The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence

[David Lifton]

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.

I have not read every page of Doug Horne's book, and you are correct--without an index, locating something specific like this may be difficult. But I can tell you this: at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) I believed the body was probably removed from the casket during the general period of the swearing in--and specifically, during one of those periods when McHugh had gone to the front of the plane, arguing with the pilot as to why the delay in taking off. However, new information came my way, and starting in the summer of 1984, I modified my conclusion and thereafter believed that the body was removed immediately AFTER the casket was placed on board, but BEFORE Jackie boarded. I met Doug Horne in the early 1990s, when I was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor, and I gave a lecture at the Punahou School (the one attended by Obama). We re-established contact when he joined the ARRB staff, and many of the Best Evidence witnesses were called to testify. We were in touch often during that following three year "ARRB" period (1995 - 9/30/98), and in the years following. I fully updated Doug on revised conclusion that JFK's body was removed from the casket within a minute or so of it being placed on board AF-1. This will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming writing. Obviously, Godfrey McHugh was not with the body when that event occurred. There are, however, secret service agents who know that the body was removed from the casket--but this is not something any of them have publicly admitted, at this point in time.

DSL

1/13/2010; 1:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[David Lifton]

CORRECTION:

I mistakenly wrote that I met Doug Horne "when I was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor."

That is an error.

CORRECTION: I met Doug Horne in the early 1990s, when he was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor, and I was in Honolulu, and gave a lecture at the Punahou School (the one attended by Obama). etc.

* * *

I have not read every page of Doug Horne's book, and you are correct--without an index, locating something specific like this may be difficult. But I can tell you this: at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) I believed the body was probably removed from the casket during the general period of the swearing in--and specifically, during one of those periods when McHugh had gone to the front of the plane, arguing with the pilot as to why the delay in taking off. However, new information came my way, and starting in the summer of 1984, I modified my conclusion and thereafter believed that the body was removed immediately AFTER the casket was placed on board, but BEFORE Jackie boarded. I met Doug Horne in the early 1990s, when I was in Hawaii, stationed at Pearl Harbor, and I gave a lecture at the Punahou School (the one attended by Obama). We re-established contact when he joined the ARRB staff, and many of the Best Evidence witnesses were called to testify. We were in touch often during that following three year "ARRB" period (1995 - 9/30/98), and in the years following. I fully updated Doug on revised conclusion that JFK's body was removed from the casket within a minute or so of it being placed on board AF-1. This will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming writing. Obviously, Godfrey McHugh was not with the body when that event occurred. There are, however, secret service agents who know that the body was removed from the casket--but this is not something any of them have publicly admitted, at this point in time.

DSL

1/13/2010; 1:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Al Fordiani]

To focus only on the medical evidence.

I do not think that Horne's work is "same old...same old" theorizing at all.

I think that Horne demonstrates once and for all, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence. No longer "theorizing"; now once and for all demonstrated as fact.

I think that Horne demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Humes and Boswell are perjurors and have never told the truth about the autopsy. I also think that he demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the autopsy photographs in the National Archives are fraudulent, meant to deceive rather than clarify, and that the actual autopsy photographs taken are not in the record. He demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the brain exam on record in the photographic record and in the supplemental autopsy report is fraudulent.

He also puts forth a very compelling case that the autopsy report and its conclusions went through revisions based on the need to match the other evidence against Oswald rather than the need to be truthful in describing JFK's wounds, and that Humes must have been cognizant of this.

Doug Horne has provided us all with an incredible contribution: he was the driving force in obtaining on the record, under oath statements from several of the major players in the Bethesda autopsy. Especially important are the statements of Sibert and O'Neill under oath that the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs do not match their observations made from one foot away in the Bethesda morgue.

A careful reading of Horne's work is necessary by everyone, I think. You and I may disagree with Horne on some of his speculations. And no theory of the assassination will ever tie together every witness statement. However, as to the medical evidence, in my opinion there can now be no disagreement on his basic conclusion: there was a cover-up in the medical evidence meant to implicate Oswald as the only shooter. The cover-up is now established as fact, plain and simple.

[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

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

Yes, Pat, I was joking, trying to be facetious (sp?), but as soon as I posted it my screen fried and computer crashed, so I won't try to be funny again. From now on I'll leave the sarcasm to Michael Hogan.

I'm just checking in on a friend's computer, but wanted to make the point that because DH seriously considers the possibility that JFK's driver pulled a gun and may have fired it doesn't discount his complete analysis and conclusions, as they obviously are not based on this notion.

While I agree with James G that I too don't consider it a serious possibility, if JFK was killed in a coup, as Horne suggests, then his security detail was either involved or compromised, and Greer was certainly derelect in his duties, as well as harboring a decided antimosity towards his Irish Catholic boss.

And any military analysist worth his salt would have to seriously consider the actions of the security detail in reviewing the assassination of the President.

My point being that if we are to discount everything DH says based on his including Greer's gun in his analysis, as JG suggests, then using the same logic we should discount everything else JG says because he certainly misrepresented what DH actually says.

In addition, TT calls it "Horne's evidence" in the title of the thread, when in fact the evidence stands apart from Horne, who is merely the analysist who is calling attention to it.

For example, it has certainly been established that there were two brain exams, a fact that was separately determined by Horne and Gunn, based on different criteria - Horne reviewing the chronology of the records, while Gunn using the differences in the descriptions of the brains.

If you think Horne totally discredits himself by including Greer's gun in his analysis of what happened, that doesn't take away from the fact that it has been independently established that there were two brain exams using two different brains, and the purpose of the second exam was to fool Dr. Finck into signing off on the false third autopsy report.

And I trust TT will give Doug Horne a fair shake in his review and critique of Horne's analysis and conclusions.

Will check back when I'm back on line,

Bill Kelly

Edited January 13, 2010 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

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.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to post some more important parts when I am back on line.

I too really don't care if the Zapruder film has been altered or not.

If the Z-film can be shown to be for real, along with the accoustics, both can be entered into evidence as indictative of conspiracy before a grand jury.

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

[David G. Healy]

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.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to post some more important parts when I am back on line.

I too really don't care if the Zapruder film has been altered or not.

If the Z-film can be shown to be for real, along with the accoustics, both can be entered into evidence as indictative of conspiracy before a grand jury.

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

Bill Kelly, GREAT! Simple, to the point summation.... btw, it's optical film printing platform with process camera

[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.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to post some more important parts when I am back on line.

I too really don't care if the Zapruder film has been altered or not.

If the Z-film can be shown to be for real, along with the accoustics, both can be entered into evidence as indictative of conspiracy before a grand jury.

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

I respect your position. But as one of the few Forum members to have tangled with McAdams, Von Pein, Myers, etc, and one of the few to have actually read Bugliosi's book, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that a large percentage of Horne's evidence (and Tink is correct to call it so, in that it is evidence presented by Horne to make HIS case for body alteration, etc) will dissolve in front of the public's eyes if ever held up to sunlight.

Here's another example... In book 1, he builds his case for there having been a large defect on the back of Kennedy's head, multiple brain exams, etc. He builds much of this around the statements of autopsy photographers Stringer and Riebe. He notes, however, on page 231, that BOTH men, when under oath, said they had no reason to distrust the accuracy of the autopsy photographs showing the back of the head to be intact. He then claims on page 232 that "it is entirely possible that each man privately made a conscious decision to perjure himself on this issue." He is thereby impugning the character of the very witnesses upon whom he has built his case. This makes crystal clear IMO that Horne is not building his case around the statements of the ARRB witnesses, but is interpreting the statements of the ARRB witnesses through the prism of Lifton's Best Evidence. It makes little sense, after all, for Stringer to call into question the veracity of the brain photos, if he was so scared of controversy that he'd decided to lie about the back of the head photos.

This open embrace of Lifton's theory, IMO, is exactly what Bugliosi and the folks at HBO have been praying for. (Yeah, yeah, I know Bugliosi is an atheist.)

A prediction: if Horne is "chosen" as the spokesperson for the CT community in the debates and discussions sure to ensue on the 50th anniversary when HBO airs its mini-series, he will have his hat handed to him, and the entire CT community will be discredited as theorists pushing interesting but wild theories holding that most everyone involved in the medical evidence lied.

This is most unfortunate, IMO, as there is clear and easily demonstrated evidence that 1) Specter and Kelley deliberately misled the WC, with Specter suborning perjury in re the back wound location used in the May 24, 1964 re-enactment, 2) Boswell and Humes lied to the press in 1966 and 1967 while under pressure from the Justice Department, and probably on behalf of the Justice Department, 3) Dr. Baden misled the HSCA about the President's head wounds, and was so confused about what he was supposed to say that he testified with his exhibit upside down, and 4) the HSCA trajectory expert not only moved the wound locations to create the illusion the shots were fired from the sniper's nest, he shrank Kennedy's skull to make his trajectories work after the medical panel re-interpreted the location of the bullet's exit from Kennedy's skull.

I just think we should go into battle against the LNers with our best evidence, so to speak, and leave the speculation over which 70 or 80 year old person's memory was most accurate to the forums.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Dean Hagerman]

A prediction: if Horne is "chosen" as the spokesperson for the CT community in the debates and discussions sure to ensue on the 50th anniversary when HBO airs its mini-series, he will have his hat handed to him, and the entire CT community will be discredited as theorists pushing interesting but wild theories holding that most everyone involved in the medical evidence lied.

Worst "prediction" I have ever heard in my whole life

[Pat Speer]

A prediction: if Horne is "chosen" as the spokesperson for the CT community in the debates and discussions sure to ensue on the 50th anniversary when HBO airs its mini-series, he will have his hat handed to him, and the entire CT community will be discredited as theorists pushing interesting but wild theories holding that most everyone involved in the medical evidence lied.

Worst "prediction" I have ever heard in my whole life

Only time will tell. If you think Horne can make an intelligent argument Greer shot Kennedy, the Moorman photo is altered, and that O'Donnell is a credible witness, I'd appreciate your showing us just how he'll do it.

[Pamela Brown]

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

That is, if the shell game stops long enough for any of the copies or *original*(s) to have a provenance.

[Cliff Varnell]

there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence.

This statement is factually incorrect.

It's a simple exercise in common sense to conclude that there

are two categories of medical evidence in the murder of JFK:

1) Evidence properly prepared, collected, and produced.

This would include: Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet,

JFK's clothing, the contemporaneous notes taken by Parkland doctors,

the neck x-ray, the FBI autopsy report and the 1978 sworn affidavits

of FBI autopsy observers Sibert and O'Neill.

2) Evidence improperly prepared, collected, and produced.

The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and anything to do

with the head wound evidence, especially the head x-rays.

The properly prepared evidence is both internally consistent and

consistent with the witness testimony and the Dealey Plaza photo

evidence, including the Zapruder film (most importantly!)

between frames Z186 and Z255.

My beef with Horne isn't the evidence he analyzes (NOT "his" evidence)

but the emphasis.

Like many JFK research heavyweights Horne seems to concentrate on

degraded evidence (head wounds) at the expense of credible

unambiguous evidence (back and throat wounds).

Eliminate any serious study of 2) and 1) leads directly to the perps...or

so I'll argue going forward.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[David G. Healy]

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.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to post some more important parts when I am back on line.

I too really don't care if the Zapruder film has been altered or not.

If the Z-film can be shown to be for real, along with the accoustics, both can be entered into evidence as indictative of conspiracy before a grand jury.

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

I respect your position. But as one of the few Forum members to have tangled with McAdams, Von Pein, Myers, etc, and one of the few to have actually read Bugliosi's book, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that a large percentage of Horne's evidence (and Tink is correct to call it so, in that it is evidence presented by Horne to make HIS case for body alteration, etc) will dissolve in front of the public's eyes if ever held up to sunlight.

Here's another example... In book 1, he builds his case for there having been a large defect on the back of Kennedy's head, multiple brain exams, etc. He builds much of this around the statements of autopsy photographers Stringer and Riebe. He notes, however, on page 231, that BOTH men, when under oath, said they had no reason to distrust the accuracy of the autopsy photographs showing the back of the head to be intact. He then claims on page 232 that "it is entirely possible that each man privately made a conscious decision to perjure himself on this issue." He is thereby impugning the character of the very witnesses upon whom he has built his case. This makes crystal clear IMO that Horne is not building his case around the statements of the ARRB witnesses, but is interpreting the statements of the ARRB witnesses through the prism of Lifton's Best Evidence. It makes little sense, after all, for Stringer to call into question the veracity of the brain photos, if he was so scared of controversy that he'd decided to lie about the back of the head photos.

This open embrace of Lifton's theory, IMO, is exactly what Bugliosi and the folks at HBO have been praying for. (Yeah, yeah, I know Bugliosi is an atheist.)

A prediction: if Horne is "chosen" as the spokesperson for the CT community in the debates and discussions sure to ensue on the 50th anniversary when HBO airs its mini-series, he will have his hat handed to him, and the entire CT community will be discredited as theorists pushing interesting but wild theories holding that most everyone involved in the medical evidence lied.

This is most unfortunate, IMO, as there is clear and easily demonstrated evidence that 1) Specter and Kelley deliberately misled the WC, with Specter suborning perjury in re the back wound location used in the May 24, 1964 re-enactment, 2) Boswell and Humes lied to the press in 1966 and 1967 while under pressure from the Justice Department, and probably on behalf of the Justice Department, 3) Dr. Baden misled the HSCA about the President's head wounds, and was so confused about what he was supposed to say that he testified with his exhibit upside down, and 4) the HSCA trajectory expert not only moved the wound locations to create the illusion the shots were fired from the sniper's nest, he shrank Kennedy's skull to make his trajectories work after the medical panel re-interpreted the location of the bullet's exit from Kennedy's skull.

I just think we should go into battle against the LNers with our best evidence, so to speak, and leave the speculation over which 70 or 80 year old person's memory was most accurate to the forums.

Pat,

Your David Lifton bias is dripping all over the place, kinda sad too.... And why pray-tell battle anyone? That's for the word merchants, the legal beagles, the lawyers!

Simply carve out your area of expertise, present your case, then go home. Simple as that! One of the problems that CT's and LNer's alike suffer from is media-itis. Super EGO.... sound familiar? Worse yet, they think based on their own personal efforts they have the answer(s) to this case. Poppycock! Presently the CT's are doing a great job keeping the case front and center, and THAT effort needs to be applauded. At this time the CT's are winning the PR war.... but, ALL roads lead to Bill Kelly's concept: either a congressional investigation or a grand jury...

Edited January 14, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Cliff Varnell]

Worse yet, they think based on their own personal efforts they have the answer(s) to this case. Poppycock! P

I think the answers to the case are self-evident.

Eliminate consideration of debased medical evidence not

prepared according to proper protocol (anything to do with the

head wounds).

Embrace the utterly consistent, properly prepared medical

evidence which shows that JFK was struck in the back and in

the throat with rounds that were not recovered and did not exit.

Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble

rounds. The universe of people with significant knowledge of blood

soluble rounds in 1963 consisted of 4 guys: Richard Helms, Sidney

Gottlieb, Charles Senseney and Mitchell WerBell especially.

Why does everyone automatically assume HBF got it wrong the

night of the autopsy?

HBF cracked the case!

Edited January 14, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Worse yet, they think based on their own personal efforts they have the answer(s) to this case. Poppycock!

The historical record doesn't belong to anyone.

Just because someone points out a fact in the historical record

doesn't make it proprietary.

I think the researcher-centric mentality is to be decried.

[Al Fordiani]

there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence.

This statement is factually incorrect.

(*AF response in bold with an asterisk.)

*Well, which hairs should we split? Perhaps I should have said "there was an attempt at a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence that (assuming they weren't in on it) managed to keep the WC, the Clark panel and the HSCA enough in the dark to mislead the American public for 40+ years." I hope that you are not doubting that there was a conscious cover-up in the medical evidence.

It's a simple exercise in common sense to conclude that there

are two categories of medical evidence in the murder of JFK:

1) Evidence properly prepared, collected, and produced.

This would include: Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet,

JFK's clothing, the contemporaneous notes taken by Parkland doctors,

the neck x-ray, the FBI autopsy report and the 1978 sworn affidavits

of FBI autopsy observers Sibert and O'Neill.

2) Evidence improperly prepared, collected, and produced.

The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and anything to do

with the head wound evidence, especially the head x-rays.

*"Improperly prepared" is a bit ambiguous and leaves room for incompetence as an explanation. It is now completely demonstrated that fradulently prepared is the true decription of the autopsy photos, autopsy report, etc. Not incompetence, willful obstructiion of justice.

The properly prepared evidence is both internally consistent and

consistent with the witness testimony and the Dealey Plaza photo

evidence, including the Zapruder film (most importantly!)

between frames Z186 and Z255.

My beef with Horne isn't the evidence he analyzes (NOT "his" evidence)

but the emphasis.

*I tend to agree with you on the "not his evidence" comment. While we must all give credit where credit is due, I tend to agree with you that the researcher-centric approach to the evidence can be counter-productive. Ownership of ideas can certainly inhibit free and creative thinking.

Like many JFK research heavyweights Horne seems to concentrate on

degraded evidence (head wounds) at the expense of credible

unambiguous evidence (back and throat wounds).

Eliminate any serious study of 2) and 1) leads directly to the perps...or

so I'll argue going forward.

*Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "degraded evidence." I think that the study of manipulation of the head wound evidence is the clearest indication of evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and cover-up. So of course it is worthy of attention. And figuring out exactly how the cover-up was implemented is certainly one path (of many) to the perpetrators.

Of course my main point is that I believe that now there is no longer any room for debate that the medical evidence was consciously and purposely tampered with.