Autopsy Photos

[Evan Marshall]

I agree that many of them are forgeries, some are missing, and the quality of the photos available is distressing.

 

I do think that the photos missing are gone and I think they were destroyed quickly after they were stolen. I think one of the greatest value of the photos we have is to point out the poor quality. What I've wondered is if anyone compared the autopsy photos done by the same men in other autopsies and if their photographs there were of such poor quality?

Edited June 8, 2019 by Evan Marshall

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

...the quality of the [autopsy] photos available is distressing. .... I think one of the greatest value of the photos we have is to point out the poor quality.

What's so "poor" about them?

Yes, the versions we have online are certainly not the first-generation photos. So, quite naturally, they're going to exhibit poorer quality than the originals. We all know that. Always have. But the original 1st-generation pictures are very likely crystal clear and not "poor" at all. It's just that we (the public) haven't seen those first-generation versions.

But even though the Internet versions are not the originals, they are still good enough to determine this key fact:

President Kennedy was shot two times, with both shots coming from behind the President.

Edited June 9, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Andrews]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

What's so "poor" about them?

Yes, the versions we have online are certainly not the first-generation photos. So, quite naturally, they're going to exhibit poorer quality than the originals. We all know that. Always have. But the original 1st-generation pictures are very likely crystal clear and not "poor" at all. It's just that we (the public) haven't seen those first-generation versions.

But even though the Internet versions are not the originals, they are still good enough to determine this key fact:

President Kennedy was shot two times, with both shots coming from behind the President.

Calling Dr. Mantik...

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

What's so "poor" about them?

Yes, the versions we have online are certainly not the first-generation photos. So, quite naturally, they're going to exhibit poorer quality than the originals. We all know that. Always have. But the original 1st-generation pictures are very likely crystal clear and not "poor" at all. It's just that we (the public) haven't seen those first-generation versions.

But even though the Internet versions are not the originals, they are still good enough to determine this key fact:

President Kennedy was shot two times, with both shots coming from behind the President.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=humpty+dumpt&view=detail&mid=BC302EC1B670992178F7BC302EC1B670992178F7&FORM=VIRE

[Evan Marshall]

I assume the "Quality" of these pictures is why Dr Baden had one upside down when he testified before  the House Assassinations committee.

[David Von Pein]

44 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

I assume the "Quality" of these pictures is why Dr. Baden had one upside down when he testified before the House Assassinations committee.

FWIW / FYI / IMO ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The "F8" Autopsy Picture Of President Kennedy

 

FWIW #2 ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The F8 Autopsy Photo Is A Mess

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by David Von Pein

[B. A. Copeland]

On 6/8/2019 at 7:20 PM, David Von Pein said:

What's so "poor" about them?

Yes, the versions we have online are certainly not the first-generation photos. So, quite naturally, they're going to exhibit poorer quality than the originals. We all know that. Always have. But the original 1st-generation pictures are very likely crystal clear and not "poor" at all. It's just that we (the public) haven't seen those first-generation versions.

But even though the Internet versions are not the originals, they are still good enough to determine this key fact:

President Kennedy was shot two times, with both shots coming from behind the President.

We don't really know how many times he was hit (without debate) because he had probably the worst autopsy (and sadly, criminal investigations) in the history of mankind which is absolutely pathetic and inexcusable. How about we ask that one military man who literally said he was in charge of the autopsy that night? Wouldn't that be something.

[Evan Marshall]

I still wonder about a comparison between the photos take of JFK and the same men's work in other autopsies. I was an Evidence Technician with Detroit Pd and We had Yashika dual lens camera and if I had ever taken a photos approaching such poor quality I would have been back to pushing a marked unit!

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

...if I had ever taken photos approaching such poor quality, I would have been back to pushing a marked unit!

There's not a thing wrong with the quality of the autopsy photographs. The only thing "poor" about them is the fact they're multi-generational copies. The originals (which were examined in detail by the Clark Panel and the HSCA) are undoubtedly crystal clear.

Why Evan Marshall would expect crystal-clear clarity from multi-generational bootlegs is anybody's guess.

So, what we have in this thread is a conspiracy theorist inventing a problem (and a controversy) that never existed in the first place. (Which is par for the CT course.)

Related Discussion:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP Acquires High-Quality Copy Of Autopsy Photograph

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Evan Marshall]

Avoidance therapy might be indicated for DP.

[Micah Mileto]

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

There's not a thing wrong with the quality of the autopsy photographs. The only thing "poor" about them is the fact they're multi-generational copies. The originals (which were examined in detail by the Clark Panel and the HSCA) are undoubtedly crystal clear.

Why Evan Marshall would expect crystal-clear clarity from multi-generational bootlegs is anybody's guess.

So, what we have in this thread is a conspiracy theorist inventing a problem (and a controversy) that never existed in the first place. (Which is par for the CT course.)

Related Discussion:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP Acquires High-Quality Copy Of Autopsy Photograph

 

On 3/21/1996, the Assassination Records Review Board interviewed a medical photographer named Earl McDonald, who was a former student of John Stringer. When asked to judge the quality of the photographic inventory credited to Stringer, McDonald listed several complaints:

 

-There are no autopsy tags visible in any photos;

 

-There are no whole body photos in the collection;

 

-There is no photograph of the brain (at autopsy) immediately following removal from the cranium;

 

-There is no photograph of the inside of the skull (following removal of the brain) showing the condition of the inside of the cranium;

 

-There is no photograph of the reassembled skull;

 

-There is no photograph of the chest cavity;

 

-There is no extreme close-up of the back wound;

 

-There is no wide-angle view and/or medium-field view of the cranium viewed from the outside (to go with the extreme close-up in the collection).

 

When asked by ARRB staff what grade he would assign if he were asked to grade the present collection of autopsy photos, he said he would grade them “quite low,” because among other reasons, the collection was not comprehensive (that is, did not represent the range of views that should have been depicted from either a normal autopsy, or especially of an autopsy involving gunshot wounds)

 

([ARRB MD 228](https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md228.pdf))

[Ray Mitcham]

6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

On 3/21/1996, the Assassination Records Review Board interviewed a medical photographer named Earl McDonald, who was a former student of John Stringer. When asked to judge the quality of the photographic inventory credited to Stringer, McDonald listed several complaints:

 

-There are no autopsy tags visible in any photos;

 

-There are no whole body photos in the collection;

 

-There is no photograph of the brain (at autopsy) immediately following removal from the cranium;

 

-There is no photograph of the inside of the skull (following removal of the brain) showing the condition of the inside of the cranium;

 

-There is no photograph of the reassembled skull;

 

-There is no photograph of the chest cavity;

 

-There is no extreme close-up of the back wound;

 

-There is no wide-angle view and/or medium-field view of the cranium viewed from the outside (to go with the extreme close-up in the collection).

 

When asked by ARRB staff what grade he would assign if he were asked to grade the present collection of autopsy photos, he said he would grade them “quite low,” because among other reasons, the collection was not comprehensive (that is, did not represent the range of views that should have been depicted from either a normal autopsy, or especially of an autopsy involving gunshot wounds)

 

([ARRB MD 228](https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md228.pdf))

I bet DVP would have awarded them a Best Dissertation Award.

[Robin Unger]

My interpretation of the head wound.

 

 

[Robin Unger]

My interpretation of the head wound.

[Guest]