From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: RE: PBS SPECIAL
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:02:56 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


In article <schuck.72506157@sfu.ca>  Bruce Schuck writes:


>>	But let's cut to the chase, eh?  Since you postulate
>>	shooters all over the place, why in heaven's name do
>>	you support the validity of the dictabelt tape?  If we
>>	assume for the sake of argument that the BBN study of
>>	the tape is valid, then we have, not just "four shots
>>	being fired in Dealy Plaza", we have three shots fired
>>	from the 6th floor, SE corner of the TSBD, and one shot
>>	from behind the picket fence, about 12 feet or so west
>>	of the corner.

>The data from the shots *near* the TSBD were never fully analyzed.
>Only the grassy knoll shot was.
>That means the rear shots could easily have been from the Dal-Tex
>because the open window was only across the street.

	"Only across the street" is a world away so far as the
	acoustic fingerprint is concerned.  The fingerprints
	were developed using shots from the TSBD and from the
	knoll and nowhere else.  If you wish to re-analyze their
	data and re-do their math to show that the BBN analysis
	(accurate by their data to about a meter or so) was off
	by 100 feet - which totally throws off the echo pattern -
	have at it.  Otherwise, it's the TSBD and the knoll and
	nowhere else.  The additional analysis done by Weiss and
	Aschenkasy for the alleged knoll shot used the acoustic
	fingerprint developed by Barger et. al.

>>	Yes, latest.  Your locations for gunmen seem to move faster
>>	than an MC bolt-action.  Let's take it reeeeallll slow - since
>>	the mark on the curb near Tague cannot have been made by
>>	a bullet coming directly from a muzzle the mark establishes -
>>	if it actually establishes anything at all - that an almost
>>	spent fragment was present.  

>Since the FBI failed to analyze the curb mark for *nine months* and
>the curb was out in the weather for all that time, who knows what the
>mark really shows. I certainly don't think it rules out a dum-dum or
>soft-nosed bullet which would not leave copper on the curb.

	We do know what it doesn't show, weather or not, and that is
	evidence of any actual damage to the curb.  If you think
	assassins were firing bullets that didn't even nick concrete,
	but were supposed to penetrate a man's cranium, fine with me.

>>	I didn't choose 162, the HSCA photo panel did.  I gave
>>	you their analysis on this point, word for word, and you
>>	had nothing relevant to say about it then, nor have
>>	you since.  The Secret Service agents simply were not trained
>>	or experienced in quickly identifying the sounds of a 
>>	high-powered rifle being fired.  It happens that Connally,
>>	as an experienced hunter, was.  

>The point is that they hadn't moved. It doesn't matter that they
>didn't know exactly where the bullet was fired from. They hadn't even
>looked around by 183 *anywhere*. 

	Even the many Dallas cops located next to the court house
	weren't certain that the first shot was a shot rather than
	a firecracker or a motorcycle backfire.  It was such a
	totally unexpected event that only a few people instantly
	realized what was happening.

>By the way, what kind of loony assertion is it that the SS weren't
>trained to recognize high-powered rifles. Are you now claiming *none*
>of them had heard enough rifle shots to figure out that a rifle was
>being fired? And does this go for the motorcycle cops too, who had
>reacted by the the Altgens photo but clearly had not at Z 183?

	I "claim" just what I said: that the Secret Service agents
	had not been given any training in the recognition of rifle
	shots.  And that's a matter of public record.  As for the
	motorcycle cops, I rather doubt that they had received such
	training either.  

	Now - just why do *you* think Connally turns so quickly,
	almost violently, starting at frame 162?  He moved his head
	60 degrees from his left to his right in the space of
	1/9th of a second and then over the next second literally
	twisted his head and his trunk about as far as it could go,
	straining to look upwards and backwards.  Did he see a
	pretty Texas belle in the crowd?

>>	There are numerous pictures of numerous bullets.  Which
>>	CE number are you referring to?  I have seen them all and
>>	they aren't flattened, they're round.  

>It was an HSCA exhibit, entered by Wecht, involving a composite photo
>of WC test bullets.

>Still haven't seen it , right?

	Oh, I've seen it and even measured them against my own
	Mannlicher-Carcano bullet to get the proper scale.  But since
	the Wecht exhibit only shows one angle, not the base, it is
	a very poor picture for determining the amount of flattening.

	Measuring the one angle visible we find the test bullets to
	be about 6.40 mm wide, while CE399 is in the area of 7.45
	mm wide.  

	Using other sources, it is clear that the test bullets are
	about the same dimensions measuing north/south and east/west,
	whereas CE399 is about 6.0 by 7.45 mm.  In short, the test
	bullets, if they were distorted at all, were distorted 
	minimally.  CE399 on the other hand is measurably out-of-round.

>>	You deleted and then ignored the type of analysis you need
>>	to do to support your claim.  

>It was irrelevant.

	Hardly, but since you are not inclined to do the hard
	research I guess we'll have to either reject your claims or
	accept them on faith, eh?

>>       One of the things you need
>>	to answer is: do ballistics experts work with bullets
>>	that have or have not been subjected to chemical treatment
>>	in order to remove foreign substances?  

>After reading books by forensic scientists, it is common for the
>bullet to be analyzed for blood. CE399 had no blood on it.

	The question you didn't answer was: do ballistics experts
	work with bullets that have or have not been subjected
	to chemical treatment in order to remove foreign substances?
	The answer, FWIW, is: yes.

	You have not demonstrated knowledge of any forensic
	serology results pointing to a lack of blood on CE399,
	or a reason why blood would or would not be expected on
	such a substance under such circumstances.  You have
	simply asserted it is so.

>>	Another assertion.  You really must pick up the pace.
	
>>	Try this: the wound of entrance on the back of Connally's
>>	arm was more than an inch above the crease of the wrist.
>>	The wound of exit on the palmar side was just at the
>>	crease.  What does that tell you about the position of
>>	the wrist when it was hit?  

>About where it would be if Connally was laying on his back in Nellies
>lap and his wrist was at a 45 degree angle or so with the hand away
>from the shooter.

	Superficial.  Angles, distances, etc. etc.  You are making
	the claim; back it up.

	The extraordinary relative postitions of the entrance and
	exit wounds in Connally's wrist are fully consistent with
	his wrist having been hit when it was being pressed against
	Connally's left leg, as Connally testified he did.  This gives
	us an approximately 25 degree downward angle, slightly right
	to left, consistent with the general angles of the rest of
	Connally's wounds.

	Your scenario requires a magic bullet fragment that exits
	from the right side of JFK's head, noses downwards sharply,
	turns to the left, then straightens out, tunnels through
	Connally's wrist with enough force to emerge from the palmar
	side, and then suddenly reduces its velocity to 0 fps, as
	it does no damage whatsoever to anywhere else on Connally's
	body after emerging from the wrist.

	Since NAA proves the wrist fragments came from CE399 I'd
	say your case is a parody of your own view of the SBT.

>>       And from what general direction,
>>	if he was on Mrs. Connally's lap, must the bullet have 
>>	come from?

>Since it was his right wrist, and Connally's head was to the left of
>of the Limo, the back of his wrist was facing JFK's head.

>It would work fine.

	Not for me.



Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk