Does Doug Horne have any credibility?
Spiffy_one
brain autopsy theory. Mr. Gunn is a renowned historian and lawyer and his
support of Hornes theory is important.........to Mr. Horne.
But, does Mr. Gunn actually support Mr. Horne or is Mr. Horne fibbing just
a bit?
I had the following exchange with Mr. Horne at the Amazon site promoting
his book:
As Jeremy Gunn, Mr. Hornes boss at the ARRB told Vincent Bugliosi when
asked if he'd read Hornes nonsense: "I don't read anything written by Mr.
Horne".
Any individual writing today, 46 years after the event and endorsing David
Liftons nonsense from "Best Evidence" has a screw loose.
As one who has studied this case for some 40 years and read perhaps 200
conspiracy books, it appears to me the critics grow more desperate each
year. Apparently Mr. Horne believes like others, he too can earn his
living writing science fiction. I prefer Issac Assimov.
Paul May
Mr. Hornes response:
Mr. May,
Jeremy Gunn told George Lardner, Jr. of the Washington Post in 1998 that
he found my hypothesis that there were two brain examinations (one of an
authentic brain and one of a substitute brain) "highly plausible." The
article was published on November 10, 1998. He also told me (in private)
that he believed it, before he left the ARRB. And Jeremy Gunn was a man
with a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in History, a Law Degree, and with
considerable experience in taking depositions. When he provided that quote
for the Washington Post, he knew it was going to be published.
Case Closed.
My response to Mr. Horne:
Mr. Horne...
The term "highly plausible" is NOT evidence. That in fact is entirely the
problem with conspiracy theorists Mr. Horne. Ambiguity is NOT evidence. As
I see it, conspiracy theorists in general determine what happened, throw
out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion and then hail their
findings as the only possible solution. I'm curious Mr. Horne. What
exactly are you attempting to accomplish 46 years after the event?
Secondly, are you saying that Mr. Gunn never made the comment to Mr.
Bugliosi? Are you in fact calling Mr. Bugliosi a liar? Are you aware of
the date Mr. Gunn made his comment to Mr. Bugliosi? It was August 21,
2000. Since you believe you have an endorsement from Mr. Gunn, I will
educate the rest of the readers to the part about Mr. Gunn you
conveniently ommitted. When Mr. Bugliosi reminded Mr. Gunn about the
Washington Post's George Larnder, Jr. and his "plausibility" comment, Mr.
Gunn responded "so often in interviews, remarks are taken out of context,
adding he would neither confirm nor deny" his comments to Mr. Lardner, Jr.
And yet you Mr. Horne, as conspiracy theorists often do simply misquote or
omit the entire story. In addition, Mr. Gunn told Mr. Bugliosi "anything
that Horne said about any conversation I had with him I would not consider
reliable." I might suggest to you Mr. Horne that you avoid using Mr. Gunn
as a character reference in the future. Not exactly a ringing endorsement
from the head of the ARRB.
I do find it interesting you signed off your latest comment with "Case
Closed". Freudian slip perhaps? Gerald Posner would be thrilled.
Paul May
John McAdams
Bizarre as it sounds, Gunn did say that -- or at least something like
that.
See attachment
Actually, what Gunn said was that it is plausible there were two brain
*exams.*
Somewhat different.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
I think if everyone steps back a second and takes a breather, it's very
apparent that this whole idea (Lifton's, Hornes) of wound alterations,
substitute brains etc., is a theory which falls apart a very short time
after the President expired in Dallas.
In fact, it falls apart at Parkland.
What is the central thesis behind this fantasy? Why were these wounds
altered? Horne believes JFK was shot from the front, and the conspirators
went to all this trouble to hide that fact. He even implicates Cmdr.
Humes.
As I've tried to impart before to those so inclined to believe this
nonsense, there was NO guarantee JFK's body would in fact ever leave
Dallas before an autopsy was performed. There couldn't have been.
Moving on, the decision to go to Bethesda was made on the plane. Walter
Reed was also considered. So, that kind of eliminates any involvement by
Humes, unless you want to postulate multiple teams ready at both
Hospitals. Also remember, one is a Naval facility, while the other is an
Army Hospital.
Even if you subscribe to Lifton, who claims these alterations were made
prior to delivery of the President's body to Bethesda, you still have the
Dallas problem.
No one could be sure, that Earl Rose and the Dallas police wouldn't
prevail in the tug of war for Kennedy's body. Unlike the Secret Service,
the Dallas authorities had the law on their side. In 1963, the murder of a
President of the United States was not a Federal offense. Dallas had
rightful jurisdiction over JFK's remains.
So, these are just some logical thoughts about all of these rather bizarre
ideas.
Conspiracies, (successful ones) by their very nature demand intricate
attention to detail. There is no evidence of that here.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:pon7j59hb5v3dvjk5...@4ax.com...
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've read Volume One and Gunn calls Horne in and says do you think there
were two exams and Hornes said yes and Gunn agreed.
It's amazing to me that people who have not read this research just reject
it without thought. Sad.
Burgundy
davidemerling
wrote:
>
> news:pon7j59hb5v3dvjk5...@4ax.com...
Another thing that makes this body alteration theory crazy is this ...
If the plan from the very beginning was to abscond with the
president's body in order to alter the wounds to make it appear as if
ALL the shots came from the front; what if one of the frontal shots
were of such a nature that precluded the feasibility of such an
alteration? For instance, what if Kennedy were shot between the eyes?
The rebuttal cannot be: But these were expert marksmen! There was a
almost zero chance of that happening. Oh - really? Then, was it part
of the "plan" for any of the bullets to strike Governor Connally? My
guess is that could NOT have been part of the plan. Yet, it happened!
So, it seems these "expert marksmen" made some mistakes.
The body alteration theory is just ridiculous. Many people who
subscribe to David Lifton's theory do not realize that Lifton ALSO
believes that the Zapruder film was altered. It is, by far, the
riskiest and most convoluted of all the conspiracy theories. I cannot
envision a team of conspirators sitting down and drawing it up like
this. It's beyond laughable.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
I think you are a little confused. The theory was invented by Robert
Lifton. He thinks all shots came from in front, but that the body was
altered to make it appear that all the shots came from behind, consistent
with the sniper's nest. Out of a room of about 500 researchers he was the
ONLY one who said that absolutely no shots came from the TSBD. He said all
the shots came from the front. That means that the conspirators would have
to manufacture a wound on Kennedy's back and obviously if it were not a
real wound it would not go all the way through to the throat wound. He
thinks Connally was shot in the chest. He does not agree that Connally was
shot in the back. He refuses to look at the blow-ups by Groden which show
the pool of blood on Connally's jacket on the back where the bullet wound
was. He refuses to explain how the chrome topping could have been dented
by a shot from the front.
> were of such a nature that precluded the feasibility of such an
> alteration? For instance, what if Kennedy were shot between the eyes?
>
What if Kennedy were shot in the forehead above the right eye? The autopsy
doctors wouldn't even notice it. They couldn't even see and report the
semi-circular defect which shows us exactly where the entrance wound was.
And the government would withhold the autopsy photos which clearly show
the semi-circular defect. And the CIA would pay several of their agents to
roam the newsgroups declaring that there is no semi-circular defect in the
autopsy photos.
> The rebuttal cannot be: But these were expert marksmen! There was a
> almost zero chance of that happening. Oh - really? Then, was it part
> of the "plan" for any of the bullets to strike Governor Connally? My
> guess is that could NOT have been part of the plan. Yet, it happened!
> So, it seems these "expert marksmen" made some mistakes.
>
The plan included using Oswald's rifle, which at those distances shoots
high and to the right.
> The body alteration theory is just ridiculous. Many people who
> subscribe to David Lifton's theory do not realize that Lifton ALSO
> believes that the Zapruder film was altered. It is, by far, the
Well, thanks for informing everyone of that fact. Now the kooks can't
possibly believe any of his many theories. Why didn't you also lay on some
kooky UFO theory or fake Moon landing? Slacker!
> riskiest and most convoluted of all the conspiracy theories. I cannot
> envision a team of conspirators sitting down and drawing it up like
> this. It's beyond laughable.
>
Here's an even kookier theory for you. The conspirators did use a shooter
in the TSBD, but he kept missing because the rifle was so defective. So
that's why they had to scramble to create fake wounds on the back, because
all the wounds were on the front. Mistakes do happen, but we can trust the
government to cover them up.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
John Canal
>The body alteration theory is just ridiculous.....
>It's beyond laughable.
IMO, what's really laughable is that the two sides refuse to try to
understand each other's position and neither side will give an inch....and
this has been going on for how long?
Yes, there certainly was "alteration" performed...does anyone in their
right mind think the body was going to be viewed (original plan was for an
open-casket funeral) without repairing the massive head damage????
Accordingly, they repaired the openings but probably finished around 3:00
AM. Sometime during that process after they had repaired the BOH scalp
they took a picture of it....did they ever try to convince anyone that the
BOH photos showing relatively little damage were taken when the body was
first received??? No is the answer.
The alteration was not sinister as many CTs think--it was expected and
necessary!
Then here come the hard-line LNs insisting the BOH photos were taken when
the body was first received...and, like I said, they're not giving an inch
on that in spite of what common sense must tell them. They, just like most
CTs think that if there was any BOH damage that means there must have been
a frontal shot. Not true.
The head was damaged on the top/right/front due to the exiting bullet and
the forces attributed to the temporary cavity blowing out the skull and
scalp in that area.
On the other hand, the BOH skull was fragmented probably due to the nose
of the bullet deforming and hence deflecting upwards (changing course
about 20 deg consistent with Lattimer's experiments) as it penetrated the
rear skull. There were gaps between the loose skull pieces and certainly a
scalp tear (undoubtedly caused by the sharp edges of at least one out of
place rear skull piece). No doubt when he became prone blood and loose
brain tissue gravitated towards the rear damage making it look much worse
than it actually was.
Bet on it--the BOH damage was collateral damage from the rear-entering
bullet.
If the hard-line LNs want to dismiss all the statements and testimony of
the PH docs about there being a BOH wound, it's unimaginable to me how
they can dismiss the autopsists and other credible BOH wound eyewitnesses
like Sibert, O'Neill, Ebersole, and Hill.
But the most powerful evidence of a BOH wound comes from Humes. He
testified to the WC under oath that part of the cerebellum was severely
lacerated when the body was first received. He was specific naming the
lacerated part of the cerebellum--it was the Flocculus Cerebri...how the
heck could they have seen that if there was no BOH damage????? The
hard-line LNs simply brush that away under the worn out "Humes was
mistaken" excuse. Bull!!!
Then you have Specter's questioning of the PH docs when they testified
there was a BOH wound. Read the transcripts....it's obvious that Specter
believed them as he asked more than one if they saw an entry wound below
the larger BOH damage. He never once doubted them about what they said
they saw....no that waited for the hard-line LNs to happen
The lateral x-ray, BTW, are hardly proof that a BOH wound did not
exist...the loose pieces of rear skull could have quickly and easily been
pushed back into place BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL ADHERED TO THE SCALP! Heck
Boswell even admitted that he replaced skull before an x-ray or
photograph. I can't believe Gunn didn't press him for more clarification
and specificity on that.
What the heck...the two sides have their position cemented...but you
called it, the haggling is laughable!
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Please cite and QUOTE where Gunn states this as a fact. All he says is
that it is a possibility.
Anthony Marsh
> All:
>
> I think if everyone steps back a second and takes a breather, it's very
> apparent that this whole idea (Lifton's, Hornes) of wound alterations,
> substitute brains etc., is a theory which falls apart a very short time
> after the President expired in Dallas.
>
> In fact, it falls apart at Parkland.
>
No, the exact opposite. The picture we get from Parkland personnel is NO
back wound and an exit wound in the back of the head.
One of the major controversies in this case is the conflict between
Parkland and Bethesda.
> What is the central thesis behind this fantasy? Why were these wounds
> altered? Horne believes JFK was shot from the front, and the
> conspirators went to all this trouble to hide that fact. He even
> implicates Cmdr. Humes.
>
> As I've tried to impart before to those so inclined to believe this
> nonsense, there was NO guarantee JFK's body would in fact ever leave
> Dallas before an autopsy was performed. There couldn't have been.
>
That is no problem for the conspirators. They just control the local
autopsy or cover up the findings. Not much the coroner can do about it
when they shove a revolver in his nose. Especially when they tell him to
has to keep quiet because this is a matter of national security. Look at
how South Africa covered up its murders of dissidents. Or how the CIA
covered up their murder of Frank Olson. Or how the CIA covered up the
murder of John Paisley.
> Moving on, the decision to go to Bethesda was made on the plane. Walter
> Reed was also considered. So, that kind of eliminates any involvement by
> Humes, unless you want to postulate multiple teams ready at both
> Hospitals. Also remember, one is a Naval facility, while the other is an
> Army Hospital.
>
The main thing is that it had to be military and in either case it would
be an unnameable Army general who would control the autopsy. It is usually
the Army component which leads the coup d'etat. Usually not the Coast
Guard.
> Even if you subscribe to Lifton, who claims these alterations were made
> prior to delivery of the President's body to Bethesda, you still have
> the Dallas problem.
>
No problem at all.
> No one could be sure, that Earl Rose and the Dallas police wouldn't
> prevail in the tug of war for Kennedy's body. Unlike the Secret Service,
Rose was not armed. The Secret Service was. Unless Rose was a Kung Fu
master common sense tells us who would prevail.
> the Dallas authorities had the law on their side. In 1963, the murder of
The Law be damned. This was a matter of National Security. The bombs
could start falling at any minute. No time for niceties.
> a President of the United States was not a Federal offense. Dallas had
> rightful jurisdiction over JFK's remains.
>
I'm not sure, but I believe that Treason was a Federal offense then.
> So, these are just some logical thoughts about all of these rather
> bizarre ideas.
>
Not logical. Simplistic. You still think that Watergate was just a
third-rate burglary with no political overtones.
Anthony Marsh
>> The body alteration theory is just ridiculous.
>
>> The body alteration theory is just ridiculous.....
>> It's beyond laughable.
>
> IMO, what's really laughable is that the two sides refuse to try to
> understand each other's position and neither side will give an inch....and
> this has been going on for how long?
>
> Yes, there certainly was "alteration" performed...does anyone in their
> right mind think the body was going to be viewed (original plan was for an
> open-casket funeral) without repairing the massive head damage????
Ridiculous claptrap. Even a country doctor knows not to do that when
examining a body. You can't find one example of an autopsy doctor, no
matter how incompetent, doing that. You are just making up crap.
> Accordingly, they repaired the openings but probably finished around 3:00
> AM. Sometime during that process after they had repaired the BOH scalp
> they took a picture of it....did they ever try to convince anyone that the
> BOH photos showing relatively little damage were taken when the body was
> first received??? No is the answer.
>
Again, I like your theory. So show us the sutures in the scalp on the
back of the head.
> The alteration was not sinister as many CTs think--it was expected and
> necessary!
>
> Then here come the hard-line LNs insisting the BOH photos were taken when
> the body was first received...and, like I said, they're not giving an inch
> on that in spite of what common sense must tell them. They, just like most
> CTs think that if there was any BOH damage that means there must have been
> a frontal shot. Not true.
>
Some photos were very obviously taken before anything had been done to the
head because we can still see the brain and blood matting the hair and the
gauze squares packed into the head wound. You are talking nonsense again.
> The head was damaged on the top/right/front due to the exiting bullet and
> the forces attributed to the temporary cavity blowing out the skull and
> scalp in that area.
>
And what caused the semi-circular defect on the frontal bone above the
right eye? You know, the one you can't see, but everyone else in this
universe can see. Lurkers know what you killfile me. So that you can avoid
having to answer this question. Because you can't answer this damn
question. You dare not answer the question.
bigdog
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I've read Volume One and Gunn calls Horne in and says do you think there
> were two exams and Hornes said yes and Gunn agreed.
>
> It's amazing to me that people who have not read this research just reject
> it without thought. Sad.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
When something is preposterous on the surface, is there really any reason
to explore it any further. If someone proposed a theory that JFK was shot
from a Martian UFO because they feared JFK's space initiative was going to
eventually bring humans to their planet, would that be a theory that
deserved further review?
Anthony Marsh
Gee, why am I not surprised that it would be you of all people who
started bringing up some UFO or alien theories?
Robert Harris
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Tony, I would have far more faith in a tale about Martians
assassinating JFK than your claims about what you have posted.
When do you intend to post those citations?
Robert Harris