Pat Speer Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Not to be a stickler, David, but YOU have a problem with the HSCA's opinion on the backyard photos as well. Oswald was shown a blow-up of one of the photos. The DPD, in First Day Evidence, insists this was a photo taken of another photo. The HSCA, however, insisted all three backyard photos copied by the DPD were copied from negatives. They only coughed up one negative, however. So, which is it? Did the DPD STEAL two of the negatives? In such case we can't be sure they didn't steal a lot of other evidence. Or did the HSCA photo panel blow it, and think a photo made from another photo was a first generation print? In such case we can't trust their conclusions regarding the authenticity of the photos... Edited May 6, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) "In 1997, the review board found and interviewed Saundra K. Spencer, who worked at the Naval Photographic Center in 1963. She was shown the autopsy photographs in the National Archives and found that they were not the photographs that she had processed. The pictures that she developed and printed had, "no blood or opening cavities." she stated. The film was brought in by an agent she believed was with the FBI. "When he gave us the material to process, he said that they had been shot at Bethesda and they were autopsy pictures." She was told, she said: "Process them and try not to observe too much, don't peruse." ------------------------- Robert Knudsen's widow, Gloria, revealed to the review board that her husband told her that photographing the dead president was "the hardest thing he had ever had to do in his life." Mr. Knudsen testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which in the late 1970s reopened the official investigation into the killings of both President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mrs. Knudsen said he later told her that four or five of the pictures the committee showed him did not represent what he saw or photographed that night and that at least one of them had been altered. "His son Bob said that his father told him that 'hair had been drawn in' on the photos to conceal a missing portion of the top-back of President Kennedy's head," according to a review board memo about a meeting with Mr. Knudsen's family. Mr. Knudsen's observations were identical to those of another autopsy photographer, Floyd Riebe. The House Assassinations Committee suppressed Mr. Knudsen's testimony. Oops! Edited May 6, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Just a minute here, Ray.... I just talked about seeing a high-quality "back of the head" autopsy photo which positively depicts EACH HAIR on the President's head. So are you now suggesting that some photo-fakers "blacked out" just ONE photo, but left the other photos alone? Or, as I asked previously, do you think the evil plotters and cover-uppers decided to DRAW IN the hairs that I can see on the back of JFK's head in that HQ pic I talked about before? Which is it? Or would you rather not talk about such silliness? (I couldn't blame you. Because what you seem to be suggesting is awfully silly.) Why don't you post the photo, David? It seems to me that your going on about the "other photo" is even more bizarre than when people who go on and on about the "other film". There's nothing secret about any photo Fiorentino sent you, is there? I mean, Fiorentino didn't swear you to secrecy, did he? He didn't tell you that "Hey, this photo is better and clearer than anything else out there so just keep this to ourselves, okay?" Oh, wait! This is the same John Fiorentino who claimed he'd been sent an autopsy photo by David Belin. THE David Belin, who'd worked for the Warren Commission, and ran the Rockefeller Commission. Now, HOW is it, exactly, that Robert Groden was a creep for copying photos and making them available to the CT research community, when David Belin was having them copied for himself and then disseminating them among the LN research community? Or was it Lattimer? Fiorentino claimed a close relationship with Lattimer. One of the Dallas doctors said Lattimer had been given a set of autopsy photos by Hoover. I thought he was blowing smoke. But, hmmm, if Fiorentino has been sitting on photos that did not come through Mark Crouch or Robert Groden, well, what are we to think? Well, what are we to think? Edited May 6, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) There's nothing secret about any photo Fiorentino sent you, is there? Not that I know of, Pat. But in my conversation with John Fiorentino back in May 2009 when he sent me the photo (and I got that date from the timestamp placed on the photo by my computer when I downloaded it to my hard drive; the e-mail message from John is long since gone, since I've never found a way to transfer my old "filing cabinet" e-mails to a new computer), John requested that I not spread the picture all over the Internet. I can't remember the reason for that request, but he made such a request of me nonetheless. And I have always honored it. But as I mentioned before, there are lower-quality versions of that very same black-and-white autopsy photo on the Internet right now. In fact, after having just now looked through my computer folder marked "JFK Autopsy Photos", I noticed that I have saved a copy of the lower-resolution version of the picture. And since this isn't the copy given to me by John Fiorentino, I'll share it below. And as you can easily see, there are discernible hairs on the back of JFK's head visible even in this smaller version of the photo. The version John gave me is quite a bit bigger (656 x 850 pixels). The one below is only 348 x 450. BTW, Pat, I think you're probably correct about David Belin himself supplying John with the HQ version of the photo, because I noticed the message "For you -- Publish it -- DB" in the corner of the picture. But, quite obviously, Fiorentino did NOT want ME to "publish it", and I never have. Edited May 6, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 ""His son Bob said that his father told him that 'hair had been drawn in' on the photos to conceal a missing portion of the top-back of President Kennedy's head," according to a review board memo about a meeting with Mr. Knudsen's family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41 Edited May 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 "The evidence indicates.." Really? ""In 1997, the review board found and interviewed Saundra K. Spencer, who worked at the Naval Photographic Center in 1963. She was shown the autopsy photographs in the National Archives and found that they were NOT the photographs that she had processed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) FWIW, David, there was a hi-res scan of the BOH photo on Lancer for a number of years. I think it was a scan of the photo as published by Groden, however. What I'm mostly concerned about is that the photos were taken in pairs. Are you sure the photo you have is exactly the same as the photo you've just posted? Or is it the other one of the pair? Because if it's the other one, you should be able to match it up with the one you've posted in a GIF, and create a 3-d image showing that the back of the head in the photos was not painted in. As you know, I think the photos are legit. If you have evidence that will help prove this point, well, then, I think you should go ahead and do it. Edited May 7, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) FWIW, David, there was a hi-res scan of the BOH photo on Lancer for a number of years. I think it was a scan of the photo as published by Groden, however. What I'm mostly concerned about is that the photos were taken in pairs. Are you sure the photo you have is exactly the same as the photo you've just posted? Or is it the other one of the pair? I just checked, Pat. The photo John F. gave me in 2009 is the exact same picture as this one that I posted previously: Because if it's the other one, you should be able to match it up with the one you've posted in a GIF, and create a 3-d image showing that the back of the head in the photos was not painted in. A researcher named John Mytton has created just the kind of 3D GIF you are talking about, using the "red spot" color photo and the B&W photo above. They merge together perfectly.... Edited May 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 John Mytton is a buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 One question about the BOH photo. Where did JFK's long hair go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Does no one else notice a distinct horizontal boundary in the BOH photo? About level with the top of his right ear, we see wet one inch long hair above this boundary, and what appears to be some kind of weird fuzz below it. This photo is as fake as the back yard photos. P.S. John "the researcher" Mytton's comical "3D" display only makes the fakery easier to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) FWIW, David, there was a hi-res scan of the BOH photo on Lancer for a number of years. I think it was a scan of the photo as published by Groden, however. What I'm mostly concerned about is that the photos were taken in pairs. Are you sure the photo you have is exactly the same as the photo you've just posted? Or is it the other one of the pair? I just checked, Pat. The photo John F. gave me in 2009 is the exact same picture as this one that I posted previously: Because if it's the other one, you should be able to match it up with the one you've posted in a GIF, and create a 3-d image showing that the back of the head in the photos was not painted in. A researcher named John Mytton has created just the kind of 3D GIF you are talking about, using the "red spot" color photo and the B&W photo above. They merge together perfectly.... I added that to my website years ago. I was hoping you had the other black and white, so we could compare the B and W/Color vs. the two B and W. I think that GIF is quite important, btw. 1. It shows the hole by the EOP. 2. It shows there was no hole by the cowlick. 3. It shows the bone flap on the top of the head. Edited May 8, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) You left out this important point, Pat.... 4. Mytton's GIF also proves there is no "BLACKED OUT" area in the occipital portion of John Kennedy's cranium. Edited May 8, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Does no one else notice a distinct horizontal boundary in the BOH photo? About level with the top of his right ear, we see wet one inch long hair above this boundary, and what appears to be some kind of weird fuzz below it. This photo is as fake as the back yard photos. P.S. John "the researcher" Mytton's comical "3D" display only makes the fakery easier to see. But we must keep in mind this all-important point ---- Internet CTers will ALWAYS find some kind of "fakery" in EVERYTHING connected with the JFK murder case. It's as inevitable as a windy day at Wrigley Field. "When you are desperate enough, and you scour the evidence thinking real hard how each thing could be fishy or suspicious, you will come to the conclusion that everything you look at is fishy and suspicious. It's inevitable." -- Bud (at acj/aaj); June 21, 2010 Edited May 8, 2015 by David Von Pein 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