HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

/ hpdmd48:alt.conspiracy.jfk / nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) /  2:31 am  Apr  5, 1992 /
In article <1992Apr5.022628.5760@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:


[...]

>So, the earliest that anyone could have known that the motorcade would
>pass  in  front  of  the  TSBD was November 15.  And the earliest that
>anyone could have known that the limo was going to make  that  fateful
>dogleg onto Elm Street was November 19. 


This assumes that the conspiritors (if they exist) had no connection
with the secret service/white house.

What if it was known early on (say september) that a trip to Dallas
was needed. Also assume that the (alleged) conspiritors had an agent
who was privy to this info, and perhaps could influence the choice
of routes....

It would then seem a trivial matter to set up the "hit" and make it
appear that LHO was acting spontaneously.

Just a thought.

Jeffery
From: ivan@ne.ncsu.edu (Ivan Maldonado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: guest posting (re: mea culpa, re: Lifton)
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:01:46 GMT
	<1992Apr9.172736.6499@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Reply-To: ivan@nepjt.ne.ncsu.edu (Ivan Maldonado)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh

In article <1992Apr9.172736.6499@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu
(David Condon) writes:
> Many thanks to Joel Grant for posting this article which I sent to him
> instead of to the newsgroup. In it, I wrote,
> >
> >Finally, Mr Grant, you consider it implausible that this whole scenario
> >of alterations to the body was part of the "master plan." Fine, but that
> >is a straw man. It's entirely unnecessary for that to be true. I would
> >suggest it is more likely that something, or various things, went wrong
> >with the "plan," and this was an emergency fixup operation. What went
> >wrong? Could be that the object was to kill Kennedy, if at all possible,
> >using only the rear shooter(s), they failed to do so, and the last resort
> >was to deliver the killing shot from the grassy knoll. 

It would seem fruitless to expect the grassy knoll's assassin
to assess JFK's death 'on the fly'.  If indeed there was such
a marksman, he/she would have fired rounds regardless.

-Ivan
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Guillermo Ivan Maldonado        |  Internet: ivan@nepjt.ne.ncsu.edu |
 | Dept. of Nuclear Engineering    |            ivan@flyer.ncsc.org    |
 | North Carolina State University |-------------------------------------
 | NCSU Box # 7909                 |  Go USA !! (1994 host to the WC)  |
 | Raleigh. NC 27695-7909          |    ..How many jobs ya' got MON!?  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: the umbrella man question solved by the HSCA?
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 03:01:10 GMT


In a previous article, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) says:
>
>Have conspiracy advocates checked into the background of Mr. Louis Witt and
>found anything substantial?
>
>Jon Noring

Not that I know of. Anybody??
-- 
		Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was
		valid ... er, if the money was valid ... and
		if it were a small part.
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Doctor Speaks
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:58:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) writes:
>>	This same doctor also attended to Oswald when he arrived at the
>>	 Parkland emegency room. He recieved a call from the President of
>>	 the U.S. - LBJ - saying "I want a deathbed confession from the
>>	 accused assassin".
>
>           I don't think LBJ used the word confession. When Oswald expired,
>Crenshaw told him "there will be no deathbed statement" and the man left.
>

I apologize for this misinformation, Mr. Henderson. I checked Dr. Crenshaw's
book and confession is indeed the word used:

	LBJ: "Dr. Crenshaw, I want a deathbed confession from the accused
              assassin. There is a man in the operating room who will take
              the statement. I will expect full cooperation in this matter."

----
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Clark Panel
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:55:58 GMT

> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...


>>The photograph showing the rear head of the president is a forgery, or
>>a composition. The head wound extends to the back of the head, as all
>>the Parkland people said it did.

>	Unfortunately, you have yet to show any substantiative proof of
>	this. So far as I can tell, the only reason you claim it to be a
>	forgery is that it doesn't show what you want it to. Dr. McClelland's
>	(Along with Drs. Dulany, Jenkins, and, I believe, Clark) testimony 
>	confirms that the autopsy photos --including the 'forged' one-- 
>	*do*, in fact, show the wounds they remember seeing. I don't
>	think there's any way around that.

Dr McClellands record of JFK's head wound also says there was a wound
in JFK's *left* temple. CE392 v.17 p12 of the 'Exhibits'.

Jenkins and Clark also stated they saw cerebellum in the
head wound. 

There no way around that!

>	The wound *does* extend into the occipital (that's clear from
>	the body of descriptions taken from Parkland, the autopsy, and
>	the descriptions of the autopsy materials. As McClelland said,
>	the photo in question shows a flap of skin pulled out over the
>	wound. This apparently was done in order to clearly show the
>	small entry wound in the back of the head.

The occipital is the rear of the head.
How did a bullet enter in the rear and leave from the rear?

>	All of the official reports I've read, from Parkland, Bethseda,
>	and the various committees seem to be talking about the
>	same wound. There are differences in the description of them
>	are, really, fairly minor, and resemble other instances where
>	different people have differed as to the fine details of an
>	event while agreeing on the general situation.

Minor?

There are major differences in description.

The big difference is that the Parkland Doctors, and some of the
SS agents saw an large exit wound in the back of the head.

Bethesda said there was a small entrance wound in the back of the
head and an exit wound in the right temple.

I would hardly call those minor differences.
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Head Shot - Lead or Copper Jacketed Bullet?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 06:25:44 GMT

Was JFK shot in the head by a lead bullet , or
by a copper jacketed bullet (the kind supposedly fired
by Oswald) ?

Evidence for a lead bullet:

Fragmentation was massive, with the bullet leaving a
large exit wound (  2 3/4 inches according to Dallas,
5 1/8 inches in diameter according to Bethesda)
Massive fragmentation is common to lead bullets,
uncommon in copper jacketed.

No copper fragments were found in JFK's head or
on skull pieces. Copper was found on JFK's jacket,
indicating the back wound was caused by a copper
bullet (or instrument if it was done after Parkland)

On the X-Rays, a circular ring is visible.
When a lead bullet hits a hard object such as a skull,
it is common for a ring of lead to be shaved off the
lead bullet as it passes through. This ring shows
up on the X-Rays of JFK's head. (Thanks to Joel for
reminding me of this)

Evidence for a copper jacketed bullet: none.

Copper jacketed bullet do not fragment like lead bullets.

Copper is much harder than lead, and such a ring is
unlikely and uncommon if a copper jacketed bullet
is used.

No copper was found in the wound.


I know Mitchell will claim fragmentation is possible
for copper jacketed bullets.

Therefore I will pass on the test published in the WR.

10 gelatin filled skulls were fired upon using Copper
Jacketed bullets. One out of the ten caused similar wounds
as the wound the WC puts in JFK's head.
"The whole skull...was struck 2.9 cm to the right and
almost horizontal to the occipital protuberance"
[this is where Humes put the entrance wound, which is
4 inches lower than the wound that shows up in Ida Dox's
drawings of JFK's head, and exactly where the Parkland
staff put a fist size hole]
"The bullet blew out the right side of the reconstructed
skull..."

What a test! A bullet hits in the wrong location,
on a dried up skull(not as elastic as a live one)
without the benefit of a scalp (which helps to hold
a skull together) and 1 in 10 bullets cause the same
wound!

JFK was probably hit by a lead bullet that frgmented
after it hit causing massive destruction of the right side
of the brain and blowing out the back of JFK's skull.

There is zero evidence of him being hit by a copper
jacketed bullet (which are the ones supposedly used
by Lee Harvey Oswald)
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head Shot - Lead or Copper Jacketed Bullet?
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:35:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <14APR199215445421@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
||mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
|||	Skull test bullets fired by Drs Olivier and Lattimer show the
|||	same type of deformation as found in the bullet fragments 
|||	found in the Presidential limosine.
|
||Lattimer did not shoot the skulls at the same lenght, but at a shorter distence
||that Oswald. Presumably, that is what gives them the unusual results. Or, it
||could possibly be due to the difference of their experiments to reality.
|
|	Olivier's tests and Lattimer's tests were entirely separate and
|	unrelated.
	
So? Was Olivier another lone nut?

|	What is the difference between Lattimer's tests and reality?
|	How much of a range difference is there, and, more importantly,
|	what is the corresponding velocity difference?

Wouldn't you like to know!

||Also, Lattimer's skulls shot off the top of the head, and made 5-6 pieces. 
||Kennedy's head had long, fractures running all about the bottom of the skull, 
||and only a few large pieces. The fragmentation *within* the skull is not
||characteristic of a non-FMJ. 
|
|	That's odd, since Lattimer's book includes x-rays of several of
|	his test skulls that show the extensive fracture suystems seen
|	in JFK's skull.

Not at all. The pictures there show pieces of skulls, they don't show the type
of fragmentation within the skull that is common with dum dum type bullets. 

|
|
|                                |  
|		              \ | /	 
|                               \|/
|_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
|\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
|  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
|    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
|      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
|         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
|                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
|                       	


-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "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: shiao@ans.net (Dennis Shiao)
Subject: Yet Another TV Investigation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:48:34 GMT
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY


Actor James Earl Jones will be hosting an investigation into the 
JFK assassination, to be aired on Wednesday at 8PM on WPIX (Ch. 11, 
New York).

-Dennis.
--
Advanced Network & Services, Inc.    E-Mail: shiao@ans.net
100 Clearbrook Road                  Office: (914) 789-5340
Elmsford, NY 10523		     Fax:    (914) 789-5310
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: "The Guns of Dallas" by L. Fletcher Prouty
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:28:40 GMT




In article <kukm1nINNn78@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM 
> (Brian Holtz) writes:
>
> 
>>      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.
> 




The HSCA said:
       - umbrella man was found?   
       - umbrella man was innocent?
       - Kennedy had an appeasement policy?
       - umbrella man was protesting that policy?
       - Chamberlain used an umbrella as a trademark?
       - Chamberlain was world heavyweight appeasement champion?
       - umbrella man was displaying the Chamberlain trademark?
       - umbrella man was protesting?
       - Any, all or none of the above?

Phew! What a lot of questions you raise with one unsupported claim.

References please, Brian Holtz.
From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Zaprauder Film (2 versions)
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:00:00 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	It has been put forward that their may be more than one version of the
Zaprauder Film.
	From what I understand, the more common, "editted", version, shows a 
man running in the background, and then suddenly moving to a different location 
between frames - supposedly indicating editting.  And the other "uneditted" 
version, shows the previously mentioned man running smoothly without any 
sudden movements between frames.  Furthermore, this version also makes it
apparent that the driver (or someone else in front of JFK) shot Kennedy.
	I know I am really sketchy here, but please forgive me.
	HAS ANYONE NOTICED ANYTHING LIKE WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED ABOVE?

                                       .
                                     .' `.                                      
___________________________________.'-{*}-`.____________________________________
Zerxes M. Bhagalia                '---------` TCP: v064lnev@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
State University of New York   .---------------.    bhaga-z@acsu.buffalo.edu    
  at Buffalo                 .'                 `.  BIT: v064lnev@ubvms.bitnet
Recovering Engineer        .'                     `.  Director, News Information
Computer Science         .'________MDCCLXXVI________`.    Division, WFFT 90.5 FM
---------------------N O V U S   O R D O   S E C L O R U M----------------------
From: dlove@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Dave Love)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: mea culpa
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:10:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <13923@star.cs.vu.nl> abakker@cs.vu.nl (Arno BAKKER) writes:
>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.
>

Lifton doesn't claim ALL shots came from the front, just the ones that 
struck Kennedy.  The shot which hit the curb (and Tague), as well as the
one which hit Connally were clearly fired from behind the limo.

>		Arno

 - Dave Love
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:881 alt.conspiracy:6306 alt.activism:7642
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Clark Panel
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:35:39 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.


>>	They could have mistaken badly lacerated cerebral tissue
>>	for cerebellum. Also, the photo of the brain (or at least 

I can't imagine how.  There is no way to lacerate cerebrum to
give it the fine folia of a cerebellum.  Too many of the doctors
report the occipital wound with the cerebellum for it to have
been a mistake.


>>	or otherwise re-oriented the rear of the right Cer. Hemi.
>>	so that the cerebellum would be exposed.

Since there cerebellum is attached to the brain stem and spinal
cord, you would need a flashlight to see it through a frontal
wound, even with the rest of the brain blown out.

>The Parkland Doctors saw the wound extend into the occipital.
>Humes said he saw it. Why doesn't it appear in the autopsy photos?

Two possibilities, the photos are faked (most likely) or a flap
of skin and hair were pulled over it (what they told the doctors
who viewed them).  Why would people take photos of the wounds
at the autopsy and then conceal the wounds with a flap?  Makes
no sense at all.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: the umbrella man question solved by the HSCA?
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:28:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr15.212801.24960
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) says:

>In article dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>>
>>Being in Europe, you are in a good position to ask some people who were
>>around in 1963 or better yet in 1938 if they would have perceived the
>>simple display of an umbrella as a comment on any given leader's treason/
>>capitulation/appeasement of enemy forces. If it would not have "read" as
>>a symbol, i.e. communicated the intended meaning, in a European context,
>>it would have been even less likely to do so in the U.S. (I agree it
>>sounds farfetched)
>
>From what I've read so far, the HSCA committee found and questioned the
>umbrella man.  Have researchers found any information about this person that
>indicates that he *may* have been involved, or is he essentially clean?
>
>Jon Noring

You are quite right, a man named Louis Witt came forward and claimed
he was the umbrella man, and that his gesturing with the umbrella
was a symbolic reference to Neville Chamberlain.

There are other photographs of the "umbrella man" _after_ the 
assassination which show him sitting on a curb with a dark-complected,
possibly Latino man. The second man's ethnicity is of course only of
interest in the context of allegations of possible involvement by anti-
Castro Cuban expatriates. There is some kind of film or photograph
that shows this latter man, earlier (during or very close in time
to the assassination), talking into something that looks like a 
walkie-talkie. I don't recall if "umbrella man's" relationship with 
this other man was ever addressed in his HSCA questioning.

The "Neville Chamberlain" testimony is a matter of public record. I
still think it's a cockamamie story. That is why I consider it a
significant question whether or not his symbolic gesture could
_possibly_ communicate what Witt claimed it was intended to.
-- 
		Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was
		valid ... er, if the money was valid ... and
		if it were a small part.
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction (was Re: Retrograde Recoil)
Summary: No evidence, not very believeable
Keywords: Don't extrapolate goats *directly* into humans
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:06:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes... 
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>|	I think that the value of the jet flow theory has been overstated,
>|	even if I've argued with David Wright over it. I'm a reflex-action
>|	man myself.

>There is very little to no evidence that a neuromuscular response would cause
>Kennedy's head to snap back, away from the knoll area. These type of reactions
>are accompanied by a "violent straightening and stiffening" of the limbs.
>(Clark Panel). This was confirmed by evidence from the HSCA, who also used the
>same language to explain the backward headsnap. The latter used a film of a
>goat being shot in the head, the goat arched it's back and stiffend it's 
>legs. Lattimer also brings up goats, with presumably the same conditions.
>Clearly no such movement could be seen in the Zapruder films.

	You're making extrapolations that you really shouldn't. 

	The goat tests demonstrate that a head shot can and will cause
	a massive neuromuscular reaction. Since the gross anatomy of 
	goats and humans differ markedly in some key respects, most
	importantly, goats are quadrupeds and JFK was a biped.

	For one thing, goats arch their backs towards the dorsal (or
	posterior), while human backs arch towards the anterior. When
	the goat arches its back, gravity holds both ends of the 
	goat down. When a biped suddenly arches its back, there is
	nothing to prevent this motion from moving the upper end 
	of the creature backwards (in fact, the muscles of the back
	are there to hold the biped up). The effect is seen in the
	Zapruder film. As for stiffening of the limbs, since the goat's
	limbs are already extended, the neuromuscular reaction causes them to
	stiffen; the Z-film clearly shows JFKs right arm moving backwards
	and extending, though the arm never fully extends. Since JFK's
	arm is not extended to begin with, a NM reaction will cause 
	it to extend.


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: mea culpa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  8 APR 92 14:47:03 PDT



re: my own last posting

Obvious brain mixup of my own.  To state it clearly:
Lifton believes all of JFK's wounds were caused by
a gunman firing from the front and that his body was
surgically altered to make it *appear* as if the wounds
were inflicted from behind.  

I promise to carefully edit, in a file, my next posting.

Joel

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: merklin@sanantonio.cs.tcu.edu (Teresa Merklin)
Subject: Re: Post Office Box
Organization: Texas Christian University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:02:52 GMT

>>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?
>> 
>Can't answer that as I'm not a pro-conspiracy theorist.

Nor am I, but I think I recall reading in the Warren Report (or the 26
volumes) that the only ID card bearing Oswald's picture was the card with
Hidell's name. I have always wondered why the Dallas police announced that 
they were holding Lee Oswald instead of A. J. Hidell.

Teresa