From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Dear Bruce: Try Reading Text
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 14 SEP 92 14:42:59 PDT


re: 3254 (Bruce Schuck)

>Here I come back after 4 days vacation, and what do I find?
>Joel has changed all the subject lines to make it hard to follow
>these threads because he doesn't want anybody to try and decipher
>the bullshit he is posting about Lattimer. Leave the subject lines
>alone Joel. It's cute but really annoying. Get a decent newsreader
>if thats the problem. Those of us with nn find it much easier
>to follow a thread if the subject line stays the same!

	What is nn? 
	
	Here I come back after a two-day weekend to find Bruce
	trying to play mind reader again.

	I will give you a tip on following the threads of discussions,
	but don't tell anyone else.  Deal?

	Read the article.

>If you don't understand what I mean then I understand your reluctance
>to deal with Lattimers 'deliberate' choice of NOT dealing with
>evidence that contradicts his belief in the WR.

	Oh, I understand what you mean.  I am just trying to
	get you to state it as explicitly as did Tom Warner.

>>	By `physical evidence' I assume you mean the horizontal
>>	trajectory?  And not measuring that invalidates his
>>	other "claims"?  

>If it is obvious that Oswald couldn't have fired the back shot
>just by drawing a few lines on a scale map, then why bother writing
>a whole book?

	Since it is not obvious by drawing a few lines on a
	scale map, and since the HSCA trajectory analysis was
	published prior to Lattimer's book, which trajectory
	analysis totally supports the 6th floor TSBD as a
	shooting location, and since we know Lattimer was 
	familiar with their report, it is safe to assume he did
	not abandon the project because, 12 years in the future,
	Master Bruce Schuck would draw lines on a map.

>>	So you think the HSCA is wrong because they are off
>>	by about two inches out of a distance of 150'.  Your
>>	alternative narrows it down, not to two inches, but
>>	to two buildings.  And you wonder at my skepticism?

>Try using your brain for once Joel!
>We are talking about being off by 2 inches or more over the
>thickness of JFK's chest -- NOT 150'.


>- We know where the back wound was -- 1 3/8 inches to the right of 
>  JFK's spine. 
>- We know where the WC said it came out -- slightly to the
>  right of the midline of JFK's throat. 
>- We know what the smallest angle of entry is. 
>- The bullet came out TOO far to the RIGHT over the 
>  THICKNESS OF JFK'S CHEST!!!!
>Not 2 inches over 150 feet!!!!!
>Thats too big an error to have occurred if Oswald really did fire from
>the TSBD and the bullet did traverse back to front. The bullet had to
>have come from a much shallower angle and THAT rules out the TSBD!

	As I have said before, I am aware that you are talking
	about the location of the two inches you are foaming
	about.  You seem not to notice that that same two inches
	also happens to be at least 150 feet away from the location
	of the rifle.  The 150 (minimum) feet is relevant because
	we don't know how exactly how far the rifle was from the
	limo and we therefore cannot know exactly the angles involved.
	If we were postulating a rifle located two inches from JFK's
	neck we would cut down on the variables.  We also don't
	know just what position JFK's body was in at the time.
	I know you're proud of your little pencil exercise, but
	an exercise in self-promotive restraint might be of
	more lasting benefit to the Schuck legacy.

>>	It simply isn't true that no one saw a rifle being
>>	fired from the 6th floor, SE corner, of the
>>	TSBD.  But you don't like to hear it I guess.

>Please point me to any testimony that says they saw a muzzle flash or
>recoil or smelled gunpowder or saw smoke coming from the rifle they saw.

	Oh, brother.  Two people saw a guy in the window firing
	a rifle.  They can do this without seeing a muzzle flash,
	or smelling gunpowder or observing a recoil.  Now you're
	just being silly because your statement that no one saw
	a rifle being fired from the 6th floor was shown to
	be wrong.

>>	Not true.  Howard Brennan and Amos Lee Euins saw it fired.
>>	But are you suggesting that someone just happened to be
>>	sticking a rifle out of that window as the motorcade
>>	passed by?

>Maybe I am -- but are you suggesting that seeing a rifle sticking out
>of the 6th floor TSBD means it was actually fired at JFK?

	"Maybe" you are?

	Anyway you think I'm not using my head?  Euins and Brennan
	saw a man fire a rifle out of the window.  The rifle
	was aimed in the direction of the motorcade.  Draw an
	obvious conclusion for a change.

>>       And maybe they had a tape recording of
>>	gunshots, a rifle bolt, and shells hitting the floor for
>>	the benefits of the TSBD employees standing on the
>>	fifth floor, right beneath Oswald?

>I'll tell you this. None of the TSBD employees standing on the ground
>heard gunshots from above them. Most claimed shots came from the
>grassy knoll area. Not ONE heard a rifle shot from the 6th floor.

	Interestingly, most of the people on the triple overpass
	thought the shots came from the TSBD.  The acoustics of
	Dealy Plaza are complex.  Of the 178 earwitness accounts
	studied by the HSCA, 49 thought it was the TSBD, 21 
	thought it was the knoll, all other came to 30, and
	the largest category was: I don't know.  But at least
	two of the guys standing right below LHO knew where the
	shots were coming from; they even loosed plaster and
	dirt on one of their heads.  The pigeons on the roof
	took off.  The shots came from the TSBD.

>>	What Lattimer actually tested was the medical and
>>	ballistic evidence.  This evidence indicates decisively
>>	that JFK was struck twice from behind, from bullets
>>	fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with serial
>>	#C2766. 

>Lattimer did not test any other ammunition types than the 6.5mm
>fully jacketed round supposedly used by Oswald.

	What Lattimer did was test the WC's conclusions.
	If the WC's conclusions had involved other ammo
	no doubt he would have tested that as well.  

>And you know what? He never duplicated the fragmentation pattern
>of the bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the skull. Not once did
>he get the fully jacketed 6.5mm rounds to fragment and leave dozens of
>pieces behind in his test skulls the way the real bullet did in JFK's
>skull? 

	He did reproduce the fragmentation pattern of the bullet;
	the bullets fragmented in a way very consistent with the
	limo fragments and the fragment which presumably struck
	the pavement near Mr. Tague.  As far as the sand-like
	line of particles found in JFK's brain, and the very
	small other fragments, are you suggesting you have seen
	x-rays of Lattimer's test skulls?

>Do you know why? Because JFK was hit by a different type of
>bullet. He was hit by a soft-nosed partially jacketed round or a dum
>dum. 

>And Lattimer did NO tests involving such ammunition!

	Again an unsupported assertion placed in opposition to
	the physical evidence.  As for testing your dumb dum-dum
	theory, it seems to me that in almost 30 years the
	WC critics could have pooled their funds and done some
	tests of their own?  But no - it is cheaper and easier
	to assert than it is to test.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk