JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mike Orr on January 30, 2018, 03:46:44 AM
-
I've been listening to the 5 part series on You Tube by Doug Horne , Altered History: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence . This series is very good and it seems to fill in some holes about the Assassination of JFK . Doug Horne served on the Staff of the Assassination Records Review Board. I've listened to parts 1 thru 3 and there are a lot of interesting points made in this series. Listening to this is like reading a good book that you can't put down . Give it a listen . You won't be disappointed . I believe so much of what Doug Horne says in this 5 part series . The details that come out in this series will blow you away . You be the Judge .
-
I've been listening to the 5 part series on You Tube by Doug Horne , Altered History: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence . This series is very good and it seems to fill in some holes about the Assassination of JFK . Doug Horne served on the Staff of the Assassination Records Review Board. I've listened to parts 1 thru 3 and there are a lot of interesting points made in this series. Listening to this is like reading a good book that you can't put down . Give it a listen . You won't be disappointed . I believe so much of what Doug Horne says in this 5 part series . The details that come out in this series will blow you away . You be the Judge .
Watched all 6 parts some years ago. Horne?s scientific illiteracy is quite astounding and so naturally is his incredibly absurd ?solution? to the ?problems? in the medical evidence.
-
Watched all 6 parts some years ago. Horne?s scientific illiteracy is quite astounding and so naturally is his incredibly absurd ?solution? to the ?problems? in the medical evidence.
And your qualifications to make such a determination are what, exactly?
-
And your qualifications to make such a determination are what, exactly?
Qualifications? It impossible to read books and educate oneself now? Try the book by someone who is qualified: Charles G. Wilber, PhD, (1974) Medicolegal Investigation of the President John F. Kennedy Murder. Or indeed DiMaio?s Gunshot Wounds. Horne is not qualified in the matters upon which he pontificates either (that is, he bears no qualifications in forensic pathology nor does it seem any knowledge) so if that?s your standard then why bother with his claims?
-
Duncan MacPherson, author of ? Bullet Penetration? and wound ballistic authority said it best and this is from a man with no interest in the JFK event but was asked to look at the ballistics: ?the major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms?.
This happens in every single forum/blog on the internet. Tiring.
-
Qualifications? It impossible to read books and educate oneself now? Try the book by someone who is qualified: Charles G. Wilber, PhD, (1974) Medicolegal Investigation of the President John F. Kennedy Murder. Or indeed DiMaio?s Gunshot Wounds. Horne is not qualified in the matters upon which he pontificates either (that is, he bears no qualifications in forensic pathology nor does it seem any knowledge) so if that?s your standard then why bother with his claims?
Where did I ever say that I bothered with anybody's claims?
I just wondered what gave you the expertise to make a judgement call about Horne.
It now seems - if I understand you correctly - that instead of having any expertise yourself, you merely accept the opinions of others.
That's all I wanted to know.
-
Horne did not just come to some conclusion on his own. People were questioned about what they did , and saw during those days surrounding JFK's murder. Douglas Horne seems like a very thorough person who has made it his life to find out all he could from those involved with the handling of X-rays , pictures taken, the handling of the body and the wounds on the body . If there were no discrepancies leading up to and final burial of JFK , then we would not still be here talking about a traumatic event that happened almost 55 years ago . Over the years I have noticed certain things that have been expanded upon in certain areas of this case . I can't remember how long it's been but I was watching as the motorcade was pulling away from Love Field and I noticed that the Secret Service Agent on the right hand side of the Limo just threw up his arms as he was told get back to the backup car where the other agents were riding and thus making it clear that the agents would not be a shield to the side of the limo. The reason this stood out in my mind was the mere fact that for so many years I had never seen that part of the tape and of course when they finally started showing that part of the tape where the SSA was being waved off from his duty , I was stunned . It's almost like we are being fed more and more of this case as time goes on.
-
I can't remember how long it's been but I was watching as the motorcade was pulling away from Love Field and I noticed that the Secret Service Agent on the right hand side of the Limo just threw up his arms as he was told get back to the backup car where the other agents were riding and thus making it clear that the agents would not be a shield to the side of the limo.
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of credence to that claim. That agent was Don Lawton (according to Gerald Blaine anyway), who was assigned to stay at Love Field.
-
Are you saying that there was not a SSA who was waved off from what he thought he should be doing ,which I'm assuming was to guard and shield the right side of the limo as the motorcade was pulling away from Love Field ?
-
Amazing that people are sucked in by Doug Horne's tripe.
-
Agent Henry J Rybka is shown being recalled by shift leader (and commander of the follow-up car detail) Emory P. Roberts. As the limo begins leaving the area, Rybka's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language of throwing his arms up several times before , during and after the follow-up car passes him by, despite agent Paul E. Landis making room for Rybka on the running board of the car.
-
Horne did not just come to some conclusion on his own. People were questioned about what they did , and saw during those days surrounding JFK's murder. Douglas Horne seems like a very thorough person who has made it his life to find out all he could from those involved with the handling of X-rays , pictures taken, the handling of the body and the wounds on the body . If there were no discrepancies leading up to and final burial of JFK , then we would not still be here talking about a traumatic event that happened almost 55 years ago . Over the years I have noticed certain things that have been expanded upon in certain areas of this case . I can't remember how long it's been but I was watching as the motorcade was pulling away from Love Field and I noticed that the Secret Service Agent on the right hand side of the Limo just threw up his arms as he was told get back to the backup car where the other agents were riding and thus making it clear that the agents would not be a shield to the side of the limo. The reason this stood out in my mind was the mere fact that for so many years I had never seen that part of the tape and of course when they finally started showing that part of the tape where the SSA was being waved off from his duty , I was stunned . It's almost like we are being fed more and more of this case as time goes on.
Had you actually done the research you would know that specific SSA, whose name escapes me at this moment was being waved off the limo for a reason. He was scheduled to remain aboard AF1 at that specific time which he was unaware of. It ceases to still amaze me that EVERYTHING is nefarious to the CT side because they STILL believe in confirmation bias and are always seeking it out. Horne is a Lifton disciple believing in body alteration. His own boss at the ARRB, Jeremy Gunn when asked about Horne?s theory responded (I don?t read anything written by Doug Horne). I had a debate on Amazon with Horne when he was promoting his book and brought up Gunn?s comment. Horne responded Gunn was at this point ?tired? of the JFK event and wanted to move on. Not much of a defense against Gunn?s comment. Again, amazes me this garbage is still being discussed 54 years later.
-
Had you actually done the research you would know that specific SSA, whose name escapes me at this moment was being waved off the limo for a reason. He was scheduled to remain aboard AF1 at that specific time which he was unaware of. It ceases to still amaze me that EVERYTHING is nefarious to the CT side because they STILL believe in confirmation bias and are always seeking it out. Horne is a Lifton disciple believing in body alteration. His own boss at the ARRB, Jeremy Gunn when asked about Horne?s theory responded (I don?t read anything written by Doug Horne). I had a debate on Amazon with Horne when he was promoting his book and brought up Gunn?s comment. Horne responded Gunn was at this point ?tired? of the JFK event and wanted to move on. Not much of a defense against Gunn?s comment. Again, amazes me this garbage is still being discussed 54 years later.
Horne and his buddy Peter Janney have demonstrated their disregard for proven facts and unfortunately they have
plenty of company supporting their hypocrisy and insincerity and even outdoing them in misinforming their
all too receptive and gullible audiences. We see first-hand the consequences of putting other priorities above
reliable communications. What do you have left after you squander your reputation for being committed to
truth telling and admitting your mistakes?
Horne has the access but has never edited his glowing review of Janney's book to correct misinforming
readers who are duped into assuming he is committed to pursuing the evidence wherever it actually leads!
Douglas Horne reacting to my proof that Janney did incomplete and inaccurate research in creating
his CIA villAin assassin of Mary Meyer. Horne demonstrates in his reply to my negative review that he does
not appreciate verifiable facts that intrude on his and Janney's agenda.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyDouglasHorneAmazon.jpg)
-
Amazing that people are sucked in by Doug Horne's tripe.
Amazing how some people dismiss things simply because they don't like them.
-
Amazing how some people dismiss things simply because they don't like them.
The ultimate CT copout. Are you stating Jeremy Gunn did not like Horne? The reality is nobody outside of the conspiracy movement respects Horne's work quite simply because of his lack of qualifications. The sadness here is that his work his often quoted by CTs despite those missing qualifications.
-
The ultimate CT copout. Are you stating Jeremy Gunn did not like Horne? The reality is nobody outside of the conspiracy movement respects Horne's work quite simply because of his lack of qualifications. The sadness here is that his work his often quoted by CTs despite those missing qualifications.
Are you stating Jeremy Gunn did not like Horne?
Why do you ask stupid irrelevant questions?
The reality is nobody outside of the conspiracy movement respects Horne's work quite simply because of his lack of qualifications.
Another wild claim you can never ever prove.
The sadness here is that his work his often quoted by CTs despite those missing qualifications.
And yet another wild claim for which you have no proof.
Kinda sad really
-
Are you stating Jeremy Gunn did not like Horne?
Why do you ask stupid irrelevant questions?
The reality is nobody outside of the conspiracy movement respects Horne's work quite simply because of his lack of qualifications.
Another wild claim you can never ever prove.
The sadness here is that his work his often quoted by CTs despite those missing qualifications.
And yet another wild claim for which you have no proof.
Kinda sad really
What an effen moron. You cannot even articulate a position with ANYTHING at all worthy of a response. You attack for the sake of attacking. Doesn?t matter to you whether Horne was unqualified. As long as he was another kook, you will attack anybody disputing his credentials or qualifications. That is how pathetic you are as a researcher. You?re a clown and a desperate one at that. One more conspiracy loon seeking approval.
-
What an effen moron. You cannot even articulate a position with ANYTHING at all worthy of a response. You attack for the sake of attacking. Doesn?t matter to you whether Horne was unqualified. As long as he was another kook, you will attack anybody disputing his credentials or qualifications. That is how pathetic you are as a researcher. You?re a clown and a desperate one at that. One more conspiracy loon seeking approval.
You cannot even articulate a position with ANYTHING at all worthy of a response.
So why do you respond?
You attack for the sake of attacking.
Feeling paranoid? Are you the same guy who insults people for entertainment?
All I did was point out that you have no proof for the wild claims you made and given your reply, lacking such proof, I'd say I am right.
Doesn?t matter to you whether Horne was unqualified.
Where did I say that? Stop making up strawman arguments....
As long as he was another kook, you will attack anybody disputing his credentials or qualifications.
Just amazing what you think you know..... and it's my guess you actually believe it as well..
Btw, in this thread, who, other than some unqualified guy who has read some books, disputes Horne's credentials and where and how exactly did I attack him?
That is how pathetic you are as a researcher.
When did I ever claim to be a researcher? Actually, I don't think a researcher would waste much time talking to you, since you constantly claim to be here for entertainment purposes....
You?re a clown and a desperate one at that.
Isn't there a saying that goes: "It takes one to know one"?
One more conspiracy loon seeking approval.
Approval from whom?
-
You cannot even articulate a position with ANYTHING at all worthy of a response.
So why do you respond?
You attack for the sake of attacking.
Feeling paranoid? Are you the same guy who insults people for entertainment?
Doesn?t matter to you whether Horne was unqualified.
Where did I say that? Stop making up strawman arguments....
As long as he was another kook, you will attack anybody disputing his credentials or qualifications.
Just amazing what you think you know..... and it's my guess you actually believe it as well..
That is how pathetic you are as a researcher.
When did I ever claim to be a researcher? Actually, I don't think a researcher would waste much time talking to you, since you constantly claim to be here for entertainment purposes....
You?re a clown and a desperate one at that.
Isn't there a saying that goes: "It takes one to know one"?
One more conspiracy loon seeking approval.
Approval from whom?
You do NO research but you will for some unknown reason buy into conspiracy BS at will. Your stupidity knows no bounds as demonstrated by your continued feeble attempts to always get the last word. You got it. Your a poster boy for ignorance, shallowness and conspiracy theory. Yours is a human life wasted. Now, unless you have something to say about Doug Horne, be quiet, go into a corner and sulk. I?m done wasting my time with your type.
-
You do NO research but you will for some unknown reason buy into conspiracy BS at will. Your stupidity knows no bounds as demonstrated by your continued feeble attempts to always get the last word. You got it. Your a poster boy for ignorance, shallowness and conspiracy theory. Yours is a human life wasted. Now, unless you have something to say about Doug Horne, be quiet, go into a corner and sulk. I?m done wasting my time with your type.
You do NO research but you will for some unknown reason buy into conspiracy BS at will.
Are you psychic or are your just making this crap up? When and where did I ever "buy into conspiracy BS"?
Your stupidity knows no bounds as demonstrated by your continued feeble attempts to always get the last word.
You're sooooooo funny
Your a poster boy for ignorance, shallowness and conspiracy theory. Yours is a human life wasted.
Now Paul, don't hold back... tell us how you really feel! Do you ever read the crap you write?
Now, unless you have something to say about Doug Horne, be quiet, go into a corner and sulk.
Say what?.....
I?m done wasting my time with your type.
What type would that be?
But if you really mean it I am truly sorry I could not provide any more and better entertainment for you...... 8)
-
Where did I ever say that I bothered with anybody's claims?
I just wondered what gave you the expertise to make a judgement call about Horne.
It now seems - if I understand you correctly - that instead of having any expertise yourself, you merely accept the opinions of others.
You don?t understand me correctly. How suggesting textbooks on relative matters like terminal ballistics and forensic pathology is ?merely accepting the opinions of others? is hard for me to comprehend. By definition, I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions. If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
You?ve honestly left me rather dumbstruck here. I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
That?s all I wanted to know
If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
-
You don?t understand me correctly. How suggesting textbooks on relative matters like terminal ballistics and forensic pathology is ?merely accepting the opinions of others? is hard for me to comprehend. By definition, I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions. If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
You?ve honestly left me rather dumbstruck here. I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions.
Great... the only problem IMO with that is that if expertise can be so easily gained by reading a few textbooks, why do we need an expensive educational system? Just pick up some books from a library, read them and.... bingo, one has sufficient expertise to reach conclusions about the arguments of others.... right?
Or isn't that what you are actually saying?
If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
True, but I never said I agreed with Horne.
I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Two comments;
1. You did a bit more than just "suggest"
2. I merely asked what your expertise was to make that determination. That's a question, not an argument.
Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
I really don't get all the drama. Since when does asking a simple question provoke this kind of reply? Where do you get this stuff?
If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
Oh boy... more OTT drama. Where and when did I make a half-baked assessment about anything?
-
I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions.
Great... the only problem IMO with that is that if expertise can be so easily gained by reading a few textbooks, why do we need an expensive educational system? Just pick up some books from a library, read them and.... bingo, one has sufficient expertise to reach conclusions about the arguments of others.... right?
Or isn't that what you are actually saying?
Huh? What?s with the whacky leaps statements? I say that reading books by educated persons in these fields has led me to conclude that Horne?s understanding of said fields is near abominable, and you start making noise about the education system? If one wishes to practice a science one needs more than a textbook: lectures for elucidation, lab experience etc?but a large portion of such couresss involves outside reading (mainly of academic papers).
I never said I had expertise. Just that I know more than average Joe about these matters and Horne knows less.
If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
True, but I never said I agreed with Horne.
Apologises for the erroneous assessment if it is so. The context of your reply (my criticism of Horne and my use of sources) prompted my interpretation of it as a defence.
I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Two comments;
1. You did a bit more than just "suggest"
2. I merely asked what your expertise was to make that determination. That's a question, not an argument.
No, when I gave you the justification for my assessment you asserted that only accept the opinions of others.
Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
I really don't get all the drama. Since when does asking a simple question provoke this kind of reply? Where do you get this stuff?
The essence of it is this: you didn?t ask why I made the claim I did, you asked what expertise I had as though you wouldn?t accept anything less than expert status for a claim; which perceived to be said in defence of someone (Horne) who is illiterate on even basic forensic pathology.
If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
Oh boy... more OTT drama. Where and when did I make a half-baked assessment about anything?
The assessment referenced is that I ?merely accept the opinions of others? as if research into a field cannot yield anything useful to the non-expert and as if formulating one?s own ideas is innately superior to agreeing with others.
-
It doesn't take a genius or an expert to figure out that Horne hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. His assertions are completely outlandish conspiracy nonsense.
-
Huh? What?s with the whacky leaps statements? I say that reading books by educated persons in these fields has led me to conclude that Horne?s understanding of said fields is near abominable, and you start making noise about the education system? If one wishes to practice a science one needs more than a textbook: lectures for elucidation, lab experience etc?but a large portion of such couresss involves outside reading (mainly of academic papers).
I never said I had expertise. Just that I know more than average Joe about these matters and Horne knows less.
I say that reading books by educated persons in these fields has led me to conclude that Horne?s understanding of said fields is near abominable
There is a nuance in this statement which I did not find in your first post. It seems we are getting somewhere!
I never said I had expertise.
True, you didn't say that, but you clearly implied it simply by making the determination.
Just that I know more than average Joe about these matters and Horne knows less.
And there you go again...the nuance is gone as quickly as it came.
Apologises for the erroneous assessment if it is so. The context of your reply (my criticism of Horne and my use of sources) prompted my interpretation of it as a defence.
My question was a straight forward one. It did not defend Horne nor did it attack you, so I don't understand how you could interpret to be anything more than just a question
No, when I gave you the justification for my assessment you asserted that only accept the opinions of others.
Did you perhaps obtain your "superior" knowledge in any other way than by reading some textbooks? If not, when you read a textbook witten by somebody you consider to be an expert, and you accept what he has written, aren't you accepting the opinion of another?
The essence of it is this: you didn?t ask why I made the claim I did, you asked what expertise I had as though you wouldn?t accept anything less than expert status for a claim; which perceived to be said in defence of someone (Horne) who is illiterate on even basic forensic pathology.
Why you made the claim was pretty obvious from what you wrote in your post. What interested me was what level of expertise you had to make such an assessment. What I basically was doing was trying to find out if the opinion you expressed was an informed one or not. If you had added "IMO" to your post, I probably wouldn't have asked my question to begin with. But you didn't....
The assessment referenced is that I ?merely accept the opinions of others? as if research into a field cannot yield anything useful to the non-expert and as if formulating one?s own ideas is innately superior to agreeing with others.
I never said that research could not yield results for a non-expert. Every expert in any field at some point in time started by doing basic research, but it takes far more than basic research to become an expert (hence my comment about the educational system).
There is a massive difference between an assessment by a qualified expert and the opinion of a person who has read a few textbooks, don't you agree?
-
It doesn't take a genius or an expert to figure out that Horne hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. His assertions are completely outlandish conspiracy nonsense.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. It's more telling about you than you might think.
-
So Horne makes a statement that you think is not true . OK , now what are your facts that states that Horne's statements are wrong . Pick anything that Horne states on any part of his analogies and make your case .