The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence

[Greg Burnham]

I do not give the SS a break in this, not at all.

Never said you did, Greg. I simply drew attention to a faulty distinction you'd drawn. What puzzles me, quite genuinely, is why those who embrace the abundant evidence of SS treason find it so unimaginable that that involvement should extend to the actual shooting. It's particularly perplexing in the case of those such as you who have seen through the Z-fake. Clear this CIA-constructed impediment out of the road, and we transform the case into a standard murder inquiry - one dependent upon witnesses, not a lot of junk celluloid.

Well, I guess we just disagree. I don't believe the distinction I drew was at all "faulty" --not in the least, and I have some background in these matters. But, let me elaborate further on why I reject Greer as a shooter. There are numerous reasons, but I should start by correcting an assumption you made about me: I do not find it "unimaginable that SS involvement should extend to the actual shooting..." [parphrased]

However, I find it operationally flawed. It is a bad plan. It involves unnecessary risk. It requires too many unknowns to be controlled. It does not account for the improbability of either 1) every witness NOT seeing what really happened nor does it account for 2) insuring that every potential witness could be forced to remain silent about what they saw or end up dead, including Jackie Kennedy, Nellie Connally, each and every Secret Service agent on the PPD who was there, over one hundred witnesses, in all. The risk factors involved in employing Greer beyond a reasonably arguable "normal" (mal) function of his regular work are not only too great, but quite unnecessary.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

Those who rely heavily on the proximity of reported gunpowder smell from the limousine do not consider other alternatives:

1. The storm drain opening.

2. In Altgens, the pistol extended out of the left rear window.

3. A shot from the knoll.

Jack

[Paul Rigby]

Well, I guess we just disagree. I don't believe the distinction I drew was at all "faulty" --not in the least, and I have some background in these matters. But, let me elaborate further on why I reject Greer as a shooter. There are numerous reasons, but I should start by correcting an assumption you made about me: I do not find it "unimaginable that SS involvement should extend to the actual shooting..." [paraphrased]

However, I find it operationally flawed. It is a bad plan. It involves unnecessary risk. It requires too many unknowns to be controlled. It does not account for the improbability of either 1) every witness NOT seeing what really happened nor does it account for 2) insuring that every potential witness could be forced to remain silent about what they saw or end up dead, including Jackie Kennedy, Nellie Connally, each and every Secret Service agent on the PPD who was there, over one hundred witnesses, in all. The risk factors involved in employing Greer beyond a reasonably arguable "normal" (mal) function of his regular work are not only too great, but quite unnecessary.

The contrary is true: It was an elegant, if brutal, schema which boasted powerful advantages over any other alternative plan for a public assassination using guns.

1. Any plan predicated upon the SS not merely facilitating, but firing, the fatal shots, gave it a portability which no other alternative could match: The assassins would be with their target on all relevant occasions, ready to go at any opportune moment.

2. The selection of the driver as the assassin fixed the distance between target and shooter; and ensured that the shooter controlled the speed of his target: No alternative can match this plan for economy and efficiency.

3. The selection of the driver as assassin offered element of surprise (for both target and observers); a natural alibi (“I was merely returning fire, guvnor, honest”); and more control over external factors – an excited spectator, a wandering motorcycle outrider, a curious local policeman unwittingly interdicting or merely disturbing a sniper team – than any of the alternatives.

4. The selection of the driver as assassin utilised a man with an existing skill-set perfect for the task.

5. The selection of the driver as assassin guaranteed ready access to incriminating evidence, which could then be made to vanish etc.; and furnished the most powerful motive of all for participation in the subsequent, inevitable, cover-up.

And so on and so forth.

[Greg Burnham]

Well, I guess we just disagree. I don't believe the distinction I drew was at all "faulty" --not in the least, and I have some background in these matters. But, let me elaborate further on why I reject Greer as a shooter. There are numerous reasons, but I should start by correcting an assumption you made about me: I do not find it "unimaginable that SS involvement should extend to the actual shooting..." [paraphrased]

However, I find it operationally flawed. It is a bad plan. It involves unnecessary risk. It requires too many unknowns to be controlled. It does not account for the improbability of either 1) every witness NOT seeing what really happened nor does it account for 2) insuring that every potential witness could be forced to remain silent about what they saw or end up dead, including Jackie Kennedy, Nellie Connally, each and every Secret Service agent on the PPD who was there, over one hundred witnesses, in all. The risk factors involved in employing Greer beyond a reasonably arguable "normal" (mal) function of his regular work are not only too great, but quite unnecessary.

The contrary is true: It was an elegant, if brutal, schema which boasted powerful advantages over any other alternative plan for a public assassination using guns.

Your sweeping generalization does not hold up under scrutiny.

1. Any plan predicated upon the SS not merely facilitating, but firing, the fatal shots, gave it a portability which no other alternative could match: The assassins would be with their target on all relevant occasions, ready to go at any opportune moment.

If, as I've already mentioned, the SS involvement need only include relaxation of protection protocol for the deed to be done, then the "portability" to which you refer remains for they are constantly with the "client".

2. The selection of the driver as the assassin fixed the distance between target and shooter; and ensured that the shooter controlled the speed of his target: No alternative can match this plan for economy and efficiency.

Effective assassins don't multi-task during an operation. I suppose, if after turning off of Main, Greer had "floored it" accelerating down Houston Street at 60+ mph and intentionally slammed into the TSBD in order to kill Kennedy, then I could buy him as the assassin. As it is, I don't, not for a second.

3. The selection of the driver as assassin offered element of surprise (for both target and observers); a natural alibi (I was merely returning fire, guvnor, honest); and more control over external factors an excited spectator, a wandering motorcycle outrider, a curious local policeman unwittingly interdicting or merely disturbing a sniper team than any of the alternatives.

Let me say this first, I hope that the "written word" in my reply does not sound more harsh than I intend. But, where do you get the idea that the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail's protocol includes the DRIVER RETURNING FIRE even if an attacker(s) was or were identified and located??? That is a serious misconception on your part. SERIOUS. The PPD are trained to avoid "potential danger zones" first and TAKE the bullet intended for the "client" second. Returning "fire" is not an option for MOST SS agents--particularly for the driver in such a circumstance--nor is it even necessary if the first two have been properly done. So, such an "excuse" is totally ludicrous and any suggesting of it is laughable on its face.

4. The selection of the driver as assassin utilised a man with an existing skill-set perfect for the task.

No, that's not true. Assassins are a unique breed. It requires a unique "skill set" to be sure, but not one for which Greer was trained to utilize.

5. The selection of the driver as assassin guaranteed ready access to incriminating evidence, which could then be made to vanish etc.; and furnished the most powerful motive of all for participation in the subsequent, inevitable, cover-up.

And so on and so forth.

I tend to consider this "theory" to be a rather irresponsible stretch based on little more than supposition.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Rigby]

Let me say this first, I hope that the "written word" in my reply does not sound more harsh than I intend. But, where do you get the idea that the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail's protocol includes the DRIVER RETURNING FIRE even if an attacker(s) was or were identified and located??? That is a serious misconception on your part. SERIOUS. The PPD are trained to avoid "potential danger zones" first and TAKE the bullet intended for the "client" second. Returning "fire" is not an option for MOST SS agents--particularly for the driver in such a circumstance--nor is it even necessary if the first two have been properly done. So, such an "excuse" is totally ludicrous and any suggesting of it is laughable on its face.

That's a fairly radical take on the necessity for specialization within the SS, Greg, one thoroughly repudiated, moreover, in the publicly available literature that I've come across; and common sense would suggest.

Greer wouldn't always be driving when on duty with the SS; presidential limos occasionally stopped and were momentarily engulfed in well-wishers; and he didn't need to "multi-task" when delivering the fatal shot to his President's left-temple: He stopped the car against the south curb of Elm, turned round, and fired.

Footnote from chapter 4, The Filmed Assassination, of Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams’ Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974)

“…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…”

C.B. Colby. Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment, Putnam Pub Group, 1966, p. 20.

According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.”

Timothy G. Smith (ed.), Merriman Smith's Book of Presidents. A White House Memoir. ( NY: Norton, 1972), p. 226.

I tend to consider this "theory" to be a rather irresponsible stretch based on little more than supposition.

Nowt to do with supposition. It's there in the statements and observations of some of the closest eyewitnesses:

Bobby Hargis:

Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots?

Hargis: “Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me,” 6WCH294.

Austin Miller:

Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”

Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225.

Charles Brehm: “Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,” “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

Officer E. L. Boone:" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508.

Jack Franzen: “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and ...small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile,” 22WCH840.

Mrs. Jack Franzen: “Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile,” 24WCH525.

James Altgens: “The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518.

Hugh Betzner, Jr.: “I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air,” 19WCH467

Mary Moorman: “The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car,” Jay Hogan interview with Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, KRLD Radio (Dallas), 15:30hrs (CST), 22 November 1963, Tape 5B and 6A (NARA) – see

http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=9364

[Dean Hagerman]

Effective assassins don't multi-task during an operation. I suppose, if after turning off of Main, Greer had "floored it" accelerating down Houston Street at 60+ mph and intentionally slammed into the TSBD in order to kill Kennedy, then I could buy him as the assassin.

For some reason I got this picture of Greer with a crazy look on his face doing a kamikazi into the TSBD and started laughing

I dont buy Greer as an assassin for a second

[Paul Rigby]

I dont buy Greer as an assassin for a second

Purely out of curiosity, Dean, if you don't buy the eyewitnesses, and you think the Z-fake's a fake, what exactly are you relying upon? Is there something that we've all missed?

Or, if you are persuaded by some eyewitnesses, but not others, what are your criteria for so discriminating? Nothing too esoteric, mind, as it's getting late.

[Dean Hagerman]

I dont buy Greer as an assassin for a second

Purely out of curiosity, Dean, if you don't buy the eyewitnesses, and you think the Z-fake's a fake, what exactly are you relying upon? Is there something that we've all missed?

