From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Generic Warner III
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 15 SEP 92 16:56:36 PDT


re: 3273  (Tom Warner)

>>	As for CE399 being "too pristine" to have done the
>>	damage it did to JFK and Connally there is experimental
>>	evidence to suggest that it was deformed in the way
>>	one would expect it to be deformed, given the path it
>>	took and the damage it did.

>Hahahahahahahahahaha. Even a neck traversal would cause more damage
>to a bullet. What do you think we're all made out of, Jello?
>"experimental evidence" Hmmm, let me guess... more Lattimer-science?

	You keep doing this Lord Haw Haw stuff and in most 
	inappropriate spots.  You do it in relation to matters
	about which, apparently, you know nothing.  Did you know
	such a bullet, fired through four feet of ponderosa pine,
	deforms less than CE399?  

>>       What is the basis (besides
>>	you just don't "think" so) of your assertion that it was
>>	"too pristine" to have caused such damage?

>Bones in Connally's rib cage and wrist were damaged. The bullet's nose is
>virtually unblemished.

	As we shall see, the bullet's nose didn't hit Connally's
	rib or wrist.

>Again, you take your claim that investigators did not keep any record of any
>witness claiming on 11/22/63 to have seen a rifle in any other location than
>the TSBD, which may be true, and claim this proves no one saw any rifle.
>You don't dispute that many witnesses heard gunshots from another direction,
>or saw smoke in that direction, or smelled gunpowder, do you? And the
>witnesses who say they told the FBI they saw a rifle elsewhere, but didn't
>have that reflected in the summaries of their testimony, you naturally assume
>are liars.

	Neither the sense of smell for gunpowder, nor the sense of
	sound for the shots is a reliable indicator of firing location.
	As for the smoke, one possible explanation is the hot steam
	pipes located in the area in which the "smoke" was seen.
	
	Beyond that, the entire area was filmed.  No shooters are
	actually visible in any of the pictures of that area.  
	Far from being stopped by bogus secret service men, the area
	of the grassy knoll, and particularly by the stockade fence
	was overrun with spectators immediately after the shooting.
	You will note the many photographs which show the spectators
	running right by the alleged firing location and up to the
	triple overpass, there to survey the parking lot and railroad
	yards.  No one saw anyone with a gun.  There were spectators
	standing on the west side of the TSBD with a perfect view of
	the back of the knoll.  None of them saw shooters.  Zapruder
	and Sitzman were on a pedestal at least three feet high,
	overlooking the entire area - no gunmen.  Other spectators
	were there on the monument.  Three men were standing on the
	stairs immediately in front of the theorized other gunman
	area.

	No gunmen.

	There were 18 people on the triple overpass with a clear 
	view of the entire area.  None of them saw anyone with
	a gun.  In fact, a gunman in that location would have been
	in plain view, as he fired the rifle, of a large number
	of spectators, plus the secret service agents in the
	follow-up limo - and you think the grassy knoll would have
	been a good location to hide someone firing a rifle at
	a President?  If you were part of a sophisticated conspiracy,
	don't you think you could come up with a better place to
	hide than in plain view, a few feet from the Presidential
	limo?

>>	The front neck wound has also been subject to experiment.  I
>>	have often found that experiment is a better way to find out
>>	stuff about the real world than mere conjecture and assertion.

>Be honest, Joel, you prefer whatever way of "finding out stuff" confirms
>what you want to believe. You know that the wound had every characteristic
>of an entrance wound. If you have some "experimental evidence" that shows
>how an exit wound, in similar circumstances, looks exactly like an entrance
>wound, let's see it.

	The wound in the throat did not have the abrasion collar
	characteristic of entrance wounds.  It was considered a
	possible entrance wound because it was small.  As for
	believing "what [I] want to believe" I can tell you that
	I used to be that way so I know how it feels.  For about
	twenty years I was very strongly pro-conspiracy/pro 2nd
	gunman.  But the counter evidence for the other side is
	just too strong.

	As for presenting the evidence, sure.  Again, if I can
	get a chance to chug along with Lattimer...

>>	What is your other evidence about the source of the head
>>	shot?

>The Z-film.

	Dr. McClellan uses the same "evidence" for his conclusion
	as well.  You mean the initial 2" movement forward 
	convinces you that the shot came from the front?  ;^)

	That outside source I suggested?  It is also available
	in the King County library system.  Just order it via
	computer and they will mail it to your home.  Todd
	Mitchell's knowledge of guns and bullet wounds is very
	good; he has already explained why bullets don't knock
	people over.  I have already explained that when you go
	outside the JFK arguments you find this is not an issue
	of any kind.  Bullets do not, in and of themselves, knock
	people over.  Therefore, the movement of JFK observed in
	the Z-film is not evidence of a shot from the front.

>>       Where, exactly, did this shot come from?  What, exactly,
>>	damage did it do?  What are the angles involved, type of
>>	rifle, ammunition, etc.

>Well, if the Moon isn't made out of cheese, then what, exactly, is it made
>out of? See, you can't say exactly, can you? Ha, so you admit, it's made out
>of cheese...

	I bet Carl Sagan could be pretty precise about the composition
	of the moon.  But if you are complaining that the angles from
	the TSBD are ruled out via analysis of the wounds, and you
	propose another location, it is appropriate for you to supply
	the same analysis that you expect from the WC or HSCA or
	anyone else saying the shots came from the TSBD.  So - what
	type of rifle?  What were the angles?  How do you derive your
	theory from analysis of this data?

>	Trajectory analysis supports SBT.

>Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
>Let me guess, the "Kennedy curled up like a sow bug behind the sign, then
>took a hit, then sprang back into the same old posture" theory?

	The positions that JFK and Connally need to be in to
	accomodate the SBT are perfectly compatible with the
	positions they were observed to be in just prior to
	the limo disappearing behind the freeway sign.  Connally's
	wounds can only be accounted for by a bullet slowed down
	and tumbling prior to impact on Connally's shoulder.

>>   Certainly it places limits
>>	on other explanations.  Such as: shots from the grassy
>>	knoll.

>No, because none of the angles of JFK's frontal hits can be measured.

	Why not?  We know when JFK was hit in the head.  We know
	the various alleged locations of the other gunmen.  The
	angles are completely incompatible not only with the wounds
	observed and recorded by the pathologists, but by the Parkland
	doctors, and on the Z-film.

>I think Connally's chest wound is the only authentic, measurable traversing
>wound that will actually give useful information toward placing a shooter
>by trajectory analysis. I would be interested to see where the initial
>bullet path into his back points at and around the frame where he says he
>was hit. Has anyone done this?

	Yes, the HSCA did it.  His wounds line up to the 6th
	floor, TSBD.

>>	Sigh... The angle of the back wound to the throat wound is
>>	irrelevant unless you know exactly what position JFK was
>>	in when he was shot.

>Sigh all you want, Joel, you're trying to back out of an obvious blunder
>by leaving out the fact that this argument started with a particular
>Z-frame, I think it was 220 but you'll have to ask Bruce now, assumed.
>You're clouding the issue by trying to say JFK's position when he's hit
>is uncertain: I *know* that, I never said *otherwise*. But at any particular
>frame, it's *not* uncertain at all.

	JFK's position in Z-frame 220 is not completely certain
	because he was behind the street sign at the time.  Now
	do you get it?  Again, the angles change depending upon
	JFK's body position at the time of impact.

>>       The same inshoot/outshoot bullet
>>	could theoretically have come from an infinite number of
>>	points in space.  All that can be done in the case of
>>	the assassination of JFK is determine compatibility with
>>	proposed shooting locations.  The SE corner TSBD etc. is
>>	fully compatible with the inshoot and outshoot wounds 
>>	suffered by JFK, both in the neck/throat and in the head.

>During which range of frames in the Z-film?

	If I recall correctly the HSCA's analysis was based upon
	Z-frame 190.

>I doubt we'll ever see consistent measurements with as many bozos (on both
>sides) involved in this debate as there are. I'm sure 100% precision is
>impossible. For the proposed back-to-front traversal, I think precision is
>necessarily going to be poor, and would depend on whose placement of the
>back wound you use (the photo is at a bad angle and the skin is probably
>being pulled). For the angle from any shooter location to any wound, I think
>the distance would tend to overwhelm the uncertainties about just where to
>place the wound or just where someone's body parts are behind their clothing,
>and very precise angles could be measured.

	I have been consistently making this exact point.

>>	No, that isn't what I mean.  When you make statements to the
>>	effect that there are obvious political motives in this
>>	case you are stating in your premise what you would seek
>>	to demonstrate in your conclusion.  

>If I said that "there are obvious political motives" then I was being clumsy.
>I meant to say, and probably did say, that there is an obvious high probability
>of a political motive -- after all, JFK was the President. Any investigation
>of an assassination of a national leader that doesn't begin with the assumption
>that the motive is probably political is just plain stupid.

	History does not support your assumption about motive.
	First, it isn't easy to define just what a "political"
	motive is.  A clear example of a political motive was the
	attempt on Truman's life.  I think you could argue that
	Booth's conspiracy was at least partially politically
	motivated.  But all other attempts, successful or not
	on Presidents and President-elects have been fundamentally
	"motivated" by the irrational.  Do you think Sarah Jane
	Moore or John Hinckley had political motives?  

	The whole issue of motive is a snooze to your typical
	homicide investigator.  Only in a pinch, if they have to
	play Sherlock Holmes, do they even consider this.  They
	want witnesses, confessions, and physical evidence.  If motive 
	comes up it is because the prosecutor realizes he or she probably
	will have a jury of Tom Warners who think that motive is
	the thing to explore.   ;^)

>>	It may be that we didn't really land people on the moon,
>>	right?  I mean, how can I prove it wasn't all a hoax?

>For only $25 an hour, I can help you resolve these gnawing anxieties, Joel. :)

	If you throw in a trip on the space shuttle, it's a deal.

>>	Ok, Fighting Duck.

>Hey, how did you know I always hope the Ducks win? 
>(Kind of like voting for third-party candidates, only more practical)

	Lucky guess.  I'm a Notre Dame fan so I'm an agnostic in
	the Udub/Univ of Oregon rivalry.

>	Your own version is that Foster watched someone else
>	pick up the bullet.  That someone else has said he
>	didn't find a bullet.

>I didn't even know that "that someone else" had been identified. Can
>you point me to a reference that shows he has?

	Check your NYT WCR, page 572.

>>	First bullet: miss
>>	Second bullet: goes through JFK and Connally

>Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha.

	I shall demonstrate that this is the case.

>>	Er, you don't see the problem with this position?

>No. I'm not claiming the conspirators were Gods, just sophisticated enough
>to plant evidence.

	The problem with your position is that you have the same
	evidence "proving" two contradictory things.

>>	Classic bad reasoning.  The lack of evidence for a
>>	conspiracy *proves* how good those conspirators were.

>Except that I didn't say *proves*. I said *consistent with*. If the distinction
>is lost on you, try this: the lack of rifles left behind in other locations
>does not *disprove* the possibility of someone having shot a rifle from another
>location (or locations). Is that clear enough for you?

	Sure, the lack of other rifles being seen or discovered does
	not prove there were no rifles.  So what?  It is hardly 
	positive evidence that other rifles were involved.  Since
	we have positive evidence of one particular rifle being
	used, and no positive evidence of any other rifle being
	used, the reasonable conclusion is that only one rifle
	was used.  It is not my job to try to disprove negatives.

>>	I notice you "rely heavily on the autopsy" even though the
>>	pathologists determined that JFK was hit twice from behind?
>>	It is true that Humes did not make the back/throat outshoot
>>	location connetion until after he spoke with Dr. Perry.
>>	But the inshoot location for this wound was eminently clear
>>	at first glance.

>No, the inshoot location appeared to lead into the pleural cavity, if anywhere,
>but no path could be found.

	Dr. Humes did not dissect the track of the bullet and he has
	been heavily criticized for this, particularly by pathologists
	who admit he got it right.  Dr. Humes observed other damage
	that ties the back and the throat wounds together.  When
	we get to questions 6 and 7 in the Lattimer analysis we'll
	look at this in more detail.

>>       The inshoot location for the head wound
>>	was also very clear at first glance.

>But, oddly, several inches away from where it appears in the x-ray.

	I have already explained why Humes's report was inaccurate
	in this respect.  The inshoot location is clearly discernible
	in the autopsy photos and x-rays.

>>       The pattern of 
>>	entrance/exit exit damage made by a through-and-through
>>	bullet wound of the cranium is unistakable, not only to
>>	a trained pathologist, but to a beat cop who is able
>>	to examine the whole body.

>Hogwash.

	Bullets that go through-and-through a cranium cause
	characteristic patterns of damage to the skull.
	Basically, you find a crater at each exit
	point.  If the bullet enters posteriorally and
	exits anteriorally, you will find the cratering
	effect on the inside of the posterior cranium,
	and a cratering effect on the outside of the anterior
	cranium where the bullet exited.  This was the pattern
	found by Dr. Humes.

	If a beat cop finds a body with a small wound on the
	back of the head and a large defect of the skull on
	the right and top portion of the head, he will make
	the easy determination as to the direction the
	bullet traveled.

>>>	As for the connection between the back wound and the
>>>	throat wound, re-read the autopsy report.

>The autopsy report only mentions the "contusions" to the "right apical
>parietal pleura" and right lung. It neglects to mention that no path from
>the wound to this area could be followed with probing tools or by hand.

>The account of the autopsy in the text of the WCR is pure story-telling.

	Dr. Humes also mentioned the "considerable ecchymosis
	of the strap muscles on the right side of the neck and
	of the fascia about the trachea adjacent to the line of
	the tracheostomy wound."  The Clark Panel concluded that
	the central findings of the autopsy would not have been
	changed even if the track of this bullet wound had been
	dissected out.  All the available evidence, starting with
	JFK's jacket and ending with the nick on JFK's tie, points
	clearly to a bullet traversing JFK's body from back to
	front.

>>	Now why do I have to keep saying this stuff over and
>>	over?

>Uh... because you exaggerate the findings of the test beyond all recognition?

	(He means he doesn't believe in that silly NAA analysis stuff.)

>>       A fragment of the bullet was recovered from
>>	JFK's head.  This fragment was compared, via NAA, to
>>	the limo fragments.  There was a match.

>We discussed this elsewhere. I'm not sure there was a match, and if there was
>it was to the manufacture and not any specific bullet.

	Perhaps someone would be so kind as to enter Dr. Guinn's
	actual conclusions?  I have seen the man on the Nova
	special stating that the wrist fragments matched CE399.
	Now is he fast and loose with the english language?

>>>Why would they? What would TSBD employees have over anyone else?

>>	Think *hard* about this one...

>NNNGNGNGNNGGNNGGNG! Hmmm. NGNGNNNGGNGGGNGGNG! Nope. Still don't see why
>TSBD employees would have any better idea, unless you're assuming that
>Rowland saw a TSBD employee that they might recognize from his description.
>I'm more interested in the possibility he saw a rifleman at 12:15, and the
>obliquely referred to credibility problems the WC found him to have than
>a comment from his wife that he "tended to exaggerate" (there is a big
>difference between "tending to exaggerate" and making up a story about
>a murder). I'll have to check this one out further.

	Check out the section in the WCR on the Rowlands and Craig.
	
	As for why the TSBD employees would be the best people to
	ask about strangers in their building, the answer is because
	it was the building in which they worked, and if a  
	non-employee was strolling around the TSBD, the
	people who worked there would be the people of choice to
	make that determination.  And yes, this doesn't prove that
	someone was *not* there.  It does show that providing corroboration
	for Rowland's story is pretty tough.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic