From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: TAOTW II
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:18:11 PDT


re: 3201  (Tom Warner)

>What's your point, Joel? That we can't prove why Lattimer chose not
>to address an issue that, if he had addressed it, would have debunked his
>own analysis? What do you want us to do, hunt him down and hook him up to
>a seismograph?

	A seismograph?  Was Lattimer a producer of earthquakes?
	In either case, Dr. Lattimer is deceased.

	My point in asking why Bruce Schuck chose the particular
	word `deliberately' in discussing Lattimer's lack of
	attention to the horizontal trajectory analysis of the
	first shot to hit JFK was to determine whether or not
	Bruce was trying to imply that Lattimer wrote something
	he believed to be wrong.  I have gotten and expect 
	no clarification.

>I think the issue is, what would the horizontal angle through Kennedy's
>neck be assuming a back-to-front traversing, and when, if ever, would it be
>possible for a shooter from the sixth floor TSBD to line up with that angle,
>based on the Z-film?

	This is a malleable angle, depending upon JFK's exact position
	in the car, the car's exact position on the street and distance
	from the window, and so on.  

>Weren't you the one posting Lattimer's 20-degree vertical angle theory?
>Trajectory analysis is only important to the point that it can establish
>the range of possibilities. Without other evidence that range can be very
>broad, and it is hard to disprove most hypotheses by trajectory analysis alone.
>Unless, of course, the hypothesis has too many requirements, like the single
>bullet theory, in which case it is possible.

	I agree that trajectory analysis presents a range of
	possibilities and that that range can be quite broad.
	In fact, I have been trying to make that point.  And
	we'll get to the SBT.

>>       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.

>I don't follow your math. Kennedy's neck is not 150 feet wide.

	150 feet is a generous estimation of the distance from
	the car to the 6th floor window at the time the second
	bullet was fired.  I suspect it was closer to about
	180-185 feet.

>At least one bullet was found in Dealey plaza by Dallas police, retrieved by
>a man thought to be FBI and then not placed in evidence. Neither CE399 or the
>"limo fragments" are identifiable by their alleged finders as the items they
>found, and the chain of possession is irretrievably lost. Thus, there is no
>evidence connecting the bullet and fragments in evidence with Parkland
>Hospital or the presidential limo, let alone Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 12:35 p.m.,
>but there *is* evidence that at least one bullet was retrieved but not
>placed in evidence. Add to this the pristine condition of CE399, which by
>itself is strong evidence that it was not fired from the TSBD into the limo
>at all, and you have strong evidence of both planted evidence and coverup.
>Add to this the impossibility of all the shots fired coming from Oswald's
>Mannlicher-Carcano and it becomes a certainty.

	By "Dallas police" do you mean E. R. Walthers, who was a
	deputy sheriff of Dallas County?  He has denied finding
	any such bullet.  No photo exists of him or anyone else
	finding a bullet in the grass, though there is a photo
	of people *looking* for a bullet.  They just didn't
	find one.
	
	Should I ever get a law degree and decide to practice
	criminal law, and should I get the definitive version of
	the history of all the physical evidence in the JFK
	assassination, I will be better able to judge what would
	or would not be admissable due to a loose chain of
	possession.  Interestingly, you reject the limo fragments
	and CE399 because the chain of possession isn't tight
	enough for you, but accept the existence of a bullet
	that is apparently possessed by no one and which nobody
	actually claims to have found.  Rather startlingly different
	standards, what?

	As for the impossibility of Oswald slipping off three
	shots in the approximately eight seconds of the firing
	sequence, I suggest this is a feat that can and has
	been easily duplicated.

>(See Marrs for photo and story on the missing Dealey plaza bullet.)

	So Marrs's evidence is more tightly controlled - even though
	it doesn't seem to be in existence any more?

>I have no opinion on the subject of the "rear shooters in other buildings"
>except that it is a possibility that could not be discounted even if the
>assertions you make were true. Why would someone involved in an assassination
>of the president leave something behind that might be traceable? 
>You're assuming that a conspiracy would have to be as stupid as you have been
>led to believe Oswald was, or to be more direct, that the real evidence would
>be as obvious and easy to locate as the planted evidence. This is a very
>weird assumption.

	Why would Charles Guiteau walk up and, in plain sight of
	everyone, pull the trigger?  Why do any crimes leave
	evidence?

>>	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.

>As a measure of the range of possibilities, angle measurements can be
>very accurate. That's why you're hero Lattimer put so much effort into
>contriving a way that the single bullet theory could be possible. I thought
>you were going to post his analysis, which only attempts to show how the
>single bullet theory can fit into the range of possibilities, and fails at
>that. Have you changed your mind now?

	No, I haven't changed my mind.  I presented Lattimer's
	18 questions about the WC findings.  See questions 13
	and 14.  I have now managed to present question one.
	When I finish responding (after a four-day weekend)
	to all the postings my previous postings generated,
	I'll go to number two.  See if you can guess what
	will follow number two.

>>>Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
>>>the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
>>>low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

>This assumes a back-to-front traversal of the neck, which is unlikely.

	Why are you extracting Bruce Schuck's statements and 
	shoving them at me?  Take it up with Bruce.

	As to the posterior/anterior traversal of the neck, that
	is actually the direction in which the bullet traveled.

>Actually, I think the limo fragments are too small to be sure, but since
>there is no evidence connecting the fragments in evidence to the actual
>scene of the crime, I'll grant you that one just to be nice. :}

	The limo fragments were positively identified as having
	been fired from LHO's rifle, and no other rifle.  Apparently,
	Conspiracy Central did a good job in planting them in the
	limo, but a poor job in establishing (to your satisfaction)
	chain of custody.

>>       because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>>	a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,
>>	TSBD,

>What about the witnesses that saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
>building?

	No witnesses on that day came forward with any stories of
	anyone else with a rifle.  All such stories have been
	uncovered well after the fact.

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

>Lattimer was the one doing the trajectory analysis; that he left out a vital
>component of trajectory analysis debunks his own efforts. Now you want to
>argue that the whole thing was unnecessary in the first place, because a
>a bullet and two fragments (probably planted) match a gun (also
>probably planted) owned by Oswald and because the only place where anyone with
>a gun was being visible was in the location that the (probably planted) gun
>and (too few to account for all the shots) shells were found.

>:P 

>Weak, weak, weak, even by pro-WC standards.

	Ah, you set up a strawman and complain it catches fire
	easily.  Even little Dorothy wouldn't do something like
	that, now would she?

>>	As for the matter of the vertical trajectory, in my opinion 
>>	Lattimer was off.  But that's getting ahead of the story.

>Oh, you are going to post Lattimer's trajectory anajysis. Oh good, I like
>Science Fiction stories.

	You must be very enamored of your own postings then?   ;^)

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk