John Denver: Digitally removing digits

“Annie, we are told, helped identify the body. She told investigators that John had lost two toes in a lawn mowing accident as a youth. If perhaps the leg that survived the crash were his right leg, and if the foot were still intact, well, that might just help identify the body. And it did! The Coroner later reported “…healed partial amputations of the right first and second toes” on the right foot. Annie’s song was the right tune, it appears.”

The above words are from my post, John Denver’s death: Another Hoax. Just recently I have received comments, here and here, that address the matter of the missing toes. Keep in mind that throughout his life, there was never any mention of his missing digits. The matter only came to life when he died.

I haven’t addressed the Denver matter much over the years other than to answer various commenters. But I think it odd that this little blog can draw people from anywhere out of the shadows, people who knew him personally, people who know about things like missing toes. I also think it odd that the piece, 7,500 words, along with very good and numerous comments, filled with evidence, draws only interest in those toes. Nonetheless, I decided to have a look. There is a photo of JD, supposedly taken in April of 1997, six months before his death, and he is indeed sporting those missing toes. There is one and only one photo in existence that shows this.


I’ve spent quite a bit of time with this photo, and I think it to be very good work, some very good Photoshopping. Just looking at the surface features, as follows, see if you agree with me on the inconsistencies.

JD with arrows inserted

  • Look at the green arrow, right where is elbow would be, and then imagine how short his arm would be if visible. Odd that someone’s head got in the way.
  • Next, look at the hand under the red arrow. Compare it to the other hand (that is not his hand either, but that comes later). It is grotesquely big by comparison. He could have wrapped that hand around a guitar neck twice while on stage.  He could hit the first and ninth frets at once.
  • Next, look at the lower leg, white arrow. Notice how the lines are distinct and wiggly, usually a sign of pasting. You don’t see those kinds of lines anywhere else in the photo.
  • Also notice the coloration – the upper leg is blue jeans, and seems OK. The man in shorts is also in blue, and looks normal. But the lower leg has lost all color, even as the lighting is good enough to bring the blues out in every other aspect of the photo.
  • Finally, look at the neck. John is 53 years old in this photo, but his neck looks like that of an eighty year old. At first I thought that the head had been pasted on that body using the shirt collar as a joiner. But those lines make me think the actual pasting was done across the neck. It looks like a surgical scar. JD neck

I did some more work on this, using Photoshop to highlight certain aspects. Let me know what I am missing, as this stuff is not my regular occupation.

JD with exposure amplified

Here I have amplified the exposure. The pants stand out, as does the neck. The lower hand, his right, stands out even as the left is contrasted out. The lines are hinky on the lower leg again. I’m not sure what this tells me, however, as I am just monkeying around. I am not a photo analysis expert.

JD inverted contrast

Here I have inverted the contrast. It’s pretty much the same as above, with the extremely dark parts showing up as bright white. It is the bottom of the upper leg and the whole of the bottom leg that stand out, as in the original photo, looking unnatural in intensity here, and very dark in the original. As above, I am just monkeying around.

JD Luminance gradient

For this, I went to a website called Forensically, and used a tool called Luminance Gradient. Here is what the website says about that tool:

The luminance gradient tool analyses the changes in brightness along the x and y axis of the image. It’s obvious use is to look at how different parts of the image are illuminated in order to find anomalies. Parts of the image which are at a similar angle (to the light source) and under similar illumination should have a similar color; Another use is to check edges. Similar edges should have similar gradients. If the gradients at one edge are significantly sharper than the rest it’s a sign that the image could have been copy pasted. It does also reveal noise and compression artifacts quite well.

As I read that, Denver’s head and chin, the back of the head of the interloper in the foreground, and the upper leg and ankle are significantly sharper than the rest of the photo. Is that sign of alteration? I am not sure enough to say yes, as I have never had much luck with Forensically.

What does it all mean? Here’s the original photo:


I see several photos blended. Denver’s head has been pasted on another body, leaving a neck looking like that of an old man. The shirt, left arm and upper leg belong to a man who unfortunately lost a couple of toes. This guy and the man in blue shorts seem to belong. For reasons unknown, the lower leg has been shaded, possibly inserted along with the oversized hand from yet someone else, the edges altered to make the look consistent with the upper leg. [Idle speculation: What if the man whose body is used here was perhaps an amputee, a war veteran, so that the lower pant leg had to be used to cover this up.] The head in the foreground was inserted to hide the monkey business with the right arm, concealing what would otherwise have exposed the whole photo as mishmash, an upper and lower arm that do not fit together.

My conclusion, fake fake fake. And how very convenient that this photo appears now, and not in 2016 when I wrote the original post. Someone got busy manufacturing evidence-after-the-fact, meaning my post actually got noticed somewhere. The two commenters who mentioned the toes were sent here, both on a mission. Neither are who they say they are. Perhaps both are the same person. They are spooks.

You know what I wonder after doing a post like this? I could be wrong about everything. I know this, and have to live with such insecurity.

The rest of this post is added just for shits and giggles:

JD Big shoulders

This is a younger John Denver, for sure, but what stands out for me is the shoulders on this dude! I call this Mr. Big Jacket. This is just show business. They sexed him up. (Notice how his neck looks quite normal, no surgical scar.) Nonetheless, I went looking for a photo that had his real shoulders, and found this:

JD Shirtless

I thought I had him, bare shoulders exposed, and while not as big as in the one above, not at all unnatural. Then I looked a little closer and realized that the head is pasted on another body here. Is anything about this guy real?

JD Shirtless 2

Then I found this. Those appear to he his real shoulders, not at all like those of Mr. Big Jacket. Why is he posing shirtless? I don’t know, but it gives me a creepy feeling. I am done now.

Afterthought: Something that should have jumped out at me, but did not. In the Forensically Luminance Gradiant, JD’s ankle is entirely red, meaning the entire ankle is an insert. This is the nut of the matter … the foot with the distorted toes is inserted in the photo from some other photo. That’s why the ankle looks weird, almost feminine. It might be a woman’s ankle.

37 thoughts on “John Denver: Digitally removing digits

  1. Have you heard about the idea that John Denver and Steve Irwin, The Crocodile Hunter, are the same guy? I don’t know but the similarities are quite striking…


    1. Denver Parent

      On the left, Denver, on the right, Stephen parent, supposedly murdered on the night of the Tate massacre, but who, as Ty noticed, bears an uncanny resemblance to Richard Branson, British music mogul and billionaire.

      Of course, I cannot know if the heads are the same size, since I adjusted them digitally. I had to really monkey with Denver to make him and Parent fit, not my normal procedure. Usually I just let it fall where it falls, but they looked so much alike down to the glasses.


  2. Did you run his plane on the FAA website? I couldn’t find his crash. At least you are getting the spooks to show up to clarify their hoaxes, maybe you’ll strike a bigger nerve and someday John will leave a comment.


  3. A lot of that photo stuff… Hands that look weird, pants edges unnatural, etc… Can be found in most any photo. Or freeze frame of a movie. There is a difference between the “weirdness” of photos, which is common, and actual signs of photo tampering.

    It’s different when an artist interprets reality.. Then things are clarified, form is made readable, sensible. But a camera is “dumb” and just gives you whatever light hits the film— it’s accurate, but it’s a blunt-force 2D translation of 3D reality.

    I credit you for looking closely though, just think it may require a painter’s eye for some (not all) aspects of photo fakery. Also I don’t claim to be able to spot any and all fakes myself, just my 2 cents as an amateur.


    1. Point well taken. I have, as do you, plenty of resources to explore these points, however. Look at your own photos, study the consistency if the shadows, the lines and colors, the shadows. I am showing here one of my wife and I just taken this week. Show me any inconsistencies. Where are the hinky lines? We are against a massive backdrop. Do we not fit in? (She, as a joke, is standing in a hole to look short.) It is but a photo taken with a Nikon Coolpix, but nothing shows up that would support your thesis. The JD photo is monkeyed with to support the idea that he had two severed toes, which supports the idea that he really died in that plane crash. It is fake.


      Liked by 1 person

          1. Hey I think that pic is photo-shopped! Look at the way those two people are in-focus while everything in the distance is kind of blurred, and the way she is standing at a 15 degree angle from the horizon! 😉


            1. Not close to being funny, but it makes me wonder, since you’re new here, if you were the one pretending to be the people who knew John Denver and about his missing digits.


        1. Awesome photo… You look quite grand standing upon the rock with a blue sky at your back and your “Lady at your side”. Treat it deeply with care. Hold it close to your heart and cherish it as if it were your last moment on earth…You never know when it may be your last tomorrow..


      1. I guessed New Zealand, as his adopted daughter lives there. But I have no idea where he is or was. He could be dead for real by this time. Did he plan on his plane going down? There were two planes, the EZ7 and another used to fly low over houses in the area. He was not on either, but one of them, unmanned, did go into the bay. It was probably a drone. People who saw it did not describe an EZ7, which has unique features, such as the propeller on the rear.


          1. The best way is to send them to me at mark at mpthct dot com. I will reformat them so they can be shown on the blog.

            WordPress does not accept photos from commenters, as they say it would soon overwhelm their servers.


            1. Can’t get them to your email bounces

              These are pics I was sent one of jd in 60’s the other in his 70’s last one is said to be in lake city co. He will be 78 on his birthday.



  4. Mark curious why use photo whereby as if double-jointed your wife’s boots rest awkwardly inside unsightly rock crevice for study in comparison to J.D’s digits photo? Certainly not for proverbial shits & giggles since why monkey around with your photo analysis credibility of Mr. Big sans 2 in debunking the Monterey Bay pop star short arming it while fake flashing all 8 while sporting bogus gobble gobble neck? It’s a nice photo of you both but somewhat unusual choice to use for comparison due to rock crevice anomaly. Off the subject I may have another Bokanovski Brat for you also hailing I believe from San Mateo like B.B. Tom Brady: James Franco.


    1. James Franco is a Brat, long established, in the first batch from Straight way back when. I used that photo because I was just told the anomalies as in the JD photo turn up in all photos.They do not. I had just put that photo up on Facebook, so grabbed it. To show that it is a normal photo and that there are no oddities or inconsistencies. That is how almost all photos that don’t come from same basement office in Langley turn out.


  5. My two bits: The only Denverish thing in the toes photo is his jaw line/mouth. The shades seem to be a border marking as the hair/skull don’t appear to me to be from the same head as the lower half of the face. The skull area is too small. And that isn’t Denver’s hair at all. From the part to the relative thin/fineness. I’ll say the jaw/mouth is all there is of him. The toes are probably an insert on top of an insert (foot/ankle) and the rest a tweaked collage.
    Congrats! You caught them with their pants down.


  6. Absolutely amazing…the John Denver blog on which I was commenting has disappeared. I submitted a full response last Wednesday, with many research based links and contradictions to the stance taken by Mr. Tokarski. Not only were my comments not posted over the past five days, the whole line of commentary and comments is gone. Be careful, kids. You are being led around by he who wants only to exercise a power stance through “knowledge”, not to have open discourse. Those who seek power in that way have an agenda. From Jack Taylor, a real person who lives in Garwood NJ, and who finds this all pretty bogus. Use your own gray cells, don’t give up any more to this drivel.


    1. Relax, Jack, or whatever your name. I wondered what happened to you. I’ve done nothing with your comments, including read them, the recent ones, anyway. They must be sitting in moderation. I don’t check that often as I should. What happened to the existing thread … I’ll check. Later today.


    2. Your last comment was 7/2/19 at 19:56 AM: “As I stated earlier, I am going through your long treatise first. After that, I will attend to the various responses you are making. It is too tangential to always be be poking back and forth. And yes, I know what the Wayback is. Later this evening, still at work.”

      There is nothing since. Either some other agent within the blog deleted new comments (they are not in trash or spam, or you’re running a small psyop trying to discredit me by making it appear that I hide from criticism. I do not do that unless, you know, whackadoodle stuff. You might want to reprint what you posted before. Everything is still there until after the comment above. If you printed at all. To date you’re wet behind the ears, however.


      1. This might be the crux of “Jack Taylor,” to come here and spread doubt, but not in such a way as to engage me in a real exchange, but to lay the foundation, and then claim I had blocked him and deleted his stuff. I did neither, but this comment by him I think lays him bare.


  7. Are these ‘juiced’ celebrities nothing more than court jesters? And then when not in public eye, going abroad to be used as (think honey pot, male or female) again as a means to an end.


  8. Greetings: Getting back to doctored JD photos, there’s an odd one on the inside cover of a JD analogy I purchased perhaps a year ago. I’ve been debating submitting it here, but since you’ve approached JD again, I thought I would – if only to get your take on it. Unfortunately, I can’t get it to copy here. If you can tell me how to get it to you, I will. I’d like to see what you think. Thank you!


  9. When I searched for John’s crash last year nothing came up. However I just did another search and found it, even though I entered the same info I did last year, very odd.

    The report states it was updated in 2015. Looking thru the pdf files, some of the information seems detailed and some of it vague.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s