From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Another Generic Subject
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 14 SEP 92 14:21:01 PDT


re: 3249 (Tom Warner)

>I need an explanation of why the front right of his face is missing when
>in the photos its perfectly intact, and why the rear top in the x-rays
>is intact when every medical witness described that area as missing.

	The x-ray that is carted around that seems to show the 
	front right of JFK's face missing is simply a lousy x-ray.
	Even though it is a lousy x-ray it has not stood in the
	way of accurate analysis to those well-trained in reading
	x-rays.  It is used as a visual aid used to fool people like you.

	What "every" medical witness (I assume you mean besides
	the pathologists?) has said about JFK's wounds varies
	from witness to witness.  Differences depend upon whether or
	not one uses vague language like "rear top" or anatomical
	terminology.

	If you think it is anamolous or unusual that doctors,
	viewing (for different periods of time and at different
	angles and distances) wounds oozing brain and flesh and
	shooting out 1500cc of blood, not doing an examination
	of the whole body might describe these wounds differently
	than the autopsy pathologists, I guess I have to ask:
	why?

>You're talking about the photos now. I'm still not convinced they're real;
>but that's a different issue. If they're not, then it's a composite that
>wasn't tested for.

	Look, the folks who make the fake photos and x-rays
	claims will tell you that the forgery was obvious and
	crude.  But since you think the HSCA did an imcomplete
	job, kindly tell us what they should have done.  And
	be as precise as possible.

>>	dental records, operational records... the guy in the
>>	photos and X-rays was JFK.  I haven't heard you suggest
>>	otherwise, come to think of it.

>No, I have, because the x-rays don't match the photos. I don't doubt that the
>person in the photos and x-rays is JFK, I do think it very likely that the
>photos and x-rays were tampered with.

	I said that I hadn't heard you say you doubted that person
	in the photos was JFK.  You say "No, I have,..." and then
	you say "I don't doubt that the person in the photos and
	x-rays is JFK..."  Which is it?

>>	The thing is, they can tell exceedingly well.

>Well, I don't know why you believe that, and as a believer in government
>of the people, by the people and for the people, I'm not going to accept
>a panel of experts' opinions (which really boils down to one opinion
>ratified by a panel) in place of real evidence. If they're so sure of
>they're opinions, why do we have to take them at their word without being
>able to check it out independently?

	Sniff, sniff, and me without a flag on the porch today.

>>	You should be convinced the photos and X-rays are
>>	genuine because they have been authenticated and
>>	tested and because you have no evidence to indicate
>>	they are fakes.

>Archetypal pro-WC speak. Poorly refuted evidence is "no evidence," and
>tests whose data we are not allowed to see is "authentication," even if
>many issues were not even addressed by these tests.

	What tests have been run that denied you access to the
	data?  Guinn's data, for instance, is available for every
	half-wit to guess about.

	Now if you have done, or know someone who has run better
	tests, kindly present it here.

>>	Why would they be difficult to identify as forgeries by any
>>	standard method?

>Uh, because the forgers would anticipate such tests being done, if they were
>experts in their field.

	Just what forgery was done and how was it done?

>>       What forgery methods were available to
>>	the forgers that would have allowed them to so thoroughly
>>	and undetectably fake an entire set of photos and X-rays.

>I'm not an expert, I don't know. The HSCA did, however, state that
>it was possible to create forgeries they would not have detected.

	I'm all ears.  Tell us all about it.

>>	While you're at it, please let us all know just what sort
>>	of planning took place that placed forgers as part of an
>>	assassination team so sophisticated that its success 
>>	depended upon a long series of events, culminating in
>>	the need for forged autopsy photos and X-rays.

>I don't follow your train of thought.

	Perhaps because it is linear.

>You're asking, why would forgers need to be involved? Because JFK was
>hit from the right front, and they were framing Oswald on a sixth-floor
>TSBD set-up. I don't see why they would need to be part of the plan from
>the beginning, although I don't see why they couldn't have been either.

	In other words, you cannot provide, even hypothetically,
	an alternative scenario.  

	I am asking you to outline a scenario which culminates in
	a need for forged autopsy photos.

>>	The HSCA, Lattimer, Lifton, and I am sure many other
>>	sources have copies of the computer-enhanced X-rays.

>Yes, and even an amateur can see the large amount of missing bone
>structure on the upper right face as opposed to the upper left face.

	Professionals are able to interpret the x-rays, even
	without the enhancement.  And the enhanced x-ray
	shows no such thing.

>>	HSCA, Menninger, and Lattimer have diagrams of the
>>	actual skull defect.  

>With the upper right face intact, I presume.

	This is correct.

>>	I think his response is explained by a combination of
>>	two phenomena, namely, the jet propulsion effect, 
>>	demonstrated experimentally,

>Hahahahahahahahaha. With melons on sticks, which fell backwards sometimes
>but not all the time, probably when Lattimer hit them below the mid-line.
>No one has ever or will ever show that you can make a head fly backwards
>by hitting it from behind.

	Alvarez and Lattimer both did tests with melons.  Lattimer
	also did tests with skulls filled with brain matter.  We
	will get to those tests in the Lattimer presentation.

>Nevermind the motorcycle cop hit by fragments flying backwards from JFK,
>or the fragment that landed on the trunk.

	A simple viewing of frame 313 of the Z-film shows the
	direction in which the skull fragments were flying; upwards
	and forwards.  Tests have shown that such fragments and the
	accompanying brain and dura mater can fly as high as 30-40
	feet.  Clearly, the cop stationed on the left rear of the
	limo rode *into* the falling matter.  Mr. and Mrs.
	Connally and Kellerman and Greer were spattered with
	blood and brain.  And they were in front of JFK.

>I don't mean directly seeing muscular action; after all he was wearing a
>suit, wasn't he? I mean muscular action is indirectly evident, based on the
>overall movement of the body. JFK's motion showed no sign of internal
>motivation; the only part of his body pushing or pulling any other part
>was his head. He was simply thrown back as a whole, with his head obviously
>leading the way.

	So you still seem to think that some sort of bullet was fired
	with force sufficient to knock JFK backwards at 80-100
	mph?  May I continue to suggest some outside reading on 
	this issue?

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)