From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: The Adventures of Tom Warner
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:10:58 PDT


re: 3200 (Tom Warner)

>Gee, what a surprise. For someone who shows that melons can be made to
>fall toward the direction they are shot from and then announces he has
>shown how Kennedy's whole body was made to fly backward and toward the left
>by a shot from the back and right, this must have been SO difficult to ...
>..... contrive.

	I see you don't understand either what bullets can and
	cannot do to bodies or what Lattimer had to say on the
	subject.  Since I will be presenting this systematically
	I shall defer this analysis until later.

>>The HSCA's work was excellent in many respects.

>Oh really.

	Yep.

>>Their medical
>>panel, for instance, included forensic anthropologists who
>>determined conclusively that the individual seen in the
>>autopsy x-rays and photographs was John F. Kennedy and no other
>>person.

>What is a forensic anthropologist and why would anyone go to such a person
>to authenticate x-rays and photographs?

	As I said, the forensic anthropologists were used to determine
	who was the person seen in the X-rays and photos.  Forensic
	anthropologists do this sort of a thing for a living, though
	they seldom have such an easy job.  

>Dr. Lowell Levine, a forensic dentist, was the man hired by the House committee
>to authenticate the x-rays. He verified that the jaw shown in the x-ray matches
>Kennedy's dental records. He also 
>compared a sinus chamber and found a match, but his report is unclear: he
>writes about a "frontal sinus," which is not visible in any JFK x-ray, and
>probably meant the maxillary sinus.

	So Dr. Levine says the guy is JFK.  I agree.

>Other than that, all that was done were basic authentication tests that would
>uncover common methods of forgery that could be done by any amateur. The
>panel did admit that it was possible at the time of the assassination to
>make forgeries their tests would not have detected.

	Are you talking about the forensic anthropological work or
	the work of the photo experts?  The photo experts concluded
	that the X-rays and photos had not been forged and were in
	fact authentic.

>What is being overlooked here is that the House panel was nothing more than
>an excuse not to make the essential material available to the public. By
>assembling a panel of noted experts, having them look at the material for
>only the most obvious types of forgery, and then announcing to the world
>that these experts found nothing suspicious, the House committee deflected
>attention and diffused public outrage over the continuing stonewall. This
>was, after all, the House committee's primary agenda.

	I disagree that they only looked for the "most
	obvious" types of forgery, but without the HSCA volumes
	at hand I cannot quote chapter and verse.

	In either case, a far more reasonable interpretation is
	that there really wasn't anything there to find.

>>The photo experts determined conclusively that none
>>of the material had been tampered with; the photos and x-rays
>>are not phonies or composites.  They are the genuine article.

>Unfortunately, they cannot all be, because the photographs and x-rays
>are mutually contradictory. The x-rays show the right front of Kennedy's
>skull missing, but the photographs show that portion of his unblemished.
>In this instance, the photographs match with all other credible evidence,
>including the testimony of every witness to the assassination, including
>the Dallas and Baltimore doctors and medical staff. At most, Kennedy may
>have had some damage to the back of his right eye socket, and yet the x-ray
>clearly shows the entire area completely blown away. The mismatch of the
>x-ray to the rest of the evidence was not addressed by anyone working for
>the House committee and remains a central issue for any investigation into
>the assassination and ensuing coverup.

	No, the X-rays do not show the right front portion of
	JFK's skull missing.  At least one non-enhanced X-ray
	does appear, to the untrained eye, to show the right front
	portion of the skull missing.  This was not a problem
	for the Clark Panel, who interpreted even the non-enhanced
	X-rays without a problem.  The enhanced version makes it
	clear, even to those of us not trained in reading X-rays
	(and without the X-rays, only copies of copies in books)
	that the damage in the photos and X-rays do indeed match.

>>quote chapter and verse.  I do have Lattimer - it is out of
>>print - and would like to present his analysis.

>Hmmm. I don't have a Bible to quote from but I have a book by Pat Robertson
>about the Bible, and would like to present his analysis ;)

	I don't have a Koran but I do have a Bible so I shall
	analyze the Bible.  

>>As I say, I
>>know that there are "read-only" folks out there whose interest
>>was piqued by the movie "JFK" (or perhaps some book like
>>"Best Evidence" or "HTII" or "Crossfire" or whatever) but who
>>have never really delved deeply into the case.  I myself supported
>>2nd gunman and pro-conspiracy views until around the time the
>>NRC's Committee on Ballistic Acoustics blew the HSCA's dictabelt
>>tape analysis out of the water in late '82. 

>Ah, yes of course, your one exception to "excellent in most respects" and
>my one of several exceptions to political whitewash in most respects.

>The NAS committee came out with a report in '82 that confirmed that a
>spoken phrase heard at the same time as the "shots" tested by the HSCA
>could be dated to roughly a minute after the assassination. This would
>seem to show that the HSCA's "shots" had to be something else.

	The Committee on Ballistics Acoustics had other problems
	with the HSCA analysis besides the "cross-talk" problem.
	They were completely unimpressed with just about everything
	done by BBN and by Weiss/Aschkenasy.  Kindly, they suggested
	it might be due to lack of time and funds.

>However, the reason the spoken phrase can be dated is that it exists on
>another recording. That recording has no shot sounds or anything similar
>to the shot sounds tested by the HSCA on it. The channel that it originated
>on was recorded by the dictabelt discontinuously, by the use of a switch, and
>so can't be expected to synchronize with anything else recorded.

>This is another area that demands further study. If the shot sounds aren't
>shots, that's unfortunate, because if they are then the recording is an
>invaluable tool, not just for determining the location of the gunmen but
>for timing the shots, which is also still very tenuous.

	If you think more analysis of the dictabelt tape is worthwhile
	to pursue, pursue it.  The CBA didn't think so, but I'm
	always glad to support any attempt to analyze any aspect of
	the crime.  Perhaps someone can explain the church bells
	in the recording.

>>But one finally
>>realizes that the 2nd gunman theories ultimately rest on the
>>(practically speaking) impossible happening.

>Oh boy, I can't wait to realize that. Do I need any pills or anything?

	In your case, I am sure we could prescribe something.

>>One ultimately learns
>>that while anyone can *say* anything, there are limits to the
>>manipulation of physical matter.  And that one really must look
>>at what nature does and does not allow in order to cut through
>>all the crapola and get to the truth of the medical and
>>ballistics evidence.

>Yeah, which is why there is still no plausible official explanation for
>the motion of Kennedy's body immediately after the final gunshot.

	Find David Simon's book _Homicide: A Year on the Killing
	Streets_  It is not about JFK - no bias either way.
	It is likely in your library, perhaps even in your
	bookstore.  Read pp. 391-392 about the effects of
	bullets on bodies.  It is actually startling to find
	that this aspect is still considered controversial.
	
	Bullets don't knock people over, in and of themselves.

	Bullets that remove a good portion of a brain do in fact,
	by test and by observation, set up a massive neuromuscular
	response that is ultimately not completely predictable.
	One can determine very little of the source of the shot
	by looking at the Z-film.  It is a myth that because he
	moved backwards and to his left he had to have been
	reacting to the force of a bullet fired from his front
	right.  Of course, unexplained by you is the fact that
	JFK's head moves forward two inches between frames
	312-313.  Lifton hints that maybe the Z-film was 
	somehow altered.  Lifton, you will recall, was present
	when Dr. Richard Feynman pointed this out.  Presumably,
	Lifton was there to lecture the good doctor on the
	laws of physics.

>Such suspense. I just can't bear it.
>I also like the use of "we." Makes me feel almost like I thought for myself. :)

	How interesting for you.

	[follows a point-by-point]

	Sorry, but I am determined to present Lattimer's analysis
	systematically.  I do not have the time to respond to
	every point in every one of the many postings directed towards
	me.  Since I shall be covering every point eventually consider
	your points will be addressed in due course.

>>Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

>Oh, we are then .... well, that's nice :)

	It is nice you think it's nice.  Can I assume your postings
	represent the official position of the Univ. of Washington?

Joel Grant (still speaking on his own behalf)