From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Generic Warner III
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:36:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

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


>re: 3251 (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?

>       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.

>>And also, none of these other alleged rifleman waved brightly colored
>>flags, or yelled out *here I am, come get me now.* What's your point?
>>There are in fact several witnesses claiming to have seen riflemen in other
>>locations, most in the grassy knoll area. Others saw the famous puff of smoke.

>	The point should be clear, since I have made it many,
>	many times in here: On 11/22/63 a rifle and a rifleman
>	firing a gun were seen in only one location in Dealy
>	Plaza.  That location was the SE corner, 6th floor,
>	TSBD.  No one on that day came forward to say that they
>	had seen anyone firing a gun from any other location.
>	No one said they saw anyone with a gun on the grassy
>	knoll.  No one.  

Oh do repeat it over and over again; that makes it as good as the truth,
doesn't it?

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.

>>Even if you don't try and make the sixth-floor shooter use a Mannlicher-
>>Carcano, the front neck wound was too small to be an exit and the head wound
>>came from the right front, based on other evidence.

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

The Z-film.

>       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...

>>On trajectory analysis alone, all that can be ruled out is the single-bullet
>>theory. It also places limits on all other explanations, depending on what
>>explanation you're proposing.

>	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?

>   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.

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, you still haven't figured it out. Why is the distance a problem?
>>The longer the distance, the *less* important the precision with which
>>you place JFK's throat wound is. The "two inches" does not come into play
>>in this angle measurement, really -- it comes into play in the measurement
>>of the angle you're comparing to, that is, the angle from the back wound
>>to the throat wound.

>	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.

>       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?

>>I don't know why others have failed to agree with their measurements, but I
>>expect some (possibly on both sides) have fudged things in very obvious
>>ways. There is absolutely no reason why, using the existing film(s), very
>>precise measurements could not be taken.

>	If you mean: why haven't they narrowed the gap to less than
>	(at least) 12 degrees I couldn't tell you.  But unless and
>	until I see consistent measurments, I shall continue to
>	be a skeptic of *all* who claim to be 100% precise in their
>	measurments.

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.

>>>	Your basic method of argument here is that you assume, in
>>>	your premise, that which you seek to demonstrate for your
>>>	conclusion.  This is known as begging the question.

>>You mean, I assume there is a possibility that evidence is planted,
>>which leads me to question the validity of *all* evidence, which leads
>>me to conclude that the bullet and fragments in evidence, without proof,
>>cannot be conclusively said to be the same items recovered from the
>>stretcher and limo? There is something wrong with this line of thinking?

>	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.

>>>	You ignore the physical evidence that ties limo frags and
>>>	CE399 to Oswald's rifle,

>>No, I just add to this that they may be planted, and in CE399's case,
>>almost certainly was, either at the hospital or after.

>	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. :)

>>You greatly exaggerate the value of these tests. You actually believe
>>that there is a method by which little specks of metal can be conclusively
>>tied to individual fragments or bullets? There's not, sorry.

>	You greatly underestimate the use of NAA testing.  And you
>	seem to forget that it was the WC critics who demanded
>	the tests be done.  The tests were done.  They support
>	the SBT.  And, since they support the SBT, they probably
>	weren't worth it to begin with, eh?

>>>	This is the mile-wide gap, Husky.

>>First, please don't call me a Husky, I consider the term derogatory. :)

>	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)

>>Second, I don't have any claim by Foster that anyone other than himself
>>found a bullet, do you?

>	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?

>>Because JFK has three wounds, Connally has three wounds, a bystander
>>was hit by a fragment or shrapnel, and the curb was hit. You have
>>to be able to explain how all these hits were done by three bullets.

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

Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>>       The evidence proves a negative,
>>>	namely that Oswald didn't do it.  But the sophisticated
>>>	frame-up has planted evidence that proves Oswald did do it.

>>You're following me accurately so far.

>	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.

>>>	Mind readers, we know what these sophisticated conspirators
>>>	would not have done.  And what they would have done.
>>>	And they weren't sophisticated enough to fool you, eh?

>>Huh? I'm just trying to point out that if Oswald didn't do it, then we
>>*by necessity* have a sophisticated conspiracy on our hands, that planted
>>evidence to frame Oswald. You were claiming that the fact that no rifles
>>were left behind in any other location was evidence that the only shooter
>>was in the TSBD, which only works if you assume a *lack* of sophistication
>>on the part of the assassins. On the other hand, if you assume even a
>>modicum of competence on the part of the assassins, the fact that no other
>>rifles were left behind is entirely consistent with a frame-up of Oswald
>>as the lone assassin.

>	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?

>	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.
  
>       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.

>       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.

>	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.

>>>	Please explain how they managed to have the fragment recovered
>>>	from JFK's head match the fragments found in the limo.

>>Please explain what the hell you're talking about.

>	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?

>       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.

>>>	Rowland actually first testified about seeing the black
>>>	man when he was in front of the WC.  The WC took his
>>>	statements seriously enough that they decided to interview
>>>	each and every employee of the TSBD to see if they could
>>>	substantiate Rowland's claim.  They found no such
>>>	substantiation.

>>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.

>Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Tom Warner
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk