4 Kennedy: The Autopsy Photos and X-Rays

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Have the autopsy photos and x-rays been faked or altered? Most Warren Commission defenders will point to the HSCA's (House Select Committee on Assassinations) two expert panels that authenticated the photos and x-rays. They were "authenticated" by very narrow criteria and they did not explain the indications of alteration in the autopsy materials. The HSCA also concluded the following (taken from Mike Griffith's JFK Assassination page). They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

- Some of them were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

- In many of them, scaler references are entirely lacking, or, when present, are positioned in such a manner that it is difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features from anatomical landmarks.

- Not one of them contains information identifying the victim, such as his name, the autopsy case number, and the date and place of the examination.

- Due to their lack of documentation and poor quality, the defense could have challenged the use of these photos as evidence in a trial, and even the prosecution might have had "second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative."

- The onus of establishing their authenticity would have rested with the prosecution. Harrison Livingstone correctly notes that this point and the previous one can rightly be seen as an admission that the photos would have been prima facie inadmissable as evidence in a court of law, and that the prosecution could have used them only after establishing their validity.

There are also no autopsy tags visible, no photos of the brain after removal, no whole body photographs, no photos of the skull reassembled, and no photo of the chest cavity.

The HSCA authenticated the photos by using these face measurements. But if the photos are genuine but have been altered in some way, the above graphic would not automatically prove authenticity.

In the top-of-the-head photos and the right profile photos, three bloody red stripes hand down giving the impression of a massive wound on the top of the head. However, in the black and white photos, the stripes are white and light gray. This is a photographic impossibility if orthochromatic film was used. When orthochromatic film is used, red becomes black, not white or light gray. Photographic expert Steve Mills has this to say:

"Orthochromatic film, unfiltered, records blue very lightly and red very darkly. This makes perfect sense in [autopsy photos] F1 through F5. Yet, here's a supposedly bloodied scalp in F6 and F7 recorded as light gray. This can be done with a red filter on ortho film, but the blood drops on the towel show me this is not the case. The scalp can't be gray and three bloody spots still be dark if a filter was used. It is common to use ortho film in forensic photography to show differences and details in red and blue areas. But this is no proof. The record declares one type of film, and the photos declare either another or fraud."

Mills then goes on to say:

"They [the autopsy photos] also show Groden's color shots to be frauds. Let me explain.

1) Let's say it was pan b/w. (black and white) F6 and F7 would have to be shot with a blue filter to lighten the stripe. That would darken the supposedly bloody scalp. You can't have it both ways, i.e., light red AND light blue, so there's no red filter either. This would not work. So, if it's truly pan film, then the scalp is not bloody skin but brain matter.

2) Let's say it's ortho film. The blue stripe will always be light and the red will always be dark. No filter is required if the scalp is really brain tissue, but a red one is still needed to lighten blood. But here the bloody spots prove this is not the case once again. So do the bloody marks on his shoulder.

So, here's the result: They probably used ortho film and no filtering of any kind. THAT IS BRAIN and NOT SCALP. We can see that NO COMBINATION OF FILM AND FILTRATION CAN GIVE YOU B/W PHOTOS THAT WILL JIBE WITH GRODEN'S COLORS. THEY HAVE TO BE FAKE"

Also, many witnesses saw a large wound in the back of the head and commented that the top of the head was virtually undamaged. Some also said that the large wound to the head could not even be seen when Kennedy was laying flat on the table.


The autopsy took place in the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital but several medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy stated that the background seen in the photos is not that of the morgue. In the left-profile photo, a black phone can be seen on the wall. But these techinicians said that there was no phone in that position in the morgue. Earl McDonald, a medical photographer at Bethesda who trained under James Stringer, told the ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) that he had never seen anyone at Bethesda use a metal brace like the one that is see holding up the head in the autopsy photos.


One of the photographer at the autopsy, Floyd Riebe, stated in a filmed interview that the wounds in the autopsy photos differ from his recollections. Riebe recalled a large, gaping wound in the back of the head. Not what it shown here. The other photographer, James Stringer, also stated in a filmed interview that he was not the one who took the photos of the back of the head. Who did then?

In an important new disclosure, Saundra Kay Spencer stated that she didn't process any of the black and white autopsy pictures and didn't process any of the ones in evidence now. This supports the contention that there are two sets of autopsy photos, one altered and one genuine.

The X-Rays

In the x-ray of the head, you can see about two-thirds of the brain is missing. You can also see a trail of small metal fragments from the supposed entrance wound to the supposed exit wound in the front. But how can this be? There is no brain there to support the metal fragments.

Fragments can also be seen in the frontal lobe. But Dr. Richard Lindenberg, expert consultant for the Rockefeller Commission, stated that the whole frontal lobe is missing. But there is nothing supporting these fragments if the frontal lobe is missing.


The x-rays also show a large, 6.5 mm fragment near the supposed entrance wound. But this was not seen by the autopsy doctors or the radiologist. When the chief autopsy doctor Dr. Humes testified before the Warren Commission, he said nothing about a 6.5 mm fragment anywhere near the back of the head. Also, it is highly unlikely that a fully metal-jacketed Carcano bullet would shear to form that fragment. Detective Shaun Roach, an Australian forensics expert had this to say:

". . . due to the inherent strength of the 6.5 mm Carcano jacket, I also believe that it would NOT shear off a fragment upon entering the head, then deposit that fragment on the outer table of the skull, either above or below the wound"

But Dr. David Mantik discovered that the fragment isn't really a bullet fragment at all! After studying the x-rays and using optical density measurements, Dr. Mantik discovered that this object had been superimposed over a smaller, genuine bullet fragment. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate the process by which the 6.5 mm fragment could have been created.

Dr. Mantik has also concluded that the x-rays are abnormal. After studying the radiographs at the National Archives, Dr. Mantik discovered the measured light in the large white area on the right lateral x-rays is "a thousand times the maximum seen in any other x-rays."

The Bethesda x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, stated that on November 23, he was told to tape bullet fragments to pieces of skull and x-ray them. He was told they were for a bust of JFK's head but no such bust ever surfaced.




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Thanks for putting this link in BH's thread about JFK references! I've never got to look at these before.

I have some questions about these two pictures here:

www.jfklancer.com...

www.jfklancer.com...

Has any researcher ever commented on why they have his right upper arm blocked up? They don't have his left arm blocked, but they do have his right arm. Is there some forensic reason for doing that?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Thanks for putting this link in BH's thread about JFK references! I've never got to look at these before.

I have some questions about these two pictures here:

www.jfklancer.com...

www.jfklancer.com...

Has any researcher ever commented on why they have his right upper arm blocked up? They don't have his left arm blocked, but they do have his right arm. Is there some forensic reason for doing that?


I'm sorry but I'm not entirely sure I understand. What do you mean by "blocked up?"



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye2
I'm sorry but I'm not entirely sure I understand. What do you mean by "blocked up?"


There's a block under his right arm. Weird. Don't know why.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Yeah, just like Hamburglar said, there's a white block under his right arm. And it's just kind of odd. Why did they stick something under his right arm and prop it up off the table? They didn't prop his left arm up. It's just kind of weird and I wondered if there was some type of forensic reason for that.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
The way that the picture is taken, it's POSSIBLE that you just can't see the one under his left arm. His head is putting the same location on the left side in shadow. Just a possibility.





top topics
 
1

log in

join