HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@falcon.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: SBD job?
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:47:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: platypus.10678
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <1992Apr3.223349.25559@unx.sas.com>, saseph@hal.unx.sas.com (Ed Hughes) writes:
|> 
|> This much I know:  the change in the route was published.  But your
|> point is still valid--if the change that took the motorcade past the
|> TSBD was only made in the week before the visit (as I recall), then
|> the question of who got Oswald the job is of no interest.
|> Of course, I don't know how close the original route would have taken
|> JFK to the depository...wonder if it would have been a reasonable
|> rifle shot?

Unless, of course, the same people who "arranged" for LHO to get the job
at the SBD were responsibile for the change in route.  If you have your
man waiting in a building not on the scheduled route and then change that
route at the last minute, it decreases the chance that someone will discover
your plans before it is too late.

So you see, if there really was a conspiracy, almost everything makes sense.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: dd@sei.cmu.edu (Dennis Doubleday)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Visit to Dealey Plaza
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:44:41 GMT
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute


I was in Dallas recently so I stopped by Dealey Plaza.  It was an
unsettling experience to sit and think about what happened there.  The
distance between the 6th floor window and the overpass was much
shorter than I had always pictured it in my mind's eye.  After
standing near the approximate location of the limo at the time of the
head shot and looking up at the 6th floor, I had no doubt that any
reasonable marksman COULD have done it.  It also seemed to me that the
grassy knoll and the fence behind it were SO CLOSE to where hundreds
of people were standing that if any shots had been fired from there,
hundreds of people would have looked over there and seen the gunman.

These are just my subjective impressions.  I tend to believe that Oswald
was the only gunman, but his murky past also leaves me with the strong
suspicion that he was only the instrument of a conspiracy.


Dennis Doubleday  (dd@sei.cmu.edu)
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213  (412)268-5873
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:33:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: shodha.6583
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)

--

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 M_Henderson               | "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
 Marty Henderson           |  I find it most intriguing."   ---    Data, 
 Woodland Park, Colorado   |  Star Trek, The Next Generation, "Haven"
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>That is exactly what is so stupid about the WR-HSCA verison of events. Take the
>head snap. First, the FBI reversed the frames in the Zapruder so that it would
>look like Kennedy's head went forward in reaction to the shot. So did Dan
>Rather, when mentioning the Zapruder film say his head snapped forward. No one
>at that time said that a forward head snap would be caused by a shot from the
>front. 

>When the real Zapruder film was shown, they made up another explanation: the 
>neuro muscular reaction. In other words, they simply make up as many unproven
>theories to explain what would be ordinarly a common occurance: when you are
>shot from behind, you are driven forward. 

>When it was pointed out that Kennedy went to the *left* as well as back, the 
>reaction was thought to result from Kennedy being turned to the left somewhat.
>How stupid. 

>The fact is that as evidence changed, the WR-HSCA just kept making more and
>more absurd justifications for outlandish theories. Why did it do so? To
>justify the circumstantial evidence found at the TSBD. That is the sole reason
>why so much effort has gone into making silly theories about head snaps and
>magic bullet theories and ignoring witness testimony from a shot at the knoll.
>(that hit, in the case of the HSCA)

This brings out a simple concept - When you Lie, then you must lie to protect
the original lie, then you must lie to protect the second lie etc...

Parents and teachers teach this to children every day - yet our government
seems to expect that we are not bright enough to see through their lies and
lies to cover up lies...

Marty
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:11:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz



Mitchell Todd claims that Kennedy's head snap was caused by a neuromuscular
spasm.
 
I (David Wright) claim that the Kennedy's movement does not corrospond to the
definition of a muscular spasm as defined by the HSCA, Lattimer, and the Clark
Panel report. Such a definition requries:

1) An arching of the back

2) A violent stiffening of the limbs

As for 1), Mitchell claims that Kennedy's back brace interferred with what
would ordinarly be an arching of the back. However, the back brace did not
extend to the upper vertebrae, and so it would be reasonable to suppose that
we would see Kennedy arching this part of the upper back and neck area.
Instead, the head pulls the body up, the body does not snap the head back.

Also, the head goes to the left. Mitchell says that is because the gunshot was
on the right, and hence effected the muscles to twist his head to the left.
Does Mitchell just make this stuff up for the fun of it? I think so. The 
the muscular neurospasm says nothing about neck muscles turning and lifting
the body up, slamming him into the back of the car. The neurospasm may not even
depend on which side of the brain is hit. It effects the back muscles, arching
the spine and throwing the head back. This motion is not caused by muscles
twisting the neck, but muscles from the back. Such a lopsided effect from
one side of the back, that is, the back muscles and lower neck muscles pulling
from the left, would not spin the head to the left, and have it pull the
back into the back of the car. 

As for 2) Mitchell says only that one of Kennedy's arms extend, and does
not belive that limbs would stiffen, but only extend. But his arm does
not extend. Both limbs collapse, and his body behaves like a rag doll. I 
see no evidence--and family veiwers can veiw for themselves of any
straightening of limbs or stiffing.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: More on Lifton
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:48:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


[This is not the message that I refer Mitchell too. THat is an early message]

In article <1992Apr9.153233.15302@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|And now, to reply to Mr. Condon's 824 -
|
|Eyewitness reports a doctor who says that prior to the
|autopsy the body was without a brain.  A few minutes
|later the brain reappears, apparently re-inserted so
|well that Dr. Humes et. al. cannot tell what has happened.
|Is the eyewitness credible?  

I would say not. Although Humes was able to lift the Brain without
surgery, which is so unlikely that that fact in itself indicates 
that the preliminary investigations included removing the brain and
inspecting for bullets etc...
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 17 Apr 1992 00:45:44 CDT
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Zaprauder Film (2 versions)

Lifton gave a lecture in Chicago tonight.  In the Q&A session afterwards there
was many questions about different versions of the Zfilm.  Lifton said that
the contention that the driver comes from a nth version of a video of an nth
version of the actual film in where a white flash resembling a gun seems to be
in the drivers hand.  He states that after working with a close to original
print of the film for years, he went back and sees that this is not a gun
but the glint off something(sorry I forget what it was exactly).  As always
this should not be taken as gospel.  I am only reporting what someone else has
said.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: abakker@cs.vu.nl (Arno BAKKER)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: mea culpa
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:07:58 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

In article <1992Apr8.215107.9362@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
>Lifton believes all of JFK's wounds were caused by
>a gunman firing from the front and that his body was
>
>Joel

How does Lifton explain the other man getting wounded on Dealey Plaza that day
, the one standing under the triple overpass.   he was hit by a piece of stone
shot off the pavement by a bullet, that shot couldn't have come from the
front.


		Arno
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Won't change history (was Re: What REALLY happened)
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:38:00 GMT
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)

--
>considering conspiracy explanations, and ask yourself whether it is
>likely that the scenario envisioned could remain undercover.  In the
>real world of politics, there is always some persons or interests who
>will benefit from leaking information to which they have access.

>Peri Arnold.

Peri is correct about being sceptical. It took me many years to believe that
there really was a conspiracy in the JFK case.I love my country and I found it very difficult to come to the place where I could merge my patriotism with the
serious ramifications of conspiracy. It is difficult even now to live with
both.

I am sceptical even today when I hear new reports etc. comming out about the
assassination - completely rediculous things like the driver of the car shot
JFK etc...  But there are many credible people speaking up - such as Dr. Crenshaw - which have been discussed at length in this newsgroup.

One of Peri's points seems to be that if there was a government coverup then
someone would have "leaked" it. There are several factors involved in this:

	1. There have been insiders who have spoken publicly. Fletcher Prouty
           comes to mind and I'm sure there are others. (Help me on this one)
           LBJ himself has been documented to say that he does not believe
           that Oswald acted alone.

	2. Fear of harassment, destruction of career, harm to self and/or
           loved ones, and even fear of death have kept many people quiet.
           Dr. Crenshaw has spoken out that these are the reasons why he
           has waited untill now to speak out.

	3. Look at politics in your own work place. Without anyone telling
           you - you KNOW what you can talk about publicly and what you had
           better not talk about. Now project this out to our Government where
           there are people with power to destroy you if you are out of line...

	4. Many people who have talked - or threatened to talk - have been 
           killed. This has also been discussed at length in this forum.

My point is that there have been people who have leaked information.

Marty

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 M_Henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com  |  "Could you please continue the petty                                        
 Marty Henderson                 |   bickering, I find it most intriguing."
 Woodland Park, Colorado         |   Data, Star Trek, The Next Generation,
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Lifton's Credibility
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:22:57 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
>                              Lifton's attention to detail
>leaves much to be desired.  Oswald's rifle was a 1940 MC,
>not a 1938 MC. 

The rifle was a 1938 modification of an 1891 design (Model 91/38). It 
happened to be made in 1940 in Terni, Italy. Lifton calls it a "1938 rifle."
Do you really make this out to be an error?

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Lifton
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 05:13:35 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr8.202140.3387@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:

>1. Listen to Dave Powers:  "Lifton's book is the biggest pack
>of malarky I ever heard in my life.

[...]

>On a more general note, let us for a moment consider the
>utter absurdity of trying to do a murderous conspiracy according
>to a scenario that has you:
>
>Firing at the President in a public place with a couple
>of hundred eye/earwitnesses, armed with various still and
>moving cameras, using two gunmen, one of whom is located
>in an area under almost constant observation, by eye and
>by camera,


Doing it in a public place allowed for a loan-nut theory.  And there was
a second tier cover in that even if a conspiracy was evident, it could
made into a communist conspiracy.  Further, using a patsy would provide
the public with a culprit which would have important PR consequences. 
Look at the number of private investigators and conspiracy theories we
have *with* a culprit and then imagine the kind of witchhunt we would
have without LHO.  The PR of an assasination are at least as important
as the actual mechanics of its execution.  I am sure the CIA, having
experience with assassination, would find it very important to provide
the public with a drama and a culprit to end the story of JFK.  Again,
imagine what might have happened without LHO and all the photos, video,
and tangible "proof" that he was a rebelious communist loan-nut.  It was
a simple oedpal theme which the public could understand and use to put
doubts and fears to rest.  I can't imagine an assassination succeeding
any other way. 


>whose presence we will nevertheless try to 
>hide by somehow devising a way to remove the heavily guarded
>body of the President from a coffin, stashing it unnoticed
>into a body bag, stashing the body bag into Air Force 
>One, again unnoticed, removing the body from Air Force
>One, yet again unnoticed, spiriting it away to Walter
>Reed Hospital, in in the space of about thirty minutes
>performing post-mortem surgery so refined and perfect
>that autopsy doctors a few minutes later will not notice
>it, so good all subsequent forensic specialists have not
>noticed it, and (again unnoticed) bringing back the 
>surgically altered body just in time for the autopsy.


That sounds unlikely and strange.  But so does his arriving in a body
bag without a brain.

I have as yet to hear any reasonable explainations for the body bag or
for the missing brain.    

>Sound like the way you would plan to assasinate the 
>President?


In the age of subliminal manipulation and large-scale mass-media PR, yes.
It sounds exactly like the way you would plan to assassinate the President.
...yes.



                                   NCW

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: more on Lifton
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 APR 92 12:56:59 PDT


First - re: 833 (Marty) and 839 (David Condon)

David is correct, my reference to truth, justice, etc., was
merely a throwaway, a joke on the theme that WC defenders are
some sort of naive super-patriots.  ;^)

As for Lifton, so many articles have flown back and forth
it would be difficult for anyone to try to deal with all of
them.  Someone (David Wright?) mentioned Lifton's reliance
on Manchester's book, _Death of a President_.  Coincidentally
last night I took down my old copy of Lifton and my (older)
copy of Manchester, feeling that Manchester might shed some
light on some of Lifton's points.  Particularly since
Lifton seems to rely, in some sections, pretty heavily
on Manchester.  

Interestingly enough, Manchester's book does in fact shed
much light on some of Lifton's claims and I can only
wonder why Lifton didn't feature those portions of Manchester's
book that put some things into an entirely different perspective.

The body wrapping, for instance.  Manchester details the 
way the body was wrapped in eight different layers of
rubber and - guess what? - green plastic.  And the whole
thing no doubt resembled a green body bag.

The Parkland work on the throat for another.  Two throat
procedures were done.  A tracheotomy by Dr. Carrico and
*then* a tracheostomy by Dr. Perry.  A tracheostomy,
known informally as placing a "mouth in the throat",
does in fact make a wound about the size observed
in the "stare of death" autopsy photos.

Most of all, if you read Manchester's very detailed
account of the events in Parkland and in Air Force
One - on the ground in Love Field and en route to
Washington - it is very, very clear that the President's
coffin was never without at least one person standing
guard.  Lifton's account is extremely misleading.  He
will note, for instance, that at a particular point
Jackie was in the stateroom and O'Donnell and O'brien
were also away, implying the body was left unguarded.
Lifton's account is misleading because, according to
Manchester, at the same time, both Powers and General
Clifton (at least) were aft with the coffin.

Interestingly, Manchester (whom I hadn't read in
like 18 years or so) relates that Lady Bird described,
in great detail, to CJ Warren and to Manchester, the
stairways she went up and down and up and down while 
at Parkland.

But Parkland doesn't have any stairways.  And I mention
this only as an example of how amazingly wrong eyewitness
testimony can be.  And here's Lifton, ignoring outright
refutations of his arguments found in a book from which
he heavily drew and fashioning a theory that has, at its
base, only eyewitness testimony...

I would highly recommend checking Manchester against
Lifton.  Very enlightening!

Joel



leaves a very large   

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Post Office Box
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  8 Apr 1992 13:20 EST  

In article <4APR199221235613@rigel.tamu.edu>, ajs9462@rigel.tamu.edu 
(SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
> WC report, there are several pieces of evidence for him using that alias. For
> instance there is a picture ID (selective service system notice of
> classification) with the name Alek James Hidell and Oswald's picture (on page
> 574). This ID and others were found in Oswald's wallet after his arrest.
		^^^ ^^^^^^?

Two questions or comments.  First of all, I am fascinated by the phrase 
"This ID and others...".  What other IDs were in Oswald's wallet (other 
than his own)?

The second is the "pro-conspiracy" position that the Hidell ID was not 
initially listed in the contents of Oswald's wallet, but appeared later 
(with the implication that the Hidell ID was planted to frame Oswald).  Any 
additional info on the validity of this?

JD
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

I believe Dr. Crenshaw's comment was that LBJ wanted a deathbed
statement (confession?) from Oswald; I don't think this had anything to
do with whether Oswald could have lived. 

-gary hypes -
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:806 alt.conspiracy:6159 alt.activism:7374
From: ajs9462@rigel.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Post Office Box
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:55:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <8APR199213204593@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes...
>In article <4APR199221235613@rigel.tamu.edu>, ajs9462@rigel.tamu.edu 
>(SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
>> WC report, there are several pieces of evidence for him using that alias. For
>> instance there is a picture ID (selective service system notice of
>> classification) with the name Alek James Hidell and Oswald's picture (on page
>> 574). This ID and others were found in Oswald's wallet after his arrest.
>		^^^ ^^^^^^?
> 
>Two questions or comments.  First of all, I am fascinated by the phrase 
>"This ID and others...".  What other IDs were in Oswald's wallet (other 
>than his own)?

Sorry that I fascinated you. . . Oswald was found with the (1) the notice of
classification and (2) a certificate of service in the U. S. Marine Corps for
A. J. Hidell in his wallet. Oswald's wallet also contained a card associating
him with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with Oswald's name and A. J. Hidell
had signed it as chapter president. Found in Oswald's belongings at home was
a smallpox vaccination certificate issued to Oswald by A. J. Hideel.

Now, on page 572 of the WC report, the signature of A. J. Hidell on the
notice of classification was determined to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald. There
was no signature on the certificate of service in the U. S. Marine Corps.
The handwriting on the vaccination (including the signature of A. J. Hideel)
were determined to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald (see page 577) by Alwyn Cole
who was a handwriting expert. James Cadigan, another handwriting expert,
identified all of the handwriting as Oswald's, except for the signature which
he claimed was "too distorted to identify of nonidentify as Oswald's
handwriting". For the Fair Play card, there was a possibility that someone
other than Oswald had signed the card.

Anyway, my point originally was to say that Oswald was linked to A. J. Hidell
when someone had stated that there wasn't any connection.

> 
>The second is the "pro-conspiracy" position that the Hidell ID was not 
>initially listed in the contents of Oswald's wallet, but appeared later 
>(with the implication that the Hidell ID was planted to frame Oswald).  Any 
>additional info on the validity of this?
> 
>JD

Can't answer that as I'm not a pro-conspiracy theorist.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk