From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: angels
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:55:35 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


re: 3186  (Bruce Schuck)
re: 3186  (Bruce Schuck)


>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.

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

	Hardly, but you like to grasp at straws so slurp away.

>>	Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of all trajectory
>>	analysis of the shot that hit JFK in the upper back,
>>	because no one knows precisely where the car was or
>>	what position JFK was in at the precise moment of
>>	impact.  If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
>>	about a difference of a couple of inches out of
>>	150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
>>	of a pin" territory.

>Of course you are skeptical, because analysis of the horizontal
>angle completely disproves the possibility of JFK being shot
>in the back from the TSBD 6th floor window.

	Now this is quite a leap.  I am skeptical of *all*
	analysis trying to be 100% accurate, including the
	HSCA's, which supports the TSBD window.

>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?

>We are not talking 'angels on the head of a pin'.
>This is the kind of analysis that should have been done by the WC.
>It wasn't or it was suppressed. Lattimer also left it out.

	OK.  We're talking angels on the head of a quark, then.

>>	Interestingly, no one saw any rifles being fired from
>>	those buildings, no one recovered any rifles from
>>	those buildings, and no bullets or bullet fragments
>>	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.

>>	Anyway, what the angles were depends entirely upon
>>	when you believe the shot was fired.  And, as I say,
>>	I have doubts that any of the precise analysis done
>>	can possibly be proved to be 100% accurate.

>I picked the shallowest angle possible. If the bullet was
>fired earlier, it would have exitted even *further* to the left.

	Angels.  Quarks.  Pins.  Take your pick.

>>	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?  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?

>>	TSBD, there was no reason for him to do any independent
>>	testing on this matter.

>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.  It is Lattimer's opinion, which I share, that
	the guy pulling the trigger was the owner of the rifle,
	Lee Harvey Oswald.  You perhaps observe the difference?

	Lattimer had doubts about some of the WC conclusions and
	determined to consider the statements as hypotheses and
	test them.  Simple as that.  This is an approach that 
	doesn't seem to occur to the WC critics...

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk