This researcher regards the following information
as evidence, not proof. However, I do feel that it is important
enough to warrant examination.
Proof, like so many other things, is in the eye of the
beholder. And everyone will draw their own conclusions. I do not claim to be any
kind of photo or image expert. It doesn't require any of these, or other kinds
of expertise to see
this particular information. The only requirement is a willingness to look
at it.
The video accompanying this report is not a professionally
produced video and is for research purposes only.
The pictures that we will be examining and comparing are this image reported to
be from the "first" autopsy footage and images from the released autopsy footage.
The first autopsy hasn't been released to the public as of
this writing. Stills reported to be from that film were released to specific researchers
for examination. Those researchers either did not carry out an examination
of those images, or at least didn't release the information about any examination
to the public.
I asked to examine the stills, but was refused. No
reason given. I now believe I know why.
The stills were eventually published on video and in at least
one magazine that I know of. These frames from the first autopsy do not appear
in the released autopsy footage. This rules out the possible doctoring of the
frames from that footage to cover the injured leg. These frames had to have
come from a different source.
It is a poor quality picture, but even so, there
is a tremendous amount of information in it. This still contains
printing artifacts and may also contain scanner artifacts. I understand why
and how some thought that the first autopsy still is a body lying on its stomach,
however it is definitely lying on its back.
In the image I called OUTLINE.GIF I have marked in colors the
areas that will prove this. First, look at the red line and see that in the original
this area is very "washed out". Not only on the body, but that side of the
doctor and some of the things in the background are washed out as well.
The shadow caused by the stomach passing in front of the upper thigh or groin
area is missing. Well, not totally missing. It is there, but the contrast
is so bad that it doesn't show up well without some enhancement.
This set of
pictures was printed in a magazine and the groin area was pixelized in most of
them. This particular still doesn't seem to have been though. Perhaps because
they didn't know what it was.
Refer to outline.gif again
and look at the area that I placed the blue mark. This is the doctors right wrist.
Some people thought that this was the doctors elbow and that the rest of his arm
had been pixelized out of the picture. This couldn't possibly be his elbow.
First note the width of the garment across that area. From the released autopsy
movie we know that the only place that the suits are fitted that closely is at
the wrists.
In left.gif I have located and circled in red the area
that the doctor's left lower arm and hand can be seen.
This area is also in that washed out area of the picture. The
only way this could be the doctor's elbow would be if he perhaps sitting on a
chair with his legs under the table, which would be impossible as we know from
the video that there are crossbeams near the bottom of the table legs. Or
if he was squatting down, which wouldn't work either, because his left hand is
in the proper place for a standing position. Look at elbow.gif, a frame from
the autopsy video and note the relationship of the doctors elbow to the autopsy
table.
In elbow2.gif, also from the autopsy video you
can see how when the doctor leans down so that his elbow is nearer the table it
puts his upper arm at a completely different angle.
It would take a very short doctor to get
the elbow into that position, and one that had a left arm that was very
much shorter than the right. (Recall that the nurse that appears in the autopsy
video is even taller than the doctor.)
