Jump to content
The Education Forum

Transcripts of Doug Horne on Jim Fetzer's podcasts


Joseph Backes
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

It's been hard to keep up with the advances in the case made by Doug Horne. I still have not read his 5 volumes. I have tried to make a point of listening to his interviews on radio and podcasts. Recently, he was on in 4 parts on Jim Fetzer's podcast called "The Real Deal." I have made a transcript.

First, a word about them. I make them for my own benefit as they help me, and I offer them free to all as they will probably help you too. I do so freely. I would appreciate it if you find them valuable to consider making a donation, a whole dollar amount please.

And a word to Josiah Thompson, I am not up on the latest alteration vs. anti-alteration war waging on this forum and or elsewhere, though this alteration idea is gaining some traction with me. Jim Fetzer insults you pretty severely in these transcripts. I do not share Fetzer's view of you. So, to make this fair and or fun for you, play the Jim Fetzer drinking game. Everytime Fetzer refers to himself, his books, his conference, and his podcast, always in the most (cough) humble of terms (cough) have a drink. Enjoy!

See - www.justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com

Joseph Backes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello all,

It's been hard to keep up with the advances in the case made by Doug Horne. I still have not read his 5 volumes. I have tried to make a point of listening to his interviews on radio and podcasts. Recently, he was on in 4 parts on Jim Fetzer's podcast called "The Real Deal." I have made a transcript.

First, a word about them. I make them for my own benefit as they help me, and I offer them free to all as they will probably help you too. I do so freely. I would appreciate it if you find them valuable to consider making a donation, a whole dollar amount please.

And a word to Josiah Thompson, I am not up on the latest alteration vs. anti-alteration war waging on this forum and or elsewhere, though this alteration idea is gaining some traction with me. Jim Fetzer insults you pretty severely in these transcripts. I do not share Fetzer's view of you. So, to make this fair and or fun for you, play the Jim Fetzer drinking game. Everytime Fetzer refers to himself, his books, his conference, and his podcast, always in the most (cough) humble of terms (cough) have a drink. Enjoy!

See - www.justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com

Joseph Backes

Thanks for that Joe,

Is Prof. Fetzer still talking?

One correction: CORONA.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

It's been hard to keep up with the advances in the case made by Doug Horne. I still have not read his 5 volumes. I have tried to make a point of listening to his interviews on radio and podcasts. Recently, he was on in 4 parts on Jim Fetzer's podcast called "The Real Deal." I have made a transcript.

First, a word about them. I make them for my own benefit as they help me, and I offer them free to all as they will probably help you too. I do so freely. I would appreciate it if you find them valuable to consider making a donation, a whole dollar amount please.

And a word to Josiah Thompson, I am not up on the latest alteration vs. anti-alteration war waging on this forum and or elsewhere, though this alteration idea is gaining some traction with me. Jim Fetzer insults you pretty severely in these transcripts. I do not share Fetzer's view of you. So, to make this fair and or fun for you, play the Jim Fetzer drinking game. Everytime Fetzer refers to himself, his books, his conference, and his podcast, always in the most (cough) humble of terms (cough) have a drink. Enjoy!

See - www.justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com

Joseph Backes

Thanks, Joe

It seems that Fetzer and Horne, in their zeal to convince everyone the autopsy photos and Z-film are fake, have put words into the mouth of Mrs. Kennedy, so they can then claim the photos and film are in conflict with her testimony.

From Part III

Fetzer - And, of course, as we know from Jackie’s own testimony she said from the front he looked just fine-

Horne - That’s right.

Fetzer - but she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together.

Horne - Correct

WRONG. Here is her actual testimony...

(When asked if she remembered Secret Service Agent Clint Hill's climbing onto the limo after she climbed out the back.) "I don't remember anything. I was just down like that. And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital," or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat. But someone yelling. I was just down and holding him. I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.

There is nothing in this to say the wound was on the back of Kennedy's skull; it merely implied the wound was not visible when looking at his face. It could just as easily have been on the top of his head.

In fact, that's where Mrs. Kennedy said it was a week after the shooting, months prior to her WC testimony.

11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95) “They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arm and saying no no nononono, with his fist beating—then Jack turned and I turned—all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead, then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white—he was holding out his hand—and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” (When describing the immediate aftermath of the shots) "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack." I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." (When describing her husband's condition upon arrival at the hospital) "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” b

Yes, exactly. The wound on the top of Kennedy's head was not readily seen from the front, with her husband's head in her lap facing up. This is exactly what is seen in the autopsy photos...

If the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, as so many want to believe, why did Mrs. Kennedy not only fail to say so, but instead say it was the top of his head she was trying to hold on? And why didn't ANY of the closest witnesses to the shooting report seeing an explosion from the back of his head?

From patspeer.com, chapter 18b:

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his right temple. (As shown on the slide above...)

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out."

At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

Less than forty minutes later, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of Burkley and the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Okay, have it your way. Let's go through the statements of the best witnesses to the shooting.

Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps to the right and front of Kennedy at the moment of the fatal head shot, also discussed its impact. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hudson asserted: "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear." While this is a few inches back of the location described by the Newmans and Zapruder, it is more significantly not a description of a bullet exit on the far back of Kennedy's head, where most conspiracy theorists have long held the large head wound was located.

"Well, wait a second"--I'm sure some of you are thinking--"maybe Hudson saw the bullet's entrance, and missed seeing the exit of this bullet from the back of Kennedy's head due to his being slightly in front of Kennedy." Well, no, that doesn't work, either. In 1966, Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who'd stood beside him on 11-22-63, confirmed his observation of the wound location. To writer Josiah Thompson, she related: “And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face ...” When asked then by Thompson to specify just where she saw the large head wound, she continued: “I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front…Between the eye and the ear…And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less”. Hmmm... This makes four witnesses--the Newmans, Zapruder, and now Sitzman--who were more or less to Kennedy's right and in position to see an explosion from either the side of his head or the back of his head who saw an explosion from the right side of his head, and no such explosion from the back of his head.

Still, that's just four witnesses. What about the closest witnesses behind Kennedy? Didn't any of them see an explosion from the back of his head?

Uhhh...nope. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have reported such an explosion? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not even see the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs.Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood."

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

We now move to the witnesses directly behind Kennedy, in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of his head. These witnesses rode in the Secret Service back-up car, trailing the limousine by just a few yards. Sam Kinney, the driver of this car, wrote a report on the night of the assassination which asserted "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…" Sitting next to Kinney was Emory Roberts, sitting directly behind Kennedy. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

On the left running board of the back-up car were two agents, neither of whom commented on the bullet's impact or wound location in their initial reports.

One of the agents on the right side of the limo, Paul Landis, however, described the impact in a graphic manner. In a report written 11-29-63, he noted "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." While vague, this might indeed suggest a bullet's exploding from the back of Kennedy's head.

But between the agents on the left and right sides of the limo sat four more witnesses, two on the jump seat, and two on the rear seat. While Kennedy's close aide Kenneth O'Donnell failed to describe the impact of the fatal bullet or head wound location in his Warren Commission testimony, he and the man sitting next to him on the jump seat, Dave Powers, would in 1970 publish a book on Kennedy, which described: "While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off. We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air..." These were Kennedy's friends, both of whom felt one or more shots came from the front, and yet neither of them claimed to see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. Years earlier, in fact, Powers had provided a statement to the Warren Commission, which described: "there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head..." Thus, O'Donnell and Powers felt the explosion was on the top and side of the President's head--and not on the far back of his head, where so many conspiracy theorists fervently believe the wound was located.

Their impression was shared by George Hickey, one of the two Secret Service agents on the rear seat of the back-up car. On the night of the assassination, he wrote a report on what transpired in Dallas, and noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." Next to Hickey sat Glen Bennett, who noted, in a handwritten 11-22-63 report, that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head." While some might take Bennett's statement to indicate he saw the entrance of a bullet near Kennedy's cowlick, the entrance location later "discovered" by the Clark Panel, a more logical assessment would be that he saw an explosion of brain and blood from the right side of Kennedy's skull, to the rear of his head, as in not on his face, and high, as in the highest part of his head visible from behind. This, not coincidentally, would be the top of Kennedy's head above his ear, the location of the impact shown in the Zapruder film. (Should one not agree with this assessment one should feel free to explain how Bennett could have seen an impact at the small red shape seen in the autopsy photos, and fail to note the massive explosion from the gaping hole on the right side of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film, especially when no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.)

In sum, then, none of the closest witnesses to the side or back of the President saw a bullet impact on or explode from the back of his head. So why is it, again, that so many believe there was a wound on the back of his head? Oh, that's right. ALL those who saw Kennedy at Parkland Hospital said the wound they saw was on the back of his head.

Well, not all... As we've seen, Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple.

And he wasn't the only one at Parkland to make this assessment. Texas Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Well, then, what gives? Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yeah...one did... Clint Hill, one of the Secret Service agents riding on the left side of the limo, while never commenting on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound upon arrival at the hospital. Nearly four months after the shooting, he told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's recollection of the wound location is undeniably inconsistent with the wound depicted in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos.

Or is it? "Right rear portion" is indeed a bit vague. Perhaps Hill, by claiming the "right rear portion" was missing, meant simply that a portion of the head on the right, and to the rear (as in not on Kennedy's face) was missing... While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

It's been hard to keep up with the advances in the case made by Doug Horne. I still have not read his 5 volumes. I have tried to make a point of listening to his interviews on radio and podcasts. Recently, he was on in 4 parts on Jim Fetzer's podcast called "The Real Deal." I have made a transcript.

First, a word about them. I make them for my own benefit as they help me, and I offer them free to all as they will probably help you too. I do so freely. I would appreciate it if you find them valuable to consider making a donation, a whole dollar amount please.

And a word to Josiah Thompson, I am not up on the latest alteration vs. anti-alteration war waging on this forum and or elsewhere, though this alteration idea is gaining some traction with me. Jim Fetzer insults you pretty severely in these transcripts. I do not share Fetzer's view of you. So, to make this fair and or fun for you, play the Jim Fetzer drinking game. Everytime Fetzer refers to himself, his books, his conference, and his podcast, always in the most (cough) humble of terms (cough) have a drink. Enjoy!

See - www.justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com

Joseph Backes

"Everytime Fetzer refers to himself, his books, his conference, and his podcast, always in the most (cough) humble of terms (cough) have a drink. Enjoy!"

Hilarious!

I'd add in every time he refers to JFK as "Jack" and says "cognitively impaired".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

It's been hard to keep up with the advances in the case made by Doug Horne. I still have not read his 5 volumes. I have tried to make a point of listening to his interviews on radio and podcasts. Recently, he was on in 4 parts on Jim Fetzer's podcast called "The Real Deal." I have made a transcript.

First, a word about them. I make them for my own benefit as they help me, and I offer them free to all as they will probably help you too. I do so freely. I would appreciate it if you find them valuable to consider making a donation, a whole dollar amount please.

And a word to Josiah Thompson, I am not up on the latest alteration vs. anti-alteration war waging on this forum and or elsewhere, though this alteration idea is gaining some traction with me. Jim Fetzer insults you pretty severely in these transcripts. I do not share Fetzer's view of you. So, to make this fair and or fun for you, play the Jim Fetzer drinking game. Everytime Fetzer refers to himself, his books, his conference, and his podcast, always in the most (cough) humble of terms (cough) have a drink. Enjoy!

See - www.justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com

Joseph Backes

Thanks, Joe

It seems that Fetzer and Horne, in their zeal to convince everyone the autopsy photos and Z-film are fake, have put words into the mouth of Mrs. Kennedy, so they can then claim the photos and film are in conflict with her testimony.

From Part III

Fetzer - And, of course, as we know from Jackie’s own testimony she said from the front he looked just fine-

Horne - That’s right.

Fetzer - but she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together.

Horne - Correct

WRONG. Here is her actual testimony...

(When asked if she remembered Secret Service Agent Clint Hill's climbing onto the limo after she climbed out the back.) "I don't remember anything. I was just down like that. And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital," or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat. But someone yelling. I was just down and holding him. I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.

There is nothing in this to say the wound was on the back of Kennedy's skull; it merely implied the wound was not visible when looking at his face. It could just as easily have been on the top of his head.

In fact, that's where Mrs. Kennedy said it was a week after the shooting, months prior to her WC testimony.

11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95) “They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arm and saying no no nononono, with his fist beating—then Jack turned and I turned—all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead, then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white—he was holding out his hand—and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” (When describing the immediate aftermath of the shots) "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack." I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." (When describing her husband's condition upon arrival at the hospital) "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."

Pat,

Jackie mentions seeing a "blue gray building up ahead".

Since nothing like that appears in the Dealey Plaza photos, all of the photos must have been altered to remove the blue gray building that was ahead of the limo on Elm Street.

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” b

Yes, exactly. The wound on the top of Kennedy's head was not readily seen from the front, with her husband's head in her lap facing up. This is exactly what is seen in the autopsy photos...

If the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, as so many want to believe, why did Mrs. Kennedy not only fail to say so, but instead say it was the top of his head she was trying to hold on? And why didn't ANY of the closest witnesses to the shooting report seeing an explosion from the back of his head?

From patspeer.com, chapter 18b:

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his right temple. (As shown on the slide above...)

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out."

At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

Less than forty minutes later, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of Burkley and the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Okay, have it your way. Let's go through the statements of the best witnesses to the shooting.

Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps to the right and front of Kennedy at the moment of the fatal head shot, also discussed its impact. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hudson asserted: "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear." While this is a few inches back of the location described by the Newmans and Zapruder, it is more significantly not a description of a bullet exit on the far back of Kennedy's head, where most conspiracy theorists have long held the large head wound was located.

"Well, wait a second"--I'm sure some of you are thinking--"maybe Hudson saw the bullet's entrance, and missed seeing the exit of this bullet from the back of Kennedy's head due to his being slightly in front of Kennedy." Well, no, that doesn't work, either. In 1966, Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who'd stood beside him on 11-22-63, confirmed his observation of the wound location. To writer Josiah Thompson, she related: “And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face ...” When asked then by Thompson to specify just where she saw the large head wound, she continued: “I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front…Between the eye and the ear…And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less”. Hmmm... This makes four witnesses--the Newmans, Zapruder, and now Sitzman--who were more or less to Kennedy's right and in position to see an explosion from either the side of his head or the back of his head who saw an explosion from the right side of his head, and no such explosion from the back of his head.

Still, that's just four witnesses. What about the closest witnesses behind Kennedy? Didn't any of them see an explosion from the back of his head?

Uhhh...nope. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have reported such an explosion? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not even see the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs.Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood."

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

We now move to the witnesses directly behind Kennedy, in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of his head. These witnesses rode in the Secret Service back-up car, trailing the limousine by just a few yards. Sam Kinney, the driver of this car, wrote a report on the night of the assassination which asserted "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…" Sitting next to Kinney was Emory Roberts, sitting directly behind Kennedy. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

On the left running board of the back-up car were two agents, neither of whom commented on the bullet's impact or wound location in their initial reports.

One of the agents on the right side of the limo, Paul Landis, however, described the impact in a graphic manner. In a report written 11-29-63, he noted "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." While vague, this might indeed suggest a bullet's exploding from the back of Kennedy's head.

But between the agents on the left and right sides of the limo sat four more witnesses, two on the jump seat, and two on the rear seat. While Kennedy's close aide Kenneth O'Donnell failed to describe the impact of the fatal bullet or head wound location in his Warren Commission testimony, he and the man sitting next to him on the jump seat, Dave Powers, would in 1970 publish a book on Kennedy, which described: "While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off. We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air..." These were Kennedy's friends, both of whom felt one or more shots came from the front, and yet neither of them claimed to see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. Years earlier, in fact, Powers had provided a statement to the Warren Commission, which described: "there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head..." Thus, O'Donnell and Powers felt the explosion was on the top and side of the President's head--and not on the far back of his head, where so many conspiracy theorists fervently believe the wound was located.

Their impression was shared by George Hickey, one of the two Secret Service agents on the rear seat of the back-up car. On the night of the assassination, he wrote a report on what transpired in Dallas, and noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." Next to Hickey sat Glen Bennett, who noted, in a handwritten 11-22-63 report, that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head." While some might take Bennett's statement to indicate he saw the entrance of a bullet near Kennedy's cowlick, the entrance location later "discovered" by the Clark Panel, a more logical assessment would be that he saw an explosion of brain and blood from the right side of Kennedy's skull, to the rear of his head, as in not on his face, and high, as in the highest part of his head visible from behind. This, not coincidentally, would be the top of Kennedy's head above his ear, the location of the impact shown in the Zapruder film. (Should one not agree with this assessment one should feel free to explain how Bennett could have seen an impact at the small red shape seen in the autopsy photos, and fail to note the massive explosion from the gaping hole on the right side of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film, especially when no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.)

In sum, then, none of the closest witnesses to the side or back of the President saw a bullet impact on or explode from the back of his head. So why is it, again, that so many believe there was a wound on the back of his head? Oh, that's right. ALL those who saw Kennedy at Parkland Hospital said the wound they saw was on the back of his head.

Well, not all... As we've seen, Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple.

And he wasn't the only one at Parkland to make this assessment. Texas Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Well, then, what gives? Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yeah...one did... Clint Hill, one of the Secret Service agents riding on the left side of the limo, while never commenting on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound upon arrival at the hospital. Nearly four months after the shooting, he told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's recollection of the wound location is undeniably inconsistent with the wound depicted in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos.

Or is it? "Right rear portion" is indeed a bit vague. Perhaps Hill, by claiming the "right rear portion" was missing, meant simply that a portion of the head on the right, and to the rear (as in not on Kennedy's face) was missing... While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

What TWISTED SEMANTICAL GYRATIONS trying to change BACK OF THE HEAD to TOP OF THE HEAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What TWISTED SEMANTICAL GYRATIONS trying to change BACK OF THE HEAD to TOP OF THE HEAD.

Classic! YOU claim the Z-film is fake because it doesn't show a bullet erupting from the back of Kennedy's head, and I point out that none of the closest witnesses, including Mrs. Kennedy, saw this either, and then you claim I AM THE ONE engaged in "TWISTED SEMANTICAL GYRATIONS."

The "Z-film is fake because eyewitnesses saw things that aren't shown in it" argument ONLY makes sense if it is consistently applied. None of the closest witnesses to the fatal bullet's impact saw it exit from the back of Kennedy's head. Instead, they uniformly felt it impacted and created a wound on the right side of his head, or the top of his head (as Kennedy's head was tilted sharply to its left at the moment of impact, the two were really one and the same). SO, if eyewitness statements trump the photos and films, as YOU claim, it is incredibly inconsistent of you not to venture that the wound missing scalp and skull on the back of the head you claim was seen at Parkland, was created en route to Parkland, where it suddenly appeared.

So who performed the original surgery to the head area, before a second round of surgery to the head was performed to change the wound back to its original appearance? Clint Hill? Mrs. Kennedy?

Of course, neither. Because there was no gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

It's been hard to keep up with the advances in the case made by Doug Horne. I still have not read his 5 volumes. I have tried to make a point of listening to his interviews on radio and podcasts. Recently, he was on in 4 parts on Jim Fetzer's podcast called "The Real Deal." I have made a transcript.

First, a word about them. I make them for my own benefit as they help me, and I offer them free to all as they will probably help you too. I do so freely. I would appreciate it if you find them valuable to consider making a donation, a whole dollar amount please.

And a word to Josiah Thompson, I am not up on the latest alteration vs. anti-alteration war waging on this forum and or elsewhere, though this alteration idea is gaining some traction with me. Jim Fetzer insults you pretty severely in these transcripts. I do not share Fetzer's view of you. So, to make this fair and or fun for you, play the Jim Fetzer drinking game. Everytime Fetzer refers to himself, his books, his conference, and his podcast, always in the most (cough) humble of terms (cough) have a drink. Enjoy!

See - www.justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com

Joseph Backes

Have you done a word count on this? I would love to know the count for Fetzer and the count for Horne....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What TWISTED SEMANTICAL GYRATIONS trying to change BACK OF THE HEAD to TOP OF THE HEAD.

Classic! YOU claim the Z-film is fake because it doesn't show a bullet erupting from the back of Kennedy's head, and I point out that none of the closest witnesses, including Mrs. Kennedy, saw this either, and then you claim I AM THE ONE engaged in "TWISTED SEMANTICAL GYRATIONS."

The "Z-film is fake because eyewitnesses saw things that aren't shown in it" argument ONLY makes sense if it is consistently applied. None of the closest witnesses to the fatal bullet's impact saw it exit from the back of Kennedy's head. Instead, they uniformly felt it impacted and created a wound on the right side of his head, or the top of his head (as Kennedy's head was tilted sharply to its left at the moment of impact, the two were really one and the same). SO, if eyewitness statements trump the photos and films, as YOU claim, it is incredibly inconsistent of you not to venture that the wound missing scalp and skull on the back of the head you claim was seen at Parkland, was created en route to Parkland, where it suddenly appeared.

So who performed the original surgery to the head area, before a second round of surgery to the head was performed to change the wound back to its original appearance? Clint Hill? Mrs. Kennedy?

Of course, neither. Because there was no gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital.

Pat,

Have you read the statements of Robinson, the funeral hall make up artist who was the last person to see the body of JFK before it was taken to the White House?

If you read what he had to say you know who did the pre-autopsy surgery to the brain, how it came to be on the official record (other than Robinson's recollections), and why they did it.

Also, the "Harper Fragment," the piece of skull on the trunk that Jacque went after, and the brain splattered on the windshield of the motorcycle to the back, left rear, all indicate the head shot originated from the right front, or how else could they be explained?

BK

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What TWISTED SEMANTICAL GYRATIONS trying to change BACK OF THE HEAD to TOP OF THE HEAD.

Classic! YOU claim the Z-film is fake because it doesn't show a bullet erupting from the back of Kennedy's head, and I point out that none of the closest witnesses, including Mrs. Kennedy, saw this either, and then you claim I AM THE ONE engaged in "TWISTED SEMANTICAL GYRATIONS."

The "Z-film is fake because eyewitnesses saw things that aren't shown in it" argument ONLY makes sense if it is consistently applied. None of the closest witnesses to the fatal bullet's impact saw it exit from the back of Kennedy's head. Instead, they uniformly felt it impacted and created a wound on the right side of his head, or the top of his head (as Kennedy's head was tilted sharply to its left at the moment of impact, the two were really one and the same). SO, if eyewitness statements trump the photos and films, as YOU claim, it is incredibly inconsistent of you not to venture that the wound missing scalp and skull on the back of the head you claim was seen at Parkland, was created en route to Parkland, where it suddenly appeared.

So who performed the original surgery to the head area, before a second round of surgery to the head was performed to change the wound back to its original appearance? Clint Hill? Mrs. Kennedy?

Of course, neither. Because there was no gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital.

Of course, neither. Because there was no gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital.

:lol::blink: :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Have you read the statements of Robinson, the funeral hall make up artist who was the last person to see the body of JFK before it was taken to the White House?

If you read what he had to say you know who did the pre-autopsy surgery to the brain, how it came to be on the official record (other than Robinson's recollections), and why they did it.

Also, the "Harper Fragment," the piece of skull on the trunk that Jacque went after, and the brain splattered on the windshield of the motorcycle to the back, left rear, all indicate the head shot originated from the right front, or how else could they be explained?

BK

BK

Bill, almost none of the material in Horne's book is new. I read it all four or five years ago, before coming to any conclusions and a new perspective on the shooting. I quote Robinson on my webpage extensively, as he claimed a wound low on the back of Kennedy's head connected to the wound in the throat, exactly as I have concluded. As a result, I am fully aware of his lack of overall credibility. (His HSCA and ARRB statements are all over the map.) None of that, of course, means he was wrong. But his lack of consistency, and the fact he never wrote anything down, and was never asked about what he saw, for 15 years after the shooting, prevents me from fully "believing" him. On anything.

As far as the Harper fragment, it exploded from the top of Kennedy's head and shot through the air, and was found about 80 feet away from the limousine. It IS proof of conspiracy, but not for the reason most believe. You see, it had both internal and external beveling. This proves it was adjacent to a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. Which means the small entrance on the back of the head came from a separate bullet. Which proves Kennedy had two separate head wounds. Which debunks the single-assassin scenario pushed by the WC and LN crowd.

harperfrag.jpg

keyhole.jpg

BTW, What Jackie grabbed from the trunk was brain matter.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(When asked if she remembered Secret Service Agent Clint Hill's climbing onto the limo after she climbed out the back.) "I don't remember anything.....I was just down and holding him. I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.

There is nothing in this to say the wound was on the back of Kennedy's skull; it merely implied the wound was not visible when looking at his face. It could just as easily have been on the top of his head.

In fact, that's where Mrs. Kennedy said it was a week after the shooting, months prior to her WC testimony.

11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95) ..... "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack." I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." (When describing her husband's condition upon arrival at the hospital) "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."

Hi Pat,

Why do you think she would hold the top of the head *down* if she was trying to keep something *in* his head from spilling out of a wound in the top of his head? Holding the top of the head down could keep the rear of the head *up* ... so no more could spill out of a wound on the rear of the head. No? That's the way I see it anyway.

We know there was damage to the top of the head .... and hair matted with blood and clot kept that pretty well stuck down, perhaps in part due to Jackie's efforts. We know he had a terrible wound on the right side of his head, forward of the ear, because the Z film shows it and it is corroborated by multiple witnesses .... some of whom I have cited recently and I see you have dome a thorough job of citing several in a post lower in this thread.

Given that Clint Hill in DP and multiple Parkland personnel reported a terrible gaping wound in the rear of his head ... and that area being part of what was drawn, measured and noted as "missing" at the autopsy .... isn't it more likely, that what Jackie was doing was holding his hair and skull on (closed the flap and put pressure on the top of his head, which is why Parkland didn't see that wound, but that bone flap was seen at autopsy and there are photos of it open) and held that downward on the way to Parkland to keep more brains, etc from spilling out of the gaping wound on the rear of his head? Don't mean to sound disrespectful here, but think, in a way, "I'm a Little Teapot." She put the lid on and kept the spout upward ... because if his head tipped the other way, brain and blood, etc would pour out.

Am curious ... you cite several of the witnesses who had seconds or fractions thereof to note the terrible wound that opened on the side of his head, yet you don't believe there was a gaping wound in the rear of his head despite all the witnesses in the only 3 places in the world where his head was seen after the shooting up close and personal like.... DP (Hill), Parkland, and the autopsy ... and all of them reported bone defect in that same rear of the head area.

Granted, the Z film corroborates the witnesses to the bone flap on the right side opening up, but the autopsy drawing, measurements and notes really do corroborate Parkland ... and Hill too.

I am interested in your thinking on that?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...