HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:55:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Ray Ingles (ingles@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <1ilj5cINN7dg@shelley.u.washington.edu> jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
: [discussion fo why omniscience denies free-will deleted]
: 
:  I tend to disagree with this; I think that (in principle) omniscience and
: free will can coexist. Mind you, this is a "weak atheist" saying this, so
: I like to think that I don't have an axe to grind about this particular
: issue. I don't think there's a "God", but for reasons other then this.
:  The problem with discussing this is that is assumes, in effect, that time
: travel is possible. The problem with that is that every Earthly language
: I've heard of, particularly English, has a grammar insufficient to deal
: with the idea.
:  Anyway. Consider the typical picture of time. The past is fixed, it's
: 'already happened,' the present is where choices get made, and the future
: is not fixed and can be altered by present choices.
:  Now, my parents met, got married, and had me. This choice is done, it
: cannot be changed, right? But if this choice is fixed, does it mean that
: they didn't have free will then, at that time? Of course not. When that
: was the present, they could make their own choices, just as we at this
: moment can make our own choices.
:  So, in principle, having a known, fixed sequence of events does not deny
: free will, correct?

Well, that will allow them to have illusions of having fee will; however,
in reality, they did not have free will, if the universe followed a fixed 
sequence of events.  In other words, let's say God created the universe, 
and the moment he (or she, I guess) created it, he realize that I am 
going to be a very bad person, I had no power to changed that.  I will have 
illusions of having free will; however, I am merely followed God's script.

WooYoung
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 02:28:18 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Distribution: na
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <Jan.4.20.46.05.1993.8940@math.rutgers.edu>, bgonzal@math.rutgers.edu (Bil Gonzalez) writes:
>
[I'll leave out the stuff about not believing the wind could have blown blood
and brain matter back on the motorcycle cops]

Well, whatever happened, it's clear that the *main* direction in which matter
was blown out of JFKs skull was forward.

>The stupidity of the initial story regarding the laserdisc drives me crazy.
>Being a laserphile, I know that no copy of the Zapruder film on disc would
>show any more information than the original Zapruder print, which has
>been examined extensively.  The disc transfer can show at MOST exactly what
>the original film does.  Given the limitations of laserdisc resolution, my
>guess would be that the transfer would be inferior to the original Zapruder
>print.  I also hope that his copy of the movie JFK is in the CAV format.
>While players with digital freeze frame can display fields from a CLV version
>of the movie (the version commercially relased right now - a CAV special
>edition is expected soon), not EVERY frame is displayed due to the limitation
>of the recording specification.  If he saw something in the film, that no one
>else ever saw, well then kudos to him, but if because it was a laserdisc
>which has superior resolution, Blah Blah Blah, he's really off-base.  Check
>the logic.
>

My impression was that researchers had come to exactly the same conclusion
*from* the original Zapruder film.  If that's the case, then the story was
stupid not because what it reported was untrue, but because it treated old
material as a hot new discovery.  Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

.John
From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Some more curious questions.
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:29:45 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

I just watched the movie JFK over the weekend.  First let me say that after
viewing it, I can't imagine what all the uproar is about.  I did not see one
think presented there that I hadn't seen in print somewhere else over the past
few years.  

Now a couple of questions for someone who has or has had the opportunity to
read the Warren Commission Report.

There is much made of the time LHO would have had to move from the 6th floor
to the 2nd floor where he was questioned by a Dallas Poloce Officer after the
shooting.  All of these times take the time to fire 3 shots into consideration,
however the greatest amount of time in this act is spent operating the bolt
mechanism on the Manlicher-Carcano.  Do these times include the operation of 
the bolt AFTER firing the last shot??  There are three shell casings on the 
floor in the "snipers nest".  This means that after firing the last shot, he 
stayed where he was and took the time to cycle the bolt of the rifle again.
How does this additional time affect the time he had to run downstairs??  Or
does the WCR actually include this in their estimate??

Next question.

Was there anything in the chamber of the rifle at the time it was found??
Was there a spent cartridge (which would mean he fired 4 shots)?? Was there
another round chambered??  If not, does that mean he set this whole elaborate
scheme up himself and only brought 3 bullets??  Seems pretty confident for a
man who was supposed to be as bad a shot (based on his Marine record, "maggie's
drawers").  Were any other rounds found for the rifle either in his apartment or
in the garage where the rifle was supposedly stored??  Did he only possess 3
bullets for the rifle at the time he planned this whole assassination thing??

Can anyone tell me what the WCR has to say about any of these items??

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Some more curious questions.
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:59:58 GMT

bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

>I just watched the movie JFK over the weekend.  First let me say that after
>viewing it, I can't imagine what all the uproar is about.  I did not see one
>think presented there that I hadn't seen in print somewhere else over the past
>few years.  

>Now a couple of questions for someone who has or has had the opportunity to
>read the Warren Commission Report.

>There is much made of the time LHO would have had to move from the 6th floor
>to the 2nd floor where he was questioned by a Dallas Poloce Officer after the
>shooting.  All of these times take the time to fire 3 shots into consideration,
>however the greatest amount of time in this act is spent operating the bolt
>mechanism on the Manlicher-Carcano.  Do these times include the operation of 
>the bolt AFTER firing the last shot??  There are three shell casings on the 
>floor in the "snipers nest".  This means that after firing the last shot, he 
>stayed where he was and took the time to cycle the bolt of the rifle again.
>How does this additional time affect the time he had to run downstairs??  Or
>does the WCR actually include this in their estimate??

It really doesn't make much difference. 2 seconds out of 75 or so is
no big deal. I personally don't think it was possible for him to get
down at all because I think the policeman was on the stairs before
Oswald had a chance to get all the way down.

>Next question.

>Was there anything in the chamber of the rifle at the time it was found??
>Was there a spent cartridge (which would mean he fired 4 shots)?? Was there
>another round chambered??  

Yes, there was another round chambered.

>If not, does that mean he set this whole elaborate
>scheme up himself and only brought 3 bullets??  Seems pretty confident for a
>man who was supposed to be as bad a shot (based on his Marine record,
>"maggie's drawers").  

Yes he was amazingly confident. Only four bullets.

>Were any other rounds found for the rifle either in his apartment or
>in the garage where the rifle was supposedly stored??  Did he only possess 3
>bullets for the rifle at the time he planned this whole assassination thing??

There were no rounds other than the 3 empty cartridges and one unfired
cartridge. There were no cartidge boxes found. There was no evidence
Oswald had ever bought a box of cartridges from anywhere.

>Can anyone tell me what the WCR has to say about any of these items??

Not much!
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: re The Head Shot
Date: 6 Jan 1993 03:35:08 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan6.120145.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>
>Why do I feel Mr Rahn or the media have something against Oliver Stone?
>

The media do have something against Oliver Stone.  Some people in the media
have followed the issue closely enough to know how irresponsible Stone is.

Have you actually looked at the Zapruder film?  It clearly shows Kennedy's
brains being blown out *forward.*  That's not what a bullet from in front would
do.  That's what a bullet from behind would do.

You don't really have to be a scientist to reach that conclusion.

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

I don't understand the distinction.  What happened is what happened in the
Zapruder film.  Do Stone doctor the shot in some way?

.John
From: johna@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (john.a.welsh)
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist 
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:10:38 GMT
Summary: What about the "Fatal Error" conclusions?


I have not read anything in this recent series of articles about the
conclusions that the book Fatal Error proposed.  The man's theorys
that the book is based on is a ballistics expert.  His premise is based
on the idea that two very different types of bullets struck JFK: one
a full metal jacket 30 caliber and the other a smaller fragmentation
AR-15 bullet.  He wrote that he had seen a demonstration with AR-15
ammo that made targets that simulated JFK's skull spray ejecta forward
and the target object jump backward and this was done several times.
His conclusions are that the magic bullet was not magic, and the head
shot did not come from School Book Depository or the grassy knoll. 
The shot came from or directly behind the following Secret Service car.
The author of the book said it WAS a SS agent and that it was an accident. 
This kind of a scenario may even explain LHO's "I'm a patsy" statement. 
He could have fired #1 and missed, #2 and hit him in the neck and loaded
#3 (or planned to) and then seen the head shot.  The "patsy" line could
have meant that he was not in a conspiracy or if he also saw that the
SS agent did it that he was not part of a coup.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: roger@thoreau.nsc.com ( Roger Wakefield)
Subject: Re: Hoover v. The Kennedys
Reply-To: roger@thoreau.nsc.com ( Roger Wakefield)
Organization: National Semiconductor
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:08:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.014245.24147@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
 
> 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.

C) is false.  Judith Campbell Exener said during her interview with
Larry King that she carried a bag (of presumably cash) from JFK to
Giancana during JFK's presidency.

I didn't see the miniseries.  Was it new, or an old one being repeated
somewhere?

--
Roger Wakefield
National Semiconductor, South Portland, ME
roger@thoreau.nsc.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The Head Shot
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:58:06 GMT

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.120145.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>>
>>Why do I feel Mr Rahn or the media have something against Oliver Stone?
>>

>The media do have something against Oliver Stone.  Some people in the media
>have followed the issue closely enough to know how irresponsible Stone is.

>Have you actually looked at the Zapruder film?  It clearly shows Kennedy's
>brains being blown out *forward.*  That's not what a bullet from in front would
>do.  That's what a bullet from behind would do.

Forward? Have *you* looked at the Zapruder film????

Have *you* seen the *other* films of the head shot such as the
Muchmore film which clearly show a cone of material being ejected
towards the grassy knoll? 

It certainly isn't from a bullet fired from the right of JFK and
travelling from his right to left. 

It is either the *backsplash* of a bullet hitting JFK in the right
side of the head from the grassy knoll area *or* the exit wound of a
bullet fired from JFK's left rear -- nowhere near where Oswald was.

If JFK had been shot by Oswald, there should have been a spray of
material going forward and to the left and left blood all over the
windshield.

Instead blood went back and to the left of JFK and forward and to the
right.


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Head Shot
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:40:10 GMT



I just watched the film JFK on videotape.

Having done so reminded me of a problem I have had with some of the posts
regarding the Head Shot.

Some say there was a spray of fluid from his head. Others that a large
red blob appears on his forehead. 

I have had on tape a version of the Z film which shows the former, which I
have used for research for some time.

However the film JFK shows a red blob like a partly inflated balloon. But
no spray of fluid at all.

They are mutually exclusive.

So which is the real film?



Big Al
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: The BBN Analysis
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:41:31 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


In article <1993Jan6.113255.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> Big Al writes:


|To Joel Grant:

|You use the claim that the BBN analysis of the dictabelt tape was 
|"accurate by their data to 1 metre or so". If it is valid "we have ...3 shots
|from the 6th floor TSBD and one from the grassy knoll, 12 feet from the west
|corner".

|Do you believe this or not?

	If you mean: do I believe that that is what their acoustic panel
	stated, yes, that is approximately what they stated.  With 
	respect to the picket fence I believe their gunman was located
	about 12 feet west of the corner, and their analysis led them
	to believe that they could prove a gunshot firing within five
	feet one way or another from a point centered 8 feet from the
	corner.

	If you mean: do I believe their analysis is valid, the answer is
	no, I do not believe their analysis is valid.  For reasons I
	have already gone into at length in this forum.

	Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:42:34 GMT

scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:

>In article <schuck.726338874@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...

>>          * Oswalds shooting location ~265 feet and 8 degrees to the
>>              right rear of JFK

>>  If Oswald had fired the fatal shot, the exit wound should have been
>>  near the middle of JFK's forehead!

>Point taken (although it may not account for the downward angle based on 
>the alledged rear entry location).

You are right, but of course that is dependant on whether you use the
WC entrance wound or the HSCA entrance wound -- 4 inches higher up. :)

>Wasn't there some claim in _High Treason_ that something was covered up in 
>one of the autopsy photos above JFK's right eyebrow?

Yes. They said there was "reference black triangle" in the right
forehead area that was probably caused by blacking out the real
entrance wound.

Also, one of the attending physicians at Parkland described a left
temple wound , as did one or two of the witnesses standing near the
Limo route. Such a wound would would be more consistent with an Oswald
shooting so I see this as a mistake or just blood on the face, but who
really knows.


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: wayneh@microsoft.com (Wayne Hazle)
Subject: Re: Connally's Wound
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:02:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa

In article <1isionINNoql@news.cerf.net> eidetics@nic.cerf.net wrote:
> Now quoting from Audio Letter #3, Topic #1:
> 
>   "The Conspirators left nothing to chance or the vagaries of
> marksmanship.  President Kennedy was killed by device--mounted
> inside the limousine and fired at him from point blank range. 
> The murder weapon was, of course, hidden, mounted inside the seat
> upholstery in front of the President.
> 

Perhaps the most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever!  Yes I have noticed the
little blob that looks like an explosion inside the limo. This can be 
explained by a billion things more likely than some "mounted device". 

Why wasn't this device found once the limo got to Parkland hospital?
The idea that Jackie, as well as the Secret Service men wouldn't detect
that there was an explosion in the car is a true sign of being a QUACK.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:57:49 GMT

bill@turing.toronto.edu (Bill Monhemius) writes:

>I just read an article in the Toronto Star (Jan 3) where University of
>Rhode Island scientist Kenneth Rahn said that after examining a laser-disk
>version of JFK, he discovered that at the instant of the "head shot" there
>was a forward head snap of about 5 cm (2 1/2 inches).

Discovered? I think people noticed that about 20 years ago!


>The forward snap was
>then followed by the backward lurch about a 1/10 of a second after the
>bullet passed through the head and can be attributed to a reflex of the
>body.  This apparently proves that there was an assasin firing from behind,
>namely, LHO.

Really? 

Then explain the shower of blood and brain matter that hit the
motorcycle cops to the *left* and *rear* of JFK and didn't touch the
motorcycle cops to his right and rear.

How would a shot from JFK's right rear explain that?
A shot from JFK's right front would explain it!

Explain the Harper fragment, a piece of occipital bone [rear of the
head] that was found to the left and rear of JFK's location at the
time of the head shot.

A shot from the right front would explain it, not one from the right rear.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: kenmo@industry1.ditt.ns.ca (Ken R. Morris Jr.)
Subject: badge man photo
Organization: Department of Economic Development
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:33:05 GMT

Can anyone inform me what the present conclusions (speculation) are on the 
badge man photo. Are images in the photo real? Or has scientific study 
deemed these would be figures to be shadows and tricks of the light. 

Also, does audio evidence still indicate there were 4 shots fired ? This 
were a few interesting topics covered in A&E's "The Men Whom Killed The 
President".
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Conelly's Wound
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:36:30 GMT

According to Dr. Beter's AUDIO LETTER, Conelly was shot intentionally
not accidentally,  as he was a "vital witness," so to ensure his account
of the assassination saw as little as possible.

This theory is totally rediculous. Beter doesn't even mention that Jackie is
also in the car as a potential witness.

Am I missing something obvious or is Beter some crackpot?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: The First Shot
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:28:27 GMT

to Joel Grant (and others?)

The HSCA photo panel chose frame Z-162 for the first shot. You support it.

So what do you think this bullet did?






Big Al
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Film Proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:45:54 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


In article <1ifbfoINNr10@lester.appstate.edu> Greg Cone 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.

	Hmmm... now I wonder what *your* "real" intent is, eh?

	Anyway, this is more than a little ironic.  The reason why
	arguments get broken down into such little pieces is because
	the WC critics, unable to accept the "big picture," insist on
	a level of proof that is quite beyond human capability.  What's
	more, it is considered unsporting to ask the critics for much
	in the way of detail.  

	Example: a man is murdered and an autopsy is performed by three
	pathologists, including a forensic pathologist specializing in
	gunshot wounds.  The verdict: this man was shot twice from 
	behind.  Now that actually pretty much tells the story about
	the cause and manner of President Kennedy's death.

	So - why is there still argument about it?  Because Joel G.
	and Mitchell T. and John M. et. al. think that the Clark
	Panel and the Rockefeller Commission medical panel and the HSCA
	medical panel, re-re-re-affirming this central finding all got it
	wrong?  Or because the critics, relying on eyewitness testimony
	of varying reliablity and amateur photographic and forensic
	analysis, just can't figure out the really, really, obvious
	reality here?

	And so the arguments go on and on and on.  Not because (due
	to some mysterious motivation) Joel G. and others are trying
	to throw trees at people who insist upon seeing forests.  Quite
	the contrary.  To the extent that forensic and police science
	are physically and technologically and experimentally able to
	confirm the basic events of a crime, the basic events of this
	crime have been confirmed.  Whatever mysteries and secrets
	may still lie in wait, the actual events at Dealy Plaza
	are no longer mysterious.  And haven't been for a long, long
	time...

Joel Grant (speaking on behalf of the Earl Warren estate which sends
me a monthly check to go with my check from the CIA) 
	
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk