Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Doug Horne

Members
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Doug Horne

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Doug Horne

    Thanks for posting this Bill, and thanks to Doug Horne, Rex Bradford and the folks at Maryferrell.org. Here is a link to a 2006 thread dealing with Doug's press conference. John Simkin has described it as the most important thread since the foundation of the forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6849 [Edited for spelling]
  2. James Jesus Angleton

    I certainly do believe that the WW III cover story was used like a bludgeon on many people (including the autopsy pathologists and those managing the autopsy photographs and x-rays) to get them to institute a massive coverup by inserting fraud into the evidence, so Newman’s hypothesis is very “simpatico” with this certainty of mine. And since LBJ very effectively used the WW III cover story on Earl Warren to get him to chair the W.C. (and thereby effectively cause all other suggested inquiries to be stillborn), it suggests that the plot crossed agency lines and included people at the very highest levels of government. Without rereading his book (and without examining the new material) I can’t really say what this will do to the most commonly held assumption---that David Atlee Phillips was a major player in the plot, and that David Sanchez Morales was involved with the wet end of the affair. I don’t know if Newman’s hypothesis precludes Phillip’s involvement or not. It may not be incompatible with his hypothesis at all. It may simply mean that Angleton was the puppetmaster at the top of the operational chain of command.
  3. I just read Mr. Bugliosi’s rather severe criticism of my work on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board, where I served initially as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records team, and was eventually promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records. Specifically, he took issue with my conclusion in a 1998 research memo that 2 different brains were examined following President Kennedy’s death: -President Kennedy’s brain, on Monday, November 25, 1963; and -A second (fraudulent) brain---not that of President Kennedy---during the period between November 29-December 2, 1963. Based upon testimony and interviews conducted by the Warren Commission staff, the HSCA staff, and the ARRB staff, I concluded that President Kennedy’s severely damaged brain, which provided unassailable evidence of President Kennedy being shot from the front, was examined by Navy pathologists Humes and Boswell less than 3 days after the conclusion of the autopsy on the body, and was photographed by Navy civilian photographer John Stringer on that day, November 25, 1963. I concluded that Stringer’s photographs of JFK’s brain, which would have provided proof that JFK was shot from the front and that a bullet exited the back of his skull, were suppressed by the Federal government and are not the brain photographs found in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today. I also concluded that a second brain---not President Kennedy’s---was examined by Humes and Boswell between November 29 and December 2, 1963, that Army pathologist Pierre Finck (the “outside man” involved in the autopsy, in more ways than one) was invited to this second examination, and that an unknown Navy photographer (not John Stringer) photographed the specimen being examined. It is the photographs of this fraudulent specimen, I concluded, which showed a completely different pattern of damage than JFK’s brain (namely, rear to front), that are in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today. It is my firm belief that Dr. Finck, who arrived late at the autopsy on the body Friday night after the brain had been removed, and who was excluded from the review of the first draft of the autopsy report on Saturday, November 23, was used as a “dupe” for purposes of “authenticating” the photographs of the second brain specimen introduced into the official record, in the event that was ever required. In summary, my findings that Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell participated in an officially sanctioned coverup of the medical evidence are based upon several foundations: -A rigorous timeline analysis of when various persons recalled meeting to conduct “a brain exam” and when they examined brain tissue revealed that there were two separate events. -Navy photographer John Stringer, under oath before the ARRB, disowned the brain photographs in the Archives, because (1) they were taken on a type of film he did not use; (2) they depict “inferior”” views of the underside of the brain which he was certain he did not shoot; and (3) the photographs of several individual sections of brain tissue that he did photograph were not present. -Retired FBI Agent Frank O’Neill, who was present at the autopsy on the body on November 22, testified to the ARRB that the brain photos in the National Archives could not possibly be of President Kennedy’s brain, because there was too much tissue present; O’Neill testified that more than half of President Kennedy’s brain was missing when he saw it at the autopsy following its removal from the cranium, and his objections to the brain photographs in the Archives were that they depict what he called “almost a complete brain.” Furthermore, both O’Neill and Gawler’s Funeral Home mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff that a large portion of the rear of President Kennedy’s brain was missing, and each man unequivocally demonstrated the location of the missing brain tissue in my presence by dramatically placing his right hand on the back of the right side of his own head, behind the right ear. In contrast, in the brain depicted in the Archives photographs, the right cerebellum is completely intact, and the occipital lobe of the right cerebrum is largely intact. This concludes a brief---and accurate---summary of the research memo that Mr. Bugliosi takes such objection to. Now, I will address Mr. Bugliosi’s criticisms. He called my research memo of June 1998 “obscenely irresponsible,” and yet admits that he did not even try to contact me to discuss his objections to it. I will let the reader decide who was “obscenely irresponsible.” The tone of Mr. Bugliosi’s attack on my work is unbalanced---it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully) to rebut my work, he used a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and circular reasoning. There is nothing scholarly about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion. When one strips away the ridicule and ad hominem attacks, Bugliosi is essentially saying that because he knows that there was only one brain exam following JFK’s autopsy, that any time I find evidence that indicates otherwise, that I am wrong and engaging in fantasy. Anyone who reads this section of Bugliosi’s book (pages 434-447), and nothing else, will be unaware that virtually all of the objections he raises to the logic of my hypothesis are already addressed in my research memo of 1998. Bugliosi attempts to smear me with the use of the word “insane” three different times, as well as with the use of the words “crazy” and “aberration.” This is nothing more than a cheap prosecutor’s trick, employed in court every day by prosecuting attorneys presenting a one-sided version of the evidence in an adversarial proceeding, in an attempt to impugn any evidence that contradicts their own argument. Anyone who reads the relevant pages in his book will recognize Bugliosi’s sophistry for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit the opposition’s evidence. I learned long ago that when an opponent cannot successfully counter his opposition’s arguments with logic, he will often employ ridicule and personal attacks. In doing so, Bugliosi has engaged in “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” has revealed the depth of his desperation, and has done nothing to advance the scholarly debate of the JFK assassination in this country. I can only conclude that Mr. Bugliosi must have felt that his personal belief system (supporting the Warren Commission’s basic conclusions) was severely imperiled by my work, for him to use such scurrilous tactics to try to discredit my hypothesis. I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998, before you reach your own independent conclusion about what happened in 1963. Mr. Bugliosi’s invective cannot be properly evaluated without reading, for yourself, that with which it takes issue. My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.
  4. Saundra K. Spencer

    I remember her deposition well. Her comments about the watermark were indicated to be in error later when Kodak examined her print and compared it with other paper from 1963. However, she did develop post mortem photography DIFFERENT from that in the Archives today. (Different type of film and different images.) Her photography seemed to be of the body after reconstruction, but before it was clothed and put in the burial casket. The photos she developed would be some of those that I now consider “missing.” Her testimony is part of my analytic work. She was a very credible witness.
  5. Timothy Wray

    He was my boss for a year and a half: he was the original boss of the Military Records Team, from sometime in autumn of 1995 until he left in March of 1997. Then I was promoted into his job. (“Kicked upstairs,” as they say.) The files of individual workers were not assembled for retention until the last month, when we were shutting down. Since he left in March of 1997, and we started shutting down in September of 1998, that is probably why they have no “working papers.” (I’m not sure he would have kept any, anyway.) However, there should be plenty of records of his former employment in the ARRB’s personnel records in the National Archives. Tim was a “great guy,” a “hail fellow well met,” but was very anti-conspiracy theorist and very pro Warren Commission. He left out of boredom and frustration.
  6. Cover-Up of the Medical Evidence

    1. Per your request, enclosed are the two FBI documents that I had intended to distribute as "extra material" at the May 15, 2006 press conference in Washington, D.C. I ended up not doing so, since (1) no one asked for them; and (2) because I felt the evidence discussed in my prepared statement was more important, or rather, more "conclusive" than the material in these two documents, which you will see is less "robust," and more "speculative" in nature. Nevertheless they are quite interesting. 2. The one-page FBI HQ document dated November 22, 1963 is a potential "smoking gun" document which may indicate another major aspect of the medical coverup in the assassination. In the first paragraph, it mentions a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" which the FBI was planning on obtaining. You will note that this was written while the autopsy was ongoing; many persons that night have reported that Federal agents were on the telephone in the morgue all night long. There is no mention of any such bullet in the (existing) autopsy report, or for that matter, in the FBI Sibert-O'Neill report about what its own 2 agents witnessed at the autopsy. However, there was a typed "receipt of a missile" [sic] signed by Sibert and O'Neill on November 22, 1963 and given to Captain Stover, in acknowledgment for a missile removed by Commander Humes at the autopsy. The wording of that receipt-a receipt for "a missile"-has never made sense to many people, because officially, per the existing autopsy report and the Sibert-O'Neill report, only two tiny fragments (1 x 3 mm, and 2 x 7 mm) were removed from the body at the autopsy. The receipt does not say " 2 tiny fragments," or " 2 fragments of such and such dimension" it says "a missile," implying an intact bullet. I conclude that i f the mention of a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" in the FBI HQ memo is not an error based on bad information, then it is likely that the receipt to Captain Stover dated November 22, 1963 for a "missile" may be for the bullet lodged behind the President's ear. The ARRB did not get satisfactory answers from Sibert or O'Neill at their depositions about either document. 3. The second document is more complicated, and more nuanced. It is a formerly Top Secret report distributed to the very highest echelons of the FBI leadership on December 1, 1966. While on the staff of the ARRB, the then-head of the FBI Records Team (Phil Golrick) told me that this document was also sent directly to President Lyndon Johnson by J. Edgar Hoover on that date, and this is perhaps its true significance. You will note that there is both a redacted version, indicating what the FBI still wanted to withhold in 1996, and the completely open version that the Review Board forced the FBI to release. The document is a history of the innermost private thinking of the KGB-not ' propaganda-both immediately after the assassination, and later in September of 1965. It was explained to me by Phil Golrick that the language used in the memo indicates the information was obtained by electronic surveillance, not human intelligence, and therefore should be considered a very reliable record of what the KGB was saying behind its own closed doors in New York City. Right after the assassination, per page one, the KGB blamed the assassination on an "ultraright conspiracy," but by September of 1965, per page 3, the KGB privately told its staff in NYC that President Lyndon B. Johnson was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. 4. That's the major buzz now in many quarters of the United States, the "dirty story" that the major broadcast media will simply not cover, even to this day, because of self-censorship. The document did receive brief mention on the AP wire in 1996 when we at the ARRB released it at our public hearing in Los Angeles, but no one in the broadcast media followed up on it. To me the document has the smell of blackmail all over it. Hoover's power derived from the secrets he was aware of that were NOT leaked, but which he held over people's heads, by letting them know he "had their secret in his files and would safeguard it." So, here he was in December of 1966 telling LBJ that "the KGB says YOU did it. " The timing seems strange.. .the FBI knew about this in September of 1965, but did not inform LBJ until fourteen-and-one-half months later. I suspect that Hoover felt threatened at this time, and possibly feared for his job, and was using this knowledge, which he had been sitting on for over a year, as leverage-as an insurance policy against getting fired. 5. We have to be careful here; the document tells us what the KGB believed, but it does not explain what evidence the KGB held that caused it to reach this conclusion. When we read this today, in 2006, we do not know why the KGB believed LBJ had murdered JFK. We need to have another American historian like Timothy Naftali visit Russia and obtain access to the former KGB files on the Kennedy assassination from 1964 and 1965 that would throw light on why the KGB came to this conclusion. Until we know how and why the KGB reached its determination, this document will remain yet one more tantalizing clue that will be argued about forever by researchers. 1. Per your request, enclosed are the two FBI documents that I had intended to distribute as "extra material" at the May 15, 2006 press conference in Washington, D.C. I ended up not doing so, since (1) no one asked for them; and (2) because I felt the evidence discussed in my prepared statement was more important, or rather, more "conclusive" than the material in these two documents, which you will see is less "robust," and more "speculative" in nature. Nevertheless they are quite interesting. 2. The one-page FBI HQ document dated November 22, 1963 is a potential "smoking gun" document which may indicate another major aspect of the medical coverup in the assassination. In the first paragraph, it mentions a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" which the FBI was planning on obtaining. You will note that this was written while the autopsy was ongoing; many persons that night have reported that Federal agents were on the telephone in the morgue all night long. There is no mention of any such bullet in the (existing) autopsy report, or for that matter, in the FBI Sibert-O'Neill report about what its own 2 agents witnessed at the autopsy. However, there was a typed "receipt of a missile" [sic] signed by Sibert and O'Neill on November 22, 1963 and given to Captain Stover, in acknowledgment for a missile removed by Commander Humes at the autopsy. The wording of that receipt-a receipt for "a missile"-has never made sense to many people, because officially, per the existing autopsy report and the Sibert-O'Neill report, only two tiny fragments (1 x 3 mm, and 2 x 7 mm) were removed from the body at the autopsy. The receipt does not say " 2 tiny fragments," or " 2 fragments of such and such dimension" it says "a missile," implying an intact bullet. I conclude that i f the mention of a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" in the FBI HQ memo is not an error based on bad information, then it is likely that the receipt to Captain Stover dated November 22, 1963 for a "missile" may be for the bullet lodged behind the President's ear. The ARRB did not get satisfactory answers from Sibert or O'Neill at their depositions about either document. 3. The second document is more complicated, and more nuanced. It is a formerly Top Secret report distributed to the very highest echelons of the FBI leadership on December 1, 1966. While on the staff of the ARRB, the then-head of the FBI Records Team (Phil Golrick) told me that this document was also sent directly to President Lyndon Johnson by J. Edgar Hoover on that date, and this is perhaps its true significance. You will note that there is both a redacted version, indicating what the FBI still wanted to withhold in 1996, and the completely open version that the Review Board forced the FBI to release. The document is a history of the innermost private thinking of the KGB-not ' propaganda-both immediately after the assassination, and later in September of 1965. It was explained to me by Phil Golrick that the language used in the memo indicates the information was obtained by electronic surveillance, not human intelligence, and therefore should be considered a very reliable record of what the KGB was saying behind its own closed doors in New York City. Right after the assassination, per page one, the KGB blamed the assassination on an "ultraright conspiracy," but by September of 1965, per page 3, the KGB privately told its staff in NYC that President Lyndon B. Johnson was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. 4. That's the major buzz now in many quarters of the United States, the "dirty story" that the major broadcast media will simply not cover, even to this day, because of self-censorship. The document did receive brief mention on the AP wire in 1996 when we at the ARRB released it at our public hearing in Los Angeles, but no one in the broadcast media followed up on it. To me the document has the smell of blackmail all over it. Hoover's power derived from the secrets he was aware of that were NOT leaked, but which he held over people's heads, by letting them know he "had their secret in his files and would safeguard it." So, here he was in December of 1966 telling LBJ that "the KGB says YOU did it. " The timing seems strange.. .the FBI knew about this in September of 1965, but did not inform LBJ until fourteen-and-one-half months later. I suspect that Hoover felt threatened at this time, and possibly feared for his job, and was using this knowledge, which he had been sitting on for over a year, as leverage-as an insurance policy against getting fired. 5. We have to be careful here; the document tells us what the KGB believed, but it does not explain what evidence the KGB held that caused it to reach this conclusion. When we read this today, in 2006, we do not know why the KGB believed LBJ had murdered JFK. We need to have another American historian like Timothy Naftali visit Russia and obtain access to the former KGB files on the Kennedy assassination from 1964 and 1965 that would throw light on why the KGB came to this conclusion. Until we know how and why the KGB reached its determination, this document will remain yet one more tantalizing clue that will be argued about forever by researchers.
  7. Cover-Up of the Medical Evidence

    May 15, 2006 Press Conference: Prepared Remarks by Douglas P. Horne, Former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) I served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board for just over three years, from August 1995 through September 1998. During that period of time the Review Board granted permission for the staff to take the depositions of 10 persons involved in the autopsy on President Kennedy: as a result, today any American citizen can go to the “Archives II” facility in College Park, Maryland and obtain copies of the transcripts of the sworn testimony of the 3 autopsy pathologists; both of the official Navy photographers; both Navy x-ray technicians; a Navy photographer’s mate who developed some of the post-mortem photography; and both of the FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy. The Review Board’s charter was simply to locate and declassify assassination records, and to ensure they were placed in the new “JFK Records Collection” in the National Archives, where they would be freely available to the public. Although Congress did not want the ARRB to reinvestigate the assassination of President Kennedy, or to draw conclusions about the assassination, the staff did hope to make a contribution to future ‘clarification’ of the medical evidence in the assassination by conducting these neutral, non-adversarial, fact-finding depositions. All of our deposition transcripts, as well as our written reports of numerous interviews we conducted with medical witnesses, are now a part of that same collection of records open to the public. Because of the Review Board’s strictly neutral role in this process, all of these materials were placed in the JFK Collection without comment. I have been studying these records for 10 years now. The reason I am here today is because contained within our deposition transcripts and interview reports is unequivocal evidence that there was a U.S. government cover-up of the medical evidence in the Kennedy assassination, yet most members of the public know nothing about this. Let me sound a cautionary note here: no single statement of any witness stands alone. Before it can be properly evaluated, the recollections of each witness must be compared to all of his own previous testimony, and to that of other witnesses—before the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and even with independent researchers—as well as all available documentary evidence. Having said this, after considerable study of all of these records, I am firmly convinced that there is serious fraud in the medical evidence of the Kennedy assassination in three areas: (1) The autopsy report in evidence today, Warren Commission Exhibit # 387, is the third version prepared of that report; it is not the sole version, as was claimed for years by those who wrote it and signed it. (2) The brain photographs in the National Archives that are purported to be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain are not what they are represented to be; they are not pictures of his brain, but rather are photographs of someone else’s brain. Normally, in cases of death due to injury to the brain, the brain is examined one or two weeks following the autopsy on the body, and photographs are taken of the pattern of damage. Following President Kennedy’s autopsy, there were two subsequent brain examinations, not one: the first examination was of the President’s brain, and those photographs were never introduced into the official record; the second examination was of a fraudulent specimen, whose photographs were subsequently introduced into the official record. The pattern of damage displayed in these ‘official’ brain photographs has nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination in Dallas, and in fact was undoubtedly used to shore up the official conclusion that President Kennedy was killed by a shot from above and behind. (3) There is something seriously wrong with the autopsy photographs of the body of President Kennedy. It definitely is President Kennedy in the photographs, but the images showing the damage to the President’s head do not show the pattern of damage observed by either the medical professionals at Parkland hospital in Dallas, or by numerous witnesses at the military autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. These disparities are real and are significant, but the reasons remain unclear. There are only three possible explanations for this, and I will discuss these possibilities today. The Autopsy Report The evidence that a draft autopsy report—as well as a first signed version—existed prior to the report in evidence today is both easy to understand, and undeniable. The First Draft On November 24, 1963 the chief pathologist at President Kennedy’s autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, signed a typed statement he had prepared that read as follows: “I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes relating to Naval Medical School Autopsy Report A63-272 and have officially transmitted all other papers related to this report to higher authority.” [Author’s emphasis] On two occasions before the HSCA, in March of 1977 and in September of 1978, Dr. Humes maintained that he had destroyed notes. He repeated this claim in an interview published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in May of 1992. The reasons given in each case were that the notes were destroyed because they had on them the blood of the President, which Dr. Humes deemed unseemly. The ARRB General Counsel, Jeremy Gunn, had reason to suspect that an early draft of the autopsy report had also been destroyed, based upon an analysis of inconsistencies between Dr. Humes’ previous testimony about when he wrote the draft report, and existing records documenting its transmission to higher authority. After extremely thorough and persistent questioning by the Review Board’s General Counsel in February of 1996, Dr. Humes admitted, under oath, that both notes from the autopsy, and a first draft of the autopsy report (which had been prepared well after the autopsy’s conclusion and had no blood on it), had been destroyed in his fireplace. The First Signed Version A simple study of the receipt trail for the transmission of the autopsy report reveals that the first signed report is missing as well. On April 26, 1965 the Secret Service transferred the autopsy photographs and x-rays, and certain vital documents and biological materials to the custody of the Kennedy family at the request of Robert F. Kennedy. That receipt lists, among other things: “Complete autopsy protocol of President Kennedy (orig, & 7 cc’s)—Original signed by Dr. Humes, pathologist.” Evelyn Lincoln, secretary to the late President Kennedy, signed for receipt of all of the items the same day. Incredibly, on October 2, 1967 the head of the Secret Service signed a letter transferring the original of CE 387, the autopsy report placed in evidence by the Warren Commission, to the National Archives; the National Archives signed a receipt for CE 387 the next day, October 3, 1967. Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin, in a declassified transcript of a January 27, 1964 Executive Session of the Commission, discusses details of the content of “the autopsy report” which are not consistent with the details of the report in evidence today, CE 387, thus confirming that the first signed version contained different conclusions. The dilemma presented here can best be summarized by the following rhetorical question: How could the U.S. Secret Service transfer the original JFK autopsy protocol to the National Archives (or to anyone else, for that matter) on October 2, 1967 when they had previously given it to the Kennedy family on April 26, 1965? The answer, of course, is that there were two separate reports. The first smooth, or signed version, was given to the Kennedy family at the specific request of Robert Kennedy, and has disappeared. The second signed version is in the National Archives today. Conclusion The destruction of both the first draft and the first signed version of the autopsy report are clear evidence of the ongoing malleability of the autopsy report’s specific conclusions during the initial 2 weeks following the conclusion of the post mortem examination. Furthermore, it is clear that when Dr. Humes testified under oath to the Review Board that there was only one autopsy report, and that he only signed one autopsy report, he committed perjury. [For those interested in obtaining copies of the relevant documents in the receipt trail, or in studying the likely content of the first two versions of the autopsy protocol, I will make copies of the relevant research memo available at the end of the press conference.] Two Brain Examinations My most remarkable finding while on the Review Board staff, and a totally unexpected one, was that instead of one supplemental brain examination being conducted following the conclusion of President Kennedy’s autopsy, as was expected, two different examinations were conducted, about a week apart from each other. A thorough timeline analysis of available documents, and of the testimony of autopsy witnesses taken by the ARRB, revealed that the remains of President Kennedy’s badly damaged brain were examined on Monday morning, November 25, 1963 prior to the state funeral, and that shortly thereafter the brain was turned over to RADM Burkley, Military Physician to the President; a second brain examination, of a fraudulent specimen, was conducted sometime between November 29th and December 2nd, 1963—and it is the photographs from this second examination that are in the National Archives today. Pertinent Facts Regarding the Two Examinations are as follows: First Brain Exam, Monday, November 25th, 1963 Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Navy civilian photographer John Stringer. Events: John Stringer testified to the ARRB that he used both Ektachrome E3 color positive transparency film, and B & W Portrait Pan negative film; both were 4 by 5 inch format films exposed using duplex film holders; he only shot superior views of the intact specimen—no inferior views; the pathologists sectioned the brain, as is normal for death by gunshot wound, with transverse or “coronal” incisions—sometimes called “bread loaf” incisions—in order to trace the track of the bullet or bullets; and after each section of tissue was cut from the brain, Stringer photographed that section on a light box to show the damage. Second Brain Exam, Between November 29th and December 2nd, 1963 Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, and an unknown Navy photographer. Events: Per the testimony of all 3 pathologists, the brain was not sectioned, as should have been normal procedure for any gunshot wound to the head—that is, transverse or coronal sections were not made. The brain looked different than it did at the autopsy on November 22nd, and Dr. Finck wrote about this in a report to his military superior on February 1, 1965. The color slides of the brain specimen in the National Archives were exposed on “Ansco” film, not Ektachrome E3 film; and the B & W negatives are also on “Ansco” film, and originated in a film pack (or magazine), not duplex holders. The brain photos in the Archives show both superior and inferior views, contrary to what John Stringer remembers shooting, and there are no photographs of sections among the Archives brain photographs, which is inconsistent with Stringer’s sworn testimony about what he photographed. Further indications that the brain photographs in the Archives are not President Kennedy’s brain are as follows: Two ARRB medical witnesses, former FBI agent Frank O’Neill and Gawler’s funeral home mortician Tom Robinson, both recalled vividly that the major area of tissue missing from President Kennedy’s brain was in the rear of the brain. The brain photos in the Archives do not show any tissue missing in the rear of the brain, only in the top. When former FBI agent Frank O’Neill viewed the Archives brain photographs during his deposition, he said that the photos he was viewing could not be President Kennedy’s brain because when he viewed the removed brain at the autopsy, the damage was so great that more than half of it was gone—missing. He described the brain photos in the Archives as depicting a ‘virtually intact’ brain. Finally, the weight of the brain recorded in the supplemental autopsy report was 1500 grams, which exceeds the average weight of a normal, undamaged male brain. This is entirely inconsistent with a brain which was over half missing when observed at autopsy. Conclusions The conduct of a second brain examination on a fraudulent specimen, and the introduction of photographs of that specimen into the official record, was designed to do two things: (1) eliminate evidence of a fatal shot from the front, which was evident on the brain removed at autopsy and examined on Monday, November 25th, 1963; and (2) place into the record photographs of a brain with damage generally consistent with having been shot from above and behind. Until I discovered that the photographs in the Archives could not be of President Kennedy’s brain, the brain photos had been used by 3 separate investigative bodies—the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations—to support the Warren Commission’s findings that President Kennedy was shot from above and behind, and to discount the expert observations from Parkland hospital in Dallas that President Kennedy had an exit wound in the back of his head. In my opinion, the brain photographs in the National Archives, along with Dr. Mantik’s Optical Densitometry analysis of the head x-rays, are two irrefutable examples of fraud in this case, and call into question the official conclusions of all prior investigations. [For those who wish detailed verification of this hypothesis, the 32-page research paper on this subject that I completed in 1998 will be made available at the end of this press conference.] The Head Wound in the Autopsy Photographs I would like to conclude with some brief closing remarks about the autopsy photographs at the National Archives. The images of the President’s head wound are inconsistent with both the Parkland hospital observations, and the Bethesda autopsy observations of almost every witness present in the morgue, as follows: Parkland Hospital The blowout, or exit wound in the right rear of the head seen in Dallas is not present in the autopsy images, which show the back of the head to be intact except for a very small puncture interpreted by the HSCA as a wound of entry. Furthermore, the autopsy photographs of the head show extensive damage to the top of the head, and to the right side of the head, which was not seen in Dallas during the 40 minutes that the President was observed in trauma room one at Parkland hospital. Bethesda Naval Hospital Most witnesses from the autopsy also recall a very large wound at the back of the head, which, as stated above, is not shown in the autopsy photographs. The additional damage many autopsy witnesses recall at the top of the head, and on the right side, is present in the photographs—but not the damage they remember at the rear. One prominent witness, Dr. Ebersole (the radiologist at the autopsy), testified under oath to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1978 that the large head wound in the autopsy photos is more lateral and more superior than he remembered, and said that he recalled the back of the head being missing at the autopsy. Three Possible Explanations There are 3 possible explanations for these inconsistencies: (1) Photographic forgery—i.e., “special effects”—to make the rear of the head look intact when it was not; (2) Major manipulation of loose, and previously reflected scalp from elsewhere on the head by the pathologists, so as to make it appear that the back of the head was intact when it was not; or (3) Partial reconstruction of the head by the morticians, at the direction of the pathologists, followed by photography that created the false impression that there was no exit defect in the back of the head. Many JFK researchers have long suspected photographic forgery, but extreme caution is warranted here because all analyses of the autopsy photographs done to date have used “bootleg” materials, and not the original materials in the Archives. The “bootleg” photographs do represent the actual views of the body in the Archives collection, but they are badly degraded, suffer from contrast buildup, and are photographic prints—whereas any true scientific study of these images for authenticity should use the color positive transparencies and B & W negatives in the Archives as subjects, not multi-generational prints of uncertain provenance. I personally examined magnified and enhanced images of the Archives autopsy photographs at the Kodak lab in Rochester, New York in November of 1997, and I saw no obvious evidence of photographic forgery; but I am the first person to admit that I am not an expert in photographic special effects techniques circa 1963. I am of the opinion that it is likely that the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photographs either because the loose scalp was manipulated for photographic purposes, or because the photos in question were taken after a partial reconstruction by the morticians. I was steered toward this opinion by the ARRB testimony of the two FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy. Both men found the images of the intact back-of-the-head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound they vividly remembered. Frank O’Neill opined under oath that the images of the back-of-the-head appeared “doctored,” by which he meant that the head had been put back together by the doctors. James Sibert testified that the head looked “reconstructed” in these images—he actually used the word “reconstructed” at his deposition. No final conclusions can yet be drawn about exactly why a large defect in the rear of the head is not shown in the autopsy photographs, when one was seen by so many witnesses. It is sufficient to say that something is terribly wrong here, and that it is an area that requires more study with the original materials. Thank you for your attention. I also have some interesting declassified FBI documents for anyone that is interested.
  8. I was frustrated by the artificial time constraints placed upon us by Fetzer/Lipscomb, who “insisted” that the Press would “walk” at 12:00 if we were not finished with our “one hour” press conference. The rest of us panelists deferred to their judgement, which I feel was unfortunate, because both David Mantik and I, under extremely serious (and I now feel completely unwarranted) time pressure, severely curtailed what we had planned to present. At least I was wise enough to bring 20 copies of my prepared text, which I made available after the presentation to journalists, so that hopefully I would not be misquoted. Fetzer told us ahead of time that he was simply going to moderate, and introduce the rest of us after a brief introduction of the evidence, but in my view he tried to present too much OLD information, and instead of abbreviating his content, insisted upon reading every word of his material, and did so far too fast. It was a data dump of major proportions, like trying to drink from a charged firehose. Most of the limited audience probably “tuned out” on his very rapid data dump about 5 minutes into his 18 or 20 minute presentation. Because Jim took up so much time, Mantik and I were essentially forced to wrap up early by Mr. Kuntzler, so as meet our self-imposed “time-constraints.” My presentation at the podium suffered accordingly, as I was mentally editing/omitting text and comment as I spoke. However, my handouts should have made up for any detail I cut out. I would have been wiser if I had simplified my 20 minute presentation into an outline of “bullets,” and then spoken extemporaneously from my outline. That is a “lesson learned” for me, for which I blame no one. Apparently the only two video cameras there were from AP and the conservative Sinclair network. If Sinclair wanted to do a “rip job” and present us as lightweight buffs, unfortunately, they could do so. Toward the end of the Press Conference, the sponsor, Mr. Kuntzler, President of Miller Reporting Company (DC’s biggest and most reputable court reporting company), who spent a fortune on this event, decided to present his Grand Unified Field Theory of the Assassination, which includes almost everyone in the U.S. Government and U.S. Industry in 1963. We had hoped he would wait to do this until AFTER the conference, but he did not. Of course it WAS his conference, his event, so I suppose he had a right to present whatever he wanted. He also presented his views to CNN the day before the press conference, and they wrote an article about his views on Sunday on their website. The intent of the conference was to present relatively NEW material on “fraud in the evidence” in this case. Mantik has proved (to me, anyway) that the 3 head x-rays are forged composite copy films. His optical density measurements prove that. The 2 lateral head x-rays have had a “white patch” superimposed which hides the blowout in the right rear of the head, and the A-P head x-ray has had the 6.5 mm “bullet” fragment superimposed on the copy film, supposedly implicating the Oswald rifle. My presentation discussed fraud in 3 areas: -CE 387, the autopsy report in the Archives, is in my view the 3rd version. Humes destroyed a first draft in his fireplace, per his ARRB deposition, and RFK disposed of an “original” listed in the Burkley/USSS receipt dated April 26, 1965. A second “original” was transferred by the USSS to the Archives in October 1967---that is the one in the Archives today. I have a very plausible hypothesis of how the content of each report changed and this will be presented in my book. -I covered the evidence of 2 brain exams, one on Nov 25th (the real brain, which was sectioned, and whose photos were never placed into the record), and the fraudulent, substitute specimen’s examination between Nov 29th-Dec 2nd, whose photographs were placed into the Archives. The evidence of the first exam would have provided evidence of a frontal shot which exited in the rear of the head, so it was deep-sixed; the fraudulent specimen’s pattern of damage is generally consistent with being shot from above and behind, so it was introduced into the record to support the official cover story. -There are 3 possible reasons why the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photos (of course, it was not intact and the photos depict an intentionally “false picture” of what happened): -photographic forgery (to which I do not subscribe); -gross manipulation of the scalp (from elsewhere on the head) by the doctors, so as to fool the camera; or -a partial reconstruction of the back of the head by Mr. Stroble, the Gawler’s funeral home technician, a the direction of the pathologists, so as to fool the camera. I tend toward suspecting the third option above. My point was that no one can claim with any certainty that the autopsy photos are photographic forgeries unless or until they do analytic work with the original materials in the Archives---the color slides and B & W negatives. To my knowledge no one claiming photographic forgery has done this…they have all used bootleg prints, which is not real science. It’s wishful thinking. (Mantik has visited the Archives 9 times and has repeatedly taken empirical measurements of the head x-rays with an optical densitometer; he has real data which is repeatable by anyone else.) I don’t wish to say anything else; I could, but I will not. Everyone involved did their best, but I would only give us a “C minus” in overall presentation. I learned a lot from this experience myself and will do better next time. Unfortunately, in spite of the great effort and expense extended by Mr. Kuntzler, the media didn’t care very much about this 43 year old story.
  9. Paul Kuntzler's Washington Conference

    I was frustrated by the artificial time constraints placed upon us by Fetzer/Lipscomb, who “insisted” that the Press would “walk” at 12:00 if we were not finished with our “one hour” press conference. The rest of us panelists deferred to their judgement, which I feel was unfortunate, because both David Mantik and I, under extremely serious (and I now feel completely unwarranted) time pressure, severely curtailed what we had planned to present. At least I was wise enough to bring 20 copies of my prepared text, which I made available after the presentation to journalists, so that hopefully I would not be misquoted. Fetzer told us ahead of time that he was simply going to moderate, and introduce the rest of us after a brief introduction of the evidence, but in my view he tried to present too much OLD information, and instead of abbreviating his content, insisted upon reading every word of his material, and did so far too fast. It was a data dump of major proportions, like trying to drink from a charged firehose. Most of the limited audience probably “tuned out” on his very rapid data dump about 5 minutes into his 18 or 20 minute presentation. Because Jim took up so much time, Mantik and I were essentially forced to wrap up early by Mr. Kuntzler, so as meet our self-imposed “time-constraints.” My presentation at the podium suffered accordingly, as I was mentally editing/omitting text and comment as I spoke. However, my handouts should have made up for any detail I cut out. I would have been wiser if I had simplified my 20 minute presentation into an outline of “bullets,” and then spoken extemporaneously from my outline. That is a “lesson learned” for me, for which I blame no one. Apparently the only two video cameras there were from AP and the conservative Sinclair network. If Sinclair wanted to do a “rip job” and present us as lightweight buffs, unfortunately, they could do so. Toward the end of the Press Conference, the sponsor, Mr. Kuntzler, President of Miller Reporting Company (DC’s biggest and most reputable court reporting company), who spent a fortune on this event, decided to present his Grand Unified Field Theory of the Assassination, which includes almost everyone in the U.S. Government and U.S. Industry in 1963. We had hoped he would wait to do this until AFTER the conference, but he did not. Of course it WAS his conference, his event, so I suppose he had a right to present whatever he wanted. He also presented his views to CNN the day before the press conference, and they wrote an article about his views on Sunday on their website. The intent of the conference was to present relatively NEW material on “fraud in the evidence” in this case. Mantik has proved (to me, anyway) that the 3 head x-rays are forged composite copy films. His optical density measurements prove that. The 2 lateral head x-rays have had a “white patch” superimposed which hides the blowout in the right rear of the head, and the A-P head x-ray has had the 6.5 mm “bullet” fragment superimposed on the copy film, supposedly implicating the Oswald rifle. My presentation discussed fraud in 3 areas: -CE 387, the autopsy report in the Archives, is in my view the 3rd version. Humes destroyed a first draft in his fireplace, per his ARRB deposition, and RFK disposed of an “original” listed in the Burkley/USSS receipt dated April 26, 1965. A second “original” was transferred by the USSS to the Archives in October 1967---that is the one in the Archives today. I have a very plausible hypothesis of how the content of each report changed and this will be presented in my book. -I covered the evidence of 2 brain exams, one on Nov 25th (the real brain, which was sectioned, and whose photos were never placed into the record), and the fraudulent, substitute specimen’s examination between Nov 29th-Dec 2nd, whose photographs were placed into the Archives. The evidence of the first exam would have provided evidence of a frontal shot which exited in the rear of the head, so it was deep-sixed; the fraudulent specimen’s pattern of damage is generally consistent with being shot from above and behind, so it was introduced into the record to support the official cover story. -There are 3 possible reasons why the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photos (of course, it was not intact and the photos depict an intentionally “false picture” of what happened): -photographic forgery (to which I do not subscribe); -gross manipulation of the scalp (from elsewhere on the head) by the doctors, so as to fool the camera; or -a partial reconstruction of the back of the head by Mr. Stroble, the Gawler’s funeral home technician, a the direction of the pathologists, so as to fool the camera. I tend toward suspecting the third option above. My point was that no one can claim with any certainty that the autopsy photos are photographic forgeries unless or until they do analytic work with the original materials in the Archives---the color slides and B & W negatives. To my knowledge no one claiming photographic forgery has done this…they have all used bootleg prints, which is not real science. It’s wishful thinking. (Mantik has visited the Archives 9 times and has repeatedly taken empirical measurements of the head x-rays with an optical densitometer; he has real data which is repeatable by anyone else.) I don’t wish to say anything else; I could, but I will not. Everyone involved did their best, but I would only give us a “C minus” in overall presentation. I learned a lot from this experience myself and will do better next time. Unfortunately, in spite of the great effort and expense extended by Mr. Kuntzler, the media didn’t care very much about this 43 year old story.
  10. Paul Kuntzler's Washington Conference

    I was frustrated by the artificial time constraints placed upon us by Fetzer/Lipscomb, who “insisted” that the Press would “walk” at 12:00 if we were not finished with our “one hour” press conference. The rest of us panelists deferred to their judgement, which I feel was unfortunate, because both David Mantik and I, under extremely serious (and I now feel completely unwarranted) time pressure, severely curtailed what we had planned to present. At least I was wise enough to bring 20 copies of my prepared text, which I made available after the presentation to journalists, so that hopefully I would not be misquoted. Fetzer told us ahead of time that he was simply going to moderate, and introduce the rest of us after a brief introduction of the evidence, but in my view he tried to present too much OLD information, and instead of abbreviating his content, insisted upon reading every word of his material, and did so far too fast. It was a data dump of major proportions, like trying to drink from a charged firehose. Most of the limited audience probably “tuned out” on his very rapid data dump about 5 minutes into his 18 or 20 minute presentation. Because Jim took up so much time, Mantik and I were essentially forced to wrap up early by Mr. Kuntzler, so as meet our self-imposed “time-constraints.” My presentation at the podium suffered accordingly, as I was mentally editing/omitting text and comment as I spoke. However, my handouts should have made up for any detail I cut out. I would have been wiser if I had simplified my 20 minute presentation into an outline of “bullets,” and then spoken extemporaneously from my outline. That is a “lesson learned” for me, for which I blame no one. Apparently the only two video cameras there were from AP and the conservative Sinclair network. If Sinclair wanted to do a “rip job” and present us as lightweight buffs, unfortunately, they could do so. Toward the end of the Press Conference, the sponsor, Mr. Kuntzler, President of Miller Reporting Company (DC’s biggest and most reputable court reporting company), who spent a fortune on this event, decided to present his Grand Unified Field Theory of the Assassination, which includes almost everyone in the U.S. Government and U.S. Industry in 1963. We had hoped he would wait to do this until AFTER the conference, but he did not. Of course it WAS his conference, his event, so I suppose he had a right to present whatever he wanted. He also presented his views to CNN the day before the press conference, and they wrote an article about his views on Sunday on their website. The intent of the conference was to present relatively NEW material on “fraud in the evidence” in this case. Mantik has proved (to me, anyway) that the 3 head x-rays are forged composite copy films. His optical density measurements prove that. The 2 lateral head x-rays have had a “white patch” superimposed which hides the blowout in the right rear of the head, and the A-P head x-ray has had the 6.5 mm “bullet” fragment superimposed on the copy film, supposedly implicating the Oswald rifle. My presentation discussed fraud in 3 areas: -CE 387, the autopsy report in the Archives, is in my view the 3rd version. Humes destroyed a first draft in his fireplace, per his ARRB deposition, and RFK disposed of an “original” listed in the Burkley/USSS receipt dated April 26, 1965. A second “original” was transferred by the USSS to the Archives in October 1967---that is the one in the Archives today. I have a very plausible hypothesis of how the content of each report changed and this will be presented in my book. -I covered the evidence of 2 brain exams, one on Nov 25th (the real brain, which was sectioned, and whose photos were never placed into the record), and the fraudulent, substitute specimen’s examination between Nov 29th-Dec 2nd, whose photographs were placed into the Archives. The evidence of the first exam would have provided evidence of a frontal shot which exited in the rear of the head, so it was deep-sixed; the fraudulent specimen’s pattern of damage is generally consistent with being shot from above and behind, so it was introduced into the record to support the official cover story. -There are 3 possible reasons why the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photos (of course, it was not intact and the photos depict an intentionally “false picture” of what happened): -photographic forgery (to which I do not subscribe); -gross manipulation of the scalp (from elsewhere on the head) by the doctors, so as to fool the camera; or -a partial reconstruction of the back of the head by Mr. Stroble, the Gawler’s funeral home technician, a the direction of the pathologists, so as to fool the camera. I tend toward suspecting the third option above. My point was that no one can claim with any certainty that the autopsy photos are photographic forgeries unless or until they do analytic work with the original materials in the Archives---the color slides and B & W negatives. To my knowledge no one claiming photographic forgery has done this…they have all used bootleg prints, which is not real science. It’s wishful thinking. (Mantik has visited the Archives 9 times and has repeatedly taken empirical measurements of the head x-rays with an optical densitometer; he has real data which is repeatable by anyone else.) I don’t wish to say anything else; I could, but I will not. Everyone involved did their best, but I would only give us a “C minus” in overall presentation. I learned a lot from this experience myself and will do better next time. Unfortunately, in spite of the great effort and expense extended by Mr. Kuntzler, the media didn’t care very much about this 43 year old story.
×