HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:41:00 GMT

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...

>|>I'm still waiting for some proof that 'regular' Marines are allowed to
>|>claim they 'caught VD in the line of duty'.

>|	The burden of proof is still on you, matey. You are the person
>|	who claims that the "VD in the line of duty" would be a tag
>|	unique to some sort of intelligence agent. Just saying "well,
>|	this says that Oswald caught VD in the line of duty [and does
>|	anyone exactly what Oswald had? Gonnonrhea?], so he must have
>|	been a secret agent" doesn't cut it.

>I think it cuts it just fine. Forms and regulations are designed to
>give information. If the form says he got VD in the line of duty, then
>I imagine, untill told otherwise, that that is correct. Why would
>anyone without some evidence believe otherwise? Why would one suspect
>that the doctor would lie and potentially get himself in trouble? What
>purpose does it serve to second guess the evidence based on your own
>bias? 

	The argument has two points and one conclusion. The first
	point is that Oswald's medical record shows that he was
	treated for VD and claims he acquired it "in the line of
	duty." The second point is that this is either strangely
	anonalous, or that it could only have happened if Oswald
	contracted the disease if he were some sort of agent.
	The concvlusion is, of course, that Oswald was a spy.
	The first point has been established, the second point
	has not, by any means. The burden of proof is not on me.
	It is on David and Bruce, who are arguing the case. They 
	have to establish the second point.

	I also see that David has little experience with beuracratic
	organizations. Personel records from these things often
	reflect favortism, brown nosing, just plain laziness, and
	are often inaccurate on small issues. When records say 
	silly things, then this generally indicates that someone
	is being noce to someone else.
	
                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:21:30 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <31AUG199214423269@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|In article <schuck.715193508@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
|
|>Bruce Schuck (me) >> & >>>>
|
|>>>>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
|>>>>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
|>>>>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]
|
|>I'm still waiting for some proof that 'regular' Marines are allowed to
|>claim they 'caught VD in the line of duty'.
|
|	The burden of proof is still on you, matey. You are the person
|	who claims that the "VD in the line of duty" would be a tag
|	unique to some sort of intelligence agent. Just saying "well,
|	this says that Oswald caught VD in the line of duty [and does
|	anyone exactly what Oswald had? Gonnonrhea?], so he must have
|	been a secret agent" doesn't cut it.

I think it cuts it just fine. Forms and regulations are designed to
give information. If the form says he got VD in the line of duty, then
I imagine, untill told otherwise, that that is correct. Why would
anyone without some evidence believe otherwise? Why would one suspect
that the doctor would lie and potentially get himself in trouble? What
purpose does it serve to second guess the evidence based on your own
bias? 
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:23:12 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Chuck Dupree (cdupree@oracle.com) wrote:
: One of the facts that seems to support this theory is that 
: (according to the books, I'm not an expert in this area myself) 
: in the early '60's the Soviets did not have any weapon that could 
: shoot down the U2.  They knew about the overflights, but could not 
: prevent them.  
: 
: Powers himself, according to Jim Marrs in "Crossfire", offered the
: opinion in a radio interview that his plane had been sabotaged.
: Within a couple of weeks he died in a helicopter accident.
: 
: - Chuck Dupree

A recent series on BBC TV concerning the CIA included a programme on U2
flights. It included an interview with a member of a Soviet anti-aicraft
team who had attempted to shoot down a U2 (not Powers). He seemed to be 
sure that they did have weapons that could in theory destroy the U2, although
in his case they accidentally shot down one of their own chase aircraft with
a SAM.

Other interesting information concerning U2s was evidence concerning the
personnel who flew U2s over the USSR. They included USAF, CIA and Royal
Airforce Pilots. The latter were used in an attempt to circumvent the 
limits on flights imposed by Congress as the missions were, for admin.
puposes, British.

[As an aside on of the CIA analysts of the period was quoted as saying that
 they were attempting to depict the Soviet military threat as that of a 
 10 foot giant when in fact they were facing a 4 foot dwarf. After all 
 many of their ICBMs were in fact cardboard cut outs and they had few
 strategic bombers]

	Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:39:24 GMT


Mitchell S Todd writes: > & >>> & >>>>>
Bruce Schuck >> & >>>>

>>The KGB weren't omnipotent. Listening posts are no substitution
>>for the information Oswald had. Or do you really believe the West
>>Coast of the US was so riddled with KGB agents that they already knew
>>everthing?

>	No, the KGB (actually, the GRU) wouldn't know *everything*
>	(neither did Oswald), but they would spend every possible
>	effort to find out what was important to them. They really
>	wouldn't need an army of men to find this out.

Actual confirmation by a *real* defector would have been an invaluable
addition to anything gleaned by electronic means.

>>So, it's now Mitchell S Todd KGB Spymaster and expert on what the
>>USSR wanted to find out during the Cold War. Excuse me while
>>I snicker. [Snicker]

>	Well, my father flew "spyplanes" for the USAF.

Not even for a second do I believe this Mitchell.

>>When informed of Oswalds defection, the military changed *everthing*
>>it could that they knew Oswald had information on.

>	That's called a reasonable precaution. Most, if not all, of the
>	stuff that was changed would have been eventually changed anyway.

But Oswalds defection made them change it early. It was important
enought to sepnd the time and money to change it.

>>Oswald didn't have to walk into the US Embassy to defect.
>>Nobody in the US or US Embassy knew of Oswalds existence in the
>>USSR until Oswald walked into the Embassy.

>	Not for a while, anyway. The Soviets generally announced
>	defections, since they made good propaganda for the grist
>	mill.

The Soviets do *not* announce defections of people with
valuable intelligence while that intelligence is still valid.

>>Why do you insist that the military *wouldn't* have to rely on
>>Oswald's announcement to change codes and radar frequencies?
>>They *did* rely on Oswalds announcement, and if Oswald had not
>>walked into the Embassy the military might *never* have found out
>>about Oswald's defection. He did them a big favour.
>>And he did them that favor because he was probably an ONI agent.


>	Had Oswald been an ONI agent, they would have known when
>	he defected, and thus when to change codes, without needing
>	the benefit of a trip to the Embassy.

Changing the codes without a tipoff would have been the
death warrant for a spy. It's obvious the ONI wanted things
both ways. They didn't want the USSR to have all of Oswalds
intelligence to be vaild for a long time so they had him
make his dramatic announcement in the US Embassy.

And then, when Oswald was coming home, to show how displeased they
were with him defecting, they paid his and Marinas way home. Sure,
thats the ticket. We'll punish him severely for defecting, we'll pay
for his passage home. How many other defectors got their passage paid
for by the US State Department?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Garfield
From: rtiger@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:15:02 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City


Could it have been Garfield??

Roy TIGER

(Hear me roar!)
From: elambert@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Eber Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:55:22 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch) writes:

>There were a few really lame spots in this episode... for instance when LBJ
>or one of the secret service men on Air Force One picks up a quarter that 
>the protagonist dropped and sees the 2200 minting date on it... shudder...
>talk about a heavy-handed demonstration that this guy was from the future.

Actually it was a Kennedy half dollar that the character from the future 
had as a good luck piece or possibly to help prove himself when he made 
the move to save JFK.

eel
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:18:11 GMT


Mitchell S Todd  writes: > & >>>
Bruce Schuck (me) >> 
David Wright >>>>

>>>>or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

>>>	Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
>>>	"in the line of	duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]

>	How many Marine's medical records have you inspected, Bruce?

Just one. It was Oswalds.

How about you Mitchell. How many of you inspected?

Do you have *any* evidence Marines were allowed to claim they caught
VD in the 'line of duty' as a normal course of events?

Since the publication of Marrs book, how many Marines have volunterred
that they too caught VD in the 'line of duty'? :)
From: sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: JFK SOURCES
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:02:55 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands

Alan, thanks for this very nice list. I'll try some of the sources.
I also like the Weisberg entry. I've been looking for his books
too, but couldn't find them anywere.

--
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:21:00 GMT

In article <schuck.714954738@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
>ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
> 
>>In article <schuck.714941312@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
> 
>>> 
>>>There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
>>>after the assassination.
> 
>>There is only one witness that you provided and she was uncertain of the time.
> 
>She was *very* certain of the time. 12:15.
> 

However, if we believe Roffman, then she claimed it was 12:25. Do you state
that Roffman is incorrect? He did say it was her statement in her own words.
If she later stated to Summers it was 12:15, then she gives conflicting
testemony and therefore, she is not certain as to the time.

>>> 
>>>There were witnesses who saw Ruby in the Dallas Morning News before and
>>>after the assassination.
>>> 
>>>There were *no* witness who saw Oswald on the 6th floor
>>>during the assassination.
> 
>>This does NOT prove that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor. If every criminal
>>had to be seen at the place of the crime, then our prisons would have alot
>>less people in them.
> 
>>> 
>>>However, there *were* witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza when he
>>>was supposed to be at the Dallas Morning News.
>>>
> 
>>Who? How many? Did they know Ruby so that they could identify him? 
> 
>If you read the Warren Commission Hearings you could get their names.
>

I rather make you *PROVE* something for a change. Besides, I don't have access
to all 26 volumes.

>The Police Officer who ran to the top of the grassy knoll said the man
>who had Fake SS id looked like Ruby.
> 
>Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, said Ruby was outside the TSBD immediately
>after the assassination questioning some of the witnesses.
>

As someone already stated, these two statements puts Ruby in two places at once,
you use that argument as support for Oswald's not being on the 6th floor. How
come it doesn't apply to Ruby?

>From Warren Commission Hearings Vol. 6 pp 386-393:
> 
>Miss Adams: There was a man that was standing on the corner of Houston
>            and Elm asking questions there. He was dressed in a suit and a hat,
>            and when I encountered Avery Davis going down, we asked who he was,
>            because he was questioning people as if he was a police
>            officer....and this man was asking questions very
>            effaciously  and we said, "I guess
>            he may be a reporter," and later on on television, 
>            there was a man that looked very similar to him, 
>            and he was identified as Ruby.
> 

Ruby is not a very distinguishable person and saying that someone looked like
him, doesn't make it him. I want some evidence that someone who knew him had
seen him there.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: cdupree@oracle.com (Chuck Dupree)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
	<1992Aug17.143844.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
	<1992Aug17.074739.26068@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:46:43 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug17.074739.26068@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:

>   >Isn't it possible that LHO was involved in action/information which could
>   >compromise these flights, and hence the President, during his
>   >time in Russia?  

>   That's been suggested, but I don't see how it makes a great deal of sense.
>   Who is supposedly trying to compromise Eisenhower? The CIA? I don't get it.
>   It also seems like too difficult of a mission for a 20-year-old spy.

Then there's the theory, described in detail by Dave Ratcliffe who
often posts here, that the downing of Powers' U2 was not an act of the
Soviets, but an act of those in the US military-industrial complex who
didn't want Eisenhower's scheduled meeting with Kruschev (sp?) to come
off, because indications were that some sort of peace initiative might
have arisen.  It appeared that both Eisenhower and Kruschev were
looking for some way to exit the arms race...  One of the facts that
seems to support this theory is that (according to the books, I'm not
an expert in this area myself) in the early '60's the Soviets did not
have any weapon that could shoot down the U2.  They knew about the
overflights, but could not prevent them.  

Powers himself, according to Jim Marrs in "Crossfire", offered the
opinion in a radio interview that his plane had been sabotaged.
Within a couple of weeks he died in a helicopter accident.

- Chuck Dupree

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:41:00 GMT

In article <schuck.714859637@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
>ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
>
>>So, it is possible for Ruby to have been at Dealey Plaza (the Dallas Morning
>>News was only four blocks from the assassination site). However, Ruby would
>>have had to make it there, do whatever he supposedly did, then return and work
>>on the layout. I guess the question I would have for Newnam is "How much work
>>was done on the layout when he saw Ruby?" If there was alot, then it's unlikely
>>Ruby was near the site.
> 
>>One argument against Ruby being there would be that he had to leave the DMN
>>at 12:20 pm to get to Dealey Plaza. However, Kennedy was supposed to have been
>>at Dealey Plaza earlier than the 12:30 pm time that he did arrive, so Ruby's
>>timing would have been off for whatever "work" he had to do there.
> 
>Thats the exact same argument you quickly dismiss when Oswalds
>alibi is discussed.
> 
>How come you so readily accept it for Ruby's alibi?
> 

The argument is the same. No one knew where Oswald was between 12:10 and 12:30.
Therefore, it was possible for him to be on the 6th floor at that time. Of
course, you'll point out Carolyn Arnold again, but her information in Summers
is tainted by the fact that she didn't know exactly what time she was
downstairs. Again, if you check Roffman, her statement (which he says is in
her own words) to the FBI indicated that she went downstairs at 12:25. Others
who were with her said it was 12:15. Oswald did not tell anyone that he saw
Mrs. Arnold while he was in the lunchroom, but said that Junior and a small
black man passed through. Neither of them admitted to seeing Oswald. So, there
is no concrete evidence that Oswald ate his lunch downstairs while the
assassination was happening. Therefore, he could have been on the 6th floor.
You seem to conclude that I was trying to prove that Oswald WAS on the 6th
floor. All along, I was trying to show that there was a distinct possibility
that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. Nothing more.

Concluding that Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News for the full 25 minutes
between 12:20 and 12:45 requires more input to be complete. You'll note that
I did ask the question of how much work was done on the ad when Newnam saw
it. If alot, then Ruby was most likely there the full time. If not, then he
could have been elsewhere.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,alt.censorship
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:07:17 GMT

ajs9462@zeus.tamu.edu (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:



>So, it is possible for Ruby to have been at Dealey Plaza (the Dallas Morning
>News was only four blocks from the assassination site). However, Ruby would
>have had to make it there, do whatever he supposedly did, then return and work
>on the layout. I guess the question I would have for Newnam is "How much work
>was done on the layout when he saw Ruby?" If there was alot, then it's unlikely
>Ruby was near the site.

>One argument against Ruby being there would be that he had to leave the DMN
>at 12:20 pm to get to Dealey Plaza. However, Kennedy was supposed to have been
>at Dealey Plaza earlier than the 12:30 pm time that he did arrive, so Ruby's
>timing would have been off for whatever "work" he had to do there.

Thats the exact same argument you quickly dismiss when Oswalds
alibi is discussed.

How come you so readily accept it for Ruby's alibi?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: bill@turing.toronto.edu (Bill Monhemius)
Subject: David Lifton's Book - anyone read it?
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:06:50 GMT

I'm currently reading David Lifton's book BEST EVIDENCE.  Has anyone read this
book and have any comments?

I find his theory that both the Parkland and Bethesda autopsies could be 
legitimate if the body was altered in transit very interesting.  Furthermore,
I find the opinion that the Warren Commission would deliberately falsify
evidence to cover up a conspiracy hard to believe.  

What Lifton describes is the legal concept of 'best evidence' where evidence is
prioritized and thus, contrary evidence that is not well substantiated is 
discarded.  I'm not saying I agree with this concept but this is probably what 
happened with the Warren Commission - they decided that the Bethesda report was
the best evidence and that eye-witness reports of a grassy-knoll gun-man were
unreliable.  This happens all the time in courts - lawyers are not paid to look
for the real truth, they're looking for a 'legal' truth that they can convince
a jury of.

I recommend the book.  It has a more personal style than most JFK books out
there.  The author spent about 15 years of his life to his research.

-Bill

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------+
|* * * * * *|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| * * * * * |            Bill Monhemius           |
|* * * * * *|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| * * * * * |            bill@turing.toronto.edu  |
+-----------+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|                        University of Toronto    |
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|                        Turing Language Group    |
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
+-------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk