(PART 811)


Hi Bud,

I'm absolutely positive I know the answer to this question already, but I'm going to ask it anyway (because so far you haven't added any comments to the forum threads concerning this subject):

I was just wondering what your opinions are of Doug Horne and his theories (some of which I have outlined in my posts about Horne)?



Well, David, you need to understand that I'm no great student of the assassination. I don't think I've ever read a book about it (I've read portions of maybe ten books).

The first time Horne really entered my consciousness was last week when I went on the Mary Ferrell site, and they said that his apparently sizable work was available for 75 bucks, I think.

From snippets here and there I gathered that he worked on the ARRP [sic], or whateverthefrick it was. I breezed through your article on Horne, and your first quote (about Humes doctoring Kennedy's wounds) convinced me I had no reason to pay any attention to this guy. He is a kook, and he wrote a book for other kooks.

I was thinking a little how a reputable person can end up down that rabbit hole, I think it's a slippery slope, once you start thinking that "this could have happened", that leads to "that could have happened", and pretty soon you lose all ability to think critically or realistically.

Basically, I only read here and in the moderated group. I don't follow the state of conspiracy on the larger stage. I know some of the names by them being dropped here. I usually only look into issues raised by kooks on the two forums [I] frequent and I tend to stay away from the medical aspects (they seem a morass).

Kooks will buy Horne's book because they are desperate for justification for the things they want to believe. This is why they buy every book that comes out. When it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter what these kooks think.

One question I do have now is whether Horne's book contains a shooting scenario. Easy to criticize others work, but is Horne putting something on the table to replace it with, a viable shooting scenario that satisfies his reading of the evidence?

Anyway, I hope this answers your question, David.


It certainly does, Bud. Thank you.

As for Doug Horne's "shooting scenario", I'm not exactly sure what his shooting scenario is, but from the pages of his five volumes I've been able to read at Amazon, I know that Horne believes in the following fantasies:

1.) Lee Oswald positively did not shoot JFK. (I'm not sure if Horne thinks Oswald shot Tippit or not, but given Horne's track record for believing in very stupid stuff, my likely guess would be that he doesn't think LHO is guilty of Tippit's murder either. If he does believe that Oswald shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit, I'd be very, very surprised.)

Tippit Footnote -- Via a word search while using Amazon.com's "Look Inside This Book" tool, I could find only two references to the name "Tippit" in all 5 volumes of Horne's book combined, and neither reference deals with the issue of whether Horne believes Oswald actually shot Tippit. However, not every single page of all five volumes is available to view for free at Amazon, so it's possible that Tippit's name does surface more than just twice in Horne's book.

But I will also add this: the two "Tippit" references that I did find actually are attached to two pages of the book that are not available to view (in full) at Amazon--pages 211 and 215 of Volume 4. So, based on that fact, I'm wondering if Tippit's name does come up more than just those two times throughout the entire 2,000-plus-page tome.


2.) Horne definitely thinks that JFK was killed in a "crossfire", with shots being fired from multiple directions, both front and rear.

3.) Quoting Horne in Volume 4 of his book series:

"Attempting to explain how the President was killed in Dealey Plaza is unavoidable, but I caution the reader up-front that a precise explanation of every shot that struck President Kennedy, in an environment in which so much evidence is tainted, is impossible.


Once the researcher is convinced that the President was killed by multiple shooters in a crossfire--and through this, understands that he was killed by a conspiracy--the precise details of how that shooting occurred become irrelevant.

Of equal or greater importance than understanding that President Kennedy was killed by a crossfire, is understanding that the Federal government covered up the facts of his death, in the most brazen and outrageous manipulation of physical evidence in any murder case in American history."
-- Douglas P. Horne; Page 987 of "Inside The Assassination Records Review Board" (Volume 4)

[End Quote.]

After reading only selected portions of Doug Horne's new 2009 book, I completely agree with these sentiments expressed by Bud earlier today:

"He [Douglas P. Horne] is a kook, and he wrote a book for other kooks. .... Kooks will buy Horne's book because they are desperate for justification for the things they want to believe." -- Bud; 12/23/09

EDIT -- Also see Bud's insightful comments HERE.

And don't miss Bud's warm and touching Christmas greetings which he sent to one particular conspiracy kook, HERE.


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.

Mr. Horne's conclusions at the end of this interview sound logical and well-founded.


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


I looked over Von Pein's website essays and found them weak and 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 and 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 and watch his multi-part video series and take notes of what the man says and how he backs it up. Fence with him over each of those points. Then [he'd] have something worth reading on the subject at his website.

Just sayin'.


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.


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?


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.


A well researched and 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.


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.

David Von Pein
December 23, 2009
October 2014