Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Douglas P. Horne

386 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 7, 2014, 7:30:05 PM10/7/14
to

John Gavin

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 11:41:29 AM10/8/14
to
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:30:05 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-811.html

Listening to several of Mr. Horne's lectures, all I can say his that he
seems like a meticulous and thorough researcher, extremely intelligent,
highly believable.

Mr. Horne's conclusions at the end of this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFKQlDnIkro

sound logical and well-founded.


bigdog

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 10:43:13 PM10/8/14
to
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:41:29 AM UTC-4, John Gavin wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:30:05 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-811.html
>
>
>
> Listening to several of Mr. Horne's lectures, all I can say his that he
> seems like a meticulous and thorough researcher, extremely intelligent,
> highly believable.
>

Most charlatans are.

>
> Mr. Horne's conclusions at the end of this interview:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFKQlDnIkro
>
> sound logical and well-founded.

Con men will tell you the secret to a successful scam is having marks who
want to believe your story.


David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 10:44:44 PM10/8/14
to
JOHN GAVIN SAID:

Listening to several of Mr. Horne's lectures, all I can say [is] that he
seems like a meticulous and thorough researcher, extremely intelligent,
highly believable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Many people have said the same thing about Mark Lane, Jim DiEugenio,
Robert Groden, David Lifton, Jim Garrison, and dozens of other conspiracy
theorists too.

All of those people (including Doug Horne) are unquestionably very
intelligent men. But that doesn't make their theories and opinions about
the JFK case correct ones.

Which gives rise to the proverbial question of....

What is there about the JFK murder case that causes so many otherwise
logical and intelligent individuals to totally abandon all of their common
sense and to start believing in the most outlandish theories imaginable?

Such as.....

"Mr. Von Pein, Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head
wounds before the autopsy." -- Douglas P. Horne; December 19, 2009

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/doug-horne-part-1.html


mainframetech

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 11:48:50 PM10/8/14
to
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:30:05 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-811.html



Don't bother with this one. It's a setup conversation so that DVP can
blat his own beliefs, and gain from a website hit at the same time. And
it's a 'hit piece' against Douglas Horne, who worked for the ARRB for 10
years, and probably has far more information from the direct examination
of witnesses than DVP or anyone else.

Chris


rinn1...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 10:32:19 AM10/9/14
to
I looked over Von Pein's website essays & found them weak & mean spirited
with little or no substance to think about. How does a person debate an
author without having read their published works? (Von Pein admits to
this). The hiding behind Vince Bugliosi's skirt & hurling insults at Doug
Horne lowers Von Pein to the level of adolescent yelling at the bully
while hiding behind mommy's dress.

Von Pein will not do a point by point rebuttal, instead he generalizes by
stating something Horne believes in is 'impossible' or 'silly' without
detailing what makes it so. It becomes obvious that Von Pein does not like
Horne because he is not a nutter like Von Pein has dedicated his existence
to be. Garbage like that attitude will turn off anyone seeking serious
debate talking points.

I would suggest David Von Pein read Doug Horne's books & watch his
multi-part video series & take notes of what the man says & how he backs
it up. Fence with him over each of those points. Then he's have something
worth reading on the subject at his website.

Just sayin'

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 10:43:43 AM10/9/14
to
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:41:29 AM UTC-4, John Gavin wrote:
Right you are. I've tracked down most of Horne's statements and found
witnesses and facts that back him up on every point. I think he should
have mentioned many of those items, but they can be found easily enough if
one knows their way around the data well enough.

Chris

Marcus Hanson

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 12:28:14 PM10/9/14
to
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 1:44:44 PM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:

> All of those people (including Doug Horne) are unquestionably very
>
> intelligent men. But that doesn't make their theories and opinions about
>
> the JFK case correct ones.
>
>
>
> Which gives rise to the proverbial question of....

> What is there about the JFK murder case that causes so many otherwise

> logical and intelligent individuals to totally abandon all of their common
>
> sense and to start believing in the most outlandish theories imaginable?


As I pointed out on Bob's old forum :

Some intelligent people believe in a conspiracy
Some intelligent people believe an LN did it
Some unintelligent people believe in a conspiracy
Some unintelligent people believe an LN did it

The uncomfortable,unavoidable corollary is not only that some bright folks
=must= be right,but also that some numbskulls must be right,too!

David , has your new (corrected) book been released yet ?


OSWALD SPENGLER

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 12:28:26 PM10/9/14
to
They might be intelligent but they lack one thing. COMMON SENSE!!!!!

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 12:30:23 PM10/9/14
to
Allow me to repeat this fanciful, absurd, and reprehensible quote one more
time for the guy sitting in the cheap seats named Chris/Mainframe. Maybe
he missed the hilarity that resides in this quote the first time around:

"Mr. Von Pein, Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head
wounds before the autopsy." -- Doug Horne; 12/19/09

http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=5&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2RVKNXI6HGY2D#Mx2RVKNXI6HGY2D

Now, tell me Chris, you think the person who uttered the above nonsense
deserves to be listened to? I don't. He deserves just what he got from
me---a "hit piece".

Lanny

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 12:35:31 PM10/9/14
to
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:41:29 AM UTC-4, John Gavin wrote:
An objective and meticulous reading of the ARRB depositions and/or unsworn
interviews of FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill, prosectors
Humes and Boswell, Bethesda personnel Dennis David, Ed Reed, Floyd Reibe,
Jerrol Custer and others yields a contentious and contradictory amalgam of
eyewitness "evidence." Where two people agree about body bags, they may
disagree about casket type. Where they may agree on casket type there may
be conflict over arrival time of the body or general atmosphere in which
the autopsy was conducted. The result is a far more complex and
contradictory tableau of eyewitness testimony than Horne would lead us to
believe and one which, in this writer's opinion, substantially undermines
rather than supports the suggestion of casket chicanery for the purpose of
illicit body tampering of President Kennedy's remains.

But Horne's disregard for factual discrepancies goes far beyond merely
turning a blind eye to their existence. He literally achieves
unparalleled depths of audaciousness by constructing an allegedly credible
conspiracy with "FACTS" THAT ARE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY SWORN TESTIMONY
GIVEN TO THE ARRB BY WITNESSES WHICH HORNE HIMSELF DEPOSED OR WHOSE
DEPOSITIONS HE ATTENDED.

Horne's failure to acknowledge and reconcile this conflicting testimony
with virtually every single, material "fact" of his fictitious concoctions
displays a fundamental violation of ethical behavior that can hardly be
overemphasized.

Beyond that, Horne has an amazing talent for "logical speculation" that
raises questions as to whether or not he realizes how often he shoots
himself squarely in the foot.

In a July, 2013 article published on the Future of Freedom Foundation
website and summarizing the conflict at Parkland Hospital between the
Secret Service and Dallas County Medical Examiner Earl Rose, Horne offers
this:

"I conclude that JFK's body was removed from the Dallas casket immediately
after it was taken onboard Air Force One as a "security precaution" by the
coup plotters, in case Dr. Rose and local law enforcement arrived,
unannounced, to take custody of President Kennedy's remains."

Apart from no longer citing the need to affect a medical cover-up which
was the primary reason to steal the body in the first place, Horne fails
to recognize how his "security precaution" is not only inadequate to serve
its perceived purpose, but actually works against the wellbeing of the
conspirators. What did he think would happen if Dr. Rose had appeared with
a posse and a court order? That Kellerman would open the doors of Air
Force One and hand over an empty casket? And how would he then then calm
an understandably apoplectic Jackie Kennedy watching it all?

"Relax. It's empty. We stuffed your husband in a rubber bag and tossed
him in with the luggage. By the time these chumps figure it out we'll be
long gone!"

And, of course, by the time the chumps opened the casket and found it
empty their disappointment at not being able to (once again) perform the
autopsy might at least be mollified by narrowing down the population of
suspects (namely those persons aboard Air Force One) brazen enough to
commit an irrefutable obstruction of justice by evidence tampering as well
as violating state laws against abuse of a corpse.

An obviously less-than-brilliant strategy the does not solve a problem,
but instead only compounds it.

Want more?

According to Horne, the post-assassination body theft and alteration was a
critical element of the conspiracy planned and adopted IN ADVANCE of the
actual shooting. "It is my contention that President Kennedy's
assassination was the result of a domestic conspiracy, and that the
conspirators implemented an immediate, effective, and wide-ranging coverup
as soon as he was killed. The medical coverup was just a part of this
effort, but it had to go into effect immediately, and did." (Inside the
Assassination Records Review Board, Chapter 13, pp. 1183)

That immediate initiation of the "medical cover-up" required gaining
access to the body at a suitable place and for an adequate period of time
in order to commit a forensic forgery through wound alteration. The
conspirators could not possibly have counted on securing ANY of these
essentials in the almost certain-to-be-frenetic post assassination
environment or that the condition of the body following the assassination
would have been conducive to telling the forensic lie the conspirators
wished to tell. Listen to Horne describe how he believes the body heist
was made possible:

"Immediately after boarding, the Kennedy entourage had not yet assembled
around the casket for the Irish wake. Jackie Kennedy was composing
herself in private, and the Air Force Aide, General Godfrey McHugh, made
several trips forward to the cockpit to demand that the plane take off and
even spent time looking for Lyndon Johnson (before finding him hiding,
crying in the loo). The Secret Service must have removed JFK's body from
the casket during the initial process of "securing it to the deck" in the
aft compartment of Air Force One. So Kellerman and Greer would have known
all about it." (Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Op. Cit.)

Of course Horne fails to point out that the "process of securing the
casket to the deck" was performed by the same Air Force One crew members
who had removed an aft bulkhead and several rows of seats to SPECIFICALLY
make room for the casket in the cabin RATHER THAN ignominiously placing it
in the baggage compartment. Also, no guesses from Horne about where Dave
Powers, Larry O'Donnell, Larry O'Brien and Admiral Burkley are during this
time? Out to get ice?

Regardless of what Horne thinks and irrespective of his accusation of
Secret Service complicity without a shred of evidence, if the successful
theft of JFK's body OUT OF his casket depended on Jackie Kennedy composing
herself at the EXACT SAME TIME Godfrey McHugh was on the flight deck
arguing with pilot Swindal while remaining Kennedy staffers were otherwise
coincidentally occupied, that DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PLAN to steal the
body, and, in fact, is persuasive evidence that no such plan existed.
Horne apparently believes that the fortuitous alignment of the stars in
the only 22 minute time window available to the conspirators made it
possible for them to steal JFK's corpse out from under the very noses of
those grieving for him.

Pardon my skepticism, but "effective, wide ranging conspiratorial
cover-ups" typically require a bit more conscious direction than that
afforded by sheer dumb luck.

Through it all, Horne (and apparently well-intentioned but gullible folks
like yourself) are obviously clueless as to how his narrative comes full
circle and destroys his foundational assumptions.

Just a tiny bit of critical thinking would save you from the embarrassment
of being taken in by the lunacies of this shyster/half-wit.

otu...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 6:06:52 PM10/9/14
to
Lanny's response is a good teaching aid for David Von Pein & others like
him that obviously were influenced by Bugliosi (and others like him) that
consistently hurl insults instead of logical thinking supported by facts &
evidence at CT authors such as Doug Horne. Bugliosi is a poor role model;
Reclaiming History sold poorly. Because people have opposing opinions does
not justify calling them 'kooks', fairy tale believers, looney toons & the
like. They may think the same of nutters. Trying to mimic or otherwise
impress Bugliosi is a dead end street & a turn off for serious students of
the assassination. Besides, Bugliosi has enough of a problem when he
passes explaining to the Creator that will judge him just why he wrote a
book arguing against the existence of a Creator. I wouldn't want to go
where he's liable to be sent.

A well researched & presented video or video series demonstrating where
Horne's analysis is wrong posted on the Internet would bring Horne
antagonists far better results than just calling him derogatory names on
Internet blogs.

bigdog

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 9:24:37 PM10/9/14
to
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:48:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
That's interesting given that the ARRB was formed in 1992 and issued their
final report in 1998.

http://fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 11:40:19 PM10/9/14
to
DVP fails again! I have personally tracked down all the information
that backs up Horne's statements about the 'surgery' done on the head of
JFK by Humes and Boswell. There were 2 or more witnesses to the attack on
the skull with scalpel and bone saw BEFORE the 'official' autopsy, and
then later trying to lie their way out of it when everyone saw that
'surgery' was done other than the tracheotomy. No surgery was done at
Parkland, and the images spoken about and drawn by the witnesses were a
'large hole' at the BOH of JFK, with NO damage to the TOP and side of the
head.

A comparison of the head before going to Bethesda, and after Humes and
Boswell got at the head is here:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

And the head after:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 12:06:11 AM10/10/14
to
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:32:19 AM UTC-4, rinn1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Von Pein will not do a point by point rebuttal, instead he generalizes by
> stating something Horne believes in is 'impossible' or 'silly' without
> detailing what makes it so.

It is impossible AND silly. Does it really need to be explained why post
mortem surgery would not be blatantly obvious to even a first year medical
student, much less a panel of the best forensic pathologists in the
country. This is the kind of crap you get when a military analyst like
Horne pretends he is a medical expert. When you find one qualified medical
person who thinks that what Lifton and Horne proposes is even remotely
possible, get back to us. Until then this theory gets filed in the loony
bin.


BT George

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 12:22:34 AM10/10/14
to
Hate to break it to you Dave, but the nonsense that Doug Horne uttered is
*exactly* what Chris/Mainframe believes in SPADES. A brief search on
virtually any thread he's written the last year or two---if you can stand
the interminable length----will make that abundantly clear. Further
*nothing* anyone says to him can dissuade him in the slightest which why I
finally told him this:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/uCLWfwctA_s/xDK1aj1FYH0J
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/uCLWfwctA_s/HUoKTKHU4gAJ

BT George

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 12:25:01 AM10/10/14
to
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:32:19 AM UTC-4, rinn1...@gmail.com wrote:
Outlandish and (yes) "impossible" theories like Doug Horne's and David
Lifton's do not really require a detailed micro-study of every last
ISOLATED point being made by those theorists.

Just a cursory glance at the totality of the case and the sheer
impossibility of things having happened the way Horne (and Lifton) say
things happened is more than enough for all reasonable people to dismiss
the Horne/Lifton nonsense.

Anyone who does NOT dismiss the Horne/Lifton nonsense is (by default)
admitting that they believe in the impossible. And why would anyone want
to do that?

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 12:25:43 AM10/10/14
to
MARCUS HANSON ASKED:

David, has your new (corrected) book been released yet?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nope. But maybe by the turn of the next century, the Laurel & Hardy comedy
team that is posing as our publisher will finally get around to releasing
the book in the form that Mel Ayton and I had intended. But I'm not
holding my breath.

A daily root canal would be more pleasant than dealing with the clowns at
Strategic Media Books. Their screw-ups and spiteful delay tactics are
almost beyond belief.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 12:26:58 AM10/10/14
to
For many people, though, Horne's (and Lifton's) theory is just so
ridiculous and manifestly impossible that it would take the patience and
self-sacrifice of a saint to spend any time debunking it in detail.

We know, for example, that there was no way conspirators could have
counted on having any opportunity to spirit the body away from those
guarding it.

We know as well that it would have been inviting discovery to attempt to
alter wounds post-mortem.

And we know that the decision of which hospital the president would be
taken to was not determined ahead of time or by the conspirators, which
would necessitate having arranged for the (impossible) body alteration to
be done at every hospital to which the body might have been taken.

That's for starters. The Horne/Lifton theory doesn't look any more logical
from any other angle.

Personally, I would feel silly looking any further into any theory that
starts with such illogical, preposterous propositions.

But even when someone heroically makes the effort to explain why the
theory is just plain idiotic to someone who somehow doesn't already see
the problem... well, it should be no surprise when this explanation goes
right over the CT's head and does them no good whatsoever.

/sandy

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 12:30:43 AM10/10/14
to
Well, let me ask you this....

In your opinion, how far-fetched and outrageous does a JFK conspiracy
theory need to be in order to be summarily dismissed and deemed just
flat-out wrong (without even subjecting that theory to a deep and detailed
analysis)?

Are ALL theories to be considered equal and therefore deserving of the
same amount of attention and "debunking time" -- even Doug Horne's theory
about Dr. Humes performing head-altering surgery on President Kennedy's
body in the super-tight timeframe that Horne suggests such body
alterations could have been performed on the night of November 22, 1963?

Or are the only truly "outrageous", "outlandish", and "preposterous"
theories the ones that even 99.9% of all CTers refuse to embrace, such as
Mr. Andersen's theory about JFK faking his own death by wearing a
"pyrotechnics device" on his head to simulate his head exploding? Or the
one about JFK still being alive and living on an upper floor of Parkland
Hospital?

Well, in my view, Mr. Horne's and Mr. Lifton's theories belong in the same
category as the two I just mentioned above. And they shall always remain
in that category--even without reading all five volumes of Horne's
fantasy.

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 2:58:36 PM10/10/14
to
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:35:31 PM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:41:29 AM UTC-4, John Gavin wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:30:05 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-811.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Listening to several of Mr. Horne's lectures, all I can say his that he
>
> >
>
> > seems like a meticulous and thorough researcher, extremely intelligent,
>
> >
>
> > highly believable.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Mr. Horne's conclusions at the end of this interview:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFKQlDnIkro
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > sound logical and well-founded.
>
>
>
>
>
> An objective and meticulous reading of the ARRB depositions and/or unsworn
>
> interviews of FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill, prosectors
>
> Humes and Boswell, Bethesda personnel Dennis David, Ed Reed, Floyd Reibe,
>
> Jerrol Custer and others yields a contentious and contradictory amalgam of
>
> eyewitness "evidence." Where two people agree about body bags, they may
>
> disagree about casket type. Where they may agree on casket type there may
>
> be conflict over arrival time of the body or general atmosphere in which
>
> the autopsy was conducted. The result is a far more complex and
>
> contradictory tableau of eyewitness testimony than Horne would lead us to
>
> believe and one which, in this writer's opinion, substantially undermines
>
> rather than supports the suggestion of casket chicanery for the purpose of
>
> illicit body tampering of President Kennedy's remains.
>


Where you see confusion or conflict, Horne has figured out the doings of
that evening. There were actually 3 arrivals of various caskets at
different times, all to support the conspiratorial goings on. Because of
these arrivals, it gives the appearance that witnesses saw different
things, which they did, but at various times, and not necessarily at the
same time.

An example is that many witnesses swore that they saw the body come out
of the bronze casket, even though some will say that they saw the body in
a shipping casket, a simple unadorned type that is easily recognized apart
form a burial casket. In fact, they were all correct, but the shipping
casket carried the body at first and arrived at 6:35pm, and then later the
body was put into the Bronze casket and later when the REAL autopsy began
at 8:00pm it was taken out of the Bronze casket and those that saw that
were one group, varying from the group that saw the body come out of the
shipping casket earlier. It casued a lot of confusion, but Horne has
unraveled the whole business, though I have a feeling he didn't explain it
in too many places because of the confusion it causes. He HAS explained
the 'musical caskets' in at least one document.



>
>
> But Horne's disregard for factual discrepancies goes far beyond merely
>
> turning a blind eye to their existence. He literally achieves
>
> unparalleled depths of audaciousness by constructing an allegedly credible
>
> conspiracy with "FACTS" THAT ARE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY SWORN TESTIMONY
>
> GIVEN TO THE ARRB BY WITNESSES WHICH HORNE HIMSELF DEPOSED OR WHOSE
>
> DEPOSITIONS HE ATTENDED.
>


As explained to you above, the witnesses were seeing things at
different times and weren't aware of the other times. You have to get the
picture in mind in an overview before it begins to make sense.



>
>
> Horne's failure to acknowledge and reconcile this conflicting testimony
>
> with virtually every single, material "fact" of his fictitious concoctions
>
> displays a fundamental violation of ethical behavior that can hardly be
>
> overemphasized.
>


Again, I've checked EVERY bit of his back up, and it is sound. If you
ask me individual questions, I can show you where the testimony or
statements are that back it up.

Because you don't yet understand the goings on at Bethesda, it doesn't
seem right that you would just take off on Horne with a load of insults
just because you don't understand the whole business. Better to try and
understand first.



>
>
> Beyond that, Horne has an amazing talent for "logical speculation" that
>
> raises questions as to whether or not he realizes how often he shoots
>
> himself squarely in the foot.
>


Again you insult Horne and don't mention a specific case so that you can
be corrected, and the situation explained to you.


>
>
> In a July, 2013 article published on the Future of Freedom Foundation
>
> website and summarizing the conflict at Parkland Hospital between the
>
> Secret Service and Dallas County Medical Examiner Earl Rose, Horne offers
>
> this:
>
>
>
> "I conclude that JFK's body was removed from the Dallas casket immediately
>
> after it was taken onboard Air Force One as a "security precaution" by the
>
> coup plotters, in case Dr. Rose and local law enforcement arrived,
>
> unannounced, to take custody of President Kennedy's remains."
>
>
>
> Apart from no longer citing the need to affect a medical cover-up which
>
> was the primary reason to steal the body in the first place, Horne fails
>
> to recognize how his "security precaution" is not only inadequate to serve
>
> its perceived purpose, but actually works against the wellbeing of the
>
> conspirators. What did he think would happen if Dr. Rose had appeared with
>
> a posse and a court order? That Kellerman would open the doors of Air
>
> Force One and hand over an empty casket? And how would he then then calm
>
> an understandably apoplectic Jackie Kennedy watching it all?
>


Think it through. If Rose showed up, he might not get the casket with
the body, but he could then make a public issue of it with all the press
around. They weren't in the hallway where Rose had his argument with
Kellerman, or it would have gotten in the papers and on TV. I'm surprised
that he didn't at Parkland. I think Wade got into it and told him to let
it go.



>
>
> "Relax. It's empty. We stuffed your husband in a rubber bag and tossed
>
> him in with the luggage. By the time these chumps figure it out we'll be
>
> long gone!"
>


ridicule doesn't help.



>
>
> And, of course, by the time the chumps opened the casket and found it
>
> empty their disappointment at not being able to (once again) perform the
>
> autopsy might at least be mollified by narrowing down the population of
>
> suspects (namely those persons aboard Air Force One) brazen enough to
>
> commit an irrefutable obstruction of justice by evidence tampering as well
>
> as violating state laws against abuse of a corpse.
>


All never happened. Not worth arguing it out. No one that I know of
opened a casket and found NO body. It was all handled very well.



>
>
> An obviously less-than-brilliant strategy the does not solve a problem,
>
> but instead only compounds it.
>
>
>
> Want more?
>


I've had no problem with what you've said so far except all the wealth
of insults that you pepper everything with. There are answers for all the
questions. You may not like them, but they are there.



>
>
> According to Horne, the post-assassination body theft and alteration was a
>
> critical element of the conspiracy planned and adopted IN ADVANCE of the
>
> actual shooting. "It is my contention that President Kennedy's
>
> assassination was the result of a domestic conspiracy, and that the
>
> conspirators implemented an immediate, effective, and wide-ranging coverup
>
> as soon as he was killed. The medical coverup was just a part of this
>
> effort, but it had to go into effect immediately, and did." (Inside the
>
> Assassination Records Review Board, Chapter 13, pp. 1183)
>
>
>
> That immediate initiation of the "medical cover-up" required gaining
>
> access to the body at a suitable place and for an adequate period of time
>
> in order to commit a forensic forgery through wound alteration. The
>
> conspirators could not possibly have counted on securing ANY of these
>
> essentials in the almost certain-to-be-frenetic post assassination
>
> environment or that the condition of the body following the assassination
>
> would have been conducive to telling the forensic lie the conspirators
>
> wished to tell. Listen to Horne describe how he believes the body heist
>
> was made possible:
>


You've made an assumption that supports your theme, but it is not
necessarily true. In advance, it would be easy for those in power to get
the body, as they did, almost at the point of a gun. I don't think they
planned that Rose would argue about it, they would just let Jackie escort
her husband's body where they wanted to take it. And then they could
easily insist that the 'forms' forced them to have an autopsy, but they'd
take it easy and get it done quickly. But Kellerman, knowing that he HAD
to get that body, went almost to the wall with weapons to get Rose off his
back and go with the body.

Note too, how easily they also took the limousine, a crime scene!
They just drove it off and away from the venue of Dallas. Most people
weren't thinking of the legal niceties at that moment. The point is that
the federal people can often claim they override anything from a state.
And most people think that's true.



>
>
> "Immediately after boarding, the Kennedy entourage had not yet assembled
>
> around the casket for the Irish wake. Jackie Kennedy was composing
>
> herself in private, and the Air Force Aide, General Godfrey McHugh, made
>
> several trips forward to the cockpit to demand that the plane take off and
>
> even spent time looking for Lyndon Johnson (before finding him hiding,
>
> crying in the loo). The Secret Service must have removed JFK's body from
>
> the casket during the initial process of "securing it to the deck" in the
>
> aft compartment of Air Force One. So Kellerman and Greer would have known
>
> all about it." (Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Op. Cit.)
>
>
>
> Of course Horne fails to point out that the "process of securing the
>
> casket to the deck" was performed by the same Air Force One crew members
>
> who had removed an aft bulkhead and several rows of seats to SPECIFICALLY
>
> make room for the casket in the cabin RATHER THAN ignominiously placing it
>
> in the baggage compartment. Also, no guesses from Horne about where Dave
>
> Powers, Larry O'Donnell, Larry O'Brien and Admiral Burkley are during this
>
> time? Out to get ice?
>


There are parts that are not known from testimony, and that's one of
them. How they got the body over into the shipping casket is not known,
but we know it happened, because the body came out of the shipping casket
at 6:35pm at the Bethesda morgue. Without flat testimony, we also know
that the body in the shipping casket was shipped to Bethesda from the
airport in a helicopter, an idea first suggested by the people on AF1
while en route. Though it was changed, someone on the ground reinstated
the idea and the only way the body in the shipping casket got to Bethesda
42 minutes before the Bronze casket with all the Kennedy entourage and the
SS and FBI agents in tow got there.

I still don't want to let go of the idea that they talked some of the SS
or FBI agents into helping to move the body into the shipping casket,
which would have made it easy to do.

>
>
> Regardless of what Horne thinks and irrespective of his accusation of
>
> Secret Service complicity without a shred of evidence, if the successful
>
> theft of JFK's body OUT OF his casket depended on Jackie Kennedy composing
>
> herself at the EXACT SAME TIME Godfrey McHugh was on the flight deck
>
> arguing with pilot Swindal while remaining Kennedy staffers were otherwise
>
> coincidentally occupied, that DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PLAN to steal the
>
> body, and, in fact, is persuasive evidence that no such plan existed.
>
> Horne apparently believes that the fortuitous alignment of the stars in
>
> the only 22 minute time window available to the conspirators made it
>
> possible for them to steal JFK's corpse out from under the very noses of
>
> those grieving for him.
>


Again, you're assuming things without any back up. We know the body got
switched. So how it happened is a secondary point, though an interesting
one. If you needed for people to be away from the casket for a time,
perhaps the swearing on was one of them. LBJ was adamant that he have
Jackie standing with him, though there was no need for her to be there.



>
>
> Pardon my skepticism, but "effective, wide ranging conspiratorial
>
> cover-ups" typically require a bit more conscious direction than that
>
> afforded by sheer dumb luck.
>


Given that the conspirators had some who were high in the
administration, they were able to get much more done than any average
bunch of people. And it would take less people to accomplish. There were
things that had to be discussed in advance, and things that had to be
accomplished. Also things that had to go wrong and had to be handled on
the spur of the moment. They were able to do that. Remember that we're
talking about people that were selected for their abilities and fast
thinking.



>
>
> Through it all, Horne (and apparently well-intentioned but gullible folks
>
> like yourself) are obviously clueless as to how his narrative comes full
>
> circle and destroys his foundational assumptions.
>


I don't see the problem that you see, but then I know what he's talking
about and the background too.



>
>
> Just a tiny bit of critical thinking would save you from the embarrassment
>
> of being taken in by the lunacies of this shyster/half-wit.



More insults. He held an important job in the government for 10 years
and no one thought him incompetent, but YOU do. Why would anyone take
your word for it?

With your obvious bias against anything that goes against the WC and the
wacky theories the lawyers thought up, I'm not sure you'll ever be able to
understand what Horne is talking about, and I'm not sure you can follow me
either. But I'm willing to keep trying.


Instead of blatting out a load of general questions, or concentrating
on the switch in the plane, which you and I have discussed as far as we
can go, why not make up some questions about the rest of Horne's scenario
that he got from the record? There must be at least one or two questions
you have pending...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 2:59:53 PM10/10/14
to
DVP, It's a shame you don'thave any way to back up your insults to
others. In this case you're way off the reservation. Horne has made the
mistake of not putting out the back up for what he said, so that you and
others with similar state of mind, can see that he's not making anything
up, but simply telling you what's in testimony and statements of the
Bethesda personnel.

In the case in point through documentation and witness statements, we
know that the shipping casket with JFK's body in it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue at 6:35pm, a full 42 minutes before the Bronze casket that
everyone saw come off the plane at the airport. Humes and Boswell went to
work on the head immediately and using scalpel and bone saw, began
expanding the 'large hole' in the BOH that was already there. They were
seen by at least 2 people, Tom Robinson (mortician) and Edward Reed (X-ray
technician) sitting in the gallery. Reed and any other naval personnel
were ordered out of the room at that point, but Robinson stayed. The body
after the secret surgery was done was put back in the Bronze casket, and
when the 'official' autopsy started at 8:00pm, the body was taken out and
everyone saw that surgery had ben done to the body, other than the
tracheotomy at Parkland. Humes at that point told a few lies to try and
distance himself from the damage to the body, and the 'audience let pass.

If you examine the testimony and statements (ARRB) of Tom Robinson and
Edward Reed, they will corroborate each other as to what I've just said
above.

As well, you might find the testimony of Jerrol Custer (X-ray
technician) of interest, and statements of James Jenkins (Bethesda
thecnologist) also.

anything you don't understand in this information, which is Horne's
back up, let me know and I'll be happy to explain it.

Chris

Mark Florio

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 3:14:02 PM10/10/14
to
Oh please, Lifton was shown to be a kook, and Horne is a disciple and we
have to rehash the same tired nonsense? Read Lanny's post above and reply
to that. Mark Florio.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 7:04:54 PM10/10/14
to
Ok, then just ignore my thousands of messages and Web pages pointing out
the errors of the alterationists.

I am not sure your reverse ad hominem will play with the Bible belt. But
there is a philosophical question: if an evil person can ever make sense,
even by accident. Is admitting the truth of his facts the same thing as
agreeing with his philosophy. Is admitting that gravity exists the same as
worshiping the devil? If you accept evolution is that the same thing as
accepting Satan?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 7:33:54 PM10/10/14
to
On 10/9/2014 11:40 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 10:44:44 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> JOHN GAVIN SAID:
>>
>>
>>
>> Listening to several of Mr. Horne's lectures, all I can say [is] that he
>>
>> seems like a meticulous and thorough researcher, extremely intelligent,
>>
>> highly believable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>>
>>
>> Many people have said the same thing about Mark Lane, Jim DiEugenio,
>>
>> Robert Groden, David Lifton, Jim Garrison, and dozens of other conspiracy
>>
>> theorists too.
>>
>>
>>
>> All of those people (including Doug Horne) are unquestionably very
>>
>> intelligent men. But that doesn't make their theories and opinions about
>>
>> the JFK case correct ones.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which gives rise to the proverbial question of....
>>
>>
>>
>> What is there about the JFK murder case that causes so many otherwise
>>
>> logical and intelligent individuals to totally abandon all of their common
>>
>> sense and to start believing in the most outlandish theories imaginable?
>>
>>
>>
>> Such as.....
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mr. Von Pein, Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head
>>
>> wounds before the autopsy." -- Douglas P. Horne; December 19, 2009
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/doug-horne-part-1.html
>
>
>
>
> DVP fails again! I have personally tracked down all the information

No, you haven't.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 11:49:13 PM10/10/14
to
Some theories are just too crazy for us to waste our time debunking
them. As the recent TV poll showed you can find less than 1% who believe
them. To focus on them as if they were serious is a straw man argument.

> Or are the only truly "outrageous", "outlandish", and "preposterous"
> theories the ones that even 99.9% of all CTers refuse to embrace, such as
> Mr. Andersen's theory about JFK faking his own death by wearing a
> "pyrotechnics device" on his head to simulate his head exploding? Or the
> one about JFK still being alive and living on an upper floor of Parkland
> Hospital?
>
> Well, in my view, Mr. Horne's and Mr. Lifton's theories belong in the same
> category as the two I just mentioned above. And they shall always remain
> in that category--even without reading all five volumes of Horne's
> fantasy.
>

No, they are much more insidious. Because a higher percentage believe in
them and they get away with such wild theories because the cover-up
refuses to tell the truth and release the files which would destroy them.
Just stop the cover-up.



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2014, 11:49:33 PM10/10/14
to
It MUST be a CIA conspiracy to keep THE TRUTH from the American Public.


mainframetech

unread,
Oct 11, 2014, 10:52:46 AM10/11/14
to
You think that he did nothing to close up shop? Everything just died
on the very last day? Or do you think that I got a time period wrong?
After all the wrongness you have put into posts here, I don't feel too bad
about it...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 11, 2014, 10:55:01 AM10/11/14
to
How foolish can LNs get? The scenario that Lifton (with errors) and
Horne (with back up) presented has complete backup in the record. It's
not a theory, but your fear of it makes you say theory. What was done by
Humes and Boswell was detailed by 2 people that were there and SAW it
happen! Edward Reed, and Tom Robinson both saw the scalpel and bone saw
work being done on the body and they described it. At that point Reed was
kicked out by Humes, but Robinson was there the whole time from just after
6:32pm to the end of their repair of the body for the funeral. How can
people just ignore the testimony of the naval personnel? Or did they
never look it up, and did they run away from it in fear that it might be
true?

Chris


mainframetech

unread,
Oct 11, 2014, 10:55:28 AM10/11/14
to
Amazing how you avoid looking up and checking the links and references
that are provided for you. I think it must be deep, abject fear that
keeps the LNs from doing that...if it turns out to be true, then years of
belief will go down the drain.

and worse, when they're given the links they are afraid to come back and
argue them with me, for fear they'll lose and have to face the terrible
truth.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 11, 2014, 10:56:14 AM10/11/14
to
What you seem to miss is that my efforts to bring you the truth mostly
from sworn testimony and statements of witnesses, has fallen on deaf ears
too. I've had the same problem with you that you had with me, with one
difference - I can explain almost every single thing I state, and you
cannot, except to hopefully quote from the WCR.

You have only found one single little thing without an immediate answer,
and that's how they did the switch of caskets in the AF1 plane. I still
think that they talked a few agents into helping do the job during a
break, like when Jackie had to stand next to LBJ while he was sworn in.
But that didn't stop the rest of the evidence and proof from being obvious
and it can all be looked up in the record. So what do you still think is
wrong with that scenario?

chris

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 11, 2014, 10:57:20 AM10/11/14
to
Wrong again! How dumb can the LNs get? Many times it's been said by me
and others that the post mortem 'surgery' was not only noticed, but caused
a stir in the morgue where the autopsy was being held. Humes, seeing the
reaction, tried a few comments to distance himself from the work that he
himself had done on the body, and the audience let it pass. One of his
comments really showed that he was trying to cover up his own 'surgery' on
the head earlier in the evening BEFORE the 'official' autopsy.

Humes tried to say that 'the brain fell out into his hands' when he
went to go into the skull. He was probably trying to make it look like it
was a large hole on the top and side of the head and the brain just fell
out, but all the people there that were familiar with the process of
removing the brain knew that the brain will NOT 'fall out into your hands'
until you go in and sever the brain stem way at the back of the brain, and
also the optic nerves, which also need to be cut. So when the brain 'fell
out into to his hands, it showed that the cutting had already been done
earlier in the evening. Since it wasn't done at Parkland, it had to have
been done earlier at Bethesda, during the 42 minutes that the body got to
Bethesda before the Bronze casket with the whole Kennedy party and SS and
FBI agents, and when Humes and Boswell could kick out all the naval
personnel from the morgue. Which they did.

Try to get it together.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Oct 11, 2014, 11:35:11 PM10/11/14
to
He sure wasn't working for the ARRB after 1998. He was beginning a new
career filling the heads of people like you with nonsense in exchange for
their hard earned money.

Bud

unread,
Oct 12, 2014, 8:57:25 AM10/12/14
to
On Saturday, October 11, 2014 10:57:20 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, October 10, 2014 12:06:11 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:32:19 AM UTC-4, rinn1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Von Pein will not do a point by point rebuttal, instead he generalizes by
>
> >
>
> > > stating something Horne believes in is 'impossible' or 'silly' without
>
> >
>
> > > detailing what makes it so.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It is impossible AND silly. Does it really need to be explained why post
>
> >
>
> > mortem surgery would not be blatantly obvious to even a first year medical
>
> >
>
> > student, much less a panel of the best forensic pathologists in the
>
> >
>
> > country. This is the kind of crap you get when a military analyst like
>
> >
>
> > Horne pretends he is a medical expert. When you find one qualified medical
>
> >
>
> > person who thinks that what Lifton and Horne proposes is even remotely
>
> >
>
> > possible, get back to us. Until then this theory gets filed in the loony
>
> >
>
> > bin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wrong again! How dumb can the LNs get?

Not dumb enough to buy into this nonsense.

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 12, 2014, 9:30:31 PM10/12/14
to
And here you are filling people's heads with your propaganda of the WC
faith and a few lawyers wacky theories!! You should talk!

Horne has made his money legitimately. You sound jealous.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 13, 2014, 12:38:03 PM10/13/14
to
The films showing the arrival of Air Force One show them talking off the
ceremonial casket with the broken handles.



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 13, 2014, 12:38:16 PM10/13/14
to
Maybe they're still afraid of WWIII.

bigdog

unread,
Oct 13, 2014, 11:26:53 PM10/13/14
to
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> And here you are filling people's heads with your propaganda of the WC
> faith and a few lawyers wacky theories!! You should talk!
>
> Horne has made his money legitimately. You sound jealous.
>

Yes he has. Relieving gullible people of their money is a perfect
legitimate exercise of free enterprise.

Jason Burke

unread,
Oct 14, 2014, 2:41:06 PM10/14/14
to
Is this a great country, or what?


mainframetech

unread,
Oct 15, 2014, 2:24:52 PM10/15/14
to
And here you are doing it for free! Propaganda every day...unending for
years. And we'll have you available for years to come...:)

Chris


cmikes

unread,
Oct 15, 2014, 10:50:48 PM10/15/14
to
On Monday, October 13, 2014 11:26:53 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
Even being a conspiracy kook, Horne is at least cunning with his business
sense. It's obvious from Chris's statements that Horne is passing off all
this decades old shit as his own original research. Now this makes for
very weak arguments, like Chris insisting for the past week that it's
recently been discovered, by Horne I assume, that the autopsy pathologists
were initially confused about the bullet exit through the throat.

Now anyone who's actually researched the case know that's been a
conspiracy theorist meme since the Warren Commission was released and is
another example of conspiracy stuff that was debunked decades ago. I'm
pretty sure it was in Rush to Judgement and I'm positive it was either in
Crossfire or Conspiracy. But to Chris, and anyone else that's new to the
case and depending on Horne's "work", this is brand new stuff discovered
by the hero Doug Horne.

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 17, 2014, 12:26:56 AM10/17/14
to
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:50:48 PM UTC-4, cmikes wrote:
> On Monday, October 13, 2014 11:26:53 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 12, 2014 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > And here you are filling people's heads with your propaganda of the WC
>
> >
>
> > > faith and a few lawyers wacky theories!! You should talk!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Horne has made his money legitimately. You sound jealous.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yes he has. Relieving gullible people of their money is a perfect
>
> >
>
> > legitimate exercise of free enterprise.
>
>
>
> Even being a conspiracy kook, Horne is at least cunning with his business
>
> sense. It's obvious from Chris's statements that Horne is passing off all
>
> this decades old shit as his own original research. Now this makes for
>
> very weak arguments, like Chris insisting for the past week that it's
>
> recently been discovered, by Horne I assume, that the autopsy pathologists
>
> were initially confused about the bullet exit through the throat.
>


Now let's get that in perspective. First, Horne was a member of the
ARRB team for years, and was also part of the teams that interviewed
witnesses and took sworn testimony. So his knowledge of the ARRB
information should be greater than most. Second, what's new is what is
being discovered in the ARRB information by Horne and other readers going
through the wealth of data. The proof in testimony that the prosectors at
the autopsy found that the upper back bullet did NOT exit the body of JFK
is new, since most people interested in the case haven't heard it before.
The information may be older ,but knowing and hearing of it, may well be
very new. When I say "new", it's because it's news to many of some kind
that they haven't heard up to now.



>
>
> Now anyone who's actually researched the case know that's been a
>
> conspiracy theorist meme since the Warren Commission was released and is
>
> another example of conspiracy stuff that was debunked decades ago. I'm
>
> pretty sure it was in Rush to Judgement and I'm positive it was either in
>
> Crossfire or Conspiracy. But to Chris, and anyone else that's new to the
>
> case and depending on Horne's "work", this is brand new stuff discovered
>
> by the hero Doug Horne.



Putting it all together and getting it from testimony is mainly the
work of Douglas Horne and a few others. And the reason I say that is that
the information wasn't even available until the ARRB began collecting
testimony and data. It didn't exist until that time, and Horne was part
of it.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Oct 17, 2014, 8:21:44 PM10/17/14
to
On Friday, October 17, 2014 12:26:56 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> Now let's get that in perspective. First, Horne was a member of the
> ARRB team for years, and was also part of the teams that interviewed
> witnesses and took sworn testimony. So his knowledge of the ARRB
> information should be greater than most. Second, what's new is what is
> being discovered in the ARRB information by Horne and other readers going
> through the wealth of data. The proof in testimony that the prosectors at
> the autopsy found that the upper back bullet did NOT exit the body of JFK
> is new, since most people interested in the case haven't heard it before.
> The information may be older ,but knowing and hearing of it, may well be
> very new. When I say "new", it's because it's news to many of some kind
> that they haven't heard up to now.
>

Do you really think nobody but Horne went over the information released by
the ARRB two decades ago. Conspiracy hobbyists were salivating over what
they thought was going to provide them with the smoking gun of conspiracy.
They went over that information with a fine tooth comb and when they
realized it didn't amount to a hill of beans, they claimed the really good
stuff was still being held by the government. Horne sensed an opportunity
and took a few tidbits of ARRB information, combined it with Lifton's
incredible body snatching tale, and packaged it for consumption by folks
who were so disappointed by what the ARRB files revealed. Horne is nothing
but an opportunistic charlatan whose made a few bucks from gullible people
who buy his crap.

cmikes

unread,
Oct 17, 2014, 10:00:04 PM10/17/14
to
On Friday, October 17, 2014 12:26:56 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
So your claiming that people like Mark Lane, Jim Marrs and Anthony Summers
are time travelers? How else could they know about this "new" information
and write about it in their books that were published decades ago?
Chris, I understand you don't know a lot about this case, but come on, you
can look up when these books were published in about 3 seconds on Google.

As I said, it's been established since the Warren Commission that the
pathologists initially had trouble finding the exit for the bullet that
went into JFK's upper back. It's also been established that when Humes
spoke to Perry about the tracheotomy and discovered that there was a wound
already there they knew that was the exit for the bullet.

Horne wasn't even out of grade school when this "mystery" was solved.
Him trying to take credit now just shows that not only is he a conspiracy
kook, he's a thief trying to take credit for other people's work.

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 18, 2014, 9:43:16 PM10/18/14
to
Ah well. I guess you haven't learned muc habout thias particular part
of th case. You've been told that Humes learned everything the next
morning, when in reality he was on the phone frequently during the
autopsy. He was remembered by others, and if you'd have read enough of
their testimonies, you'd see that they all saw Humes on the phone off and
on throughout the autopsy.

As well, something you should have known was that the prosectors weren't
just making first impressions when they decided that "There's NO EXIT".
Because (something else you might ave not known) was that James Jenkins,
Bethesda technologist, was assisting at the autopsy, and he saw the wound
being probed but from the other side, and he could see why the probe
stopped. it had hit the pleura, which was UNBROKEN in any way. That
could NOT have happened if the bullet had gone through. The depth of the
back wound was about an inch or so, and there was NO real track to follow.
Read the final Autopsy Report about the description of this back wound.
They couldn't bring themselves to lie fully and say 'here's the path and
the track' going this way. Instead they told the truth (to a degree) they
said:

"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
proved."

A copout saying we didn't see the track or path. Then they said:

"The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds
is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In
this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme
apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances
the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are
intact overlying these areas of trauma."

This was the crowning achievement! They managed to say that the pleura
of the lungs "...are intact overlying these areas of trauma". That means
that though the bullet came into the chest, it never broke through the
pleura! And yet, it HAD to if it were going to leave the area and go to
the throat!

And James Jenkins disagrees with the Autopsy Report in that he saw
bruising on the MIDDLE portion of the right lung as well.

It was a joke. They talked about connection the 2 wounds, and couldn't
find anything solid to do it.

I'm sure much of this would make more sense to you, if you knew this
part the case better.


If you need any links to the prosectors decision that "There's NO
EXIT", or James Jenkins interview, or the autopsy report, just let me
know.

Chris




mainframetech

unread,
Oct 18, 2014, 9:44:37 PM10/18/14
to
On Friday, October 17, 2014 8:21:44 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, October 17, 2014 12:26:56 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > Now let's get that in perspective. First, Horne was a member of the
>
> > ARRB team for years, and was also part of the teams that interviewed
>
> > witnesses and took sworn testimony. So his knowledge of the ARRB
>
> > information should be greater than most. Second, what's new is what is
>
> > being discovered in the ARRB information by Horne and other readers going
>
> > through the wealth of data. The proof in testimony that the prosectors at
>
> > the autopsy found that the upper back bullet did NOT exit the body of JFK
>
> > is new, since most people interested in the case haven't heard it before.
>
> > The information may be older ,but knowing and hearing of it, may well be
>
> > very new. When I say "new", it's because it's news to many of some kind
>
> > that they haven't heard up to now.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Do you really think nobody but Horne went over the information released by
>
> the ARRB two decades ago. Conspiracy hobbyists were salivating over what
>
> they thought was going to provide them with the smoking gun of conspiracy.
>
> They went over that information with a fine tooth comb and when they
>
> realized it didn't amount to a hill of beans, they claimed the really good
>
> stuff was still being held by the government.


You see, that's why I act like I've encountered new stuff in the ARRB
files. Same as Horne, who did a lot of the interviewing for the ARRB.
At that time Horne had to maintain an air of objectivity, but after his
ARRB role was done, he could speak his mind. And he said that he thought
that Lifton had gotten the right idea, but didn't have all the facts to
back it up (true). Horne by that time HAD ALL the facts, and proceded to
let them out in articles. In time he published the 5 volumes of his
findings from the ARRB records.

Most folks seem to not have gone through the details of the file based
on people I've encountered here. They know the WCR from programs on TV,
but have little knowledge of the ARRB files. Time after time I've had to
push people to actually LOOK at the file at this or that place, just to
prove a point which is not believed. Then after that, the subject is
usually done with.




> Horne sensed an opportunity
>
> and took a few tidbits of ARRB information, combined it with Lifton's
>
> incredible body snatching tale, and packaged it for consumption by folks
>
> who were so disappointed by what the ARRB files revealed. Horne is nothing
>
> but an opportunistic charlatan whose made a few bucks from gullible people
>
> who buy his crap.



It's really odd that you haven't checked the records about the casket
switching event! It's all there in the record, but of course, if you
checked you'd have to admit it. If you don't check it, you can pretend
that it never happened.

The so-called casket switching actually happened, and you'll find proof
of it in the record. Edward Reed and a couple of other people saw it.

Another way to prove it is for you to tell me how the shipping casket
(with the body inside) got to the Bethesda morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
Bronze casket that everyone saw being unloaded from the AF1 plane, and
that was in a motorcade from the airport to Bethesda. There's only one
way, and that's by helicopter, which was suggested by those in AF1 while
still in the air!

I'll be waiting for your answer...:)

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Oct 19, 2014, 1:51:34 PM10/19/14
to
On Saturday, October 18, 2014 9:44:37 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, October 17, 2014 8:21:44 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
>
> > Do you really think nobody but Horne went over the information released by
> > the ARRB two decades ago. Conspiracy hobbyists were salivating over what
> > they thought was going to provide them with the smoking gun of conspiracy.
> > They went over that information with a fine tooth comb and when they
> > realized it didn't amount to a hill of beans, they claimed the really good
> > stuff was still being held by the government.
>
> You see, that's why I act like I've encountered new stuff in the ARRB
> files.

Oh, so your silliness is just an act. I'm glad you cleared that up.

> Same as Horne, who did a lot of the interviewing for the ARRB.

I kind of figured his was an act, done for profit. I doubt he really
believes his own bullshit.

>
> At that time Horne had to maintain an air of objectivity, but after his
>
> ARRB role was done, he could speak his mind. And he said that he thought
> that Lifton had gotten the right idea, but didn't have all the facts to
> back it up (true). Horne by that time HAD ALL the facts, and proceded to
> let them out in articles. In time he published the 5 volumes of his
> findings from the ARRB records.
>

Everything released by the ARRB was already public record. And it
generated a collective yawn from the American people.

>
> Most folks seem to not have gone through the details of the file based
> on people I've encountered here.

Most people have better things to do with their time.

> They know the WCR from programs on TV,
> but have little knowledge of the ARRB files.

If there was anything worthwhile in those files, it would have been front
page news and the lead of every news program on TV.

> Time after time I've had to
> push people to actually LOOK at the file at this or that place, just to
> prove a point which is not believed.

You are probably appreciated as much as insurance salesmen.

> Then after that, the subject is
> usually done with.

As they get on with their lives.

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 19, 2014, 10:10:26 PM10/19/14
to
On Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:51:34 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, October 18, 2014 9:44:37 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 17, 2014 8:21:44 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Do you really think nobody but Horne went over the information released by
>
> > > the ARRB two decades ago. Conspiracy hobbyists were salivating over what
>
> > > they thought was going to provide them with the smoking gun of conspiracy.
>
> > > They went over that information with a fine tooth comb and when they
>
> > > realized it didn't amount to a hill of beans, they claimed the really good
>
> > > stuff was still being held by the government.
>
> >
>
> > You see, that's why I act like I've encountered new stuff in the ARRB
>
> > files.
>
>
>
> Oh, so your silliness is just an act. I'm glad you cleared that up.
>


LOL! Wrong yet again! It never fails. When you say something, it's
wrong! In fact, I act like that because I believe that I'm bringing out
evidence that is NEW to many people. Any who might have seen or heard
this evidence must have misinterpreted it, because other wise it would be
part of the 'story' of the JFK conspiracy. In effect though I'm acting
like that, I'm feeling that emotion too.



>
>
> > Same as Horne, who did a lot of the interviewing for the ARRB.
>
>
>
> I kind of figured his was an act, done for profit. I doubt he really
>
> believes his own bullshit.
>


Oh, you're really pouring it on tonight, eh? Definitely 'intelligence
envy' is what it looks like. Horne has found a profitable path for his
life, and one that I think he believes in, and I think anyone that worked
in his position at the ARRB would wind up feeling the same way.

when you are guilty of certain bad emotions and moral faults, it's easy
to see them in others. That's my general attitude.



>
>
> >
>
> > At that time Horne had to maintain an air of objectivity, but after his
>
> >
>
> > ARRB role was done, he could speak his mind. And he said that he thought
>
> > that Lifton had gotten the right idea, but didn't have all the facts to
>
> > back it up (true). Horne by that time HAD ALL the facts, and proceded to
>
> > let them out in articles. In time he published the 5 volumes of his
>
> > findings from the ARRB records.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Everything released by the ARRB was already public record. And it
>
> generated a collective yawn from the American people.
>


Nope, wrong yet again! You just can't seem to get with it, eh?

The ARRB in my experience is difficult for people to go through ,and
I'm sure many have not read all of it, like they did with the volumes of
WC data. I seriously doubt that anyone has previously discussed the fact
that the prosectors found that the bullet from the back wound never exited
from JFK, and so never hit Connally!





>
>
> >
>
> > Most folks seem to not have gone through the details of the file based
>
> > on people I've encountered here.
>
>
>
> Most people have better things to do with their time.
>


So that seems to say that you think that the ARRB information is less
valid than the WC information, yes?



>
>
> > They know the WCR from programs on TV,
>
> > but have little knowledge of the ARRB files.
>
>
>
> If there was anything worthwhile in those files, it would have been front
>
> page news and the lead of every news program on TV.
>


Not necessarily true. Most TV presentations have been more along the
lines of 'believe the WC, it's the truth'. The ARRB files aren't even
mentioned most times. I doubt most news reporters even know much about
the ARRB files. And yet, some of the most important events are described
there. The ARRB came after the law changed to get rid of all the 'orders
of silence' that were everywhere on all the files and witnesses.



>
>
> > Time after time I've had to
>
> > push people to actually LOOK at the file at this or that place, just to
>
> > prove a point which is not believed.
>
>
>
> You are probably appreciated as much as insurance salesmen.
>


Them's the breaks. If some folks are hide bound in their beliefs for
years, I can see them not wanting to change their views overnight. But
over time, many will come around the the most logical and evidential
side.



>
>
> > Then after that, the subject is
>
> > usually done with.
>
>
>
> As they get on with their lives.



Time will tell. There is still plenty more to come out...:)


To get the truth of this and not have to rely on those that would try to
hoodwink you, go here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=68509

Read 'page 111' lower left of page.

And the corroboration is form the report of the interview of James
Jenkins, Bethesda Technologist:

"Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior
thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his
finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in
the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where
the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact.
Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the
right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)."


To get the truth of this and not have to rely on those that would try
to hoodwink you, go here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=68509

Read 'page 111' lower left of page.

And the corroboration is form the report of the interview of James
Jenkins, Bethesda Technologist:

"Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior
thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his
finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in
the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where
the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact.
Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the
right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)."

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Oct 20, 2014, 7:33:10 PM10/20/14
to
On Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:10:26 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:51:34 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
>
> LOL! Wrong yet again! It never fails. When you say something, it's
> wrong! In fact, I act like that because I believe that I'm bringing out
> evidence that is NEW to many people.

If there had been anything worthwhile in the ARRB information, you
wouldn't need to still be trying to drum up interest in it 20 years
later.

> Any who might have seen or heard
> this evidence must have misinterpreted it,

Right!!! Only people like you and Horne were able to figure it out. Do you
guys have a secret decoder ring?

> because other wise it would be
> part of the 'story' of the JFK conspiracy. In effect though I'm acting
> like that, I'm feeling that emotion too.
>
Try Valium.
>
>
> > > Same as Horne, who did a lot of the interviewing for the ARRB.
>
> > I kind of figured his was an act, done for profit. I doubt he really
> > believes his own bullshit.
>
> Oh, you're really pouring it on tonight, eh? Definitely 'intelligence
> envy' is what it looks like. Horne has found a profitable path for his
> life,

Relieving gullible people of their money.

> and one that I think he believes in, and I think anyone that worked
> in his position at the ARRB would wind up feeling the same way.
>

He was hired as a military analyst and since the autopsy was performed by
military personnel, he was given jurisdiction over release of documents
related to the autopsy. He has zero expertise in any medical field which
is probably one reason he appeals to you. You hate the opinions of
qualified experts because they rain on your parade.

>
> when you are guilty of certain bad emotions and moral faults, it's easy
> to see them in others. That's my general attitude.
>

Thank you for sharing that thought with us. I know it enriched my day.

>
> > > At that time Horne had to maintain an air of objectivity, but after his
> > > ARRB role was done, he could speak his mind. And he said that he thought
> > > that Lifton had gotten the right idea, but didn't have all the facts to
> > > back it up (true). Horne by that time HAD ALL the facts, and proceded to
> > > let them out in articles. In time he published the 5 volumes of his
> > > findings from the ARRB records.
>
> > Everything released by the ARRB was already public record. And it
> > generated a collective yawn from the American people.
>
> Nope, wrong yet again! You just can't seem to get with it, eh?
>

> The ARRB in my experience is difficult for people to go through ,and
> I'm sure many have not read all of it, like they did with the volumes of
> WC data.

Why would they?

> I seriously doubt that anyone has previously discussed the fact
> that the prosectors found that the bullet from the back wound never exited
> from JFK, and so never hit Connally!
>
Probably because that was never their conclusion.
>
> > > Most folks seem to not have gone through the details of the file based
> > > on people I've encountered here.
>
> > Most people have better things to do with their time.
>
> So that seems to say that you think that the ARRB information is less
> valid than the WC information, yes?
>

Since much of it is based on 30 year old memories, absolutely.

> > > They know the WCR from programs on TV,
> > > but have little knowledge of the ARRB files.
>

They aren't missing anything.

> >
> > If there was anything worthwhile in those files, it would have been front
> > page news and the lead of every news program on TV.
>
> Not necessarily true. Most TV presentations have been more along the
> lines of 'believe the WC, it's the truth'.

Yes, people who value their professional reputations aren't going to delve
in to nonsense. They'd get laughed off the air.

> The ARRB files aren't even
> mentioned most times.

Because there is nothing important in them.

> I doubt most news reporters even know much about
> the ARRB files. And yet, some of the most important events are described
> there. The ARRB came after the law changed to get rid of all the 'orders
> of silence' that were everywhere on all the files and witnesses.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

>

> > > Time after time I've had to
> > > push people to actually LOOK at the file at this or that place, just to
> > > prove a point which is not believed.
>
> > You are probably appreciated as much as insurance salesmen.
>
> Them's the breaks. If some folks are hide bound in their beliefs for
> years, I can see them not wanting to change their views overnight. But
> over time, many will come around the the most logical and evidential
> side.
>

That's why polls show belief in JFK conspiracies is waning.

>
> > > Then after that, the subject is
> > > usually done with.
>
> > As they get on with their lives.
>
> Time will tell. There is still plenty more to come out...:)
>

You really believe that?
It's bad enough you bore us with this crap dozens of times a day. Did you
really need to double up in the same post?

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 21, 2014, 7:22:47 PM10/21/14
to
On Monday, October 20, 2014 7:33:10 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:10:26 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:51:34 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > LOL! Wrong yet again! It never fails. When you say something, it's
>
> > wrong! In fact, I act like that because I believe that I'm bringing out
>
> > evidence that is NEW to many people.
>
>
>
> If there had been anything worthwhile in the ARRB information, you
>
> wouldn't need to still be trying to drum up interest in it 20 years
>
> later.
>


Nope, bad thinking. Wrong again. I didn't read the ARRB information
from 'cover to cover' when it first became available. I did like all the
people with only partial information did, and I used the WC records and
similar data from those times. When I slowly became aware of the
information in the ARRB files, I began looking them over more thoroughly,
and found a number of things that are just not in the WC files.

So as I come across things, I make them known if I haven't seen them
before, and that includes the fact that the prosectors discovered that the
back wound bullet didn't go past JFK, and so never hit Connally.


>
>
> > Any who might have seen or heard
>
> > this evidence must have misinterpreted it,
>
>
>
> Right!!! Only people like you and Horne were able to figure it out. Do you
>
> guys have a secret decoder ring?
>



Nope, just a memory of what you and others haven't done. Someone said
that the issue of the back wound bullet not going past JFK was all taken
care of long ago, but as usually seems to be the case, no one was able to
remember what the answer was back then, so as far as I'm concerned, it's a
new fact, and certainly important to the case.



>
>
> > because other wise it would be
>
> > part of the 'story' of the JFK conspiracy. In effect though I'm acting
>
> > like that, I'm feeling that emotion too.
>
> >
>
> Try Valium.
>


Try a truth serum.



> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Same as Horne, who did a lot of the interviewing for the ARRB.
>
> >
>
> > > I kind of figured his was an act, done for profit. I doubt he really
>
> > > believes his own bullshit.
>
> >
>
> > Oh, you're really pouring it on tonight, eh? Definitely 'intelligence
>
> > envy' is what it looks like. Horne has found a profitable path for his
>
> > life,
>
>
>
> Relieving gullible people of their money.
>


Nope, giving honest information for money, a fair trade. Try it some
time.



>
>
> > and one that I think he believes in, and I think anyone that worked
>
> > in his position at the ARRB would wind up feeling the same way.
>
> >
>
>
>
> He was hired as a military analyst and since the autopsy was performed by
>
> military personnel, he was given jurisdiction over release of documents
>
> related to the autopsy. He has zero expertise in any medical field which
>
> is probably one reason he appeals to you. You hate the opinions of
>
> qualified experts because they rain on your parade.
>


Oh, get off the soap box, you have nothing of interest to say. Horne
was moved up while working for the ARRB, and did much of the collecting,
and interviewing of the many people that had been silenced by the 'order
of silence' put out by the military at Bethesda. But Oh boy, when the
truth came out there were bombshells in it! It's the same for Horne as it
is for you and me, common sense and logic can do in many instances in this
case, and an 'expert' could not tell you anything better. I expect that
Horne has gained some medical knowledge beyond what he had previously.

Part of the ability of a good interviewer is the ability to have a
specialist tell you what you need to know to understand their particular
field.




>
>
> >
>
> > when you are guilty of certain bad emotions and moral faults, it's easy
>
> > to see them in others. That's my general attitude.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Thank you for sharing that thought with us. I know it enriched my day.
>


I'm glad, I had a feeling you needed it.



>
>
> >
>
> > > > At that time Horne had to maintain an air of objectivity, but after his
>
> > > > ARRB role was done, he could speak his mind. And he said that he thought
>
> > > > that Lifton had gotten the right idea, but didn't have all the facts to
>
> > > > back it up (true). Horne by that time HAD ALL the facts, and proceded to
>
> > > > let them out in articles. In time he published the 5 volumes of his
>
> > > > findings from the ARRB records.
>
> >
>
> > > Everything released by the ARRB was already public record. And it
>
> > > generated a collective yawn from the American people.
>
> >
>
> > Nope, wrong yet again! You just can't seem to get with it, eh?
>
> >
>
>
>
> > The ARRB in my experience is difficult for people to go through ,and
>
> > I'm sure many have not read all of it, like they did with the volumes of
>
> > WC data.
>
>
>
> Why would they?
>


since you didn't go through it, it's obvious that you wouldn't know.
But keep in mind that previously, no one could speak of anything to do
with the autopsy because of the 'order of silence' at Bethesda. Now the
doors opened and much information poured out. And that's only one
example.



>
>
> > I seriously doubt that anyone has previously discussed the fact
>
> > that the prosectors found that the bullet from the back wound never exited
>
> > from JFK, and so never hit Connally!
>
> >
>
> Probably because that was never their conclusion.
>



And yet, reading the Autopsy Report, it appears that their finding for
the bullet from the back wound was right, and they backed it up with some
interesting comments. For instance, they said in the Autopsy Report (AR)
that:

"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
proved". LOL! Of course not, since they found that it didn't go
through...:)



> >
>
> > > > Most folks seem to not have gone through the details of the file based
>
> > > > on people I've encountered here.
>
> >
>
> > > Most people have better things to do with their time.
>
> >
>
> > So that seems to say that you think that the ARRB information is less
>
> > valid than the WC information, yes?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Since much of it is based on 30 year old memories, absolutely.
>


A shame. I guess you haven't read any of the studies I've put up
showing that memory is enhanced by strong emotion and devastating events.
The witnesses remember very well the murder of a president. Both emotion
and devastating.




>
>
> > > > They know the WCR from programs on TV,
>
> > > > but have little knowledge of the ARRB files.
>
> >
>
>
>
> They aren't missing anything.
>


See? How little you know! A terribly small amount of information I've
been able to give you, given what's there for you.



>
>
> > >
>
> > > If there was anything worthwhile in those files, it would have been front
>
> > > page news and the lead of every news program on TV.
>
> >
>
> > Not necessarily true. Most TV presentations have been more along the
>
> > lines of 'believe the WC, it's the truth'.
>
>
>
> Yes, people who value their professional reputations aren't going to delve
>
> in to nonsense. They'd get laughed off the air.
>


Oh, I don't know. FOX News has done OK...:)



>
>
> > The ARRB files aren't even
>
> > mentioned most times.
>
>
>
> Because there is nothing important in them.
>


And on you go blatting about things you know nothing about! How can you
even begin to think that you're the person to listen to when you don't
even know the tools? The ARRB is one of the tools of your hobby!



>
>
> > I doubt most news reporters even know much about
>
> > the ARRB files. And yet, some of the most important events are described
>
> > there. The ARRB came after the law changed to get rid of all the 'orders
>
> > of silence' that were everywhere on all the files and witnesses.
>
> >
>
>
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>


No wonder you learn so little. You sleep through all your learning
opportunities...:)



>
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > > Time after time I've had to
>
> > > > push people to actually LOOK at the file at this or that place, just to
>
> > > > prove a point which is not believed.
>
> >
>
> > > You are probably appreciated as much as insurance salesmen.
>
> >
>
> > Them's the breaks. If some folks are hide bound in their beliefs for
>
> > years, I can see them not wanting to change their views overnight. But
>
> > over time, many will come around the the most logical and evidential
>
> > side.
>
> >
>
>
>
> That's why polls show belief in JFK conspiracies is waning.
>


Yep, but there will be some change in those numbers I believe, probably
by New Year's.



>
>
> >
>
> > > > Then after that, the subject is
>
> > > > usually done with.
>
> >
>
> > > As they get on with their lives.
>
> >
>
> > Time will tell. There is still plenty more to come out...:)
>
> >
>
>
>
> You really believe that?
>


Nope, I don't believe that, I KNOW that.



>
>
> >
>
> > To get the truth of this and not have to rely on those that would try to
>
> > hoodwink you, go here:
>
> >
>
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=68509
>
> >
>
> > Read 'page 111' lower left of page.
>
> >
>
> > And the corroboration is from the report of the interview of James
>
> > Jenkins, Bethesda Technologist:
>
> >
>
> > "Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior
>
> > thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his
>
> > finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in
>
> > the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where
>
> > the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact.
>
> > Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the
>
> > right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)."
>
> >
>
>
> It's bad enough you bore us with this crap dozens of times a day. Did you
>
> really need to double up in the same post?


I've removed the duplicate. Although you require being told multiple
time before you learn something.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Oct 22, 2014, 6:16:39 PM10/22/14
to
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:22:47 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> Nope, bad thinking. Wrong again. I didn't read the ARRB information
> from 'cover to cover' when it first became available. I did like all the
> people with only partial information did, and I used the WC records and
> similar data from those times. When I slowly became aware of the
> information in the ARRB files, I began looking them over more thoroughly,
> and found a number of things that are just not in the WC files.
>
> So as I come across things, I make them known if I haven't seen them
> before, and that includes the fact that the prosectors discovered that the
> back wound bullet didn't go past JFK, and so never hit Connally.

Do you really think you discovered something that somehow slipped past the
rest of the civilized world? <chuckle>

If the prosectors discovered that the back wound bullet didn't go past
JFK, why didn't they put that in their final report.
0 new messages