1

This is a Review of Volume IV, which includes

David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.

February 26, 2010

Bugliosi. Since that review was (in my opinion) rather devastating for Bugliosi, my title

was intended to be sardonic. Despite this, Vince lifted a few quotes from it (out of

context and without my permission) and included them with his abbreviated paperback

massive doorstopper was about 2786, almost exactly three times as long as the 888-page

matter (pages i-lxxiii). I had stated that Bugliosi’s book was likely to stand forever as the

however, Horne’s five-volume set is a serious challenge to Bugliosi, but with virtually

none of Bugliosi’s flaws. The current review, however, focuses (almost) solely on

Volume IV, which I regard as Horne’s set piece (as that phrase is used in literature and

film, but not in soccer).

Although some men believe that women age like fine wine, in this case it is Horne

himself who has aged well—he waited the better part of a decade after his experiences

with the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) before beginning the serious

work on his book. He does hint, though, that Bugliosi drop-kicked him (he is an Ohio

State Buckeye fan) onto the playing field. Volume IV focuses on the two chief themes of

the entire five-volume set: (1) the illicit surgery, before the official autopsy began, by

the Zapruder film riddles. It is likely that the success or failure of Horne’s work will rise

or fall with this single volume. In this review, I shall address these two topics in

sequence, critique a few puzzles, then draw some conclusions and finish with several

2

Horne at his first COPA (Committee on Political Assassinations) conference (when he

interviewed with the ARRB), have intermittently met him since, and consider him a very

good friend. He is also a very bright and strong-willed investigator.

In order to paint Humes and Boswell (H&B hereafter) as the morbid coconspirators,

Horne needs first to clarify the timeline—which he does brilliantly (see the

Appendix at the end of this review). The ARRB learned, for the first time, that JFK’s

body initially arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM local time (in a black hearse).

That information derives from an after-action report (written on November 26, 1963) by

his report, which he presented to the ARRB. His report corroborates the recollections of

Dallas) arrive at the front of the hospital, where he saw Jackie exit; its arrival time was

had directed his on-duty sailors as they delivered the body in a cheap casket, i.e., the

entry described by Boyajian. David estimated (from memory) the delivery time as 6:40

PM, or perhaps 6:45 PM. His estimate is strikingly close to Boyajian’s recorded time of

6:35 PM. Horne concludes that this arrival time of 6:35 PM must now be accepted as a

foundation stone in this case. As further corroboration for this time, he emphasizes that

even Humes agreed with it: before the ARRB, Humes cited the initial arrival as possibly

early arrival time. If this is accepted, though, the repercussions are colossal—it means

that the bronze casket (the one that traveled with Jackie) was empty. Horne next compiles

at this initial entry. He is also very persuasive here, although he rightfully credits Lifton

with much of this groundbreaking work.

Now if the body arrived at 6:35 PM in a cheap shipping casket, when did it exit

the bronze casket (the one that left Parkland)? Horne suggests that this transfer occurred

right after the bronze casket boarded Air Force One. (Lifton again blazed this trail.) As

perturbed about a delay caused by a “luggage transfer” between the two official planes.

After this transfer to a body bag, tampering became feasible. Horne suggests that an

initial foray into the body took place in the forward baggage compartment prior to the

flight to DC; the goal was to extract metal debris or a bullet from the throat wound. (It is

not known whether anything was found.) Horne infers that a similar attempt was made on

Hill also describes landing with Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base at 5:58 PM.

3

the brain, but that attempt likely foundered because the requisite tool (e.g., a bone saw)

was missing.

The second casket entry (via a light gray navy ambulance) occurred at about 7:17

PM. James W. Sibert and Francis X. O’Neill, Jr. (the two-member FBI team) and Roy H.

Kellerman and William Greer (both Secret Service) together delivered the (empty)

casket (shortly before 7 PM) at the front of the hospital. The third casket entry (with the

body inside) has traditionally been accepted as the official one—at 8 PM (in a light gray

body must have occurred (in the morgue) after the second entry at 7:17 PM. But it must

this transfer must have occurred well in advance of 8 PM so that the bronze casket could

official casket team, and then delivered again at 8 PM. This sequence of three casket

entries looks like a classic French farce, i.e., an affair concocted by a half-mad

scriptwriter. Unfortunately, all of the evidence points strongly in the direction of three

casket entries. Perhaps this would have been unnecessary, as Horne points out, if only

Jackie had not insisted on staying with the bronze casket en route to the morgue. (She had

declined a helicopter ride to the White House, which would have separated her from the

Dallas casket.) Most likely the plan had been to surreptitiously transfer the body between

caskets at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But Jackie’s unexpected decision to

remain with the bronze Dallas casket waylaid those plans, which meant that Kellerman

(who Horne nominates as the morgue manager) had to improvise on the spot. It was a

highly risky business, during which this escapade was nearly uncovered, according to

Horne.

He believed that altering the geometry of the shooting through "trajectory reversal"—i.e.,

turning entrance wounds into exit wounds, and planting false entrance wounds on the

body—was the primary reason for the illicit post mortem surgery, and that removing

bullet fragments was only a co-equal, or even secondary, goal of the clandestine

(before Bethesda) was merely to extract bullet debris, not primarily to alter wounds.

