HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: re The Head Shot
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:38:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.120145.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>Further to my post re the head shot the following article appeared in 
>
>Why do I feel Mr Rahn or the media have something against Oliver Stone?
>
>

  Being associated with the film business, I heard some interesting
stories floating around when Stone was just starting the project. 
The very first week, the production offices were broken into and a copy of
an early draft of the screenplay was stolen. From that moment on,
every newspaper article that came out condemning the film quoted
that screenplay, even though it was not the one being filmed.

  You'ld think that if someone were going to break into an office
to steal a script that they'ld steal the correct one. I mean, REALLY! :)



-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist 
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:44:58 GMT

johna@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (john.a.welsh) writes:

>I have not read anything in this recent series of articles about the
>conclusions that the book Fatal Error proposed.  The man's theorys
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
Mortal Error by Bonar Menninger -- based on the research of Howard Donahue.
Good Book.

>that the book is based on is a ballistics expert.  His premise is based
>on the idea that two very different types of bullets struck JFK: one
>a full metal jacket 30 caliber and the other a smaller fragmentation
>AR-15 bullet.  He wrote that he had seen a demonstration with AR-15
>ammo that made targets that simulated JFK's skull spray ejecta forward
>and the target object jump backward and this was done several times.

I think Donahues analysis of the fatal head shot is execellent, and
well worth reading.

>His conclusions are that the magic bullet was not magic, and the head
>shot did not come from School Book Depository or the grassy knoll. 
>The shot came from or directly behind the following Secret Service car.
>The author of the book said it WAS a SS agent and that it was an accident. 

I think Menninger/Donahue present some good evidence for an SS agent
'accidentally' shooting JFK without proving it to my satisfaction.

What I especially liked was him pointing out what evidence was needed
to disprove his theory. The AR-15 and MC bullets have very different
copper thicknesses on the jacket, so if copper fragments had been
taken from JFK's brain or the brain could be found, it would be easy
to prove or disprove whether he was hit by an AR-15 or not.


The really interesting thing [to me] about the analysis is that it
points toward the Dal-Tex building as a possible shooting site. The 
Dal-Tex was just across the street from the TSBD, and an open window
can be seen in the uncropped Altgens photo just under the fire escape.
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: There was this book...
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:07:57 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <01GTE1K8JESA96WWGF@odin.uniras.dk>, ERIKT@odin.uniras.dk
(Erik Thaysen, Dev.Dept.) writes:
|>
|> 
|> "Double Cross" presents a mob/CIA scenario which doesn't sound all too
|> unrealistic.  What strikes me in the whole discussion concerning the
|> murder of JFK is the common reluctance to consider the combination of
|> "interests" in having JFK removed, e.g., organized crime in
|> *combination* with (a stray element of) the CIA.  Sure, the mob
|> probably couldn't pull this stunt by themselves, but teamed up with
|> "friends" in the CIA, angry exile-cubans...?  I find the mob/CIA
|> scenario far more plausible than the war industry/CIA scenario.
|>

"Most" theories which are bold enough to point fingers usually point to
a "renagade" group which derives from a broad spectrum of individuals --
CIA (Intelligence), anti-Castro Cuban, Mafia, radical right, military, 
etc., --  I don't know of any theory which "localizes" the initiation
of the assassination to one of these specific groups.

There is much data which points to military "involvement", but I am
unaware of any specific testimony that directly implicates a specific
individual who was also a part of the military.
 
|> So, am I the only one who has read this book?  What's the story on
|> Joseph Kennedy?  What's are the current pros and cons concerning the
|> theory of organized crime killing JFK?  Any comments?
|> 
|>

Organized crime had the means, motive, and opportunity to do the deed.
There are specific data which implicates certain mobsters.  On-going
investigation has, for the most part, failed to significantly fill in
any details.  In other words, this avenue of speculation has, failed 
to produce much "new" evidence, though there has been some.

Many researchers feel the mob might have had peripheral involvement, and
could easily have known in advance without having been a substantial 
participant.  Some researchers feel that the "mob did it" line is
disinformation.  Few feel that the mob would have been able to control
the investigation, including the autopsy and Hoover's all-knowing
FBI.  Most indicate the longevity of the coverup cannot be adequately
explained by mob since the principal mob players -- Trafficante, Marcello,
Roselli, were dead or soon to be dead at or near the HSCA investigation
and the extent of the "mysterious" deaths surrounding principal witnesses
in the investigation continued for nearly 25 years after JFK's death,
reaching into very subtle and "deeply covered" elements of the 
intelligence community.  Also, too many key government files from secretive
agencies like the DIA, CIA, FBI, etc are missing.  

Is it more likely that the Mob was able to dominate the intelligence 
community or that the intelligence community was able to dominate the mob?
  

The chief counsel of the HSCA felt very strongly that it was a "mob job."

Paul Collacchi
From: yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Connally's Wound
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:09:58 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>From Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net
>
>yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin @ Yale Computer Science Department)
>writes:
>>Thus a shaped charge would be much less concealable than a gun.  To
>>suggest that a shaped charge was used because it would be more
>>concealable than a gun is complete bullshit; Beter is obviously
>>addressing his letters to ignoramuses.
>
>I think you are misquoting Dr. Beter here.  He said that an advantage of
>a shaped charge would be that it would not produce any bullet or buckshot
>which might be found later.

And he is wrong even in that: a shaped charge would produce a jet of metal
which would leave remnants.  Now you could make a shaped charge without a
metal liner, but you could not kill someone with it, unless of course it was
quite big.

>  He did not say that it was more concealable
>than a gun; in fact, he mentions the noise generated by (even a small)
>shaped charge as being a disadvantage.

Perhaps he did not say explicitly that it would be more concealable, but
that was the thrust of his comments.

>That being said, let me make a general comment.  From my postings of the
>Audio Letters, I have noticed that invariably the most vociferous opponents
>of them have come from the scientific/technical establishment in the US and
>some other Western countries.

That's because engineers and scientists can observe that Beter is making
technical mistakes.  And if the man disregards truth in scientific matters,
he probably disregards it in other matters as well.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "If you want to supply unneeded, opinionated, fluffy meta-commentary, why
  don't you send your resume to your local PBS station." -- Andy Banta
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Date: 5 Jan 1993 00:14:12 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Distribution: na
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <schuck.726166669@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>>The forward snap was
>>then followed by the backward lurch about a 1/10 of a second after the
>>bullet passed through the head and can be attributed to a reflex of the
>>body.  This apparently proves that there was an assasin firing from behind,
>>namely, LHO.
>
>Really? 
>
>Then explain the shower of blood and brain matter that hit the
>motorcycle cops to the *left* and *rear* of JFK and didn't touch the
>motorcycle cops to his right and rear.
>
>How would a shot from JFK's right rear explain that?
>A shot from JFK's right front would explain it!
>

Well . . . wind would explain it.  In fact, the forward motion of the motorcade
would explain it.

But remember that the Zapruder film very clearly shows Kennedy's brain matter
being blown out of his skull *forward.*  It doesn't show any brain matter being
blown out backward.  

.John
From: swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood)
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Originator: swood@bcrks50
Reply-To: swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:12:16 GMT


In article <schuck.726166669@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>> bill@turing.toronto.edu (Bill Monhemius) writes:
> >The forward snap was
> >then followed by the backward lurch about a 1/10 of a second after the
> >bullet passed through the head and can be attributed to a reflex of the
> >body.  This apparently proves that there was an assasin firing from behind,
> >namely, LHO.
> 
> Really? 
> 
> Then explain the shower of blood and brain matter that hit the
> motorcycle cops to the *left* and *rear* of JFK and didn't touch the
> motorcycle cops to his right and rear.
> 
> How would that explain a shot from Kennedy's right and rear....

I think many people may have seen a particular "photo-essay" (forgive me - I cannot
remember the name of the book) of high speed photographs of bullets, milk drops
and other projectiles in freeze-frame.

One of the pictures clearly shows an Apple and a Bullet, the bullet having just passed through
the center of the apple.  The ejecta from the apple clearly explodes in the opposite
direction of the bullet trajectory (i.e. backwards).  It is clear from this picture that none
of the ejecta from the bullet entry is thrown forward.  This is the phenomenon that makes
the photograph interesting -- it defies common sense!

> 
> Explain the Harper fragment, a piece of occipital bone [rear of the
> head] that was found to the left and rear of JFK's location at the
> time of the head shot.

The ejecta in this particular picture appeared to explode backwards and had
a conical distribution.  Thus I would expect some material to be found on both sides
of JFK (actually, in a triangular region with apex at the entry wound).

> 
> A shot from the right front would explain it, not one from the right rear.
> 

I don't think so.

-- 
regards,

============================================================================================
Steven Wood			Phone: 613-763-2830
Memory Development		ESN:     6-393-2830
Bell Northern Research          Email: swood@bnr.ca (internet)
============================================================================================
From: ERIKT@odin.uniras.dk (Erik Thaysen, Dev.Dept.)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: There was this book...
Date: 11 Jan 1993 03:50:29 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

OK, so I posted my mail at an unfortunate time of year (just before
Christmas where most of you were probably already enjoying their
holidays), so you may have missed it.  I'm giving this group one more
chance. ;-)

Here we go: I am an occasional reader of this group and I would like
to hear your comments on a book I've just finished reading.

The book is "Double Cross", about the life and death of organized
crime boss Sam "Mooney" Giancana, written by Chuck & Sam Giancana
(brother and nephew of Mooney).  It ties the murders of both John F.
Kennedy and Robert Kennedy to Mooney, however, without ever providing
the reader with any proof.  Also, it claims that father Joseph Kennedy
was connected to organized crime, particularly during the prohibition
period where he supposedly was heavily into smuggling.  The killing of
JFK was a result of Joseph Kennedy not keeping his promises to
organized crime, once JFK -- the political product of Joseph Kennedy
-- was in office.  

The book covers a lot of territory, and at times it is simply
mind-boggling what and who Sam "Mooney" Giancana appears to have been
connected with.  If the book tells the truth, although Mooney is dead,
the world community has a much bigger problem with organized crime,
than at least I thought.

Don't believe me incredibly naive (pleeease :-) ), but this is all new
to me (after all, I don't live in the country where all this happened,
so, regrettably, it is not top of the news over here), and since the
book doesn't provide the proofs itself I would like to hear whether
this is tenable; are there other sources which support this?

The book certainly doesn't give a very positive portrayal of the
Kennedys. OK, so JFK and Robert Kennedy tried to fight organized
crime, but they certainly weren't saints.  And I couldn't care less!
Whether the Kennedys were "good" or "bad" is beside the point.  What
counts is why they were murdered, and what were their connections and
obligations to other people.

"Double Cross" presents a mob/CIA scenario which doesn't sound all too
unrealistic.  What strikes me in the whole discussion concerning the
murder of JFK is the common reluctance to consider the combination of
"interests" in having JFK removed, e.g., organized crime in
*combination* with (a stray element of) the CIA.  Sure, the mob
probably couldn't pull this stunt by themselves, but teamed up with
"friends" in the CIA, angry exile-cubans...?  I find the mob/CIA
scenario far more plausible than the war industry/CIA scenario.

So, am I the only one who has read this book?  What's the story on
Joseph Kennedy?  What's are the current pros and cons concerning the
theory of organized crime killing JFK?  Any comments?

Erik Thaysen
Denmark
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conelly's Wound
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:20:00 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
: According to Dr. Beter's AUDIO LETTER, Conelly was shot intentionally
: not accidentally,  as he was a "vital witness," so to ensure his account
: of the assassination saw as little as possible.
: 
: This theory is totally rediculous. Beter doesn't even mention that Jackie is
: also in the car as a potential witness.
: 
: Am I missing something obvious or is Beter some crackpot?

Beter is some crackpot.  Check out his "Organic Robot" theories
sometime.

Bill
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:52:45 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Distribution: na
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan5.165943.8546@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>
>  The copy of the Zapruder film I have has
>synchronised to it the Dallas Police Dictabelt containing the 4 recorded
>gunshots judged authentic by the House Select Committee on Assasinations.

But the House Select Committee also recommended that the FBI and the National
Academy of Science examine the Dictabelt recording, and both concluded that it
didn't actually record the assasination.  There was, for example, a church bell
in the background, something that couldn't have been heard in Dealey Plaza.

>
>  However, this also steps over the small error in the original posting
>where the poster went from saying that all shots came from the rear
>to a flippant "namely, LHO". LHO was given a paraffin test for
>nitrates at the Dallas Police station. The results were negative
>(look it up in the Warren testimony) meaning Oswald had not
>fired a rifle that day.
>

Does this prove that Oswald hadn't fired a rifle that day?  Or just fail to
prove that he did?

>  The Warren Commision could never find a witness who saw Oswald on the 6th
>floor. They DID find several witnesses who saw him on the 2nd and 1st
>floors during the shooting, and the famous assasination photo shot by
>AP photographer James Altgens shows a man standing in the book depository
>doorway who looks and is dressed exactly like Oswald. 
>

No, they found no such witnesses.  They found lots of witnesses who reported
that he had just popped into the lunchroom (or whatever) and was getting a soft
drink out of a machine when the police rushed in, a minute or two after the
assasination.

>  So rather than shoot bullets through apples and then claim this disproves
>any theories of a conspiracy, start putting the pieces back together into
>a single whole and use your common sense. Check the facts for yourself. Use
>your own brain and quit yeilding to the intellectual authority of the
>annointed and exhalted experts of the Warren Report. 
>

Sounds like good advice to me.  Do you have an account of how the assasination
happened that fits the facts better than the Warren Report?  Would you like to
share it with us? 

Would you admit that any conspiracy theory ought to be subject to the same
critical scrutiny as the Warren Commissions account?

.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood)
Subject: Re: "Film proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says"
Originator: swood@bcrks50
Reply-To: swood@bnr.ca (Steve Wood)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:20:34 GMT


In article <1993Jan5.165943.8546@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:

> 
> 
>   So rather than shoot bullets through apples and then claim this disproves
> any theories of a conspiracy, start putting the pieces back together into
> a single whole and use your common sense. Check the facts for yourself. Use
> your own brain and quit yeilding to the intellectual authority of the
> annointed and exhalted experts of the Warren Report. 
> 

Whether or not I beleive the "exhalted experts" is completely immaterial here. 
We have an observation of a bullet passing through JFK's head and a stream
of ejecta.  The question that must be answered is simply what is the most plausible
trajectory for the bullet given the reality of these observations.  The question of conspiracy is
not germaine to this particular observation.  You can postulate all you want about who
fired the bullets,  all I wanted to point out was that the ejecta direction was physically
consistent with established observations.  I consider this to be using my own brain... rather
objectively too.

-- 
regards,

============================================================================================
Steven Wood			Phone: 613-763-2830
Memory Development		ESN:     6-393-2830
Bell Northern Research          Email: swood@bnr.ca (internet)
============================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: There was this book...
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 23:44:26 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <0096681C.B28A9D00@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
|> Then why did they produce such an elaborate conspiracy whose purpose was to
|> convince people that it was a lone nut who did it, and that it had nothing to
|> do with "challenging the status quo."

The American public and the non-insiders had to be sold on the lone-nut theory
to protect the conspirators.  The "status-quo message", it could be argued,
was intended for those insiders familiar with covert intelligence and the CIA
"murder incorporated" activities.

|> Of course Bobby "didn't get the message."  Bobby believed that Oswald did it
|> acting alone.

That's not what he said in 1968 when he was campaigning for president.  He was
going to blow the case wide open.

|> BTW, why do you say that Kennedy "challenged the status quo?"  He was hardly a
|> left winger.  In fact, he was quite clearly to the right of both Johnson and
|> Truman, and neither of those men were murdered.

He was "making nice with the commies" in Cuba and the Soviet Union.  He
was trying to get us out of Vietnam and he dared challenge the CIA's power
structure.  LBJ rolled right over.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk