The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence

[William Kelly]

Gordon zoomed right in on the Greer with a gun issue just as others disagree over his endorsement of Madelyne Brown's party, and he misstated Hornes own statements about the issue.

You can disagree with a dozen or more of the thousand or so items that Doug Horne uses to reach his conclusion that the military records of the assassination support the probability it was a coup without disagreeing with his conclusions.

The way I am beginning to look at it, if Oswald was framed, as all the evidence seems to indicate, and those who really killed JFK did control the body, AF1, the autopsy and the Z-film, and altered the evidence to indicate there was only one assassin, then following the false trail should lead you to the real killers.

BK

Hi James,

I don't know if the Z-film has been altered, and over the years, have sided with those who don't believe the film as been, as COPA has kept most "alterationists" out of their conferences.

One of the problems that I had with the idea that it was altered is that no one was being blamed for the crime of tampering with the evidence and obstruction of justice. It was always the "CIA" or the "government."

Doug Horne however, presents some serious chain of custody problems with the two different sessions at the NPIC to copy and enlarge select frames for briefing boards, with two different types of film being described by the film technicians - experts who know an origional from a copy.

There is also the interesting insight provided by Homer McMahon that the film that he worked on came from the secret CIA film lab "Hawkeye Works" at Rochester, New York, where they processed the U2 and CORONA spy satellite film.

So now, we have a place where tampering could have occured and people could have done it.

Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) director Jim Lesar, anti-alterationist, was leary about filing a FOIA request for Doug Horne, and asked his board of directors, which include such anti-alterationist as Tink Thompson, but finally filed the request to see if there are any records of the Z-film being at Rochester.

So this is still a "Hawkeye" works in progress, and we'll see where it goes.

What I do expect is for the serious heavy artillery - Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Vince Bugliosi, et al., to gang up on the Doug Horne with a similar tactic, and missrepresent his work by saying things like he believes Greer shot JFK with a pistol.

In his book somewhere, Doug tells the story of how a respected JFK researcher from the mid-west, who goes unnamed, turned him on to a guy with an interesting story of how the body of JFK was actually placed on the Vice President's plane, which landed at a military base where surgery was peformed on the head before it was transported to Andrews. The person who made this claim, a former Navy guy, provided details that fit into the rest of Horne's research. But after examining the records of the flight, and the source disappeared, Horne concluded the guy was sent to try to feed him bad info, which once accepted, would discredit the rest of his work.

That's why I don't understand Horne including anything at all that might be used to discredit the rest of his work, though there's certainly more work to be done on the background of Greer.

Thanks for your interest,

Bill Kelly

Bill,

Either I expressed myself poorly, or my posts were not correctly read.

It is true that I do not agree with the alteration of the Zapruder film and Greer was just one example. Nor does Horne suggest this is a possible theory (although he does state that in Vol 4 ) because in Vol 5 he explains why the Greer point is just one example of proof that the film was indeed altered.

That aside, I have made it very clear, in earlier on this topic, that I find the medical evidence persuasive and thought provoking. For me these chapters, which comprise four volumes of the books, are well worth the cost of purchasing the set.

I would not want people to think I am anti Inside the ARRB, just because I am critical of the theory on the alteration of the Zapruder film.

James

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Al Fordiani has it exactly right. For those who would like an accessible introduction

to Doug's research with special reference to the Z-film, here are three links:

Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB - Part I

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/do...rrb-part-1.html

Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB - Part II

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/do...rb-part-ii.html

Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB - Part III

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/do...b-part-iii.html

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.

[Jack White]

Your post does not address the question at hand: 3 casket entries, documented by three separate paper trails.

You seem to be speculating about what some TV producer will do three years from now. That does not address the issue of what the historical record shows happened some 45 years ago.

The issue is not what Bugliosi or Tom Hanks "thinks"--nor is it about your predictive powers. The issue concerns the evidence.

The evidence of "3 entries of 2 caskets" is in fact germane, relevant, and --I dare say--dispositive.

In fact, 3 entries of 2 caskets can NOT be explained innocently, as you apparently speculate.

I'm proud to have analyzed this, gathered the evidence, and published it in January, 1981 in Best Evidence.

It was headline making then, and in fact the subject of major ads in the New York Times, showing the same type of photograph I'm sure it was one of the reasons that Book of the Month Club chose BEST EVIDENCE as a selection. Doug uses on the front of his book, and with the caption "The Coffin Was Empty."

That issue has never been addressed--and answered--by the "other side", because in fact it can't be.

Its one of those key points that marks a clear distinction between the old and the new paradigm: fraud in the evidence.

I'm sorry to see that you are more concerned with the opinion of third parties (e.g., what "Dr. Wecht thinks") rather than focusing on what is in fact the best evidence.

DSL

1/15/10 12:30 AM PST

David...it is not clear what message you were replying to here (quotes removed).

But it is 100% clear that you are 100% correct!

Thanks.

Jack

[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.

Hello Pat,

And yes, I was joking, but apparently it was a bad one, too exagerated.

I was trying to get across the point that James Gordon did exagerate and misrepresent what Doug Horne actually wrote, especially about whether Greer had a gun, or he fired it in the car and when I interviewed Horne for my blog that was one of the questions I asked him directly - did he beleive or write that Greer turned around and shot JFK in the head?

While I don't know Mr. Gordon, I have sent him a personal PM appologizing for calling him a disinformation agent, but I was just just kidding, and overexagerating my description of him because I thought that he had misrepresented what Doug Horne said. I then quoted extensively from Doug's books and posted what he really said and got him to answer the questions for my blog interview to straighten that out.

I have the highest regard for Tink Thompson, and glad that he took my statement with a grain of salt and ran with it, showing more examples of some of some of the quirks in Horne's analysis with some of his own.

BK

[David Andrews]

Not to propagate the Greer theory, but Clint Hill's comment to the WC that the last round fired sounded different, like a pistol shot, has always intrigued me. Delivered where Hill's comment was, it sounds not unlike a veiled revelation. For insurance purposes? To direct later investigation?

I'll only note that I can see, based on film experience and researchers' commentary, that enough alteration has been made to the Z-film that Greer can't be formally and authoritatively ruled out. Not until another Z-film or similar film emerges. We may think it improbable, but Horne is essentially within his rights of commentary as the case stands.

Edited July 23, 2010 by David Andrews

[David Andrews]

I hear you, Jim.

But - We weren't there. We don't know. The photo/film evidence is highly suspect.

So, Horne is within his rights of commentary, and I'm keeping an open mind. I am just not willing to rule it out, based on the evidence available.

I do not insist - cannot insist - on Greer as fact. But I defend Horne's right to mention the possibility, though it is obviously not an issue on which consensus can, or should, be sought at this time.

Consider the statements of Austin P. Miller and Hugh Betzner, and of Ralph Yarborough, who originally claimed to smell gunpowder inside the car. Moorman and Hill on a gun pulled in the car?

Devil's Advocate? From personal experience, it is extremely hard to place a pistol shot accurately with one hand, much less under those conditions (left hand, moving car).

BTW - do we know what kind of pistols SS were carrying in the motorcade? Ever been researched by Palamara or other?

Edited July 23, 2010 by David Andrews

[Frankie Vegas]

Let me add just one more thing.

Besides the irrationality on Greer's part i.e. sacrificing his life, his name, his family etc. Let us assume the Z film is altered.

There are some people who say they have seen an unaltered film. Mili Cranor is one of them.

When I read this thing in Horne, I asked her if this happened on the version of the film she saw. She said no.

Just recall the guideline: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

"Smell" witnesses are not extraordinary evidence.

Thanks Marty. I thought it was funny too.

So did me and Seamus.

[David Andrews]

Jim, none of this comedy refutes any point that I made. It is, in fact, the sort of business that your detractors might use against you.

[Jack White]

Not to propagate the Greer theory, but Clint Hill's comment to the WC that the last round fired sounded different, like a pistol shot, has always intrigued me. Delivered where Hill's comment was, it sounds not unlike a veiled revelation. For insurance purposes? To direct later investigation?

I'll only note that I can see, based on film experience and researchers' commentary, that enough alteration has been made to the Z-film that Greer can't be formally and authoritatively ruled out. Not until another Z-film or similar film emerges. We may think it improbable, but Horne is essentially within his rights of commentary as the case stands.

That the last shot sounded "different" is one of the things favoring a shot from the storm drain.

A shot from there would also leave a gunpowder smell at street level.

Jack

[David Andrews]

Not to propagate the Greer theory, but Clint Hill's comment to the WC that the last round fired sounded different, like a pistol shot, has always intrigued me. Delivered where Hill's comment was, it sounds not unlike a veiled revelation. For insurance purposes? To direct later investigation?

I'll only note that I can see, based on film experience and researchers' commentary, that enough alteration has been made to the Z-film that Greer can't be formally and authoritatively ruled out. Not until another Z-film or similar film emerges. We may think it improbable, but Horne is essentially within his rights of commentary as the case stands.

That the last shot sounded "different" is one of the things favoring a shot from the storm drain.

A shot from there would also leave a gunpowder smell at street level.

Jack

Which we cannot at this time rule out, either.

If I had my preferences, I'd call it all rifle work. But I cannot have my preferences.

New insight into old inquiry comes out when you least expect it. The other night, I watched an episode of the documentary series Mobsters on the Biography channel. The episode was about Anthony Spilotro, immortalized (under another name) by Joe Pesci in the movie Casino. In it - during a segment on Spilotro's Chicago days - mention was made of Sam Giancana found dead with one slug in the back of the neck, and the rest in the mouth, not stitched around the mouth in the supposed Mob "message to stoolies" pattern we've all read of repeatedly. Two crime scene photos, purportedly of Giancana on his basement kitchen floor, seemed to bear out the narration - blood behind the head, no "stitching" pattern around the mouth.

It was so unexpected. I'm trying find the photos to verify it. We weren't there. We don't know. The "record" is insubstantiable. Until such time as we can substantiate it.

Edited July 24, 2010 by David Andrews

[Karl Kinaski]

Not to propagate the Greer theory, but Clint Hill's comment to the WC that the last round fired sounded different, like a pistol shot, has always intrigued me. Delivered where Hill's comment was, it sounds not unlike a veiled revelation. For insurance purposes? To direct later investigation?

I'll only note that I can see, based on film experience and researchers' commentary, that enough alteration has been made to the Z-film that Greer can't be formally and authoritatively ruled out. Not until another Z-film or similar film emerges. We may think it improbable, but Horne is essentially within his rights of commentary as the case stands.

That the last shot sounded "different" is one of the things favoring a shot from the storm drain.

A shot from there would also leave a gunpowder smell at street level.

Jack

I always thought the "gunpowder" Yarborough (passenger of LBJs car) smelt, came from the propelling charge of the Umbrella weapon, and is a strong indication for the use of such a weapon...(causing the entry wound in JFKs throat "too small for a bullet hole..." (BTW: Umbrella man, waving "cuban" and the two boys near them are the only four very close eyewitnesses which identity is unknown down to the present day...)

KK

[Paul Rigby]

Let me add just one more thing.

Besides the irrationality on Greer's part i.e. sacrificing his life, his name, his family etc.

The conversation with the "mechanics"/"sniper teams"/"spotters" etc - choose the fantasy term of one's choice - was so very much different. "Trust us," said the CIA, we'll ship you out of Dallas at a rate of knots, and promise to let you live unmolested for ever and a day." And they sacrificed their lives, their names, their families etc with nary a second thought, secure in the promise Langley had made them. How incredibly different such conversations must have been to those conducted with Greer.

Or perhaps not.

Let us assume the Z film is altered.

There are some people who say they have seen an unaltered film. Mili Cranor is one of them.

When I read this thing in Horne, I asked her if this happened on the version of the film she saw. She said no.

Just recall the guideline: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

According to my Google instant translation facility – which, to my grateful surprise, renders Californian, no less than the slightly less challenging Chinese, into English - the above may be rendered as follows:

I, Jim DiEugenio, am a defender of the authenticity of the Zapruder fake.

In order to rubbish the claim that William Greer shot JFK, I am going to do something both absurd and dishonest.

Which is?

I am going to call in evidence a very different version of the fake which I insist is genuine.

(Hang on a minute - doesn’t that mean you implicitly acknowledge the falsity of the very film you insist is genuine?

Yes, but needs must; and, in any case, I am not subject to the ordinary rules of logic or intellectual probity because I am Jim DiEugenio, the king, among other things, of a small tribe of Kiwi cheerleaders and a Canadian web broadcaster.)

Enter Milicent Cranor.

Milicent knows the different version of the Z-fake she watched is genuine – and not, for example, just another CIA variant – because…er, how exactly? Did the projectionist give out certificates signed by Allen Dulles to that effect? No? Then how?

Because it doesn’t show Greer shooting his President.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Euclid, move over.

But there is a useful lesson here: It turns out that extraordinary projects demand extraordinary nonsense.

And the nature of that extraordinary project? Team DiEugenio is out to place film alteration and in-car shooting beyond the pale of civilised assassination discourse.

By any means necessary.

[Paul Rigby]

What took you so long?

Frankly, Jim, and it grieves me to write it, slack-jawed disbelief at the quality of your arguments.

Reading Murder from Within again?

You really should. Landmark, if flawed, tome: body- and Z-film alteration in…1974? The contemporary JFK debate began here.

I was waiting for you, since you never miss an opportunity to go at me in my absence.

An interesting spin as we’ve crossed swords before, albeit by proxy (your choice), not least when I drew attention (on the DPF) to that hoary-old nonsense you were peddling about RFK enjoying the support of that most mythical of entities, the “liberal” wing of the CIA, in 1968. Weirdly, I can’t help observing, we find i) that said parapolitical unicorn was running Eugene McCarthy’s campaign; and ii) killed RFK. A novel definition of support, by any standards, save, of course, the CIA’s own. But I digress.

Or to compare me with Gary Mack at times. (Yeah, he did that.)

My own perspicacity never ceases to amaze me. Quite right. You are – together with the rest of the PNAC (Project for the New Assassination Consensus) – merely the flip side of the same coin, in a classic, if somewhat transparent, pseudo-war of the pseudo-oppositions. You are, when all is said and done, nothing more than the continuation of Josiah Thompson by other means.

I like what you did here.

Not more, surely, than what you did when you neglected to mention earlier in the thread that Mary Muchmore denied taking any footage of the presidential limo on Elm; that Nix thought his film altered; and Zapruder initially insisted he had filmed the limo turn from Houston onto Elm? Now that’s intellectual integrity of a high order.

You completely cut out the whole opening dialogue about the presence in Dealey Plaza of Polaroids, film cameras, scores of witnesses, and one thing I left out, the possibility of law enforcement agents seeing such an obvious and shocking murder and arresting Greer at Parkland.

I do so like you on the subject of witnesses. You’re just so, well, tackily dishonest. For example, was Betzner, Jr., really the only one to see a handgun in or around the presidential limo, as you maintain? Oh dear, not true. Forget George Davis, did you?

You also completely leave out the contrary subtext of Greer not being a CIA hit man ever. So the idea of using him and expecting him to cooperate with murder in broad daylight, and then "Oh, we will get you out of the country, change your identity, and put you in a house next to say Mengele in South America". This would be completely alien, foreign, and bizarre to both the guy being pitched (Greer) and the alleged perpetrators.

I don’t know Greer’s complete history – but then neither do you, as your work on the SS is thin to non-existent. But what we can say with confidence is i) it was his job to be ready to shoot targets at close range upon the instant; ii) he controlled the speed of his target; and iii) he was no lover of Irish Catholics. Means, opportunity, and motive. You offer unnamed people in vague locations, with even less eye-, ear-, and nose-witnesses testimony, and call that a superior argument. Bizarre.

Why would they want to use someone who could be so easily seen, not just by witnesses outside the car but inside it also?

An entirely unexpected event at the sparsely populated fag-end of the motorcade’s journey, on dipping and slopping terrain, with the target (and assassin) shielded for many by the other occupants of the car, accompanying motorcylists etc.? And no one saw it? I suppose Austin Miller was referring to a knife when he replied to Specter’s question “Where do you think the shots came from?” and replied: “From right there in the car.”

Especially when Dealey Plaza offers the perfect L shaped ambush triangle with concealed snipers at three points, where attention is not focused on them.

Oh no, we’re off into the land of the parapolitical pixies – “sniper teams,” “spotters,” “triangulated crossfire,” fill in the hackneyed alternative of your choice – when real-life special forces teach their goons simple, uncomplicated, common-sense, with appropriately easy-to-remember concepts and terminology.

The most effective way to assassinate was, and remains, both “direct” and “positive.” You get up close to the target and shoot him (or her) from close-range, most likely with a handgun. Crude, perhaps, but unquestionably lethal, as LHO and RFK, among others, were to discover. And not without its evidentiary perils, as Doug Horne, an honest soul, notes: “But for Mrs Lozano to smell gunpowder as her patients were wheeled by her desk, meant that it had to be embedded in their clothing – and this could only have happened if a handgun had been discharged in the Presidential limousine.”

Murder from within? You bet.

[David Andrews]

Not to mix it up here again - but the SS (in the persons of Kellerman, Roberts, Youngblood, Rowley) engaged in enough suspicious activity to be considered an independent, if not autonomous, faction in events. Why does any SS agent have to be CIA, rather than hooked into the plot from within that faction?

Edited July 27, 2010 by David Andrews

[Ron Ecker]

Has anyone considered the theory that the gravely wounded Connally shot JFK? Connally could have been shooting back at whoever shot him, and hit JFK accidentally. Or, Connally, in the heat of the moment and thinking that he himself was the target, could have thought JFK was one of the shooters.