HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Subject: Re: How many stairwells in the TSDB?  (JFK)
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:04:16 GMT

--
>You guys who live in Dallas or have visited the TSDB please tell us
>how many stairwells there are in the TSDB.


>What I'm trying to work out is why Baker & Truly only saw Oswald as they
>ran up the stairs. How come they didn't encounter the "real" assassin?

>For the conspiracy theories to be true there must be more than one mode of
>exit from the sixth floor?

>Is there such?

>Conspiracy books I've read on this subject are very vague. They make a big
>deal out of the fact that Oswald couldn't run fast enough from the sixth floor
>to see Baker & Truly on the second floor -- but don't explain how the real
>assassin could magically get away even faster.

>It's not just the WC that resorts to magic :-)

Derek, why do you assume that the killers were out of the building BEFORE
Baker & Truly arrived? There are other possible means of escape.

If they wore disguises then who couldent they escape by walking right out
in from of the police? After all - Oswald himself exited via the front door
right past the cops several min. after the assassination.

And there is also the possibility of hiding. Perhaps there was somewhere to
hide? 

Or perhaps there was a good way out - or a secret way out via ducts or soemthing.

I know there are witnesses who say they saw people getting into cars and making
an exit up Houston street.

I have no more to add to this Derek but to append these additional questions to your original post.

Anyone else have any ideas?

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"
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: CONEGA@APPSTATE.EDU (Greg Cone)
Subject: Re: The Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer story (relations with JFK + T
Organization: APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:06:48 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <CRATHBUN.92Jul28185731@dante.nmsu.edu> crathbun@nmsu.edu writes:

> re: kennedy
> actually kennedy was an idiot!
> he was a power crazed, sex fiend(guess he wasn't all bad),
> meglomaniacal fool who brought the world to the brink of nuclear
> anhilation several times with his grandstanding politics designed to
> make him look good regardless of the threat to peace he caused.
>

Hmmm...  Except maybe the sex fiend part, sounds like our current prez.
  
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Subject: Release of JFK files-the truth comes out???
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:23:43 GMT

  I just heard on the radio that the JFK files are going to be released (assu-
ing I heard the news right). I can only hope that the files will reveal the
truth.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: mac hypercard stack with JFK conspiracy stuff (incl. Zfilm)
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:37:26 GMT

In <1992Jul29.083747.2428@fys.ruu.nl> sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:

>In <1992Jul28.074848.2292@fys.ruu.nl> sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:

>>Recently, I got a Macintosh hypercard stack, with a lot of text,
>>photographs, two soundbits and a part of the zapruder film. It's
>>called "11/22/63 Extra!". According to the blurb I may give it away
>>freely (it's everyware), but not distribute it by way of BBS or so. 
>>If you're interested let me know. A mac with at least a 86020 and a few
>>megs seems to be necessary.

Thomas Lee just told me of a better way to get this stack. You can ftp
it from sumex-aim.stanford.edu. It is in /info_mac/card/jfk.stack.


-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2639 alt.conspiracy:9337 sci.skeptic:13110
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: How many stairwells in the TSDB?  (JFK)
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:30:27 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


You guys who live in Dallas or have visited the TSDB please tell us
how many stairwells there are in the TSDB.


What I'm trying to work out is why Baker & Truly only saw Oswald as they
ran up the stairs. How come they didn't encounter the "real" assassin?

For the conspiracy theories to be true there must be more than one mode of
exit from the sixth floor?

Is there such?

Conspiracy books I've read on this subject are very vague. They make a big
deal out of the fact that Oswald couldn't run fast enough from the sixth floor
to see Baker & Truly on the second floor -- but don't explain how the real
assassin could magically get away even faster.

It's not just the WC that resorts to magic :-)
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2652 sci.skeptic:13146 alt.conspiracy:9358
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:06:41 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


Mitchell S Todd    > & >>>
Bruce Schuck (me) >>

>>>	Actually, even hunting bullets are jacketed. In the case of a
>>>	soft-nose, the jacket extends from the base to just a few
>>>	millimeters behind the head, exposing the core at the tip of the
>>>	bullet. A hollow point is fully jacketed, save for a small hole
>>>	in the very tip of the bullet. Unjacketed ammunition is quite
>>>	rare, and I've never fired any, nor can I find anyone who has.

>>I take it then you are claiming to be an expert on ammunition types in
>>use in the early 1960's. What qualifications do you hold?

>	More than you do. I know people who've been hunters since the
>	'40s, and they don't remember solid lead ammunition, unless
>	you're talking about small caliber pistol ammounition.
>	

"Clearly identifiable pieces of metal were scattered about the head
and brain of the deceased according to x-rays of the shattered head.
A sizeable piece of metal was shown at the entrance wound, a fact
strongly indicative of a lead-nosed bullet."
[...]
"The President's head wound was so massive as to suggest its
production by a hunting-style bullet despite the attempts at
disclaimer by Doctor Humes led on by lawyer Specter. A semi-jacketed
bullet with a soft lead nose exposed would be more likely to produce
the kind of head wound described at autopsy of the President than
would a metal-jacketed military bullet similar to the undeformed slug
that was presented as having been found on a stretcher in Parkland
Hospital"

    "Medicolegal Investigation of the President John F Kennedy Murder"
       Charles G. Wilber , Ph.D
       Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences
       Deputy Coroner, Larimer County Colorado
       Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Colorado State

So thats another trained Forensic Pathologist who clearly sees the
evidence pointing to a soft-nosed hunting bullet as hitting JFK in the
back of the head.

>>I don't think 'collar-shaped' is very different that the description
>>Roffman gives or the Clark Panel.

>	Last time I checked Webster's, and the OED, there's a big
>	difference between "collar shaped" and "spherical."

I checked out the drawing of the fragment in Wilbers book.

From the side, the fragment is spherical.

From the front, it is collar shaped.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Question (J.F.K. brain wound)
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:08:19 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: mingong-ws-2.ucsc.edu


In article <24JUL199216410736@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
...
|	A drawing made by the HSCA of an autopsy photo shows that
|	most of the right cerebral hemisphere is missing. Dr Lattimer,	
|	who has seen the autopsy photos estimates that 70% of the
|	right cer. hem. is has been blown away. The drawing shows
|	that the wound extends from the occipital lobe to the
|	frontal lobe. Because of the shape and size of the wound, 
|	it is easy to see why Dr Clark didn't describe damage to
|	the frontal lobe, and why Paul O'Connor would say that
|	he thought there was little left.
	
That is an odd statement. The fact is that the brain was weighed in at 1500
whatever the units were, (the normal size of the brain) and yet the photos 
show a large portion of the brain was gone. Still others at the autopsy say 
the brain was nearly missing entirely, and others say it was cut enough to be 
removed without surgery.

Paul O'Connor was shocked when he saw the photo (or rather drawing of the
photo--I am not sure which) and said it was not how he rememberd it.

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:47:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.cortez.712064878
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:


>In article <21JUL199214221293@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|(Paul Collacchi) writes...
>||In article <16JUL199213401941@sigma.tamu.edu|, mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu
>||(Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|
>|||| 	Yes, but their conclusion is clear: they found no evidence of
>|||| 	fakery in the photos. That is, there is no evidence that the
>|||| 	photos are fakes.
>|
>||This leap of faith, from "an expert says that...." to "it is true that ..."
>||is what I call the "emporer's new clothes effect."...
>|       ....
>|	The HSCA Photoanalysis panel's detailed report is available
>|	to anyone who wants to see it. The statements of Jack White,
>|	Malcom Thompsen, Robert Groden,

>Groden is an *expert* who does indeed claim the photos are fakes. And also he
>claims that the HSCA did not let him present his evidence, and did not
>do a correct job in analyizing the evidence. In a mock test before the
>photographic experts, only Groden had a 100% record in detecting known
>fake photographs!

	Have you read the stuff in High Treason 2 about Groden? I find it
fairly convincing that Groden is either a kook or worse.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Oswald's Request for a Laywer (JFK)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 18:15:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul23.015104.5922@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>> >
>>> >>What is the official explaination for why Oswald got grilled without a
>>> >>lawyer, despite his repeated requests for one?
>>> >
>The point was that he was grilled without a lawyer despite his repeated
>requests for one. Whether he would have been convicted or not based on
>the interrogation doesn't matter as he was murdered before that could happen.

This is simply NOT correct, and all the talk about "Miranda rights" is
beside the point.

From the New York Times "Index" for 1963, p. 427:

    "Oswald permitted to phone NYC to try to reach J J Abt, atty who
     has handled left-wing cases, but was unable to reach him; Dallas
     Bar Assn pres Nichols assured Oswald of legal aid but says Oswald
     declined immediate aid, saying he preferred Abt or ACLU atty. Tex
     law does not require ct to appt atty till after indictment" 
          -Nov. 24, p. 1, col. 6.

SO, Oswald WAS offered representation by the local Bar Association, but
he declined it. He preferred to be represented by John Abt (who was sort
of the William Kunstler of his day), who specialized in defending Communists
and other left-wing radicals.

Oswald was, as everfyone "knows", a right-wing extremist! :)


 
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: davidg@meaddata.com (David Galehouse)
Subject: Re: How many stairwells in the TSDB?  (JFK)
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:48:37 GMT

In article <182760@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul23.053027.12698@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
|> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|> |>  
|> |> What I'm trying to work out is why Baker & Truly only saw Oswald as they
|> |> ran up the stairs. How come they didn't encounter the "real" assassin?
|> |> 


|> <6th floor window theory stuff deleted> 

|> secret service badges etc.  The umbrella man just stood there for a			 
|> while until he split.  Some say he was a visual signal used to coordinate
|> rifle teams, others a political protestor. 

The "Umbrella Man" was actually a Dallas life insurance salesman by
the name of Louie Steven Witt. After being identified through a blowup
of a Zapruder still, Witt testified before the House Assainations
Committee in 1978.

