Doug Horne responds to Jeremy Gunn’s 50th anniversary speech 

Doug Horne, former analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board  has posted a thoughtful response to his former boss Jeremy Gunn’s speech about the state of the JFK case.

For the most part, his speech was a cautionary tale about not jumping to conclusions without first considering ALL of the evidence about any facet of the assassination, pro or con. Jeremy is saying here that one must approach all evidence (film evidence such as the Z film or many of the autopsy photos; eyewitness testimony; and so-called forensics evidence) with extreme caution, and take nothing for granted about its accuracy or provenance. Yet—and I find this unfortunate—Jeremy continues to use all of the uncertainties about the evidence as a “mask” to hide behind in a sense, which allows him to continue to say that he personally has no idea who killed President Kennedy, in an attempt to avoid controversy.

Source: Here is My Response to Jeremy Gunn’s 50th Anniversary Speech About the JFK Evidence – insidethearrb

3 thoughts on “Doug Horne responds to Jeremy Gunn’s 50th anniversary speech ”

  1. I am writing to let Doug Horne know he has done great work. I wonder if any one has given consideration to the fact that JFK received additional injuries such as further fracturing of skull due to the fact that ssa Kellerman and dr burkley and possibly ssa greer moved the body out of the dallas casket.

    An additional thought occurred to me that maybe the delay in leaving love field in the “great getaway” was to eat up time.
    I think it might have been so AF1 would go wheels down at Andrews afb during darkness. It looks like at a minimum they needed to remove the dead president and put him in something for transport to bathesda.

    The lbj swearing in might have been a suggestion to delay departure from love field so the arrival in dc would be in darkness. The delay was also a threat if dallas police cars surrounded the plane to demand the body.

    If not so serious it would have been comical if that had happened.

    Has anyone tried to make contact with the people in the NPIC second event as it is probably when the extant z film was made.

  2. Doug Horne appears to be a tenacious and smart researcher (to put it mildly), and has underlined and uncovered much that does not add up surrounding the JFK assassination. Sincere kudos to Horne.

    But…Horne posits there was a shot from the front that struck JFK, and a cover-up ensued.

    This does beg a question: If assassins did not want suspicions of two or more shooters, should not a concealed second shooter also have been behind JFK? That is, more or less shooting from the same direction as LOH?

    Would not a shot from the front at the JFK limo be taking an “awful chance” that such a shot could strike JFK flush in the face, or Connally or JFK in the chest? After all, a Grassy Knoll sniper is shooting at a moving target, under time constraints. There would be a great deal of difficulty if Connally was struck from the front and did not die.

    Horne appears to be correct the autopsy was a mess, and documents forged. We now know that CE-399 (magic bullet) is almost certainly a fraud.

    I continue to suspect there was a second shooter but from somewhere in line with LOH. The autopsy was not done by conspirators, but by relative amateurs already under heavy pressure to “avoid a war with the USSR.” Even so, different respected pathologists cannot concur if a bullet struck JFK at the base of the skull or four inches higher. Maybe two strikes?

    I can believe any and all paper documents were faked after the fact—see CE 399. Anything is possible.

    I salute Doug Horne. I am only relating my views.

    1. I have no way of knowing that assassins did not want suspicions of two or more shooters. Those covering up what happened may have done so out of embarrassment at their own incompetence. It might be two or three times as much embarrassment if two or three assassins escaped. Group two may not have been familiar with group one. My assumption has always been that any possible knoll shot was taken by a contingency back up. If a back up were to be necessary, it might make sense to provide her or him with an easy shot. It would seem that the objective of the exercise was to kill Kennedy. It would also follow that backup shooters would not hesitate to take a shot which would be recognized as a frontal shot by everyone except the Bethesda autopsy team. It is possible that even the Bethesda team might recognize an entrance wound, especially if the bullet did not exit.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top