unchanged. The Z coordinate reduced, while the X coordinate increased. By using the meterstick, I was able to make sure that the lens was always 1 meter from the center CD. (the meter stick is the hypotenuse of the triangle)

Going back to the autopsy table -- this would be a picture shot from overhead, but with the camera off-center and tilted to get the lens pointing back at the center of the table.

In image D, the camera's X-axis coordinate remains fixed (with the center of the grid), and the Y and Z axis values change accordingly (again, the meter stick is the hypotenuse).

This is the effect of someone standing at the head of the autopsy table. The camera would be centered left-to-right on the table, but the person taking the picture is taller than the table height, so the camera is tilted down to take the appropriate image.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Frank Agbat

[John Dolva]

OK, I got you Frank(I think). So am I right in assuming that at the time of taking these photos that you did not consider the angle at which the lens was looking at the cd's. If so this is understandable, you were probably showing something where you considered that not important.

In this context though. Did you note the angle at which the camera viewed the cd's.

A lens only transmits an 'approximation' of 'reality'. Change the angle and the thing that you may be photographing, while appearing to be the same, will change to some degree. If you remembered ot noted this 'attack' of the lens can you write on this, please?

*I don't know what the correct term is here so I use one from ballistics describing the pose a bullet has at any time in relation to where it is heading.

[Frank Agbat]

OK, I got you Frank(I think). So am I right in assuming that at the time of taking these photos that you did not consider the angle at which the lens was looking at the cd's. If so this is understandable, you were probably showing something where you considered that not important.

In this context though. Did you note the angle at which the camera viewed the cd's.

A lens only transmits an 'approximation' of 'reality'. Change the angle and the thing that you may be photographing, while appearing to be the same, will change to some degree. If you remembered ot noted this 'attack' of the lens can you write on this, please?

*I don't know what the correct term is here so I use one from ballistics describing the pose a bullet has at any time in relation to where it is heading.

John,

I'm not 100% sure that I follow your question... (is the term you are looking for perhaps "vector"?)

The camera lens in these pictures is always aimed directly at the center hole of the center CD in the 5x5 grid and is always 1 meter away (except for the overview picture, which was just to show the layout). And, because we are dealing with 3d space, I will have to give angles relative to one or more planes.

B, C, D, and F are simpler -- only one angle is being introduced:

Picture B: The camera lens is 90 degrees (perpendicular) relative to the floor (which is our X-Y plane). The vector representing the patch of light from the center of the lens to the center of the cdgrid has only a changing z component (it is straight up and down)

Picture C: The lens angle is approximately 45 degrees. The "lens to cd vector" in this case has both a Z and an X component, but no changing Y component.

Picture D: The lens angle is approximately 45 degrees relative to the floor plane. The "lens to cd vector" in this case has both a Z and an Y component, but no changing X. So the lens is above floor level, pointing downward at the center CD at a 45 degree angle.

Picture F: The lens vector angle is approximately 25 degrees relative to the floor plane, with the same parameters as D.

Picture E: This is more complex to describe. The angles in question are both approximately 45 degrees. The lens is looking DOWN at 45 degrees and LEFT 45 degrees.

Picture E: As in E, this is a more complex view. The angles in question are both about 25 degrees. Down 25 degrees, RIGHT 25 degrees (approximately). (I did the best I could to maintain the angles).

[John Dolva]

Thank you very much, Frank, most grateful. It'll help in refining understanding.

Is it possible to post G totally uncropped?

EDIT:: This relates to 'context' :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=52333

Edited January 25, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

Thank you very much, Frank, most grateful. It'll help in refining understanding.

Is it possible to post G totally uncropped?

EDIT:: This relates to 'context' :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=52333

John,

Yes -- I'm reviewing that thread with great interest. Here is an "uncropped G" -- complete with background chair and coffee spill in the background! (at some point, I should re-do these with more precise equipment, etc, etc. however, the opportunity presented itself this morning so I went ahead).

Note -- the ruler isn't pointing to the center CD -- it is running parallel to the centerCD-lens vector, but it is offset by the width of the camera. More for reference and angle than anything else.

Regards,

Frank

[Frank Agbat]

...and while I'm producing confusion....

Here is image G with some lines and notes added.

The red lines represent reference X and Y axis.

The blue lines outline the grid.

The green line shows the "skew" of the camera relative to the Y axis

(no skew would produce a straight-on shot, like in D and F).

(for you purists, the green line would be the lens vector's projection onto the XY plane)

If I placed these same lines on the overhead shot, the blue box would be a perfect square, and the red lines would be oriented like a plus sign (+).

(Also note the artifacting and color bleeding on my lines and letters. This is due to jpg artifacting and loss, and is why it is so important to always work from the best quality digital scans you can get!)

[John Dolva]

...and while I'm producing confusion....

Here is image G with some lines and notes added.

The red lines represent reference X and Y axis.

The blue lines outline the grid.

The green line shows the "skew" of the camera relative to the Y axis

(no skew would produce a straight-on shot, like in D and F).

(for you purists, the green line would be the lens vector's projection onto the XY plane)

If I placed these same lines on the overhead shot, the blue box would be a perfect square, and the red lines would be oriented like a plus sign (+).

(Also note the artifacting and color bleeding on my lines and letters. This is due to jpg artifacting and loss, and is why it is so important to always work from the best quality digital scans you can get!)

Frank, you are introducing clarity of the highest order.

While waiting I did what you have done and estimated using the crop and the statement 'the centre cd is in the centre.

It is on the centreline.

Here is the estimate before receiving the full pic.

reproducible, provable. Thank you.

the full pic estimate matches and supports the idea or theory on which this headwound photo should be viewed.

I wonder if some careful calculations can give us your exact height? Where these lines intersect is that a point plumb down from the centre of the surface collecting data in the camera as presented to it by the lens?

EDIT:: let me guess, you used a tripod and it is one meter off the floor?

FURTHER EDIT:: I would guess that the viewfinder on your camera is off set from the centre of the lens. So while what you see in the view finder is that the centre cd is indeed centered. For the lens its offset?

(I wonder if that is the reason for the apparent cropping of the lower part of the limousine in the zfilm. I could imagine that his movie camera, as it's not the cheapest on the market, was adjusted for such a thing so that for far and up to a point the two match. For close shots the line interescts between the camera and the subject making the camera filming the image that appears above that which is centered in the view finder. As he didn't zoom we have whats there now.(This is another subject though and I want to focus on the table here. Just logging the thought))

Edited January 25, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

"We live in a consumer society where advertisement is the way that not only items but ideas and news is presented with a profit motive. Truth becomes a commodity to be presented and consumed, tainted by a 'wow factor', and by 'sex appeal'.

Truth is marketed, and therefore ends up often not being truth at all but simply the version that is most appealing or : least uncomfortable.

Where real truth intrudes and threatens a precious 'idea' it is dealt with either by:

...not dealing with it at all. This is a kind of convenient blindness that advertising depends on and is pushed heavily as being acceptable. However, it is NOT acceptable in this context.

...as often happens in this context, by questioning the reality that the truth is based on. In other words, if a truth is not ACCEPTABLE, then the evidence that displays that truth must be false or manufactured or 'altered'.

Fortunately these things can in many instances be dealt with by some clear, correct thinking. In the worst scenario a visit to a psychiatrist may help. In most instances cross referencing and simple logic helps.

It is important to love truth so much that physical/mental discomfort takes second place to it.

It is important to be wrong, to be seen to be wrong and to accept being wrong as a normal thing. In a society that rewards 'excellence' and promotes lies, it is easy to go for promoting self and ones ideas as being correct and infallible. This is the worst thing to do. Not only does one paint oneself into a difficult corner, one also discredits ones self so that given the reality of the environment we operate in, all subsequent product is viewed in the light of previous mistakes.

