From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: guest posting
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 04:31:40 GMT


In a previous article, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) says:

>>Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
>
>>>Obvious brain mixup of my own.  To state it clearly:
>>>Lifton believes all of JFK's wounds were caused by
>>>a gunman firing from the front and that his body was
>>>surgically altered to make it *appear* as if the wounds
>>>were inflicted from behind.  
>
>
>>In the case of the back wound, this contradicts
>>the testimony of one of the Secret Service agents who witnessed Kennedy's
>>back shot. The agent also placed this wound where the autopsy rough
>>drawings put it -- on the right side of the back, below the shoulder
>>blade -- _not_ in the back of the neck where it is required to support
>>the magic bullet theory.
>
>	Like hell it was, unless either JFK had a very interesting
>	physiology, or Lifton is using a very interesting definition
>	of below. The Scapula extends to about eight inches below the
>	shoulder line. That's far lower than any SS agent placed the
>	wound. Boswell placed the wound about three inches below the
>	shoulder line in his sketch, which, I believe, is the one you
>	refer to. Just thinking about it, it would seem that a 'below
>	the shoulder blade' would be below the level of the back of
>	the back seat in the presidential limo, though this would bear
>	checking.

All right all right all right. I stand corrected. Below the shoulder _line_.
The agent's testimony matched Boswell's drawing.

>
>
>>If the small hole in the back of Kennedy's head was 
>>really a gunshot wound, it could have been in the piece of skull that
>>was _missing_ at Parkland, was later found in the street by a citizen
>>and brought into the Bethesda autopsy by the FBI. This would be consistent
>>with the hypothesis that there two nearly-simultaneous shots, one striking
>>the rear of the head and lodging in the brain, and the other entering at
>>the temple and exiting the back of the head.
>
>	I'm not exactly sure of what you're saying, but let me jump in
>	anyway. The small wound in the back of the head is apparent
>	in the x-rays of the skull, ie it wasn't one of the fragments.
>	They were photographed and x-rayed seperately, and not one of
>	them shows signs of harboring an entry wound.
>
I can't respond at this moment because, as stated, I don't have _Best
evidence_ at hand right now.

>
>
>>When the Dallas dictabelt tape is played with the Zapruder film, that's
>>exactly how the shot noises line up.One shot, with the car hidden behind
>>the Stemmons freeway sign -- when the car emerges less than a second 
>>later Kennedy has been hit in the throat. A second shot -- Connally is hit.
>>Then two shots, very close together and audibly different in sound, at
>>the instant of the head wound(s).
>
>	The time difference between the last two shots, the 'fourth shot'
>	supposedly from the knoll and the 'shot' from the TBSD is .8
>	seconds. The double head shot theory requires that the two	
>	shots impact JFK's head within about .1 seconds of each other 
>	in order to jive with the Zapruder film. even including travel
>	times for the bullet, the shots don't match that theory. This
>	is why the HSCA claimed that the mysterious fourth shot missed.
>
>
>>For the people who think the shots on the dictabelt aren't really shots --
>>I haven't seen anyone explain the coincidence that they match (to the
>>satisfaction of some, if not all researchers) with the HSCA test echo
>>firings in Dealy Plaza _and_ they line up with the Zapruder film. One
>>coincidence or the other you might be able to get away with, but not both.
>
>	I think I've gone a little ways to showing how the channel 1
>	tape doesn't correlate to the z-film that well, so I won't
>	expound on it. I'll just get on to the acoustic analysis.
>
>	Since Dr Barger never conducted any decent control experiments,
>	we don't know whether, using his methodology, a shot recording
>	for a rifle fired from a position known not to contain a sniper
>	would "match" with the channel 1 tape. Further, we don't know
>	if a rifle fired in another urban area similar to Dealy plaza
>	would 'match' with one opf the impulse sequences.
>
That suggests that the acoustic analysis alone is not sufficient to
identify one of the shots as a grassy knoll shot. I'll go that far.
If you postulate that the noises on the tape are really shots, but "fired
in some other similar urban area," and the match-up with Zapruder is
just coincidence, where were these shots being fired? You are limited in
time to either the moments of the assassination, or one minute afterward,
when the police chief said the words "hold everything secure," and you
are limited in area to whatever the reception range for the police
radio was -- be generous and say the entire Dallas metropolitain area.
If the best alternative to the HSCA's findings was actually "somebody was
firing a rifle somewhere else in Dallas, within one minute of the 
assassination, that just happened to be picked up by a police microphone,"
don't you think somebody would have mentioned it?

Positive identification of a grassy knoll shot is not necessary to show
conspiracy -- just the fact that there were four shots is sufficient.

>	Once you look at what Barger claimed what the experiment would
>	do, and then look at his data, you'd understand why people are
>	so skeptical. To begin with, Barger claims that 78 shots were
>	fired in the tests, yet only 36 of these trials were used in
>	comparison with the dictaphone recording. 
>
>	According to Barger's claims, the experiment was set up so that
>	an impulse train from the channel 1 tape shouldn't match with
> 	test-firing recordings from two adjacent microphoes (they were
>	placed 18 feet apart). Exactly this happens...repeatedly.
>
>	There are three matches between test firings and the 'shot'
>	attributed to the grassy knoll; However, *two* of those three
>	matches are attributed to test shots originating from the
>	TSBD. Funny that.
>	
>	But, if you prefer data:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>NOTES:  The microphones were placed in three 'channels' of 12 mics
>	each. The 12 mics of channel 1 were placed along Houston
>	St. The mics of channel 2 were clustered in the intersection
>	of Elm and Houston. Ch 3's dozen mics were placed along
>	Elm, terminating just after the location of the limo at
>	Zapruder 313. All of the mics were placed at intervals
>	18 feet apart.
>
>	Target locations 
>		Target 1: on Elm at about the position of the oak tree.
>		Target 2: on Elm corresponding to the position of the
>			  limo at about frame 200
>		Target 3: on Elm corresponding to the position of the
>			  limo at about frame 310
>		Target 4: between Main and Commerce at the triple
>	     		  overpass	
>
>	A '*' indicates that the muzzle of the rifle was 2' inside of the
>      	window when fired.
>	
>	the correlation coefficient is arrived at by the formula:
>
>	    number of impulse matches between tape 'shot' and trial 'shot'
>	    -------------------------------------------------------------
>	    (# impulses in trial shot * # impulses on tape'shot')^.5
>
>
>
>
>NUMER, TARGET, LOCATION, AND WEAPON OF THE TRIAL SHOTS:
>
>
>		1	2	3	4	TOTAL
>	---------------------------------------------
>	TBSD* | 1	3	6	10|	20
>	      |				  |
>	TBSD  |	2	4	7	11|	24
>	      |				  |
>	KNOLL |		5	8	12|	25
>	rifle |				  |
>	      |				  |
>	KNOLL |			9	  |	 9
>	pistol|				  |
>	----------------------------------------------
>	TOTAL |	3	12	30 	33|	78	
>
>	(Only rifles were used in the TBSD)
>
>
>
>TABLE OF MATCHES BETWEEN TRIAL SHOTS AND IMPULSES ON THE POLICE TAPE:
>
>(15 total matches out of some 2400 comparisons between 432 recordings
> of 36 trial shots, and the six impulse trains on the Dallas Police
> tape, as reported by Dr James Barger of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.) 
>
>
>impulse  	microphone 	shooter 	target 		correlation
>sequence	number/loc.	location 	location	coeff.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1)		2-5		TBSD*		1		.8
>		2-5		TBSD*		3		.7
>		2-6		TBSD		3		.6
>		2-6		KNOLL		4		.7
>
>2)		2-6		TBSD*		3		.8
>		2-6		TBSD		3		.6
>		2-10		TBSD		3		.6
>		2-11		TBSD		3		.6
>		3-5		KNOLL		2		.6
>
>3)		3-4		KNOLL		3		.8
>		3-7		TBSD*		2		.7
>		3-8		TBSD		3		.7
>
>4)		3-5		TBSD		3		.8
>		3-6		TBSD		4		.8
>		3-8		TBSD*		2		.7
>
>
>
>
>
>>Finally, Mr Grant, you consider it implausible that this whole scenario
>>of alterations to the body was part of the "master plan." Fine, but that
>>is a straw man. It's entirely unnecessary for that to be true. I would
>>suggest it is more likely that something, or various things, went wrong
>>with the "plan," and this was an emergency fixup operation. What went
>>wrong? Could be that the object was to kill Kennedy, if at all possible,
>>using only the rear shooter(s), they failed to do so, and the last resort
>>was to deliver the killing shot from the grassy knoll. In Robert Morrow's
>>book _The Senator must die_ you may read a blow-by-blow account of the same
>>procedure being used in the assassination of some Latin American official
>>by US trained mercenaries -- they had gunmen stationed at three or four
>>different points. The first one misses, the second one takes his shot, and
>>so on.
>> 
>>>
>>>I promise to carefully edit, in a file, my next posting.
>>>
>>>Joel
>>>
>> 
>>--
>>		Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was
>>		valid ... er, if the money was valid ... and
>>		if it were a small part.
>> 
>>% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
>>% Received: by mts-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA15402; Wed, 8 Apr 92 19:40:07 -0700
>>% Received:  by cwns5.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5-freenet)id AA27830; Wed, 8 Apr 92 22:39:57 -0400 (from dxc4 for grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com)
>>% Message-Id: <9204090239.AA27830@cwns5.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>>% Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 22:39:57 -0400
>>% From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
>>% To: ripple::grant_jo
>>% Subject: Re: mea culpa
>>% Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu
>                                |  
>		              \ | /	 
>                               \|/
>_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
>\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
>  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
>    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
>      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
>         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
>                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
>                       	
>
>
-- 
		Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was
		valid ... er, if the money was valid ... and
		if it were a small part.