Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed US Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

View Latest Posts >>>

Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of JFK

DISCLOSURE: The views expressed herein are views of the author exclusively and not the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. The views belong exclusively to author Jim Fetzer.

by Jim Fetzer and Douglas Horne


Photo published in LIFE incriminating Oswald

As an illustration of the depravity of the main stream media in this country today, I have been struck by the astute observations of Douglas Horne, who was the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the Assassination Records Review Board, a five-member civilian board entrusted with the responsibility for declassifying documents and records held by the CIA, the NSA, the FBI and the Secret Service, among other agencies of the government, created by an act of Congress in the wake of the resurgence of interest in the death of JFK generated by Oliver Stone’s film.

They had been classified for 75 years by the Warren Commission on the ground of national security. If its conclusion–that JFK was assassinated by a lone, demented gunman named “Lee Harvey Oswald”–were true, however, there would have been NO “national security” aspect to this issue.

Moreover, by classifying them for 75 years (which just happens to correspond to the lifetime of an average American), they insured that no one who was living at the time would be available to contradict whatever those records might reveal.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which reinvestigated the case in 1976-79, likewise decided to sequester many sensitive documents, especially those in the medical arena that contradicted its own conclusions, for 50 years, which Oliver Stone emphasized in his film, “JFK”.

As those of us who have devoted ourselves to the evidence in this case are well aware, Oswald could not have committed the crime and was used as a “patsy” to distract attention from the conspirators, who included the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, anti-Castro Cubans and elements of local law enforcement. An overview of what we know about how it was done, who was responsible, and how it was covered-up may be found at “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK?” I have also interviewed Doug several times on “The Real Deal”, where those interviews are accessible at the following links:


Douglas Horne



Douglas Horne



Douglas Horne


The JFK Assassination: Still a Taboo Subject for the Mainstream Media in the United States

by Douglas Horne (with photos and captions by Jim Fetzer)

September 30th, 2011

Oswald's face was added to someone else's body

Almost 48 years after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, the mainstream media (MSM) in this country still treats it as a Taboo Subject. This is a strange state of affairs, given the MSM’s propensity to tout its own courage and independence, and its important role as the Fourth Estate in our democracy.Let me provide just two recent examples. Last year, as MSNBC “Hardball” host and moderator Chris Matthews interviewed the author of a book about the JFK assassination, he employed a sneering, dismissive tone toward all persons who are convinced there was a conspiracy to murder the 35th President–by implication, tarring all such people as misguided idiots, and irresponsible. As usual, he characterized such persons as nuts, cranks, crazy people, and conspiracy theorists (the ultimate insult employed by anyone still supporting the Warren Commission’s seriously flawed and unsupportable findings) and, in a rather brutal and intellectually overbearing and arrogant manner, proclaimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a crazy person, a lone nut, who killed JFK all on his own. In doing so, he was disagreeing with (and insulting) over 75% of the American people, but this didn’t seem to bother him.

Three different rifles introduced as "the assassination weapon"

The real question is, WHY does he continue to proclaim this stance in such an insistent manner? Aside from this issue, Matthews appears to be a pretty bright and well-informed guy. How, I asked myself, could he so loudly and insistently proclaim that the Warren Commission got it right, when there is so much overwhelming evidence that its conclusion cannot possibly be true? On this one issue he has consistently shown a very ugly, and obnoxious side of his personality–a “dark side,” if you will. I wondered last fall if he really believed the nonsense he was spouting, or whether he was reflexively adopting a stance he had been instructed to adopt in public. And if he had been so instructed, who provided him with his JFK assassination marching orders? Was it the management structure at MSNBC, or was it a cadre within the American intelligence community that remains fixated on this subject (and others that are crucial to the attitudes of Americans toward their own governmental institutions)?

Sadly, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, two MSNBC journalists whom I highly respect most of the time, have also spoken derisively about “conspiracy theorists” and have painted anyone who believes that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy with this overused tar brush. This past week, a new public opinion poll was released showing that the number of Americans who now trust the American government to “do the right thing all or most of the time” is at an all time low–it is now down to only 15% of those polled. CNN, in reporting this story and providing context, then proceeded to promote inaccurate history about the polling numbers in its background pieces on the story. CNN stated that under President Eisenhower, in the late 1950s, this trust figure was as high as 73% (which is true), and then falsely implied that this was as high as the trust figure had ever been.

Clint Hill riding on the back of the Lincoln limousine

THIS WAS UNTRUE. In his 1994 book, Arrogant Capital, conservative author Kevin Phillips wrote that in January of 1964 this figure was 78%, and that this was the all-time high watermark for trust in the American government. He published a graph showing that from 1960 through January of 1964, the figure was continuously rising, and therefore, it is clear that the figure rose from 73% to 78% during the Presidency of John F. Kennedy, America’s 35th President: a rationalist who touted openness in government, who opposed withholding information from the American people, and who even gave a speech against secrecy and secret societies. (I published the graph used by Phillips as Figure 71, in my own book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, published in 2009 and still available at Amazon.com). Study of the graph reveals that this trust starting dropping precipitately after January of 1964.

The CNN talking heads and anchors proclaimed this past week that the primary reasons for the sharp decline of the high numbers seen in the late 1950s were the Vietnam War and Watergate. But this is only a half-truth, at best. They conveniently omitted mentioning when the figure was at its highest (at the end of JFK’s Presidency), and also conveniently chose not to mention that the rapid decline in confidence in the U.S. government began very shortly after the JFK assassination. It is clear to me when studying this graph (you can access it in either Phillips’ book or in mine), that the American people began to lose faith in the American government immediately after the JFK assassination; no doubt people smelled a rat when LIFE magazine, and later the Warren Report, began to blow smoke up our collective asses about how (and why) JFK was murdered.

JFK has already been hit, but the Secret Service has no response

The sharp decline on the graph accelerated in 1968. And what happened that year? Three things: the Tet Offensive in Vietnam (when the American people finally realized the USG had been lying to them about the conduct of the war and the prospects for victory); the Martin Luther King assassination; and the Robert F. Kennedy assassination. These two assassinations, like JFK’s, were all blamed on lone nut individuals acting on their own—and in each case, there is strong evidence that the official story is not true. The next sharp drop in confidence in the graph occurs between 1972 and 1976, and almost certainly reflects the Watergate scandal, and America’s unceremonious ejection from Vietnam, after losing a war for the first time. The nosedive in confidence continues at a rapid rate through 1980, and it is likely that one contributor was the unsatisfactory way in which the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) handled the JFK and MLK assassinations. The HSCA stirred up the muck of bad memories and feelings about those two events, and the electrified public which had demanded the Congressional investigations into the JFK and MLK murders was more than a bit nonplussed about the HSCA whitewash of both events.

So what happened this past week with CNN? I explain it in this way: if the high watermark for faith in the U.S. government during JFK’s presidency is event A, and the rapid decline in faith in government after January 1964 is event B, then the MSM could not mention A, without mentioning B and WHY it occurred. Event B (the loss in confidence in government) began immediately after the assassination, clearly caused by the government’s attempt to calm public opinion with soothing lies after JFK was murdered. NBC, CBS, and ABC (most of the time, but not all of the time) have all been participating in the same collective “groupthink”—namely, that Oswald was the lone assassin who killed JFK and that he did it all on his own—since December of 1963. The MSM would have us believe that that JFK’s assassination was the work of a lone malcontent, devoid of any political significance. CNN has now joined the club. FOX news is…well, FOX news; one week before air time, the network removed my interview clips (containing explosive new material which the producer had promised me would be used) from its 2003 documentary about the JFK assassination after network officials objected to the content.

The anchors and reporters employed by the mainstream networks have obviously been instructed by managing editors and company vice presidents that you do not mention the JFK assassination, unless it is to (1) blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the event; and (2) disparage any contrary views as the unstable thinking of “conspiracy theorists.” (A corollary to this pack mindset is that you don’t mention JFK in a historical context unless it is to disparage him or tear down his reputation–since doing so tends to make people not care as much about his assassination.) Event A could not be reported because it would have forced CNN to report event B. If CNN had reported event B, it would have highlighted the fact that the American media had missed the story of the century–had either been asleep at the switch, or muzzled by the government–from December of 1963 throughout 1964. (And indeed, for the most part, it has kept its head in the sand, like an ostrich, ever since the Warren Report came out as well.) The American media is not fond of reporting on its own failures. Doing so, in this case, would raise the ugly specter of why the mainstream media continues to aggressively promote an editorial position on this subject which is diametrically opposed to the opinions of over 75% of the American people.

So in my view, CNN could not mention the truth–that the trust in government was continuously going up (above Eisenhower’s numbers) during JFK’s presidency, and that it fell precipitately after his assassination, because to do so would attract attention to the positive aspects of JFK’s presidency (certainly not in vogue within either conservative or mainstream circles), and would also show, in a way that ANYONE in the viewing audience could understand, that there was a linkage between the corrosion of trust in the USG and JFK’s assassination. The continuous government and mainstream media assassination spin from December of 1963 through the summer of 1964, and the public conclusions of the Warren Report–issued in September of 1964–were clearly the proximate cause of the sharp decline in trust in government, which began in 1964. CNN (and no doubt other networks reporting the same story) could not tell the whole truth about the confidence polling because the whole truth would have contravened the wishes of their corporate and intelligence community masters.

George Herbert Walker Bush was there

In 1977 reporter Carl Bernstein (in a “Rolling Stone” article) and The New York Times (in a series of piggyback articles) both reported that the CIA had used over 400 media “assets” (both abroad and domestically) to promote its spin on world events to the publics of the world—in other words, for propaganda purposes. [JF:  And William Colby, former Director of the CIA, would later acknowledge that, “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — William Colby, quoted, for example, by Dave McGowan, in Derailing Democracy (2000).] Author John LeCarre (British master of spy novels and a former MI 6 agent himself) recently stated in an interview that in the 1960s, when his book, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, was about to be made into a film, he was flown to America and questioned about his loyalty to the West by American intelligence. (They were not happy that the theme of his book, at the height of the Cold War, was “a plague on both your houses.”) In his interview (on the Criterion bonus DVD about that same film), LeCarre stated that most people would be absolutely amazed if they knew how many people in the American intelligence community were sitting around doing nothing but thinking about ways to influence public opinion. (This is clearly against the CIA’s charter, by the way—and unlawful—since it is not supposed to participate in any domestic activities.)

If you think this activity has stopped just because of the Church Committee Hearings in the mid-1970s, then I have a bridge to sell you in the Gobi desert.

There are things that we know and believe, and then there is the much smaller universe of things that can be proved in a court of law. There is no doubt in my mind that the MSM’s blindness about the true facts of the Kennedy assassination and the ensuing government cover-up (and its continued denigration of his reputation) is self-willed, not inadvertent–and that the media’s collective groupthink about the Kennedy assassination (namely, blaming it on a lone nut in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) is evidence that the CIA is still playing the “Great Wurlitzer” of the media like an impresario. The CIA has in the short term succeeded brilliantly, in that it has gotten the MSM to think and speak in unison, tarring all JFK researchers as “conspiracy theorists” in an effort make them a subject of ridicule, and thereby marginalize their work. When it can, it orchestrates media blackouts of serious new research and new books (such as mine, and Phil Nelson’s), for fear that the general public would learn about them and read them, even if they were to be trashed by a hostile reviewer.

A frame used to fake one of the backyard photos

In the long term the CIA/MSM propaganda war against JFK researchers is counterproductive and has failed, because lying to the citizenry of a democracy “to protect its institutions,” in an attempt to bolster trust in the government, only ends up destroying respect for those institutions, when the lies are eventually revealed. And they are all (or most, anyway) eventually revealed, since as Shakespeare noted, “The Truth Will Out.”

Individual reporters dare not report about the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy in the JFK assassination, or the ensuing government cover-up, if their editors forbid them to file such stories, and if they know they will lose their jobs if they attempt to do so. This has been going on since December of 1963; everyone in the MSM knows it; and most of them will not even try anymore for fear of losing their jobs.

This is what we all face as the 50th anniversary approaches. When you are bombarded by even more bullshit and government spin about the assassination of the 35th President two years from now, do not be surprised. Learn to think critically and independently; read as many books as you can; and make up your own minds about what happened in America in November of 1963. If you do not, there is a vast disinformation and propaganda machine out there that will be happy to tell you what to believe on the 50th anniversary of JFK’s murder.

Statue for Nestor "Tony" Izquierdo, who appears to have been one of the shooters, in "Freedom Park", Little Havana

The national security spinmasters, Obama’s information CZAR Cass Sunstein, and the corporate media would prefer that you spend all your time obsessed with game shows, singing and dancing contests, so-called “reality shows” that are cheap to produce (and are, in reality, garbage), and modern age gladiatorial contests in large outdoor stadiums and indoor sports arenas. When you do focus on history from time to time they want you to accept the vanilla, mainstream, and simplistic interpretations of events ground out like sausage by mainstream historians and the MSM. They want you to engage in Goodthink, and think Goodthoughts. “But don’t think too deeply, please.” They don’t want the American people to think too much about deep politics or historical trends; when we do focus on politics every two years or so, they want us to focus on “the horserace” each election cycle, and not on substantive issues. They definitely don’t want us to focus on what has gone wrong in this country since the end of World War II—after all, if we all really get mad as hell, we might demand basic structural changes to our society and our system of government.

These controlling elements of our society prefer that we adopt a “father knows best” mentality, and simply trust the national security elite to manage this nation’s international affairs and military policies. They depend upon their allies and assets in the corporate mainstream media (whores, actually) to keep us distracted with pablum, and to define for us, on a daily basis, the bounds of what is “acceptable” for us to publicly discuss, and what is “not acceptable.” [This is the game Chris Matthews of MSNBC, and CNN and the other major networks on television, are engaged in.] The loss of independence by the MSM and its failure to ever seriously oppose the nation state with any really hard-hitting investigative reporting on substantive issues (such as war and peace, and why people get assassinated) should be of very serious concern to us all. Once an independent media is lost, tyranny is only one step away.


Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is the editor of Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).

Douglas Horne served as the Chief Analyst for Military Records with the Assassination Records Review Board and published Inside the ARRB (2009), a five-volume report of their findings.


Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on May 1, 2015, With 2530 Reads Filed under Civil Liberties & Freedom, Corruption, Government & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

7 Responses to "Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of JFK"

  1. Jim Fetzer  November 18, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    This series appears to come to grips with some of the most important findings about the assassination:


    Condensed commentary articles regarding President Kennedy’s autopsy, as published by The Future of Freedom Foundation; authored by Jacob Hornberger.

    Subscribe to FFF Email Update
    Subscribe to Freedom Daily

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 8
    by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 17, 2011

    The Kennedy Assassination Series:

    The Kennedy Casket Conspiracy by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Shot That Killed Kennedy by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 1 by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 2 by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 3 by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 4 by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 5 by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 6 by Jacob G. Hornberger

    The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 7 by Jacob G. Hornberger

    One of the most fascinating aspects of the U.S. military’s autopsy of President John F. Kennedy’s body concerns the examination of Kennedy’s brain. The overwhelming weight of the circumstantial evidence establishes that (1) there were two separate brain examinations and (2) the brain that was examined the second time was not that of John F. Kennedy.

    A detailed account of this evidence is found on pages 35–47 of volume 1 (“JFK’s Post-Autopsy Brain Exam: A Major Deception”) and in chapter 10 (“Two Brain Examinations — Coverup Confirmed”) of volume III of Douglas P. Horne’s five-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

    This article is based on the information found in Horne’s book.

    Horne served as chief analyst for military records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). It was he and ARRB general counsel Jeremy Gunn who made the discovery of the two separate brain examinations. Horne explains the significance of the discovery

    This discovery is the single most significant “smoking gun” indicating a government coverup with the medical evidence surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination, and is a direct result of the JFK Records Act, which in turn was fathered by the film JFK. Without Oliver Stone’s movie, and the legislation generated as a response to the controversy engendered by the film, this discovery would not have been possible. The JFK Act forced the release, in August 1993, of the HSCA [House Select Committee on Assassinations] staff’s previously withheld medical witness interviews; when these previously suppressed interviews were liberated, and married with Humes’ Warren Commission testimony and Dr. Finck’s summary reports to General Blumberg, the timeline indicating that two separate brain examinations took place became blatantly obvious to me. Without the HSCA interview reports, my hypothesis would never have been formulated. Furthermore, the JFK Records Act created the ARRB, and it was our depositions of Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck; photographer John Stringer; and former FBI agent Francis O’Neill — as well as our unsworn interview of mortician Tom Robinson — that confirmed my suspicions, and transformed a hypothesis into incontrovertible fact. (Horne, volume III, page 778; information in brackets added.)

    Keep in mind that the HSCA had ordered that much of its records be kept sealed from the American people for 50 years, and that prior to that the Warren Commission had ordered much of its records be kept sealed from the American people for 75 years. The JFK Records Act, which was enacted in the wake of Oliver Stone’s movie, brought an end to those orders of secrecy.

    Moreover, as I pointed out in Part 2 of this series, Horne points out that even after the HSCA officially released military personnel who had participated in the autopsy from the oaths of secrecy that the U.S. military had required them to sign immediately after the autopsy,

    the military did not give in easily. On November 3, 1977 Deanne C. Siemer of the DOD Office of General Counsel sent a letter to HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey refusing to rescind the order not to talk, since the “record with respect to the autopsy is complete and has been preserved intact.”

    After the military came to the realization, however, that Congress, not the military, makes the final decisions in such matters, “the Surgeon General of the Navy, VADM W.P. Arentzen mailed out letters rescinding the gag order to the last known addresses of the personnel concerned” (Horne, volume I, page 171.)

    The ARRB’s discovery of the two separate brain examinations in the Kennedy autopsy was reported in the following two articles published in 1998 in the Washington Post:

    “Newly Released JFK Documents Raise Questions About Medical Evidence” by Deb Riechmann (Associated Press, November 9, 1998.)

    “Archive Photos Not of JFK’s Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board” by George Lardner Jr. (Washington Post, November 10, 1998).

    The evidence indicates that the first brain examination took place within a few days of Kennedy’s assassination, most likely on the morning of Monday, November 25, the day of Kennedy’s funeral, and that the second brain examination took place a week or more after the assassination.

    What led Horne and Gunn to conclude that there had actually been two brain examinations rather than only one, as reflected in the official autopsy record?

    Among the several factors leading to the discovery, as detailed in the section of Horne’s book referenced above, were the following five:

    First, testimony by the attendees at the brain examinations indicated that there were two separate examinations.

    Navy photographer John Stringer (who had been the official photographer for Kennedy’s November 22 autopsy) confirmed that he was present at the brain examination but denied that Army pathologist Pierre Finck was there. Finck, on the other hand, confirmed that he too was present at the brain examination but denied that Stringer was there.

    That caused Horne and Gunn to suspect that there were actually two separate brain examinations, one that included Stringer and a later one that included Finck. Both examinations involved Navy pathologists James Humes and J. Thornton Boswell (who, along with Finck, had been the official pathologists for Kennedy’s November 22 autopsy).

    Second, the timeline of the brain examinations indicated that there were two separate examinations.

    In an interview conducted by the HSCA in 1977, Boswell stated that the brain examination took place two or three days after the November 22 autopsy. When the HSCA interviewed Stringer, he too stated that the brain had been examined two or three days after the autopsy. In his testimony before the ARRB, Humes stated that the brain examination had occurred one or two days after the autopsy.

    However, in a 1965 report to U.S. Army Brigadier General Joseph Blumberg, Finck wrote, “ CDR Humes called me on 29 Nov 63 that the three prosectors would examine the brain at the Naval Hospital.”

    When the ARRB deposed Finck, he testified as follows:

    Gunn: Again, I am not asking you to tell me exactly, but I’m just asking whether you remember whether it was within a day or two or whether it was within a week or two?

    Finck: Oh, it was not a day or two. That’s too short.

    * * *

    Gunn: Drs. Humes and Boswell, when they testified to the Review Board, had an initial recollection that they had done a supplementary examination within two or three days after the autopsy. There is no evidence that you were present as far as I am aware in a supplementary examination within two or three days after the autopsy. Do you have any knowledge whether there was more than one supplementary examination of the brain?

    Finck: [frowning, looking deeply troubled] No. (Horne, volume III, page 795; brackets in original)

    Third, testimony regarding the sectioning of the brain was different.

    Stringer testified that at the brain examination he attended, the brain had been cut into sections to determine the track of the bullet, which is the standard operating procedure for autopsies. Finck, on the other hand, stated that there was no sectioning of the brain at the brain examination that he attended.

    Consider the following testimony by Stringer before the ARRB:

    Gunn: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe the process?

    Stringer: They took it out, and put it on the table, and describe it [sic] as to the condition, too some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I had a copy board there with the light coming down from the — well, from underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the brain.

    Gunn: As it was being sectioned?

    Stringer: Yes.

    Gunn: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the brain?

    Stringer: If I remember, it was cross sections.

    Gunn: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?

    Stringer: To show the damage. (Horne, volume III, page 785)

    As Horne points out, Finck, on the other hand, “wrote in the Blumberg Report that the brain he examined was not serially sectioned.”

    Fourth, the photographs of the brain in the official autopsy records were not the photographs taken by Stringer during the brain examination that he photographed.

    Consider this testimony by Stringer before the ARRB:

    Gunn: Based upon these being basilar views of a brain and based upon there being no identification cards, are you able to identify with certainty whether these photographs before you are photographs of the brain of President Kennedy?

    Stringer: No, I couldn’t say that they were President Kennedy’s. I mean, there’s no identification. All I know is, I gave everything to Jim Humes, and he gave them to Admiral Burkley.

    * * *

    Gunn: Okay. When you took the black and white photographs of the brain of President Kennedy, did you use a press pack?

    Stringer: No.

    Gunn: Can you identify from the negatives in front of you whether those photographs are from a press pack? And I’m referring to numbers 9, 21, and 22.

    Stringer: I think they are. Yes.

    Gunn: Would it be fair to say, then, that by your recollection, that the black and white negatives in front of you now were not taken by you during the supplementary autopsy of President Kennedy?

    Stringer: Correct. This is Ansco.

    Gunn: When you say, “This is Ansco,” what do you mean?

    Stringer: This is Ansco film.

    Gunn: What is Ansco film?

    Stringer: Well, it’s a super high pan. And I think it’s from a film pack.

    * * *

    Gunn: Did you ever use Ansco film yourself in conducting medical photography?

    Stringer: Not very often.

    Gunn: Did you use Ansco film in the — taking the autopsy —

    Stringer: Not as far as I know.

    Gunn: — photographs of President Kennedy?

    Gunn: Not as far as I know. (Horne, volume III, pages 806–809)

    Horne summarizes the significance of Stringer’s testimony regarding the photographs of the brain:

    Summarizing, John Stringer testified that the brain photographs in the Archives could not be the ones he took because (1) the black and white negatives placed before him at the deposition were numbered — proving that there were from a film pack — instead of unnumbered, as were all of the portrait pan duplex films he remembered using; (2) the black and white negatives shown to him had no identifying notches in the corner of each negative, as all portrait pan negatives should have had; (3) the color positive transparency images of a brain in the Archives did not have the same identifying notches in the corner of each slide that the Ektachrome E3 slides did; (4) the official collection of brain photographs contained basilar, or inferior views of the intact brain, whereas he did not shoot any basilar views of President Kennedy’s brain; and (5) the deed-of-gift brain photographs did not contain any images of serial sections, which in 1996 he vividly remembered seeing dissected, and which he remembered photographing himself at the brain examination, using a light box. (Horne, volume III, page 810)

    Fifth, the condition of the brain, as depicted in the official photographs, is inconsistent with the actual damage to the brain caused by the head shot.

    As Horne points out, the average weight of a normal male brain is about 1350 grams (Horne, volume III, page 833.) But the Supplementary Autopsy Report, as well as Finck’s official report to General Blumberg, reported the weight of Kennedy’s brain to be 1500 grams.

    Why is that a problem?

    Because most everyone concedes that a large portion of Kennedy’s brain was blown out by the head shot that ended his life. Thus, even with the increase in weight from the solution in which the brain was stored, it’s not enough to make up for the large amount of brain mass lost as a result of the bullet that blasted through Kennedy’s head.

    Horne points out that one of the physicians who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital, Dr. Robert McClelland, “estimated under oath, in 1964, that at least one third of the brain was missing when President Kennedy was treated at Parkland Hospital.”

    When former FBI agent Francis X. O’Neill, who was present during the autopsy, saw the brain outside the cranium, he estimated the percentage of missing brain to be much higher, as reflected in the following testimony he gave before the ARRB:

    Gunn: Do you have any sense of what percentage of the brain was missing at the time it was removed from the cranium?

    O’Neill: I’m saying this now, 38 years afterwards or something like that — 33 years afterwards, 34 years afterwards. It was — Oh, well more than half of the brain was missing.

    * * *

    Gunn: Okay. Could we now see the eighth view, what has been described as the “basilar view of the brain,” color photograph no.46. And let me say, in the way of preface, these photographs have been identified as having been taken of President Kennedy’s brain at some time after the autopsy — after they had been set in formalin. Can you identify that in any reasonable way as appearing to be the — what the brain looked like of President Kennedy?

    O’Neill: No.

    Gunn: In what regards does it appear to be different?

    O’Neill: It appears to be too much.

    Gunn: Could we now look — Let me ask a question. If you could elaborate a little bit on what you mean by “it appears to be too much?”

    O’Neill: … This looks almost like a complete brain. Or am I wrong on that? I don’t know.… In all honesty, I cannot say it looks like the brain I saw, quite frankly I — As I described before, I did not recall it being that large. If other people say that this is what happened, so be it. To me, I don’t recall it being that large. (Horne, volume III, pages 815–817.)

    Why was the brain examination so important in the Kennedy autopsy? Because by tracking the damage done by the bullet, the brain examination could detect whether the bullet entered from the front or from the back of Kennedy’s head. The official autopsy photographs of what purports to be Kennedy’s brain — the photographs that Navy photographer John Stringer said were not the ones he took of the brain — are consistent with a shot into the back of Kennedy’s head.

    Important questions obviously arise: Why did the military deem it necessary to conduct a second brain examination, one that the evidence indicates involved a brain that did not belong to Kennedy? What did the first examination of Kennedy’s brain — the one that Stringer photographed — reveal? Why would the U.S. military engage in what would seem to be very nefarious conduct in the autopsy of a president of the United States?

    We’ll explore those questions later, but now let’s return to my articles “The Kennedy Casket Conspiracy” and “The Shot That Killed Kennedy” and explore the secret, early delivery of the president’s body to the Bethesda morgue in the context of the gunshot that hit Kennedy in the head. It will be convenient for the reader to read those two articles before my next segment, “The Kennedy Autopsy, Part 9,” is posted.

    Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

  2. Jim Fetzer  November 15, 2011 at 7:52 am

    Trowbridge Ford is a sad case. I complimented him on his work on Richard Nixon, if indeed that was his work, which he did not acknowledge. Now he is here talking about the backyard photos as “leading nowhere” when Jack White, Jim Marrs, Judyth Vary Baker, and I have demonstrated conclusively that they were faked–and an article proving it appears right here at VT! How dumb is that? And he thinks that has nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza, when one of those fabricated photographs was used in LIFE to frame him for the assassination?

    He does not appear to realize that the weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed the president, if JFK’s death certificates, THE WARREN REPORT (1964), and articles in JAMA are correct, because they were high-velocity, but the Mannlicher-Carcano he is alleged to have used is not. Nor that we have several co-workers who observed him in and around the lunch room on the 2nd floor just before the shooting and Officer Baker confronted him with his drawn revolver immediately after, which means he cannot have been on the 6th floor.

    So now he wants to resurrect the claim that the man at the left was Oswald, when it was Billly Lovelady. It turns out that Lee Oswald told Will Fritz that he was out front with his co-worker, Bill Shelly. Fritz’s notes, which I had not until recently known to exist, were released by the Assassination Records Review Board on 20 November 1997. He told Fritz “out front with Bill Shelly”. Oswald is not the man at the left in the doorway, but the man whose face has been obfuscated immediately to the right and below him, from the viewer’s perspective.

    I am going to be discussing this issue in Room 3650 of the Humanities Building at the University of Wisconsin-Madison at 7 PM/CT on 22 November 2011. There is an important issue here, but Trowbridge Ford does not have the intelligence or research abilities to sort this one out, which I will address in a new column in closer proximity to the 48th observance. I don’t know what’s wrong with this man, but he has lost his way. His confused attacks do not advance the truth about what happened to JFK. He has missed the boat, once again!

  3. Jim Fetzer  November 14, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Egad! This is the best you can do to exonerate Oswald? Claim that the figure on the left in the doorway was Lee and not Billy Lovelady? You ignore that his weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed the president, because they were high-velocity and it was not. That multiple witnesses reported seeing him in and around the 2nd floor lunchroom from 11:50 AM to Noon to 12:15 to as late as 12:25 (by Carolyn Arnold, the executive secretary to the Vice President of the Book Depository) and that he was confronted there by Officer Marrion Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination? that he passed his nitrate test? that his Arrest Report stated that he had killed JFK, even though no investigation had been conducted? that the backyard photographs were fabricated? that Marina would later report that Lee admired JFK and bore him no malice? So the man that was fingered for the crime by the Warren Commission had neither the means, the motive, nor the opportunity to have committed it. For those who want more, try either of my presentations linked above. Sorry to say, you aren’t going to hear it from this guy.

  4. Jim Fetzer  November 14, 2011 at 12:25 am

    What is this man talking about? I included one of the most famous photographs from the assassination, which shows JFK clutching his throat from a shot that passed through the windshield, where the Secret Service agents are looking around as though they have no idea what to do, where students of JFK have argued endlessly over the identity of the person at the far left in the doorway, which many, such as this man, have thought looked like Lee Oswald. Well, it does LOOK LIKE him, but it is Billy Lovelady. No doubt, by no longer responding to my claims, Trowbridge is adopting the prudent course, since he has been making a fool of himself from the first comment he posted here. And now, by including a famous photograph taken by AP photographer “Ike” Altgens, I have done some shady thing? I am afraid that Trowbridge has nothing more to say because he has nothing worth saying.

  5. Jim Fetzer  November 13, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    Trowbridge Ford wrote, Oh, and I forgot Horne’s false claim that there has been no reaction by the SS when the photo supplied shows them looking right back to the entrance to the TSBD where LHO is seen standing with no rifte in hand!

    You are very careless, Trowbridge. As the article states, the photos and captions are mine, not Doug’s. I infer you are talking about the figure at the left of the doorway, whom others have identified not as Lee Oswald but as Billy Lovelady. Are you implying they were looking at Lee Oswald in response to the shots? That strikes me as rather bizarre as a response to shots having been fired. Even if they knew who he was, how could you suggest that LOOKING IN THAT DIRECTION was a RESPONSE TO SHOTS HAVING BEEN FIRED? And while I like the outline about Nixon’s role in all of this, which I found at the link I cite above, I do not see where you have spent any time on the medical, ballistic, photographic or film evidence. Is that correct? And am I right about the figure standing in the doorway? Have you read my columns about the backyard photographs or the Zapruder film, for example? Plus, to the best of my knowledge, you have focused on the politics of the assassination and not the science. And are you not also implying that the Secret Service knew where Lee was standing in the crowd? Are you serious?

  6. Jim Fetzer  November 13, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    Trowbridge doesn’t miss any opportunity to make himself look foolish. The photos and captions are mine. Not only have I published three books on the death of JFK–ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)–but I have made many presentations and published many articles, a sampler of which can even be found on Veterans Today! For those who actually do research, consider “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK?”, which I presented at a national conference held at the University of North Dakota, http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf or, more recently, “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”, which I presented in Portland and can also be found on-line at http://en.sevenload.com/videos/HpohnH8-Jim-Fetzer-JFK-Asassination-PDX-9-11-Truth-12-09 I did, on that occasion, refer to Jack Lawrence, an Air Force expert shot, by invoking the name of “Jim Lewis”, who has been traveling round the south and firing high-velocity bullets into old cars, discovering that they make the sound of a firecracker as they pass through, which explains the reports of many witnesses to the first or second shot.

    I would be fascinated to learn more about Trowbridge’s views. But it is silly to complain about an excellent article by Doug Horne about the media for not doing things that he and I have done elsewhere, he in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009) and I in those books and many articles and presentations. Now if, for example, what I have found outlined at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp11.html is Trowbridge’s theory, then he and I may be largely in agreement about sponsors, provided he acknowledges that the “PCG” was dominated by LBJ. Nixon was at the home of Clint Murchison the evening before the assassination along with H.L. Hunt, J. Edgar Hoover, John J. McCloy, George Brown, and other heavy-hitters, including Lyndon, who arrived late for what appears to have been the “ratification” meeting on going forward with the assassination. But there is no good reason to criticize Doug Horne on any such ground. Indeed, I am certain that Trowbridge would learn quite a lot from the study of his five-volume work–and from mine, since no shots were fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as Trowbridge claims in his latest piece in Veterans Today, “JFK Assassination: The Quintessential ‘False Flag’ Operation”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/17/jfk-assassination-the-quintessential-false-flag-operation/

  7. Mike Kay  November 13, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Dear Sirs,
    Please note, I am far from the only American who knows our President was brutally murdered by a well funded, well connected conspiracy involving the highest levels of the government. The hidden documents, the mind games from the lettered bureaus, do not matter. We know. You are doing a great service to the memory of our last and perhaps greatest president, certainly our most beloved, and to the nation we used to be.
    The day of reckoning will arrive.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network