Robert Groden claims has original Wiegman film, says Prayerman is not LHO

[Gerry Down]

It's in Absolute Proof, which I no longer own, so unfortunately I can't tell you the page number. But it sounds like you are aware of the photo in question, which was apparently taken of a prop "head" from the JFK movie. I am 100% certain Groden did not in any way specify that this image was NOT of President Kennedy and instead passed it off as if it were a legitimate "unreleased" autopsy photo.

I have that book. I was always able to tell which photos were the genuine autopsy photos and which were JFK movie shots. if i remember correctly, one was a recreation effort to show what the back of the head blow out wound might have looked like by superimposing the mystery photo over the back fo the head photo. I always knew what i was looking at. I never felt like i was being duped into thinking something was a genuine autopsy photo when it wasn't. Perhaps thats because i am familar with what the autopsy photos look like.

Maybe some people were not able to tell the difference but the difference was always clear to me which is why i dont see what all the fuss is about.

[Royell Storing]

    "Absolute Proof" page 177, bottom (L). There is a Dark B/W photo of JFK laying naked, flat on his back. We see JFK's (L) side from just above the knee to the top of his head. In the background, there is a sink, with a couple of dispensers of some kind, and maybe an electrical outlet on the wall above the sink. This is the same photo that I saw at Groden's table inside Dealey Plaza.   

[Gerry Down]

This is the image all the talk is about. Its obvious from the top image that he is recreating for the reader what the blow out wound would look like. Hes doing the same in the black and white photo as he says "This is what all the frames look like". It seems to me to be just clumsy writing.

It would have been better had be actually printed the poor quality images and let us see for ourselves how poor they are rather than doing a mock up of a "clear" version of what the image shows. But i'm guessing he never made a copy of those images due to the poor quality which is why hes now doing a mock up of what the images show.

I at no stage ever thought that was a real image.

[Royell Storing]

This is the image all the talk is about. Its obvious from the top image that he is recreating for the reader what the blow out wound would look like as. Hes doing the same in the black and white photo as he says "This is what all the frames look like". It seems to me to be just clumsy writing. It would have been better had be actually printed the poor quality images and let us see for ourselves how poor they are rather than doing a mock up of a "clear" version of what the image shows.

I at no stage ever thought that was a real image.

   I am not sure why you are trying to honey coat this. Groden claims that bottom photo was from a, "roll of 120 format black and white negative film, which had been listed as "blank", was Not blank at all". Groden claims he discovered this roll of film inside the NATIONAL ARCHIVES in 1977.  Groden said there was a series of vastly under exposed frames. He claims these frames ALL appeared, "to be nearly the same picture". That picture being the bottom JFK "image" that you have posted. Groden's writing is not "clumsy", it is obscure.  Groden added that he, "wrote a REPORT about the roll of film for the Assassinations Committee and another REPORT about my discovery to the ARRB". Groden does Not say he submitted this alleged Autopsy Photo showing the body of JFK to either the "Assassinations Committee" or the "ARRB". Now, why wouldn't Groden include this photo with his "Report"? The answer is obvious. That photo is NOT a legit JFK Autopsy Photo. 

[Gerry Down]

Groden does Not say he submitted this alleged Autopsy Photo showing the body of JFK to either the "Assassinations Committee" or the "ARRB". Now, why wouldn't Groden include this photo with his "Report"? The answer is obvious. That photo is NOT a legit JFK Autopsy Photo.

Probably because the National Archives dont allow people to make copies and have such photos under strict surveillance when someone is viewing them. Groden is saying he looked at the reel and could make out JFKs figure on the table.

These photos dont prove a conspiracy so there would appear to be no reason for Groden to be lying about them.

[Mitch Todd]

   I am not sure why you are trying to honey coat this. Groden claims that bottom photo was from a, "roll of 120 format black and white negative film, which had been listed as "blank", was Not blank at all". Groden claims he discovered this roll of film inside the NATIONAL ARCHIVES in 1977.  Groden said there was a series of vastly under exposed frames. He claims these frames ALL appeared, "to be nearly the same picture". That picture being the bottom JFK "image" that you have posted. Groden's writing is not "clumsy", it is obscure.  Groden added that he, "wrote a REPORT about the roll of film for the Assassinations Committee and another REPORT about my discovery to the ARRB". Groden does Not say he submitted this alleged Autopsy Photo showing the body of JFK to either the "Assassinations Committee" or the "ARRB". Now, why wouldn't Groden include this photo with his "Report"? The answer is obvious. That photo is NOT a legit JFK Autopsy Photo.

What Groden is describing is almost certainly the 120mm film confiscated from Floyd Reibe and deliberately exposed by the Secret Service. 

Robertson's report regarding what he saw when granted access to Reibe's 120mm images can be found here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/robertson.htm

[Royell Storing]

What Groden is describing is almost certainly the 120mm film confiscated from Floyd Reibe and deliberately exposed by the Secret Service. 

Robertson's report regarding what he saw when granted access to Reibe's 120mm images can be found here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/robertson.htm

   The alleged JFK Autopsy bottom photo, does Not come close to matching Robertson's description of the JFK autopsy photos he viewed. I am not sure what the link you provided is supposed to prove.