The only measure to apply is : is there a steadfast adherence to a faulty premise beyond reasonable doubt. If there is, then yes, by all means reclassify such a source as always to be doubted. Failing to do so leads to 'cultism', cronyism and factionalism. The solution is as William indicates : independent critical thought to all things. Including self.

___________________________________

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/doyle_sir_arthur_conan/2.htm

"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I'd rephrase the second quote "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however uncomfortable, must be the truth."

___________________________________

It should be possible to estimate the location of the photographer in relation to Kennedy's head. Once this is done one may proceed with confidence.

Edited January 25, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

Hi John,

I did not use the viewfinder on the camera to create alignment. I used the LCD preview screen and attempted to center the image that way. The viewfinder, however, WOULD introduce parallax errors , as it is not a TTL (through-the-lens) viewfinder. However, the LCD preview screen IS looking through the lens, so it provided better results. There *is* a slight centering error on this image, but only in one direction (it appears to be aimed a tad low). I attribute this to two possible causes: 1 - image cropping done by the camera itself (the LCD image is slightly smaller than the actual image produced). 2 - my intense focus on getting the angle relative to the x-axis correct.

Another item of interest: the camera's flash is not centered above the lens. This is actually noticeable if you compare the green lens-vector with the flash reflection in the CDs -- they diverge ever so slightly.

You asked:

EDIT:: let me guess, you used a tripod and it is one meter off the floor?

No -- the camera is only precisely 1 meter off the floor in picture D. In the other pictures, the hypotenuse (the ruler) is precisely 1 meter. We must use the Pythagorean theorem (or trigonometry) to compute height.

I'm working up an example -- will post shortly...

[Frank Agbat]

Okay -- sorry for the delay in posting this -- work beckoned (loudly).

Here is a "quick and dirty" 2D diagram that will describe the elevation above the floor and the angle of the lens: (this example shows the 45-degree angle, but the trig is essentially the same for the 25-degree flavor.)

The rules of trigonometry tells us that:

sine(45 degrees) = length of "opposite side" (height) divided by the length of the hypotenuse (the ruler)

so:

sine(45 degrees) = height / 1.0 meters

solving this equation for height gives us a camera height of about 0.707 meters (about 70cm above the ground).

For the 25-degree angle picture:

sine(25 degrees) = height / 1.0 meters

solving this gives us a camera height of about .423 meters (about 42 centimeters above the ground).

[John Dolva]

OK, Thats clear. Some time spent on the autopsy photos applying these principles may lead to more definite statements.

I find the use of CD's an inspiration. The multiple cocentric circles and their uniformity makes them a useful tool. In looking for good images of them in order to reproduce your presentation virtually I came across a guy who simply stacks them togetherand puts a lamp in the centre for a simple but interesting lamp. Anyway a photo of a stack gives a nice tool for analysing the plate joint.

An understanding of how these circles behave laft and right of the centre line of the photo is invaluable, and the presentation Frank has made here, while basic in reality is the sort of thing that forms the basis of any serious study. It removes 'myth' and speculation and introduces certainty.

What one ends up with then is something that will stand up independent of anyone. It's reproducible and provable.

OK so what is the 'final', determination of the correct orientation of the photo in question?

Edited January 25, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

OK so what is the 'final', determination of the correct orientation of the photo in question?

Preliminary 'final' using above.

Here with background peripheral items (table, prop, towel, floor...) separated from the actual body parts.

Edited January 26, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

...

OK so what is the 'final', determination of the correct orientation of the photo in question?

John,

I'm certainly not at a "conclusion" state on much of anything yet. Still assembling some concepts and ideas and trying to increase understanding.

Today has been fortunate in some regards, and less so in others. I have been fortunate enough to get access to some equipment that may help us understand the wounds a bit better in addition to helping with the photographic analysis. I managed to get some preliminary work started during the day, and had planned to use the evening on some initial, presentable materials. However, most of my evening has been unintentionally consumed on other, non-productive endeavors. Such is the way of things, sometimes.

Regards,

Frank