Evan Marshall Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 (edited) Having been assigned to both CSI and then twice to Detroit Homicide I've always been appalled at the quality of most of the autopsy pictures. If I had produced photos of such poor quality, I would have myself working midnights in uniform.. Edited March 5, 2019 by Evan Marshall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 (edited) Evan, But you must keep in mind the fact that none of the autopsy photos we now have access to on the Internet are first-generation photos. The bootleg Internet versions are probably two (or more) generations removed from the originals. So you can't expect HD quality. Edited March 5, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 Ah, but we can expect them to be in focus with proper depth of field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said: Ah, but we can expect them to be in focus with proper depth of field And you don't think any of the JFK autopsy photos contain such qualities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 Very few and if Oswald was the shooter and a lonely loser, why are files being withheld from us and why can't we see the originals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 (edited) Evan: One of the most interesting parts of the ARRB inquiry. From my review of Part 1 of Inside the ARRB: After his ARRB testimony, Gunn and Horne came to believe that by the time of the HSCA, a total of five views taken by Stringer had disappeared. (pp.182-83) Reinforcing this was one of the real finds of the ARRB: an interview done with photographer Karl McDonald. After taking the formal picture of the Board members, Marwell found out that McDonald had been the medical photographer at Bethesda for eight years. Further, that he had been tutored by, and worked with, Stringer. (p. 152) And he had ended up by being that institute's senior instructor in medical photography. In his ARRB interview he shed a lot of light on just how bad the extant pictorial record of Kennedy's autopsy is. 1. He first said that he always developed his own pictures. He never sent anything to Anacostia. 2. He also said that he was always sure to take a battery of full body shots – of which none exist in the Kennedy case. 3. He testified that there was always an autopsy card included with each and every photo. The card included an autopsy number and the year. Again, none exist in the Kennedy case. 4. He said for trauma shots – places on the body where bullets impacted – he always took three views: wide-angle, medium shot, close-up. In light of the above strictures, Gunn asked him to give an overall grade to what purports to be Stringer's work today. McDonald replied that he would grade the collection with very low marks. This was the guy who was taught photography procedure by Stringer. Did Stringer forget the very lessons he once gave? Not likely. One has to ask, why was normal procedure so outlandishly broken in the Kennedy case? All of these are serious breeches in protocol. And this guy was tutored by the man who took the Kennedy photos. Edited March 6, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted March 6, 2019 Author Share Posted March 6, 2019 Jim Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Welcome Evan. See, very few people followed the progress and the releases of the ARRB. Although they did not do as well as I think they should have, they did have some real achievements. McDonald was one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 (edited) On 3/5/2019 at 1:16 PM, David Von Pein said: Evan, But you must keep in mind the fact that none of the autopsy photos we now have access to on the Internet are first-generation photos. The bootleg Internet versions are probably two (or more) generations removed from the originals. So you can't expect HD quality. you have a short memory. The very generational thing you are touting right now was told to you, and lone nuts worldwide regarding the Nix film and the Zapruder film, years ago.... what was the resolution of a .jpg, png image on the net till 5 years ago, again regardless of overall size? 72dpi sound familiar? We can also discuss multi generational image contrast issues you'd like.... Edited March 7, 2019 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, David G. Healy said: you have a short memory. The very generational thing you are touting right now was told to you, and lone nuts worldwide regarding the Nix film and the Zapruder film, years ago.... what was the resolution of a .jpg, png image on the net till 5 years ago, again regardless of overall size? 72dpi sound familiar? We can also discuss multi generational image contrast issues [if] you'd like.... What does anything you just uttered have to do with my general (and factual) comment about the Internet autopsy photos not being "first generation" images (and thus, not to expect very high quality from them)? ~shrug city~ Edited March 7, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: What does anything you just uttered have to do with my general (and factual) comment about the Internet autopsy photos not being "first generation" images (and thus, not to expect very high quality from them)? ~shrug city~ There is absolutely no reason as to why we can't have 1st generation imagery and films for research/discussions. What you want to do here is sell 5th-10th image generation as acceptable. It's NOT. It's a farce. And then there's the issue(s) re films, x-rays and photos (including autopsy photos) that are missing. POOF! Where are they? 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