From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Response to Joels Lies and Bullshit
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:36:20 GMT

Joel Grant spews >
Bruce Schuck >>

[Joel fails to grasp any point about subject lines - so what else is new]

>>If it is obvious that Oswald couldn't have fired the back shot
>>just by drawing a few lines on a scale map, then why bother writing
>>a whole book?

>	Since it is not obvious by drawing a few lines on a
>	scale map,

Yes it is. It's very obvious. Thats why Lattimer didn't do it, or
didn't publish it. And thats why you refuse to even try it.

>>>	So you think the HSCA is wrong because they are off
>>>	by about two inches out of a distance of 150'.  Your
>>>	alternative narrows it down, not to two inches, but
>>>	to two buildings.  And you wonder at my skepticism?

>>Try using your brain for once Joel!
>>We are talking about being off by 2 inches or more over the
>>thickness of JFK's chest -- NOT 150'.


>>- We know where the back wound was -- 1 3/8 inches to the right of 
>>  JFK's spine. 
>>- We know where the WC said it came out -- slightly to the
>>  right of the midline of JFK's throat. 
>>- We know what the smallest angle of entry is. 
>>- The bullet came out TOO far to the RIGHT over the 
>>  THICKNESS OF JFK'S CHEST!!!!
>>Not 2 inches over 150 feet!!!!!
>>Thats too big an error to have occurred if Oswald really did fire from
>>the TSBD and the bullet did traverse back to front. The bullet had to
>>have come from a much shallower angle and THAT rules out the TSBD!

>	As I have said before, I am aware that you are talking
>	about the location of the two inches you are foaming
>	about.  You seem not to notice that that same two inches
>	also happens to be at least 150 feet away from the location
>	of the rifle.  The 150 (minimum) feet is relevant because
>	we don't know how exactly how far the rifle was from the
>	limo and we therefore cannot know exactly the angles involved.

If you knew *anything* about geomotry, you would know that the 150'
distance makes the angle *more* accurate and in turn less relevant.

You are a complete idiot Joel, as you proved in the JAMA discussion.
Go talk to someone who understands simple geometry, give them a scale
map, and the 1 and 3/8 inch from spine number and he will tell you the
same thing I've been telling you. Using the horizontal plane, and a
scale map, rules out the TSBD as the firing point of the bullet the WC
and HSCA claims went from JFK's back to his throat.

>	If we were postulating a rifle located two inches from JFK's
>	neck we would cut down on the variables.  

Look you moron, it's *easy* to figure out the angle if the firing
point is 150' away. It would be *harder* if it was 2 inches away.

>       We also don't
>	know just what position JFK's body was in at the time.

Gee Joel, all the film shows him with his back parallel to the back of
the seat. If you have *any* pictures that show him in another position
at the time we are talking about, please tell me and I'll check.

>	I know you're proud of your little pencil exercise, but
>	an exercise in self-promotive restraint might be of
>	more lasting benefit to the Schuck legacy.

Its' obvious you are too *gutless* to do the exercise yourself.
You are just like a religious fanatic who has a totally closed mind
and refuses to listen to the truth by claiming it is heresy.


Please point me to any testimony that says they saw a muzzle flash or
recoil or smelled gunpowder or saw smoke coming from the rifle they saw.

If you knew anything, you would know Brennan says he saw someone
*standing* at the window with a rifle, when in fact the window
was 3 feet too low for anyone to have fired a rifle from a standing
position.

>>I'll tell you this. None of the TSBD employees standing on the ground
>>heard gunshots from above them. Most claimed shots came from the
>>grassy knoll area. Not ONE heard a rifle shot from the 6th floor.

>	Interestingly, most of the people on the triple overpass
>	thought the shots came from the TSBD.

None that I know of though that.

>>And you know what? He never duplicated the fragmentation pattern
>>of the bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the skull. Not once did
>>he get the fully jacketed 6.5mm rounds to fragment and leave dozens of
>>pieces behind in his test skulls the way the real bullet did in JFK's
>>skull? 

>	He did reproduce the fragmentation pattern of the bullet;

He never *once* got the bullets to fragment into 30 - 40 pieces.
JFK had as many as 40 fragments of lead in his head, let alone all the
ones that left when most of his brain blew out. Lattimer did not get
*any* fragments left in his test skull.

>>Do you know why? Because JFK was hit by a different type of
>>bullet. He was hit by a soft-nosed partially jacketed round or a dum
>>dum. 

>>And Lattimer did NO tests involving such ammunition!

>	Again an unsupported assertion placed in opposition to
>	the physical evidence.

Completely supported by the physical evidence and the conclusions of
experts in the field. Lattimer was a *urologist*. Ha ha ha!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk