From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Generic Warner III
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 14 SEP 92 14:29:53 PDT


re: 3251 (Tom Warner)

>>	A crime scene is a puzzle and the pieces need to be
>>	put together.  Must we re-hash the evidence placing
>>	a gunman in the 6th floor window firing three shots,
>>	two of which were recovered and matched to a rifle
>>	found on the 6th floor?

>I don't see any reason too. Keep in mind I think the shells and rifle
>were left behind just so they would be found by police and lead to
>Oswald as the assassin. CE399 was also almost certainly planted, since
>it is too pristine to have caused *any* of the wounds to JFK or Connally
>or to have hit anything else in the limo.

	I'm not surprised you "think" the shells and rifle were
	left behind to frame LHO.  Who did it?  What sort of
	planning took place to set this into motion?

	As for CE399 being "too pristine" to have done the
	damage it did to JFK and Connally there is experimental
	evidence to suggest that it was deformed in the way
	one would expect it to be deformed, given the path it
	took and the damage it did.  What is the basis (besides
	you just don't "think" so) of your assertion that it was
	"too pristine" to have caused such damage?

>And also, none of these other alleged rifleman waved brightly colored
>flags, or yelled out *here I am, come get me now.* What's your point?
>There are in fact several witnesses claiming to have seen riflemen in other
>locations, most in the grassy knoll area. Others saw the famous puff of smoke.

	The point should be clear, since I have made it many,
	many times in here: On 11/22/63 a rifle and a rifleman
	firing a gun were seen in only one location in Dealy
	Plaza.  That location was the SE corner, 6th floor,
	TSBD.  No one on that day came forward to say that they
	had seen anyone firing a gun from any other location.
	No one said they saw anyone with a gun on the grassy
	knoll.  No one.  

>Even if you don't try and make the sixth-floor shooter use a Mannlicher-
>Carcano, the front neck wound was too small to be an exit and the head wound
>came from the right front, based on other evidence.

	The front neck wound has also been subject to experiment.  I
	have often found that experiment is a better way to find out
	stuff about the real world than mere conjecture and assertion.
	
	What is your other evidence about the source of the head
	shot?  Where, exactly, did this shot come from?  What, exactly,
	damage did it do?  What are the angles involved, type of
	rifle, ammunition, etc.

>On trajectory analysis alone, all that can be ruled out is the single-bullet
>theory. It also places limits on all other explanations, depending on what
>explanation you're proposing.

	Trajectory analysis supports SBT.  Certainly it places limits
	on other explanations.  Such as: shots from the grassy
	knoll.

>Yes, you still haven't figured it out. Why is the distance a problem?
>The longer the distance, the *less* important the precision with which
>you place JFK's throat wound is. The "two inches" does not come into play
>in this angle measurement, really -- it comes into play in the measurement
>of the angle you're comparing to, that is, the angle from the back wound
>to the throat wound.

	Sigh... The angle of the back wound to the throat wound is
	irrelevant unless you know exactly what position JFK was
	in when he was shot.  The same inshoot/outshoot bullet
	could theoretically have come from an infinite number of
	points in space.  All that can be done in the case of
	the assassination of JFK is determine compatibility with
	proposed shooting locations.  The SE corner TSBD etc. is
	fully compatible with the inshoot and outshoot wounds 
	suffered by JFK, both in the neck/throat and in the head.

>I don't know why others have failed to agree with their measurements, but I
>expect some (possibly on both sides) have fudged things in very obvious
>ways. There is absolutely no reason why, using the existing film(s), very
>precise measurements could not be taken.

	If you mean: why haven't they narrowed the gap to less than
	(at least) 12 degrees I couldn't tell you.  But unless and
	until I see consistent measurments, I shall continue to
	be a skeptic of *all* who claim to be 100% precise in their
	measurments.

>>	Your basic method of argument here is that you assume, in
>>	your premise, that which you seek to demonstrate for your
>>	conclusion.  This is known as begging the question.

>You mean, I assume there is a possibility that evidence is planted,
>which leads me to question the validity of *all* evidence, which leads
>me to conclude that the bullet and fragments in evidence, without proof,
>cannot be conclusively said to be the same items recovered from the
>stretcher and limo? There is something wrong with this line of thinking?

	No, that isn't what I mean.  When you make statements to the
	effect that there are obvious political motives in this
	case you are stating in your premise what you would seek
	to demonstrate in your conclusion.  

>>	You ignore the physical evidence that ties limo frags and
>>	CE399 to Oswald's rifle,

>No, I just add to this that they may be planted, and in CE399's case,
>almost certainly was, either at the hospital or after.

	It may be that we didn't really land people on the moon,
	right?  I mean, how can I prove it wasn't all a hoax?

>You greatly exaggerate the value of these tests. You actually believe
>that there is a method by which little specks of metal can be conclusively
>tied to individual fragments or bullets? There's not, sorry.

	You greatly underestimate the use of NAA testing.  And you
	seem to forget that it was the WC critics who demanded
	the tests be done.  The tests were done.  They support
	the SBT.  And, since they support the SBT, they probably
	weren't worth it to begin with, eh?

>>	This is the mile-wide gap, Husky.

>First, please don't call me a Husky, I consider the term derogatory. :)

	Ok, Fighting Duck.

>Second, I don't have any claim by Foster that anyone other than himself
>found a bullet, do you?

	Your own version is that Foster watched someone else
	pick up the bullet.  That someone else has said he
	didn't find a bullet.

>Obviously, if the bullet and fragments in evidence are not the same as the
>bullet and fragments recovered from the limo and stretcher, then 
>the whole case against Oswald completely falls apart.
	
>I don't know either way, I just don't know why you think you do. I'm willing
>to accept the possibility that the framents are bona fide; I haven't seen
>any plausible explanation for how CE399 got shot from the sixth floor TSBD
>into *anything* in the limo and came out looking like it does.

	I doubt you would regard any explanation as plausible,
	so don't hold your breath.

>>	Short version: 

>>	Shot one - approximately Z-film 162

>Through the tree? Was this the miss then? How did it get to the curb
>way on down the street from where the limo was at this point?

	Yes, this was the miss.  Six witnesses observed something
	hit the street, consistent with a bullet, towards the
	right rear of the limo, shortly after it turned onto
	Elm street.  "How did it get to the curb..." etc.  Do
	you mean the Tague fragment?  I don't believe this
	bullet was the one that hit the pavement near Tague.

>>	Shot two - approximately Z-film 220 (3.17 sec)
>>	Shot three -             Z-film 313 (5.08 sec)

>>	Total time elapsed: 8.25 seconds.

>>	Why I would have to "prove" there were no more than three
>>	shots is unclear.  Three shells were found near Oswald's
>>	rifle, and three shots can be accounted for by the evidence.

>Because JFK has three wounds, Connally has three wounds, a bystander
>was hit by a fragment or shrapnel, and the curb was hit. You have
>to be able to explain how all these hits were done by three bullets.

	First bullet: miss
	Second bullet: goes through JFK and Connally
	Third bullet: hits JFK in head, large fragment, approx.
	85-90 grains hits concrete near Tague.

>The fact that three shells, all neatly lined up in a row, were found
>by the obvious "assassins lair" is only evidence of the number of shots
>fired if you begin with the assumption that all shots were fired from that
>rifle. Whose being circular, here?

	The cops who found the shells did not find them lined up
	in a neat little row.  It is Deputy Craig, after the fact,
	who makes that claim.

>>       The evidence proves a negative,
>>	namely that Oswald didn't do it.  But the sophisticated
>>	frame-up has planted evidence that proves Oswald did do it.

>You're following me accurately so far.

	Er, you don't see the problem with this position?

>>	Mind readers, we know what these sophisticated conspirators
>>	would not have done.  And what they would have done.
>>	And they weren't sophisticated enough to fool you, eh?

>Huh? I'm just trying to point out that if Oswald didn't do it, then we
>*by necessity* have a sophisticated conspiracy on our hands, that planted
>evidence to frame Oswald. You were claiming that the fact that no rifles
>were left behind in any other location was evidence that the only shooter
>was in the TSBD, which only works if you assume a *lack* of sophistication
>on the part of the assassins. On the other hand, if you assume even a
>modicum of competence on the part of the assassins, the fact that no other
>rifles were left behind is entirely consistent with a frame-up of Oswald
>as the lone assassin.

	Classic bad reasoning.  The lack of evidence for a
	conspiracy *proves* how good those conspirators were.
	
>>	Now why don't you present your actual theory of the
>>	assassination?

>I entertain several, with a wide degree of uncertainty in all details.

	Now it's my turn to laugh.

>>       Please include your conjectures of how
>>	many people might have been involved, what sort of
>>	planning needed to have taken place, how they chose
>>	Oswald as the patsy, when they chose Oswald as the
>>	patsy, how they managed to plant all that evidence,
>>	including the death of Officer Tippit.

>Very generally, somewhat more than needed to be, especially on the
>mafia side. I think the operation was planned as a "get him in whatever
>city we can" and most likely began in the mafia or right-wing-luny circle
>and then someone made a contact in government somewhere that assured
>low security. Either the Mafia, government or para-intelligence figures
>could have chosen Oswald as patsy, and I think this very likely occurred
>before the trip to Mexico City, in New Orleans, through Bannister. I'm not
>certain on that, there may have been some other reason for Oswald's trip
>to Mexico City. But the appearance is of creating an apparent connection
>between the assassination and Cuba and the Soviet Union. I think that at least
>part of the conspiracy fully intended to hang the whole thing on Cuba,
>but LBJ, even though he apparently was convinced up to his death that
>Cuba was involved, just didn't respond the way they thought he would.

>All anyone needed was to know how to get Oswald's gun from his garage.
>That's not all that hard, if you have someone talking to Oswald prior
>to the assassination. Even if Oswald was just chosen because he worked
>for the TSBD, and no one in on the plan really had much to do with him
>until they decided they needed a patsy and found this guy with the "commie"
>background at the TSBD, it still wouldn't be very tough.

>As far as Tippit's death, someone shot him, possibly while Oswald was on the
>scene. Possibly Oswald shot him.

	Amazing.  And you think the Oswald/lone gunman scenario
	is too complicated?  And evidentially weak?  

>>       I mean - none
>>	of this vague stuff here.  The Oswald-did-it scenario
>>	is detailed to the nth degree.  Conspiracy scenarios
>>	prosper to the extent they are vague, with some noteworthy
>>	exceptions.  So let's hear yours.  Expecting 100% airtight
>>	perfection in the case against Oswald while delivering
>>	murky innuendo is the epitome of the double-standard.

>This is a crock. I believe there was a conspiracy primarily because
>Oswald could not possibly have done it. The Oswald-did-it scenario is
>detailed (bogus, but detailed) because the weaknesses of this scenario
>is what drives belief in a conspiracy. Do you think we begin by imagining
>some fully-wrought scenario down to all the details and then work
>backwards from there? I don't, I look at the evidence, and where the
>evidence is unclear, I consider all possibilities.

	All Oswald or any other lone gunman had to do to 
	assassinate JFK on 11/22/63 or on just about any other
	day when he was visible to the public, was to get a
	gun and shoot it.  It happens all the time.    

>I don't expect 100% airtight perfection in the case against Oswald, just
>something plausible. It isn't there.

	You simply refuse to see it.

>If this case is ever seriously investigated and plausible case is built
>agianst specific individuals, then we'll discuss details about it. Until
>then, it's irresponsible to accuse people without evidence, and a waste of
>time arguing about it.

	It has been seriously investigated, from top to bottom,
	twice.  The intelligence agency connections have been
	seriously investigated three times.  How many more investigations
	do you need?

>>	Perhaps Bruce will address your point.  As for "most
>>	of the evidence" I presume you exclude the autopsy?

>No, in fact, I rely most heavily upon the autopsy. At the autopsy, absolutely
>no evidence of traversing was found. Checks were done both from the back,
>looking for a path, and from the inside of the chest cavity, where the
>autopsists quite logically assumed a bullet shot from above and behind would
>pass into if it hit soneone in the back. They spent a great deal of time
>trying to figure out where the bullet went and were under alot of pressure
>to figure it out. Meanwhile, the FBI were hanging on the perimeter hoping for
>a bullet or even just a fragment to take back to their lab, but the doctors
>never found any, not even by x-ray (except in the head).
>It was only after the autopsy was over with and the body was already done
>up by the morticians that the Bethesda autopsists learned that the
>throat wound they thought was only a tracheostomy opening had been a
>wound. They then simply wrote into their final report that the bullet
>must have traversed because they could make no other explanation for not
>being able to find the bullet.

	I notice you "rely heavily on the autopsy" even though the
	pathologists determined that JFK was hit twice from behind?
	It is true that Humes did not make the back/throat outshoot
	location connetion until after he spoke with Dr. Perry.
	But the inshoot location for this wound was eminently clear
	at first glance.  The inshoot location for the head wound
	was also very clear at first glance.  The pattern of 
	entrance/exit exit damage made by a through-and-through
	bullet wound of the cranium is unistakable, not only to
	a trained pathologist, but to a beat cop who is able
	to examine the whole body.

	As for the connection between the back wound and the
	throat wound, re-read the autopsy report.

>>	Please explain how they managed to have the fragment recovered
>>	from JFK's head match the fragments found in the limo.

>Please explain what the hell you're talking about.

	Now why do I have to keep saying this stuff over and
	over?  A fragment of the bullet was recovered from
	JFK's head.  This fragment was compared, via NAA, to
	the limo fragments.  There was a match.

>>	You mean Arnold Rowland, singular.  His wife did not support
>>	his statements, indeed even made a comment to the effect that
>>	her husband had a tendency to tell tales.

>Where do you get this?

	It is right in the WCR.  Your NYT copy has the name in
	the index.

>>	Rowland actually first testified about seeing the black
>>	man when he was in front of the WC.  The WC took his
>>	statements seriously enough that they decided to interview
>>	each and every employee of the TSBD to see if they could
>>	substantiate Rowland's claim.  They found no such
>>	substantiation.

>Why would they? What would TSBD employees have over anyone else?

	Think *hard* about this one...

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)