HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Date: 26 Jan 1993 23:17:58 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan26.012449.23356@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>
>>Want a minute!  If Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll, how would the right
>>rear of his head be missing?  
>
>The neurologist Kemp Clark postulated a tangential strike.
>
>A bullet from the grassy knoll impacting just behind JFK's right ear
>would probably take off the right rear portion of JFK's skull.
>
>However, a bullet from the TSBD, would never take off the right rear
>corner of JFK's head.
>
>>An exit wound in the right rear would require a
>>gunman to Kennedy's right front.
>
>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you mean a shot
>from the left front.
>

Yes, left front is what I meant.

>As I explained, a tangential shot from JFK's right front, ie the
>grassy knoll/picket fence could remove the right rear of JFK's head,
>and still deposit the Harper fragment to JFK's left rear and splatter
>the motorcyvle cop to JFK's left rear with blood and brain.
>

Then why wouldn't the shot be seen in the Zapruder film?  The film clearly
shows Kennedy's brains being blown out forward and upward.

>>
>>Then there is the matter of the photos and X-rays.  Do you believe these were
>>faked?
>
>Only one photo, the rear of the head had to be faked. And it not only
>contradicts the Parkland staff, it contradicts Humes description of
>the wound in the autopsy report. It is a fake or Humes *and* the
>Parkland staff lied about the wound.
>
>Humes described a 13cm wound extending from occipital [back of the
>head] through the parietal to the temporal [ the temporal bone is
>near the ear , it is not the temple] . That description fits the right
>rear of JFK's head, and matches the Parkland description.
>
>Yes, the X-rays are also faked.
>

I find it much more plausible that people describing the wounds would be either
vague in the recollection or inexact in their descriptions than that all this
stuff was faked.

IOW, if Joe Blow were shot, and somebody went back and scrutinized the evidence
and subjected all parties to cross examination, and then *reinterviewed* them
every five or ten years for three decades, one could prove that Joe Blow was
killed by a conspiracy.

.John
From: dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Danny Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:17:46 GMT
Reply-To: dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.

In article BC841560@vms.csd.mu.edu, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.120156.1@acad.drake.edu>, eds001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
>>ok i'm new at this so bear with me.  I have read several things on the
>>assination of JFK and I can not believe the WC.  
>>First, can anyone tell me why Oswald would want to do this all by himself?
>>What motive did he have?  
>
>Because he was a nobody, and a failure, and he wanted to be a somebody.  A
>perverted way of thinking, but the way in which some people demonstrably
>think.
>

 Okay. Basic psychology. If a nobody or a failure wants to become somebody
 by killing somebody famous, HE TAKES CREDIT FOR THE KILLING! Mark Chapman
 was this kind of person so he killed John Lennon to "acquire his fame".
 He recently did the interview on 20/20 and went through every detail of
 his crime and how he would acquire Lennon's fame by killing. He, of course
 takes full credit for his crime.

 Oswald, from the second he was under custody, was stating that he hadn't
 killed anyone. He also said "I'm just a patsy". If you want to become
 somebody by killing, saying your just a patsy is giving someone else credit
 for what is supposed to be your crime. Wanting to become somebody could not
 have been a motive for Oswald to kill Kennedy, based on his actions after
 the crime.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: conspiracy
Date: 23 Jan 1993 19:46:56 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan20.154658.6643@linus.mitre.org>, howells@bird.mitre.org (Timothy P. Howells) writes:

>John McAdams wrote:
>
>>> I'd like to know what evidence there is that Warren was told a
>>> priori what the conclusions had to be.
>
>I replied with (among other things) quotes from J.Edgar Hoover and
>Nicholas D. Katzenbach which were issued the day of the assassination,
>and the day after, stating that "The public must be satisfied that
>Oswald was assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still
>at large; that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted
>at a trial."  (That particular quote was from Katzenbach, but clearly
>reflected Hoover's point of view.)
>
>McAdams replies:
>
>> If he (and Katzenbach) believed that Oswald really was the
>> assassin, then wanting the public convinced of that was perfectly
>> reasonable.
>  ...
>
>> You're just begging the question, by assuming that supporting the lone nut
>> theory conflicted with finding the truth.
>
>The point here is that the statements from Hoover and others regarding
>the necessity of propping up the Lone Nut theory were issued within 24
>hours of Oswald's arrest: long before any credible investigation could
>even have begun.  Do you really believe that by the day after the
>assassination, the FBI had satisfied itself that Oswald was the
>assassin, and that he had acted alone?
>

By the day after the assassination the evidence against Oswald was
overwhelming.  As to his having confederates, no one can ever actually prove he
didn't.  But the FBI would probably have known he was a leftist (his pro-Cuba
activities, for example), and known it didn't *know* that he was any sort of
agent.  They doubtless knew enough about his history (defecting to Russia and
returning) to know that he looked at lot like a nut and not at all like a savy
intelligence operative.

>> It seems to me that most conspiracy theorists believe that the members of the
>> had to be "in on" the coverup.  The conspiracy theorists seem to believe that
>> there was all this *clear evidence* of a right wing conspiracy, and that the
>> Commission quite *deliberately* covered it up.
>
>You're just setting up a straw man.  We conspiracy mongers are used to
>this by now, but I'm sure you'd find it more productive to have a
>dialog with us directly.
>

How is it a straw man?  Do or do not conspiracy theorists believe there was
"clear evidence" of a gunman on the grassy knoll?

Are you admitting that the evidence was *not* very clear that the lone gunman
interpretation was wrong?  Are you saying that Warren Commission members could
in good faith reach the conclusions they did?

.John
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: JFK and J. Edgar Hoover
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:47:37 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>It has often been mentioned here that there doesn't appear to be aby 
>reason why anyone within the government at the time would want to get 
>rid of JFK.

Robert Morrow's book _Betrayal_ has some stuff on this.  Indeed,
it's not clear to me whether Morrow chose the title to refer to a
betrayal of the Kennedys by the CIA, or to betrayals
of the CIA and Cuban exile groups by the Kennedys.

Instances of the latter which he cites are:

- Kennedy approved the CIA Bay of Pigs invasion, but at the last
minute told the Navy to withold air support.  The result was that
Cuban fighter aircraft, unopposed by Navy fighters, shot down
defenceless bombers.

- The author (Morrow) was involved in a project to counterfeit Cuban
currency.  This project had been approved by the administration.
When it was almost complete, he and others working with him were
arrested by the Secret Service and charged with counterfeiting.
They did not find out about him by accident, either.

_Betrayal_ consists of two quite distinct parts.  The first relates
the author's personal experiences.  He may have lied, but otherwise
he must be considered an authority on these.  The second part is an
account of the assassination plot; nothing is said about how the
author gleaned this information, and I assume the worst: that it was
mostly from various other published accounts.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:43:22 GMT

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:

>How about Rober Sam Anson's claim that Zapruder heard a bullet "whiz by his
>head."  Turns out that Zapruder never said such a thing.

He heard a gunshot from behind him, as did Will Newman who was
standing near Zapruder.

>How about the claim that the gun discovered on the sixth floor of the School
>Book Depository was "really a Mauser?"  Actually, the officers who discovered
>it said it was a Mauser because, they said, "it looked like a Mauser."  And
>indeed a MC does look like a Mauser.

If you don't know anything about guns. The officers who found the
rifle did know about guns.

>How about the claim that Oswald is actually standing on the front steps of the
>School Book Depository, and is visible in a photo taken at the time of the
>assassination?

The photo exists and it looks like Oswald.

>How about Mark Lane, who interviewed a man in a railroad signal tower above
>Dealey Plaza, and he claimed to have seen a "puff of smoke" from the area of
>the grassy knoll at the moment of the assassination?  Apparently, Lane believes
>that modern assassins use muskets.

Newly cleaned rifles *will* emit smoke when the gun oil in the barrel
is vaporized. The term *smokeless* ammunition is relative. It's not
completely smokeless.

>How about the claim that Oswald's rifle wasn't capable of hitting the
>president?  

The sight was so misaligned, that anyone firing at the target would
have missed.

>If it wasn't, why would a conspiracy plant such a weapon? 
>Presumably the conspiracy had the resources to plant any weapon they wanted?

Well...it worked. The FBI and WC didn't seem to care in their rush to
convict Oswald.

>How about the claim that the head shot came from in front?  Not only does the
>Zapruder film show Kennedy being hit from behind, all the medical evidence is
>that he was.  

The Zapruder film shows JFK lurching backward like he was hit in the
side of the head by a bullet.

The medical staff at Parkland described a large exit wound in the
right rear of JFK's head.

>I know people like you believe it was all faked, but I don't
>believe that.

You mean the Parkland Doctors faked their testimony to the Warren
Commission? Read Vol 6. All their testimony is their. All the
descriptions of the right rear of JFK's head missing.

There is no way the right rear of JFK's head could be missing if the
bullets hit where the WC said it did.




-- 
......

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:51:19 GMT

michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>  The officers actually testified that the rifle had the Mauser trademark
>on the barrel. Whereas the M-Carcano would be the worst weapon to choose
>for an assasination (it's only possible reason for having been chosen was it's
>importation into Cuba at the time), the Mauser was then considered the world's
>best sniper weapon.

It was being imported into the US in great quantities too. Are you saying
that the plotters wanted to use a weapon that plausibly came via Cuba for
reason of pinning the blame on Castroites or something?

It's ironic that Kennedy introduced a bill in the Senate in the late
50s trying to ban the import of the M-C and other foreign military surplus
weapons. It was so watered down by the time it passed it was meaningless and
hundreds of thousands of the M-Cs were imported. The importing company paid
few bucks each for them. Kind of unfair competition for the Springfield
Armory and other gun makers in Kennedy's home state. ;-)

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:53:49 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan25.145119.13244@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>>  The officers actually testified that the rifle had the Mauser trademark
>>on the barrel. Whereas the M-Carcano would be the worst weapon to choose
>>for an assasination (it's only possible reason for having been chosen was it's
>>importation into Cuba at the time), the Mauser was then considered the world's
>>best sniper weapon.
>
>It was being imported into the US in great quantities too. Are you saying
>that the plotters wanted to use a weapon that plausibly came via Cuba for
>reason of pinning the blame on Castroites or something?
>

OK, but this entirely contradicts the notion that The Conspiracy wanted the
assassination blamed on a "lone nut."  This line of logic suggests that they
wanted investigators to go running off looking for a left wing conspiracy.  If
I were The Conspiracy, I wouldn't want them looking for any sort of conspiracy.

But maybe that's your point, since your post doesn't make clear whether you are
a "conspiracy" person or not.

Then there is the fact that Oswald bought the M-Carcano, unless you believe
that all that evidence is faked. 

Then there is the question of why, if The Conspiracy wanted a
Mannlicher-Carcano found, they didn't just plant a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Much
simpler than planting a Mauser and then having to switch it.

Then there is the fact that still and newsreel footage of the rifle being found
and carried out of the TSBD clearly show the MC.
 
So where does all this leave us:  with no faintly plausible scenario except
that it was, in fact, Oswalds rifle that was found.

>It's ironic that Kennedy introduced a bill in the Senate in the late
>50s trying to ban the import of the M-C and other foreign military surplus
>weapons. It was so watered down by the time it passed it was meaningless and
>hundreds of thousands of the M-Cs were imported. The importing company paid
>few bucks each for them. Kind of unfair competition for the Springfield
>Armory and other gun makers in Kennedy's home state. ;-)
>

It seems you don't necessarily take the claims of "idealistic" politicians at
face value.  Shame! Shame! <grin>

.John
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Looking for info on Chauncey Holt
Date: 26 Jan 1993 03:44:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I recently read _The man on the grassy knoll_, which alleges that one
of the grassy knoll gunmen was a guy named Charles Rogers, of Houston,
who ran a spy shortwave station out of his parents' home, and later
went on to chop his mom and dad up into very tiny pieces in 1965 and
vanished without a trace. The authors say that Rogers was the "small
tramp," Charles Harrelson was the "tall tramp," and the "old tramp"
whom many people have thought was E. Howard Hunt, was actually a man
named Chauncey Holt, who was there to provide faked government IDs for
the other two. They seem to be claiming that they have talked to Holt
and he confirms their version, and they also say that he "cooperated"
in his own identification as the "old tramp" by a forensic sculptor
named Lois Gibson (which, if he actually said he was there, would seem
unnecessary). But the thing is the authors are MADDENINGLY VAGUE about
their supposed contacts with Holt -- no dates, quotes from interviews,
nothing. The name sounds familiar to me, though -- does anybody know
of any other sources that mention this person? Summers, maybe? Thanks.
-- 
         I just know that something good is gonna happen
         I don't know when,
         But just saying it could even make it happen ...      _o_
                                                                |<
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:56:03 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy

I don't have the time right now to cover each of McAdams's points.  Let me
just say that he consistently ignores the possibility, in fact, considering
each case that he brings up, that the small conspiracy was not interested
in hiding the fact that there were more than one shooter in DP.  It was the
WC/FBI/High gov. officials who were so frantically stuck on convincing the
public that there was only one shooter.  To be fair to McAdams, the anti-WC
sensationalist authors lead their readers to believe that a massive
conspiracy involving every third person in the country had engineered it
to look like one shooter.  McAdams logic holds here.  If that were true,
there would have been no GK shooter.  You are between the two horns of
a dilemna.  If the killers wanted to conceal traces of more than one shooter
then they would have had to rely on Gov. cooperation and you would have to
slip down a slippery slope to end up at a humongous conspiracy.  A slope
that relies on no whistleblowers ever showing up later.  ( I know
that some of you believe in this, but I can't.  It goes against everything
that I know or believe).  If the killers didn't want to conceal extra
shooters and what we see is an official story being bolstered to show that
there was only one shooter, it is hard to believe that there was any
coordination between the micro world of the assassination and the macro
world of the gov. coverup.
  It is with this and other ponderings that I come to the conclusion that
the core plot and the massive coverup were not coordinated; and perhaps
not even connected in planning and motivation.
ALAN ROGERS  **** U54778@UICVM.UIC.EDU * I speak only for myself as a *
VMKRAFT INC.  708-675-8615             * citizen of the UNIVERSE, not *
                                       * as an employee of Vmkraft nor*
                                       * as a user of U of I Services.*
From: bew@brahms.udel.edu (Ben Williams)
Subject: Re: Earl Warren's motivations
Summary: the day of and after?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:34:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.154658.6643@linus.mitre.org> howells@bird.mitre.org (Timothy P. Howells) writes:
; John McAdams wrote:
; 
; >> I'd like to know what evidence there is that Warren was told a
; >> priori what the conclusions had to be.
; 
; I replied with (among other things) quotes from J.Edgar Hoover and
; Nicholas D. Katzenbach which were issued the day of the assassination,
; and the day after, stating that "The public must be satisfied that
; Oswald was assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still
; at large; that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted
; at a trial."  (That particular quote was from Katzenbach, but clearly
; reflected Hoover's point of view.)

Are you SURE this was issued the day of, and after, the assassination?
"that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at a trial"
Why "would have"?  It sounds like Katzenbach is talking about the situation
after Oswald had been murdered, which was Sunday, two days after Kennedy's
assassination, wasn't it?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Williams
bew@brahms.udel.edu

               What we got here is a failure to communicate... 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: Quayle's Latest Star Wars Scheme
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:07:28 GMT

Dear fans of Dan Quayle,

In the newsgroup "alt.conspiracy" in article
<B7H1XB20w165w@nyxfer.uucp> ww@nyxfer.UUCP writes:

  "Just before bowing out as lame-duck vice president, Dan Quayle made
   a pitch for the latest version of Star Wars. In a report to Bush,
   Quayle said the U.S. should develop space weapons to knock other
   countries' communications, navigation, weather and spy satellites
   out of the skies. In other words, he is advocating a U.S. monopoly
   on the control of space.

and

  "According to the Jan. 15 New York Times, 'Quayle raises the specter
   of American foes' using spacecraft to help wage conventional warfare
   on earth, and he calls on the United States to develop the ability
   to block such moves. In effect, it articulates a new rationale for
   space arms, calling for offensive military action rather than the
   defense of a broad territory in the Star Wars plan.'"

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.evil,alt.politics.bush
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Pardon Amy Fisher! (other pardon surprises, too!)
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:26:33 GMT

In article <C14FzB.H0J@bilbo.suite.com> dave@bilbo.suite.com (Dave Raymer) writes:
) [30+ quoted lines deleted]
)
)I agree with andrew, and oh by the way, were you born stupid or did the
)doctor drop you shortly after birth ????

Were you born unable to use the "delete-line" key on your editor, or did the
doctor drop you shortly after birth?

-- 
"Pascal is a toy language."      | hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu           | OS/2
             --Brian Kernighan   | WWIVNet 1@2750  WWIVLink 1@12754 | OS/2
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ad626@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: What the Trilateralists truly intend
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:27:30 GMT


Well Ted, a few points here. First, let me point out that your atempts
at refutation have a tendency to rely on "facts" that are supported by
nothing but your unsupported opinion (which I for one find a lot less 
credible than that of Lyndon LaRouche). You say the Brookings Institution
is an "innucouous organization". Why, because Ted Frank says so? 

Second, as a director of the CFR Cutler is arguably a "representative".
He is certainly more than rank aand file in any case.

Third, perhaps calling a radical reorganization of our Constitutional
system "overthrow" is hyperbole. So what? It is no less sinister a 
proposal simply because its advocates think they can accomplish it
legally.

Fourth, and most serious, you repeat the false statement made by others 
that Lyndon LaRouche has "anti-semitic beliefs". I have been a political
supporter of Lyndon LaROuche for about 15 years, and during that time I
would estimate I have read about 50-80% of his published work, as well
as much material written by his associates. I am in a position to know
whether he has anti-semitic beliefs or not. He dosen't. I know what I'm
talking about on this one and you don't. If you were most other people 
here, I'd suggest you find out a little bit about your subject before 
making wild statements. But since you have declined to do this for the 
CFR who you defend, it is hardly reasonable to expect you to do so for 
LaRouche, who you criticize.

-Steve
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:14535 alt.war:2421 alt.activism.d:4533