The Kennedy Autopsy By Jacob Hornberger

  • Author: Jacob Hornberger


The Kennedy autopsy is a key part of the Kennedy assassination that people have debated about for half a century. It is not the purpose of this book to engage in that debate. The purpose of this book is simply to focus on what happened at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. What happened that night is so unusual that it cries out for truthful explanation even after all these years.

In this book, you will learn that

1. Kennedy’s body was actually delivered to the Bethesda morgue twice, at separate times and in separate caskets.

2. Some photographs and x-rays from the Kennedy autopsy went missing from the record, and other photographs in the record were forged or otherwise fraudulent.

3. The president’s body was altered by tampering with the wounds before the autopsy took place.

And much more.

The Kennedy Autopsy is an excellent overview of the deception that went on in secret at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. Dozens of highly qualified medical professionals at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas saw a large blown out wound in the back of President Kennedy’s head. Yet the official autopsy at Bethesda just 8 hours later reported no such wound.

How do we reconcile these two radically different views? Mr. Hornberger details the mysterious goings-on at Bethesda, and reveals the lying and duplicity by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979. It wasn’t until the Assassination Records Board in 1998 produced records from the HSCA that demonstrated definitively that individuals who participated in JFK’s autopsy saw the same wound in the back of JFK’s head that was seen by the doctors in Dallas. The deception is breathtaking, and everyone who cares about truth and transparency in government should read this book.

– Amazon Review

See More See Less


  • Reagan Rothbard

    The Kennedy Autopsy

    I just downloaded The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger. Has anyone read it yet? I don’t typically spend time on this kind of thing, but its pretty nuts.  

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies
  • Mark McCammon

    How to Simplify the Tax Code

    It can be a challenge to keep up with all the taxes one needs to pay throughout the year, and than to deal with all the paperwork that needs to be filed can be frustrating. What would be a good way to simplify the Tax Code? Below is a list of some of the taxes that we the people need to pay, or at least we experience their effects at one time or another. -Medicare, Medicare, Social Security, Federal Inocme Tax, State tax, Local Tax, Corporate tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, estate tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gift tax, tariffs on imports and exports, etc. Would a simple flat or consumption tax do the trick?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Andrew Lepkowski

    Venezuela: Violence is the last resort

    Venezuela has the highest violent crime rate in the world. Though it is not moral or justified, people choose violence over starvation when there are no alternatives. Of course, “we” libertarians all know that this situation was created by government/s coercion’s consequences, but so few among the greater population seem to recognize that. It seems like a similar fate faces the whole world.

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • Reagan Rothbard

    Ukraine and Foreign Policy

    How do you think a non-aggressionist should think about what is happening in the Ukraine?

    Jump to Discussion Post 10 replies
  • Jonathan Gillispie

    How limited should government be?

    This is a question that libertarians and constitutional conservatives have different views and answers on. Some libertarians are anarchist and want no state to exist per Murray Rothbard. Others prefer a LIMITED govt that only provides certain services like police, courts & military per Ludwig Von Mises; or even don’t a very limited welfare state per F.A. Hayek or the Chicago School of Economics. This forum is to sort out how limited govt should be according to what libertarians and anarchists think.

    Jump to Discussion Post 46 replies
  • Peter Lothian Nelson


    What chunks of the government can we eliminate instantly, and what parts need to stay in place for a month or three?

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  • Roderick T. Beaman


    It has often been said that truth is stranger than fiction. It also often precedes fiction. In the hit TV series, L A Law, there was a story arc involving Abby Perkins, played by Michelle Greene, where she demonstrates a skill in criminal defense work and in a series of trials, juries bring in not guilty verdicts in cases against drug dealers. She has a conversation with Jimmy Smits’ character, Victor Sifuentas, where she worries about what she is doing; getting guilty people off. Sifuentes, who has also done some defense work, assures Abby that her work is necessary because it stands between us and a police state. (With that, I agree completely.) He cautions her though, to make sure that she protects herself by dotting her is and crossing her ts because if she continues with her success, they, meaning the government, will be coming after her. Sure enough, the government tries to take her down in a sting and setup operation. Such actions by our government should seem repulsive to us as Americans. It runs against our grain because we believe that it is the defense’s job to force a full examination of all the evidence against an accused. All Americans accept this as the price of our assumption of innocence. It also runs against our grain because we believe that in justice, as in life & sports, you have to accept defeat. To act otherwise is known as being a sore head. We tend to root for the Davids against the Goliaths. Americans are committed to playing as hard as we can by pre-set rules but we are also committed to accepting the outcome. Our government operates without such constraints. Our American government is not committed to acting in an American way! In the annals of American organized crime, few figures loom larger than Silvestri Patrone. There have been more famous figures, Al Capone, Charles ‘Lucky’ Luciano, Carlo Gambino, Joey Gallo & John Gotti but in all inner circles, Silvestri Patrone was known and respected. During the 1970s & into the 1980s, Patrone faced a series of highly publicized indictments. He turned to a newly minted attorney, Gerald Calvecchio, for his defense. In the equally high profile subsequent trials, the juries found Patrone not guilty. So, what did the government do? Did they just accept that they had not prepared their case well enough? Did they accept that Calvecchio had done his job well, as is the mandate he operates under? Of course not! Why they set him up with a plant, an ostensible client who was wired and coached him in what to say to coax an answer out of him that they could bring to a grand jury for an indictment, which they did. The grand jury system has become a sick joke; the joke about indicting a ham sandwich. Originally created to prevent malicious prosecutions by crazed & vengeful government, they have become tools of harassment. All that is necessary for an indictment is for a majority of the jurors, often 12 out of 23, to agree that a criminal charge is justified and it has become a one man show with the prosecutor being able to get an indictment of anyone for something. And if by some chance the grand jurors decline to indict, why all the prosecutor has to do is claim he has new evidence and convene another and then another and then another… Anyone care to give odds on the chances that eventually, a grand jury will indict? Well, indict Calvecchio they did. It went to trial and there was a hung jury. The government retried him but the next jury brought back a not guilty verdict. But why did he have to through it in the first place? The moral of the story is that you must never do anything to upset the government. It has the resources to destroy anyone and it will at the right provocation and the right provocation has included political actions. This is not may seem like a small matter but don’t forget this is just the tip of the iceberg of what government can do to anyone. That includes you. It is not paranoid to think that. It is reality.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Account deleted

    An important anniversary

    Today is the anniversary of the publication of what may be the most important libertarian essay of the decade. Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • Ben Best

    The "Mind" of a Lobbyist

    Many of us like to associate with like-minded people, but there is something to be said for associating with opposite-minded people. Know thy enemy. In this case, I was listening to a lobbyist who has written “As a Democrat, I think the government has a role to help people.”  I can’t imagine what role the criminally insane can have in helping people, and I can’t help but imagining what harm they can do. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A telling statement made by this lobbyist was “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” I think this is a concise summary of the evil of government power, but for this lobbyist it was an invitation to get involved in lobbying government to defend your interests and promote your pet projects. Microsoft had no lobbyists and ignored the government until the company was attacked with vicious anti-trust actions by the government. Subsequently, Microsoft invested heavily in lobbyists. It seems that government is a self-perpetuating power machine that cannot fail to grow.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Tor Valamo

    Different flavours of wrong

    I’m currently reading a book on the subject of software development. I found this particular quote to not only be applicable to software development, but also party politics. “There is no right answer, just different flavours of wrong.” I’ll leave it up to yourselves to find an interpretation you’re happy with. So which wrong are you gonna support next election?

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies