HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:07:00 GMT

In article <schuck.715580837@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
>grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:

>>8. Was the angle of the bullet track consistent with the
>>twenty-degree (approx) angle required by shots from the
>>6th floor of the TSBD?

>Lattimer , deliberately , left out any question of the angle
>the bullet went through JFK's body on the horizontal plane.

>The bullet entered JFK's back 1 3/8 inches to the right
>of JFK's spine. Supposedly the bullet exited slightly to
>the right of the centreline of JFK's windpipe.

>JFK was looking to the right when this bullet traversed
>his body.


>Cyril Wecht says the horizontal angle from Oswalds supposed snipers
>position was 38 degrees. 

	_Six Seconds_ has an accurate map of Dealy Plaza, showing
	the positions of JFK in various z-film frames. I copied the
	map and drew lines corresponding with the direction of the
	limo and trajectories between the TSBD and the limo for
	frames 190, 210, and 220. None of them were over 30 degrees.

	Wecht points out that JFK was facing to the right at 190,
	then brings up a trajectory graphic that shows JFK facing
	forward. At 190, Connelly is turned around to his right 
	also, but Wecht's diagram has the govenor also facing
	straight forwards. So much for Wecht's trajectory analysis.
	
	So much for Bruce's, too.


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

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Response to Joel II
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:09:50 GMT

Joel Grant writes: >

>First - to Bruce Schuck - I have heretofore borne your 
>crude and childish ad hominem attacks in good grace.  No
>more.  If you would like me to address your recent, or
>any future postings, drop the silly insults and at least
>try to act like a rational adult.  

You first. :)

I guess Joel still hasn't bothered to find a scale map of Dealey Plaza
and take it to someone who knows geometry. :)

Joel has stated that the witnesses he chose to quote, Brennan and
Bonnie Ray Williams, saw or heard *three* shots fired from the 6th
floor of the TSBD.

Brennan said he saw a man standing when he fired the shots.
Since the window opens from near the floor, a standing firing position
was impossible. Brennan only describes *two* shots, not *three*.
Brennans description seems short on specifics like recoil , smoke,
muzzle flash etc to convince anyone he actually saw a rifle fire.
  - WR pgs 133-134

Bonnie Ray Williams told the FBI on the day of the assassination
he only heard *two* shots above him. After much coaching by the FBI,
and witnessing a reenactment that included *three* shots, he changed
his testimony. WR Vol 24 p229

So...even Joels witnesses never heard *three* shots from the TSBD,
which means there must have been another firing location, such as the
grassy knoll and/or the Dal-Tex Building.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:57:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.211921.11542@tcsrtp.uucp>, royc@tcsrtp.uucp (Roy Andrew
Crabtree) writes
> In article <ba4m1l.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>> ...
>>Oswald was only 20 when he went to the USSR, supposedly as a "CIA
>>operative." That means that his alleged training must have taken
>>place while he was literally a teenager.
> 
> ... like his marine training and Russian language training, hmmm?
> Or does the Marine Corp train teenagers as well?  If he was old enough
> to be a marine, he was old enough to be recruited.
> 
>>
>>Does anybody have the slightest REAL evidence that the CIA or other
>>U.S. agencies have ever recruited and trained "teen agents," and sent
>> ...
> 
> ... since all such evidence MUST come from the CIA, ipso facto, if the
> CIA say it didn't, there must not be any ...  get real!  Oswald
> scored 50% on a Russian test while in Japan ...  why would
> he know Russian if not in Intelcom work?
>   
> royc

What else do you know of Oswald's background? When and why was he in Japan?

Big Al.
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:22:14 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <2656@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> scott@nv10.uswnvg.com (Scott Eckelman) writes:
|In article <17ud2aINNgg1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:

|>... Forms and regulations are designed to
|>give information. If the form says he got VD in the line of duty, then
|>I imagine, untill told otherwise, that that is correct. 
|
|Actually, Line-of-Duty investigations aren't that accurate.  Any time
|there is an accident with injury, an LOD investigation is required.  If
|the finding is Not in the Line of Duty, punishment of some kind is 
|usually administered,

What? What about if he is on leave for a weekend?
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: trajectories
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:46:12 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep5.005821.24274@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|re: _Best Evidence_
|
|Harrison Livingstone does a pretty good number on Lifton's
|daffy theory in HTII.

Just a note on this. H. Livingstone does a very *bad* job on
everything in HTII. Note that when he talks to witnesses he does not
recognize, for the most part, that he is leading them, and tries to
bargain with the Dallas people to give them their dignity in exchange
for interview time. 

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Lattimer, part two
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:48:27 GMT

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


>In the interest of completeness (and anticipating cries of
>cover up!)                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^
Don't flatter yourself.

>I'll present all of Lattimer's conclusions, even
>though his evaluation of the medical and ballistic evidence
>per se is by far the most interesting.

>1. "Why had the X-rays and photographs been taken away from
>the doctors who did the autopsy before they had a chance to
>use them to document their findings as they had expected to
>do?  There was no doubt that this withholding had added to the
>questions and to the shortcomings of the Warren Commission
>report."

>Lattimer's conclusion: "Humes did not know it at the time,
>but all these photographs and X-rays were commandeered during
>the autopsy and taken away by Treasury Department agents
>before the pictures could be developed.

Treasury Department agents? Not that I believe Lattimer without
evidence, but if true. why the Treasury? Who would have gotten them into it?

>This was done to
>avoid the shocking effect they would have on the public if
>they were exploited, and particularly on members of the family if
>they were forced to see these photographs of the bloody remains
>of their relative's head displayed in lurid bookstore windows.

How nice, an after the fact rationalization that gets in a jab at researchers
with the same stroke. And an invocation of public interest as well. Brilliant!

Bullshit. Did anyone actually involved in "commandeering" evidence tell this
line to Lattimer, or did he just come up with it on his own?

>While this quest for privacy was certainly understandable and 
>legitimate, to deprive the autopsy team of the benefit of the 
>photographs andparticularly the X-rays on which they would depend so
>heavily made it impossible for Humes and Boswell to assemble the accurate
>report they had planned to make.

What an interesting story. For someone that makes his career trying to debunk
other authors' theories, Lattimer sure has a fertile imaginationn. Where did
he get the idea Humes and Boswell planned a more extensive report than they
wrote?

>This led to an avalanche of
>criticism [at the time, I was one of the small critical rocks -
>jg] of the entire post-mortem examination, which was to 
>continue for several years, until the family finally relented
>and permitted the photographs to be developed and then to be 
>inspected by a panel of experts."  [The Clark Panel, jg]

Oh good, we get in the part about the family not letting government do what it
ought to do also. Nevermind that the autopsy evidence belonged by right to the
government and that they were just using this as an excuse.

>In some ways, Dr. Lattimer was utterly naive...

Worse than naive. A loyalist of pathological proportions.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: unmarried shooters
Date: 16 Sep 1992 02:28:34 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep9.200724.1790@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|re: 3196  (David Wright)
|
|
|||Across the board, the single-assassin scenario has been confirmed.
|
||What does this mean? In deciding weather a man is guilty of a crime,
||there are rules of evidence that are followed to secure the accuracy 
||of the phyisical evidence. These rules were not followed in the JFK
||case, so we have no idea on wheather the phyisical analysis is correct
||or not. Readers familiar with the case know that every official body
||at that time lied and coverup evidence, so instead of supposing that
||the phyisical evidence is secure, we should in fact suppose the
||opposite and be higly skeptical of it's authenticity.
|
|	The single-assassin scenario has been confirmed by the
|	medical evidence that shows shots only from behind,
|	and by the ballistic evidence that shows the shots 
|	came only from one gun.

Perhaps you could respond to my point: why do you trust the physicial
evidence when it has been shown that every investigative body lied to
coverup evidence and ignored leads? If we weigh the so-called
phyisical evidence with the eye witness testimony, then you can not
confirm anything, except that Oswald was Railroaded by Hoover and the
CIA.

||Are you saying that that the JFK case should be decided by experts?
||That is too bad, since few people are experts. The overiding consensus
||of the testimony of the individuals invovled point to the fact that
||the Xrays and Photos are not accurate. Note that one expert, Groden,
||did *not* find that the xrays and photos were originals, and claimed
||that they are fakes.
|
|	Even Blakey, no friend of the WC, said that Groden has a
|	tendency to overreach the evidence.

Then why do you trust some experts and not others? Because you cannot
leave this case just to experts alone.

|	As for the overriding consensus of the testimony of the
|	individuals involved etc., etc., I assume you mean Parkland
|	doctors and/or Bethesda witnesses?  Your statement is not
|	clear.

And other experts, not part of the HSCA investigation. And non experts
who have written on this.

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:39:30 GMT

In article <srtnm#p.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep03.211921.11542@tcsrtp.uucp> royc@tcsrtp.uucp (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:
>>
>>... since all such evidence MUST come from the CIA, ipso facto, if the
>>CIA say it didn't, there must not be any ...  get real!  Oswald
>>scored 50% on a Russian test while in Japan ...  why would
>>he know Russian if not in Intelcom work?

	Excessively stupid question.  Why do I speak Russian?  I've
	never been involved in intel. work.  In fact, you will find that
	Russian speakers are quite rare at the CIA.  Robert Gates is an
	exception rather than a rule.

>
>Oswald's mother, a devout Marxist, learned Russian so that she could read
>Leninist Holy Writ in its orignal language. I suppose it's *quite* impossible
>that Lee Harvey, who shared his mother's religious faith, might have learned
>some Russian at home?
>
>
	Indeed.  My German is a LOT better than my Russian.  Although I only
	had about 100 hours tuition I can pass for a German after a bit
	of practice.  My mother happens to be German so I took the language
	up by "osmosis" as they say.  As a child you can pick up an awful
	lot of language without effort.

	Alec Chambers.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: abakker@cs.vu.nl (Arno BAKKER)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:06:13 GMT

In article <20116@plains.NoDak.edu> kruger@plains.NoDak.edu (Donovan Kruger) writes:
>This reminds me of a show I saw in which someone went back in time as
>one of JFK's advisors and friends.  
>Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to save JFK and then
>couldn't because he saw what would happen in the future if JFK stayed
>alive in the cold war.  Since JFK was this man's idol, he thought the only
>was to save JFK was to become him himself.  At the end of the episode
>during the shooting, The man's body, not JFK's, was on the ambulance.  
>
>| DONOVAN KRUGER                         <kruger@plains.NoDak.edu> |

As I remember it is was a Twilight Zone show: 
A man from the future, a descendant of JFK, diguised as a professor at Havard 
in 1963. On the 22nd of november he went to Dallas and watched the cade in the 
public. As it went passed him he stopped it and warned them for the 
upcoming assault. So JFK was saved but that evening the situation in
Berlin escalated and the Third World War was about to break out.
JFK and the professor, who could travel through time, decided that JFK
had to die in Dallas, but they traded places. JFK went back to the future
to take the professors place and the professor 'leaped' back into
the limo just before the fatal moment. 


			Arno
-- 
===========Arno BAKKER
Department of Computer Science,
Vrije Univeristeit Amsterdam, Holland.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: trajectories
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:26:42 GMT

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


>In article <1992Sep5.005821.24274@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
>|
>|re: _Best Evidence_
>|
>|Harrison Livingstone does a pretty good number on Lifton's
>|daffy theory in HTII.

>Just a note on this. H. Livingstone does a very *bad* job on
>everything in HTII. Note that when he talks to witnesses he does not
>recognize, for the most part, that he is leading them, and tries to
>bargain with the Dallas people to give them their dignity in exchange
>for interview time. 

I disagree. Livingstone is a hopeless Kennedy idolater, but other than that,
he's one of the better researchers out there. Just the fact that he prints his
entire interviews in enough detail that you can see where he may have led the
witness some puts him a step above many other researchers.

(By the way, one thing you may not be aware of is that journalists ask very
leading questions routinely. You're pretty much trusting the journalist
to not quote people out of context every time you take a quote in a news story
at face value. The check on abuse of this power is the ability of sources to
complain in the letters page, which isn't necessarily a great check because
sources that are made to look bad tend to complain whether they were smeared
or whether they really are slimeballs. But interviewing a source ain't the
same thing as courtroom questioning of a witness; what standards there are are
much looser.)

But anyway, I don't see where Livingstone has tried to make anyone appear to
say something they didn't mean. And I think his conference between the Dallas
and Bethesda witnesses was an excellent thing to do, and really did demonstrate
how Lifton had taken threads of bad memory here and shreds of real (but likely
innocent) weirdness there and woven a very fantastic and illogical theory.

I doubt very much anyone ever stole the body, or that anyone would have the
nerve to try to operate on Kennedy post-mortem and then hand him over to
the Navy and expect them not to notice or say anything about it. If they were
that confident that the whole thing would be covered up for them, why go to
to effort of altering the wounds? It's such an incredibly risky tactic.




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: NAA
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 15:09:02 PDT


re: 3225 (Todd Mitchell)

Let us also note the reasoning behind the "Guinn was a perjurer"
theory:

1. Guinn is somehow forced to "conclude" that his NAA analysis
would show a match between wrist fragments and CE399.

2. Guinn determines that the fragments and CE399 actually
do not match.

3. But, being forced to testify to the contrary...

4. Guinn decides not to present bogus findings and decides to...

5. Present findings which, were Mr. Shuck correct, would instantly
be noticed as completely bogus by any NAA expert.

6. And Guinn and the conspirators don't want anyone to know
that Guinn has been subverted by Assassination Central.


Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: rahayden@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Silicon Avatar)
Subject: Question from a newbie
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:19:19 GMT

I apologize if this question has been gone over before, but I have a
nagging question that I haven't been able to find the answer to.

To what extent was the area around the fence on the grassy knoll searched
following the shooting?

My thinking is that if the assassins were shooting from behind the fence
with the rifles braced on it, there would be powder burns in the fence
itself, or the surrounding trees (very tiny, nearly microscopic, but
still there).  I know in the chaos of the moments after the shooting, that
isn't something to look for, but I would think it would ultimately be
checked out, espicially with all of the witnesses who state they saw smoke
and activity behind the fence.

Also, were the shell casings found in the book depository ever
fingerprinted?  what were the results?  did they have LHO's prints on them
or were they print free?

Thanks.



-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Robert Hayden                  | Black holes result    | My views do not 
 rahayden@UMAXC.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU  | from God dividing the | reflect the views
 AQ650@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU    | universe by zero      | of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Lattimer, part two
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:48:26 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep5.010205.24626@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
|
...
|1. "Why had the X-rays and photographs been taken away from
|the doctors who did the autopsy before they had a chance to
|use them to document their findings as they had expected to
|do?  There was no doubt that this withholding had added to the
|questions and to the shortcomings of the Warren Commission
|report."
|
|Lattimer's conclusion: "Humes did not know it at the time,
|but all these photographs and X-rays were commandeered during
|the autopsy and taken away by Treasury Department agents
|before the pictures could be developed.

Not according to Humes, who said that he examined the xrays, or
the WC, who also saw some. 

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)