Author Topic: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?  (Read 1510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« on: April 06, 2013, 05:24:28 AM »
In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the JFK Assassination Records Act, ordering all related records to be sent to the National Archives and made available for public viewing, and any US citizen can make an appointment and rummage through what must be millions of files and artifacts.  Separating the wheat from the chaff could take a lifetime, and the best stuff was doubtlessly destroyed right after the assassination.  The law also formally absolved the government from any responsibility to further investigate the assassination, which sounds like another Clinton solution - not a good trade-off.  The law created the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), and Douglas Horne, a career navy man and lifetime assassination bug, accepted a 40% pay cut to work there, becoming Chief Analyst for Military records, most of which dealt with the medical evidence.  He eventually wrote "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" and I bought Volume One (of five).  So what does he say?  Well, quite a bit, since it looks like he was trying to milk the project for all it was worth.  The book is not a rip-off - it is a large, quality product with 90 B&W prints, taken from the first generation, original evidence.  It included the best print of the Moorman photo I have ever seen, taken off the vehicle left rear quarter at the moment of the head wound.  Most prints show an odd rumple in the president's suit coat around the right shoulder, but in Horne's photo it is clearly a separate  lighter color object, most likely the occipital bone fragment, which Jackie scrambled after as it clattered down the trunk deck.  The photo shows the retaining wall behind the grassy knoll, and some say they see the gunman's face, but all I see are the light and dark splotches of leafy vegetation.
The ARRB was not tasked with "solving" the Kennedy Assassination, but it quickly became clear that too properly organize the medical records, a number of contradictions would have to be resolved.  Horne and the General Counsel took sworn testimony from a number of people, including Humes and Boswell, the autopsy doctors.  As usual, Humes was gruff and arrogant while Boswell was folksy and helpful, but neither moved the needle very much, since everyone at the autopsy signed a gag order leaving them in fear for their pensions.  A copy of the order is presented as Horne's Appendix 26.  The appendices are not in the book but are posted on the Mary Farrell Foundation website.  I checked and they are there under Resources.  They used the one signed by Cdr. John Ebersole, the X-Ray man at Bethesda.  He went off script during the 1978 congressional hearings (HSCA), saying some occipital bones had been delivered to Dallas and he X-Rayed them and found some bits of metal.  The occipital is the skull section behind the ear, where many people, but not Warren, say there was a huge exit wound.  The brain situation is quite bizarre, as two brains were clearly used in the examination.  The pictures in the National Archives are of someone else's brain.  A set of bootleg photos are in circulation, but the ARRB used high quality original prints and saw more of them.  They still don't make a complete set, they are not numbered as they should have been, and they show the body in confusing poses.  Some similar poses show completely different wound characteristics.  The X-Rays resemble no others known to man, with some areas showing almost nothing and other areas bright white.  A radiology expert called them forgeries.  The area that looks like it had a lead plate put in front of it is of course the occipital.  What materials were delivered to the archives were further ransacked by Kennedy family representatives, who were seen fleeing the building with the brain and other medical records.  Again, this is what a government agency concluded in the mid-90s.
The ARRB also had fun with the photographers.  This gets very confusing, as two men (who knew each other) took pictures of the autopsy, but never saw each other that night and their pictures look completely different.  Both had their pictures taken away and were ordered never to discuss the matter.  Horne plays this pretty close to the vest - I think he wants you to buy Volume Two, which I have declined to do, but it seems clear that one man took pictures before the wounds were modified.  This all happened Friday night, while things were still in an uproar, so the government wanted as many pictures as possible to support whatever story they eventually settled on.  The official Bethesda photographer was Springer, who had retired by the 90's.  He spoke to the ARRB but was clearly not comfortable and couldn't remember much.  Kennedy's official photographer, Knudsen, was deceased but his widow and grown children eagerly came in.  His family said he had served every president since Truman and was involved with the Warren Commission and a small probe in 1988 that was not publicized.  He was very unhappy with his treatment by HSCA, who took his testimony, made no mention of it in their report and sealed it for 50 years.  He told them probes had been inserted into the wounds and photographed, but these pictures have never surfaced.  He saw the occipital wound.  He never read any assassination books but told his family he didn't believe Warren.  He woulds sometimes become pensive and speak in a general way about the terrible burden carried by an officer under an oath of secrecy.
None of this is terribly controversial, but Horne goes on to conclusively prove that the Zapruder film was doctored.  He has the best print to work with and he convinced me, but I'm plum wore out from typing, making about 10% typos at this point, so the discussion will have to wait, maybe tomorrow or early next week.  Ha, I'm just like Horne, stringing it out, but stay tuned.               

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2013, 02:46:21 AM »
OK, I'm back.  Most of us probably think the president was shot in the head from in front and it blew out the back of his skull.  So why does the Zapruder film look so much like he was shot from behind?  Horne has evidence that the Z film was doctored.  Now, I was definitely dragged kicking and screaming into this.  I can barely put a stamp on an envelope straight, so I can just imagine cutting and pasting the tiny frames of 8 m/m, but Horne claims there is another way - aerial imaging.  I don't know what that means, and all the Z film stuff is in Volume Four, but all the photos for the books are in Volume One and he lays it all out in the photo captions.  The critical frames are in the low 300s, the splatter footage.  His close ups, taken from the 35 m/m dup negative in the National Archives, show something very unnatural at the back of the head.  The area suddenly looks solid black, not brown, and angular rather than rounded.  I could see it right away in his pictures, but I had to know for sure, so I ordered my own copy of the Z film, a DVD called "Image of an Assassination, from MPI Home Video.  There is a lot of filler material about Mr. Zapruder, but their treatment of the film is all you could ask for.  The quality is much better than what you see on TV, and it has slow motion and enlargement.  You can use the pause button to freeze a frame, and with a little practice you can freeze two frames in a row to compare them.  I couldn't do a split screen, but it doesn't matter - the thing is there.  It looks like someone took a piece of black paper and cut out a section about the right size and used it to cover the back of the head.  Of course, when it's played at speed everything looks fine.  To me, this is blockbuster stuff.
So far, this has been all "what", not "who", but Horne gets around to that.  The book is structured in such a way that the text is very dry and conservative - complete transcripts of all the interviews, long rambling discussions of everything - the guy is a perfect government employee, able to really drag things out, but he really cuts loose in the photo captions.  Understand, I only have Volume One, and I think the details are in Volume Five, but he names Johnson and Hoover, although he seems to think that Hoover was not in on the plot, only that he knew the story was phony.  He has Curtis LeMay, the right wing general who hated Kennedy's guts.  I would have to see a lot more before I believed he was anything other than a right wing general who hated Kennedy's guts.  The real bell-ringer in Secret Serviceman Roy Kellerman, head of the Dallas security unit and passenger in the death car.  Horne feels an unflattering photo tells the story - I think the guy was burping from eating breakfast in a motel.  Actually, he mentions Kellerman's role in hijacking the body from proper Texas authorities and generally stage managing the autopsy cover up (apparently at Robert Kennedy's personal direction).
There is a lot more.  If anyone is curious about something in the medical evidence, I can try to flip through Volume One and find it.         

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2013, 11:34:28 AM »
Kellerman was the front seat passenger in the Lincoln - Kennedy's car.  Note that he was in the line of fire.  The man who left the old model Cadillac and went to the Lincoln was Clint Hill, who was assigned to the first lady, and that is why he said he did it.  Note that Jackie requested him by name to protect her during her New York period.  He didn't stop the car, he almost fell off it as the driver accelerated away.  I don't put the Secret Service anywhere in the conspiracy.  I satisfied myself that the Lincoln did not stop, but it definitely slowed down.  An agent stated that he did this because he thought the first shot was a blowout and he wanted to check the vehicle's stability before entering a high speed road.  I think it was because the first shot came from the south knoll (here we go, a whole new tangent).  The bullet would have whizzed past the driver's ear.  The purpose was to hit the target, of course, but also to make the driver slow down. Somewhere else it's been stated that this was the plan they developed for Castro - catch him in his Jeep coming back from his beach house, shoot from ahead to make the driver lift his foot, as almost any driver would, and finish the job from much closer range.
Of course there was a conspiracy - a huge one - so big in fact that I don't think it was any shadow government.  The theory, as I've been saying for a while now, is that the mainstream government rigged it to avoid a crisis in Berlin over the Cuban coup plan (Cuban invasion, some are calling it), since an investigation would have revealed it.  People were supposed to think the Russians had iced Castro, which was entirely consistent with their way of dealing with troublesome puppets. The slipshod nature of the cover up seems to prove it was slapped together on the spot.
 

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2013, 03:16:33 PM »
I will try to watch the DVD tomorrow, when my wife is at work - she doesn't like it.  I haven't seen it in years, but as I said, I'm pretty sure the car doesn't stop.  It's actually hard to tell because the car pretty much fills those frames.  Many witnesses saw brake lights, parade speed was 3 mph.  The driver, Greer, definitely nails it shortly.  The car had a big engine, but it was very heavy.
To clarify, I think the conspiracy to kill included maybe one or two dozen.  The cover up could have run into the thousands, if you include all the grunts and non-coms who signed gag orders.  All just my hunch.

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2013, 11:17:23 AM »
Watched the DVD again, haven't had time for yours but thanks - maybe tomorrow.  They come around the bend and accelerate, maybe 10 or 15, since the parade was over and they were running late.  I was still thinking of blow-up frames when I said the vehicle fills the screen - in normal mode there is plenty of background, but the best way to plot speed is to watch the other cars and bikes.  They have a good interval going behind the sign, but when they emerge, with JFK shot, they are bunched up.  I don't think there was time to stop, but they definitely slowed down.  Even the agent book said Greer tapped his brakes, supposedly thinking tire blow-out.  It's possible, it was right at the first shot.  I also got 3 mph out of the agent book.  That was the preferred parade speed, certainly not the Dealey speed - sorry.  Greer always drove parades because he had the light touch necessary to hold the difficult speed.  Brake lights are not visible in the DVD.
The south knoll looks good to me.  It is ahead and slightly left, which matches Kennedy's neck wound, and would have gotten the driver's attention.  I have never been to Dealey, but it looks like maybe 150 yards, a parking lot on an elevation.  Exit is straight onto the elevated highway, which was high speed.  You would be out of the Dealey viewshed almost at once.
The agent book certainly should be taken with a grain of salt.  The guy says Kennedy never cheated on his wife.  Uh Huh!  Still, I don't put them in the assassination, but like we agreed, anything is possible.   

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2013, 12:34:37 PM »
Well, I finally finished the JFK Jr. piece.  It was longer than I expected, but that wasn't my biggest problem with it.  I wish I had time to look into this further, but I don't.  I recall the story - had a lot of questions about it at the time, and my "friend", the left-wing conspiracy nut I've spent most of my life trying to get away from, was positively apoplectic about it.  I think I decided that there was some kind of cover-up, and that the Kennedy family (I'm sure that's "the family" in the film) was as anxious as anyone to see it through.  The "case" the video lays out might be plausible, but it's all a matter of trust, and I don't feel it.
I see it came from the same shop as the other Bush piece - same narrator, same wild allegations. So the US invented racism and genocide.  Really?  Genghis Khan would be surprised to hear that.  And once again it's the US Nazis.  Averill Harriman spent most of WW II in Moscow.  I don't believe the US created Hitler, but I'm more than certain that the war between Hitler and Stalin was 100% for real, as in whoever won would definitely kill the other one.  And so it goes.  The Illuminati killed Lincoln, Dr. Humes altered President Kennedy'd wounds because he is some kind of necro-perv.  None of this has anything to do with JFK Jr., but it totally demolishes any trust I might have in whatever they say about it.  Apparently the plane fell like stone.  Why?  Of course, a CIA trained zombie flight instructor jumped on the stick.  Was the fuel selector valve off?  I don't know, but the film maker called up flight instructors until he found one who would talk to him, and this guy said the Egyptian airliner that crashed had the same thing.  This proves that W Bush was in a boat with half his leadership team waiting for splashdown, which might have been right on top of him.  How about the cartoon of W in bed with Condi and Colin, the most prominent blacks in his administration?  How racist is that? What kind of journalism is that?  I believe in truth and reason, and I look for it in sane, responsible journalism.
The film made one good point - people are easily manipulated.  This series of films seems to be all about manipulating people into becoming Bush-hating robots, who will vote democratic no matter who is running.

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2013, 10:49:07 AM »
I am not a Bush booster.  I have stated in public that W may have been a worse president than Clinton, although it's no slam dunk.  I see a family of oligarchs, some of whom have offered themselves for public service, much like the Kennedys, although it's funny how it's only "public service" when the Kennedys do it.  Still, I don't think they have spent the last 50 years missing country club events so they could bump off the occasional Kennedy.
I don't know for a fact that he was missing at the time of Jr's demise - no need to supply a link, it's possible - but I really don't think he was on a boat partying with his friends at the crash site.  Maybe he was in de-tox, or in Saudi Arabia, or even getting it on with Condi and Colin, although I doubt that very much.  Are we supposed to believe he spent three days personally hypnotizing the flight instructor?  If he really did ice the kid, I would expect him to have gotten photographed kissing a baby somewhere.  Again, when someone tells me the US invented genocide, I'm going to take a very hard look at anything else they say.  I'm sure many Native Americans, a more than a few Anglos too, are somewhat touchy about government activities in the late 19th Century, so running that footage (do you think they pirated it from Little Big Man?) is bound to put them in a frame of mind making it easier to - what's that word - manipulate.
The crash was about a year and a half before the election.  Clinton was still president, with full authority over CIA, Coast Guard, FAA, etc.  No one is shining a spotlight on that.  Is it possible that JFK Jr. was something other than a martyred white knight?  Was he really CIA, on a confidential mission for this country?  Did the opposition get him?  Or was he the opposition, mixed up with some shadowy international syndicate?  That would explain why the family pretty much turned their back on the matter.  Did anyone check out the sister for suicidal impulses?  I got it - some of those magazine covers were pretty racy, maybe Larry Flynt did it, worried about his share of the soft core porn market.  I don't really believe any of that.  I don't have time, but if I trolled the internet long enough I could probably find someone who says it, but I would never post it for others to see.  You're the guy who finds this off the wall stuff, and that's very commendable, I guess, I look at it once in a while.  Do you ever consider any other theories beside your Dark Legacy construct?
PS:  I don't question the kid's character or piloting skills, but even the film allowed as how he was not fully check out on his new and sophisticated airplane.   

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2013, 11:16:52 AM »
No, I don't think it was an accident.  If the radar track is correct, then those people were probably murdered by an occupant in the plane,  and it could have been any one of them  Also, if all the Coast Guard - FAA stuff is accurate, and it looked pretty solid, then there were probably some sort of National Security implications, resulting in an information blackout.  What that would be is anyone's guess, since we don't have a clue about an awful lot of high powered stuff swirling around in the world these days.
It would be interesting to have an investigation, but who would do it?  What sort of institutional bias would they bring to the table?  Here we are with probably the most liberal president ever and he doesn't seem interested.
From the very beginning, my point on these films has been that they are so ridiculous that they can't be taken seriously.  There must be a name for that, sabotaging an effort from within by stating the case so poorly that no one buys it.  Have you ever wondered if they are being made by Dark legacy Productions?  When I started this with the Doug Horne story I went to great lengths to keep it as cautious and modest as possible, because I wanted it to be believable.  I used the words of a civil servant whose full time job was to study the best quality evidence available, at a time in history when other agencies and institutions were happy to cooperate.  I was trying to reach all those who accept the official story, which apparently includes most of the kids coming out of school these days.
Are there accidents in history?  Yes, I think so.  There are too many players on the field, each with his own agenda, for some mysterious cabal to pull all the strings.  Granted, an awful lot of strings are concentrated in remarkably few hands.  Welcome to life.   

Offline us920669

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: What Does Douglas Horne Say About the Kennedy Assassination?
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2013, 06:24:37 AM »
This I find very plausible.  No doubt about it - many powerful interests and combinations thought JFK was a real PITA.