Altered Evidence in the JFK Case

[Glenn Nall]

pretty hard to misread that, isn't it. sounds to me like Clint knows what he saw and didn't let the specter of Mr Specter intimidate him into softening his testimony.

Kellerman also described brain and body matter flying upward toward the two men and the windshield, it being all over his coat - and pieces of bullet on the right floorboard.

so not only do we not see Ks missing rear skull in Zapruder, we don't see any cloud or mist of brain and bone and blood lasting long enough to reach the windshield.

looking at the back of Ks head in the autopsy "photos" (Fox?) i can see what looks like dry hair below the patch of wet scalp and i've always thought that that was a patch or flap lain over the hole, differentiated from the attached, dry lower portion of his hairline. oi thought this before i read Humes testimony. i think the placement of a gaping wound is a given amongst the realists (us). and the techniques used to present this deceit, whether film editing or the manipulation of the body, isn't really important to me except as how it would lead to the bigger answer.

few real CTers argue the integrity (the lack of) of the WC's findings. I guess their motives are still up in the air to some (me). who snowed who back then...

sure was a lot of snowing going on between DC and Dallas and Cuba back then, wasn't there...

Edited July 13, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Roger DeLaria]

What looks really suspicious to me in the "Fox 5" picture is the right rear of the head. You can see the overhead lights reflecting off of the wet, matted hair. But the right rear of the head is a flat black color with nothing reflecting. Other things in the same sphere are lit up and visible, and there's nothing in front of the right rear of the head to make a shadow. To me it looks like someone blacked out the back of the head, just like in the Zapruder film. Or maybe they took a sharpie.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Roger DeLaria

[Glenn Nall]

What looks really suspicious to me in the "Fox 5" picture is the right rear of the head. You can see the overhead lights reflecting off of the wet, matted hair. But the right rear of the head is a flat black color with nothing reflecting. Other things in the same sphere are lit up and visible, and there's nothing in front of the right rear of the head to make a shadow. To me it looks like someone blacked out the back of the head, just like in the Zapruder film. Or maybe they took a sharpie.

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn:

What I am referring to with "the above" is the title of the thread.

Davey says this did not happen.

[Glenn Nall]

Glenn:

What I am referring to with "the above" is the title of the thread.

Davey says this did not happen.

ah - thanks.

of course he did.

[Roger DeLaria]

What looks really suspicious to me in the "Fox 5" picture is the right rear of the head. You can see the overhead lights reflecting off of the wet, matted hair. But the right rear of the head is a flat black color with nothing reflecting. Other things in the same sphere are lit up and visible, and there's nothing in front of the right rear of the head to make a shadow. To me it looks like someone blacked out the back of the head, just like in the Zapruder film. Or maybe they took a sharpie.

Glen,

The highlighted box you put in does show a bit more of the hair and some light reflection, but it still looks to me like its been monkeyed around with, like it should be fully lit up. I remember seeing similar photos somewhere of the back of the head, and including the side, where it showed a matte line, delineating between what they described as 2d and 3d in the same picture, where some pasting had been done.

[Ray Mitcham]

This is what you get when you play around with bucket fill in GIMP>

Strange that the whole area comes out red with one press of the button.

[Glenn Nall]

This is what you get when you play around with bucket fill in GIMP>

Strange that the whole area comes out red with one press of the button.

i don't know much about GIMP, but the professional image software Fill Tool can be set to many varying degrees of sensitivity - that "quite full" effect can be achieved or avoided depending upon the settings.

when I intensified the brightness of the area the tool selects the varying degrees of darknesses on its own, which shows that there is some "relief" (hair) in the darker areas of the image. it's very important to remember that these are multiple generations removed from the original image which would contain much more detail, of course. the best software can only work with what it's given.

even at this poor quality, any image doctoring would have to have included similar fake "relief" like the hair that we can see, or that Fill that you used and the highlighting technique would STILL find the solid "blackened" areas, such as Roger can see in the more centralized area of the highlight that i did, pretty much right above the hand's index finger.

i don't doubt that some deceit was performed with these photographs. I feel more like they used parts of the scalp that already existed, such as a flap, to just cover over something they didn't want to be seen. I think that would have been a lot easier and more effective and less time consuming than airbrushing or whatever they used back then - paint brushes, i've read...

when i find my copy of that other photo, I'll post it and point out what I see, and what i think Roger is referring to - there's a distinctive curving line around the lower portion of the scalp that sounds a lot like what Humes, et al, are describing...

[Glenn Nall]

I know you've seen this pic before, but i'm pointing out that this looks so very clearly like a large flap of scalp that Humes described, with the "wet" (dried blood) hair patch very much different from the area of dry hair below that gray line - like it's an entire hairpiece being held in place.

wouldn't be a big deal if there were also pictures available with the flap fallen out of the way, as Humes states would happen if not held by his finger.

to me, film doctoring wasn't even necessary - from the many descriptions of the gaping hole, it's directly underneath this hair flap... IMO, anyway.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Glenn Nall @ post #24:

There are several problems with the photo. One is the clearly short hair. JFK had thick, long hair. Blood does not change hair from long to short.

Another is the flap in front of the right ear. It's nowhere to be seen in the "stare of death" photo.

Furthermore, this photo never has been authenticated in a trial court. Meaning, it might be genuine, or it might be spurious.

I give this photo a value of 2 on a scale of 1 to 10. A value of 2 because it's consistent with the right lateral x-ray.

[Glenn Nall]

while i get your reticence (i try to be as cautious as i can, as well) i was under the impression that this was one of those "official" photos (fake or not).

in the dialog between Humes and his WC interviewer, they both mentioned the little white blob at the hairline below the flap, and Humes admitted that the visible thumb and forefinger was his.

i've kinda come to accept that things visible in one photo not being so in another means very little. i've read testimony of the other photographer who said he took pictures of K on his back but his eyes were closed. so those discrepancies don't tell me much.

this photo is identified as a falsified photo by others, too, but HOW falsified is my question. the fact that the WC testimony mentions several items in this photo tells me that it's likely at least originally of K.

not sure what you mean about being authenticated in trial court. were ANY photos authenticated in trial court?

[Tom Neal]

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

Testimony to the WC by Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill, 1964

I've always wondered what became of the rear portion of JFK's head that Hill saw lying in the rear seat of the car. This is the only time I ever see it mentioned.

Robert,

The limo was brought back to DC aboard an AF C-130. According to SA Sam Kinney, on the flight back to DC he personally discovered a large part of the "rear part" of JFK's head lying on the back seat "exactly where Clint Hill said it was." Kinney further states that he brought this large skull fragment back to DC in the pocket of his suitcoat. He then turned it over to his "good friend" Admiral George Berkley. I've often wondered where it went from there...

Tom

[Glenn Nall]

hmm.

is Sam Kinney to be trusted? other SA's said the Limo was being washed right there in Parkland parking lot...

if so, then is Dr. Burkley to be trusted...?

if so, then who did he give this evidence to...

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

Testimony to the WC by Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill, 1964

I've always wondered what became of the rear portion of JFK's head that Hill saw lying in the rear seat of the car. This is the only time I ever see it mentioned.

Robert,

The limo was brought back to DC aboard an AF C-130. According to SA Sam Kinney, on the flight back to DC he personally discovered a large part of the "rear part" of JFK's head lying on the back seat "exactly where Clint Hill said it was." Kinney further states that he brought this large skull fragment back to DC in the pocket of his suitcoat. He then turned it over to his "good friend" Admiral George Berkley. I've often wondered where it went from there...

Tom

As DVP would say, Kinney must have "mis-remembered" discovering a large part of the rear of JFK's head on the back seat, "exactly where Clint Hill said it was". For that matter, Hill must have "mis-remembered" seeing the back of JFK's head on the rear seat, as well as the large hole in the back of JFK's head where it came from.

Sure an awful lot of "mis-remembering" going on that day.

[James DiEugenio]

Bob:

LOL

ROTF