{"id":69255,"date":"2026-06-24T19:01:35","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T23:01:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=69255"},"modified":"2026-06-24T19:02:46","modified_gmt":"2026-06-24T23:02:46","slug":"jfk-at-bethesda-a-missing-piece-of-the-puzzle-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=69255","title":{"rendered":"

JFK at Bethesda: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle<\/b><\/h2>"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Jim Fetzer<\/a>, Ph.D.<\/h2>\n
[Editor\u2019s note:<\/strong>\u00a0A discussion thread for 250 students about the assassination of JFK has been making waves, where I have hailed the moderator, Keven Hofeling, Esq,. a retired attorney, as having \u201ca mind like a steel trap\u201d. I have called him \u201cThe New Sheriff in the JFK Community\u201d for the excellence of his commentary, characteristically precise, comprehensive, and thorough. His mastery of argument has seemed to me to be impeccable\u2013until now. I posted (what I took to be) a throwaway about the body in autopsy photographs not being that of JFK on 11 June 2026: But he responded with attempts to debunk my collaborative (with Rick Russo and Larry Rivera).findings. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has proven that none of the JFK autopsy X-rays in the National Archives is an original. If we are right, then we also do not have a single authentic autopsy photograph of the body of JFK:<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
From:\u00a0James Fetzer<\/span><\/strong>
\nDate: Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 6:34\u202fPM
\nSubject: Re: J. KEVEN HOFELING ESQ. RE:\u00a0Dr<\/span>. Michael Kayser\u2019s Comments About Evidentiary Issues and the Evidentiary Challenges of the JFKA Case<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
There\u2019s a glitch in the photographic record, because the Groden photos are not of JFK but of another body, presumably that of \u201cThe Major\u201d, who arrived in a casket that Dennis David was ordered not to log in. I believe it\u2019s \u201cThe Major\u201d whose body we see repeatedly in photographs displayed here. I called this out in 2017 and in presentations in Portland and Seattle in 2018,\u00a0but nobody seems\u00a0to have noticed. See my\u00a0\u201cFalse Flags on Five Fronts<\/span><\/a>\u201d (4 February 2018), for the GIF, and\u00a0https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/?p=23459<\/a><\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The quote from Edward Reed is of more than passing significance. Lifton was the first to notice Humes spoke of\u00a0\u201cindications of surgery to the head\u201d<\/b>, where Reed and Thomas Edward Robinson, the mortician who prepared the body for the funeral, watched as Humes himself took a cranial saw to the skull of JFK to enlarge it to look like\u00a0something that could have been caused by a shot from above and behind<\/b>, had Jack been learning far\u00a0forward, described in mathematical detail in the Bethesda Autopsy Report.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Three<\/div>\n
So there are actually\u00a0three different versions of the back-of-the-head wound<\/b>. When Groden and I were having\u00a0breakfast together in Des Moine, IA, before speaking to an advanced high-school class on the assassination, he offered to let me use his photos, which are of course prominent in this post, to which I replied,\u00a0\u201cBut they\u2019re\u00a0fake<\/span>!\u201d<\/b>, to which he made no reply. Yet another\u00a0fake<\/span>\u00a0autopsy photo seems to have acquired a life of its own, where some of our best experts on the medical evidence take it to be authentic:<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/div>\n
Bob Livingston, M.D<\/span>., has explained how Humes called him back\u2013after he had called Humes to emphasize that, given the wound to the throat (which had been described as\u00a0\u201ca small, clean puncture wound\u201d<\/b>) had to be a wound of entry, that the neck had to be carefully dissected to trace its trajectory\u2013to ask what it would have looked like had it been a wound of exit instead. As you can see here, he altered the wound (following Bob\u2019s description). But\u00a0this isn\u2019t JFK, either,<\/b>\u00a0but another of \u201cThe Major\u201d. Notice that his eyes are open. Charles Crenshaw, who was the last physician to view him at Parkland, participated in wrapping\u00a0the body in sheets and placing it in the bronze ceremonial casket, and closed his eyes in the process. Even our best medical experts appear to have been played. And the reason Jackie did not go for an open casket was\u00a0because it didn\u2019t look like Jack, which is because it wasn\u2019t Jack<\/b>.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Jim<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Very much to my surprise, Keven took exception to (what I had thought was obvious and posted critiques debunking my arguments. What follows is the latest and most comprehensive attack with my reply. (I have corrected the word \u201copen\u201d to \u201cclosed\u201d in sentence (d) below..)]<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

From:\u00a0James Fetzer<\/strong>
\nDate: Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 10:14\u202fPM
\nSubject: Re: J. KEVEN HOFELING ESQ. vs. DR. JAMES FETZER RE: On Larry Rivera\u2019s Blender Photogrammetry Evidence of a Substitute Cadaver in the JFK Autopsy Photographs
\nTo: J. Keven Hofeling<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Postscript\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
You ask why those shown the photos did not immediately reject them. But which autopsy photos were they shown? Do you know, Keven? Plus we know that the official photographers said that\u00a0these were not the photographs they had taken<\/b>. Why have you lost your objectivity by only citing evidence favorable to your side? That\u2019s the fallacy known as\u00a0special pleading<\/i>\u00a0(or \u201ccherry picking\u201d) or (alternatively)\u00a0the method of selection\u00a0and elimination<\/b>\u00a0by selecting the evidence that is favorable to your side and eliminating\u00a0the rest. I expected more of you, Keven. Heretofore you have seemed to be a bulldozer for truth\u2013but not in this case.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 8:02\u202fPM\u00a0James Fetzer<\/b>\u00a0wrote:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Keven,<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I hereby incorporate my previous report of 12 June 2026, which included the following:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Serendipitously,\u00a0Rick Russo had been sent our recent exchange<\/b>\u00a0and called me to<\/div>\n
suggest I might want to review \u201cA Conversation\\ with Rick Russo\u201d that he had done:<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Conversation with Rick Russo\u00a0 (24 Marcy 2024)<\/b><\/div>\n
https:\/\/youtu.be\/DvO\u2013qobAGY?is=zOxXpfSq1a12QtHD<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
Rick\u00a0has probably spent the most time with the\u00a0medical techs of any student of JFK.<\/div>\n
It turns out\u00a0there were two (2) morgues at Bethesda<\/b>\u00a0beyond the facility at NAMRI:<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

(1) The old morgue was\u00a0in Building 2<\/b>, where JFK was brought in at 6:30 PM\/ET;<\/i><\/div>\n
(2) The new\u00a0(built in 1960) was\u00a0in\u00a0Building 8<\/b>, where he was brought at 8 PM\/ET.<\/i><\/div>\n
(3) The disputed photographs, however,\u00a0were not taken at either but<\/b>at NAMRI.<\/b><\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/blockquote class=\u201dgmail_quote\u201d><\/p>\n

\n
I am going to address each of\u00a0Keven\u2019s arguments in sequence but, having offered<\/div>\n
courses in logic and critical\u00a0thinking for 35 years,\u00a0he commits elementary fallacies.<\/b><\/div>\n
I am such a fan of\u00a0Keven\u00a0that I am stilltaken-aback by his defense of fake photos.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

We know the story Lifton shared of the ambulance chase, the two ambulances, the<\/div>\n
two morgue entries, and the existence of two morgues at Bethesda. We also know<\/div>\n
of the existence of a third morgue\u00a0at NAMRI, which Dennis David identified as the<\/div>\n
source of the contested photographs including the tiles, the stirrup, and the phone:<\/div>\n
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
So I am\u00a0presuming that you acknowledge<\/b>\u00a0(what I take to have already been proven) that:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(1) the (left side) photos were\u00a0not taken at either of the Bethesda morgues but at NAMRI<\/b>;<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(2) that (in addition) the so-called\u00a0\u201cStare of Death\u201d photograph was also taken at NAMRI;<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(3) nevertheless, you still insist as\u00a0\u201cnot proven\u201d that these were not photographs of JFK.<\/b><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

My challenge, therefore, is to demonstrate that\u00a0these photos, taken at NAMRI, were<\/b>\u00a0not JFK<\/b>.<\/div>\n
Notice how odd it is that any autopsy photographs of JFK would be taken anywhere other than<\/div>\n
Bethesda. I would have thought that an attorney would regard the fact that they were taken at<\/div>\n
NAMRI as\u00a0prima facie<\/i>\u00a0proof that they were taken of a body other than that of JFK, especially<\/div>\n
when comparisons with left and right profile photos of JFK are rather different in their features.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

This, of course, has been reinforced by Larry Rivera\u2019s overlays, which support a 2-body thesis:<\/div>\n
\n
Larry has addressed the question of the authenticity of the images in the\u00a0autopsy photos in his<\/div>\n
JFK: 20th Century Revelations, Vol. II<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(2025)<\/a>, pp. 225-226, with the following repeatable results:<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Larry is highly proficient at doing overlays, including Lee in the doorway. Thus,<\/div>\n
\u201cJFK\u2019s high forehead, browline, eye, nose, mouth and chin do not line up at all<\/div>\n
The autopsy photos shown here are not of John Kennedy. It\u2019s not even close.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Larry observes, \u201cWhen applying a grid profile to the collage, it\u2019s child\u2019s play, illustrating<\/div>\n
and thereby proving the autopsy photo showing the left profile is not that of Kennedy\u201d.<\/div>\n
Yet you, Keven, imply that I bear a burden of proof for something that\u2019s\u00a0already proven!<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:17\u202fAM\u00a0J. Keven Hofeling<\/b>\u00a0wrote:<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Dr. Fetzer,<\/div>\n
\n

I too am an admirer of Larry Rivera\u2019s work (I for example frequently cite to audio segments of the testimony of the Dallas motorcycle police officers who attested that the presidential limousine stopped at the time of the headshots [including the 4 who were flanking the limo] from Larry\u2019s poscast interviews regarding\u00a0\u2018The JFK Horsemen\u2019<\/i>), and I wish he would contribute more of his expertise to our email deliberations.<\/p>\n

I am also convinced that\u00a0Blender photogrammetry studies of JFKA photographic evidence should have a legitimate role in the detection of forgeries and fakery, and that Larry has genuine expertise in the utilization of this technology.<\/div>\n
However, with regard to the study that you have cited below as evidence that the cadaver in the JFK autopsy photographs is\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0that of President Kennedy, I would want to see something along the lines of the following to corroborate the specific claim: Control samples of other autopsy photos of cadaver faces on heads in which every bone in the face was broken, with fractures throughout the cranium, and an occipital-parietal defect the size of a large orange in the back of the head (or equivelant damage) on which\u00a0Blender photogrammetry comparisons with photographs of the subject while living shows no morpheological differences with the appearance of the face in the autopsy photographs. My expectation would be that between that degree of cranial damage and associated facial swelling (remember that Robinson also found schrapnel holes in the face during embalming), other comparative\u00a0Blender photogrammetry studies would also detect significant differences between pre and post mortem photographs of the faces of other autopsy subjects with equivelent cranial damage.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

From the ARRB Meeting Report summarizing the\u00a06\/21\/96 in-person interview of Tom Robinson<\/strong>\u00a0(ARRB MD 180),\u00a0page 2,<\/b>\u00a0under the heading\u00a0\u201cVisible damage to skull caused by the bullet of bullets (as opposed to damage caused by the pathologists)\u201d<\/em>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201c-skull fractures:\u00a0Robinson said that every bone in the President\u2019s face was broken, but that this could not be determined when viewing the body from the front. He also said that there were fractures all over the cranium, including the floor of the skull, saying on another occasion, \u2018every bone in his head was broken.\u2019\u00a0<\/b>(Regarding this interior skull damage, it is unclear how much of this was observed by Robinson during the autopsy, and how much during embalming and reconstruction.)\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Primary Source<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

MD 180 \u2014 ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6\/21\/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson<\/strong>, AARC Library:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

https:\/\/aarclibrary.org\/publib\/jfk\/arrb\/master_med_set\/md180\/html\/md180_0002a.htm<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Other evidence you have cited, includes JFK\u2019s eyes being open in the autopsy photographs despite earlier being closed by the Parkland physicians. The following testimony not only explains the eyes opening, but also further corroborates the extent of the cranial damage attested to by Tom Robinson above:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Dennis David:<\/b>\u2026.the right eye seemed to be a little more prominent than it is here in this picture. (photo 1= stare of death)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
William Law: More prominent as to what?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
David: Protruded.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Law: So it was popped.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
David: You could say that.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
Paul O\u2019Connor:<\/b>\u00a0His right eye, as I remember, was poked completely out of the orbit, the eye casing. I remember that Dr. Boswell and I looked into the back of the cranium, looking towards the front, and the orbit-the boney casing around where the eye sits was completely fractured.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
James Jenkins:<\/b>\u00a0\u2026.And the only thing is that\u00a0when they were preparing the body for burial, they had to put a suture in the right eyelid in order to keep it closed<\/b>\u00a0because apparently there may have been some bone fracture in that area, but there was no externally visible wound or fracturing there.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Jerrol Custer:<\/b>\u00a0The eye was more protruded at the time, but there\u2019s nothing to say that the eye wasn\u2019t pushed back in. Because at that time also there was a mortician\u00a0there<\/span>\u00a0doing his work, his job was fixing, making the body more presentable.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
All above quotes are from William Matson Law\u2019s \u201cIN THE EYE OF HISTORY\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
Something here just \u201cpops out at you\u201d\u2013or, should I say, at any objective observer. When you< cite Dennis
\nDavid as having noticed (of his right eye) that it was more \u201cprotruded\u201d\u2013and then confirms that it was
\n\u201cpopped out\u201d, notice that the right eye in the disputed photographs is not \u201cpopped out\u201d, which lends
\nfurther confirmation to the 2-body thesis.\u00a0Yet you simply ignore it.<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 You want to attribute difference in the overlays to differences in pre and post-mortem imagery<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 due to cranial damage. And you ask for comparisons with other autopsy victims, something I<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 would only expect from someone who wants to conceal or obfuscate OBVIOUS differences.<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 David observed a popped out eye in JFK. This body does not have one. This body is not JFK.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 And if you want to take the Custer\/Jenkins line\u2013\u201cthey had to add a suture in the right eye to<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 keep it closed\u201d\u2013notice\u00a0the right eye is NOT CLOSED.<\/b>\u00a0And (as I have previously reported),<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Charles Crenshaw closed his eyes in Dallas and, from my review of rigor mortis, his eyes<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0should have been closed<\/b>\u00a0at the time of the autopsy, which again means those are not JFK.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 I find it embarrassing that a person of your intellect would introduce a\u00a0straw man\u00a0<\/i>argument,<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 implying that unless Larry (or Rick or I) were doing comparative pre and post mortem studies<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 of subjects having\u00a0all of their cranial bones broken<\/b>\u00a0Larry\u2019s overlays have no evidential value.<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 After all, if they matched, there would be no question of being the same.\u00a0But they don\u2019t match.<\/b><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
MORE QUOTES:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
CE 387 Pathological Examination Report:<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\u2026the eyes are blue, the right pupil measuring 8 mm. in diameter, the left 4 mm.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
There is edema and aechymosis of the inner canthus region of the left eyelid measuring approximately 1.5 ma. in greatest diameter. There is edema and ecchymosis diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
MR. GUNN: I notice that this photo is different from the first view that we took a look at. The eye, at least on the right side, appears to be open. Actually, both eyes appear to be open. Do you recall whether the eyes were open during the course of the autopsy?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
DR. J THORNTON BOSWELL:<\/b>\u00a0I don\u2019t recall that that was a point of interest. I think we just moved back and let the photographer take the picture, and\u00a0I think maybe positioning the body may have had something to do with stretching the eyelids. But I don\u2019t think we made any attempt to take the pictures with the eyes open or closed.<\/b><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
MR. GUNN: So the difference on whether the eyes were open or closed would not be of any material significance in terms of the timing of the photographs?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
DR. J THORNTON BOSWELL: No.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
MR. GUNN: Do you have any recollection as to whether the eyes of President Kennedy were open at any point during the autopsy?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
JOHN T. STRINGER:<\/b>\u00a0Yes.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
MR. GUNN: Were they open at all points during the autopsy?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
JOHN T. STRINGER:\u00a0Well, they kept trying to close them, and they\u2019d open again.<\/b><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
Arlen Specter: Upon your arrival in the room, where President Kennedy was situated, what did you observe as to his condition?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Malcolm Perry:<\/b>\u00a0At the time I entered the door, Dr. Carrico was attending him. He was attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration. The President was lying supine on the carriage, underneath the overhead lamp. His shirt, coat, had been removed. There was a sheet over his lower extremities and the lower portion of his trunk. He was unresponsive. There was no evidence of voluntary motion. His eyes were open, deviated up and outward, and the pupils were dilated and fixed.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Here is the problem, Dr. Fetzer: If the points cited above \u2014 which you have offered as evidence of a JFK body double at autopsy \u2014 were presented to a jury, I would expect that opposing counsel would respond by presenting the evidence above, point out that of the 40 or so medical and law enforcement professionals that were shown the Fox set of bootleg autopsy photographs when they came out that\u00a0not a single one of them<\/b><\/i>\u00a0exclaimed\u00a0\u201cthat is not the body of the President that I worked on \/witnessed!\u201d\u00a0<\/i>(although there were many that exclaimed that the intact back of the head\u00a0\u201cwas gone!\u201d<\/i>), and opposing counsel would go on to present numerous other examples of unsubstantiated body double theories (such as those involving Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign, and the more recent Charlie Kirk body double theories), would throw out terms like \u201clooneysville\u201d and \u201cLa La Land\u201d,\u00a0and the jury would laugh us out of Court!<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0WOW! This is fascinating. Keven here alludes to my proofs that Hillary Clinton has used<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0body doubles on many occasions, even including national debates with Bernie Sanders<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0and with Donald Trump.\u00a0Several fallacies<\/b>\u00a0are committed here, including the\u00a0ad hominem<\/i><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(\u201cIf Fetzer\u2019s wrong about Hillary, then he\u2019s also wrong about JFK\u201d) and\u00a0appeal to popular<\/i><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0sentiments<\/i>\u00a0(Most people do not believe Hillary used body doubles; therefore, Hillary did<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0not use them), which I spent 35 years teaching undergraduates to detect and to avoid:<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Deception Galore: Faking Hate Crimes and More<\/b><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0https:\/\/www.bitchute.com\/video\/KBq8w3YH7R5n<\/a><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Unless, of course, they wanted to deploy them for rhetorical effect, as you, Keven, do here.<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0I don\u2019t have a Charlie Kirk double theory, but I (and my colleagues) have proven that it was<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0a staged event.<\/b>\u00a0EGAD! We even have\u00a0a rehearsal crisis-actor-crowd video<\/b>\u00a0broadcast<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0over ABC (with 100s running away from an empty tent as practice for following their script),<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0no blood<\/b>\u00a0(in a setting that should have had blood splatter everywhere), and a wound that<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0moves around on his neck<\/b>\u00a0(because it was CGIed in). Take a look and decide for yourself:<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Charlie Kirk Assassination HOAX EXPOSED: No Blood, Fake Footage, Mossad Plot & Zionist Money<\/b><\/div>\n

https:\/\/rumble.com\/v701uvw\u2013charlie-kirk-assassination-hoax-exposed-no-blood-fake-footage-mossad-plot-.html<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0For an experienced attorney and very smart guy like Keven to cite irrelevant and immaterial<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0studies in this context\u2013especially when I have already provided massive proof of 2 bodies\u2013<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(a) the photos in question were not even taken in one of the Bethesda morgues but at NAMRI;<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(b) the superpositions do not match (when presumably they would were these the same body);<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(c) the real body had a (right eye) \u201cpopped out\u201d, but the body in these photographs does not;<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(d) the eyes are open when (given onset of rigor) they ought to be closed (Charles Crenshaw).<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0 \u00a0which establishes (what I would take to be)\u00a0dispositive proof of 2 bodies<\/b>. And it may never<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0have crossed their minds that it wasn\u2019t JFK\u2019s body\u00a0just as it seems not to have crossed yours.<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
That\u2019s the way things work in the real world. Body double theories might be good for selling books, and attracting podcast audiences,\u00a0but without actual legitimate substantiating evidence,<\/i><\/b>\u00a0they are used to discredit legitimate JFK assassination research and turn us into a laughingstalk\u2026<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 Didn\u2019t the CIA suggest in its memorandum on dealing with\u00a0Warren Report critics<\/b>\u00a0to cite their having<\/div>\n
\u00a0 financial interest and other improper motives (like selling books\u00a0and attracting podcast audiences)?<\/div>\n
\u00a0 Keven here implies that (a) through (d) are not \u201cactual legitimate substantiating evidence\u201d, which<\/div>\n
\u00a0 is\u00a0OBVIOUSLY FALSE.<\/b>\u00a0(a) though (d) constitute \u201cactual legitimate\u00a0substantiating evidence\u201d.<\/b><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 And there\u2019s a great deal more \u201cactual legitimate substantiating evidence\u201d, including the skull flap.<\/div>\n
\u00a0 In the HSCA photos and drawings, JFK had a skull flap attached to his head. Where has it gone?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n
\u00a0 \u00a0Since there was a skull flap on the body of JFK\u2013which Thomas Robinson also described\u2013<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0but\u00a0no skull flap on the body shown<\/b>\u00a0in these photographs, they can\u2019t be one-and-the-same.<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0Keven has previously cited David Josephs and the claim that the ears match. But Larry and<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0Rick have done better, cleaner, and more accurate studies show that\u00a0the ears do not match<\/b>:<\/div>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 In fact, it\u2019s not even close<\/b>. We also have a pretty good idea where the face of the 2nd body<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 came from. Part of the genius of taking the body from Dallas to Bethesda is that, as a former<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Naval officer, JFK\u2019s medical records were stored there. Thus, as I have previously observed,<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 if they needed a chest X-ray to conceal damage done by the bullet that passed through the<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 windshield\u2013shards of which caused tiny wounds to the face, which Keven mentioned above<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Thomas Robinson had found and David Mantik explained\u2013they could not only have another<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 chest X-ray but a genuine JFK CHEST X-RAY. But they also took photographs of him there.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Rick has found earlier photographs suggesting that they may have been used for the double:<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 From some perspectives, the nose appears to be an artificial contrivance (a prosthetic nose):<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

\"image.png\"<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Thee may be no colorized photos of the \u201cStare of Death\u201d because they only had black-and-white:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The body in the disputed photographs looks much younger and less mature than JFK at time of death:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 Here are some photos of a much younger JFK, where the body double image falls in between:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

So we actually have\u00a0at least 10 lines of actual, legitimate, substantiating proof<\/b>\u00a0as follows:<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(1) the photos in question were not even taken in one of the Bethesda morgues but at NAMRI;<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(2) the superpositions do not match (when presumably they would were these the same body);<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(3) the real body had a (right eye) \u201cpopped out\u201d, but the body in these photographs does not;<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(4) the eyes are open when (given onset of rigor) they ought to be closed (Charles Crenshaw);<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(5) some of the bodies in the record have skull flaps, but others do not (implying more than 1);<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(6) the ears (typically taken as decisive as fingerprints)\u00a0do not match<\/b>\u00a0(guaranteeing 2 bodies);<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(7) earlier Bethesda photographs appear to closely resemble the face of the new body double;<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(8) from some perspectives, the nose appears to be an artificial\u00a0contrivance (a prosthetic nose);<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(9) no color version of the Stare of Death, perhaps because they only had the black-and-white;<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0(10) the body double looks to be much younger and less mature than JFK at time of his death.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Scientific reasoning entails four steps or stages (as I have explained in many places; see, for<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0example,\u00a0\u201cPropensities and Frequencies: Inference to the Best Explanation\u201d,<\/a>\u00a0and elsewhere:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u00a0 \u00a0PUZZLEMENT:<\/b>\u00a0Something doesn\u2019t add up, such as conflicting reports about the autopsy, the<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0autopsy photographs, different ambulances, multiple morgues, and photographic anomalies;<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0SPECULATION<\/b>: What hypothesis might possibly explain these many anomalies and resolve<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0our puzzlement? Could there have been more than one body featured in these photographs?<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0ADAPTATION<\/b>: What is the probability of the available evidence (1)-(10) on the hypothesis (h1),<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0only one body was involved, in contrast to hypothesis (h2), more than one body was involved?<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The probability\u00a0of (1)-(10) on hypothesis (h1) there was one and only one body = zero.<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The probability of (1)-(10) on hypothesis (h2) more than one body was involved = high.<\/b><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Inference to the best explanation thus supports the following as previously asserted:<\/b><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

(1) The old morgue was\u00a0in Building 2<\/b>, where JFK was brought in at 6:30 PM\/ET;<\/i><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(2) The new\u00a0(built in 1960) was\u00a0in\u00a0Building 8<\/b>, where he was brought at 8 PM\/ET.<\/i><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(3) The Major was\u00a0at NAMRI<\/b>\u00a0undergoing a parallel autopsy while JFK was in the<\/i><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0old (for wound alteration) before he was taken to the new (for the official autopsy).<\/i><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0EXPLANATION<\/b>: When the evidence \u201csettles down\u201d and points in the same direction, then we<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0are entitled to accept the best supported as true in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Lingering question. Why would an experienced lawyer whom I myself have described as having<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u201ca mind like a steel trap\u201d obfuscate and dissemble in relation to (what I regard as)\u00a0the missing<\/b><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0piece of the puzzle<\/b>\u00a0regarding the mysteries of Bethesda Hospital? While Keven concludes as<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0follows,\u00a0there\u2019s nothing respectful of me, Rick, Larry, or (even) JFK<\/b>\u00a0at work here, sad to say.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Jim<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
Respectfully,<\/div>\n
Keven<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-<\/p>\n

From:\u00a0James Fetzer<\/strong>
\nDate: Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 8:57\u202fAM
\nSubject: On Larry Rivera on the JFK Autopsy Photographs
\nTo: J. Keven Hofeling<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
Keven,<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Larry Rivera has addressed the question of the authenticity of the images in the<\/div>\n
autopsy photos in hisJFK: 20th Century Revelations, Vol. II<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(2025)<\/a>, pp. 225-226:<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think this leaves a lot of room for doubt about it. I highly recommend:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Larry has been responsible for some of the most cutting-edge JFK research of the<\/div>\n
past decade, including confirming Lee in the doorway; that Lee\u2019s passport was not<\/div>\n
valid for travel to Cuba; that the whole Mexico City narrative was a fabrication; and<\/div>\n
that the extant autopsy photographs are not of the body of\u00a0John\u00a0Fitzerald Kennedy.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jim<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.,<\/strong>\u00a0a former Marine Corps officer, is Distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota<\/em><\/p>\n

____
\nhttps:\/\/jameshfetzer.org\/2026\/06\/jim-fetzer-jfk-at-bethesda-a-missing-piece-of-the-puzzle\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=69255"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69255\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69257,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69255\/revisions\/69257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=69255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=69255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=69255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}