HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:29:13 GMT

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

>In article <schuck.726166669@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>
>>>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!
>>

>Well . . . wind would explain it.  In fact, the forward motion of the motorcade
>would explain it.

>But remember that the Zapruder film very clearly shows Kennedy's brain matter
>being blown out of his skull *forward.*  It doesn't show any brain matter being
>blown out backward.  


First you say wind, ignoring the fact that JFK was below the level of
the windshield and the Limo was going no more than 12 mph at the time,
then you say the film doesn't show any brain matter being blown
backwards, even though eyewitness testimony clearly describes such as
happening.

Yes, the Zapruder film shows brain matter going forward and to the
right, even though Oswald was supposedly to JFK's left firing right to
left.

As I explained in a previous post, that was caused by the backsplash
effect which is very common in *entrance* wounds, not exit wounds.


The motorcycle officer who was hit, was to JFK's left and rear. He
said the ejecta hit him so hard he thought *he* was shot. That can't
be explained by wind or by brain matter travelling forward from the
right side of JFK's skull.

It can be explained as material from the rear exit wound seen by most
if not all the Parkland medical personal.

The Neurosurgeon attending, Kemp Clark , said the right rear cornder
of JFK's skull was blown off.

With all the evidence, I interpret this as a shot from the right front
impacting near the ear or slightly behind it, removing the right rear
portion of JFK's skull and some of his scalp, with parts of the skull
going towards JFK's rear and left and much of the visible blood going
towards the grassy knoll as backsplash, and some going to JFK's left
rear to hit the motorcycle cops, not so visible because of the
limitations of the Zapruder camera.



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 16:47:54 GMT

swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood) writes:

>The observations of eject direction are consistent with that 
>resulting from a shot from the rear.

From the right rear, where Oswald was? No way! 

From the left rear, maybe.

From the right front, definitely.


      000   /
     00000 //  Observed ejecta on Zapruder film
    0000000--  
    0000000\\
     00000  \
      000
     /  * Bullet impact point as claimed by HSCA and WC +/- 4 inches vertically
    /
   /
Ejecta direction: felt by motorcycle cop,
seen by several witnesses, and location
of Harper fragment, a piece of the back
of JFK's head.  






          * 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!

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:4153 alt.conspiracy:13839 alt.activism:20191 alt.society.civil-liberty:7319 alt.individualism:6186
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: There was this book...
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:11:33 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan11.234234.54151@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>
>I don't think it was enough to simply get rid of JFK.  They also wanted to 
>send a message to Bobby and to anyone else who came after, just how vulnerable
>a president really is, and what happens to a president who dares challenge the
>status quo.  Bobby apparently didn't get the message strongly enough.
>

Then why did they produce such an elaborate conspiracy whose purpose was to
convince people that it was a lone nut who did it, and that it had nothing to
do with "challenging the status quo."

Of course Bobby "didn't get the message."  Bobby believed that Oswald did it
acting alone.  If you believe that a conspiracy really did it, then you have to
believe that they were too effective in covering their tracks.

Thus, while covering up the fact that the president was murdered (my "bimbo"
scenario) would not serve to send a message to someone who "dares challenge the
status quo," neither would covering up the fact he was murdered for that
particular reason.

BTW, why do you say that Kennedy "challenged the status quo?"  He was hardly a
left winger.  In fact, he was quite clearly to the right of both Johnson and
Truman, and neither of those men were murdered.

.John
From: yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Connally's Wound
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:25:59 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott @ Electrical and Electronic
>>Am I missing something obvious or is Beter some crackpot?

The latter.

"Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net" writes:
>Now quoting from Audio Letter #3, Topic #1:
>
>   Based on the appearance of the blast in the Zapruder film,
>it's possible that the murder weapon was essentially an extremely
>sawed off shotgun, hidden in the seat upholstery ahead of him. 
>But it appears much more likely that the blast was produced by
>what is known as a shaped charge in a special mounting.  A shaped
>charge is a specially configurated explosive device which
>essentially produces a focused explosion--that is, an explosion
>that mostly aims in one direction instead of going in all
>directions like a stick of dynamite.  A shaped charge is what
>enables a bazooka to blast a Sherman Tank out of action

Beter's description of a shaped charge contains, strictly speaking,
no factual errors.  However it is very misleading.  It will be
clearer what a shaped charge is and does, if I draw a picture of one:


			
	Cross-sectional view:

		     metal liner
		      |
		      |
	       %\     |	 /%
	      %%%\    V /%%%
	     %%%%%\    /%%%%%
	     %%%%%%\  /%%%%%%
	      %%%%%%\/%%%%%% <---------high explosive
	       %%%%%%%%%%%%
		%%%%%%%%%%
		 %%%%%%%%
	           %%%%
		    || 
		    || <---------detonator


When the detonator is triggered, it sets off the high explosive.
The explosive then slams the metal liner together producing an
extremely high-velocity jet of metal going straight up.  Speeds of
tens of thousands of feet per second can be produced.

The jet of metal could easily kill someone.  However the explosion
would not be concealable.  To conceal it you would need very thick
armor plate, with a large and thick-walled pipe leading down to the
bottom of the limo to vent gases.  And even then you would have to
leave a hole for the jet of metal to escape; there would have been a
huge gout of flame coming out of that hole.

The basic problem is that to propel a piece of metal with a shaped
charge, you need much more explosive than you would use if you were
to propel the same amount of metal with a gun.  And it has to be
high explosive; gunpowder will not do.  The effect of this
explosive, if no armor were used, would be like that of a concussion
grenade.  It would produce a large flash, and a bang loud enough to
make nearby ears bleed.

Thus a shaped charge would be much less concealable than a gun.  To
suggest that a shaped charge was used because it would be more
concealable than a gun is complete bullshit; Beter is obviously
addressing his letters to ignoramuses.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "American politics is, and has always been, a mere struggle between rival
  gangs of looters and exploiters."  -- H. L. Mencken
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:56:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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).

Wasn't there some claim in _High Treason_ that something was covered up in 
one of the autopsy photos above JFK's right eyebrow?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood)
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Originator: swood@bcrks50
Reply-To: swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:17:14 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.035828.20623@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.192034.10457@bcrka451.bnr.ca> swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood) writes:
> >
> >Whether or not I beleive the "exhalted experts" is completely immaterial here. 
> >We have an observation of a bullet passing through JFK's head and a stream
> >of ejecta.  The question that must be answered is simply what is the most plausible
> >trajectory for the bullet given the reality of these observations.  
> 
>   But, there is a large difference between saying that the head shot could
> have come from the near, and saying that it could NOT have come from anywhere
> else.  There were many possible snipers locations all around the limo, and
> about the only one we can catagorially rule out for the fatal head shot is 
> the south manhole (since paved over) on the bridge over the Stemmons underpass.
> 

The observations of eject direction are consistent with that resulting from a shot from the rear.

>   I could be wrong, but I seem to recall in the original post that if the shot
> came from the rear, there was only one assasin, to quote,"namely LHO" a
> rather fantastic assumption which would not stand up under normal rules of

This was part of the original post by Bruce Shuck, not part of my reply.   The bullet
came from the rear,  whether or not LHO shot it is obviously a matter for considerable
debate.... I have my suspicions though!

-- 
regards,

============================================================================================
Steven Wood			Phone: 613-763-2830
Memory Development		ESN:     6-393-2830
Bell Northern Research          Email: swood@bnr.ca (internet)
============================================================================================
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: There was this book...
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:00:31 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <01GTE1K8JESA96WWGF@odin.uniras.dk>, ERIKT@odin.uniras.dk (Erik Thaysen, Dev.Dept.) writes:

>"Double Cross" presents a mob/CIA scenario which doesn't sound all too
>unrealistic.  What strikes me in the whole discussion concerning the
>murder of JFK is the common reluctance to consider the combination of
>"interests" in having JFK removed, e.g., organized crime in
>*combination* with (a stray element of) the CIA.  Sure, the mob
>probably couldn't pull this stunt by themselves, but teamed up with
>"friends" in the CIA, angry exile-cubans...?  I find the mob/CIA
>scenario far more plausible than the war industry/CIA scenario.
>

>So, am I the only one who has read this book?  What's the story on
>Joseph Kennedy?  What's are the current pros and cons concerning the
>theory of organized crime killing JFK?  Any comments?
>

The fundamental problem with the theory that "the mob killed Kennedy" was that
it's terribly hard to believe they would do it in this way.

Remember Kennedy's hijinks with all those women.  With some frequency he was
not under the immediate surveillence of the Secret Service.

While it would be easy to shoot or knife him while he was with one of his
bimbos, it would make much more sense to poison him in a way that would make
his death look like a heart attack.  And have him die under circumstances that
gave the Kennedy family and everyone loyal to the Kennedy's a huge incentive to
cover up the exact circumstances of the death, get him in the ground without an
autopsy (or with an autopsy from a trusted family doctor), and hush up the
lurid details of what he was doing when he kicked off.

Consider, in contrast, that having him shot in Dealey Plaza had to involve (in
the conspiracy theorists accounts) and extremely elaborate conspiracy to make
Oswald the fall guy, at least two people shooting at Kennedy, the cooperation
of the Dallas Police in arresting Oswald and then (strangely enough) letting
him get shot while in custody, the cooperation of people who faked ballistic
evidence, faked autopsy photos, faked pictures of Oswald with the murder
weapon, and on and on.

Given how easily it *could* have been done, why would a conspiracy want to do
it the hard way.

Remember, most conspiracy theorists start with the assumption that a conspiracy
killed Kennedy, and they try to figure out an account that fits the facts. 
(This, of course, leads them to vastly distort the facts.)

But a worthwhile exercise is to put yourself in the shoes of people who wanted
to kill Kennedy.  How would you do it?

Certainly not the way he was in fact killed (unless you just happen to work in
a building along the parade route, and don't begin to have the resources of the
mob or the CIA).

.John
From: bgonzal@math.rutgers.edu (Bil Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:46:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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

>In article <schuck.726166669@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>>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!

>Well . . . wind would explain it.  In fact, the forward motion of the motorcade
>would explain it.

Sure, a motorcade which was initially moving at about 11 MPH and had slowed to
an almost complete stop.  Besides even if it were very windy, which it wasn't,
it wouldn't affect the trajectory of brain matter due to the force and speed
of the impact.

I just don't find this credible.

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.

Bil Gonzalez
bgonzal@math.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: The BBN Analysis
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:32:55 GMT


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 feetfrom the west
corner".

Do you believe this or not?








Big Al.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: There was this book...
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:42:34 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <00966751.F8EEA640@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
|> While it would be easy to shoot or knife him while he was with one of his
|> bimbos, it would make much more sense to poison him in a way that would make
|> his death look like a heart attack.

I don't think it was enough to simply get rid of JFK.  They also wanted to 
send a message to Bobby and to anyone else who came after, just how vulnerable
a president really is, and what happens to a president who dares challenge the
status quo.  Bobby apparently didn't get the message strong enough.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tagged with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: busta@vicki.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Some more curious questions.
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:43:36 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <schuck.726785998@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes...
>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.




 What really gets me is the fact that the only prints alleged to have been
found on the rifle were between the barrel and the stock which could only
have gotten there if the rifle had been disassembled. Yet after `Oswald'
fired the three rounds in the motorcade he `obviously' must have had the 
time to wipe the weapon of prints because no gloves were ever found. Add
this and there is no way he could have fired, wiped down the gun, stashed
it under some boxes, ran down four flights of stairs only to be seen by
Baker calmly drinking a coke in the second floor lunchroom less than 90
seconds after the last shot................sure.........





<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta	Busta@vicki.enet.dec.com                       Salem,N.H.  
		--or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
		--or-- busta%vicki.enet@decwrl.dec.com

         "One only sees what one observes, and one observes only 
              those things which are already in the mind."
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 4 Jan 1993 15:20:06 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Distribution: na

In article <1993Jan4.003816.6183@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>,
bill@turing.toronto.edu (Bill Monhemius) says:
>
>body.  This apparently proves that there was an assasin firing from behind,
>namely, LHO.
>
Thanks for posting a synopsis of an interesting article.  I might point
out that the forward head snap might add weight to the theory that JFK
was, in deed, hit by a bullet from behind.  But I must protest that
what you have told us here neither proves that the later body snap back
was not caused by a separate bullet from the front nor does your
article prove that the bullet from behind comes from a rifle held by
LHO.  The latter would be an astounding piece of forensic evidence.
One imagines, like in the old SF movies, the copper of the bullet has{
somehow thru some fantastic process, has taken on the image of LHO
just as he was firing the weapon.  Case solved.

>Rahn takes a good stab at Oliver Stone, saying that he "blew it big time".
>Right.  There's still a lot of mighty peculiar stuff that happened, that
>needs explaining.  But after 30 years, I think we're too late.
>
>Anyone read High Treason and/or High Treason 2?  I've noticed that in HT2,
>Livingstone takes quite a few shots at his co-author of HT, Robert Groden.
>Don't tell me he was involved too! :)
>
The conspiracy researcher and author community is rife with paraniod
rantings and ravings about each other.  Don't take this wrong.
There is a lot of supportive, collective work done but different
camps form that are critical of each other.  Also, authors who have
gained standing by being published are not immune to the overfeeding
of their egos and display a very thin skin towards anyone even
questioning their viewpoints.  Terrible feuds have developed.
Amidst all this, there are sane and very reasonable people who
try to ignore it and get on with the case.
ALAN ROGERS  **** U54778@UICVM.UIC.EDU * I speak only for myself as a *
VMKRAFT INC.  708-675-8615             * citizen of the UNIVERSE, not *
                                       * as an employee of Vmkraft nor*
                                       * as a user of U of I Services.*