From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: PBS SPECIAL
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:59:35 GMT

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

>In article <schuck.724612776@sfu.ca> Bruck Schuck writes:

>>WHo really cares? It could be crosstalk, it could be a badly made
>>copy, but what is really important is that recording establishes the
>>number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

>	But let's cut to the chase, eh?  Since you postulate
>	shooters all over the place, why in heaven's name do
>	you support the validity of the dictabelt tape?  If we
>	assume for the sake of argument that the BBN study of
>	the tape is valid, then we have, not just "four shots
>	being fired in Dealy Plaza", we have three shots fired
>	from the 6th floor, SE corner of the TSBD, and one shot
>	from behind the picket fence, about 12 feet or so west
>	of the corner.

The data from the shots *near* the TSBD were never fully analyzed.
Only the grassy knoll shot was.
That means the rear shots could easily have been from the Dal-Tex
because the open window was only across the street.

>>Latest? Tague was hit by a bullet other than the ones that hit JFK or
>>Connally, and they were hit by 3 bullets. The Tague bullet makes
>>*four*, one more than the WC admitted, and exactly matching the number
>>of definite shots heard on the dictabelt!

>	Yes, latest.  Your locations for gunmen seem to move faster
>	than an MC bolt-action.  Let's take it reeeeallll slow - since
>	the mark on the curb near Tague cannot have been made by
>	a bullet coming directly from a muzzle the mark establishes -
>	if it actually establishes anything at all - that an almost
>	spent fragment was present.  

Since the FBI failed to analyze the curb mark for *nine months* and
the curb was out in the weather for all that time, who knows what the
mark really shows. I certainly don't think it rules out a dum-dum or
soft-nosed bullet which would not leave copper on the curb.
 
>>If you look at the uncropped Altgens photo, on the right side you can
>>see the Dal-Tex. Under and slightly to the left of the fire escape is 
>>an *oepn* window, a perfect position for a sniper.

>>If you look at Z 183 of the Z film, all the SS agents and motorcycle
>>cops are looking forward. Nopne of them have looked backwards. Look at
>>the Altgens photo, taken *after* the first shot, and the SS and at
>>least one of the motorcycle cops are looking backwards. *No* shots
>>were fired before 183, all were fired after. 189 is an excellent
>>choice for the first shot, and choosing 162 [like you and Todd] is the
>>choice of desperate WC apolgists.

>	I didn't choose 162, the HSCA photo panel did.  I gave
>	you their analysis on this point, word for word, and you
>	had nothing relevant to say about it then, nor have
>	you since.  The Secret Service agents simply were not trained
>	or experienced in quickly identifying the sounds of a 
>	high-powered rifle being fired.  It happens that Connally,
>	as an experienced hunter, was.  

The point is that they hadn't moved. It doesn't matter that they
didn't know exactly where the bullet was fired from. They hadn't even
looked around by 183 *anywhere*. 

By the way, what kind of loony assertion is it that the SS weren't
trained to recognize high-powered rifles. Are you now claiming *none*
of them had heard enough rifle shots to figure out that a rifle was
being fired? And does this go for the motorcycle cops too, who had
reacted by the the Altgens photo but clearly had not at Z 183?

>>You haven't looked up the picture yet have you? The test bullet fired
>>into cotton had flattened *more* than CE399.

>	There are numerous pictures of numerous bullets.  Which
>	CE number are you referring to?  I have seen them all and
>	they aren't flattened, they're round.  

It was an HSCA exhibit, entered by Wecht, involving a composite photo
of WC test bullets.

Still haven't seen it , right?

>>The FBI agent in charge of testing [I think it was Frazier] said it
>>was clean.

>	You deleted and then ignored the type of analysis you need
>	to do to support your claim.  

It was irrelevant.

>       One of the things you need
>	to answer is: do ballistics experts work with bullets
>	that have or have not been subjected to chemical treatment
>	in order to remove foreign substances?  

After reading books by forensic scientists, it is common for the
bullet to be analyzed for blood. CE399 had no blood on it.

>>>	Would a bullet doing what this one did inevitably have
>>>	blood and/or flesh on it?  

>>Yes. Especially if it went in backwards as you so ludicrously claim.

>>Yes it was. By the time of the head shot, Connally was laying on his
>>back in Nellies lap, and his wrist *was* in line.

>	Another assertion.  You really must pick up the pace.
>	
>	Try this: the wound of entrance on the back of Connally's
>	arm was more than an inch above the crease of the wrist.
>	The wound of exit on the palmar side was just at the
>	crease.  What does that tell you about the position of
>	the wrist when it was hit?  

About where it would be if Connally was laying on his back in Nellies
lap and his wrist was at a 45 degree angle or so with the hand away
from the shooter.

>       And from what general direction,
>	if he was on Mrs. Connally's lap, must the bullet have 
>	come from?

Since it was his right wrist, and Connally's head was to the left of
of the Limo, the back of his wrist was facing JFK's head.

It would work fine.



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk