From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Etcetera
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:55:58 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

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


>re: 3229  (Tom Warner)

>>>	So Dr. Levine says the guy is JFK.  I agree.

>>You completely missed my point. Levine's checks were the *only* scientific
>>checks done that would have detected a phony x-ray, other than attempts to
>>check for a composite or the like. I'm still not sure what you mean by
>>forensic anthropologist or what role such a person might play.

>	Perhaps someone with access to the HSCA can verify or refute,
>	but my recollection was that they had a team of forensic
>	anthropologists.  In either case, how much verification do
>	you need that the person in the X-rays and photos was
>	John Fitzgerarld Kennedy and no other person?

I need an explanation of why the front right of his face is missing when
in the photos its perfectly intact, and why the rear top in the x-rays
is intact when every medical witness described that area as missing.

>       They/he did
>	things like measured the angle of his nasal septum, various
>	features of his ear, the lip profile, the network of
>	wrinkles across his back and the side of his neck,

You're talking about the photos now. I'm still not convinced they're real;
but that's a different issue. If they're not, then it's a composite that
wasn't tested for.

>	dental records, operational records... the guy in the
>	photos and X-rays was JFK.  I haven't heard you suggest
>	otherwise, come to think of it.

No, I have, because the x-rays don't match the photos. I don't doubt that the
person in the photos and x-rays is JFK, I do think it very likely that the
photos and x-rays were tampered with.

>>I'm talking about the photo experts, who concluded that the x-rays and
>>photos were authentic as far as they could tell.

>	The thing is, they can tell exceedingly well.

Well, I don't know why you believe that, and as a believer in government
of the people, by the people and for the people, I'm not going to accept
a panel of experts' opinions (which really boils down to one opinion
ratified by a panel) in place of real evidence. If they're so sure of
they're opinions, why do we have to take them at their word without being
able to check it out independently?
 
>>>	I disagree that they only looked for the "most
>>>	obvious" types of forgery, but without the HSCA volumes
>>>	at hand I cannot quote chapter and verse.

>>>	In either case, a far more reasonable interpretation is
>>>	that there really wasn't anything there to find.

>>No, it's not any more reasonable. I'm not convinced either way, and 
>>I see no reason why I should be.

>	You should be convinced the photos and X-rays are
>	genuine because they have been authenticated and
>	tested and because you have no evidence to indicate
>	they are fakes.

Archetypal pro-WC speak. Poorly refuted evidence is "no evidence," and
tests whose data we are not allowed to see is "authentication," even if
many issues were not even addressed by these tests.

>>The point is, that if the photos and x-rays were essential components
>>of a highly sophisticated coverup, they would be very difficult to
>>identify as forgeries by any standard method. A panel of experts in the
>>employ of the government spendinmg a few afternoons is not enough to
>>settle the issue, although it may be enough to mollify people like yourself.

>	Why would they be difficult to identify as forgeries by any
>	standard method?

Uh, because the forgers would anticipate such tests being done, if they were
experts in their field.

>       What forgery methods were available to
>	the forgers that would have allowed them to so thoroughly
>	and undetectably fake an entire set of photos and X-rays.

I'm not an expert, I don't know. The HSCA did, however, state that
it was possible to create forgeries they would not have detected.

>	While you're at it, please let us all know just what sort
>	of planning took place that placed forgers as part of an
>	assassination team so sophisticated that its success 
>	depended upon a long series of events, culminating in
>	the need for forged autopsy photos and X-rays.

I don't follow your train of thought.

You're asking, why would forgers need to be involved? Because JFK was
hit from the right front, and they were framing Oswald on a sixth-floor
TSBD set-up. I don't see why they would need to be part of the plan from
the beginning, although I don't see why they couldn't have been either.

>>>	No, the X-rays do not show the right front portion of
>>>	JFK's skull missing.  At least one non-enhanced X-ray
>>>	does appear, to the untrained eye, to show the right front
>>>	portion of the skull missing.  This was not a problem
>>>	for the Clark Panel, who interpreted even the non-enhanced
>>>	X-rays without a problem.  The enhanced version makes it
>>>	clear, even to those of us not trained in reading X-rays
>>>	(and without the X-rays, only copies of copies in books)
>>>	that the damage in the photos and X-rays do indeed match.

>>So I am supposed to accept this as an article of faith, or what? Where
>>can I see an x-ray that shows the right front of JFK's face intact and the
>>rear top of his skull missing?

>	The HSCA, Lattimer, Lifton, and I am sure many other
>	sources have copies of the computer-enhanced X-rays.

Yes, and even an amateur can see the large amount of missing bone
structure on the upper right face as opposed to the upper left face.

>	HSCA, Menninger, and Lattimer have diagrams of the
>	actual skull defect.  

With the upper right face intact, I presume.

>>First, it can clearly be seen from the film that Kennedy's head
>>takes the hit and then impels the entire torso backward. His arms stay
>>completely limp, and his back does not arch -- it simply gets thrown backward.
>>There is absolutely no visbible sign of any muscular action at all. Remember,
>>it would require a complex set of muscular actions, working in combination
>>to perfection, to achieve a similar result. Even a conscious man would be hard
>>pressed to imitate the appearance of having been hit in the right temple so
>>well. For a man with half his brain gone, it's simply not possible.

>	I think his response is explained by a combination of
>	two phenomena, namely, the jet propulsion effect, 
>	demonstrated experimentally,

Hahahahahahahahaha. With melons on sticks, which fell backwards sometimes
but not all the time, probably when Lattimer hit them below the mid-line.
No one has ever or will ever show that you can make a head fly backwards
by hitting it from behind.

Nevermind the motorcycle cop hit by fragments flying backwards from JFK,
or the fragment that landed on the trunk.

>       and the neuromuscular
>	response.  I am not sure why you would expect to be
>	able to directly observe the workings of JFK's muscles.

I don't mean directly seeing muscular action; after all he was wearing a
suit, wasn't he? I mean muscular action is indirectly evident, based on the
overall movement of the body. JFK's motion showed no sign of internal
motivation; the only part of his body pushing or pulling any other part
was his head. He was simply thrown back as a whole, with his head obviously
leading the way.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk