Why do some conspiracy theorists accept the X-rays and autopsy photos as genuine?

[Denny Zartman]

Why do some conspiracy theorists accept the X-rays and autopsy photos as genuine? There seem to be a few CT folks on the forum that appear to automatically accept them (and the Zapruder film) as being completely authentic. Is there no legitimate reason to approach them with at least some amount of skepticism?

[Pat Speer]

54 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Why do some conspiracy theorists accept the X-rays and autopsy photos as genuine? There seem to be a few CT folks on the forum that appear to automatically accept them (and the Zapruder film) as being completely authentic. Is there no legitimate reason to approach them with at least some amount of skepticism?

Sure. As with all the evidence, some skepticism is in order. 

But...a similar amount of skepticism is in order when reading books on the case, whether by the WC, an LN writer, or a CT writer. 

When I got sucked down the rabbit hole, and began reading books on the case, of all stripes, I found them largely unsatisfying. When I went back to square one, and studied the history of the medical evidence, along with hundreds of books and articles on gunshot wounds, and military rifle wounds in particular, well, I realized that much of what I'd read on the medical evidence, whether it be by the Oswald did it crowd or the Oswald didn't do it crowd, was bullpucky.

In short, the medical evidence and photographic evidence is not proof of Oswald's guilt, as claimed by all too many. It is in fact consistent with the other evidence in that it suggests that Kennedy was killed as a consequence of a conspiracy, in which Oswald didn't serve as a shooter. 

So...why doubt the authenticity of the evidence, when it strongly suggests a conspiracy? I mean, some are willing to believe that "they" faked the evidence without realizing that it proved other than they thought it would prove. That's bizarre, at best, and out of line with the history of the case. 

Yes, the truth is that those doubting the authenticity of the evidence have been spurred to do so by their woefully incorrect assumption the government's experts were telling the truth, and that the evidence, if accepted at face value, supported Oswald's guilt.

But, guess what? The government's experts l-i-e-d. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/17/2024 at 3:36 PM, Pat Speer said:

So...why doubt the authenticity of the evidence, when it strongly suggests a conspiracy? I mean, some are willing to believe that "they" faked the evidence without realizing that it proved other than they thought it would prove. That's bizarre, at best, and out of line with the history of the case.

 

This is one of Pat's preconceived notions that limits his ability to understand the fullness of the conspiracy.

Pat sees no reason in discovering the truth about something unless doing so points to conspiracy. He especially takes exception to discovering the truth about something if doing so eliminates a reason to believe in conspiracy.

Well, that is just a backassward way of discovering the fullness of the conspiracy. And it's dishonest.

Our goal should always be to search for the truth, no matter where it leads us. Even if it leads to Oswald being the lone gunman, that is how we should conduct our investigation. That is the only way to keep progressing in our search for the truth, and the fullness -- or emptiness -- of the conspiracy.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

On 1/17/2024 at 3:36 PM, Pat Speer said:

So...why doubt the authenticity of the evidence, when it strongly suggests a conspiracy?

This is one of Pat's preconceived notions that limits his ability to understand the fullness of the conspiracy.

 

I believe that this is the reason Pat fights those who say that Oswald was out watching Agent Hosty's proverbial "P. Parade." Because people who believe that, don't believe in the second-floor encounter between Officer Baker and Oswald. And Pat holds onto that encounter tightly because it is one of his precious evidences of conspiracy.

So as many of us progress in our understanding of what exactly happened that day, Pat fights us. He is happy with the evidence of conspiracy as it stands, right or wrong.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

There are signs that the CIA's photoreconnaissance assets were used to prepare for the planned hit on Fidel Castro. It seems only natural to me that when that mission shifted to the JFK hit, the same photoreconnaissance resources would have been utilized for the new mission.

CIA MEMO DOCUMENTING INVOLVEMENT OF DINO BRUGIONI AND NPIC IN PLANNING A TRIANGULATED CROSSFIRE ASSASSINATION OF FIDEL CASTRO (THE OPERATION OUT OF WHICH THE JFK ASSASSINATION ORIGINATED):

William Kelly has recently updated his very interesting article entitled "Pathfinder at Dealey Plaza - Revised and Updated" --https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2023/06/pathfinder-at-dealey-plaza-revised-and.html -- about CIA Operation Pathfinder, which concerns the CIA paramilitary operation to assassinate Fidel Castro by triangulated crossfire sniper action which, evidently, was ultimately modified to accomplish the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

 

In his article, Kelly references a 21, March 1975 CIA "Memorandum for the Record" (attached to this post), contained in the CIA Security File of Frank Sturgis, which documents that Dino Brugioni, Chief of the Western Geographic Region of the CIA National Photographic Interpretation Center ("NPIC"), had been informed of the Pathfinder program to assassinate Fidel Castro, and subsequent CIA interviews of NPIC personnel revealed that NPIC was involved in providing advance photographic intelligence in support of the Castro assassination mission.

 

This, for me, raises the question of whether NPIC may have also been involved in providing advance photographic intelligence for the successor to Pathfinder -- the Kennedy assassination -- and perhaps post assassination work, such as that related to the films of the assassination, such as the Zapruder film (which is the source of our familiarity with Dino Brugioni). It would appear plausible that the duplication of the plan to assassinate Castro for purposes of assassinating Kennedy might also include duplication of the advance and post intelligence work by NPIC and Hawkeyeworks, and that perhaps the proximity of said operations to the actual culprits of the JFK assassination might explain why certain CIA operatives posing as JFK assassination researchers go batshit crazy with their denials and misinformation about Dino Brugioni's account of working with the camera-original Zapruder film at NPIC during the evening of November 23, 1963?

 

There is MUCH of additional interest in William Kelly's article, and I highly recommend that you read it in full:

 

'PATHFINDER AT DEALEY PLAZA – Revised and Updated'

 

By William Kelly – Billkelly3@gmail.com | Friday, June 9, 2023 | https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2023/06/pathfinder-at-dealey-plaza-revised-and.html

.

Edited January 19 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

I believe the high-quality work put into the Zapruder film "anomalies" bears the fingerprints of intelligence (NPIC, Hawkeyeworks, and whatever other photoreconnaissance assets existed in 1963).

There is no visible indication of skull and brain fragments being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head at Z-313 of the Zapruder film as there should be, based upon witness testimony. The existing "original" Zapruder film only shows a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only), while all the witnesses at the scene in Dealey Plaza described a debris trail composed of substantial quantities of blood, brain, and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head (Charles Brehm: "IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK"), not the front, as can be seen from the witness accounts below.

--------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD:

Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni.
__________
"...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir").
__________
"...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..."

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara).
__________
"...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...."

Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony).
__________
"...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..."

Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13
__________
"...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...."

Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ).
__________
"...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..."

Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. 
__________
"...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET.

Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head?

Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly?

Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...."

Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs
__________
"...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...."

Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm
__________
"...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...."

Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.
__________
"...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..."

Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329.

__________

 

 

Could it be because Zapruder's camera shooting 8mm footage couldn't detect the biological debris? The camera was picking up Jackie's red roses, so that couldn't be it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 19 by Keven Hofeling

[Michael Crane]

Lots of photos and x-rays are missing.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Keven Hofeling writes:

Quote

There is no visible indication of skull and brain fragments being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head at Z-313 of the Zapruder film as there should be, based upon witness testimony.

It's quite conceivable that debris flying horizontally backwards was not captured by any of the home movie cameras.

Zapruder's camera took roughly 18 exposures per second. Each exposure cycle took approximately 0.055 of a second. During each exposure cycle, the shutter opened and closed. Each time the shutter opened, it stayed open for approximately 1/40 or 0.025 of a second.* Each time the shutter closed, it stayed closed for approximately 1/18 (= 2.2/40) minus 1/40 second, or 1.2/40 of a second, or 0.03 of a second.

In other words, the shutter was closed for almost as long as it was open. If the debris was moving fast enough, it would have passed out of sight during the time the shutter was closed between frames 312 and 313.

How fast would the debris have been moving? Who knows, but any horizontal debris would certainly have been moving much faster than the vertical debris. A bullet travelling at 2000 feet per second would have travelled around 60 feet during the time the shutter was closed. No doubt the horizontal debris would not have been moving as fast as the bullet which caused it, but it only had to move a few feet in order to have evaded capture by a home movie camera. There's no reason to assume that Zapruder's camera must have captured the debris.

