DOUGLAS P. HORNE SAID:
The Sibert and O’Neill FBI FD-302 report dated 11/26/63...quotes Dr. Humes’ statement at the autopsy (when describing the condition of JFK’s body) that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.”
The significance of this statement is that there was no cranial surgery in Dallas.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And apparently Mr. Horne doesn't even shrug a shoulder or bat an eyelash when it comes to the supreme idiocy of Dr. Humes making such a "surgery of the head area" statement in front of TWO non-conspirators (FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill) -- even though, according to Mr. Horne, Dr. James J. Humes was the person who performed the covert "surgery of the head area" being discussed by Humes so that Sibert and O'Neill could easily hear him.
So, this would mean that Dr. Humes HIMSELF, who was, per Mr. Horne, a key conspirator in a plot to alter President Kennedy's head wounds on the night of 11/22/63, is revealing the conspiracy--right in the autopsy room at Bethesda in front of two FBI agents who will be writing up a report on their observations.
Can anyone really NOT see how utterly ridiculous such a scenario would have been?
Evidently Douglas P. Horne can't, because he said this to me five years ago:
"Mr. Von Pein, Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head wounds before the autopsy." -- Doug Horne; December 19, 2009
DOUG HORNE SAID:
Mr. [David] Lifton claimed in his BE ["Best Evidence"] video that “the body lied to the doctors,” since he believed JFK’s wounds had been tampered with by someone prior to the body’s arrival at Bethesda.
His interpretation of the “surgery” statement in the S&O [Sibert & O'Neill] report is of an excited oral utterance made by a Dr. Humes who was discovering someone else’s skullduggery.
My own unique reinterpretation of Humes’ “surgery” statement is that is was a statement made in panic, before a large morgue audience after 8 PM, when they expressed open disbelief that the huge cranial defect seen in the extant autopsy photos could have been caused by one single bullet. (See Paul O’Connor’s interview with Nigel Turner.)
Psychologists call this type of defensive reaction “dissociation,” and when Humes made the surgery statement, I believe his goal was to say, “I see the huge defect too, and I think surgery has occurred, but since I am telling you about it, surely you don’t think I am responsible.”
Actually he was responsible (per Ed Reed, under oath; and as implied by Tom Robinson), but the large audience in the morgue after 8 PM simply had not been admitted until the clandestine surgery was completed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I wonder what it's like to live in a fantasy world the way Mr. Horne does? It's a world where you can just make up stuff from sheer whole cloth, and accuse President Kennedy's lead autopsy doctor of physically altering the wounds of the dead President of the United States.
But in my own opinion, this type of repulsive and reprehensible accusation against Dr. James Joseph Humes goes beyond just mere "fantasy". It's downright obscene. It is an accusation that is so monstrously outrageous and disgusting that Douglas P. Horne should probably be run out of town on a rail by all decent and reasonable and rational people reading these words.
CHRISTOPHER CAUDILL SAID:
It actually isn’t made up from “sheer whole cloth.”
There is a troubling discrepancy between what was seen in Trauma Room 1 in Dallas, and what was seen later that night at the Bethesda autopsy. “All decent and reasonable and rational people” can get that basic point.
So instead of flinging a bunch of incendiary verbiage at Horne, you could choose to comment reasonably and rationally about why you think he’s wrong. The “run out of town on a rail” bit is definitely not in keeping with the guidelines for commenting here, which is why I hope that Jefferson Morley will give more thought to allowing comments like yours and McAdams’ to appear.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh really? I beg to differ (strongly).
Horne’s allegation that Humes altered JFK’s wounds is most certainly an allegation derived from nothing but “whole cloth” and everybody knows it—even Mr. Horne.
It’s an accusation that no rational person could possibly even begin to believe.
Therefore, my previously stated “incendiary verbiage” is absolutely appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the repulsive allegation aimed at Dr. Humes by “Whole Cloth Horne”.
Good day.
David Von Pein
November 11, 2014
November 12, 2014
November 14, 2014
