From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: angels
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:49:28 GMT

Joel Grant writes >>
Bruce Schuck >>

Here I come back after 4 days vacation, and what do I find?
Joel has changed all the subject lines to make it hard to follow
these threads because he doesn't want anybody to try and decipher
the bullshit he is posting about Lattimer. Leave the subject lines
alone Joel. It's cute but really annoying. Get a decent newsreader
if thats the problem. Those of us with nn find it much easier
to follow a thread if the subject line stays the same!


>>He [Lattimer] 'deliberately' left it out or he 'deliberately' didn't analyze
>>the physical evidence available to him.
>>In either case, it completely invalidates his other claims.

>	I'm still interested in your word choice - `deliberately' -
>	but despair of getting you to explicitly state the implication
>	so I won't waste any more time about it.

If you don't understand what I mean then I understand your reluctance
to deal with Lattimers 'deliberate' choice of NOT dealing with
evidence that contradicts his belief in the WR.

>	By `physical evidence' I assume you mean the horizontal
>	trajectory?  And not measuring that invalidates his
>	other "claims"?  

If it is obvious that Oswald couldn't have fired the back shot
just by drawing a few lines on a scale map, then why bother writing
a whole book?

>>I didn't use Wechts 38 degrees, I used a scale map of Dealey Plaza.
>>I also know JFK's position in relation to the limo, because
>>his body position is very clear in the Zapruder film.
>>I also used the latest possible position for him to be shot, around
>>the Zapruder frame 220 you claim.
> 	
>>If JFK had been shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD at Z 220 and
>>it impacted where the physical evidence shows , then the bullet
>>should have exitted well to the left of his windpipe.
>>It didn't, therefore I can conclude he wasn't shot from the TSBD.

>	So you think the HSCA is wrong because they are off
>	by about two inches out of a distance of 150'.  Your
>	alternative narrows it down, not to two inches, but
>	to two buildings.  And you wonder at my skepticism?

Try using your brain for once Joel!
We are talking about being off by 2 inches or more over the
thickness of JFK's chest -- NOT 150'.

- We know where the back wound was -- 1 3/8 inches to the right of 
  JFK's spine. 
- We know where the WC said it came out -- slightly to the
  right of the midline of JFK's throat. 
- We know what the smallest angle of entry is. 
- The bullet came out TOO far to the RIGHT over the 
  THICKNESS OF JFK'S CHEST!!!!
Not 2 inches over 150 feet!!!!!
Thats too big an error to have occurred if Oswald really did fire from
the TSBD and the bullet did traverse back to front. The bullet had to
have come from a much shallower angle and THAT rules out the TSBD!

>>>	matching any rifle but LHO's were ever recovered.

>>Nobody saw any rifles being fired from the TSBD either.
>>A shell casing was found on the roof of the County Records
>>Building many years later.
>>The grooves in the sidewalk alongside Elm, made by a bullet,
>>point back towards the Dal-Tex, not the TSBD.

>	It simply isn't true that no one saw a rifle being
>	fired from the 6th floor, SE corner, of the
>	TSBD.  But you don't like to hear it I guess.

Please point me to any testimony that says they saw a muzzle flash or
recoil or smelled gunpowder or saw smoke coming from the rifle they saw.


>>>	Lattimer doesn't address the horizontal angle.  My guess
>>>	is that because both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>>>	from LHO's gun, because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>>>	a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,

>>Bzzzzztttt. *Nobody* saw a rifle fired from the 6th floor of the
>>TSBD. Some witnesses saw a rifle in the window. *None* saw it fired.

>	Not true.  Howard Brennan and Amos Lee Euins saw it fired.
>	But are you suggesting that someone just happened to be
>	sticking a rifle out of that window as the motorcade
>	passed by?

Maybe I am -- but are you suggesting that seeing a rifle sticking out
of the 6th floor TSBD means it was actually fired at JFK?

>       And maybe they had a tape recording of
>	gunshots, a rifle bolt, and shells hitting the floor for
>	the benefits of the TSBD employees standing on the
>	fifth floor, right beneath Oswald?

I'll tell you this. None of the TSBD employees standing on the ground
heard gunshots from above them. Most claimed shots came from the
grassy knoll area. Not ONE heard a rifle shot from the 6th floor.

>>Wrong. If this was analysis of the assasination, he should have
>>analyzed all possibilities. What Lattimer really did was set up
>>all his testing to prove Oswald did it. *None* of his testing
>>tried to disprove Oswalds involvement.

>	What Lattimer actually tested was the medical and
>	ballistic evidence.  This evidence indicates decisively
>	that JFK was struck twice from behind, from bullets
>	fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with serial
>	#C2766. 

Lattimer did not test any other ammunition types than the 6.5mm
fully jacketed round supposedly used by Oswald.

And you know what? He never duplicated the fragmentation pattern
of the bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the skull. Not once did
he get the fully jacketed 6.5mm rounds to fragment and leave dozens of
pieces behind in his test skulls the way the real bullet did in JFK's
skull? 

Do you know why? Because JFK was hit by a different type of
bullet. He was hit by a soft-nosed partially jacketed round or a dum
dum. 

And Lattimer did NO tests involving such ammunition!


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk