HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:44:37 GMT

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:

>In article <92349.222607U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>>Let me suggest that there was no need to have numerous patsies planted in
>>Dallas.  An additional setup at the convention center where the motorcade
>>would evitably end was all that would be needed in addition to Dealey Plaza.
>>There is some evidence dug up by researchers that point to a reason for
>>such a poor showing of protection at Dealey Plaza was because they had
>>reasons to believe that something was planned for the convention center,
>>and therefore put the lion's share of security there.
>>
>OK, the Convention Center was a logical place.  But if The Conspiracy was going
>to set up in *additional* places, why *just* Dealey Plaza?

As I posted earlier, Dealey Plaza was the traditional route for
motorcades. Connally told the HSCA that *every* motorcade went
through Dealey Plaza.

>But why set up in additional places at all?  Every additional site requires the
>recruitment of additional people.  Remember, conspiracy theorists believe that
>Oswald was killed because The Conspiracy believed he would "spill the beans." 
>Are you saying that other people like Oswald (all potential "bean spillers")
>had been recruited?

>And why Dallas?  Remember, if your line of logic is correct, Oswald had to have
>been put in place months before Kennedy came to Dallas.  Are you saying that
>The Conspiracy believed that Kennedy would *eventually* come to Dallas, and
>thus had the assassination planned when he came?  Or did they have lots of
>people like Oswald (whether as co-conspirators or patsies) set up in cities all
>over the nation?

The previous hit site was probably Miami. The motorcade was cancelled
in Miami for security reasons and JFK took a helicopter to his speaking
site. The 'patsy' in Miami probably survived, although it might be
interesting to check for suspicious deaths in Miami just after the JFK
visit to look for Oswald-like people who died mysteriously.



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:56:15 GMT

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:

>In article <schuck.724455877@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>
>>The previous hit site was probably Miami. The motorcade was cancelled
>>in Miami for security reasons and JFK took a helicopter to his speaking
>>site. The 'patsy' in Miami probably survived, although it might be
>>interesting to check for suspicious deaths in Miami just after the JFK
>>visit to look for Oswald-like people who died mysteriously.

>OK, Miami was the "hit city" and Dallas was the backup.  Why?  How do you know? 
>And are these the only two cities?  Or did The Conspiracy have a program, put
>in place months in advance to station "patsies" like Oswald all over the
>country in order to kill Kennedy.

Haven't you ever heard the Milteer recordings, where he layed out the
plan to kill JFK ? He was in Miami when this recording was made, and
he was in Dallas on the assassination day. He said JFK was going to be
killed by a sniper and a patsy was going to be set up.

>BTW, how did The Conspiracy know so far in advance that it wanted to kill
>Kennedy.  Or were they so farsighted that they did all this simply to protect
>against the contingency of wanting to kill Kennedy.

A month or two is all they needed. You can't recruit assassins to kill
the President overnight. 

>One final question, does this sort of theorizing ever get so tortured and
>convoluted that you start toying with the crazy radical idea that perhaps
>Oswald did it?

Tortured? Convoluted? 

The only *really* tortured and convoluted theory is the magic bullet
theory, and thats the one the WC and HSCA and all the others have
tried to foist off, despite a real lack of physical and photographic
evidence it ever took place.

Have YOU ever stopped asking dumb questions and actually looked at the
physical evidence impartially?
From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Subject: Book: The Man on the Grassy Knoll
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU
Distribution:  usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:29:45 GMT


I've recently purchased the book, "The Man on the Grassy Knoll", by
John R. Craig and Philip A. Rogers. (ISBN # 0-380-77127-6), published
by Avon Books.  Haven't had time to go over it yet.  (Actually, I'll
have to get a new copy as mine is missing pages 47-78!)

I haven't been following the discussions in this group for very long,
as the University only recently started carrying this group, but in the
time I have, I haven't seen any references to this book, or these authors'
thesis, which, I gather, is that Oswald was a patsy, and that a fellow
named Charles Rogers was "the man on the grassy knoll" who actually
killed J.F.K. (and apparently also occasionaly impersonated him, including
the trip to the Cuban embassy in Mexico.)

So, has anybody any comments to make on this?  Or has it already been
discussed?

Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: gst@stiatl.salestech.com (Greg Tucker)
Subject: Best Book on JFK Killing
Summary: Best book on the Kennedy Assination?
Keywords: JFK
Organization: Sales Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:20:59 GMT

    What is the best book on the JFK assination?
My wife does not believe Kennedy was "removed"
from office by the Mafia and/or the CIA. 

    Thanks in advance..
-- 
    \\\\\\\ 
    | ~  ~|
    | O O |            Tuck        gst@salestech.com
-mn----^----nm---------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: PBS SPECIAL
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:24:05 GMT

>,>>> Joel Grant
>> Paul Busta

>>>	You are right, no one has been able to prove that Brennan gave
>>>	the description broadcast over channel 1 at 12:45 or so, but
>>>	since Brennan was talking with the police immediately after
>>>	the shooting and since the description broadcast matches 
>>>	Brennan's description as stated to the Dallas Police on the
>>>	afternoon of 11/22/63 it is highly likely that Brennan is
>>>	the source of the description.

>>  A man whose vision was HIGHLY suspect......

>	This is one of the more understandable JFK assassination
>	myths but it is myth nonetheless.

>	On 11/22/63 Brennan was not wearing glasses.  Subsequent
>	photos of the man (e.g. at the time of his WC testimony)
>	show him with thick reading glasses.  But it happens that
>	Brennan's eyes were injured in a job-related accident
>	(it had to do with sand blasting) in January, 1964.  His
>	vision on the day of the tragedy was quite excellent.  He
>	demonstrated this by immediately identifying Jarman and
>	Norman when they came out of the TSBD.

Well, gee, that's swell. But since the broadcast description was so
vague it would have fit about 15 percent of the population of Dallas as
well as it fit Oswald, is this really worth quibbling over?

[yards of Joel Grant fantasies about Oswald's character deleted]
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 22:16:37 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald/Lovelady controversy
 <1992Dec12.063951.21159@u.washington.edu> <104773@bu.edu>

The clearest and most full version of the Altgen's photo I have come
across is found in Weisberg's first Whitewash book.  You should be able to
find this in the library.

ALAN ROGERS  **** U54778@UICVM.UIC.EDU * I speak only for myself as a *
VMKRAFT INC.  708-675-8615             * citizen of the UNIVERSE, not *
                                       * as an employee of Vmkraft nor*
                                       * as a user of U of I Services.*
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: balaji@milli.cs.umn.edu (Balaji Srinivasan)
Subject: Jim Garrison : Doubt ..
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:38:26 GMT


  Hi folks , I have a few doubts after reading part of the book 
     "On the trail of the assassins" by JG. 

  1. Apparantly the nitrate test showed that Oswald had not used a rifle 
     in 24 hrs or something like that. This should have been a very strong 
     point in favor of Oswald. What was the official explanation given to this
     however farfetched it might have been ? 

  2. Jim Garrison talks about one Dean Andrews who was apparantly asked to 
     to legally represent Oswald. Later, upon bullying by the FBI , Dean 
     denied it. It seems the request was made by one Clay Shaw , a prominent 
     figure-head of the CIA. I do not understand the motive behind why 
     Clay Shaw should want to request anybody to legally represent Oswald. 

     I am new to this subject. Any patient explanations will be appreciated. 

     Thanx a lot . 

     - Balaji 

--
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
  regarded as a criminal offense.
                -- E. W. Dijkstra
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Oswald/Lovelady controversy
Keywords: Altgen photograph 
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:39:51 GMT

busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes:

>  If you blow up this photograph, specifically the section showing Oswald/
> Lovelady and take note of the shirt being worn by this person, you'll notice
> that it is a rather dark, long sleeved shirt unbuttoned down to approximately
> mid-chest and the person wearing it has a white t-shirt on underneath.

>  Next, get a copy of Oswalds' DPD mug shot from early after he was arrested
> and you'll notice that Oswalds' shirt in this picture is IDENTICAL.

What book has a good copy of the Altgens photo?

I wonder if it's still possible to buy a print from the AP.
From: bgonzal@math.rutgers.edu (Bil Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald/Lovelady controversy
Keywords: Altgen photograph
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:50:03 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dave@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Dave Thompson) writes:


>In article <1992Dec10.134442.28469@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes:
>>
>>  This concerns the rather well known James Altgens photograph taken just
>> after JFK was hit in the neck showing Oswald/Lovelady standing in the doorway
>> of the TSBD. The Warren Commision says it was Lovelady, many researchers think
>> it's Oswald.

>If it was Oswald, then why would he leave the doorway and go into the TSBD
>and up to the second floor to purchase a coke from the drink machine. Don't
>forget he was spotted up there about 90 seconds after the shooting by a 
>Dallas policeman and an employee of the TSBD.  It was the employee who
>identified Oswald to the policeman. If I had been Oswald standing in the
>doorway during the shooting, I sure as hell would not go into the TSBD. I 
>would at least stay outside where people could see me so I could have an
>airtight alibi. I wouldn't enter the building where shots were suspected
>to have come from.

Perhaps at that time he did not know that shots were suspected of coming
from the TBSD.  Many people were scrambling for the grassy knoll at that
time.  Perhaps he knew of the assassination plans, including the grassy
knoll shooter.  He would have gone down to the doorway to see the 
assassination, and upon its (obvious) completion, gone back in the 
building, relieved that the plan was carried out and was over, perhaps
even grabbing the coke, as so many of us grab a drink after a stressful
situation.  By going back into the building, he could avoid being questioned
by the police if no one saw him standing outside.  Someone with his
background would automatically be suspect for just having been there.
When the officer showed up to search the building, he realized that
he was in trouble.  By being inside the building and not outside at this
point, he was even more suspect.

Bil Gonzalez  
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Oswald/Lovelady controversy
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:52:16 GMT

ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:

>     4) The fact the shirt color Oswald is closer to Oswald's shirt color in
>a mug shot taken later Nov. 22 does not make that Oswald either. Oswald was
>supposedly to have returned to his boarding house where he changed shirts.

Where did you get this info? I've never read that he changed shirts.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Rob Brooks)
Subject: Re: Best Book on JFK Killing
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:12:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.144136.1580@linus.mitre.org>, howells@bird.mitre.org
(Timothy P. Howells) writes:
> 
>  gst@stiatl.salestech.com writes:
> 
> >     What is the best book on the JFK assination?
> > My wife does not believe Kennedy was "removed"
> > from office by the Mafia and/or the CIA.
> 
> Hi,
> 
>    The JFK assassination is one of those poorly understood subjects
> for which there's no classic or definitive source.  I'd recommend the
> following books, each with their own strengths and weaknesses:
> 
>   _Contract on America_ by David Scheim
> 
>    For a person who is sceptical about the whole idea of a conspiracy
> and who is inclined to believe the Warren Report, I'd recommend
> _Contract on America_, which concentrates almost exclusively on the
> strongest evidence for conspiracy and coverup: the evidence linking
> organized crime to the assassination.  I don't see how anyone could
> read this book and come away with any faith in the official version of
> the story.
> 
> 
>   _Plausible Denial_ by Mark Lane
> 
>   This is the story of a trial in which Lane obtained an acquital on
> libel charges for a journalist who had accused E. Howard Hunt (of
> Watergate fame) of involvement in the assassination of John Kennedy.
> The acquittal was based not on the technicalities of the law regarding 
> libel, but on the grounds that Hunt quite likely *had* been involved
> in the assassination.  When the story gets very far from the testimony
> produced in the course of the trial, it sometimes becomes quite
> anecdotal.  It's very well written though, and provides a fascinating
> glimpse of the dark underside of our government.

Lane's first book, _Rush to Judgement_, is also a very good source.  It
differs from most books written about the Kennedy assassination because
instead of speculating on the whos and whys Lane deals solely with the many
 inconsistencies in the Warren Comission Report.  A real eye-opener for
anyone new to the subject.

Rob (rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu)



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: abw@natchez.bu.edu (Al Wesolowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald/Lovelady controversy
Keywords: Altgen photograph
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:34:59 GMT
Organization: Boston University

In article <1992Dec12.063951.21159@u.washington.edu> twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:

>What book has a good copy of the Altgens photo?
>
>I wonder if it's still possible to buy a print from the AP.

Sure is. I purchased one last Spring. The print is, as far as I can
tell, uncropped, but is at least a 2nd-genration print, maybe 3rd. Not
nearly as sharp as I expected. If there is interest I will dig out the
address, etc. for ordering. It wasn't cheap, either, ca. $60.00, but I
think it's worth it.

You actually don't order it from AP, but from an archival service with a
different phone number.

                            ---Al

-- 
Al B. Wesolowsky    Boston     o "En Cee Cee One Seven Oh One.... 
abw@crsa.bu.edu   University   o  No bloody 'A', 'B', 'C', or 'D'." 
abw@acs.bu.edu                 o                          M. Scott
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Best Book on JFK Killing
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:10:16 GMT

rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Rob Brooks) writes:
>Lane's first book, _Rush to Judgement_, is also a very good source.  It
>differs from most books written about the Kennedy assassination because
>instead of speculating on the whos and whys Lane deals solely with the many
> inconsistencies in the Warren Comission Report.  A real eye-opener for
>anyone new to the subject.

Yes, and there are two others on the same subject that I think are even
better: Harold Weisberg's _Whitewash_ (the first comprehensive critique
of the Warren Report) and Sylvia Meagher's _Accessories After the Fact_
(the last and best organized of the genre). All of these books do a good
job of showing the extreme prosecutorial bent of the Warren Commission by
contrasting the commission's own evidence against its report, while at the
same time showing just how little evidence there really was against Oswald.

I think Lane's "Plausible Denial" can be skipped; at least don't buy it.
It's pretty much a weak cash-in on the movie that tries very hard to make
old material look new.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 18 Dec 1992 03:01:38 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

>
>I believe I've see reports that a right-wing LoneNut team had
>been set up in Miami, but the pieces did'nt fit together for
>some reason.
>
>Heck, this could have been a virtual travelling show, with a cast of
>mobile hitmen and patsy LoneNuts in several cities.
>
>Sanitizing the operation after the fact, as seems to have been accomplished,
>is not particularly difficult. The BeanSpillers are expedable, collateral
>damage, etc. Their number is largely irrelevent, relative to the stakes
>which were being played for.
>
>Apart from that, the Patsy probably had very few beans to spill. That's
>what makes patsies most effective : they really don't know anything.
>They just take the blame.
>
A theory about "patsies" can involve "innocent" patsies, or "not so innocent"
patsies."

It is true that innocent patsies could be rounded up in substantial numbers and
not have any particular "beans" worth spilling.  However, it's also the case
that they cannot be counted on (since they are innocent) to play their assigned
role.  To repeat an earlier message, what if Oswald had happened to be standing
in sight of a half-dozen other employees the moment the shots had rung out? 
Suppose he just decided to call in sick that day?

A theory about "no so innocent" patsies answers these objections.  The not so
innocent patsy did what The Conspiracy told him, thereby playing into The
Conspiracy's hands.

But "not so innocent" patsies have beans to spill.  And if you line up enough
of then around the country, it becomes very likely somebody will spill the
beans.  And you don't want a "not so innocent" patsy in police custody. 
He might talk before you can kill him.

So tell me, do you think Oswald was an innocent patsy or a "not so innocent"
patsy?

.John
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 18 Dec 92 03:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec18.121931.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>
>Try this: If LHO got out of the TSBD he was to rendevous with someone (Ruby?)
>at either their place or in the Theatre. He was not supposed to return home. 
>Or at least that's what LHO thought. But the real plan was to kill him. 
>How? One or more of the DPD were in on it. If he was not shot in the TSBD 
>(because the "right" Dallas Police were not able to get to him first) then he
>was to be shot resisting arrest later. 
>Officer Tippet was looking for LHO, who thought he would help him. But Tippet, 
>not knowing LHO now had a pistol, told LHO that he was the patsy. Of course by
>this time LHO knew this, as he had been assured that JFK was not supposed to
>die. Tippet went to kill LHO but was too slow.
>At the Theatre, another DPD officer went to shoot LHO but the gun misfired.
>In other words three opportunities arose, but LHO was lucky(?).
>The final plan for Ruby to kill Oswald was probably a new plan only devised by
>Ruby after he was pressured to fix the problem of LHO being caught alive.
>

My, my!  While most conspiracy theorists make The Conspiracy seem omnipotent,
you make them out to be the Keystone Kops!  Three attempts to kill Oswald, none
of which worked.  And then he falls into custody.

But then Ruby is in custody.  So we are back to the same old problem.  How does
The Conspiracy know that Ruby won't spill the beans.  

But you understand, don't you, that you're positing a very ramshackle,
catch-as-catch can conspiracy,  rather than the smoothly oiled professional
machine that most conspiracy theorists think would be necessary to bring off
the job.

.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Neutron Activation Analysis
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:38:14 GMT

Dr. Vincent Guinn, a professor of radiochemistry at the University of
California tested the bullet fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's
wrist with samples taken from the "magic" bullet.

Guinn used Neutron Activation Analysis, where the samples bombarded
with neutrons and the emitted radiation analyzed.

Guinn came to the conclusion that the Connally wrist fragments were
from the 'magic' bullet despite two big problems:

1) Lead is nonhomogenous, meaning the composition varies widely from
sample to sample, even within the same bullet.

2) The trace elements within the lead varied by as much as 1100%.

However, what is really amazing, is that the JFK head fragments that
Guinn analyzed didn't match the fragments originally sent to the
National Archives by the FBI, who had done their own analysis in 1964.
They should have matched because NAA is non-destructive.

The container Guinn received, contained only two fragments, one
weighing 41.9 milligrams and the other 5.4 milligrams.

The FBI records showed *four* samples had been tested, and none of
them matched the weights of the samples Guinn was given.

"The pieces brought out by the archives did not include any of the
specific pieces the FBI analyzed," Guinn said, "Where the orginals
are, I have no idea."
                "Mortal Error" by Bonar Menninger
                 quoting a story from The Washington Post 9 Sept 78

So, the big question is, who replaced the original samples with
the samples Guinn tested? 

Is the reason the *original* samples failed the NAA test in 1964 is
because they didn't match 6.5mm Carcano bullets?

Is the reason the samples of CE399 matched the Connally wrist
fragments is because they too weren't the original samples, or just
because Guinn was testing for something that really couldn't be
proven, but decided to claim it was so anyway?





Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk