Altered History: Doug Horne parts 1-5 on You Tube

[Paul May]

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. 

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

[Paul May]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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......

[Dillon Rankine]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

[Dillon Rankine]

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.   

[Paul McBrearty]

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.