From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Generic Subject
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:24:57 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Joel Grant >

>	We can infer from the photgraphic and medical evidence,
>	as well as the condition of JFK's clothes, approximately
>	what position he was in when he was hit.  He was almost
>	certainly facing to his right with his right arm resting
>	on the side of the limo.  

I'm glad you agree with me on this one.
This makes it even less likely  a bullet impacting within 1 and 3/8
inches of the right of JFK's spine could exit on the right side
of his windpipe. 

>	It is misleading to calculate the angles based on the
>	right side of the trachea being scraped by the bullet.
>	Note that the bullet exited just below the button on
>	JFK's collar and nicked the *left* side of his tie
>	on the way towards Governor Connally's back.

Nice try at misleading Joel. :)

The exit hole in the front of the shirt [if it really was that] was
just slightly to the *right* of the centre of JFK's shirt.
The nick on the tie [misleadingly called on the left by the WC] is
actually dead centre on the knot in the picture I have -- in High
Treason between pp 28/29. Of course, that is really weird if the
bullet was coming from the right side of JFK's body it could never
have caused a nick in that position. 

The exit holes [supposed] in the front of the shirt were  ragged
slits. If you read Lattimer, you will find his test shirts had nice
clean puched out exit holes.
 
That nick or the supposed exit holes *never* had any copper 
on them, unlike the clothing holes in the back of JFK. 

I conclude they were caused by scalpel(s) removing the shirt
and tie in the emergency room. If they weren't, the holes in the shirt
are on the *right* side of JFK, exactly where the bullet wound was.


>       Trying to
>	eliminate Oswald as a suspect because someone draws 
>	lines on a map and ignores the detailed trajectory
>	analysis, vertical and horizontal done by the HSCA
>	is a major stretch.

Please point out *where* the detailed horizontal trajectory analysis
is in the HSCA. Have you seen it? Did you read it? Let me know and
I'll go look it up. It is my understanding they only analyzed the
vertical trajectory, leaving out the horizontal, exactly the way
Lattimer did.

>	
>	Bruce Schuck's amateur analysis requires at least one of
>	two situations to be true:

>	1. Bruce knows more about NAA than Dr. Guinn.
>	2. Dr. Guinn is lying about his test results.

I vote for number 2! :)

>	Since I am no more of an NAA expert than Bruce or you, I
>	can only ask why, if Dr. Guinn was determined to lie about
>	his results, he chose the one way that would absolutely 
>	guarantee he would be caught.  Namely, instead of publishing
>	"doctored" data, he chose to publish data which, were 
>	Bruce correct, would immediately be recognized as phony
>	by any NAA expert.  And it is safe to conclude that if
>	even one such specialist believed that Dr. Guinn's data
>	did not support his conclusions, we would have heard about
>	it, in spades, by now.

I would remind Joel that Guinn said he couldn't tell one part of an MC
bullet from another because of the wide discrepencies in the
composition *within* a bullet. He then went on to claim he could tell
whether two different pieces were from the same bullet! :) :) :)

I'll leave the obvious conclusion to others as to whether Guinn's
conclusions can be trusted.


>>the assassination of Oswald at the jail by a Dallas mafia figure.

>	Ah yes!  Typical mafia hit technique.  In the crowded basement
>	of a jail, on national television.   ;^)

I'll remind Joel that they hit a mafia leader on a stage in front of
TV cameras with thousands of people standing in front of the stage.