From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Generic Subject
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:32:54 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3248  (Tom Warner)

>>I don't understad your point. Since all I was doing was standing up for
>>Bruce Schuck, who made a claim that at a particular Z-frame the hit could
>>not have both come from the the TSBD "assassin's lair" and traversed JFK's
>>neck, which you attempted to refute by displaying a misunderstanding of
>>basic geometry, I don't see any need to anything further. I don't think
>>the bullet traversed the neck, so it's not important to me.

>	Trying to do geometry without precise angles is impossible.
>	Statements about the horizontal angle have varied by as
>	much as 18 degrees.  Distance of limo to window vary by
>	at least as much as forty feet.  No one knows precisely
>	what position JFK's body was in at the instance he was
>	shot.  Very expert analysis of all the trajectories 
>	involved indicate compatibility with the 6th floor
>	TSBD.  In light of all of the above, please don't lecture
>	me about geometry.  Rather, lecture yourself on the
>	limits of evidence.

I understand what you've said perfectly, but we were talking about a shot
at a particular Z-frame. You're right, it's hard to say exactly which frame
he was hit at. What I'd like to see is the range(s) of Z-frames when the
angle of supposed traversal would actually line up with the angle from the
assassin's lair, taking into account both vertical and horizontal angles.
Has any researcher done this?

>>>	Lattimer relied upon the ballistics evidence that
>>>	showed both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>>>	from C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles
>>>	in the world.  This evidence is presented in
>>>	the WCR.  It might make interesting reading for you.

>>First, if you think it's so damn interesting, why don't you post it?

>	These postings are already awfully long; read it yourself.

>>What chapter? My NYT copy has a lousy index.

>>You really think you've got something to refute that the fragments are
>>too small to rule out all other rifles in the world. In the WCR? Hahahaha

>	I also have a NYT copy and its table of contents is easily
>	sufficient to find this information.  Try Appendix X.

	"... each (fragment) had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the
basis of an identification. Based on a comparison with test bullets fired
from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were
identified as having been from the c2766 rifle."

	Other than an explanation of how such tests are done, including a
discussion of different ways the tests can be confounded, that's all there is
in the WCR about the bullets being from Oswald's MC. Nothing to counter my
point that the limo fragments do not have sufficient unmutilated surface
area to make an identification "to the exclusion of all other rifles." Sorry.

>>Again, the NAA analysis could only and did only show that the 
>>composition of the fragments did not rule out the copper jacketed
>>bullet and fragments in evidence. They didn't and couldn't "tie" anything
>>to anything.

>	Dr. Guinn's conclusion was that the fragments found in
>	John Connally's wrist almost certainly came from CE399.
>	NAA does not provide 100% certainty but it certainly
>	works at a level of precision notably in excess of what
>	you suggest.

I'll leave this one to Bruce, who knows more about this than me. (Bruce
has pointed out in other posts that there were actually several differences
in the composition of CE399 and the fragment from Connally's wrist, which
Guinn apparently glossed over. I stand by my statement that, at best, such a
test can show that the bullet was of the same manufacture and lacks the
precision ascribed to it by Joel. By the way, did Guinn try and compare the
wrist fragment to either of the limo fragments?)

>>All you've shown us are wispy threads. Where are the mountains?
>>For that matter, where is *any* evidence at all that Oswald fired the
>>rifle, or any rifle? Or was even on the sixth floor at the time?

>	I don't suppose you expect me to obtain and then re-type
>	all 27 volumes of the Warren Report, all 14 volumes
>	of the HSCA, etc. etc. etc.?

If you think that any portion of these has any evidence that Oswald fired
c2766, or any other rifle, or was on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the time,
then you could at least refer the rest of us to this evidence.

>	Where is your evidence than anyone else was involved?

Same place. One Mannlicher Carcano, three empty cartridges, no fingerprints
anywhere on the rifle, one pristine bullet that somehow winds up just lying
there on a stretcher, at least five separate wounds to JFK and Connally, a
hit to a curb and a hit of shrapnel or fragment to a bystander.

Take the most generous interpretation scientifically possible: one bullet hit
JFK's head, one bullet caused all of Connally's wounds, one bullet caused
both of JFK's non-fatal wounds, and one hit the curb. That's still one too many
bullets, not to mention that one of these four bullets has to come out as
pristine as CE399, which not even a supposed back-to-throat JFK traversing hit
would allow.

There's oodles more, such as the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter, and of course,
the assassination of Oswald at the jail by a Dallas mafia figure.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

By the way, I too would appreciate it if you left the subject lines
alone. It throws off nn; not only are readers who want to follow threads lost,
but readers who *don't care* about them are tricked into thinking a new thread
has begun.

Tom Warner