From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: RE: PBS SPECIAL
Date: 22 DEC 92 07:06:34 PDT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


In article <schuck.724612776@sfu.ca> Bruck Schuck writes:

[I'm going to respond to the NAA and forensic issues in a
separate posting in order to keep down the length of this one]


>>	I am still anxiously awaiting your explanation for the
>>	disruption caused by a microphone button stuck on `transmit'
>>	and the channel 1 dispatcher's placement of the microphone
>>	on the  Stemmons.

>WHo really cares? It could be crosstalk, it could be a badly made
>copy, but what is really important is that recording establishes the
>number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

	Who cares where was the motorcycle on which the dictabelt
	tape was recorded?  Obviously, not you.  The motorcycle
	was not in Dealy Plaza, it was on the Stemmons freeway.
	It did not record the sound of gunshots and I am sorry
	if you don't like that.

	But let's cut to the chase, eh?  Since you postulate
	shooters all over the place, why in heaven's name do
	you support the validity of the dictabelt tape?  If we
	assume for the sake of argument that the BBN study of
	the tape is valid, then we have, not just "four shots
	being fired in Dealy Plaza", we have three shots fired
	from the 6th floor, SE corner of the TSBD, and one shot
	from behind the picket fence, about 12 feet or so west
	of the corner.

	And you can't have it both ways.  If you move the microphones
	they used in the re-enactment more than a foor and a half,
	or if you move the rifle(s) more than about five feet -
	poof! - in a puff of smoke, there goes their analysis.  It
	is based *very precisely* on the TSBD/Grassy Knoll scenario.

	This means you might need to have to make up your mind about
	where you think the platoon of assassins were lurking.  If
	you think they were in Dal Tex, County Records Bldg., etc.,
	then you should re-read the CBA study and join in their
	conclusions.  If you think BBN was correct, well, you might
	re-assess your belief that LHO was some sort of patsy.

	But this is an issue on which you can't have it both way.

>>	Interesting Mr. Groden didn't happen to bring this up
>>	when he was dealing with the HSCA investigators.  But
>>	are you suggesting that the chimes magically appeared
>>	for one day in 1964?  Because there were no buildings
>>	within shouting distance of Dealy, as of 1963, from which
>>	chimes could be heard. 

>Shouting distance? Who cares about shouting distance. The chimes were
>heard in 1964, and that fact is recorded in High Treason.

	Ever hear of a figure of speech?  Probably not...  High
	Treason ain't exactly a splendid source, but we can for
	the sake of argument speculate that sounds like chimes can,
	under the right conditions, carry a long way.  The right
	conditions do not include a stuck transmit button on a
	motorcycle traveling through a noisy motorcade.

	But, here again, the BBN study relies upon the chimes being
	somewhere far away, picked up via cross-talk.  

>>	So your thesis is that a rifle bullet hit at point A then
>>	bounced over to point B (curb near Tague) and that this
>>	rifle bullet was fired from somewhere in the Dal Tex
>>	building.  Is that the latest version?  

>Latest? Tague was hit by a bullet other than the ones that hit JFK or
>Connally, and they were hit by 3 bullets. The Tague bullet makes
>*four*, one more than the WC admitted, and exactly matching the number
>of definite shots heard on the dictabelt!

	Yes, latest.  Your locations for gunmen seem to move faster
	than an MC bolt-action.  Let's take it reeeeallll slow - since
	the mark on the curb near Tague cannot have been made by
	a bullet coming directly from a muzzle the mark establishes -
	if it actually establishes anything at all - that an almost
	spent fragment was present.  This does not require an 
	additional bullet.

>>	Naturally, the Dal Tex gunman, like all the other gunmen
>>	other than Oswald simply wasn't noticed by anyone standing
>>	nearby.  

>If you look at the uncropped Altgens photo, on the right side you can
>see the Dal-Tex. Under and slightly to the left of the fire escape is 
>an *oepn* window, a perfect position for a sniper.

	Right next to the limo is an even better position for an
	assassin, but no assassin was spotted there, either.

>>	Zapruder Zaschmuder.  I have a copy of his testimony.
>>	You have to strain real hard to interpret his words
>>	as intending to establish reactions timed by frames.

>I'm sure you as a WC apologist do have a hard time. I don't.

	Well why don't you type in the testimony you think supports
	your interpretation?  Not that it means anything, since,
	as should be obvious, what Zapruder saw is what we all
	see when watching the film.

>If you look at Z 183 of the Z film, all the SS agents and motorcycle
>cops are looking forward. Nopne of them have looked backwards. Look at
>the Altgens photo, taken *after* the first shot, and the SS and at
>least one of the motorcycle cops are looking backwards. *No* shots
>were fired before 183, all were fired after. 189 is an excellent
>choice for the first shot, and choosing 162 [like you and Todd] is the
>choice of desperate WC apolgists.

	I didn't choose 162, the HSCA photo panel did.  I gave
	you their analysis on this point, word for word, and you
	had nothing relevant to say about it then, nor have
	you since.  The Secret Service agents simply were not trained
	or experienced in quickly identifying the sounds of a 
	high-powered rifle being fired.  It happens that Connally,
	as an experienced hunter, was.  

>>	I am not a neurosurgeon 

>You most definitely are not.

	Neither are you.  Neurosurgeons who have looked at the medical
	evidence have determined that Kennedy's reaction to the
	first hit was likely due to spinal trauma in the lower cervical
	and/or upper thoracic area.  That's why I say: "Kennedy's
	reaction to the first hit..." etc.  Get it?

	If you can find a neurosurgeon who thinks all spinal trauma
	in all areas under all circumstances causes identical reactions,
	let me know.  So I can avoid him if I ever need such medical 
	care.

>>	Whether the force comes from the use of a vise or a strike
>>	of a bone the point is that it takes alot of it to flatten
>>	one of those bullets at all.  Test bullets fired into water
>>	or cotton waste material do not flatten.  

>You haven't looked up the picture yet have you? The test bullet fired
>into cotton had flattened *more* than CE399.

	There are numerous pictures of numerous bullets.  Which
	CE number are you referring to?  I have seen them all and
	they aren't flattened, they're round.  Maybe there's a
	secret exhibit known only to you?  But what you still don't
	seem to acknowledge is that the material used in these
	tests is actually *tougher* than human flesh; Sturdivan
	makes that very clear.  And it is his full-time job to
	experiment with the stuff.

>>       The test bullets
>>	have a slight extrusion of lead.  

>More than CE399.  

	Because CE399's lead wound up in Connally's wrist and
	thigh.

>>	Frazier took a little chunk from the nose and dug a little
>>	hole in the base for testing.  The scooping and scraping
>>	of the lead at the base terminates at the point where the
>>	extruding lead still remains.  

>The extruded lead boundary is the extruded lead boundary. There is no
>evidence *any* is broken off of CE399, and its weight, once the
>missing amounts Frazier took off, is within the normal range of 6.5mm
>Carcano rounds.

	None of the 100 bullets weighed by Lattimer was less than
	1.2 grains heavier than CE399 as presented to Frazier.

[info on NAA in next posting]

>>	Now you keep making the claim that it had no blood or flesh
>>	on it.  It is up to you to do more than assert this is true.

>The FBI agent in charge of testing [I think it was Frazier] said it
>was clean.

	You deleted and then ignored the type of analysis you need
	to do to support your claim.  One of the things you need
	to answer is: do ballistics experts work with bullets
	that have or have not been subjected to chemical treatment
	in order to remove foreign substances?  You assert with
	no standing to assert and expect me to be impressed.

>>	Would a bullet doing what this one did inevitably have
>>	blood and/or flesh on it?  

>Yes. Especially if it went in backwards as you so ludicrously claim.

	I am inclined to believe that bullets pick up flesh and/or
	blood but I really don't know that for sure.  And I don't
	know what effect the handling of the bullet and cleaning
	of the bullet prior to ballistic identification analysis
	would have had on this substance.  But it's much easier
	to just make stuff up, eh?

	As for the bullet traveling backwards, that's why the lead
	came out of the base and went into Connally's wrist and
	thigh.

>>	Not only was Connally's wrist not even remotely in line
>>	to be wounded by a fragment of the head shot, 

>Yes it was. By the time of the head shot, Connally was laying on his
>back in Nellies lap, and his wrist *was* in line.

	Another assertion.  You really must pick up the pace.
	
	Try this: the wound of entrance on the back of Connally's
	arm was more than an inch above the crease of the wrist.
	The wound of exit on the palmar side was just at the
	crease.  What does that tell you about the position of
	the wrist when it was hit?  And from what general direction,
	if he was on Mrs. Connally's lap, must the bullet have 
	come from?

>>       but the
>>	fragments on the limo floor came from a different bullet
>>	than the fragments in the wrist.  

[more NAA analysis, and forensics]

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)