HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: RE: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:47:26 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


In article <22DEC199216073789@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> James Dorcey writes:

|If the large limo fragment had _no_ copper, how was it determined that it 
|_was_ (not _could have been_) fired from CE139?  Since the bullet jacket is 
|the only portion to come into contact with the rifle barrel and the 
|predominate material in the jacket _is_ copper, I fail to see the direct 
|link between this fragment and CE139.

	Good logic and good catch.  I wrote very poorly and confusingly
	here.

	The fragment tested by Dr. Guinn consisted of the better part
	of the nose portion of a bullet - it was the larger (44 grain)
	of the two fragments - and did indeed consist of copper and
	lead.  The base portion, also ballistically matched to CE139,
	had copper but no lead.

	CE567 was the large limo fragment tested by Guinn.

|Or is this a case that since bullet fragments were found on the floor of the 
|limo, CE139 is assumed by the WC to be the only weapon fired in Dealy Plaza 
|that day, therefore the fragments in the limo came from CE139.  You are, I 
|assume, familiar with the conclusion expressed in the WCR that only three 
|shots were fired in Dealy Plaza because that is how many spent shell 
|casings were found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

	Based upon the evidence they had, the WC had to decide if there
	had been two shots or three shots.  There was direct medical
	evidence of two shots, but the existence of three casings and
	the fact that, overwhelmingly, people heard three shots, plus
	the testimony of several witnesses who saw a bullet hit the
	pavement convinced them that it was more likely that three
	shots had been fired.

	They found no credible evidence whatsoever for more than three shots
	and, indeed, if more than three shots were fired, such evidence
	still remains hidden.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13374 talk.politics.misc:65227 misc.headlines:7344
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: (GERMANY) Lower Saxony bans German Comradship Federation
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:31:03 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

File: GCF.banned

Victoria (B.C. Canada) Times-Colonist
Dec. 22, 1992 (A8)

GERMANS OUTLAW ANOTHER NAZI GROUP

The Associated Press

BONN - German state government officials outlawed a third neo-Nazi
organization Monday, as authorities continued to crack down on thugs who
have attacked foreigners and members of minority groups.

Lower Saxony state said it has banned the German Comradship Federation, a
gang of about 60 neo-Nazis based in Wilhelmshaven, a port city in the north
German state.

The federal government has taken the same action against two larger neo-Nazi
groups, the Nationalistic Front and the German Alternative.

Gerhard Glogowski, the interior minister for Lower Saxony, said the decision
to ban the Wilhelshaven group was made after police confiscated neo-Nazi
propaganda in Dec. 9 raids.

Die Welt am Sonntag newspaper said right-wing radicals had carried out 2,184
acts of violence as of Dec. 13, including 1,953 against foreigners, which
left 17 dead and 542 injured.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,misc.legal,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 13:38:38 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:42:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.221407.24874@ryptyde.cts.com> Scott McClure,
scott@ryptyde.cts.com writes:
>Right, like the Clinton administration will be any different.  It's
always
>the same.  It doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Democrats. 
Sometimes,
>you have to do "unpopular" and "politically incorrect" things to get
>the job done.  It's the way the world works.  It may not sit well with
>the average citizen whose only link to the rest of the world is CNN
Headline
>News.

Clue: There is a big difference between an "unpopular" or "politically
incorrect"
(but completely legal) act and an illegal act.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,misc.legal,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Beef
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 07:17:34 GMT

bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
: Simple solution: don't eat meat.  The world will be better
: off, and you in particular will be too.
: -- 
Now THERE's a crazy conspiracy, if ever I saw one.
From: bafta@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (dragon-monster)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: _Jesus: A Life_ by A.N. Wilson
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:43:56 GMT
Organization: University of California - Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Dec31.181009.17808@newsgate.sps.mot.com> cottle@prism1 (Rick 
Cottle) writes:

>In article <63119@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)  
>writes:

>> Albert Schweitzer had these books pegged years before they were written.
>> There is no historical Jesus-- at least, there is no Jesus which a  
>> historian can reconstruct.  Only the Jesus of religion has been left to us.

>I don't follow.  Are you saying that there was no Jesus, or that
>Jesus Is Not whom religion says He is, or that Jesus IS whom
>religion says He is?

I read a very interesting book, titled "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", in
which 3 *journalists* do reconstruct the life of Jesus (in part).  I recall
that they emphasized the difficulty an historian would have in doing so.

I no longer have the book, so can't post a more accurate reference.  I
also seem to recall that the book caused quite a stir in Europe.  It's
about 10 years old, I think.  It was very interesting and sensible.

-- 
 the one, the only, the big n growly  |  If one blows fire against the wind,
 Dragon Monster!  Rawr! Rawr! Rawr!   |   one must take care not to get the
========>bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu<========|         smoke in one's eyes.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13359 alt.discordia:602
From: jeffs@almaden.ibm.com (Jeff Schneiter)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.discordia
Subject: Re: Bohemian Party???
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:39:33 GMT
Reply-To: jeffs@almaden.ibm.com (Jeff Schneiter)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center

|In article <1992Dec14.084641.16462@u.washington.edu> pirone@milton.u.washington.edu (cocteau) writes:
|
|
|   has anyone heard of the 'Bohemian' party or gathering
|   that is supposed to take place once a year or once every
|   four years near or on the Russian river in california.

     [ rest of question and all real replies left out ]

Back in '85/86 my friends and I used to go swimming in the Russian
River on their property (just had to walk off the road about 100 
yards). There was a GREAT place to leap off a cliff, we figured that
it was about 60 feet high - but with lower jumps all up the side.
The water was incredibly muddy and gross, but well worth it.

Anyway, most times that we were there, about 6 or so men would be
standing at the next cliff down river just watching us, just standing
quietly, I think they were really watching our scantly clad young
female friends ;-) Every once in a while we would be chased off, but
never had confrontations with anyone.

Towards the end of my years in Santa Rosa they started building a 
dock of some sort. Would probably get shoo-ed off pretty quickly
now.

Any Santa Rosa area people reading this willing to go check? :-) 

jeffs

==                                                         ==
"The whole  idea of individual  creativity and  expression in
 the classroom was really basically opposed to the whole idea
 of the University."                 Pirsig
==                                                         ==
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Full moon and tides
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:34:47 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1gojbnINNik@gap.caltech.edu>, by carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick):

> =The moon is (mostly) what causes high tides.  Picture the following... as
> =the moon sweeps around the earth, its gravitational pull tugs at the earth.
> =When over water, a swell develops where the pull is strongest (i.e. the
> =water is being "pulled" toward the moon).  High tide is the swell approaching
> =shore.

Presumably we can combine the strong pull on seawater towards the centre
of the earth with the weaker pull towards the centre (approx) of the moon.
What is the radius of orbit of this notional centre of gravity?
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Two high tides (Was: Full moon and tides)
Date: 24 Dec 1992 18:59:01 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <scottj-211292091243@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>, scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
>The high tide facing the moon is, of course, explained by the gravitational
>pull of the moon.  However, there have been at least two explanations for
>the high tide on the opposite side of the earth:
>
>   A.  The moon stretches the earth
>   B.  Centrifugal pseudo-force
>
>So... which is it, A, B, both, or neither?

Both.  By definition, a tide is caused by the moon stretching the Earth (it'd
be pretty hard to tell there was a tide if there were no stretching, no?). 
Now, the Earth is always accelerated toward the moon by the gravitational force
of the moon.  The average acceleration is equal to that felt by the center of
gravity of the Earth.  However, since gravitational force goes as 1/r^2, the
part of the Earth nearer the moon feels a larger acceleration (causing a bulge
toward the moon) and the part further from the moon feels a smaller
acceleration (causing a bulge away from the moon).  If you call the distance
from the center of the moon to the center of the Earth R the radius of the
Earth r, and the mass of the moon M, then the side near the moon feels an
acceleration of:

	   GM
	-------
	(R-r)^2

the center of the Earth feels an acceleration of

	GM
	---
	R^2

and the side furthest from the moon feels an acceleration of

	  GM
	-------
	(R-r)^2

Since the Earth is held together by its own gravity, the whole Earth is
accelerated at the same rate.

This means that the side of the Earth closest to the moon feels an acceleration
from the moon, RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE EARTH, of

	  GM	  GM	 (2Rr - r^2)GM	  2rGM
	------  - ---  = ------------- ~= ----
	(R-r)^2	  R^2	  (R-r)^2*R^2	   R^3

while the side furthest from the moon feels a relative acceleration of

	  GM	  GM	 (-2Rr - r^2)GM	   -2rGM
	------  - ---  = -------------- ~= -----
	(R+r)^2	  R^2	  (R+r)^2*R^2	    R^3

These relative accelerations are tides, and, to a first order approximation,
you get equal bulges on both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: More Monty Hall
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:29:54 GMT

Lets formulate the problem slightly differently.  Your are show two doors, D1
and D2. One of which contains a prize and the other a goat. 50-50 right.
Ah, but now I tell you that it is twice as likely that the prize is behind D1
than it is behind D2.  Do you still insist that because there are two doors it 
still a 50-05 pick?  The extra rig-am-roll that Monty goes through (letting
you pick one of three dorrs, then showing you that one of the other 2 doors
has a goat) gives you exactly the same new information that the extra
statement above gives you (i.e that it is twice as as likely that the 
prize is behind the door you didn't pick).

Another way to look at it is like so: you decide to never switch and always
stay with the door you picked first.  As you have only a 1/3 chance of picking
right door, you can win only 1/3 of the time.  but that means that the
alternitive (switching) must win 2/3 of the time.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 1992 16:53:01 EST
From: Alexandre Pechtchanski <APPMS@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Car Batteries die in the Winter - Why?
 <1992Dec25.233942.25898@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>

By the way: Russian driver's manual recommended switching on headlights
for a few seconds before starting to crank in cold wether.  The theory
was that it will warm battery a bit and insure better characteristics
while cranking.

Just my $0.02

Alex "I cranked a lot in cold winter" Pechtchanski
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Full moon and tides
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:36:55 GMT

In article <647.1561.uupcb@synapse.org> steve.crabtree@synapse.org (Steve Crabtree)  writes:
>
>One thing I've never tried to work out is whether the centrifugal hump
>and the gravitational hump are the same size, and further, if they
>are, whether they have to be or whether it's coincidence. I know from
>personal experience (living by the banks of a tidal river) that they
>are approximately equal.
>                                                                                        

Well, living on Puget Sound, I observe that they vary.  Either you
have two relatively moderate high and low tides (ie 8' high, 6' low,
9' high, 5' low) in a 25-hour period, or one extreme and one fairly
moderate tide (ie 12' high, -2' low, 9' high, 7' low) and you transition
between these tide-pairs on a roughly 4-week cycle.  Also, during the
winter you tend to have the extreme high tides during the day; and during
the summer you tend to have the extreme low tides during the day, which
wrecks havoc with boat ramps. :-)

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: <DEAD>        |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: gix@mdd.comm.mot.com (Brian Gix)
Subject: Re: More Monty Hall
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:06:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.185741.9823@berlioz.nsc.com> worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden) writes:
>
>The fact that you now have an open door with a goat behind it does not
>change the fact that you have 2 door and 1 prize.  The opening of the
>third door only tells you that the prize is not behind that door, it does
>not add any information as to where the prize really is.  Or put it another
>way, if you consider this new information on the same puzzle, why do you
>freeze the probability of the original guess at 33%?  To freeze the original
>probabilities at their "pre-new-information" levels means that your are not
>using that new information.  The new information would apply equally to all
>doors that are left, and adjusts the probability to 50%.  The original
>assumption of 33% chance per door was based upon 3 closed doors.  The new
>question is which of 2 closed doors has the prize.
>

Dennis, you are completely ignoring one enormous fact. Monty WILL NOT choose the
door to open that you picked in the 1st place. garenteed. He will Always choose
a door with a goat, but 2 times out of 3, he is FORCED to open 1 particular door.

If you accept that to begin with, your 1st choice will be wrong 2/3 of the time,
Monty is FORCED 2/3 of the time to choose the OTHER goat leaving the car behind
the OTHER of the 2 doors you didn't choose.

It's only 1/3 of the time, when you initially choose the car door, that Monty has
the frredom of choice on the remaining doors. It's only that 1/3 of the time that
switching loses.

It's only 50-50 if after Monty opens a door with a goat, you are blind-folded, spun
around 50 times, and have the rooms re-arranged, and you don't know which door you
originally picked.

>
>-- 
>Dennis Worden, not representing $  When the TEAM succeeds, you succeed,
>anybody, not even himself, in   $  but when the Team fails, you're FIRED.
>any way shape or form.          $  Don't EMAIL me at worden@berlioz.nsc.com


-- 
--Brian Gix                       Motorola
  gix@mdd.comm.mot.com            Mobile Data Division
  (206) 487-5894                  #include <disclaimer.h>
From: worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: More Monty Hall
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:45:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation


>The initial odds that you guessed right are 33%, as your first guess is
>random.  That means there's a 67% chance the prize is between one of the
>other 2 doors.  Now Monty always reveals a "goat" door, so this gives you
>*new* information, the prize is not behind the "goat" door he reveals.  Since
>your initial guess is still 33% at being correct (revealing the goat does
>NOT tell you anything about your door as Monty can *always* reveal a goat)
>this means the remaining door is 67% at being correct.

>Or change the rules a little.  After you pick a door, Monty, instead of
>revealing a "goat", offers a choice of switching your door for BOTH the other
>doors, but you then have to give Monty a "goat".  Do you switch?

>This actually works out to be the same game, just described differently.

Now reword the situation a little:
After Monty opens the door with the goat behind it, he then asks you to
choose between the remaining two doors, one with the prize, and the other
with the goat.  You have a 50% chance of picking the correct one (remember,
the third door does not exist in the wording).  You have a 50% chance
of picking the correct door here.  You have the same information as before,
the only change is that instead of asking you to "switch", you are asked
to "pick from start".  Either way, you have two doors in front of you,
and one prize.  

This is the same as tossing a coin; what are the chances of it coming up
heads: 50%.  Toss it again, and what is the chance of it coming of heads?
Still 50%.  The fact that it came up heads previously does not affect this
toss.  Monty hasn't given you new information, he has given you a new
question.  At the point where he asks you if you want to switch, the fact
that you had a 33% chance previously doesn't affect you new decision; two
doors, one prize.

The fallacy here is assigning the 33% chance from the door Monty opened
totally to the last door.  The 33% distributes across both door, afterall,
just because you now know the prize isn't behind one of the doors, doesn't
tell you where it is.  That 33% chance splits evenly between the remaining
two doors, and you have 50%.  To believe otherwise is the same as saying
you approach three doors, one of which is open and has a goat, two of
which are closed.  Whichever door you pick only has a 33% chance of being
right, the other door has a 67% chance of being correct.  Now that doesn't
make any sense does it?


-- 
Dennis Worden, not representing $  When the TEAM succeeds, you succeed,
anybody, not even himself, in   $  but when the Team fails, you're FIRED.
any way shape or form.          $  Don't EMAIL me at worden@berlioz.nsc.com
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: More Monty Hall
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:03:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <1992Dec22.185741.9823@berlioz.nsc.com> worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden) writes:



>The fact that you now have an open door with a goat behind it does not
>change the fact that you have 2 door and 1 prize.  

True, however there is not equal probability associated with those two
doors.   Stop and think a little, Dennis.  Or come out to NYC, design an
experiment yourself, and we'll have a little wager.

>Or put it another
>way, if you consider this new information on the same puzzle, why do you
>freeze the probability of the original guess at 33%?  

This is really far-fetched.  You make a selection of one door out of three.
The probability that you chose correctly is 1/3.  Why would this change? It
is not a question of "freezing the probability"  It is the 50/50 crowd that
plays games.

Monty equivalently says:  "You can have the door you chose, or BOTH doors
that you did not chose" without opening anything.  Now would you switch?
It is the same problem.

-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"