HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Date: 5 Jan 1993 02:19:05 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Distribution: na
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <schuck.726197353@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>
>It can be explained as material from the rear exit wound seen by most
>if not all the Parkland medical personal.
>
>The Neurosurgeon attending, Kemp Clark , said the right rear cornder
>of JFK's skull was blown off.
>
>With all the evidence, I interpret this as a shot from the right front
>impacting near the ear or slightly behind it, removing the right rear
>portion of JFK's skull and some of his scalp, with parts of the skull
>going towards JFK's rear and left and much of the visible blood going
>towards the grassy knoll as backsplash, and some going to JFK's left
>rear to hit the motorcycle cops, not so visible because of the
>limitations of the Zapruder camera.
>

A lot of the autopsy materials still exist.  Not only did the Warren Commission
interpret them to indicate a rear entrance wound, in the late 60s Ramsey Clark
(then Attorney General) appointed a commission of medical people which looked
at the material and come to the same conclusion.  In the 70s the House Select
Committee did the same.  In the 80s PBSs NOVA when over the same materials
again and came to the same conclusion.

All these people, remember, are looking at detailed photos.

So, do you think they are all part of some conspiracy?  If so (and I assume you
think so) could you outline the nature of the conspiracy?  Do you think they 
have all been hoodwinked?

.John

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: re The Head Shot
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:01:45 GMT

Further to my post re the head shot the following article appeared in 
my local newspaper on 4th Jan, 1993.

New York, Sunday (Reuter) - 
A University of Rhode Island chemist, Mr. Kenneth Rahn, said he had analysed
the dramatic film by Abraham Zapruder and found that at the instant Kennedy 
was hit, a moment marked by the cloud of blood that appears around the face,
the president's head snapped forward 6.4cm.
It is not until a fraction of a second later, after the bullet passed through
Mr Kennedy's skull, that the President began to lurch backwards and to the
right, he said....
Mr Rahn, who usually studies the path of pollution particles in the atmosphere,
said the laws of physics made it impossible for a bullet to move a target after
it had finished passing through.
Mr Kennedy's backward lurch did not begin until about a 10th of a second after
the bullet had passed through, Mr Rahn said, a delay consistent with the time
it would take for reflexes to make his body jump back involuntarily.
"There's no doubt that Oliver Stone believes the fatal shot came from the front
and now there's no doubt he blew it big time", said Mr Rahn.
Mr Rahn became intrigued by the assassination movie after watching director
Oliver Stone's controversial film JFK.

End of article============================

Does this sound like questionable research?
How does polution particle expertise give one ballistic skills?

Why do I feel Mr Rahn or the media have something against Oliver Stone?


PS Note he used the 'cloud of blood' head shot, not the spray of fluid shot.


Big Al

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Hoover v. The Kennedys
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:42:45 GMT


What did people think of the four part TV drama called "Hoover v. The Kennedys."
                                                                              ??

In particular the bits that implied that:


a) Bobby didn't initiate an assasination investigation because he didn't
   want links with Giancana & Judith Campbell getting out. (I didn't
   get why he thought that would necessarily happen -- any ideas?)

b) Hoover witheld information on assassination warnings on a whim because
   was upset by having young Bobby as a boss and JFK didn't suck up
   to him with regular lunch engagements.

c) JFK & Bobby didn't know (at the time) that pop Joe was getting election
   funds from Giancana.
From: CONEGA@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU (Greg Cone)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:21:28 GMT
Organization: APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: alf.appstate.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1993Jan6.053103.20908@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

> 
>   The point is that if the whole scene is kept all broken up into little
> pieces, it gets real hard to look for the truth. The vastness of what
> is unknown and unsaid puzzles the mind and daunts the will to search
> further.
> 

Bravo!  My feelings exactly and I could not have said it better!

Makes me wonder if that is the real intent of Joel G., Mitchell T., et. al.

Greg

>   I recall somewhere that having an answer isn't nearly as important as
> being able to ask the right questions.
> 
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |  Omigod, he's BACK!  The Animator From HECK and his unchained PIXELS!   |
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> |                                                                         |
> |  Thanks to some very generous support by folks whose names are          |
> |  omitted to protect the insoucent, I once again have net access.        |
> |                                                                         |
> |    My sojourn at this email address will be brief as the Animation      |
> |  Attic will soon take delivery of a UNIX workstations and will then     |
> |  acquire it's own net-feed.                                             |
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> -- 
> Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive
From: spl@ivem.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Repost of Ostrowski demurrer
Date: 6 Jan 1993 01:34:15 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivem.ucsd.edu
Keywords: Hearing & Jury trial 1/6/93

In article <4859@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>                       Unidentified Parties Vs. Ostrowski
>
>         Today  ,  December  22,1992,I appeared in Los Gatos Municipal court
>   and  served  the  following  Demurrer  on  the  representative   of   the
>   still unidentified Plaintiffs:

I'll probably regret asking this but, since I came in late, could
someone fill me in with what offense, exactly, Mr. Ostrowski is
accused of by these unnamed parties?

