Pat Speer Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) Ok, if its taken at an angle to the table, where is the camera, above or below the table? And in what position is the corpse? Is it lying on its stomach or its back? If its on its stomach, is someone lifting the head up? And why that bizarre angle? You can't orient anything with it. What does this mean: depicting missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, Is he saying there are two wounds in the rear of the skull? Well, this photo remains a mystery to me as well as most everyone else. But I've been chipping away at it for years, and have come to some solid conclusions that I hope will help end this mystery. 1. The orientation on the slide above is correct. There is a drainage hole in the upper right corner. In this orientation the light reflects from the far edge of the drainage hole. I used to present this upside down, with the light reflecting from the near edge of the drainage hole. This mistake was caught by my friend Brad Mendelson. 2. The jar on the left side, and drainage hole on the right, prove the photo was taken from above the table looking down at an angle. This angle, moreover, is incompatible with the orientation pushed by those claiming the bone in the photo is forehead. They claim we are looking almost straight down into the skull. As proven in my video series, however, the drainage hole in such case would be far rounder than its shape in the photo. 3. The left side of the photo, however, which I have lightened on the slide above, proves that I was wrong in my initial claims we could see the back of Kennedy's neck in the photos. The back of the neck is not shown. 4. This leaves three options then. 1) Kennedy is lying on his back, with his head bent back so far over the end of the table that he is facing the camera at the head of the table, upside down. In this orientation, the exposed bone is his forehead. I reject this orientation, however, for many reasons, including that his shoulders should be visible in the background. 2) He is lying on his back, with his head flat on the table. This orientation has the same problem, however. Where are his shoulders? In both of these orientations, moreover, there is a huge discrepancy with the statements and testimony of the doctors. In the photo, whether it is the bullet hole described in the autopsy protocol, or not, there is something that looks like a bullet hole, from an area where scalp has been reflected. In either of these first two orientations, this area is on the left side of the skull. Well, this is totally inconsistent with the official story. At no time did any of the doctors discuss reflecting scalp from the left side of the head, or cutting off Kennedy's left ear, as would seem apparent. This leaves number three. 3) Kennedy is propped up on his right side, with his body angled slightly to the right in the photo. The skull is also on its side, with the face on the right, out of view. We are looking into the top of the head, with the back of the head in shadow on the left. The top of the head is angled slightly upwards, as if someone is holding up the head so Stringer can get a better shot of the base of the skull. We can not see the neck due to the angle of the photo. Perhaps Humes (who orchestrated the photos) asked too much of Stringer, and asked him to capture both the entrance on the back of the head and large defect on top of the head in one shot. That's my current take, anyhow. There are some other mysteries that I'll get into later. But I'm hoping for more feedback regarding the central question: is the shape featured in the first post a bullet hole? When I first started writing about all this, David Lifton, Robert Groden and Jack White all told me they thought it was a bullet hole, but this issue seems to have fallen off most people's radar over the past decade, whereby few will take a position, and fewer still understand the significance, and what's at stake. You may remember, Jim, that it was this photo that sucked me into all of this. In 1993 or so, I saw what I thought was a bullet hole in this photo as published by Groden, and couldn't believe he made no mention of it in the caption. Skip ahead 10 years. I start looking through the History Matters website in search of some explanation as to why Groden failed to ID the bullet hole, and come to realize that this photo is officially a photo of the forehead. My mind was blown. You might as well have told me that officially the moon is made of cheese. I was shocked and disgusted at the same time. I've never been the same. Edited August 21, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Pat I pointed out your error back in 2006. I can't find the particular topic called (from memory) BE7 (you hopped in with a comment you thought it was about cars) but you did engage me in a disucssion then about just that. (The orientation of this photo and interpretation of it).Unforunately the images are gone, but the disussion can help in a couple of other threads from thenhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=01d41db9edf81993d66f79db30b8704f&showtopic=5949&hl=crease#entry52420particularlyhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=01d41db9edf81993d66f79db30b8704f&showtopic=5917&hl=crease&page=8 Anyway, good to see you've corrected your position re orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I'm hoping for more feedback regarding the central question: is the shape featured in the first post a bullet hole? But where's the image in your post, Pat? I can't see it. All I can see is this (but no image GIF).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) Cairns said he thought the Harper fragment was low occipital, near the base of the skull, and not upper occipital, where some of the Parkland witnesses placed the large head wound. Either one of those options—low occipital or upper occipital—is absolutely impossible, because we know that there is not a single solitary bit of occipital bone missing (or blasted out) anywhere on President Kennedy's head, which is a fact that is verified in the X-ray shown below (and also shown in HSCA Volume #7, at 7 HSCA 112): And FWIW, it's my opinion that the "mystery" photo (also known as the F8 autopsy photograph) is virtually worthless as far as being able to prove anything about JFK's head wounds. It's a mess, IMO. And I didn't just start saying that today.... "The F-8 photo is, in my opinion, essentially worthless and useless. At least from the standpoint of trying to PROVE anything definitive regarding the location of the wounds in JFK's head. Others disagree, of course. But, in my view, F-8 is just a big mess. I can't make head nor tail out of it. Maybe other people can, but I can't. .... In a way, that F-8 photo is TOO GOOD. It evidently is a picture taken DEEP inside Kennedy's cranium, which doesn't leave very much stuff visible OUTSIDE the cranium for proper orientation. And therein lies the big problem with it, IMO. What's UP and what's DOWN? It's hard to tell." -- DVP; September 8, 2014 "Don't ask me anything about that mess known as F8, because it's an ink blot test as far as I'm concerned. Totally useless. In a way, that picture is TOO GOOD. If we only had some more "orientation" features within F8, it would sure be more useful. It's an incredible picture, though, I must say. I've often wondered just exactly how (and where) the camera was situated and maneuvered in order to snap that picture?" -- DVP; April 1, 2009 "John Canal thinks F8 is a "simple photo". That must be why [according to some people anyway] Dr. Baden testified with F8 upside-side in 1978, huh? For Pete sake, John, just take a look at all of the major disagreements concerning F8 over the years among the people who post on just the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. And there are some very smart people posting there too. And yet many people say F8 shows one thing, while a different batch of people say that F8 is depicting something else entirely. A "simple" photo? I think not. F8 is essentially a worthless and useless mess. But if you want to rely on that "simple" F8 photograph, more power to ya (I guess)." -- DVP; May 17, 2009 "The autopsy photo known as F8 is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It would still be a total freaking mess. IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official" opinion on the picture, it seems. In other words, how can mud possibly bring about clarity? IMO, it can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and clearer-to-interpret evidence." -- DVP; August 17, 2008 More "F8" discussion here: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/search="F8 Autopsy Photo Is A Mess" Edited August 21, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) PS: Perhaps Humes (who orchestrated the photos) asked too much of Stringer, and asked him to capture both the entrance on the back of the head and large defect on top of the head in one shot. Isn't this the payoff? As most of us think, there is no way JFK is in a position at Z 313 to sustain one shot from a FMJ bullet that will do this from the sixth floor. And yes I recall you and this photo from your DVD. Edited August 21, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) MICHAEL WELCH SAID:Thank you again David! You are making a lot of balanced sense, like usual!DAVID VON PEIN SAID:Thank you, Michael.But even though I don't rely on the F-8 autopsy photo to arrive at any of my conclusions about JFK's head wounds, that doesn't mean I am forced to toss my hands in the air and say "It can't be solved". Because there are plenty of other things we can look at to reach a reasonable conclusion as to where President Kennedy's head wounds were located. There are the other autopsy photos (not counting F-8) and the X-rays. Plus the autopsy report itself, which almost all conspiracy theorists seem to want to just completely ignore (or mangle the verbiage within that report).The autopsy report couldn't be much clearer on two key aspects of the President's wounds---1.) JFK was shot TWICE and only TWICE.2.) And JFK was shot only from BEHIND. (With no evidence of any shots from the FRONT striking the President's body anywhere.)"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- From Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [CE387; WR Page 543]The above words were endorsed by ALL THREE of the autopsy surgeons. I mean, how much more PROOF do CTers need? That paragraph above when combined with the autopsy pictures and X-rays are just about as ironclad and rock-solid as you can get.The only way those things wouldn't be "ironclad" would be if all three autopsy doctors were total boobs and/or liars....AND the autopsy photos and X-rays are fakes too. And the HSCA put that notion to rest in 1978 (see 7 HSCA 41 for the verification regarding the photos that almost all CTers also completely ignore or deem invalid for some reason).Another really nice way to show that the autopsy pictures that we currently have to study on the Internet (the "Fox set") have not been altered or faked in some manner is to compare the photos in stereo pairs (as the HSCA Photographic Panel did).And John Mytton has created at least two amazing motion GIF clips of JFK's autopsy photos which help to prove that those pictures are not fraudulent. And that's because the different pictures perfectly match each other in STEREO fashion, such as John Mytton's GIF below (and he's got another one which shows two views of the top of JFK's head too, merging together in GIF form perfectly)..... DVP Sept. 8, 2014 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11229.msg338137.html#msg338137 Edited August 21, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to stop the "Everything's Been Faked" talk and accept the truth that GIF images like the one shown above amply prove --- President Kennedy was shot once in the head--from behind.ANTHONY MARSH SAID:Stop being silly. Everyone has been poisoned by Lifton's theory. It's very easy to see the orientation of Fox 8 once you realize that they had to pull the scalp down over the eyes to remove the brain. I have marked major landmarks for you [in the captions of Tony's "fantasy" version of the F8 photo, seen HERE]. You can also read Dr. Lawrence Angel's report.DAVID VON PEIN SAID:Some of Tony Marsh's captions all over the F-8 picture are ludicrous [see the pic below], especially Anthony's utter fantasy of pretending a portion of the picture positively shows an "entrance wound" in the "forehead" of JFK.That's one of Tony's favorite fantasies, of course, as he puts make-believe "entry" holes in the President's head that NONE of the autopsy doctors saw or mentioned in the autopsy report.But, as we can easily see, that F-8 close-up picture is one great-big mess. Not good for anything, IMO. DVP Sept. 9, 2014 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11229.msg338176.html#msg338176 ------------------------------- Anthony-Marsh-Fantasy-Version-Of-Autopsy-Photo-Number-F8.jpg Edited August 21, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Thanks, DVP. Your inability/refusal to come to grips with what's in the photo is not uncommon, and has helped fuel my fire in trying to understand the photo. But insinuating that the photo is worthless unless we know exactly what it shows just isn't true. As stated earlier, the shape of the drainage hole scientifically disproves the orientation for the photo pushed by most LNs, and presumably the HSCA FPP. The proportions of the jar and drainage hole prove the photo was taken at an angle from above. And yet the exposed bone in the photo (supposedly forehead) is flat to the camera. This would be impossible if the skull was lying flat on the table, facing up, as pushed by most LNs, (including Bugliosi, if I recall). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Oh look! The circus is in town! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) Thanks, DVP. Your inability/refusal to come to grips with what's in the photo is not uncommon, and has helped fuel my fire in trying to understand the photo. But insinuating that the photo is worthless unless we know exactly what it shows just isn't true. It's not that I "refuse" to "come to grips" with the F8 mess of a picture. I just don't think it's possible to utilize F8 as a reliable or definitive piece of evidence. With so many different opinions about what the photo is depicting, how can anyone use the F8 picture to bolster ANY kind of a theory? I don't think that's possible. Even if you're right, Pat, about the orientation of the picture, I still can't see any way to DEFINITIVELY say that "this is an entry wound" or "this is positively the exit wound", etc. Because even WITH a proper orientation of the photograph, it's still a big inconclusive mess regarding President Kennedy's head wounds. (IMHO.) And BTW, where is your GIF in your first post, Pat? Can anybody else see it? I sure can't. Edited August 21, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to stop the "Everything's Been Faked" talk and accept the truth that GIF images like the one shown above amply prove --- President Kennedy was shot once in the head--from behind. ANTHONY MARSH SAID: Stop being silly. Everyone has been poisoned by Lifton's theory. It's very easy to see the orientation of Fox 8 once you realize that they had to pull the scalp down over the eyes to remove the brain. I have marked major landmarks for you [in the captions of Tony's "fantasy" version of the F8 photo, seen HERE]. You can also read Dr. Lawrence Angel's report. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Some of Tony Marsh's captions all over the F-8 picture are ludicrous [see the pic below], especially Anthony's utter fantasy of pretending a portion of the picture positively shows an "entrance wound" in the "forehead" of JFK. That's one of Tony's favorite fantasies, of course, as he puts make-believe "entry" holes in the President's head that NONE of the autopsy doctors saw or mentioned in the autopsy report. But, as we can easily see, that F-8 close-up picture is one great-big mess. Not good for anything, IMO. DVP Sept. 9, 2014 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11229.msg338176.html#msg338176 ------------------------------- Anthony-Marsh-Fantasy-Version-Of-Autopsy-Photo-Number-F8.jpg What you apparently fail to realize, David, is that Anthony Marsh's orientation for the photo is identical to that of most every LN, including Bugliosi. Anthony stumbled on an article claiming some entrance wounds show exit beveling on the bone. He then decided that the supposedly beveled bone in this photo--which the HSCA pathology panel said represented an exit for a nearly intact bullet (hubba wha?)--was really an entrance wound on the forehead. His orientation, of course, has the same problem as the LN orientations. He fails to show the drainage hole--and explain how the drainage hole could be so elliptical, given that his orientation necessitates that the photo was taken from almost directly above. And he also fails to point out or explain what appears to be a 15 by 6 bullet wound. Or are you willing to write off that shape--the subject of this thread--as nothing but "congealed blood"? C'mon, quit with the replays of old discussions, and posting gifs by Mytton (more on that later). What do you think that shape is in the gif I've created? No thoughts? Nothing? And is it just a coincidence that shape is 15 by 6, when the mythical cowlick entrance is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) What do you think that shape is in the gif I've created? No thoughts? Nothing? And is it just a coincidence that shape is 15 by 6, when the mythical cowlick entrance is not? What makes you think the "shape" that you are convinced is the entry wound measures exactly 15 by 6 millimeters? And even if it IS the entry wound, why couldn't it be located high on JFK's head, near the cowlick, which is the place on the head that the Clark Panel and the HSCA determined the entry wound was located via OTHER (multiple!) photographs and X-rays? Tell me again why the "shape" you think is the entry wound in F8 cannot possibly in a million years be located anywhere near the cowlick area of John F. Kennedy's head? Thank you. Edited August 21, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Thanks, DVP. Your inability/refusal to come to grips with what's in the photo is not uncommon, and has helped fuel my fire in trying to understand the photo. But insinuating that the photo is worthless unless we know exactly what it shows just isn't true. It's not that I "refuse" to "come to grips" with the F8 mess of a picture. I just don't think it's possible to utilize F8 as a reliable or definitive piece of evidence. With so many different opinions about what the photo is depicting, how can anyone use the F8 picture to bolster ANY kind of a theory? I don't think that's possible. Even if you're right, Pat, about the orientation of the picture, I still can't see any way to DEFINITIVELY say that "this is an entry wound" or "this is positively the exit wound", etc. Because even WITH a proper orientation of the photograph, it's still a big inconclusive mess regarding President Kennedy's head wounds. (IMHO.) And BTW, where is your GIF in your first post, Pat? Can anybody else see it? I sure can't. I already explained, David, that one can establish an orientation for the photo without even looking at the skull in the photo. And that when one does that, the orientation pushed by LNs like Canal and CTs like Marsh, in which the bone in the photo is forehead, is no longer viable. As far as my Gif???? It was there when I posted it, and when I went back and added a second post. You just added a gif file. How did you add yours onto your post? Maybe I did something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) deleted Edited August 22, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) As far as my Gif???? It was there when I posted it, and when I went back and added a second post. You just added a gif file. How did you add yours onto your post? Maybe I did something wrong. I just used the regular image tags --- [ img ] and [ /img ] . I still can't see your GIF in Post #1. Can you see it? Maybe it's a browser thing. I'm using Firefox 40.0. ~shrug~ Edited August 21, 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