Witt testified that he did not agree with Kennedy's liberal policies
and that he had heard that an open umbrella was used to symbolize
dissatisfaction with former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
who was accused of appeasing Nazi Germany. Because Chamberlain and
Joseph Kennedy were associated, he was told, that the open umbrella
was a sore spot with the Kennedys.

Thus, the open umbrella was an attempt by Witt to heckle the
president.

Witt claimed that after he realized what was going on he "just sat
down." and that he was stunned. He did eventually just walk away
without being questioned. Witt testified that he felt guilty for
heckling Kennedy in light of what had transpired and stated that "I
was thinking it was like a practical joke that had gone sour because I
was there, with this thing (motioning toward the umberlla)".

Witt's testimony was very believable and was accepted by the
committee. After reading his statements, I believe that he was being
truthful.

Any comments?


-- 
 David A. Galehouse | ...!uunet!meaddata!davidg                          
 Mead Data Central  | davidg@meaddata.com                             
 P.O. Box 933       | Any opinions expressed                          
 Dayton, OH  45401  | are mine, not MDC's.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter)
Subject: Clinton/Gore seem to support opening records...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 07:11:08 GMT


I saw an article this week (3rd week July) that indicated
that Clinton/Gore would like to see the Kennedy records
opened.  Even though Gore seemed to be more hep on the
idea, the article said that both Clinton and Gore thought
the assassination was part of a conspiracy.

--
Ron Carter |   Denver | Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
  Director | Colorado | "A ... mind stretched by a new idea can never
rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu | go back to its original dimensions."  -Holmes
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: JFK -- a meglomaniacal fool?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:13:50 GMT

crathbun@nmsu.edu (Chriss Rathbun) writes:

>re: kennedy
>actually kennedy was an idiot!
>he was a power crazed, sex fiend(guess he wasn't all bad),
>meglomaniacal fool who brought the world to the brink of nuclear
>anhilation several times with his grandstanding politics designed to
>make him look good regardless of the threat to peace he caused.
> 

Maybe so. 

But try and imagine US history over the last 30 years 
with Soviet IRBM's in Cuba.


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: priotti@torino.maraut.it (Enrico Priotti)
Subject: Question (J.F.K. brain wound)
Organization: Magneti Marelli, Electronics Division (ITALY)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:37:36 GMT

In Oliver Stone's "J.F.K." movie is clearly described the
President's authopsy.
There it is said that half of his brain was taken away by
the fatal bullet.
Is it credible? Is there anyone who has sure information
about this?
Thanks.           
                             Henry.


Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2606 sci.skeptic:13024 alt.conspiracy:9289
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:18:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <21JUL199214221293@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|(Paul Collacchi) writes...
||In article <16JUL199213401941@sigma.tamu.edu|, mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu
||(Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
|||| 	Yes, but their conclusion is clear: they found no evidence of
|||| 	fakery in the photos. That is, there is no evidence that the
|||| 	photos are fakes.
|
||This leap of faith, from "an expert says that...." to "it is true that ..."
||is what I call the "emporer's new clothes effect."...
|       ....
|	The HSCA Photoanalysis panel's detailed report is available
|	to anyone who wants to see it. The statements of Jack White,
|	Malcom Thompsen, Robert Groden,

Groden is an *expert* who does indeed claim the photos are fakes. And also he
claims that the HSCA did not let him present his evidence, and did not
do a correct job in analyizing the evidence. In a mock test before the
photographic experts, only Groden had a 100% record in detecting known
fake photographs!
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2607 alt.conspiracy:9290 sci.skeptic:13026
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Oswald's Request for a Laywer (JFK)
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:21:09 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <21JUL199214430321@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|(Dave Lyons) writes...
||mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) wrote:
||| (Derek Abbott) writes...
|
||||What is the official explaination for why Oswald got grilled without a
||||lawyer, despite his repeated requests for one?
|
||| 	To answer a question with a question...
||| 	When did the Supreme court mandate that a defending lawyer be
||| 	present during questioning?
|
||This is pretty misleading, Mitchell.  The Supreme Court's Miranda
||Ruling specifically states that any accused has the right to a lawyer
||during questioning. On the other hand, the Miranda Ruling wasn't making
||new law but rather was spelling out rights that exist in the constitution
||and therefore Derek's question is valid and deserves an answer.
|
|	Before Miranda, interrogating suspects without having counsel
|	present was a very common phenomina.

Not according to Roffman, who has a source for why this was in fact so
*unusual*. Recall also that Garrison's case hinged on Shaw's *routine*
questioning, which was thrown out because no attorny was present. Quite a
double standard here.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.smouldering.dog.zone
From: vgibbs@nmsu.edu (Victor R Gibbs)
Subject: Re: The Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer story (relations with JFK + Timmy Leary)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul27.093053.21353@becker.GTS.ORG>
	<CRATHBUN.92Jul28185731@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul29.171314.12318@cbnews.cb.att.com>
	<CRATHBUN.92Jul30191034@dante.nmsu.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:42:58 GMT



Are you MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS?

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Happy Birthday Rose
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:27:05 GMT

Rose Kennedy is 102 years old today. Son Jack would be 75.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2674 alt.conspiracy:9390 sci.skeptic:13209