My own views come into play at this point. Before Horne’s work, I had become

convinced that someone had messed with the throat wound, most likely to extract bullet

fragments. The evidence for this was that the two sets of witnesses—those at Parkland vs.

those at Bethesda—had disagreed so profoundly. Also, Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who

performed the tracheotomy, claimed that he had left the throat wound “inviolate,”

meaning that it was easily visible after the tube was pulled. In addition, Charles

Crenshaw insisted that the tracheotomy at Parkland was nothing like the one in the

photographs were authentic and that all the witnesses agreed with them. This falsehood was only

disagreed with the photographs.

4

autopsy photographs. I also had my own (telephone) encounter with the autopsy

tracheotomy and declared that he would never do one like that. Horne’s witnesses (there

are more) only validate my prior conclusion about throat tampering.

Before Horne’s work, I was uncertain about head tampering before Bethesda

(although Lifton had made a strong case for it). Nonetheless, I had to agree that if the

throat had been explored, then of course the head might also have been invaded.

Although Horne is still open-minded about illegal tampering of the skull before Bethesda,

he believes that such an event can be inferred from (1) Finck’s statement (to the defense

team at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969) that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as

the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body

arrived at Bethesda and (2) Tom Robinson’s comment to the ARRB that the top of the

skull was “badly broken” when the body was received at Bethesda, but that the large

defect (in the superior skull) in the autopsy photographs was “what the [autopsy] doctors

did”—i.e., that the missing skull was due to the pathologists, not due an assassin’s

the brain could not be extracted from the skull. In summary then, the body arrived at

same (right occipital) exit wound that was seen at Parkland and with a brain that had not

been removed from the skull and that therefore closely, or possibly even exactly,

resembled the Parkland brain. Most likely the brain still contained most, or even all, of

the bullet fragments from Dealey Plaza. (These metal fragments are, of course, absent

from the official record today.) Those are Horne’s conclusions about H&B, but let’s look

at the evidence.

So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain

began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses—the two R’s, namely Reed and

Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom

Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently,

both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents

why no one else reported these events—almost everyone else had been evicted from the

morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table

Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he

the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This

activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry

hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs

5

show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The

the forehead—thereby likely obliterating the entry hole.

Reed’s report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead

entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically,

inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the

question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the

extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during

restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1)

perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely

suffered some memory merge—i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one

still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before

Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered—to disguise the wound that

photograph.

Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought

the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the

morgue gallery; contrary to Reed’s experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7

record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain.

Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the

than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of

provenance, however, seems uncertain.

6

Finck, as a forensic pathologist, had been asked to assist with the autopsy. As further

confirmation for Finck’s overall timeline, he arrived (see his Blumberg report) at the

morgue at 8:30 PM. But here is the clincher: during this phone call, Humes told Finck

that X-rays had already been taken—and had already been viewed. On the other hand, the

official entry time (with the Joint Service Casket Team) was at 8 PM! If that indeed was

the one and only entry time, how then could X-rays have been taken—let alone

entry time? The only possible answer is that the body did not first arrive at 8 PM.

Furthermore, Custer and Reed, the radiology techs, provide timelines consistent with

summary, eyewitnesses convincingly support a much earlier timeline than the official

entry of 8 PM. Therefore, multiple casket entries are logically required. And that more

relaxed timeline gave H&B time both to perform their illicit surgery and also for skull Xrays

to be taken and read, most likely all before 7:30-8:00 PM.

The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were

permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that

the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry—

that’s because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he

arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in

the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as

he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to

Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed.

do not show the condition of the skull or the brain as seen at Parkland. Instead,

they were taken after tampering by H&B, perhaps even after significant tampering,

especially if Robinson and Reed are correct. Furthermore, the massive damage seen in

the photographs and X-rays was not caused just by a bullet or even by multiple bullets,

(the Warren Commission’s inevitable scenario) to generate such an enormous defect has

this enormous defect only shows the condition of the skull after tampering by H&B—and

does not reflect the skull as seen at Parkland. (The Parkland witnesses fully concur with

this.) On the other hand, many witnesses at Bethesda saw the condition of the skull

before such tampering began. These witnesses, both physicians and paraprofessionals,

(1992).

at the Mary Ferrell website. See my footnote 3 for a link.

7

Leaving aside the pathologists, as many as eight Bethesda physicians may be on this

remarkable unanimity, on their own heads, the location of this obvious exit wound on the

right rear skull.

The X-rays do, however, show many small fragments distributed across the top of

(based on their actual appearance—as viewed in detail on multiple occasions at the

Archives) that they look more like mercury than like lead. If so, then Humes would not

have been able to palpate them (mercury is liquid) and would therefore have been unable

to remove them during his illicit surgery phase.

We could go on to ask: What other evidence exists for such illicit surgery? Lifton

initially introduced this issue by citing the FBI report (by Sibert and O’Neill), which

Fort Myers, Florida, during one of Law’s taping sessions.) Furthermore, the FBI had no

reason to fabricate such a statement. On Lifton’s tape (which I have heard), he queries

Humes about this; to me, Humes does sound remarkably suspicious and evasive. But the

FBI men are not the only witnesses to his statement. Another is James Jenkins, who

“removed” during surgery at Parkland. We all know that did not happen, so where did

they come from? Horne implies that Humes himself had removed them during the illicit

phase. Another supporting argument is the remarkable ease of removing the brain from

the skull (during the official autopsy phase), but this is not so surprising if it had

brainstem had been cut, as if by a scalpel (not severed by a bullet), which also suggests

its earlier removal that evening (while Jenkins was absent). In any case, such an early

removal was likely essential to successfully search for (and extract) bullet debris. Even

1969, Finck stated that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one

does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda.

Finck was still absent when the brain was removed, so someone must have told him this,

most likely Humes.

126.

8

Horne comments further on the throat wound. He concludes that H&B were well

aware of this wound that night and he provides considerable evidence for this

led to the pathologists’ interim discussion of an exit through the throat, as later reported

included exactly this scenario, which later had to be discarded because of timing data

from the Zapruder film.

Regarding the throat wound I would add the following. Warren Commission

loyalists like to cite medical articles that ER personnel cannot reliably distinguish entry

from exit wounds. Even if true, though, that comment obfuscates the situation. To the

contrary, in this particular case several facts trump those medical reports: (1) such a tiny

done 60,000 autopsies) said that he had never seen an exit wound that was so small

(with recent assistance from Gary Aguilar). In the face of the persistent refusal of the

pertinent witnesses to identify this bullet, most likely it would never have been admitted

final telling blow derives from the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC):

Stringer, Document 013617, at 4). Moreover, Stringer’s estimate of the time agreed with Ebersole’s

estimate. Dr. Robert Karnei (resident pathologist) also recalled a telephone call to Parkland on that Friday

176. Thompson here actually wonders if the bullet had been switched by government agents sometime after

its initial appearance. Also see

(although it did surface for the Clay Shaw trial). Given the recent interviews with Dino Brugioni (see

below), that argument today is stronger than ever.

9

Based on his relentless defense of the extant film, Josiah Thompson can

justifiably claim the title, “High Priest of Z Film.” His initial claim derives from his work

(p. 7): “Quite obviously, the Zapruder film contained the nearest thing to absolute truth

finalized his claim to the above title. Unfortunately for Thompson, Horne’s work has

created deep fractures in his purported bedrock, and has pulverized some rockheads into

himself) and whose interviews were surely already known to Thompson, who is nothing

if not a very bright detective. These witnesses were Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon,

employees of the NPIC (a subsidiary of the CIA), who received the original (in their

view) film from a Secret Service agent. The latter, in turn, had just couriered it from

Rochester, New York, headquarters of Eastman Kodak. Moreover, this agent (“Bill

true, then there must have been a second film, one not shot by Zapruder (his film, after

But Horne’s next stroke is the mortal blow to the Zapruder film, one beyond even

the skills of a contemporary Parsifal. Horne details Peter Janney’s encounters (including

of the CIA, had telephoned the NPIC director, Arthur Lundahl (Brugioni’s superior),

Beginning late on Saturday night (November 23), Brugioni viewed an original, 8 mm

film and prepared briefing boards, which were presented to McCone the next morning.

Amazingly, Brugioni stated that neither Ben Hunter nor Captain Sands were at his event.

Zapruder film: "…the 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves

to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed---towards the sniper's nest---just before he clutches it."

understand that “rockhead” is neither an epithet nor a pejorative for certain types of music lovers. It is

merely a geological formation.

physical arguments as to why more than just an original Zapruder film was absolutely necessary to

researcher has advised me that he has made some progress, but identifying the pertinent photographer(s)

remains an open question.

(1999). His recollections of the Cuban missile crisis are documented at 109-110.

10

(Brugioni did not recall ever meeting Homer McMahon; he could therefore

not personally report whether or not McMahon was present at Event I on Saturday night.

Of course, since Brugioni was positive that Ben Hunter was absent, and because Hunter

and McMahon were linked by their recall of one another, then McMahon should not have

been present at Brugioni’s event.) In a detailed analysis Horne shows convincingly that

two separate events, both highly compartmentalized, occurred on successive nights.

During these recent interviews, when Brugioni finally learned—after 46 years—of two

unrelated events, both at NPIC, he was stunned!

Saturday night (November 23) event with Brugioni and the Sunday night event

(November 24) with Hunter and McMahon. Horne demonstrates how compartmentalized

these two events were: they differed in attendees, film format, and briefing boards.

Brugioni knew Ben Hunter, but did not see him at his event. Brugioni had handled an 8

mm film (Hunter and McMahon had a 16 mm film) that he considered an original; that it

was 8 mm is certain because NPIC had to purchase a projector (near midnight on

Saturday) from a private local store. (The NPIC did not own its own 8 mm projector.)

Brugioni also viewed photographs of the briefing boards currently in the Archives, which

had been authenticated by Hunter and McMahon. However, Brugioni was certain that

these were not his. He was even able to recall how his differed from these. Although

Hunter and McMahon’s film reportedly came from Rochester, Brugioni was not told

where his had originated (most likely it was Zapruder’s original—diverted from Chicago

to DC that Saturday).

Based on these interviews, Horne draws several conclusions: (1) the CIA had an

immediate and high level interest in the film; (2) the original film had been split from 16

compartmentalization implies that the two films were different; (4) Brugioni viewed

Zapruder’s original (8mm), whereas Hunter and McMahon viewed an altered film (in 16

mm, unslit format); (5) the alterations were done during the day on Sunday, November

24, in Rochester, New York; (6) most likely aerial imaging was used for these alterations;

by copies of the newly altered film. The reason that Horne chooses Sunday is

and it contained images from the extant film (the one currently in the Archives). Some of

show signs of alteration, particularly the bizarre debris (sometimes called the “blob”) on

precisely the opposite; see below for more on Zavada.

CBS. Multiple individuals have reported viewing a very different Zapruder film, actually one more

In one version Z-323 had a caption that described JFK’s head as “snapping to one side” (also see my

footnote 67); another version replaced this frame with Z-313 and a caption describing JFK’s head as going

11

JFK’s face and the disappearance of the white object in the background grass. Horne

suspects that the alterations had all been completed by Sunday night, although he seems

alteration after Sunday, it seems likely that these 31 frames would have restricted later

changes. (There are fewer than 500 in the entire film.)

Horne next reviews the momentous technical issues that bedevil the extant film—

anomalies that really should not be present. In fact, none of these would have been

predicted for an original film. Even a single one casts doubts on authenticity, but when a

complete list is compiled the evidence becomes overwhelming. Aside from image content

issues (which are very serious) this technical list includes the following items: (1) the

location of the punched number 183 is inconsistent on both the extant film and (in

photographic images) on the extant copies, (2) the punched numbers unique to each of

the three copies are quite strangely located, (3) the absence of intersprocket images on the

three copies was not predicted by the Jamieson lab, which had exposed them, (4) Zavada

could not reproduce the septum line, (5) the double registration of the Dallas processing

edge print is odd, (6) no one in Dallas recalled the bracketing (by exposure differences)

that is present in the three extant copies, (7) Zavada has shown remarkable indecisiveness

about when Zapruder’s film was slit from 16 mm format to 8 mm, (8) the “full flush left”

technical issues persist would, by itself, be a wonder if the extant film indeed were

Both had been early viewers of the film and both had reported that JFK’s head had gone

How many individuals have you met who, after once viewing the film, agreed with the

reports of these two men? I have never met any. An actual Dealey Plaza witness, James

layout for that issue.

(1998) at 1285) that does extend very near the left edge, just as Horne states. However, Horne’s point is

that the images in the extant Zapruder film nearly always extend fully left, whereas Zavada’s test images

1290), shot in Dealey Plaza with a camera like Zapruder’s. As he viewed it on a DVD it seemed to show

“full flush left,” but Horne noted that he personally could not authenticate this film and would really prefer

to see a film actually shot through Zapruder’s camera. For more on this J/M film see

by me, although our work was admittedly based on Horne’s initial efforts. Horne emphasizes that he only

common conclusions (they did indeed do so) is taken by Horne as (at least partial) verification of his own

disagreement with the extant Zapruder film.

12

reminds us that early viewers of the film easily saw debris (possibly brain tissue) flying

to the rear. One of these witnesses was Erwin Schwartz (Zapruder’s partner), who saw

is nowhere seen in the extant film. Horne also notes the unrecorded turn from Houston to

Elm (which both Zapruder and his secretary recalled filming) as well as the now-ancient

problem of the limousine stop (first emphasized by Lifton many years ago). The

discrepancies between the autopsy photographs, on the one hand, and the Zapruder film,

on the other, are also reviewed. Horne offers likely explanations (of incompetent

tampering) for these inconsistencies.

In an Addendum, “The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood,” Horne recounts his

viewing of HD scans based on a 35 mm “dupe negative.” His Hollywood contact got her

copy of the extant film (for $795) from a private laboratory, to which she had been

referred by the Archives’ personnel themselves. (There is no other means to obtain such a

copy, as the Archives do not directly reproduce copies.) Horne describes his viewing

experiences with several Hollywood professionals (I have seen these, too). Quite striking

particular, had sharp and geometric borders and was astonishingly black, especially when

compared to earlier frames (before Z-313) of JFK’s head and also when compared to the

natural shadow on the back and side of Connally’s head. I have since viewed the MPI

transparencies (copied directly from the extant film at the Archives) at the Sixth Floor

Museum in Dallas. These images, too, are quite striking. Since they are accessible by the

public, anyone should be able see them, merely by arranging an appointment with the

Museum. Horne concludes this section by printing his FOIA letter to the CIA and

associated letters on this subject to President Obama, Senator Webb, and DCI Panetta

(the CIA response is still pending). Among other items, he requested information on (1)

the highly secret CIA facility in Rochester, New York (Hawkeyeworks), (2) the optical

printer(s) available there in 1963, (3) the briefing boards prepared by Brugioni (which

might still exist), and (4) Brugioni’s personal history of the NPIC. Brugioni told Janney

that he himself had written this history, which included a brief mention of his Zapruder

film event.

Aside from David Wrone (not discussed here, but worth reading about), the

individual who fares worst as Horne’s mark is Roland Zavada, author of the nowinfamous

Zavada Report. Although this was purportedly a study to confirm the

authenticity of the Zapruder film, no such claim is actually made in that report. After

interviewed in the 1990s, Zapruder's business partner, Erwin Schwartz, said that he vividly recalled

watching the film and remembered seeing JFK's head suddenly ‘whip around to the left’ and saw an

explosion of blood and brains from his head and that it had been blown out ‘to the left rear.’ ” Also see my

footnote 60.

13

critiques him for his public dithering on multiple serious issues, all of which are well

That may be appropriate in the courtroom but is wholly out of place in a scientific

investigation. Horne specifically faults him for these items: (1) the printing aperture

issue, (2) the bracketing issue, (3) the edge printing light issue, and (4) the inconsistent

locations of the punched numbers on the copy films. I concur with all of these—and have

previously so stated in print.

It is impossible to write any comprehensive treatise about the JFK case and expect

to go unscathed (as I well know). The data are simply too complex and, as Horne

repeatedly emphasizes, they are too often corrupted. The sole recourse then for the

investigator is simply to speculate, based on those data he considers most reliable. Horne

clearly recognizes his vulnerability here. Horne and I differ, as he knows, on several

Horne concludes that none (or at least very few) of the autopsy photographs

derive from the official photographer, John Stringer. Instead he nominates Knudsen as

the source of the extant autopsy photographs. Knudsen was the social photographer for

the White House and he told his family that he had been busy that night filming the

autopsy (he was not home for three nights in a row). The embarrassing fact, of course, is

that no one saw him there. Not even the Secret Service agents mention him, though they

autopsy photographs as authentic (i.e., not photographically altered), chiefly based on his

viewing of high resolution images at Eastman Kodak, in Rochester, while he served on

the ARRB. (Nonetheless, he maintains that they are highly misleading.) On the other

hand, I regard several images (certainly not all of them) as photographically altered,

divergent arguments (of photo-alteration vs. no alteration), but I shall not do so here. My

viewing of the posterior scalp, with a large format stereo viewer (on multiple occasions

and while sampling all imaginable photographic variations of the two pertinent images),

the two photographs in the stereo viewer; such a resulting 2D image is exactly what

for each member of the pair. (Ordinarily the two images should have derived from

both on other portions of these same suspect photographs and also on all other

photographs that I examined. This impression of an anomalous area, precisely where the

14

me. Unfortunately, Horne did not perform such stereo viewing, as he acknowledges with

some regret.

In addition, other serious problems plague Knudsen’s role as assigned to him by

Horne. Foremost is his statement to his own son: he rode in the limousine with the bronze

PM and that it arrived at the morgue by 7:17 PM. That is a very tight timeline for

very early photographs of the right upper forehead. By then (according the timeline

offered by Tom Robinson, and also probably by Ed Reed), H&B had already committed

at least some of their nefarious manipulations. Some skull X-rays may even have been

taken by 7:17 PM. If that is true, how then could Knudsen have photographed the head

did not ride with the bronze casket), but no evidence exists for this. And Stringer himself

clearly implies that photography began only after 8 PM. If both Stringer and Riebe are

correct about this timeline, then what equipment did Knudsen use? And who set it up for

him? That task would typically fall to an assistant, such as Riebe, but Ed Reed tells us

Knudsen was a total novice at an autopsy, how did he know to take two photographs

from a similar perspective, in order to create stereo pairs?

Here is another major challenge to Horne’s scenario: he proposes that Knudsen

both left by then. Unfortunately, that is not what Stringer recalled. In fact, he clearly

stated that he remained until reconstruction had been completed and that he did not get

time: Riebe or Stringer? Therefore, if Stringer stayed around, Knudsen gets left out.

There is simply no need for two photographers. Furthermore, Stringer never saw

The record shows Knudsen making many trips to develop the autopsy

photographs. And, of all places, they went to the highly secret Anacostia facility.

(Ordinarily, Stringer would have developed his own photographs; furthermore, he would

never have used Anacostia.) That so many trips were required, over the next several

absent—shortly after Riebe left. Stringer also added a major observation: no photographs were taken either

during or after the embalming. Although Godfrey McHugh reported the opposite, I would be inclined in

this case to believe the photographer.

therefore, he did not see Stringer.

15

My conclusions about Knudsen, only briefly supported here, disagree with

Horne’s. I instead conclude that Knudsen indeed worked with the autopsy photographs

(in the darkroom, but not in the morgue), perhaps by improving them cosmetically for the

Kennedy family—or by supervising someone else who did this. I suspect he was an

unwitting conspirator, being played by his superiors. Furthermore, if the Oswald evidence

photographs were doctored, if Dealey Plaza photographs were touched up, if the skull Xrays

were altered (in the darkroom), if the Zapruder film was revised, then why would the

autopsy photographs remain pristine? After all, it is much, much easier to alter a

photograph than to correctly improvise a misleading autopsy scene in the morgue

(especially a scene that was often described by attendees as a madhouse). Furthermore,

time limits do not apply in the darkroom, where one can leisurely keep improving the

image until success is achieved.

I also disagree with Horne about the semicircular defect (with apparent beveling),

described as precisely that during the initial “military review” by the autopsy personnel

on November 1, 1966. In addition, Paul O’Connor (autopsy technician) clearly confirmed

it looks like an exit, I agree with Horne that the pathologists should have discussed it. In

experiments, concluded that such beveled defects can occur independently of exiting

bullets or bullet fragments. Furthermore, this site does not fit with any other metal debris

in the skull X-rays—certainly not the fragment trail across the top of the skull nor the two

fragments removed by H&B—nor does it match the right occipital blowout. To finally

bury this proposal, no witness at either Parkland or Bethesda observed a scalp wound that

corresponded to this semicircular beveled defect, so it may simply be a red herring.

many a reader. Even critics of the Warren Commission typically argue for only two head

shots at most. (The Warren Commission’s scenario was simple: a single shot entered at

shot, a second shot likely entered high on the right forehead, very near the hairline.) I

confess that Horne has forced me to think again about a third shot. Although I had

to believe in such an entry. Horne cites the Parkland physicians—Marion Jenkins, Robert

(Figure 44). These sites are also identified in PowerPoint slides from my November 2009 lecture in Dallas;

16

Although I was reluctant to visualize Greer with a pistol during the shooting,

Secret Service agents did pull their pistols during the tussle over JFK’s body in the ER. It

is even possible that Greer fired, though I can’t imagine what his target was. But it is

most unlikely that he deliberately fired at JFK. That would have been far too risky—

multiple witnesses would have fingered him, yet no one has done so. Furthermore, no

photograph shows him doing this (although it is theoretically possible that such

photographs have been culled or altered). Besides, although he may have disliked JFK,

we have no evidence that he was involved in the plot to kill JFK.

In the end, though, I must admit that evidence of a third shot to the head persists.

produced the debris across the top of the skull X-rays (neither the Warren Commission’s

scenario nor the HSCA’s scenario match that trail), but that fragment trail does not fit (at

all) with a right occipital blowout. Furthermore, if the bullet that caused the visible

fragment trail had been mercury filled (as I suggested), then perhaps much of the mercury

remained inside the skull. So what produced the occipital blowout? The Warren

Commission shot (from the rear) surely could not do that. But a shot from the left front

could be just right. What is odd, though, is that no witness at Bethesda, absolutely no one,

Then there is the Clarence Israel story, related by Janie Taylor, a biologist at NIH,

right brain remained (the right rear quadrant was most effected) and about a quarter of the

left hemisphere was also missing. I am not aware of any other Parkland comments about

the left hemisphere, and there is very little clear-cut information from Bethesda either.

But if Bowron is correct, then her report constitutes powerful evidence for a left frontal

shot. Of course, her report also flatly contradicts the official brain photographs, which

was on the left side. He later admitted that he had described the wrong side:

17

brain might have been due to H&B. But, even if H&B had removed this, that alone would

be suspicious—i.e., they would have had no reason to excise left brain tissue at all unless

trauma had occurred there.

To all of this, Horne adds the support of Dr. Charles Wilbur, who carefully

“extensive disruption … associated with hemorrhage.” Wilbur concluded: “These

observations rekindle my interest in the observations made in Dallas on the ER table (by

several medical personnel) … that there was an entry hole in the left temporal region, in

front of the ear and at the hairline.” In conclusion, I would say that the left temple wound

seems more likely than ever, especially with support from the optical density data.

It might have been expected the brain photographs would have resolved this

mystery; unfortunately, they are not of JFK’s brain. Horne was the first to deduce, from

introduced at a second brain examination. Even the (sole) autopsy photographer of the

brain, John Stringer, stated in no uncertain terms that these were not his photographs.

inconsistent with the brain photographs (which I have observed at the National Archives

with Cyril Wecht). Insofar as the amount of residual brain goes, one can accept either the

X-ray data as authentic or the brain photographs as authentic, but not both. They are

inconsistent with one another—in fact, wildly inconsistent. To date, no Warren

Commission supporter has come to terms with this intractable paradox. It should also be

data are entirely consistent with his two-brain proposal.

issued the order. Of course, none of that is in the official record. Horne proposes that the

high posterior “red spot” (selected by the HSCA as the official entry site—albeit

persistently denied by the pathologists) was deliberately created that night. How the red

color was achieved he does not say. And why that particular site was selected is also

Dr. Marion Jenkins before the Warren Commission:

table is at 791. Horne’s ARRB memo was dated June 2, 1998. Only while writing this review did I recall

268 (footnote): “Is Boswell describing different brains on these two occasions?” Horne, however, was the

one who pursued the question fully.

18

mysterious—did it fit better with the “sniper’s nest” than did the EOP site? If so, who in

the morgue would have known that so early in the game? But what madness it would be

to create another wound! After all, H&B had already identified a lower (EOP) entry site;

no one wanted that night. But Horne does not stop there; he also believes that the lower

well ask why he takes these risks. But that question has a simple answer: because he

refuses to consider photographic alteration, he has no choice. Think about this: that red

spot nearly correlates spatially with the 6.5 mm object on the skull X-ray—as it should

since both were fakes. However, what breathtaking serendipity such a match was for

boxed himself in (no photo-alteration allowed) his only option is to say that the red spot

really was present that night. Unless photographic doctoring is permitted, that red spot

creation)—and the pathologists forever adamantly refused to recognize it (despite

Horne’s insinuation that they themselves had created it). All of this, taken together, is

Horne suggests that the original Zapruder film may have been shot at 48 frames

per second, an option that was available on that camera:

Horne suggests that simple frame excision could then have eliminated much of the

evidence of conspiracy. But this cannot work, as Costella has explained: the ghost images

one frame (call it number 10), the gate (the metal frame that actually admits light to the

film) simultaneously exposed (in the intersprocket area) a modest portion of each

pathologists’ discussion of it—during his HSCA interview. He even recalled it well enough that he

Horne adds that Robinson also recalled a probe entering low on the back of the head.

X-rays—and there was great uncertainty about the red spot, as well. For full summaries see Horne’s

Appendices at the Mary Ferrell website or visit my November 2009 lecture (about these experts) at the

“sniper’s nest” than did the EOP site. The white spot was merely an oversight. When the darkroom

magicians covered up the large skull defect they simply neglected to extend their new (photographic)

hairpiece inferiorly enough.

19

that these ghost images are, in fact, consistent with the central frame in each case—i.e.,

10 is always adjacent to 9 and 11 (and this works for any three adjacent frames). In a

sense then, each adjacent ghost image “belongs” to its primary frame—and not to any

other frame. On the other hand, if frame excision had occurred, each ghost image would

become separated from its simultaneously exposed primary frame; i.e., such excision

frame. For example, for excision of every other frame, 10 would end up next to 8 and 12;

for excision of two of every three frames, 10 would end up next to 7 and 13. In either

case, these ghost images would not match the frames next to them. And Costella

emphasizes that enough information (e.g., motion blur) exists in these ghost images to

extant film. Furthermore, there is no escape from this problem, i.e., it is not possible

simply to erase a ghost image from the intersprocket area—once there, it is always there.

Partly based on this very powerful argument, Costella has argued that the extant film

must be a fabrication, i.e., a re-creation using parts of multiple films (and probably only a

rather modest portion of Zapruder’s film at most). At least one of these films must have

been shot during the motorcade, but others could have been shot before or after, even

some days before or after. These then had to be stitched together to compose the extant

film. Even differences of perspective (as would be expected for films shot from slightly

Costella concludes that the Stemmons freeway sign is one example of such a cut

sign was placed into the film after the fact, i.e., it looks constant in all frames. On the

other hand, if it had been shot from Zapruder’s camera, it should have experienced

pincushion distortion: i.e., the sign would successively change its appearance from one

frame to the next. Furthermore, after several frames, these changes would accumulate to

such pincushion effects, which means that it was placed after the fact by the film forgers.

This situation is closely analogous to the fake hairpiece on the back of JFK’s head, where

image was placed (into multiple photographs—or into multiple frames) in a manner that

violates the basic rules of optics.

Based on these arguments, Costella concludes that it would have been impossible

to alter the film without discarding essentially all of the intersprocket areas and starting

all over. In that case, he argues, the total time for (final) fabrication would have taken

much longer than several days. Although Horne does not require completion of a final

film (i.e., the extant film) by Sunday night (November 24) he does suggest that the

Jamieson copies were switched quite promptly, likely within several days. Such a prompt

(yet final) switch implies a timeline that sharply contrasts with Costella’s more leisurely

pace. Even David Healy (a professional video producer with decades of experience)

emphasized in his 2003 Duluth lecture that even if an altered film had been viewed on

Sunday night, November 24, it need not have been the final product (i.e., the extant film),

the frame after the primary frame that was exposed.

20

continued for “several weeks” afterwards, especially if a traveling matte had been

Costella also refers to the possibility that the proposed second film of the

motorcade (by an unknown photographer—or photographers) might have been shot in 16

mm format. If so, that would have made forgery ever so much easier, particularly since

the contemporaneous optical printers were not designed for 8 mm. It might also have

made the subsequent first generation copies (the extant ones, which are probably not the

Jamieson copies) appear more authentic after fabrication.

Costella goes on to wonder whether the splices in the film (e.g., between Z-208

and Z-212) were unavoidable during forgery for a simple reason: they may have

frames where Michael Stroscio, a physicist, identified a possible shot at Z-152 to Z-

There is a final, simple argument against a 48 fps scenario for Zapruder. If 48 fps

had been used, then when the film was shown that weekend, all of the action would have

appeared in slow motion—as if the actors were subject to the lesser gravity of the moon.

However, no one reported such an odd effect, even though someone surely should have.

My final paragraph in this section is not really a criticism of Horne at all. It

everything important in this case. I refer here to the police dictabelt and the acoustics

of audible shots and also on timing problems, i.e., two shots are only 1.66 seconds apart,

an interval much too short for the Mannlicher-Carcano. However, he does not cite the

from that work. The discussion continues; the interested reader may begin with

I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved,

especially in the medical evidence—to say nothing of his Olympian effort. Given the

circumstances of its creation (mostly on weekends, within a cumulative time span of

perhaps two years) it is nothing short of phenomenal. Contrast Horne’s effort with

Bugliosi’s, which extended over several decades, and which may have included writing

assistants and editors. Bugliosi also did not have to self-publish. The bottom line is that I

feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century

21

old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation

with Bugliosi.

If H&B indeed played alterationists with the skull and brain (as I now accept),

then Horne has initiated a paradigm shift in our understanding of the cover-up. But, as

Horne acknowledges, this does not necessarily convert H&B into villains. After all, they

may well have considered themselves to be heroic patriots, who single-handedly aborted

Josiah Thompson has proclaimed that the Zapruder debate has been a gigantic

has presented revolutionary new data about the chain of possession. In view of

Thompson’s now-shaky bedrock, many will find this new information very convincing

indeed—especially younger researchers new to the case, whose minds are still open. I

have previously summarized traditional historical (and scientific) views that were later

heretics, our world would soon become more impoverished. In retrospect, it was best not

to offer obeisance to Roland Zavada (as the inerrant pope of the film), as Thompson

These fence-sitters may now take their own time to decide. Some may even wish to make

a pilgrimage to view the MPI transparencies in Dallas. The real point, though, as Horne

states, is that the alteration of the film is, in itself, major evidence of a government coverup.

I could not agree more.

What remains controversial for many though is the timeline for alteration. Horne

favors a very short timeline, while Costella prefers a distinctly longer one. The early

been altered before Sunday night, November 24. In addition, the Hunter/McMahon

briefing boards show the extremely black patch over JFK’s occiput, as well as the blob. It

is possible, though not certain, that incriminating flying debris was also removed by

Sunday night. The Stemmons sign and the lamppost (both added after the fact, according

visit.

of the Navy), Calvin Galloway (Commanding Officer of the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center), and

George Burkley (White House Physician). All were admirals. Also see Vincent Palamara’s summary at

time, as a prime example of junk science from educated people who ought to know better. It may have

amusement value in some chronicle of ‘silly science,’ but, in terms of knowledge about the Kennedy

assassination, it has produced literally nothing.” See his entire essay at

22

photographs. Now consider this: McMahon concluded that JFK was hit by 6-8 shots,

fired from at least three directions. Evidence for these shots is absent from the extant

film, so he must have seen a different film (though probably not the original). If

would leave time for Costella’s more leisurely scenario.

The chief argument for a short timeline is the need to dispose promptly of the

Jamieson (first-day) copies; the problem, of course, is that the longer these persisted the

longer the original images might be copied—or recalled—by others. Horne notes that the

However, we do not know the disposition of any other FBI copies, i.e., later generation

So perhaps this cover-up was a two-step process: (1) retrieve quickly all possible copies

later (e.g., within one or two months) replace those earlier ones by copies subsequently

made from the extant film. Perhaps the FBI was even given some credible excuse for the

delay in replacement (e.g., an improved quality copy was pending); in any case, it is

likely that J. Edgar Hoover would have cooperated with any reasonable suggestion to

coverage, they had no need for the film, as a movie film. Given the role of C. D. Jackson

delayed replacement.

discovered in the year 2000 by the Sixth Floor Museum among materials sold to

one side and Zapruder home scenes on the other (adjacent) side. These include markings

deduction from these markings, of course, is that the extant film had already been

completed by that early date. In fact, however, all that is certain is that specific frames

(those made public) must have been finalized by that date. On the other hand, if

Costella’s more leisurely timeframe is adopted, that would imply that these black and

dated to November. Although this scenario may be true, no eyewitness to date has

corroborated it.

FBI.

films” in circulation, “not one.”

November 26.

23

The HD scans (cited above) of selected Zapruder frames should be scanned with

an optical densitometer. If possible, multiple wavelengths (colors) should be employed.

These scans should then be compared to controls, e.g., JFK’s head before Z-313 and

Connally’s head (at most any time). This might quantify the magnitude of photoalteration,

thus making the conclusions more scientific. Further studies may be

forthcoming from the Hollywood nexus. New films shot via a camera like Zapruder’s

might yet provide further insights. Of course, if extant films (i.e., original ones, not

altered ones) from Zapruder’s actual camera can still be located that would be even

better. As Horne suggests, at the National Archives two autopsy photographs of the

posterior scalp (from a matched pair) should be overlaid on a view box. If the images of

the suspect area perfectly align, that would constitute powerful evidence of photoalteration.

Control areas should also be extensively compared, just to see what nonidentical

(but stereo-matched) pairs look like. Surprisingly, no one has done this.

Is it possible that these extra films were taken to replace those X-rays that had been

discarded—in order that the total number of X-ray films remained fixed at 14? Is it even

suspicious. To check on this (for the first time—no one has done this), Horne suggests

that the films simply be overlaid to see if they match precisely.

I have never looked for the head brace on the X-rays nor, apparently, has anyone

else. Since the autopsy personnel did not recognize this, it would be useful to look for this

on the X-ray films. (Custer told the ARRB that he had used a blanket behind the head,

but Custer’s memory has not always been reliable.) In view of Horne’s proposal that

personnel were present—because no one recalls this), the presence or absence of such a

brace on the X-rays might shed further light on Horne’s proposed timeline for Knudsen

The optical density data from the X-rays should be confirmed. The National

Archives have their own densitometer(s); perhaps they would even assist with this.

Actually the data need not be too extensive—even a few select data points inside the 6.5

My observation at the National Archives of intact emulsion (where there should

evidence that this X-ray must be a copy. That clearly means that (1) the original is

missing and (2) the door lies open to alteration (during copying). Surprisingly, no one has

yet attempted to confirm my observation (of the paradoxically missing emulsion), despite

the fact that Chad Zimmerman and Larry Sturdivan had that opportunity after my

24

not accompany them at that critical moment. Even he could have made that observation.

Perhaps some other creative minds can think further about three head shots. My

fear, though, is that this impasse may never be resolved due to insufficient data. Given

the destruction inflicted on the skull by H&B (and perhaps by their predecessors), I am

not even certain that a second autopsy would help to resolve that question.

Although Horne’s discussion of the suspicious 6.5 mm object on the AP X-ray is

Furthermore, each one of the three autopsy pathologists (interviewed separately and

destroys the case against the lone gunman), but then after his visit to the National

Archives he had to confess that it remained as mysterious as ever. He did, however, offer

one half-hearted proposal that he did not really endorse, namely that the fragment had

been present on the AP X-ray, but had fallen off before the lateral was taken. (He

necessarily assumed that the AP had been taken first.) But this does not explain an

adventures with this fantastic forgery in some detail. Given that he began his odyssey as a

layman in medicine and radiology, Horne offers a splendid summary of this entire

posted at the Mary Ferrell website (see my footnote 3 for a link).

my footnote 137). Alternate websites, with slightly updated slides, are at

25

Time (PM) Casket Type Witnesses Remarks

Paul O’Connor

6:35 Shipping Roger Boyajian Black hearse

casket Dennis David Body bag

Donald Rebentisch

Floyd Riebe

Note: this first entry was documented by Boyajian and corroborated by the above

7:17 Bronze viewing Jim Sibert Light gray navy

casket Frank O’Neill ambulance

(from Parkland) Roy Kellerman Empty casket

William Greer

8:00 Bronze viewing Joint Service Casket Team Light gray navy

casket Godfrey McHugh ambulance

Body inside, wrapped

in sheets—no body bag

PM appeared in their interview with Arlen Specter (March 12, 1964): FBI 62-109060-2637 at 2. Also see