HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Marina Oswald gets into the act
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 09:50:38 GMT

schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>There are just too many instances of changing evidence in this case
>for my taste. 

>Palmprints appear on rifles out of thin air.

I totally agree with your general sentiment, but I think the palmprint
is genuine. Here's why:

The palmprint is on a part of the rifle that can only be grasped while the
gun is disassembled. If someone wanted to plant a print, they would plant
a print that suggested Oswald fired the rifle -- a print where someone
holding a rifle in firing position would be.

But this print -- the only print found on the gun after a whole lot of
searching -- is in a place that only shows that Oswald handled the rifle
while disassembled. Since I don't dispute that Oswald owned the rifle, I
am not surprised to find his print there.

Now, if a print of Oswald's from a time when he handled the rifle disassembled
could be lifted, why were no traces of prints found on the rifle stock?
If Oswald fired the rifle, quickly hid it, then ran downstairs to meet Officer
Baker, the most recent part of the rifle he would have handled would have
been the locations where a rifle is held while firing. His prints should have
been all over those locations, much fresher and much easier to find than a
palmprint on a part of the rifle that you can't even get to unless the rifle
is in pieces. The timing of Oswald's supposed rush downstairs to the 2nd
floor lunchroom is already way too tight to allow Oswald time to wipe away
prints or remove a pair of gloves and hide them where they were never found.

To me, the fact that the palmprint was lifted where it was lifted even
though no other prints could be found is just further evidence that Oswald
never fired the rifle. Someone fired the rifle, but their prints were not
left behind.
From: abw@natchez.bu.edu (Al Wesolowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Dallas Visit
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:36:32 GMT
Organization: Boston University

In article <61560007@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> cmccoy@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Craig McCoy) writes:
+My wife and I were in Dallas earlier this month and took the opportunity to
+visit Dealy Plaza and other JFK assassination related sites.

[Interesting account of visit deleted.]

[Following paragraph edited down a bit.]

+I ran across a very good photograph apparently taken on the south side
+of the on-ramp to Stemmons freeway.  In the background is the limo as
+it is emerging from the triple underpass and the lead police car is
+pulled up along side the limo.  In the foreground are three motorcycle

Wouldn't the limo have pulled up alongside the police car, rather than the
other way around? Minor point....

+police officers just entering the on-ramp.  I sort of remember seeing
+film and/or photos of the motorcade as it made the turn off of Main
+onto Houston where there were FOUR motorcycle cops leading the
+motorcade (I'm not talking about the four which surrounded the limo).

+If I am not mistaken, one of those cops was lost in Dealy Plaza.  Can
+someone either correct my memory as to the number of motorcycles
+leading the motorcade or confirm that there were four.  If so, does
+someone know what happened to the forth cop (not that it is necessarily
+of any importance)?

Mark Lane, and doubtless others, have pointed out how, on the Z-film,
the motorcycle cop at the right front of the motorcade simply does not
take the fateful left turn from Houston onto Elm. He continues straight
down Houston and out of sight (on the "downtown" side of the TSBD) in
the Z-film.

The motorcycle cop nearest him, the right center rider) can be seen doing
a bit of a double-take when his wingman fails to make the turn.

I *think* it was the *frontmost* right rider, but memory may be playing
me false. Corrections solicited.

Lane remarked on this oddity at a public showing of the Z-film I attended
in November of 1976, but I do not know who first noticed it or even if it
is addressed in the official record.

                                  ---Al

-- 
Al B. Wesolowsky         abw@crsa.bu.edu      Chresmology
Boston University                            (cheap rates)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Back Wound -- Abrasion Collar
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:55:27 GMT

Joel Grant posted the following information from Lattimer concerneing
the wound in JFK's back.

  "The bullet hole had around it a
   faint but definite halo, or circumferential bruise, typical
   of a wound of entry froma high-speed bullet."

This 'halo' is normally called an abrasion collar.
What Lattimer doesn't say is that the halo was non-circular. 

This is what the House Subcommittee on Assassinations said:
HSCA vol 7. pp 86-87

"The abrasion collar extends around the entire circumference,
but is most prominent between 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock about the defect
with the head being 12 o'clock."

"Several members of the panel believe.....the direction of the missile
on initial penetration was slightly upwards, inasmuch as the lower
margin of the skin is abraided in an upward direction. Furthermore,
the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunnelled from below upward."

What that means is the bullet wound in JFK's back was caused by a
bullet travelling upwards in relation to the plane of his back.

Thats why JFK is always bent over in WC and HSCA drawings. He had to
be bent farther over than he was to account for an upwards travelling
entry.

Oswald was supposedly shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD, which
is around 23 degrees from the hroizontal at the time of the back
wound. That means that JFK had to be bending over at least 23 degrees
to account for the upward bullet track, and probably more like 30 - 35
degrees. 

The trouble with that explanation is that JFK was never bent over that
far until after he was shot in the throat.

One explanation is that the throat wound came from the front, and the
back wound did not occur until after the throat wound when JFK was
bending over.

My explanation is that he was bent over slightly, and the bullet came
from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex. Since the street sloped 3 degrees
downward, an upwards track is possible if the bullet was fired from a
much lower floor than the 6th.

Of course the HSCA and WC came up with the bizarre magic bullet theory
that mysteriously connected the back wound and throat wound, despite
the autopsy evidence that they were unconnected. In order to explain
the upward direction of the bullet, they had JFK bending over as soon
as he was hidden from Zapruders camera by the Stemmons Freeway sign.
This is something no witness saw.

-- 
===============================================================================
        "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin -- Split Second

schuck@sfu.ca                                           Vote No on October 26th
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: CIA Agent confesses to buying rifles
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 16:13:07 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <schuck.718340182@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> Retired CIA agent Robert Morrow claimed on "A Current Affair"
|> tonight that he bought the Mannlicher-Carcano rifles used
|> to assassinate JFK.

Robert Morrow also has (surprisingly enough -- NOT) a new book which
is is promoting.  I sure wish people would occasionally come forward
with information when they don't stand to benefit financially.
 
|> Robert Blakey, head of the HSCA 'investigation' said that while the
|> mob was connected to the Cubans, and the Cubans were connected to the
|> CIA, the CIA were not connected to the assassination of the JFK. :)

Blakey also said something like "Let the man rest in peace".  Funny
how he didn't say that about a year ago when his OWN book came out.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: CIA Agent confesses to buying rifles
Date: 6 Oct 1992 19:43:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) says:

>In article <schuck.718340182@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>|> Retired CIA agent Robert Morrow claimed on "A Current Affair"
>|> tonight that he bought the Mannlicher-Carcano rifles used
>|> to assassinate JFK.
>
>Robert Morrow also has (surprisingly enough -- NOT) a new book which
>is is promoting.  I sure wish people would occasionally come forward
>with information when they don't stand to benefit financially.

So far it sounds like pretty much the same info as in Morrow's _Betrayal_
(1976). He said he bought the 7.35 rifles in the earlier book. There is a
lot of detail that is rather tantalising in _Betrayal_; there are some 
interesting misspellings as if he had heard about the events and people
in question by word of mouth. for example, instead of Clay Bertrand (or
"Clem" Bertrand), Morrow has it as Clyde Bertrum. I have never seen this
form of that name anywhere else. "Clyde Bertrum" is supposed to be some 
mystery man he never met at the time -- who would only years later be 
identified with Clay Shaw by Jim Garrison. Although Morrow refers to 
Garrison's investigation in the book, he still has this misspelling. 
One thing that is really bizarre and casts doubt on the whole tale is that
Morrow purports to have had a face-to-face meeting with David Ferrie
and describes him as a "tall, handsome man" (!!!). Another is that his
account seems to be carefully arranged as to exonerate Gen. Charles
Cabell and by implication the rest of the "respectable" side of the CIA, 
including Allen Dulles.


> 
>|> Robert Blakey, head of the HSCA 'investigation' said that while the
>|> mob was connected to the Cubans, and the Cubans were connected to the
>|> CIA, the CIA were not connected to the assassination of the JFK. :)
>
>Blakey also said something like "Let the man rest in peace".  Funny
>how he didn't say that about a year ago when his OWN book came out.
>
>-- 
>John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
>        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
>"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
>                                                              -- Jack Handey
>
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: English guy speaks out
Summary: Incoherent 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.224058.1461@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, harderaf@cnsvax.uwec.edu          writes...
>Hi,  I'm an  English visitor (I teach American history)  and I"ve done a lot of
>resaeaRC JHINTO THE JFK ASSassassination. I guess the thing which intersets me
>most is the presumptionb among American critivcsa that it ois possible yto
>determine the truth ofd the tevenyt sin DaLLASas by the avaialblew ecidewnce .
>eh that ius the the turth of a pthootgrapg is s detetminative that one can be
>balanced againsat the other, so that id the two don^t agree we havew a
>contorsiction which can oinlu be explained by recourse to consapiraCY. Tjhe
>fact that the evidence probidsed by phots, ullets tracks etc is inherently
>problemeatic, ands that resolutrion requies  FAITH but not faCT,  seems to be
>igonred, Perhaps you all nee distance forn the subject.
>cs275:listadt,cs275:celladtharderaf@cnsvax.uwec.eduuser ftpin%"adoluwec.eduuser
>ftpin%"adolph-a-carrot@andrew.cmu.edu"atdt
>*70,836-4611cs275:listadt,harderaf@cnsvax.u
>^TThank you,,
> 
I hope you son't speak as poorly as you type
> 
>Love,
>Ali Spaerk
> 
>
From: mike@null.uucp (Mike Dreiger)
Subject: Re: Warren Commission Report
Organization: U S WEST Communications
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:46:33 GMT

In <1992Oct5.123758.26079@crd.ge.com> saltzman@ISOVAX (Bob Saltzman) writes:

>In article <5264@rosie.NeXT.COM>, bryce_jasmer@next.com (Bryce Jasmer) writes:
>>
>>Does anyone out there actually own their own WCR? (Does anyone want to sell  
>>it? :-)  Are there copies available somewhere for purchase? I would think  
>>with the renewed interest in the JFK assassination that they would be in such  

When I was at the JFK symposium in Chicago somone told me he bought a set for
$800 and the person that sold him the set had an unopened set he was also 
selling form $2000.  Sorry I don't have the name but now you know the approx
prices.
-- 
Mike Dreiger
UUCP: mike@null.uucp
These words only come from my mouth when my lips move.
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: mortal error
Fpath: qualcom.qualcomm.com!karn
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:46:11 GMT

In article <schuck.717908982@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> Hickey is describing a 'double' shot . Such a double shot, .8
|> seconds apart is heard on the HSCA acoustical evidence tape.

How come nobody ever considers the fact that Dealy Plaza is surrounded
by tall buildings and various other structures that are excellent
acoustic reflectors? Work out the various distances, divide by the
speed of sound, and I think you'll find it easy to explain
observations like these.

It's a rare person who has never experienced an auditory illusion
where a sound (especially a short and unexpected one) seems to be
coming from a direction other than its true one. Recall also that a
gunshot can produce multiple, distinct sounds from several sources:
the muzzle blast from the gun itself, the shock wave of the bullet
passing through the air, and the sound of the bullet striking its
target. Having fired a rifle many times myself, I can attest to the
latter sound, in particular, being very distinct.

It would also help if people actually studied the physics of wounds,
instead of assuming that their simple-minded application of basic
physics "must" be accurate.  That's just one reason I tend to give a
lot more weight to the verdicts of experts (like those on the Warren
Commission) than to the theories of bookselling conspiracy theorists.

Phil
From: bittle@niktow.canisius.edu (Jason Bittle)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: * article in local paper..
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:18:56 GMT
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208

This article appeared in the Buffalo Evening News, Oct 6th edition.

PATHOLOGIST SAYS 2 BULLETS HIT JFK.
"Agrees with others that both were fired from behind"..

AP Chicago - A pathologist who participated in the autopsy on JFK says he
agrees with the others who recently said the presiden was killed by two
bullets fired from behind.
	"We got it right in 1963 and it still stands in 1992", said Dr. Pierre
Finck, then an Army lieutenant colonel and the only trained forensic
pathologist at Kennedy's autopsy.  Forensic doctores specialize in applying
medical knowledge to legal matters; Finck in an expert in gunshot wounds.
	"There were two bullets striking from behind, and there is no evidence
for any wounds from the front," Finck said in commnets published in the Oct 7
issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
	Finck's account, submitted in written form to a Journam reporter
during an Aug 19 interview in Switzerland, was consistant with the interviews
publised in the Journal in May of the two other pathologists at the autopsy.
	"These firsthand accounts of the autopsy and the scientific forensic
evidence are indisputable," said Dr. George D. Lundberg, the Journal's editor,
in an accompanying article in this week's issue.
	"Both bullets struck from behind.  No other bullets struck the
president.  A single rifle fired both," Lundberg wrote, adding that no
conspiracy affected the autopsy, its findings or its report.
	Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, who argues against the lone-gunman theory, accused
lundberg, a pathologist, of using his publication to protect the image of his
fellow pathologists who conducted Kennedy autopsy.
	Wecht, who is a forensic pathologist, said Finck's new account is a
todds with testimony he gave under oath in 1969 that he was instruced to skip
certain autopsy procedures.
	The pathologists' explanation leaves unresolved many quetsions,
including Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally could have been struck by the
same bullet and the discrepancies between the firing of the shots and the
timing of the assassination as recorded on film, Wecht said.
	In a sepereate matter in this week's Journal, Lundberg wrote that
medical proof finally has been uncovered showing Kennedy suffered from
Addison's disease, a chronic hormone deficiency that is fatal if untreated.
This desease can be successfully treated with corticosteriods, which Kennedy
took, he said.





-- 
ciao,                             
Jason Bittle (bittle@canisius.edu) 
(a.k.a. Pillsbury Dough Boy )
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Subject: Merton's prophecy
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:31:02 GMT

Thomas Merton, the famous 60's monk, wrote in a journal just after the
Kennedy assasination: "The whole this is so odd it is barely credible.
It is probably much graver than people seem to believe, but now everybody
wants it to be "settled" and "settled" it is."

Interesting how objectively one can experience world affairs within 
a monastery.

Peace, Joe
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 08:36:07 EDT
From: Robert Newby <3ZASIB3@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Dallas Visit

Like others have pointed out, Dealey (sp) Plaza is very small compared to
how it looked on the tube.  I visited the museum in Nov of '90, I think just
shortly after it opened.  The smallness of it also means that making the
turn would have to have been very slow.  Even so, the plausibility of a
"lone" gunman is still too much to be believed.  Add to that he was
operating a cheap bolt action.  Such accuracy is simply not tobe believed!
Now that the records will be made public, it'll be interesting to see fresh
analyses.
From: cebp01@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: It Was The Driver!
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:13:32 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

THE DRIVER DID IT !!!!!!


HONESTLY 

JUST WAIT AND SEE WHEN IT ALL COMES OUT!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Marina Oswald gets into the act
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:57:18 GMT

cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:

>schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>>There are just too many instances of changing evidence in this case
>>for my taste. 

>>Palmprints appear on rifles out of thin air.

>I totally agree with your general sentiment, but I think the palmprint
>is genuine. Here's why:

>The palmprint is on a part of the rifle that can only be grasped while the
>gun is disassembled. If someone wanted to plant a print, they would plant
>a print that suggested Oswald fired the rifle -- a print where someone
>holding a rifle in firing position would be.

>But this print -- the only print found on the gun after a whole lot of
>searching -- is in a place that only shows that Oswald handled the rifle
>while disassembled. Since I don't dispute that Oswald owned the rifle, I
>am not surprised to find his print there.

[...]

>To me, the fact that the palmprint was lifted where it was lifted even
>though no other prints could be found is just further evidence that Oswald
>never fired the rifle. Someone fired the rifle, but their prints were not
>left behind.

It's not the location of the print that bothers me. Its the timing.

Lt Day of the Dallas Police checked the rifle for prints. He found
several partial and smudged prints on the rifle. He photographed and
covered each one with cellophane for protection.

The rifle was then sent to the FBI.

The FBI found *no* palmprint matching Oswalds.

The rifle was sent back to Dallas.

It was only after getting the rifle back that the Dallas Police
announced they had *lifted* a print off the barrel [under the stock]

Oswald was dead by then, and his hands could have been used to place
the palmprint on the rifle. Thats why that scene was in JFK.

If Day had found the print on the 22nd, why wasn't it photographed and
protected by cellophane like the other possible prints?

There is a memo in High Treason from Rosen to Belmont of the 
FBI [August 28th 1964] where Rankin of the WC admits even the Warren
Commission is suspicious of the palmprint. pg 171


Magically reappearing palmprints do not prove Oswald had handled the
rifle. Its just one of the pieces of evidence that appear to have been
created to stregthen a very circumstantial case against Oswald.

-- 
===============================================================================
        "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin -- Split Second

schuck@sfu.ca                                           Vote No on October 26th
===============================================================================
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Pierre Fincke Supporting JAMA Today
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:29:31 GMT
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <16877D610.SKTHOMA@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU>, SKTHOMA@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU (Kenn Thomas) writes:
> Has anyone heard about Pierre Fincke supporting Humes and Boswell's nonsense
> in JAMA?  It was the leading story on CBS Radio News today at 1PM CST.

Here are a few details:

        CHICAGO -- Breaking his silence, the last of three pathologists who
conducted an autopsy on President John Kennedy dismissed Monday
conspiracy theories that Kennedy was struck by a third bullet. ``I am
very much tired of hearing so much nonsense about the Kennedy
assasination,'' Dr. Pierre Finck said. ``We got it right in 1963 and it
still stands in 1992.... There were two bullets striking from behind,
and no evidence for any wounds from the front.''
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk