From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "The Guns of Dallas" by L. Fletcher Prouty
Keywords: conspiracy is only effective as long as the trick is a secret
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:57:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord


In article <1992Mar27.161114.26346@odin.corp.sgi.com>
dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:

>   The following appeared in the October, 1975 issue of "Gallery," a porno
>   magazine which billed Fletcher Prouty as the "National Affairs Editor."
>                            THE GUNS OF DALLAS
>                     (c) 1975   by L. Fletcher Prouty
>      [...] They were all pawns, just 
>      like Nixon was.  This is a game for the biggest stake of all--
>      absolute control of the government of the United States of America;  
>      and, with control of this government, control of the world.

Damn, he's on to us.

>      [...] But if we don't act now, there will be consequences.
>      These will begin with either the cancellation of elections in 1976
>      or with elections that will be a total sham.  For who will dare run
>      against the candidate of the conspiracy?

Well, Prouty looks awfully stupid now, doesn't he?  Or was Jimmy
Pureheart Carter also a "candidate of the conspiracy"?

>      Arlen Specter [...] says the first
>      bullet hit JFK, passed through the muscle of his upper back exited

Prouty should get his facts straight.  The WC didn't commit itself to
whether the first or the second shot hit Kennedy in the back.  We now
know that it almost certainly was the second shot.

>      the bullet would have had to have made a
>      right and upward turn upon leaving JFK's throat, paused in midair
>      for more than two seconds,

Sorry, but c. Z218 the wounds were lined up just fine, all in the same
split second.

>      It is not too difficult to determine precisely when (what frame
>      of the movie film) the first shot was fired;

It's not *too* easy.  The best evidence is that Connally turns to his
right in Z162-167, which is what he says he did immediately after
hearing the first shot.

>      he performed this feat in super-marksmanship time of 6.8 seconds

Given that 4.6 seconds was the minimum time needed, 6.8 seconds is
almost leisurely.

>      James Tague.  He was hit by a fragment of concrete knocked off the
>      curb by a bullet that had hit a curbstone near where he stood.

No, it was probably a bullet *fragment* that hit the curb.

>         The Zapruder film makes it abundantly clear that the top of the
>      President's head was blown off

Prouty's eyesight is as bad as his hearing (from his performance on
C-SPAN, he's either senile or half-deaf).  The wound in the Z film is
on the right side of Kennedy's head.

>      The earliest time a shot could line up with the President
>      was at Z-210.  At that time the tree was no longer in the way.
>      What did the Warren Commission think?  Apparently, nothing.  It
>      ignored the tree.

Prouty LIES.  The Warren Report says:

  [...] the agents concluded that at frame 166 of the Zapruder film
  the Presdidentt passed beneath the foliage of the large oak tree and
  the point of impact on the President's back disappeared from the
  gunman's view as seen through the telescopic lens.  For a fleeting
  instant, the President came back into view in the telescopic lens at
  frame 186 as he appeared in an opening among the leaves.  The test
  revealed that the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view
  through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered
  from behind the tree [was] at frame 210.

This is completely consistent with shots at c. Z161 and c. Z218.

>      (See photos 10,11. [NUMBERs 10, 11. Two pictures
>      confirming that a shot struck JFK at Z-189.  Compare photo number 7
>      with number 10.  Picture number 10 is Z-190.  JFK's right hand 
>      snaps slightly forward in 1/18 second.  From here until he goes
>      behind sign (Z-204) JFK's right hand drops steadily and begins to
>      clench into a fist.

No way.  Doesn't happen.  Look at the film.

>      Willis said he snapped photo in reaction to hearing first shot.
>      Photo was sanpped at Z-202

How did Prouty get this number?  The WR says the picture was taken at
approximately Z210.  That would make Willis' reaction time either .7
seconds or over 1 second; either way, pretty darn slow for a startle
reaction.

At any rate, Willis must be wrong that he was reacting to the "first
shot", because the first shot occurred way back c. Z161 and caused
Connally to turn to his right.  I think the most we can say is that
Willis slide 5 was taken near the time of the second shot.

>      13-16. [NUMBERs 13-16.  This series of frames from the Zapruder
>      film show that JFK's right hand is still falling and clenched as he
>      emerges from behind the sign (up to frame Z-225).  Note the drastic
>      change in his position:  hands, head, elbows, shoulders, and arms
>      (between Z-225 and Z-227) in just 2/18 of a second.  This indicates
>      a second shot striking him in the back at Z-225.])

No, his movements from Z224ff are all one continuous reaction to the
shot that struck him in the back c. Z218.

>      The acceleration back to the left in the first two frames
>      following Z-313 have been calculated by Josiah Thompson in "Six
>      Seconds in Dallas" at more than 75 feet per second per second.
>      The shot came from the grassy knoll, right to front.])

Huh?  In the first two frames after impact JFK's head moves *forward*.

>      Of course, the umbrella man could have been a perfectly innocent
>      guy, why not find out?

He was, and the HSCA did.  He was protesting Kennedy's alleged
appeasement policies by displaying the trademark of Chamberlain, the
world heavyweight appeasement champion.

>      As important as this Altgens photograph is, it was 
>      found that it had been severely cropped when it was tucked into the
>      Warren report.  Why did someone go to that trouble?

When you blow up a photo, you either crop it, or print it as a poster.
That the Warren Report was not published as a poster series is not
very strong evidence of a conspiracy.

>      And worse still, there is absolutely no record anywhere that
>      these men were booked that day.  There are no "blotter" records
>      at all.  The men have simply vanished.  (See photos 32-35
>      [NUMBERs 32-35.* Policeman with "tramps."

The DPD released their arrest records recently.  "Inside Edition" or
some such TV show tracked down one of them; he was clearly a clueless
ex-hobo.

>         Then one begins to wonder--understanding full well the
>      capability of modern-day communications and reporting--who it was
>      that was able in so short a time to come up with such a life
>      history of so obscure a twenty-four-year-old "loner."

Wire services and major newspapers work up and maintain biographies of
all figures that they report on.  As a double defector, Oswald was
hardly "obscure".

> [3] X-rays show a piece of the bullet is still in Connally's thigh bone,
>     yet there is no fragment that size missing from that bullet.

Wrong.  There is no evidence that the Connally fragments are
inconsistent with CE 399.
--
Brian Holtz
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk