Costella's Review of Horne's IARRB

[William Kelly]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

[Bernice Moore]

Bill i have not read any information about there being a possible costella's review but Dr.David Mantik has completed his...

fyi...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/HorneReview.pdf

b

[William Kelly]

Bill i have not read any information about there being a possible costella's review but Dr.David Mantik has completed his...

fyi...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/HorneReview.pdf

b

From what I understand Costell'a review is also done and in need of a venue.

I would hope he would post it here.

BK

[Bernice Moore]

I WILL GET BACK TO YOU...B

[Jack White]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

It will be posted on Jim Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE journal, edited by Costella.

It is not expected to be an entirely positive review, since Horne failed to consider

the IMAGE CONTENT of the Z film.

Jack

[John Costella]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

It will be posted on Jim Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE journal, edited by Costella.

It is not expected to be an entirely positive review, since Horne failed to consider

the IMAGE CONTENT of the Z film.

Jack

Jack, I wouldn't presume to post it on Assassination Research without independent review -- it would not be appropriate for me to edit my own review!

As you note, it is not positive.

I will be posting it shortly.

John

[John Dolva]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

It will be posted on Jim Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE journal, edited by Costella.

It is not expected to be an entirely positive review, since Horne failed to consider

the IMAGE CONTENT of the Z film.

Jack

Jack, I wouldn't presume to post it on Assassination Research without independent review -- it would not be appropriate for me to edit my own review!

As you note, it is not positive.

I will be posting it shortly.

John

[John Costella]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

Here it is. It is a review of Chapter 14 only; that is the only chapter which I felt qualified to comment on.

John

costella_horne.pdf

[Jack White]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

It will be posted on Jim Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE journal, edited by Costella.

It is not expected to be an entirely positive review, since Horne failed to consider

the IMAGE CONTENT of the Z film.

Jack

Jack, I wouldn't presume to post it on Assassination Research without independent review -- it would not be appropriate for me to edit my own review!

As you note, it is not positive.

I will be posting it shortly.

John

Thanks, John! I guess it is presumptuous of me to suggest that David Mantik review it; he is well qualified.

I bet I agree with your observations. Horne's main contribution is establishing a timeline of the Rochester

monkey business!

Jack

[William Kelly]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

Here it is. It is a review of Chapter 14 only; that is the only chapter which I felt qualified to comment on.

John

Hi John,

Thanks for sharing your opinions of Doug Horne's work.

I feel your anger, but I think it is misplaced, as it isn't Doug Horne's responsiblity to do what the ARRB, HSCA and WC should have done. Indeed, an index would be nice, but alas, Doug doesn't have the publishing support that people like Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and others have.

In addition, it wasn't Homer McMahon's version of the Z-film that was made into briefing boards that were used by Lindahl to brief McCone on Sunday morning, it was Dino B's briefing boards, the ones that are missing. And we still don't know what it was that Lindahl told McCone, based on the NPIC analysis of the Z-film on Saturday night.

So you got that backwards, but that's understandable since Doug Horne certifiably demonstrates that there were two Z-film operations at NPIC that weekened, as well as two caskets and two brain exams, so I understand that you are confused.

But you shouldn't have written a review, especially one that you took so long to consider, without reading all five volumes, understanding what was being said, and then get such basic things wrong.

WTF is the appropriate response to what we learn from reading Doug's book, but it shouldn't be directed at him, but to those who were really responsible for the records on the assassination, to the ARRBoard who didn't do their duty, to the staff who tried to please them rather than find the truth, and to Congress for not bothering to exercise any oversight of the JFK Act whatsoever.

I wish Doug Horne was responsible for all the atrocities you accuse him of, but of course, he is just a pawn who tried to blow a whistle on high crimes of state, but the state wins, again.

Perhaps someday, after some independent researchers like Mae Brussell and Mary Ferrell did for the Warren Commission, take the time to index Horne's five volumes, somebody will be able to write a real review that will cut to the heart of the matter and make it to the mainsteam media and be understood by ordinary citizens and get them to get Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act and get the truth and justice, but don't hold your breath.

Bill Kelly

[Jack White]

Great review, John!

After reading it, I would compare Horne to the HSCA.

They claimed two simultaneous shooters, BUT NO CONSPIRACY...

LHO doing the shooting, but an unrelated shooter on the knoll!

Horne admits that THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS ALTERED, but the

CIA did it for reasons unknown....and he leaves it at that.

He is not interested in WHY the film needed faking. I believe

that they call this a LIMITED HANGOUT. Most telling, as you

point out, is that no followup questions were asked about

McMahon's 8 OR 9 SHOTS.

However...I am interested in his bringing up the Hollywood 7.

If their work plainly shows alteration, it opens up the whole

question of alteration again. I wonder when this followup

is due.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

Here it is. It is a review of Chapter 14 only; that is the only chapter which I felt qualified to comment on.

John

Hi John,

Thanks for sharing your opinions of Doug Horne's work.

I feel your anger, but I think it is misplaced, as it isn't Doug Horne's responsiblity to do what the ARRB, HSCA and WC should have done. Indeed, an index would be nice, but alas, Doug doesn't have the publishing support that people like Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and others have.

In addition, it wasn't Homer McMahon's version of the Z-film that was made into briefing boards that were used by Lindahl to brief McCone on Sunday morning, it was Dino B's briefing boards, the ones that are missing. And we still don't know what it was that Lindahl told McCone, based on the NPIC analysis of the Z-film on Saturday night.

So you got that backwards, but that's understandable since Doug Horne certifiably demonstrates that there were two Z-film operations at NPIC that weekened, as well as two caskets and two brain exams, so I understand that you are confused.

But you shouldn't have written a review, especially one that you took so long to consider, without reading all five volumes, understanding what was being said, and then get such basic things wrong.

WTF is the appropriate response to what we learn from reading Doug's book, but it shouldn't be directed at him, but to those who were really responsible for the records on the assassination, to the ARRBoard who didn't do their duty, to the staff who tried to please them rather than find the truth, and to Congress for not bothering to exercise any oversight of the JFK Act whatsoever.

I wish Doug Horne was responsible for all the atrocities you accuse him of, but of course, he is just a pawn who tried to blow a whistle on high crimes of state, but the state wins, again.

Perhaps someday, after some independent researchers like Mae Brussell and Mary Ferrell did for the Warren Commission, take the time to index Horne's five volumes, somebody will be able to write a real review that will cut to the heart of the matter and make it to the mainsteam media and be understood by ordinary citizens and get them to get Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act and get the truth and justice, but don't hold your breath.

Bill Kelly

Bill, you're too kind. I urge all members that have read Horne's Volume IV to take the time to read Costella's review of Chapter 14.

Here are a few highlights, taken out of context of course. One needs to read the review in full to get a real feel.

The obvious question arises: WTF was the CIA doing investigating a domestic crime in the first place?

My understanding is that the CIA is only permitted to work on international matters;

Possibly, government man Horne, who moved to the Holocaust Museum immediately after finishing up with the ARRB, may have

shared the sensitivities of many assassination researchers with regard to investigating any Jewish connection in the assassination.

Whether his immediate superior, former ACLU lawyer Jeremy Gunn, shared the same reluctance is unknown.

For such a man (Vince Palamara) to claim that Horne’s volumes are “the finest 5 volume set of books written to date on the assassination

of President John F. Kennedy. They deserve a Pulitzer Prize!” tells me exactly where D. P. Horne sits in the big picture.

Again, one must ask the question: is Horne simply incompetent, or is he a whited sepulchre? (

a person who is inwardly evil but outwardly professes to be virtuous, m.h.

)

By inference one can deduce what Costella thinks of David Mantik and his review of Horne's work. Not much.

Jack White calls Costella's review "great." Certainly nothing self-serving about that.

[Craig Lamson]

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

Here it is. It is a review of Chapter 14 only; that is the only chapter which I felt qualified to comment on.

John

ROFLMAO!

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

Now that I have read the review, I think that Bill Kelly made a good

effort to be even-handed, where John has different fish to fry. What

he has not done--and it is a grievous shortcoming--is to explain what

Doug DID ACCOMPLISH by way of establishing five physical differences

between the original celluloid and the current, establishing that the

chain of custody was broken by two different films having been brought

to the NPIC on consecutive evenings, and by demonstrating that at least

some internal content alteration has been established by the Hollywood

experts. This is not as powerful and scientific as Costella's proofs

of film fakery and of the necessity to reshoot each frame in order to

avoid exposure via the "ghost panels", but it is still very good stuff.

In fact, in his eagerness to impail Horne, Costella commits a major

blunder. If he had read Horne carefully, he would have known that a

split 8mm version that had been developed in Dallas was brought to the

NPIC on Saturday with one crew at work and another unsplit 16mm version

was brought from Rochester the next evening. The NPIC even had to go

out to purchase an 8mm projector to show the 8mm film, because it did

not have one. The problem for John is that Homer McMahon was working

on Sunday, not on Satuday, which means that the version he worked with

was the already altered version brought from "Hawkeye Works" or what-

ever. Doug's original report about Homer's statements is in MURDER

and I have given what he had to say on that occasion a lot of thought.

I was so captivated by Homer's having viewed the film ten or more times

and having observed "6 to 8 impacts" that I inferred he was not talking

about JFK alone but had to be talking about impacts on occupants of the

limousine. That made great sense, since JFK was hit at least four times

and Connally as many as three, where 4 + 3 = 7, a number in between

six and eight. I have explained this on radio and to Noel in revising his

book for publication. But it was only in discussing the matter explicitly

with Doug that I came to realize that, since Homer was watching a film

that had already undergone (at least preliminary) revision, it was most

unlikely that he could have been observing impacts from the event itself.

I am a bit taken aback that John suggests my reaction to the suggestion

that Doug Horne might be a government agent was "hysterical". I know a

lot more about Doug than does John, having interviewed him three times

now at two-hours apiece on "The Real Deal" and having prepared two or

three blogs about his work for my blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

In my opinion, if Doug Horne is a government agent, then I am a lunatic.

This is just about as bizarre and unjustifiable an insinuation as I have

ever encountered in JFK research. I know them both and regard them

with the greatest esteem. Occasionally, alas, some of us tend to go off

the deep end, which I am afraid goes with kind of research we are doing.

This is a nice example of a very smart guy giving us a very dumb review.

Jim

From what I understand, Costella's review of Doug Horne's IARRB is now available.

If it is published on line, will someone please post a link, or see if it can be posted here?

Thanks,

BK

Here it is. It is a review of Chapter 14 only; that is the only chapter which I felt qualified to comment on.

John

Hi John,

Thanks for sharing your opinions of Doug Horne's work.

I feel your anger, but I think it is misplaced, as it isn't Doug Horne's responsiblity to do what the ARRB, HSCA and WC should have done. Indeed, an index would be nice, but alas, Doug doesn't have the publishing support that people like Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and others have.

In addition, it wasn't Homer McMahon's version of the Z-film that was made into briefing boards that were used by Lindahl to brief McCone on Sunday morning, it was Dino B's briefing boards, the ones that are missing. And we still don't know what it was that Lindahl told McCone, based on the NPIC analysis of the Z-film on Saturday night.

So you got that backwards, but that's understandable since Doug Horne certifiably demonstrates that there were two Z-film operations at NPIC that weekened, as well as two caskets and two brain exams, so I understand that you are confused.

But you shouldn't have written a review, especially one that you took so long to consider, without reading all five volumes, understanding what was being said, and then get such basic things wrong.

WTF is the appropriate response to what we learn from reading Doug's book, but it shouldn't be directed at him, but to those who were really responsible for the records on the assassination, to the ARRBoard who didn't do their duty, to the staff who tried to please them rather than find the truth, and to Congress for not bothering to exercise any oversight of the JFK Act whatsoever.

I wish Doug Horne was responsible for all the atrocities you accuse him of, but of course, he is just a pawn who tried to blow a whistle on high crimes of state, but the state wins, again.

Perhaps someday, after some independent researchers like Mae Brussell and Mary Ferrell did for the Warren Commission, take the time to index Horne's five volumes, somebody will be able to write a real review that will cut to the heart of the matter and make it to the mainsteam media and be understood by ordinary citizens and get them to get Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act and get the truth and justice, but don't hold your breath.

Bill Kelly

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Karl Kinaski]

Michael Hogan:

Bill, you're too kind. I urge all members that have read Horne's Volume IV to take the time to read Costella's review of Chapter 14.

Here are a few highlights, taken out of context of course. One needs to read the review in full to get a real feel.

QUOTE Costella:

The obvious question arises: WTF was the CIA doing investigating a domestic crime in the first place?

My understanding is that the CIA is only permitted to work on international matters;

Close Quote

The CIA got a DCD a "domestic contact division" not far away from the Withe House founded in 1962, or 63. With Howard Hunt as one of its employees.

It was one of the greatest cover storys, that the CIA was only responsible for international matters. I wonder how a man like Costella could forget such a fact.

To me it is consistent that the CIA was "investigating" a crime that the CIA committed within the US: the murder of JFK.

KK