From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Another Generic Subject
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:34:41 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:

>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.

Well, it's nice that you're satisfied with whatever explanation has been
given you, but I still haven't seen it.

>	What "every" medical witness (I assume you mean besides
>	the pathologists?) has said about JFK's wounds varies
>	from witness to witness.

As best as I can decode here, you're taking the position that the Dallas
doctors described the wounds in a way that differs from the x-rays, but the
pathologists did not. I'm saying, differences between the Dallas and Bethesda
doctors' descriptions aside, the x-ray has the wound farther forward than
the Bethesda doctors described it.

>         Differences depend upon whether or
>	not one uses vague language like "rear top" or anatomical
>	terminology.

I understand the anatomical terminology (as long as I have a diagram handy :)
but I don't see any need to use it here to communicate my point.

>>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.

Guess what: I can't, 'cause I'm not a photo expert. I guess you're claim
is proven now. :)

>>>	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?

Is it really so unclear? I'm suggesting that "the guy" is JFK, but not
everything you see is necessarily "the guy."

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

Again, the fact that I am not a lab scientist has confirmed that Oswald
actually did shoot JFK. Quick, prepare the press release.

>>>	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.

No, it's back-asswards, Joel. Put it this way: if right after Iran-
Contra broke, a note allegedly hand-written by North or Poindexter
had surfaced that in some way cleared higher ups, which the alleged
author refuted, would the proposition that the note was a forgery
necessitate the forgers having been in on the whole plan from the start?

If that's too confusing for you how about this: ever considered the possibility
that the plan was to kill JFK from the TSBD if possible, but that shooter
didn't pull it off?

Or this: if you were part of a plan to kill JFK in a crossfire and hang it all
on Oswald, what plans would you make to try and make sure the frame-up stuck?
If there was any way someone in your circle could intercept the autopsy photos,
wouldn't it be worth it? Wouldn't you think of this in advance?

>>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.

See above. I'm saying forgery could have been part of the plan or it
could have been thought of afterwards. The only limits placed on the "scenario"
is that someone would have had to have been in a position to intercept the
photos and x-rays.

>>>	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.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>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.

One frame can not establish motion, and anyway, no skull fragments are
visible. Since thinks like flying skull fragments
would have been moving extremely quickly, it is not surprising that they
were not captured (visible near JFK's head) in any frame.

What is seen in Z-313 is a spray of liquid and brain matter. Since this too
is moving so quickly that by z-314 nothing is seen that can be traced to z-313,
the most that can be said is that within an 1/18th of a second of impact, most
of the liquid displaced had moved forward and up. Without some kind of
reference to the way exploding skulls look at various fractions of a second
after impact, depending on where they're hit (gee what a nice thought) I
think one frame is a basis for nothing more than guesses.

>       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.

At a mind-boggling 5 mph, yes. This, I suppose, is why he described the
impact as initially making him think he'd been hit by the shot.

>        Mr. and Mrs.
>	Connally and Kellerman and Greer were spattered with
>	blood and brain.  And they were in front of JFK.

Not as much as Jackie. They weren't hit by any fragments, either.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk