22-03-2013, 07:08 PM
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/...horne.html
DOUG HORNE: I am vir[B]tually certain they are not photographic forgeries because[/B] I've looked at them in extremely close detail, and by this I mean I have studied the so-called camera-original color positive transparencies for hours at a time in Rochester, after they were magnified by enhancing software in the Kodak lab where we took them for digital preservation. We didn't see any matte lines, or any discontinuities in the hair. We could see individual pores in the skin in between the strands of hair, and all of the grain and resolution seemed consistent across the board in the areas were looking at.
However, I'm convinced that, while not "special effects" forgeries, they are fraudulent and dishonest. They official Navy photographer, John Stringer, and his assistant Floyd Riebe, left the morgue after the conclusion of the autopsy at about 11:45 PM or midnight. Then a second photographer Robert Knudsen, who was not a trained medical photographer, but a Navy chief photographer's mate who was a social photographer at the White House was employed to take the pictures of the head after its reconstruction.
I, for one, have not had the luxury to view these images as Doug has... I doubt very many here have. Are we take his word? I leave that to each of you, yet he makes a very strong case.
If then, that black circle is not an anomolie that JUMPS from the negatives/photos AND we have no real idea WHEN the photos was actually taken... one MUST conclude based on Horne that it was actually there and is further coroborrated by the evidence presented.
Are the photos in circulation the same as what Horne viewed? I have only now begun to read the IARRB volume dealing with this... I don't know at this writing what Horne has said about that distinction... but I will.
If anyone has that answer, it would be greatly appreciated.
What is the black circle WE SEE on the image posted? Well, it's either a hole or it's a forgery to hide something underneath... which would make sense yet we have other images and xrays and evidence from which to test these two alternatives. From everything I have seen, read and researched it is actually a HOLE in JFK's right temple.... looking at Groden's color version it seems to me that hair is obscuring where this hole appears in F6/7
and here is Boswell's drawing overlaid on F6... Had Humes already performed "surgery to the top of the head" ?? Were Reed and Robinson correct in their ARRB testimonies about watching Humes saw thru JFK's head?
The line coming from that circle lead s to text that appears to state: "globe rt eye"
Sadly, here is the jist of Boswell's WCR testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion to participate in the autopsy of the late President Kennedy?
Commander BOSWELL - I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And did you assist Doctor Humes at that time?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?
Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?
Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.
His ARRB deposition is a bit more revealing
A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior
to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you
could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp
up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone
still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I
think these parts back here probably reflect that.
Q. Dr. Boswell, I'm sorry to jump in here, but I just want to make sure that
the record is going to be clear here. And we can come back to this, and I want
you to explain it the best you can. But would it be fair to say first that the
diagram that we're talking about is a drawing of the skull of President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you explain why, at least to me as a lay person, it appears that there is a rectangular drawing near what I would presume to be the area of the right--or the left orbit and it seems to be circular in the right orbit? Is there some explanation for that that you know of?
A. Well, I remember that the fracture through the bone extended from the frontal bone and through the floor of the orbit. Why that is round and this one is square over here, I don't know.
Q. In the center of the circle on the right orbit, it appears that there is a hook-shaped line that crosses through the center of the circle and then goes on to the front of that. Do you see that circle?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that signify a crack in the floor of the orbit? Is that the purpose of that line?
A. Yes.
The word "globe" does not appear in Boswell's ARRB deposition... even though it is written directly over and pointing to this "circle" forwhich Boswell has no explanation. This image & drawing in in no way coroborrated by anyone at Parkland.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4474[/ATTACH]
At JFK Lancer many years ago a blood splatter expert hypothesized that based on the direction of JFK's head at the time of the shot, and the very real possibility of a frontal shot hittin ghte right temple and blowing out the right rear of JFK's head, that the location of the shot COULD have originated from much further SOUTH than previously thought.
Additionally, the concept of a tangential shot hitting the front right yet not traveling in a straight line thru JFK is very possible. A bullet that would leave the number of particles found on the xrays is NOT consistent with a FMJ bullet unless it went through and through and was yet another disappearing "missle". Even then, a FMJ simple is not designed to behave like that....
Even at the highest velocities, a FMJ bullet does not create dust sized particles... and if one looks at the actual velocity of the Carcano in question... the bullet - even fired from the rear - would have not left the kind of debris seen in the xrays.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4475[/ATTACH]
So why does it look 2 dimensional... why does it LOOK like it was drawn in? Until we see the original negative and the enlargements that Horne saw, or read where he compares what he saw with F6/7 image... IDK.
But I would offer a THEORY as to where a shot to the right temple may have originated and why there is so much evidence to support that being an actual bullet hole.
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4473[/ATTACH]
DOUG HORNE: I am vir[B]tually certain they are not photographic forgeries because[/B] I've looked at them in extremely close detail, and by this I mean I have studied the so-called camera-original color positive transparencies for hours at a time in Rochester, after they were magnified by enhancing software in the Kodak lab where we took them for digital preservation. We didn't see any matte lines, or any discontinuities in the hair. We could see individual pores in the skin in between the strands of hair, and all of the grain and resolution seemed consistent across the board in the areas were looking at.
However, I'm convinced that, while not "special effects" forgeries, they are fraudulent and dishonest. They official Navy photographer, John Stringer, and his assistant Floyd Riebe, left the morgue after the conclusion of the autopsy at about 11:45 PM or midnight. Then a second photographer Robert Knudsen, who was not a trained medical photographer, but a Navy chief photographer's mate who was a social photographer at the White House was employed to take the pictures of the head after its reconstruction.
I, for one, have not had the luxury to view these images as Doug has... I doubt very many here have. Are we take his word? I leave that to each of you, yet he makes a very strong case.
If then, that black circle is not an anomolie that JUMPS from the negatives/photos AND we have no real idea WHEN the photos was actually taken... one MUST conclude based on Horne that it was actually there and is further coroborrated by the evidence presented.
Are the photos in circulation the same as what Horne viewed? I have only now begun to read the IARRB volume dealing with this... I don't know at this writing what Horne has said about that distinction... but I will.
If anyone has that answer, it would be greatly appreciated.
What is the black circle WE SEE on the image posted? Well, it's either a hole or it's a forgery to hide something underneath... which would make sense yet we have other images and xrays and evidence from which to test these two alternatives. From everything I have seen, read and researched it is actually a HOLE in JFK's right temple.... looking at Groden's color version it seems to me that hair is obscuring where this hole appears in F6/7
and here is Boswell's drawing overlaid on F6... Had Humes already performed "surgery to the top of the head" ?? Were Reed and Robinson correct in their ARRB testimonies about watching Humes saw thru JFK's head?
The line coming from that circle lead s to text that appears to state: "globe rt eye"
Sadly, here is the jist of Boswell's WCR testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion to participate in the autopsy of the late President Kennedy?
Commander BOSWELL - I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And did you assist Doctor Humes at that time?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?
Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?
Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.
His ARRB deposition is a bit more revealing
A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior
to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you
could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp
up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone
still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I
think these parts back here probably reflect that.
Q. Dr. Boswell, I'm sorry to jump in here, but I just want to make sure that
the record is going to be clear here. And we can come back to this, and I want
you to explain it the best you can. But would it be fair to say first that the
diagram that we're talking about is a drawing of the skull of President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you explain why, at least to me as a lay person, it appears that there is a rectangular drawing near what I would presume to be the area of the right--or the left orbit and it seems to be circular in the right orbit? Is there some explanation for that that you know of?
A. Well, I remember that the fracture through the bone extended from the frontal bone and through the floor of the orbit. Why that is round and this one is square over here, I don't know.
Q. In the center of the circle on the right orbit, it appears that there is a hook-shaped line that crosses through the center of the circle and then goes on to the front of that. Do you see that circle?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that signify a crack in the floor of the orbit? Is that the purpose of that line?
A. Yes.
The word "globe" does not appear in Boswell's ARRB deposition... even though it is written directly over and pointing to this "circle" forwhich Boswell has no explanation. This image & drawing in in no way coroborrated by anyone at Parkland.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4474[/ATTACH]
At JFK Lancer many years ago a blood splatter expert hypothesized that based on the direction of JFK's head at the time of the shot, and the very real possibility of a frontal shot hittin ghte right temple and blowing out the right rear of JFK's head, that the location of the shot COULD have originated from much further SOUTH than previously thought.
Additionally, the concept of a tangential shot hitting the front right yet not traveling in a straight line thru JFK is very possible. A bullet that would leave the number of particles found on the xrays is NOT consistent with a FMJ bullet unless it went through and through and was yet another disappearing "missle". Even then, a FMJ simple is not designed to behave like that....
Even at the highest velocities, a FMJ bullet does not create dust sized particles... and if one looks at the actual velocity of the Carcano in question... the bullet - even fired from the rear - would have not left the kind of debris seen in the xrays.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4475[/ATTACH]
So why does it look 2 dimensional... why does it LOOK like it was drawn in? Until we see the original negative and the enlargements that Horne saw, or read where he compares what he saw with F6/7 image... IDK.
But I would offer a THEORY as to where a shot to the right temple may have originated and why there is so much evidence to support that being an actual bullet hole.
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4473[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter