From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Etcetera
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 SEP 92 12:18:12 PDT


re: 3229  (Tom Warner)

>>	So Dr. Levine says the guy is JFK.  I agree.

>You completely missed my point. Levine's checks were the *only* scientific
>checks done that would have detected a phony x-ray, other than attempts to
>check for a composite or the like. I'm still not sure what you mean by
>forensic anthropologist or what role such a person might play.

	Perhaps someone with access to the HSCA can verify or refute,
	but my recollection was that they had a team of forensic
	anthropologists.  In either case, how much verification do
	you need that the person in the X-rays and photos was
	John Fitzgerarld Kennedy and no other person?  They/he did
	things like measured the angle of his nasal septum, various
	features of his ear, the lip profile, the network of
	wrinkles across his back and the side of his neck,
	dental records, operational records... the guy in the
	photos and X-rays was JFK.  I haven't heard you suggest
	otherwise, come to think of it.

	A forensic anthropologist is an individual who specializes
	in identifying human remains.  When they pull a WWII aircraft
	out of the jungles forensic anthropologists are part of the
	team that comes in to identify the remains.  If you are 
	wondering why the HSCA pulled in such types it is because
	they wanted to determine a.) was the person in the
	X-rays and photos JFK, and b.) if so, were the photos
	and X-rays faked?

>>	Are you talking about the forensic anthropological work or
>>	the work of the photo experts?  The photo experts concluded
>>	that the X-rays and photos had not been forged and were in
>>	fact authentic.

>I'm talking about the photo experts, who concluded that the x-rays and
>photos were authentic as far as they could tell.

	The thing is, they can tell exceedingly well.

>>	I disagree that they only looked for the "most
>>	obvious" types of forgery, but without the HSCA volumes
>>	at hand I cannot quote chapter and verse.

>>	In either case, a far more reasonable interpretation is
>>	that there really wasn't anything there to find.

>No, it's not any more reasonable. I'm not convinced either way, and 
>I see no reason why I should be.

	You should be convinced the photos and X-rays are
	genuine because they have been authenticated and
	tested and because you have no evidence to indicate
	they are fakes.

>The point is, that if the photos and x-rays were essential components
>of a highly sophisticated coverup, they would be very difficult to
>identify as forgeries by any standard method. A panel of experts in the
>employ of the government spendinmg a few afternoons is not enough to
>settle the issue, although it may be enough to mollify people like yourself.

	Why would they be difficult to identify as forgeries by any
	standard method?  What forgery methods were available to
	the forgers that would have allowed them to so thoroughly
	and undetectably fake an entire set of photos and X-rays.

	While you're at it, please let us all know just what sort
	of planning took place that placed forgers as part of an
	assassination team so sophisticated that its success 
	depended upon a long series of events, culminating in
	the need for forged autopsy photos and X-rays.

>>	No, the X-rays do not show the right front portion of
>>	JFK's skull missing.  At least one non-enhanced X-ray
>>	does appear, to the untrained eye, to show the right front
>>	portion of the skull missing.  This was not a problem
>>	for the Clark Panel, who interpreted even the non-enhanced
>>	X-rays without a problem.  The enhanced version makes it
>>	clear, even to those of us not trained in reading X-rays
>>	(and without the X-rays, only copies of copies in books)
>>	that the damage in the photos and X-rays do indeed match.

>So I am supposed to accept this as an article of faith, or what? Where
>can I see an x-ray that shows the right front of JFK's face intact and the
>rear top of his skull missing?

	The HSCA, Lattimer, Lifton, and I am sure many other
	sources have copies of the computer-enhanced X-rays.
	HSCA, Menninger, and Lattimer have diagrams of the
	actual skull defect.  

>>	If you think more analysis of the dictabelt tape is worthwhile
>>	to pursue, pursue it.  The CBA didn't think so, but I'm
>>	always glad to support any attempt to analyze any aspect of
>>	the crime.  Perhaps someone can explain the church bells
>>	in the recording.

>Well, if the HSCA didn't have enough time and funds, I doubt I'm going
>to be able to afford it.

	Go out and raise some funds.  I am going to be doing
	that very thing myself within a couple of months - 	
	attempting to raise funds to do research into this
	case.  But the dictabelt tapes will be very low on
	my priority list as they were completely invalidated
	by the CBA in a most decisive manner.  

>>	In your case, I am sure we could prescribe something.

>Really? What works for you?

	Professional secret.  ;^)

>>	Find David Simon's book _Homicide: A Year on the Killing
>>	Streets_  It is not about JFK - no bias either way.
>>	It is likely in your library, perhaps even in your
>>	bookstore.  Read pp. 391-392 about the effects of
>>	bullets on bodies.  It is actually startling to find
>>	that this aspect is still considered controversial.

>Alright, I will. It's startling to me the silly neurotrauma hypothesis
>is still being trumpeted.

	I am not surprised it is startling to you.
	
>>	Bullets don't knock people over, in and of themselves.

>Depends on what kind of bullet you're talking about.

	What kind of bullet knocks a person over?

>>	Bullets that remove a good portion of a brain do in fact,
>>	by test and by observation, set up a massive neuromuscular
>>	response that is ultimately not completely predictable.

>Actually, it's more dependent on where they hit than how much brain
>they take out, as I understand the neurotrauma phenomenon. It has to
>hit the brain stem, I think. It is possible but not evident that JFK's
>wound did this. However, my understanding of brain trauma is that
>large amounts of brain being suddenly ripped away almost always if not
>always result in complete limpness. I'll look into it.
	
>The neuromuscular response is not *completely* predictable, more or less
>because it isn't the kind of thing that's easily studied (although I seem
>to recall that somebody did do some kind of testing on monkeys -- kind of
>thing they put in an animal rights press release, I'll have to check)
>There is, however, a recognized phenomenon, involving a sudden splaying
>of the limbs and arching of the back, followed by limpness.

	Yes, as I said, (and you seem to agree) the neuromuscular
	response is not completely predictable.  It has been 
	studied, not only formally, but on the "killing streets"
	of the big cities on a daily basis.

>I'll check your the book you cite, but I am not aware of anyone outside
>of the pro-WC camp making claims about any other type of bullet-caused
>neuromuscular trauma.

	It is important to be skeptical of claims presented by
	all sides.  This is why I often go outside the JFK 
	literature to see what I can find.  When I seek to
	understand what bullets do to bodies I find that what
	we in the JFK argument mindset regard as controversial,
	is treated as plain old ho-hum.  Rather like a bunch
	of people arguing about how many "outs" end an
	inning of baseball, only to actually read a book
	about baseball...

>>	One can determine very little of the source of the shot
>>	by looking at the Z-film.  It is a myth that because he
>>	moved backwards and to his left he had to have been
>>	reacting to the force of a bullet fired from his front
>>	right.

>Bullshit. First, it can clearly be seen from the film that Kennedy's head
>takes the hit and then impels the entire torso backward. His arms stay
>completely limp, and his back does not arch -- it simply gets thrown backward.
>There is absolutely no visbible sign of any muscular action at all. Remember,
>it would require a complex set of muscular actions, working in combination
>to perfection, to achieve a similar result. Even a conscious man would be hard
>pressed to imitate the appearance of having been hit in the right temple so
>well. For a man with half his brain gone, it's simply not possible.

	I think his response is explained by a combination of
	two phenomena, namely, the jet propulsion effect, 
	demonstrated experimentally, and the neuromuscular
	response.  I am not sure why you would expect to be
	able to directly observe the workings of JFK's muscles.

>>       Of course, unexplained by you is the fact that
>>	JFK's head moves forward two inches between frames
>>	312-313.  Lifton hints that maybe the Z-film was 
>>	somehow altered.  Lifton, you will recall, was present
>>	when Dr. Richard Feynman pointed this out.  Presumably,
>>	Lifton was there to lecture the good doctor on the
>>	laws of physics.

>Is it 312-313 or 311-312? A full two inches?
>This is genuinely weird and I haven't seen anything yet that satisfactorily
>explains it. It could be that JFK received two near-simultaneous hits. It
>could be something less obvious that I don't understand. I'm not convinced
>at this point that the motion is sudden or quick enough to rule outKennedy
>having moved forward just before the hit.

	It could be that he was hit by behind by one bullet.  But
	that would be the obvious explanation.

>>	It is nice you think it's nice.  Can I assume your postings
>>	represent the official position of the Univ. of Washington?

>You can assume whatever you like, but if you tell me that "we" are going
>to "ultimately learn" and "realize" your assumptions, I'm going to make
>fun of you.

	Actually, my own view is that your style mocks itself
	rather than me.  

	But, to state it yet again, I don't expect the Tom
	Warners of this world to read my postings and change
	their minds.  I know from experience that there are 
	a lot of people who read these postings, who are either
	agnostic or even pro-conspiracy, but who have never
	been interested enough to look into the case very
	deeply.  Some of these people are surprised to learn
	that there is so much evidence in favor of the
	single-gunman theory, so little in favor of second
	gunman theories.  They are able to make up their
	minds on the basis of hearing both sides of the
	case.  There aren't many people in this forum
	willing to present the other side.

Joel Grant (speaking oh his own behalf)