HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: The Doctor Speaks
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 10 Apr 1992 15:30 EST  

In article <14305@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes...
>In article <1992Apr7.204055.5332@cbnews.cb.att.com> 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.
>>
>Not the head doctor, even, the County Medical Examiner, who was a very
>well qualified forensic pathologist, one of the best in the country
>at the time.  He rushed to Parkland when he heard of the assassination.
>He was directly threatened.  This was clearly a violation
>of Texas Law, which required autopsies by the medical examiner in
>all murder cases in the state of Texas.  

So, within theory, the Secret Service agents (assuming that the men in 
suits with guns were SS agents) should have been charged under Texas law 
with Obstruction of Justice (or the like).  Yep.  Must have been a 
conspiracy ;-).

JD
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:854 alt.conspiracy:6243 alt.activism:7516
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: More on Lifton
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 APR 92 08:09:38 PDT


And now, to reply to Mr. Condon's 824 -

Well, I suppose we could get into more detail about Lifton's
thesis, but between the two of us I think we should have
a reasonable precis for those who haven't read the book.

But the problems with his theory remain.  

Eyewitness reports a doctor who says that prior to the
autopsy the body was without a brain.  A few minutes
later the brain reappears, apparently re-inserted so
well that Dr. Humes et. al. cannot tell what has happened.
Is the eyewitness credible?  

We have other eyewitnesses who dispute that anyone had
any chance to gain possession of the body, including
Mr. Powers, whom I have quoted.

As has been mentioned several times in this topic, the
four principal Parkland doctors traveled to the
National Archives, viewed the autopsy materials, and
declared that the wounds had not been altered.

And ask yourself, given the Dealy Plaza geography
and the position of the President at the time of
head shot, where an assassin would have had to have
been placed to inflict such a wound as you describe.

As for the implausibility of the entire scenario being
a straw man, I hear what you're saying but still feel
the issue is entirely relevant.  The evidence in favor
of Lifton's scenario is, to be charitable, quite scanty
indeed.  It conflicts with exceedingly powerful evidence
to the contrary.  Within this context it is entirely 
appropriate to take a look at the bigger picture.

Too often one gets wrapped up in the details and
neglects to try to fit the details into a larger
context.  Such as the clear and obvious difficulties
of performing the tasks, unnoticed, that would be
required to validate Lifton's amazing theory.

Finally, as maligned as the WCR is, it is still by
far more comprehensive and professionally done than
any of the critics' books.  By a parsec.  Which
is about the size of Lifton's implausibility...

Joel Grant


5

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: SBD job?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 21:46:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr3.223349.25559@unx.sas.com> saseph@hal.unx.sas.com (Ed Hughes) writes:
>
>This much I know:  the change in the route was published.  But your
>point is still valid--if the change that took the motorcade past the
>TSBD was only made in the week before the visit (as I recall), then
>the question of who got Oswald the job is of no interest.
>Of course, I don't know how close the original route would have taken
>JFK to the depository...wonder if it would have been a reasonable

Even if the route had not been changed slightly, the motorcade
would still have been within rifleshot, only a few yards farther
away.
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:789 alt.conspiracy:6143 alt.activism:7337
From: mfm0@ellis.uchicago.edu (martin frederic melhus)
Subject: Crossposting
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Summary: Enough crossposting, please.
Keywords: JFK, crossposting
Reply-To: mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:05:55 GMT


Now that alt.conspiracy.jfk has been up and running for over a month,
I would like to politely request that the .jfk people keep their discussion
here, and not crosspost to alt.conspiracy.

It would benefit both the people who don't read .jfk (they won't have to 
bypass the articles,) and the people who read both .conspiracy and *.jfk
(they won't see the same stuff twice.)

If anyone who is interested in .jfk is not getting it, contact your
news administrator.

-- 
                          | You have all the time from when you remove the |
     Martin F. Melhus     | card(s) from your hand until you put it (them) |
 mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu | on the pile to say "Last Card".  If you don't, |
                          | take your two. - Hidden texts, Book of MauMau. |
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory Impossible - Warren Commission
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:43:43 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <5APR199221491038@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>	The HSCA forensics panel seems to have reviewed the attending
>	doctor's reports, yet they did not beleive that there was a 
>	sucking chest wound.

Who said anything about a sucking chest wound?  Most wounds to the chest
are not sucking.  Any wound that causes bleeding into the thoracic
cavity is indication for a chest tube.  But blood going into the
lung from the trachea isn't, and the chest tube wouldn't work in
this case.  You'd need to suction the blood out of the lung from
the trachea, not from outside the lung.  I'm just telling you
medical facts, not making any statements about what kind of wounds
JFK had or why they put the chest tube in.



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Doctor Speaks
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:34:17 GMT
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)

Oops, forgot to mention - the Warren Commission did not even speak to this
doctor. They made no attempt.

Oh, and did I neglect to mention 1 little factor:

	This doctor placed the body of JFK into the coffin at Parkland. He
	had ample time and opportunity to view the head and neck wounds up
	close.

The Warren people were not stupid enough to accidentally forget to speak with
one of the doctors who attended BOTH JFK - AND - LHO in the emergency room.
The very doctor that LBJ made a point to call in the emergency room to try to
get a deathbed confession from LHO. Hmmm, lets see, oh dang, we forgot to
interview this very important witness, dagummit, oh well fellow lawyers and
highly inelligent fellow commissioners, WHATAREYAGONNADO? Maybee no one will
notice...

...NOT !!! I submit that these men (at lest the core of them) INTENTIONALLY
left his vital information out of the Warren Lies, oops, I mean Report and
INTENTIONALLY failed to interview this Doctor. How many "oversights" can a
group of highly intelligent men make? The case presented in the Warren Report 
would NOT STAND UP IN COURT. And to think, one of these men (Spector) is a U.S. Senetor? The people of our country must be:

	A. Stupid

	B. Ignorant of the facts

	C. Misinformed

	D. Lethargic

	E. All of the above

	F. Insert your favorite here

The Warren supporters seem to just throw out testimony like this because they
say eye-witnesses are not reliable as compared to technical evicence such as
an autopsy. Hmmm, seems like eye-witnesses are considered VERY important in
our court system - why are they not important or even valid in this case?

It's very plain to see - our government in this case - has chosen to wear
selective vision glasses.

Marty who wants an honest government:

	"By the People, For the People, and of the People"

This has been taken away from us.
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Doctor Speaks
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:58:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes...
>m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) writes:

>>	Parkland doctors insisted it would only take 45 min. for an autopsy
>>	 at Parkland - Feds would not allow it even though it was against
>>	 the law to take the body without the autopsy.

>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. Dr Rose later was
	a member of the HSCA forensics panel.


>>	This same doctor also attended to Oswald when he arrived at the
>>	 Parkland emegency room. He recieved a call from the President of
>>	 the U.S. - LBJ - saying "I want a deathbed confession from the
>>	 accused assassin".

>For what its worth, Dr. Crenshaw feels that Oswald would have survived if
>the ambulance was as well equipped as modern ones. As it was, they had to
>spend critical time stabilizing his condition before surgery, when
>apparently a lot of this work today is done in the ambulance. He described
>the cause of death as shock resulting from all the lactates and whatnot
>that built up during the time Oswald had no respiration in the ambulance.
>When they stopped most of the bleeding and his circulation resumed, the
>metabolites now entered the bloodstream, reached the heart, and caused
>cardiac arrest. Oh nuts... and it sounded like they were doing so well.

	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.




>------
>Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: guest posting
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:59:43 GMT
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)

>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.

Marty

P.S. - Are there others out there who agree?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: The Fourth Force -- initial CIA "expansion" via 40s Pentagon War Plans
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:02:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.154811.1899@odin.corp.sgi.com>
dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:
      [...}
>
>            the following appeared in the 12/75 issue of "Gallery:"
>
In other words, this work is so well researched, so scholarly, and so
above critcism that no ordinary journal could publish it; only a glossy
mastrubation manual had the necessary wherewithall. Uh-huh. That's it;
I'm dropping my subsciption to the NYT, who never get these good stories,
and subscribing to "Gallery". Say, maybe "Jugs" has some good data on
the Rockefeller commission, too...
 
       --
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Neuro-Muscular Reaction (was Re: Retrograde Recoil)
Summary: No evidence, not very believeable
Keywords: Some more calculations
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:57:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32337
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <6APR199217160328@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

|	I think that the value of the jet flow theory has been overstated,
|	even if I've argued with David Wright over it. I'm a reflex-action
|	man myself.

There is very little to no evidence that a neuromuscular response would cause
Kennedy's head to snap back, away from the knoll area. These type of reactions
are accompanied by a "violent straightening and stiffening" of the limbs.
(Clark Panel). This was confirmed by evidence from the HSCA, who also used the
same language to explain the backward headsnap. The latter used a film of a
goat being shot in the head, the goat arched it's back and stiffend it's 
legs. Lattimer also brings up goats, with presumably the same conditions.
Clearly no such movement could be seen in the Zapruder films.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "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) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: tim@netcom.com (Tim Richardson)
Subject: Re: The Fourth Force -- initial CIA "expansion" via 40s Pentagon War Plans
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 08:15:19 GMT
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA

In article <6521@shodha.enet.dec.com> m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) writes:
>>>
>>In other words, this work is so well researched, so scholarly, and so
>>above critcism that no ordinary journal could publish it; only a glossy
>>mastrubation manual had the necessary wherewithall. Uh-huh. That's it;
>>I'm dropping my subsciption to the NYT, who never get these good stories,
>>and subscribing to "Gallery". Say, maybe "Jugs" has some good data on
>>the Rockefeller commission, too...

Belief in establishment media reminds me of the old joke, which goes:

Q.	Do you what the 3 biggest lies in the world are?

A-1.	"Of course I'll still love you in the morning."
A-2.	"Your check's in the mail."
A-3.	"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you!"
-- 
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products  "techNET" 
email: tim@netcom.com   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
FAX:   (408) 985-7374
VOICE: (408) 985-8760
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
From: ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Fake ID
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:53:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr5.143010.1293@fys.ruu.nl>, sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries) writes...
>In <4APR199221235613@rigel.tamu.edu> ajs9462@rigel.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
> 
[. . . some things deleted about Oswald's P. O. Box and info relating Oswald
 to A. J. Hidell. The ID referred to below is the Selective service ID shown
 in the Warren Commission report.]
> 
>There is something very strange with this ID. It is *clearly* derived from
>Oswald's original ID, but part of the printing has been reduced to create space
>for Oswald's picture; the original ID DIDN'T HAVE A PICTURE ON IT!!!
>When you forge a document, would you alter it in such a way?????

Do you have any reference showing what an original ID looked like? Otherwise,
how do you know that there was an original ID with no picture on it?
Furthermore, Oswald wasn't perfect and might not have taken the extra time to
produce a perfect copy. He just might have made an ID close enough to the
real thing to allow him to pick up mail at a P.O. Box in case he was asked for
one. Most people don't look closely at an ID (unless they have a really good
reason to do so) and Oswald probably felt that it was good enough to pass.

Tony Simon
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: The Doctor Speaks
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:45:10 GMT
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)

Dr. Crenshaw (Is this the name? Spelling?) has broke silence. He was one of the
physicians who attended to JFK at Parkland. He has a book coming out shortly
and has given interviews on 2 TV shows: "Now it Can Be Told" and "20/20"

I am supprised that there has not been more discussion about this in this
newsgroup. His testimony was very sure and concise:

	Throat wound was entry wound.

