HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: J.Edgar Hoover's motivations
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:45:41 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

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
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Extra Bullet hits on limo?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 20:21:18 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu


Recently someone on this newsgroup assured me that there were *three* bullet
strikes on Kennedy's limo.  This in addition to the bullet that hit Connally.

As evidence, they cited the Groden book (HIGH TREASON), and said photos were
included to prove this.

OK, I have HIGH TREASON right here.  It's the 1989 Conservatory press edition. 
(I don't know if there are other editions, but just want to avoid confusion).

I'm looking at the picture section between pages 126 and 127 (the pages are
themselves unnumbered).  Groden shows a picture of a crack in the windshield
glass.  It is about what you would expect if a small stone hit the windshield.
I can easily believe it is the result of a bullet, but only a bullet fragment,
and one that has been slowed down, at that.  A whole bullet, or a large
fragment with any velocity, would have certainly shattered the windshield.

The other photo, from *inside* the limo, shows what looks to be a whole bullet
or large fragment impacted in the chrome above the windshield.  Again, the
velocity had to be rather low, because it merely dented (rather than
penetrating) the chrome.

This is *zero* evidence of hits from the right front.  It is also zero evidence
in *independent* hits from behind.  Neither strike is what a bullet from a
high-powered rifle would look like, unless it was slowed down by hitting
something else.

That "something else" was doubtless Kennedy's head.  And the windshield strike
was doubtless just a fragment (just get the book and see how little damage it
did).

Do the conspiracy theorists around here understand why some of us are skeptical
of the "evidence" conspiracy theorists provide?  I'm assured "just look in the
Groden book, it's all right there.  There were three bullets that hit the
limo."  And then when I check out the evidence it proves no such thing.

.John
From: rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Robert Brooks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Ruby
Keywords: Ruby, Dallas Police
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:26:58 GMT
Reply-To: rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Robert Brooks)
Organization: Swarthmore College

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.193758.14554@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rdaniels@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert E. Daniels) 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.
> >>
> 
> This really implies an efficient, on-the-ball conspiracy, doesn't it?  Ruby the
> killer fooled around and was an hour and 20 minutes late to the assassination,
> in spite of the fact that he was the designated assassin!
> 
> And while he was killing time (rather than killing Oswald), he just dropped by
> Western Union to wire some money to a stripper.  Not like he had any
> *important* business to take care of.
> 
> .John

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.
-- 
Rob Brooks
rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu

Selig sind, die da Leid tragen, denn sie sollen getrostet werden.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Extra Bullet hits on limo?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:54:18 GMT

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:


>Recently someone on this newsgroup assured me that there were *three* bullet
>strikes on Kennedy's limo.  This in addition to the bullet that hit Connally.

>As evidence, they cited the Groden book (HIGH TREASON), and said photos were
>included to prove this.

>OK, I have HIGH TREASON right here.  It's the 1989 Conservatory press edition. 
>(I don't know if there are other editions, but just want to avoid confusion).

>I'm looking at the picture section between pages 126 and 127 (the pages are
>themselves unnumbered).  Groden shows a picture of a crack in the windshield
>glass.  It is about what you would expect if a small stone hit the windshield.
>I can easily believe it is the result of a bullet, but only a bullet fragment,
>and one that has been slowed down, at that.  A whole bullet, or a large
>fragment with any velocity, would have certainly shattered the windshield.

>The other photo, from *inside* the limo, shows what looks to be a whole bullet
>or large fragment impacted in the chrome above the windshield.  Again, the
>velocity had to be rather low, because it merely dented (rather than
>penetrating) the chrome.

>This is *zero* evidence of hits from the right front.  It is also zero evidence
>in *independent* hits from behind.  Neither strike is what a bullet from a
>high-powered rifle would look like, unless it was slowed down by hitting
>something else.

>That "something else" was doubtless Kennedy's head.  And the windshield strike
>was doubtless just a fragment (just get the book and see how little damage it
>did).

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?????


-- 
......
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Date: 26 Jan 1993 23:36:42 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan26.013458.23622@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>>>
>>>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.
>
>Really???? The 6th floor TSBD is to the right rear of JFK.
>According to the WC and HSCA the bullet hit about 1 inch to the right
>of the midline of the back of his head. JFK was facing to the left,
>but nowhere near enough for anything but his face to be between the
>TSBD and the impact points on the chrome and glass.
>
>SO...in the light of the above, where is this exit wound "not
>necessarily in his face" ???
>

OK, I'm sitting here looking at frame 312 of the Zapruder film.  Kennedy's
slumping forward, at about a 45 degree angle.  His chin is almost on his chest.

Frame 313, of course, is where Kennedy's head is blown open by the exiting 
bullet.

>>
>>But let me ask you:  if they weren't caused by the bullet that hit Kennedy,
>>what *did* cause them?
>>
>
>Possibility 2: Fragments from the wrist wound on Connally if the wrist
>wound had nothing to do with his chest wound, and occurred after
>Connally was on his back. Less likely.
>

Connally's wrist was down in the limo, on his leg.  It would somehow have
to have been deflected in some very strange way (not to speak of penetrating
the seat) to end up hitting the winshield.


>Possiblity 3: There was a wound in JFK's face, but it was covered up.
>

How *could* it be covered up?  Has plastic surgery reached the point that an
exit wound in somebody's face can be repaired without leaving a trace?  On a
dead man where wounds don't heal?

Then what about all the people who saw the body?  They disagree among
themselves on several matters, but *none* (including those at Parkland)
reported an exit wound in the face.

.John 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: JFK and J. Edgar Hoover
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:43:04 GMT

bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
Re: Robert Morrow's book _Betrayal_
>|> 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.

And that's of course much closer to what happened than Morrow's fantasy.
But if nothing else, his book is interesting from what it reveals about
the "rogue element" thinking going on in the CIA at the time. According
to Morrow, after DDCI Cabell was fired after the Bay of Pigs, Morrow and
others were still taking direction from him for some reason. And they
all bitched about how the "Kennedy brothers" were traitors, etc. Just
where exactly they were getting their moral guidance from was not
addressed... I guess it was just *obvious* what we should do vis a vis
Castro --- fuck what the President (their boss?) says. 

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald's IRS returns
Date: 23 Jan 1993 19:42:45 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <93023.015344U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:


>Along with the docs, North does an analysis that brings suspicion about
>whether these docs have been doctored. (I know the pro-WC crowd is going
>to groan)  The interesting aspect of North's findings are that it appears
>that if one attempts to resolve the discrepancies found in the figures,
>one is left with about $200 a month left over.  This amount magically
>corresponds to the commonly known amount that FBI informers are paid.

What discrepancies?  Did Oswald report a total income, and the total of W-2
and 1099 forms he submitted is $200 per month shy of his reported income?

If so, why did Oswald bother to include his FBI stipend in his total income? 
Could it be he knew that the FBI was going to submit W-2 forms for each of it's
informers to the IRS, and he didn't want to be charged with tax evasion?

And if the docs have been doctored, why weren't they doctored into consistency? 
Doesn't The Conspiracy have a pocket calculator, so they can make the numbers
add up?

And if you think these returns prove nothing whatsoever, how about admitting
it.  It might suggest that all sorts of things either disappear or are withheld
for nonsense bureaucratic reasons, without being evidence of a conspiracy.

.John
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: JFK and J. Edgar Hoover
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:26:08 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <1k257pINNoi@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU>, yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>|> - 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.
>
>  It
>is highly likely that the SS was totally unaware of its sanction and
>merely broke up a counterfeiting ring like they did regularly in those
>days.

Morrow had plenty of reasons to believe that the order to arrest him and
destroy his operation came from the Attorney General.  In this evidence
there is room for doubt, but I know of no other corroboration for it
anyway.  There seems to me little point arguing whether Morrow is being
misleading when it is not even clear whether he is lying.





.
From: busta@vicki.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: JFK and J. Edgar Hoover
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:24:29 GMT


In article <93026.032126U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes...
>In article <11542@prijat.cs.uofs.edu>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) says:

 (some deleted)

>>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??
>>
>I would believe that Hoover had enough loyal followers to do the deed.
>but what he also had was internal enemies, ones that had great
>likelihood of "spilling the beans" later.  None have so far, not even
>Sullivan his arch enemie from within.


  Ahh, but dead men don't talk. Seems like ole Sully took a bullet from
 a N.H. state troopers son during a hunting expedition up here in
 the hills of N.H. back in the late seventies.....

  No charges pressed. It was all an accident......or was it?


>  You also have to take into account that JKF/RFK was grooming and
>mentoring high officials within the FBI who were expelled later.
>If they had info on nefarious moves by Hoover, they haven't shared
>them with us through all these years.
>   Nothings impossible but you have to consider all these factors.
> 
>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.*
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta	Busta@vicki.enet.dec.com                       Salem,N.H.  
		--or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
		--or-- busta%vicki.enet@decwrl.dec.com

         "One only sees what one observes, and one observes only 
              those things which are already in the mind."
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:24:49 GMT

In article <0096725D.E9860D80@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>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?  

The neurologist Kemp Clark postulated a tangential strike.

A bullet from the grassy knoll impacting just behind JFK's right ear
would probably take off the right rear portion of JFK's skull.

However, a bullet from the TSBD, would never take off the right rear
corner of JFK's head.

>An exit wound in the right rear would require a
>gunman to Kennedy's right front.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you mean a shot
from the left front.

As I explained, a tangential shot from JFK's right front, ie the
grassy knoll/picket fence could remove the right rear of JFK's head,
and still deposit the Harper fragment to JFK's left rear and splatter
the motorcyvle cop to JFK's left rear with blood and brain.

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

Only one photo, the rear of the head had to be faked. And it not only
contradicts the Parkland staff, it contradicts Humes description of
the wound in the autopsy report. It is a fake or Humes *and* the
Parkland staff lied about the wound.

Humes described a 13cm wound extending from occipital [back of the
head] through the parietal to the temporal [ the temporal bone is
near the ear , it is not the temple] . That description fits the right
rear of JFK's head, and matches the Parkland description.

Yes, the X-rays are also faked.




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: MS9550A@auvm.american.edu (Mark J. Santoro)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Warren Reports
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:43:02 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

Ich bin Berliner
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: howells@bird.mitre.org (Timothy P. Howells)
Subject: Oswald's IRS returns
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:44:11 GMT

Hi,

  Someone recently told me that they think that Oswald's tax returns
may have been declassified and released.  Does anyone have the latest
info on this?  Were all of his returns classified, or only the last
one?

Thanks,
Tim Howells <howells@linus.mitre.org>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: eds001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:01:56 GMT

ok i'm new at this so bear with me.  I have read several things on the
assination of JFK and I can not believe the WC.  
First, can anyone tell me why Oswald would want to do this all by himself?
What motive did he have?  Why would the secrect service allow the limo to make
that unusual corner of about 120 degrees, when it states in the secrect service
manual that the presidents car is not to make a corner of more than 90 degrees?
Just a few questions.  I would like to get some good answers.


Eric         email:eds001@acad.drake.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:53:44 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald's IRS returns

In article <1993Jan22.164411.5905@linus.mitre.org>, howells@bird.mitre.org
(Timothy P. Howells) says:
>
>Hi,
>
>  Someone recently told me that they think that Oswald's tax returns
>may have been declassified and released.  Does anyone have the latest
>info on this?  Were all of his returns classified, or only the last
>one?
>
>Thanks,
>Tim Howells <howells@linus.mitre.org>

Indeed, Tim.  Go to Library.  Lookup book titled "Act of Treason" by Mark
North.  In an appendix, you will find the LHO tax return for 1962 withheld
from public viewing for years due to reasons of "national security".
God forbid if this info got into the hands of our enemies!!!!!
North, Ferrell and others convinced Marina to press the gov. in the 80's
for its release.  The "national security" excuse was wearing a little thin,
and I guess they threatened a public suit, so the IRS finally gave in.
Along with the docs, North does an analysis that brings suspicion about
whether these docs have been doctored. (I know the pro-WC crowd is going
to groan)  The interesting aspect of North's findings are that it appears
that if one attempts to resolve the discrepancies found in the figures,
one is left with about $200 a month left over.  This amount magically
corresponds to the commonly known amount that FBI informers are paid.
  I won't endorse or discount this analysis.  In order to follow his
argument you would have to dig up the tax rules and guidelines for 1963
and I have enough trouble dealing with April 1993, you know, its sort of
like having to go to the dentist.   It would be interesting if some
acountant type reading this newsgroup would take a look at it.

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.*