John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) OK. this is my suggestion with the hole turned slightly clockwise. Edited January 27, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) I'd like to introduce what I think may be the next consideration (once a general agreement is had on how the photo is oriented (I think consideration of the small peripheral items that are not in doubt such as the drain hole should be the guide, not an expectation of fitting already known ideas, of course they go hand in hand and ultimately all must make sense) My understanding of what has been said about lenses and how things change as one moves in to take a snap leads me to look at 'distortion correction' Here with this particular one the photo can be level as the drain hole gets the desired aspect or tilt through the correction and no turning is necessary. Somehow , to me, the photo now gets an overall 'real feel'. EDIT :: large version:: http://photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee...urrent=dc01.jpg Edited January 27, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 John, Would it be possible to post one that does not include the distortion correction? Also -- this link was posted in another thread: http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000033.htm I would be interested to hear your comments on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 That is very interesting Frank. My first impressions are: This person is recognising the truth about the body parts. In order to present the photo in that 180 degree rotation (see the hole alalysis above) the hole and the plate gap are cropped out. What better way to deal with difficult isssues? Delete them!! problem solved??? naah, sorry doesn't work that way. The important part sare cropped out and described instead in doubtful terms. "it appears"... "not clear..." _______________________ It raises an important issue. Even though this person has got the body parts correct. He/she still cannot let go of preconceptions, or cannot let go of wanting to see it in a particular way. I think the Conan Doyle quotes are apt "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." Anyway that is my first impressions. I think a methocdical step by careful step will solve this. It must be. And the process of doing so is an invaluable lesson in pre judice, method etc applicable to may other features of this investigation. Here's the undistorted BE7 (in the orientation I think is correct) http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/be7.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Some more thoughts on the zimmerman link you posted Frank. The analysis of the light as you made on other photo is appliccable here. Not only that: if this photo (as I suggest is turned 180 degrees from it's proper orientation) is correctly turned in the zimmermn link then it is unique in other ways as well, like where the ruler is placed for example. Possibly there is a desire to see the photo not in it's proper orientation but as something more easy to understand... ie 'a body is below a head'. As the actual body parts are correctly recognised I suppose that doesn't matter in terms of analysis. However I'm not 100 % convinced yet that we have the correct orientation yet. But I'm pretty sure and there seems to be little doubt about it expressed. I'd prefer more 'doubt' to deal with, as it would help refine the explanation. At some point one would start an analysis of the wounds themselves. It would be unfortunate if it was based on a possibly doubtful benchmark such as photo orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) QUOTE: However I'm not 100 % convinced yet that we have the correct orientation yet. But I'm pretty sure and there seems to be little doubt about it expressed. I'd prefer more 'doubt' to deal with, as it would help refine the explanation. So far i have lurked on this thread and not commented much, awaiting the Final conclusion. But since you asked for some feed back i will say this. John. In the image you posted above of BE7, the drain hole, was that in the original image as is,or was it an artifact that you have added to the image from one of your previous posts for demonstration purposes only. I must be perfectly honest here: I have looked a many photos of the skull and even knowing where to look for the drain hole i am still confused as to how you can seemingly see it so clearly and i can not. Fox Index. Notice in some of the images, the slight variations in what appears to be the same photo. Edited January 27, 2006 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Robin, I don't add artefacts without poining it out. The photo is generally presented in one size. In the usual one half the drain hole is visible, In the colored version most of it is visible. In the version like the one on the link I posted most of it is visible. (I see reason to believe that there are further missing cropouts of this that exist, someone has them and at some time choose to withhold them for some reason.) http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000033.htm When just looking at the images many features are hidden until one adjusts gamma so the either the dark areas become lighter and consequently the light areas become lighter to the point that they lose detail or darken light areas to see detail there and darken the already dark to the point of losing there. I've posted many views of the drain hole and find it hard to understand that anyone has difficulty seeing it. Perhaps it's a question of image viewer, or perhaps the image being viewed. I can see it in most copies I've come across. In grainy poor spectrum ones it is doubtful. ...look at the posts. I've also noticed that there are a number of 'versions' of images floating around. I think they are basically derived from two sets, colored and grayscale that have been saved in different ways and partially cropped. I've been putting together some info on this and will post later. A number of copies of even the apparently large ones have signs of being cropped (check image proportions) Many have been adjusted in various ways. Others have been scanned off books others have been created from poor quality ones that someone has tried to enhance. Basically I think they are derivatives of a limited number initial set BTW the input is essential, to be left wandering around undirected in this sort of thing is a disservice to truth. The drainage hole, the image rotation, geometry gamma, truth...whatever... exists independently of any person. The conclusion based on such known facts exists also. And independent of discovery by anyone. It's just a matter of understanding by trying to understand. What one then sees is not a 'discovery'. It's just seeing what is already there. The change is within, not in the photos. Edited January 27, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 QUOTE: Robin, I don't add artefacts without poining it out. Thanks John. I assumed that was the case, just looking for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Yep, that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Robin, There seem to be any number of images circulating around out there. Some are better than others, and some are cropped. I had a cropped version where it was very hard to see the drain holes. The uncropped version that John posted makes it much easier to see. John, *If* the same camera was used to take the "blowout" wound photo as was used to take the others, then I'm reasonably certain that we have the *photo* orientation correct (based on lighting, etc, etc.). Now we need to understand how the head could be placed on rest or on a block to show these features. There are any number of possible tilts, turns, leans, etc, that could have been used to expose this wound for photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) That's great, Frank. That's a good point for us to get to. I'm ready to drop it and return to the basics should a reason to do so arise, but I agree, next step as you say. Perhaps a good point to start (it probably sounds silly, but to cover all bases as we go : the wound was somewhere on the head. The consensus is that it was largely on the right hemisphere. In other words the head is not face down? If so, then the choices are limited within a certain range. (remembering it must fit with the established orientation benchmark) Edited January 28, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 That's great, Frank. That's a good point for us to get to. I'm ready to drop it and return to the basics should a reason to do so arise, but I agree, next step as you say. Perhaps a good point to start (it probably sounds silly, but to cover all bases as we go : the wound was somewhere on the head. The consensus is that it was largely on the right hemisphere. In other words the head is not face down? If so, then the choices are limited within a certain range. (remembering it must fit with the established orientation benchmark) John, Equalizing the image, while increasing some inevitable jpg artifacting, also helps reveal some additional background features. I take special interest in the lower left portion of the picture where what might be a block object is visible. (I'm almost out of space, so I'm going to dump larger images up to photobucket for the time being) http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fra...at/0d505aac.jpg No -- your starting point isn't silly. It is proper procedure to cover the basics. That way, there are common and agreed starting points. Well begun is half done, as Mary Poppins would say! Yes -- the wound is somewhere on the head, and I believe it is safe to say that we are looking at a portion of the head. ** Every time I look at this picture, I get different notions of things... I'm just going to "think outloud" for a few lines and see what everyone thinks. 1 -- Tonight, with the equalized image, I think that the head may be situated more-or-less as it was in the stare-of-death photo-- face up. 2 -- The head is tilted slightly to the right. The reflected scalp runs ear to ear, and it is higher on the left side of the picture. 3 -- The picture is taken from the left, looking right, so we are seeing the right hemisphere but the shadow and light falloff obsure most of the left. Also, this is supported by the reflected scalp looking much more intact on the left of this photo. 4 -- the "ear to ear" cut to initiate the scalp reflection did NOT run right across the skull cap, but appears to have run posterior of that (maybe halfway up from the hairline in the back). I say this because the I believe that the right ear is visible on the right of this photo (perhaps just down and left a bit from the drain hole). The forward reflection already shows scalp material, so I think that they stopped near the top of the head to take this photo. 5 -- I believe that this does not show the whole wound well, as the slight skew of the head, the angle of the photo, and the closeness of the lens to the head obscures some of the additional wounding in the right anterior. 6 -- I think the white piece (almost triangular) jutting out on the right, and showing evidence of hair is NOT the president's cheek as the other author indicated, but is the "wing" that shows up over the ear in some other shots. 7 -- I'm working on a way to show that this orientation can be shown to be consistent with the AP X-ray, and that we're looking mostly at parietal bone. There are two features that I believe support this conclusion. I will attempt to post something that shows what I think I see... 8 -- the hairline itself is not visible. However, I believe that we are looking at the hairline from the inside, so to speak. ** I'm very tired and may not be making much sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 "John, Equalizing the image, while increasing some inevitable jpg artifacting, also helps reveal some additional background features. I take special interest in the lower left portion of the picture where what might be a block object is visible. (I'm almost out of space, so I'm going to dump larger images up to photobucket for the time being) http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f280/fra...at/0d505aac.jpg No -- your starting point isn't silly. It is proper procedure to cover the basics. That way, there are common and agreed starting points. Well begun is half done, as Mary Poppins would say! Yes -- the wound is somewhere on the head, and I believe it is safe to say that we are looking at a portion of the head. ** Every time I look at this picture, I get different notions of things... I'm just going to "think outloud" for a few lines and see what everyone thinks. 1 -- Tonight, with the equalized image, I think that the head may be situated more-or-less as it was in the stare-of-death photo-- face up. 2 -- The head is tilted slightly to the right. The reflected scalp runs ear to ear, and it is higher on the left side of the picture. 3 -- The picture is taken from the left, looking right, so we are seeing the right hemisphere but the shadow and light falloff obsure most of the left. Also, this is supported by the reflected scalp looking much more intact on the left of this photo. 4 -- the "ear to ear" cut to initiate the scalp reflection did NOT run right across the skull cap, but appears to have run posterior of that (maybe halfway up from the hairline in the back). I say this because the I believe that the right ear is visible on the right of this photo (perhaps just down and left a bit from the drain hole). The forward reflection already shows scalp material, so I think that they stopped near the top of the head to take this photo. 5 -- I believe that this does not show the whole wound well, as the slight skew of the head, the angle of the photo, and the closeness of the lens to the head obscures some of the additional wounding in the right anterior. 6 -- I think the white piece (almost triangular) jutting out on the right, and showing evidence of hair is NOT the president's cheek as the other author indicated, but is the "wing" that shows up over the ear in some other shots. 7 -- I'm working on a way to show that this orientation can be shown to be consistent with the AP X-ray, and that we're looking mostly at parietal bone. There are two features that I believe support this conclusion. I will attempt to post something that shows what I think I see... 8 -- the hairline itself is not visible. However, I believe that we are looking at the hairline from the inside, so to speak. ** I'm very tired and may not be making much sense!" Commenting point by point: ____________________________ "Every time I look at this picture, I get different notions of things..." Yep.. I think the 'cure' is partially to proceed step by careful step so the explanations fall into place readily and the mind can see the whole. I personally find that the distortion correction kind of eases this to some extent by curving the 'chin' inwards and on the other side straightens a line that may be the outside dge of the table. I wonder if you could whip up a gif that changes from the undistorted to the distorted? 1.2. I think so too. There is a hint of the nose ridge pushing up the skin flap. There is the curvature of the shadow that seems to follow what looks like the cranial suture down the middle of the frontal bone. I see an odd turn to the reflected scalp on the left that needs looking at. the differences in grayscale value is not very big here, but I find an edge detecting plugin may help. 3. The acutal dimansions of the original photo may not match the rpoportions of edges here, indicating further crop. Also have you considered a center point so that a slice is cropped out of the bottom? 4. I'm hnot sure about the 'visible ear' It is about where it should be but just looks a bit odd. I'll try to hunt up a pic that gives just such a view. 5. Possibly the intention was to line things up? Ignoring the factthat such an approach is not very good as it works on a predetermined solution that is just being presenmted. Hence as evidence of anything other than this it does have problems. Not insoluble though. 6. interesting idea... needs looking at. 7. my approach is of course to not work from front to back but approach the xrays and any wound interpretations from the periphery. However a continual check with all things helps. 8. yes makes sense I think. ________ There are anumber of curved lines that if separated gives a sense of a 3d outline of a shape. (I'll post an image to show shortly.) Another thing to keep in mind is that the head is built up out of different layers of soft and hard tissues that has a outside as skin and inside as inside surface of the brain pan and they are not the same, neither in shape or size, but also in look such as color, reflectivity, texture and smoothness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Two thoughts. The so called neck may be a "Head Rest" block. it seems to have a square corner where the bottom of a neck would be. If you orientate the image to the SOD position, looking from the front, it seems to stand up from the table at the back of the Skull. Also the bone flap on the right hand side seems to have come loose when the scalp was retracted and appears to be just sitting in the skull. If you FLIPPED it over to show the outside of the bone, you could almost slot it on top of the head at the front to complete the other half of the beveled circle. Just thinking out loud. I will post an annotated image later. Edited January 28, 2006 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) good to hear from you Robin I agree, here is an attempt to isolate the block with edges marked as I see them. Maybe wedge shaped? (What does SOP mean?) (I've been playing with an inverted bowl that is easily made by snapshotting a ball in 3d viewer in IA. then saving the zbuffer as png and inverting and placing a curved bit of bone in the right place and then using the depth map or z buffer as the image onto which any similarly curved shape can be placed and turned to see what it might look like from different angles.) Edited January 28, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now