The Top of the Head Photo

[Pat Speer]

Does this show a wound on the top of the head?  Yes or no? 

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Does this show a wound on the top of the head?  Yes or no? 

 

As you well know, Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA and the ARRB that he witnessed pathologist Humes perform a craniotomy with a bone saw, and as autopsy technicians James Jenkins and Paul O'Connor witnessed JFK's body being removed from the casket at the start of the 'official' autopsy, said craniotomy had to have taken place at Bethesda prior to the start of the 'official' autopsy. Furthermore, as you can see below, when the ARRB showed Robinson the top-of-the-head autopsy photographs, Robinson vigorously protested the impression they convey that the mess of blood and brains at the top of the head in those photographs was caused by gunfire, and Robinson insisted that that damage was caused by "the doctors" searching for bullet fragments. It had to be this damage that James Jenkins noted as the long incision on the top of JFK's head, along with the tears in the scalp that Jenkins said had been "surgically connected," as none of that top-of-the-head damage was reported by any of the witnesses at Parkland Hospital, not even by Nurse Dianna Bowron who washed the clotted blood out of JFK's hair just before the body was placed inside the casket at Trauma Room One.

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

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson:

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

"...PAGE 2:

...- [mortician Tom Robinson] said he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body, and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back" from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." He said that the brain was "not cut up" at the autopsy....

...-Visible damage to skull caused by the bullet of bullets (as opposed to damage caused by the pathologists): Robinson described 3 locations of wounds:

-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur...

...-he described a "blow-out" which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President's head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);

-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that the wound in the back of the President's head was an entry wound occurring from a bullet fired from behind, based upon conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President's head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)..."

"...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED...

PAGE 3:

"...LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..."

"...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS:

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to...

PAGE 5:

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm

...various Fox photos:

-Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality.

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original)

-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...."

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson:

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

 

Edited May 31 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

26 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

As you well know, Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA and the ARRB that he witnessed pathologist Humes perform a craniotomy with a bone saw, and as autopsy technicians James Jenkins and Paul O'Connor witnessed JFK's body being removed from the casket at the start of the 'official' autopsy, said craniotomy had to have taken place at Bethesda prior to the start of the 'official' autopsy. Furthermore, as you can see below, when the ARRB showed Robinson the top-of-the-head autopsy photographs, Robinson vigorously protested the impression they convey that the mess of blood and brains at the top of the head in those photographs was caused by gunfire, and Robinson insisted that that damage was caused by "the doctors" searching for bullet fragments. It had to be this damage that James Jenkins noted as the long incision on the top of JFK's head, along with the tears in the scalp that Jenkins said had been "surgically connected," as none of that top-of-the-head damage was reported by any of the witnesses at Parkland Hospital, not even by Nurse Dianna Bowron who washed the clotted blood out of JFK's hair just before the body was placed inside the casket at Trauma Room One.

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

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson:

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

"...PAGE 2:

...- [mortician Tom Robinson] said he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body, and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back" from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." He said that the brain was "not cut up" at the autopsy....

...-Visible damage to skull caused by the bullet of bullets (as opposed to damage caused by the pathologists): Robinson described 3 locations of wounds:

-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur...

...-he described a "blow-out" which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President's head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);

-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that the wound in the back of the President's head was an entry wound occurring from a bullet fired from behind, based upon conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President's head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)..."

"...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED...

PAGE 3:

"...LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..."

"...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS:

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to...

PAGE 5:

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm

...various Fox photos:

-Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality.

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original)

-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...."

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson:

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

 

Predictable. Robinson, who failed to get a look at the wound before it was torn apart, said he thought the top of the head photo was taken after the doctors removed the brain, or some such thing. This is the centerpiece of Horne's theory... But it's total nonsense.

The star witness for the alteration zealots is Dr. Robert McClelland, and McClelland said repeatedly to those who would listen that the only photo that differed from what he remembered was the BOH photo.

And you know what? He was right! 

I proved a decade to so ago that the top of the head in the BOH photo was a flap, and more recently that the skull defect when this flap was not held up by Humes' fingers, extended all the way to the top of the back of the head. 

 

Now, a wound in this location does NOT support that the bullet came from behind so there sure as heck would be no logical reason them to fake these photos.

So part 2 of the equation is whether or not anyone showed the top of the head photo to the Parkland witnesses. And then I remembered that four of these witnesses, including McClelland, viewed the photos for NOVA and came out saying the photos confirmed their recollections. I then found a quote from McClelland where he specified that he thought the scalp was pulled up for the BOH photo because it made no sense to him that they would be trying to hide the hole on the back of the head because he could see it in the other photos. So, yeah, McClelland confirmed the accuracy of the top of the head photos. As apparently did many others. Groden, after all, spent years showing the back of the head photos to witnesses and claimed it must have been faked, as it didn't show what they remembered. But the top of the head photo? Well, he claimed it was authentic. 

Edited May 31 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

28 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Predictable. Robinson, who failed to get a look at the wound before it was torn apart, said he thought the top of the head photo was taken after the doctors removed the brain, or some such thing. This is the centerpiece of Horne's theory... But it's total nonsense.

The star witness for the alteration zealots is Dr. Robert McClelland, and McClelland said repeatedly to those who would listen that the only photo that differed from what he remembered was the BOH photo.

And you know what? He was right! 

I proved a decade to so ago that the top of the head in the BOH photo was a flap, and more recently that the skull defect when this flap was not held up by Humes' fingers, extended all the way to the top of the back of the head. 

 

Now, a wound in this location does NOT support that the bullet came from behind so there sure as heck would be no logical reason them to fake these photos.

So part 2 of the equation is whether or not anyone showed the top of the head photo to the Parkland witnesses. And then I remembered that four of these witnesses, including McClelland, viewed the photos for NOVA and came out saying the photos confirmed their recollections. I then found a quote from McClelland where he specified that he thought the scalp was pulled up for the BOH photo because it made no sense to him that they would be trying to hide the hole on the back of the head because he could see it in the other photos. So, yeah, McClelland confirmed the accuracy of the top of the head photos. As apparently did many others. Groden, after all, spent years showing the back of the head photos to witnesses and claimed it must have been faked, as it didn't show what they remembered. But the top of the head photo? Well, he claimed it was authentic. 

As for your silly assertion that your assumptions about PBS Nova film footage that has never been released are superior to the actual testimony of Tom Robinson, you are up in the night. That's ridiculous, but obviously not beyond the bounds of your rich imagination...

Additionally, I regret to inform you that the GIFs you have used to support your conclusions about the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs are highly misleading and cannot be considered reliable evidence.

The Deceptive Allure of Morphing GIFs: Their Inability to Convey the Full Picture

Morphing GIFs are visually captivating but often used to illustrate subtle differences between two images. However, it's important to recognize that these transitions may not accurately represent reality, especially when dealing with slightly different photographs.

In the case of the back-of-the-head photographs of JFK, where a morphing GIF is employed to compare two images of the back of his head, the mere blending of the two images fails to provide a dependable portrayal of how the head appeared in the intermediate frames. Here's why:

1. Interpolation vs. Reality: Morphing software relies on a process called interpolation, where it essentially fills in the missing information between two data points. However, this process is ultimately an educated guess and cannot account for the nuances of movement, changes in lighting, or subtle variations that may have occurred between the captured frames.

2. The Influence of Assumptions: The assumptions made by the morphing software can significantly impact the final GIF. Even minor differences in head position, hair movement, or camera angle can result in inaccurate interpolations.

3. The Impact of Perspective: Depending on the angle and distance of the camera, the morphing process can be even more misleading. Slight changes in perspective can cause significant distortions in the intermediate frames, rendering the resulting GIF an unreliable representation of the actual scene.

4. Beyond the Visual: It's important to remember that photos only capture a single moment in time. The morphing GIF, despite its seamless transitions, cannot encapsulate the dynamic flow of movement and the continuous changes that take place between captured frames.

Therefore, while morphing GIFs can be engaging and provide a general sense of change, they should not be considered as definitive evidence of what transpired between two captured images. When dealing with slightly different photographs, particularly those involving movement or complex objects, critical analysis and consideration of alternative interpretations are essential before drawing any conclusions.

In essence, it's crucial to bear in mind the following:

Morphing GIFs are interpolations, not recordings of reality.

Software assumptions can lead to inaccurate representations.

Perspective shifts can introduce distortions.

Photos capture moments, not continuous motion.

By understanding these limitations, we can avoid misinterpreting morphing GIFs and approach them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

What's with the games?

Are you really claiming the flap at the top of the head in the BOH photo was NOT being held up by Humes? 

 

While speaking at the JFK Lancer conference in 2013, Dr. McClelland mentioned his viewing the photos for NOVA, and said the photos were"pretty much what we saw, with the exception of one thing." He then began discussing the back of the head photo--and his impression the scalp was pulled up for the photo, which concealed the full extent of the wound. But he went further--he said he knew there'd been a hole in this location because "the other photographs showed it."

And this wasn't the last time he said as much...

In 2015, Jacob Carter released Before History Dies,  a collection of interviews of JFK assassination witnesses and researchers. Well, Dr. McClelland was one of those interviewed, and Carter pressed  him on the back of the head photos--whether McClelland thought the autopsy photos were fake or not. As discussed in the last chapter, he told Carter: "Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not covering them were just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw."

Well, this was non-committal. Carter wanted to know whether or not McClelland thought the back of the head photo was designed to fool people. So he followed up and asked "Do you think they didn't want people to see the wound in the back of the head?" Now, here's the surprise... McClelland replied: "If they were trying to do that they wouldn't have shown any of the open wounds that weren't covered with the flap...it was appartent that he had a big hole on the back of his skull on the right side. I don't think they were trying to cover it up or they wouldn't have shown (the wound in) those other photos." 

Edited May 31 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

37 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Predictable. Robinson, who failed to get a look at the wound before it was torn apart, said he thought the top of the head photo was taken after the doctors removed the brain, or some such thing. This is the centerpiece of Horne's theory... But it's total nonsense.

The star witness for the alteration zealots is Dr. Robert McClelland, and McClelland said repeatedly to those who would listen that the only photo that differed from what he remembered was the BOH photo.

And you know what? He was right! 

I proved a decade to so ago that the top of the head in the BOH photo was a flap, and more recently that the skull defect when this flap was not held up by Humes' fingers, extended all the way to the top of the back of the head. 

 

Now, a wound in this location does NOT support that the bullet came from behind so there sure as heck would be no logical reason them to fake these photos.

So part 2 of the equation is whether or not anyone showed the top of the head photo to the Parkland witnesses. And then I remembered that four of these witnesses, including McClelland, viewed the photos for NOVA and came out saying the photos confirmed their recollections. I then found a quote from McClelland where he specified that he thought the scalp was pulled up for the BOH photo because it made no sense to him that they would be trying to hide the hole on the back of the head because he could see it in the other photos. So, yeah, McClelland confirmed the accuracy of the top of the head photos. As apparently did many others. Groden, after all, spent years showing the back of the head photos to witnesses and claimed it must have been faked, as it didn't show what they remembered. But the top of the head photo? Well, he claimed it was authentic. 

As you well know, it is the following evidence that is most relevant to the back of the head autopsy photographs:

Dr. David Mantik subjected the "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to stereoscopic testing at the National Archives and found that there is a soft matte insert covering the occipital-parietal wound, thus we are dealing with photographic forgery in this photograph and not a body substitution.

 

RE: Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the extant "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs at the National Archives. In particular, see Dr. Mantik in the video linked to this comment.

 

See in this video: https://youtu.be/btPXzX1DtJE

 

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

 

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 https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠ Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What's with the games?

Are you really claiming the flap at the top of the head in the BOH photo was NOT being held up by Humes? 

Explain how you could possibly be getting that out of the following. Do you really not know what an interpolation is, and what the limitations of interpolations are?

 

I regret to inform you that the GIFs you have used to support your conclusions about the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs are highly misleading and cannot be considered reliable evidence.

The Deceptive Allure of Morphing GIFs: Their Inability to Convey the Full Picture

Morphing GIFs are visually captivating but often used to illustrate subtle differences between two images. However, it's important to recognize that these transitions may not accurately represent reality, especially when dealing with slightly different photographs.

In the case of the back-of-the-head photographs of JFK, where a morphing GIF is employed to compare two images of the back of his head, the mere blending of the two images fails to provide a dependable portrayal of how the head appeared in the intermediate frames. Here's why:

1. Interpolation vs. Reality: Morphing software relies on a process called interpolation, where it essentially fills in the missing information between two data points. However, this process is ultimately an educated guess and cannot account for the nuances of movement, changes in lighting, or subtle variations that may have occurred between the captured frames.

2. The Influence of Assumptions: The assumptions made by the morphing software can significantly impact the final GIF. Even minor differences in head position, hair movement, or camera angle can result in inaccurate interpolations.

3. The Impact of Perspective: Depending on the angle and distance of the camera, the morphing process can be even more misleading. Slight changes in perspective can cause significant distortions in the intermediate frames, rendering the resulting GIF an unreliable representation of the actual scene.

4. Beyond the Visual: It's important to remember that photos only capture a single moment in time. The morphing GIF, despite its seamless transitions, cannot encapsulate the dynamic flow of movement and the continuous changes that take place between captured frames.

Therefore, while morphing GIFs can be engaging and provide a general sense of change, they should not be considered as definitive evidence of what transpired between two captured images. When dealing with slightly different photographs, particularly those involving movement or complex objects, critical analysis and consideration of alternative interpretations are essential before drawing any conclusions.

In essence, it's crucial to bear in mind the following:

Morphing GIFs are interpolations, not recordings of reality.

Software assumptions can lead to inaccurate representations.

Perspective shifts can introduce distortions.

Photos capture moments, not continuous motion.

By understanding these limitations, we can avoid misinterpreting morphing GIFs and approach them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

Oh I see. So you are not here to prop up Horne and Mantik. And yet you pretend the facts presented--that the photos PROVE the flap was being held up by Humes--is somehow refuted. by Mantik's pet theory...which I disproved forever ago...

[Keven Hofeling]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh I see. So you are not here to prop up Horne and Mantik. And yet you pretend the facts presented--that the photos PROVE the flap was being held up by Humes--is somehow refuted. by Mantik's pet theory...which I disproved forever ago...

Your interpolation does not prove anything. It is an interpolation (my understanding is that you have stolen it from another researcher, so it isn't even your interpolation). A computer is guessing about the intervening images. I've brought to your attention the limitations of interpolations a half dozen times prior to today and, as usual, you still don't get it.

[Jean Ceulemans]

19 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Your interpolation does not prove anything. It is an interpolation (my understanding is that you have stolen it from another researcher, so it isn't even your interpolation). A computer is guessing about the intervening images. I've brought to your attention the limitations of interpolations a half dozen times prior to today and, as usual, you still don't get it.

So now you are guessing he has "stolen" that gif? Where did that idea come from? Just to sneak theft in the framing? No limits he?  BTW, it takes 2 seconds to create a gif like that, drag 2 pics (or more) to Frixier in your browser et voila, done.  Stealing a 2-pic-gif.... please... my kids made those when they were like 10 or so.  

The term interpolation is correct, but that´s if you want to make it sound a bit more  fancy (and as such more plausible to get stolen perhaps?), otherwise... nope, just more framing and up-dressing, well.. I guess...

Edited May 31 by Jean Ceulemans

[Greg Doudna]

Maybe this is way out to lunch, I don't know, but it just seems that Pat Speer's argument for the tangential wound as explaining the massive damage compared to the lesser damage that a through-and-through shot would cause seems correct (because there was so much massive damage). Then the gaping wound that the Parkland doctors saw indeed was in the back of the head because scalp attached was flipped open as the head was tilted backward. It does not show up on Zapruder not because there was not fractured and shattered skull underneath but because the scalp was still there. Whether the tangential hit came from the front or back direction, and whether there was more than one upper-head shot, would be distinct questions, but this would explain (a) Zapruder, (b) what the Parkland doctors saw and (c) Jenkins. 

It seems to me the heated debates over whether the gaping wound was "back" of the head or "top" of the head ... are both right. It was a gaping wound that stretched over both the rear top of the head, and upper part of the rear of the head and down to the middle part of the rear of the head, not because it was a blowout exit, but because the tangential hit at the top right of the head caused all that shattering fracture damage.

The top of the head photo at the top of this thread look to me like a wound both at the top of the head and the rear of the head.

The bullet hole just to the right of the EOP reported by the autopsists would be unrelated to the tangential hit or its effects. It would connect--because there is nothing else to connect it to--the throat wound. Which direction again could be debated, but one was the entrance and the other the exit. Differing from the conventional view which connects the throat wound to the back wound, and declares the autopsists' near-EOP bullet hole not to have existed there. 

Then on the autopsy photos, I am 100 percent convinced there was intentional messing with, as in disappearances of, some autopsy photos, not as part of an advance plot but as attempts to rig evidence after the fact to better fit and support emergent narrative. And the disappearance of the brain also has no other good explanation I can see than what Dr. Wecht (was it him that said this?) said long ago, that if it still existed it would show something different than the narrative, maybe a second bullet, I don't know.

I'm skeptical of alteration ideas on the autopsy photos, though Mantik's claim that there is a lack of stereo effect in the lower area of the back-of-the-head photo has to be further examined in light of the forcefulness and credentials of those raising the allegation. Could the earlier panelists be wrong in saying there were stereo effects on all of the photos? Sure they could be wrong. The only way to find out is to find out: there needs to be an independent (blind if possible) study of experts look at that BOH photo and answer this up or down, is there stereo imaging there or is it as Mantik says, evidence of a cooked or altered photo with hair painted in (or some such) in one region of that photo. Again, there are two ways to go on this: debate this endlessly for another fifty years, or find out. The way to find out is to find out. Have a well-designed study, with blindness wired into the protocol if possible, and find out.

It was a real photo which either reflects scalp stretched fully over the back (as one of the autopsists, Finck I believe, a participant in that photo, said it was), or it was originally a real photo which was tampered with, if that claim of Mantik were to hold up under independent review. 

The Robinson "hole" after restoration, also said by Jenkins, I assume would be evidence the gaping wound went down as far as that hole which seems like mid-back of the head, again interpreted as part of the radiating massive damage of the higher tangential shot, not because a bullet exited out that "Robinson hole". 

All of this is from someone who, on this medical, does not know what he is talking about (that's me!). But that doesn't stop me from trying to make sense of things even while acknowledging my lack of expertise, as a working hypothesis trying to make sense of it.

 

[Greg Doudna]

I suppose Pat Speer, probably one of the top ten most productive researchers in America challenging the Warren Commission's version of the JFK assassination of long-time standing, won't be talking much more on this forum about any tangential shot interpretation.

Last night Sandy deleted him from this forum. 

For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed.

In some old days I realized early on that in groups or movements which challenge fundamental status quos, there are ways and means by which those status quos can neutralize anyone who is effective.

Pat Speer has been effective.

Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him. 

Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things.

But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks. 

The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic.

Shows up out of nowhere.

Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own.

Has published nothing on the JFK assassination.

Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory.

Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks.

Just took him out. (Victory.)

Those are the facts.

No further comment.

[Pete Mellor]

On 5/31/2024 at 2:28 AM, Pat Speer said:

While speaking at the JFK Lancer conference in 2013, Dr. McClelland mentioned his viewing the photos for NOVA,

You and I were there in 2013 Pat, but not Dr. McClelland.

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I suppose Pat Speer, probably one of the top ten most productive researchers in America challenging the Warren Commission's version of the JFK assassination of long-time standing, won't be talking much more on this forum about any tangential shot interpretation.

Last night Sandy deleted him from this forum. 

For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed.

In some old days I realized early on that in groups or movements which challenge fundamental status quos, there are ways and means by which those status quos can neutralize anyone who is effective.

Pat Speer has been effective.

Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him. 

Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things.

But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks. 

The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic.

Shows up out of nowhere.

Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own.

Has published nothing on the JFK assassination.

Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory.

Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks.

Just took him out. (Victory.)

Those are the facts.

No further comment.

Mr. @Greg Doudna, I have no information with which to assess the veracity of your factual claim about any disciplinary action that has been taken against Mr. Speer by the Administrators of this forum, but the following factual claims that you have made about me could have been fact checked and determined to be false with a minimal amount of due diligence on your part using the information and links that are on my forum profile alone, and as such are blatant factual misrepresentations on your part that are false, either deliberately, or as the result of your willful negligence:

"For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed."

"Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him." 

"Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things."

"But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks." 

"The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic."

"Shows up out of nowhere."

"Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own."

"Has published nothing on the JFK assassination."

"Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory."

"Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks."

"Just took him out. (Victory.)"

"Those are the facts."

It is a violation of the rules of this forum to disseminate false information. This post constitutes a warning that if you fail to make the needed corrections to the factual record, as set forth above, within twelve (12) hours of the time of this post, I will report these violations to the forum administrators, and you may be more severely sanctioned for failing to self-correct at the time of this warning.

 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Mr. @Greg Doudna, I have no information with which to assess the veracity of your factual claim about any disciplinary action that has been taken against Mr. Speer by the Administrators of this forum, but the following factual claims that you have made about me could have been fact checked and determined to be false with a minimal amount of due diligence on your part using the information and links that are on my forum profile alone, and as such are blatant factual misrepresentations on your part that are false, either deliberately, or as the result of your willful negligence:

"For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed."

"Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him." 

"Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things."

"But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks." 

"The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic."

"Shows up out of nowhere."

"Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own."

"Has published nothing on the JFK assassination."

"Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory."

"Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks."

"Just took him out. (Victory.)"

"Those are the facts."

It is a violation of the rules of this forum to disseminate false information. This post constitutes a warning that if you fail to make the needed corrections to the factual record, as set forth above, within twelve (12) hours of the time of this post, I will report these violations to the forum administrators, and you may be more severely sanctioned for failing to self-correct at the time of this warning.

 

 

Hey, report me as well as I happen to agree with Greg on this. 

Too bad a lot of members don´t have the ball´s it takes to stand up

@Ron Bulman

Edited June 2 by Jean Ceulemans