The Alleged “Skull X-rayâ€

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by otg, Aug 29, 2012.

  1. otg

    otg Member

    Part-1 (Background)

    I don’t know exactly when or how the supposed “X-ray photo†of JonBenet’s skull showed up. I don’t think it was part of the original set of autopsy photos that The Globe got in trouble for “stealingâ€. In fact, I don’t think the actual photo of her skull was in that group either, but I don’t know.

    I wasn’t actively following the JonBenet discussions for a while (RL always seems to get in the way of what I would rather be doing), but I remember how shocked I was the first time I saw the actual skull photo. It still bothers me just a little to look at it. (As I’ve said several times before, I am not a medical type person.)

    But when I first saw the so-called X-ray, something didn’t seem quite right about it. It doesn’t look quite like other X-rays. I finally decided to overlook all this, and not say anything about my suspicions. But recently I started looking into skull injuries because I wanted to understand everything I could about them, due to the new information we have about there possibly being as much as two hours between the head blow and the strangulation. I still haven’t accepted it as fact, but I’m still working on trying to understand it. Again, RL slows me down sometimes.

    Then it started nagging at me again about how odd this “X-ray†is. I started listing the things that I find odd, and I’m now convinced that the photo is completely bogus. I’m going to explain all the reasons why, because it may change our concept of the shape of the fracture, and therefore, what may have caused it.

    This will require a long explanation, so I’m going to break it up into several posts. In the last post, I’ll include some of the reference links. And as always when discussing this, be forewarned that some of the photos and discussions will be graphic.

    First of all, what is the purpose of an X-ray? (...and actually that term is incorrect. It should be called a radiograph -- X-rays are what cause the image to be projected and recorded on the film that is used.) Its purpose is to show something that is hidden. When a doctor wants to see if a patient has a broken or fractured bone without having to cut down to the bone just to see it, he sends the patient to Radiology for an image that will show him exactly what is beneath the surface. Right?

    So what does the radiograph of JonBenet’s skull show a doctor that he couldn’t see simply by looking at the skull itself? Why would a doctor even need the radiographic image to begin with? Does it show anything that can’t be seen in the actual photo, or by examining the skull itself?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. otg

    otg Member

    Part-2 (Legitimate Radiographs)

    Another odd thing is the fact that both images seem to be taken at exactly the very same distance and angle. This, despite the fact that there are established angle and distance protocols for radiology technicians to use. This image does not fit any of these standard protocols.

    Here are a few examples of actual radiographs:

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    (Okay, I was just making sure you were paying attention when I threw in the last one. I know you saw it and thought, “That’s Homer Simpson!â€)

    If you notice, on all of these you can clearly see the cross-sectional view of the bone itself on the outer perimeter of the braincase. In some of them, you can even see the three distinct layers (tables*) that makeup the bone in the skull.

    *As a general rule, the skull is composed of three distinct layers: Two layers are compact (cortical) bone (the outer table is thick and tough and the inner table is thin, dense, and brittle), and they are separated by an inner layer that is soft and spongy. This inner layer is called the diploe, and it contains bone marrow. These layers are known as the skull tables.
    [​IMG]

    The reason this outer wall shows up in a radiograph is because of how the process works. From http://rad.usuhs.edu:
    Radiographic film used for this is sensitive to radiation like photographic film is sensitive to light. When the radiographic film is exposed with an item of interest between it and the radioactive source, the X-rays are blocked by the density of whatever is being filmed. The more dense areas block more X-rays. Therefore, when the film is developed, the less exposed areas of the film will be white, and the more exposed (because of less or no density) will be black.

    So knowing this, you can look at a radiograph and see what a doctor sees. The whiter areas will be thicker and denser bone, and darker areas will be thinner and less dense. A hole, a crack, or a break in the bone will be dark and easy to see.
     
  3. Pearlsim

    Pearlsim FFJ Senior Member

    I'm not sure where all your research is going to lead but I already have a question re the radiology scans....x-rays...whatever they are called....that you show. Are those x-rays done on living subjects? And would an x-ray done post-mortem have different angles?

    Not afraid to admit I'm a total idiot regarding most things medical.
     
  4. otg

    otg Member

    Part-3 (Obvious Flaws in the Phony “X-rayâ€)

    Now look at the following comparison where I circled the whiter areas on the left and the corresponding areas on the alleged X-ray.

    [​IMG]


    Now the same comparison between the two showing darker areas on the left with the same areas on the right.

    [​IMG]


    This demonstrates that the alleged X-ray does not show varying densities in the skull, but simply mirrors the differences in surface lightness/darkness. It does this as if it is a negative photograph -- white becomes black, black becomes white.

    If you notice, not all of the flesh has been removed from the skull in places. This is why the actual photo of the skull shows areas that are much whiter (where all flesh is removed), and other areas where it is much darker. Flesh is not very dense, and should not show up on a radiograph.

    With all this in mind, I concluded that the alleged X-ray of JonBenet’s skull is not really that. This shouldn't be very surprising when you look in the corner of the "manufactured evidence" and see the emblem for NBC News. Can we add one more thing now to NBC’s long line of fabricated news stories going all the way back to Dateline’s “Waiting to Explode†in 1993?
     
  5. otg

    otg Member

    Part-4 (Making a Fake)

    So if it’s bogus, what is it and how did they make it?

    Well first, it is in black and white. So I’ll take the actual photo and using photo editing software, I’ll crop it a little, and make it black and white:

    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    Now I’ll take that and make it a negative:

    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    But now, the fracture is white, whereas it should be black because it has no density. This is where my cheap photo editing software fails me, because I can’t do it; but I believe that when the fake radiograph was created, the black image of the fracture was superimposed on the white image of the fracture in the black and white negative. The outer area surrounding this image was also blacked out at the edge of the skull’s shadow. In negative black and white, the skull’s shadow then gives the appearance of the skull wall. (Looks like they also added a bluish tint to it also.)

    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    But they didn’t do a very good job of blacking out the outer area, because they didn’t get the edges smooth. The outer perimeter of the skull in the faked image has some pieces of flesh still attached, so the final product even looks jagged in places. Notice also that the large shadow in the back of the skull gave them problems in determining where the outside of the skull should be. The result is that exaggerated oblong final shape that the skull seems to have.

    Some minor image doctoring at the linear fracture in the posterior is all that it takes now to complete the effect of making this look like a radiograph of JonBenet’s skull. But this tells us something else, because of how some things were interpreted as they were edited.
     
  6. otg

    otg Member

    Part-5 (Misinterpreted Parts of the Actual Photo and Links)

    In the actual photo, there is a very dark red area that crosses from one side to the other over the depressed fracture.

    [​IMG]


    It appears to be a piece of flesh that goes over the fracture like a bridge from side to side and it continues on in each direction. It is a very dark red immediately over the fracture -- this, I believe, is because it is bruised flesh in the area where the actual head blow occurred. But when the photo was being “converted†to a radiograph, the person doing the editing interpreted this very dark area as part of the comminuted portion of the fracture. Look at the preceding comparison again and notice that there are several small white spots going across where the flesh glistened in the light. One of them showed up in the supposed radiograph as well. Then the right and left parts of this bridge of flesh were blacked out, making the edges sharper so they would appear to be the edge of the fracture. I don’t think they should have been blacked out, and that in fact the depressed fracture does not have these two niches.

    Here is a close-up of the area of interest from the actual photograph:

    [​IMG]


    The last thing I need to mention is the part of the linear fracture that goes further back from the depressed fracture. This is what the autopsy report says about it:
    [​IMG]


    Because of where the depressed fracture is located in relation to the occipital bone, I believe there must be a small linear fracture that extends somewhat like what is represented in the faked radiograph. However, it appears to me that the fracture shown in the faked radiograph was completely fabricated because it doesn’t even taper off as would be expected at the end of a fracture.

    This, in combination with the area just above here that was fabricated, creates the appearance of a small piece of bone that I had before mistakenly thought to be a Wormian (suture) bone. It looks like a jigsaw puzzle piece in the following close-up:

    [​IMG]


    While this all does occur at the lambdoidal suture and could very well be what the fracture actually looks like, considering the questionable nature of everything else presented in this bogus image, I would have to say we don’t really know with certainty exactly what the depressed fracture looks like in this area.

    My opinion, and that’s all it is, is that the depressed fracture is completely oval shaped except for the one small niche in the area toward the front.


    References (in no particular order):

     
  7. otg

    otg Member

    Ohhhhhhh, so am I, Pearlism. I'm just trying to learn what I can to understand what happened.

    I couldn't tell you on each of the examples if they were taken on living or deceased subjects. But radiographs are taken mostly on living persons to find some type of medical problem and to determine how to treat it. If the subject is dead, there would be no treatment required for recovery, and any information required can be physically examined.

    More and more though, doctors are using MRI nowadays, because of its many advantages for them and the patient over traditional X-rays. Even more interesting is something fairly new -- "virtual autopsies". Once the VA image is taken, it can be stored and even shared online. The doctor can literally make a "cut" anywhere he wants on the image and see what the bone, skin, organs, blood vessels, everything, looks like. It's the future of autopsies.

    If this had been used on JonBenet, anyone with access to it even today could examine any part of the body as if it was still right there in front of them as it was when her body was autopsied.
     
  8. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    OTG, I am amazed at your extensive work here. Thank you for doing it and showing all of us what you have been questioning all along. That is an extensive amount of study. I can see what you are curious about. It doesn't look like an xray at all. It is part of the flim-flam that has been hoisted on the public from the beginning? After all is said and done this little girl suffered greatly though hopefully she was not conscious once the head blow was struck. And to think not one of her family members will admit to striking the blow or what followed. Cowards all of them!
     
  9. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Once again, BRAVO, OTG!!!

    What an excellent and absolutely convincing argument that the "alleged" JBR skull x-ray is nothing more than a doctored image of her skull photo!

    It all makes perfect sense and shows how we've been misled into believing the "x-ray" image showed the actual damage done to JonBenet's skull. You are so right that the image manipulator had problems determining where things began and ended because of the limitaions of the original photo.

    Fantasic work, and what a help to our understanding of JonBenet's skull injury and the related events of her death. Thank you so much!
     
  10. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I just had another thought as to why the doctored skull image would have been shown in that state and assumed to be an x-ray.

    Perhaps the people at NBC did not want to show the REAL image of JonBenet's skull because it is difficult to look at and is very graphic with the redness of the blood residue from the flaying of the skull. In order to show the placement of the head blow and the hairline fracture, they changed the photo to black and white, as you said, and doctored it to their own needs, which wasn't a medical examination but a brief image detailing the area of JonBenet's head injury. In order to make the image appear more realistic, the purple tint was added and it was presented as something similar to an x-ray. The screen capture of the image was then mislabeled as such because that's what it appeared to be - until your most excellent examination and report!
     
  11. otg

    otg Member

    Could be, Cherokee. I really don't know, but I would like to. If anyone remembers or knows the origin...

    Another thing they did to make it appear to be a legitimate radiograph (and I didn't even bother mentioning this before) is the labeling. Usually, the radiographer will use lead letters and numbers taped to the film during exposure for identification. It may have a date, the person's name, etc. It's always on the outer border of the film so it doesn't interfere with the image. When the radiographs are used publicly, it is usually cut off because of privacy. In this counterfeit, besides the NBC peacock in the right corner, they have "7:09" and "59*" (time and angle?) to make it appear more realistic.

    It seems that if they were trying to cut down on the graphic nature of the photo, simply showing it briefly in black and white would have been enough. They really went to a lot of trouble to produce this.
     
  12. wombat

    wombat Member

    Bravo, otg!

    I agree that this was done to avoid showing the bloody skull. Maybe not a big deal, but does indicate even NBC will make stuff up if they feel the need.
     
  13. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I don't know for sure because I'm not the one who took the screen capture, but I believe the "7:09" was the time of day the TV program was shown and the "59 degrees" was the outside temperature at that time. Some people have their televisions set to show the current time and temp on their TV screens. I can understand why it would appear to be radiograph numbers.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    Truthfully, otg, I personally would need someone in the medical field to help me fully understand all you are saying here, but I am very impressed with your work and knowledge. I did understand parts of it.
     
  15. otg

    otg Member

    Not all of it is important to understand, Elle. I tend to get carried away once I get started, so forgive me for being long-winded. I just feel I have to cover all my bases when I'm trying to prove a point.

    Basically, all you need to know is that somehow the image that has for so long been represented as being an X-ray of JonBenet's skull is not authentic. The reason it is important is that we have believed the "hole" in the fracture to have a certain shape. I think that belief is based on faulty interpretations of what is shown in the actual photo of her skull. I also believe it has implications as to what may have been used to cause the fracture.
     
  16. Britt

    Britt FFJ Senior Member

    otg - Great work! I have a hard time time with medicalese but I can understand pictures and diagrams and your observations are so helpful. Thank you!
     
  17. Karen

    Karen Member

    I think I first saw this image on a morning show when Smit was doing his power point tour.
     
  18. cynic

    cynic Member

    Nice work, OTG!

    We must be working in parallel these days. I had a somewhat similar attack on the “x-ray†which I was going to include as part of my answer to the question you posed on the golf club thread.
    I will say that, like Cherokee, I think it’s quite possible that the fabricated pic was born out of a motivation to sanitize the image for public consumption, especially for television.
    I also had other genuine x-rays for comparison but I didn’t have the Homer Simpson "x-ray," LOL.
    The one area that I focused on and will add for further evidence, (not that any is needed,) that the x-ray isn’t “real†is the posterior/rear area of the skull which appears to have a significant deformity or bulge.
    Note, however, that the deformity is NOT the same size as the area of shadow which if included in its entirety would be an outrageous deformity.
    The complete "shadow bulge" was reduced by simply digitally brushing away some shadow, (circled in yellow in the pic below,) and matching the color with the rest of the pic.
    In the pic below you can see the deformed area circled in red which shouldn’t be present in any skull.
    Some of my “sanitized†Photoshop pics are also included.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. cynic

    cynic Member

    ITA. No doubt, whatsoever, in my mind that that is the time and temp.
     
  20. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I just realized it could also be the time and temperature that some morning shows overlay on whatever they are broadcasting. So, maybe the TV wasn't set to display the time and temp, but whatever news show was doing the report on the Ramsey case had the current time and temp available in the corner of the TV when the screen capture was made.

    I agree about the "shadow deformity" on the skull screen capture. Good work and job well done to both you and OTG!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice