HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 19:54:00 GMT
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug10.115753.9865@u.washington.edu>, cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes...
>In article <9AUG199215123083@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...

>>>>	Connelly is clear that he heard a shot, turned to his
>>>>	left, and was turning back to face forward when another
>>>>	shot hit him.

>>>And Connally is just as clear that JFK was hit by the first shot
>>>and JC was hit at or around Zapruder frame 238.

>>	To begin with, Connelly beleives he was hit at about 231,
>>	not 238. Second, Connelly never saw JFK during the shooting,
>>	so he's just not a credible witness on the subject.
>>	For the Govenor to have been hit at 238 requires the 
>>	bullet be a very accomplished gymnast. Being dumb as a chunk
>>	of lead, I doubt it.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Really now, what are you saying? That the trajectory to the sixth floor TSBD
>wouldn't match? This is how you decide that the hit absolutely could not have
>occured at frame 231?

	I'm not talking about the alignment of Connelly's wounds
	with the TBSD. I'm talking about the alignment of Connelly's
	wounds with each other. After 231 (227 actually), Connelly's
	right arm is to the right of his nipple, and the wounded 
	portion of the wrist spends almost all of its time above the
	wound in Connelly's chest. Since the bullet track through
	Connelly's chest is to the right and downwards, you'd
	have to have a hell of a bullet to pass downward and to
	the left through Connelly's torso, exit, turn right and 
	climb, loop around the wrist, pass through the wrist, and
	make another turn to hit Connelly's thigh.


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 10:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.083136.631@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.203030.19569@cs.ucla.edu>, pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
> (Pierce is responding to posted excerpts of a Chip Berlet article
>  that points out ex-CIA officer Victor Marchetti's financing of a
>  japanese language anti-Zionist tract by Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey
>  Steinberg of the LaRouche org, and co-editorship with Mark Lane of the 
>  Willis Carto-funded "Zionist Watch" magazine. See original post for text.)
>
>	What point is it you are making with respect Marchetti?
>
>	a) That his "Cult of Intelligence" is unreliable because
>	   of his later political activity?
>
>	b) That he is anti-jewish because he associates with Paul
>	   Goldstein, Jeffrey Steinberg and Mark Lane...all Jews?
>
	It's more complicated than that. He and Lane are essentially working
for Willis Carto, owner of the Spotlight and the Institute for Historical
Review. It was Lane who unsuccessfully defended Carto in the Mermelstein trial;
Mermelstein, a Holocaust survivor, sued the Institute when it refused to pay up
on a reward offer to anyone able to prove any Nazi genocide occured.

>	c) That he is anti-jewish because he questions the policies
>	   of the state of Israel?  Many people in Israel question
>	   the policies of the state of Israel.
>
>	As I recall from Mark Lane's book, Plausible Denial, Marchetti
>made his mark by a gutsy article published in the Spotlight claiming
>CIA agent Hunt was in Dallas at the time of or just prior to the
>JFK assassination.  Hunt sued the Spotlight for libel and lost on
>appeal when the Spotlight was defended by lane.  From what I understand
>about the trial in Miami, poorly covered by the press, this trial
>was the closest thing yet to courtroom success in establishing a
>conspiracy wrt the assassination.
>
	The Spotlight Article, printed during the House committee investigation,
reported on a secret CIA plan to frame Hunt for the assassination as a way of
diverting attention from higher leadership. Hunt's case for libel came down to
proving that he had not been in Dallas on 11/22/63, which he was not able to do.
	One shady caracter not being able to prove they weren't in Dallas on
11/22/63 does not prove conspiracy, however. Hunt really didn't have a case,
counting on the average American's loathing of anti-Semitic org leaders to
give him a big award in a jury trial.
	I have a lot of opinions about Lane with respect to his JFK theories --
I often think he's wrong but I think he tries hard to be right, and his only
detectable agenda in that work, in my opinion, is leftist.  
	What it says about people that they work for Willis Carto and write
a magazine whose readership is obviously going to be largely anti-semitic
is a question I wouldn't try and answer for anyone. But seems to me, something
has to be dead inside.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3062 alt.conspiracy:10148 sci.skeptic:14670
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist, e.g. Johnny Quest
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:49:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

GET THIS JUNK OUT OF SCI.SKEPTIC.  I DON'T CARE WHERE DEREK STARTED THE
THREAD.  THANK YOU.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:15:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

In article <1992Aug17.144530.13026@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.074739.26068@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
> ]Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
> ]though, not by the CIA. I don't think they were used much during Kennedy's
> ]term, since Powers was shot down in '59.
> reconnaisance, not espionage.
> 
> I believe that U2 pilots were often CIA employees. I know that U2's
> were used long after '59, and I believe are still used for reconnaisance.

The current version is either the TR-1 or TR-2, but the basic design
is the same.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 09:10:47 GMT

In article <12AUG199211512941@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>In article <92220.003714U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes...
>
>>On page 128 of Lattimer's book, he states that "He may have developed
>>his prowess because his older brother Robert, who later commented on the
>>quickness of Lee's reflexes and the strength of his forearms, 
>
>>This is a wonderful quote and must send shivers of warmth all through the
>>bodies of every pro-WC poster out there.  The only problem here is that
>>Lattimer, who uses this trick throughout his book, is doing what JFK
>>assassination researchers have been accused of doing constantly, which is
>>taking testimony and statements out of context.  Anyone reading Robert's
>>book will find that this statement is surrounded by pages of testimony
>>declaring with no ifs, ands, or buts that Lee was a lousy shot as a boy,
>>he was a lousy shot as a teenager and he continued to be a lousy shot
>>as a man.
>
>	From what I remember of Robert Oswald's book, the only time
>	Robert comments on his brother's accuracy is when he gives
>	Oswald's test scores. RO does mention that he often went hunting
>	when he and LHO were together, but that's it.
>
>
The phenomenon, I believe, is called "selective memory."

Perhaps you should re-read the book. Mr. Oswald goes on at quite some length,
including a discussion of the "Oswald at the rifle range in Dallas"
testimony (which the WC disregarded, officially because other evidence
pointed to Oswald being at work or in Irving at the same time, I think
because the witnesses said he came and left by car). Robert never really
comes right out and says it, but he is very suggestive and appears to have
believed that Michael Paine was somehow involved in directing Oswald,
and that Paine was a Communist agent.

Anyway, he made it very clear that he disagreed with the Commission's
decision that Oswald had not gone to the rifle range, and argues that little
Lee had to have gotten a good deal of practice somewhere.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: mst4298@zeus.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
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:29:00 GMT

In article <6195@ucru2.ucr.edu>, judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes...
>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.

	Stone got this idea from Fletcher Prouty. It's still a dumb
	idea. The Soviets knew damn well that the US was flying spy
	planes over Soviet territory. Oswald wouldn't have told them
	anything they wouldn't have known. 

		.    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .

	The collapse of the 1960 summit is indicative that the Soviets
	weren't all that interested in the summit. The Soviet Troops
	of Air Defense had seen numerous U2's overfly their territory,
	yet Kruschev and Co had still decided to go to the summit
	anyway. Only after Powers aircraft was shot down, and Powers
	captured alive did the Soviet's decided to make an issue
	of the overflights vis a vis the summit. 




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

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3028 alt.conspiracy:10067
From: saltzman@crd.ge.com (Bob Saltzman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Court TV's Mock Trial, "USA vs. Oswald".
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:15:42 GMT
Reply-To: saltzman@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

In article <932mlyh.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>This "mock trial" is being staged at the meeting of the American Bar
>Association in San Francisco. It is being carried on the Cable TV
>station, "Court TV." It will last two days, Monday and Tuesday, with
>a morning and afternoon session each day. The Monday morning session
>ended at 12:00 Pacific Time. It is now 1:00, and the afternoon session
>is supposed to begin approx. 2:00 PDT. I didn't see much of this yet
>(some repeats of highlights of the morning session are now being shown).
>Computer animations are being used as evidence by both sides.
> 
>Given how often COurt TV repeaths their major cases, they're certain
>to repeat this many times.
>
>
>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>  
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
>
>       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
>        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
>        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
>        where it will end."
>                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"

Court TV seems to be a pretty obscure cable channel;  it is not
carried in Albany, NY or Philadelphia areas.  I wonder if the 'trial'
might be picked up by any other channel and rebroadcast, or possibly
put on video tape and made available.  It would have been interestinged
to see.
==============================================================================
Robert B. Saltzman (Bob)            Internet: saltzman@crd.ge.com
Information System Operation        Snailnet: Bldg KW, Room C120, PO Box 8
General Electric Company            AT&Tnet:  518-387-5828(B), 387-6560(FAX),
Corporate Research and Development            370-2222(H)
Schenectady, New York 12301 USA     ICBMnet:  42 50 04 N, 73 54 14 W, Alt 246
AEMT-4 Paramedic/Firefighter        HAMnet:   WB2ARK
==============================================================================
From: efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: JFK Conspiracy
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:31:24 GMT
Reply-To: efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD



Just wanted to let everyone know that the latest U.S. News and World
Report has a big article on the JFK killing.  The conclusion from the
article is that there was no conspiracy.  Actually it focuses on the
Warren Commission, and the story behind that.  It is rather interesting,
and I recommend it to you all.

-- Ted Findler
-- 
__________________________________________________________
|        Ted Findler         | Watch for Cal in June '95 |
| efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil |  Consecutive Game #2131   |
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 00:24:59 GMT

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

>>>	The Soviets knew damn well that the US was flying spy
>>>	planes over Soviet territory. Oswald wouldn't have told them
>>>	anything they wouldn't have known. 

>>From the testimony of John Donovan, former Marine Lieutenant:

>>"...shortly before I got out of the Marine Corps, which was in
>>mid-December 1959, we received word that he had showed up in Moscow.
>>This necessitated a lot of change of aircraft call signs, codes, radio
>>frequencies, radar frequencies.

>>Sure Mitchell. Oswald had nothing of value for the USSR. [Heavy Sarcasm]


>>  He had access to the location of all bases in the West Coast area,
>>all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs,
>>and the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in
>>a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentification code of
>>entering an exiting the ADIZ, which stands for Aircraft Defense
>>Identification Zone. He knew the range of our radar.
>>He knew the range of our radio. And he knew the range of the surrounding
>>units' radio and radar."   [8H 298]

>	The Soviets would have garnered most of this information by then
>	anyway. 

Sure Mitchell. 

>	Information such as communications and radar frequencies, 
>	ADIZ authentication codes, radar range, and probably also
>	radio range would be easily picked up by the Soviet version
>	of national technical means, such as listening posts, those
>	famous russian trawlers, and elint aircraft.

Sure Mitchell. Thats why the Marines were ordered to change them all
when they found out Oswald defected.

>	The radio call signs would be a bit more difficult. Listening
>	posts would record the call signs, but it would take a little
>	detective work, and some repeated listening, to place names
>	with faces, as it were. 

See above.

>	Since ADIZ codes, call signs, and comm frequencies can be easily
>	changed, Oswald would be of little use to the Soviets on that
>	matter. By the time the information would have filtered out to
>	operational units, they would have been changed already. 


Ahhhhh. Maybe you grasped the point after all.

All the information Oswald had to offer *was* changeable.

It was the *perfect* type of information to establish his credentials
when he pretended to defect. It was *good* info for the Soviet
Military without really compromising National Security.

And once the US found out he had defected, it would be of value to the
USSR only as confirmation of Oswalds credibility.

Thanks to his announcement in the US Embassy that he planned to
pass such information on, the military could go ahead and change the
codes and frequencies immediately instead of waiting until Oswalds
defection could be found out through intelligence contacts.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: boyd@prl.dec.com (Boyd Roberts)
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:16:39 GMT

I think you have to examine what would be achieved by organising
a newspaper in New Zealand to run this story.  It wouldn't be in
the conspirators interest, and they would be the ones who would've
been in possesion of the necessary documents for the story.  It
doesn't make sense.  It's far more likely that New Zealand's
geographic position was responsible for the _apparent_ publishing
speed/coup.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@prl.dec.com

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:45:30 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug17.074739.26068@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
]In article <1992Aug17.143844.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
]
]Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
]though, not by the CIA. I don't think they were used much during Kennedy's
]term, since Powers was shot down in '59.
reconnaisance, not espionage.

I believe that U2 pilots were often CIA employees. I know that U2's
were used long after '59, and I believe are still used for reconnaisance.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2981 alt.conspiracy:9971 sci.skeptic:14273
From: sue@airball.East.Sun.COM (Sue Haley {AISG/Admin NC})
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
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
Keywords: teen agents
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:48:27 GMT
Reply-To: sue@airball.East.Sun.COM (Sue Haley {AISG/Admin NC})
Organization: Zman

just to set the record in a realistic mode.  I know for a fact that during
the late 40's early 50's the CIA did use teens. My father-in-law according to
his DD214 was a member of the OSS (CIA) he was born in 28 and in 1945
was recruited by the OSS making him 17. and continued in this field of
employment
until 1968.  Also my father was 17 when he enlisted in 1942. Also my x-husband
was a corspman in the Navy in 69 making him only 18.  I don't understand what
the problem is.  Do you think that the other countries we wager war on have
age limits.  I see old news footage where we fought the germans where they 
had solders and salors as young as 14.  Lets be realistic.  

I also have a marine corp recruiter friend who has confirmed that in time of
war it did not matter your age, however today yes you do have to have a college
education.

Besides Audy Murphy was only 15 when he enlisted (lying about his age).
From: froh@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Robert Frohwerk)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:14:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk


Getting back to the basenote for a moment:

>alt.conspiracy.jfk / dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) 
>/ 12:23 am  Aug  3, 1992 /

>However, New Zealand is 17 hrs AHEAD of Dallas. So he really saw the paper
>24 - 17 = 5 hrs  after the shooting.
...
>So that leaves 5 - 2 = 3 hrs, to research, write, typeset the article and
>then print and distribute the newspaper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I must have missed something...
My calculator shows that 24 - 17 = 7 (not 5). 
That gives 2 more hours than shown in the basenote (5 instead of 3).

Unless we're talking octal arithmetic, (which may be what I missed)
where 24 - 17 is indeed 5.

Sorry to be so picky, but we are fussing over details, are we not.

Bob
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2996 alt.conspiracy:10005 sci.skeptic:14367