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