From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: The Adventures of Tom Warner
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:08:48 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:

>re: 3200 (Tom Warner)

>>>Their medical
>>>panel, for instance, included forensic anthropologists who
>>>determined conclusively that the individual seen in the
>>>autopsy x-rays and photographs was John F. Kennedy and no other
>>>person.

>>What is a forensic anthropologist and why would anyone go to such a person
>>to authenticate x-rays and photographs?

>	As I said, the forensic anthropologists were used to determine
>	who was the person seen in the X-rays and photos.  Forensic
>	anthropologists do this sort of a thing for a living, though
>	they seldom have such an easy job.  

>>Dr. Lowell Levine, a forensic dentist, was the man hired by the House committee
>>to authenticate the x-rays. He verified that the jaw shown in the x-ray matches
>>Kennedy's dental records. He also 
>>compared a sinus chamber and found a match, but his report is unclear: he
>>writes about a "frontal sinus," which is not visible in any JFK x-ray, and
>>probably meant the maxillary sinus.

>	So Dr. Levine says the guy is JFK.  I agree.

You completely missed my point. Levine's checks were the *only* scientific
checks done that would have detected a phony x-ray, other than attempts to
check for a composite or the like. I'm still not sure what you mean by
forensic anthropologist or what role such a person might play.

>>Other than that, all that was done were basic authentication tests that would
>>uncover common methods of forgery that could be done by any amateur. The
>>panel did admit that it was possible at the time of the assassination to
>>make forgeries their tests would not have detected.

>	Are you talking about the forensic anthropological work or
>	the work of the photo experts?  The photo experts concluded
>	that the X-rays and photos had not been forged and were in
>	fact authentic.

I'm talking about the photo experts, who concluded that the x-rays and
photos were authentic as far as they could tell.

>>What is being overlooked here is that the House panel was nothing more than
>>an excuse not to make the essential material available to the public. By
>>assembling a panel of noted experts, having them look at the material for
>>only the most obvious types of forgery, and then announcing to the world
>>that these experts found nothing suspicious, the House committee deflected
>>attention and diffused public outrage over the continuing stonewall. This
>>was, after all, the House committee's primary agenda.

>	I disagree that they only looked for the "most
>	obvious" types of forgery, but without the HSCA volumes
>	at hand I cannot quote chapter and verse.

>	In either case, a far more reasonable interpretation is
>	that there really wasn't anything there to find.

No, it's not any more reasonable. I'm not convinced either way, and 
I see no reason why I should be.
The point is, that if the photos and x-rays were essential components
of a highly sophisticated coverup, they would be very difficult to
identify as forgeries by any standard method. A panel of experts in the
employ of the government spendinmg a few afternoons is not enough to
settle the issue, although it may be enough to mollify people like yourself.

>>>The photo experts determined conclusively that none
>>>of the material had been tampered with; the photos and x-rays
>>>are not phonies or composites.  They are the genuine article.

>>Unfortunately, they cannot all be, because the photographs and x-rays
>>are mutually contradictory. The x-rays show the right front of Kennedy's
>>skull missing, but the photographs show that portion of his unblemished.
>>In this instance, the photographs match with all other credible evidence,
>>including the testimony of every witness to the assassination, including
>>the Dallas and Baltimore doctors and medical staff. At most, Kennedy may
>>have had some damage to the back of his right eye socket, and yet the x-ray
>>clearly shows the entire area completely blown away. The mismatch of the
>>x-ray to the rest of the evidence was not addressed by anyone working for
>>the House committee and remains a central issue for any investigation into
>>the assassination and ensuing coverup.

>	No, the X-rays do not show the right front portion of
>	JFK's skull missing.  At least one non-enhanced X-ray
>	does appear, to the untrained eye, to show the right front
>	portion of the skull missing.  This was not a problem
>	for the Clark Panel, who interpreted even the non-enhanced
>	X-rays without a problem.  The enhanced version makes it
>	clear, even to those of us not trained in reading X-rays
>	(and without the X-rays, only copies of copies in books)
>	that the damage in the photos and X-rays do indeed match.

So I am supposed to accept this as an article of faith, or what? Where
can I see an x-ray that shows the right front of JFK's face intact and the
rear top of his skull missing?

>>The NAS committee came out with a report in '82 that confirmed that a
>>spoken phrase heard at the same time as the "shots" tested by the HSCA
>>could be dated to roughly a minute after the assassination. This would
>>seem to show that the HSCA's "shots" had to be something else.

>	The Committee on Ballistics Acoustics had other problems
>	with the HSCA analysis besides the "cross-talk" problem.
>	They were completely unimpressed with just about everything
>	done by BBN and by Weiss/Aschkenasy.  Kindly, they suggested
>	it might be due to lack of time and funds.

>>However, the reason the spoken phrase can be dated is that it exists on
>>another recording. That recording has no shot sounds or anything similar
>>to the shot sounds tested by the HSCA on it. The channel that it originated
>>on was recorded by the dictabelt discontinuously, by the use of a switch, and
>>so can't be expected to synchronize with anything else recorded.

>>This is another area that demands further study. If the shot sounds aren't
>>shots, that's unfortunate, because if they are then the recording is an
>>invaluable tool, not just for determining the location of the gunmen but
>>for timing the shots, which is also still very tenuous.

>	If you think more analysis of the dictabelt tape is worthwhile
>	to pursue, pursue it.  The CBA didn't think so, but I'm
>	always glad to support any attempt to analyze any aspect of
>	the crime.  Perhaps someone can explain the church bells
>	in the recording.

Well, if the HSCA didn't have enough time and funds, I doubt I'm going
to be able to afford it.

>>>But one finally
>>>realizes that the 2nd gunman theories ultimately rest on the
>>>(practically speaking) impossible happening.

>>Oh boy, I can't wait to realize that. Do I need any pills or anything?

>	In your case, I am sure we could prescribe something.

Really? What works for you?

>>>One ultimately learns
>>>that while anyone can *say* anything, there are limits to the
>>>manipulation of physical matter.  And that one really must look
>>>at what nature does and does not allow in order to cut through
>>>all the crapola and get to the truth of the medical and
>>>ballistics evidence.

>>Yeah, which is why there is still no plausible official explanation for
>>the motion of Kennedy's body immediately after the final gunshot.

>	Find David Simon's book _Homicide: A Year on the Killing
>	Streets_  It is not about JFK - no bias either way.
>	It is likely in your library, perhaps even in your
>	bookstore.  Read pp. 391-392 about the effects of
>	bullets on bodies.  It is actually startling to find
>	that this aspect is still considered controversial.

Alright, I will. It's startling to me the silly neurotrauma hypothesis
is still being trumpeted.
>	
>	Bullets don't knock people over, in and of themselves.

Depends on what kind of bullet you're talking about.

>	Bullets that remove a good portion of a brain do in fact,
>	by test and by observation, set up a massive neuromuscular
>	response that is ultimately not completely predictable.

Actually, it's more dependent on where they hit than how much brain
they take out, as I understand the neurotrauma phenomenon. It has to
hit the brain stem, I think. It is possible but not evident that JFK's
wound did this. However, my understanding of brain trauma is that
large amounts of brain being suddenly ripped away almost always if not
always result in complete limpness. I'll look into it.

The neuromuscular response is not *completely* predictable, more or less
because it isn't the kind of thing that's easily studied (although I seem
to recall that somebody did do some kind of testing on monkeys -- kind of
thing they put in an animal rights press release, I'll have to check)
There is, however, a recognized phenomenon, involving a sudden splaying
of the limbs and arching of the back, followed by limpness.

I'll check your the book you cite, but I am not aware of anyone outside
of the pro-WC camp making claims about any other type of bullet-caused
neuromuscular trauma.

>	One can determine very little of the source of the shot
>	by looking at the Z-film.  It is a myth that because he
>	moved backwards and to his left he had to have been
>	reacting to the force of a bullet fired from his front
>	right.

Bullshit. First, it can clearly be seen from the film that Kennedy's head
takes the hit and then impels the entire torso backward. His arms stay
completely limp, and his back does not arch -- it simply gets thrown backward.
There is absolutely no visbible sign of any muscular action at all. Remember,
it would require a complex set of muscular actions, working in combination
to perfection, to achieve a similar result. Even a conscious man would be hard
pressed to imitate the appearance of having been hit in the right temple so
well. For a man with half his brain gone, it's simply not possible.

>       Of course, unexplained by you is the fact that
>	JFK's head moves forward two inches between frames
>	312-313.  Lifton hints that maybe the Z-film was 
>	somehow altered.  Lifton, you will recall, was present
>	when Dr. Richard Feynman pointed this out.  Presumably,
>	Lifton was there to lecture the good doctor on the
>	laws of physics.

Is it 312-313 or 311-312? A full two inches?
This is genuinely weird and I haven't seen anything yet that satisfactorily
explains it. It could be that JFK received two near-simultaneous hits. It
could be something less obvious that I don't understand. I'm not convinced
at this point that the motion is sudden or quick enough to rule outKennedy
having moved forward just before the hit.

>>Such suspense. I just can't bear it.
>>I also like the use of "we." Makes me feel almost like I thought for myself. :)
>	How interesting for you.

>>>Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

>>Oh, we are then .... well, that's nice :)

>	It is nice you think it's nice.  Can I assume your postings
>	represent the official position of the Univ. of Washington?

You can assume whatever you like, but if you tell me that "we" are going
to "ultimately learn" and "realize" your assumptions, I'm going to make
fun of you.

>Joel Grant (still speaking on his own behalf)

Tom Warner
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk