HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: verschoo@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl (Ronald Verschoor)
Subject: Warren Reports
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:26:14 GMT


I am fairly new to this newsgroup, so please forgive me if I ask something
obvious...

This conspiracy (as I am sure it _was_ a conspiracy) interests me _very_ much.
But I was wondering whether it would be possible to buy (or get a hold of it
in some other way) the Warren Reports. As I am not from the United States, it
is pretty impossible to read it in some library.

Please send answers to any of the email numbers below or simply post an answer
here in alt.conspiracy.jfk


Thanks in advance,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Verschoor		               Delft University of Technology
verschoo@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl  	       The Netherlands			
ronald_v@tudedv.et.tudelft.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'These things they go away, replaced by everyday' -- R.E.M.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: conspiracy
Date: 23 Jan 1993 19:46:35 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <46760002@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM>, brian@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Brian Wood) writes:
>John McAdams writes:
>>Why don't you just *think* about how implausible all this is.  Put yourself
>>in the shoes of conspirators wanting to kill Kennedy, and ask how you would
>>do it.
>
>OK, but I'm not a killer.  It's a little hard to think like one.
>
>>You would obviously want to do it with a lone gunman.  You would do it that
>>way since your only reasonable hope of concealing the conspiracy would be
>>to have only one man doing the shooting.  Having a whold squad of gunmen,
>>plus additional squads of people all set to cover everything up, is just 
>>too Rube Goldbergish.
>
>Actually, it has been established (Prouty, et al) that at least one
>discussion (Ferrie, etc) centered around "triangulation of crossfire".
>So just because YOU would hire a lone gunman doesn't mean everyone would.
>Yes, there would certainly be dimishing returns with too many gunmen
>(they could actually wind up in each other's line of fire), but two or
>three might be just the ticket.
>

No, if it were vitally important to keep the conspiracy a secret, you would
hire a lone gunman.

>I am not a "massive conspiracy" theorist, preferring to believe that well-
>intentioned people did things that look suspicious in retrospect in order
>to spare the country some turmoil.  However, the environment of the early
>sixties was rife with involvement by the CIA in all sorts of things, Cubans
>were a big problem, the Cold War was pretty hot, and there was a lot of
>hate floating around.  Kennedy did represent a threat to the establishment,
>and it is not hard to see that one of the many conspiracies that existed
>at the time may have succeeded.  I suspect that had Kennedy not been killed
>in Dallas in 1963, someone else would have gotten him another time.
>

The problem is that only a "massive conspiracy" can explain the extent of the
coverup that assassination theorists believe had to have happened.

Do you believe all the evidence against Oswald was faked?  Do you believe Jack
Ruby worked for The Conspiracy?  Do you believe the autopsy photos and x-rays
were faked?  Do you believe Kennedy's body was altered before the autopsy?

If so you have to believe in a massive conspiracy.  If not, you have to believe
that Oswald really did it.

.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:26:09 GMT

In article <28JAN199310103301@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <0096725D.D4094260@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 
>6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes...
>Dependent on the lighting and angle of observation, a certain amount of 
>smoke from even "smokeless" powder is visible.  As noted in a previous post, 
>the term "smokeless" is relative.  In comparison to blackpowder, 
>"smokeless" powder is relatively "smokeless".  
>
>>As to the "magic bullet":  I don't find it as all implausible that a bullet
>>fired at Kennedy would pass through his neck and hit Connolly.
>
>The physical attributes of the alledged "magic bullet" aside (condition, 
>mass, etc.), I have never been able to line up the 6th floor TSBD, JFK's 
>entry and "exit" wounds, and Connally's entry wound in a side view (unless 
>JFK is bent over picking something off of the floor of the limo) and things 
>aren't all that good in a top view, either.

From the Nova special simulation of the necessary postures of JFK
and Connally, belief in the SBT entails belief in a lot of body
movement during the interval that the limo was behind the sign
in the Zapruder film.  It's worth a viewing.

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: J.Edgar Hoover's motivations
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:52:23 GMT

In article <00967332.97B0BDE0@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.145557.8941@linus.mitre.org>, howells@bird.mitre.org (Timothy P. Howells) writes:
>>
>>> By the day after the assassination the evidence against Oswald was
>>> overwhelming.  As to his having confederates, no one can ever actually prove he
>>> didn't.  But the FBI would probably have known he was a leftist (his pro-Cuba
>>> activities, for example), and known it didn't *know* that he was any sort of
>>> agent.  They doubtless knew enough about his history (defecting to Russia and
>>> returning) to know that he looked at lot like a nut and not at all like a savy
>>> intelligence operative.
>>
>>This falls far short of an adequate expanation of J. Edgar Hoover's
>>behavior on November 24, 1963 in urging the formation of a commission
>>with an explicit mandate to publish a finding that there had been no
>>conspiracy.  Again, this was within 48 hours of Kennedy's
>>assassination, and 24 hours of Oswald's murder by Jack Ruby; there is
>>simply no way that by this point in time that a credible investigation
>>into these men's backgrounds could even have begun.
>>
> 
> The issue is not whether a "credible investigation" had been conducted, but
> whether the men in question really believed that Oswald had done it.
> 
> I think they really did believe that, and on the basis of good (but hardly
> complete) evidence.  That being the case, they were calling not for a coverup
> but for getting out what they felt to be the truth.
> 
>>The "leftist nut" interpretation you suggest is far too simplistic to
>>have been accepted by an experienced investigator without the most
>>rigorous confirmation.  To give just one example of the problems with
>>this theory, consider more closely Oswald's pro-Castro activities.
>>Oswald was the founding and only member of the New Orleans branch of
>>the Fair Play for Cuba committee, a pro-Castro organization.  However,
>>he also was involved with at least one anti-Castro group.  This
>>anomalous behaviour culminated in a confrontation between Oswald and
>>an anti-Castro activist who noticed Oswald handing out pro-Castro
>>literature.  Both men were arrested.  While in jail, Oswald called an
>>FBI agent who promptly came over and talked with him alone for over an
>>hour.
>>
> 
> Being involved with both pro- and anti-Castro organizations (assuming this is
> true) is inconsistent with him being "really" a leftist.  It's quite 
> consistent with his being "really" a nut.
> 
> .John



Being "really" a nut does not exclude one from being some part of a conspiracy
does it John? In fact it probably helps get one included in a conspiracy!
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Conspiracy
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:23:18 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <schuck.727850602@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

Bruce,

I've answered most of the points you make in another post.

Well, another message I *will* post.  Somehow Internet isn't letting me post
anything tonight.

>The medical staff at Parkland described a large exit wound in the
>right rear of JFK's head.
>
>>I know people like you believe it was all faked, but I don't
>>believe that.
>
>You mean the Parkland Doctors faked their testimony to the Warren
>Commission? Read Vol 6. All their testimony is their. All the
>descriptions of the right rear of JFK's head missing.
>
>There is no way the right rear of JFK's head could be missing if the
>bullets hit where the WC said it did.
>

Want a minute!  If Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll, how would the right
rear of his head be missing?  An exit wound in the right rear would require a
gunman to Kennedy's right front.

Then there is the matter of the photos and X-rays.  Do you believe these were
faked?

.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:48:46 GMT

In article <00967330.F1BB3240@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
> In article <93026.061302U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> 
>>>
>>>OK, but this entirely contradicts the notion that The Conspiracy wanted the
>>>assassination blamed on a "lone nut."  This line of logic suggests that they
>>>wanted investigators to go running off looking for a left wing conspiracy.  If
>>>I were The Conspiracy, I wouldn't want them looking for any sort of
>>>conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>>Again this is an example of too simple logic.  In any adversarial game, the
>>best strategy is to anticipate different options that the opponent might
>>take.  One covers as many as one can.  If the opponent does this, you cover
>>with this.  If he does that, you cover with that.  the core plotters
>>could easily have set it up so if the gov. took one road they would have
>>ended up with a connection to Castro.  If they took another road they
>>would end up with a lone nut.  Another road would lead them to the Mafia.
>>Another, the CIA or FBI.  It is not pushing the scenario too far by posing
>>intelligent plotters.  This was the killing of a president.  If the plotters
>>were not clever then it would have been a Ripley's item.
>>
> 
> No, I think in an adversarial game like this, you present the investigators
> with a nice, pat, simple solution, supported by lots of evidence, and expect
> them of accept it.
> 
> Remember, the investigation can't be assumed to simply take "a road." 
> Investigators were going to be doing a lot of looking around.  Finding some
> evidence of *one* "connection" and some evidence of *another* connection is
> likely to cause investigators to redouble their efforts to "get to the bottom"
> of the matter.  If you're The Conspiracy, you don't want them redoubling their
> efforts.  If they do, they might really *get* to the bottom of the matter.
> 
> Rather, you want things in a nice neat package.
> 
> .John



    A patsy would be a nice neat package, don't you think  John?


    Especially a DEAD one.......
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Ruby
Keywords: Ruby, Dallas Police
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:19:47 GMT

In article <5RDXBVT3@cc.swarthmore.edu> rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Robert Brooks) writes:
>6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>Ah but again John, can you rule out the possibility than Ruby was working
>with the Dallas Police in this.  In that case he wouldn't need to have shown
>up at the time he *thought* LHO was being transferred, he would have *known*
>what time it was to happen.  As remote a possibility as this may seem (and 
>I'm not sure how remote it actually is) it still should be considered.

Ruby needn't have been working with the Dallas police in general; he
would only have required the cooperation of Batchelor.  Batchelor was
in charge of moving LHO.

There's a pretty good case for accepting that Ruby had help from
Batchelor.  Vaughn sued the DPD over the allegation that he had
been derelict from his post in the garage, and had thus allowed
Ruby to slip in through the external door.  Vaughn won the suit,
presumably on the strength of testimony from (former?) DPD
officers that Ruby had ridden the elevator to the garage with
Batchelor.

You can create scenarios with Batchelor in the Small Conspiracy
or not.  Ruby could have gotten the information (and access)
from Batchelor without Batchelor knowing the real reason;
afterward, Batchelor would not be disposed to reveal his help.
Given Batchelor's role in the DPD's security for the motorcade,
it may be more tempting to postulate his membership in the
Small Conspiracy.

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Conspiracy
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:22:54 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <schuck.727851258@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>Please explain to me how a bullet travelling at 2100 feet per second
>can impact the back of JFK's head from the right rear, and then go on
>to dent the chrome and crack the windshield *without* leaving an exit
>wound in JFK's face???????
>
>JFK's face, according to the autopsy, was unmarked!!!!
>
>How did the bullet fragments hit the windshield? Osmosis?????
>

They had to leave an exit wound in his head, but not necessarily in his face.

But let me ask you:  if they weren't caused by the bullet that hit Kennedy,
what *did* cause them?

Neither hit was that of a bullet from a high powered rifle at full velocity.  A
bullet (or bullets) had obviously already hit something, broken info fragments,
and slowed down.

Where *do* you think these strikes came from?

.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: rdaniels@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert E. Daniels)
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:37:58 GMT

In article <0096725D.E25BF240@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>In article <93023.191536U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>
>We do know that Jack Ruby was at Western Union wiring money to a stripper about
>an hour *after* Oswald was supposed to be brought out of the police department. 
>He then walked over about 11:20 and walked right down a ramp into the basement
>where Oswald was brought.  If he had been *assigned* to kill Oswald, or had a
>well-formed intention to kill Oswald, he would have been waiting on Oswald.

Or the police in charge of moving Oswald were waiting for Ruby to show up.
>
>Given Ruby's personality, it is both difficult to believe conspirators would
>trust him with such an important assignment, and easy to believe he would do it
>on the spur of the moment.
>
Given Ruby's history as a strong-arm hood since his youth, and given his
financial problems at the time, it's quite possible that he was sent on
assignment to try to get Oswald -- and if caught was a better risk than
Oswald to keep his mouth shut, or be treated as expendable.


Robert Daniels                robert_daniels@unc.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:4288 alt.conspiracy:14571
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: How to Investigate the Claims of Abnormally Low Traffic on a.c.jfk ?
Keywords: How to investigate the claims of abnormally low traffic on a.c.jfk ?
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:10:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: a gora


  As usual, the only conspiracy is in DiNardo's mind.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: JFK and J. Edgar Hoover
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:50:36 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1k257pINNoi@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU>, yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
|> Instances of the latter which he cites are:
|> 
|> - Kennedy approved the CIA Bay of Pigs invasion, but at the last
|> minute told the Navy to withold air support.  The result was that
|> Cuban fighter aircraft, unopposed by Navy fighters, shot down
|> defenceless bombers.

This conflicts with other published accounts of the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
My understanding from reading various sources is that the CIA was told
up front that they would receive no direct military support.  They felt
they were OK without it and went ahead.  When things started to unravel,
thye went back to the White House and again asked for Air Support. JFK
said no. So it wasn't so much of a betrayal as much as over-confidence 
by the CIA in the cubans they had been training.  Of course, because at
the time almost everybody wanted to see Castro toppled, it was presented
to the general public as a betrayal by the Administration.

|> 
|> - The author (Morrow) was involved in a project to counterfeit Cuban
|> currency.  This project had been approved by the administration.
|> When it was almost complete, he and others working with him were
|> arrested by the Secret Service and charged with counterfeiting.
|> They did not find out about him by accident, either.

Approval (from the Admionistration) for illegal activities does not 
amount to carte blanche.  Ask Ollie North about that.  Flooding Cuba 
with counterfeit money would have to be done as a "black" project.  It
is highly likely that the SS was totally unaware of it's sanction and
merely broke up a counterfeiting ring like they did regularly in those
days.  Of course, it is highly unlikely that after the arrests were
announced in the papers that the Administration would come out and say,
"Oops, we're sorry, we made a mistake.  The counterfeiting was one of
our approved projects."  After all, our recently departed Administration
is still busy denying any knowledge of IRAN-CONTRA, all evidence to the
contrary.

|> 
|> _Betrayal_ consists of two quite distinct parts.  The first relates
|> the author's personal experiences.  He may have lied, but otherwise
|> he must be considered an authority on these.  The second part is an

He needn't have lied.  I am sure a lot of people who got caught in projects
from The Bay of Pigs to IRAN-CONTRA all honestly think they were betrayed.

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: ccasm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:30:27 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <0096725D.DADDEAA0@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
> In article <schuck.727851258@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>
>>Please explain to me how a bullet travelling at 2100 feet per second
>>can impact the back of JFK's head from the right rear, and then go on
>>to dent the chrome and crack the windshield *without* leaving an exit
>>wound in JFK's face???????
>>
>>JFK's face, according to the autopsy, was unmarked!!!!
>>
>>How did the bullet fragments hit the windshield? Osmosis?????
>>
> 
> They had to leave an exit wound in his head, but not necessarily in his face.
> 
> But let me ask you:  if they weren't caused by the bullet that hit Kennedy,
> what *did* cause them?

John this is YOUR problem:
You only deal in Black or White. If its not this then its that. But THAT can't
work so the answer is THIS!
Just because many of the readers and contributors here do not know the answer
to every question is no reason to reject the basic concept of this newsgroup -
that there was a conspiracy.

> 
> Neither hit was that of a bullet from a high powered rifle at full velocity.  A
> bullet (or bullets) had obviously already hit something, broken info fragments,
> and slowed down.
> 
> Where *do* you think these strikes came from?
> 
> .John

As a result I think the best way to discuss the possibility of a conspiracy
with you is to ask you simple yes/no questions.



Big Al.....:-)
From: U54778@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Warren Reports
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:43:44 GMT
 <93026.194302MS9550A@auvm.american.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <93026.194302MS9550A@auvm.american.edu>, Mark J. Santoro
<MS9550A@auvm.american.edu> says:
>
>Ich bin Berliner

Wasn't it "Ich bin ein Berliner"  which more contemporaneously was
translated as "I am a sweet roll". :-)

ALAN ROGERS  **** U54778@UICVM.UIC.EDU * I speak only for myself as a *
VMKRAFT INC.  708-675-8615             * citizen of the UNIVERSE, not *
                                       * as an employee of Vmkraft nor*
                                       * as a user of U of I Services.*
From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: JFK and J. Edgar Hoover
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:40:48 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

It has often been mentioned here that there doesn't appear to be aby 
reason why anyone within the government at the time would want to get 
rid of JFK.  I just watched part of a documentary about Hoover (on A&E)
this weekend.  Everyone admits he was a powerful man who apparently had
no qualms about abusing that power in order to perpetuate his reign.

There were also numerous memoes that showed his followers to be blindly
loyal.  There were numerous cases where he instructed his people to do 
things that were blatantly illegal, and unconstitutional and they did 
them without question.  

One part of the documentary discussed JFK and Hoovers's relationship.
It is well known that JFK was a womanizer (aren't all Kennedys??) and
there is even documentation of a probable earlier marriage that was
hurriedly (and psossibly illegaly) anulled.  It was suggested that Hoover
when he first met with the new President JFK tried to hold this information
over JFK's head.

But let's just suppose, based on what we know about the personalities
and wills of both men, that what actually happened at that meeting was
that JFK toold Hoover where he could put his petty little blackmail
scheme.  And then said something like, "I'm going to destroy your empire,
you tin plated dictator."  I think this would definitely be in character
for JFK.  But what would have been the characteristic response from 
J. Edgar Hoover??  Is there anyone here who thinks Hoover was above
getting rid of anyone who got in his way or posed a threat to his empire??
Knowing how many people in influential positions he had files on, does
anyone think that manipulating a cover-up after the fact was beyond his 
means??  Does anyone believe that if he ordered it, his men would have
refused to do the deed??

There is no real proof (at least not yet) that anything like this 
happened, but it is yet another possibility that could explain a 
lot of the inconsistencies in the evidence.  

And after all, this is a.c.jfk!!   :-)

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>