Incision made on JFK's head (Kennedy assassination) Nothing to see here: an incision made on JFK's head...

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Pat and Kevin, 

Can you tell me where the R side head autopsy picture that you posted came from? Is it part of the “leaked” Fox set? Or is there an official source for it? (I.e., is there a NARA or government url for the image?) 

 

Denise,

You can download uncropped high-resolution scans of the autopsy photos here:

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back of head (15%3A16) (HT).jpg

 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Pat and Kevin, 

Can you tell me where the R side head autopsy picture that you posted came from? Is it part of the “leaked” Fox set? Or is there an official source for it? (I.e., is there a NARA or government url for the image?) 

I'm assuming you are referring to this autopsy photograph:

This actually isn't an "official autopsy photo," it is a bootleg autopsy photograph. There are two sets of bootleg autopsy photographs that are publicly available, the Fox collection (liberated from the archives by former Secret Service agent James Fox [an image of the collection is attached to this comment]), and the Groden collection (liberated from the National Archives by assassination researcher Robert Groden when he served as a photographic consultant to the HSCA in the late 1970's). The particular photograph you are asking about is from the Groden collection. Doug Horne who served as the Chief Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board -- where he had access to the "original" autopsy photographs -- has written that the publicly available bootleg autopsy photographs are the same images that are in the "original" collection, except that they are cropped differently, and are of comparatively degraded resolution. 

The following is the Fox collection:

APPENDIX H. THE ORIGIN OF THE FOX PHOTOGRAPHS (INCLUDING F8)

FROM 'JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS: A FINAL SYNTHESIS AND A NEW ANALYSIS OF THE HARPER FRAGMENT' BY DR. DAVID MANTIK

 

On November 23, 1963, James K. Fox was given the autopsy film holders by JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley1 and told to develop them. According to Fox, Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman said to make himself copies [DM: i.e., Fox was to make copies for himself] as they would be history someday. He made three sets of black and white autopsy photo prints at the Secret Service lab. On November 27, 1963, additional official copies were made at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).

In 1981, those pictures were sold to Mark Crouch. During this time copies of the photos were given to several JFK researchers. Fox died in 1987. David Lifton published the Fox set in Best Evidence (1988). Crouch retired from research in 1993 and sold his JFK collection, including negatives made from the photos, to Walt Brown, who continues to make them available to researchers.

 

In 1992, the official autopsy photos were specifically exempted from the JFK Records Act and will not be released. Douglas Horne stated that, after viewing the original photos, he noted that the Fox unofficial photos are cropped differently and are degraded as compared to the originals in the National Archives but are basically the same.182

After reviewing the preceding comments, Walt Brown responded (e-mail of July 21, 2014) as follows.

"The only uncertainty in the paragraph that I read was the specific identification of Roy Kellerman. When I purchased the "Fox Negatives," Mark Crouch gave me a booklet containing his entire story of how he learned of, and eventually came into possession of those negatives. On pp. 11--12, he states that it was Fox's statement that "his boss" who kept a set of negatives for himself and gave one to Fox. The "boss" is identified as Robert Bouck, who would have been Fox's boss at the Protective Research Section. Lifton stated it was Kellerman, but Crouch denied it, although not strongly. Crouch noted he had countless conversations about all of this with Fox, perhaps totaling 100, and Lifton only spoke to Fox once. Kellerman, in my view, would not have been in a position to have such negatives or to hand them over to anyone."

___________

And Doug Horne wrote the following about the bootleg autopsy photographs:

___________

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/1206-students-question-autopsy-photos/?do=findComment&comment=8371

"The autopsy photographs have never been published by the USG. (The Warren Commission should have published them, but unfortunately decided not to introduce them as evidence, supposedly for reasons of "taste." Whether this was the real reason or not, their decision was inexcusable and has resulted in major controversy and charges of cover-up.)

However, certain representative views have been published in various researcher books over the years, starting in 1988 in the trade paperback reissue of David Lifton's monumental tome "Best Evidence." They have also appeared in some of Harrison Livingstone's books, and in Robert Groden's "coffee table" book on the assassination, "The Killing of a President."

The sources of the so-called "bootleg" autopsy photographs are twofold:

(1) Secret Service Agent James K. Fox---now deceased---made an unauthorized set of black and white prints in 1963; these prints were loaned to researchers in the early 1980s, and the researchers photographed the black and white prints before returning them. It is this set---the "Fox Set"---that ended up in Lifton's 1988 trade paperback version of "Best Evidence."

(2) Amateur photographer Robert Groden served as an unpaid photographic consultant to the HSCA from 1976-78; he surreptitiously photographed color prints in the possession of the HSCA staff. When you see color autopsy images in books---such as in Groden's own book cited above---the source are the color images he took of the prints while the HSCA temporarily had possession of them.

The only images in the autopsy collection that have not been "bootlegged" are the brain images. (The HSCA produced an artist's rendition of one of the brain photographs in volume 7 of its report.)

All images of the body published in the researcher books cited above do indeed represent actual autopsy images...but they are degraded to a greater or lesser extent, and suffer from contrast buildup, which is what happens when you make multi-generational photographic copies. Most of them are also cropped and do not show the entire field of view.

Be very careful---and by this I mean very skeptical---of what researchers say about the photographs in their books; they are giving you personal interpretations about what the images appear to show, and as a former ARRB staff member I can tell you that even the "experts" disagree about what the photographs show or do not show. I have viewed the original collection 15 or 16 times...we showed them to some experts to obtain their impressions/opinions, and also used them during our 10 depositions of autopsy witnesses and participants.

First, about format: the "original" images in the archives consist of 4" X 5" black and white negatives, and 4" X 5" color positive transparencies (both on duplex film). The brain B & W images are also 4" X 5" in size, but were taken with a press pack, not duplex film.

The ARRB staff (namely, my boss, General Counsel Jeremy Gunn, with me assisting) asked many, many interpretive questions about the autopsy photographs of autopsy witnesses and participants, while they were under oath. Those questions, and the answers received, are all recorded in the ARRB deposition transcripts of the following persons (located in the JFK Collection in the National Archives of the United States):

Pathologists James J. Humes, J. Thornton Boswell, and Pierre Finck; photographer and assistant photographer John Stringer and Floyd Riebe; X-Ray technicians Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed; FBI agents James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill; and Navy photographer's mate Saundra Spencer.

Although individual answers to the same question often varied from witness to witness, some patterns did emerge:

(1) some photographs definitely taken at the autopsy are "missing"---that is, are not in the official collection, and never have been;

(2) some individuals developed post mortem film images on types of film (color negatives, for example) that are not, repeat NOT, in the official collection;

(3) some photographs seen by developers are NOT in the official collection;

(4) the nature of the head wound (as well as the size of the tracheotomy) is markedly different in the autopsy images than what is remembered by Dallas treatment physicians and nurses at Parkland hospital.

This is a very complex subject, but one major conclusion can be stated here: many more photographs were taken than are in the official collection; the collection has been "culled." My personal opinion, representing 3 years of work on the staff of the ARRB (including 10 autopsy-related depositions), is that additional photographs were taken during the reconstruction process following the embalming---that is, during the post-mortem restorative process. Some of those images have been intermingled with actual autopsy photos to create a false and misleading impression of the nature of the damage to the President's head. Specifically, both FBI agents told the ARRB under oath that there was a large hole in the right rear of President Kennedy's head at autopsy, and were quite perplexed when they saw images of an apparently intact back-of-the-head in the autopsy collection. Agent O'Neill said it looked like the head (not the images themselves) had been "doctored" or fixed up; Agent Sibert said the photographs of the intact back-of-the-head looked like a "reconstruction." This is indirect corroboration from 2 expert witnesses of the numerous Dallas reports from Parkland Hospital of a blow-out, or exit, in the back of the head.

So this is a complex subject, and unlike a normal murder case, one cannot obtain a good sense of what happened from viewing the autosy photos. In fact, one will very likely be deceived.

My boss at the ARRB, Jeremy Gunn, often said that to him, the autopsy photo collection was intended "to conceal, rather than to reveal."

I believe David Lifton is correct in "Best Evidence" when he posits that the President's body was altered after it left Parkland and prior to the start of the autopsy, in order to remove evidence and change wounds. This was never proven conclusively because:

(1) The Warren Commission did not show the autopsy images to the Dallas doctors (who had the "before" view in their memories) when they testified in the Spring of 1964;

(2) The HSCA never showed the autopsy images to the Dallas doctors in spite of being asked to do so by several researchers;

(3) The ARRB blew it, and never showed the autopsy images to the Dallas doctors during their depositions, in spite of me pleading for this to happen for 3 years. Why? The Archives refused to cooperate and ship the photos to Texas for the depositions, and the ARRB failed to insist that the Dallas physicians come to Washington (where the photos are), as they could and should have.

The Photographic Alteration Issue:

Many researchers, for years, assumed that the photographs had been altered, thus explaining the differences between the Dallas observations during treatment, and the wounds shown by the photos today. But neither Kodak, nor I, found any evidence of photographic alteration in these images, in spite of looking for such evidence when the images were digitally preserved in Rochester, New York. For this reason, as well as others, I have concluded that the reason the autopsy photos do not match the Dallas descriptions of the head wound is because many of the photos in the collection represent a "partial reconstruction" (of the head) performed during the embalming and restorative process on 11/23.

I also concluded, for many reasons (as highlighted in a 32-page research paper I wrote while on the ARRB staff), that the brain photographs in the autopsy collection are not photos of President Kennedy's brain; rather, they are photos of someone else's brain designed to fool history (and any prospective audience of future investigators) into believing that a man in a building shot a man in a car.

This conclusion of mine---that the autopsy photographic collection is an official fraud designed to support the "lone nut" assassin scenario (of an assailant shooting from above and behind)---is one of the major "smoking gun" legacies of the ARRB, and yet most Americans do not know about this because of limited and spotty press coverage about the ARRB's work.

I will be happy to answer additional questions on this issue, and make some of my major medical research memos available to the web site, if requested. END"

___________

NOTE that since the time that Doug Horne wrote the above, he has amended his view about the alteration of the back of the head autopsy photographs, and now agrees that a matte insert has been overlayed over the occipital-parietal wound per the results of Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the "originals" at the National Archives, as set forth below:

___________

DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS CUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]):

…BRENT HOLLAND: “…How did they cover up those photos David? How did they, you know, because there is a photo that I use all the time?... Dr. McClelland has made a hand sketch of the back of JFK’s head and he shows approximately where the hole in the back of JFK’s head is, which is the lower right quadrant folks, and there is an autopsy photo that is supposed to be the back of JFK’s head that shows it fully intact. Your speculation on that David?

DAVID MANTIK: Well I took along a stereo viewer to the archives to look at these images. The reason I did that is because if that particular area was faked in to cover up a hole, and it was faked in the same way on two partner images, then I would not see a 3-d effect, and that’s exactly what I saw. Robert Groden -- who is much more of a photographic expert than I am – and I have had discussions about that and he tells me exactly the same thing.

BRENT HOLLAND: Is that right? Robert Groden show’s in the archive as well folks. Okay, what’s your speculation Doug?

DOUGLAS HORNE: Well I now agree with Dr. Mantik. At the time I wrote my book – it was 2009 – I leaned toward the likelihood that the back of the head photos showed intact scalp because a lot of the scalp might have been dramatically re-arranged, ya know, carefully cut away from the cranium, and re-arranged, and just held in place for three minutes while they took pictures to try to prove there was no hole in the back of the head. But I respect what Dr. Mantik did with his stereoscopic viewer, and the problem is that the Review Board didn’t think to do that. And unfortunately, I think Jeremy Gunn and I were in the mode of trusting the HSCA. The HSCA wrote that its photographic consultant panel viewed the autopsy photographs stereoscopically and didn’t notice any problems.

DAVID MANTIK: I discussed this particular issue with Robert Groden who was there. He made it very clear to me that Robert Blakey had no idea what stereoscopic viewing was all about…

BRENT HOLLAND: Really?!

DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow!

DAVID MANTIK: …He was totally ignorant about it….

DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow!

DAVID MANTIK: …And Robert’s observations totally agreed with mine…

BRENT HOLLAND: So there you have corroboration.

DAVID MANTIK: …They just, they just made it up. They had to. What else could they do. If they said something else the game would be up. This was a critical juncture to them. They had, they had to make a choice.

DOUGLAS HORNE: The whole game of the HSCA was to blame Oswald for all of the wounds. And, uh, they had to admit there had been a frontal shot because the acoustic science forced them into saying that. But they still wanted to have their cake and to eat it too, and so they said Oswald still killed the president and wounded the governor, and that no one else did, and that the shot from the front missed. Robert Blakey is responsible for all that. Him and Michael Baden…”

https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779

___________

Dr. David Mantik wrote:

 

⁠ "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA.

 

⁠ Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole.

 

⁠ Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared.

 

⁠ Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone?

 

Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10] (THIS WAS RETITLED TO "WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW," AND WAS RECENTLY RELEASED BY PARAMOUNT +).

 

⁠ Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..."

 

⁠ 'JFK AASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS' Journal of Health Science & Education |

David W. Mantik, MD, PhD https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠

Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

 

 

Edited May 1 by Keven Hofeling

[Denise Hazelwood]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You can download uncropped high-resolution scans of the autopsy photos here:

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back of head (15%3A16) (HT).jpg

Thank you. #10 is the image, but doesn’t have the “5, 6 (B & W) …” identifier on it. The reason I ask is because the white area above the “V” incision that looks like a reflection looks dark in another version I found online. I think the scalp incisions were to expose the hole above the ear and the white spot, which I think was the forehead entry. There’s no doubt in my mind that the autopsy images have been altered, but the extent to which they were and by whom can be argued. I would like to know what the “official” images look like, but as far as I know, NARA has not yet released them, which is infuriating. This source is an “archive” that appears to have government connections only because of the logo at the top. It is helpful because it’s a good quality resolution and has the url to point to. But as far as I know, the “official” ones are still being redacted from public view.

Kevin, your history is very extremely helpful. Thank you. The Fox set may have been purposely “leaked” for the purpose of deception. I am not sure about the Groden set, but I find it interesting that he was told to make a copy for himself. I like Mantik’s descriptions, and absolutely believe him, but without the actual images themselves, it’s a matter of taking his word for it. The Parkland doctors documentation (especially the recently released videos) is great because they are first person sources who were THERE. 
 

I’m angry and frustrated by the lack of progress in the Mary Ferrell lawsuit. The “Transparency Plan” (deemed to be “adequate”) is really an Obscurity Plan. It infuriates me that this is still going on (and I am of the “BENIGN Conspiracy” persuasion)! It’s no wonder that authoritarian movements have gotten such a strong foothold in the country, when many democratic institutions are failing to meet their obligations. I want an official government admission of responsibility, apology, and full transparency! Granted, the current administration is not the same as 1963, when it all began, but the lack of both Republican and Democratic administrations to come clean only enables more cover up and future corruption. Sorry (not sorry) for the rant.

[Keven Hofeling]

4 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

KH: My responses are below in dark blue:

Thank you. #10 is the image, but doesn’t have the “5, 6 (B & W) …” identifier on it. The reason I ask is because the white area above the “V” incision that looks like a reflection looks dark in another version I found online. I think the scalp incisions were to expose the hole above the ear and the white spot, which I think was the forehead entry. There’s no doubt in my mind that the autopsy images have been altered, but the extent to which they were and by whom can be argued. I would like to know what the “official” images look like, but as far as I know, NARA has not yet released them, which is infuriating. This source is an “archive” that appears to have government connections only because of the logo at the top. It is helpful because it’s a good quality resolution and has the url to point to. But as far as I know, the “official” ones are still being redacted from public view.

KH: The "identifiers" that are on the bootleg autopsy photos that I post are from Doug Horne, who has added them to the photos in his book "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," and on the slides he uses in presentations, some of which you can find via the following link:   https://healthdocbox.com/Brain_Tumor/97385332-The-jfk-medical-evidence-inadmissible-at-trial.html

I use Horne's autopsy photos with identifiers because I think they are useful for acquiring a familiarity with the extant inventory of "original" autopsy photos.

One of the factors that makes it difficult to differentiate between actual and added alterations in the autopsy photos is that Robert Groden has made adjustments to his bootleg photos, such as colorizing some of them, and who knows what else, and Mark Crouch also made some changes to the photos in the Fox collection, mostly differences involving cropping and developing, so it is difficult to know whether anomalies were caused by the government or by Groden, Crouch or unknown others.

Kevin, your history is very extremely helpful. Thank you. The Fox set may have been purposely “leaked” for the purpose of deception. I am not sure about the Groden set, but I find it interesting that he was told to make a copy for himself. I like Mantik’s descriptions, and absolutely believe him, but without the actual images themselves, it’s a matter of taking his word for it. The Parkland doctors documentation (especially the recently released videos) is great because they are first person sources who were THERE. 

KH: It was Secret Service Agent James Fox who CLAIMED to have been told to make a copy for himself. Robert Groden admittedly took photographs of some of the "originals" without authorization, using an elaborate scheme in which he had his wife diverted the attention of an HSCA official to allow him the opportunity to remove the "originals" from a safe and photograph them. And I am also suspicious that James Fox sold the copies of the photos he had to Mark Crouch on official orders because they have been manipulated to support the official government version of the assassination and would have been helpful in the always ongoing propaganda war.

I’m angry and frustrated by the lack of progress in the Mary Ferrell lawsuit. The “Transparency Plan” (deemed to be “adequate”) is really an Obscurity Plan. It infuriates me that this is still going on (and I am of the “BENIGN Conspiracy” persuasion)! It’s no wonder that authoritarian movements have gotten such a strong foothold in the country, when many democratic institutions are failing to meet their obligations. I want an official government admission of responsibility, apology, and full transparency! Granted, the current administration is not the same as 1963, when it all began, but the lack of both Republican and Democratic administrations to come clean only enables more cover up and future corruption. Sorry (not sorry) for the rant.

KH: In my personal opinion, all of the presidential administrations since 1963 have been the fruit of the poisonous coup de' tat tree, essentially controlled by the intelligence agencies and the military. When they killed JFK, they killed American democracy, and we are as far from American democracy now as we have ever been...

 

Edited May 1 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Thank you. #10 is the image, but doesn’t have the “5, 6 (B & W) …” identifier on it. The reason I ask is because the white area above the “V” incision that looks like a reflection looks dark in another version I found online. I think the scalp incisions were to expose the hole above the ear and the white spot, which I think was the forehead entry. There’s no doubt in my mind that the autopsy images have been altered, but the extent to which they were and by whom can be argued. I would like to know what the “official” images look like, but as far as I know, NARA has not yet released them, which is infuriating. This source is an “archive” that appears to have government connections only because of the logo at the top. It is helpful because it’s a good quality resolution and has the url to point to. But as far as I know, the “official” ones are still being redacted from public view.

Kevin, your history is very extremely helpful. Thank you. The Fox set may have been purposely “leaked” for the purpose of deception. I am not sure about the Groden set, but I find it interesting that he was told to make a copy for himself. I like Mantik’s descriptions, and absolutely believe him, but without the actual images themselves, it’s a matter of taking his word for it. The Parkland doctors documentation (especially the recently released videos) is great because they are first person sources who were THERE. 
 

I’m angry and frustrated by the lack of progress in the Mary Ferrell lawsuit. The “Transparency Plan” (deemed to be “adequate”) is really an Obscurity Plan. It infuriates me that this is still going on (and I am of the “BENIGN Conspiracy” persuasion)! It’s no wonder that authoritarian movements have gotten such a strong foothold in the country, when many democratic institutions are failing to meet their obligations. I want an official government admission of responsibility, apology, and full transparency! Granted, the current administration is not the same as 1963, when it all began, but the lack of both Republican and Democratic administrations to come clean only enables more cover up and future corruption. Sorry (not sorry) for the rant.

1. The photos available to researchers such as yourself are the same as those in the archives. The photos in the archives are not cropped as much, and have better resolution, but there is nothing drastically different. This has been confirmed by those who've worked with the archives prints, such as Groden, Wecht, Baden, Artwohl, Robertson, Aguilar, Mantik, Horne, Chesser and so on.

2. Archives.org is not a government website. It is an aggregator of material from other websites. Most of the autopsy photos online today were taken from the JFK LANCER website, and were digitized photos from the books of David Lifton and Robert Groden. The original Fox set, which is the source material for all the quality black and white shots, has never been digitized, to my knowledge. So we're forced to work with digital copies of photos of photos. 

3. It's highly unlikely the Fox set was deliberately leaked. I am fairly certain Fox "traded" the photos to an acquaintance, Mark Crouch, for some rare WWII materials (he was a collector) and that Crouch then allowed Lifton, Livingstone, and Groden to photograph his copies. If memory serves, moreover, they all held off publicly showing or publishing the photos until after Fox had passed, years later.

4. As far as Groden...Groden became famous after surreptitiously copying the Zapruder film and showing it on TV. He was then hired as a photo analyst by the HSCA (which was desperately trying to establish its credentials with the research community). It remains possible then that Blakey knew full well Groden would copy the photos for his own use, but Blakey denies ever having told him to do so. And if he did so, well, he did so to help sell the possibility of a conspiracy. Let's not forget that for decades most CTs thought of the photos as proof for a conspiracy--the back wound was just too low to support the SBT, and was proof the WC covered up the back wound's actual location. And that it was only years later that people started claiming the photos were fake. So, yeah, it seems unlikely Blakey would leak the photos to try to convince people it was Oswald acting alone, when the photos would convince no one of such a thing, and Blakey himself never believed that. 

 

Edited May 1 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

And that's too bad.

I firmly believe that the plotters have taken the overall number of prints in the archives and have substituted the black & whites for color photographs or substituted the color photographs for black & white photographs.

What this means is the plotters exchanged 1/2 the pictures so they could eliminate the photos with the stainless steel probes and the back of the head photos,along with the bruised lung photo.

Sneaky sumbitches those plotters.

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

And that's too bad.

I firmly believe that the plotters have taken the overall number of prints in the archives and have substituted the black & whites for color photographs or substituted the color photographs for black & white photographs.

What this means is the plotters exchanged 1/2 the pictures so they could eliminate the photos with the stainless steel probes and the back of the head photos,along with the bruised lung photo.

Sneaky sumbitches those plotters.

An inventory list for the photos was created in 1966. Nothing has disappeared since that time. IF "they" were to have disappeared some photos to support the single-assassin solution at that time, they would have almost certainly have disappeared the back wound photos, which proved the single-bullet theory to be incorrect, and were so problematic that both Dr. Boswell, to the press in 1966, and Dr. Humes to CBS in 1967, flat-out lied about the location of the wound in the photos. 

And yet, there the photos were, when subsequently studied by others. Heck they were so problematic that the HSCA pathology panel refused to play along, and finally came clean about the location of the wound in the photos. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

So my question is this: if the Fox & Groden photos are authentic, why doesn’t the government just come out and release the “official” images? Since the images are already “out there,” why not just release them and say, “ok, here, these are the actual official autopsy photos”? I think the only answer is, because they are NOT completely authentic. By not releasing them, it leaves them open to interpretation and speculation. 

[Pat Speer]

34 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

So my question is this: if the Fox & Groden photos are authentic, why doesn’t the government just come out and release the “official” images? Since the images are already “out there,” why not just release them and say, “ok, here, these are the actual official autopsy photos”? I think the only answer is, because they are NOT completely authentic. By not releasing them, it leaves them open to interpretation and speculation. 

Yikes. The autopsy photos were not officially studied by the doctors in preparation for their testimony before the Warren Commission and were thereby not considered part of the historical record. As a consequence, someone decided to give the autopsy photos and materials to the Kennedy family. When this became public the research community was outraged. So, as a compromise, some of the materials were returned to the custody of the government. Now, I wrote "some" because it turns out that the government never asked for the return of the brain and tissue slides, and that no one knows what happened to them. It is widely believed however that RFK destroyed them. I would like to believe he put them in a vault somewhere and that Caroline will pull them out when the time is right, but it seems likely this won't come to pass. In any event, in order to effect the return of the materials from the Kennedy family, the government signed a legal agreement stating that the materials can never be released or even viewed except by permission of a designated representative of the family. And that is how it has been for 56 years...Any person or agency wanting to view the materials can do so as long as they make a request, and have a background as a doctor or scientist. And, even then the request may not be granted. A number of well-known doctors have been shown the materials only to leave the archives and tell everyone they are fake or whatever...who have then made additional requests to view the materials...and been refused. I mean, when you think of it. that's not really much of a surprise. 

In any event, it is incorrect to blame the government or deep state or whatever for the continued control of the materials by the family. The HSCA released tracings that were largely accurate, and even published a few crops from the photos. And the family has never sued or even threatened to sue those publishing the materials now in the public domain. Heck, Groden tried to copyright his bootleg set of photos, claiming HE owned the rights to all the color photos, since he was the one who illicitly photographed them and sold them for profit. But the family has never done such a thing. 

 

Edited May 1 by Pat Speer

[Denise Hazelwood]

35 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

…someone decided to give the autopsy photos and materials to the Kennedy family. When this became public the research community was outraged. So, as a compromise, some of the materials were returned to the custody of the government. 

In what other murder case was the family given custody and control over the evidence? I can think of a good reason why the family of John F.  Kennedy, the grandson of Mary Augusta Hickey Kennedy, would want to keep evidence out of the public eye, and why the government and especially the Secret Service, would want the keep evidence out of the public eye. I believe the expert opinions of Dr. David Mantik and others that the images have been altered, especially since the Parkland doctors described something other than what the images show.

 I also believe the sworn testimonies of Jerrol Custer that there are missing images (neck X-ray) and Saundra Kay Spencer that there is “no correspondence” between the images she processed in 1963 and the extant images she was shown during her testimony.

Edited May 2 by Denise Hazelwood
Added information

[Keven Hofeling]

35 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

In what other murder case was the family given custody and control over the evidence? I can think of a good reason why the family of John F.  Kennedy, the grandson of Mary Augusta Hickey Kennedy, would want to keep evidence out of the public eye, and why the government and especially the Secret Service, would want the keep evidence out of the public eye. I believe the expert opinions of Dr. David Mantik and others that the images have been altered, especially since the Parkland doctors described something other than what the images show.

 I also believe the sworn testimonies of Jerrol Custer that there are missing images (neck X-ray) and Saundra Kay Spencer that there is “no correspondence” between the images she processed in 1963 and the extant images she was shown during her testimony.

There are up to 18 missing autopsy photographs. The following is from Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Board:

 

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

In what other murder case was the family given custody and control over the evidence? I can think of a good reason why the family of John F.  Kennedy, the grandson of Mary Augusta Hickey Kennedy, would want to keep evidence out of the public eye, and why the government and especially the Secret Service, would want the keep evidence out of the public eye. I believe the expert opinions of Dr. David Mantik and others that the images have been altered, especially since the Parkland doctors described something other than what the images show.

 I also believe the sworn testimonies of Jerrol Custer that there are missing images (neck X-ray) and Saundra Kay Spencer that there is “no correspondence” between the images she processed in 1963 and the extant images she was shown during her testimony.

You miss a big something. The evidence was never entered into evidence during a trial, OR even entered into evidence by a government commission. As far as the law is concerned, the public has NO right to see the evidence.

As far as the "expert" opinions of David Mantik, you really shouldn't go there. He is not an expert in forensic radiology, or criminology or any of the related fields, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't claim any special expertise in this field. What he is is someone with a background in science, 

There are literally millions of people in this country who can make the same claim. And even then it's not worth much. As you are probably aware, I originally deferred to Mantik on all things x-ray, and then started reading up on this stuff on my own. And then caught him on a tremendous mistake, which he denied for years. Apparently word of this reached Cyril Wecht because he ended up inviting me to debate Mantik on this issue at a conference. At which Mantik admitted his mistake.

So it's best not to defer to any experts on this case, IMO. 

 

Edited May 2 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

An inventory list for the photos was created in 1966. Nothing has disappeared since that time. IF "they" were to have disappeared some photos to support the single-assassin solution at that time, they would have almost certainly have disappeared the back wound photos, which proved the single-bullet theory to be incorrect, and were so problematic that both Dr. Boswell, to the press in 1966, and Dr. Humes to CBS in 1967, flat-out lied about the location of the wound in the photos. 

And yet, there the photos were, when subsequently studied by others. Heck they were so problematic that the HSCA pathology panel refused to play along, and finally came clean about the location of the wound in the photos. 

What I am saying is....

Say there were only 56 color photographs of the autopsy period.Nothing else.

What the plotters did was take away 28 of them & make 28 black & white photos of the color photos.

This way they have their choice of what photos they wanted taken out of the collection and have a total of 56.

* Just my opinion of how they could have gotten away with it.

Edited May 2 by Michael Crane

[Denise Hazelwood]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You miss a big something. The evidence was never entered into evidence during a trial, OR even entered into evidence by a government commission. As far as the law is concerned, the public has NO right to see the evidence.

In what normal murder case would autopsy pictures NOT be entered into the evidence? This wasn’t a normal case, or even a real investigation, but a cover up.

 

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As far as the "expert" opinions of David Mantik, you really shouldn't go there. He is not an expert in forensic radiology, or criminology or any of the related fields, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't claim any special expertise in this field. What he is is someone with a background in science, 

Dr. Mantik (M.D., Ph.D.) is a practicing oncology radiologist, meaning that he looks at X-rays for a living. He is an expert in radiology. He has studied the X-rays (and autopsy photos) firsthand at the Archives. His work—the findings of alterations—has been largely corroborated by neurologist Dr. Michael Chester, who also studied the materials in the Archives.

 

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I originally deferred to Mantik on all things x-ray, and then started reading up on this stuff on my own. And then caught him on a tremendous mistake, which he denied for years. Apparently word of this reached Cyril Wecht because he end up inviting me to debate Mantik on this issue at a conference. At which Mantik admitted his mistake.

I remember Mantik admitting to making a previous mistake in one of his books, but I don’t remember exactly what that mistake was about. Can you enlighten me? But it would be a mistake on your part to discount all of his work because of one error (the part/whole fallacy) which he admitted to and corrected. Admitting to and correcting errors is a sign of strength, not weakness. Experts, including doctors, do make errors. I believe that Dr. Perry, for instance, mistook the (shored) throat wound for an entrance, when it was really the exit for a small fragment. (Perry testified that it “could have been” an exit, however.)

[Denise Hazelwood]

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

There are up to 18 missing autopsy photographs. The following is from Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Board:

Thank you for this information. Don’t forget that a number of X-rays have also gone missing, not to mention the evidence of image alteration in both X-rays and photos. It is disturbing to me how much evidence in this all-important case has gone missing, and that much of what remains has been altered.