BE7

[John Dolva]

QUOTE:

Paul O'Connor and Jim Jenkins have stated that Kennedy's head was supported by a block, not by a stainless steel head-holder. Jerrol Custer, however, stated that the steel head-holder was removed for the X-rays. If Custer can be believed, I guess it is possible that early photographs were taken with the head-holder in place, it was removed for X-rays, then replaced by a block.

One of the autopsy photographs of William Pitzer's body* -- in the Bethesda morgue -- was taken from a similar point of view as below. The autopsy table looks the same as in the Kennedy photographs, and an insertion socket for a head-holder is visible (see arrow, right).

Alan Eaglesham

It does make sense that the metal head support was removed prior to taking x-rays and replaced with a block. Obviously, the metal cradle would show on the x-rays while something with less density would not.

Good thinking, obvious now that you mention it. It's good to have confirmation that the woodblock prop may have been used for the BE7 photo.

Still, there seems to be sufficient matches to make it perhaps not critical, however the apparent socket on the photo, Robin seems to me to be a blemish of some sort. It's not centered on the tube and appears to be way off actually, Possibly a fingerprint or some such smudge?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just a couple of comments off the top of my head from surveying this thread.

I have not studied this sequence but only scanned it at this point in time, but

I want to make a couple of points. The Groden "color photos" are certainly

altered, where the mass of brain matter has been superimposed on the head.

I believe we have even figured out where these photos were taken based on

some background features of the room and of course the autopsy table itself.

(You can see something is wrong when you scan down to other photos, which

show the head to be clean and free from debris. This was such a striking phe-

nomenon that, when Humes was questioned by the ARRB, he was asked if, dur-

ing the autopsy, they gave the corpse a shampoo and a haircut! You should be

reading Appendix G to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, which David Mantik edited.)

Second, Mantik does not suggest that the autopsy photographs were unaltered,

so I'm not quite sure where Mark gets that. Indeed, Mantik offers a brilliant re-

construction of how the autopsy photos were completely reshot and the medical

record was recreated in his chapter in MURDER. (It is one of the most brilliant

pieces of forensic research ever composed! If you are serious about the case,

as most of you appear to be, then you simply must read it.) David does discuss

problems with orientation of the inside-of-the-cranium photo, so if that is what

Mark means, then of course that is correct. But he not only does not support

the authenticity of the photographic record--he shows exactly how it was done!

Third, the kinds of cases that seem to interest you (in detecting signs of fakery

in the evidence) are explored in the Prologue to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM

HOAX. I offer around 30 examples of inconsistencies in the medical record and

other aspects of the case by comparing evidence in the case. Take a look. The

book is subtitled "Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK". It is a blunder to

suppose it is only about the recreation of the film. It deals with the whole case

and should shed light on some of the questions that interest you here. When I

have the chance to study this thread more carefully, I will return to the subject.

John, your work here reflects favorably on what I've read in Fetzer's "Murder In Dealy Plaza," in regard to Mantik's assertions that the autopsy photos weren't altered, but that the problem with them was in the orientation of the photos. Your work here seems to confirm that, to some degree. Please continue, as I think much can be learned from this sort of work.

[Mark Knight]

Dr. Fetzer, it's not my intention to misrepresent Dr. Mantik's work. My attempt was merely to point out to Mr. Dolva that his use of computer-aided imaging technology has independently caused him to arrive at some of the same conclusions as Dr. Mantik in relation to the orientation of x-rays and autopsy materials.

While I personally have no opinion one way or the other as to whether there was alteration in the case of the X-rays and autopsy photographs [maybe there was, maybe there wasn't...I'm not qualified to say], I do believe that there have been some misrepresentations as to orientation of certain evidence, in order to promote conclusions that the evidence fails to support, if viewed properly.

I hope this clarifies the intent of my comments. I am not qualified to judge the quality or the content of Dr. Mantik's work, and don't wish to give that impression. But I do think that certain images have been oriented in certain ways to conform to the "official" explanation, and to obscure the truth. So I believe that the truth may still be out there in the existing images; but it has been twisted to the point of being unrecognizable, at least prior to modern computer image enhancement technology.

[John Dolva]

Jim, as Mark points out, I'm suggesting alternatives. In this thread I'm looking forward to seeing what your opinions are on this particular issue which largely covers the question of where the BE7 photograph was taken from in relation to the body and the table.

__________

Robin, there are fingerprints in the corners of a few of the photo sets. One particular one seems to have a round 'defect' perhaps gotten as a result of a repetitive job movement. I suspect that this 'collar' that is suggested on the corner of the table is from this same persons finger print.(here is one from top left corner of the one looking down the top of the head)

* I have to reduce the size of images, so in a day or two I'll summarise all this and put it in just a couple of smaller images so I have upload space and can go on to other things. All the input here has most appreciated, thank you.

Edited December 8, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

I hope this without the need for too many more words (see other posts for explanations and comments so far) illustrates the point of this thread, I'll remove the other shortly, if anyone wants to see a full sized version of any of them (they're up to 5 meg)

please contact.

EDIT correction including background. The xray is included not as indicator of opinion of when photo was taken in timeline relative to xrays, purely illustrative summary. Personally it looks to me as if the BE7 was taken after the rear head photos with the body rolled back on to table. Pat's comments noted and appreciated, will check.

Edited December 9, 2005 by John Dolva

[Allan Eaglesham]

I believe we have even figured out where these photos were taken based on

some background features of the room and of course the autopsy table itself.

Jim:

I will have an article in the next issue of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly -- publication expected January 1 -- in which comparisons of background details in some of the JFK-autopsy photographs with background details in William-Pitzer-autopsy photographs suggest that these JFK photographs were taken in the Bethesda morgue.

Allan

aeaglesh@twcny.rr.com

[Pat Speer]

John, I'm sorry I didn't join the thread a little earlier. I thought BE7 was some new car. I have roughly 30 pages on this in my presentation. (Solving the Great Head Wound Mystery.) I believe I prove that the open cranium ohoto was taken of the back of Kennedy's head, and not his forehead. (You might not be aware of this but this photo is offically of Kennedy's forehead.)

As far as Kennedy's body position, I never have fully decided whether he was lying on his left side or whether he was sitting up, a la the testimony of photographer John Stringer. I believed he was lying on his side, but then I noticed what appears to be a pool of blood in the base of his skull, which would indicate he was upright.

As far as the head rest or stirrup... the testimony of everyone confirms that the x-rays were taken before the photos. After the x-rays, photos were taken of Kennedy lying on his back, with his head on the head rest. After this was over, they rolled him over and took pictures of his back wound. If you compare the photos of the back wound, and the earlier pictures, you'll notice that the "wing" of bone changes shape. I believe this is because the "wing" of bone fell off or was removed and that what you see in the back wound photo is really a "wing" of scalp. I explain this as well as I can in my presentation.

I'm glad to see Dr. Fetzer is following this thread. I hope that he and Dr. Mantik will check out my presentation as well. I believe there was plenty of misrepresentation, but little alteration, of the medical evidence. I hope that they'll agree. I'd like to think that those in the "research community" are more open to new ideas than the mainstream press. I hope I'm not wrong.

[John Dolva]

John, I'm sorry I didn't join the thread a little earlier. I thought BE7 was some new car. I have roughly 30 pages on this in my presentation. (Solving the Great Head Wound Mystery.) I believe I prove that the open cranium ohoto was taken of the back of Kennedy's head, and not his forehead. (You might not be aware of this but this photo is offically of Kennedy's forehead.)

As far as Kennedy's body position, I never have fully decided whether he was lying on his left side or whether he was sitting up, a la the testimony of photographer John Stringer. I believed he was lying on his side, but then I noticed what appears to be a pool of blood in the base of his skull, which would indicate he was upright.

As far as the head rest or stirrup... the testimony of everyone confirms that the x-rays were taken before the photos. After the x-rays, photos were taken of Kennedy lying on his back, with his head on the head rest. After this was over, they rolled him over and took pictures of his back wound. If you compare the photos of the back wound, and the earlier pictures, you'll notice that the "wing" of bone changes shape. I believe this is because the "wing" of bone fell off or was removed and that what you see in the back wound photo is really a "wing" of scalp. I explain this as well as I can in my presentation.

I'm glad to see Dr. Fetzer is following this thread. I hope that he and Dr. Mantik will check out my presentation as well. I believe there was plenty of misrepresentation, but little alteration, of the medical evidence. I hope that they'll agree. I'd like to think that those in the "research community" are more open to new ideas than the mainstream press. I hope I'm not wrong.

Pat. further study indicates you may be right. It's an important benchmark, and the effort to get it right continues.

__________________

Sometimes when images are saved the person saving it may be unaware that 'invisible' parts from a crop are also saved.

BE7 is a very important image. The versions covering the largest areas that I have found so far come from the Lancer site. They both show slightly different areas. However there is indication that there is in posession of someone outside the national archive photos from which these are cropped, that show more.

This combination of both show areas in question. The lower part is covered by one and not the other, but the one that does not has indication that it should, and more.

Further the structure of the photos indicate that one was in colour. I have seen a color version, but it appears to have been 'tinted'. However, the spectrum quality is not sufficient to be sure.

___________

The rationale that is given for not releasing full images is out of 'sensitivity'. I submit that this may have been reasonable once. Given time and 'desensitzation' of public already inplace, I submit that this reason needs to be reviewed and this image in particular needs to be released in full. This would be a great service that the Kennedy's could do to the public. Please.

The unavailability perpetuates doubt.

______

Manwhile if anyone has a link to better version/s, please let us know.

(Please study the image and read the description and I hope you'll see what I mean)

[Robin Unger]

John.

Yes, there are finger prints, smudges, scratches, and what look like scuff marks all over those Large autopsy images.

Very poor quality images to try and work with, unfortunately they are all we have at the moment.

[John Dolva]

John. Yes, there are finger prints, smudges, scratches, and what look like scuff marks all over those Large autopsy images.

Very poor quality images to try and work with, unfortunately they are all we have at the moment.

Fortunately these blemishes are mostly in the corners. The main problem I think is how they are presented.

The orientation is deceptive on a couple of them and contribute to confusion. The obvious cropping is apparent on others as well as BE7. While I'm happy with the quality of the autopsy images that can be had, the most significant ones are 'deceptive', enhancing the impression of a cover up. There are people who could make it so much simpler.

Please read post 23.

Edited January 6, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Once more:

There appears to be two versions of BE7 available.

One covers a larger area than the other.

Here is the one covering the larger area with the area that the one covering the smaller area bordered with red.

The way the larger one is presented indicates that there are areas here coloured with blue that have been masked out. This appears to have been done by someone in posession of a complete version of this larger one. (check the Lancer site). The thumbnails linking to these images also indicate this as on the thumbnail these areas, while too small to be of any use, do show parts of these areas that are blanked out in the large version.

Likewise another version (from another site) of the smaller area has indication of an incomplete masking at one corner.

Why someone in the research community would do this is beyond me.

cmon, fess up. Show us the full monty...

Edited January 6, 2006 by John Dolva

[Robin Unger]

John.

I beleive that the "close Cropping" of the autopsy was intentional, IMO it was done deliberately to dis-orient the viewer and cause confususion when trying to alighn the complete set of autopsy images.

[Pat Speer]

Robin, it appears that you disagree that this photo is of the back of Kennedy's head, and that you are still interpreting it as showing an entrance on the forehead. May I ask if you've taken a look at the section on this photo in my presentation? I'm just wondering if you've taken a look, but failed to find it convincing. If so, well, I did my best. A number of my friends, who are not researchers, told me they got the point within the first ten slides, and thought it was ridiculous that I go on and on trying to prove the photo was taken from behind, which they unanimously said was OBVIOUS from first glance. It just goes to show how different people's impressions can be... If I misinterpreted your impression of the photo, never mind...

And John, the photos on the internet--except for the color one on this website posted by Tim Carroll--all came from the Fox set of photos. They were copies made by secret service photographer James Fox within a few days of the assassination. They were first shown to a researcher named Mark Crouch, who introduced Fox to David Lifton, who made copies, and who allowed Robert Groden to make copies of his copies, etc... I believe Fox gave Crouch his first generation copies and Crouch eventually sold these to writer Walt Brown. I'm not sure if Brown has scanned his versions onto the net, but I doubt it. Groden, by the way, also had a color version, which Tim Carroll got from a Groden pamphlet and posted here.

One of the things I came across in my presentation is that few of the versions on the internet match. Most of them seem to have been cropped in some way. The neck lines and bullet hole are darker on many, as if someone was trying to disguise them. Ironically, there seemed to be little correlation between the version of the photo used and the attitudes of the researcher using the photo. There is a version on the Lancer site with the bottom portion cut off. I asked Debra where she got this but didn't receive a reply. There is also a version in Trauma Room One, in a chapter written by conspiracists Aguilar and Wecht, that has been deliberately cropped and altered to make the orientation more difficult. On reading Boswell's ARRB testimony and his comments about the F8/BE7 picture in Livingstone's book, I became concerned that the Fox set had been doctored in some way. The more I thought about it, and the more I compared descriptions of the photo at the archives, the more convinced I became that Lifton and Groden had lightened the area of the neck lines when they'd made their copies. Thus, I don't believe any content was changed, only its appearance.

Upon writing this post, I realized a mistake I made in my presentation. On one slide, I discussed the possible colorization of the photo. Groden's color version seems almost identical to the black and white, even though the listings of the photos by the HSCA and descriptions of the photos by those who've been to the archives make clear that the color photos have a wider field of view than the black and white. What I'd forgotten was that Fox made black and white prints for his set---that doesn't mean that the originals were black and white....thus, on this photo, he may very well have made a black and white copy of a color photo--the same color photo Groden copied. One of the many frustrating elements of all this is that certain visitiors to the archives have claimed that the color photos there show SO MUCH MORE than the photos available to researchers, and make abundantly clear that the photo was of the forehead. I believe it's Chad Zimmerman who says the photos even show the Y incision on Kennedy's chest. This is crapola, as the Y-incision was not performed until after the head shot photos were completed. (At least according to the doctors...)

Here is the link to the page where it simply says Fox made black and white prints, and not the nature of his source material. If I'm wrong to think you can make black and white prints from color positives or color photographs please let me know.

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb...md122_0003a.htm

History Matters Archive - MD 122 - USSS Letter dated February 23,1967 from Chief James J. Rowley to Assistant Attorney General Barefoot Sanders which forwards 4-page typewritten joint statement concerning chain-of-custody of Autopsy Photographs of President Kennedy; joint statement is signed by Roy Kellerman, Robert Bouck, Edith Duncan, James K. Fox, and Thomas J. Kelley, pg

Edited January 6, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Robin Unger]

Robin, it appears that you disagree that this photo is of the back of Kennedy's head, and that you are still interpreting it as showing an entrance on the forehead. May I ask if you've taken a look at the section on this photo in my presentation? I'm just wondering if you've taken a look, but failed to find it convincing. If so, well, I did my best. A number of my friends, who are not researchers, told me they got the point within the first ten slides, and thought it was ridiculous that I go on and on trying to prove the photo was taken from behind, which they unanimously said was OBVIOUS from first glance. It just goes to show how different people's impressions can be... If I misinterpreted your impression of the photo, never mind...

Hi Pat.

QUOTE:

They unanimously said was OBVIOUS from first glance.

Pat, i have never heard anyone say that the ORIENTATION of the F8 photo was OBVIOUS at first glance.

If that is the case then we have been wasting HOURS of time trying to orientate it.

BTW: My work on the f8 photo is still a work in progress, and it will be until i can convince myself i have the correct orientation.

There is the problem of the scalp retraction, in a normal autopsy to my knowledge it is the general practice to slice across the head from ear to ear and then peel one half down across the face and the other half back over the head.

I can clearly see this in F8, that is one orientation point.

Another orientation point is the loose bone flap, i place this on the right side of the head at the front of the skull.

Another orientation point is the beveled hole, i place this towards the back of the head near the middle of the skull.

In the F8 photo they show the scalp being retracted sideways from right to left across the middle of the head.

This does not corrolate with other autopsy photos that i have seen.

I am flexible with regard to the FRONTAL shot.

It may have been a shot from the front to the temple just above the right eye, or it may have been a shot to the side of the head, just above the ear.

BTW:

I have read your seminar and studied it closely, i have attempted to discuss this with you on numerous times, and you have responded in "TEXT" format.

IMO this cannot be resolved through words, it has to be done via images so that Corrolation can be judged and corrected on the spot if need be.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

Robin, it appears that you disagree that this photo is of the back of Kennedy's head, and that you are still interpreting it as showing an entrance on the forehead. May I ask if you've taken a look at the section on this photo in my presentation? I'm just wondering if you've taken a look, but failed to find it convincing. If so, well, I did my best. A number of my friends, who are not researchers, told me they got the point within the first ten slides, and thought it was ridiculous that I go on and on trying to prove the photo was taken from behind, which they unanimously said was OBVIOUS from first glance. It just goes to show how different people's impressions can be... If I misinterpreted your impression of the photo, never mind...

Hi Pat.

QUOTE:

They unanimously said was OBVIOUS from first glance.

Pat, i have never heard anyone say that the ORIENTATION of the F8 photo was OBVIOUS at first glance.

If that is the case then we have been wasting HOURS of time trying to orientate it.

BTW: My work on the f8 photo is still a work in progress, and it will be until i can convince myself i have the correct orientation.

There is the problem of the scalp retraction, in a normal autopsy to my knowledge it is the general practice to slice across the head from ear to ear and then peel one half down across the face and the other half back over the head.

I can clearly see this in F8, that is one orientation point.

Another orientation point is the loose bone flap, i place this on the right side of the head at the front of the skull.

Another orientation point is the beveled hole, i place this towards the back of the head near the middle of the skull.

In the F8 photo they show the scalp being retracted sideways from right to left across the middle of the head.

This does not corrolate with other autopsy photos that i have seen.

I am flexible with regard to the FRONTAL shot.

It may have been a shot from the front to the temple just above the right eye, or it may have been a shot to the side of the head, just above the ear.

BTW:

I have read your seminar and studied it closely, i have attempted to discuss this with you on numerous times, and you have responded in "TEXT" format.

IMO this cannot be resolved through words, it has to be done via images so that Corrolation can be judged and corrected on the spot if need be.

Robin and Pat, I think Robin makes a good point, and it is the sort of exchange that I think we should have. There's too much uncertainty (at least for me) I can see pro's and con's for both points of view and others. For myself, I've yet to find an orientation that I don't have at least one objection to.

And usually I end up puzzling about the peripheral items not on Kennedy's head.

I have a strong suspicion that if one could only get hold of the missing crops (see the blue areas on image past post) it would be a lot clearer.

Nevertheless, I keep turning, rotating and hopefully will have something sometime.

Robin. What do you make of the apparent stirrup collar in your suggestion?