Vince Palamara Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 http://vincepalamara.com/new-jfk-autopsy-photo/ I tried to post the image but it kept saying it was too big, so I gave up and posted it to my one blog (the link) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Groden's been photo-shopping back of the head photos for years now, and adding in what he thinks the back of the head really looked like, but I'm not sure what that thing is. It's most certainly not a photo mentioned in any of the inventories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Just sayin': Pat, i'm not crying foul, just making an observation, extending my curiosity... isn't that a big leap to jump straight to Groden's (what's the story on this mysterious cat???) apparently common "games" from what is on the surface just a photo of a head wound that's claiming to be JFK's? and as regards the inventories, i'm curious as to what that's about - are they just descriptions of as yet unseen photos? what i mean is, isn't it true that a verbal description of a photo could be substantially different than what the photo really looks like? of course, we all want to finally see some real proof like something like this would be, and we'd all love it if this turned out to be legit - but it should go without saying that what's more important is legitimacy and the truth. From our end, games and false claims -- and the tendency to run blindly straight to any "new" revelation" -- only serve to destroy our credibility (something not as valuable to others I know) as legitimate theorists and make us laughingstocks to those people who are "on the fence", and to those on the dark side (whose source for humor really matters to me none whatsoever). That being said - that photo looks a LOT like a wound that's been described by many who have claimed to have seen it, very much like the sketches a couple of the doctors made early on. Is it not possible that this is one that the descriptions in the inventories just might not fit right - or isn't it possible that the inventories missed one or two...? i'm just sayin'. Edited June 24, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 http://vincepalamara.com/new-jfk-autopsy-photo/ I tried to post the image but it kept saying it was too big, so I gave up and posted it to my one blog (the link) Vince, i was watching Fetzer's opening to the Film Hoax Seminar in 03 and he mentions a few writers including you, if my memory serves well enough. Of course he mentions Jack White (whose presentation i really struggled with) and John Costella (whose presentation I was enthralled with, or in...). Jim went on to point out, frame 375 I think it was, where it looks as if K is leaning over but a piece of the wound is still visible - slightly. When I see that my brain is telling me that that's part of the flap it just saw a few seconds before where it's appearing to be temporal - sometimes I have trouble seeing something on some film/photo that others are describing as fairly obvious, and this is one of those times. I'm pointing out that, even though my brain was coached into thinking that wound - at 375 - is from his front right skull, the piece that's being held in your photo does somewhat look like it could be (not IS, all ye who stand ready to pounce!) the part that is visible in the film. how about you? have you decided that 375, or whatever frame it is, is actually the back of K's head where a wound is visible? i understand the anonymity required for something like this, but its legitimacy is of course going to be what's attacked like there's no tomorrow. would be nice to be able to attach some kind of authenticity to this thing. it sure LOOKS like Kennedy's hair, and what the described wound would be expected to look like - if not a little high (strictly from the descriptions, this doesn't appear to involve the occipital plate much, does it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Glenn, This is what it says next to the "photo" on Vince's site: "A researcher who requested anonymity claimed someone prominent claims this is real." =============================================== In my opinion--under those circumstances: "He said, she said..."--the photo may as well be a cartoon. PS: In fact, it may well be a cartoon for all we know!!! Edited June 24, 2015 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 This looks like something constructed for the autopsy scenes in the movie "JFK," as does the quite implausible/almost assuredly fake "new" photo in the recent Groden book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 This looks like something constructed for the autopsy scenes in the movie "JFK," as does the quite implausible/almost assuredly fake "new" photo in the recent Groden book. The "new" photo in the Groden book is definitely NOT authentic. How (or why?) he could/would include it as if it was real is truly pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Well, as in the fake autopsy photo that we know about, where is the gaping wound in back of the head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I brought up Groden because the photo bears a close resemblance to the Groden-ized photo on the right in the slide below. From chapter 18c: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Greg - right. I can write AND read. right, i get the friend of a friend thing - that doesn't make it impossible. on its own merits, its a good image. Pat - i have next to no exposure to Groden, but if that's the kind of material he produces, i'm clearly missing nothing. That's absolutely pathetic. Seriously. And to ME, this "new" photo looks nothing whatsoever like the unprofessional graphics job Groden has produced. I have been working with graphics professionally for about 12 years; i'm not an expert, but i know when i'm seeing bad work. this new photo is not a cartoon, and it does not look anything like the cheese that it's being compared to. The angle of the head is not replicant to any of the others we've seen, the thumb isn't a reproduction. The lighting looks appropriately unprofessional as do the others. In my eyes, it's a real head wound that happens to resemble descriptions we've all read. Not as likely to be of K's head, but certainly not impossible that it is. I'm really good with photograph manipulation, and one thing that occurs to me is that if someone were to want to "fake" such a picture with the intent to deceive, there's no need to create one, doctor one, draw one like a cartoon - there are millions of head wounds MUCH more gross than this online. it would be a cinch to find one with similar hair, crop it down close to the ears (the photo, not the hair) and call it an underground autopsy photo. easily done. which makes Groden's mess all the more curious. hmmm... It's my opinion that people in forums tend to jump to the "no" almost as fast as they used to jump to the "yes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 wait - and Groden was a "photography expert" in the OJ Simpson trial...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 hey, guys- sorry to "post and run": just something mundane...I had to go to bed, then work LOL I am not hiding identities any longer- it is 51+ years and enough is enough. Researcher Matt Douthit sent it to me and it originated from Robert Groden. Normally, I would chalk this up as a fake and not even bother, but I was taken by the fact that it didn't look like an obvious fake (Matt is adamant that Steve Barber told him Groden is hiding other autopsy photos that have never surfaced) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 Groden's last book ABSOLUTE PROOF has its moments but is marred by an OBVIOUSLY fake full body photo (the dummy from the "JFK" movie!) that he passes off as real, even saying that he did a lot of work to restore the image (!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Greg - right. I can write AND read. right, i get the friend of a friend thing - that doesn't make it impossible. on its own merits, its a good image. Pat - i have next to no exposure to Groden, but if that's the kind of material he produces, i'm clearly missing nothing. That's absolutely pathetic. Seriously. And to ME, this "new" photo looks nothing whatsoever like the unprofessional graphics job Groden has produced. I have been working with graphics professionally for about 12 years; i'm not an expert, but i know when i'm seeing bad work. this new photo is not a cartoon, and it does not look anything like the cheese that it's being compared to. The angle of the head is not replicant to any of the others we've seen, the thumb isn't a reproduction. The lighting looks appropriately unprofessional as do the others. In my eyes, it's a real head wound that happens to resemble descriptions we've all read. Not as likely to be of K's head, but certainly not impossible that it is. I'm really good with photograph manipulation, and one thing that occurs to me is that if someone were to want to "fake" such a picture with the intent to deceive, there's no need to create one, doctor one, draw one like a cartoon - there are millions of head wounds MUCH more gross than this online. it would be a cinch to find one with similar hair, crop it down close to the ears (the photo, not the hair) and call it an underground autopsy photo. easily done. which makes Groden's mess all the more curious. hmmm... It's my opinion that people in forums tend to jump to the "no" almost as fast as they used to jump to the "yes." A close comparison of the "new" photo and the photo-shopped back of the head photo on the slide above is quite revealing, IMO. It appears that Groden used the wound in the "new" photo as the basis for the photo-shopped wound in the back of the head photo. Look at the central part of the wound. In each wound, there is a white triangle above which there is a white shape that looks like the mouth of a bird. They are one and the same. This leads me to believe, then, that this "new" photo is an actual photo taken from a medical book, that Groden used as source material for his fake photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Greg - right. I can write AND read. right, i get the friend of a friend thing - that doesn't make it impossible. on its own merits, its a good image. Pat - i have next to no exposure to Groden, but if that's the kind of material he produces, i'm clearly missing nothing. That's absolutely pathetic. Seriously. And to ME, this "new" photo looks nothing whatsoever like the unprofessional graphics job Groden has produced. I have been working with graphics professionally for about 12 years; i'm not an expert, but i know when i'm seeing bad work. this new photo is not a cartoon, and it does not look anything like the cheese that it's being compared to. The angle of the head is not replicant to any of the others we've seen, the thumb isn't a reproduction. The lighting looks appropriately unprofessional as do the others. In my eyes, it's a real head wound that happens to resemble descriptions we've all read. Not as likely to be of K's head, but certainly not impossible that it is. I'm really good with photograph manipulation, and one thing that occurs to me is that if someone were to want to "fake" such a picture with the intent to deceive, there's no need to create one, doctor one, draw one like a cartoon - there are millions of head wounds MUCH more gross than this online. it would be a cinch to find one with similar hair, crop it down close to the ears (the photo, not the hair) and call it an underground autopsy photo. easily done. which makes Groden's mess all the more curious. hmmm... It's my opinion that people in forums tend to jump to the "no" almost as fast as they used to jump to the "yes." Glenn, My post wasn't meant to be condescending at all! Please forgive me if it read that way as that was not my intent. After studying the photographic evidence in this case for 20+ years--in depth--I am rarely surprised to see this kind of not-so-clever photo manipulation. I think that Pat is correct. There are several extremely unique identifiers present in both "images" that indicate they are from the same source, but were subsequently subjected to very different "post dark room development work," such as, overexposure and extreme contrast of one and not the other... not to mention the removal of the examiner's hand from one image, only to be replaced with another hand in the next image. 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