HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 22:33:29 CDT
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: more on Lifton

When you take Manchester's version and reject Lifton's, and also talk about
the unreliability of eyewitnesses, how can you be so sure that Manchester's
witnesses are remembering correctly?  Why is one gospel and the other
mistaken?  This always seems to be the modus operandi of the WC and its
defenders.  Brennen is reliable but Moorman isn't.  Paine is given golden
placement and Odio's story is thrown away.  The Parkland staff (in their
initial stories before being interviewed by the FBI) are mistaken and
bureacratic hacks like Humes are given high status.  And on and on.
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Doctor Speaks
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:48:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T

mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes...
>>Crenshaw states in his book that when the head doctor persisted in insisting
>>that the body remain, several men in suits displayed their guns. He believes
>>they would have killed any doctor who stood in their way.
>
>	The 'head doctor' was Earl Rose, the Chief Medical Examiner of
>	Dallas. There are many accounts of this encounter, yet this is
>	the first one that mentioned guns drawn.

Sorry if I was misleading... Crenshaw referred to the men drawing their
suits back so the guns could be seen. Still, not too cool for a hospital
emergency room. I would say, however, and I think even Crenshaw points
out in another context, these men were stressed out. Nevertheless, I find
the account interesting and chilling. How much more information can these
"silent" doctors tell us?
 
>>For what its worth, Dr. Crenshaw feels that Oswald would have survived if...
>
>	I don't know. Ruby's bullet holed Oswald's descending Aorta and
>	the inferior Vena Cava. I'm not sure how far I believe
>	Crenshaw's claim that the Parkland team has staunched the
>	massive bleeding within Oswald's body. Dr Rose's autopsy
>	records finding something like eight liters of blood in
>	Oswald's abdomen (the average adult body contains about half
>	as much). Something was *really* bleeding.
>
Well, I can't really say. He seems credible to me -- I'd suggest reading
his account and deciding. He did mention the aorta and that sounded 
hopeless to me, too, but he gives quite a few details. For example, blood
was being pumped into Oswald under pressure. Crenshaw did mention that 
when they first cut into his abdomen, blood exploded all over the room.
However, Oswald had not gone into fatal shock yet, and Crenshaw claims
that later "major bleeding had been brought under control."

-----
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: Robert.Daniels@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Daniels)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Parkland 4 and other head wound witnesses
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:39:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


Who's Burkley?  Who's Hurt?  What's the source?
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: guest posting (re: mea culpa, re: Lifton)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 17:27:36 GMT


Many thanks to Joel Grant for posting this article which I sent to him
instead of to the newsgroup. In it, I wrote,
>
>Finally, Mr Grant, you consider it implausible that this whole scenario
>of alterations to the body was part of the "master plan." Fine, but that
>is a straw man. It's entirely unnecessary for that to be true. I would
>suggest it is more likely that something, or various things, went wrong
>with the "plan," and this was an emergency fixup operation. What went
>wrong? Could be that the object was to kill Kennedy, if at all possible,
>using only the rear shooter(s), they failed to do so, and the last resort
>was to deliver the killing shot from the grassy knoll. 

Well, for those who are convinced, as I am, that the throat wound -- the first
shot to strike the President -- came from the front, this particular 
speculation is obviously ruled out, although I am still inclined towards
the idea of a "cock-up" in the plan leading to desperate attempts to conceal
the assassins' locations. 

>In Robert Morrow's
>book _The Senator must die_ you may read a blow-by-blow account of the same
>procedure being used in the assassination of some Latin American official
>by US trained mercenaries -- they had gunmen stationed at three or four
>different points. The first one misses, the second one takes his shot, and
>so on.
-- 
		Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was
		valid ... er, if the money was valid ... and
		if it were a small part.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: guest posting
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 03:57:24 GMT


In a previous article, m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) says:

>>I shall attempt to post a file by Mr. David Condon, who
>>inadvertently sent it to me rather than to the Usenet.
>>Being a WC defender, and being therefore committed to
>>truth, justice, and the American Way, I have resisted the
>>temptation to edit his article to a form resembling:
>
> (Some text deleted)
>
>>Joel Grant
>
>Mr. Grant,
>
>I too am committed to "truth, justice, and the American Way". This is why I
>am active posting anti-Warren Commission articles to this database.
>
>A good American Citizen is one who believes what his/her government tells them,
>pays their taxes, stays quiet, oh yea, and votes once every 4 years or so...
>
>
>				...NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>A good American Citizen is one who DEMANDS that the American Way indeed be
>that of TRUTH AND JUSTICE!! The American people have NOT recieved either in
>the assissination of JFK.

Er, I think Mr. Grant was _joking_. *sheesh*
>
>Marty
>
>P.S. - Are there others out there who agree?
>
-- 
		Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was
		valid ... er, if the money was valid ... and
		if it were a small part.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Invasion of the Bodysnatchers
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 17 APR 92 07:10:03 PDT


It is astonishing that the very clear and decisive results of
the autopsy and all subsequent examinations of the autopsy materials
has not stopped the speculations about the sources of the
bullets that hit President Kennedy.  But the beat goes
on, with two major (and intertwined) premises:

1. The autopsy materials (suit, shirt, X-rays, photos) were
faked.

2. The President's body was, at some point, snatched, and
the wounds were (in Lifton's phrase) "altered."

We are asked to place ourselves in the odd position of using
eyewitness testimony to impugn static, physical evidence.

The headwaters of this rather poisonous stream consists almost
entirely of eyewitness testimony that conflicts with physical
evidence.  People saw Oswald get into a Rambler (though Oswald
himself admitted to taking the bus/cab route, and had a bus
transfer in his pocket when he was arrested) people see the
Z-film and are convinced the head shot must have come from
the front (I haven't yet seen anyone demonstrate that the force
of a through and through bullet is sufficient, in and
of itself, to move a body in the way JFK's body appears
to move) doctors at Parkland have rather different views
of the wounds than are revealed in the autopsy, some people
at Bethesda see sheets, others see a body bag - and so on.

Governor Connally's wounds are not consistent with a bullet
hitting his body without first having interacted with something
en route, since the bullet entered his body yawed at almost
180 degrees - the entrance wound is about as long as the
bullet itself.  The autopsy and subsequent examinations of
the autopsy materials reveal, without any room for doubt,
that all of JFK's wounds were caused by bullets moving
from posterior to anterior.  Lattimer's detailed analysis,
his repeatable tests reveal not only what happened, but
why it happened.

And yet all this is at odds with a few dozen half-baked
conspiracy booksellers, and some eyewitness testimony.

Therefore, the physical evidence is wrong and the eyewitness
testimony is paramount.

No one is interested in who did all this - it doesn't matter.
No one is interested in exactly how this was all accomplished -
like, just what surgical procedures were used to accomplish
these extraordinary results.  We have exactly zero as to
who did it or how they did it.  But because the physical
evidence is in some respects at variance with the eyewitness
testimony, we are asked to believe truly amazing things,
and reject the perfectly ordinary and pitiful truth:
Lee Harvey Oswald was up there in the window with a
rifle and he only missed once.

BTW - anyone still believe the Lincoln 2nd gunman theory?

Joel Grant   (speaking on is own behalf)
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:43:31 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

I think all this debate about the nature of the "neuromuscular
reaction" of JFK is a waste of time.  The whole theory is a straw
grasped by the WC to explain the movements of JFK that were counter to
their theory of a rear shot only.  There is no scientific evidence
that such a shot to the brain results in any such neuromuscular
reaction.  It is merely the speculation of one of the pathologists
who was trying to be helpful.  

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head Shot - Lead or Copper Jacketed Bullet?
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:03:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32827
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <13APR199217195122@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

|	Skull test bullets fired by Drs Olivier and Lattimer show the
|	same type of deformation as found in the bullet fragments 
|	found in the Presidential limosine.

Lattimer did not shoot the skulls at the same lenght, but at a shorter distence
that Oswald. Presumably, that is what gives them the unusual results. Or, it
could possibly be due to the difference of their experiments to reality.

Also, Lattimer's skulls shot off the top of the head, and made 5-6 pieces. 
Kennedy's head had long, fractures running all about the bottom of the skull, 
and only a few large pieces. The fragmentation *within* the skull is not
characteristic of a non-FMJ. 

Nor did Lattimer ever get any metal in the wound of entry, as can be seen in
the x-ray. It is unusual to get such a wound from a copper bullet
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: TUM (was RE: Dr. Charles Crenshaw)
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:11:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32397
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <8APR199213061068@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:

|Personally, I like the Umbrella story as the origin of the throat wound :)

Actually, I am begining to take this absurd theory seriously. There is no doubt
that such a weapon exists, and there is no doubt that Kennedy't movements 
are very pecuilar, even given a possible Thornburg's position and back brace.
Thornburg's position, as shown by Lattimer, does not purely resemble Kennedy's
position. Kennedy seems as he became paralyzed in the act of reaching for his
throat. And why didn't Kennedy be blown foward if hit from the rear?
Considering he was already bent over more than 17 degrees, it would require
very little effort to topple him over. When Connally was hit the back, he said
it felt like he was hit with a huge blow. 


-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
From: mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Clark Panel
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:26:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <14396@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes...

>>>	They could have mistaken badly lacerated cerebral tissue
>>>	for cerebellum. Also, the photo of the brain (or at least 

>I can't imagine how.  There is no way to lacerate cerebrum to
>give it the fine folia of a cerebellum.  Too many of the doctors
>report the occipital wound with the cerebellum for it to have
>been a mistake.

	In the afterword of _High Treason_, Groden quotes Jenkins
	--the context implies that this was just after he viewed 
	all of the autopsy photos for NOVA-- as saying "It looked
	like cerebellum, it *still* looks like cerebellum, but
	it obviously isn't" (my emph). Unfortunately, Groden 
	refuses to give us more than just this snippet. However, This
	is, no matter how you cut it, an intriguing statement. 
 	

>>>	or otherwise re-oriented the rear of the right Cer. Hemi.
>>>	so that the cerebellum would be exposed.

>Since there cerebellum is attached to the brain stem and spinal
>cord, you would need a flashlight to see it through a frontal
>wound, even with the rest of the brain blown out.

	What frontal wound? Have I said anything about a large frontal
	wound? No. Did Bethseda say anything about a large frontal wound?
	No. Did the HSCA, Rockefeller Commission, or Clark panel say
	anything about a large frontal wound? No. So then, what frontal
	wounda are you speaking of?


>>The Parkland Doctors saw the wound extend into the occipital.
>>Humes said he saw it. Why doesn't it appear in the autopsy photos?

>Two possibilities, the photos are faked (most likely) or a flap
>of skin and hair were pulled over it (what they told the doctors
>who viewed them).  Why would people take photos of the wounds
>at the autopsy and then conceal the wounds with a flap?  Makes
>no sense at all.

	I recall that the flap of skin was mentioned *by* the doctors.
	It seems that several of the autopsy photos show the wound with
	the flap pulled away from it. 
		


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
From: mst4298@summa.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head Shot - Lead or Copper Jacketed Bullet?
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:09:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
>||mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>||Lattimer did not shoot the skulls at the same lenght, but at a shorter distence
>||that Oswald. Presumably, that is what gives them the unusual results. Or, it
>||could possibly be due to the difference of their experiments to reality.

>|	Olivier's tests and Lattimer's tests were entirely separate and
>|	unrelated.

>So? Was Olivier another lone nut?

	Dr Olivier was one of the ballistic experts at Edgewood arsenal.
	He was involved not only in the Warren investigation, but also
	with the Rockefeller Commission's investigation into allegations
	of CIA involvement with the assassination.


>|	What is the difference between Lattimer's tests and reality?
>|	How much of a range difference is there, and, more importantly,
>|	what is the corresponding velocity difference?

>Wouldn't you like to know!

	Answer the question, please.



>||Also, Lattimer's skulls shot off the top of the head, and made 5-6 pieces. 
>||Kennedy's head had long, fractures running all about the bottom of the skull, 
>||and only a few large pieces. The fragmentation *within* the skull is not
>||characteristic of a non-FMJ. 

>|	That's odd, since Lattimer's book includes x-rays of several of
>|	his test skulls that show the extensive fracture suystems seen
>|	in JFK's skull.

>Not at all. The pictures there show pieces of skulls, they don't show the type
>of fragmentation within the skull that is common with dum dum type bullets. 

	The pictures I saw showed very large areas of the crania that
	were extensively fractured in the manner that we see JFK's
	skull fractured.
	
	...and when did you become and expert on the wounds ballistics of
	dum dum bullets?	

	
                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: the umbrella man question solved by the HSCA?
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:18:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr15.212801.24960@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>
>In a previous article, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) says:
>
>>In article dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>>>
>>>Being in Europe, you are in a good position to ask some people who were
>>>around in 1963 or better yet in 1938 if they would have perceived the
>>>simple display of an umbrella as a comment on any given leader's treason/
>>>capitulation/appeasement of enemy forces. If it would not have "read" as
>>>a symbol, i.e. communicated the intended meaning, in a European context,
>>>it would have been even less likely to do so in the U.S. (I agree it
>>>sounds farfetched)
>>
>>From what I've read so far, the HSCA committee found and questioned the
>>umbrella man.  Have researchers found any information about this person that
>>indicates that he *may* have been involved, or is he essentially clean?
>>
>>Jon Noring
>
>You are quite right, a man named Louis Witt came forward and claimed
>he was the umbrella man, and that his gesturing with the umbrella
>was a symbolic reference to Neville Chamberlain.
>
>There are other photographs of the "umbrella man" _after_ the 
>assassination which show him sitting on a curb with a dark-complected,
>possibly Latino man. The second man's ethnicity is of course only of
>interest in the context of allegations of possible involvement by anti-
>Castro Cuban expatriates. There is some kind of film or photograph
>that shows this latter man, earlier (during or very close in time
>to the assassination), talking into something that looks like a 
>walkie-talkie. I don't recall if "umbrella man's" relationship with 
>this other man was ever addressed in his HSCA questioning.
>
>The "Neville Chamberlain" testimony is a matter of public record. I
>still think it's a cockamamie story. That is why I consider it a
>significant question whether or not his symbolic gesture could
>_possibly_ communicate what Witt claimed it was intended to.

Have conspiracy advocates checked into the background of Mr. Louis Witt and
found anything substantial?

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
From: sasdwf@slaughter.unx.sas.com (Dan Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Smoke and Mirrors
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:27:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr7.162704.1517
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
X-Bytes: 1815

In article <1992Apr6.222530.10619@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
>
>What point is there to argue with the President's body being
>operated upon between the plane and the autopsy?  The body
>was tracked continuously from the time is was put into the
>coffin in Dallas to the time it was interred at the cemetery.
>Unless you happen to believe that people like Dave Powers are
>part of the conspiracy, that is.  The post-mortem wound scenario
>is a last-ditch (and decidedly hysterical) attempt to shore
>up the increasingly weak second gunman case.
>
Both Aubrey Rike, the Dallas mortician who transported JFK's body from
Parkland to Love Field, and Dr. Crenshaw, who supervised the placement
of the body into the bronze casket, state that the body was wrapped
in sheets and placed in the bronze ceremonial casket.  Yet when the
body arrived for autopsy at Bethesda Hospital in Maryland  it was
wrapped in sheets inside a zipped body bag which had been placed in a
grey shipping casket according to the testimony of Paul O'Connor a
naval medical technician who prepared the body for autopsy.  His
testimony is corroborated by the testimony of Dennis David, the officer
of the day, and by X-ray technician Jerrol Custer.  Further, Custer
(if I remember correctly;if not Custer it was someone else) was walking
down a hospital corridor with the newly-developed copy of Kennedy's
X-rays when Jacquelin Kennedy entered the hospital with the bronze
ceremonial casket.  This indicates that the testimony of Powers and
others indicating a "continual chain" tracking the body in its
bronze casket is in error.


-- 
Dan Fowler          |   "Beep-beep"
Austin QA,          |    attributed to:
SAS Institute       |
sasdwf@unx.sas.com  |    David Bowie, Pennywise the Clown, and the Roadrunner.