	Traecheotomy (Sp?) cut over the throat wound in the autopsy pics
	 is about twice the size of the cut made at Parkland.

	Head shot was from the front.

	Parkland doctors insisted it would only take 45 min. for an autopsy
	 at Parkland - Feds would not allow it even though it was against
	 the law to take the body without the autopsy.

	Mrs. Kennedy - after pronunciation of death - kissed his big toe
	 and placed her ring on JFK's little finger.

	JFK had sporadic pulse and virtually no blood pressure upon arrival
	 at Parkland.

	You could see the Cerrubellum (again - spelling - I'm entering this
	 in a hurry) via the hole in the back of JFK's head.

	JFK was a large man.

	This same doctor also attended to Oswald when he arrived at the
	 Parkland emegency room. He recieved a call from the President of
	 the U.S. - LBJ - saying "I want a deathbed confession from the
	 accused assassin".

	He did comment on the autopsy photos and diagrams. I don't remember
	 too much of what he said regarding this. Someone Help!!

	He as kept quiet for all these years because:

		His career and his life in danger if he spoke up. He is
		older now and career is not in jepordy. Life ??? He's gone
		public now - that might protect him. (The last sentence is
		my opinion - not voiced by the Dr.)

He was very confident in everything he said and stated that you just don't
forget something like this and the details of a major event like this - it
sticks with you.

Does anyone have the time to transcribe the video to text and enter it here?
Does anyone have anything to add that I have forgotten? 

I think this is very important testimony and it could have a domino effect.
Others may say - he has spoken up - now it's time for me...

Marty Moose
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: davros@leo.unm.edu (DAVROS)
Subject: Re: DR. Crawford Speaks
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:02:48 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

   thanks
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Clark Panel
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:54:25 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Apr6.152643.11792@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
>
>I keep reading about JFK's head wounds and I keep reading what
>simply is not true.  There is a small hole in the back of
>his head and a very large hole in the right and frontal portions
>of his head.  How this has been translated into a large exit
>wound in the right rear of his head is quite beyond me.  
>
>Apparently, some physicians on the scene, noticing the man lying
>on his back, with blood and brain matter obeying the law
>of gravity, mistakenly placed the wound other than where it
>was.  As usual, eyewitness testimony, even when the eyewitness
>is trained, counts for less than static, physical evidence.
>
All of the physicians and nurses testified to the large occipital
wound.  Did you see the 20/20 report last week?  They looked into
the wound and saw the cerebellum.  Do you know where that is?
Do you know what it looks like?  If you do, you'll know that
it is unmistakable for any other brain tissue.  It wasn't
just they assumed there was a wound because he was lying on
his back.  His head was examined by the head of neurosurgery
at Parkland, and I assure you, he could not have been
mistaken about it.

Also, the autopsy drawings show a large occipital wound.
It wasn't until the autopsy photos appeared that the lack
of such a wound came up.

>Does anyone have any positive evidence linking any of the
>gentlemen on the Clark Panel with any criminal or
>conspiratorial elements such that they would deliberately
>falsify their findings?  Is there anything to indicate
>they found any evidence whatsoever of post-mortem
>wound tampering?  If not, we are compelled to accept
>their expert findings, findings which so clearly match
>the horrid testimony of the Groder-enhanced Z-film.
>
This panel examined photographs that were said to be
of Kennedy's body and brain.  No forensic pathologist
was allowed to examine the real body, and the real brain,
which has subsequently disappeared.  The chain of evidence
was broken, and we have no guarantee that anything this
panel said had anything to do with JFK's wounds.
Thus, we need not insist that they be conspirators.

Another interesting thing:  why is it that the xrays
of the skull labelled as JFK's have the teeth cropped
out?  Is someone afraid that some of JFK's dental films
will surface showing that the skull is not his?  I've
never seen skull films with the teeth cropped out before.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------