HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdaniels@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert E. Daniels)
Subject: Re: Best Book on JFK Killing
Keywords: JFK
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:50:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.222059.347@stiatl.salestech.com> gst@stiatl.salestech.com (Greg Tucker) writes:
>    What is the best book on the JFK assination?

According to Public Information Research's NAMEBASE, "If there is space on
your shelf for only one JFK assassination book, make it this one":

Russell, Dick.  The Man Who Knew Too Much.  New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992.
824 pages.  With a forward by Carl Oglesby.

It's just out.  Not yet in paperback.  I've ordered a copy, but haven't
got it yet.  But the reviews in NewsBase of the books I have read seem
right on the mark.


      Robert Daniels                robert_daniels@unc.edu
      ---------------------------------------------------------------
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Geezer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:49:35 GMT
Organization: The Mountains of Madness
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Sorry if this has been done to death previously, but a point about
Oswald and the TSBD that I recall Anthony Summers raising in his book
'Conspiracy', is that the Kennedy motorcade was late (@10 mins if I
recall correctly), which, if true, would mean that it would have been
scheduled to pass the TSBD about 12.20. A witness is reported to have
seen Oswald eating his lunch in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor just
before 12.25 (I may be a minute or two out here). If it's true that
the motorcade was late AND Oswald WAS the assassin, he should have
been in position on the 6th floor prior to 12.20. 

1) Was the revised ETA of the motorcade broadcast?
2) If not, could Oswald have been tipped off about the revised ETA -
did he receive any calls around the 12-12.20 timeframe?
3) Could Oswald have supplied the weapon ('curtain rods') for someone
else to use (prisoners in adjacent lockup reported seeing 2-3 figures
at the 6th floor window prior to the shooting). If so, there would
have been no need for him to return to the 6th floor, and hence the
ETA of the motorcade would be irrelevant.
4) In any event, how was the Mannlicher supposed to be disposed of?
Was Oswald supposed to collect it after the shooting (after the
assassins had fled (3)) and did he then panic and leave it - hard to
believe that he'd knowingly leave a weapon behind so easily traceable
to him.

As I said, sorry if this is covering, recent, old ground, but the
point about the late motorcade has always fascinated me, IMHO it's one
of the strongest indicators that Oswald was not the assassin (but may
have been a knowing part of the conspiracy).

Regards and best wishes for the festive season.

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: balaji@milli.cs.umn.edu (Balaji Srinivasan)
Subject: Re:Doubt:JFK
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:11:05 GMT


 Hi folks ! 
             I had recently requested for the name(s) of the book(s) 
    based on which the movie JFK was made. I got numerous responses 
    from a lot of people. Thanx to all of you. As I have seeentially got 
    the same thing from all of you, so please do not send me any more ( 
    I'm getting flooded by mails !! ) 

    Thanx again to all those who responded. 

    - Balaji 
--
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
  regarded as a criminal offense.
                -- E. W. Dijkstra
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Oswald/Lovelady controversy
Keywords: Altgen photograph 
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:35:53 GMT

twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:

>busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes:

>>  If you blow up this photograph, specifically the section showing Oswald/
>> Lovelady and take note of the shirt being worn by this person, you'll notice
>> that it is a rather dark, long sleeved shirt unbuttoned down to approximately
>> mid-chest and the person wearing it has a white t-shirt on underneath.

>>  Next, get a copy of Oswalds' DPD mug shot from early after he was arrested
>> and you'll notice that Oswalds' shirt in this picture is IDENTICAL.

>What book has a good copy of the Altgens photo?

Whitewash by Weisberg. My university library has a copy, maybe yours
does too?

Check out the open window under the fire escape on the right side of
the picture -- the part that is usually cropped out in the WC etc.

Thats on the Dal-Tex building.

It's a perfect sniping position.

It`s low, it's directly behind the President, no target movement from
left to right.

In Menningers "Mortal Error", Howard Donahue claims the fatal head
shot came from down low and from behind JFK. The line he drew goes
over top of the SS car, which is partly why he claims it was an
accidental shooting from an SS AR-15. However, if the line is
continued, it goes to the Dal-Tex, very close to this open window.

Mortal Error also has the Altgens photo, uncropped I think.
I just picked up the paperback edition, and it's there but small.
However, there are some good full page color stills from the Z film
covering the fatal head shot and other important frames that weren't
in the original hardcover or at least not in color.

The print of frame 183 clearly shows all the SS agents looking forward
or to the right. None of them has turned around at all at 183, unlike
in the Altgens photo which shows three of them turned completely around
plus one of the right side motorcycle officers turned to look behind
him.

Despite what Todd and Grant keep claiming, none of the SS agents or
cops had heard a shot before 183.


>I wonder if it's still possible to buy a print from the AP.
From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:35:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Geezer) writes:

>A witness is reported to have
>seen Oswald eating his lunch in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor just
>before 12.25 (I may be a minute or two out here).

Which witness? Reported by who?
I don't remember that one.
From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Best Book on JFK Killing
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:52:53 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.031016.1298@u.washington.edu>, twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:

>> I think Lane's "Plausible Denial" can be skipped; at least don't buy it.
>> It's pretty much a weak cash-in on the movie that tries very hard to make
>            
>The movie came out after "Plausible Denial" which provided many details for
>Stone's movie.

I don't know about the exact timing, but the book was clearly timed to
coincide with the release of the film. Lane would not deny that. The movie
did not rely on "Plausible Denial" at all.

>It relates the story of the only time a jury has in effect
>said "Yes, there was a conspiracy" as Hunt's libel suit was defeated on
>appeal.

Not exactly. The burden of proof was on Hunt to show that the "Spotlight"
article had been false and had defamed him. The article claimed that the
CIA had a plan to "cut loose" Hunt (a la Oliver North) as a way of keeping
the CIA as a whole protected. The article also claimed Hunt was in Dallas
the day of the assassination, and this was what Hunt tried to prove was
false. He was unable to prove to the jury that he was not in Dallas.
That doesn't mean Lane proved he was in Dallas, he didn't, it just means
Hunt was unable to prove he wasn't.

>It does an excellent job of showing the whole mechanism of
>CIA coverup. If it is "weak", it is only in that it is painstakingly
>documented and filled-in with detail and not an easy-read like the
>equally valuable work of Jim Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins"
>which also provided much material for the movie.

Actually, as I recall, it is not even footnoted. Sources are listed in an
appendix in the back, but in some cases there was no corresponding source
given when there should have been.

My main problem with "Plausible Denial" is that it neglects to mention
that none of the evidence presented in the appeal or trial was anything
new. He builds up his main witness, the ex-girlfriend of Castro whose name
I don't remember right now, as if she was telling her shocking story for the
first time ever. She told the same story to the House committee several years
earlier. That struck me as very dishonest.

Garrison's book is tripe. At least in comparison to the good ones.

>Fletcher Prouty's "JFK", a new work, is hard to beat for providing
>motive for the crime.  It has the bonus that it gives younger readers
>a flavor of the times and somewhat frightening insights into the
>Vietnam war era and conspiracy theory in general.

I would recommend Prouty as well, just from his earlier writings (I haven't
had a chance to get this one yet.) He's sometimes wrong on details, but he
has a unique perspective and an unparallelled ability to grasp "the big
picture."
From: abw@natchez.bu.edu (Al Wesolowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Was LBJ an alcoholic?
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:10:30 GMT
Organization: Boston University

In article <Dec.10.14.48.38.1992.11613@dropout.rutgers.edu> mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew) writes:
+> 4. Why did LBJ and JFK have a heated argument the day of the
+>    assassination about which car LBJ's good buddy John Connally
+>    would ride in?
+
+
+... LBJ wanted to sit in the car with Kennedy; Kennedy wanted to use
+the normal protocol and have the governor of the host state (in this
+case, Conally), ride with the President.

I don't think the dispute was over where LBJ should ride, but whether
Ralph Yarborough (liberal senator, hated by LBJ) should ride with LBJ or
not. Neither RY or LBJ wanted to be in the same car with the other, but
the stated purpose of the JFK visit to Texas was to patch up things
between the liberal and conservative factions of the Democratic party.

-- 
Al B. Wesolowsky    Boston     o "En Cee Cee One Seven Oh One.... 
abw@crsa.bu.edu   University   o  No bloody 'A', 'B', 'C', or 'D'." 
abw@acs.bu.edu                 o                          M. Scott
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:36:33 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1545@ozz.oasis.icl.co.uk>, dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Geezer) writes: 

>If it's true that
>the motorcade was late AND Oswald WAS the assassin, he should have
>been in position on the 6th floor prior to 12.20. 
>
>
>As I said, sorry if this is covering, recent, old ground, but the
>point about the late motorcade has always fascinated me, IMHO it's one
>of the strongest indicators that Oswald was not the assassin (but may
>have been a knowing part of the conspiracy).
>
Now think through this a bit.  Suppose Oswald was an "innocent patsy" singled
out to take the blame but not in any way involved with The Conspiracy.  The
Conspiracy would have had no guarantee that Oswald wouldn't have been in plain
sight of 6 or 8 coworkers when the shots rang out.  Real risky to base a
coverup plan on the assumption that you'll be real lucky about Oswald's
whereabouts.

But suppose Oswald was a "not so innocent patsy,"  involved in the conspiracy,
but not understanding he was to be the "fall guy."  In this case, The
Conspiracy certainly had plans for him to be out of sight at 12:20 (or whenever
the motorcade was supposed to come by).  They wouldn't have wanted him to be
sitting in plain view when the shots rang out.

.John
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 18 Dec 1992 02:02:29 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <schuck.724455877@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>The previous hit site was probably Miami. The motorcade was cancelled
>in Miami for security reasons and JFK took a helicopter to his speaking
>site. The 'patsy' in Miami probably survived, although it might be
>interesting to check for suspicious deaths in Miami just after the JFK
>visit to look for Oswald-like people who died mysteriously.

OK, Miami was the "hit city" and Dallas was the backup.  Why?  How do you know? 
And are these the only two cities?  Or did The Conspiracy have a program, put
in place months in advance to station "patsies" like Oswald all over the
country in order to kill Kennedy.

BTW, how did The Conspiracy know so far in advance that it wanted to kill
Kennedy.  Or were they so farsighted that they did all this simply to protect
against the contingency of wanting to kill Kennedy.

One final question, does this sort of theorizing ever get so tortured and
convoluted that you start toying with the crazy radical idea that perhaps
Oswald did it?

.John
From: ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald/Lovelady controversy
Date: 11 Dec 1992 13:29 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
Keywords: Altgen photograph
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <schuck.724093503@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...

>With all the photographs and film shot that day, isn't there a picture
>of Lovelady around to compare?

Josiah Thompson covers the subject of Oswald and Lovelady pretty thoroughly
towards the end of "Six Seconds in Dallas" and concludes that it is Lovelady.
There are "mug shots" of Oswald and Lovelady as well as a blowup of the Altgens
photo. In my opinion, these pictures coupled with witnesses who were on the
steps with Lovelady show that the person in the picture is Lovelady.

Tony Simon
From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:55:52 GMT

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:

>But "not so innocent" patsies have beans to spill.  And if you line up enough
>of then around the country, it becomes very likely somebody will spill the
>beans.  And you don't want a "not so innocent" patsy in police custody. 
>He might talk before you can kill him.

>So tell me, do you think Oswald was an innocent patsy or a "not so innocent"
>patsy?

Probably a "not so innocent" patsy, although I do not believe he brought the
gun with him to the TSBD that day.

I don't, however, think he knew a great deal about who he was working for,
or what, until it was over with. His "need to know" would have been very
limited.

I have to say, though, John, you're approaching this in a very strange way.
Basically, you seem to think that you can prove that Oswald is the lone killer
by process of elimination. In other words, by running through all the possible
conspiracy scenarios and finding some or another flaw in each one. Since the
possibilities are essentially infinite given the known, agreed upon facts,
well, good luck to you, and I hope you don't have any other life to distract
you from your impossible quest. Meanwhile, I and many others will continue
to consider the various possibilities given the facts as we understand
them. Sorry if our reluctance to be pinned down to one exact conspiracy
when we don't have all the facts is making your quest even more difficult,
but that's the way rational people deal with situations where important
facts are not known.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 22:26:07 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
 <1992Dec7.015050.8875@eskimo.com>
 <00964CB5.550B64C0@vms.csd.mu.edu>,<1992Dec14.015032.17644@eskimo.com>
 <00965178.42A91120@vms.csd.mu.edu>

In article <00965178.42A91120@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John
McAdams) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec14.015032.17644@eskimo.com>, wix@eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks)
>writes:
>>>Then how did he happen to get planted at the School Book Depository?
>Kennedy's
>>>actual route wasn't known until a couple of days before the assasination.   w
>Ho
>>>did The Conspiracy know they needed someone working in that precise
>building?
>>>Or are you saying that The Conspiracy arranged for Kennedy to drive by?
>>>
>>Again, speculation, but it is possible that LHO wasn't the only
>>person planted at various places around Dallas.  He just happened
>>to be the one they used.  In most cities there are only a few
>>"parade routes" because of problems with traffic control, public
>>access, emergency vehicle routes, and other considerations.  So
>>once the visit to Dallas was firm there were probably only a few
>>possibilities that had to be covered.  And, it is possible that
>>someone connected to the conspiracy could have influenced the
>>choice of routes so that the one used was one they had covered.
>>
>But Oswald was working at the SBD before the visit to Dallas was firm.  And do
>you really believe that The Conspiracy had large group of "patsies" in place
>all around Dallas, so that one would be waiting along any route JFK took?
>
>Do you REALLY believe that?
>
Let me suggest that there was no need to have numerous patsies planted in
Dallas.  An additional setup at the convention center where the motorcade
would evitably end was all that would be needed in addition to Dealey Plaza.
There is some evidence dug up by researchers that point to a reason for
such a poor showing of protection at Dealey Plaza was because they had
reasons to believe that something was planned for the convention center,
and therefore put the lion's share of security there.

ALAN ROGERS  **** U54778@UICVM.UIC.EDU * I speak only for myself as a *
VMKRAFT INC.  708-675-8615             * citizen of the UNIVERSE, not *
                                       * as an employee of Vmkraft nor*
                                       * as a user of U of I Services.*
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: Mike_Quigley@mindlink.bc.ca (Mike Quigley)
Subject: Route of JFK's Limo
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:04:41 GMT

Does anyone know the exact route that JFK's limo was to take from Love Field
to the Convention Center? Would appreciate it if you could post this, or
direct me to somewhere which has this info.
From: rdaniels@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert E. Daniels)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:01:50 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <00965537.49971A00@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
>,<1992Dec19.023239.128@u.washington.edu>
>Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
>NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu
>
>Or do you believe that the Grassy Knoll gunman knew that the rear shooter
>hadn't done the job, and then opened fire?
>
>Having gunmen who have to decide, within the framework of a few seconds,
>whether to open fire is most implausible.  It's a terribly tough call amid
>noise and confusion, and even gunmen who haven't opened fire run the risk of
>being discovered.  Especially if they are stationed on the Grassy Knoll!
>
OK, let's say 2 or 3 shooters, one of which is behind the fence on the GK.
Each shooter is accompanied by a spotter.  The spotters have walkie talkie
receivers (or more probably 2 way equipment).  The guy calling the shots
is at some distance using a telescopic lens, or is standing close by in
Dealey Plaza (Jim Hicks? as discussed in High Treason, etc.).  But since a
radio link is vulnerable to malfunction, interference, or whatever, you
also have a couple guys standing right by the sidewalk in the middle of
the potential fire zone.  One guy has an umbrella that is up until JFK is
"down," a second guy actually steps of the curb and waves to JFK (to get
his attention and turn his head, to draw attention away from the umbrella
or something else, to also signal that JFK is still "up"?).  Both of those
signals would be clearly visible to spotters without the aid of
binoculars.  All they have to say is "up" or "down," "shoot" or "hold your
fire."  The shooter on the GK tracks JFK as best he can through the
obstructed view (Stimmon's sign, etc.) until he has a clear shot.  Since
the last command was "up" he fires -- one or twice.  At which point the
results are obvious to him and everyone else.  if all this sounds
fantastic, I would suggest taking a close look at the second half of
Robert Cutler's _76 Seconds in Dealey Plaza_.  No, I don't
think you have to buy the flechette theory.  And yes, Louis Steven Witt's
self-identification as the innocent man with the umbrella has already been
thrashed through in this newsgroup, and in Marr's _Crossfire_ (pp. 32-33). 
 

>
>Further, you have Ruby kill him and you've just 
>exchanged one person in custody
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>for another.  What if Ruby talks?  Remember if he isn't an "innocent patsy"
 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>then he most certainly has information The Conspiracy would regard as
>dangerous.
>

This has also been discussed at length by several authors.  They are
scarcely equivalent persons in terms of predictability, perhaps knowledge
of what went down, motivation and vulnerability to manipulation, the 
nature of the crime they were charged with (in terms of public opinion)
etc.  If Ruby had been sent to silence Oswald, then his success in doing
so meant that his controllers managed to replace a critical problem with a
minor one.
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:29:39 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <92349.222607U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>Let me suggest that there was no need to have numerous patsies planted in
>Dallas.  An additional setup at the convention center where the motorcade
>would evitably end was all that would be needed in addition to Dealey Plaza.
>There is some evidence dug up by researchers that point to a reason for
>such a poor showing of protection at Dealey Plaza was because they had
>reasons to believe that something was planned for the convention center,
>and therefore put the lion's share of security there.
>
OK, the Convention Center was a logical place.  But if The Conspiracy was going
to set up in *additional* places, why *just* Dealey Plaza?

But why set up in additional places at all?  Every additional site requires the
recruitment of additional people.  Remember, conspiracy theorists believe that
Oswald was killed because The Conspiracy believed he would "spill the beans." 
Are you saying that other people like Oswald (all potential "bean spillers")
had been recruited?

And why Dallas?  Remember, if your line of logic is correct, Oswald had to have
been put in place months before Kennedy came to Dallas.  Are you saying that
The Conspiracy believed that Kennedy would *eventually* come to Dallas, and
thus had the assassination planned when he came?  Or did they have lots of
people like Oswald (whether as co-conspirators or patsies) set up in cities all
over the nation?


.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk