HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 17 Apr 1992 01:18:18 CDT
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Won't change history (was Re: What REALLY happened)
 <1992Apr13.005444.11924@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1992Apr16.210537.5178@news.nd.edu>

Mr. Arnold's argument for being wary of conspiracy theories is sound and
good advice.  His dark prefice to this admonition of American's being some-
what regularly taken in by this is going too far.  Just as one must be wary
of jumping on the conspiracy wagon,  there is abundant historical evidence of
conspiratorial dealings in our government at all levels.  consider the case
of the killing of Letelier the Argentinian exile.  the CIA's first move was
to spread rumors of a left wing group being responsible.  When this didn't fly
with the press, they made out that the right wing crazies did it.  after
several more attempts at disinformation, elements of the press tracked it
down to the DINA, the gestapo of Argentina with strong suspicians of CIA
complicity.
Consider the FBI, CIA, Army intelligence programs at all levels to infiltrate
and report on all areas of Vietnam protest.  At the time, charges of this
conspiratorial actions were denounced as absurd and crazy.  The official
pundits lashed out at those making these claims as conspiracy crazed lunatics
who didn't have any sense of what American government would participate in.
I'm sorry but just as important as not leaping to believe in conspiracies
theories is not ruling them out from the start.
Peter Dale Scott writing on conspiracies as one who has been famous for
advancing the same has said that he doesn't understand the automatic
trashing of these explanations.  To paraphrase his argument in my own words,
I grew up in Chicago.  If a reporter wrote a piece on a deal made between
organized crime and the city council on some plush piece of boonswaggle, it
would not surprise me.  I wouldn't say "Oh, come on. That's just preposterous."
If they reported finding a body of a commissioner just before he was to look
into a crime connection, it would not surprise me to hear later that a federal
investigation was insueing.  Scott asks why this would be so impossible to
think of on the federal level.  Though I am not ready to always follow where
Scott leads, he makes a point as strong as the point of being skeptical.
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head Wound Bullet (was: Clark Panel)
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:26:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes...
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>	Odd. Lattimer's book includes three photos showing three seriously
>>	deformed bullets side by side. The first bullet is one fired
>>	by the Commission's Dr Olivier through a human skull. The second
>>	is a bullet fired by Dr Lattimer through a human skull. The
>>	third bullet is the one that went through JFK's head. 

>Where was the bullet that went through JFK's head recovered? Was it in
>the limousine, or outside somewhere? We keep hearing about the "magic
>bullet" and how it was found on or near a stretcher, but nobody ever
>talks about this one. Maybe that's because it doesn't support any
>"conspiracy" claims.

	The two fragments of the bullet (one is the remains of the jacket,
	one is the remains of the core) were found in the limosine.

	As to why this bullet doesn't have the notoriety, I guess it's
	because it doesn't have the press agent CE399 does.


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
From: tjfs@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head Shot - Lead or Copper Jacketed Bullet?
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:18:16 GMT
Organization: Tadpole Technology plc

In article <schuck.703059944@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

   On the X-Rays, a circular ring is visible.

Where is the ring - on the back of the skull, presumably, implying he
was shot from the rear?  I'm not sure if there is confusion as to
which is the entrance wound on the skull...  later on you seem to
imply the entrance wound was on the right side towards the front and
the bullet fragmented inside before "blowing out the rear of his skull".

Tim
-- 
Tim Steele
Product Support Manager
Tadpole Technology plc
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 02:36:02 CDT
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Lifton's Credibility
 <1992Apr15.132257.8057@cbnews.cb.att.com>

Once again, I have to say it.
Aside from the fact that I don't buy all of Lifton's arguments, why is his
interviews with people to be discounted and Manchester's to be taken as gospel?
Both talk to witnesses, both relate what they said, both can be duped by them,
both could be presenting us important evidence.  Why is Manchester's version
taken as more credible than Lifton's?  If Manchester reported that the lead car
was going backwards down the street, would this then be the last word on that?
If LBJ told Manchester that Nixon was standing at the time on Elm St. would
that then be confirming evidence that this was so?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Crenshaw
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  7 APR 92 13:46:51 PDT


re: 783

Actually, other doctors have spoken out because of Dr. Crenshaw,
as in this AP article:

Two doctors who treated the dying President John F. Kennedy
are questioning whether a colleague who said Kennedy was shot
from the front knew enough about the wounds to challenge official
conclusions.

Dr. Kenneth E. Salyer, who said he worked with Dr. Charles Crenshaw
in the emergency room where Kennedy was treated Nov. 22, 1963, suggested
Thursday the frenzied emergency room was not the place to make a
sound conclusion about the wounds.

Salyer declined to criticize Crenshaw for his assertion about Kennedy's
wound, but said: "Anybody can make an observation and make a
statement about it, and some people have a little more expertise
than others...  He is trained as a general surgeon."

Another physician who treated Kennedy said: "We were trying to keep
the president alive.  We weren't trying to establish the forensic
facts of the case."  Crenshaw "has no more basis than any of the
rest of us to say what happened," said that doctor, who spoke
on condition of anonymity."

Personally, I do not regard Dr. Crenshaw's statements (insofar
as I have details about them) or the above quoted doctors's
statements as of greater, or even equal weight than the
autopsy materials.  Unless you can demonstrate the incompetence
of all the doctors involved in autopsy and various medical
reviews, or their corruption, such findings must stand.

As for eyewitness testimony, yes, it is used in court.  But
even outright confessions may require corroborating evidence.
Eyewitness testimony which contradicts static, scientific
findings, is always given less weight.

Joel Grant

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Crenshaw
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:24:17 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
>Salyer declined to criticize Crenshaw for his assertion about Kennedy's
>wound, but said: "Anybody can make an observation and make a
>statement about it, and some people have a little more expertise
>than others...  He is trained as a general surgeon."

Dr. Crenshaw had been working as a resident in Parkland's trauma unit
since 1961. He describes Parkland as a "M.A.S.H. unit for Dallas County's
War Zone." The doctors at Parkland "referred to the trauma team as those
who treated the 'knife-and-gun club.'" He personally had treated "dozens
of gunshot wounds," some resulting from high-powered rifles. Since then,
with a thirty-year career as a surgeon, he has witnessed "thousands of
gurneys slam through the swinging doors of emergency rooms, carrying the
old and the young, the rich and the poor, the broken and the dying."
And his memory of the President's body that day is, of course, vivid.

I don't criticize Dr. Salyer for his remarks about Crenshaw, however.
Anybody can make an observation...

-----
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: more on Lifton
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:06:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <1992Apr10.204658.23815@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|First - re: 833 (Marty) and 839 (David Condon)
|
|The body wrapping, for instance.  Manchester details the 
|way the body was wrapped in eight different layers of
|rubber and - guess what? - green plastic.  And the whole
|thing no doubt resembled a green body bag.

First of all, witnesses testify the body was wrapped in sheets. When the casket
was opened, witnesses testified or spoke to Lifton that the body was
in white sheets. The ones that saw the body bag, at least some remember
them unzipping the bag. 

|The Parkland work on the throat for another.  Two throat
|procedures were done.  A tracheotomy by Dr. Carrico and
|*then* a tracheostomy by Dr. Perry.  A tracheostomy,
|known informally as placing a "mouth in the throat",
|does in fact make a wound about the size observed
|in the "stare of death" autopsy photos.

This is interesting. Where did you get information on the tracheostomy? And
what is it? It is not in Lattimer. If it was in the Medical report, I am sure
Lifton read it and ran across it. There are other problems with the
wound, however. First, it was too low, and second it was too ragged. (i.e.,
between descriptions from Parkland to Bethesda/Photos.)

|...- it is very, very clear that the President's
|coffin was never without at least one person standing
|guard. 

After thinking about this a bit I think Lifton was trying to argue what people
were *not* involoved, perhaps implicating the Secret Service. After all, if the
body was switched it would have to be switched by *someone*. The SS seems the
most likely of candidates, according to Lifton.

|...  And I mention
|this only as an example of how amazingly wrong eyewitness
|testimony can be. 

There is no argument from that what so ever. No one on this side says that they
know when the body was switched, who did it, or even who shot JFK. However, the
independent corroborative testimony and explanations point to serious
differences in wounds, trajectories, and scenarios. What we are arguing here is
is it *possible* that the body was switched. I think it was.

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "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)
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "The Guns of Dallas" by L. Fletcher Prouty
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:14:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.15APR199216143777
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <167CA6DB2.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu 
(Michael Edelman) writes...

>Here's an example of rampant ignorance combined with a willful disregard
>of evidence. Most of us know who Neville Chamberland was, and we therefore
>understood the bit of hyperbole in the post referring to him. It seems
>that at least one person has no memories prior to 1964! The Umbrella man
>was touched on in the PBS show. He was interviewed by many people to whom
>he told that story.

>Now, the radical skeptics have a much harder case to prove, don't they?
>They see and umbrella and scream "weapon!", and it's up to the rational
>among us to prove it's not. Prove it wasn't the secret service who killed
>him! Prove that Jackie wasn't in on it! Prove that the driver didn't
>shoot him! Frankly, these people- and the poster above- need not only a
>bit of historical perspective, they need a few courses in basic logic.
>Can you say "asserting the consequent", boys and girls...?

Oh wise and omnipotent Michael, we bow before you and beseech your 
knowledge.  Now, do you care to tell us what the hell you're talking about? 
A willful disregard of evidence?  To what evidence do you speak?  Arthur 
Neville Chamberlain was the PM of Britain prior to Churchill and is 
portrayed as a man who, in effect, kissed Adolph Hitler's ass in an attempt 
to avoid World War II.  While I fail to see the hyperbole which you refer 
to, I can comprehend the sarcasm represented by the "Umbrella Man"s story, 
I fail to see how anyone could pick up this protest in a motorcade.  
However, the Chamberlain story is more believable than a claim that he was 
doing his "Mary Poppins" imitation.  If the "Umbrella Man" tells the same 
story to a number of people, that means that he's consistent in telling the 
story.  That, in itself, does not _prove_ his story is true, nor does it 
_prove_ his story is false.

If I recall the direction of the discussion in this newsgroup correctly, 
the initial thoughts were that the "Umbrella Man" was some sort of signal 
man.  After Prouty's article was posted here, the possibility of the 
umbrella as a weapon was discussed.  I am not certain what you refer to 
with the phrase "radical skeptic".  It almost sounds like something out of 
Archie Bunker's mouth, like "if you don't believe everything in the Warren 
Commission Report, then you must be some kind of radical or something."

If there are people in this newsgroup that need a historical perspective, 
then why don't you give us one that you can back up with fact (not theory, 
hypothesis, etc.).  And please expand a little on what you define as basic 
logic.

JD
From: sgamble@crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Retrograde Recoil and the JFK Assassination
Keywords: Some more calculations
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:20:58 GMT
Reply-To: sgamble@crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293)
Organization: MRC Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre, Harrow, UK


There have been a number of postings here postulating that if JFK is 
shot from behind, that it is the jet of blood etc from the exit
wound that forces the head/body backwards. This might be so if a human 
was a sack of melons or something similar.

A human, apart from its brain which acts a co-ordinator, has a number of
sub-systems connected with maintaining balance and posture. The most recent
command they have is to hold his body erect in a sitting position. The 
immediate shock of a massive injury particularly to the brain would generate
millions of conflicting inputs causing a temporary overload of the brain.
Until the brain sorts out what is going on all the semi-autonomous control
systems would work on last received orders. To counter-act a rapid jerk
forward they would cause a violent backward correction. More like
physiology rather than physics.

Whilst I have been writing this I have thought of another illustration
of this. If you are in a car which runs head first into a wall, first
your head snaps forward onto your chest then you recoil back and your
head snaps back causing whiplash injury of the neck.

I do not claim to be an expert in these things but it seems to me this
might be at least as valid an explanation as the blood jet and also would
avoid the need for a shot from the front.

Coming back to the idea of a massive injury overloading the brain, did
not Connally say something like it was a several seconds after he was 
hit before he said he felt the pain. 

Steve.
-- 
(Disclaimer: These are not my employer's opinions, they may not even be mine!)  
Steve Gamble, Computing Services,  
Clinical Research Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK.
Phone: 081 869 3293  JANET: s.gamble@uk.ac.crc INTERNET: s.gamble@crc.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Dr. Charles Crenshaw - JFK was shot from front
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  8 Apr 1992 13:06 EST  

In article <1992Apr6.184816.12863@linus.mitre.org>, rseguine@buckeye.mitre.org (Roy SeGuine) writes...
>In article <schuck.702324090@sfu.ca> schuck@selkirk.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan  
>Schuck) writes:
>> Dr Charles Crenshaw was interviewed on "Now It Can Be Told"
>> Thursday night.
>> 
>> He was one of the physicians in attendance at Parkland when
>> JFK was wheeled in.
>> 
>[stuff deleted]
> 
>> He said:
>> 
>> 
>> The throat wound was an entrance wound.
>> The head wound was caused by a bullet entering from the
>> front and blew the back of JFK's head off.
>> 
>> 
>Suppose all this is true....could someone please explain how the  
>Governor's wounds fit into this hypothesis?

Actually, there are two sets of wounds that are not explained (directly) by 
this hypothesis - Connally's wounds and JFK's back wound.  Crenshaw's 
statements, however, do not preclude "multiple shooters", they just 
stipulate his convictions that the wounds he saw (JFK's head and throat) 
originated from the front.  The additional wounds could have come from 
shots (note plural - if throat was an entry, then the back wound has no 
known exit) from the rear (TSBD, Dal-Tex, etc.).

Personally, I like the Umbrella story as the origin of the throat wound :)

JD
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:768 alt.conspiracy:6074 alt.activism:7253
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: Church Committee on FBI/CIA performance
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 05:24:10 GMT


In a previous article, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) says:

>Why do we keep hearing "read the WC report" as if somehow its inherent
>soundness is being ignored by its detractors? Fact is, subsequent
>government investigations have roundly criticized it. 

[...]

Not only that, but I would venture to add that most all of the best known
independent researchers, from the early Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg
on down to the present, have been roughly as familiar with the Warren
Report as Martin Luther was with the Bible -- far more so than many of
its current avid disciples.
-- 
		Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was
		valid ... er, if the money was valid ... and
		if it were a small part.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Some notes about this newgroup...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  8 Apr 1992 16:03 EST  

In article <6477@shodha.enet.dec.com>, m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com 
(Marty Henderson) writes...

>We have people in - generally - 3 different catagories:
> 
>	Pro Warren (...and you KNOW who you are!)   ;^)
> 
>	Pro Conspiracy

Recognizing, of course, the "generally" statement above, the are generally 
a number of sub-categories, as follows:

	Things happened exactly per Warren.

	I have my doubts about Warren, but no one has proved different.

	Things happened per Warren with the exception that Oswald and/or
	Ruby did not act alone.

	Things happened per Warren, except Oswald was not the trigger man.

	Conspiracy sans Oswald.

	Conspiracy including Oswald.

	JFK not really dead, but living upstairs at the White House
	giving Bush advice (for the Tabloid fans).

	etc.

>	Undecided (Mostly Read-Only)

	These are the folks that are archiving the newsgroup and will
	publish a book based on it :)

And then there's Mitchell, who I personally believe is pro-conspiracy but 
really wants to make things thought provoking and wants to see a position 
that does not unravel at the seams :)

>Considering the extreme differences of opinion between the pro-Warren and
>the pro-conspiracy folks: There is very little garbage going on. By that I
>mean personal attacks etc...  After reading the alt.pick your sport groups,
>this is very refreshing and mature. 

Yeah, if I want to see childish pot shots, I read the OS/2 and Windows 
newsgroups.

>Lets keep it this way - both sides eager to express their opinion and even
>refute the "other side" while still maintaining respect for each other.

Opinion?  I thought that this was all factual stuff.  Damn.  

JD
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 21:01:56 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <11APR199215085754@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>
>	Your ignorance of physiology is showing again, Mr Wright.
>
>	What I said, diagramed and ready for you to misinterpet it again.
>
>	Given:
>
>	1	The head shot hit JFK in the right side of the brain.
>
>	2	By all accounts, this would mean that the right side
>		of the brain would be disrupted more than the left side.
>
>	3	A violent, transitory neuro-muscular spasm can be caused
>		by a sudden, violent injury, like that described in 1
>		and 2, above.
>
>	4	the human neural system is designed so that the right
>		side of the brain controls the left side of the body,
>		and vice versa.
>	
>	Therefore,
>
>	5	the sudden downflux of neural impulses (from 3) would be more
>		pronounced on the left side of the body (because of
>		2 and 4), than on the right.
>
>	6 	the stronger impulses on the left side of the body would
>		cause a stronger muscular reaction on the left side of
>		the body than on the right
>
>	7 	this would cause a torque on JFK's body
>
>	8 	since the net 'reflex' reaction is (in part) that of the back
>		muscles pulling back on the body, ie, the back arch,
>		this torque will result in JFK's body turning to the
>		left.
>
>	Got it?



So do you have reference or any first hand experience with "sudden 
downfulx of neural impulses" or did you just pull this out of your ass?



                                   NCW

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism