HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Date: 16 Sep 1992 02:39:33 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep10.133937.1442@crd.ge.com> saltzman@crd.ge.com writes:
|In reference to comments by Mr. Warner on Mr. Grant's discussion
|of Dr. Lattimer...
|
|Quite some time ago I encountered a close relative of Lattimer while
|I was lecturing on assassination research at Dartmouth College.  This
|relative, outraged by my challange of the findings of the Warren
|Commission, cited Dr. Lattimer's analyses.  After evaluating his
|work it took me only a short time to discredit his conclusions based
|upon his poor analytical techniques and long leaps over major sinkholes
|in his scientific methods - particularly with his 'melon experiments'!
|I presented my thinking to the Dartmouth community (a very intellectually
|
|Bob Saltzman,
|Committee to Investigate Assassinations

Lattimer did not due melon experiments. He did skulls, pig necks and
so. Although I find his work to lack scientific analysis, I think it
is ignorant to brush it aside as you do, especially since you call
yourself on a committee to Investigate Assassinations. What we need is
more of the kinds of work Lattimer does, not less of it.



-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: angels
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:10:11 GMT

>, >>> Joel Grant
>> Bruce Schuck

>>I didn't use Wechts 38 degrees, I used a scale map of Dealey Plaza.
>>I also know JFK's position in relation to the limo, because
>>his body position is very clear in the Zapruder film.
>>I also used the latest possible position for him to be shot, around
>>the Zapruder frame 220 you claim.

>>If JFK had been shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD at Z 220 and
>>it impacted where the physical evidence shows , then the bullet
>>should have exitted well to the left of his windpipe.
>>It didn't, therefore I can conclude he wasn't shot from the TSBD.

>	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?

>>We are not talking 'angels on the head of a pin'.
>>This is the kind of analysis that should have been done by the WC.
>>It wasn't or it was suppressed. Lattimer also left it out.

>	OK.  We're talking angels on the head of a quark, then.

Think a little harder. It's a question of the angle through the neck.
Two inches differences on a neck is a big difference in degree angles.
Either study your geometry, or leave the issue to somebody that understands
this simple concept.

>	What Lattimer actually tested was the medical and
>	ballistic evidence.  This evidence indicates decisively
>	that JFK was struck twice from behind,

The most any of Lattimer's tests could do was show that it was
*possible* that Kennedy was hit twice from behind. The only
thing decisive about any of it was, similar to yours, his
pretentious language.

>       from bullets
>	fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with serial
>	#C2766.

Lattimer did absolutely nothing toward this goal, and it would be
quite impossible for him to do so. He might, however, be able to test
the *possibility* that Kennedy was hit by copper-jacketed bullets.
fired from that Mannlicher Carcano.

Since there is no evidence connecting the bullets in evidence
to the scene of the crime, the best anyone can do is compare
rifling. CE399 was almost certainly fired from Oswald's rifle,
the fragments alleged to be the fragments recovered from the limo
were probably fired from the same rifle.

>       It is Lattimer's opinion, which I share, that
>	the guy pulling the trigger was the owner of the rifle,
>	Lee Harvey Oswald.  You perhaps observe the difference?

Yes. Although I think it is more a matter of faith than opinion.


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Table Talk
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:09:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation



re: 3198  (David Wright)

||1. "Why had the X-rays and photographs been taken away from
||the doctors who did the autopsy before they had a chance to
||use them to document their findings as they had expected to
||do?  There was no doubt that this withholding had added to the
||questions and to the shortcomings of the Warren Commission
||report."

||Lattimer's conclusion: "Humes did not know it at the time,
||but all these photographs and X-rays were commandeered during
||the autopsy and taken away by Treasury Department agents
||before the pictures could be developed.

|Not according to Humes, who said that he examined the xrays, or
|the WC, who also saw some. 

	Humes saw the X-rays at the table.  He did not see
	the photos.  But he did not have either available when
	he was preparing his final report.  Which is the point.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: saltzman@crd.ge.com (Bob Saltzman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:39:37 GMT
Reply-To: saltzman@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

In reference to comments by Mr. Warner on Mr. Grant's discussion
of Dr. Lattimer...

Quite some time ago I encountered a close relative of Lattimer while
I was lecturing on assassination research at Dartmouth College.  This
relative, outraged by my challange of the findings of the Warren
Commission, cited Dr. Lattimer's analyses.  After evaluating his
work it took me only a short time to discredit his conclusions based
upon his poor analytical techniques and long leaps over major sinkholes
in his scientific methods - particularly with his 'melon experiments'!
I presented my thinking to the Dartmouth community (a very intellectually
aggressive bunch of folks), and found that Lattimer was quickly
dismissed as yet again another apologist for the Warren Commission,
maybe even a goofball, as Mr. Warner suggests.

(The melon experiment has got to be one of the all-time desparate
attempts at championing 'pseudo-science' as a method of subverting
the facts of physical science.)

Bob Saltzman,
Committee to Investigate Assassinations
==============================================================================
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
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Lattimer, Question Three
Date: 16 Sep 1992 02:34:18 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep11.201136.21565@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|
|Question #3: "When it came out that Dr. Humes had tossed the original
|working drafts of the autopsy notes into the fire in his study,
|after he finished his final copies, people wanted to know why
|they were burned, and attached ominous implications to their
|being burned.  If the doctor has merely thrown them in the wastebasket,
|no one might have thought anything of it.  The act of burning them
|conjured up sacrilegious implications in the columns of the critics.
|Why were they burned?"
|
|Well, now this sounds like debunking, doesn't it?  

What on earth are you doing here Joel? Please talk about significance.
The significance of Humes burning his notes is that it is a
destruction of the original phyisical evidence of the case. This is
important, since the incomplete autopsy assumed that a bullet enterd
in JFK's back at 45 degrees and fell out due to heart massage therapy
and so on. It was this story that was destroyed, not due to further
examination of the body, but due to a phone call from Dallas, telling
of the wound in the front of the throat. That wound was never 
examined, as a wound, by Humes. That is very significant, since all
the eyewitness testimony pointed to that wound as being a wound of
entrance.


-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:23:14 GMT

Mitchell S Todd writes: >
Bruce Schuck >>
Joel Grant >>>

>>>8. Was the angle of the bullet track consistent with the
>>>twenty-degree (approx) angle required by shots from the
>>>6th floor of the TSBD?

>>Lattimer , deliberately , left out any question of the angle
>>the bullet went through JFK's body on the horizontal plane.

>>The bullet entered JFK's back 1 3/8 inches to the right
>>of JFK's spine. Supposedly the bullet exited slightly to
>>the right of the centreline of JFK's windpipe.

>>JFK was looking to the right when this bullet traversed
>>his body.


>>Cyril Wecht says the horizontal angle from Oswalds supposed snipers
>>position was 38 degrees. 

>	_Six Seconds_ has an accurate map of Dealy Plaza, showing
>	the positions of JFK in various z-film frames. I copied the
>	map and drew lines corresponding with the direction of the
>	limo and trajectories between the TSBD and the limo for
>	frames 190, 210, and 220. None of them were over 30 degrees.

>	Wecht points out that JFK was facing to the right at 190,
>	then brings up a trajectory graphic that shows JFK facing
>	forward. At 190, Connelly is turned around to his right 
>	also, but Wecht's diagram has the govenor also facing
>	straight forwards. So much for Wecht's trajectory analysis.
>	
>	So much for Bruce's, too.


Mitchell, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't use Wechts 38
degrees and you would have known that if you had read all my postings.
I too used a scale map of Dealey Plaza. 

In the interest of fairness, I also assumed JFK was facing forward
even thought there was evidence he was facing to the right. You would
have known that too if you had read my followups!

My trajectory analysis shows that the bullet exitted too far to the
right to have come from the TSBD [assuming a back to front traversal
-- which I don't necessarily agree with]

I dare you, post YOUR results from a scale map trajectory analysis!



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: A short one, Bruce
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 14 SEP 92 14:54:00 PDT


re: 3257 (Bruce Schuck)

>Joel Grant >  [Leave the subject line alone this time Joel!]

	I'll do my subject lines, you do yours.

>No matter the reason, the burning of Humes's autopsy notes should have
>made the autopsy report inadmissable in court.

>Recently in Canada, a judge threw out a Police Officers testimony
>because he was reading from 'recreated' notes , not the original notes
>he took at the time.

>In the JFK autopsy:

>The 'original' notes *were* the record of the autopsy.

>The 'recreated' notes *are* just a work of fiction.

	Recreated notes are notes made when the originals
	are lost.  The recreated notes are done from memory. 
	Humes did not use "re-created" notes - he copied directly
	from the originals, word-for-word.  Do you really think
	that blood and tissue-spattered autopsy notes are regularly
	hauled around in courtrooms?

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
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
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:37:07 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

|>   jac54@cas.org writes:
|> > sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes: 
|> >
|> >Oswald's mother, a devout Marxist, learned Russian so that she could read
|> >Leninist Holy Writ in its orignal language. I suppose it's *quite*
impossible
|> >that Lee Harvey, who shared his mother's religious faith, might have
learned
|> >some Russian at home?
|> >
|> >
|> 	Indeed.  My German is a LOT better than my Russian.  Although I only
|> 	had about 100 hours tuition I can pass for a German after a bit
|> 	of practice.  My mother happens to be German so I took the language
|> 	up by "osmosis" as they say.  As a child you can pick up an awful
|> 	lot of language without effort.
|> 
|> 	Alec Chambers.

Oswald's family, mother Marguerite, wife Marina, and brother Robert, 
haven't exactly been mute these last 30 years.  There are a number of
books by them, and Marina is on record.  I have yet to become familiar
with their books.   Is anyone aware of their confirming that Lee did in
fact know Russian prior to being stationed at Atsugi?

At any rate, to review the debate over Oswald's spyhood, see Melanson, "Spy
Saga".  Remember also, that there is direct testimony from known
employees confirming that LHO had the proverbial "special relationship" with 
"the company."  Debating about this, like debating about whether the magic
bullet caused all those wounds is getting to be pretty boring.

The real haven for still committed WC supporters lies in the notion that
just because he was a spy doesn't mean there was a conspiracy.  Granted.
Maybe he was a lonely spy.  Right.

Paul Collacchi
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:36:04 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep2.235159.15109@PA.dec.com> grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|In the past we have discussed some aspects of Dr. John K. Lattimer's
|analysis of the medical and ballistics evidence of the assassination.
|But it has been sporadic and un-systematic. 

Let's see here. The last time I responded to Joel, we were in the
middle of some very interesting debate that apparently Joel is now
ignoreing. Will Joel do this again, start a debate, then leave town,
and bring up another? Call me Charlie Brown, but I will once again
try to refute these ideas!


| I intend, over the
|next couple of weeks or so, to set forth Dr. Lattimer's principal
|research results, point by point. 

Lattimer is a goof ball.

|Across the board, the single-assassin scenario has been confirmed.

What does this mean? In deciding weather a man is guilty of a crime,
there are rules of evidence that are followed to secure the accuracy 
of the phyisical evidence. These rules were not followed in the JFK
case, so we have no idea on wheather the phyisical analysis is correct
or not. Readers familiar with the case know that every official body
at that time lied and coverup evidence, so instead of supposing that
the phyisical evidence is secure, we should in fact suppose the
opposite and be higly skeptical of it's authenticity.

|...  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. 

Are you saying that that the JFK case should be decided by experts?
That is too bad, since few people are experts. The overiding consensus
of the testimony of the individuals invovled point to the fact that
the Xrays and Photos are not accurate. Note that one expert, Groden,
did *not* find that the xrays and photos were originals, and claimed
that they are fakes.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re:  Jim Marrs on the Back Entry Wound
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:24:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <18jt1bINNmne@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
   david@cats.ucsc.edu! (David Wright) writes:


>In article <1992Sep8.174411.10959@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> 
>   jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:
 
>>JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:

>>Now, the problem is that the bullet did not go through his neck.
>>The Warren Commission plainly states that it hit him in the
>>middle of the back -- the third thoracic vertebrae, between the
>>shoulder blades.

>The third thoracic vertebrae is not "in the middle of the back".

    Jim Marrs doesn't mean the middle of his back as measured vertically
    from the neck to the bottom of the spinal column. He means the middle
    of his back as measured horizontally from shoulder to shoulder. 
    That's the most common conception of the "middle of the back". 
    He further clarifies himself by describing it as being "between the 
    shoulder blades". Then he fixes the bullet entry point by citing the 
    second of the two needed coordinates, the vertical coordinate, as
    being at the third thoracic vertebrae as measured on the vertical
    axis presented by the spinal column. 
        
          John DiNardo
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Explosive Bullets (was: How easy was the rifle shot?)
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:14:45 GMT

Mitchell S Todd >
Bruce Schuck >>

>>The data I have in front of me concerns the difference between
>>CE399 and the Connally wrist fragment.

>>The wrist fragment contained 25% more silver, 850% more copper,
>>2400% more Sodium, and 1100% more chlorine than CE399. It also
>>contained 8.1 ppm aluminum while CE399 contained none.

>	Guinn noted that the trace amounts of these elements tend to
>	vary enough within a 6.5mm bullet to make them useless in
>	NAA.

Trace amounts? Silver is not a trace element at all. It's one of the
important hardening agents in making a fully jacketed bullet.

[...Bullshit about copper removed]

>	
>	The fragments also spent a considerable amount of time inside
>	Connelly's body. Tissues and bodily fuilds contain relatively
>	high amounts of chlorine and sodium. These fluids would have
>	been able to coat the fragments and soak into pores and other
>	unever surfaces. Although Guinn rinsed the fragments in
>	distilled water, there is no guarantee, as Guinn admits,
>	that all of the fluids would have been washed away. The
>	fragments would, again, be expected to have higher amounts
>	of chlorine and sodium than CE399.

Frankly I don't buy Guinn's explanation about sodium and chlorine
at all. Putting that aside though, a 25% difference in Silver should
by itself rule out a match. The complete abscence of aluminum in
CE399 should also be considered very important.

Remember, the samples were supposedly taken from within a millimeter
of where the fragments supposedly came from and there is still a very
significant difference. Nobody in his right mind can conclusively say
they are from the same bullet.
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Question from a newbie
Date: 13 Sep 1992 22:04:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rahayden@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Silicon Avatar) says:

>I apologize if this question has been gone over before, but I have a
>nagging question that I haven't been able to find the answer to.
>
>To what extent was the area around the fence on the grassy knoll searched
>following the shooting?

The policemen and citizens who went up on the knoll after the shooting
were immediately ordered away by unknown persons claiming to be Secret
Service agents. The Secret Service said they had no agents anywhere in the
Plaza after the assassination. No search was made at the time.

>
>My thinking is that if the assassins were shooting from behind the fence
>with the rifles braced on it, there would be powder burns in the fence
>itself, or the surrounding trees (very tiny, nearly microscopic, but
>still there).  I know in the chaos of the moments after the shooting, that
>isn't something to look for, but I would think it would ultimately be
>checked out, espicially with all of the witnesses who state they saw smoke
>and activity behind the fence.
>
>Also, were the shell casings found in the book depository ever
>fingerprinted?  what were the results?  did they have LHO's prints on them
>or were they print free?
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>-- 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Robert Hayden                  | Black holes result    | My views do not 
> rahayden@UMAXC.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU  | from God dividing the | reflect the views
> AQ650@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU    | universe by zero      | of my employer.
>
-- 
          "In universities, it is forbidden to teach nonsense. 
          But the _history_ of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"

                                            -- Saul Lieberman
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Part II,  Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients
Keywords: Dr. Mengele, Not.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:23:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.125002.8314@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:
>Now here's the paradox. Why would you give cancer cell injections
>if you were absolutely of the belief that they would be rejected?
>There would be no purpose to the study.

Sure there would.  See if they're rejected _sooner_ or _later_.  You mean to
say you didn't think of this, and all you could come up with was the idea that
the doctors expected the patients to get cancer?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)