Quote

The existing "original" Zapruder film only shows a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only)

We can forgive newbies for not performing basic research before repeating canards like this, but even the following relatively poor-quality edition of the Zapruder film shows debris hanging in the air for several frames in addition to frame 313:

• Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
• Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
• Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

--

* For technical details such as the camera's shutter speed, see http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm. I could copy and paste the whole thing here, but I think it's better to just give a link.

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/17/2024 at 4:12 PM, Denny Zartman said:

Why do some conspiracy theorists accept the X-rays and autopsy photos as genuine? There seem to be a few CT folks on the forum that appear to automatically accept them (and the Zapruder film) as being completely authentic. Is there no legitimate reason to approach them with at least some amount of skepticism?

Well, let's be clear about one thing from the outset: Very few conspiracy theorists still believe that the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine/accurate, especially the autopsy brain photos (which are brazenly contradicted by the skull x-rays). 

The Zapruder film is a different matter. There are many WC skeptics who still believe the Zapruder film is the original film. 

As for why a few conspiracy theorists still believe the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine, I think one reason they believe this is that you can make a strong case against the lone-gunman theory even if you assume the autopsy materials are genuine, ala Dr. Joe Riley. For example, the existing autopsy materials show two separate wound paths in the brain, one cortical and the other subcortical. The x-rays show pretty clear indications of a frontal shot. The x-rays also show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone and a clear gap between the triangular fragment and the missing parietal bone, a fact that the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP erroneously and fraudulently denied. Etc., etc., etc.

I think that many WC critics still believe the Zapruder film is the original for the same reason that a few critics believe the autopsy materials are genuine, i.e., that you can make a powerful case against the lone-gunman theory with the existing Zapruder film. By even the most ultra-cautious, conservative analysis, the film shows reactions to four shots. I believe that the plotters were unable to edit the film enough to remove all evidence of multiple gunmen, and that the edited version was unacceptable to them, which is why the film was suppressed for so long--the film was not shown to the American people until 1975. 

 

 

Edited January 19 by Michael Griffith

[Keven Hofeling]

14 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Keven Hofeling writes:

It's quite conceivable that debris flying horizontally backwards was not captured by any of the home movie cameras.

Zapruder's camera took roughly 18 exposures per second. Each exposure cycle took approximately 0.055 of a second. During each exposure cycle, the shutter opened and closed. Each time the shutter opened, it stayed open for approximately 1/40 or 0.025 of a second.* Each time the shutter closed, it stayed closed for approximately 1/18 (= 2.2/40) minus 1/40 second, or 1.2/40 of a second, or 0.03 of a second.

In other words, the shutter was closed for almost as long as it was open. If the debris was moving fast enough, it would have passed out of sight during the time the shutter was closed between frames 312 and 313.

How fast would the debris have been moving? Who knows, but any horizontal debris would certainly have been moving much faster than the vertical debris. A bullet travelling at 2000 feet per second would have travelled around 60 feet during the time the shutter was closed. No doubt the horizontal debris would not have been moving as fast as the bullet which caused it, but it only had to move a few feet in order to have evaded capture by a home movie camera. There's no reason to assume that Zapruder's camera must have captured the debris.

 

Hello Mr. Bojczuk:

I thought that Zapruder film authenticity apologists might once again attempt to resort to rationalizing that Zapruder's 8mm Bell & Howell might be incapable of detecting the copious amounts of blood, brain and skull that were blow out of the back of JFK's head that fateful day. And the question such a maneuver raises is why could Zapruder's camera detect Jackie's red roses then? It seems that the selective capabilities of the camera are being conveniently overlooked in order to support the argument for the film's authenticity. But the inconsistencies in what the camera was able to capture raise serious doubts about the veracity of the footage. 

_____________

The significance of Zapruder's Bell & Howell 8mm camera in capturing the presence of Jackie Kennedy's red roses inside the presidential limousine cannot be understated. While the camera successfully detected the vibrant red color of the roses, the discrepancy arises when we consider the apparent absence of the reported bloody mess at the back of JFK's head, which was attested to by at least twenty doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital. Instead, what we observe in the footage is a dynamic, morphing black blotch that takes various shapes from frame to frame.

It is essential to address the skepticism surrounding the morphing black patch seen in Zapruder frame 317, which has transformed into a hexagon with sharp edges. This peculiar transformation raises questions that challenge the assertions made by those who defend the footage by claiming it is a mere shadow. Given the visual evidence, it is reasonable to seek a more plausible explanation from the Zapruder apologists regarding what could potentially be an intentional patch intended to conceal the occipital parietal wound on the back of the President's head.

_____________

In the following frames extracted from Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's highly detailed 6k scans of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film, which they procured from the National Archives, a compelling observation emerges. It becomes evident that a consistent black patch veiling the occipital-parietal wound at the back of President Kennedy's head is visible in all the frames subsequent to the headshot. This intriguing revelation casts further doubt on your argument suggesting that Zapruder's film was incapable of capturing the gory details of the back of the head wound.

Furthermore, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the Zapruder film maintains visual evidence of the vivid red color exhibited by the First Lady's red roses. Noting that the red roses appear in fewer frames than those capturing the back of President Kennedy's head, the selective nature of Zapruder's camera you are basing your argument upon becomes questionable, as the back of President Kennedy's head is visible in even more frames than the roses. The visibility of the roses reinforces the notion that the camera had the ability to capture specific colors and details, thus further weakening the validity of your argument asserting its inability to register the graphic nature of the head wound.

_____________

As can be seen in the following GIF, the sequence of events captured between Zapruder film frames Z-312 and Z-317 highlights an extraordinary anomaly that cannot be dismissed with a simple explanation. Initially observed as what seemingly appears to be a natural shadow in Z-312, the subsequent frame, Z-317, presents a perplexing transformation—a deep black hexagon-shaped blotch with sharp, well-defined edges. It is precisely this remarkable metamorphosis that strongly suggests the fingerprints of Zapruder film alteration.

To categorize this striking visual transition as a consequence of natural shadow variations is not only shortsighted but also fails to grasp the gravity of the situation. The abrupt and significant alteration within a mere 5/18 of one second raises substantial doubts about the authenticity and unaltered nature of the Zapruder film. Such a drastic shift in appearance calls for a thorough investigation into the possibility of deliberate manipulation or editing by external parties.

The anomaly observed in the Z-312 to Z-317 transformation demands an unwavering commitment to exploring all avenues. It is imperative that we resist any inclination to dismiss or overlook the implications it presents. By asserting the possibility of Zapruder film alteration, we equip ourselves with a comprehensive and discerning perspective that unveils previously unexplored layers of this historical artifact.

 

Edited January 20 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

As follows, Doug Horne's "Inside the Assassination Records Release Board" provides detailed information indicating that up to 18 of President Kennedy's autopsy photographs are missing from the National Archives' collection of "originals."  The fact that these photographs are missing raises significant doubts about the trustworthiness and chain of custody of the evidence pertaining to President Kennedy's autopsy and the true nature of his injuries. The discrepancies in the chain of custody and the absence of a full set of original photographs undermine the accuracy and dependability of the official record. 

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

As follows, Doug Horne's "Inside the Assassination Records Release Board" provides detailed information indicating that up to 18 of President Kennedy's autopsy photographs are missing from the National Archives' collection of "originals."  The fact that these photographs are missing raises significant doubts about the trustworthiness and chain of custody of the evidence pertaining to President Kennedy's autopsy and the true nature of his injuries. The discrepancies in the chain of custody and the absence of a full set of original photographs undermine the accuracy and dependability of the official record. 

 

Yikes. That's quite misleading. The assumption seems to be that any photo ANYONE remembers being taken was in fact taken. This avoids that many of those saying photo A was taken were simultaneously insistent photo B was not taken. 

More problematic though is Horne's claim the photo showing an entry on the back of the skull is missing. It is not missing. It is the so-called mystery photo. Those familiar with my history will know that this is what sucked me into this maelstrom. I took one look at the mystery photo in Groden's book The Killing of a President and saw what I thought was a bullet hole, but saw nothing about this in the caption. Years later, after my discovery of Rex Bradford's website, I decided to see what the HSCA panel had to say about this photo, and was horrified to find they'd claimed it showed the forehead, and not the back of the head. I then performed a deep dive, and read every comment or description of the photo in the records. And found that, unbelievably, the autopsy doctors had originally claimed it showed the entry wound on the back of the head, and that a secret panel was formed shortly thereafter to reconcile how such a low entry could lead to such a high exit, if the bullet had in fact been fired from above...and had claimed the doctors were simply mistaken, and that the photo did not show a low wound, and that, even worse, there was no low wound, as the only entry on the back of the head was a wound high on the back of the head, in the cowlick. Now in the swirls of the maelstrom, I continued on and found that the members of the HSCA pathology panel were cronies of the secret panel that had moved the wound, and had denied the wound was apparent on the back of the head in the mystery photo. Well, this explained to me why their report claimed the photo showed the forehead. But what confused me was why no one in the research community had stepped up and said "Hey, the autopsy doctors weren't kidding! It's right there in the photo!" I asked Lifton. He said yeah that's the entrance wound. I asked Jack White. He said yeah that's the entrance wound. I asked Bob Groden. He said yeah of course that's the wound and I say so in my book...only he hadn't said so in his book. And I could find no record of Lifton or White ever identifying the wound in an article, or book, or video. So I spent a year off and on creating a video series on the history of the mystery photo, entitled The Mysterious Death of Number 35. This video series has been well received within the research community. 

So for Horne to claim the photo of the entry wound is missing, when it's been studied since 1966, and published by numerous authors since the 80's, and featured in a video series on YouTube receiving hundreds of thousands of views, is a bit bizarre, IMO. Catch up, Doug!

Edited January 20 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

As follows, Doug Horne's "Inside the Assassination Records Release Board" provides detailed information indicating that up to 18 of President Kennedy's autopsy photographs are missing from the National Archives' collection of "originals."  The fact that these photographs are missing raises significant doubts about the trustworthiness and chain of custody of the evidence pertaining to President Kennedy's autopsy and the true nature of his injuries. The discrepancies in the chain of custody and the absence of a full set of original photographs undermine the accuracy and dependability of the official record. 

 

Thanks for this Keven, I've never read Doug Horne's full work, nor seen this summary of missing photo's.   # 5 I have read about, probes in the back.  # 8, propped up by pathologists is a bit sickening (three sources though).  #17 is weird.  #18 is really important, puncture wound over right eye in hairline, also three sources.  Christmas is over.

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yikes. That's quite misleading. The assumption seems to be that any photo ANYONE remembers being taken had to have been taken. This avoids that many of those saying photo A was taken were simultaneously insistent photo B was not taken. 

More problematic though is that the first photo claimed to be missing--the photo showing an entry on the back of the skull--is not missing. It is the so-called mystery photo. Those familiar with my history will know that this is what sucked me into this maelstrom. I took one look at the mystery photo in Groden's book The Killing of a President and saw what I thought was a bullet hole, but saw nothing about this in the caption. Years later, after my discovery of Rex Bradford's website, I decided to see what the HSCA panel had to say about this photo, and was horrified to find they'd claimed it showed the forehead, and not the back of the head. I then performed a deep dive, and read every comment or description of the photo in the records. And found that, unbelievably, the autopsy doctors had originally claimed it showed the entry wound on the back of the head, and that a secret panel was then formed to try to reconcile how such a low entry could lead to such a high exit, if the bullet had in fact come from above...and had claimed the doctors were simply mistaken, and that the photo did not show a low wound, and that, even worse, there was no low wound, as the only entry on the back of the head was a wound high on the back of the head, in the cowlick. Now, in the swirls of the maelstrom, I continued on and found that the HSCA pathology panel were almost all cronies of the secret panel that had moved the wound, and had denied the wound was apparent on the back of the head in the mystery photo. Well, that explained why their report claimed he photo showed the forehead. But what confused me more was why no one in the research community had stepped up and said "Hey, the autopsy doctors weren't kidding! It's right there in the photo!" I asked Lifton. He said yeah that's the entrance wound. I asked Jack White. He said yeah that's the entrance wound. I asked Bob Groden. He said yeah of course that's the wound and I say so in my book...only he hadn't said so in his book. 

So for Horne to claim the photo is missing, when it's been studied since 1966, and published by numerous authors since the 80's, and featured in a video series on YouTube receiving hundreds of thousands of views, is a bit bizarre, IMO. Catch up, Doug!

Mr. Speer:

As an aside, I notice that in your "A Matter of Proportion" slide, you appear to be identifying the red spot that Michael Baden advised medical illustrator Ida Dox to enhance (resulting in her drawing it as a bullet hole) as a bullet entry. You don't accept the HSCA's upward movement of that wound as being accurate, do you?

 

Secondly, F-8, the "Mystery Photograph," was originally labeled as a "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp,"  and I suppose it could be the same photo as Horne lists as number 1 in his article, but then, that still doesn't account for the other 17 on the list. 

F-8 is the occipital parietal wound that you have built a cottage industry attempting to deny existed, as Dr. David Mantik has demonstrated based upon several bases of evidence, including biological landmarks in the original photographs that are not present in the publicly available bootleg versions of the photograph (identified by by Dr. Mantik at the National Archives and verified by Forensic Pathologist Robert Kirschner).

 

Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment is shown here in F-8 in the occiput.

Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment of course relies heavily on the X-ray provided to him by the late John Hunt.

It seems pretty clear to me that Dr. Mantik's interpretation of F-8, and his placement of the Harper Fragment in the occiput are sound and valid conclusions.

This is Dr. David Mantik's commentary and notes on the photo F-8:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORRECT ORIENTATION OF JFK F8 AUTOPSY PHOTO REVEALS IT TO BE OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL WOUND (BACK OF HEAD) AND REVEALS LOCATION OF HARPER FRAGMENT AT OCCIPUT:

 

'Postscript: The Mystery Photograph F8 by Dr. David Mantik'

 

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf

"...From this photograph, we can be certain that the back of the head was blown out, quite dramatically in fact, just like all of the witnesses said. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that a frontal headshot led to this injury. This deduction, of course, also corroborates the recollections of all of those new and old witnesses who saw autopsy photographs with such a massive defect, which, in turn, means that other photographs really have disappeared."

Autopsy photograph F8 (the label derives from the list of Fox photographs) has generated endless controversy. This view has been exceptionally difficult to orient, even for the pathologists. Line BA was interpreted by Michael Baden, M.D., of the HSCA as passing from left to right, with the visible bone lying immediately anterior to the coronal suture. In fact, point B lies deep in the occiput, while point A is situated toward the front of the skull. Line BA divides the skull into left and right. Point L identifies the lead deposit on the Harper fragment; its location on the skull is remarkably consistent with the pathologists' skull entry site. The small white triangle identifies a triangle discussed in the text. The black circumferential perimeter outlines the site of origin of the Harper fragment. Letters C and D identify small bone fragments that are also identified in Figures 4A and 7. In F8 the Harper fragment appears distorted because of the perspective offered by the camera. Beyond point A (in the photographs at the Archives) a tangential view of the chest and abdomen (with fat pads folded back) can be seen. I determined this by stereo viewing of two, nearly identical, color photographs of F8.

 

In this section I present proof that this photograph (B& W # 17, # 18 and color #44, #45 in the current collection) shows the posterior skull. Even Robert McClelland, M.D., insisted, after his visit to the Archives, that the collection included a view of the large hole as seen at Parkland Hospital. It must have been F8. During their initial inventory review (signed on 10 November 1966), the pathologists labeled this as a posterior view: "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp." Furthermore, in his ARRB deposition (reported to me by Douglas Home), Humes located the entry wound (in the posterior skull) toward the bottom of this photograph (as oriented here). This agrees with my interpretation, but disagrees with Baden, who described it more as a view from the left side. At their ARRB depositions, none of the pathologists could orient this photograph. However, when the X-rays are used in conjunction with the photograph, then its orientation becomes unambiguous, as I describe here in stepwise fashion.

 

1. Note the remaining frontal bone (Figure 12), as determined from the frontal skull Xray. This is consistent with Boswell's drawing at the autopsy (Figure 4A) and also with his drawing for the ARRB, as rendered by Home (Figure 9A-D). Note that the upper edge of the remaining frontal bone lies close to the hairline. Although not shown here, these drawings are also consistent with the drawings of Angel, the physical anthropologist, who served as an expert witness for the HSCA (7HSCA228-230). Giesecke (6H74) is one Parkland physician who did describe the large skull defect as extending from the occiput to the browline, in remarkable agreement with Boswell.

 

2. On the lateral skull X-ray (Figure 11B), I have indicated, with a line passing through the metallic debris, how the X-ray beam would have transited the skull when the frontal X-ray was taken. For confirmation of this X-ray trajectory note that (a) on the frontal X-ray (Figure 14) the metallic debris is closely bunched from top to bottom, as would be expected if the X-ray beam were traveling nearly parallel to this debris, (b) the transverse fracture just above the left eye (on the right side of the page) corresponds to the discontinuity at the rear of the lateral X-ray, and (c) the 7 x 2 mm metal fragment lies well above the right eye socket on both views. (There is additional evidence for this conclusion not given here.) 82

 

3. On the frontal X-ray, all of the bone is absent just above the trail of metallic debris.

 

4. In the HSCA interpretation of F8 (I have watched Baden demonstrate this on television), the segment BA runs from left to right across the skull at the coronal suture; therefore, according to the photograph, almost all of the bone anterior to this line segment was intact. This conclusion made some sense, because the largest, late arriving bone fragment had a suture line at one edge, which the HSCA took to be the coronal suture. Angel agreed that this was the coronal suture, but he placed this bone fragment anterior to the coronal suture, whereas Baden (in an unintended confirmation of the confusion that reigned over this issue) placed it posterior to the coronal suture. [What convinced Baden was the semicircular notch just below the letter C in the photograph) at the edge of the bone, which he took to be the exit site for the posterior bullet. Furthermore, this largest, late arriving bone fragment showed (on its X-ray image) multiple, tiny, metal particles, strongly suggestive of an exit site, meaning that it had to fit next to the notch (in Baden's view). The largest bone fragment can probably be placed anterior to the coronal suture (as Angel did), thus still permitting the actual exit site to lie at or near the coronal suture. (The X-ray’s leave an irresolvable ambiguity about the orientation of the bone fragments: it is impossible to distinguish inside from outside, and, strangely enough, the pathologists said nothing to clarify this. No photographs were taken either.)

 

5. Notice, however, that we have now arrived at a reductio ad absurdum there is a fatal contradiction in Baden's interpretation: from the X-rays, we know that bone must be missing all the way forward to the hairline, but Baden has just told us that it is present all the way back to the coronal suture! (On the lateral X-ray, this is where the skull is fractured at the skull vertex.) If the bone really were present to the coronal suture, then, on the frontal X-ray, we would see bone right at the very top on the right side of the skull, just as it is present on the left side. We can be certain of this because we know (from step 1) what the beam's eye view is, i.e., we know the direction that the X-ray beam traveled at the top of the skull during the taking of the frontal X- ray. Therefore, Baden's orientation of F8 is certainly wrong.

 

6. On the other hand, if F8 is the back of the head, then the line segment BA is the midsaggital line. There is further confirmation that this is the correct. While at the Archives, I viewed this photograph and its near twin (most views are pairs, taken with the camera slightly displaced in successive views) with a stereo viewer, which, for this view, is particularly illuminating. The bone surface (left of midline) was quite rounded, as would be expected for the occiput. In addition, the fractured bone islands at the right front (labeled C and D) could now be appreciated in 3D. After some staring, I realized that there were only two, and that they corresponded to the two bone islands on the frontal X-ray (also labeled C and D). Their sizes, shapes, and locations all fit perfectly. But one additional feature surprised me. In the color photographs at the Archives, there was more to see beyond the top edge of the film than is visible here. I finally realized that I was looking tangentially across the chest and abdomen. I could actually see a nipple (extending out into space in 3D) and the biggest surprise; I could see fat pads folded back from the abdominal incision. 83

 

7. There is a specimen bottle at the bottom left of this photograph (not well seen here), which seemed to suggest that Baden might have been right after all. However, now that I knew where parts of the body were located, I could conclude that the head had merely been rotated into a nonstandard orientation, no doubt to better expose the large, occipital hole for the camera, and that the specimen jar posed no special problem in interpretation.

 

8. Having concluded that the large defect extended all the way to the anterior hairline, Boswell's 13 cm measurement for the large hole fits better than it would for an anterior border at the coronal suture. This is further confirmation of my conclusion.

 

9. When questioned about this notch (on the bone edge) in F8 by the HSCA, Humes (7HSCA249) did not hesitate to say that the notch was not in the frontal bone, thus disagreeing with Baden's orientation!

 

10. In conclusion, the orientation described here is consistent with the historical orientation, with the X-rays, with Humes's comment about the notch, with Boswell's two drawings (one at the autopsy and one for the ARRB), and even with Angel's drawings, but not with Baden's orientation. From this photograph, we can be certain that the back of the head was blown out, quite dramatically in fact, just like all of the witnesses said. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that a frontal headshot led to this injury. This deduction, of course, also corroborates the recollections of all of those new and old witnesses who saw autopsy photographs with such a massive defect, which, in turn, means that other photographs really have disappeared."

 

'THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DECODED'

By David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf

 

  https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/4989902384399124/

 

Edited January 20 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks for this Keven, I've never read Doug Horne's full work, nor seen this summary of missing photo's.   # 5 I have read about, probes in the back.  # 8, propped up by pathologists is a bit sickening (three sources though).  #17 is weird.  #18 is really important, puncture wound over right eye in hairline, also three sources.  Christmas is over.

White House Photographer Robert Knudsen was reportedly present at the Naval Photographic Center in Washington, D.C. while the camera film from the autopsy was being processed. When interviewed by the HSCA on 8/11/1978, Knudsen claimed that he remembered seeing a photo negative showing at least 2 probes inserted into the body:

 

"...Mr. PURDY - Thank you. As I said previously, Mr. Goff is the General Counsel of the United States Secret Service. Now, before the break we were talking about the number of probes, and you had said the most you saw in any one picture was two. I believe that is what you stated, is that correct?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - I said the minimum was two.

 

Mr. PURDY - What was the most?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - Over this period of time, I am not certain. It seems to me that there were three in one picture, but this I will not state for sure.

 

Mr. PURDY - Of the probes that you recall, where did they enter and where did they exit?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - One was right near the neck and out the back.

 

Mr. PURDY - The front of the neck and out the back of the neck?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - The point of entry-exit.

 

Mr. PURDY - The metal probe extended from the front of the neck to the back of the neck?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - Right. One was through the chest cavity.

 

Mr. PURDY - Did it go all the way through?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - Yes. It seems to me that the entry point was a little bit lower in the back than -- well, the point in the back was a little bit lower than the point in the front. Put it that way. So the probe was going diagonally from top to bottom, front to back.

 

Mr. PURDY - Approximately, regarding both probes, how high -- you mentioned the one was from the front of the neck, the probe extended between points on the front of the neck and the back of the neck. How high on the back of the neck, and how high or low from the front of the neck would you say for that probe?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - As I said, not studying them for technical purposes, it seemed to me that the point on the front was about this point, somewhere in this area here (Indicating).

 

Mr. PURDY - Could you articulate?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - What bone is this?

 

Mr. PURDY - You are pointing to a point right around the top --

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - Right about where the neck-tie is. That would be somewhere in that vicinity.

 

Mr. PURDY - Approximately how much lower than that would you say the other probe, which went through the chest cavity?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - I would put it six, seven inches.

 

Mr. PURDY - Was it opened or closed in the photograph?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - It was a side view. I just glanced at it to make sure.

 

Mr. PURDY - From the side view, you saw both probes?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - Right.

 

Mr. PURDY - Where would you place the points of the probes in the back? You say one was in the neck, one was in the back. Approximately how high up, or how low?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - I would put in the back -- it would seem to me it is probably around ten inches. There, again, I do not recall the length of time. I cannot say.

 

Mr. PURDY - You were kind of pointing to the middle of your back, about midway down, you would say?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - Midway between the neck and the waist.

 

Mr. PURDY - Where was the other probe?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - This one --

 

Mr. PURDY - You just indicated where the probe came out, on the lower --

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - Somewhere around the middle of the back. It seemed to me it was right around midchest.

 

Mr. PURDY - The probe that you said you could see coming out of the neck, the front of the neck, where was it out of the back of the neck? How high up would you say that one was.

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - About the base of the neck. Was the body lying flat, or sitting up or lying on its front when you saw the probes through it?

 

Mr. KNUDSEN - It would have to be erected to put the probes through, because on the back there was no way...."

 

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/knudsen.htm