HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:49:22 GMT

(David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>>>Since when is free access to a computer with considerable online storage and
>>>networking capabilities for the purpose of expressing personal opinions
>>>one of the BASIC RIGHTS of a corporation's employees??? I look at access
>>>to these news groups as a perk. If AT&T were to discontinue access it
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>That's because the Bill of Rights doesn't give you a "right to free
>speech."  It says: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW...
>It contains no restrictions on what corporations or individuals can do.

I think we are all agreed that it is a perk. But to discriminate the
granting and usage of perk based on the nature of expression, caste
creed, religion and sex are patently unfair. We would all rise in mutiny
if ATT or any other company grants parking permits to men on its ramp
and ask women to find a slot on the street. So, your thesis that 
corporations are somehow immune to free speech and fair play provisions
is flawed. 

Pushed to the extreme, this logic may results in a company
hiring only men or only whites or only heterosexuals. Why burden
the corporation with stupid laws such as minimum wage and affirmative
action? After all, it is their money; let them what they want and how
they please.

No. There ought to be strictures because corporations are entities
operating within the framework of our society and should, therefore,
comply with its norms and rules. 

Satya Prabhakar 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Zapruder Film frames missing (was Re: If it were I)
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:19:10 GMT

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

>What was the position of TUM in relation to 
>the president between 189-190?   Supposing the
>umbrella was a weapon, would he have been in 
>range for a shot at this point?

I'm not an Umbrella Man accificanado.

I am trying to pick him out in the Z film frames in the WCH vol 18.

I'm not sure he's the guy, but I see someone looking like they are
holding an umbrella at 189 almost beside the Limo.

However, at 189 it is pointing up.

Thats assuming he is to the left of the limo at 189.
-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3741 alt.conspiracy:11915 alt.activism:18437 alt.society.civil-liberty:6468 alt.individualism:5937 alt.censorship:8619 talk.politics.misc:58447 misc.headlines:6931 soc.culture.usa:8287
From: michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  6 Nov 92 18:29:22 GMT

guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:

>>holbrook@apollo.HP.COM (Alan R. Holbrook) writes:

>> [...] And there has been
>>absolutely NO indication inferred or confirmed that they do not treat ALL
>>their employees exactly the same way.

>  No, you are completely mistaken.  I have discussed the matter with the
>folks at AT&T.  The people who removed John DiNardo's access are concerned
>about the "offensive" content of his posts.  Thus, they do *not* treat
>all their employees in exactly the same way:  Those with "acceptable"
>or mainstream political views may discuss political issues on the net, but
>those with beliefs similar to DiNardo's will have their access removed if
>they discuss political issues on the net.

Are you sure (I'm not implying otherwise since I wasn't party to your
conversation) that the "folks at AT&T" were objecting to the
>political contents< of John's messages?  Surely they were objecting
to the fact that his posts generated complaints.  It is in this sense
that I assume that they "treat ALL their employees exactly the same
way".  The quoted complaint had to do with the >method< that John used
in posting: multiple copies under >different< headers to different
newsgroups, reposting articles from one group to another, etc: things
that inconvenienced some number of netnews readers up to the point
that they were willing to complain.  I assume/hope that most of these
people complained directly to John before complaining to the sysadmin.

> Nowhere have I advocated *unrestricted* posting privileges for John
>DiNardo or anyone else.  Obviously, resources are limited, and certain
>restrictions are necessary.  What I demand is that any restrictions
>are implemented without regard to the political, religious or otherwise
>personal *content* of the post.  In other words, I object to corporations
>censoring their employees.

Again, I'd be surprised to learn that AT&T censored John because of
the political content of these posts.  But then again, I've been
surprised before.

(By the way, most polls I've seen quoted (there were a bunch after the
movie "JFK" came out: sorry no references) seem to show that to the
extent that John Dinardo believes that JFK was killed by conspirators,
and that with respect to the "Lone Gunman" theory the Warren
Commission was wrong, he is in line with mainstream American belief.
It is the >defenders< of the Warren commission, and the people who
believe that Oswald acted alone, who are in the minority.

Perhaps the reason pro-conspiracy people feel persecuted or oppressed
or suppressed despite being in the majority, is because the powerful
Govt is on the other side.  On the other hand, Hollywood and popular
culture seem to be against the lone gunman side, and the last time
Hollywood took on the government, Murphy Brown beat Dan Quayle. :-)
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3803 alt.conspiracy:12154
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Further info on the post about the purported Lansdale/Truly connection
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:30:25 GMT
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Alan Rogers wrote a few days ago that he believed this message (appended below)
was a forgery. I found this possible connection too tantalising to dismiss 
so quickly, so I did some further checking, and with great regret I have
to confirm Rogers' conclusion. The first thing I did was try to mail the
sender, since it came from a uucp node, using the full path with uucp
style addressing. The message came back as undeliverable. I have not even
been able to confirm that a "Dexter Preparatory College" exists. 

Then I tried a fairly exhaustive search on OCLC Firstsearch (the international 
bibliographic network which now has over 25 million records). I found no
trace of any author named V. John Reusswig, nor of any title remotely like
the one referred to, nor of any similar-sounding work about General Edward
G. Lansdale. Finally, I called the library at the Army War College (in
Carlisle, Pa.), and they assured me that they have no record of any such
person as V. John Reusswig ever associated with the institution; and 
needless to say, no trace of any such book.

Too bad, huh?
______

Article 7240 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:
From: jerry@dexter.UUCP (Jerry Brian)
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Lansdale/Roy Truly Connection ??
Date: 27 Oct 92 05:22:15 GMT
Organization: Dexter Preparatory College

I came across these citations in the following book and I was wondering
whether anyone here could cast any light on the subject. Sorry if this has
already been discussed.  - Jerry

The book is:
_EAGLE IN A THICKET: LANSDALE AND THE VIETNAM EXPERIENCE_
by Colonel V. John Reusswig, Army War College
Military Arms Press, 1976

My copy is the Military Book Club Edition so page numbers may vary...

From the dust jacket:
"'A thoroughly remarkable individual' is how John Reusswig describes
retired Major General (USAF) Edward Geary Lansdale. In this volume,
Reusswig tells the fascinating history of Lansdale's first two years in
Vietnam, a time in which French influence fast died and the seeds of
American involvement were irrevocably planted. Lansdale was a veteran of
the OSS and the CIA's most influential officer in Southeast Asia. His
actions, in counterinsurgency against the Vietminh, exerted a powerful
influence on future U.S. policy in the region and virtually laid out the
blueprint for the coming Vietnam War."

Page 40:
"Lansdale relied heavily on his field assistants to build the trust of
the Vietnamese soldiers. [references to other people deleted] Roy S.
Truly, a Master Sergeant from Denton, Texas, and a small arms specialist,
supervised training in a motley collection of European and Chinese arms
Diem's soldiers had confiscated from the Vietminh."

Page 41:
"Truly was the only non-commissioned officer who spoke Vietnamese as
fluently as Lansdale himself."

Page 51:
"The majority of Lansdale's field advisors doubled as CIA operatives. This
established the precedent for using military operations as a cover for CIA
activities in the territory. The practice continued into the early days of
exclusive American involvement in Vietnam, and even into the the open conflict
from Da Nang through the Summer of 1966. Eventually the critical mass of army
regulars led to the partial bifurcation of intelligence and military
activities."

Page 122:
"In the preliminary phase of Operation Giai-Phong, Lansdale made the
unusual move of appointing a non-commissioned officer, Sergeant Truly, as
liaison to Diem's security chief, Le Binh Tuan."

My question is whether anyone knows whether the Roy S. Truly who worked for
Lansdale is the same Roy Truly who worked in the Texas Book building when
Kennedy was assassinated?
-- 
         I just know that something good is gonna happen
         I don't know when,
         But just saying it could even make it happen ...      _o_
                                                                |<
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Zapruder Film frames missing (was Re: If it were I)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:53:08 GMT

In article <schuck.721243351@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
> 
> 2) Eventually, through the Freedom of Information Act, it has been
>    discovered the Zapruder film spent 24 hours or so at the NPIC,
>    the CIA's photographic centre where almost anything can be done.
> 
>    It is possible therefore, that the red blob is an "addition" to the
>    film, added to make people think the front of JFK's head was leaking a
>    big red blob. It is also possible that the back of the head was
>    blacked out, which is where the actual massive head wound was.

I don't see this in the video I have.
> 
>    Whether the film was altered by the CIA is hard to prove.
> 
>    What can be proven is 4 frames are missing immediately before JFK
>    went behind the Stemmons freeway sign. Zapruder testified to the WC
>    that JFK began reacting to his throat wound "before" going behind the
>    Stemmons sign. The four frames may have been removed to cover up this
>    evidence. Why? Because if JFK was shot before frames 207-211, then the
>    magic bullet theory is *completely* invalid.
>    Note: Actually it is frames 207 - 214 missing from my copy of the
>          Zapruder film in the WCH vol 18. Maybe it was 8 missing, not 4?
> 
What is the proof for this, Bruce?

From the TSBD, LHO (or whoever) was unsighted until Z211. Does this prove the
shot came from elsewhere?

At what point did the throat shot happen?

Did Alvarez account for the missing frames in his sound graph or did he work
backwards from Z313 or what?


Big Al.......(more questions than answers)
From: ac985@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joel Tscherne)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: FAQ - Call For Help
Date: 13 Nov 1992 12:42:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ac985@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joel Tscherne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Is anyone actively working on a FAQ for this group?  If not, I am now
officially volunteering to edit and post one.

Anyone interested in assisting should let me know via email.

Also, if anyone wishes to submit specific questions (answers need not be
supplied) please let me know.

Finally, I have a source for copies of the HSCA hearings that I will be
posting later today or tomorrow.  I intend to eventually incorporate it
into the FAQ.


-- 
===============Joel Tscherne:  ac985@cleveland.freenet.edu===============
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Zapruder Film frames missing (was Re: If it were I)
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:07:27 GMT
 <schuck.721243351@sfu.ca> <1992Nov10.095308.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <schuck.721352956@sfu.ca>
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

What was the position of TUM in relation to 
the president between 189-190?   Supposing the
umbrella was a weapon, would he have been in 
range for a shot at this point?

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3773 alt.conspiracy:12038 alt.activism:18521 alt.society.civil-liberty:6498 alt.individualism:5972 alt.censorship:8693 talk.politics.misc:59053 misc.headlines:6973 soc.culture.usa:8375
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 9 Nov 1992 06:42:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In response to Bruce Scott, let me say that I have an account at 
The EBBS from which he posts, and I had to sign the agreement of
which he speaks. I don't recall any language specifying that the acts
John is accused of constuted "abuse of network resources". Bruce,
do you have the agreement handy to post? I haven't seen it for
over a year, and I may be misremembering, but I think you are
overinterpreting the language there.

-Steve
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood)
Subject: Re: What Has Happened to All the Traffic on alt.conspiracy.jfk ?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:01:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.182936.3119@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) writes...
>--
>I don't know about some of you but I have noticed that this group has reached
>a semi-point of diminishing returns. In other words the same things are being
>re-hashed over and over.
> 
>From my point of view it's not that I have lost interest it's just that I've
>already heard/studied the same topics over and over again.
> 
>Marty
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> M_Henderson               | "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
> Marty Henderson           |  I find it most intriguing."   ---    Data, 
> Woodland Park, Colorado   |  Star Trek, The Next Generation, "Haven"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


I've noticed this too, much to my disappointment I might add. Of all 
the groups I subscribe to, this one gets my eager anticipation for
reading what people have to say, and whatever latest developments
crop-up regarding the assination, and finding out the truth.  How-
ever, just like the previous writer has mentioned, things here are
getting alittle stale here.  Maybe we should investigate why this
is happening???  Could it be that some of our brightest minds that 
have contributed previously, have decided to take their thoughts
elsewhere????   As one possible 'shot in the arm' for discusson,
what do all of you think will be the end result in the promise
President Elect Clinton made when addressing reporters, he promised
a full disclosure of any and all material relating to the JFK As.???
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What Has Happened to All the Traffic on alt.conspiracy.jfk ?
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:58:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <6NOV199214014238@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood) writes:
>
>I've noticed this too, much to my disappointment I might add. Of all 
>the groups I subscribe to, this one gets my eager anticipation for
>reading what people have to say, and whatever latest developments
>crop-up regarding the assination, and finding out the truth.  How-
>ever, just like the previous writer has mentioned, things here are
>getting alittle stale here.  Maybe we should investigate why this
>is happening???  Could it be that some of our brightest minds that 
>have contributed previously, have decided to take their thoughts
>elsewhere????   As one possible 'shot in the arm' for discusson,
>what do all of you think will be the end result in the promise
>President Elect Clinton made when addressing reporters, he promised
>a full disclosure of any and all material relating to the JFK As.???


	I think it's PERFECLY Clear what's happening here.

	The Government is CLEARLY deleting all the articles with any
useful content in them whatsoever, and just leaving all the boring,
dull messages with information that everybody already knows.  They
have even got the Canadian Government in on it too, becuase I've been
finding much the same thing from here at McGill.

	I've even noticed that alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.jfk, and
alt.politics.bush keep getting removed from my .newsrc file on a regular
basis.

	The gravity on the moon is NOT ~1/6th of that on the earth as well.


	ToodlepiP!
	Marc 'em.
-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         "-- Attack ships on
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA             fire "
	Any opinions expressed are not mine, but those of the Demon Lord
      Yeegeheeegenogohugu who possessed me whilst I munched on Raisin Bran.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:57:07 GMT

>Maybe John could start a non-profit group for the express purpose of
>getting private internet/usenet access to continue posting these little
>known stories to the Net.  I read several alternative news sources and
>although don't see myself as a conspiracy nut I was very interested in 
>the information which John was coming up with.
>

Such groups exist. The Turing Project is not a 'non-profit' group, and
takes no donations, nor any tax benefits. However, Turing is completely
privately owned and operated. Access is completely free. John DiNardo
has been eagerly offered a voice here, and I certainly hope he will
continue to share his information, and opinions with us.

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3770 alt.conspiracy:12018 alt.activism:18513 alt.society.civil-liberty:6496 alt.individualism:5970 alt.censorship:8688 talk.politics.misc:58995 misc.headlines:6971 soc.culture.usa:8366
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:48:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Nov4.235419.2215@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
> You're confusing AT&T *customers* with AT&T *employees*.  AT&T can't 
> restrict what their employees say on the net, but they can refuse to
> subsidize access to the net, given that there are other, cheap access
> methods.

 First off let me say that I agree that in *this* case AT&T has the right to
restrit access on its machines. However, I wonder how many of you
would feel if this were not AT&T but rather a publically funded college
or university. Does FOO U. have the right to do the same thing? How about
a particular department at Foo U? If so, how do you justify it? It
is not "their money" it is the tax-payer's money which supplies the
resources and pays the bills - what right do they have to limit the access
of one individual while allowing others access? Thanks,

			gln

> 
> -Bob


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  6 NOV 92 17:10:49 PDT


Mr. DiNardo's posts of the radio transcripts should be of interest
to all of us who devote time to the study of the assassination of
JFK.  Certainly, I found them to be highly worthwhile.

It is not clear to me that everyone reading the newsgroups to
which Mr. DiNardo cross-posted the articles would have the same
level of interest.  And when you start putting articles all over
the place, it feels like a proselyte has been running around
pushing a political agenda.

Nevertheless, I find the action taken, as I understand it, to be
rather chilling.  I fully intend to limit my own postings in here,
the better to reduce the chances of bringing disciplinary actions
upon myself or my company due to inadvertent violation of some
rule, complaints about content, or whatever.

I understand that posting an article on multiple groups can be
annoying.  But I also feel that being annoyed on occasion is not
too large a price to pay to feel secure in one's ability to 
express one's views.  Surely there are issues more worthy of
flaming outrage than having to skip over John DiNardo's articles?

And I should think that even those who complained so vociferously
would give pause to reflect upon how Fate has a habit of doing
donuts on us?  Even as those of us who refuse the outstretched
hand of need must consider whether or not our own hand might
one day be empty?

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Zapruder Film
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:29:10 GMT

ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:

>Has there ever been a detailed commentary of the Z film by Zapruder himself?

>I would like to know such things as when he first realised he was filming an
>assassination, whether he saw JFK react prior to going behind the sign, whether
>he agrees with the Alvarez sound analysis, and so on.

Zapruder testified to the Warren Commission and his testimony
is in vol 7 of the WCH.

Weisbergs book Whitewash rips up the poor cross-examination done by
Liebler, but makes the point that Zapruder saw JFK react to his neck
wound before JFK went behind the street sign.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk