The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence

[William Kelly]

Josiah,

I feel that your point that some of the weak positions adopted by Doug Horne does indeed colour the reliability of what he has to say.

I have the complete set and I have skimmed through the set. Although I like some chapters like, for example, Chapter 8 on Sibbert and O'Neil in Volume 3 or a good portion of chapter 16 in volume 5 on inconvenient truths or chapter 2 on the medical evidence in volume 1, I have come away from this quick reading quite troubled.

First. This five volume set is around 2,000 pages. Yet, and this I still find difficult to believe, there is no index to this set. Who, on earth, would write a 2,000 page set with very detailed cross referencing and provide no index? It would not be so bad if the table of contents was detailed, but for each of the chapters it simply has a single line sentence. And some chapters are around 300 to 400 pages long.

Second. As this and other threads demonstrate an important aspect of this work is the Zapruder film. In Volume 1 the images, which are all annotated, are all in black and white. And the Zapruder images are so blurred as to be incomprehensible. It is really difficult to see what he is referring to. In Figure 87 + 88, which is a copy of Z317, we are pointed to a solid black patch on the back of JFK's head. In the colour version of this same frame such a black blob is not to be seen in that frame. I suspect it is a consequence having the frame printed in B & W, but the annotation suggests that what we are seeing is an example of tampering with the Zapruder film. If these frames are so fundamental to his view of the manipulation of the Zapruder film then I would have expected better images.

Third. In Volume 4 P. 1150 we are told that between Z 312 and Z 313 four shots struck JFK in the head. One of those shots was fired by the driver Bill Greer. I don't know what the odds are for four shots to simultaneously hit an object and at same time. In volume 5 p. 1416 Horne comments that because we cannot see the gun in Greer's hand that is evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. On the same page we are informed that in Moorman #5 Bill Greer has been washed out of the picture. In volume 1, figure 76, he provides a poor copy of the image which is very washed. In some of the copies of Moorman #5 that I have I believe you can see a small portion of the back of Greer's head in the bottom left hand corner. The reason why Greer is not in the picture is because he is not in the frame.

Fourth. In Volume 5 pages 1429-1431 Horne describes the Murchison party as a statement of fact. He comments that J Edgar Hoover was present at the party. I believe there is clear evidence that Hoover had appointments that Thursday evening and was very early into his office. Thus making it impossible to attend, even if the party ever existed.

Fifth. One of the main bad guys in Horne's account of the assassination and its coverup is Roy Kellerman. Maybe I am not as informed as others, but I was not aware that Kellerman was involved in preparation of the assassination and its subsequent coverup. However in this set of books he plays a very significant part in covering up the assassination.

Sixth. The basis for much of the theory of what medically happened is based on David Lifton's "Best Evidence", especially the moving of the body into the shipping casket. (At the moment I can't find the page reference for this. This is one of the problems of a book this size not being indexed) He is no more clear than David Lifton is as to how this happened. I recollect that his understanding is that as soon as the ceremonial casket was taken on board the body was quickly moved and, I think, stored in the forward loading bay. I am sure that immediately the coffin was loaded on the plane that Jackie boarded the plane So I don't know how there would be time to change the body.

In addition, Horne states that the damage to the ceremonial casket was not done in Dallas loading it onto the plane. It was actually done in Bethesda when the body was moved back into the ceremonial casket after the pre-autopsy.

In another thread we were introduced to Horne's metaphor of the jigsaw. That is appropriate for this set of books, because it appears to me, the reader, that everything is part of the conspiracy. And so Josiah I agree, in your initial post in this thread, although there is much I found interesting in the set, these above points (and I could have listed many more) make me uneasy of the reliability of other areas in the books.

James.

Thanks James, for reading Doug's work and commenting on it. Now we may be able to actually discuss the imporant things he has to say after hasing through much of what some consider sensational, and in some cases is is sensational.

I too was dissapointed that there is no index, but since Doug wrote the book and edited it himself with little help other than some proof readers and Rex at MFA, he didn't have the backing or assistance of a major publisher like guys like Posner, Bugliosi etc. have. Nor did he get an advance and he bankrolled the whole operation himself. Maybe others will do it like Syliva Meagher, Mary Ferrell and Mae Brussell did with the WC.

Don't forget that researchers had to index the Warren Commission's work on their own and they had the ability to put together an index.

Here's the opening to Chapter 13, Doug's take on how things went down, and the page you mention so people can judge what Doug has to say without filtering it through you or TT. I too don't believe Greer, like Oswald, shot anybody.

And do you say Horne says "one of those shots is fired by Greer" when I read the page you cite as saying in BOLD Type that "the unpleasant possibility exists." Is that you misquoting Horne or am I?

As for Kellerman and Greer being part of a conspiracy, I think Horne makes a strong case for that, and as for it all being a conspiracy, if Doug Horne is right, then those who killed JFK also controlled the theft of the body (Kellerman), the autopsy (Kellerman kept Sibert& O'Neil in a waiting room when they were never supposed to leave the body), the Z-film and compromised the subsequent WC, HSCA and ARRB, so it is still a pretty comprehensive conspiracy if Doug Horne is right.

Chapter 13: What Really Happened at the Bethesda Morgue

(and in Dealey Plaza)?

The principal goals of this chapter are twofold: to create a modified, ‘master timeline’ explaining

what I believe really happened inside the Bethesda morgue; and to engage in limited, but responsible speculation about the actual wounds sustained by President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

I first engaged in a tentative timeline discussion of events inside the Bethesda morgue in Chapter Six, and continued my investigation of some of those events in Chapter Eight. Now that I have completed addressing how the photos and x-rays in the autopsy collection were created in Chapter Twelve, it is appropriate to expand upon and complete the timeline of morgue activities, to the extent that it is possible some 45 years later.

....rifle—fired ahead of time—would have been ‘planted’ and introduced into evidence

fraudulently, as CE 399 and possibly even the front seat fragments, CE 567 and 569,

appear to have been. The apparent double head hit (from behind and from the front)

seen in the Zapruder film, and written about so extensively by Josiah Thompson in

his book, really did happen, in my view. The first shot to strike the skull was fired

from low behind the limousine, possibly the second floor window in the Dal-Tex

Building. The second and third shots that hit President Kennedy in the head were

fired from the grassy knoll area to the right front of the limousine, as discussed

previously. The exit blast from the two frontal shots almost completely obliterated

all evidence of the bullet that struck the skull from behind: as Finck noted in the

Blumberg report, the entrance wound in the posterior skull, when he first saw it, was

only “a portion of a crater,” and Boswell explained to the HSCA staff, to the HSCA

Forensic Pathology Panel, and to the ARRB that the entrance wound in the posterior

skull was located at the margin, or edge of the enormous defect in the posterior skull,

and only a small skull fragment brought into the morgue late in the autopsy allowed

the pathologists to complete the circumference of the entry wound in the back of the

head. The entrance wound low in the posterior skull was not seen in Dallas because

it was located at the lower margin of the large, avulsed exit defect. It was missed

because President Kennedy was lying supine during treatment, part of his brain was

extruding from that exit defect, and he was bleeding profusely from the head. It still

was not noted when the body was washed after death, because it was located in the

periphery of the large exit defect. No one would have seen it at Parkland unless the

head had been shaved and an autopsy had been performed by Dr. Rose.

• The very unpleasant and tentative possibility exists that limousine driver William

Greer fired a fourth head shot into the President’s left temple with his revolver. This

cannot be proven today, since there is no left temporal wound mentioned in the

autopsy report, nor is there such a wound depicted in the autopsy photographs of the

left side of the head. (But the autopsy report has been rewritten, and the head was not

shaved at autopsy, so the absence of evidence for a left temporal wound in the

autopsy report and in the autopsy photographs is not conclusive, by any means.)

However, 3 Parkland physicians believed in 1963 that they had seen a left temporal

wound: McClelland, Jenkins, and Puerto. (See Chapters 7 and 9.) Father Oscar

Huber, who administered the last rites to President Kennedy, said he saw a terrible

wound over his left eye. Photographer Hugh Betzner wrote in his affidavit on

11/22/63 that he saw a nickel-plated revolver in someone’s hand inside or near the

limousine during the assassination. Jean Hill wrote in her affidavit on 11/22/63 that

she thought she saw men in plain clothes “shooting back” during the assassination.

Clint Hill wrote on 11/30/63 that the fatal shot sounded like a revolver fired into a

hard object, and repeated that under oath in 1964 before the Warren Commission.

Motorcycle Patrolman James Chaney, the closest outrider on the right side of the

limousine, told a Houston newspaper on 11/23/63 that the President had been “struck

in the face” by the final shot. In the Moorman photograph, which was in the hands

of the FBI for a considerable period of time in 1964, the figure of William Greer

appears to me to have been ‘whited out’ in the version of the photograph that I own

1150

[Jack White]

Josiah,

I feel that your point that some of the weak positions adopted by Doug Horne does indeed colour the reliability of what he has to say.

I have the complete set and I have skimmed through the set. Although I like some chapters like, for example, Chapter 8 on Sibbert and O’Neil in Volume 3 or a good portion of chapter 16 in volume 5 on inconvenient truths or chapter 2 on the medical evidence in volume 1, I have come away from this quick reading quite troubled.

First. This five volume set is around 2,000 pages. Yet, and this I still find difficult to believe, there is no index to this set. Who, on earth, would write a 2,000 page set with very detailed cross referencing and provide no index? It would not be so bad if the table of contents was detailed, but for each of the chapters it simply has a single line sentence. And some chapters are around 300 to 400 pages long.

Second. As this and other threads demonstrate an important aspect of this work is the Zapruder film. In Volume 1 the images, which are all annotated, are all in black and white. And the Zapruder images are so blurred as to be incomprehensible. It is really difficult to see what he is referring to. In Figure 87 + 88, which is a copy of Z317, we are pointed to a solid black patch on the back of JFK’s head. In the colour version of this same frame such a black blob is not to be seen in that frame. I suspect it is a consequence having the frame printed in B & W, but the annotation suggests that what we are seeing is an example of tampering with the Zapruder film. If these frames are so fundamental to his view of the manipulation of the Zapruder film then I would have expected better images.

Third. In Volume 4 P. 1150 we are told that between Z 312 and Z 313 four shots struck JFK in the head. One of those shots was fired by the driver Bill Greer. I don’t know what the odds are for four shots to simultaneously hit an object and at same time. In volume 5 p. 1416 Horne comments that because we cannot see the gun in Greer’s hand that is evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. On the same page we are informed that in Moorman #5 Bill Greer has been washed out of the picture. In volume 1, figure 76, he provides a poor copy of the image which is very washed. In some of the copies of Moorman #5 that I have I believe you can see a small portion of the back of Greer’s head in the bottom left hand corner. The reason why Greer is not in the picture is because he is not in the frame.

Fourth. In Volume 5 pages 1429-1431 Horne describes the Murchison party as a statement of fact. He comments that J Edgar Hoover was present at the party. I believe there is clear evidence that Hoover had appointments that Thursday evening and was very early into his office. Thus making it impossible to attend, even if the party ever existed.

Fifth. One of the main bad guys in Horne’s account of the assassination and its coverup is Roy Kellerman. Maybe I am not as informed as others, but I was not aware that Kellerman was involved in preparation of the assassination and its subsequent coverup. However in this set of books he plays a very significant part in covering up the assassination.

Sixth. The basis for much of the theory of what medically happened is based on David Lifton’s “Best Evidence”, especially the moving of the body into the shipping casket. (At the moment I can’t find the page reference for this. This is one of the problems of a book this size not being indexed) He is no more clear than David Lifton is as to how this happened. I recollect that his understanding is that as soon as the ceremonial casket was taken on board the body was quickly moved and, I think, stored in the forward loading bay. I am sure that immediately the coffin was loaded on the plane that Jackie boarded the plane So I don’t know how there would be time to change the body.

In addition, Horne states that the damage to the ceremonial casket was not done in Dallas loading it onto the plane. It was actually done in Bethesda when the body was moved back into the ceremonial casket after the pre-autopsy.

In another thread we were introduced to Horne’s metaphor of the jigsaw. That is appropriate for this set of books, because it appears to me, the reader, that everything is part of the conspiracy. And so Josiah I agree, in your initial post in this thread, although there is much I found interesting in the set, these above points (and I could have listed many more) make me uneasy of the reliability of other areas in the books.

James.

This is a very superficial commentary. Horne, WORKING ALONE, has produced a valuable and massive

research set of books, PUBLISHING THEM HIMSELF, and we have grumps like Gordon COMPLAINING

that he did not do enough! He has NO IDEA what doing an index for this work would involve! An index

(uncomputer aided) would require rereading the entire work dozens of times making notations of

names, events, and pages. An index for the volumes would likely require an additional volume!

Even aided by computer search, an index would take thousands of man-hours. John Armstrong,

in compiling Harvey and Lee, spent nearly a year compiling his index, and his book is less than

half as long as Horne's.

Gimme a break! His work has a few flaws but lack of an index is not a main one.

Neither is "Greer firing a shot" one of them as some boneheads would have you believe. He examines

that issue and finds persuasive evidence that it could have happened. He does not advance it any

further than that.

Gordon's superficial review at least shows that he has thumbed through the pages. But it is to

be taken for what it is...superficial.

Jack

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jack White

[William Kelly]

I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda.

BK

[Josiah Thompson]

quote name='William Kelly' date='Jan 13 2010, 01:53 AM' post='178768']

I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda.

BK

As a fellow disinformation agent I will assist James Gordon in discrediting Doug Horne's work by quoting verbatim one of the examples given by Gordon. Two disinformation agents working together are always more effective.

Here's the full quote of one of the examples given by James Gordon along with a commentary:

"A prominent researcher I know (and I know several, do not assume that his identity is a “given”) videotaped an interview he conducted with one of the Air Force One stewards — a black man — shortly before the steward died. The steward related (on videotape) that on the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Love Field, agent Clint Hill was changing his shirt (which was covered with the President’s blood) and in a moment of complete honesty, while being assisted by the steward with his change of wardrobe, confided to the steward that when he jumped onto the back of the limousine “the driver had his gun out and it was pointed at my face.” As the interview was related to me, Clint Hill was quite shaken by what he saw, for the implications were obvious. Hill’s descriptions of the sound of the head shot(s), in both his written statement and in his Warren Commission testimony, were consistently that it resembled the sound a revolver makes when it is fired into a hard object, as I discussed extensively in Chapter 13. Now you know the rest of the story. I personally believe this hearsay account, which is why I have taken the reports of a left temporal entry wound from Parkland so seriously in this book Bertha Lozano, smelled “smoke” (i.e gunpowder) when Kennedy and Connally were rushed past her on gurneys to the trauma stations for treatment. The videotaped interview of the steward also provides independent corroboration Hugh Betzner’s account in his Sheriff Department affidavit of November 22, 1963 that he saw a nickel [plated] revolver in someone’s hand inside the limousine during the assassination, and is consistent with Jean Hill’s account in her November 22, 1963 affidavit that some men in plain clothes were ‘shooting back’ [at the assassins]. Furthermore, since the Zapruder film does not depict Greer holding a handgun and pointing it at President Kennedy, I am even more persuaded that the film has been altered — to remove not only the brief car stop, but what happened during the car stop." [emphasis in original; Horne, Volume V, pp.1415-1416.]

This is the passage that James Gordon referred to. So let’s read it carefully.

Commentary:

Apparently Horne has a friend whom he names “a prominent researcher.” This friend told Horne that he videotaped an Air Force One steward who claimed that Clint Hill told him that “the driver had his gun out and it was pointed at my face.” First off, Horne has never seen this interview. It “was related to me, says Horne, by his friend. Hence, the quote and everything else was what Horne’s friend told him. And who was the steward? What was his name and was he really a steward on Air Force One? Is his name listed as one of the stewards? Has anyone asked or tried to check this? Secondly, all these purported accounts of Greer turning around and icing the President have Greer using a chrome or “nickel plated revolver.” Really lousy copies of the Zapruder film a long time ago started a rumor like this. A question whose answer I don’t know: Was William Greer carrying a weapon that day? If so, what was it? It seems unlikely he would be armed with a shiny revolver. More likely he would be carrying a Browning 9 mm with a ten shot magazine or perhaps the old Colt .45 1911 model for its stopping power. No one, certainly not Horne, has even asked this question. Then we’ve got Bertha Lozano who smells “smoke” as gurneys are wheeled past her in Parkland Hospital. No comment. Finally, Horne says that he believes the Zapruder film was altered not just to conceal the car stop but what happened during the car stop! But wait a minute. There wasn’t any car stop. Some witnesses saw the car slow down but not stop. Other witnesses said they saw car slow down and stop. Other witnesses said they saw the car take off. Other witnesses said nothing about what the car did. The Zapruder and other films show that the car slowed from about 12 mph to about 8 mph just before speeding up and leaving. All of the alleged facts that Zapruder film alteration are purported to conceal, turn out to be ephemeral... they may be a fact and may be not a fact.

Combining Horne’s earlier demonstrated belief that Mary Moorman took her photo from the street here’s what Horne apparently believes:

About the time William Greer brings the car to a halt and turns around and to blast the President in the head with a nickel plated revolver, Mary Moorman jumps into the street. Officers Martin and Hargis veer their cycles sharply to the right to avoid hitting her.

This, of course, is preposterous. I read this and I’m more than just a wee bit sad for Doug Horne. He’s put many hours into this and I was hoping to have a more reliable guide for the medical evidence. As yet, these are only probes into a huge manuscript. But sadly, when I read a passage like that above I have to say to myself, "Same old.... same old." This is the same old conspiracy theorizing that we've had more than enough of over the last decade. It gets us nowhere because the problems with the evidence it cites are so obvious. Let's hope he's much better with the medical evidence.

Josiah Thompson

Edited January 13, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda.

BK

I hope you're joking, Bill. But it's getting to be that it's hard tell around here.

[Pamela Brown]

About the time William Greer brings the car to a halt and turns around and to blast the President in the head with a nickel plated revolver, Mary Moorman jumps into the street. Officers Martin and Hargis veer their cycles sharply to the right to avoid hitting her.[/b]

This, of course, is preposterous. I read this and I’m more than just a wee bit sad for Doug Horne. He’s put many hours into this and I was hoping to have a more reliable guide for the medical evidence. As yet, these are only probes into a huge manuscript. But sadly, when I read a passage like that above I have to say to myself, "Same old.... same old." This is the same old conspiracy theorizing that we've had more than enough of over the last decade. It gets us nowhere because the problems with the evidence it cites are so obvious. Let's hope he's much better with the medical evidence.

Unfortunately, everyone knows your bias, Tink. You really don't have to spend any more energy in your bashing of Doug Horne's book. We get it.

And, as far as the limo stopping, have you counted how many frames Greer is facing the rear of the limo? Just how far and fast do you think the car was going during those frames?

[Josiah Thompson]

So, do you think that is what happened, Pamela? Are you willing to sign on... because that is precisely what Doug Horne tells us he believes. Instead of confronting this obvious point you start claiming "bias" on my part. Once again you seem to be transfixed in talking about who says something rather than about what is said. Maybe that's easier for you.

My bet is the car was going between 8 and 12 mph.

Josiah Thompson

About the time William Greer brings the car to a halt and turns around and to blast the President in the head with a nickel plated revolver, Mary Moorman jumps into the street. Officers Martin and Hargis veer their cycles sharply to the right to avoid hitting her.[/b]

This, of course, is preposterous. I read this and I’m more than just a wee bit sad for Doug Horne. He’s put many hours into this and I was hoping to have a more reliable guide for the medical evidence. As yet, these are only probes into a huge manuscript. But sadly, when I read a passage like that above I have to say to myself, "Same old.... same old." This is the same old conspiracy theorizing that we've had more than enough of over the last decade. It gets us nowhere because the problems with the evidence it cites are so obvious. Let's hope he's much better with the medical evidence.

Unfortunately, everyone knows your bias, Tink. You really don't have to spend any more energy in your bashing of Doug Horne's book. We get it.

And, as far as the limo stopping, have you counted how many frames Greer is facing the rear of the limo? Just how far and fast do you think the car was going during those frames?

[James R Gordon]

Neither is "Greer firing a shot" one of them as some boneheads would have you believe. He examines

that issue and finds persuasive evidence that it could have happened. He does not advance it any

further than that.

Jack

And there you are wrong Jack. The idea of Bill Greer killing Kennedy is one of the real "bonehead" ideas in JFK research. More than one researcher has demonstrated the stupidity of that idea. I read through chapter 13 and I followed Doug Horne's basic thesis, which was very like David Lifton's that he was having difficulty getting what Dallas and Bethesda said about the wounds to agree. One of this issues he raises is how could one bullet create all that damage. And it is from the question, as well as evidence of what he believes really happened in Bethesda that night as well as other evidence that he proposed the four head shot theory. Now I have doubts about the mathematical possibility that four shots could hit a target at the same time, but I could see there was logic to his thinking.

However, and here is the point, he should have immediately realised that one of those shots should not be one of the stupidest ideas in JFK research. You say, and you are absolutely right, that in Volume 4 Pages 1150 and following Doug says it only could have happened. However although he may say that in Volume 4, it is clear that he believes it. That is why in Volume 5 he goes on to comment that because we cannot see the gun in Greer's hand that is clear evidence that Zapruder has been altered. That would appear to be the reason he also comments that Moorman has been altered by washing Bill Greer out of the picture. So we do not see Bill Greer shooting at Kennedy.

The reason why, for me unlike other members I do not see this as superficial, is because it reflects on the quality of Doug Horne's research. Doug Horne is a serious researcher. There is a wealth of good material in his work and I certainly intend to study these books in detail. But, if Horne has decided to propose such an infantile idea as Greer killing Kennedy, then does that not reflect on the quality of his work? I would have expected Doug Horne to dismiss the idea for the stupidity that it is. I would have expected him to realise that if there were four shots, one of the certainly could not have been Bill Greer. And if, as you say it a suggestion that he did not intend to advance any further, then he certainly should not have further supported and advanced it in volume 5.

But he does and I am wondering what else I will find when I have undergone a more thorough reading.

It may be a small point on its own but I suggest that it does reflect on the kind of research that is within these volumes.

James

[Jack White]

Neither is "Greer firing a shot" one of them as some boneheads would have you believe. He examines

that issue and finds persuasive evidence that it could have happened. He does not advance it any

further than that.

Jack

And there you are wrong Jack. The idea of Bill Greer killing Kennedy is one of the real "bonehead" ideas in JFK research. More than one researcher has demonstrated the stupidity of that idea. I read through chapter 13 and I followed Doug Horne's basic thesis, which was very like David Lifton's that he was having difficulty getting what Dallas and Bethesda said about the wounds to agree. One of this issues he raises is how could one bullet create all that damage. And it is from the question, as well as evidence of what he believes really happened in Bethesda that night as well as other evidence that he proposed the four head shot theory. Now I have doubts about the mathematical possibility that four shots could hit a target at the same time, but I could see there was logic to his thinking.

However, and here is the point, he should have immediately realised that one of those shots should not be one of the stupidest ideas in JFK research. You say, and you are absolutely right, that in Volume 4 Pages 1150 and following Doug says it only could have happened. However although he may say that in Volume 4, it is clear that he believes it. That is why in Volume 5 he goes on to comment that because we cannot see the gun in Greer's hand that is clear evidence that Zapruder has been altered. That would appear to be the reason he also comments that Moorman has been altered by washing Bill Greer out of the picture. So we do not see Bill Greer shooting at Kennedy.

The reason why, for me unlike other members I do not see this as superficial, is because it reflects on the quality of Doug Horne's research. Doug Horne is a serious researcher. There is a wealth of good material in his work and I certainly intend to study these books in detail. But, if Horne has decided to propose such an infantile idea as Greer killing Kennedy, then does that not reflect on the quality of his work? I would have expected Doug Horne to dismiss the idea for the stupidity that it is. I would have expected him to realise that if there were four shots, one of the certainly could not have been Bill Greer. And if, as you say it a suggestion that he did not intend to advance any further, then he certainly should not have further supported and advanced it in volume 5.

But he does and I am wondering what else I will find when I have undergone a more thorough reading.

It may be a small point on its own but I suggest that it does reflect on the kind of research that is within these volumes.

James

I only have volume IV, so I cannot comment on what he says there.

Not all authors are perfect. I would rate Horne above 95%...at least in IV. I do not have the other volumes.

Remember...any book cannot cover ALL possible research. He did his best to comprehend all that he

had to work with, some of which may have been faulty.

I agree that on the surface, Greer firing a shot would have been EXTREMELY STUPID. But even stupid

seeming things must be followed up. I NEVER thought that I would be proving the Z film fake....BUT THAT

IS WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS.

Jack

Edited January 13, 2010 by Jack White

[Ron Ecker]

I recollect that his understanding is that as soon as the ceremonial casket was taken on board the body was quickly moved and, I think, stored in the forward loading bay. I am sure that immediately the coffin was loaded on the plane that Jackie boarded the plane So I don’t know how there would be time to change the body.

The body would have been removed from the casket during the swearing-in, when Jackie was up front (having been summoned to participate, I believe, by LBJ, I guess to add insult to injury or to rub it in). Presumably the only person then with the body was Godfrey McHugh.

[Don Jeffries]

Thank you, Bill Kelly, for taking the time to post these excerpts from Doug Horne. We very much appreciate it.

It's hardly surprising that fervent believers in the legitimacy of the Zapruder film are unimpressed by Doug Horne's research on the subject. At this point, they have far too much time and energy invested in this one aspect of the assassination to admit they were wrong.

I have always been an agnostic on the question of film alteration. I don't see how anyone with an open mind can't admit that Doug Horne has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the Zapruder film.

[Jack White]

Thank you, Bill Kelly, for taking the time to post these excerpts from Doug Horne. We very much appreciate it.

It's hardly surprising that fervent believers in the legitimacy of the Zapruder film are unimpressed by Doug Horne's research on the subject. At this point, they have far too much time and energy invested in this one aspect of the assassination to admit they were wrong.

I have always been an agnostic on the question of film alteration. I don't see how anyone with an open mind can't admit that Doug Horne has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the Zapruder film.

Nobody can be agnostic over Horne's documented discovery that the "Z film" in Dallas was SLIT TO 2 8MM STRIPS

but at Hawkeyeworks, it had been magically transformed back to an UNSLIT 16MM. This is documented proof of

alteration.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Thank you, Bill Kelly, for taking the time to post these excerpts from Doug Horne. We very much appreciate it.

It's hardly surprising that fervent believers in the legitimacy of the Zapruder film are unimpressed by Doug Horne's research on the subject. At this point, they have far too much time and energy invested in this one aspect of the assassination to admit they were wrong.

I have always been an agnostic on the question of film alteration. I don't see how anyone with an open mind can't admit that Doug Horne has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the Zapruder film.

Nobody can be agnostic over Horne's documented discovery that the "Z film" in Dallas was SLIT TO 2 8MM STRIPS

but at Hawkeyeworks, it had been magically transformed back to an UNSLIT 16MM. This is documented proof of

alteration.

Jack

I have volumes I and II, but not IV. When you say "documented" proof, Jack, are you saying Horne found documents proving the film went to "Hawkeye works"?

I thought "Hawkeye works" was something one man said someone else said in an interview 30 years after the fact. If there are government documents proving the film went to Hawkeye works, however, that undoubtedly deserves our attention.

[James R Gordon]

The body would have been removed from the casket during the swearing-in, when Jackie was up front (having been summoned to participate, I believe, by LBJ, I guess to add insult to injury or to rub it in). Presumably the only person then with the body was Godfrey McHugh.

That description is David Lifton's, Doug Horne's is different. Again, because of the lack of index I can't immediately locate the page.

Doug Horne's argument is that the moving of the body took place immediately the casket was o n board and before Jackie boarded the plane.

That is where I have a problem. I understood that Jackie entered the plane immediately after the casket was loaded. I can't see where there was time to remove the body.

James.

[Pat Speer]

The body would have been removed from the casket during the swearing-in, when Jackie was up front (having been summoned to participate, I believe, by LBJ, I guess to add insult to injury or to rub it in). Presumably the only person then with the body was Godfrey McHugh.

That description is David Lifton's, Doug Horne's is different. Again, because of the lack of index I can't immediately locate the page.

Doug Horne's argument is that the moving of the body took place immediately the casket was o n board and before Jackie boarded the plane.

That is where I have a problem. I understood that Jackie entered the plane immediately after the casket was loaded. I can't see where there was time to remove the body.

James.

Thank you, James, for digging through Horne's opus and helping us find the problems the LN crowd will no doubt delight in hanging round our collective heads. I only have books I and II, and haven't found the time to read them in the detail required. But, in looking through number 2, I see that Horne takes the statements of Joe O'Donnell seriously, and uses them to prop up his theory that Robert Knudsen took autopsy photos. I find this incredibly disappointing. A few years back, when O'Donnell died, I created threads on all the forums linking to a New York Times article on O'Donnell. It turned out he had a mental disorder at the time he was interviewed and was a pathological xxxx, selling and autographing prints of photographs he in fact had never taken. (This all came out when his obituary made claims other photographers knew to be untrue.)

Here are two other articles on the O'Donnell photography scandal. The second one notes that there is no evidence O'Donnell EVER worked as a White House Photographer. If so, this is a big black eye for the ARRB, as Gunn and Horne should have checked O'Donnell's bona fides and not just taken him at his word.

O'Donnell article

Another O'Donnell article

Anyhow, back in 2007, I posted the article on O'Donnell on all the forums for the precise purpose of warning people like Horne away from using O'Donnell in their books. (And no, these articles were not disinformation. None of the initial articles on O'Donnell even mentioned O'Donnell's ARRB testimony--although the second one above mentions it in passing... Apparently, none of the writers of these articles knew the full extent of O'Donnell's mischief.)

Anyhow, the LNs drool over this kind of stuff. Pretty embarrassing.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Pat Speer