Or, if you are persuaded by some eyewitnesses, but not others, what are your criteria for so discriminating? Nothing too esoteric, mind, as it's getting late.

Show me an eyewitness that said "The driver turned around and shot JFK in the head!"

I believe a lot of the eyewitnesses Paul, I also believe that certain parts of the Z-film were altered, not the entire film

[Paul Rigby]

Show me an eyewitness that said "The driver turned around and shot JFK in the head!"

Fair enough. We've established your criterion.

Bearing that in mind - no prizes for anticipating what's coming - show me exactly the same from any one of your preferred (non-car) locations.

Simple, straightforward challenge, no tricks.

I also believe that certain parts of the Z-film were altered, not the entire film

Same sort of question, again, no tricks, no "side." On what basis did you decide some frames are genuine, and others not?

[Dean Hagerman]

Bearing that in mind - no prizes for anticipating what's coming - show me exactly the same from any one of your preferred (non-car) locations.

None of my preferred locations were right out in the open for the whole world to see like Greer was

And I have explained my stance on Z-film alteration like 500 times Paul, im sure you have read it on this forum

[Greg Burnham]

Let me say this first, I hope that the "written word" in my reply does not sound more harsh than I intend. But, where do you get the idea that the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail's protocol includes the DRIVER RETURNING FIRE even if an attacker(s) was or were identified and located??? That is a serious misconception on your part. SERIOUS. The PPD are trained to avoid "potential danger zones" first and TAKE the bullet intended for the "client" second. Returning "fire" is not an option for MOST SS agents--particularly for the driver in such a circumstance--nor is it even necessary if the first two have been properly done. So, such an "excuse" is totally ludicrous and any suggesting of it is laughable on its face.

That's a fairly radical take on the necessity for specialization within the SS, Greg, one thoroughly repudiated, moreover, in the publicly available literature that I've come across; and common sense would suggest.

Sheesh. I didn't say that there are no "specialists or specialties" in the SS, nor did I say that there is no "cross training" --but, that wasn't the point.

Greer wouldn't always be driving when on duty with the SS; presidential limos occasionally stopped and were momentarily engulfed in well-wishers; and he didn't need to "multi-task" when delivering the fatal shot to his President's left-temple: He stopped the car against the south curb of Elm, turned round, and fired.

Sorry, but--errr, no, he didn't.

Footnote from chapter 4, The Filmed Assassination, of Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams’ Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974)

“…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…”

Sure, that's true. However, there are limits to EVERY person's capability, no matter your quote. The point is, multi-tasking is undesirable. It's the reason "spotters" are employed by snipers. Second, you are assuming that Greer had the necessary "mind-set" to commit, not only cold blooded murder, (which is a stretch) but also the psychological ability to overcome the specific training and conditioning he underwent in direct conflict with such an act.

I tend to consider this "theory" to be a rather irresponsible stretch based on little more than supposition.

Nowt to do with supposition. It's there in the statements and observations of some of the closest eyewitnesses:

Bobby Hargis:

Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots?

Hargis: “Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me,” 6WCH294.

Austin Miller:

Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”

Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225.

Charles Brehm: “Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,” “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

Officer E. L. Boone:" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508.

Jack Franzen: “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and ...small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile,” 22WCH840.

Mrs. Jack Franzen: “Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile,” 24WCH525.

James Altgens: “The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518.

Hugh Betzner, Jr.: “I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air,” 19WCH467

Mary Moorman: “The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car,” Jay Hogan interview with Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, KRLD Radio (Dallas), 15:30hrs (CST), 22 November 1963, Tape 5B and 6A (NARA) – see

http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=9364

I'm not buying it at all. In your scenario, these witnesses were alert enough to say where they thought the sound "might have" seemd to come from, but NONE of them were alert enough to see where it came from? C'mon! None of them said they saw Greer shoot JFK. Not one! I think you are correct to weigh the witness testimony, and even heavily rely on it, but you are incorrect to irresponsibly interpret what that testimony means just to support your theory.

[Michael Hogan]

Now to do with supposition. It's there in the statements and observations of some of the closest eyewitnesses:

Austin Miller:

Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”

Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225.

I'm not buying it at all. In your scenario, these witnesses were alert enough to say where they thought the sound "might have" seemd to come from, but NONE of them were alert enough to see where it came from? C'mon! None of them said they saw Greer shoot JFK. Not one! I think you are correct to weigh the witness testimony, and even heavily rely on it, but you are incorrect to irresponsibly interpret what that testimony means just to support your theory.

Here's a larger portion of Austin Miller's testimony:

Mr. BELIN - Well, describe what happened. Did you see the motorcade come by?

Mr. MILLER - Yes sir; it came down main street and turned north on Houston Street and went over two blocks and turned left on Elm Street. Got about halfway down the hill going toward the underpass and that is when as I recall the first shot was fired.

Mr. BELIN - Did you know it was a shot when you heard it?

Mr. MILLER - I didn't know it. I thought at first the motorcycle backfiring or somebody throwed some firecrackers out.

Mr. BELIN - Then what did you hear or see?

Mr. MILLER - After the first one, just a few seconds later, there was two more shots fired, or sounded like a sound at the time. I don't know for sure. And it was after that I saw some man in the car fall forward, and a women next to him grab him and hollered, and just what, I don't know exactly what she said.

Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?

Mr. MILLER - About that time I turned to look toward the - there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over there to see if anything was there, who through the firecracker or whatever it was, or see if anything was up there, and there wasn't nobody standing there, so I stepped back and looked at the tracks to see if anybody run across the railroad tracks, and there was nobody running across the railroad tracks. So I turned right straight back just in time to see the convertible take off fast.

Mr. BELIN - You mean the convertible in which the President was riding?

Mr. MILLER - I wouldn't want to say it was the President. It was a convertible, but I saw a man fall over. I don't know whose convertible it was.

Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?

Mr. MILLER - Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at him toward that incline.

Mr. BELIN - Is there anything else that you can think of that you saw?

Mr. MILLER - About the time I looked over to the side there, there was a police officer. No; a motorcycle running his motor under against the curb, and jumped off and come up to the hill toward the top and right behind him was some more officers and plainclothesmen, too.

Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone that might be, that gave any suspicious movements of any kind over there?

Mr. MILLER - No, sir; I didn't

Miller's friend and co-worker Royce Skelton had the same vantage point:

Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's car turn on Elm Street?

Mr. SKELTON. Yes, sir; I saw the car carrying the Presidential flag turn.

Mr. BALL And did you hear something soon after that?

Mr. SKELTON. Just about the same time the car straightened up--got around the corner--I heard two shots, but I didn't know at that time they were shots.

Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from?

Mr. SKELTON. Well, I couldn't tell then, they were still so far from where I was.

Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing?

Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were these dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.

Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?

Mr. SKELTON. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?

Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.

Mr. BALL. From the President's car?

Mr. SKELTON. Right around the motorcycles and all that--I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away.

Mr. BALL. How long did you stand there?

Mr. SKELTON. I stood there from about 12:15 until the time the President was shot.

Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?

Mr. SKELTON. I think I heard four---I mean---I couldn't be sure.

Mr. BALL. You think you heard four?

Mr. SKELTON. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there after you heard the fourth shot?

Mr. SKELTON. Not very long--just as soon as the cars sped away and everything was in a big commotion---we ran down to listen to the radio. We couldn't get anything off of that--we heard that the President had been shot and so we went back up there and the police officer asked us if we had seen the assassination and we told him we had. He said he would like to get a statement from us, so he took us over to the sheriff's office.

Mr. BALL. Did you see any pigeons flying or anything like that?

Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; I didn't see anything like that--any pigeons at all.

Mr. BALL. I think that's all I have. This will be written up and submitted to you for your signature, if you want to sign it, or you can waive your signature. Which do you want to do?

Mr. SKELTON. I will waive my signature. I am sure it is all right.

Mr. BALL. That is fine. Thank you very much.

Mr. SKELTON. There's one thing I could say---you have that other report?

Mr. BALL. What is that?

Mr. SKELTON. About when I saw one of the bullets where it hit on the pavement and it hit, the smoke did come from the general vicinity of where you say Oswald was.

Mr. BALL. Wait a minute let me ask you some questions about that. Tell me, now, about the smoke did you see some smoke?

Mr. SKELTON. After those two shots, and the car came on down closer to the triple underpass, well, there was another shot--two more shots I heard, but one of them--I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building.

Mr. BALL. You mean there was some smoke in the building?

Mr. SKELTON. No.; On the pavement--you know, pavement when it is hit with a hard object it will scatter---it will spread.

Mr. BALL. Which way did it spread?

Mr. SKELTON. It spread just right in line, like you said.

Mr. BALL. I haven't said anything--tell me what you think it was?

Mr. SKELTON. Like I said---south of us--it would be southwest, you know, in a direct line from the Texas Depository.

Mr. BALL. I see. In other words, the spray seemed to go to the west; is that right?

Mr. SKELTON. Yes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Mantik's work on the Zapruder film by itself outweighs anything Josiah has ever done in his entire life, period! This is more

rubbish from a man who once basked in glory and now misses the attention he no longer deserves. He has turned into a crank in

relation to JFK, no more, no less. If anyone wants to contest my observations, let them read his chapters on the film found in

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

This is inexcusable and reflects desperation to regain some standing after forfeiting every reason to ever hold him in esteem.

Remember, his three-assassin/four shot/four hit theory was superseded by Richard Sprague's superior analysis in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970). Tink stood tall for about three years, as every serious student of the case by now should know.

Ouch!!! What you say is extremely troubling. My take on Doug Horne up to now has been basically positive. After all, he was a line officer in the Navy like me standing watches on surface ships. He surely was there when all this medical evidence came in. It seems almost automatic that the medical evidence is where all sort of things were buried. The only part I've looked at is the chapter on the Zapruder film and that is whoppingly troubling. I keep asking myself, "Where's the beef!"

Up to now, I've thought of Horne sort of like David Mantik. Many years ago I cautioned Mantik about getting ensnarled in the claims about the Zapruder film. I told him that he could easily get his tail caught in the door there because he didn't know his ass from his elbow about movie cameras and movie film. I said that his misadventures there might very well shadow his credibility with respect to the x-rays where he's done significant work. So what happens. Mantik confirms my prediction as we've seen. Up to now, I've been thinking that Doug Horne is pretty much the same, that he can be trusted on the medical evidence but will make wild and unproven claims in the Zapruder arena. It would be a shame if that happened and really good work on the medical evidence was undermined by sloppy work on the Zapruder question. Mr. Carroll mentioned this possibility at the very beginning of our discussions. I wonder if he's right.

I've got all five volumes. I guess I'd better start reading. Thanks for your heads up.

Josiah Thompson

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.

Edited August 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

James,

While I agree that Doug's work is not flawless and accept some of your criticisms, I can forgive him for many mistakes--and

who among us is without them?--when he has done so much to expose the fabrication of the film, which is why Tink attacks him.

Jim

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

Analysis

US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Guest Writer

Apr 7, 2010, 00:19

MADISON, Wisconsin -- Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has now published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK.

As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is known about the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new article, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”, Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:

I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995-1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain -- they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else’s brain.

Over and beyond the medical evidence, however, Horne -- in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has also demonstrated that the home movie of the assassination known as “the Zapruder film” -- and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films -- have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true causes of death of John F. Kennedy.

There are many proofs that the film has been fabricated—including that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure he would be killed; that his brains were blown out to the left-rear; and that a motorcycle patrolman accompanying the limo rode forward at the time of the stop to inform Dallas Chief of Police Jessie Curry that the president had been hit. But none of these events appears in the extant version of the film, which has been massively edited. That these events occurred has been established by more than 60 witness reports of the limo stop, where the wound to the back of his head was confirmed by 40 witnesses, including virtually all the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who described cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. The blow-out to the right-front, as seen in the film, therefore, is not authentic.

Indeed, in an appendix to Vol. IV, Horne explains that a copy of the film has now been studied by Hollywood exerts, who found that the blow-out to the back of his head had been painted over in black in an amateurish effort to obfuscate the blow out, which can actually be seen in a few later frames, including 372 and 374. Those who have persisted in defense of the authenticity of the film have offered three major arguments -- (1) that the features of the extant film correspond to those of the original processed in Dallas, (2) that there was an unbroken chain of custody, which precluded the film be changed; and (3) that the Dealey Plaza films are not only consistent with themselves but with one another, where the Zapruder could only have been faked if the others had been as well.

The following extracts from INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, demonstrate that all three arguments are fallacious: (1) there are five features of the extant film that differ from those of the original and (2) that different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days, which vitiates the chain-of-custody argument. The consistency of the films with one another (3) turns out to be an interesting question, since they all seem to have been edited to remove the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston onto Elm. More significantly, there are subtle inconsistencies between the films and, most importantly, the Zapruder film is not even consistent with itself, which proves that it cannot possibly be authentic! Horne’s new studies thus confirm the previous research that has previously been reported in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” (2007), and “Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid” (2008), where these two articles are on-line.

(1) Five features of the original do not match the extant film

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), p. 1292:

Conclusions

In his long essay published in 2007 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, Josiah Thompson [NOTE: the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study based on the Zapruder film] told us we should all trust [retired Kodak expert on celluloid] Rollie Zavada’s judgment and defer to his authority:

“Roland Zavada has a towering reputation in the field and no conceivable reason for cooking his conclusions.”

Now that we have concluded examining his report and Zavada’s changes of mind since that time, it is clear that he has cooked his conclusions. In particular, he has ignored—trashed—key testimony:

*That the exposures were not bracketed at the Jamieson lab when the three ‘first day copies’ were struck, meaning that the three ‘first generation’ copies today should not be bracketed copies;

*That a ‘full frame’ aperture (picture plus soundtrack) was used when duplicating the Zapruder film, meaning that the intersprocket images should be present on the ‘first generation copies’;

*That the edge printer light was turned off when the original film was developed, meaning that there a double registration of processing edge prints in the family scenes on the extant ‘first generation’ copies; and,

*That the camera original film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas, meaning that the 16 mm wide, unslit black-and-white copies in existence today cannot have originated from the camera original film, and are instead indirect evidence that a new ‘original’ was created as an unslit 16 mm, double 8 movie (just as Homer McMahon’s expert testimony to the ARRB indicates).

Furthermore, Zavada’s opposition to the shooting of a control film in Zapruder’s actual camera in Dealey Plaza—which was inexplicable and extremely frustrating when it occurred in 1997—now takes on a very different taint, one of possibly intentional sabotage of the authentication effort by the ARRB staff. An incredible charge, you say? Not necessarily.

Read more on pages 1292 through 1294 as well as 1243 to 1292. And this does not take into account that the numbers on the extant film are not punched in the same location as the original. Read Horne to appreciate the depth of Zavada’s deception.

(2) Different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days

Not only has Doug Horne demonstrated that the strips of film—the actual celluloid -- of the film that was processed in Dallas and the extant “Zapruder film” are not the same, but he has demonstrated that David Wrone has misled his audience and distorted the evidence about the chain-of-custody, where one film—apparently the original, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, which was an 8mm, slit version, the processing of which Bruno Brugioni, Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, supervised, which even required opening a camera store to purchase an 8mm projector, which the NPIC did not possess, while a second, 16mm unslit version, was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 December 1963, by Secret Service Agent “William Smith,” which was handled by Homer McMahon and by Ben Hunter, who had not been present the night before, and a very different film.

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1226 and 1227:

Analysis: First of all, we can now say with certainty that the NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon’s rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie -- and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester -- implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera original developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as ‘the original.’ I suspected in 1997, and I am more certain than ever today at this writing in 2009, that ‘Bill Smith’ told the truth when he said that the film he couriered to NPIC was developed in Rochester -- after all, how could he possible make a mistake about something so elementary, since he brought it from Rochester to Washington, D.C. himself? He was only lying about one thing: it could not have been the original film exposed inside Abe Zapruder’s camera, because we know from the Dallas Affidavit trail, and from the interviews Rollie Zavada conducted with the surviving personnel from the Dallas Kodak lab, that the original film was indeed developed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963. If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated ‘original’ created with an optical printer at the CIA’s secret film lab in Rochester.

The critical information published in the ARRB call and meeting reports about our interviews with McMahon and Hunter in 1997 was published in full by Jim Fetzer in the year 2000 in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, but was subsequently ignored by Josiah Thompson in a 2007 essay posted on the Mary Ferrell website (note 14) and was intentionally under-reported and misrepresented by David Wrone in his 2003 book on the Zapruder film. This is what many advocates of a specific hypothesis or a historical position resort to when the heat is on and their longstanding positions on key issues are threatened by new evidence: all too often they either ignore the argument of their opponents as if they do not exist, or they will misrepresent them, intentionally setting up a false ‘straw man,’ and then knock it down. In the case of the serious chain-of-custody implications of the McMahon interviews, Thompson chose to ignore the problem in 2005 and again in 2007, while David Wrone has not only misreported/misrepresented their import, but he has overstated the case for authenticity, as I shall demonstrate below.

In his 2003 book THE ZAPRUDER FILM: REFRAMING JFK’S ASSASSINATION, Wrone fails to report the specific content of the Homer McMahon interviews (nor does McMahon’s name even appear in Wrone’s index), and then completely misreports what I have said about them (on page 127), as follows:

Similarly spurious is Douglas Orme’s charge (yes, he misspelled my name, too) that Time, Inc. allowed the film to be altered. In MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, Horne argues that Time, Inc. permitted the film to be taken by Federal Officials for doctoring. [This statement was followed by endnote 36, which simply refers to page 319 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, without telling the reader what is on page 319. Page 319 is the interview report I wrote of the Homer McMahon interview of July 14, 1997 at the National Archives.] Like Zapruder, however, Time knew it had a treasure in the Zapruder film, and it would do nothing to endanger the flow of revenue it expected from those 26 seconds of film. [boldface added by author]

Shame on you David Wrone! There are so many things wrong with this short paragraph that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, and most importantly, Wrone never mentioned in his text that the Head of the Color Lab at NPIC, the world’s pre-eminent photo interpretation lab in 1963, claimed that he had [had] delivered to him by the Secret Service, prior to the President’s funeral, a 16 mm wide, unslit original double 8 film of the Kennedy assassination that was developed in Rochester, the location from which the courier brought him the film!!! So David Wrone’s first sin is that of intellectual dishonesty -- hiding facts from his readers which might have contradicted his own thesis that the extant film in the Archives today is authentic and unaltered. His second sin is that of putting words in my mouth: it is simply not true that I said anywhere in Fetzer’s book that Time, Inc. had allowed the film to be altered! The editor of the anthology, Jim Fetzer, published only my call reports and meeting reports of what the witnesses told the ARRB staff, and no one used that language in their interviews with us. So Wrone set up a straw man here which he attempted to knock down with a private enterprise profit motive, while all the time ignoring facts about C.D. Jackson’s long standing associations with the CIA and the national security establishment during the decade of the 1960s. If Wrone had been intellectually above-board, he would have talked honestly about the content of the McMahon/Hunter interviews, and then stated why he did not find these eyewitness recollections persuasive, if that was the case; instead, he took the coward’s way out and intentionally failed to report what McMahon had said. . . .

Note 14: The name of the lengthy 3-part essay is “Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,” and is based upon a somewhat shorter version delivered by Thompson on November 19, 2005 at a conference sponsored by Jim Lesar’s Assassination Archives and Research Center (ARRC) and the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law.

(3) The Zapruder film displays inconsistencies with other films and with itself

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1336 to 1337:

The Alteration of the Zapruder Film was Rushed and Imperfect

Because there are physical limitations to what can be altered in a film -- particularly on a tight schedule and when faced with time pressure--the alteration of the Zapruder film was imperfect, and it therefore had to be suppressed as a motion picture even after its gross alteration to conceal what the forgers had been unable to remove. My working hypothesis postulates that because the cabal that killed the president (and which was feverishly covering up the crime that weekend) did not yet know, on the weekend of the assassination, what type of investigation(s) would be conducted of the crime, or by which governmental bodies, speed was of the essence. By late Sunday afternoon -- after discussing the limitations to the film’s alteration with the technicians at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester -- they would have known that while the car stop had been removed from the film, and the exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedy’s skull had also been removed, that a serious problem remained: the so-called ‘head snap,’ or violent movement of the President’s head and upper body to the left and rear, in response to the frontal head shots. This was a simple and persuasive demonstration of the law of conservation of momentum that even a layperson without a physics degree could viscerally understand, and the public could not be permitted to see it, or the lone assassination cover story would not sell . . .

The film’s imperfect alteration was revealed in other ways aside from the ‘headsnap.’ As later discovered by Josiah Thompson, Ray Marcus, and other researchers, and as written about in scores of books now and as mentioned in hundreds of lectures, the extant film contains evidence of a very serious ‘timing problem’: President Kennedy and Governor Connally react to separate shots that occur too close together to have been fired in succession by the rather slow mechanism of the alleged murder weapon. The Warren Commission staff expressed great concern about this internally, and ultimately dealt with it dishonestly by concluding that the same bullet had hit both men, and that Connally had unaccountably exhibited a ‘delayed reaction’ to his very severe and painful wounds. What we do not know today is whether the ‘timing problem’ is an artifact of frame removal, or whether those frames of the film prior to the headshot were not tampered with, and reflected the true reality of the assassination farther up Elm Street in the vicinity of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Either possibility is [better: could be] true. Given what we know about the robust evidence in favor of alteration of the Zapruder film, it would be imprudent for JFK researchers to continue to claim that the ‘timing problem’ is the primary evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. It isn’t. Given the overwhelming evidence that the camera original has been altered, the ‘timing problem’ should now be demoted to simply being ‘possible evidence’ of conspiracy. Eyewitness and earwitness testimony from Dealey Plaza alone, and the behavior of the impact debris after the head shots, are the true ‘bedrock evidence’ that proves conspiracy, not the ‘timing problem,’ which is inevitably suspect now, because of the overwhelming evidence that the camera original Zapruder film was altered on Sunday, November 24, 1963.

One final and undeniable mistake by the forgers was their failure to black out the real exit wound(s) in the posterior skull in all frames. I believe one of two exit wounds can been seen today, with proper magnification, in frames 335 and 337 of the extant film [NOTE: and in frames 372 and 374, where a comparison between David Mantik’s study of “Area P” in the lateral cranial X-rays and the blow-out to the back of the head can be viewed in “Dealey Plaza Revisited,” Chapter 30 of JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY, MEMORY, LEGACY (2009), which can be downloaded here.] The best images of this to date have been published in HIGH TREASON (the color plate in the cloth edition, opposite page 387), in [Harrison Livingston’s] THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY: DECODING THE FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (on page 264) and in [Robert Groden’s] THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (on page 38). While the forgers were ‘successful’ in superimposing rather poor aerial imaging artwork of an enormous head wound on the top and right side of President Kennedy’s head in the Zapruder film -- a head wound which is grossly inconsistent with the localized posterior blowout observed at Parkland Hospital, and only roughly consistent with the autopsy photos taken after clandestine post mortem surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital -- they failed to properly execute their most basic task, which was to hide all evidence of posterior exit wounds in the back of JFK’s head. Persons in the government were clearly aware of this problem, for the last frame of the Zapruder film published in volume XVIII of the Warren Commission’s 26 supporting volumes was frame 334, the frame immediately prior to those which show one of the two exit defects in the back of the head. ‘Coincidences’ like this are not worthy of belief, and the fact that the Warren Commission stopped publishing at frame 334 strongly implies that someone on the staff—presumably Specter and Rankin—knew they had a problem in frames 335 and 337, and so simply decided not to publish those frames. For them, discretion was the better part of valor. . . .

INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, pages 1317 to 1320 (in part):

If the Zapruder Film is an Alteration, Doesn’t This Mean That Other Films of the Assassination Must Have Been Altered Also? Also, Are There Inconsistencies Between Other Films and the Zapruder Film?

Absolutely—alteration of the Zapruder film does indeed imply that in a perfect conspiracy, that other films would have been altered also, and in the same way as the Zapruder film. If they were not altered and the Zapruder film was, this would have left undeniable evidence in the photographic record that “the” pre-eminent record of the assassination is indeed an alteration. In fact, what we do find in the evidence is one suggestion of identical alteration; and numerous indications of disagreement between various Dealey Plaza films and the Zapruder film.

The Turn from Houston Onto Elm May Have Been Removed from the Zapruder Film, the Nix Film, and the Muchmore Film

First, let us examine the suggested identical alteration of the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore film. Neither the Nix film, the Muchmore film,nor the Zapruder film show the Presidential limousine turning left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Orville Nix told Mark Lane (on film) in 1966 that his film has initially been ‘lost’ by the processing plant and that when the FBI returned his film to him, some of the frames had been ‘damaged’ and were missing. The originals of both the Nix film and the Muchmore film (taken from the opposite side of thje plaza from which Zapruder was shooting his film, and from much farther away) are missing today. How convenient. The absence of first-frame overexposure in frame 133 of the Zapruder film suggests, but in my view does not prove, that the limousine’s turn from Houston onto Elm was removed when the film was altered and recreated, using an optical printer. The fact that the originals of the Nix and Muchmore films are missing is extremely suspicious; they may have been removed from circulation to prevent detection of their alteration -- specifically, removal of the limousine’s turn onto Elm from Houston and of the car stop during the assassination. If ever found, one of the first things that should be checked is to see if the limousine’s turn onto Elm Street in these two films has been excised--either crudely, with splices, or via reprinting those films in an optical printer.

Clint Hill’s Interactions with Jackie Kennedy on the Trunk of the Limousine Appear to be Inconsistent in the Nix Film and the Zapruder Film

There is also significant disagreement between the Nix film and the Zapruder film. In Harry Livingstone’s 2004 book about the Zapruder film, he discusses differences between the images of Clint Hall and Jackie Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine in the Nix film, versus what is shown in the Zapruder film. Livingstone correctly points out that in the Nix Film, Clint Hill appears to place his left arm around Jackie Kennedy’s right shoulder and push her back into her seat -- where as in the Zapruder film, he barely touches her with his right hand, and is not seen embracing her with his left arm at all. (See pages 250-251 of Livingstone for the pertinent Nix frames, and the MPI video of the Zapruder film for comparison. A projected version of the portion of the Nix film showing Clint Hill on the trunk of the limousine can been seen in the 1973 film “Executive Action,” and it can be seen in its entirety in the Groden DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.)

Is the “Headsnap” Different in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films?

The ‘headsnap” in the Nix film appears to be slightly slower, and less violent than in the Zapruder film; in the Muchmore film, there appears to be no ‘headsnap’ visible at all, but this may be inconclusive because of the camera angle at the time of the headshot(s) and because the line of sight to the President’s head is obstructed by Dealey Plaza bystanders immediately afterwards. (See episode 3 of “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” for footage oft he headshot(s) in both the Nix and the Muchmore films; both films can also been seen in their entirety in Robert Groden’s DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.) The perceived differences between the headshot(s) in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films suggests that when debris exiting from the back of President Kennedy’s head was removed from the three films, that it was not done uniformly, resulting in three slightly different versions of the motion of the President’s head caused by the fatal shot(s). This has not been conclusively proven, but is worthy of further investigation. . . .

Concluding Reflections

There is much more, but the Addendum, “The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood,” pages 1352 to 1363, is of special interest, where highly qualified experts on film restoration viewed a digital version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives and found that the massive blow out at the back of the head had been painted over in black, which was a stunning confirmation of the observation of Roderick Ryan, reported in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the bulging out of brains -- called the “blob”—and the blood spray visible in frames 314 and thereafter had also been painted in, where Ryan would receive the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to cinematography, where his area of specialization was special effects.

As of this date, seven Hollywood film experts -- eight, if we include Ryan -- have agreed that the fakery used to cover up the blow out to the back of the head by painting it over in black was very primitive and highly amateurish, a finding that they have based upon a 6k version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has verified these artifacts using the 4x5 slides created by MPI when it produced a digital version of the film -- which are archived at The 6th Floor Museum -- the inadequacies of which are explained in “Which Film is ‘the Zapruder Film’?,” by me and Scott Lederer, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 31. The creation of this visual deception was an elaborate undertaking, but it contained the elements of its own refutation.

“Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery” is an astonishing achievement. For Horne to have assimilated and synthesized such a complicated and technical assortment of arguments and evidence impresses me beyond words. This chapter alone is worth the price of the whole. No matter what reservations or differences I may have with any other parts of his work, what he has done on the film is extraordinary. He was my featured guest on “The Real Deal” on Wednesday, 13 January 2010, archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. It is also archived http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/do . . . b-part-iii.html as part of a three-part blog on Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). Those who want to pursue this historic development in JFK assassination research are welcome to pursue these leads.

James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Science; and Co-Editor, Assassination Research, maintains a blog on 9/11 and other “false flag” attacks.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Email Online Journal Editor

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.

[Craig Lamson]

Mantik's work on the Zapruder film ...

Wow, you being a parrot for Mantik now too when it comes to the Z film?

So have you fact checked his works? Do you KNOW he got it right by actualy checking it yourself?

What are Mantik's qualifications for dealing with photographic issues?

Polly wanna cracker?