Wouldn't be section 22349 (excessive speed) of the California Motor
Vehicle Code, would it?

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Personally, I don't care whether someone is cool enough to quote Doug
Gwyn--I only care whether Doug Gwyn is cool enough to quote." - Larry Wall
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13877 talk.politics.misc:66889 alt.politics.bush:15745 alt.president.clinton:1468
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Pardon Amy Fisher!
Date: 9 Jan 1993 10:26:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Forget CNN! Amy Fisher belongs on MTV.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13820 alt.activism:20166 talk.religion.misc:25439 talk.politics.theory:5605 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1400 talk.politics.guns:26163
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Pope John Paul II
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:27:42 GMT

dah@cveng121.veheng.det writes:
# 
# Is it true that Pope John Paul II once worked for the
# I.G. Farben Chemical Company that sold cyanide and other 
# poisonous gases (Zyklon B, Malathion) to the Nazis in the
# 1940's.

Frankly, I have no idea, but a technical remark: I never heard
of use of Malathion against humans by the Nazis. Second, Zyklon-B
is not a gas but a carrier soaked with HCN (hydrogen cyanide). It
was manufactured long before the Holocaust for other uses, and
was introduced for mass murder in Auschwitz when its commandant,
Hoess, discovered it is extremely useful for killing large
numbers of people. That is just to point out that not everyone
who was associated with the Farben complex is guilty of war
crimes. BTW, more people were murdered in the death camps that
used CO in their gas chambers than in Auschwitz.

-Danny Keren.

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13748 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1379 alt.activism:20077 talk.religion.misc:25219
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bo Gritz
Date: 4 Jan 1993 08:40:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Does anyone out there know what is happening with Bo Gritz since the
election?  If you can share anything with me, please send me email.
-- 
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
------------- John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.edu ------------
----------- "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect -----------
-------------------- that God is just." (Jefferson) -------------------
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Safeguards in the use of Nuclear Weapons
Keywords: Nuclear, Fail-Safe
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:36:27 GMT

Stephen Kirby <kirby@pyramid.cs.unr.edu> writes:
>	I was curious as to how the military, in ALL nuclear powers,
>prevents individuals from firing nuclear tipped missiles. I am asking
>for my own piece of mind because for every deterent I can think of, I
>can also think of a way to circumvent it.

There was an excellent article about this in Scientific American.
Unfortunately, it's not in the stack I keep near my desk, so I can't give
you a reference, or even narrow down the year closer than mid to late 80s.
It described these methods in both the US and the Soviet strategic missile,
submarine, and tactical nuclear forces.

Basically, the Soviet system relys on concurrance between the political
officer (KGB) and the military officer in the silo/submarine.  Thus, a
situation such as shown in ``The Hunt for Red October'' is feasible - kill or
disable the political officer, and the launch is in the hands of the military
officer only.

I believe on US submarines, the launch requires the concurrance of the
commander and the first officer.  If the first officer was killed or
disabled, the second in command would have the key.

I think subs and tac nucs are the real problem in terms of controlling
against individuals launching, because they have to be able to respond when
command and control is cut off entirely.  Silos are hardened and stationary,
so that they are much harder to cut off from C&C - thus they can have better
failsafe methods.
-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@compass.gvc.com
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"A witty .signature proves nothing" - Voltaire (sort of)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: naran@fraser.sfu.ca (Travers Naran)
Subject: Re: Champagne bottles won't go flat with spoons?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:41:29 GMT

jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>I have no explanation for the phenomenon, but lose
>no sleep over it, thinking of Lord Kelvin of the 
>Royal Society who published proof after proof that man
>could not fly in heavier-than-air machines, and thinking
>of all those articles in learned journal which, in my
>childhood, repeated that we could never go to the moon
>because of the "vitesse de libe'ration" (don't know the
>term in English, still remember it in French).

"Escape velocity". I think the problem the early researchers had was the idea
that the only way to achieve "vitesse de liberation" was to quickly accelerate
to that speed from the ground. They didn't take into account slower
acceleration rates (but longer ones) and slingshotting. I believe that when
slingshoting was invented, it was a total revolution in the science of rocketry
and spacecrafts. I think because I seem to remember doing research in Grade 7
about moon flights and found that books before slingshotting were either
"fantastique" or rather pessimestic. Post slingshot had authors doing orbit
trajectories to Mars and back with minimal fuel costs. I really don't know the
date this happened (been awhile since I did that project), but it isn't
mentioned specifically in the books I have read. But then again, I could just
be ignorant. Could someone 'learn' me? :-)
(Edumacate me, that is). :-)


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran                                           | "We fear
Mail address: naran@fraser.sfu.ca or naran@sfu.ca       |  change. WHACK!
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada       | WHACK! WHACK!"
Cmpt. Science student wanna-be                          | -Garth 
Trekker, Leaper, Red Dwarf'er, Prober, etc.             |  "Wayne's World"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Tesla Coil
Followup-To: alt.stupid.ways.to.kill.yourself.bork.bork.bork
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:29:51

In article <foo> rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro) writes:
   (4) As for more mundane high voltages, what's a good place to get something
       to push 120 Volts to say, 15-20KVolts?  I've heard that transformers 
       that drive neon lights (like in bars and stores) are good for this. 
       Are there any other sources?  

The most available, fun HV source I know is probably right in front of your 
face!  CRTs generally have electron guns that rely on high voltages to 
accelerate the beasties.  B/W sets typically have 1-5 kV inside, color
up to, say, 30 kV!  Wow!

I used to light candles and so forth by unclipping the electron drain line
from the top of the CRT in my terminal, and making it arc to the chassis.
Stick <object-to-be-lit> into the (~1/2") arc, and you've got it!
--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: artist1@rdrc.rpi.edu (Artist # 1)
Subject: Re: Champagne bottles won't go flat with spoons?
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:26:19 GMT

My wife is French, and swears by it! But then again she believes that if
you cut hair, it grows faster (any comments on this latter much appreciated).

DB
.
From: dkmiller@unixg.ubc.ca (Derek K. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Celsius and Farenheit Scale Determination
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:04:14 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <C0r1Jw.FJB@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.150027.13866@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> DMARTIN@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:
>>> From: mcp@netcom.com (Craig Presnell)
>>> equally dividing the points in between. Apparently Farenheit had the
>>> same idea, but wanted something colder to be 0 degress, so alcohol
>>> and ice were used. The question is, what was used to determine the
>>> upper end of the scale ?
>>
>>Body temperature, or so I understand. With a "normal" body temperature of
>>98.6, calling it 100 isn't that far off.
>
>From _A History of Chemistry_ by J.R. Partington, Vol. 2, p. 747:
>  the freezing point of water as 32', the boiling-point at 28 in.
>  mercury pressure 212', the body temperature 96', and 0' the
>  temperature of a mixture of ice, water, and sal ammoniac or
>  common salt...

It's actually not very complicated. Fahrenheit set the freezing point
at the zero for his "cold solution," found that the freezing point of
water was 32 degrees above that, and then added 180 degrees (a nice,
easily-factorable number) to it before reaching the boiling point of water.

At least, this was always my impression.

      :=:=> Derek K. Miller                 dkmiller@unixg.ubc.ca
      Researcher, Alma Mater Society        thegrodd@tz.ucs.sfu.ca
      Room 230B - 6138 SUB Blvd., Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1
      Campus Mail Zone 1  phone (604) 822-6868  fax (604) 822-9019
      University of British Columbia, Canada

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: mos@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Michael O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Champagne bottles won't go flat with spoons?
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:58:18 GMT

rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
>|> I have observed people from both the US and Germany solving this
>|> problem this way:  they stick a spoon (handle down) in the champagne
>|> bottle and claim without a blink of the eye that the spoon prevents
>|> the  champagne from going flat.  Mind you,  with any stretch of
>|> imagination you cannot call the spoon a tight fit.
>|> 
>|> Do you folks believe in this?  I can't believe that it works,  but
>|> then being a cheapskate I am I haven't done any empirical experiments
>|> either. It just cannot work  -or can it?

>This topic has been discussed here in the past.  I don't believe the
>supposed effect, but people _do_ swear by it.  If champagne doesn't go
>flat anyway, sticking a spoon in the neck of the bottle will surely
>(as it were) _work_.

I missed the past discussion. I have tried the spoon trick with a bottle
of beer, and it did work. The beer was not flat 24 hours after the spoon
was put in. I don't think it would last for days, but the spoon definitely
prolonged the beers carbonated life (so to speak). I too want to know,
how does it work?

	    			
				Michael.
-- 
mos@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au	  One never notices what has been done; one
Customised Software		  can only see what remains to be done...
Solutions Centre,Sydney					- Marie Curie
Telecom Australia
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Champagne bottles won't go flat with spoons?
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:41:19 GMT


It works. To paraphrase a well-known saying, the proof of the
bubbling is in the drinking. So try it. Better still, test
it. You'll need two fridges, same size, same make, either
empty or loaded with exactly the same contents. Two bottles
of champagne or sparkling wine, opened at the same time
and same temperature. Drink half of each (or pour half of
each out into the sink if you're religion forbids you 
touching the stuff). Now put each bottle into one fridge
and wait 24 hours. Take them out, look, pour a glass
from each, look at the rise of the bubbles, taste them.
Repeat the test a few days later with third parties to
whom you conceal the origin of the bottles.

Incidentally, the lower the wine level in the bottle,
the lesser the effect of the spoon. At half-full, the
bubbles will keep for 24 hours and more. With only
a glassful left in the bottle, there will be no 
measurable difference (at least to my eyes and palate) between
the bottle with the spoon and the one without.

I have no explanation for the phenomenon, but lose
no sleep over it, thinking of Lord Kelvin of the 
Royal Society who published proof after proof that man
could not fly in heavier-than-air machines, and thinking
of all those articles in learned journal which, in my
childhood, repeated that we could never go to the moon
because of the "vitesse de libe'ration" (don't know the
term in English, still remember it in French).
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Subject: Re: arms and cancers
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:20:58 GMT

In article <mcampbel.725384025@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, mcampbel@cs.ucf.edu (Mike Campbell ) writes:
|> I'm getting the feeling I was misunderstood a bit.  (And I apologize if that
|> is the case)

Me too.

|> I did not mean to imply that the mirrors or door handles offered any sort of
|> protection to the arms when hanging out, nor that arms never got mangled.

I only added the remark about protection (or not) by mirrors as a
"by-the-by".

|> What I meant was that if the roads were SO narrow as to put fear into the
|> whole UK society over hanging their arms out the window, then the incidence
|> of missing mirrors would be higher.  

As a whole, UK society does not suffer from fear and trembling about
arm-loss in motor cars.  I tried to make this clear.  I have a father
who tries hard to instill this sort of stress into society, but on the
whole, he's rather unsuccessful.  Even I have to be reminded (by him)
of the need to be frightened each time I drive with him on a hot day.

I'm inclined to think that this sub-thread has gone further than its
original import justified.  Sorry about that, folks (I started it ;-).
--
Robin (Campaign for Real Radio 3) Fairbairns       rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
"They had twelve years to lay in wait for us" - Bush supporter on Nov 4
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Champagne bottles won't go flat with spoons?
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:02:39 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <5JAN199311091764@rover.uchicago.edu> frank@rover.uchicago.edu  
(Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.225818.8575@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>,  
mos@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Michael O'Sullivan) writes...
> >rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
> 
> >I missed the past discussion. I have tried the spoon trick with a bottle
> >of beer, and it did work. The beer was not flat 24 hours after the spoon
> >was put in. I don't think it would last for days, but the spoon definitely
> >prolonged the beers carbonated life (so to speak). I too want to know,
> >how does it work?

But would it work with a fork?  Or a knife?

--
If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because 
maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you 
because, hey, free dummy.

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Subject: Re: Celsius and Farenheit Scale Determination
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:47:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.030855.26809@netcom.com>, mcp@netcom.com (Craig Presnell) writes:
|> An interesting historical question came up in physics class
|> today concerning the determination of the Farenheit temperature
|> scale. The celsius scale was determined by making 0 degrees the
|> same as freezing water, and 100 degrees equal to boiling water and
|> equally dividing the points in between. Apparently Farenheit had the
|> same idea, but wanted something colder to be 0 degress, so alcohol
|> and ice were used. The question is, what was used to determine the
|> upper end of the scale ?

The low was the lowest he could achieve in his lab.  The high was the
blood temperature of a horse.

Presumably the horse had to come into his lab, too, which raises
questions about the reliability of _all_ his measurements, imho.

No wonder the world (ex USA) is going over to use of Celsius' scale.
--
Robin (Keep Radio 3 != Classic FM) Fairbairns       rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science