FOUND IT. The fake "JFK" photo source, Playboy, November 1967 (PHOTO)

[Amerigo Vespucci]

"Playboy's Charter Yacht Party." Now you know. Aged, wrinkled, converted to B&W in Photoshop, and NOT JFK:




:patriot:

[harun]

1. Thanks for the info.

[goldcanyonaz]

2. I really don't see why anyone would think it was fake.

[Stuckinthebush]

6. Me either

It is not surprising to me. The guy was a player evidently.

[FreakinDJ]

36. Me neither

Ha Ha

[Octafish]

93. The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Here's why fake history matters:

The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers

By James DiEugenio

Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the upcoming release of Sy Hersh’s new book, extend an issue that I have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the country in the last two years. It is entitled “The Two Assassinations of John Kennedy.” I call it that because there has been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since Kennedy was killed.

In the talk to date, I’ve dealt primarily with the attacks on Kennedy from the left by Noam Chomsky and his henchman Alexander Cockburn which occurred at the time of the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK. But historically speaking, the attacks on the Kennedys, both Jack and Robert, have not come predominantly from the left. The attacks from the right have been much more numerous. And the attacks from that direction were always harsher and more personal in tone. As we shall see, that personal tone knows no limits. Through papers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the attacks extend into the Kennedys’ sex lives, a barrier that had not been crossed in post-war mainstream media to that time. To understand their longevity and vituperativeness, it is necessary to sketch in how they all began. In that way, the reader will be able to see that Hersh’s book, the Vanity Fair piece on Judith Exner, and an upcoming work by John Davis on Mary Meyer, are part of a continuum.

The Right and the Kennedys

There can be no doubt that the right hated the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. There is also little doubt that some who hated JFK had a role in covering up his death. One could use Secret Service agent Elmer Moore as an example. As revealed in Probe (Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 20-21), Moore told one Jim Gochenaur how he was in charge of the Dallas doctors testimony in the JFK case. One of his assignments as liaison for the Warren Commission seems to have been talking Dr. Malcolm Perry out of his original statement that the throat wound was one of entry, which would have indicated an assassin in front of Kennedy. But another thing Gochenaur related in his Church Committee interview was the tirade that Moore went into the longer he talked to him: how Kennedy was a pinko who was selling us out to the communists. This went on for hours. Gochenaur was actually frightened by the time Moore drove him home.

But there is another more insidious strain of the rightwing in America. These are the conservatives who sometimes disguise themselves as Democrats, as liberals, as “internationalists.” This group is typified by men like Averill Harriman, Henry Stimson, John Foster Dulles and the like. The common rubric used to catalog them is the Eastern Establishment. The Kennedy brothers were constantly at odds with them. In 1962, Bobby clashed with Dean Acheson during the missile crisis. Acheson wanted a surprise attack; Bobby rejected it saying his brother would not go down in history as another Tojo. In 1961, JFK disobeyed their advice at the Bay of Pigs and refused to add air support to the invasion. He was punished for this in Fortune magazine with an article by Time-Life employee Charles Murphy that blamed Kennedy for the failure of the plan. Kennedy stripped Murphy of his Air Force reserve status but — Murphy wrote to Ed Lansdale — that didn’t matter; his loyalty was to Allen Dulles anyway. In 1963, Kennedy crossed the Rubicon and actually printed money out of the Treasury, bypassing that crowning jewel of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board. And as Donald Gibson has written, a member of this group, Jock Whitney, was the first to put out the cover story about that Krazy Kid Oswald on 11/22/63 (Probe Vol. 4 No.1).

Killing off the Legacy

In 1964, author Morris Bealle, a genuine conservative and critic of the Eastern Establishment, wrote a novel called Guns of the Regressive Right, depicting how that elite group had gotten rid of Kennedy. There certainly is a lot of evidence to substantiate that claim. There were few tears shed by most rightwing groups over Kennedy’s death. Five years later, they played hardball again. King and Bobby Kennedy were shot. One would think the coup was complete. The war was over.

CONTINUED...

http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr997-jfk.html

President Kennedy, contrary to popular misconceptions of the rich playboy fellow, worked every day he served as President to make life better for ALL Americans and to keep the world at peace.

[MinM]

96. The Posthumous Assassination of JFK - Part I & II

Thanks Octafish here's the current links:

Probe V4N6: The Posthumous Assassination of JFK - Part I

The Church Committee

What precipitated these posthumous and personal attacks on the Kennedys? Something happened in the seventies that necessitated the “second assassination” from the right — i.e. the use of scandal to stamp out Kennedy’s reputation and legacy. That something was the Church Committee. Belated revelations about the CIA’s role in Watergate, and later of the CIA’s illegal domestic operations created a critical firestorm demanding a full-scale investigation of the CIA. The fallout from Watergate had produced large Democratic majorities in both houses of congress via the 1974 elections. This majority, combined with some of the moderate Republicans, managed to form special congressional committees. The committee in the Senate was headed by Idaho’s Frank Church. Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesota’s Walter Mondale, Colorado’s Gary Hart, Tennessee’s Howard Baker, and Pennsylvania’s Richard Schweiker.

As writers Kate Olmsted and Loch Johnson have shown, the Church Committee was obstructed by two of the CIA’s most potent allies: the major media and friendly public figures. In the latter category, Olmsted especially highlights the deadly role of Henry Kissinger. But as Victor Marchetti revealed to me, there was also something else at work behind the scenes. In an interview in his son’s office in 1993, Marchetti told me that he never really thought the Agency was in danger at that time. He stated that first, the CIA had infiltrated the staff of Church’s committee and, second, the Agency was intent on giving up documents only in certain areas. In Watergate terminology, it was a “limited-hangout” solution to the problem of controlling the damage.

The Escape Route

The issue that had ignited so much public interest in the hearings had been that of assassination. CIA Director Bill Colby very clearly drew the line that the CIA had never plotted such things domestically. Colby’s admission was a brilliant tactical stroke that was not appreciated until much later. First, it put the focus on the plots against foreign leaders that could be explained as excesses of anti-communist zealotry (which is precisely what the drafters of Church’s report did). Second, all probes into the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK would be off-limits. The Church Committee would now concentrate on the performance of the intelligence community in investigating the death of JFK; not complicity in the assassination itself. This distinction was crucial. As Colby must have understood, the Agency and its allies could ride out exposure of plots against Marxists and villains like Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The exposure of domestic plots against political leaders would have been lethal.

Colby’s gambit, plus the strictures put on the investigation as outlined by Marchetti above, enabled the intelligence community to ride out the storm. The path chosen for limited exposure was quite clever. The most documentation given up by the CIA was on the Castro assassination plots. Further, the Agency decided to give up many documents on both the employment of the Mafia to kill Fidel, and the AM/LASH plots, that is, the enlistment of a Cuban national close to Castro to try and kill him. Again, not enough credit has been given to the wisdom of these choices. In intelligence parlance, there is a familiar phrase: muddying the waters. This means that by confusing and confounding the listener with diverse and prolific amounts of information, the main point becomes obfuscated. Since none of the Mafia plots succeeded, one could claim they were ineffectual. The huge amount of publicity garnered by them could eventually be deflected onto the Mob’s role in them and not the Agency’s. The AM/LASH plots, exposed in even more copious documentation, could be used in a similar way. If Castro knew about these plots within his midst, couldn’t he then claim turnabout and use the same tactics by employing a Communist in the U.S. to kill Kennedy? This, or a combination of the two, has been what suspect writers like Jean Davison and Jack Anderson have been foisting on the public for years.
http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html

Probe V5N1: The Posthumous Assassination of JFK Part II

On September 25, 1997, ABC used its news magazine program 20/20 to take an unusual journalistic step. In the first segment of the program, Peter Jennings took pains to discredit documents that had been about to be used by its own contracted reporter for an upcoming show scheduled for broadcast. The contracted reporter was Seymour Hersh. The documents purported to show a secret deal involving Marilyn Monroe, Sam Giancana, and President John F. Kennedy. They were to be the cornerstone of Hersh’s upcoming Little, Brown book, The Dark Side of Camelot. In fact, published reports indicate that it was these documents that caused the publisher to increase Hersh’s advance and provoke three networks to compete for a television special to hype the book. It is not surprising to any informed observer that the documents imploded. What is a bit surprising is that Hersh and ABC could have been so naive for so long. And it is ironic that ABC should use 20/20 to expose a phenomenon that it itself fueled twelve years ago.

What happened on September 25th was the most tangible manifestation of three distinct yet overlapping journalistic threads that have been furrowing into our culture since the Church Committee disbanded in 1976. Hersh’s book would have been the apotheosis of all three threads converged into one book. In the strictest sense, the convergent movements did not actually begin after Frank Church’s investigation ended. But it was at that point that what had been a right-wing, eccentric, easily dismissed undercurrent, picked up a second wind—so much so that today it is not an eccentric undercurrent at all. It is accepted by a large amount of people. And, most surprisingly, some of its purveyors are even accepted within the confines of the research community.

The three threads are these: 1) That the Kennedys ordered Castro’s assassination, despite the verdict of the Church Committee on the CIA’s assassination plots. As I noted last issue, the committee report could find no evidence indicating that JFK and RFK authorized the plots on Fidel Castro, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, or Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam. 2) That the Kennedys were really “bad boys,” in some ways as bad as Chicago mobsters or the “gentleman killers” of the CIA. Although neither JFK nor RFK was lionized by the main centers of the media while they were alive, because of their early murders, many books and articles were written afterward that presented them in a sympathetic light, usually as liberal icons. This was tolerated by the media establishment as sentimental sop until the revelations of both Watergate and the Church Committee. This “good guy” image then needed to be altered since both those crises seemed to reveal that the Kennedys were actually different than what came before them (Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers) and what came after (Nixon). Thus began a series of anti-Kennedy biographies. 3) That Marilyn Monroe’s death was somehow ordained by her “involvement” with the Kennedy “bad boys.” Again, this was at first a rather peculiar cottage industry. But around the time of Watergate and the Church Committee it was given a lift, and going back to a 1964 paradigm, it combined elements of the first two movements into a Gothic (some would say grotesque) right-wing propaganda tract which is both humorous and depressing in its slanderous implications, and almost frightening in its political and cultural overtones. Egged on by advocates of Judith Exner (e.g. Liz Smith and Tony Summers), this political and cultural time bomb landed in Sy Hersh’s and ABC’s lap. When it blew up, all parties went into a damage control mode, pointing their fingers at each other. As we examine the sorry history of all three industries, we shall see that there is plenty of blame (and shame) to be shared. And not just in 1997.

As we saw in Part One of this article, as the Church Committee was preparing to make its report, the Exner and then Mary Meyer stories made headlines in the Washington Post. These elements—intrigue from the CIA assassination plots, plus the sex angles, combined with the previous hazing of Richard Nixon over Watergate—spawned a wave of new anti-Kennedy “expose” biographies. Anti-Kennedy tracts were not new. But these new works differed from the earlier ones in that they owed their genesis and their styles to the events of the mid-seventies that had brought major parts of the establishment (specifically, the CIA and the GOP) so much grief. In fact we will deal with some of the earlier ones later. For now, let us examine this new pedigree and show how it fits into the movement outlined above...
http://www.ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7331441#7333034

BTW Welcome Aboard CTKA-Probe :hi:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CTKA-Probe

[MinM]

107. Photo that actually sunk a political career...

Gary Hart, as mentioned in the post above, did excellent work on the Church Committee. This Monkey Business :blush: however ended Hart's 1988 Presidential Campaign. Donna Rice landed on her feet and went on to (back to?) work for this guy...

Trent Lott

[MinM]

108. Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker pushed The Church Committee to review the JFK...

case. Which ultimately led to the creation of The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).



YouTube - HSCA - 1976

[MadHound]

3. Well, first of all, if it is a pic of Kennedy, so what

The man's dead, everybody knows that he was a lady's man, it's no big deal.

Second of all, they mentioned that they analyzed the paper and chemicals from the original, and that they do originate in the mid-50's. I doubt that Playboy would use out of date tech for their spreads, nor do such a spread in b&w.

But hey, I'm going into town today, perhaps I'll stop by the local collector's shop and take a run through their stacks, see if I can find the pic.

But again, even if it is Kennedy, it's really no big deal and I don't get why people are freaking out over it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. So you're going to be thumbing through old Playboys...

claiming it's just historical research. That did't work on my Mom when I was in high school, and it's not going to work now!

Enjoy!

[phasma ex machina]

69. +1

[Amerigo Vespucci]

12. It isn't a pic of Kennedy. See above.

[TicketyBoo]

73. JFK

was killed in 1963, so a picture in a 1967 Playboy is not likely to be of him.

Is somebody "freaking out" over it? I take it as mainly a curiosity, since his proclivities have been well-documented over the years.

[druidity33]

104. ahem...

when "they analyzed" the paper, it was "consistent" with paper from the time period which the photo was said to have been taken.

Last time i worked in a photo lab, we were using one machine from the 70's, one from the 80's, and one made in 2000. Much of the B&W work we produced would be "consistent" with paper from the 70's.

Does anyone know who supposedly took the picture? Really, the negative is where we'd get extra information from...

[HughMoran]

4. memory working good there

love when memory saves the day.

[Lint Head]

5. So many sexually deviant republicans have been exposed that they will

promote anything slightly off colored that is related to a Democrat.

[CoffeeCat]

8. Yes, at least Democratic scandals involve ADULTS!

Republicans molesters have absolutely NO ROOM to disparage anyone, regarding
sex scandals.

Their incredibly extensive list of pedophilia incidents is mind blowing.

[jmowreader]

68. And women!

If this was a GWB scandal, there'd be Chippendale models and a 55-gallon "GOP Pack" of Astroglide.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Since everyone is strategically posed to hide pubic hair, look for pre-1972-3

Probably 60s

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Playboy identified it: 1967

[Amerigo Vespucci]

13. So did I. See above.

[aquart]

18. I would like to think JFK was on a Playboy yacht in 1967.

Maybe heaven has them.

[Ter]

42. And every person had tons of pubic hair in that era!

Unlike today. :)

[Cetacea]

11. delete

[Cetacea]

14. Taken from nearby yacht or other large vessel , another giveaway.

[blondeatlast]

15. The hair on the man or the women didn't look right, either. nt

[LisaL]

16. Send it to tmz.

I am sure their experts will appreciate the color version.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

23. They just updated their story...

...they know it came from a 1967 issue and are "trying to obtain a copy." The ID'd the issue and name of the pictorial...they just don't have a copy of the photo (and apparently the Playboy rep they contacted didn't offer one).

They can bite me...why give up a DU EXCLUSIVE?

:rofl:

:toast:

[LisaL]

24. Call them up ASAP. They might even pay you for a copy.

DU doesn't pay.
LOL.

[Cetacea]

28. Charg them 5k and donate the money to Skinners Homeless Charity

[LisaL]

29. Or any charity of your choice!

[Cetacea]

31. +1!

[blogslut]

39. Because they might give you munny

Dude...munny!

[blogslut]

81. See? Someone already stole your image!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=54220

[Amerigo Vespucci]

85. Well, even though he referred to me as "someone," at least he gave DU credit...

Although he's full of crap on the "beating TMZ to the punch" bit. I beat them to the punch...he downloaded my scan.

JFK photo a fake - real Playboy 1967 no-JFK photo posted

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?blogid=95&entry_id=54219

Ok, the matter of the TMZ.com JFK Naked sexy women on a yacht photo issue - now called "the JFK photo scandal" is closed.

Someone over at Democratic Underground got the photo from an archived copy of the 1967 Playboy issue my source said contained the actual photo. That magazine is Playboy, Vol. 14, No. 11, November 1967, P. 137. (Article name "Playboy's Charter Yacht Party".)

Here's the photo:



Now, as of this writing, I've beat TMZ.com to the punch.

[blogslut]

86. That credit to you is new

The original post credited no one. "Someone" must have clued him in. :)

[blondeatlast]

98. I just checked again; the credit is gone.

What an asswipe.

[blogslut]

100. It's there

I think maybe you've got the wrong blog entry:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?blogid=95&entry_id=54219

[myrna minx]

95. So he swiped your image and refers to you as "someone" - how thoughtful.

At least *we* know who to credit. :hi:

[anigbrowl]

43. Sell it to them you fool

opportunities like that don't come along very often.

[malaise]

92. Freaking brilliant

You destroyed them :toast:

[FreakinDJ]

17. Ha Ha - I told you guys so

[AnOhioan]

26. The pic is not JFK,,,,but that was not your original argument

Your argument was that the bikini was not invented in the 1950's. As far as that goes, you gave been proven wrong.


Don't mind me, I just discussions to have at least a faint grip on facts.

[FreakinDJ]

33. The pic is 1967 - that was my original arguement

HaHa

:spank: :crazy: :spank: :crazy: :spank:

[AnOhioan]

37. Nice try...but no cigar

[Occulus]

50. Yeah, it was his SECOND SENTENCE.

"They did not have string bikinis in the early 1950s"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7340392&mesg_id=7340392

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

Does he think we're all a bunch of dunces? Or is FreakinDJ just a compulsive liar?

[Individualist]

56. Your memory is faulty

Your original argument:

Subject line: Bikini lines in 1950s

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7339929&mesg_id=7340028

[FSogol]

19. So, how did you get the assigment to search all the back issues of Playboy?

:bounce: :bounce:

[FreakinDJ]

62. Just lucky I guess

[dhpgetsit]

20. Nice find,

And nothing shameful going on that I can see. Skinny-dipping? So what?

[HardWorkingDem]

21. FauxNews fell for it, too!!! Har, har...

Oh, and FauxNews is so reliable...



http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/28/recently-discovered-photo-said-jfk-vacationing-nude-women/?test=faces

[Cetacea]

34. Good! lol.

[Blasphemer]

55. In this case it's FAUXNews but generally everyone in the media runs with ANY story prematurely..nt

[Kali]

22. what is this in reference to?

are wing nuts e-mailing fake 50 year old scandal pix?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

27. Someone took the photo I posted above...

..."aged" it in Photoshop, and tried to pass it off as JFK on a boat with four naked women. You can see the fake photo at this TMZ link:

http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/28/john-f-kennedy-playboy-photo-boat-nude-women/

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

58. Which should give us an indication of how seriously the right wing takes their

assignment to try to destroy JFK's image --

No one would have had time for what they've been accusing him of --

[phasma ex machina]

70. Thanks. It smelled like a brand new M$M pseudo scandal stinking up the thread. nt

[WeDidIt]

25. HAHAHAHAHA!

Rightwingnut heads are asplodin!

Well done. Did you tell TMZ they fucked up yet?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

30. They know...they just haven't gotten their hands on the original...

...and I have no intention of sending it to them. Let them eat cake!

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. Color photos in 1950s?

[WeDidIt]

35. The photo was from 1967

TMZ got punk'd.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. Exactly

[Amerigo Vespucci]

38. November 1967 issue of Playboy (see above)...NOT a 50s pic.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Sorry I wasn't clear

I was trying to make the point that photos were not in color before about 1960.

[druidity33]

105. earlier than that...

In modern photography, color slide film has been around since the 1930's (Kodachrome and Agfachrome) and color prints have been around since 1942 (Kodacolor). But color photography has been around since 1861.

see the Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography

[RebelOne]

106. Yes, color photography has been around a long time.

I have color photos of me as a child in the late '40s and early '50s.

[Yuugal]

40. Recced for greyed out boobies. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

63. rec'd for the word 'boobies'

[Cetacea]

41. LOL. 53 related articles on Google News.

http://news.google.com/news?ned=us

[Junkdrawer]

44. But..but..Professor Jeff Sedlik says it's REAL....

Forensic expert Jeff Sedlik told TMZ that he believes the print is authentic and shows no evidence of digital alterations. The photo is reportedly consistent with historic accounts of a vacation JFK took at the time while wife Jackie was pregnant.

...

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/28/recently-discovered-photo-said-jfk-vacationing-nude-women

Here's a video of him claiming it's real...
http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=b5d06d99-29ae-4628-8c6c-d99d8dc5bb99

Here's the good professor's homepage:
http://www.photographyexpertwitness.com/

Perhaps he would like to know JUST HOW BADLY HE WAS PUNKED!

[blondeatlast]

49. I have to wonder if Professor Jeff Sedlik is real--and if his resume is up to date... nt

[Junkdrawer]

54. Oh, he's real...but his career just tanked...

http://www.almexperts.com/ExpertWitness/investigators/expert/6666655.html

That video of him validating a fraud will be entered into evidence on any trial he was/would be hired to appear as an expert witness.

[blogslut]

71. Could be the hoax is older than we think

It's very possible that the car dealer that obtained the B/W photo was the original victim. Maybe someone took a "photo" of the Playboy image with an old camera and film and passed it off as secret keepsake, possibly trading it for money or to pay a gambling debt.

[HmmWellDone]

80. Not really

From what I saw at the TMZ site, Sedlik did not say that the photograph pictured JFK. Looked to me like TMZ used him to look at the printed photo paper and he said that it "consistent with paper used in the 50s and 60s." He overlaid a portrait of Kennedy and commented that there was a "remarkable resemblance" but I've listened to it 3 times now and can't find him saying that the person in the photo is Kennedy. He seemed to be concentrating on the print itself, which does look like it could have been made at that time.

[the blues]

90. Thank you, Professor Sedlik. n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

110. What's that I smell?

Is that CYA? Welcome to DU, Mr. Sedlik!

[merh]

83. That expert just lost his charm

He ruined his own credibility - this event will be used to impeach him from here on out.

Bookmarked for the future, I so tire of experts that are not experts.

[blondeatlast]

45. I would have bet money it was a fake. the hair on the women is too long

for one.

I called it "laughable" in another thread and I stand by that.

[Soylent Brice]

46. K&R nice job, Amerigo.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. With luck, this will put that shitty rumor mill, TMZ out of business.

[defendandprotect]

59. What's TMZ . . . ???

[Stinky The Clown]

64. A web site that publishes all manner of celebrity gossip, pictures, and bullshit.

[crispini]

48. Good work!

Did you actually have the Playboy on hand or did you have to go search it out? Do tell!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

67. I had it...

I did a Google search on the pictorial and it pointed me to the correct issue.

[Blasphemer]

53. Good job! Why bother doing this with a published photo?

I could see someone trying to pull a fast one with a private photo but with something that has been published? Really stupid.

[truedelphi]

57. So many old Playboy issues, so lil time! n/t

[AngryAmish]

60. I love hoaxes...and as this one goes it is a good one

Unfortunately for the hoaxers, one should not underestimate the male memories of pornography.

[tomm2thumbs]

61. TMZ fell for it, hook line and... well you know the rest

A little checking could have given them a simple answer, but they were too hot and heavy to run with the 'never before published' evidence. bwahahahaha

They are going to start losing credibility on dumb work like this

[Cleita]

65. Isn't TMZ another media owned by Ruppert Murdoch?

Figures it wouldn't check things out first.

[blogslut]

74. Actually

I think TMZ is part of Time-Warner-AOL. However, Harvey Levin is a fairly careful guy and as I said in another thread, at least TMZ followed up and posted a correction (in plain sight on their site) as soon as they found out they had been hoaxed.

[johnfunk]

77. HAAAAAAAAA HAHAHA hahahahaaaaaaa... TMZ = Total Moron Zone...

... at least in this case. Can't stand the ambulance-chasing, sleazemongering Web site or TV show.

:rofl::rofl::spray::rofl::rofl::spray::rofl::rofl::spray::rofl::rofl:

[blogslut]

79. Okay

Personally, I go there quite often - usually after getting disgusted by all the petty BS I read here. I figure if I'm going to read petty BS, I might well read petty BS that's supposed be petty BS. :)

[tomm2thumbs]

75. I think they have a picture of Abe Lincoln eating a Dolly Madison jelly roll

It's true, cuz TMZ sayd so. TMZ is going to have to fight their own headwinds of lies now, as one more slip up and they'll be considered the 'Perez Hilton says Castro is dead' leader of junk blogging.

[MinM]

109. Re: Isn't TMZ another media owned by Ruppert Murdoch?

Good point, Cleita.

More Murdoch:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10799

Rupert Murdoch was very tight with Ted Shackley, which is how he got launched on his global acquisitions and has now taken over the WSJ. Murdoch was running a failed national newspaper in Australia while Shackley was station chief in Oz. Then suddenly he becomes a US citizen literally overnight and goes on an endless buying spree. Shackley's pockets were infinitely deep. At the time, Murdoch was facing the likely closure of his newspaper THE AUSTRALIAN. His ticket out was Shackley. This also explains why Murdoch was allowed to break all the rules in acquisition of media in America...

Bill Casey was one of the key men in the acquisition of media after WW2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=506138&mesg_id=506795
***

Murdoch Firm Accused of Sabotage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x32931

News Corp. reports $6.4 billion loss

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=4168&page=3

FCC Endorses Junk News, Calls Fox's TMZ and 700 Club 'Bona fide Newscasts'
http://www.benton.org/node/10835

[progressoid]

66. Golly I expected so much more journalistic integrity from TMZ,

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

72. Oooooh shit!

Someone is in BIG trouble.

lol

[chowder66]

76. I'm sorry but....

I don't think the professor is doing any wrong here. He analyzed and saw a "remarkable" resemblance. That's not the same as stating it as fact.

It is possible that this is an actual copy/photograph that the owner did not know was in print or where it originated and his son may have thought it was JFK. Who knows where the owner could have gotten this...garage sale, friend of photog....

It also could be a fake but I am not ready to jump to any conclusions and villify people for a possibly honest mistake. If they did try to fake it then they suck.

[intheflow]

82. The phony photo appeared to be a b&w photo.

The TMZ story claimed it was from a 1950's trip JKF was allegedly on while Jackie was having a stillborn c-section. The original is color, from a 1967 issue of Playboy--four years after Kennedy was shot. TMZ has issued a correction. Do you even read threads here before you comment on them?

[lpbk2713]

78. Too bad this came to light before OxyRush went on the air re the bogus pic.

This would have been another good way to make him look like the buffoon he really is.

[merh]

84. Link to the TMZ correction -Kennedy Picture -- A Fake

http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/28/john-f-kennedy-playboy-photo-boat-nude-women/

And some of the comments are a hoot!

15. Playboy verified it was in '67? NOT!!!! Impossible...JFK was murdered in '63 remember? Or was that a hoax too?

Posted at 1:11PM on Dec 28th 2009 by fordtocarr

Hello, fordtocarr, it isn't JFK in the photo! :rofl:

[depakid]

91. Classic!

[blondeatlast]

99. Geeeezzz... thank God I can laugh 'coz otherwise stupid like that would be

painful to witness...

OMG, I'm in tears! :rofl:

[merh]

102. I know, that comment had me in tears.

tears of laughter :rofl:

[Liberal In Texas]

87. Good job!

This is too funny.

:rofl:

[laylah]

88. STUPID question...

where is Kennedy? :shrug:

edited 'cuz I like my beer :silly:

[merh]

97. The guy that TMZ claimed was JFK

is to the left of the photo, in the middle, reclining on the deck of the boat.

Bobby and Teddy were inside peering out the portholes. :silly:

:rofl:

[Brundle_Fly]

89. 15 years of working in print and photo manipulation and I can tell its a fake in 10 secs

here is a 8.5 meg hi rez version ( DIAL UP CAUTION )

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1227_jfk_TMZ_hires_01.pdf

if you zoom in, you can see the moiré pattern, suggesting this was originally from a magazine print or other lower resolution print.
black and white photos would not have this pattern...(unless they came off a laser jet.)

who are these experts?

FAIL.

Info on moiré http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern

[malaise]

94. Hahahahahah

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/1228092jfkpic1.html
<snip>
DECEMBER 28--In a colossal screw-up, the gossip web site TMZ today published a photo purporting to show John F. Kennedy frolicking on a yacht with a harem of naked women--except that the image actually appeared as part of a November 1967 Playboy photo spread, The Smoking Gun has learned. The TMZ hoax was billed as an "exclusive" featuring a photo that "could have altered world events" had it surfaced prior to JFK's presidential campaign. "It could have torpedoed his run, and changed world history," the site added. In reality, the photo appeared in story about Playboy's "Charter Yacht Party: How to Have a Ball on the Briny with an Able-Bodied Complement of Ship's Belles." As seen in the below page from the November 1967 issue, the Playboy photo is in color. The "Exclusive" TMZ image is the same photo, just reproduced in black and white.

[bertman]

101. When I saw that article over on HuffPo today, my first thought was "Damn, I missed all the fun!"

[Ter]

103. Here's the original