HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:37:08 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:

> There was no reductio ad absurdum. There is a wealth of
> circumstantial evidence
> indicating that Oswald had intelligence connections. It was somehow thought
> that bringing up Oswald's early age would somehow falsify the case. It does
> not, as it was shown that there were in fact Teen Agents, of various sorts.

I've been following the thread and I don't agree that that has been shown
at all.

> |The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was a Marxist.
> Why would a Marxist be hired at a photo firm that requires a security
> clearence? (Just for starters)

It did not require a security clearance. They did some security work that
required some segregation of employees but security was lax and all
employees had access to the material (names of Soviet cities intended for
maps). The reason Oswald got the job was that he was neat, polite, and
demonstrated some knowledge of photography. His political affiliations
were not asked, as they are usually not in job interviews. Besides, Oswald
would have lied anyway.

What are the rest of your problems with Oswald being a Marxist?

> |Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
> |were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
> |welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.
> 
> Wasn't it the Paine's, who have connections with intelligence, that got
> Oswald, not Marina, the job at the TSBD, at a time when Marina was
> *seperated* from Oswald?

I'm not aware of any connections the Paine's had to intelligence. That
seems unlikely given their interests. It was Ruth Paine who heard about
the job at the TSBD. She was separated as well. Her husband plays practically
no role in this affair.

> In any event, your distinction between helping
> Oswald and helping Marina seems irrelevent, since you could, and probably
> will, argue that to help one is to help the other!

You know me well, sir. Marina knew no English at that time. She had one
small child and was pregnant with another. Her income was coming from Lee
so, yes, it was very much in her interest that he be employed.

> |This was covered on Nightline some months back. They did not say much more
> |than Nosenko said after he defected in 1964.
> 
> And what a story *that* was, wasn't it?

I tend to agree with Angleton, that Nosenko was unreliable in many respects.
However, that doesn't mean his core reason for defecting--if it was a
setup--to get the Soviets off the hook for Oswald, was wrong.

John
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Justice Department
Keywords: Veto
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:33:17 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

>From the San Francisco Examiner, Thursday August 13:

>	The Justice Department has said that it may urge President
>Bush to veto the bill (to release millions of pages of secret documents
>of the 1963 assassination of JFK) because it violates executive privilege,
>by which presidents have claimed control of records of their administrations'
>decision-making process.  

	Executive privelege be damned.

	This is supposed to be a government "by the people, of the
people and for the people".  IMHO, that means WE are the government and
officials from the President on down are our elected and/or appointed
*servants*.  If indeed WE are the government, the WE should have access
to these documents and judge for ourselves.

Duane
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: The Garrison Tapes (JFK)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:32:03 GMT

In article <169qinINNofb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU
>, david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug10.054930.11707@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU
> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 2) A memo from George Bush (!) warning the FBI of rumours of a possible
>    assassination was shown, but the source of this document was not stated.
> 
> have you gotten a source for this yet, by any chance?
> 
You may have missed my post re the Hard Copy (AUS.TV) show:
By pausing and slow motion on my video the following was obtained from the film
"The Garrison Tapes " produced by John Barbour:

Photocopy of
":US SECRET SERVICE memo
  Re James Milton Parrott
  Houston on November 22 advised that George H. W. Bush, a reputable
  businessman, furnished information to the effect that Jim Parrott
  has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston..."

It is a poor photocopy so you need a good video copy to read it.

> |Also the Bronson film showing that there was no one on the sixth floor
> |is very important.
> 
> ? Thompson says that his photo experts say two people (or more?) were on the
> 6th floor.


In the Garrison Tapes video it shows the "The Bronson film" in colour.
It shows no activity at any of the TSBD 6th floor windows during the parade.
Watch it for yourself and decide. (The film also shows US Govt Memo 63-43
dated 11/25/63, claiming that the film does NOT show the TSBD and is of poor
quality and irrelevant). Why?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Where was George during JFKill? (previously The Garrison Tapes (JFK))
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:37:00 -0500

 > From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 >
 > In article <169qinINNofb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU
 > >, david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
 > >
 > > In article <1992Aug10.054930.
 > 11707@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
 > dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
 > writes:
 > > 2) A memo from George Bush (!) warning the FBI of rumours
 > > of a possible assassination was shown, but the source of this
 > > document was not stated.

 > You may have missed my post re the Hard Copy (AUS.TV)
 > show:By pausing and slow motion on my video the following
 > was obtained from the film
 > "The Garrison Tapes " produced by John Barbour:
 >
 > Photocopy of
 > ":US SECRET SERVICE memo
 >   Re James Milton Parrott
 >   Houston on November 22 advised that George H. W. Bush, a reputable
 >   businessman, furnished information to the effect that Jim Parrott
 >   has been talking of killing the President when he comes
 >   to Houston..."
 >
 > It is a poor photocopy so you need a good video copy to
 > read it.

Also, a completely DIFFERENT document:

Mark Lane's book Plausible Denial has a copy of a memo from
J. Edgar Hoover, obtained from the Freedom of Information
Act in 1978 (before Bush entered Presidential politics) and
discovered in the 1980's from within a FIA pile of 100,000
documents.  In this memo, it speaks of George Bush "of the CIA"
being in a meeting with other TOP officials regarding who
could have possibly been behind the JFK assassination.

There is quite a story there, of which I have barely scratched
the surface.  See Plausible Denial for details (which I don't
have handy aymore) -- someone who has Plausible Denial please
follow up.  I am surprised that it has not made the headlines.

However, I am less and less surprised by our species.

"The next creature feature is the JFK conspiracy;
 brought to you by the same species that made the halocaust,
 North Korea, the KGB, the crucifixion, and other fine products."

Vote Clinton-Gore or quit complaining.
From: abw@natchez.bu.edu (Al Wesolowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Gallery record of
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:38:44 GMT
Organization: Boston University

Following e-mail is relayed to a.c.jfk at the request of Craig Stacy.

From craigs@garfield.cs.mun.ca Thu Aug 13 09:33:07 1992
Return-Path: <craigs@garfield.cs.mun.ca>
From: Craig Stacey <craigs@garfield.cs.mun.ca>
To: abw@bucrsb.bu.edu
Subject: Re: Gallery Magazine July '79
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 	Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:42:45 -0230

I remember running across this magazine once among my brother's
magazines several years ago.  I played the record on my crappy kid's
record player then and what I can remember from it is an announcer of
some sort and a replaying of the gunshot as recorded by one of the
motorcycle cops who had the recorder on his bike on.  I am quite
certain I still have it somewhere, but since I moved 2 years ago, my
record collection has appeared mysteriously incomplete, so it is likely
tucked away somewhere among the rest of my missing albums.  If I should
manage to find it, I will make a posting here about it.


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch)
Subject: Re: JFK Conspiracy
Organization: Vomit Fondlers Anonymous
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:38:25 GMT

In article <23558@oasys.dt.navy.mil> efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler) writes:
>
>
>Just wanted to let everyone know that the latest U.S. News and World
>Report has a big article on the JFK killing.  The conclusion from the
>article is that there was no conspiracy.  Actually it focuses on the
>Warren Commission, and the story behind that.  It is rather interesting,
>and I recommend it to you all.

Should be interesting to see how the journalistically astonishing Useless
News and World Distort can roll history back 28 years to a version of the
events that the government doesn't even try to sell anymore.

>-- Ted Findler
>-- 
>__________________________________________________________
>|        Ted Findler         | Watch for Cal in June '95 |
>| efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil |  Consecutive Game #2131   |


-- 
Jerry Kuch (t-gerldk@microsoft.com) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3001 alt.conspiracy:10007 sci.skeptic:14370
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: <None>...U2 Flights
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:18:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:

>>	The CIA did not keep their A12 Blackbirds for long, either.  By
>>mid to late 1968 the mission was being done by the Air Force and
>>their SR71's - the A12's met an early retirement.....

eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>I suppose I'm nit-picking, but the A-12 and the SR-71 is essentially the same 
>aircraft.

	No it isn't.  The general appearance is similar, the engines are
roughly the same with a mostly titanium airframe.  At about that point
similarities end.  The Sr71 was a two-seater with pilot and RSO (Recon.
Systems Operator), while the A12 was a single seat aircraft (excepting for
the two-place trainer and the two M12 drone carriers).  On the SR71
the recon. equipment is carried in the nose and/or in chine bays.  On
the A12 the space which became the second seat for the YF12's and the SR71
was full of recon. gear with a hatch over the top.  So far as most of us
can tell, the A12 did NOT carry gear out in the chines - mostly the chines
were not part of the airframe proper but an add-on made of some good
junk called pyro-ceram.  Pyro-ceram was neat stuff that not only could stand
up to the heat of Mach 3+ but did some radar attenuation as well,
according to most of the available reports.  The chines on the SR71
were pretty well fixed in place and were, in general, not attributed to
being *more* stealthy than the rest of the airplane.

	The actual line and form of the chines is different between the
two, with the A12 being considerably more angular and "pointy" than
the Sr71.  The tail of the SR is longer and the SR can carry more
fuel for a longer range than the A12.  The A12 was lighter in weight
and was rumoured to fly not only a bit *faster* than the SR, but
higher as well.

	(The YF12, of course, was really vastly different than either
the A12 or the SR71.  YF12's were killers that had look-down, shoot-
down capability; a capability that was demonstrated to work as far
as 110 miles! As a long range, high speed stand-off interceptor, the
YF12 was probably unmatched in it's capabilities.  And those could have
been considerably expanded in production by incorporating the sort
of fire control that went into planes like the F14.)

	Back the the A12 and the SR71.  A12's never got the improvements
in engine and flight controls that went into the SR71's.  The SR's
were, by most accounts, an easier airplane to fly because of this.

	While many details of both the A12 and SR71 remain unavailable,
suffice to say that there are enough differences that you really can't
call them the same plane.  "Close", perhaps.  Maybe not even that.

Duane
From: indiana@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re:getting a copy of "Six Seconds in Dallas"
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:24:07 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

   On the publishing info page of my old paperback copy of Josiah Thompson's
"Six Seconds in Dallas"(copyright 1967,1976.):
   "Published by arrangement with Bernard Geis Associates, 128 East 56th Street,
New York, N.Y.10022.
   "Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 67-23577" (Do they Xerox copies ???)
                SBN 425-03255-8  (Whatever that means !)
   (my paperback)--BERKLEY MEDALLION BOOKS are published by Berkley Publishing
Corporation, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y.10016.
   This old paperback was printed in Nov.,1976. I hope the publishing co.is 
still in existence, and that this is of some help to you. If not, it might mean
writing all the old second-hand bookstores.I think there is a "Book-Finders"
company (New York ? London ?)but don't have the address.
   Am intrigued by your name. Is there an English version of Sjoerd ?
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: JAMA, Perry and Lifton: the throat wound
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:40:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug17.194047.25672@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:

[From Pacifica Radio Interview]

| ...That tracheotomy, Doctor Perry told me
|in 1966, was two to three centimeters. And according to everybody
|there, it had neat edges -- neat edges as made with a knife. I
|would be more than willing to testify before any investigation that
|Perry told me that it was two to three centimeters, in 1966, and to
|offer my telephone interview tapes as evidence. In 1966, I
|interveiewed all the doctors on this issue of the length of the
|tracheotomy incision. At the Dallas end of the line it was two to
|three centimeters -- four, some of them said. There's one or two
|stragglers who say it was a little bit bigger. But Perry made the
|incision. He told me it was two to three centimeters. In the
|autopsy report, that thing is listed as six-and-a-half centimeters
|with widely gaping edges. And under oath, [Dr.] Humes said it was 
|seven to eight centimeters, and it has, according to the autopsy 
|report, widely gaping irregular edges. 

In the JAMA article, as I have pointed out before, Perry says that the wound
in the Autopsy photos, and presumably according to the Autopsy report, looked
similiar to the wound as it was in Dallas. Clearly, however, he is conflicting
with his own statements to Lifton, that the treacotomy was only 2-3
centimeters and had smooth edges. This is also simliar to Livingston's
interviews with people's modern opinions of the throat wound, many seem
to have said it was smaller in the past, and changed their views recently.
I wonder why.

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:44:03 GMT

Tom Warner > writes:
Bruce Schuck (me) >>


>>
>>It also involves his attempted contact with one of the other
>>'defectors' while in the USSR.
>>
>Hmm.. Where'd you get this?

From Anthony Summers "Conspiracy"

The Rand employee 'defector' was Robert Webster, a young plastics
experts who 'defected' after an exhibition in Moscow. He worked for
the Rand Development Corporation. The President of Rand D was Henry
Rand , a senior veteran of the OSS.

Webster was a former Navy man who defected two weeks before Oswald.

Webster, who had a wife in the US, took a Russian common-law wife who
was probably a KGB agent.

He left the USSR, apparently disillusioned with the USSR two weeks
before Oswald did.

In 1961, before leaving the USSR, Oswald inquired about Websters fate.

Oswald either met Webster, or had heard of him.


Later, back in the US, Marina told a friend that LHO defected from a
trade show in Moscow, which was Websters story, not LHO's.
From: potrzebi@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (potrzebi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Trial and error
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 03:16:45 CST
Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB

RE: This Lee Harvey Oswald trial thing.  Is this the same bit that
aired recently on A&E ?
 
Potrzebie

;--- (potrzebi) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64
;E-mail: potrzebi@sys6626.bison.mb.ca
;system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:13:23 GMT

Mitchell S Todd) writes:


>	The Soviets knew damn well that the US was flying spy
>	planes over Soviet territory. Oswald wouldn't have told them
>	anything they wouldn't have known. 

From the testimony of John Donovan, former Marine Lieutenant:

"...shortly before I got out of the Marine Corps, which was in
mid-December 1959, we received word that he had showed up in Moscow.
This necessitated a lot of change of aircraft call signs, codes, radio
frequencies, radar frequencies.
  He had access to the location of all bases in the West Coast area,
all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, and
the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in
a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentification code
of entering an exitting the ADIZ, which stands for Aircraft Defense
Identification Zone. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range
of our radio. And he knew the range of the surrounding units' radio
and radar."   [8H 298]

Sure Mitchell. Oswald had nothing of value for the USSR. [Heavy Sarcasm]

If he was a real defector, he had nothing to offer. [More sarcasm]

If he was an ONI plant he had nothing to offer. [Even more sarcasm]

Sure Mitchell. Thats the ticket. [Tons of sarcasm]
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Bullet Velocities
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:14:00 GMT
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>In article <schuck.713065419@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...

>>>In light of my new found belief in the incredible slowness of the
>>>'magic' bullet, please tell me:

>>>How did such a slow moving bullet embed a bullet fragment so deep in
>>>John Connally's thigh bone, a long hard bone, that the surgeons left
>>>it embedded there rather than try and dig it out?

>>	The fragment was never embedded in the bone. In the AP x-rays
>>	of Connelly's thigh, it certainly looks like the fragment is
>>	embedded in the bone; however, the side view shows that the
>>	fragment is not far under the skin and not embedded in or
>>	against the bone.

>Thats funny. Both X-Rays in HSCA vol 7 show the fragment embedded in the
>thigh bone.

	Whose version of the HSCA report are you using? The Reader's
	digest condensed set? I had no problem whatsoever locating the
	fragment in the lateral view, and it wasn't even close to
	the bone.

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Secret Documents
Keywords: Senate vote
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:21:16 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1


	I just heard on the radio, that the Senate has voted to 
release "virtually" all the documents related to the JFK assasination.
That's 5pm PST. 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: Saving Kennedy (was Re: The Past)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 22:32:45 GMT


In a previous article, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) says:

>Go to a public phone, and dial the Dallas police. Tell them you saw a man
>with a gun in a window of the top floor of the TBSD. They'd come running
>up the stairs, see Oswald in his sniper's-nest, and arrest the bastard.

Bar har har har. insert {CannedLaughter}
>
>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

"Scepticus Maximus" !!! Is that anything like "Biggus Dickus" of _Life of
Brian_ fame ???   Enquiring minds want to know!

This just cracks me up every time -- "sceptics" swallowing the Warren
Commision like St-Exupery's boa constrictor. If anyone didn't know better,
they might get the idea that "sceptics" value _authority_ far, far above
enquiry, scientific or otherwise.

William Harvey: "Blood circulates throughout the body."
"Sceptics": "Oh no no no. The Galen Report proved that's impossible."


> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
>
>       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
>        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
>        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
>        where it will end."
>                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
>
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews