HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Killing bers with handguns  (Was:  Re:  A random thought)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:11:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.191020.24361@ttinews.tti.com>, hollombe@polymath.tti.com
(The Polymath) writes:

> Deer survived as a species for tens of thousands of years before we began
> hunting them "for their own good."

I always hunted deer for the meat.  The fact that it helps the herd
is an additional benefit.

> Nature is red in tooth and claw and
> doesn't care what PETA thinks of her methods.  The starvation is at least
> partially due to hunters having wiped out all the natural predators.

Ah, but humans *are* one of their natural predators.  It's unnatural
to believe otherwise.  And hunting did not wipe out the other predators,
logging, farming, and urban expansion took a large toll (and still do).

> Famine and predators take the weakest, ultimately strengthening the herd
> and the species.

Nope.  Famine takes the weakest, but also weakens the strongest.  Lack
of food is not limited only to those that die.  Any animal that eats
(whether or not it survives the winter) will leave less food for the
rest of the herd.  If you have only enough food for half the herd for
a winter, significantly less than half the herd will survive.

Predators take what they can get.  Some predators eat healthy animals
if they can catch them, otherwise they take the weak.  Other predators
eat a fair amount of carrion.

> Hunters take the best and strongest (trophies, more
> meat), weakening the herd and the species.

Most hunters take what they can get, the same as other predators.

> Hunt if you want to, but call yourself a humane ecologist because of it
> and I'll call you a hypocrite.

Call hunters what you like, it won't change the fact that most of them
are ecologists.  Not because of hunting, but generally in addition to
hunting.

> (Yes, I eat some meat.  I know where it comes from and I don't try to
> pretend otherwise.  I certainly don't pretend the source animals have
> benefited from being raised and slaughtered so I can eat them).

Ah, but until you eat venision, you'll never know what real meat tastes
like!  Commercial beef is similar to that chicken-like substance that
can be purchased in the poultry section of your supermarket (well, OK,
it's not quite that bad... ;-).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
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: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:36:55 GMT

Mitchell S Todd  writes: > 
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?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

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]




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: howells@bird (Timothy P. Howells)
Subject: Re: Oswald's supposed motivation
Organization: Research Computer Facility, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:09:46 GMT

jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:

> He [Oswald] defected to become an important person
> somewhere else. It didn't work. He repeatedly contacted the Soviet embassies
> in the U.S. and Mexico as if they could give a shit. They didn't. Ultimately,
> Oswald shoots Kennedy in what, I believe, was a desperate gesture to be
> taken seriously by the Soviets. Oswald was a guy who could not accept that he
> was a nobody.

The Warren Commission attempted to foist this bit of psycho-history on
us.  Of course, it is blatantly contradicted by Oswald's behavior
after his arrest.  He consistently denied involvement in the
assasination and vehemently claimed to be a "patsy".  How can you
possibly reconcile that behavior with your claim?

I don't have the reference handy, but one of the Warren Commision
members pointed out to Allan (sp?) Dulles that the pseudo
psychological analysis of Oswald was one of the report's weak points.
Dulles replied (this is a close paraphrase) "Don't worry about it;
americans don't read ... maybe a few professor's will read it, but no
one else."

As for Oswald's contacting the Soviet emabassy in Mexico, we only
have the CIA's claim that this is so.  When they produced photographs
and tape recordings purporting to support it, the person involved was
manifestly not Oswald.  David Phillips, the CIA station chief in
Mexico City during the relevant period, is on record saying that the
agency has no evidence that Oswald ever visited or called the Soviet
embassy there.  See Lane's _Plausible Denial_.

Unfortunately, once disinformation gets into circulation, it takes on
a life of it's own. (At least for people who desperately want to
believe it).

I'll dig up the exact references if anyone is interested.

Tim Howells
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:17:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.203030.19569@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.183300.27213@cas.org> jac54@cas.org () writes:
>
>>      I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
>>      familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
>>      work seems to be sound.
>
>Excerpted without permission from:
>
>Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.
>
>RIGHT WOOS LEFT:
>
>Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
>Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected
>
>by Chip Berlet
>
>Political Research Associates
>
>December 16, 1991

	What I had in mind is was publications critical of the CIA.  There
	is a great deal to be said for informed criticism of the agency and
	I have no problem with that.  Certainly, why the CIA wanted to
	make some of the deletions I have seen in "Cult" is a mystery to me.
	I have it at home and it's somewhere on my list to be read.  I also
	found McGehees book and read some of it last night.  His story is
	told by members of all intel. agencies and the CIA should address
	the concerns he raises.

	I knew nothing of Marchetti's politics and find this article most
	interesting [substantially deleted only to save bandwidth].
	Incidentally, you will find a bunch of intel. officers mad at
	the Israelis for a variety of reasons.

	The only problem I had with the original posting was the incantation
	of the Agee mantra.  There is a lot that Agee doesn't tell us about
	himself that leads me to believe that he isn't writing out
	of the goodness of his heart.

	Your comments appreciated,

	Alec Chambers.


>Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
>it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
>foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
>the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
>now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network.  Prouty's
><The Secret Team> was recently republished by Noontide Press, the
>publishing arm of the historical revisionist Institute for Historical
>Review (IHR). IHR promotes the theory that the accepted history of
>the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews.

	The only contact I had with the Liberty Lobby was finding one of
	their newsletters in a second-hand book I bought.  I had
	problems dealing with a sentence that had the phrase "Nixon's
	liberal appointees" (paraphrased) in it.

	Alec.
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Oswald's motions in the TSBD after the assassination.
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:58:38 GMT

Tony Simon >
Bruce Schuck >> 

>>Do you realize how silly that sounds. Try and run down 4 flights of
>>stairs 'quietly'. You either run and make noise or you walk quietly.
>>Quietly is slow, real slow.
>>

>You assume that one has to run down the stairs to get down in a reasonable
>amount of time. The Warren Commission showed that it could be done at a fast
>walk. Also, quietly does not have to be "slow, real slow." I can go quickly
>down several flights of stairs and hardly make a sound while I hear others who
>make alot of noise.

Sure. I believe you. :)

>>>But Oswald might not have been sure that they didn't hear him come down the
>>>stairs, therefore, he may have decided to act calm, like nothing happened.

>>In the vestibule, waiting to be seen?

>I guess you don't fully read my messages, do you? Oswald would not have waited
>to be seen. He would have paused to consider what he should do next. 

Very convenient of him to wait around to be seen by Baker don't you think?

*Nothing* Oswald did points to him assassinating JFK.

*None* of his actions point to his guilt.

*Everything* he did was perfectly normal for an employee of the TSBD.

>And the best you can do is have one woman who says she saw him "about 12:15"
>in the lunchroom. 

And the best you can do is offer bizarre explanations for ordinary
events.

I'm not going to bother continuing this pointless debate until you
produce *some* evidence that Oswald was even on the 6th floor after 12:00.

Since the WC and HSCA failed to do it, I doubt you will be able to.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay 
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:57:00 -0500

 > > Does anybody have the slightest REAL evidence that the CIA or
 > > other U.S. agencies have ever recruited and trained "teen agents,"

 > >        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus -

I've seen a "teen agent" first hand.  Actually about 20 years old.
In person on an undercover operation.

 > Someone probably does have this kind of evidence, although
 > I don't, and
 > although, of course, not much information on this kind of
 > thing would likely
 > be offered by any intelligence agency, regardless of the
 > Oswald question.
 >
 > I have read about other young "expatriates" with similar
 > excursions to Russia, but I haven't seen anything solid.
 >
 > Your idea that just because the CIA normally recruits
 > college graduates they
 > would never, ever train younger people for any reason is
 > what I would call
 > silly. Intelligence work requires the unexpected.
 >
 > Oswald was in the Marines, they obviously had the
 > opportunity.
 >
 > Also, Oswald's favorite TV show, which his brother tells us
 > he watched every
 > episode and all of the repeats as well, was "I lived three
 > lives for the FBI."
 > Oswald likely expressed an interest in intelligence work at
 > his first recruit
 > interview. He studied and learned Russian, perhaps already
 > at navy direction,
 > perhaps on his own to show his value after being rejected.
 >
 > Also, your argument that the CIA couldn't have used Oswald
 > because he was
 > "a loser that only worked minimum wage jobs" again shows
 > how susceptible you
 > would be -- the period during which Oswald worked such jobs
 > was after he
 > returned from Russia. Obviously, if Oswald was an agent
 > going to Russia, chances
 > are he was still an agent, still establishing his cover, as
 > every agent does.

This was well documented by Jim Garrison, job to job.

BTW, guess who got Oswald the job in TSBD?
Try looking at her and her family's income tax returns.
Jim Garrison couldn't get them on grounds of national
security.  INCOME TAX RETURNS were "classified"!!!!

Well, enough of this.  I've already broken my promise to
myself to keep out of this morass.  Trouble seems to follow
in many forms, and I just can't get into this.

Just don't vote for George Bush.
And don't forget the Hoover memo regarding George Bush and
the 1963 JFK assassination which was discovered by chance...

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:55:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.234641.4485@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <29647@ursa.UUCP> billm@thor.fsrg.bear.com (Bill Moss) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.010738.24134@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>
>>>The quality of the photo looked better than what I get with my modern FAX
>>>machine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Many people on the net are making a big deal about the fact that this photo
>>seems too clear to have been received in New Zealand via wire.
>>
>>Maybe it wasn't.   But this proves nothing.
>>
>>Oswald shows up in wire service story.  Newspaper looks up in files for
>>picture of Oswald.  They find an old picture.  They print it.
>>
>>Remember, Oswald had had newspaper coverage before, when he defected, and
>>when he returned to the U.S.
>
>
>Name one article with Oswald in it, before Nov. 63.
>
>I doubt there is one.

God, this is just so pathetic. No, there probably was no article in the Christ-
church Star with Oswald's photo prior to 11/63. The wires did run brief articles
on his defection and return to America, but I doubt they had pictures, and I
doubt any paper in NZ picked them up.

The point is WHO CARES!!!!! If you really think this is worth pursuing, find
out what the Star was using to receive wire photos as of 1963. I doubt very
much it was a whole lot less detailed than the typical portable fax AP
photographers drive around in their cars these days.

GO TO A LIBRARY! READ UP ON TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY! READ UP ON TYPESETTING
TECHNOLOGY! QUIT MAKING ARGUMENTS BASED ON ABSOLUTE ZERO KNOWLEDGE!

thank you.

C
C
A


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 15 Aug 1992 02:44:34 CDT
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Cla
 <1992Aug12.010738.24134@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
 <schuck.713597020@sfu.ca> <schuck.713688893@sfu.ca>
 <13AUG199212033646@summa.tamu.edu>

In many postings, Mitchell S Todd is arguing with many other posters about
whether LHO could have been a spy at the age of 17.

You have a point about LHO being enlisted for a high class spy operation.
It is hard to fathom that.  But they seem to have the point against you in
that you don't seem to be able to imagine the various realistic different
people and situations that true spies would be called upon to take part in.

You keep holding up either the highly educated spy who sits in an office
and is an expert at deciphering some bit of data or the spy who goes
under cover (and a bit Bondish at that) in some hostile country.
You are ignoring all that we have learned about some of the seemy
characters like Sturgis who I would not be able to place in either of those
categories.
The most believable spy scenario of LHO found in the assassination books is
that he was part of the Defector program which placed americans into the
USSR.  I seem to remember that a defector spy wasn't necessarily used to
gather information or make spy contacts.  The purpose was to put him into
the Russkies society and let professional spies watch just how he was
treated and sniffed at and reacted to by the KGB.  This low level spying
would have fit LHO to a tee.  They didn't have to train him or rely upon
him to do fantastic things.  He would have been thrilled to be part of
something that gave him the secret upper hand.  Gee, I'm a spy and you
don't know it.  Remember those "I've Led Three Lives" shows he was glued to.
To be a spy(low level) and not to have to work hard to do it would be just up
his alley.
Other scenarios that have LHO being a secret superspy has never been
convincing to me either.  He was too lazy.  Too unsociable.
ALAN ROGERS
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Justice Department
Keywords: Veto
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:43:09 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

From the San Francisco Examiner, Thursday August 13:

	The Justice Department has said that it may urge President
Bush to veto the bill (to release millions of pages of secret documents
of the 1963 assassination of JFK) because it violates executive privilege,
by which presidents have claimed control of records of their administrations'
decision-making process.
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:19:42 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <5875@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
(John Locke) writes:
|> 
|> The reason the alias on the booking card was thrown out of court was
that, in
|> accordance with police procedures, the detainee signed the card before any
|> of the blanks were filled in. Later, the blanks were filled in from data on
|> the arrest sheet. In addition, other people who were witnesses to Shaw's
|> signing the card testified that Shaw had never been asked for aliases. This
|> is why Officer Habighorst's uncorroborated and contradicted testimony was
|> disallowed. Naturally, Garrison fails to confront these details in "On the
|> Trail of the Assassins," even to rebut them.
|> 
|>

This is interesting, John, but, to me, not totally clear.  There are two
different documents involved - a "booking card" and an "arrest sheet"?
Shaw signed a blank booking card which was later filled in with data 
transferred from the arrest sheet.  Was the alias written on the arrest
sheet?  On which, if any, of these two documents was the alias written?
Who filled in the arrest sheet?

The implication given by Garrison is that at some time during a booking
process, Clay Shaw himself indicated that he had an alias of Clay
Bertrand.  The
documentation of that was later rendered inadmissable.  Are you saying that
this is wrongly portrayed and that at no time did Shaw ever indicate the
use of the alias (according to witnesses, of course)?

Also, what are your sources, I'd like to read them.

Paul Collacchi
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
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: 14 Aug 92 20:55:27 GMT

In article <12AUG199221565540@summa.tamu.edu> mst4298@summa.tamu.edu (Mitchell  
S Todd) writes:

> 	Which leads to the big question: what was Oswald supposed to
> 	find out? Garrison claimed that Oswald had been sent over to
> 	see whether or not U2's left contrails in the Soviet sky.
> 	It's a bullshit claim --that feature could be checked over
> 	other, safe pieces of territory. Furthermore, in an age of
> 	radar, it's a moot point.

In Oliver Stone's movie, his reasoning for Oswalds going to the Soviet
Union was to inform them that a U2 spy plane was going to fly a mission
over the Soviet Union just a couple of weeks prior to the summit 
conference between the U.S. and the S.U.  This would then give a reason
for the S.U. to withdraw from the summit.  Stone theorized that high
officials in the CIA did not want a summit.  This does sound plausible.
In another movie, I think it was called the Package, with Gene Hackman,
he was trying to stop an attempted assassination on the Soviet leader.
This was going to occur some time before a summit between the U.S. and
the S.U. and the CIA's and KGB's corroboration in the assassination
attempt was to prevent the summit from taking place.  This was done
because even though there would still be a continued cold war, the cold
war up to that point had not resulted in any real war.  If some type of
peace treaty were drawn up, then the CIA and KGB feared that a real war
might result from another cause.
Notice any similarities?

--
I was contemplating Socrates' immortal words: "I drank what?"

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:04:00 GMT
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Pk5BPB2w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca>, turtle@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (turtle) writes...
>> 	Even though hunting ammuntion is designed to fragment, it 
>> 	does so *after* impact. Frangible ammo is designed to 
>> 	shatter at impact, releasing a great deal of energy before
>> 	the bullet would enter the body. I've never known hunters
>> 	to use frangibles for anything other that target practice.

>How on earth can you believe that the bullet will "release a great deal 
>fo energy before it enters the body"?   What does it do - explode before 
>striking JFK's skull.  As soon as it hits his skull it begins to "enter 
>his body" and therefore will begin to release it's energy.  IMHO it would 
>be wise of an assasin to use amo that fragmented upon impact.  Such amo 
>would create the worst pattern of distruction and mayhem inside the human 
>body and it would also leave little behind for later identification to 
>the rifle used.  Makes sense to me and I'm not even a paid assasin!!!  

	
	Hunting ammo is designed so that it penetrates the skin before
	it starts to deform. Frangible ammo, being essentially very
	brittle, begins breakup even before it gets through the skin,
	not to mention the skull. This breakup wastes a lot of energy
	outside the skin.
	
	Hunting ammo is designed to kill through hydrostatic shock,
	rather than by actually lacerating the animal. I can assure
	you that it is quite effective at doing so.
	
	

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk