2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/govern/conspjfk/mys00616.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-10 | 676.3 KB

Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!visser
From: [e-mail] (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 21:08:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 37
Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Lemkin) writes:



+>4) Why were ongoing de-escalation plans for Vietnam reversed
+>within 48 hrs of the assassination?

    The ONLY de-escalation plan was the withdrawl of 1,000
advisors in December.  This decision had been made after Mcnamera
(Defense sec.) had returned from vietnam with a glowing report
on the military situation which predicted victory in 1965.

    The "48 hrs" happened because Diem, president of south
Vietnam had been overthrown and killed 2 weeks before in a US
directed coup.  That coup changed the situation in vietnam
dramatically and Ambassidor Lodge returned to Washington for
consultations in late november on Vietnam.  He met with Johnson
on vietnam two days after the assination because he was in
Washington.



+>31) Why did LBJ insist on being sworn in on Air Force One when
+>he was quite legally President AUTOMATICALLY upon the death of
+>JFK?

    Taking the oath of office is a sign that the office has
been accepted.  What does his taking the oath of office have
to do with anything?



+>88) Can the deaths and destruction at home and abroad in Vietnam
+>and ALL the subsequent wars be understood by an analysis of the
+>JFK assassination?

    No,
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!phage!pjm
From: [e-mail] (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 00:30:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <rich.694826382@pencil>
Sender: [e-mail] (NO MAIL)
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Lines: 14

In article <rich.694826382@pencil> [e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
>>on PBS last night William Buckley had this to say
>>about JFK:
>
>Who in the world cares what a pompus cia propagandist has to say about
>anything?
>
>Rich

i forgot to mention, he presented the failed assasination
attempts on Castro as "motive". that is probably interesting
enough to warrant a discussion in itself. was kennedy or whoever
trying to kill Castro?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique
Summary: It's starting already.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 01:08:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:

>>According to the three autopsy physicians, it did.
>>
>Unfortunately, the wound was not dissected.  One physician put
>his finger into the wound and encountered an obstruction (not metallic).
>He was ordered not to proceed any further by one of the admirals present
>at the autopsy.

It starting already.  Oliver Stone made that up.  In his movie, one
physician starts to probe the wound, and is told to stop.  In reality,
_three_ physicians took turns probing the wound, and I've heard of no
evidence that they were specifically told to stop probing that wound.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 01:27:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mg.694462512@elan> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 17
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10012 rec.arts.movies:51127
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>For example, there are discrepancies between the
>Dallas physicians' descriptions of JFK's wounds and the Washington autopsy.
>One explanation is that the conspiracy anticipated the need to alter
>wounds and had one of its (improbably many) operatives in place to do so.
>Or maybe it's just because the Dallas physicians weren't pathologists, were
>in a hurry, and just a little freaked out by events to do a proper.

As it turns out, that's what happened.  Nova took the Parkland
ER doctors to the National Archives to have a look at the color
autopsy photos.  After they looked at them, they confirmed that the
wounds hadn't been altered, and that their initial hasty descriptions
had been in error.  Has anything been heard from Lifton ("_Best
Evidence_") since his prime witnesses repudiated their story?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 00:38:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694825052@cancun>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 53

[e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

> >Actually, since you were exceedingly vague, I was just guessing as to what
> >you meant when you said that Stone's movies simplistically prove that
> >"government bad." What were you talking about?

> He claims that the CIA, SS, and other government agencies were
> involved in the murder of JFK.  I didn't think I had to spell out that
> that should be seen as bad.  If you haven't seen or read about the
> movie, then I guess it would be vague.

I like the government fine. I saw the movie. And I didn't conclude Stone
was saying the government is bad. I concluded that he was suggesting
the government botched the investigation--which they did--and that some
elements of the government may have been involved in the assassination--
which they may have. You are making a leap of logic in suggesting that
Stone is obsessed with proving the government bad. The fact is, from a
storyteller's point of view, if you're making political fiction, the
things the government does right are inherently undramatic, but the
things they do wrong are often spectacularly interesting.

> >I think Stone's main agenda is to draw attention to the problems with the
> >Warren version. To do that, he picked the theory most likely to draw
> >attention to the movie. So what? If the government can prove that Oswald
> >acted alone, then why don't they?

> I could show dissatisfaction with gun control by blowing away people
> who didn't have guns to defend themselves, too.

Your analogy is obscure to me.

> There's a difference
> between showing that the Warren Commission report didn't seem complete
> and asserting an insane version, which not incidentally has Kennedy as
> God and the military-industrial-complex and intelligence agencies as
> Satan incarnate.  He was out to rewrite history, not just to take
> issue with a current version.

You tend to exaggerate things as an aid to criticizing them. It's not
persuasive. The fact is, Stone is not rewriting history; he's imagining
history where none exists. The historians can't tell you what happened on
Dealey Plaza. They will wait another fifty years for the dust to settle.

> It's impossible to prove that he didn't act alone unless they had a
> videotape on him the whole time.  It would be possible to prove the
> positive, that he didn't act alone, but not the negative.

You're missing the point. The government botched the investigation in 1964
and the people have been yearning for the real answers ever since. It's now
the government's role to either conduct a proper investigation or endure
the speculation.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!swift!peg!qolight
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK)
Message-ID: <606300037@peg>
Date: 8 Jan 92 04:24:00 GMT
References: <431871894@[e-mail]>
Lines: 2
Nf-ID: #R:[e-mail]:431871894:peg:606300037:000:24
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!qolight    Jan  8 00:24:00 1992


Say Amen Brother!!.....
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!swift!peg!qolight
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK's head continues to fly backwar
Message-ID: <606300038@peg>
Date: 8 Jan 92 04:27:00 GMT
References: <17018594@[e-mail]>
Lines: 3
Nf-ID: #R:[e-mail]:-1701859473:peg:606300038:000:123
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!qolight    Jan  8 00:27:00 1992


My $.02.....that's not all they missed....yet, like life..it's
 coming around again...so they will get another shot at it!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 01:32:54 GMT
References: <rdippold.694722844@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694811380@cancun>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 47

In article <rdippold.694811380@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>>In article <rdippold.694722844@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>
>>>>Then again, who's to say what ART and TALENT are.  All I know is I wouldn't
>>>>want to have you as a judge in ANY talent competitions.
>>>
>>>I can imagine.  You'd most likely lose.
>>Gee Ron,  I'd love to know JUST HOW TALENTED you might be. What do you do
>>for a living???
>
>You'd lose because (as obvious from the previous messages) we don't
>agree on what talent is, not whether or not you are talented.  That
>should be obvious, as I have no way to judge your talent, never having
>seen your work.
>
>>Not to brag, but this loser in your talent competition has not one, but
>>TWO Television EMMY Award nominations and 1 EMMY to my credit as a
>>"TALENTED" TV PRODUCER.   I may not agree with you perception of talent, but
>
>Bob here has had some letters published in Penthouse Forum.  He can
>probably get more "talent" milage out of that than you can claiming
>you beat out Mr. Belevedere.
>

Mr. Belvedere was NEVER nominated for an EMMY.

You, Sir (and that's using the term loosely) however may very well have been
a big fan.

It's interesting that you keep avoiding my question. For the third time:

Since you are such a GREAT judge of talent (as obvious by your high regard for
Penthouse letters), I would love to know what you do for a living???

It's no wonder you think OLIVER STONE is not talented as well.

You are entitled to your opinion, but a wise person once said:

   "Don't give someone who thinks your stupid the chance to see that
    you really are by opening your mouth."


For now,  I'd like to thank The Academy...
                                          For not being like you.
Come OSCAR time, I'm sure Mr. Stone will too.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,sci.skeptic
Subject: JFK's PROUTY DIES
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 01:43:42 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 19
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10020 rec.arts.movies:51141 sci.skeptic:19166

I just heard on KFI talk radio in L.A.:
Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, an aide to the Joint Cheifs of Staff during the
Kennedy years and partly the "inspration" for the character "MR.X" in
the movie "JFK," died suddenly a couple of days after the opening of
the Oliver Stone film.

Mr. Prouty served as a technical advisor on the film.

According to Prouty, Kennedy had been the victim of a
military-industrial-complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from
Vietnam.
He came to Mr. Stone with a number of classified documents to buttress the
claim.  The most important of these was a top-secret National Security Action
Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only 6 weeks before the assasination.

Just thought you might want to know.

--Dusty
in L.A.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: CNN JFK POLL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 01:49:55 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 17
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:51142 alt.conspiracy:10021

CNN is reporting the results of their CNN/USA TODAY public opinion poll about
the JFK assasination:

                       ************************
                            72 % of Americans
                          beleive Kennedy was
                          killed as a result of
                            a conspiracy
                       ************************
                             11% of them
                          beleive that Oswald
                             acted alone.
                       ************************


--Dusty
in L.A.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK's PROUTY DIES
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 03:30:00 GMT
Lines: 28


 > From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
 > Organization: Abode Computer Services

 > I have just heard (on local talk radio station KFI- Los Angeles) that
 > Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (who was part inspiration for "Mr.
 > X.") and a technical advisor for the Oliver Stone film "JFK," died
 > suddenly a couple of days after the film opened.

 > They did not say what the cause of death was.

As a result of this message, I just called Fletcher.  He's alive and doing
quite well.  He cancelled the radio talk show because he had to see
his doctor.  He has had a longstanding heart problem, and has to take
it easy.  He cancelled a big speaking engagement as well, and he
really shouldn't travel.  Radio talk shows are perhaps a good medium
for him.  However, he's quite energetic -- we had a lively hour-long
conversation.

You computer jockies out there should set up several on-line databases to
establish historical facts and references.  (More than one -- there will
undoubtedly be covert plants out there doing it as well.)  Being that I'm
in Washington, D.C., have already had my life threatened, and certain
other reasons I probably shouldn't elaborate on here, I'm reluctant
(to say the least) to do it myself.  If I were Joe Blow in Kokomo then
I'd do it.  ...and circulate copies all over the world.

 * Origin: Jeezus, we animals must sleep, some time (1:109/10)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 04:52:00 GMT
Lines: 20

One of many pieces of less-publicized information that Fletcher
Prouty gave me is the following.  IS ANYONE INTERESTED IN
VERIFYING THE FOLLOWING AT *YOUR* LOCAL LIBRARY??

Atlantic Monthly, July 1973, is on microfilm.
Leo Janus (maybe misspelled) interviewed Lyndon Johnson 3
months before he died, when Johnson knew he had a heart
condition that would probably lead to his own death soon.

Leo asked Johnson what he thought of The JFK assassination.
According to Fletcher, Johnson NOT ONLY told Leo (as reported
in the above issue's published interview) that he believed
that there was a conspiracy, that Oswald didn't do it alone,
but MOST IMPORTANTLY stated rather cynically that:

           "we operate murder incorporated".

Somebody please verify or refute this fact of sorts.

 * Origin: Reply to 1:109/349.2 or p2.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: RFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 04:54:01 GMT
Lines: 5

Where was RFK shot -- i.e., in the head or the abdomen or
where?  And did he die immediately or did he bleed to
death or what??  Is there any film footage?

 * Origin: Reply to 1:109/349.2 or p2.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dxc4
From: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 05:25:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <kmf9poINN9d5@exo
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 77
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns1.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) says:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>
>>>According to the three autopsy physicians, it did.
>>>
>>Unfortunately, the wound was not dissected.  One physician put
>>his finger into the wound and encountered an obstruction (not metallic).
>>He was ordered not to proceed any further by one of the admirals present
>>at the autopsy.
>
>It starting already.  Oliver Stone made that up.  In his movie, one
>physician starts to probe the wound, and is told to stop.  In reality,
>_three_ physicians took turns probing the wound, and I've heard of no
>evidence that they were specifically told to stop probing that wound.
>--
>Brian Holtz
>
Stone did bloody well not make it up. The incident of probing this wound
was described in the five-page, single-spaced typescript _Autopsy Report_
made by FBI Special Agents Sibert and O'Neill, which is never mentioned
in the Warren Report, but is analysed by David Lifton in _Best Evidence_,
among other sources.

In Lifton's account, Sibert and O'Neill emerge rather as the Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern of the autopsy: they were not high officials but
ordinary agents sent to the autopsy to represent the FBI as a crime-
investigating agency. Their presence was not altogether welcome, and at
one point they were asked to leave the room, along with almost everyone
else there at the time. Lifton theorises that a coffin switch was
performed at this point. Their report, aside from specific events such
as the (putatively) first incision on the body, consists mainly of taking
down dictation of specific statements made by the doctors -- many of
which, without medical training, they may not have even entirely
understood. Since Commander Humes (the doctor who led the autopsy
procedure) by his own admission later burned all his notes, their
report is the closest thing that exists to a "first draft" of the
autopsy.

On p. 159 of the (paperback) 1988 edition of Lifton's _Best Evidence_,
the author quotes Sibert and O'Neill's report:

    "The two FBI men reported that Humes stuck his finger in the rear
entry wound and found it went in only 'a short distance ... the end of
the opening could be felt with the finger.' [footnote: *Years later, Dr.
Finck testified its depth was 'the first fraction of an inch.']"

On p. 529 of the same book, Lifton notes:

    "In February 1969, Dr. Pierre Finck testifed at the Shaw trial in New
Orleans that the organs of the neck were not examined, and that the doctors
had been prevented from dissecting the back wound -- the wound I [Lifton]
suspected was false -- by an unnamed army general. In the closed session
[of the HSCA] in 1977, Dr. Humes gave a contrary version. He said the
decision not to dissect the neck was his alone. The Committee did not
confront Humes with Finck's statement, or cross-examine him. It interviewed
Finck twice, but failed to publish either interview, thus sealing them
for fifty years. [footnote: *Finck's second appearance is made somewhat
mysterious because the Committee noted that he, Finck, requested the
interview, becuase he feared that what he had said the first time 'may
have been misunderstood.' ...] Humes said: 'There was no question but
we were being urged to expedited this examination as quickly as possible
... did it harass us and cause us difficulty, of course it did, how could
it not?' Humes implied the source of the pressure was Admiral Burkley,
[JFK's White House Medical Officer] but he was not critical ... "

Sibert and O'Neill's report also contained the phrase that there had been,
prior to the autopsy, "surgery to the head area, namely, in the top of
the skull" -- surgery that was assuredly not performed at Dallas and could
not have had any life-saving purpose.
--
I'm an innocent victim of a blinded alley, and I'm tired of all these soldiers
here, and no one speaks English, and everything's broken, and my Staceys
are soaking wet, to go waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go
waltzing Matilda with me ...        Tom Waits
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 06:53:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mark Prado) writes:

>Oswald tested negative for having fired a gun (nitrite tests)

What is your source for this?  I thought I remembered that one common
complaint of the handling of the case was that no nitrate tests were
conducted, but maybe I'm thinking of the gun not being tested for
having been recently fired...

>There seems to be far too much focus on things like the magic bullet
>theory and from which direction the fatal shot came from.

Only physical evidence, and the prompt recorded testimony of material
witnesses, is immune to the fantasizing of the conspiracy theologians.

>There's tons of blatant cover-up far from Dealey Plaza.

Cover-up, or incompetence?  When the two are indistinguishable,
parsimony favors the simpler theory of innocent incompetence.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!cdp!elite
From: [e-mail] (Elite Enterprises)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK LIMO DRIVER ASSISSINATES JFK!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 04:21:00 GMT
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1299600022:000:730
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!elite    Jan  7 20:21:00 1992


AFTER REVEIWING THE ZAPRUDER FILM ONE CAN CLEARLY SEE THE DRIVER TURNING
AROUND AND BLOWING AWAY KENNEDY. ANY COMMENTS?
I BELIEVE IT WAS A INSIDE DRIVE BECAUSE JACKIE WOULD HAVE  NEVER LEFT
HER HUSBAND'S SIDE. I HAVE ASK SEVERAL WOMEN IF THERE HUSBAND WOULD BE SHOT WOULD
THEY LEAVE HIM ALONE. ALL OF SAY THEY WOULD OF STAYED WITH HIM UNLESS THEY
SAW WHERE THE BULLET WAS COMING FROM. AS IN JACKIES CASE, SHE KNEW
EXACTLY WHERE THE SHOT CAME FROM. SHE TRIED TO FLEE BUT HER PERSONAL BODYGUARD
THREW HER BACK IN THE CAR.
ALSO THE PASSENGER NEXT TO THE DRIVER IS SEEN TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE
AS THE DRIVER TURNS AROUND WITH THE MAGUM (NICKEL PLATED) IN HIS LEFT
HAND AND REACHES OVER HIS RIGHT SHOULDER AND BANG!

FEEDBACK?

ROBERT
Path: ns-mx!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 11:22:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 3

Conspiracy or Conicidence....
When Kennedy was shot, all the phone lines in Washington went down.
They were down for a while.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!swift!peg!qolight
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Message-ID: <606300040@peg>
Date: 8 Jan 92 23:14:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 5
Nf-ID: #R:ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu:3035:peg:606300040:000:243
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!qolight    Jan  8 19:14:00 1992


Say Amen to the ...'more likely to hear the contents of their cold war
files than our own!'......Never truer words have been spoken...Bushie-
Boy is never going to let the 'lowly American' be privy to such data!
......'Nough Said'......Photon
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 15:16:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <rich.694826382@pencil> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 17

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
>
>i forgot to mention, he presented the failed assasination
>attempts on Castro as "motive". that is probably interesting
>enough to warrant a discussion in itself. was kennedy or whoever
>trying to kill Castro?

This is pretty much a matter of record.  The CIA enlisted Mafia help
to assassinate Castro.  JFK's part in it is in dispute.  Some say he
was deeply involved, others say not.  Still, Buckley's theory is all
wet.  Oswald's involvement was with anti-Castro Cubans, not Castro.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 15:22:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 25

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Mark Prado) writes:
>
>>Oswald tested negative for having fired a gun (nitrite tests)
>
>What is your source for this?  I thought I remembered that one common
>complaint of the handling of the case was that no nitrate tests were
>conducted, but maybe I'm thinking of the gun not being tested for
>having been recently fired...
>
The gun was not tested, but Oswald was.  His hands were both positive, but
his face wasn't.  The hand test is less reliable because other things
besides gunpowder (including printer's ink from books) can test positive.
The cheek being negative would seem to indicate he didn't fire a rifle,
as rifle fire contaminates the cheek near the breech.  He may have
fired a pistol recently.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: RFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 16:33:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 21

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Prado) writes:
>Where was RFK shot -- i.e., in the head or the abdomen or
>where?  And did he die immediately or did he bleed to
>death or what??  Is there any film footage?
>
He was shot in the head.  He was not dead immediately, but his brain was
hopelessly damaged.  Later that day, he was taken off the respirator
and was able to breathe some on his own, but soon brain swelling resulted
in herniation of the brain and vital functions ceased.  There is some
footage I believe.  In the RFK case, there were more bullets fired than
can be accounted for by Sirhan's gun.  Some think on of RFK's guards,
a former Mafia soldier shot him from behind under guise of firing at
Sirhan.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!wupost!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The FBI vs. the Warren Critics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 16:41:44 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 27

[e-mail] (gerry) writes:
< In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
< >Boggs had no illusions about LBJ, but he was shaken by Hoover's willing
< >participation. As he remarked to his son, Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., "If they
< >have all this on some little guy who wrote a book, what about me?" In time
< >he'd find out. [In 1972, Boggs made two speeches to the House recommending
< >that Hoover step down. Hoover retaliated by feeding rumors about Boggs'
< >personal life to the press.]

< I assume that these were "leaks", and not any release that could be traced
< to Hoover, but this brings up the whole question of how the media treat
< such smear tactics.  A responsible journalist would ask why he is being fed
< this information, and in this case the obvious answer is that Hoover is
< committing criminal acts of the most serious nature.  The only way a
< Hoover can build such an empire of extortion is with the assistance of an
< irresponsible press.

The FBI has a division called Crime Records that, among other things, generated
press releases and wrote articles. The articles were forwarded to friendlies
in the press who would either incorporate the material or just put it out
under their own byline. Any paper that ever printed anything about the FBI
that Hoover didn't approve of went on the "no-contact" list and never got any
further cooperation from the Bureau. Through this combination of coercion and
intimidation, Hoover was able to maintain the Bureau's All-American image
while at the same time running a virtual Gestapo.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 16:45:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 15

[e-mail] (Lance Visser) writes:

< +>31) Why did LBJ insist on being sworn in on Air Force One when
< +>he was quite legally President AUTOMATICALLY upon the death of
< +>JFK?

<     Taking the oath of office is a sign that the office has
< been accepted.  What does his taking the oath of office have
< to do with anything?

People were shocked at the time at LBJ's insistence on a quick swearing-in
ceremony. He held up the plane with Jackie, RFK, and the JFK's body for an
hour while a justice-of-the-peace, or somesuch, was located.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!wupost!swbatl!jburnes
From: [e-mail] (Jim Burnes - 235-7444)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 16:01:18 GMT
References: <rich.694826382@pencil>
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Lines: 20

[e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
> >on PBS last night William Buckley had this to say
> >about JFK:
>
> Who in the world cares what a pompus cia propagandist has to say about
> anything?
>
> Rich

No doubt.  Not only was he a propagandist, but he was directly employed by
the CIA as a low-level operative in Mexico.  Check out Plausible Denial by
Mark Lane.

--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin ! its the man in the whitehouse, the man under the
SWBell Advanced Tech Labs ! steeple.  handin out drugs to the american people.
[phone]            ! i dont believe in anything, nothing is free. i aint
[e-mail]    ! gonna eat no government cheese.  - The RainMakers
--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 18:14:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 13

[e-mail] (Mark Prado) writes:

< Leo asked Johnson what he thought of The JFK assassination.
< According to Fletcher, Johnson NOT ONLY told Leo (as reported
< in the above issue's published interview) that he believed
< that there was a conspiracy, that Oswald didn't do it alone,
< but MOST IMPORTANTLY stated rather cynically that:

LBJ also told Walter Cronkite he thought there was a conspiracy. What the
people who argue against the idea of conspiracy have to admit is that they
are now the cabal of lone-nuts.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!walter!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <rdippold.694895049@cancun>
Date: 8 Jan 92 18:24:09 GMT
References: <rdippold.694722844@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694811380@cancun> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 41
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>In article <rdippold.694811380@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

>Mr. Belvedere was NEVER nominated for an EMMY.
>You, Sir (and that's using the term loosely) however may very well have been
>a big fan.

Of what?  TV is a wasteland.  Mr. Belvedere is a sewage pit in the wasteland.

>It's interesting that you keep avoiding my question. For the third time:
>Since you are such a GREAT judge of talent (as obvious by your high regard for
>Penthouse letters)

High regard as compared to television, that is.  Then again, I'd
consider most printed ads to be favorable in comparison to your
standard TV show.

>I would love to know what you do for a living???

I design electronic things, and write columns and books.


>It's no wonder you think OLIVER STONE is not talented as well.

That's right.  I don't think someone who takes the shallow plot and
style of a TV series or movie-of-the-week and beefs it up to a full
100 minutes with better production values is making a great leap.
Someone enamored of TV might think him unto a God.


>You are entitled to your opinion, but a wise person once said:

>   "Don't give someone who thinks your stupid the chance to see that
>    you really are by opening your mouth."

Or forget the difference between "your" and "you're" and really prove
the point, eh?  Or completely mangle an excellent quote almost beyond
recognition.

--
He who has had, has been, but he who hasn't been, has been had.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 19:29:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 22


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
|on PBS last night William Buckley had this to say
|about JFK:
|
|There probably was a conspiracy by Castro to kill
|Kennedy but LBJ covered it up to avoid WWIII.

I think Johnson himself scorned the Warren Report, blaming it on Castro. I
would like to See Bush and Buckley debate the WC report. I think
Bush would win .... NOT!!!!


--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      |    I want to tear Von Mises to Pieces"              |
   | (o)(o)      O                        -Sylvestor the Cat           |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 19:54:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 24
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10069 rec.arts.movies:51206


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:

|  ...Nova took the Parkland
|ER doctors to the National Archives to have a look at the color
|autopsy photos.  After they looked at them, they confirmed that the
|wounds hadn't been altered, and that their initial hasty descriptions
|had been in error.

That's absurd: there is no way they could know if the body had been
alterd or not. If they were told it was, they could have easily
have said, yes, that makes sense, since it does not match what I
reported earlier. Since they saw the photos and belived them to be
real, they said that they must have been mistaken.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      |    I want to tear Von Mises to Pieces"              |
   | (o)(o)      O                        -Sylvestor the Cat           |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!convex!visser
From: [e-mail] (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 20:24:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

+>[e-mail] (Lance Visser) writes:

+>< +>31) Why did LBJ insist on being sworn in on Air Force One when
+>< +>he was quite legally President AUTOMATICALLY upon the death of
+>< +>JFK?

+><     Taking the oath of office is a sign that the office has
+>< been accepted.  What does his taking the oath of office have
+>< to do with anything?

+>People were shocked at the time at LBJ's insistence on a quick swearing-in
+>ceremony. He held up the plane with Jackie, RFK, and the JFK's body for an
+>hour while a justice-of-the-peace, or somesuch, was located.

    It may have been in bad taste, but during those times (cold war in
high gear) there was a certain paranoia about someone being "in charge"
officially.
    The incident is hardly unique.....look at the idiotic behavior of
several white house people when Reagan was shot.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spdcc!dirtydog.ima.isc.com!ispd-newsserver!alkp!fischer
From: [e-mail] (Chris Fischer (x39613))
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 20:22:36 GMT
References: <rich.694826382@pencil> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Lines: 17

[e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
> >on PBS last night William Buckley had this to say
> >about JFK:
>
> Who in the world cares what a pompus cia propagandist has to say about
> anything?
>
> Rich

Who in the world cares what a self-righteous left-wing propagandist has to
say about anything?




Kodak probably doesn't Agree with anything I say.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!sheaffer
From: [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Who hired Oswald at the Book Dep.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 21:58:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Condon) writes:

>In _Spy Saga_ (1988), Philip H. Melanson points out that although Oswald
>was supposed to be such a flaming leftist, he never contacted any of the
>leftist circles in New Orleans or Dallas (in both cases, the FBI had
>the area." As Melanson notes, "Both his request and his joining seem
>inconsistent, if not patently phony. Michael Paine and his wife Ruth
>were ACLU members, and Oswald had already made contact with the local
>branch." (p.56-57) Then he says that Oswald wrote to the American
>Communist Party, asking:
>
>    Could you advise me as to the general view we had on the
>    American Civil Liberties Union? and to what degree, if any,
>    I should attempt to heighten its progressive tendencies? ...
>


Yes, such a Right-Winger Lee Harvey Oswald was! He wrote to the
Communist Party of the USA (using "we", to indicate he accepted its
ideology), saying in essence, 'The ACLU is a moderate organization,
do you want me to help pull it farther left?'.



Let me see if I understand conspiracy-think:

   Oswald defects to Russia around 1960, believing it to be a
   "workers' paradise".

   Disillusioned, he returns to the U.S. He now thinks that Cuba
   is probably the true "workers' paradise".

   His "Fair Play for Cuba" group tries to say, 'Don't be so
   hard on poor Fidel'.

   He goes to Mexico city, where he talks to the KGB, and enters
   the Cuban embassy.

Conclusion:

   Kennedy was killed by right-wingers in the CIA.


Good enough for conspiracy-work, I guess.
--

        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Simply follow nature, Rousseau declares. Sade, laughing,
        grimly agrees."          - Camille Paglia, "Sexual Personae"
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 22:16:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dusty Garza) writes:

>When Kennedy was shot, all the phone lines in Washington went down.
>They were down for a while.

What is your source for this?  Also, did they go down before or after
the news of shots fired at Kennedy was broadcast?  (Can you say "congestion"?)
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 21:57:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 8

[e-mail] (Lance Visser) writes:

>     The incident is hardly unique.....look at the idiotic behavior of
> several white house people when Reagan was shot.

Several? Are you referring to the two-faced Alexander Haig? :-)

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!sheaffer
From: [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 22:44:16 GMT
References: <rich.694824620@pencil>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 23

In article <rich.694824620@pencil> [e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
>Just a quick note to make a strong plug for this book.  I'm not finished
>
>Lane was the author of "Rush To Judgement", which was among the earliest
>books (a bestseller) to question the warren commission's findings.
>In the 80's, he defended the newspaper "the spotlight" against
                                              ^^^^^^^^
An extreme right-wing publication, widely perceived as anti-Semitic.

And Lane is also the lawyer for the Institute for Historical Review,
which is dedicated to convincing the world that 'the Holocaust
never happened'.  David Duke has been pushing the IHR line.

Is this guy credible, or what?

--

        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Simply follow nature, Rousseau declares. Sade, laughing,
        grimly agrees."          - Camille Paglia, "Sexual Personae"
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 23:09:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>|  ...Nova took the Parkland
>|ER doctors to the National Archives to have a look at the color
>|autopsy photos.  After they looked at them, they confirmed that the
>|wounds hadn't been altered, and that their initial hasty descriptions
>|had been in error.
>
>That's absurd: there is no way they could know if the body had been
>alterd or not. If they were told it was, they could have easily
>have said, yes, that makes sense, since it does not match what I
>reported earlier. Since they saw the photos and belived them to be
>real, they said that they must have been mistaken.

The photos were real.  They showed to be perfectly intact portions of
Kennedy's head that the Parkland doctors' initial hasty descriptions
said were blown away.  You can make a head wound bigger, but you can't
move it from one place to another.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!crdgw1!conebeam!hudackoe
From: [e-mail] (E.A. Hudacko)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Inverting Reality: Was W.F. Buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 23:33:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <rich.694826382@pencil> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (E.A. Hudacko)
Lines: 9


What Buckley says is not only a lie, it is an inversion of reality.  What
evidence did Buckley provide of Castro's plot to kill Kennedy?  Absolutely
none, I'd be willing to bet.  On the other hand, there is ample proof of
several CIA-engineered assasination attempts against Castro, to which the
US govt itself admitted to back in the 70's during the Church Committee
investigations on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans.  You
can find this committee's report, published by the US Government Printing
Office, in any large library with a government documents section.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dxc4
From: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 00:51:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <rich.694824620@pencil>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 54
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns1.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) says:

>In article <rich.694824620@pencil> [e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
>>Just a quick note to make a strong plug for this book.  I'm not finished
>>
>>Lane was the author of "Rush To Judgement", which was among the earliest
>>books (a bestseller) to question the warren commission's findings.
>>In the 80's, he defended the newspaper "the spotlight" against
>                                              ^^^^^^^^
>An extreme right-wing publication, widely perceived as anti-Semitic.
>
>And Lane is also the lawyer for the Institute for Historical Review,
>which is dedicated to convincing the world that 'the Holocaust
>never happened'.  David Duke has been pushing the IHR line.
>
>Is this guy credible, or what?

This is a very disturbing facet of the whole business, for me. I haven't
read _Plausible Denial_ yet (I'll be picking it up at the library tomorrow)
or even _Rush to Judgement_ for that matter. This week's _Guardian_ has a
generally favorable review of Lane's newer book -- but it criticises Lane
for having _continued_ representing _The Spotlight_ after the Hunt libel
suit was over! And it doesn't mention his IHR connection, which is even more
scary.

What doesn't make sense to me is that the really persuasive links between
Oswald and the CIA -- ones supported by eyewitness accounts -- are _through_
right-wing nuts like Ferrie, Shaw, Bannister and De Mohrenschildt. (And yes,
all of the above _were_ linked to Oswald, _were_ linked to the CIA, and
_were_ right-wing nuts -- and all except Bannister met with mysterious
deaths). A direct link between Oswald and the CIA -- the suggestion that
he was recruited in the Marines -- is a far more speculative proposition.

Now whether you believe JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy or
not, here's the poser: WHY are the right-wing nuts of 1991-92 trying to pin
the assassination on the right-wing nuts of 1963?

>
>--
>
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]
>
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
>
>       "Simply follow nature, Rousseau declares. Sade, laughing,
>        grimly agrees."          - Camille Paglia, "Sexual Personae"
>
--
I'm an innocent victim of a blinded alley, and I'm tired of all these soldiers
here, and no one speaks English, and everything's broken, and my Staceys
are soaking wet, to go waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go
waltzing Matilda with me ...        Tom Waits
Path: ns-mx!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!visser
From: [e-mail] (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Inverting Reality: Was W.F. Buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 00:46:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <rich.694826382@pencil> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (E.A. Hudacko) writes:


+>What Buckley says is not only a lie, it is an inversion of reality.  What
+>evidence did Buckley provide of Castro's plot to kill Kennedy?

    About the same amount of information that Oliver Stone had when he
concluded that Kennedy was killed to prevent a withdrawl from vietnam.

    I suppose Buckley was making the comments as an "Artist" and as such
we have absoletly no right to question what he says...and you probably would
not have raised the question unless your really a CIA agent or something :)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!visser
From: [e-mail] (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK LIMO DRIVER ASSISSINATES JFK!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 00:51:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 38
Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elite Enterprises) writes:


+>AFTER REVEIWING THE ZAPRUDER FILM ONE CAN CLEARLY SEE THE DRIVER TURNING
+>AROUND AND BLOWING AWAY KENNEDY. ANY COMMENTS?

    only if you review a black and white film and have it pointed out to
you will you see this.

+>I BELIEVE IT WAS A INSIDE DRIVE BECAUSE JACKIE WOULD HAVE  NEVER LEFT
+>HER HUSBAND'S SIDE.

    So now, Jackie Kennedy and John Connoly join the list of plotters.


+>I HAVE ASK SEVERAL WOMEN IF THERE HUSBAND WOULD BE SHOT WOULD
+>THEY LEAVE HIM ALONE. ALL OF SAY THEY WOULD OF STAYED WITH HIM UNLESS THEY
+>SAW WHERE THE BULLET WAS COMING FROM.

    Of course people always behave predictably and rationally when they
are being fired upon.

+>AS IN JACKIES CASE, SHE KNEW
+>EXACTLY WHERE THE SHOT CAME FROM. SHE TRIED TO FLEE BUT HER PERSONAL BODYGUARD
+>THREW HER BACK IN THE CAR.
+>ALSO THE PASSENGER NEXT TO THE DRIVER IS SEEN TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE
+>AS THE DRIVER TURNS AROUND WITH THE MAGUM (NICKEL PLATED) IN HIS LEFT
+>HAND AND REACHES OVER HIS RIGHT SHOULDER AND BANG!

+>FEEDBACK?

    This story in regard to the driver has always been absurd.


    The real truth is that a bomb was planted inside Kennedys Skull by the
CIA in the 50's.  The bomb was exploded in Dallas by remote control.  If you
watch the film, you can see quite clearly that the head is exploding....not
at all what you would expect from a bullet hit.  :)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!sml108
From: [e-mail] (Scott the Great)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 01:04:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 13

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Allen)
says:
>My .signature??
>
>Read: Readers Digest Dec 91 issue..page 99, article "The Man Who Touches
>The Stars"
>
>Project SETI is a COVER operation to cloak an invasion force..

What are you going to do if October 12th comes and goes without incident?
Seriously...

Scott
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!bvc.edu!chrisb
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Killed By Corporate America?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jan 92 22:15:10 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College -- Storm Lake, IA
Lines: 41

The whole scenario surrounding JFK's death is too confidential for me
personally.  I think he was murdered by the corporate/governmental
michine which really needed a war in Vietnam.  If we truly knew the real
reason for JFK's death I believe we would be shocked at who actually was
involved and the payoffs used to keep people quiet.  I believe there are
people who are in politics today who were involved in the plot to kill
Kennedy.  The Warren Commission was a joke.  Gerald Ford eventually became Pres
ident.  Makes you wonder if key members of the commission knew more than what
they told us or if they weren't rewarded for keeping quiet.  I say the plot
and aftermath are full of black mail, bribery and cover up.  I do not
understand why we are not entitled to the records in
this case.  I have heard arguments that we need to protect our national
security.  What we may not realize is that our country was overthrown in a
quiet revolution on that day in 1963.  Can we file charges against the
federal government.  Maybe if we all pooled our money and hired a great
lawyer.  Hasn't this all continued long enough?

What would we find?  Kennedy was killed by Hoover?  Kennedy was killed by
the people who would benefit from a war?  Kennedy was killed by the
Republicans?  Afterall, look at the Presidents since Kennedy.  Maybe the
far right wanted to rid the country of Democratic up and comers.  Maybe old
senator Ted is still around for a reason?  Maybe the Texas oil tycoons
killed Kennedy along with LBJ?  Maybe Bush was involved in some way as a
member of the oil elite in this country at the time?  Some of these
statements are ridiculous but we have to start speculating somewhere if we
aren't entitled to the truth.  What are we afraid of?

Chris B
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I truly do not question Evolution.  I am far more afraid of where we are
going than where we have been."
                -A Very Cool Intellectual Dude I Once Knew
turning into than what we came from.

"You're only as good as your last post!"
                -Ancient Internet Proverb

My opinions are my own and not those of my host institution.  PEACE!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!bvc.edu!chrisb
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Kennedy:  An Election Issue!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 13:29:08 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College -- Storm Lake, IA
Lines: 14

Let's make JFK a campaign issue.  I am ready to vote for a candidate which
is willing to clean up this mess.  Wow, isn't it great that we live in a
country where we have freedom of speech and freedom of information.  Yet
when it comes to finding oout who killed our president we are just supposed
to remain in the dark.  How much longer are we going to tolerate this crap!
______________________________________________________________________________--
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to
stick to possibilities;truth isn't."
                Mark Twain

"You're only as good as your last post!"
                -Ancient Internet Proverb

My opinions are my own and not those of my host institution.  PEACE!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!jwt!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Stollman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK: Portrait in Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 07:42:34 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Waffle login)
Organization: The Matrix
Lines: 4

"X" of the film just died suddenly...Like so many others on the grassy
knoll that day...Maybe we should reverse the process...

        Gary Stollman
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!ee.su.oz.au!danw
From: [e-mail] (Dan Wuescher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 03:35:17 GMT
References: <rdippold.694722844@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694740177@cancun>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: danw@pine (Dan Wuescher)
Organization: Electrical Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: pine.ee.su.oz.au

In article <rdippold.694740177@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

>Let's face it: conspiracy theorists and UFO buffs can "prove" anything
>they want.  I'm not fully satisfied with the Warren commission, but
>Stone's version is even worse.  He's willingly distorting the facts in
>order to prove his point.

JFK hasn't been released yet here in Australia (at least to my knowledge)
but I was under the assumption that Stone has claimed that the movie is
only a "story" based loosely on some facts and some fiction.  Kinda the
same trick someone like Robert Ludlum uses - take some historical fact,
weave some intrigueing psuedo facts, add a little fiction, and you end
up with a pretty good story.

Dan


***********************************************************************
| Dan Wuescher          *  We satisfy our endless needs and justify |
| [e-mail]        *  our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny |
|              *  and in the name of god.  D. Henley       |
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Steve Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK's PROUTY DIES
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 18:24:00 GMT
Lines: 30


 > From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)

 > I have just heard (on local talk radio station KFI- Los Angeles) that
 > Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (who was part inspiration for "Mr.
 > X.") and a technical advisor for the Oliver Stone film "JFK," died
 > suddenly a couple of days after the film opened.

 MP> As a result of this message, I just called Fletcher.  He's alive and
 MP> doing quite well.  He cancelled the radio talk show because he had to
 MP> see his doctor.  He has had a longstanding heart problem

Christ!  It is bad enough the participants here try to deal with
conspiracy theories and alternate concepts.  But to not even get such
minor information correct, speaks of a TRUE lack of communications!  :-(

 MP> You computer jockies out there should set up several on-line databases
 MP> to establish historical facts and references.  (More than one

Perhaps we can offer some space here since we are slowing moving away
from only the fringe science echos and more toward actual documented
subjects.  Please keep us informed of any such plans you might offer.
This kind of wrong information reeks and destroys any possible
credibility.  We needs those who are 'in the know' to help keep track.





 * Origin: * ABySS BBS * Washington DC * (1:109/134.0)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Steve Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 18:24:00 GMT
Lines: 14


 geb> asked him about Oswald, whether he had recruited him or tried to
 geb> recruit him. He replied that they did not recruit him because they
 geb> thought he was CIA.


Another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is
stroking.





 * Origin: * ABySS BBS * Washington DC * (1:109/134.0)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Steve Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 18:24:00 GMT
Lines: 15


 DA> We have been sold down the proverbial river by our wonderful "King
 DA> George"
 DA> If King George is so intent on his WoD...then why does he sit on the
 DA> board of Eli Lilly and sell chemicals to South America to process
 DA> cocaine?


Perhaps the Japs gave him a taste of his own medicine at that dinner. ;)





 * Origin: * ABySS BBS * Washington DC * (1:109/134.0)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!mfm0
From: [e-mail] (martin frederic melhus)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Summary: Russian files???
Keywords: KGB, Kennedy, Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 04:12:48 GMT
Expires: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 06:00:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <606300040@peg>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 11

I personally am not sure that info about the Kennedy Assination will
turn up from the KGB files.  After all, if there is a conspiracy behind
the assination, it would seem a relatively easy feat to remove/destroy
these files before they became public (easy, that is relative to what
would have had to be done in Dallas in '63 to cover up the conspiracy.)
Don't hold your breath, netters.

Martin F. Melhus
[e-mail]

--- insert banal.quote here ---
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!muvms3!rcbi27
From: [e-mail] (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Pro-Warren Commission JFK post
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 20:44:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Marshall University
Lines: 17

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Karl Kluge) writes:
> Just after JFK came out, someone posted a review they typed in critical of
> the film and conspiracy theories. I believe it was the post that started the
> "_JFK_ promotes absurd accusations" thread. I *thought* I had saved the post,
> but it seems to have vanished -- could someone repost or email it to me?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



        MAKES YOU THINK, DOESN'T IT????

                            --danny
--
    "Were his solid black square paintings really,
    as the artist claimed, simply neutral, abstract
    compositions devoid of external references and
    meanings?" ***********************************
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!muvms3!rcbi27
From: [e-mail] (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 21:07:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Marshall University
Lines: 20
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10121 misc.legal:24385 alt.censorship:5596


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ben Delisle) writes:
> --
>    Why are there many files and documents that are sealed or locked away
> for a number of years, untill near the mid 21st century?


> What is there to stop people from going to the storage location
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the files and breaking the seals on them?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        I think they're called POLICE.

                                                      --danny
--
    "Were his solid black square paintings really,
    as the artist claimed, simply neutral, abstract
    compositions devoid of external references and
    meanings?" ***********************************
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!yfn.ysu.edu!ysub!tdoper32
From: [e-mail] (Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: RFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 11:03:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Youngstown State University
Lines: 4

He was shot in the head at close range. I'm sure he died before he got to the
hospital.There is film footage of him lying on the floor dying and people
wrestling the gun away from Siran.
It's been shown many times on TV.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!wupost!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!midiline!pattisan
From: [e-mail] (Patti Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 10:21:37 GMT
References: <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz>
Organization: MIDILine BBS - Altadena, CA - [phone]
Lines: 20
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10124 misc.legal:24394 alt.censorship:5597

billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:


> ->
> I don't know that there is any "authority" under which the files were sealed
> or could be unsealed.  The fact is, they were sealed at the request of the
> Kennedy family so the political reality is that they will remain sealed
> until 2038.
>
       It was LBJ who sealed those files...and personally I don't care at
whose request...They WILL BE OPENED!!!  My gov't wil not treat me like a child
and  only tell me what they think I should know.   That is not the way it works
here and there is no reason not to open them, they Kennedys can't be hurt any
more than they have been already.  WE have the right to know and we will know
Everything that has happened in the world to this date now eliminates any
threat to "national security" crap they may shove down our throats. I am look
ing for a petition or anything to be part of a movement to open ALL SEALED re-
cords. We are free here and it Never should have been done in the first place.
Our taxes DID pay for it and ALL the investigations with in and I always get
what I pay for! by hook or crook!  Ask my friends!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 18:09:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 22

[e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
< In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

< >< The woman who says she saw this didn't manage to get this version of
< >< her story down on paper until many years later.  I don't buy it.
< >She gave a statement to the FBI the day of the assassination.

< Yes, but the statement had nothing to do with Jack Ruby.  Only years
< later did she say that she picked out a photo of the man she would
< come to know as Jack Ruby, and that the FBI failed to mention this in
< its report.  When given the choice between her memory conveniently
< changing years later to fit what an earnest assassination "researcher"
< wants to hear, and the FBI conspiring to assassinate the President, I
< don't have to think very hard.

You do have to think hard, much harder than you've been thinking already.
In particular, you need to think hard about the FBI and how its dictator,
J. Edgar Hoover, staked out a position early that Oswald acted alone, and
that none of the army of yes-men that comprised the FBI was going to dare
find anything that would put the boss on the spot.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK's PROUTY DIES
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 11:30:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 44

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Prado) writes:
>
> > From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
> > Organization: Abode Computer Services
>
> > I have just heard (on local talk radio station KFI- Los Angeles) that
> > Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (who was part inspiration for "Mr.
> > X.") and a technical advisor for the Oliver Stone film "JFK," died
> > suddenly a couple of days after the film opened.
>
> > They did not say what the cause of death was.
>
>As a result of this message, I just called Fletcher.  He's alive and doing
>quite well.  He cancelled the radio talk show because he had to see
>his doctor.  He has had a longstanding heart problem, and has to take
>it easy.  He cancelled a big speaking engagement as well, and he
>really shouldn't travel.  Radio talk shows are perhaps a good medium
>for him.  However, he's quite energetic -- we had a lively hour-long
>conversation.
>
>You computer jockies out there should set up several on-line databases to
>establish historical facts and references.  (More than one -- there will
>undoubtedly be covert plants out there doing it as well.)  Being that I'm
>in Washington, D.C., have already had my life threatened, and certain
>other reasons I probably shouldn't elaborate on here, I'm reluctant
>(to say the least) to do it myself.  If I were Joe Blow in Kokomo then
>I'd do it.  ...and circulate copies all over the world.
>
> * Origin: Jeezus, we animals must sleep, some time (1:109/10)

Since I heard this a few days ago on KFI, i have heard it mentioned in a
couple of other places.    Can anyone out there help with this one???   Why
would someone start this >RUMOR< (?) if the man is still alive???

As a matter of fact, I heard both David Lifton and an attorney who served on
the House Select Commitee (who were debating) refer to this on another station
here in Los Angeles.

WHAT IS THE DEAL??  I PLAN TO CALL BOTH STATIONS TOMMOROW.

SoMEONE HERE IS LYING!

--Dusty
in L.A.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 12:48:22 GMT
References: <rdippold.694811380@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694895049@cancun>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 51

In article <rdippold.694895049@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>>In article <rdippold.694811380@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>>Mr. Belvedere was NEVER nominated for an EMMY.
>>You, Sir (and that's using the term loosely) however may very well have been
>>a big fan.
>
>Of what?  TV is a wasteland.  Mr. Belvedere is a sewage pit in the wasteland.
>
>>It's interesting that you keep avoiding my question. For the third time:
>>Since you are such a GREAT judge of talent (as obvious by your high regard for
>>Penthouse letters)
>
>High regard as compared to television, that is.  Then again, I'd
>consider most printed ads to be favorable in comparison to your
>standard TV show.
>
>>I would love to know what you do for a living???
>
>I design electronic things, and write columns and books.
>
>
>>It's no wonder you think OLIVER STONE is not talented as well.
>
>That's right.  I don't think someone who takes the shallow plot and
>style of a TV series or movie-of-the-week and beefs it up to a full
>100 minutes with better production values is making a great leap.
>Someone enamored of TV might think him unto a God.
>
>
>>You are entitled to your opinion, but a wise person once said:
>
>>   "Don't give someone who thinks your stupid the chance to see that
>>    you really are by opening your mouth."
>
>Or forget the difference between "your" and "you're" and really prove
>the point, eh?  Or completely mangle an excellent quote almost beyond
>recognition.
>

YOU SOUND LIKE A REAL TALENTED GUY (Especially at editing text).

Let's stop this useless bickering.  It's costing the net too much money.

--DUSTY
in L.A.

P.S. WHAT BOOKS HAVE YOU WRITTEN???  I'd like to read 'em sometime.
     I'm sure they're VERY CREATIVE.
     And deservant of many AWARDS.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!billy
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <1992Jan7.224116.2164@anasaz>
Date: 7 Jan 92 22:41:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Lines: 22
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10139 misc.legal:24430 alt.censorship:5599

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
->In article <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
->>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ben Delisle) writes:
->[stuff about JFK-related files being sealed deleted]
->
->>I don't know that there is any "authority" under which the files were sealed
->>or could be unsealed.  The fact is, they were sealed at the request of the
->>Kennedy family so the political reality is that they will remain sealed
->>until 2038.
->
->So the Kennedy's were involved in it too?  I bet Willie Smith was

No.  I just remember when it happened and the discussion then about what
authority could be invoked to seal these papers.  I think the family
was especially concerned about autopsy photos being used in some preverse
way.  There were Kennedy attorney's all over Washington and, however they
did it, they got everything sealed up for 75 years.

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Bill Moore     [e-mail]    [phone]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <rdippold.694991747@cancun>
Date: 9 Jan 92 21:15:47 GMT
References: <rdippold.694811380@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694895049@cancun> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 15
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:

>YOU SOUND LIKE A REAL TALENTED GUY (Especially at editing text).

Oh I am, I am.

>Let's stop this useless bickering.  It's costing the net too much money.

Have you seen the amount of JFK bandwidth going on?  This is nothing.
Especially when you compare the cost of a "Please stop arguing
message" in which you QUOTE THE ENTIRE FUCKING MESSAGE compared to the
email equivalent.

--
Into each life a little fallout must rain.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!cs.berkeley.edu!carlton
From: [e-mail] (Mike Carlton)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: JFK references
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 23:07:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 10
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10150 rec.arts.movies:51331
NNTP-Posting-Host: peets.berkeley.edu

I just saw JFK, I thought it was very well done.  I noticed at the
beginning of the movie that Stone credits two books as the source
of much of his material.

Unfortunately, I didn't pay too much attention and it wasn't until
the movie was over that I thought I'd like to read the books myself.
Can anyone tell me the books and authors that Stone used?

thanks,
--mike ([e-mail])
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Killed By Corporate America?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 00:31:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 8
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>What are we afraid of?

Apparently, of the idea that a monumental event can be caused by the
most un-monumental of people: Lee Oswald.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: RFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 00:42:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 9
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Rich) writes:

>He was shot in the head at close range. I'm sure he died before he got to the
>hospital.

No, he didn't die until the next day.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "JFK" lights fire under Sen. Specter
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 04:26:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 25
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:51377 alt.conspiracy:10158 talk.politics.misc:57340

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S.E. Williams ) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>In Rochester, however, when Specter's name was mantioned you could hear
>a few whispers and murmurs.  Maybe they just weren't sure who Specter
>was...
>
>But I doubt by the sounds of things he should be expecting many votes
>from Pennsylvania anytime soon.
>
>-Sean
>--

Well, they certainly weren't fooled by Dick Thornburg either! I DO
believe that congresscritters should be held accountable for their
actions and to Arlen Spector I say, "Thy time has run out".

Don


--
-* Don Allen *-               // Only   | Are you ready for SETI?
Internet: [e-mail]  \X/ Amiga   | Oct 12,1992 - ET comes to NM
UUCP: .........uunet!peora!bilver!dona  | The *real* "October Surprise"
Psi-Tech and alien brain-wave research -- Whats going on at Los Alamos?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!masscomp!ocpt!tinton.ccur.com!wildwood!tmoore
From: [e-mail] (Tim Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Question: Why shoot JFK in public?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 92 20:43:39 GMT
References: <1992Jan5.154229.3297@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corporation
Lines: 17
Xref: ns-mx talk.politics.drugs:5508 alt.drugs:20069 alt.conspiracy:10159 alt.society.civil-liberty:2348

I have been following all the conspiracy stuff for several weeks.
Personally I don't buy the Warren Commission Report at all, but
something keeps nagging me.  If *you* were going to kill JFK and
had the cooperation of certain people in high places (cia, military
etc.), why would you go to all the trouble of setting up someone (LHO)
and do the shooting in public?  Look at all the things that could go
wrong!  Why wouldn't you arrange some kind of 'accident'?   Something
with fewer vairables?  Any ideas?
______________________________________________________________________________
who:   Tim Moore                                             ___________
email: [e-mail]                               /  ________/__
snail: Concurrent Computer Corp.                           /__/_______/  /
       106 Apple St. Tinton Falls, NJ.            Concurrent /__________/
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]       Computer Corporation
home:  309 Glendale Dr. Toms River, NJ. 08753
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: RFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 01:49:00 GMT
Lines: 51


 >> [e-mail] (Mark Prado) writes:
 > And  [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)  replies:

 >> Where was RFK shot -- i.e., in the head or the abdomen or
 >> where?  And did he die immediately or did he bleed to
 >> death or what??  Is there any film footage?

 > He was shot in the head.  [...]  There is some
 > footage I believe.  In the RFK case, there were more bullets fired than
 > can be accounted for by Sirhan's gun.  Some think on of RFK's guards,
 > a former Mafia soldier shot him from behind under guise of firing at
 > Sirhan.

Fletcher Prouty said to me on the phone the other nite that a man introduced
him to a lady who told him the following.  She was not wanting any publicity,
and after initial hesitance and reassurances that Fletcher was "O.K." she
stated the following.  This is NOT an exact statement from Prouty, as I don't
have a tape recording of this part of the conversation, but I could get it
this weekend if there's much demand.

She was one of the people who worked for the Robert Kennedy presidential
campaign.  They had a number of people of different racial heritages
(especially in California) and different ways of dressing to denote their
economic class.  Their job was to be near Kennedy clapping and cheering along
with his statements on TV.  She was one of the people who went behind Kennedy
when the cameras were on.  They were following Kennedy everywhere he went.

After Kennedy had a short thing on camera, a man came up to her and said that
she was to exit thru the door on the side now, that plans had changed, and
Kennedy was to proceed without them to the next destination while they would
go by car.

Instead, she went ahead and followed Kennedy, though she had a hard time
staying by his side behind him.  She was right beside him when all of a
sudden he started to stop like something's wrong in front and instantly
thereafter someone behind them quickly shoved her aside and instantly after
that there was a POW in her right ear, then instantly thereafter were other
shots from in front from the direction of Sirhan.  (Her right ear rang for a
long time thereafter, unlike her left ear.)  Immediately afterwards, someone
grabbed her and pulled her away and she was rushed off to a hotel room "for
her safety". She was also immediately TOLD what had happened (which was
contrary to what she experienced) and kept there for awhile.

If Kennedy lived for awhile thereafter, then there should be evidence of the
direction of the bullet (unless, of course, Kennedy turned around or
something).  Sirhan is still alive, so maybe there's some opportunity there,
with truth serum and the like.  Did he act alone?  Or was it part of a ...
conspiracy?

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Another Prouty statement
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 05:53:00 GMT
Lines: 127

If there were to be a database kept on conspiraciess, what would be a good
set of fields?  I'll start by suggestion the following and invite criticisms
and suggestions.

====================================================================

     Subject: Weak link between Oswald and George Bush thru George
                DeMohrenschildt

   Reference: DeMohrenschildt's address book, according to Fletcher Prouty,
                tape of telephone conversation by Mark Prado, Jan 9, 1992.

   Verified?: No
    Verifier: N/A
  Importance: 7       (1 = most, 9 = least, loosely speaking)
     Date(s): 1953, 1962-63

          XR: George Bush, George DeMohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald, Zapata
              Company, Mrs. DeMohrenschildt

Memo:
When discussing the established fact Oswald's numerous close associates were
all right-winged U.S. intelligence operatives, with no left wingers on
record, Fletcher stated, "Sure!  Top men! DeMohrenschildt.  In his telephone
phonebook listing DeMohrenschildt had not only Lyndon Johnson's name, but the
address in Midland, Texas, of Bush and his wife at their home when they
founded the Zapata company.  He knew them in 1953."

As shown in the records on Oswald and DeMohrenschildt, DeMohrenschildt and his
wife were two of Oswald's very closest and longterm associates after his
return from the USSR.  DeMohrenschildt was a top level CIA operative,
including several key associates (see subject "George DeMohrenschildt").

Follow-up with DeMohrenschildt is impossible.  He died of gunshot wounds,
called "a suicide" (see also subject "DeMohrenschildt Murdered"), on the day
that House Assassinations Committee investigators were scheduled to meet with
him for the first time.  Critic and assassination researcher Edward Jay
Epstein had also scheduled an appointment with him for that day.

Possible further info: Is Mrs. DeMohrenschildt still alive?  Was fearing for
her life after murder, and talking openly.  Did she die?  Did she mention
Bush?  See important statements by Mrs. Demohrenschildt immediately after
husband's death in above-referenced materials revealing additional contacts
not documented elsewhere.  Their relationship with Bush?

=======================================================================
[End of record.]

Back to the NewsGroup message:

I'd love to see someone ask Bush at a press conference about his relationship
with DeMohrenschildt.

IMO, TOO MUCH of the discussion centers around the "Magic Bullet" theory and
the events at Dealey Plaza, and NOT ENOUGH focusses on Oswald's *DOCUMENTED*
background (both before and after his USSR "defection").

As Fletcher Prouty says, the big story these days is the cover-up itself.

IMO, in due time there are going to be alot of people who are going to be
INfamous for their public statements and lack of integrity, including many
journalists -- who the public depends upon for its information and who
is the PRIME target of a great part of global intelligence operations.

And next comes the story of high journalism itself.  Journalism is to a
great degree an "intelligence" field itself, and don't question the
bartering of information between communities.  Also, something I know
due to the time I worked in defense: with all the intelligence
community's monitoring of communications, it is known which journalists
are doing which stories, where they will be, what their personalities
and tendencies are for manipulation BOTH *UNWITTING* and witting, and
how to operate them.  All kinds of means.

IMO, the best way to counter this is to DECENTRALIZE the news media,
via electronic means, and to hook up people via their PC's and things
like mailer networks.  Already, we have newsletters posted on-line.
In UUNET, they often post as messages (split up).  In FidoNet, which
has excellent support for transfers of files, there's things like the
Software Distribution System (which carries some newsletters, too, which
you "File Request" and instantly get from your city's SDS Library, or
else get on the automatic distribution list).  Why not newspapers that
way, too, right to your home or office PC, every morning, automatically?
And it must be cheaper to "print" and to get inputs from "journalists".

As for books, I have a nice "Disk Publisher" program -- publish on disk.
The user runs the program and is given a Table of Contents.  Items can
be text or submenus (sub-Tables of Contents).  In each of the text items
(e.g., chapters), you can scroll, or search for words, etc.

The program is called "Synergy".

It also has a database built-in, albeit you can't customize the field
lengths.  And this database allows FILES to be attached and viewed from
within records of the database (multiple files per record).  Maybe the
above JFK database could be adapted to Synergy's format.

The real wonder of this program, to me, is that it does so much within
64K of EXE program plus a few system files (for the menus).  Usually,
the size of the text files dominate the size of the "publication".

Want a copy of the "book"?  No need to find a bookstore.  No need to
shell out $20 for the hardcover-only version.  Want to publish? No need
to hassle with a publisher.  No need to photocopy.

A diskette and 1 minute will generate a copy.
Or download it.

This one is written by a close associate in my old days.  Though many
people who he knows use it to publish in certain circles, he liked it
most for widespread and "anonymously" publishing controversial information
of any kind.  The program is called Synergy.  Last I heard, the author
was back in New Zealand.  I will put the publication up on my BBS for
downloading starting this weekend.  [phone] for 2400 baud callers
(4 lines) and [phone] for 9600 and HST callers.  A good sample
publication, after which JFK stuff could be formatted, is China Freedom
Network.  I will also put these up on my mailers at FidoNet 1:109/10 for
9600/HST and 1:109/349 for 2400 baud, as CHINA.ZIP and SYNERGY.ZIP.
Requesting FILES gets a list of everything available in my library.
(If you want to get an FTSC-standard "mailer", drop me a line.)

BTW, Synergy is also shareware.

As for the database at the beginning of this message, anyone ELSE
interested in doing THAT database?  Suggestions for database fields,
anyone?

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK references
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 09:29:00 GMT
Lines: 182


 > From: [e-mail] (Mike Carlton)
 > Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 > I just saw JFK, I thought it was very well done.  I noticed at the
 > beginning of the movie that Stone credits two books as the source
 > of much of his material.

 > Can anyone tell me the books and authors that Stone
 > used?

Jim Garrison, "On the Trail of the Assassins", Warner
Books, $6.00 paperback. I just got my copy at bookstore a
few weeks ago.  Copyright 1988.

Also recommended:

"Crossfire", by Jim Maars, published by Carroll & Graf
Publishers, Inc. (New York), a 600-page paperback for
$12.95 that summarizes alot of the works of other authors.
Copyright 1989, apparently recent.

"Best Evidence", by David S. Lifton, published by Carroll &
Graf Publishers, Inc. (New York), 750 pages, for $12.95.  I
think it first published in 1980, and was republished for
the ninth time in 1990.

"High Treason", by Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward
Livingstone, published by Berkley Books (New York), 550
pages, $7.00.  First published 1989. Robert Groden is
largely responsible for getting the House Select Committee
on Assassinations going in 1976 (I think).  (Livingstone
has a 1980 copyright on some of the material, but unknown
if published then.)

The one book I've seen the most by an author supporting the
Oswald-as-left- winger-lone-gunman account, and obviously a
propaganda book:

"Conspiracy of One - The Definitive Book on the Kennedy
Assassination", by Jim Moore, 1991, published by The Summit
Group, 1227 West Magnolia, Ft. Worth, Texas, 76104.  This
"put on the blinders" book starts off with: "In another
recent book on the Kennedy assassination, Texas journalist
Jim Maars asks his readers not to trust what he has
written. Crossfire further adds the admonition not to trust
any book written on the killing of the President.  I can
understand the injunction when it is applied to critics'
books whick, in my opinion, are filled with supposition and
woefully light on cold, hard facts. But I can say with
great candor that Conspiracy of One is one book you can and
should believe."  And that's pretty much the tone of things
thru the book. Constant cheap shots at the conspiracy
researchers, putting himself up and them down. Never
addresses the hardest evidence of conspiracy people, but
does alot of poking at the weakest things, often taking
them out of context in a way that implies lunacy.  ...
Claims "objectivity" on his part and training as a
historian (still can't find his credentials) unlike the
other authors, saying "this book names names and produces
evidence - something no Warren Commission critic has ever
done", claims to have spent the last 23 years researching
the subject, introduces and refers to Jim Garrison's
"abortive and ruinous investigation", etc., etc.  Claims to
be a conspiracy supporter who defected to non-conspiracy.
You get the idea.

Current books of interest unrelated to Kennedy but related to Bush and the CIA:

"October Surprise", by Gary Sick.  On the covert unofficial
scheme to delay the release of the American hostages in
Iran until after the Carter-Reagan election.  (This is
SEPARATE from and IN ADDITION TO the Iran-Contra scandal,
though it also involved arms.) Gary Sick served on the
National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford,
Carter, and Reagan, capping a 24-year career in the U.S.
Navy as an analyst of political and military affairs.  He
was the principal White House aide for Iran during the
hostage crisis of 1979-81. Published by Random House in
1991.  My copy is hardback, 275 pages, $23.00.

"October Surprise" by Barbara Honegger.  Unknown publisher
-- I don't have a copy.  Same topic as Sick's book above.
Honegger was part of the policy research team of the
Reagan-Bush campaign, and subsequently worked in the White
House Office of Policy Development as a Research and Policy
Analyst.  Heavily supported by statements of Jimmy Carter,
former Iranian President Bani-Sadr, Senior White House
Correspondent Sarah McClendon, and Senator Robert Byrd.

Hoegger's information has been looked into by others.  The
following info may or may not be in her book, and is NOT in
Sick's book I don't think.  This includes such detailed
info as the hotel they met at, the plane that flew them,
and bank officers handling money (some of which are also
allegedly linked with S&L money laundering).  Quite an
investigation...  Honegger lives in Pacific Grove
(California?).

"A Nation Betrayed", by Lt. Colonel James "Bo" Gritz, the
most decorated Green Beret Commander of the Vietnam Era,
former Pentagon spokesperson (around 1980 - I remember him
on TV, but no dates at hand), and former loyal White House
operative under Reagan-Bush.  Was sent into Southeast Asia
in 1986 on a mission related to a George Bush concern, and
eventually quit the White House and reported on the CIA
drug money laundering. (I did some computer consulting for
him in late 1980's during his book-writing supported by an
associate of his.)

"The Crimes of Patriots - A true Tale of Dope, Dirty Money
and the CIA", by Jonathan Kwitny.  The title says it all.
Kwitny has worked and lived in more than 90 countries in
the course of his work for the Peace Corps and his 16+
years as an investigative journalist for the Wall Street
Journal.

"The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia", by Dr. Alfred
W. McCoy, a professor in Australia who got his Ph.D. from
Yale. The CIA fought bitterly to suppress this book, but
the second release was out in late 1990.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence", by Victor
Marchetti, who was a career CIA operative, including
Clandestine Services, and climbing all the way up to the
Office of the Director of CIA, holding such positions as
Special Assistant to teh Chief of Planning, and Executive
Assistant to the Deputy Director.  This is an older book
(late 1970's) and was the first book to be censored by the
U.S. Government.  Parts of it are still deleted due to
censorship (and there are big blank spaces in the book
where that information was removed).  It took 2 years of
costly legal battles to get the book out.  (These days, he
still does speaking tours, and instead of Iran-Contra he
will often talk about the CIA raising money off the drug
trade and other ways of funding secret wars with funding
outside of congressional appropriation.)

Future books to look out for:

Pete Brewton, a Houston Post investigative journalist who
will soon be publishing a book on failed Savings & Loan
(S&L) money laundering by the CIA. Interestingly, Pete has
scientific as well as business credentials, so he's been
trained in objective analysis.  M.S. Astronomy from New
Mexico State, B.S. Rice Univ. Magna Cum Laud, and an M.S.
in International Business from the American Graduate School
of International Business.  Has awards for journalism too
numerous to list here.  Real good at untangling the mazes
of fraudelent business transactions.

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, former Canadian Diplomat at the
United Nations General Assembly (1957-61) who has written
on the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, and in his
latest book "The Iran-Contra Connection", he is now
completing a book called "The Politics of Cocaine" which
will cover CIA drug money laundering to support covert
activities (much like Iran-Contra).

Things I'd like to find out about:

An account of David Stockman on the DebateGate things.
Stockman reputedly got up in front of about 250 people
during the live telecast of the Reagan-Carter debate and
cited what each would say, down to the last word, BEFORE
they stated it.  Of course, later, Reagan Campaign
officials admitted having a copy of Carter's debate script.
Stockman played Carter in Reagan's practices.  Anyway,
getting information covertly out of the White House is
worse than Watergate, in my opinion.

There's a "Walter J. Bush" *INTIMATELY* tied into the
Keating S&L bailout (the single biggest bailout of all, and
one clearly linked to CIA operatives), who for years
*CLAIMED* to be George Bush's nephew, until the S&L problem
when he got real tight-lipped.  This is NOT the President's
son, Neal Bush.  This is Walter J. Bush.  (Notably, not
only Pete Brewton but also Dale Van Arsdale of Jack
Anderson Associates are hard at work on separate books
which might shed some light on this.)

 * Origin: Reply to 1:109/349.2 or p2.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Keywords: KGB, Kennedy, Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 10:33:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <606300040@peg> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I personally am not sure that info about the Kennedy Assination will
>turn up from the KGB files.  After all, if there is a conspiracy behind
>the assination, it would seem a relatively easy feat to remove/destroy
>these files before they became public (easy, that is relative to what
>would have had to be done in Dallas in '63 to cover up the conspiracy.)
>Don't hold your breath, netters.
>
>Martin F. Melhus
>[e-mail]
>
>--- insert banal.quote here ---


THE KGB has stated (on a special NIGHTLINE telecast Nov 22, 1991) that
from what they knew about OSWALD, he could not have pulled off the
assasination.  They shared information from the OSWALD FILES that had been
"locked up" for many years.

They said ALOT of things during this special, but they mostly pointed to
the fact that OSWALD was very gullible & stupid.  And also that he was an
extremely poor shot.

You can probably find transcripts of this telecast somewhere (Compuserve ?).
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK references
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 10:25:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 13
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10167 rec.arts.movies:51394

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I just saw JFK, I thought it was very well done.  I noticed at the
>beginning of the movie that Stone credits two books as the source
>of much of his material.
>
>Unfortunately, I didn't pay too much attention and it wasn't until
>the movie was over that I thought I'd like to read the books myself.
>Can anyone tell me the books and authors that Stone used?
>
>thanks,
>--mike ([e-mail])

"CROSSFIRE" by Jim Mars &  "ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS" by Jim Garrison
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 10:44:43 GMT
References: <rdippold.694895049@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694991747@cancun>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 23

In article <rdippold.694991747@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>
>>YOU SOUND LIKE A REAL TALENTED GUY (Especially at editing text).
>
>Oh I am, I am.
>
>>Let's stop this useless bickering.  It's costing the net too much money.
>
>Have you seen the amount of JFK bandwidth going on?  This is nothing.
>Especially when you compare the cost of a "Please stop arguing
>message" in which you QUOTE THE ENTIRE FUCKING MESSAGE compared to the
>email equivalent.
>
>--
>Into each life a little fallout must rain.

Sounds like I finally made this art critic lose his temper.

oops!

--Dusty
in L.A.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!master!saab!mikeq
From: [e-mail] (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Question: Why shoot JFK in public?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 15:48:29 GMT
References: <1992Jan5.154229.3297@anasaz{ <[e-mail]{ <[e-mail]{
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.
Lines: 16
Xref: ns-mx talk.politics.drugs:5513 alt.drugs:20079 alt.conspiracy:10171

In article <[e-mail]{ [e-mail] writes:
{If *you* were going to kill JFK and
{had the cooperation of certain people in high places (cia, military
{etc.), why would you go to all the trouble of setting up someone (LHO)
{and do the shooting in public?  Look at all the things that could go
{wrong!  Why wouldn't you arrange some kind of 'accident'?   Something
{with fewer vairables?  Any ideas?

It may be sloppy, but it's a good setup when a scapegoat is going to take the fall.
Besides, politics is often sloppy. Look at the assassination attempts on Castro. Sloppy.
Look at Watergate. Sloppy.

In America, anything can be bought. I bet that if enough money showed up in the right place, all
those sealed documents pertaining to this case would become available.

Mike
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!golchowy
From: [e-mail] (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Question: Why shoot JFK in public?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 16:38:34 GMT
References: <1992Jan5.154229.3297@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Lines: 21
Xref: ns-mx talk.politics.drugs:5514 alt.drugs:20080 alt.conspiracy:10172 alt.society.civil-liberty:2355

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I have been following all the conspiracy stuff for several weeks.
>Personally I don't buy the Warren Commission Report at all, but
>something keeps nagging me.  If *you* were going to kill JFK and
>had the cooperation of certain people in high places (cia, military
>etc.), why would you go to all the trouble of setting up someone (LHO)
>and do the shooting in public?  Look at all the things that could go
>wrong!  Why wouldn't you arrange some kind of 'accident'?   Something
>with fewer vairables?  Any ideas?

In a democracy, a coup d'etat has to be a secret one, and thus an
inside job is best disguised as an outside job...it is as simple
as that.  It involves greater initial risk, because the public
environment and the evidence around the event itself has to be
controlled, but the initial greater risk is necessary to make the
likelihood of the ultimate success of the deception more likely.

A successful coup d'etat in a democracy is like a magician executing a
trick...

Gerald
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!mcnc!duke!cs.duke.edu
From: [e-mail] (Scooter)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Another JFK Question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 16:49:45 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: The Zymurgy Institute
Lines: 12

It's my understanding that the motorcade route was
printing in the Dallas morning papers that day, and the route as shown went
straight down Main Street.  The route was changed because it would have been
more difficult getting onto the freeway from Main Street than from Elm (?)
Street.  My question is, how difficult would it be to shoot the President on
*Main Street* from the TSBD?  Unless Oswald had some way of knowing that the
route had been changed, wouldn't he have been planning for a the President
to be travelling down Main Street?

No worries,

Scooter
Path: ns-mx!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!INEL.GOV!cak
From: [e-mail] (Clarence Calkins)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: More JFK conspiracies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 17:00:48 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Lines: 45


  Just started reading the net for the first time a couple days ago.
All this JFK stuff is pretty fascinating. I remember in the late 60s
reading a book about the kennedy assasination that talked about the
gunman on the grassy knoll theories and coverups. In 1984, I had the
oppurtunity to visit Dallas and walk down the streets, the knoll and
depository.  VERY INTERSTING! to quote Artie Johnson (LaughIn.)

  There is lots of this matter that we will never know, not even when
Warren Commision reports are released. Are other Kennedys involved in the
conspiracy too? I wonder. How deep does all this go? When a family has
that much power, they can do anything! (The U.S. tries to grant equal
rights to all, but "justice" in the courts will always belong to the
great and powerful. (Note the recent Willy K. Smith case!)

  On another note: Has anyone discussed the rumors of Kennedy involvement
in the death of Marilyn Monroe? I read a book a while ago about her
suicide and all the inconsistancies. I don't remember all the figures,
but it was rumored that she had had an affair with JFK and some of his
family felt that Marilyn was a liabilty with JFK as president. The
ultimate result of this was her murder staged to look like a drug
overdose. An interesting idea to say the least. Goes well with all the
rest of the Kennedy conspiracy stuff, don't you think?

--
 ************************************************************************
 *   Clarence Calkins, [e-mail]      "Outside of a dog, a book is   *
 *   Idaho National Engineering Labs     man's best friend.  Inside of  *
 *   EG&G Idaho Inc.                     a dog it's too dark to read."  *
 *   Idaho Falls, ID                                   - Groucho Marx   *
 ************************************************************************
(The following long disclaimer is added by the mail daemon...NOT my fault!)

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ingria
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 17:16:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <606300040@peg> <[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of Fri, 10 Jan 1992 10:33:34 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:

   THE KGB has stated (on a special NIGHTLINE telecast Nov 22, 1991) that
   from what they knew about OSWALD, he could not have pulled off the
   assasination.  They shared information from the OSWALD FILES that had been
   "locked up" for many years.

   They said ALOT of things during this special, but they mostly pointed to
   the fact that OSWALD was very gullible & stupid.  And also that he was an
   extremely poor shot.

   You can probably find transcripts of this telecast somewhere (Compuserve ?).

Nightline trasncripts are available from:

Journal Graphics
267 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212)-227-READ
Index available on Compu-Serve

I believe they're $4.00 each.

-30-
Bob
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Ex-KGB agent says he has data on Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 17:06:25 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 39


  MOSCOW- A retired KGB agent claimed yesterday to have new information about
 the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and he urged the creation of
 a joint Russian-US investigatory commission.
  "What happened in the United States of America in 1963 is not only an element
 of American history, but...a gap in world history," said Oleg M. Nechiporenko,
 a senior agent who was thrown out of Mexico in 1971 for purportedly scheming
 to topple its government.
  Nechiporenko refused to give details and suggested that he expected to be
 paid for his information, which he called a "commercial secret."
  Nechiporenko came into the limelight last week when former Maj. Gen. Oleg
 Kalugin of the KGB, now an outspoken critic, said Nechiporenko interrogated
 Americans in Vietnam who might have been prisoners of war after Vietnam said
 it had sent all Americans home.
  Nechiporenko said yesterday that he had interviewed only one American, a
 suspected CIA agent, in 1973.
  Oswald requested Soviet citizenship in 1959 and lived in the Soviet Union in
 the early 1960s. After the assassination, the KGB said it had rejected Oswald
 as an agent and had blocked his efforts to return to the Soviet Union.
  At a press conference yesterday, Nechiporeko said he and two other agents
 met Oswald on Sept. 27 and 28, 1963, at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City,
 where Oswald was trying to get a Soviet visa.
  Nechiporenko would say only that he had "historical information" that would
 "be useful for the analysis of what happened" on Nov. 22 when Oswald shot
 Kennedy.


  That's it, verbatim. FWIW, I'm a little skeptical........what do you all
 think?


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 17:48:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 13

[e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:

> Or maybe, just maybe, her desire to mollify pesky assasination
> "researchers" played tricks with her memory.

In this and other statements you have attempted to substitute one conspiracy
with another, insinuating that conspiracy theorists have cajoled, badgered
or pestered witnesses into changing their testimony to support the idea
of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. If this is your argument, what case
can you make for it? Other than what your intuition tells you, that is. I'd
like to see the evidence and make up my own mind.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <rdippold.695068999@cancun>
Date: 10 Jan 92 18:43:19 GMT
References: <rdippold.694895049@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694991747@cancun> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>In article <rdippold.694991747@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>Let's stop this useless bickering.  It's costing the net too much money.
>>
>>Have you seen the amount of JFK bandwidth going on?  This is nothing.
>>Especially when you compare the cost of a "Please stop arguing
>>message" in which you QUOTE THE ENTIRE FUCKING MESSAGE compared to the
>>email equivalent.

>Sounds like I finally made this art critic lose his temper.

Lose my temper?  Not on the net, it's not worth getting upset about.
Just pointing out in no uncertain terms that bitching about bandwith
as you quote the entire multi-page article is hypocrisy of the purest
form.  Which you did again.
--
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  -- Sigmund Freud
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!lll-winken!taurus!huxley![e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Did the Assassination Fail?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 19:13:50 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 8

Perhaps the real point of the assassination was to clear the path for
another invasion of Cuba. Kennedy is perceived as resistant because of
the purported deal with Kruschev not to invade, made during the Cuban
Missle Crisis. Perhaps the assassination failed its objective when LBJ
did not pursue further actions against Cuba, but instead became
preoccupied with Vietnam. Any opinions on this possibility?

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bu.edu!buitc!ccmlh
From: [e-mail] (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 19:25:13 GMT
References: <rich.694824620@pencil> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark Hayes)
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Information Technology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Lines: 7

>And Lane is also the lawyer for the Institute for Historical Review,
>which is dedicated to convincing the world that 'the Holocaust
>never happened'.  David Duke has been pushing the IHR line.

For what it's worth, please note that Mr. Lane was also lawyer for
a certain "Reverend" Jim Jones, of Guyana fame.  Lane, in fact, was
lucky to escape with his life at the time of the massacre/mass suicide.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: More JFK conspiracies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 19:26:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 21

[e-mail] (Clarence Calkins) writes:

>   On another note: Has anyone discussed the rumors of Kennedy involvement
> in the death of Marilyn Monroe? I read a book a while ago about her
> suicide and all the inconsistancies. I don't remember all the figures,
> but it was rumored that she had had an affair with JFK and some of his
> family felt that Marilyn was a liabilty with JFK as president. The
> ultimate result of this was her murder staged to look like a drug
> overdose. An interesting idea to say the least. Goes well with all the
> rest of the Kennedy conspiracy stuff, don't you think?

There's some feeling that RFK didn't take apparent interest in the
investigation into his brother's death because he was afraid of what
might turn up on both he and JFK. For one, that both of them were "having
their way" with Marilyn Monroe. Bobby had a wife and nine kids and a
political future to consider. Here's how it would work: Hoover stakes
out a position that there was no conspiracy. Bobby challenges that
proposition. Hoover retaliates by leaking the Monroe/Kennedy stuff to
the papers. Bobby is finished.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!lush
From: [e-mail] (Gregory B Lush)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Question: Why shoot JFK in public?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 19:54:24 GMT
References: <1992Jan5.154229.3297@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 13
Xref: ns-mx talk.politics.drugs:5519 alt.drugs:20087 alt.conspiracy:10187 alt.society.civil-liberty:2361

?  something keeps nagging me.  If *you* were going to kill JFK and
?  had the cooperation of certain people in high places (cia, military
?  etc.), why would you go to all the trouble of setting up someone (LHO)
?  and do the shooting in public?  Look at all the things that could go
?  _________________________________
?  who:   Tim Moore
?  email: [e-mail]
?  ------------------------------------

To make it clear to all what happens when you go against the
shadow government.

Greg ([e-mail])
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 22:51:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail] <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 27


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
|
|   THE KGB has stated (on a special NIGHTLINE telecast Nov 22, 1991) that
|   from what they knew about OSWALD, he could not have pulled off the
|   assasination.  They shared information from the OSWALD FILES that had been
|   "locked up" for many years.

That is too strong a statement. I believe I saw that show. The thing we know
for sure is that they 1) Thought he was CIA, 2) Thought he was a bad shot.

I saw no evidence that they could prove he was CIA, or that he was a bad
shot, but there is enough calaborating evidence to make this highly
believable. There seems no motive for the Russians to lie on this matter, in
fact you might think that they would like to tell the reverse: that there
was a nightmarish KGB connection. I mean, it makes no sense to believe that
the Russians are lying in this matter without other proof or reasons.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      |    I want to tear Von Mises to Pieces"              |
   | (o)(o)      O                        -Sylvestor the Cat           |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: "JFK" lights fire under Sen. Specter
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 22:15:02 GMT
Lines: 18


 >>In Rochester, however, when Specter's name was mantioned you could hear
 >>a few whispers and murmurs.  Maybe they just weren't sure who Specter
 >>was...
 >>
 >>But I doubt by the sounds of things he should be expecting many votes
 >>from Pennsylvania anytime soon.

We'll see.

 > Well, they certainly weren't fooled by Dick Thornburg either! I DO
 > believe that congresscritters should be held accountable for their
 > actions and to Arlen Spector I say, "Thy time has run out".

Who else is collecting articles by journalists and others to play
back in the future when this whole thing breaks open??  ;->

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!homer.cs.mcgill.ca!zippy
From: [e-mail] (Fotis XIPOLITAKIS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Question: Why shoot JFK in public?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 17:38:50 GMT
References: <1992Jan5.154229.3297@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Netnews Administrator)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 6
Xref: ns-mx talk.politics.drugs:5530 alt.drugs:20102 alt.conspiracy:10195 alt.society.civil-liberty:2372

Well its my opinion that the assasination took place in public
because it would alot more like a real assination than would
something that happened behind closed doors. I guess they were
also counting on the shock factor to subdue people. You can say
people are more likely to believe a very bad explination when
something like that happens in public...
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 04:43:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
>I think Johnson himself scorned the Warren Report, blaming it on Castro. I
>would like to See Bush and Buckley debate the WC report. I think
>Bush would win .... NOT!!!!

Right! :-]

What makes you think that they aren't on the "same side"??

The MYTH of our times,variation #25 "Ex-CIA operative"

Once in the "family"...always in the family, until death do them part.

Don



--
-* Don Allen *-               // Only   | Are you ready for SETI?
Internet: [e-mail]  \X/ Amiga   | Oct 12,1992 - ET comes to NM
UUCP: .........uunet!peora!bilver!dona  | The *real* "October Surprise"
Psi-Tech and alien brain-wave research -- Whats going on at Los Alamos?
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 04:35:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <rich.694826382@pencil>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 22

In article <rich.694826382@pencil> [e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
>>on PBS last night William Buckley had this to say
>>about JFK:
>
>Who in the world cares what a pompus cia propagandist has to say about
>anything?
>
>Rich

Bingo! Rich hit that one dead on the nail. Sometime when you are reaaaaallly
bored, and can stand to listen to his dronings...you soon tell WHICH side
Buckley is on.

Don


--
-* Don Allen *-               // Only   | Are you ready for SETI?
Internet: [e-mail]  \X/ Amiga   | Oct 12,1992 - ET comes to NM
UUCP: .........uunet!peora!bilver!dona  | The *real* "October Surprise"
Psi-Tech and alien brain-wave research -- Whats going on at Los Alamos?
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK LIMO DRIVER ASSISSINATES JFK!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 04:56:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 41

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elite Enterprises) writes:
>
>AFTER REVEIWING THE ZAPRUDER FILM ONE CAN CLEARLY SEE THE DRIVER TURNING
>AROUND AND BLOWING AWAY KENNEDY. ANY COMMENTS?
>I BELIEVE IT WAS A INSIDE DRIVE BECAUSE JACKIE WOULD HAVE  NEVER LEFT
>HER HUSBAND'S SIDE. I HAVE ASK SEVERAL WOMEN IF THERE HUSBAND WOULD BE SHOT WOULD
>THEY LEAVE HIM ALONE. ALL OF SAY THEY WOULD OF STAYED WITH HIM UNLESS THEY
>SAW WHERE THE BULLET WAS COMING FROM. AS IN JACKIES CASE, SHE KNEW
>EXACTLY WHERE THE SHOT CAME FROM. SHE TRIED TO FLEE BUT HER PERSONAL BODYGUARD
>THREW HER BACK IN THE CAR.
>ALSO THE PASSENGER NEXT TO THE DRIVER IS SEEN TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE
>AS THE DRIVER TURNS AROUND WITH THE MAGUM (NICKEL PLATED) IN HIS LEFT
>HAND AND REACHES OVER HIS RIGHT SHOULDER AND BANG!
>
>FEEDBACK?
>
>ROBERT

Geez Bob..take your CAPS LOCK key off..you're shouting! :-)

I had dismissed long ago the _possibility_ that the driver, William
Greer (as far as memory goes) shot JFK....which also the same sentiment
voiced by Bill Cooper..I can EASILY dismiss Cooper as a credible source,
however I was talking to a friend who also believes that Greer *might*
have shot JFK, delivering the "death shot". His arguement is similar
to yours as he also brings up the point about Jackie exiting the rear of
the car in great haste...so, even though I dis-agree that Greer actually
did it..I'm willing to probe deeper into this.

I don't have a copy of the Zapruder film, and it has been a while since
I've seen it last on TV..maybe others who have viewed it several times
here in the newsgroup would like to comment on this.

Don


--
-* Don Allen *-               // Only   | Are you ready for SETI?
Internet: [e-mail]  \X/ Amiga   | Oct 12,1992 - ET comes to NM
UUCP: .........uunet!peora!bilver!dona  | The *real* "October Surprise"
Psi-Tech and alien brain-wave research -- Whats going on at Los Alamos?
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!billy
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.155612.14566@anasaz>
Date: 10 Jan 92 15:56:12 GMT
References: <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Lines: 31
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10201 misc.legal:24534 alt.censorship:5601

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patti Hayes) writes:
->billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
->
->
->> ->
->> I don't know that there is any "authority" under which the files were sealed
->> or could be unsealed.  The fact is, they were sealed at the request of the
->> Kennedy family so the political reality is that they will remain sealed
->> until 2038.
->>
->       It was LBJ who sealed those files...and personally I don't care at
->whose request...They WILL BE OPENED!!!  My gov't wil not treat me like a child
->and  only tell me what they think I should know.   That is not the way it works
->here and there is no reason not to open them, they Kennedys can't be hurt any
->more than they have been already.  WE have the right to know and we will know
->Everything that has happened in the world to this date now eliminates any
->threat to "national security" crap they may shove down our throats. I am look
->ing for a petition or anything to be part of a movement to open ALL SEALED re-
->cords. We are free here and it Never should have been done in the first place.
->Our taxes DID pay for it and ALL the investigations with in and I always get
->what I pay for! by hook or crook!  Ask my friends!

As I pointed out, there is no "authority" under which the files were sealed -
there are no national security issues, etc.  The political reality is that
this was done by powerful people so the files WILL remain sealed.  It's an
"inside power politics" thing and you and I have nothing to say about it.
Your points are valid but irrelevant.  No peekee till 2038!
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Bill Moore     [e-mail]    [phone]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!phage!pjm
From: [e-mail] (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 03:38:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NO MAIL)
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Lines: 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes:
>The MYTH of our times,variation #25 "Ex-CIA operative"
>
>Once in the "family"...always in the family, until death do them part.
>
>Don
>
as yer typical ignorent american concerning the dark side
of politics, didnt i accidentally see that someone named
Bush was once head of the OSS?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!sunnycal.Sun.COM!rays
From: [e-mail] (Ray Sciurba)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,talk.politics.misc
Subject: "JFK" fire heats up for Sen. Arlen Specter
Keywords: JFK, Arlen, Specter, Kennedy, assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 05:38:55 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,talk.politics.misc
Lines: 44
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10204 rec.arts.movies:51493 talk.politics.misc:57454

Reprint from the Associated Press (no author cited), Friday, January 10, 1992:

Associated Press

Philadelphia

A quarter of a century after the Warren Commission report on President
Kennedy's assassination, the "single bullet" theory continues to hound
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, who was a commission counsel in 1964.

The movie "JFK" renewed the controversy for millions - including Specter's
opponent in the Republican primary, State Representative Stephen F. Freind,
who yesterday challenged the two-term senator to press for the release of
the withheld documents.

The Oliver Stone film ridicules the Warren Commission conclusion that Lee
Harvey Oswald acted alone to kill Kennedy and suggests an extensive conspiracy.

The single-bullet theory - that one virtually undamaged bullet passed through
Kennedy's neck and caused former Texas Governer John Connally's wounds - is
crucial to the commission's conclusion that one gun was used and that there
was no conspiracy.

Spector was one of the chief interrogators on the commission staff and a
proponent of the single-bullet theory.

Spector wrote an op-ed piece for Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer critiquing
the "absurd film" that "mangles the facts" and defending the theory.

Freind took aim at documents sealed for 75 years by the commission in 1964,
which were mentioned at the end of "JFK".  He called on Specter to introduce
legislation to release them.

Specter had said Wednesday that he would ask the House Select Committee on
Presidential Assassinations to open up all House reports.

"The reports on my participation have all been made public," Specter said.
"I would just invite those with questions to start off by reading the report
as well as by reading the critics"



--
Ray Sciurba - rays@corp
Path: ns-mx!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|eff!hshubs
From: [e-mail] (Howard Shubs)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 05:30:49 GMT
References: <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 32
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10205 misc.legal:24543 alt.censorship:5602

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patti Hayes) writes:
>billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
>
>
>> ->
>> I don't know that there is any "authority" under which the files were sealed
>> or could be unsealed.  The fact is, they were sealed at the request of the
>> Kennedy family so the political reality is that they will remain sealed
>> until 2038.
>>
>       It was LBJ who sealed those files...and personally I don't care at
>whose request...They WILL BE OPENED!!!  My gov't wil not treat me like a child
>and  only tell me what they think I should know.   That is not the way it works
>here and there is no reason not to open them, they Kennedys can't be hurt any
>more than they have been already.  WE have the right to know and we will know
>Everything that has happened in the world to this date now eliminates any
>threat to "national security" crap they may shove down our throats. I am look
>ing for a petition or anything to be part of a movement to open ALL SEALED re-
>cords. We are free here and it Never should have been done in the first place.
>Our taxes DID pay for it and ALL the investigations with in and I always get
>what I pay for! by hook or crook!  Ask my friends!

Either this person forgot her :-), or that note deserves one response:



  <giggle>


--
Howard S Shubs      [e-mail]      I don't represent the EFF,
The Denim Adept     hshubs@BYTECOSY     but I do agree with them.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!sunnycal.Sun.COM!rays
From: [e-mail] (Ray Sciurba)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "JFK" fire heats up for Sen. Arlen Specter
Summary: Associated Press newspaper article's title
Keywords: JFK, Arlen, Specter, Kennedy, assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 05:58:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy, rec.arts.movies, talk.politics.misc
Lines: 8
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10206 rec.arts.movies:51496 talk.politics.misc:57456


 I forgot to include title of the newspaper article:

     "'Single-Bullet' Theory on JFK Dogs Sen. Specter's Campaign"


--
Ray Sciurba - [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!lae
From: [e-mail] (Leslie Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 22:40:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <1992Jan7.224116.2164@anasaz>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Leslie Evans,B2C10,5383)
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City
Lines: 16
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10207 misc.legal:24544 alt.censorship:5604

In article <1992Jan7.224116.2164@anasaz> billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
>authority could be invoked to seal these papers.  I think the family
>was especially concerned about autopsy photos being used in some preverse
>way.  There were Kennedy attorney's all over Washington and, however they
Did anyone catch a few weeks back that "The Globe" one of those trashy
supermarket tabloids had the autopsy photos published?  If they aren't perverse,I don't know what is!  If the Kennedy family is involved with the sealing of
the papers, there must be some other reason.

I'm curious if anyone has any recall of Jackie or the family saying anything
about a conspiracy, did she see anything, etc?  Since I was only a year old
when he was assassinated, I certainly don't remember and have only recently
taken an interest in the murder.

Leslie Evans
>     Bill Moore     [e-mail]    [phone]
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!muvms3!rcbi27
From: [e-mail] (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Did the Assassination Fail?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 22:53:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Marshall University
Lines: 19

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Perhaps the real point of the assassination was to clear the path for
> another invasion of Cuba. Kennedy is perceived as resistant because of
> the purported deal with Kruschev not to invade, made during the Cuban
> Missle Crisis. Perhaps the assassination failed its objective when LBJ
> did not pursue further actions against Cuba, but instead became
> preoccupied with Vietnam. Any opinions on this possibility?

I don't know what this is worth, but my own $.02 cents' worth is the US
never needed to invade Cuba--*after* the long-range nuke missle threat
was defused. US has had a very big Naval Base on the isle of Cuba for
many many years now, Guantanamo Bay.

--danny
--
    "Were his solid black square paintings really,
    as the artist claimed, simply neutral, abstract
    compositions devoid of external references and
    meanings?" ***********************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!swbatl!jburnes
From: [e-mail] (Jim Burnes - 235-7444)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Ex-KGB agent says he has data on Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 19:48:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Lines: 57

[e-mail] writes:
>
>   MOSCOW- A retired KGB agent claimed yesterday to have new information about
>  the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and he urged the creation of
>  a joint Russian-US investigatory commission.
>   "What happened in the United States of America in 1963 is not only an element
>  of American history, but...a gap in world history," said Oleg M. Nechiporenko,
>  a senior agent who was thrown out of Mexico in 1971 for purportedly scheming
>  to topple its government.
>   Nechiporenko refused to give details and suggested that he expected to be
>  paid for his information, which he called a "commercial secret."
>   Nechiporenko came into the limelight last week when former Maj. Gen. Oleg
>  Kalugin of the KGB, now an outspoken critic, said Nechiporenko interrogated
>  Americans in Vietnam who might have been prisoners of war after Vietnam said
>  it had sent all Americans home.
>   Nechiporenko said yesterday that he had interviewed only one American, a
>  suspected CIA agent, in 1973.
>   Oswald requested Soviet citizenship in 1959 and lived in the Soviet Union in
>  the early 1960s. After the assassination, the KGB said it had rejected Oswald
>  as an agent and had blocked his efforts to return to the Soviet Union.
>   At a press conference yesterday, Nechiporeko said he and two other agents
>  met Oswald on Sept. 27 and 28, 1963, at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City,
>  where Oswald was trying to get a Soviet visa.
>   Nechiporenko would say only that he had "historical information" that would
>  "be useful for the analysis of what happened" on Nov. 22 when Oswald shot
>  Kennedy.

Hmm...Oswald never went to trial.  I think that should read "allegedly shot
Kennedy."  One wonders about the credibility of a news organization that, even
after all the information that has come out, would still insist, defacto, that
Oswald shot Kennedy.

>
>
>   That's it, verbatim. FWIW, I'm a little skeptical........what do you all
>  think?
>

I'm skeptical too.  I think the CIA station cheif in Mexico city at the
time has openly admitted that Oswald never went to the Soviet embassy
in Mexico City and that the CIA photos that purport to show him there
were fakes.  (see Plausible Denial where Lane Debates this operative at
a college)  Sorry can't remember his name off the top of my head.

  I smell CIA disinformation leaking out.  Especially the
part about "expecting to be paid" for his information.  Methinks there
are a lot of people in the former SU who want to make some quick cash
because of the declining situation there.  The CIA has lots of cash.
CIA says, "here's some cash, now say this!"


--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin ! its the man in the whitehouse, the man under the
SWBell Advanced Tech Labs ! steeple.  handin out drugs to the american people.
[phone]            ! i dont believe in anything, nothing is free. i aint
[e-mail]    ! gonna eat no government cheese.  - The RainMakers
--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Oswald's CIA history
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 92 23:05:00 GMT
Lines: 47


 > If *you* were going to kill JFK and had the cooperation of certain
 > people in high places (cia, military etc.), why would you go to all
 > the trouble of setting up someone (LHO) and do the shooting in public?
 > Look at all the things that could go wrong!  Why wouldn't you arrange
 > some kind of 'accident'?   Something with fewer vairables?  Any ideas?

An accident?  Not easy.  Probably had tried that for a couple of years.
Meanwhile, Kennedy got popular and powerful.  Consider also HUMAN NATURE
and the thugs involved -- raw power play people.  In fact, over and again
it's human nature that foils plans, tho they DID get away w/ this one!

However, they actually did a good job and a good cover-up.  Well planned,
well executed.  They could only have gottem away with it in a few places,
e.g., in Dallas, New Orleans, Miami or Chicago.  Dallas was infested with
underworld figures, including the Mayor Earle Cabell whose brother
was General Charles Cabell, the CIA's number two man who was fired
by Kennedy as a result of Bay of Pigs.  Gen. Cabell openly hated
Kennedy -- that's no secret.  Without belaboring the point, I think
that anyone could make a strong case that Dallas was an exceptionally
well established jurisdiction for spooks (much like Arizona today).

The people behind the conspiracy were also zealous anti-communists.
Who would be a better person to frame than Oswald?

Look at who got him the job at the Texas Book Depository on October 14,
1963 -- Ruth Paine.  She obtained the interview and got him the job. She
came from a family of CIA-related people.  Also, husband Michael Paine
did highly classified work, officially with defense-contractor Bell
Helicopter (big Vietnam War beneficiary).  Classified as Secret on
grounds of national security are:

The Paines' IRS Income Tax forms
Warren Commission document 212, related to Ruth Paine
                           218 relating to Michael Paine
                           258 relating to Michael Paine
                           508 on Michael's sister
                           600-629 on their relatives

This and more, all classified as Secret on grounds of national security.

Ruth Paine was introduced to the Oswalds in 1963 by George
DeMohrenschildt, Oswald's closest friend and caretaker for a long time.
All these people lived in Dallas, among other top CIA spooks.

Later, Mrs. Paine brought Oswald's wife and daughter from New Orleans
to Dallas on
Path: ns-mx!uunet!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!risky.ecs.umass.edu!giovin
From: [e-mail] (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 09:18:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 16

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes:
>>The MYTH of our times,variation #25 "Ex-CIA operative"

>>Once in the "family"...always in the family, until death do them part.

>>Don

>as yer typical ignorent american concerning the dark side
>of politics, didnt i accidentally see that someone named
>Bush was once head of the OSS?

He was director of the CIA, but I don't think he's old enough to
be head of the OSS. Anyone?

Rocky Giovinazzo
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!mfm0
From: [e-mail] (martin frederic melhus)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Summary: Files may exist, but may disappear NOW
Keywords: KGB, Kennedy, Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 09:53:13 GMT
Expires: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 06:00:00 GMT
References: <606300040@peg> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Followup-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 24


    Sure.  As Dusty has said (sorry, my lack of sophistication in
the use of our newsreader prevents me from including quotes and refer-
ences) I have no doubt that the KGB maintained files on Oswald, and has
information that might be of great interest to we conspiracy buffs.  My
point was that any organization with the resources required to 1) assasin-
ate the President of the USA, 2) to blame it on a "patsy", who is subse-
quently offed in suspicious circumstances, resulting in 3) no attention
or blame attached to themselves by officials or the general public, would
certainly have the resources to insure that any sensative information
contained in the files of a government in turmoil and transition would
be supressed (I here apologise to every English teacher in all space
and time for this sentence.)  Therefore I conclude that the information
in the KGB files has probably been reviewed by an agent of this organ-
ization, and any incriminating information removed or altered.  Of
course, if there is no conspiracy, there would be no evidence to remove,
and no-one to remove it, so, if I am correct, there is little to be
gained here.  Any experiment which produces the same result if the
theory tested is true or false tells us nothing about the theory.

Martin F. Melhus
[e-mail]

-- insert banal.quote here --
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!mfm0
From: [e-mail] (martin frederic melhus)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Another JFK Question
Summary: Route Question
Keywords: Main, Elm, JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 10:15:43 GMT
Expires: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 06:00:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 22


    I was in Dallas to attend a wedding just before the release
of the film, and stayed in the Hyatt (I think) right near the scene
of the assasination.  My wife and I looked around the area, and paid
a visit to the 6th floor (the museum on the 6th floor of the former
TSBD.)  If my memory serves me correctly, Main street might have been
a better shot than Elm from the window up there; however, this is
largely due to a tree blocking the view of the road in the central
part of Elm that isn't in the way of Main.  This tree has probably
grown a lot since 1963; I don't remember seeing any pictures of it
in the still photo of the grassy knoll area on display in the museum.
Elm street is almost certainly a better shot from the railroad track
/fence/grassy knoll area, because the motorcade would be heading almost
right at it, wheras there would be some parallax motion were the motor-
cade on Main.  All of this assumes that Main is the center of the three
streets going through the triple underpass.  If any of this is not right
I would appreciate a correction (esp from a Dallas resident.)

Martin F. Melhus
[e-mail]

-- "What a maroon" :BB --
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp!yang.earlham.edu!toms
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 05:33:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 61
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10215 rec.arts.movies:51521

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
> In article <mg.694462512@elan> mg@elan (Michael Golan) writes:
>
>>  Oswald connections to the CIA is random. Likelyhood? (50%)
>
> Not random.  Oswald's delusions of grandeur caused him to seek out a
> semi-sensitive military job, just as they caused him to defect, to
> pose with his revolutionary's rifle, to take a potshot at Gen. Walker,
> and to kill Kennedy.
MORON!!  The shots of Oswald posing with the rifle are proven fakes, and
the idea that Oswald sought out a sem-sensitive job is totally unfounded
in fact - as is the idea that he had delusions of grandeur.
>
>>  People who claimed to hear shots from place X really heard echos (50%)
>
> No, their eyes, being transfixed on Kennedy's head at the time, told
> them where the shot came from.  Tell me, how many heard a grassy knoll
> shot and _didn't_ see the head shot?
>
>>  The head moved back with a rear shot (50%)
>
> It's completely consistent with the physics of the Zapruder film and
> various experiments.  I'd like to see experiments on cadavers that
> only use glancing shots like the one that hit Kennedy.
>
>>  There where only 3 shots (one being a magic bullet) (50%)
>
> There's no physical evidence for any other number of shots, and there's
no magic bullet.

    Uh... if there's no magic bullet, that proves that there was a
conspiracy.
>
>>  Oswald was able to shoot that accurately this fast (50%)
>
> The only quick shot that Oswald took missed his target completely.  He
> had at least 4 seconds to line up the other two shots.
 You weren't listening.  Three shots in 5.6 seconds, and it takes min. 2.3
seconds to recycle the weapon.  Furthermore, LHO had almost no time to
line up the last, and fatal, shot, because (even assuming he was doing the
shooting - and it has been totally disproven that he fired either a
Mannlicher rifle nor the revolver he was arrested with in the 3 days
before he was arrested) the view was blocked by a tree.  The 2nd shot was
totally obscured.  He took two quick shots, and one of them hit.
> Your list omits the one thing that is the most suspicious to me: Rose
> Cheramie's prediction of the assassination.  In _Crossfire_ it is left
> unclear whether she made the claim that she worked for Jack Ruby
> before or after Ruby became a household name.  If she made it before,
> then that would be enough to convince me that the mob did it.

    She made it before, but, as Stone points out, when has the mob
ever used naything but .38's for close-up shootings?  The total failure of
the military community to provide security implicates the Pentagon beyond
any reasonable doubt.  The mob were involved, possibly, because they would
be useful as accomplices.  They don't have the resources, the unity, or
the will to pull of anything like the assassination of a president by
themselves.

    Disclaimer:  I have been awake for the last 4.5 days.  If I don't
make sense, don't bother trying to make sense to me.  Something like that
anyway.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Karyn Kupcinet
Keywords: mysterious deaths
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 18:49:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 22


I've recently been reading several books on the  subject  of  the
JFK   assassination.    Listed   among  the  "mysterious  deaths"
associated with the assassination is the murder  of  the  actress
Karyn  Kupcinet  on  Nov  24, 1963, two days after the tragedy in
Dallas.  She was the daughter  of  Irv  Kupcinet, the  well-known
newspaper   columnist   and   former  talk-show  host.   She  was
supposedly overheard talking about JFK's assassination before the
event  actually  happened.   As  I  recall,  her murder was never
solved.

Any further details?


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road    *   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033            **************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Dave J)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 20:01:50 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <1992Jan7.224116.2164@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News mail)
Organization: Morrison Center for the Performing Arts
Lines: 23
Nntp-Posting-Host: boise1.idbsu.edu


>In article <1992Jan7.224116.2164@anasaz> billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
>>authority could be invoked to seal these papers.  I think the family
>>was especially concerned about autopsy photos being used in some preverse
>>way.  There were Kennedy attorney's all over Washington and, however they
>Did anyone catch a few weeks back that "The Globe" one of those trashy
>supermarket tabloids had the autopsy photos published?  If they aren't
perverse,I >don't know what is!  If the Kennedy family is involved with the
sealing of
>the papers, there must be some other reason.
>

Today (1/11/92) there is mention in the newspaper that Sen. Kennedy states
that: All secret records about the Kennedy assassination should be released.
The comments came as the former chairman of a House investigation into the
killing of JFK indicated he may propose releasing hundreds of boxes of records.
Rep. Louis Stokes, D-Ohio said he proposed releasing some 848 boxes of records
locked up by the commitee until the year 2029.


Dave Jensen                           You see...what you want to see,
[e-mail]              And you hear...what you want to hear.
expressing only myself                    - Harry Nilsson, "The Point"
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 21:22:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

>In this and other statements you have attempted to substitute one conspiracy
>with another, insinuating that conspiracy theorists have cajoled, badgered
>or pestered witnesses into changing their testimony to support the idea
>of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. If this is your argument, what case
>can you make for it?

Well, the most famous example is Garrison's use of drugs and hypnosis
on his star witness in the Clay Shaw trial.  In the transcript of the
session, it turns out that the _hypnotist_ is the one who first
suggests that the people under discussion have gathered to assassinate
someone.

Conspiracy theorists always make a big deal of whether or not a court
of law would have convicted Oswald.  Can you imagine what a competent
attorney could do with the rules of evidence to attack the credibility
of these witnesses who decades later contradict their original
testimony?  Like I've said before, the stuff to pay attention to is
the physical evidence and prompt, recorded testimony of the material
witnesses.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Summary: Nothing new here; toms just needed to be straightened out.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 21:51:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 92
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10233 rec.arts.movies:51537
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>> Not random.  Oswald's delusions of grandeur caused him to seek out a
>> semi-sensitive military job, just as they caused him to defect, to
>> pose with his revolutionary's rifle, to take a potshot at Gen. Walker,
>> and to kill Kennedy.
>
>The shots of Oswald posing with the rifle are proven fakes,

Where have _you_ been?  As Mitchel Todd established in a thread on
this topic a week or so ago, not a single qualified photo analyst
thinks they are fakes.

>> There's no physical evidence for any other number of shots, and there's
>no magic bullet.
>
>    Uh... if there's no magic bullet, that proves that there was a
>conspiracy.

I've argued to the contrary.  The only convincing responses to my
arguments have been to make me think that perhaps the magic bullet
theory is _correct_.

>>>  Oswald was able to shoot that accurately this fast (50%)
>>
>> The only quick shot that Oswald took missed his target completely.  He
>> had at least 4 seconds to line up the other two shots.
>
> You weren't listening.  Three shots in 5.6 seconds, and it takes min. 2.3
>seconds to recycle the weapon.

No, _you_ haven't been listening.  I'd never worked a bolt action
rifle before, but on only my second try I was able to cycle, aim, and
pull the trigger 10 times in 16 seconds.  Why do people treat the
Warren Commission's number of 2.3 seconds as divine revelation?

>Furthermore, LHO had almost no time to
>line up the last, and fatal, shot,

On the Zapruder film there is about _four_ seconds between Conally
being hit and the head shot.

 because (even assuming he was doing the
>shooting - and it has been totally disproven that he fired either a
>Mannlicher rifle nor the revolver he was arrested with in the 3 days
>before he was arrested)

Nitrate tests on his hands were positive, and on his cheek were
negative.  Someone just posted that when an FBI agent fired the rifle,
he too tested negative for cheeck nitrates.

>the view was blocked by a tree.

Are you kidding?  The last shot was _well_ beyond the tree.  The
Warren commision only had trouble with the tree because they have a
first-shot miss to account for.  If (as I propose) Oswald tracks the
blue limo through the green tree and fires into Kennedy's back just as
he clears the edge of the tree, then the tree is not an issue.

>The 2nd shot was
>totally obscured.  He took two quick shots, and one of them hit.

Everybody knows that the tree is only an issue for the _first_ of
however many shots Oswald fired.  I defy you to find a citation
supporting the idea that the tree was a problem for any subsequent
shots.

>> Cheramie's prediction of the assassination.  In _Crossfire_ it is left
>> unclear whether she made the claim that she worked for Jack Ruby
>> before or after Ruby became a household name.  If she made it before,
>> then that would be enough to convince me that the mob did it.
>
>    She made it before

Dead wrong, again.  I have since read the following in _Reasonable
Doubt_, p. 412: "Miss Cheramie's story became much more elaborate
following the events in Dallas -- involving associations with Ruby and
Oswald -- but it is her pre-assassination statements that are
significant."

>The total failure of the military community to provide security
>implicates the Pentagon beyond any reasonable doubt.

What evidence do you have that it was standard practice for the
military to provide security for domestic Presidential trips?  Or even
that the military _ever_ provided security for such trips?

>    Disclaimer:  I have been awake for the last 4.5 days.

It shows.  ;)
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!risky.ecs.umass.edu!giovin
From: [e-mail] (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK: ex-FBI agent Francis X. O'Neill
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 92 23:47:55 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 17

An ex-FBI man, Francis X. O'Neill Jr., who was at the JFK autopsy
said on the news today, "There's one particular scene [in Stone's
_JFK] where I think a doctor is probing and somebody says, 'No further.'  That
never occured."

O'Neill believes that Oswald alone killed JFK, yet he does
not believe the single bullet theory.  He says that the bullet that
entered Kennedy's back went no further-- that less than a finger's
length could be inserted into the wound and that "...there was no
further distance that they could probe."

The fact that an ex-FBI agent agrees that it was a shallow
non-penetrating wound however actually supports conspiracy theories
meaning that there have to be 2 shooters at least so says
researcher George Michael Evica.

Rocky Giovinazzo
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+
From: [e-mail] (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 03:16:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>,
    <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 74
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10241 rec.arts.movies:51540
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] writes:
>You weren't listening.  Three shots in 5.6 seconds, and it takes
>min. 2.3 seconds to recycle the weapon.

As a matter of EASILY verifiable public record, the Warren
report does NOT, repeat NOT, claim that three shots were
fired in 5.6 seconds.  The time of the shot that damaged Kennedy's
throat is unknown because, from the point of view of the Zapruder
film, the car was behind a sign.  By most accounts, 5.6 seconds
(if I remember correctly) passed between the time Kennedy
disappeared behind the sign and the time of the fatal shot.
HOWEVER, (and this is the important point) the Warren
report did not come to a definite conclusion about the shot
that completely missed.  The Warren report said that the
shot that missed might have been the FIRST shot that was
fired.  Go to the library, look up the Warren report, and read
chapter three if you don't believe me.

Here are some quotes directly from chapter three:  "The evidence
is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third
shot which missed. ... If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps
missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President
passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President
passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view.  The
bullet might have struck a portion of the tree and been completely
deflected. ... If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum
of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the
time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to
7.9 seconds for the three shots.  If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed
between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time spand
would be correspondingly increased."

[e-mail] writes:
>Furthermore, LHO had almost no time to line up the last, and
>fatal, shot, because (even assuming he was doing the shooting -
>and it has been totally disproven that he fired either a Mannlicher
>rifle nor the revolver he was arrested with in the 3 days before
>he was arrested) the view was blocked by a tree.  The 2nd shot
>was totally obscured.

I have never seen any claim by Warren skeptic or
supporter that says the tree was in the way at the
time of the throat wound or at the time of the fatal
shot.  If you know of some source that indicates the
tree was in the way of either shot, I wish you would
mention it.

[e-mail] writes:
>I did my research, and I didn't even use a particularly big library.

[e-mail] writes:
>Also, JFK DID intend to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam
>- the movie names the memo that states that very thing and
>Kennedy's comments to that effect are a matter of public record

Since you did such great research and everything, could you
please answer a question?  Did this memo talk about a plan
to abandon Vietnam or a plan that assumed that by the end
of 1965 the situation would have improved so much that a
U. S. presence would not be needed.

I was just looking through Vietnam, A History by Stanley
Karnow, and I found a rather interesting passage.
According to Karnow:

     on September 2, in a prime-time television interview
     with Walter Cronkite, ... Kennedy [said]  "I don't agree with
     those who say we should withdraw.  That would be a great
     mistake.  We must be patient.  We must persist."

More of the interview was shown on the PBS television show.
Kennedy also said, "If we withdrew from Vietnam, the communists
would control Vietnam.  Pretty soon Thailand, Cambodia, Laos,
Malaya would go."
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!midiline!pattisan
From: [e-mail] (Patti Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 03:52:45 GMT
References: <1992Jan10.155612.14566@anasaz>
Organization: MIDILine BBS - Altadena, CA - [phone]
Lines: 20
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10243 misc.legal:24574 alt.censorship:5605

billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:



> As I pointed out, there is no "authority" under which the files were sealed -
> there are no national security issues, etc.  The political reality is that
> this was done by powerful people so the files WILL remain sealed.  It's an
> "inside power politics" thing and you and I have nothing to say about it.
> Your points are valid but irrelevant.  No peekee till 2038!
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   Well maybe you like getting screwed with a kiss ....but I don't ! It seem
s theat Teddy has said they should be opened  and Patrick Moynahan is prepar-
ing a bill to get them opened as well. So before too long we should all know.
I am still going to fax and telegram and write to as many "powerful" people
as I can to keep the ball rolling.  Yes there are a lot more pressing issues
we can get upset about, but once you've done it for one issue it is very easy
to continue to keep up the pressure about some others.
   I suggest we all get busy ! Use the DC bbses as well there are a few.  When
I find any numbers to help I'll post them!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!midiline!pattisan
From: [e-mail] (Patti Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 03:57:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: MIDILine BBS - Altadena, CA - [phone]
Lines: 10
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10244 misc.legal:24579 alt.censorship:5606

[e-mail] (Howard Shubs) writes:

> Either this person forgot her :-), or that note deserves one response:
>
>
>
>   <giggle>
>
>
    "ONE MAN WITH COURAGE IS A MAJORITY"...Thomas Jefferson
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!apple!netcomsv!garyg
From: [e-mail] (Gary Greene)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 05:12:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <1992Jan7.224116.2164@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 37
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10245 misc.legal:24580 alt.censorship:5607

[e-mail] (Leslie Evans) writes:

>In article <1992Jan7.224116.2164@anasaz> billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
>>authority could be invoked to seal these papers.  I think the family
>>was especially concerned about autopsy photos being used in some preverse
>>way.  There were Kennedy attorney's all over Washington and, however they

>Did anyone catch a few weeks back that "The Globe" one of those trashy
>supermarket tabloids had the autopsy photos published?  If they aren't
>perverse,I don't know what is!  If the Kennedy family is involved with the
>sealing of the papers, there must be some other reason.

These photos were published in the book "Best Evidence" sometime about
1980 I believe.  Sorry but I've forgotten the author's name.  They've been
around in the media for a while now, let alone sleeze like The Globe.

>I'm curious if anyone has any recall of Jackie or the family saying anything
>about a conspiracy, did she see anything, etc?  Since I was only a year old

I vaguely remember hearing some things along that line once.  Significantly,
Senator Edward Kennedy favors unsealing those files, though he said he thinks
the Warren Report will still stand as the more responsible and reliable account
of what really happened.

At the time, with the wisdom of my then 16 years of life, I didn't find it
strange that the records were sealed.  Such was common practice with "sensi-
tive" material at that time.  A big deal was made that some things pertaining
to Lincoln's assassination were or had been unsealed only a few years prior
to Kennedy's killing.  Few questioned it at the time, given the cold war, etc.,
and many thought the photo's and some other things were rightly private affairs
of the family.

Now I am one of the legion with uneasy doubts about the entire affair.

Gary Greene
Unisys/Convergent Technology            [e-mail]
San Jose, California                [e-mail]  (at home)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 01:36:00 GMT
Lines: 24


 > As I pointed out, there is no "authority" under which
 > the files were sealed -
 > there are no national security issues, etc.  The
 > political reality is that
 > this was done by powerful people so the files WILL
 > remain sealed.  It's an
 > "inside power politics" thing and you and I have
 > nothing to say about it.
 > Your points are valid but irrelevant.  No peekee till 2038!

Speculation has it that there's lots of stuff the Kennedys
can be blackmailed over, including evidence of election
fraud which helped Kennedy beat Nixon, stuff on JFK doing
LSD, then there's Marilyn Monroe, and other things that
have been speculated about.  It's supposedly been tossed in
with assassination stuff.  NOTE: I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE
-- THIS IS JUST REPORTING WHAT I'VE *HEARD*.  Hearsay.

Anyway, from what I've heard in the air, there's talk of
opening the JFK files this year.  Hopefully, that will
happen and we'll get to the heart of this.

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 01:39:01 GMT
Lines: 16

ashington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
part.

 > as yer typical ignorent american concerning the dark side
 > of politics, didnt i accidentally see that someone named
 > Bush was once head of the OSS?

Was Director of the CIA itself.  I haven't seen the
details, but I hear that Bush was involved with the CIA
long before he was "officially" involved, though he denies
it.  Even Hoover has a memo referring to CIA man George
Bush dating back to JFK times.  And, of course, George was
closely associated with CIA people and organizations in the
1950's.

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 02:06:02 GMT
Lines: 81


 >> In fact, it's equally obvious that I actually work for the Cover-Up
 >> Maintenance Desk of the FBI.  ;) ;)
 >> Brian Holtz

 >  MP> Noooo... Anyone who suspects that you are a dupe of some sort
 >  MP> MUST be labelled as "paranoid" or "liberal" or something...

 > True.  The saying I notice upon the wall states...

 > "The measure of a man is not in his ability to learn
 > secrets... but his ability to keep them."

Who's wall and by what "measure"?  Does that depict some
"cool", "superior" person ... or someone who needs to keep
secrets because they are engaging in immoral acts?  Maybe we
should change the word "man" to "Gang-Ster" above.

Not that all secrets are necessarily bad, of course.
There's proprietary information, "national security"
information, and certain "social" information that is
merely INDIVIDUAL privacy and threatens nobody.

Here, I think we're supposedly looking into "national security"
information.  And we have to ask: Is our country AND
WHAT IT STANDS FOR better off with the JFK assassination
information  1. suppressed,  or 2. out into the open?
Similar nationalistic questions can be posed regarding the
lack of Congressional oversight of the CIA and the NSA,
especially in this post-Cold War era.
There are both the pro's and the con's of most every issue,
this one included.  Now do the pro's outweigh the con's??

Just how *IS* "national security" defined, and *ACTIONS*
and *BEHAVIOR* thereon based?

Of course, this is a naive, idealistic approach.  The fact
of the matter is that POWER PLAYS are all that enter the
minds of many political operatives in our political
culture.

... and I've seen people with *some* conscience have few
limits in their ability to rationalize in their self-
interest or along the lines of their "us vs. them"
ideological bent -- the end justifying the means.

And then there are psychopatic CONTRACT Gang-Sters for which
rationalization and ideals are jokes of the game...  albeit
often buffered from the big decisionmakers by an in-between
operator who gets things done for the big guys.

Lots of good people are hired, supported, and promoted in
our "national security" apparatus, and moved around.  But you
find at the top in some circles largely political appointees
(often promoted in terms of loyalty rather than competancy,
and over numerous career professionals) and career
professionals who have passed the litmus tests -- many
who are zealots and have lots of rationalization.

Not all, but many, and definitely enough to cause great
alarm.

The only solution to corruption is an appeal to common
values.  Religion, no -- we've seen what has happened
there (and still happens in Middle East).  Morality,
yes.  Nationalistic principles, yes.

And *MUCH GREATER CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT* by one means
or another over our "national security" intelligence
"organizations".

IMO, we need to assemble a team of OUTSIDERS (maybe a
lottery from 50,000 college graduate students in the sciences
from which 1000 are picked) and give them a blank cheque
INSTANT search warrant capability to intelligence operations,
the ability to interview agents with tape recorders and
under threat of great mandatory penalties to any agents who are
later proven to have knowingly lied, and have them draw up a final
joint draft report to the American people.

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 02:13:03 GMT
Lines: 21


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

 >> he came back, he was not even stopped by the FBI. He should have been
 >> thrown in jail.

 > Well, thank you, Mr. McCarthy.

 >>There is absolutley no way to plausibly explain this
 >>unless he was working for us.

 > What law did he break?  The FBI _did_ keep tabs on
 > Oswald after he came back.

Tell me, do the FBI reports list Oswald's close personal
associations with other highly placed intelligence figures,
instead of leaving that to other non-insider investigators
who were lucky to stumble upon such hard evidence??

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 03:09:04 GMT
Lines: 64


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

 > (Being a conspiracy theorist means never having to face a fact.)

Are you meaning to imply that the non-conspiracy theorists
DO address the pertinent facts?

Notably, alot of what I've read from the non-conspiracy authors
has:

1. shot at the weaker parts of the conspiracy theorists'
   data, ignoring the stronger information

2. sweepingly swept aside the pertinent facts by painting the
   sources as questionable people, often attaching "popular"
   stereotypical images to them and then taking shot at that
   image -- an old, old way of politics.  It's a way of
   dismissing/avoiding the addressing of facts.

By the way, I saw the Newsweek article and noted that they
finished it by citing the one anti-conspiracy book I had
mentioned in my reading list in a previous day and quoting
the author as if they were speaking to him.  I'm appalled
that such a put-on-the-blinders book and no-credentials author
is even worthy of mention in such a magazine, especially as the
closing paragraph.  (Notably, I got the book without having seen
ANY references to it.  It's been mass-published by some no-name
press in Dallas-Ft. Worth and distributed to LOTS of places
here in Washington, D.C., and I bought it because I saw it more
than any other anti-conspiracy book.)

>> Granted, Oswalds' job had nothing to do with speaking Russian, but in
>> previous posts of yours, you have declared Oswald a `loser'. `Losers' don't
>> get security clearances in the Marines and then get sent to monitor covert
>> spy flights over the Soviet Union during a cold-war.

> Oswald's security clearance was merely "confidential", a clearance
> that is routine.  Also, Oswald didn't monitor "spy flights over the
> Soviet Union"; he merely tracked planes as they took
> off and landed at his base, and some of those planes were U-2's.

Yeah, right, he's been chosen to be relocated to work at an
overseas underground super-secret spy facility and has
only a CONFIDENTIAL clearance (i.e., just no criminal
record -- practically no other background investigation).
Gag me with a spoon.  This is not only an insult to our
intelligence, it's also 100% contrary to my experience
working for the Department of Defense in a highly secured
facility, regarding people in any functional role.  In fact,
I remember two people who were hired and then let off
because they didn't pass at least Secret.  (Sure, some
peoples' clearances are later downgraded if they change to
a lesser role, standard policy.  But they had had a higher
clearance at one time, are well known in many respects,
and are kept up to date in case they need upgrading again
(almost instantly).)

Does the record say that Oswald was NEVER cleared higher
than Confidential, yet was shipped off to an overseas
highly secured underground spying facility?

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 17:15:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 20

[e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
< [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

< >In this and other statements you have attempted to substitute one conspiracy
< >with another, insinuating that conspiracy theorists have cajoled, badgered
< >or pestered witnesses into changing their testimony to support the idea
< >of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. If this is your argument, what case
< >can you make for it?

< Well, the most famous example is Garrison's use of drugs and hypnosis
< on his star witness in the Clay Shaw trial.  In the transcript of the
< session, it turns out that the _hypnotist_ is the one who first
< suggests that the people under discussion have gathered to assassinate
< someone.

Is this your entire case? If so, I think your repeated assertions in regards
to a number of witnesses being pestered into changing their testimony can
be safely dismissed. Shucks! I thought you were really on to something.

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 18:00:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mark Prado) writes:

>Tell me, do the FBI reports list Oswald's close personal
>associations with other highly placed intelligence figures

Not that I know of, but that't probably because he didn't _have_ any
such associations.  The only credible story I've come across is the
one that has Oswald and Ferrie in Clinton, La. -- and Ferrie isn't
exactly a "highly placed intelligence figure".  Which figures do you
have in mind?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 18:10:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mark Prado) writes:

>> Oswald's security clearance was merely "confidential", a clearance
>> that is routine.  Also, Oswald didn't monitor "spy flights over the
>> Soviet Union"; he merely tracked planes as they took
>> off and landed at his base, and some of those planes were U-2's.
>
>Yeah, right, he's been chosen to be relocated to work at an
>overseas

Lots of American military bases are overseas.

>underground

What is your source that Oswald's job was underground?

>super-secret spy facility

Super-secret spy flights _were_ being conducted from Atsugi, but I
know of no evidence that Oswald knew anything sensitive about those
flights.

>and has only a CONFIDENTIAL clearance

How much clearance does it take to say "flight 46, you're cleared for
landing on runway 3"?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!tim
From: [e-mail] (Tim Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 18:08:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA
Lines: 31

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
=In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
=
=>In this and other statements you have attempted to substitute one conspiracy
=>with another, insinuating that conspiracy theorists have cajoled, badgered
=>or pestered witnesses into changing their testimony to support the idea
=>of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. If this is your argument, what case
=>can you make for it?
=
=Conspiracy theorists always make a big deal of whether or not a court
=of law would have convicted Oswald.
=            Like I've said before, the stuff to pay attention to is
=the physical evidence and prompt, recorded testimony of the material
=witnesses.

Oh, you must mean stuff like the PROMPT and RECORDED questioning of LHO by
the Dallas PD... I mean that here we have possibly the most infamous
murderer since Brutus, and they don't even take notes???

Or perhaps you mean the FBI agent who had to burn his notes?

Or perhaps you mean the Dr. who performed the autopsy on JFK, he burned his
notes too????????
--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET"
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 17:31:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 52
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>(Mitchell S Todd) writes...

>>    I believe that Oswald was the lone gunman, beyond a reasonable
>>    doubt.

>   `Beyond a REASONABLE doubt'? My god, man. I hope you're not sitting on
>  any jury should I be arrested and prosecuted for something I didn't do.....

    It'd be better for me to be on your jury, than for Garrison
    to be your prosecutor. I, at least, won't try to bribe
    witnesses or feed them testimony while they are under hypnosis.


    Speaking of trials and such, let me lay this one thing on you:

    Of the conspiracy theorists I've known, only one has ever
    ventured beyond the writings of Groden, Marrs, Garrison,
     Weisberg, Lane, et al. In effect, what they have done is
    made themselves the jury and let the conspiracy writers
    be both prosecutor and judge. The Garrison kids not only
    get to present their evidence, but they also get to
    decide what evidence gets presented. In a real trial,
    the prosecution would get equal time to debate the case,
    cross-examine, and re-cross examine the facts of the case.


     When I look into the 'evidence' that the conspiracy buffs put
    out, I'm generally disappointed. Sometimes only a single facet
    of a larger body of evidence is touted. Often, 'experts'
    turn out not to be, like Jack White. Sometimes, 'evidence'
    is the result of wishful thinking, like Groden's use of
    a frame of the Zapruder film to 'show' the 'exit wound'
    in the rear of JFK's head. Sometimes, the evidence is
    tangential (at best) to the question at hand, like using
    CE399 as evidence against the idea of a bullet passing
    through both JFK and Connelly.

    The conspiracy crowd(s) have yet to impress me.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Keywords: KGB, Kennedy, Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 17:39:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <606300040@peg> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 21
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes...

>THE KGB has stated (on a special NIGHTLINE telecast Nov 22, 1991) that
>from what they knew about OSWALD, he could not have pulled off the
>assasination.

    I wonder how hard the KGB thinks it is for someone to aim
    a rifle at someone and shoot it? And, of course, missing
    a target twice in three attempts at ranges between 40 and
    90 yds isn't the greatest marksmenship in the world, either.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucla-se!edison!ygoland
From: [e-mail] (The Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: The IRS and YOU
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 20:22:50 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: The Hacker Conference
Lines: 9

I take it that the defening silence on the subject of this
conspiracy means that this forum should REALLY be
alt.conspiracy.jfk?
                The Jester
--
        The Jester-President of The Hacker Conference
"Never trust an oyster"-Super Chicken
"You know the job was dangerous when you took it"-Super Chicken
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing"-Sledge Hammer
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!rpi!kasprj
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kasprzak)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The IRS and YOU
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 21:04:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Big Wedge
Lines: 14
Nntp-Posting-Host: jacob.its.rpi.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The Jester) writes:
>I take it that the defening silence on the subject of this
>conspiracy means that this forum should REALLY be
>alt.conspiracy.jfk?

 That's a good idea, actually. I'm bored with all the JFK stuff, and I
think that it easily generates enough traffic to justify its own newsgroup.
CFD, anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Disclaimer: RPI pays me to work, not to think.
     \_| "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" -Rush
      ====  e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 10:04:00 GMT
Lines: 44


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

Does your employer know what you're writing? ;)

>> On the contrary, Oswald failed to shoot the President when he was comming
>> down the street, when shots would have been easier.

> He had the choice of Houston or Elm.  The turn onto Houston was not as
> sharp as the 120-degree turn on to Elm, so the limo would be going
> faster on Houston.

Gimme a break.  Houston's a MUCH better shot from TSBD.

If you're running TOWARDS me, and at much closer range, I can hit
you no matter what the speed.  Remember: target
cross-section is reduced as the inverse SQUARE of distance.

Plus, the car had to slow down to make the turn.
He did not shoot during the 120 degree turn, but after the
limo had turned the corner and had been heading straight for the
freeway.  It was way down to the Grassy Knoll.

Kennedy could have DUCKED down on the seat to avoid additional shots
from TSBD down near Grassy Knoll, and was in fact moving his head forward at that time before his whole body was tossed back from momentum of something.  (And front-splattered brains did not carry enough momentum for that.) But coming up Houston, he'd be shooting down into the limo -- nowhere for JFK to duck.

 > If he had started shooting while the limo was on
 > Houston, the limo might have either continued straight
 > on Houston or turned right (instead of left) onto Elm, and
 > immediately escaped his sight.

In what relative timeframe?

 > [...] and Oswald wound up trying to tell the police he had his
 > _lunch_ in that at-least-28-inch bag.

Go further than that -- tell us what happened, Mr. Holtz,
to the hours of Oswald interrogations in the hands of
the police?  My experience is that it's often tape recorded
(especially in this case), but no tapes and practically no
notes exist.

 * Origin:  (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 10:13:01 GMT
Lines: 36


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

 > Where have _you_ been?  As Mitchel Todd established in a thread on
 > this topic a week or so ago, not a single qualified photo analyst
 > thinks they are fakes.

To everyone:  Does anyone take this Holtz guy seriously any more?

 > I've argued to the contrary.  The only convincing responses to my
 > arguments have been to make me think that perhaps the magic bullet
 > theory is _correct_.

[...]

 > No, _you_ haven't been listening.  I'd never worked a bolt action
 > rifle before, but on only my second try I was able to cycle, aim, and
 > pull the trigger 10 times in 16 seconds.  Why do people treat the
 > Warren Commission's number of 2.3 seconds as divine revelation?

 > Nitrate tests on his hands were positive, and on his cheek were
 > negative.  Someone just posted that when an FBI agent fired the rifle,
 > he too tested negative for cheeck nitrates.

Yeah, real "authorities" referencing each other.  That's an
old KGB trick ...

 >> Disclaimer:  I have been awake for the last 4.5 days.

 > It shows.  ;)
 > Brian Holtz

Cheap shot, Brian. ;)

 * Origin:  (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!mips!kpc!kpc.com!emmett
From: [e-mail] (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 22:29:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer
Lines: 5

101:    Why would the conspirators assasinate the president,
and then cover it up, instead of exposing his sexual
infidelities and pressure him to resign. In pre-sexual
revolution US, this would have been much easier, and
wouldn't need to be covered up?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!mips!kpc!kpc.com!emmett
From: [e-mail] (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 22:32:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer
Lines: 12

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
|> Conspiracy or Conicidence....
|> When Kennedy was shot, all the phone lines in Washington went down.
|> They were down for a while.

Conspiracy or Coincidence....
When the Oct 1989 Earthquake hit San Francisco,
It seemed like all the phone lines were down.
In actuality, the phone system was overloaded
for hours.

I suspect the same thing happened in Washinton in 1963
Path: ns-mx!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ninja!studier
From: [e-mail] (Jim Studier)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK : NBC film and head shot
Keywords: JFK head shot
Message-ID: <studier.695260629@ninja>
Date: 12 Jan 92 23:57:09 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 10


 1.) I think there was a film taken by an NBC cameraman in
 the motorcade two cars behind JFK's car.  I believe the film  was
 given to LBJ.  Where is this film now?


 2.) In High Treason a bone fragment from JFK's head was mentioned
 that was found 25 feet behind the location of the JFK car at
 the time of the head shot. What does this say about whether the
 head shot came from the front?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 92 23:27:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 40
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Locke) writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

><     I suggest, Mr Locke, that you place a Mauser 7.65 next to the
><     Mannlicher-Carcano. They look very much like each other.
><     _Jane's Infantry Weapons_ describes the Mauser as having
><     an 'undistinguished appearance'. Policemen are not [I should
        have included 'quite' here] the 'experts'
><     at identifying weapons, as many of the various conspiracy
><     writer would have it. Neither are sporting-goods store owners.

>Marrs says that three cops described the rifle as a Mauser, including
>Deputy Roger Craig who saw the word "Mauser" imprinted on it.

    I can only remember two cops, and a sporting goods store
    owner, who saw the weapon. It would be interesting to know
    where 'Mauser' was seen to be preinted on the rifle, in
    order to verify Craig's story. I've seen one Mauser,
    and I don't remember the name being imprinted anywhere
    on it, though the Mauser 7.65 was built for decades.

>In addition, Police Chief Curry said that no special precautions were
>taken with the rifle after it was stored as evidence. It would have
>been easy to make a swap.

    It would have beem easier just to have brought the Mauser in
    as Oswald's rifle, or to have had the 'real' assassin use a
    Mannlicher-Carcano and not worry about having to switch.


                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 03:43:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <    <[e-mail]> > <sdR0LSy00VpZE2OHk=@andrew.cmu.edu> <    <[e-mail]> > <[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <1992Jan1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 16
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10700 rec.arts.movies:52076
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum) writes:

>  Also, the only time Gov. Connally's wounds were lined up with JFK and the
>  6th floor of the TSBD building was right at the time of the shot which
>  hit JFK in the back and exited through his throat. To have Connally
>  suffer the 6 wounds he did at a different time would have been impossible.

Are you sure?  Wasn't it his right wrist and left thigh that were
wounded?  When Kennedy was already reacting to his back wound,
Connally was turned to his right, and I think his right wrist didn't
go to his left thigh until he next started turning to his left.

This is the first time I've heard of Connally's body position being
used to fix when he got hit; it's an excellent idea.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 03:47:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 20


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Crocker) writes:
|questioning. Examples

|(paraphrased)
|Is there any evidence Oswald was a CIA employee?   No.
|Is there any evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?  No.

Actually wasn't there a Lee Oswald who did work for the CIA, at least
they admitted as much. When that cover didn't wash, it was clear that
the CIA admitted that Oswald was in fact with the CIA.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 04:01:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 23


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

||< 5)    J K Lattimer conducted firing trials, simulating the shot
||<     through JFK's upper back and neck. In his trials, he was
||<     able to duplicate the back wound, the neck wound, the hole
||<     in the back of the shirt, the holes in the collar, the
||<     nick in the tie knot, and the oblong wound in Connelly's
||<     back without difficulty.

sorry to but in here kind of late, but I really doubt all this. You can't
go from TSBD to the back of Kennedy, into Connelly, all with the positions
they were in from the film(s). Also, a picture of the TSBD inbetween the
first and second shots shows no one at the window LHO was in.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 04:16:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 41
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>|Oh?  Did you check in the Warren Report?  If so, how _did_ the WC
>|explain the screwed-up sights?
>
>fact that the WC had every incentive to provide either some evidence or
>reasonable explanation, makes the whole idea very non credible.

Waitaminnit.  You're saying that because I don't know how the WC
explained the screwed-up sight, my theory that it might have been
dropped is therefore "non credible"?  Sorry, but proof-by-Brian's-
ignorance-of-the-Warren-Report is not very persuasive.

>This was your story to make up, the least you can do is try to give
>some evidence for it.

I did.  I noted that the rifle had a strap, and that it was found
between two stacks of boxes.  An easy way to get it in there would
have been to swing it in by the strap.

>|Hmm.  So after the FBI finished its tests with the modified rifle, it
>|undid the modifications and gave all the materials it used to the WC.
>|So?
>
>So, the point is that nothing was done about it. They didn't say, "hey,
>this rifle couldn't hit the broad side of the barn,

It was 3x or 4x sight, and the range was only 50 to 70 yards.
Furthermore, it's possible to compensate for a misaligned sight if one
has experience with the sight.

>and we can't even have our experts duplicate the results if we tamper
>with the evidence.

"Tamper"?  They just re-aligned the sight to compensate for any
experience Oswald's might have had with the sight being misaligned.
As for duplication, I thought the feat they couldn't duplicate was the
three-shot three-hit performance, which the Magic Bullety theory
obviated.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: GOV>CONNELLY ON LARRY KING ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 04:07:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 34


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] writes:
|
|||Kennedy never grabbed his throat; he raised
|||his fists in front of himself to the _level_ of his throat.
|
||Nellie Connally was about 2 - 3 feet from JFK when he
||was hit in the throat. I think I'll believe her version
||instead of yours. By the way , how close were you?
|
|I was about 2 - 3 feet from my TV screen when the Zapruder film
|clearly showed that Nellie was wrong.  Kennedy never even touched his
|throat.

You are obscuring the point. Kennedy raises his clenched fists to his
throat, he might actually be grabbing part of it, but that is irrelevent.
IF you saw someone make those motions quickly, you might think that they
were grabbing their throat. In fact, Kennedy may have been grabbing his
throat, since the print is rather blurred at this point. In any case
it doesn't matter. He was certainly responding to a bullet passing
through his throat.



--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Primetime Live: JFK head separate entrance wound?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 04:50:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dusty Garza) writes:

>wound- or a blot clot or whatever, when there are actual autopsy photographs
>that show the entire back side of the head blown off (an opening as wide as
>a small fist or a large egg).

You have to have a very small head for the "entire back side of" your
head to be only "as wide as a small fist or a large egg".  ;) No, the
opening you describe is above and behind his right ear.

>I thought they proved those drawings were faked?

No, I don't think the entrance wound/blood clot drawing has ever been
questioned.  However, some people have been confused because in the
photo/drawing, a gloved hand is holding a flap of scalp in place,
making the wound look smaller than it is.  It looks to me like the
entrance wound/blood clot is right at the "hinge" of the scalp flap,
exactly where you would expect an entrance wound from the TBSD to be.
If it really is a hole in the skull, as the HSCA forensics expert said
on Primetime Live, then a grassy knoll shooter can be ruled out.
(Unless you want to posit a simultaneous impact, as some authors have.
But then why stop at just one?  Why not have gunmen shooting into
_all_ of the wounds made by Oswald, to make sure Oswald doesn't screw
up?  ;)
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Mellons, the Head Shake, and # of guns (was Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net)
Summary: The near-pristine bullet did not hit Kennedy's head.
Keywords: JFK,QuickTime,Zapruder,Macintosh,Film,Movie,Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 05:37:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:

>|I heard of a series of articles done in the 1960s by Prof. Louis
>|Alveraz (sp) in which he presented experimental data that indicated

Yes; there were a lot of postings about this around Christmastime; one
thread is still sputtering on, apparently over what constitutes
walking speed.  ;)  I think it's fair to say that Kennedy's head
moving backwards is certainly possible, though probably not extremely
likely.  I don't feel like rehashing it.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>I think also that the X-rays indicated massive fracturing, where as there
>was supposed to be only 1 single copper bullett. Also, the amount of mass
>of various bullet fragments indicate that the pristine bullet must be
>40% less massive than brand new, which is doubtfull considering the
>remarkable shape it is in.

What "pristine bullet"?  The only near-pristine bullet is CE 399, the
"Magic Bullet" which hit Kennedy in the back.  No significant part of
the head shot bullet was ever recovered.  Indeed, I'd be surprised if
the fragments from Kennedy's head autopsy and head x-rays could be
estimated to add up to 40% of a bullet.  Do you recall where you got
the number?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+
From: [e-mail] (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 05:47:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <    <[e-mail]>> <sdR0LSy00VpZE2OHk=@andrew.cmu.edu> <    <[e-mail]>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <knet1fINN
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 143
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:52081 alt.conspiracy:10708
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

Bruce Jonathan Schuck wrote:
>Nellie Connally turned and saw the
>President clutch his hands at his throat wound. At this
>point John Connally was still unwounded -- there is no
>doubt in her mind that her husband was o.k. at this point.

I wrote:
>But how would she know?  All she was in a position to
>observe was that Connally had not yet reacted.

Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
>Blood pouring out his chest wound , wrist wound , thigh
>wound ... would have been a good clue.

But you're only assuming this.  Is there any reference
in the testimony to blood "pouring out of him"?  Would
Mr. Connally have survived if blood was "pouring out of him"?
Also, by your own account, Mrs. Connally was looking
at the President, not her husband.  Also, her husband
was turned away from her (to his right) and only just
coming around to facing forward when he reacted to his
wounds.

Bruce Jonathan Schuck wrote:
>John Connally tried to turn to his right to look back.

I wrote:
>It seems to me that this could have been a reaction to
>a first shot that completely missed, a shot before the
>one that hit Kennedy.

Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
>But it wasn't. Nellie and John Connally reacted to the
>same shot.

You are just assuming that.  There is no way to be sure of
that.  In fact, the evidence seems to me to be against it.

Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
>She was in a position to see Kennedy's reaction.

Mrs. Connally does not say that she was watching the
president when he was hit.  She evidently turned at the
sound of the shot that hit Kennedy, and saw his reaction
already in progress.  ("I turned over my right shoulder and
looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at
his neck.")  As she was looking, Mr. Connally started to react
to being hit, himself.  ("I turned to look at the same time,
I recall John saying, `Oh, no, no, no.'")

Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
>He couldn't see to the right so he tried to
>turn back to his left. Then he felt a blow to his back.
>Then he slumped down on the seat. Nelly Connally is very
>clear on the sequence.

What you just said, doesn't make sense.  Mrs. Connally
COULDN'T be "clear" on the sequence you just described.
She doesn't know when Mr. Connally "felt a blow to his
back".  She only knows when he reacted.

Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
>He stated on Larry King that he felt the blow to his back
>immediately after he heard the second shot.

I haven't had a chance to check you on this, but I suspect
that you are in error here.  Either that, or Mr. Connally has
changed his story, AND gotten stupider.  In his original
testimony, Mr. Connally was asked, "you have described
hearing a first shot and a third shot.  Did you hear a
second shot?"  Mr. Connally answered, "No; I did not."
Later, he speculated, "I was in either a state of shock
or the impact was such that the sound didn't even
register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing
the second shot at all."  So your version of what Mr. Connally
said clearly contradicts his original testimony.

Also, your version of what Mr. Connally said displays a
level of ignorance that seems unlikely.  In Mr. Connally's
original testimony, he indicated that he knew, "any
rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound".
Thus Mr. Connally should know that it would not make
sense for Mr. Connally to feel the blow "after" hearing
the shot.  If he did feel the blow after hearing the
shot, it would be beyond all doubt certain that he
must have had a delayed reaction, since the bullet
would have reached him before the sound got there.

Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
>Nellie and John Connally were there , they heard the
>shots , they saw the results. I believe them.

I essentially believe them, too.  Here is what I think
may have happened:

Oswald fires the first shot and misses.

     Mrs. Connally does not notice the sound.  This is not
     at all improbable.  She has no experience with rifles.
     Clint Hill (the secret service man who surely had
     experience with guns) evidently also failed to notice
     this first shot.  In his testimony, he was asked, "Did
     you hear any more than two shots?"  He replied,
     "No, sir."

     Mr. Connally, on the other hand, DOES have experience
     with rifles, and notices the sound.

The car disappears behind the sign.

Mr. Connally turns to his right.  He is later certain that
this first bullet did not hit him.  He is correct.

From Oswald's point of view, the car moves clear of
the tree.

Mr. Connally starts to turn back, towards facing forward.

Oswald fires the second shot, wounding both Kennedy
and Mr. Connally.

Mrs. Connally notices THIS shot and turns back to
see Kennedy reacting to his wound.  At the same
time Mr. Connally continues to turn toward facing
forward.  He later never remembers hearing a second
shot.

The car emerges from behind the sign.

Mr. Connally has his delayed reaction.

Mrs. Connally HEARS her husbands reaction and
looks at him.

Mr. Connally falls over leftwards onto Mrs. Connally
who understandably assumes that he has just been
hit by a bullet different from the one that wounded
Kennedy.  Perhaps the illusion is reinforced by an
echo from Oswald's second shot, although I did
not spot any specific reference to the sound of the
shot that hit Mr. Connally in her testimony.

It all seems to fit their testimony pretty well to me.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+
From: [e-mail] (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 06:07:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail] <schuck.6 <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 14
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10709 rec.arts.movies:52082
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

David Wright writes:
>I think that if you had been shot through the back, through
>the wrists and thigh, you would know if you were shot,

A delayed (by about a second) reaction to even a serious wound
is not all that improbable.  Incidentally, Connally himself says
that he did not find out about his wrist and thigh wounds until
after he got to the hospital.

David Wright writes:
>you certainly could not hold onto your hat!

I've seen people still able to use their hand while having all
sorts of arm injuries.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!veritas!amdcad!netcomsv!tim
From: [e-mail] (Tim Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: CIA complicity in JFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 07:46:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA
Lines: 26
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10711 misc.headlines:19669

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lance Visser) writes:
=     At 10:40 AM, February 6th, 1985, in  a  federal  courtroom  in  Miami,
=     Florida  a jury delivered a verdict which, if properly disseminated in
=     the mass media, would likely rock the world.  Yet probably fewer  than
=     1  in 10,000 Americans know what happened that day... so what did hap-
=     pen?  The below is quoted from the book  "Plausible  Denial"  by  Mark
=     Lane, begining on page 320.
=
=
=The verdict in a libel trial does not necessarily "prove" the truth of
=anything.  But it is a nice gimmick to use when your out selling books.
=
=It is also far easier to tout a "verdict" that to present a real case.
="twelve jurors believe me, so it must be true" is not a valid or productive
=arguement.

Perhaps, but it sure beats the hell out of the uninformed arguing about
something with which they have NO PERSONAL CONTACT!
--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET" -- Hardware Design made easy :-)
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Detour onto Houston/Elm
Summary: Would have been a difficult shot
Keywords: questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 21:41:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
>
> >Could  LHO have known as early as Thursday morning that JFK would
> >be coming down Elm Street right past the TSBD  where  he  worked?
> >If JFK had actually gone straight down Main Street, he would have
> >presented a much poorer target  for  someone  shooting  from  the
> >TSBD
>
> Not too much poorer.  At its closest point to the sniper's nest, Main
> St. isn't really any farther from the nest than is the spot on Elm at
> which Kennedy's head was hit.
>
> >--trees  and  a  concrete  pagola would have blocked the view
> >from the sixth floor until the limo was  well  past  the  Houston
> >street intersection,
>
> The tree-'n'-pergola would have only blocked the view for moment,
> since the limo would have been travelling orthogonally to Oswald's
> line of sight.

By looking at the aerial photos of Dealey Plaza, I find that that these
obstacles would have blocked LHO's view for roughly a quarter of the length
of the path down Main to the Triple Underpass.  Moreover, LHO would not
have had a chance to see JFK coming before he popped into view on Main,
and would have had to waste valuable seconds getting his rifle sight
lined up before he could get off his first shot.  By the time that LHO
got lined up, JFK's limo might well already be safely under the Triple
Underpass.  In addition, JFK would be traveling transverse to LHO's
line of sight all the way down Main Street, a much more difficult shot
that a target coming directly toward him or directly away.

>
> >presumably accelerating as it approached and
> >went through the Triple Underpass.
>
> The section of Elm that the limo was on when the shooting started is
> almost as straight as Main is, and yet the limo wasn't accelerating
> very much at all from the hairpin turn.

True, the limo did come to a virtual halt during the shooting sequence
on Elm.  This fact is in itself rather curious.  Why did the limo come
to a near halt when the shots were fired?  Now, I'm not suggesting that
the driver was a part of the conspiracy, but it is rather odd how poorly
these Secret Service people performed on that day.

>
>
> Elm is indeed a better shot than Main, but either way, Oswald knew
> it would be a long time before another President drove through a plaza
> over which his workplace had such a commanding view.
> --
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo
Keywords: rifle, discrepancies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 22:05:05 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes...
>
> >In all the  arguing  over  the  famous  incriminating  photos  of  LHO
> >supposedly  taken  in the Paine back yard, not much attention has been
> >paid to the rifle what he is  holding.   If  you  look  at  the  photo
> >carefully,  you will note something rather unusual.  The rifle held by
> >"Oswald" in the photo has a bolt handle which reaches all the way down
> >to  the  base  of  the trigger housing, whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano
> >currently in the National Archives has a bolt  handle  which  is  much
> >higher.  This discrepancy indicates that these two weapons are NOT the
> >same. There are two possible explanations--either the photo is a  fake
> >and  neither  Oswald  nor  the  rifle are genuine or else the photo is
> >genuine and the rifle held by Oswald  is  NOT  the  one  used  in  the
> >assassination.
>
> >Comments?
>
>     Well, you seem to be assuming that the pictures of the
>     rifle in the archives show the rifle in the same perspective
>     as the backyard photos. Oswald is holding the rifle so
>     that it tilts towards one side, and towards the camera.
>     That is to say, the rifle isn't parallel to the camera
>     plane. The resulting perspective, and the foreshortening,
>     could easily result in what you describe above. Furthermore,
>     in both photographs, do we know what position the handle
>     is in? Is it fully down and locked? Other features of
>     the rifle Oswald is holding, such as a notch-like
>     defect in the stock, appear on the rifle at the
>     National Archives.
>
I thought of the possibility that the rifle in the photo did not have the
same perspective as that shown in the photos in the National Archives.
However, in order for this to explain the bolt handle discrepancies,
LHO would have had to have twisted the rifle at least 45 degrees around
its longitudinal axis.  This would have been noticed by a shift in
position of the butt of the rifle in relation to the barrel.  Added to
this problem is the fact that LHO is holding the rifle with one hand well
above its center of gravity.  He would be unable to do this for very long,
unless his wrist was unusually strong.

The photos I have seen of the National Archives rifle show the bolt handle
fully down and locked.  And still, the handle is well above that shown in
the LHO photo.

A notch-like defect in the stock?  Can such a fine detail as that be seen
in the oringinal LHO photo?  I can remember some copies of the photo in
which the names of the newspapers LHO is holding up cannot be resolved.
But in other copies, I can see the "Worker" and the "Militant" titles
clearly legible.  Odd that LHO should pick such widely divergent
publications.  Almost as if someone were to hold up copies of both the
*Nation* and the *National Review*.

You might want to take a look at a recent video entitled "Who Didn't
Kill JFK".  It was put out by Jim Marrs and Jack White, and goes into a
lot of detail about these famous incriminating photos.


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road    *   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033            **************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!egsner!csccat!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Lee Harvey Oswald and "A. J. Hidell"
Summary: If the gun order was forged, why use "Hidell" instead of "Oswald"?
Keywords: Fake IDs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 05:04:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 47
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>This rifle had been ordered from
>Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago under the name "A. J.  Hidell",  and
>delivered  to  a  Dallas  post  office  box  kept  in  this name.  The
>Commission through handwriting analysis was able to determine that LHO
>had actually filled out the paperwork associated with the purchase and
>receipt of the rifle.  However, I'm not all that sure that handwriting
>analysis  is  a  valid science.  Had the case gone to trial, I suspect
>that an equally-qualified bunch of handwriting analysis experts

What is the basis for your suspicions?

Stop and think.  If the paperwork was not filled out by Oswald, but
rather by someone trying to make it look like Oswald filled it out,
why would they not use Oswald's name?  This is a perfect example of
conspiracy-think.

>However, there was no initial mention  of  an  "A.  J.
>Hidell"  by  the  arresting officers.  The police radio indicated that
>they had a "Lee Harvey Oswald" in custody immediately after the  Texas
>Theatre  arrest,  which  must  indicate  that  they looked through his
>wallet for identification.  If an "A. J.  Hidell"  card  had  actually
>been there, the police would not have been sure just who they had.

Maybe they realized that authentic Selective Service cards do not have
photographs on them.

>Was  LHO  ever questioned  about  this  card?

At headquarters, when questioned as to which name was his, he
said "You're the cop; you figure it out."  Of course, if the
conspirators can plant the fake ID, they can rig the record of what
Oswald said.  (Conspiracy-think means never having to say "Oh, I guess
I'm wrong.")

>Has anyone ever looked into the possibility that  there  was
>an ACTUAL "A. J. Hidell"?

Undoubtedly.

There is no question that Oswald had used the Hidell alias before.
For one thing, when he registered his chapter of the Fair Play For
Cuba Committee, he listed Hidell as the secretary.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Mellons, the Head Shake, and # of guns (was Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net)
Keywords: JFK,QuickTime,Zapruder,Macintosh,Film,Movie,Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 17:07:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 99
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

[e-mail] (David Wright) writes...

>1.) You would not normally think that a person hit from beind would fall
>behind. For example, many soldiers in the Italian army who use copper bullets
>say they generally make small entrance and exit holes and people fly forward
>when hit in the head.

    No one uses 'copper bullets'. They'd be too damned
    expensive. Perhaps you are talking about copper *jacketed*
    rounds, also known as full metal jacket rounds or ball rounds.

    However, there is a rather large discrepancy between your
    anonymous Italian Army riflemen (at least the ones who
    use 'copper bullets') and the recorded experimental
    evidence.

     I think it's has already been clearly established that people
    don't 'fly forward' or 'get thrown around like a rag doll'
    by bullets.

    The question comes down to, just where did you get your
    information, Mr Wright?



>2.) Even if the juice flys forward, it is not certain that the head will fly
>backward, since Lattimer used Melons, the HSCA used geltin coverd skulls etc...

    Alvarez used the melons. Lattimer used filled with meat and/or
    gelatin, skulls, and the HSCA used gelatin-filled and -covered
    skulls.


>3.) The juice flew in all directions, many massive pieces backwards, on balence
>it is highly unlikely that enough stuff flew forwards.

    Neither Lattimer nor Alvarez had any trouble getting the
    skulls/melons to move to the rear. It seems to be probable enough.


>4.) The head was connected to the neck, and body, and it is unclear wheather a
>bullet can make the head fly backward if it is attached to a body.

    It's not unclear at all. There's nothing structural in the
    body that would prevent the head from moving backwards.
    There is, however, the question detailing how much of the
    bullet's momentum would be absorbed by the rest of the body.
    Furthermore, neuromuscular reactions, if any, have to
    be taken into account.


>5.) The whole body moves up and to the right, not just the head, which ought
>to make some kind of arc in the reverse direction.

    Did JFK move to the left or to the right? Everybody keeps
    on saying 'left', but you say right.

    If Kennedy's body does move to the right, then the use
    of bullet-to-head momentum by the grassy knoll theory
    runs into a non-trivial problem.


>6.) Even if all above, the head moved back up and to the right, whereas the
>shooter was shooting up and to the left, looking at kennedy straight on.

    Which shooter was shooting 'up and to the left'?
    That's just not possible, given the geography of
    Dealy Plaza.


>I think also that the X-rays indicated massive fracturing, where as there
>was supposed to be only 1 single copper bullett. Also, the amount of mass
>of various bullet fragments indicate that the pristine bullet must be
>40% less massive than brand new, which is doubtfull considering the
>remarkable shape it is in.

    What? The total mass of the fragments left in Connelly's
    wrist and leg --the only such fragments from the
    so-called 'pristine bullet'-- was estiamted by Parkland
    to be 'less than a postage stamp'. CE399 lost approximately
    2gr of mass, all from a cylinder of extruded lead that
    was sheared off of the tail end of the bullet.

    I think that you might be confusing the 'pristine' bullet
    with the head shot. Otherwise, you post leaves me with
    far more questions than answers, almost all of them being
    'who told him *that*?'


            ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!egsner!csccat!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo
Summary: Bolt handles move when the bolt moves.
Keywords: rifle, discrepancies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 05:11:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>"Oswald" in the photo has a bolt handle which reaches all the way down
>to  the  base  of  the trigger housing, whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano
>currently in the National Archives has a bolt  handle  which  is  much
>higher.

Huh?  You are aware that rifle bolt handles _move_, don't you?  That's
what they're for.  In the National Archives photo I've seen, the bolt
is fully retracted and is fully rotated up.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!egsner!csccat!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: James Tague and the Fourth Bullet
Keywords: fourth bullet, fragments, limo, winshield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 05:27:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 62
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>Sure  enough, he had been struck by a spray of debris
>from a bullet which had hit a cement curb  on  Main  Street  near  the

Or from a bullet fragment, as you more carefully pointed out later in
your article.

>in May of 1964 Mr. Tague
>went back out to Dealey Plaza and found out that the bullet  mark  was
>gone.   Apparently, someone had made attempts to "repair" it, and only
>a very faint mark could still be seen.

What I've read is that in the early eighties an analysis of the curb
said its appearance was "consistent" with someone patching it, but
they weren't sure.

>the FBI removed
>the curious piece of curb and took it to Washington for analysis.  The
>FBI reported in August 1964 that antimony and lead metal smears  could
>be  detected  on the curb, but that no copper was found.  In addition,
>the mark was so slight that the FBI concluded that it could  not  have
>been  caused  by  a whole bullet, but only by a small fragment.

Was this based on the mark as it appeared on the curb in the lab, or
based on the mark as it appeared in the day-after photograph, or both?

>So where did this bullet or bullet fragment come from?   A  reasonable
>place  to  start  looking  might  be the fatal head shot.

Indeed; they are perfectly aligned.

>However, in
>order to reach the curb on Main Street near the Triple Underpass, such
>a  fragment would have had to pass through the windshield of the limo.
>Windshield pits and cracks

I didn't know there were any more other than the major crack.

>were photographed while the limo was parked at  the hospital,

Also, the windshield is plainly uncracked in a photo taken after the
Connally wounding but _before_ the head shot.

>and it is possible that a bullet fragment could have
>penetrated through the windshield and reached the curb on Main  Street
>still with sufficient energy to kick up enough spray to wound Mr. Tague.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that.  Since (as far as I know) not much of
the mass of the head shot bullet was ever accounted for, a significant
fragment going through the windshield might be the answer.

>However, it seems that the limo  was  sent  immediately  back  to  the
>factory for "cleaning" and "repair".  I wonder if anyone ever was able
>to get a close look at the windshield?

Good question.  It would be interesting to know what that kind of
windshield looks like when even the slightest of fragments penetrates
it completely.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 17:49:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 45
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

[e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>||< 5)    J K Lattimer conducted firing trials, simulating the shot
>||<     through JFK's upper back and neck. In his trials, he was
>||<     able to duplicate the back wound, the neck wound, the hole
>||<     in the back of the shirt, the holes in the collar, the
>||<     nick in the tie knot, and the oblong wound in Connelly's
>||<     back without difficulty.

>sorry to but in here kind of late, but I really doubt all this. You can't
>go from TSBD to the back of Kennedy, into Connelly, all with the positions
>they were in from the film(s).

    Actually you can. The HSCA and the PBS series NOVA were
    independetly able to verify a single track through
    the JFK back/neck wound and Connelly's wounds, using
    different methods.

    Since no one knows exactly when the 'magic bullet'
    struck, the exact positions of JFK and Connally
    are unknown, particularly if both JBC and JFK
    were behind the sign when the shot hit.


>Also, a picture of the TSBD inbetween the
>first and second shots shows no one at the window LHO was in.

    I keep on hearing about this picture, and I think I know
    which one it is, but no one will tell me exactly.
    If the photo id the one I'm thinking of, no wonder
    Oswald doesn't appear in it. The combination
    of Oswald's position and the position of the camera
    would put LHO behind a wall in the photo.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ingria
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Krassner and The Realist (Was: Re: what LBJ did to JFK's head)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 18:38:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Lines: 40
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 17 Jan 92 19:48:14 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Quigley) writes:
   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Campin) writes:
   >
   >This reminds me of a yarn that circulated in the late 60s (I heard it in
   >New Zealand) that when Lyndon Johnson was in a plane with JFK's body, he
   >took out his penis and fucked Kennedy in the brain.
   >
   >I've since heard somewhere that this story originated with Paul Krassner's
   >magazine "The Realist" (which I have never seen).  Does anyone have the
   >original text, and if so, could they post it?  (or scan the comic strip if
   >that was what it was).

   The Realist was a viciously written social/political satire newsletter published randomly by
   Paul Krassner during the mid `60s. It combined both real and invented articles, written so
   that you couldn't tell what was real and what was not. In his articles, he named names, dates,
   places, witnesses, corroborating evidence, etc. It's a wonder he wasn't sued for liable or
   slander, or assasinated by the CIA, FBI, etc., because he took `em all on. Great cartoons, too!

   Great rag! Couldn't get away with something like that today. At least not in increasingly
   paranoid America.

Well, Krassner now publishes a new _Realist_, which appears
sporadically (I don't believe I've seen an issue in the last couple of
months).  A couple of years ago, I saw Krassner at a comedy club.  He
described how he sniffed dope with the Pope on the Pope's last visit
to the United States.  (According to Krassner, one of the Pope's aides
approached Krassner and said that His Holiness was very fatigued
because of his schedule and that they believed Krassner could provide
something that could help.)

Krassner also said that so much of the news is so surreal these days
that he constantly has to check whether he's dreaming or not.  This
consists of flapping his arms.  If he doesn't fly away, he knows he's
awake.  There was a section in the New Realist that is simply reports
of news items that might make you want to flap your wings, like the
anti-abortionist who said that each of us started out as ``a feces''.
Speak for yourself, Jim!

-30-
Bob
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!bigtex!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Detour onto Houston/Elm
Summary: Either way, Oswald couldn't pass up this golden opportunity.
Keywords: questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Jan 92 06:45:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>Could  LHO have known as early as Thursday morning that JFK would
>be coming down Elm Street right past the TSBD  where  he  worked?
>If JFK had actually gone straight down Main Street, he would have
>presented a much poorer target  for  someone  shooting  from  the
>TSBD

Not too much poorer.  At its closest point to the sniper's nest, Main
St. isn't really any farther from the nest than is the spot on Elm at
which Kennedy's head was hit.

>--trees  and  a  concrete  pagola would have blocked the view
>from the sixth floor until the limo was  well  past  the  Houston
>street intersection,

The tree-'n'-pergola would have only blocked the view for moment,
since the limo would have been travelling orthogonally to Oswald's
line of sight.

>presumably accelerating as it approached and
>went through the Triple Underpass.

The section of Elm that the limo was on when the shooting started is
almost as straight as Main is, and yet the limo wasn't accelerating
very much at all from the hairpin turn.


Elm is indeed a better shot than Main, but either way, Oswald knew
it would be a long time before another President drove through a plaza
over which his workplace had such a commanding view.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: GOV>CONNELLY ON LARRY KING ON JFK
Summary: No chance.  Didn't happen.  Look at the film.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 20:23:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>You are obscuring the point. Kennedy raises his clenched fists to his
>throat, he might actually be grabbing part of it,

No chance.  Didn't happen.  Look at the film.

>IF you saw someone make those motions quickly, you might think that they
>were grabbing their throat.

That's my point!  We have Nellie's memories, and we have a film of
what happened.  Where they conflict, Nellie is wrong.  Got it?

>In fact, Kennedy may have been grabbing his
>throat, since the print is rather blurred at this point.

No chance.  Didn't happen.  Look at the film.

>He was certainly responding to a bullet passing
>through his throat.

Or into his back.  Say, Mitchell, do Magic Bullet theorists have an
explanation for how the bullet got itselfed turned sideways so quickly
between Kennedy and Connally, considering that it must have left
Kennedy's neck straight to leave such a small hole?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: The Remarkable Windshield
Keywords: I wish I had one of these on MY car!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 20:29:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 84

The question of the windshield of JFK's limo has come up several times
in  this  newsgroup-- namely, was there or was there not a bullet hole
in it?  Again, as happens so many times in this  case, it  depends  on
whom you ask.

While the limo was parked at Parkland  Memorial  Hospital  in  Dallas,
Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noticed that there was a
hole in the windshield.  In a 1971  interview  with  an  assassination
researcher,  two Dallas motorcycle police officers who had accompanied
the motorcade to Parkland also confirmed that they had seen a hole  in
the  windshield, large enough for a pencil to pass through.  When they
mentioned this hole to the Secret Service, the Secret Service officers
on  the scene at Parkland went out of their way to dismiss the hole as
having been caused only by a fragment, not a whole  bullet.   However,
the  two officers were definitely sure that the hole was produced by a
whole bullet.  However, they didn't seem to remember enough details to
say  which  way  the  bullet  was traveling when it passed through the
windshield.

The limo was later flown back to Washington and driven  to  the  White
House  garage.  A team from the FBI looked it over, and they too noted
a small hole just to the left of center in the windshield.

However, later in the week the windshield seems to  have  undergone  a
remarkable transformation.  On November 27, the windshield was removed
from the limo by a group of private  contractors  and  stored  in  the
White  House garage.  In 1972, an assassination researcher got hold of
the crew leader of the team which had taken  the  windshield  off  the
limo.   The  crew  leader reported that he did not remember seeing any
hole passing through the windshield,  but  that  he  did  notice  some
damage to the INSIDE surface of the windshield. On November 27, Secret
Service agent Roy Kellerman looked over the windshield just before  it
was  removed  from the limo.  He ran his hand over the outside surface
and found it to be smooth.  The damage that he saw was on  the  INSIDE
surface.  In  a  January  1964  letter written by Secret Service chief
James Rowley, no mention was made of any hole in the windshield.   The
letter  reported that the outside surface of the windshield was smooth
and unbroken.  There was some damage  to  the  inside  surface,  which
might  indicate  that  a  bullet  fragment  just might have struck the
windshield.

However, damage to the INSIDE surface of  the  windshield  immediately
causes  a  problem,  since if a projectile does not strike with enough
force actually to penetrate the glass, a chip will be knocked  out  of
the  surface  OPPOSITE  to the one which was struck by the projectile.
This seems to argue for a bullet fragment coming in from the FRONT.

In March of 1964, the Secret Service sent the windshield to  the  FBI.
When  they  looked  it  over,  the FBI also reported that there was no
hole. Only some superficial damage to the OUTSIDE  of  the  windshield
could  be  seen.  Not only has the bullet hole disappeared, the damage
has  now  moved  from  the  inside  to  the  outside  surface  of  the
windshield.   Roy  Kellerman  ran  his hand over the windshield in his
testimony before the Warren Commission.   He  noted  that  the  inside
surface  which he had reported damaged shortly after the assassination
"now seemed rather smooth".

All of these discrepancies may indicate that the limo  windshield  was
switched  when  it became clear that it provided evidence embarrassing
to the single-assassin theory.  First, the  original  windshield  with
the  large  hole was replaced with one containing only a crack when it
was discovered that a fourth bullet was incompatible  with  LHO  being
the  lone  assassin.   Then,  when  it  was  found  that  the  cracked
windshield argued for a bullet or bullet fragment coming in  from  the
FRONT,  a  second  substitution was made which provided evidence for a
bullet fragment striking the windshield from the rear, as required for
a shot coming from the TSBD.

Even if the limo windshield is still available, it may be worthless as
credible  evidence,  given  the  possiblity  of evidence tampering and
substitution.

Comments?

Source: Best Evidence, David S. Lifton

Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road    *   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033            **************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 20:34:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>Actually wasn't there a Lee Oswald who did work for the CIA, at least
>they admitted as much.

This has never been mentioned in any assassination book _I've_ read.
Reference?

>When that cover didn't wash, it was clear that
>the CIA admitted that Oswald was in fact with the CIA.

Total bullshit.  I don't even need to ask for a reference here,
because you could never produce it if you tried.  (Not that you _ever_
try to produce references for your claims....)  The CIA naturally had
a 201 file opened on Lee Harvey Oswald, since as a defector he was of
potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance.  But Lee
Harvey Oswald never worked for the CIA.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo
Keywords: rifle, discrepancies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 19:35:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 41
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes...

>In all the  arguing  over  the  famous  incriminating  photos  of  LHO
>supposedly  taken  in the Paine back yard, not much attention has been
>paid to the rifle what he is  holding.   If  you  look  at  the  photo
>carefully,  you will note something rather unusual.  The rifle held by
>"Oswald" in the photo has a bolt handle which reaches all the way down
>to  the  base  of  the trigger housing, whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano
>currently in the National Archives has a bolt  handle  which  is  much
>higher.  This discrepancy indicates that these two weapons are NOT the
>same. There are two possible explanations--either the photo is a  fake
>and  neither  Oswald  nor  the  rifle are genuine or else the photo is
>genuine and the rifle held by Oswald  is  NOT  the  one  used  in  the
>assassination.

>Comments?

    Well, you seem to be assuming that the pictures of the
    rifle in the archives show the rifle in the same perspective
    as the backyard photos. Oswald is holding the rifle so
    that it tilts towards one side, and towards the camera.
    That is to say, the rifle isn't parallel to the camera
    plane. The resulting perspective, and the foreshortening,
    could easily result in what you describe above. Furthermore,
    in both photographs, do we know what position the handle
    is in? Is it fully down and locked? Other features of
    the rifle Oswald is holding, such as a notch-like
    defect in the stock, appear on the rifle at the
    National Archives.


                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Mellons, the Head Shake, and # of guns (was Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net)
Keywords: JFK,QuickTime,Zapruder,Macintosh,Film,Movie,Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 20:44:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>    Did JFK move to the left or to the right? Everybody keeps
>    on saying 'left', but you say right.

He meant right, from the point of view of somebody looking at Kennedy
from the front of the limo.

>>6.) Even if all above, the head moved back up and to the right, whereas the
>>shooter was shooting up and to the left, looking at kennedy straight on.
>
>    Which shooter was shooting 'up and to the left'?

David meant shooting _from_ up and to the left, from the point of view
of somebody looking at Kennedy from the front of the limo.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Lee Harvey Oswald and "A. J. Hidell"
Summary: Alias or Fake Name?
Keywords: Fake IDs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 21:08:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 94

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
>
> >This rifle had been ordered from
> >Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago under the name "A. J.  Hidell",  and
> >delivered  to  a  Dallas  post  office  box  kept  in  this name.  The
> >Commission through handwriting analysis was able to determine that LHO
> >had actually filled out the paperwork associated with the purchase and
> >receipt of the rifle.  However, I'm not all that sure that handwriting
> >analysis  is  a  valid science.  Had the case gone to trial, I suspect
> >that an equally-qualified bunch of handwriting analysis experts
>
> What is the basis for your suspicions?
Not much, really.  But I do remember trials in which equally qualified sets
of handwriting experts reached completely opposite conclusions.  Had the
case actually gone to trial, I'm willing to bet that LHO's lawyers could
have come up with handwriting experts who would testify that that was NOT
his handwriting on the rifle paperwork.   It's easy enough to fake someone
else's handwriting with a little practice, simply by tracing a copy of the
original onto the documents.
>
> Stop and think.  If the paperwork was not filled out by Oswald, but
> rather by someone trying to make it look like Oswald filled it out,
> why would they not use Oswald's name?  This is a perfect example of
> conspiracy-think.
I can think of one possibility.  Why would anyone intending to assassinate
the President be dumb enough to sign his real name to incriminating
documents linking him to the rifle which committed the crime?  Had such
documents with LHO's signature been found, suspicions as to their genuiness
might be aroused.  Surely a Presidential assassin could't have been that
dumb!  Better to fake LHO's signing someone else's name, and people might
be a bit less suspicious.
>
> >However, there was no initial mention  of  an  "A.  J.
> >Hidell"  by  the  arresting officers.  The police radio indicated that
> >they had a "Lee Harvey Oswald" in custody immediately after the  Texas
> >Theatre  arrest,  which  must  indicate  that  they looked through his
> >wallet for identification.  If an "A. J.  Hidell"  card  had  actually
> >been there, the police would not have been sure just who they had.
>
> Maybe they realized that authentic Selective Service cards do not have
> photographs on them.
>
> >Was  LHO  ever questioned  about  this  card?
>
> At headquarters, when questioned as to which name was his, he
> said "You're the cop; you figure it out."  Of course, if the
> conspirators can plant the fake ID, they can rig the record of what
> Oswald said.  (Conspiracy-think means never having to say "Oh, I guess
> I'm wrong.")
This point contradicts the previous one.  If the police at headquarters
were still confused about who it was that they had in custody, why did
they mention that they had "Lee Harvey Oswald" in their custody over the
radio as they were bringing him in?  If, as you say, the police were not
fooled by the fake ID, why then were they uncertain as to his identity
when he was at headquarters?
>
> >Has anyone ever looked into the possibility that  there  was
> >an ACTUAL "A. J. Hidell"?
>
> Undoubtedly.
>
> There is no question that Oswald had used the Hidell alias before.
> For one thing, when he registered his chapter of the Fair Play For
> Cuba Committee, he listed Hidell as the secretary.
I had always pictured "A. J. Hidell" as a phantom co-worker of LHO's
when he was working with his bogus "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" in
New Orleans.  I don't recall LHO ever using "A. J. Hidell" as an alias
in those days.  Now it is possible that Marina may have signed the name
"A. J. Hidell" on a letter sent to the FPCC asking for his New Orleans
chapter to be recognized.  However, since Marina was under extreme pressure
to implicate her husband as the lone assassin, I think that her testimony
should be taken with a grain of salt.  Is the "Hidell" letter to the FCCC still
in existence?  If it is, there is always the possibility that LHO was not
the one that sent it.  "A. J. Hidell" is listed as the secretary of the FPCC
chapter in New Orleans on the flyers.  Oddly enough, the address listed
for the FPCC is 544 Camp Street, where all sorts of rather strange
characters gathered, all of which were linked to the far right rather
than the far left.  LHO's left-leaning activity seemed to be largely for
show and to gather attention; most of his friends and associates seemed
to be on the right end of the political spectrum.
> --
> Brian Holtz


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "Round up the usual suspects."    *
2000 North Naperville Road    **************************************
P. O. Box 3033
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                     Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo
Keywords: rifle, discrepancies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 21:24:44 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 36

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
>
> >"Oswald" in the photo has a bolt handle which reaches all the way down
> >to  the  base  of  the trigger housing, whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano
> >currently in the National Archives has a bolt  handle  which  is  much
> >higher.
>
> Huh?  You are aware that rifle bolt handles _move_, don't you?  That's
> what they're for.  In the National Archives photo I've seen, the bolt
> is fully retracted and is fully rotated up.
Yes, I am indeed aware that rifle bolt handles do move.  Although I am not
a gun freak, I have fired a few rifles in my time.  In a bolt rifle such
as the Mannlicher-Carcano, the bolt handle is lifted and then pulled backwards,
ejecting the spent shell.  The bolt is then pushed forward, pulling a new
round into position and forcing it into the chamber.  The bolt handle is then
pulled downward to lock it into position.

I have looked at several photos of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.  In all
the ones that I have seen, the bolt appears to me to be in the fully
locked-down position, the rifle ready for firing.  There is a specially
clear photo of the rifle in the Warren Commission summary report.  The bolt
there is definitely in the locked down position.  The slot which accepts the
bolt handle when it is pulled down can clearly be seen, with the bolt
handle nestled snuguly down into it.


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road    *   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033            **************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!rpi!batcomputer!reed!henson!milton!sumax!polari!rwing!fylz!fyl
From: [e-mail] (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: what LBJ did to JFK's head
Summary: The Realist lives
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Jan 92 06:51:18 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: FYL, Seattle, WA
Lines: 35

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Quigley) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Campin) writes:
> >
> >This reminds me of a yarn that circulated in the late 60s (I heard it in
> >New Zealand) that when Lyndon Johnson was in a plane with JFK's body, he
> >took out his penis and fucked Kennedy in the brain.

> >I've since heard somewhere that this story originated with Paul Krassner's
> >magazine "The Realist" (which I have never seen).

> I have that particular issue stashed away someplace. Now if I can just find it.
...

> The Realist was a viciously written social/political satire newsletter published randomly by
> Paul Krassner during the mid `60s. It combined both real and invented articles, written so
> that you couldn't tell what was real and what was not. In his articles, he named names, dates,
> places, witnesses, corroborating evidence, etc. It's a wonder he wasn't sued for liable or
> slander, or assasinated by the CIA, FBI, etc., because he took `em all on. Great cartoons, too!

> Great rag! Couldn't get away with something like that today. At least not in increasingly
> paranoid America.

Surprise.  The Realist is alive again.  Krassner has been publishing
it for the past few years.  The story is as follows:
   The Realist is published quarterly.
   Subscription rates: $12 for 6 issues; $23 for 12 issues
   Back issues $2 each
   Address: Box 1230, Venice, CA 90294

And, yes, it is just as "interesting" as ever.

--
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115
Phone: [phone] x74      Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]  or {eskimo,nwnexus,ssc}!fylz!fyl
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 02:01:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 40


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] writes:
|
||That's the stuff i'm talking about - the Dallas PD grabs a guy
||for an un-related crime that was committed 1.5 miles away from
||the JFK hit and surprize, surprize, he's the President's killer!
|
|What, is it metaphysically impossible for a presidential assassin to
|be stupid/nervous enough to shoot a cop that approaches him after he's
|made his getaway?

According to the Holtz rules of evidence, that often rules out witness
testimony, Oswald should not be guilty of Tippet's murder. There were a
few witnesses who said they saw Oswald shoot Tippet, but the line up
was mismanaged, and one signed a statement that he recognized Oswald before
the time of the line up. Also, there were two witnesses who said that
two people shot Tippet, and that one was heavier than Oswald.
    Numer two, there were some casings found that were from Oswald's
handgun, but these do not match the bullits found in Tippits body. In fact,
there were two types of bullits found: winchester and Colt, if my memory
recalls the other kind.
    The circumstantial evidence points against Oswald, who is unlikey
to have ran from his house all the way to the murder.

    Also, what was Tippet doing with Oswald anyway? And what was he doing
in the area? All the other police were orderd to either Dealy Plaza, the
Hospital, or the airport. There was no manhunt going on, nothing. Oswald's
description was ambiguous.  Nor did Tippet try to arrest Oswald, but greeted
him in a friendly manner. There is evidence that the two knew each other,
I think both were spotted in Ruby's nightclub at a table. Oswald had no motive to kill Tippet.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Mellons, the Head Shake, and # of guns (was Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net)
Keywords: JFK,QuickTime,Zapruder,Macintosh,Film,Movie,Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 02:17:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 108


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|[e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
|
||1.) You would not normally think that a person hit from beind would fall
||behind. For example, many soldiers in the Italian army who use copper bullets
||say they generally make small entrance and exit holes and people fly forward
||when hit in the head.
|
|    No one uses 'copper bullets'.

Meant copper-jackets, obviously....

|    However, there is a rather large discrepancy between your
|    anonymous Italian Army riflemen (at least the ones who
|    use 'copper bullets') and the recorded experimental
|    evidence.
|
|     I think it's has already been clearly established that people
|    don't 'fly forward' or 'get thrown around like a rag doll'
|    by bullets.

I think that normally they would. That is what most people who have a great
deal of experience with that type of thing would say.

|    The question comes down to, just where did you get your
|    information, Mr Wright?

See Crime of the Century, by Kurtz.

||2.) Even if the juice flys forward, it is not certain that the head will fly
||backward, since Lattimer used Melons, the HSCA used geltin coverd skulls etc...
|
|    Alvarez used the melons. Lattimer used filled with meat and/or
|    gelatin, skulls, and the HSCA used gelatin-filled and -covered
|    skulls.

Well, that is gruesome enough. But the point stands.

||3.) The juice flew in all directions, many massive pieces backwards, on balence
||it is highly unlikely that enough stuff flew forwards.
|
|    Neither Lattimer nor Alvarez had any trouble getting the
|    skulls/melons to move to the rear. It seems to be probable enough.

Please answer the point.

||4.) The head was connected to the neck, and body, and it is unclear wheather a
||bullet can make the head fly backward if it is attached to a body.
|
|    It's not unclear at all. There's nothing structural in the
|    body that would prevent the head from moving backwards.
|    There is, however, the question detailing how much of the
|    bullet's momentum would be absorbed by the rest of the body.
|    Furthermore, neuromuscular reactions, if any, have to
|    be taken into account.

Only if you are on drugs.

||5.) The whole body moves up and to the right, not just the head, which ought
||to make some kind of arc in the reverse direction.
|
|    Did JFK move to the left or to the right? Everybody keeps
|    on saying 'left', but you say right.

I said from looking at Kennedy from head on. He goes in the direction of a
bullet fired from the knoll.

|    If Kennedy's body does move to the right, then the use
|    of bullet-to-head momentum by the grassy knoll theory
|    runs into a non-trivial problem.
|
||6.) Even if all above, the head moved back up and to the right, whereas the
||shooter was shooting up and to the left, looking at kennedy straight on.
|
|    Which shooter was shooting 'up and to the left'?
|    That's just not possible, given the geography of
|    Dealy Plaza.

See above.
|
||I think also that the X-rays indicated massive fracturing, where as there
||was supposed to be only 1 single copper bullett. Also, the amount of mass
||of various bullet fragments indicate that the pristine bullet must be
||40% less massive than brand new, which is doubtfull considering the
||remarkable shape it is in.
|
|    What?

Indeed, I am confusing the two bullits. But, hey, what the hell. The first
point stands.

|    [connelly's] wrist and leg --the only such fragments from the
|    so-called 'pristine bullet'-- was estiamted by Parkland
|    to be 'less than a postage stamp'. CE399 lost approximately
|    2gr of mass, all from a cylinder of extruded lead that
|    was sheared off of the tail end of the bullet.

Which is still not consistent with the pristine shape of CE399.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 02:23:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 44


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|[e-mail] (David Wright) writes...

|    Actually you can. The HSCA and the PBS series NOVA were
|    independetly able to verify a single track through
|    the JFK back/neck wound and Connelly's wounds, using
|    different methods.
|
|    Since no one knows exactly when the 'magic bullet'
|    struck, the exact positions of JFK and Connally
|    are unknown, particularly if both JBC and JFK
|    were behind the sign when the shot hit.

So how can I? Are you saying that it's possible to put a straight line through
all those holes? I really doubt that. In the ZP film, and in order to make
the back wound go through until the throat wound, Kennedy would have to be
almost kneeling over, given the height of TSBD shooter's nest. This would leave
the bullit hitting the floor, not near the top of Connally's seat.

|
||Also, a picture of the TSBD inbetween the
||first and second shots shows no one at the window LHO was in.
|
|    I keep on hearing about this picture, and I think I know
|    which one it is, but no one will tell me exactly.
|    If the photo id the one I'm thinking of, no wonder
|    Oswald doesn't appear in it. The combination
|    of Oswald's position and the position of the camera
|    would put LHO behind a wall in the photo.

No it wouldn't. The window is nearly square, i.e., there is virtually
no angle. The picture was used by the WC, and by chopping it, was able
to manufacture some evidence. The full picture, blown up, shows no one
there.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 02:26:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 23


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
||Actually wasn't there a Lee Oswald who did work for the CIA, at least
||they admitted as much.
|
|This has never been mentioned in any assassination book _I've_ read.
|Reference?

See Saga of a Spy, or Spy Saga, or something like that. They go into it a great
deal, giving memos of CIA saying that there was an Oswald working somewhere.
And then they say it is impossible to determine who worked for them, since
they are such a large agencey etc...
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
From: [e-mail] (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 03:15:43 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns9.ins.cwru.edu


I have seen several posters on this thread refer back and forth to
"thge National Guard standing down" on the day JFK was shot. I
think this is a misstatement of a similar fact I HAVE a reference
for. The reference I am about to give is not where I first saw this
material. I think that was in a statement from Fletcher Prouty,
possibly in an appendix to Plausible Denial, which I don't have
in front of me.

The reference I have is in Groden's and Livingstone's  High Treason
on page 185. The statement is that the 112th Army Intelligence unit
at Fort Sam Houston was ordered not to report to Dallas. It had
previously been preparing to do so. The Prouty statement which I think
I remember implied, or perhaps stated outright that they normally
would have been routinely involved in an event of this sort. I believe
"X" in JFK who is based in part on Prouty makes a similar statement.

Groden & Livingstone footnote their reference to pp 193-194 of  Gary
Shaw's book "Cover-up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the
Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy. (1976)
Write Cover-up
      PO Box &22
(oops) PO Box 722
       105 Poindexter
       Cleburne TX     76031

Hope this helps,
Steve
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
From: [e-mail] (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: CIA complicity in JFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 03:53:01 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 14
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns9.ins.cwru.edu


I am concerned that the leak of the CIA memo implicating Hunt
was associated with former CIA counterintelligence director
James Jesus Angleton. I have been reading up on this character
over the past couple of weeks and he is reputed, among other
things to be a master of disniformation. I for one would not
take at face value any information which that individual had a
major role in making available. The CIA may well have had a
role in the JFK affair, but the "CIA" is hardly a monolith.
I consider it entirely plausible that Angleton may have been
involved in implicating Hunt, in orderto divert
suspicion from a cabal which might have included others in the
Agencey, rather than Hunt and his associates.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: The Murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 08:29:17 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr. Usenet)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 747
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu

Reprinted without permission from CovertAction Information
Bulletin, Number 34 (Summer 1990), pages 21-27.

The Murder of Martin Luther King Jr.

by John Edginton and John Sergeant

{Editors' Note: In April 1988, John Edginton, a British
independent film maker, began an inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Edginton had
just completed a film about King's life ("Promised Land") and was
intrigued by comments by King's friend, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy,
that King was murdered by government forces. By January 1989,
Edginton had gathered enough evidence disputing the official
verdict that BBC Television agreed to fund a documentary: "Who
Killed Martin Luther King?" John Sergeant joined the team as
associate producer. The film aired in England in September 1989
and on cable television in this country in March 1990. The
following article is derived from information gathered in their
investigation and raises questions about government complicity in
the assassination of the civil rights leader.}


Introduction

Equivocation, uncertainty, and doubt have never been fully
dispelled with respect to the untimely death of Martin Luther
King Jr. in 1968. This could be put down in part to the intensity
of public suspicion over the killing of President John F.
Kennedy. But suspicions linger primarily because of the
inherently unconvincing nature of the official version of the
events.

In an apparently {bona fide} effort to lay these ghosts to rest,
the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations
(HSCA) concluded an investigation in 1979 which reaffirmed the
guilt of convicted assassin James Earl Ray but conceded the
probable existence of a conspiracy behind him - headed by a group
of St. Louis businessmen with ties to organized crime. It
referred its leads to the Justice Department which quietly closed
the case in 1983.

However, new revelations clearly demand official answers. The
case should now be reopened and the whole 22-year-saga of James
Earl Ray's conviction and imprisonment should now be rigorously
reviewed.

The first important new revelation involves Jules Ron Kimble, a
convicted murderer serving time in a federal prison in Oklahoma.
In a recent interview, Kimble admitted being intimately involved
in a widespread conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of
King. He said that this conspiracy involved agents of the FBI and
the CIA, elements of the "mob," as well as Ray. In the late
1970s, investigators of the HSCA interviewed Kimble but,
according to their report, he denied any knowledge of the murder.
Now, for the first time, Kimble publicly admits participating in
the assassination. [1. Kimble made this admission while being
interviewed for the film documentary {Who Killed Martin Luther
King?} The interview took place at the El Reno Federal
Penitentiary, El Reno, Oklahoma, in June 1989.]

Kimble, a shadowy figure with ties to the U.S. intelligence
community and organized crime, corroborates much of Ray's self-
serving story. He alleges that Ray, though involved in the plot,
did not shoot King and was in fact set up to take the fall for
the assassination. [2. {Ibid}.]

Jules Kimble, in implicating the mob and CIA in the
assassination, claims to have introduced Ray to a CIA identities
specialist in Montreal, Canada, from whom Ray gained four
principal aliases. In August 1989, a former CIA agent serving in
Canada around the time of the King assassination, confirmed that
the CIA did indeed have such a false identities specialist
operating out of Montreal in the late 1960s. [3. Telephone
interview with ex-CIA agent who requests anonymity, August 1989;
in-person interview in December 1989.]

An investigation by Dr. Philip Melanson revealed that the
identities that Ray adopted during the period of the
assassination were far more elaborate than previously realized.
Melanson concluded that in at least one instance, Ray's alias
could only reasonably have derived from a top secret security
file accessible only to military and intelligence agencies. [4.
See Philip Melanson, {The Murkin Conspiracy} (New York: Praeger,
1989).]

Finally, Ray who has been protesting his innocence for over 20
years, has always claimed that he was set up for the
assassination by a mysterious "handler" called Raoul whom he had
first encountered in Montreal nine months before. The former CIA
agent who served in Canada named the agency's Montreal identities
specialist at the time as Raoul Maora. [5. {Op. cit.}, n. 3.]

Jules Ron Kimble cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. For a start he
has a long record of mob activity and violence, often with
political overtones. He is currently serving a double life
sentence in El Reno, Oklahoma, for two murders he admits were
political. He has proven links to the Louisiana mob empire of
Carlos Marcello (frequently accused of involvement in political
assassination) and admits to having done mob-related work in New
Orleans, Montreal, and Memphis during the late sixties - three
key cities in Ray's odyssey. [6. A July 1989 phone interview with
a Baton Rouge police detective confirmed Kimble's close ties to
organized crime. State investigator Joe Oster also investigated
Kimble because of allegations of Kimble's involvement in the
murder of union leader Victor Busie. In this investigation, Oster
found that Kimble had ties to the Ku Klux Klan and organized
crime.]

Investigative records from the period confirm Kimble to have been
involved with the underworld and the KKK, to have been in
Montreal in the summer of 1967, and to have been called in for
questioning in connection with the Kennedy assassination by then-
New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison. During this
questioning, Kimble admitted being linked to the local FBI and
CIA and Garrison accepted this admission as true. [7. Statement
taken from Jules Kimble by New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison on October 10, 1967.]

Like his contemporary, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jules Kimble had been
living in Crescent City, California during the early 1960s and
was associating with gangsters, segregationists, the FBI and, he
forcefully asserts, the CIA. He is known to have been in contact
with David Ferrie, the dead CIA flier who has been repeatedly
implicated in the assassination of John Kennedy. [8. {Ibid}.]

Most astonishingly, Jules Ron Kimble is not dismissed out-of-hand
by James Earl Ray. When Ray was recently confronted with the
alleged connection, he said that Kimble may have been one of two
mysterious figures he saw on the afternoon of the assassination
but he wasn't sure. Ray then asked if Kimble was in prison (which
he was) but rejected Kimble's allegations about their connection
as some sort of "government disinformation." [9. Interview with
James Earl Ray, June 1989, Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary,
Tennessee.]

Although James Earl Ray, now 60, stands convicted of shooting
Martin Luther King, most observers agree the truth of what really
happened has never been established. New evidence from Kimble,
compounded with other recent revelations, establish that the
issue is not whether government operatives were involved in the
King assassination but rather how high up the chain of command
the conspiracy ran.


The Lone Gunman

In late March 1968, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. came to
Memphis to support the city's striking sanitation workers who
were predominantly black. He led a march of 6000 protesters which
disintegrated into violence between police and demonstrators,
giving conservative forces the opportunity to scorn King's
doctrine of nonviolent political struggle. Determined to prove
the sanitation workers' protest could be peaceful, King returned
to Memphis on April 3rd to lead a second march.

On April 4, a few minutes before 6 p.m., Dr. King walked out on
the balcony outside his second-floor room at the Lorraine Motel.
He was scheduled to attend a dinner at the local Reverend Billy
Kyles's house and was bantering with his chauffeur down in the
parking lot below. At 6:01 p.m. there was a shot. A high-velocity
dum-dum bullet hit Dr. King in the neck, severing his spinal
column and leaving a massive exit hole. One hour later, in St.
Joseph's Hospital in Memphis, King died.

Public suspicions over the investigation of Dr. King's death
surfaced almost immediately. In 1968 there was already a growing
body of opinion at odds with the official explanation that Lee
Harvey Oswald had been the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy. In
Memphis, King too had been shot with a high-velocity rifle,
ostensibly from a window. Moreover, like Dallas, the
assassination had taken place under the noses of the authorities
in broad daylight.

Soon after his murder, questions surrounding the assassination of
King began to emerge. How had so many police arrived so quickly
on the scene - within moments of the shot being fired - yet
failed to spot the assassin either arriving or departing? Who, in
an apparent attempt to distract police radio control, had
broadcast a hoax car chase involving a Mustang on citizens band
radio less than half an hour after the police radio announced the
suspect car to be a white Mustang? If, as the police claimed, the
shot had come from the bathroom window, why did at least three
people claim to have seen a gunman in the bushes across the
street?

The official scenario of how Ray shot King is as follows: Ray was
supposed to have checked into a rooming house on Main Street, the
back of which faces the Lorraine Motel; established a sniper's
post in the bathroom; shot Martin Luther King; panicked and
dropped his belongings on the sidewalk as he fled the rooming
house, leaving the rifle to be discovered with his fingerprints
on it; and then raced out of Memphis in a white Mustang.

Suspicions of conspiracy in the murder of King did not diminish
with the capture of Ray, though officials continued to maintain
he was a lone assassin. On the contrary, expectations of major
revelations at Ray's forthcoming trial were very high. But these
expectations were never gratified. The public was kept ignorant
of many anomalies and peculiarities in the case, some of which
were even ignored by investigators.

The most prominent of these inconsistencies in the state's case
was the self-contradictory and inconsistent testimony of its
chief witness, Charlie Stephens. Stephens, who the state claims
saw Ray emerging from the bathroom, did not recognize Ray in a
photo he was shown shortly after the assassination. The state
also failed to mention that Stephens was an alcoholic and was
drunk the afternoon of the King murder.


Why Did Ray Plead Guilty?

It has never been established where the idea of Ray's guilty plea
originated but certain facts stand out. Ray's lawyers in the
original trial were Hugh Stanton Sr., the Shelby County Public
Defender and Percy Foreman. It is interesting to note that
earlier Stanton had acted as lawyer to Charlie Stephens - the
prosecution's chief witness. No one in the judicial system,
however, saw his acting as Ray's attorney as a conflict of
interest.

In December 1967, Foreman proposed to prosecutor Phil Canale that
Ray could be convinced to plead guilty in exchange for a slightly
reduced sentence and no death penalty. Canale was favorable to
the idea and consulted with the King family lawyer, Harry Wachtel
(former Governor of Tennessee), officials at the Justice
Department, and finally the Attorney General. Everyone agreed
that the guilty plea was a splendid idea. It was Foreman's job to
convince Ray. [10. Interview with Phil Canale, Memphis,
Tennessee, June 1989; interview with Dr. William Pepper, Memphis,
Tennessee, June 1989.]

Ray would have none of it. And it took more than two months for
him to cave in, despite all manner of tactics employed to
pressure him and his family into agreeing. Foreman even assured
Ray in a letter that there was a 100% chance he would be found
guilty and a 99% chance of the electric chair (even though the
state's case was very weak and no one had gone to the chair in
Tennessee in more than a decade). Ray also discovered he could
not change his lawyer again and that Foreman was doing nothing to
develop a defense. Finally Ray somehow believed that if he
pleaded guilty he could dismiss Foreman, demand a new lawyer, and
receive a new trial. [11. {Ibid}.]

The so-called trial took place suddenly on March 10, 1968 and
following a lengthy list of charges the state would have tried to
prove, Ray pleaded guilty as arranged and was sentenced to 99
years. He immediately petitioned for a new trial, which was
denied, and has been petitioning on every conceivable ground ever
since, also to no avail.

In 1974, however, Ray succeeded in prying from the state an
evidentiary hearing. The hearing was to determine whether Ray had
enough grounds for a new trial based on his being negligently
represented by attorney Percy Foreman. Harold Weisberg, a veteran
of the John Kennedy case and a writer, was taken on as an
investigator on Ray's legal team.


Major Inconsistencies in the State's Evidence

Weisberg's investigation was a searching and vigorous one.
Although he differs with many experts in his conclusions - he
believes Ray to be totally innocent, a fall guy or "patsy" - many
of his arguments about the weakness of the official case and the
existence of a conspiracy remain persuasive to this day. Through
his relentless pursuit of FBI documentation under the Freedom of
Information Act, Weisberg found many documents which revealed
numerous irregularities in the Bureau's investigation. Among
other inconsistencies, the state's examination of the alleged
murder weapon is very revealing.

An internal FBI report on the bullet which killed King said that
it was too mangled to compare against the rifle that allegedly
fired it. The report states that "... its deformation and absence
of clear cut marks precluded a positive determination." Yet the
evidence presented at Ray's "trial" gave the impression that the
"death slug" was proven to have been fired from the rifle. [12.
Internal FBI ballistics report, released under the Freedom of
Information Act, dated April 17, 1968.]

Weisberg consulted with a ballistics expert who examined the
bullet and concluded that there were indeed sufficient markings
on it to make test-fire comparisons. The ballistics expert is
adamant about the fact the FBI could and should have carried out
such tests. [13. Herbert McDonnell, the ballistics expert who
made this claim, is regarded as a leading authority. He presented
these views in an interview conducted June 1989, Memphis,
Tennessee.]

One of Weisberg's most powerful arguments concerns the crime
scene itself. How, he wonders, did the assassin, who would have
had to stand in a bathtub to fire at King, manage to take a
single shot, run from the bathroom into the bedroom, bundle up
the rifle and a bizarre collection of personal belongings into a
blanket (ensuring that the belongings but not the bathroom or the
bedroom had his fingerprints on them), run the length of the
rooming house, down a flight of stairs, dump the bundle in the
street, walk calmly to his waiting Mustang and drive away within
the one to two minutes it took uniformed officers to reach the
same location?

Official records as to precisely what took place on the street
outside the rooming house - Main Street, one block west of the
motel - in those critical minutes, are astonishingly chaotic.

At Ray's trial in 1969, testimony was given by Inspector N.E.
Zachary of the Memphis Police Department that he found the rifle
and the bundle first. By the time of the 1974 evidentiary
hearings (after various books had researched the question), the
state conceded that another officer, Sheriff's Deputy Bud
Ghormley was first to discover the bundle.

Yet Ghormley, in turn, has been contradicted by Sheriff's Deputy
Vernon Dollahite. Dollahite, now chief of detectives, insisted
that he was the first onto Main Street and first to see the
bundle. Dollahite has been consistent in his story from the
beginning. After one of his early FBI interviews, they calculated
that the time he took from the shot being fired to his arrival on
Main Street was 1 minute 57 seconds.

The extraordinary factor in Dollahite's testimony is that though
alert for anything unusual as he raced around the corner onto
Main Street, he not only missed the Mustang pulling away, he did
not even see the bundle with the rifle in it. Only after he had
entered Jim's Grill beneath the rooming house, told everyone to
stay put, and come out again, did he spot it lying in a doorway a
few yards away. He and the FBI agreed that whomever was about to
dump the bundle had probably seen him coming, hidden behind the
staircase door until he had gone into the grill, then run onto
the street throwing down the bundle while Deputy Dollahite was
inside.

There is an obvious problem with this scenario. How could Ray run
out of the doorway, throw down the incriminating bundle, and then
manage to climb into a white Mustang and drive off unnoticed
within the seconds it took Dollahite to emerge from Jim's Grill
just feet away?

The judge at the evidentiary hearing took more than a year to
conclude that Ray had no grounds for a retrial. The defendant's
guilt or innocence was immaterial to the issue at hand, he said.


Spying on King

By 1977, with the revelations by the Church Committee of major
abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies, public opinion about the
political assassinations of the 1960s had reached such heights
that Congress was forced into forming the House Select Committee
on Assassinations to investigate the murders of John F. Kennedy
and Martin Luther King Jr.

Beset with political problems and threats to its funding, the
HSCA nonetheless did manage to address, if inconclusively and
frequently inadequately, the majority of the issues and points
raised by critics of the official story in the King case. Its
final report dated March 29, 1979 concluded that James Earl Ray
was indeed guilty of killing Martin Luther King Jr. but there had
been co-conspirators after all. An informant's report in the
FBI's St. Louis office, previously overlooked, led to the
discovery that a $50,000 bounty for the death of Martin Luther
King Jr. had been offered in that city in 1967. [14. Final Report
of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on
Assassination (hereafter referred to as the {HSCA Report}) (New
York: Bantam, 1979).]

However, blaming the King assassination on a conspiracy of St.
Louis organized crime figures, with Ray acting as the killer,
leaves many disturbing questions unanswered. One of these
questions is, how could Ray simply walk into a predominantly
black section of Memphis teeming with police, informants, and
undercover agents, shoot King and then leave unmolested? The
extent of the police surveillance on King was remarkable and the
notion that Ray shot King and escaped undetected is even more
remarkable. Recently, the true nature and extraordinary extent of
the official presence in Memphis in April 1968 became clear.

Retired Memphis police officer Sam Evans confirmed that King's
chauffeur and the manager of the Lorraine Motel were paid police
informants. It is also known that Marrell McCoullough, one of the
first to reach King's fallen body, although ostensibly a member
of the radical black group, the Invaders, was in fact an
undercover agent of the Memphis Police Department. [15. This was
not revealed by investigators in 1968 but was acknowledged by the
HSCA after writers like Mark Lane and Dick Gregory had drawn
attention to it. See Mark Lane and Dick Gregory, {Codename Zorro:
The Murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.} (New York: Pocketbooks,
1977).

The so-called Intelligence Unit of the Memphis Police Department
(MPD) had been planting bugs and agents at all the strategy
meetings of the sanitation workers and the Invaders.
Nevertheless, they continue to deny having had any source, human
or electronic, at the heart of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (SCLC) (the group King headed) that day. A senior
police officer claimed that military intelligence and the U.S.
Secret Service had also deployed agents throughout Memphis. [16.
Interview with investigative journalist Wayne Chastin in June
1989.]

It is now known that a member of the SCLC and leaders of the
local NAACP were in the pay of the FBI. And another figure close
to the SCLC - Jay Richard Kennedy - had been reporting his fears
of communist control over King to the CIA. [17. This information
was revealed in documents released under the Freedom of
Information Act and published by David Garrow in {The FBI and
Martin Luther King, Jr.} (New York: Penguin, 1983). It was also
discussed by Kennedy for the first time on camera in an interview
conducted in June 1989.]

Despite the presence of numerous people engaged in the
surveillance of King, apparently not one of them spotted the
assassin arriving, shooting Dr. King, or escaping the scene.

Given that the Memphis Police Department had in the past provided
extensive security for Dr. King on previous visits and was aware
of the vulnerability of the Lorraine Motel, it seems incredible
that a contingent of police bodyguards assigned to King on his
arrival should have been removed the day of the shooting,
apparently without the knowledge of the police chief, Frank
Holloman.

Just two hours before the assassination the MPD's patrolling "TAC
Units," each comprising three cars, were pulled back five blocks
from the vicinity of the Lorraine Motel. Police chief Holloman
claimed that he did not know of that decision until afterwards.
Inspector Sam Evans, who was in charge of the units, denied that
they were pulled back, even though it is now an acknowledged
matter of public record. [18. This point of fact was established
in the HSCA investigation. However, when interviewed in June
1989, Sam Evans continued to deny it.]

Furthermore, immediately after the shooting, no "All Points
Bulletin" was issued which might have ensured that the major
escape routes out of Memphis were sealed. No satisfactory
explanation has ever been provided for that failure.

In another bizarre incident, on the day of the assassination, an
erroneous message was delivered by a Secret Service agent to the
Memphis Police headquarters stating that there had been a death
threat against a black police detective. The detective, Ed
Redditt, was stationed at a surveillance post next to the
Lorraine Motel. Shortly after the first message, a corrected
message arrived saying that the threat was a hoax but the police
intelligence officer who received it nevertheless, went to where
Detective Redditt was stationed and ordered him to go home. This
was two hours before the assassination. Why did the intelligence
officer send Redditt home even though he knew the threat to be
false? When we approached the officer, who has now left the
police force, he refused to be interviewed. [19. See G. Frank,
{An American Death} (New York: Doubleday, 1972).]

Some of these circumstances are explained by the police as a
series of coincidences, errors, and oversights. Some are not
explained at all. While the HSCA's final report fell short of
accusing the police of complicity in the assassination, it
lambasted the Memphis Police Department for incompetence and
latent racism.

Perhaps the HSCA's final conclusion would have been different if
it had obtained undoctored intelligence reports from the Memphis
Police Department. While doing research for his book "The Murkin
Conspiracy," Philip Melanson, obtained an MPD intelligence report
regarding the King assassination. When he compared it to the same
report published by the HSCA, he found that all the footnotes and
most of the references to undercover police agents in Memphis had
been deleted from the HSCA version. Numerous paragraphs were
missing and certain sentences were rewritten to play up the
violent nature of Memphis civil rights activists and strikers.
[20. {Op. cit.}, n. 4, p. 80.] Why didn't the HSCA get the
originals? When confronted with this discrepancy, Representative
Louis Stokes (Dem.-Ohio), the former Chair of the HSCA, admitted
that he did not know that the Memphis Police Department had
provided the Committee with altered documents. [21. Interview
with Representative Louis Stokes, Washington, D.C., June 1989.]


The Role of the FBI

It is also enlightening to look at FBI actions both prior to and
after the King assassination. Former Atlanta FBI agent Arthur
Murtagh has given some indication of the prevailing mood at the
Bureau in King's home city.

Murtagh related in an interview that "Me and a colleague were
checking out for the day when the news came over the radio that
Dr. King had been shot. My colleague leapt up, clapped his hands
and said `Goddamn, we got him! We finally got him.'" When asked
if he was sure of this statement Murtagh was adamant that his
colleague said "we," not "they." [22. Interview with Arthur
Murtagh, June 1989.]

For years, through its COINTELPRO operations, the FBI had been
spying on, bugging, falsifying letters, and sowing discontent
among the leadership of the SCLC in an attempt to discredit and
"neutralize" Dr. King. [23. See Garrow, {op. cit.}, n. 17; also
see HSCA report.]

Suddenly, after the King assassination, the FBI began what was
called the greatest, most expensive inquiry in Bureau history -
the hunt for King's killer. All the technical and human resources
of Hoover's FBI focused on the bundle of evidence conveniently
left at the crime scene - a bundle which only pointed to one man
- Eric Galt, a.k.a. John Willard, a.k.a. Paul Bridgman, a.k.a.
George Sneyd, whose real name is James Earl Ray. At the same
time, white racist groups braced themselves for an FBI assault,
but to their astonishment no one asked them any questions. "It
was strange," recalled white supremacist J.B. Stoner, "[It was]
almost as if they knew they didn't have to look this way." [24.
Interview with J.B. Stoner, Atlanta Georgia, April 1989.]

The HSCA, like the Justice Department which had already conducted
an investigation into the FBI's handling of the King
assassination, found no evidence of a coverup. In the end, the
Committee did conclude that the Bureau had contributed to a moral
climate conducive to the murder of Dr. King, but it stopped short
of accusing the Bureau of actual involvement in the killing. [25.
{Op. cit.}, n. 14.]

Evidence nonetheless exists suggesting that elements within the
FBI may have played a significant role in the political
assassination. Consider, for instance, Myron Billett's story.

In early 1968, Myron Billett was the trusted chauffeur of Mafia
chief Sam Giancana. Giancana asked Billett to drive him, and
fellow mobster Carlos Gambino, to a meeting at a motel in upstate
New York. Other major Mafia figures from New York were there as
well as three men who were introduced as representatives from the
CIA and FBI. There were a number of subjects on the agenda,
including Castro's Cuba. [26. Interview with Myron Billett,
Columbus Ohio, June 1989.]

According to Billett, one of the government agents offered the
mobsters a million dollars for the assassination of Martin Luther
King Jr. Billett stated that Sam Giancana replied, "Hell no, not
after you screwed up the Kennedy deal like that." As far as
Billett knows, no one took up the offer.

Billett relayed this information in an interview conducted just
weeks before he died of emphysema. Given his condition, there
appears to be no particular reason for him to lie. While his
allegations are mentioned in the HSCA's final report, it makes no
judgement as to their validity - the HSCA report simply states
that is was unable to corroborate his story.

There is another instance in which FBI agents were heard
discussing bounties and the recruitment of professionals to kill
King. In September 1965, Clifton Baird, a Louisville, Kentucky
policeman was informed by fellow officer Arlie Blair of a
$500,000 offer to kill Dr. King. Louisville was the home of
King's brother, the Reverend A.D. King. Baird said he overheard
other police officers and several FBI officers discussing the
contract. The next day, Baird tape-recorded Blair referring to
the contract again. Later, the HSCA heard the tape and verified
its authenticity. [27. {Op. cit.}, n. 14.]

FBI agent William Duncan, liaison with the Louisville Police,
admitted that the discussion had taken place and named two other
agents who would confirm it. But he also claimed the offer was
initiated as a joke by police Sergeant William Baker. Both of the
other FBI agents denied any knowledge of the conversation and
Baker had died. The HSCA ran out of leads. [28. {Ibid.}]

There are also witnesses afraid to discuss what really happened
on the day of the assassination due to continuing harassment and
intimidation. For example, ever since a black Tennessee grocery
store owner named John McFerren first told his story, he has been
threatened, burgled, beaten up, and shot at. Now he is very
reluctant to tell it again.

On the afternoon of the assassination, McFerren was at a Memphis
produce store when he overheard the store's manager say on the
phone "Get him on the balcony, you can pick up the money from my
brother in New Orleans and don't call me here again." The man on
the phone was Frank Liberto. His brother, Sal, who lived in New
Orleans, was associated with Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello. As
incredible as it seems, the FBI did not pursue McFerren's
allegation after they initially questioned Liberto and he denied
it. [29. Interview with John McFerren, Memphis, Tennessee, June
1989. It should be noted that because McFerren is terrified of
retribution, he refuses to be interviewed on camera.]

These connections, and other evidence that members of the Mob
were involved in the assassination, were discovered by
investigative reporter Bill Sartor. While doing research for a
book, Sartor had gone undercover and infiltrated the peripheries
of both the Memphis and the New Orleans Mafia. Sartor died
mysteriously in Texas as he was completing his first draft and
two autopsies failed to reveal the cause of death.

There are other Memphis locals, particularly in the vicinity of
the Lorraine Motel and Jim's Grill, who are still afraid to talk
or who have suddenly changed their original stories. At least one
of them is still visited from time to time by a man reminding him
to stay silent. There is also the allegation that someone posing
as an advance security person appeared at the Lorraine Motel two
days before the assassination and ordered Dr. King's room changed
from the ground floor to the first. Finally there was the known
presence in Memphis on the day of the assassination as well as a
week after, of a notorious anti-Castro mercenary and CIA contract
employee. Years later, when questioned about why he was in
Memphis on the day of the assassination, he admitted "it was my
business to be there."


The CIA and False Identities

It is not disputed that the CIA took a very active interest in
Martin Luther King Jr. Documents released under the Freedom of
Information Act reveal an extensive and ongoing CIA scrutiny of
the thoughts, actions, and associates of the civil rights leader
throughout the 1960s. One of those reporting back to the CIA was
Jay R. Kennedy, a writer and broadcaster prominent in the civil
rights movement. Kennedy fervently believed that King's
opposition to the war in Vietnam was orchestrated by Peking-line
communist agents.

There are other compelling questions about the complicity of the
CIA in the King assassination. For example, although James Earl
Ray never visited Toronto before April 1968, he used four
identities belonging to individuals living within a few miles of
each other in that city. Each of the four bears a rough physical
resemblance to Ray. Of these the most elaborate alias was that of
Eric Galt, a name Ray used extensively through the period before
the assassination. Only on April 4th, the day of the
assassination, did he abandon Galt's name and begin to use the
other three. [30. Interview with Ray, {op. cit.}, n. 9.]

The Galt alias was not merely the result of a fraudulently
obtained birth certificate - it was the wholesale usurping of the
real Eric Galt's history and physical identity. Evidence shows
that James Earl Ray had travelled in the same U.S. cities as the
Canadian Eric Galt, had access to Galt's signature, and even
inquired into emigrating to southern Africa - a place where Eric
Galt had relatives. [31. See William Bradford Huie, {He Slew the
Dragon} (New York: Delacorte Press, 1970).] Moreover Ray has
scars on his forehead and his hand, as does the real Eric Galt.
Two months before the assassination Ray had plastic surgery on
his nose. Galt revealed that he, too, had had plastic surgery on
his nose.

Eric Galt is, moreover, an expert marksman.

The question arises: How could Ray or his co-conspirators acquire
such a detailed profile of this alter ego? According to Eric
Galt, there is only one place where all the pertinent information
is collected together - his highly classified security clearance
file in the Union Carbide factory in Toronto, where, in the mid-
1960s, he was working on a top secret U.S. defense project. [32.
Interview with Eric Galt, Toronto Canada, June 1989.]

Fletcher Prouty, a former Pentagon colonel and author of "The
Secret Team," was responsible for providing military support for
CIA covert operations in the early 1960s. Prouty finds these
revelations highly significant: [33. Interview with Fletcher
Prouty, Alexandria, Va, June 1989.] "The Royal Canadian Mounted
Police (RCMP) [which at that time included the Canadian
equivalent of the CIA] would have compiled this file and besides
them and Union Carbide, the only people with access to it would
have been U.S. intelligence."

The question of how Ray came to acquire these identities provided
the original link to Jules Ron Kimble, the man who has confessed
to us that he aided Ray in the assassination.


Who is Raoul?

Ray claims that the mysterious "Raoul" hired him to carry out
assignments in Montreal in late July 1967. This sparked an
interest in {Toronto Star} reporter Andre Salwyn, who sought
corroboration to this claim after Ray's arrest. Salwyn conducted
an exhaustive search of the neighborhood in which Ray had
allegedly been seen drinking with an American stranger. He found
that there had indeed been a man with similar characteristics to
Ray's description of Raoul living there at different times during
the previous year. He was known as Jules "Ricco" Kimble and was
said by his girlfriend to have had a car with rifles in the trunk
and a radio tuned into the police band. Salwyn checked phone
records and discovered that Kimble regularly contacted numbers in
New Orleans. [34. Salwyn testified before the House Select
Committee on Assassinations; see also, Melanson, {op. cit.}, n.
4, p. 44.]

But the phone numbers disappeared, and Salwyn was never allowed
to pursue the story. The HSCA did manage to come across Kimble
ten years later and they investigated. They  found an FBI file on
him; and a CIA file; and an RCMP file.

Joe Oster, a Louisiana state investigator, conducted extensive
surveillance of Kimble in 1967, and claims that there is a week
in July 1967 when nobody can account for Kimble's whereabouts.
[35. {Op. cit.}, n. 6.] This is the period in which Ray claims to
have met "Raoul" in Montreal.

When interviewed in 1967, Kimble claimed to have been a low-level
CIA courier and pilot. [36. Statement to Garrison, {op. cit.}, n.
7.] When we talked to him from prison, Kimble confirmed that he
had worked for the CIA as well as organized crime and also made
the following allegations: [37. {Op. cit.}, n. 1.]

+ He claims that the HSCA did know all about his role in the
assassination (more even than he could remember), producing
documents, photographs, and files which proved his association
with James Earl Ray, an association he then admitted. However,
all files relating to the HSCA investigation have been sealed for
50 years.

+ Kimble also stated that on the orders of a Louisiana FBI agent,
he flew James Earl Ray from Atlanta to Montreal in July 1967
where Ray was provided with an identities package by a CIA
specialist in Mont Royal, Montreal. An ex-CIA agent with
knowledge of Agency operations in Canada in the 1960s recently
confirmed in an off-the-record interview that there was an Agency
"asset" specializing in "identities" in Montreal in 1967. His
name was Raoul Maora.

+ Kimble said that he then accompanied Ray to a CIA training camp
in Three Rivers, Canada where Ray was taught to shoot. It was
there that the two men were seen together by Kimble's former
girlfriend.

+ At the same time, an assassination team was assembled to kill
King. Kimble claims that he flew two snipers into Memphis using a
West Memphis airfield belonging to a CIA front company. He said
that the only involvement that Ray had in the assassination was
to serve as a decoy.

+ Finally, Jules Kimble stated that elements of the Memphis
Police Department did cooperate in the assassination but that the
actual operation was coordinated by a high-ranking intelligence
official based in Atlanta.

What is the validity of Kimble's assertions? The evidence
presented here, and the many questions it raises, suggests one
thing: Those responsible for the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
have yet to be caught and convicted of this political
assassination. There is strong evidence that shows agents within
the U.S. intelligence apparatus could have played a major role in
King's murder. If that is the case, then the U.S. government
could be guilty of not only covering up details of the
assassination, but of the murder itself. The only way to answer
these questions is through a complete and thorough investigation.
The documents from the HSCA should be unsealed and a new probe
begun. It is long past time for that to happen.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!apple!netcomsv!tim
From: [e-mail] (Tim Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: CIA complicity in JFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 08:15:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Crocker) writes:
=
=I am concerned that the leak of the CIA memo implicating Hunt
=was associated with former CIA counterintelligence director
=James Jesus Angleton. I have been reading up on this character
=over the past couple of weeks and he is reputed, among other
=things to be a master of disniformation. I for one would not
=take at face value any information which that individual had a
=major role in making available. The CIA may well have had a
=role in the JFK affair, but the "CIA" is hardly a monolith.
=I consider it entirely plausible that Angleton may have been
=involved in implicating Hunt, in orderto divert
=suspicion from a cabal which might have included others in the
=Agencey, rather than Hunt and his associates.

Good point, but the main witness, Maria Lorenz still placed Hunt in Dallas
on 11-21-63, paying others for brining guns to Dallas.

--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET" -- Hardware Design made easy :-)
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!datum.nyo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!sousa!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 14:54:58 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 26
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:52132 alt.conspiracy:10743


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>Where does that leave the bullet that hit the curb resulting
>>in a minor wound -- concrete or bullet fragment -- to the
>>man standing under the overpass. Did it appear magically?
>
>What hit the curb was a bullet fragment from the head shot.

   Absolutely impossible. The bullet that hit the curb was to the left front
 of the limosine and quite a bit in front of it, down near the overpass. The
 bullet would have had to hit Kennedy in the head and take an almost 45 degree
 turn to left, as well as level off its flight. The mark in the curb was also
 much too large to have been caused by a `fragment'. It was a rather deep and
 long (3+") gouge in the concrete , at least that's what it looked like in the
 photo I saw.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!apple!netcomsv!sheaffer
From: [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Krassner and The Realist (Was: Re: what LBJ did to JFK's head)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 15:25:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 39

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Quigley) writes:
>   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Campin) writes:
>   Paul Krassner during the mid `60s. It combined both real and invented articles, written so
>   that you couldn't tell what was real and what was not. In his articles, he named names, dates,
>   places, witnesses, corroborating evidence, etc. It's a wonder he wasn't sued for liable or
>   slander, or assasinated by the CIA, FBI, etc., because he took `em all on. Great cartoons, too!
>
>   Great rag! Couldn't get away with something like that today. At least not in increasingly
>   paranoid America.
>
>Well, Krassner now publishes a new _Realist_, which appears
>sporadically (I don't believe I've seen an issue in the last couple of
>months).  A couple of years ago, I saw Krassner at a comedy club.  He
>described how he sniffed dope with the Pope on the Pope's last visit
>to the United States.  (According to Krassner, one of the Pope's aides
>approached Krassner and said that His Holiness was very fatigued
>because of his schedule and that they believed Krassner could provide
>something that could help.)

Yes, and Krassner is into *conspiracies*, just like so many of you folk
here in net-cuckoo-land! Issue 117 of "The Realist" (Summer, 1991)
carries the headline, "The Role of Richard Nixon and George Bush in the
Assassination of President Kennedy." Following that, Krassner writes,
"this issue is dedicated to the memory of Mae Brussell [who imagined
CIA plotters hiding under every bed: RS] ... 'The Realist' published
her first article."

So I guess that Krassner's cospiracy ravings are about as credible
as his claim to have sniffed dope with the Pope.

--

        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Simply follow nature, Rousseau declares. Sade, laughing,
        grimly agrees."          - Camille Paglia, "Sexual Personae"
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!datum.nyo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!sousa!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 15:10:08 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 26
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10746 rec.arts.movies:52133


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum) writes...
>
>  Also, the only time Gov. Connally's wounds were lined up with JFK and the
>  6th floor of the TSBD building was right at the time of the shot which
>  hit JFK in the back and exited through his throat. To have Connally
>  suffer the 6 wounds he did at a different time would have been impossible.
>  So after studying the wounds of both men, it was pretty easy to see that
>  the same bullett cause those damages.

    If that were the case, how do you explain the fact that the total weight
   of the bullet fragments removed from John Connelly outweighed the
   amount of grains missing from the so-called `pristine' bullet found on
   a gurney at Parkland. I can't remeber the exact figures but it went
   something like: The bullet, new, weighed 160 grains. The pristine bullet
   weighed 159 grains. 4 grains of bullet fragment were removed from Connelly.
   Where did the other three grains come from?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!uunet!uswnvg!scott
From: [e-mail] (Scott Eckelman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK - dictabelt recording
Keywords: jfk, dictabelt
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 17:01:44 GMT
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, Wash.
Lines: 6

I understand that the dictabelt recording has been pretty much
discredited as evidence because of a clock chime or other sound
which demostrates that the tape was not made at the time of the
shooting.  If true, how/when was the tape made?  Was there another
series of 3-6 shots in Dallas that day?  Was the tape manufactured?
What's the story here?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!osf.org!ron
From: [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 18:21:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Lines: 33

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|>
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum) writes...
|> >
|> >  Also, the only time Gov. Connally's wounds were lined up with JFK and the
|> >  6th floor of the TSBD building was right at the time of the shot which
|> >  hit JFK in the back and exited through his throat. To have Connally
|> >  suffer the 6 wounds he did at a different time would have been impossible.
|> >  So after studying the wounds of both men, it was pretty easy to see that
|> >  the same bullett cause those damages.
|>
|>     If that were the case, how do you explain the fact that the total weight
|>    of the bullet fragments removed from John Connelly outweighed the
|>    amount of grains missing from the so-called `pristine' bullet found on
|>    a gurney at Parkland. I can't remeber the exact figures but it went
|>    something like: The bullet, new, weighed 160 grains. The pristine bullet
|>    weighed 159 grains. 4 grains of bullet fragment were removed from Connelly.
|>    Where did the other three grains come from?
|>

   The 4 grain figure is pure fantasy. The actual bullet found at the
   hospital by the hospital's senior engineer, Darrell C. Tomlinson,
   weighed 158.6 grains. And although Tomlinson isn't sure which of two
   stretchers the bullet came from, it was either Connally's or
   someone else's but Kennedy's, as JFK's stretcher was never in the
   vicinity. Thus, it had to be from Connally's. The bullet weighed
   about 2.5 grains less than the average bullet of its type, and if
   you can document that more than that had been recovered from
   Connally by any reliable source, it would mean the end to the single
   assassin theory. Of course, that has never been done.

   Ron Birnbaum
   [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!osf.org!ron
From: [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 18:29:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <    <[e-mail]>> <sdR0LSy00VpZE2OHk=@andrew.cmu.edu> <    <[e-mail]>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <knet1fINN
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Lines: 44
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:52138 alt.conspiracy:10751

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Louis Blair) writes:
|>
|> >Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
|> >>Nellie Connally was in a good position and she is 100%
|> >>positive that there were three separate shots that hit
|> >>Kennedy and J.C.
|>
|> >Mrs. Connally is not in a good position to know when
|> >Mr. Connally was hit.  She was only in a good position
|> >to know when Mr. Connally reacted to being hit.  The
|> >Warren commission believes that Connally's reaction
|> >came about a second after he was hit.  If this is indeed
|> >what happened, Mrs. Connally failure to take this into
|> >account is not surprising.
|>
|> Considering the number of wounds Connally received it
|> would be hard to miss all the blood pouring out of him.


   In one second?? Many times people who have been shot don't realize it
   or more than 1 second. It is not unusual.

|>
|> >Bruce Jonathan Schuck writes:
|> >>Nellie Connally turned and saw the President clutch
|> >>his hands at his throat wound. At this point John Connally
|> >>was still unwounded -- there is no doubt in her mind that
|> >>her husband was o.k. at this point.
|>
|> >But how would she know?  All she was in a position to
|> >observe was that Connally had not yet reacted.
|>
|> Blood pouring out his chest wound , wrist wound , thigh
|> wound ... would have been a good clue.


   Again, you are just assuming all this. Connally's major wound were on
   his right side - the side away from his wife - she couldn't see that for
   several seconds after he was shot. He was not reacting yet, so she did
   not realize he had been hit.


  Ron Birnbaum
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!osf.org!ron
From: [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 19:01:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <    <[e-mail]> > <sdR0LSy00VpZE2OHk=@andrew.cmu.edu> <    <[e-mail]> > <[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <1992Jan1
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Lines: 39
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10753 rec.arts.movies:52144

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum) writes:
|>
|> >  Also, the only time Gov. Connally's wounds were lined up with JFK and the
|> >  6th floor of the TSBD building was right at the time of the shot which
|> >  hit JFK in the back and exited through his throat. To have Connally
|> >  suffer the 6 wounds he did at a different time would have been impossible.
|>
|> Are you sure?  Wasn't it his right wrist and left thigh that were
|> wounded?  When Kennedy was already reacting to his back wound,
|> Connally was turned to his right, and I think his right wrist didn't
|> go to his left thigh until he next started turning to his left.

  Sure of what? Yes, it was his right wrist and left thigh - after the
  bullet went through his back and exited his chest near the right nipple,
  25 degrees below the back wound. His right hand was over his left thigh
  before he turns to his left.


|>
|> This is the first time I've heard of Connally's body position being
|> used to fix when he got hit; it's an excellent idea.

  Thanks, but I can't take the credit. Check out Jacob Cohen's article
  in the October '75 issue of COMMENTARY magazine. Or call his office
  at Brandies University at [phone] and they'll send you a copy -
  or visit me at my office and I'll give you a copy. You usually don't
  hear evidence supporting the Warren Commission - it seems the media is
  dominated by people distorting facts trying to sell books/movies or to
  get on tv. All doubters owe it to themselves get the story from the
  other side. When you do you'll find that the Warren Commission has the
  facts to back up their case.


  Ron Birnbaum
  [e-mail]

|> --
|> Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!lima.berkeley.edu!bks
From: [e-mail] (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 21:17:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Congruous Oxymorons, Ltd.
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: lima.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>The Murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
>

[Thanks for the MLK info;  it's remarkable how perspicacious people named
 Brad are!]

For those who are not old enough to remember: It was just a short time
after Martin Luther King, Jr. began speaking out against the war in Viet
Nam that he was assassinated.  His last speeches are perhaps more remarkable
and certainly more acerbic than the oft heard "I have a dream..."
-----------------
    --Brad Sherman ([e-mail])

 "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship."
    --George Bernard Shaw
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!cherokee!jaynes!steven
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 21:57:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Telegraph Row)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: jaynes.uswest.com

> = (Brian Holtz) writes:
>> = (Dusty Garza) writes:

>>You are asking me (and everyone else) to beleive that IT JUST SO HAPPENED that
>>when Oswald (SUPPOSEDLY) dropped the rifle between some boxes that the sight
>>got that screwed up!

>Hey, you read really well.

>>I never heard Oswald testify to dropping anything.

>He was too busy denying that he was even on the sixth floor at the
>time.  Duh.

I'm enjoying both sides of this debate, though I consider it prohibitively unlikely that Oswald
acted alone, if at all.

But, Brian...being a flippant smartass and ignoring the point of Dusty's post, that IRON SHIMS
had to be put on the sight to even test-fire it, is counterproductive.

Now, did you have an actual point?  Your constant overt and implied ridicule of people not
satisfied with the Warren Commission report reminds me of those that equate *every*thing the ACLU
does with being UnAmerican.  Maybe you should realize that neither you, *nor* the "conspiracy
crowd", is omniscient.




--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!tlt38517
From: [e-mail] (Terry Lee Thiel)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 23:37:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 18

>The TV show NOVA had this same question.  They did the scientific thing...
>they ran some experiments.  Watermellons consistently flew backwards when
>shot.  You can probably check this show out at your local library, Sun Coast
>video store, or maybe even rent it at a big video store.
You tell us to discuss this elsewhere and then add fuel to the fire?  Which is
it?  Also it is incredibly stupid to assume a watermelon is the same thing as a
human head.  I thought even Nova knew better than that.  As I said previously,
I have seen many people shot in the head.  Two years as a Marine sniper in
Beirut gave me that unfortunate experience.  I never saw anyone go in the
opposite direction of the shot.  They always flew back with the round and were
almost always lifted off their feet in the process.  While I'm at it I will
mention that I find it extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that Oswald fired
those shots.   The weapon was a piece of shit and he wasn't that great a shot
to begin with.  His service in the Marines doesn't make sense either.  If he
had a TS clearance due to his work at a "radar site" he would have lost it very
quickly after having gone around making pro-communist statements.  Why didn't
he?  Why did he go to Russian language school?  There are way too many
inconsistencies in the whole story.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!gorilla
From: [e-mail] (Joe Mama)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: PinealNet relay--> Re: ELVIS DID IT!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 00:33:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: PinealNet: Real Knights Templar, Head (Exploding) Office
Lines: 32


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich"TheMan"Kennehan) writes:
>
>
>   I don't know why all these people went to see the movie "JFK"...We all know
>Elvis did it!

Elvis, that is, working with the Voodoo Kings of DeMolay, of which Elvis
was a member. There were actually NO BULLETS involved in the JFK assassination
as all of the theories so far have supposed.

What it really was was members of the Voodoo Kings of DeMolay, who believe in
the unending strength of my great-great-(some great's deleted)-grandfather's
soul, and use his spirit as a force for evil (or good, depending on whether
or not you think it's a good idea to ice presidents.-ed.).
They were stinking pins in Kennedy's voodoo doll for a while, which explains
his headaches and his cold, which he had been complaining of on November 19.
Then on the day of the Motorcade, they exploded a firecracker in the doll's
head.

So now the story has been told. You can all go home. Or you can begin
arguing about the Trial of the Knights Templar in the 11th C.


----------------------
        +        From Sir Jaques DeMolay XXIII
       +++          Head of the real Knights Templar.
      +-+-+            "Still trying to Avenge Great-great-great-great-great-
       +++          great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
    +        great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather"
            care of the PinealNet "the net for serious secret
[e-mail]        societies!"
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 00:34:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 55


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
|I did.  I noted that the rifle had a strap, and that it was found
|between two stacks of boxes.  An easy way to get it in there would
|have been to swing it in by the strap.

Actually, the rifle was found under two 50 pound boxes. So, it is possible
that the sight was damaged. Or was it? What can damage a sight, and what
damage could cause the sight to alter in such a manner? In any case, I
doubt Oswald just shoved it in there, since it had a live bullet in the
chamber.

|||Hmm.  So after the FBI finished its tests with the modified rifle, it
|||undid the modifications and gave all the materials it used to the WC.
|||So?
||
||So, the point is that nothing was done about it. They didn't say, "hey,
||this rifle couldn't hit the broad side of the barn,
|
|It was 3x or 4x sight, and the range was only 50 to 70 yards.

The point we are dealing here is why they didn't investigate the fact that
the gun needed sights. There was already ample evidence to imply that
Oswald could not have made the shots in the given amount of time.

|Furthermore, it's possible to compensate for a misaligned sight if one
|has experience with the sight.

I don't think this argument is very sound. But I will grant that it was
possible the sight could have been malformed. However, I am not sure
how likely this is.

||and we can't even have our experts duplicate the results if we tamper
||with the evidence.
|
|"Tamper"?  They just re-aligned the sight to compensate for any
|experience Oswald's might have had with the sight being misaligned.
|As for duplication, I thought the feat they couldn't duplicate was the
|three-shot three-hit performance, which the Magic Bullety theory
|obviated.

Actually, even with the Magic bullet theory, you need fantastic shots. It
was tried once for the WC, once for CBS, and once for the HSCA, all tests
failed.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sco!scolex!hiramc
From: [e-mail] (Hiram Clawson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Where's the body?
Keywords: cremated dashboard French shooter team TV news pics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 00:08:01 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Account for Usenet System)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 30


Was JFK cremated?  Or buried there under the eternal flame?
If the body is still available, how about a forensic autopsy now?

And in one of these JFK books, there is a picture of the dashboard
of the car with a clear mark of what looks like a bullet impact?
Which bullet would that one be?

I'm not holding my breath for any new evidence in the locked away
files.  After all the other "missing" evidence, you expect something
important to be found there?

I saw a video of an "Investigative Reports" 5 hour special on the
story, and the version of the Z film they have was quite good, the
best I've seen reproduced anywhere.  Their interview with a researcher
that has tracked down a French shooter team was interesting.
What was this Investigative Report show, and how come I feel like
they are a bit sleezy?  They do have a lot of good interviews with the
witnesses.

And they also showed the TV news camera view from the other side of
the street, showing the back of the head at the time of the right
front temple explosion.  No sign of the back of the head exploding
as far as I can see.

--Hiram

 [*~   Hiram Clawson - Member, Technical Staff, The Santa Cruz Operation    ~*]
 [*~   P.O. Box 1900, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 - tel. [phone] ext. 7519    ~*]
 [*~ FAX: [phone], Electronic mail: uunet!sco!hiramc or [e-mail] ~*]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!male!asgarrd!merlyn
From: [e-mail] (Michael Miller - Rev. Admin.)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 02:45:47 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 97

>have known about the intended route at least as early as Thursday
>morning.

Assuming he was ever one of the assassins.  There is a picture showing him standing
by that gate structure on the knoll when the first bullet struck JFK.  So if LHO
is standing there at the first bullet then he would have to go up the street into
the book depository and let himself be seen there (as he was in the lunchroom) and
then leave.  He would have to have someone see him in the building and what better
place then a lunch room where people come and go.

It seems like the patsys in JFK MLK and RFK all have to be obvious.  There whereabouts
are carefully planned so they can be identified.

Here are some interesting thoughts:

1.  If JFK wasn't wearing a back brace, maybe he would have survived because he would
have been able to lie down in the seat and possibly avoid the other hits.  This may
have been why the back wound didn't penetrate deeper.

2.  When Ruby shot LHO, the news commentator's first remark (this was on a live
broadcast) was that it looked like a secret service man.  Possibly Ruby wanted to
look like one to be able to get in the crowd and move as close as he did to LHO.

(from Joseph f. Baugher)

>I wonder if anyone ever was able
>to get a close look at the windshield?  If not, we will probably never
>know how that bullet fragment got there.

The windshield resides at the National Archives.  There are several cracks running
through it and a red circle around part of it that may be a hole.  A picture of this
was in Life magazine, November 1983.

(from Brad Pierce: The Murder of Martin Luther King Jr.)

>why did at least three
>people claim to have seen a gunman in the bushes across the
>street?

There were witnesses close to the actual gunman and saw him run away breaking away
the gun stock from the barrel.  Keeping the barrel, but throwing away the stock.

The stock was retrieved and put into a safe deposit box in case there was ever
an impartial investigation in the future of this incident.

There was also a witness to the man leaving the bathroom from where one of the shots
was fired.  It wasn't Charlie Stephens who was on the kitchen floor working on a
radio at the time.  His common law wife saw the man and she was sent off to an
institution to keep her quiet and out of the way.

The man she saw was the same man seen putting a rifle in the doorway of that business
where it was found along with articles of Ray's.  The man drove up in a white
mustang and put the gun and bag there about 10 mins. before the shooting.

>Who, in
>an apparent attempt to distract police radio control, had
>broadcast a hoax car chase involving a Mustang on citizens band
>radio less than half an hour after the police radio announced the
>suspect car to be a white Mustang?

The who in that statement^ is the same man overheard is this following statement v:

>McFerren was at a Memphis
>produce store when he overheard the store's manager say on the
>phone "Get him on the balcony, you can pick up the money from my
>brother in New Orleans and don't call me here again." The man on
>the phone was Frank Liberto.


Back to JFK.  The Zapruder film was bootlegged as soon as it was brought to Time
photo labs.  When it was transferred from 8mm to 35mm several frames turned up
missing.  It is generally believed that 10 frames are missing.  The Warren Commission
saw a copy of a copy of that film.  The report on it submitted to the WC was that
Kennedy went forward instead of backward.  Hoover said that reversal in the material
was due to a printing error.

(from Brian Holtz)

|In article <[e-mail]>
|[e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|
|>Wrong! Nellie Connally turned and saw the President clutch
|>his hands at his throat wound.
|
|You and Nellie apparently need to see the Zapruder film
|--
|Brian Holtz

The film does show Kennedy's right hand palm out moving up to his throat and his
left starting to clutch at the base of his throat then both hands become clenched
and raise up and the elbows go up.  This clenching and raising soon afterwards may
be a reaction to pain.

--Well these are my comments.
I think the database suggestion of Mark Prado is good.

michael
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!ux.acs.umn.edu!ux.acs.umn.edu!acm
From: [e-mail] (Acm)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - dictabelt recording
Keywords: jfk, dictabelt
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 02:35:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Minnesota
Lines: 31

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Eckelman) writes:

>I understand that the dictabelt recording has been pretty much
>discredited as evidence because of a clock chime or other sound
>which demostrates that the tape was not made at the time of the
>shooting.

It wasn't a chime. It was Sheriff Decker's voice. He was saying,
`Move all men available out of my department back to the railroad
station yards there...to try to determine just what and where it
happened down there...And hold everything secure until the homicide
and other investigators can get here.' Since he gave this command
about a minute after the assassination, the noises on the tape made at
the same time can not be the shots that killed Kennedy.

>If true, how/when was the tape made?

The tape was made at the Dallas police headquarters during the assassination.
It is a recording of what was heard on a particular radio frequency used by
the police.

>Was there another series of 3-6 shots in Dallas that day?

The House Assassination Committee's `shots' were probably just bursts of
static.

Peter Kauffner                      UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!peterk
Minneapolis, Minnesota              INET: [e-mail]

`O Death, we thank thee for the light thou will shed upon our ignorance.'
                      --Jacques Benigne Bossuet
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!tim
From: [e-mail] (Tim Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 03:05:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:
=> = (Brian Holtz) writes:
=
=>He was too busy denying that he was even on the sixth floor at the
=>time.  Duh.
=
=But, Brian...being a flippant smartass and ignoring the point of
=Dusty's post, that IRON SHIMS had to be put on the sight to even
=test-fire it, is counterproductive.  Now, did you have an actual
=point?  Your constant overt and implied ridicule of people not satisfied
=with the Warren Commission report reminds me of those that equate
=*every*thing the ACLU does with being UnAmerican.  Maybe you should
=realize that neither you, *nor* the "conspiracy crowd", is omniscient.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh my GOD!  He's not?  But what about our heros????

:-)

--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET" -- Hardware Design made easy :-)
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Summary: The evidence that Oswald killed Tippit is quite solid.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 06:31:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 82
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>According to the Holtz rules of evidence, that often rules out witness
>testimony, Oswald should not be guilty of Tippet's murder.

Well, gee, let's see, which of the nine witnesses (two who saw Oswald
shoot Tippit, and seven who saw Oswald running from the scene) waited
a decade or more before changing their recorded testimony?

>Also, there were two witnesses who said that
>two people shot Tippet, and that one was heavier than Oswald.

You mean Acquilla Clemmons?  She simply said that there were two men
beside the police car, but that only one had a gun.

>    Numer two, there were some casings found that were from Oswald's
>handgun, but these do not match the bullits found in Tippits body. In fact,
>there were two types of bullits found: winchester and Colt, if my memory
>recalls the other kind.

The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from
Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons.  The problem is
that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in
Tippit's body.  This is very strange, but not the sort of obvious
slip-up that competent conspirators would commit.

>    The circumstantial evidence points against Oswald, who is unlikey
>to have ran from his house all the way to the murder.

Less than mile in about 12 minutes?  Not too unlikely for someone
trying to put distance between himself and the residence of a
Presidential assassin.

>    Also, what was Tippet doing with Oswald anyway? And what was he doing
>in the area?

The police radio log shows that he was ordered to go there.  However,
even though the recording supports it, that log entry was not
discovered until seven months later.  The dispatcher sticks by his
story that he gave Tippit the order that day.

>Oswald's description was ambiguous.

"White male, approximately thirty, slender build, 5'10", 165 lbs." is
pretty accurate.  And Oswald would have been walking at a pretty good
clip to get there, making him even more conspicuous.

>Nor did Tippet try to arrest Oswald, but greeted
>him in a friendly manner.

Says who?

>I think both were spotted in Ruby's nightclub at a table.

Hurt, who plays every conspiracy theory to the hilt and won't let
himself be tied to just one, can only bring himself to say: "Just as
tantalizing is the report that Oswald and Tippit were seen together on
at least one earlier occassion, but no known reports of such an
association can be established."

>Oswald had no motive to kill Tippet.

Come on.  He pulled his gun on a whole theater-ful of cops, and I think
he even pulled the trigger, but it misfired.  I think Oswald was
planning to go out in a hail of gunfire, but his equipment failed him.


It's hard to see how Oswald _couldn't_ have killed Tippit, unless he
was cooperating with a scheme to make it look like he did.  The only
gap in our knowledge of his whereabouts after the assassination is
precisely the amount of time it would have taken him to hurry toward
the site of the Tippit killing.  The spent cartridges found there
could only have been fired by the gun Oswald was caught with minutes
later.  He was seen at the scene by nine people.

By the way, now that you've forced me to read up on Oswald's movements
after leaving the TBSD, I now know that those movements are much more
well-documented than I'd suspected.  This makes Deputy Craig's story
of Oswald getting into a Nash Rambler outside the TBSD much less
believable.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 06:34:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>||Actually wasn't there a Lee Oswald who did work for the CIA, at least
>||they admitted as much.
>|
>|Reference?
>
>See Saga of a Spy, or Spy Saga, or something like that.

I'll have to go look for this.  It's not impossible for more than guy
to have the last name of Oswald.

Is this the same place I can look up the CIA admitting that Lee Harvey
Oswald worked for them, or did you conveniently forget my request for
that reference?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Summary: How do shims help adjust a scope?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 06:50:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 49
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> steven@jaynes
( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:

>> = (Brian Holtz) writes:
>>> = (Dusty Garza) writes:
>
>>>You are asking me (and everyone else) to beleive that IT JUST SO HAPPENED...
>
>>Hey, you read really well.
>
>>>I never heard Oswald testify to dropping anything.
>
>>He was too busy denying that he was even on the sixth floor at the
>>time.  Duh.

>But, Brian...being a flippant smartass and ignoring the point of
>Dusty's post, that IRON SHIMS had to be put on the sight to even
>test-fire it, is counterproductive.

I didn't ignore his point.  I said that Oswald could have screwed up
the sight by dropping it.  He responded by simply repeating my
assertion in incredulous ALL CAPITALS.  What else could I do except
compliment him on his reading (and typing) skills?  :)  Then he said
that Oswald never testified to dropping the rifle, when he knew DAMN
WELL that Oswald denied ever even seeing the rifle before.  Such
feigned ignorance well deserves a good "duh".

As for the shims themselves, does any know exactly how they helped
adjust the scope?  I thought scopes could be adjust just by turning
two screws.  In particular, does anybody know if the true aim point
was merely off from the crosshairs, but nevertheless inside the
scope's view?

>Your constant overt and implied ridicule of people not satisfied with
>the Warren Commission report reminds me of those that equate
>*every*thing the ACLU does with being UnAmerican.  Maybe you should
>realize that neither you, *nor* the "conspiracy crowd", is
>omniscient.

I try to be patient, but I get tired of people saying something is
true either when they have no reference for the claim, or when looking
for a reference would show it to be false.  I also get tired of a
conspiracy priesthood for which no fact can be considered to make a
conspiracy less likely.  I've listed many times the evidence that
most makes me doubt the lone-Oswald theory, and I've many times asked
the conspiracy proponents to tell us what evidence _they_ have the
hardest time reconciling, but I only get silence.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Summary: Did shooting experiments test--or necessitate?--the Magic Bullet Thry?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 07:09:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 50
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>|the rifle had a strap, and that it was found
>|between two stacks of boxes.  An easy way to get it in there would
>|have been to swing it in by the strap.
>
>Actually, the rifle was found under two 50 pound boxes.

In _Best Evidence_, Hurt says it was "stashed behind some boxes".

>So, it is possible that the sight was damaged. Or was it? What can
>damage a sight, and what damage could cause the sight to alter in
>such a manner?

Good questions; I don't know.  I'd like to know: why were "shims"
needed?  Didn't the scope have the usual adjustment screws?  What sort
of forces does it take to screw up such a scope in the way that
Oswald's was screwed up?  Was the true aim point even within the area
visible through the scope, so that Oswald could have learned to
compensate?

>|It was 3x or 4x sight, and the range was only 50 to 70 yards.
>
>The point we are dealing here is why they didn't investigate the fact that
>the gun needed sights.

Huh?  The gun _had_ a scope, but the scope was imperfectly aligned.
As to _how_ imperfectly, neither you nor I seem to know.

>There was already ample evidence to imply that
>Oswald could not have made the shots in the given amount of time.

Can anyone explain this for me?  (Mitchell?  Are you watching?)  I
thought the timing problem was taken care of by the Magic Bullet
theory.  That is, if Connally merely had a delayed reaction to a
Kennedy hit, and the first shot missed altogether, then the Zapruder
film gives Oswald 4 seconds or more to line up the head shot, and an
indeterminate amount of time to line up the back shot.

>Actually, even with the Magic bullet theory, you need fantastic shots.

Not _too_ fantastic.  Obviously, _some_body was able to hit JFK from
behind with at least one rifle bullet.

>It was tried once for the WC, once for CBS, and once for the HSCA,
>all tests failed.

Lattimer's tests succeeded.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Summary: Military gave Oswald neither Top Secret clearance nor Russian lessons.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 07:15:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Terry Lee Thiel) writes:

>As I said previously,
>I have seen many people shot in the head.  Two years as a Marine sniper in
>Beirut gave me that unfortunate experience.  I never saw anyone go in the
>opposite direction of the shot.  They always flew back with the round and were
>almost always lifted off their feet in the process.

What kind of rounds did you guys use?  Soft or jacketed?

>If he had a TS clearance due to his work at a "radar site" he would
>have lost it very quickly after having gone around making
>pro-communist statements.  Why didn't he?

Because he never had one in the first place.  He had a "confidential"
clearance, which is pretty routine.

>Why did he go to Russian language school?

There's no evidence that he did.  Apparently the military _tested_ him
to see if it could use whatever Russian skills he had, but there is no
record of the military ever teaching him Russian.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Where's the body?
Keywords: cremated dashboard French shooter team TV news pics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 07:17:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Hiram Clawson) writes:

>And in one of these JFK books, there is a picture of the dashboard
>of the car with a clear mark of what looks like a bullet impact?
>Which bullet would that one be?

None, if you're talking about the dent in the chrome windshield frame.
That dent occurred a few weeks earlier.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Summary: Even Sun employees aren't perfect. ;)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 07:31:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 45
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Assuming he was ever one of the assassins.  There is a picture
>showing him standing by that gate structure on the knoll when the
>first bullet struck JFK.  So if LHO is standing there at the first
>bullet then he would have to go up the street into the book
>depository and let himself be seen there (as he was in the lunchroom)
>and then leave.

No such picture exists.  What are you guys smoking over there in
Milpitas? :)

>1.  If JFK wasn't wearing a back brace, maybe he would have survived
>because he would have been able to lie down in the seat and possibly
>avoid the other hits.  This may have been why the back wound didn't
>penetrate deeper.

I don't think JFK was wearing a back brace.  And I'm certain I would
have read about it if the bullet went through anything but his coat
and shirt before hitting his back.

>Back to JFK.  The Zapruder film was bootlegged as soon as it was
>brought to Time photo labs.  When it was transferred from 8mm to 35mm
>several frames turned up missing.  It is generally believed that 10
>frames are missing.

No, no, no, this myth was cleared up by _at least_ 1967 (_Six Seconds
In Dallas_).  There are no missing frames.

>The report on it submitted to the WC was that Kennedy went forward
>instead of backward.  Hoover said that reversal in the material was
>due to a printing error.

Yes, they reversed the labels on two drawn reproductions of Zapruder
frames in the Warren Report.  I think this is unrelated to the
"missing frames" myth.

>The film does show Kennedy's right hand palm out moving up to his
>throat and his left starting to clutch at the base of his throat then
>both hands become clenched and raise up and the elbows go up.

No.  Neither hand ever touches his throat throughout the entire film.
Look again.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!bigtex!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Remarkable Windshield
Summary: The SS agents at Parkland had obviously already read the WR!
Keywords: I wish I had one of these on MY car!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 02:21:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>When they
>mentioned this hole to the Secret Service, the Secret Service officers
>on  the scene at Parkland went out of their way to dismiss the hole as
>having been caused only by a fragment, not a whole  bullet.

Ooh, their going "out of their way" sounds so sinister!  Hmm.  So within
minutes of the shooting, these Secret Service agents are supposed to
already know how many spent shells would be found in the TBSD (3), how
many bullets would be credited with causing all the wounds (2), that
the missed shot was going to be determined to be one of the first two
shots, and that the windshield was not damaged until the third shot?

>However, damage to the INSIDE surface of  the  windshield  immediately
>causes  a  problem,  since if a projectile does not strike with enough
>force actually to penetrate the glass, a chip will be knocked  out  of
>the  surface  OPPOSITE  to the one which was struck by the projectile.

Hah.  I've shot enough coke bottles with a pellet rifle to know this
isn't true.

From where would a front impact on the windshield have been fired?
There were lots of witnesses on top of the underpass, and none of them
saw a gunman amongst them.

>All of these discrepancies may indicate that the limo  windshield  was
>switched  when  it became clear that it provided evidence embarrassing
>to the single-assassin theory.  First, the  original  windshield  with
>the  large  hole was replaced with one containing only a crack when it
>was discovered that a fourth bullet was incompatible  with  LHO  being
>the  lone  assassin.   Then,  when  it  was  found  that  the  cracked
>windshield argued for a bullet or bullet fragment coming in  from  the
>FRONT,  a  second  substitution was made which provided evidence for a
>bullet fragment striking the windshield from the rear, as required for
>a shot coming from the TSBD.

I can definitely believe that your source is Lifton.  Any time two
people describe something differently (e.g., the Parkland vs. Bethesda
doctors), Lifton has conspirators sneaking in and changing the
evidence.  No witness's memory or descriptions are ever faulty in Mr.
Lifton's world.  It must have been a rude shock to him when his
Parkland doctors retracted their contradictory descriptions after
seeing the autopsy photos.

>Even if the limo windshield is still available, it may be worthless as
>credible  evidence,  given  the  possiblity  of evidence tampering and
>substitution.

Absolutely.  In conspiracy-think, all evidence indicating Oswald acted
alone is automatically considered to have been planted by the
conspirators.  Several times I've asked conspiracy theorists on this
newsgroup to tell us what evidence they find hardest to explain with a
conspiracy theory, and they never answer.  A conspiracy theory can
explain any and all evidence, which means it's unfalsifiable and
therefore meaningless.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!bigtex!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo
Summary: What flavor of communist revolution would Oswald have opposed? None.
Keywords: rifle, discrepancies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 02:30:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>But in other copies, I can see the "Worker" and the "Militant" titles
>clearly legible.  Odd that LHO should pick such widely divergent
>publications.  Almost as if someone were to hold up copies of both the
>*Nation* and the *National Review*.

"Widely divergent"?  For any given Administration, one of the Nation
and NR will support it, and one will oppose it.  But both the Worker
and the Militant call for a revolutionary uprising by the masses. When
one is striking one's militant revolutionary pose, why is it odd that
one would hold militant revolutionary literature?  Is there a flavor
of communist revolution that Oswald would have opposed?  Of course
not.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!uudell!bigtex!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Lee Harvey Oswald and "A. J. Hidell"
Summary: conspiracy theory: inflate in case of emergency
Keywords: Fake IDs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 03:12:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 93
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>case actually gone to trial, I'm willing to bet that LHO's lawyers could
>have come up with handwriting experts who would testify that that was NOT
>his handwriting on the rifle paperwork.

Maybe so.  Then I guess that the HSCA's handwriting experts were part
of the conspiracy?  (Conspiracy theories need to come with a label:
"inflate in case of emergency".)

>> why would they not use Oswald's name?
>
>Why would anyone intending to assassinate
>the President be dumb enough to sign his real name to incriminating
>documents linking him to the rifle which committed the crime?

Oswald bought the rifle months before it was known that
Kennedy would be visiting Dallas.

>Had such documents with LHO's signature been found, suspicions as to
>their genuiness might be aroused.  Surely a Presidential assassin
>could't have been that dumb!

Ah, so the more convincing the evidence is that Oswald in fact bought
the gun, the surer sign it is of a well-done conspiracy?  I love this
kind of conspiracy-think.

>> >The police radio indicated that
>> >they had a "Lee Harvey Oswald" in custody immediately after the  Texas
>> >Theatre  arrest,  which  must  indicate  that  they looked through his
>> >wallet for identification.

"Must"?  Why?  What if Oswald told them his name?

>> At headquarters, when questioned as to which name was his, he
>> said "You're the cop; you figure it out."
>
>If, as you say, the police were not fooled by the fake ID, why then
>were they uncertain as to his identity when he was at headquarters?

Maybe he told them his name when arrested, and only at headquarters
did they look in his wallet.  Or maybe only at headquarters did they
get around to investigating the significance of an ID the arresting
officers recognized to be fake.

What is your source for his name going out over the radio when he was
arrested?  Does the source say how they learned his name?

>> There is no question that Oswald had used the Hidell alias before.
>> For one thing, when he registered his chapter of the Fair Play For
>> Cuba Committee, he listed Hidell as the secretary.
>
>I had always pictured "A. J. Hidell" as a phantom co-worker of LHO's
>when he was working with his bogus "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" in
>New Orleans.  I don't recall LHO ever using "A. J. Hidell" as an alias
>in those days.

Of course not, if you "picture" every use of "Hidell" as an authentic
use by a "phantom co-worker" (of whom there is zero record of ever
having existed).

>"A. J. Hidell" is listed as the secretary of the FPCC
>chapter in New Orleans on the flyers.

If so, that's more evidence that Oswald used the alias.  Why else
would Oswald pass out the name of someone who never existed?

>Oddly enough, the address listed for the FPCC is 544 Camp Street,
>where all sorts of rather strange characters gathered, all of which
>were linked to the far right rather than the far left.

Not so odd.  544 Camp St. was less than a block from where Oswald
worked, and he frequented a coffee shop on the first floor.  He
probably thought he could pick up mail there.

>LHO's left-leaning activity seemed to be largely for
>show and to gather attention;

Sure.  The fact that he committed no right-leaning activity is a sure
sign that he was a rightist carefully posing as a leftist.  Right.

>most of his friends and associates seemed
>to be on the right end of the political spectrum.

Who?  DeMohrenschildt, who was introduced to him by Marina, and who as
a Russian emigre would be naturally rightist?  Sorry, but Oswald
didn't associate with many people, and he never seemed to choose his
associations on the basis of politics.  Besides, what self-respecting
leftist would want to associate with a high-school-dropout Marine from
the deep South with delusions of grandeur?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!uudell!bigtex!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Detour onto Houston/Elm
Summary: Can you really see Oswald turning down a shot on Main?
Keywords: questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 03:32:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 50
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>Moreover, LHO would not
>have had a chance to see JFK coming before he popped into view on Main,
>and would have had to waste valuable seconds getting his rifle sight
>lined up before he could get off his first shot.

Naah.  He would be sighted in on the area of Main where the limo would
come clear of the tree-'n'-pergola.  In a similar situation on Elm, he
got off a hit into Kennedy's back immediately after Kennedy cleared
the intervening tree.

>By the time that LHO got lined up, JFK's limo might well already be
>safely under the Triple Underpass.

Hardly.  It would have had to cover _twice_ the distance on Elm that
it covered while Oswald got off _three_ shots.

>In addition, JFK would be traveling transverse to LHO's
>line of sight all the way down Main Street, a much more difficult shot
>that a target coming directly toward him or directly away.

Can you really see Oswald saying to himself, "Gosh, I'd _like_ to
shoot a President, but this one will be driving _across_ my view
underneath a window where I work.  I think I'll wait until a
President's motorcade takes him down Elm, so he'll be driving directly
away from me."?  Get real.

>Why did the limo come
>to a near halt when the shots were fired?

As I've said before, if Secret Service drivers reacted to being startled
by hitting the gas instead of the brakes, there's no way they could
get car insurance.  :)

>Now, I'm not suggesting that
>the driver was a part of the conspiracy, but it is rather odd how poorly
>these Secret Service people performed on that day.

Well, they hadn't lost a President in many decades.  You can't judge
them by the standards that have been created in response to JFK's
death, in which the stern, trench-coated, earphoned agents forever
hovering at the President's side have become a cliche.  The new
standards paid off in the attempt on Reagan, in which a guy unloaded a
pistol at only a few yards' range, and only hit Reagan with a
ricochet.  One agent threw himself in front of the gun, and another
tackled Reagan to safety before he even knew what was going on.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!cdp!tom
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mar
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 08:12:00 GMT
References: <rich.694824620@pencil>
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 7
Nf-ID: #R:rich.694824620@pencil:1948735456:cdp:1299600024:000:309
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tom    Jan 21 00:12:00 1992


i can see why lane took the case against hunt: to prove something he
had been trying to prove since 'rush to judgment' that oswald was not
the lone assassin.
it is harder to understand why lane continues to work for liberty lobby.
he defended them against charges by marmelstein.  maybe lane needs the
money.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+
From: [e-mail] (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 10:49:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 23
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10788 rec.arts.movies:52228
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

Paul R. Busta     writes:
>how do you explain the fact that the total
>weight of the bullet fragments removed from John Connelly
>outweighed the amount of grains missing from the so-called
>`pristine' bullet found on a gurney at Parkland. I can't remeber
>the exact figures but it went something like: The bullet, new,
>weighed 160 grains. The pristine bullet weighed 159 grains. 4
>grains of bullet fragment were removed from Connelly.
>Where did the other three grains come from?

As I said before:

This business has always seemed funny
to me.  Here we presumably have a chance to conclusively
prove beyond all possible doubt that the Warren report was
wrong, and suddenly the conspiracy books get vague about
details, leaving out any mention of an actual weight estimate.
Sounds fishy to me.

If you could document your numbers, I and just about everyone
would immediately agree that the Warren report belongs in
the trash can.  Let's see how quickly you come up with some-
thing definite.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+
From: [e-mail] (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 10:36:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 60
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10789 rec.arts.movies:52230
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

Brian Holtz wrote:
>What hit the curb was a bullet fragment from the head shot.

 Paul R. Busta writes:
>Absolutely impossible. The bullet that hit the curb was to the
>left front of the limosine and quite a bit in front of it, down near
>the overpass. The bullet would have had to hit Kennedy in the
>head and take an almost 45 degree turn to left,

How did you arrive at this number?  I see no justification for
it at all.

 Paul R. Busta writes:
>as well as level off its flight.

How much of a degree change would be involved here?  Can
you tell us what angle a bullet would have made with the
horizontal if it travelled from Oswald's supposed location
to the location of Kennedy's head at the time of the fatal shot?
I already know what I think the answer is, but you wouldn't
believe my sources.  I want to know what your sources say
and how much justification they give.

As I said before:

When a bullet fragments, the fragments do not necessarily
continue in the same trajectory as the original bullet.
Indeed, if you think about the force involved in separating
a bullet into pieces, you will quickly realize that the
fragments are indeed quite likely to go off in new directions.

 Paul R. Busta writes:
>The mark in the curb was also much too large to have been
>caused by a `fragment'.

How much experience do you have with marks caused by
bullet fragments?

 Paul R. Busta writes:
>It was a rather deep and long (3+") gouge in the concrete ,
>at least that's what it looked like in the photo I saw.

Was there a ruler next to the mark so that you could be
sure how long it was?  Where did you see this picture,
anyway?

According to the Warren report, "Scientific examination of
the mark on the south curb of Main Street by FBI experts
disclosed metal smears which, `were spectrographically
determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony.'
The mark on the curb could have originated from the lead
core of a bullet but the absence of copper precluded `the
possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made
by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such
as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher.'"

According to Jim Marrs, the FBI report went on to say,
"the damage to the curbing would have been much more
extensive if a rifle bullet had struck the curbing without
first having struck some other object."
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 12:35:41 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 32


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Birnbaum)
 writes...
>
>   The 4 grain figure is pure fantasy. The actual bullet found at the
>   hospital by the hospital's senior engineer, Darrell C. Tomlinson,
>   weighed 158.6 grains. And although Tomlinson isn't sure which of two
>   stretchers the bullet came from, it was either Connally's or
>   someone else's but Kennedy's, as JFK's stretcher was never in the
>   vicinity. Thus, it had to be from Connally's. The bullet weighed
>   about 2.5 grains less than the average bullet of its type, and if
>   you can document that more than that had been recovered from
>   Connally by any reliable source, it would mean the end to the single
>   assassin theory. Of course, that has never been done.




   According to High Treason- Groden/Livingstone and I believe Six Seconds
  in Dallas- Josiah Thompson, this has in fact been done....




<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ceblair
From: [e-mail] (Charles Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Remarkable Windshield
Keywords: I wish I had one of these on MY car!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 15:31:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 9

[e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:

> No witness's memory or descriptions are ever faulty in Mr.
>Lifton's world.  It must have been a rude shock to him when his
>Parkland doctors retracted their contradictory descriptions after
>seeing the autopsy photos.

   I would be interested in specific references (eg congressional hearings?)
on this.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!ts
From: [e-mail] (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 13:53:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]> <mg.694462512@elan>
  <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 30
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10793 rec.arts.movies:52252

$-The question one must ask herself when looking into the 'there was
$-no conspiracy' explanation is: how likely is this explanation.
$-Consider each "fact", its "explanation" and give it probability. Then
$-compute the overall probability of the whole explanation ... See if you can
$-trust it!
$-*Example*:  (set your own 'facts' and probabilities!)
$-  Oswald connections to the CIA is random. Likelyhood? (50%)
$-  People who claimed to hear shots from place X really heard echos (50%)
$-  The head moved back with a rear shot (50%)
$-  There where only 3 shots (one being a magic bullet) (50%)
$-  Oswald was able to shoot that accurately this fast (50%)
$-  The Z film frames prints where honestly reversed (50%)
$-  The driver slowed down instead of speeding up becuase of panic etc (50%)
$-  There are many other 'odd' things explained...
$-  But even the above, given all events are independent (which they should, if
$-  there is no conspiracy), give a mere 1% chance of all events occuring as
$-  explained. Do you still believe it?
$-

If you apply this sort of analysis to nearly any specific event, you will
usually find that the event is unlikely.  For instance, I just flipped
a coin 30 times, getting the sequence T T H T H T H T T T T H T T H
T H T H H H H H H H H H H T H.  The probability of getting that sequence
was about 1 in 1,000,000,000 (1/2 for each flip).

You need to integrate over all sequences that have the same results as
your sequence above if you want to estimate the odds that Oswald killed
Kennedy.

                        Tim Smith
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!reed!henson!george
From: [e-mail] (George Hartnell)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 16:43:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Western Washington University
Lines: 20

As aforementioned by the Hapless Technician, yes, he would very much like to
obtain a Quicktime version of the Kennedy Assination so he could decide,
once again, for *himself*. Idle speculation and pseudo-posthumus-physics
are amusing, but next to worthless, especially in the Mac newsgroupd(s).
After all, there has been such speculation since 1963, ad nauz

The Technician *does* feel that the Mac group *is* most appropriate for the
request for such Quicktime footage, and has *always* felt that this issue
*should* be discussed in every available platform. After all, free
dissimiantion of information *is* one of the major tasks of internetworking
such as we are fortunate enough to enjoy----for now.

Best regards, G.


--
*****************************************************************************
*            Even if I had an opinion, no one here would care....           *
**************George Hartnell, Western Washington University****************
[e-mail], Computer Center, Bellingham, Wa. 98225 206-676-2975
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!male!asgarrd!merlyn
From: [e-mail] (Michael Miller - Rev. Admin.)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 18:26:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 56

|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|
|>Assuming he was ever one of the assassins.  There is a picture
|>showing him standing by that gate structure on the knoll when the
|>first bullet struck JFK.

>>From [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)

>No such picture exists.  What are you guys smoking over there in
>Milpitas? :)

Actually we drink herbal teas ;^)  You threw me for a loop, Brian.  I was expecting
you to say 'where's the evidence'.  Actually such a picture does exist.  I have a
copy of the magazine it was printed in.  Argosy Magazine in the July 1975 issue
has it on its front cover and with the article 'Killing the Kennedys:  The Case
for Conspiracy' by F. Peter Model.  I think it may have been taken by Orville Nix
who was filming on the other side of the street.  It is in Oville's film that
you see the motercycle policeman run up the grassy knoll with his gun drawn.

Knowing that there are more than one Oswald who knows who the real Oswald is.  Maybe
it was an Oswald look alike planted there for some reason that only the conspirators
know.

>I don't think JFK was wearing a back brace.  And I'm certain I would
>have read about it if the bullet went through anything but his coat
>and shirt before hitting his back.

I haven't heard much about the back brace either, I was just supposing that it may
be the reason why a bullet from a high powered rifle penetrated so little into the
back.  However the above article mentions it and I did read elsewhere that JFK took
cortisone shots and also wore a back brace.  He decided to wear the back brace when
he went to Dallas.  This is a quote from the article:

    "And now, the crucial shots strike Kennedy on the skull.  Kennedy, his
     body held rigid by his back brace--is hurled violently back and sidewards
     against Jacqueline with such force that it literally lifts him out of his
     seat.  The impact knocks him back at 100.3 m.p.h."

I haven't read any books on the matter so I am not sure if any of them mentions this.
I did make a list of the recommened works and when I get time I will delve into them.
Most of what I know of the events are from various magazine articles and films.

>No, no, no, this myth was cleared up by _at least_ 1967 (_Six Seconds
>In Dallas_).  There are no missing frames.

What is (_Six Seconds In Dallas_)?  According to Robert Groden, a free-lance optic
spealist,  there is a splice mark after frame Z207.  Objects in the next frame jump
a bit due to the missing frames.  (This is from the same article.)

>No.  Neither hand ever touches his throat throughout the entire film.
>Look again.

I am not saying he actually touched his throat.  What he seems to be doing is making
a clutching action towards his throat, then his hands suddenly clench and arms raise.

--Michael
Path: ns-mx!uunet!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 18:50:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 46

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
< (John Locke) writes...

<     Here we have a conspiracy that reaches into the highest
<     level of government, one that wishes to cover its tracks
<     by, among other things, changing the autopsy record.
<     The conspiracy has the prescience to have the notes
<     of the chief autopsist destroyed, yet it leaves the
<     other potentially incrimianting records mysteriously
<     alone.
<
<     Your theory doesn't fly too well, Mr Locke.

Telling me what my theory is and then shooting it down is what we call
a "straw man" argument. I haven't stated a theory, so you're not in an
enviable position to tell me whether it flies or not. You might want to
review your analytical methods to get a better understanding of why
your thinking is not airtight.

<     It does in a way, Mr Locke. Pistol bullets are not
<     known for their penetrating ability, yet one has
<     no difficulty passing nearly all the way through
<     LHO's torso. A high power rifle bullet, however,
<     can't pass more than a finger's length into JFK's
<     body. Strange.

Again, you're speaking of likelihoods, not proof.

<     I've supported my supposition quite well. I have a position
<     for the shooter (TBSD), a path of the bullet in transit
<     through JFK's presidential bod. I also know what happened to
<     that bullet after it hit JFK as well. I can explain and describe
<     the nature and causes of all of the wounds. I can explain
<     and describe the nature of and causes of the damage to JFK's
<     clothing.

You've supported your supposition with a subset of the evidence. Other
suppositions can be supported with other subsets of the evidence. I
conclude there is doubt cloaking the issue. You conclude that you are
right. Your confidence does not prove anything to me.

<     I think I've supported my position much better than you have.

Thank you for that unbiased assessment.

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 19:34:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 33

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Lamont) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Lamont) writes:
>>>I've had both confidential and secret DoD clearances and a DoE Q
>>>clearance (their version of a secret). ...>
>>You must not have had a Q.  The Q is the equivalent of Top Secret and requires
>>FBI investigation.
>
>... the 'debriefing' papers I signed when I terminated my consulting
>agreement with Lawrence Livermore National Labs were pretty clear.
>
>Of course, I did wonder why my trash was spread all over the parking
>lot.  Here, all this time, I thought it was the neighborhood dogs.
>
I also had a Q and worked at Livermore.  My Q took 6 months to obtain
and FBI agents interviewed people from my past all the way back to
high school.  Maybe you just didn't realize they did the same thing
for you.  It is the equivalent of DoD Top Secret and you don't
need any further clearance to see Top Secret files.  I also had
a Secret previously, which did not require the legwork type investigation
but is still above the level of Confidential.







--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 19:41:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 30

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>    Considering Mr Banks' method and materials, I have no
>    doubt that he could not find a stereo effect in the pictures.
>    To begin with, I doubt that the reproductions in Marrs' book
>    are anything else than inferior. God knows what generation
>    Marrs' original photos were to begin with, and probably
>    two more generations of printing would pass before the
>    photos appeared before Gordon's eyes. Furthermore,
>    Mr Banks wasn't using even a rudimentary steroscope,
>    relying instead on his eyes' peculiar talent.
>
Again, you betray your lack of knowledge of stereo photography
with such remarks.  A stereoscope is superfluous to those experienced
with the eye-crossing technique, as anyone who is into it can tell you.
I have actually seen large blow ups of the photos which Marrs presented
at a Symposium at the Univ. of Pittsburgh.  These are needed to see the
airbrushed alterations made in which part of the telescopic sight is
airbrushed out and Oswald's chin is cut off in another photo.  At
that time, I wasn't aware of the stereo claim, so I couldn't ask
Marrs about it.  Undoubtedly, larger reproductions that the book
provides would help.  Is there someplace we can find these, or
do we rely on the words of some photo panel, who could very well
be CIA assets?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jan 92 10:40:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 27

It seems my original posting about the FBI tests on the "Oswald" rifle,
has caused some confusion and arguments.  My only point in bringing these
facts up were:

1) The FBI had to modify the rifle's scope (with shims) because it was so
badly misaligned that they couldn't conduct the necessary aiming/firing
tests.

2) The FBI/MILITARY Panel removed the shims after they conducted the tests
   and informed the Warren Commision about the inconsistency (scope) and
   about the modification.  The removed the shims that had been added to
   the rifle and they turned them into the comission.

3) What is interesting about the above two facts (as pointed out previously)
   was that this information was conveniently "semi-ignored" when the
   Oswald propaganda began.  Theses facts were not discovered until much later
   and only by a small percentage of the population (mostly serious
   researchers) who took the time to go through the entire 26 (non-indexed)
   volumes.   The public was given a "SUMMARIZED" version of the Warren Report
   in the form of a book published by Bantam Books.  This book 700 pages in
   length and was first published in 1964... long after Oswald was publicly
   convicted and buried as the "lone assasin."

That was my intention.

--Dusty
in L.A.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - dictabelt recording
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 19:40:43 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 37


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Acm) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Eckelman) writes:
>
>>I understand that the dictabelt recording has been pretty much
>>discredited as evidence because of a clock chime or other sound
>>which demostrates that the tape was not made at the time of the
>>shooting.
>
>It wasn't a chime. It was Sheriff Decker's voice. He was saying,
>`Move all men available out of my department back to the railroad
>station yards there...to try to determine just what and where it
>happened down there...And hold everything secure until the homicide
>and other investigators can get here.' Since he gave this command
>about a minute after the assassination, the noises on the tape made at
>the same time can not be the shots that killed Kennedy.

  Oh no, not again. Bolt,Beranek and Newman of Cambridge,Mass. analyzed the
 dictabelt and found that what was purported to be the original was really
 a copy. Somebody obviously tampered with it. They also found 4 sounds
 that were definitely attributable to gunfire and two that they stated as
 90 percent probability of being gunshots....... read the report.
>
>The House Assassination Committee's `shots' were probably just bursts of
>static.

  `probably'? by whose account?


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 19:49:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 30

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>
>>Would the Texas authorities refused if Warren asked?  If LBJ asked?
>
>Who cares?  There was no reason to think that Ruby wasn't safe.
>
Yes but Ruby said he thought so and that he couldn't talk there.
If Warren really wanted to get Ruby to talk (he didn't) he should
have tried to make Ruby feel safe.  The question was Ruby's perception,
not whether or not it was true.

>>Not true, several of them named names.
>
>Ok: who named what name?  Isn't the case solved if we have such names?
>
No, the case isn't solved, because the people named denied involvement
(e.g. Clay Shaw) and the namer was often shut up before it reached
the courts.  You can't call a case solved until you either get
admissions of guilt or convictions.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!ukma!widener!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 20:24:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 18

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
>
>I didn't say it was completed before.  But you're right -- word
>reached headquarters that they should pick up a TBSD employee named
>Oswald, and somebody noticed that they already had an Oswald in
>custody.

Just sounds a little too efficient, to me.  Like it was set up
very efficiently.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!ukma!widener!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!pitt.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 20:32:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 35

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:

>The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from
>Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons.  The problem is
>that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in
>Tippit's body.  This is very strange, but not the sort of obvious
>slip-up that competent conspirators would commit.
>
They made a lot of slip ups.  They weren't all that competent.
Without the massive coverup by the FBI, the conspiracy would have
been noted long ago.

>Come on.  He pulled his gun on a whole theater-ful of cops, and I think
>he even pulled the trigger, but it misfired.  I think Oswald was
>planning to go out in a hail of gunfire, but his equipment failed him.
>
Not so.  He didn't try to fire and repeatedly called out "I am not
resisting arrest."  He was very much afraid he was going to be killed
in the theater, and that may well have been the plan.

>later.  He was seen at the scene by nine people.
>
Only one of which stuck by the story that it was Oswald.  The ones who
said it wasn't were harrassed, and one man's brother (who looks just
like him) was murdered.  Another was assaulted and suffered severe
head injuries.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!widener!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!pitt.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 20:38:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 36

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
>
>We don't know for sure that it wasn't Oswald.  It is strange that the
>two embassy employees say their guy didn't look like Oswald, but I'd
>be surprised if everyone who ever saw Oswald could later match him
>with pictures of him.
>
I just talked to a friend who recalls seeing Oswald passing out leaflets
in New Orleans.  He matched him quite well.

Incidentally, David Atlee Phillips, who was CIA station chief in Mexico
City at the time admitted on tape that it was unlikely the Oswald ever
visited Mexico City.  Yet another Warren Commission critical fact
bites the dust!  This is in Mark Lane's "Plausible Denial".

>Then Oswald would have to have been cooperating with this plan,
>because there is uncontestable evidence of him doing a good job of
>this himself.  If you have the real Oswald, why use a fake many inches
>shorter, who is certain to be remembered as different from Oswald?

There is no way to know this.  Oswald may not have been infinitely
cooperative.  There may have been parts of the plan that never
came off that are unclear now.  We can't answer all these questions
unless someone with great knowledge of the plot reveals the answers.

What is clear is that the CIA ordered the arrest of Cuban embassy
employee Ms. Duran (a Mexican) and she was coerced into saying Oswald
had come to the embassy.  She later told of this coercion.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 22:17:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 46


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Lee Thiel) writes:

||The TV show NOVA had this same question.  They did the scientific thing...
||they ran some experiments.  Watermellons consistently flew backwards when
||shot.  You can probably check this show out at your local library, Sun Coast
||video store, or maybe even rent it at a big video store.
|You tell us to discuss this elsewhere and then add fuel to the fire?  Which is
|it?  Also it is incredibly stupid to assume a watermelon is the same thing as a
|human head.  I thought even Nova knew better than that.  As I said previously,
|I have seen many people shot in the head.  Two years as a Marine sniper in
|Beirut gave me that unfortunate experience.  I never saw anyone go in the
|opposite direction of the shot.

that is most people's observation: people who get hit in the head fall forward.
To think otherwise is pretty silly. However, even if head flys backwards, it
does so in the opposite direction of the shot. However, Kennedy's head does
not fly in the opposite direction of the sniper's nest in Book Store
depository.  It flies up and to the left, as well as to the rear: exactly
as if hit from the grassy knoll area , where more than half the witnesses
said they heard a shot.

Copper jacketed bullets of the type Oswald was supposed to have used, typically
leave small entrance and small exit wounds, even when people are hit in the
head, as they at times were in WWII Italy.

 They always flew back with the round and were
|almost always lifted off their feet in the process.  While I'm at it I will
|mention that I find it extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that Oswald fired
|those shots.   The weapon was a piece of shit and he wasn't that great a shot
|to begin with.  His service in the Marines doesn't make sense either.  If he
|had a TS clearance due to his work at a "radar site" he would have lost it very
|quickly after having gone around making pro-communist statements.  Why didn't
|he?  Why did he go to Russian language school?  There are way too many
|inconsistencies in the whole story.


--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 23:57:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 139


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
||Also, there were two witnesses who said that
||two people shot Tippet, and that one was heavier than Oswald.
|
|You mean Acquilla Clemmons?  She simply said that there were two men
|beside the police car, but that only one had a gun.

No. Acquilla Clemmons says she saw one man who shot Tippet, the other just
stood around. Yes, they were by Tippet's police car.

Another witness was Mr. and Mrs. Frank Wright.

||    Numer two, there were some casings found that were from Oswald's
||handgun, but these do not match the bullits found in Tippits body. In fact,
||there were two types of bullits found: winchester and Colt, if my memory
||recalls the other kind.
|
|The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from
|Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons.  The problem is
|that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in
|Tippit's body.  This is very strange, but not the sort of obvious
|slip-up that competent conspirators would commit.

So where did the other Winchester bullet come from? And what happend to the
other Remington? In order for the story to work, you have to have more than
4 shots, which goes against the witness testimony. If you throw out the witness
testimony, and the bullets are not matched to the gun, then all you have is
the fact that the murder and Oswald bought similiar bullets. See next part:
(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found
on the ground. The Dallas police could have just picked out the same number
of shells of the numer of bullets, and of course blew it...)

Thirdly, Kurtz says that the bullets were not matched to the shells, and
gives as a reference p WC report, pgs. 165-169

He quotes an FBI agent who examined the bullets and concluded that it
was not possible to verify if the bullets were fired from Oswald's gun. The
WC rejected the expert testimony and got conflicting testimony from a
State police expert which by coincidence was exactly what the WC
wanted to hear.

However, Hurt mentions that the WC report never accepted the Policeman's
evidence, and concluded that an exact ballastics match was not possible.
This later was confirmed by HSCA.

Fourthly, Hurt even continues to say that the gun was not tested for firing.

||    The circumstantial evidence points against Oswald, who is unlikey
||to have ran from his house all the way to the murder.
|
|Less than mile in about 12 minutes?  Not too unlikely for someone
|trying to put distance between himself and the residence of a
|Presidential assassin.

He did not run, according to the WC, and further, where was he going?

||    Also, what was Tippet doing with Oswald anyway? And what was he doing
||in the area?
|
|The police radio log shows that he was ordered to go there.

But why was he orderd there?

||Oswald's description was ambiguous.
|
|"White male, approximately thirty, slender build, 5'10", 165 lbs." is
|pretty accurate.  And Oswald would have been walking at a pretty good
|clip to get there, making him even more conspicuous.

That matches thousands of people in Dallas that day.

||Nor did Tippet try to arrest Oswald, but greeted
||him in a friendly manner.
|
|Says who?

Says the witnesses.

||I think both were spotted in Ruby's nightclub at a table.
|
|Hurt, who plays every conspiracy theory to the hilt and won't let
|himself be tied to just one, can only bring himself to say: "Just as
|tantalizing is the report that Oswald and Tippit were seen together on
|at least one earlier occassion, but no known reports of such an
|association can be established."

By  estabilshed he means more than witness testimony. Yet the case against
Oswald rests largely on witness testimony.

||Oswald had no motive to kill Tippet.
|
|Come on.  He pulled his gun on a whole theater-ful of cops, and I think
|he even pulled the trigger, but it misfired.  I think Oswald was
|planning to go out in a hail of gunfire, but his equipment failed him.

Oswald was being arrested by an army of police. Tippet casually walked
up and engaged in friendly conversation.

|...  The spent cartridges found there
|could only have been fired by the gun Oswald was caught with minutes
|later.

Why do you say that?

| He was seen at the scene by nine people.

" of the nine witnesses, only one actually saw the shooting. " The one
who did see the shooting could not pick Oswald out of a line up, untill
lead on by the prosecuting attorney. He had to ask 4 times, until suggesting
it was Oswald. This would have been thrown out of any court. " --Kurtz,
"Crime of the Century". Kurtz goes on to say that the nine witnesses
had conflicting stories.

There was another witness, according to the FBI, which was left out of the
WC. He was a 14 year old who said that the murder was wearing dark pants and a
light shirt, opposite to what Oswald had.

Another witness, Domingo Benavides, siad that it was not Oswald too. He
did, however, change his story *3* years later.

Although 5 witnesses did pick Oswald out of a lineup, the lineup was
questionable at best. One witness said he could hear Oswald say he
was being framed.

Another who identified Oswald from a photograph did so after originally
saying he didn't --changing his story after getting shot in the head.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!rutgers!ub!dsinc!pitt.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 21:15:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 17

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:

>try to produce references for your claims....)  The CIA naturally had
>a 201 file opened on Lee Harvey Oswald, since as a defector he was of
>potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance.  But Lee
>Harvey Oswald never worked for the CIA.

Isn't a 201 file a personnel file, and not an investigative subject file?
I think that is another very suspicious revelation.  The fact that Oswald
had a 201 file means he was on the payroll.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!rutgers!ub!dsinc!pitt.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mar
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 21:19:28 GMT
References: <rich.694824620@pencil> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>i can see why lane took the case against hunt: to prove something he
>had been trying to prove since 'rush to judgment' that oswald was not
>the lone assassin.
>it is harder to understand why lane continues to work for liberty lobby.
>he defended them against charges by marmelstein.  maybe lane needs the
>money.

Lane says he doesn't agree with Carto's politics but does not agree
that he is racist and anti-semitic.  He says this clearly in the
book.  He also says that such images are created by the establishment
press to suit their own ends.  I haven't read anything of Carto's,
but I have read Lyndon LaRouche, and can say that based on his own
words he appears to be a fascist to me.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 00:05:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 67


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
|||the rifle had a strap, and that it was found
|||between two stacks of boxes.  An easy way to get it in there would
|||have been to swing it in by the strap.
||
||Actually, the rifle was found under two 50 pound boxes.
|
|In _Best Evidence_, Hurt says it was "stashed behind some boxes".

Best Evidence is written by Lifton, Reasonable Doubt is written by Hurt. My
source, I believe, is good. Also, it was both stashed behind, *and*
underneath.

||So, it is possible that the sight was damaged. Or was it? What can
||damage a sight, and what damage could cause the sight to alter in
||such a manner?
|
|Good questions; I don't know.  I'd like to know: why were "shims"
|needed?  Didn't the scope have the usual adjustment screws?  What sort
|of forces does it take to screw up such a scope in the way that
|Oswald's was screwed up?  Was the true aim point even within the area
|visible through the scope, so that Oswald could have learned to
|compensate?

I think this train of thought doesn't really lead anywhere. You can still
question the fact that neither the FBI nor the WC brought this up.

||There was already ample evidence to imply that
||Oswald could not have made the shots in the given amount of time.
|
|Can anyone explain this for me?  (Mitchell?  Are you watching?)  I
|thought the timing problem was taken care of by the Magic Bullet
|theory.  That is, if Connally merely had a delayed reaction to a
|Kennedy hit, and the first shot missed altogether, then the Zapruder
|film gives Oswald 4 seconds or more to line up the head shot, and an
|indeterminate amount of time to line up the back shot.

I don't think so. Also, how do you hold a hat with a smashed wrist?

||Actually, even with the Magic bullet theory, you need fantastic shots.
|
|Not _too_ fantastic.  Obviously, _some_body was able to hit JFK from
|behind with at least one rifle bullet.

I think there were two people in the TSBD, or one person in another building.
They arrested someone who went in and said he used the phone, on the *third*
floor. Then they just released him.

||It was tried once for the WC, once for CBS, and once for the HSCA,
||all tests failed.
|
|Lattimer's tests succeeded.

Lattimer? I thought he tested the backward movement of melons or something.
In any case, all three tests failed.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!tymix!antares!thack
From: [e-mail] (Tom Hackwood)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 03:44:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tom Hackwood)
Organization: BT North America
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: nts-gw

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Lamont) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Lamont) writes:
>I also had a Q and worked at Livermore.  My Q took 6 months to obtain
>and FBI agents interviewed people from my past all the way back to
>high school.  Maybe you just didn't realize they did the same thing
>for you.  It is the equivalent of DoD Top Secret and you don't
>need any further clearance to see Top Secret files.  I also had
>a Secret previously, which did not require the legwork type investigation
>but is still above the level of Confidential.
>

Almost but not quite TOTALY true.  Any clearence is on a Need-To-Know basis.
If you get a Q (or Top Secret) clearence, it is only in the context of the
task at hand.  At a place a Lawrence, my guess is that most clearences are
not only for the job at hand, but for the location as well.  If you went
to, say White Sands Missle Base, you (or your manager) had to fill out a
bunch of forms to prove who you are, and why you need to be at a particular
place at WSMB.

In case you are wondering...my dad was in Military Intelligence...that is
how they work.  A Top Secret or "Q" clearence doesn't give you the keys to
the National Security archives.  An official NEED and RECOGNITION that you
MUST be there is also required.

But, by and large you ([e-mail] (Steve Lamont)) are right.

Tom Hackwood


This is not the opinion of             "A may be synthetic,
BT North America, nor is               but I'm not stupid!"
this personal opinion                  - by the android
endorsed by BT North America.            in "Aliens"
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 03:55:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:

>>Come on.  He pulled his gun on a whole theater-ful of cops, and I think
>>he even pulled the trigger, but it misfired.  I think Oswald was
>>planning to go out in a hail of gunfire, but his equipment failed him.
>>
>Not so.

In _Best Evidence_ Hurt says there was a "scuffle, during which Oswald
pulled his pistol".

>He didn't try to fire and repeatedly called out "I am not
>resisting arrest."

When my copy of _Crossfire_ comes in I'll check on the misfire story.
I think Oswald only called out that he wasn't resisting arrest after
he was disarmed.

>>He was seen at the scene by nine people.
>>
>Only one of which stuck by the story that it was Oswald.

Says who?  For example, you described Warren Reynolds:

>Another was assaulted and suffered severe head injuries.

Well, Reynolds said that he was "of the opinion" that the man he saw
was Oswald, and his opinion didn't change after being shot in the
head.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Summary: The cartridges/bullets could not match  Oswald's pistol better.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 05:04:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 145
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>||Also, there were two witnesses who said that
>||two people shot Tippet, and that one was heavier than Oswald.
>|
>|You mean Acquilla Clemmons?  She simply said that there were two men
>|beside the police car, but that only one had a gun.
>
>No. Acquilla Clemmons says she saw one man who shot Tippet, the other just
>stood around.

Exactly what I said!  Only one man shot Tippet.

>|The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from
>|Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons.  The problem is
>|that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in
>|Tippit's body.
>
>So where did the other Winchester bullet come from? And what happend to the
>other Remington? In order for the story to work, you have to have more than
>4 shots, which goes against the witness testimony.

I don't think witnesses are very good at remembering how many shots
they heard, especially when it's as many as four or five.

>If you throw out the witness
>testimony, and the bullets are not matched to the gun, then all you have is
>the fact that the murder and Oswald bought similiar bullets.

No -- the empty catridges at the scene were fired from the pistol
found on Oswald thirty minutes later.  Oswald was arrested six blocks
away.  His whereabouts during the murder are unknown -- except for the
fact that he had to have been passing through the area.

>(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found
>on the ground.

If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the
pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it?

>Thirdly, Kurtz says that the bullets were not matched to the shells, and
>gives as a reference p WC report, pgs. 165-169
>
>He quotes an FBI agent who examined the bullets and concluded that it
>was not possible to verify if the bullets were fired from Oswald's gun.

Right.  Oswald's gun had a modification to allow it to fire
slightly-wider bullets, with the result that regular bullets sort of
bounce around in the barrel and thus don't receive consistent markings
from the barrel.

>|Less than mile in about 12 minutes?  Not too unlikely for someone
>|trying to put distance between himself and the residence of a
>|Presidential assassin.
>
>He did not run, according to the WC, and further, where was he going?

I don't know that he'd have had to run to cover the distance in 12
minutes.  I don't know where he was going.  He wound up in a nearby
theater.

>|The police radio log shows that he was ordered to go there.
>
>But why was he orderd there?

The log only lists who was ordered to go where; it doesn't say why.

>|"White male, approximately thirty, slender build, 5'10", 165 lbs." is
>|pretty accurate.  And Oswald would have been walking at a pretty good
>|clip to get there, making him even more conspicuous.
>
>That matches thousands of people in Dallas that day.

How many of those thousands happened to be seen by a cop while they
were hurrying down a residential sidewalk?  Still, the match was
unsurprising enough for Tippit to be casual in his dealings with
Oswald: first talking to him through the passenger window, then
casually approaching him around the front of his squad car.

>|"Just as
>|tantalizing is the report that Oswald and Tippit were seen together on
>|at least one earlier occassion, but no known reports of such an
>|association can be established."
>
>By  estabilshed he means more than witness testimony.

Or, more than _one_ witness.  I think the Oswald/Tippit story is just
the fantasy of one nightclub denizen.

>Tippet casually walked
>up and engaged in friendly conversation.

Which is what you'd expect from a cop casually making sure that, no,
of course you weren't in Dealey Plaza a half hour ago, ok, just show
me some ID, I'll take your name, keep an eye out for somebody nervous
matching your description, see ya later.  Oswald could not afford to
let such a conversation get underway.

>|...  The spent cartridges found there could only have been fired by
>|the gun Oswald was caught with minutes later.
>
>Why do you say that?

Hurt says it is "indisputable".  The firing pin and cylinder of a
pistol uniquely mark a cartridge when it is fired.

>| He was seen at the scene by nine people.
>
>" of the nine witnesses, only one actually saw the shooting. "

Hmm.  Hurt says "at least two witnesses claimed in some fashion that
they watched Oswald shoot Tippit."  Forgive the rest for only looking
up after the shooting stopped.

>The one
>who did see the shooting could not pick Oswald out of a line up, untill
>lead on by the prosecuting attorney. He had to ask 4 times,

No.  She picked Oswald out of the line-up.  Later, in front of the
Warren Commission, she was asked repeateldy if she "recognized" anybody in the
line-up, and her responses sound to me like she might have thought she
was being asked whether anyone in the line-up was an acquaintance of
hers: "I didn't know anybody".  Seconds later, she affirmed "Number
two is the one I picked."

>Kurtz goes on to say that the nine witnesses
>had conflicting stories.

In any significant way?  I'd be surprised if nine people described
something the same way.

>Another witness, Domingo Benavides, siad that it was not Oswald too.

Hurt says he "could not identify Oswald as the gunman".  Do you want
me to explain the difference?

>Another who identified Oswald from a photograph did so after originally
>saying he didn't --changing his story after getting shot in the head.

Before, he had said that he was "of the opinion" that the fleeing
gunman was Oswald, though he could not "definitely identify" him.
After the shooting, he was more sure.  So his story got stronger, but
it did not flip-flop.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 05:11:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:

>>The CIA naturally had
>>a 201 file opened on Lee Harvey Oswald, since as a defector he was of
>>potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance.  But Lee
>>Harvey Oswald never worked for the CIA.
>
>Isn't a 201 file a personnel file, and not an investigative subject file?
>I think that is another very suspicious revelation.  The fact that Oswald
>had a 201 file means he was on the payroll.

No!  Geez, you're unsure enough to ask which kind of file it is, and
then you baldly assert he was on the payroll?  Come on!

A 201 file is "opened when a person is considered to be of potential
intelligence or counter-intelligence significance."  _Best Evidence_,
p. 246.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 05:24:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:

>>There was no reason to think that Ruby wasn't safe.
>>
>Yes but Ruby said he thought so and that he couldn't talk there.
>If Warren really wanted to get Ruby to talk (he didn't) he should
>have tried to make Ruby feel safe.  The question was Ruby's perception,
>not whether or not it was true.

And you, Mr. Motive Distruster Extraordinaire, can't figure out why
Ruby would have a motive to disrupt and mislead the inquiry?  Ooookay.

>>Ok: who named what name?  Isn't the case solved if we have such names?
>>
>No, the case isn't solved, because the people named denied involvement
>(e.g. Clay Shaw)

or were plainly innocent (e.g. Clay Shaw)?  BTW, what is the name of
someone who died after naming Shaw?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Summary: No weapon was found either on Jim Braden or in the Dal-Tex bldg.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 05:50:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 52
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>|I'd like to know: why were "shims" needed?  Didn't the scope have
>|the usual adjustment screws?  What sort of forces does it take to
>|screw up such a scope in the way that Oswald's was screwed up?  Was
>|the true aim point even within the area visible through the scope,
>|so that Oswald could have learned to compensate?
>
>I think this train of thought doesn't really lead anywhere.

Hah!  You mean you don't care to know whether Oswald's sight could
have been screwed up by the way he stashed it?  Yer really dedicated
to truth, there, Mr. Wright.

>You can still
>question the fact that neither the FBI nor the WC brought this up.

I don't know that they didn't.  I don't have a copy of the Warren
Report.  I don't know how they explained the screwed up sight.

>how do you hold a hat with a smashed wrist?

For two seconds?  Put a hat in your hand, hold still, and I'll show
you. :)

>|Not _too_ fantastic.  Obviously, _some_body was able to hit JFK from
>|behind with at least one rifle bullet.
>
>I think there were two people in the TSBD, or one person in another building.

An extra guy in the TSBD doesn't make for a more accurate shot, and
every other building was either further away or presented a transverse
target at equivalent range.

>They arrested someone who went in and said he used the phone, on the *third*
>floor. Then they just released him.

Yes.  Jim Braden.  He was in town on oil business.  I know of no weapons
found either on him or in the Dal-Tex building that he had been in.

>|Lattimer's tests succeeded.
>
>Lattimer? I thought he tested the backward movement of melons or something.
>In any case, all three tests failed.

Mitchell says Lattimer's son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting.

Again: could somebody tell us authoritatively whether what failed were
tests that _tested_ the Magic Bullet theory, or tests that
_necessitated_ it?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 06:25:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 77
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>|>Assuming he was ever one of the assassins.  There is a picture
>|>showing him standing by that gate structure on the knoll when the
>|>first bullet struck JFK.
>
>>No such picture exists.
>
>Actually such a picture does exist.  I have a copy of the magazine it
>was printed in.  Argosy Magazine in the July 1975 issue has it on its
>front cover and with the article 'Killing the Kennedys: The Case for
>Conspiracy' by F. Peter Model.  I think it may have been taken by
>Orville Nix who was filming on the other side of the street.

Fax me a copy, willya?  I've seen clips from the Nix film, and only
its low resolution of such background figures across the street could
ever let you hallucinate that one of them is Oswald.  Remember, there
was also a photo of "Oswald" standing on the steps of the TSBD during
the shooting, but turned out to be Billy somebody, who worked in the
TSBD and was of the same build as Oswald.  Your "Oswald" is
undoubtedly another such case.  In fact, the only person along Elm St.
that I've ever heard of as still being unidentified is they guy next
to the "Umbrella Man".  (The Umbrella Man was found by the HSCA; he
was clean.)  In fact, they've been so thorough that in one picture,
what was always thought to have been a low mound of dirt was actually
a G.I. who had managed to flatten after the very first shot, and who
shipped out to Alaska a day or two later without giving his name to
anyone official.

>Maybe it was an Oswald look alike planted there for some reason that
>only the conspirators know.

Aw, come on.  Don't you feel a little silly making statements like this?
You folks talk about The Conspirators like they go around in capes
with a big "C" on their chest.  Is there anything The Conspirators
couldn't do?  Is there any evidence that you're not sure could have
been within the awesome power of The Conspirators to fabricate?

>    "And now, the crucial shots strike Kennedy on the skull.  Kennedy, his
>     body held rigid by his back brace

He may have been wearing a back brace, but it must have been for the
lower back.  I've seen photos of all the things that JFK was wearing
that had holes shot into them, and a back brace wasn't among them.

>--is hurled violently back and sidewards against Jacqueline
>with such force that it literally lifts him out of his seat.
>The impact knocks him back at 100.3 m.p.h."

This number has already been shown to be bogus.  At such a speed,
Kennedy's head would move many feet between Zapruder frames.  It doesn't.

>>No, no, no, this myth was cleared up by _at least_ 1967 (_Six Seconds
>>In Dallas_).  There are no missing frames.
>
>What is (_Six Seconds In Dallas_)?  [A book.] According to Robert Groden, a
>free-lance optic spealist, there is a splice mark after frame Z207.
>Objects in the next frame jump a bit due to the missing frames.

"A bit"?  Ten frames is over half a second!  There _are_ strange
splice marks in some prints of the film, but there are no missing
frames.

>>No.  Neither hand ever touches his throat throughout the entire film.
>>Look again.
>
>I am not saying he actually touched his throat.  What he seems to be
>doing is making a clutching action towards his throat, then his hands
>suddenly clench and arms raise.

That's your interpretation; it doesn't seem that way to me.  At any
rate, it doesn't matter much, since after checking it out I've
realized that the Magic Bullet theory is true after all, and that
there was in fact a hole in Kennedy's neck at the time that he raised
his fists and elbows.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth!
Summary: Toward a resignation from the (easy) job of assassination truth cop.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 07:02:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 61
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:

>Incidentally, David Atlee Phillips, who was CIA station chief in Mexico
>City at the time admitted on tape that it was unlikely the Oswald ever
>visited Mexico City.  Yet another Warren Commission critical fact
>bites the dust!

Bullshit.  Did Phillips give any reason why we should agree with him,
or do you just agree with any ol' CIA opinion that happens to support
your fantasies?  How did Phillips explain Oswald being seen travelling
to Mexico?  How did Phillips explain Oswald's signature on a Mexico
City hotel registration form?  How did Phillips explain the Cuban
embassy official say that someone identifying himself as Oswald
visited three separate times?  How did Phillips explain the letter
Oswald is known to have sent to the Soviet embassy in Washington
saying that he had been unsuccesful in getting a visa while in Mexico
City?

Such seizing on minor points that almost without exception turn out to
be easily explained, while ignoring the weight of the vast majority of
the evidence, is getting tiresome.  Every time you conspiracy types
have pointed me to an area that I'd previously downplayed (out of my
ignorance, and the area's remoteness from the material evidence) --
Oswald's right-wing associations, Oswald's CIA connections, the
Tippitt killing, etc. -- it's turned out that all the suspicious
evidence that I'd always heard about turns out to be flimsy or
non-existent.  It turns out that even the much-maligned Magic Bullet
theory is supported by the weight of the evidence, despite the fact
that I set out in my first posting to prove the Magic Bullet theory
wrong.  I think I'll be wrapping up my policing of you conspiracy
theorists soon, since it's been so easy to do, and since it's been a
while since you guys have steered us to any interesting conspiracy
evidence.

>>If you have the real Oswald, why use a fake many inches
>>shorter, who is certain to be remembered as different from Oswald?
>
>There is no way to know this.  Oswald may not have been infinitely
>cooperative.  There may have been parts of the plan that never
>came off that are unclear now.  We can't answer all these questions
>unless someone with great knowledge of the plot reveals the answers.

Careful!  Don't hurt yourself.  The kind of cognitive dissonance
evidenced in a paragraph like that can be career-ending. :)

Seriously, that paragraph sounds exactly like a religious explanation
of why faith is necessary when reason fails and revelation has been
withheld.  If you don't mind, I think I'll use it as an example in my
upcoming summary of why conspiracy theories are simply not rational in
the face of the totality of the evidence.

>What is clear is that the CIA ordered the arrest of Cuban embassy
>employee Ms. Duran (a Mexican) and she was coerced into saying Oswald
>had come to the embassy.  She later told of this coercion.

She was coerced into saying that the guy claiming to be Oswald looked
nothing like the guy who was shot by Jack Ruby?  As a taxpayer, I
demand that my taxes buy me more competent conspirators than _that_.
(BTW, do you have a reference for your claim that she was coerced?)
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!memstvx1!thrushea
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 06:15:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Memphis State University
Lines: 34
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10828 rec.arts.movies:52331

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Louis Blair) writes:
>
>  Paul R. Busta writes:
>>It was a rather deep and long (3+") gouge in the concrete ,
>>at least that's what it looked like in the photo I saw.
>
> Was there a ruler next to the mark so that you could be
> sure how long it was?  Where did you see this picture,
> anyway?
>
> According to the Warren report, "Scientific examination of
> the mark on the south curb of Main Street by FBI experts
> disclosed metal smears which, `were spectrographically
> determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony.'
> The mark on the curb could have originated from the lead
> core of a bullet but the absence of copper precluded `the
> possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made
> by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such
> as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher.'"
>
> According to Jim Marrs, the FBI report went on to say,
> "the damage to the curbing would have been much more
> extensive if a rifle bullet had struck the curbing without
> first having struck some other object."

If the argument is that the FBI was involved in a cover up, then
it doesn't work to quote evidence given by the FBI. OF COURSE the
FBI would say that bullet must have struck some other object if
they were trying to hide the existence of another assassin.

I have no fully formed opinion on whether or not the above is the
case - and won't until all the evidence is released, as seems likely
now that congress is feeling the pressure.  I just can't stand to
see logical fallacies muck up a good argument!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!apple!netcomsv!tim
From: [e-mail] (Tim Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Warren Commission
Keywords: JFK, Warren Commission
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 08:23:39 GMT
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA
Lines: 12


Anyone ever notice that "Warren Commission", when abbreviated "WC" is
also what most of the world would recognize as the abbreviation
for Water Closet?
--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET" -- Hardware Design made easy :-)
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!apple!netcomsv!tim
From: [e-mail] (Tim Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 08:10:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA
Lines: 17

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
=In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
=
=or were plainly innocent (e.g. Clay Shaw)?  BTW, what is the name of
=someone who died after naming Shaw?

What is on 2nd.

Try David Ferrie.
--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET" -- Hardware Design made easy :-)
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!gorilla
From: [e-mail] (Joe Mama)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Warren Commission
Keywords: JFK, Warren Commission
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 10:07:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 40


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Richardson) writes:
>
>Anyone ever notice that "Warren Commission", when abbreviated "WC" is
>also what most of the world would recognize as the abbreviation
>for Water Closet?
>--
and did you ever motice that when you reverse the W and the C you get CW,
which has been known to stand for Country and Western, especially on
typewriters and word processors that don't have ampersands. And it could
also mean Cold Weather, which we in the Monterey Bay are no stranger to,
and the letters taken individually, C could mean Conspiracy, or Cool, or
Cocaine, or Celine [the last name of Hagbard Celine, a noted ELF (Erisian
Liberation Front] leader and supporter of presidential assassinations], and
W could be Wee-Wee [Kennedy almost certainly pissed his trousers when he was hit, I know I would], or maybe WEISHAUPT, the last name of ADAM WEISHAUPT, the
most recent founder of the Bavarian Illuminati. Will wonders never cease;
DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION [comotion...] WAS WEISHAUPT AND
CELINE WORKING TOGETHER?????? I am bound to get flamed by both the AISB and
the ELF for this, but I really want to know what people have to say for this.


>Tim Richardson
>Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET" -- Hardware Design made easy :-)
>email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
>*******************************************************************************
>    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
>     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
>*******************************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hi tim.
Kallisti,

+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-+?-
From the desk of:    Pope Winnie-the-Pooh, dVvdZ, KSC.
            Pope of the Monterey Bay.
            from the Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric,
                underwater division, Golden Apple Corps.
[e-mail]    Some wing of the TIME/Life Building
            care of the PinealNet "direct to Eris 24 hours a week"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!muvms3!rcbi27
From: [e-mail] (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 92 21:11:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Marshall University
Lines: 53

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
> In all the  arguing  over  the  famous  incriminating  photos  of  LHO
> supposedly  taken  in the Paine back yard, not much attention has been
> paid to the rifle what he is  holding.   If  you  look  at  the  photo
> carefully,  you will note something rather unusual.  The rifle held by
> "Oswald" in the photo has a bolt handle which reaches all the way down
> to  the  base  of  the trigger housing, whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano
> currently in the National Archives has a bolt  handle  which  is  much
> higher.  This discrepancy indicates that these two weapons are NOT the
> same. There are two possible explanations--either the photo is a  fake
> and  neither  Oswald  nor  the  rifle are genuine or else the photo is
> genuine and the rifle held by Oswald  is  NOT  the  one  used  in  the
> assassination.
>
> Comments?

I haven't studied the photos you mention. However, here is some pertinant
information from an ex-gun buff:
The Mauser rifle is a most excellent weapon, very accurate and dependable.
Whether the little "Carcano" is a true Mauser or not, I do not know. Mausers


were widely  used by most European militaries in one form or another from just
before 1898 (when the classic Mouser action was perfected) untill well after
WWII; some third world nations used them *long* after that. The 1898 pattern
Mauser action is still greatly prefered today by those sportsmen who can
afford to have small modifications made--such as fitting a modern barrel,
attaching a fancy stock, and *HAVING THE BOLT HANDLE BENT DOWN SO THAT,
WHEN LOCKED IN SHOOTING POSITION, THE HANDLE RESTS DOWN CLOSE IN TO THE STOCK*.
On the old military Mausers, the bolt handle stuck out at almost right angles
from the stock when locked down in the firing position, at about the same
angle it would assume when unlocked and open after being bent down by a
competent gunsmith. The bending down keeps the handle out of the way, and
is a common trait of modern sporting bolt action rifles of all makes. And
also, when "working" the bent-down bolt (that is, rotating it up and back
in order to eject a spent casing), the hand does not interrupt the shooter's
line of sight.
The secret here, for you, is to ascertain whether or not in the conflicting
pictures the bolts are locked down. On a modern gun or customized Mauser,
the handle could be protruding as mentioned due to merely being unlocked (it
need not be drawn back to expose the breach). This might be very *very* hard
to tell without close *close* inspection.

--danny




--
    "Were his solid black square paintings really,
    as the artist claimed, simply neutral, abstract
    compositions devoid of external references and
    meanings?" ***********************************
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 14:13:12 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 144



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Louis Blair) writes...
>Brian Holtz wrote:
>>What hit the curb was a bullet fragment from the head shot.
>
> Paul R. Busta writes:
>>Absolutely impossible. The bullet that hit the curb was to the
>>left front of the limosine and quite a bit in front of it, down near
>>the overpass. The bullet would have had to hit Kennedy in the
>>head and take an almost 45 degree turn to left,
>
>How did you arrive at this number?  I see no justification for
>it at all.




  From looking at overhead photos of the area it appeared to me that
 the angle from the TSBD to the limo to the curb was not in any way
 a straight line. If the mark was caused by a bullet fragment, then
 I would have to admit after deflecting off of whatever it hit, it
 could possibly have reached that section of curb.





> Paul R. Busta writes:
>>as well as level off its flight.
>
>How much of a degree change would be involved here?  Can
>you tell us what angle a bullet would have made with the
>horizontal if it travelled from Oswald's supposed location
>to the location of Kennedy's head at the time of the fatal shot?
>I already know what I think the answer is, but you wouldn't
>believe my sources.  I want to know what your sources say
>and how much justification they give.



 What are your suorces and why wouldn't I believe them?





 As usual, I'm writing without my sources in hand....;^), but I
 seem to remember reading that the angle from the TSBD to the limo
 was in the 25 degree range whereas from the limo to the curb was
 in the low single digit degree range.



>
>As I said before:
>
>When a bullet fragments, the fragments do not necessarily
>continue in the same trajectory as the original bullet.
>Indeed, if you think about the force involved in separating
>a bullet into pieces, you will quickly realize that the
>fragments are indeed quite likely to go off in new directions.



  I agree, but Oswalds alleged `first' shot was the one the Warren
 Commission claims missed, no? Isn't this shot the one they also claim
 hit the curb? And if so, the angle from the TSBD to the limo at the
 time of the first shot would have been even more downward.




>
>How much experience do you have with marks caused by
>bullet fragments?



  None. As I stated below, from the photo, which had someones hand near
 the mark, I used that hand as a scale to come up with the possible size
 of the mark.


>
> Paul R. Busta writes:
>>It was a rather deep and long (3+") gouge in the concrete ,
>>at least that's what it looked like in the photo I saw.
>
>Was there a ruler next to the mark so that you could be
>sure how long it was? Where did you see this picture,
>anyway?



 It was in more than a few books that I have read, however I believe
 the clearest photo was in the HSCA report.



>
>According to the Warren report, "Scientific examination of
>the mark on the south curb of Main Street by FBI experts
>disclosed metal smears which, `were spectrographically
>determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony.'
>The mark on the curb could have originated from the lead
>core of a bullet but the absence of copper precluded `the
>possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made
>by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such
>as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher.'"




 Which could also mean it came from a regular, everyday lead bullet.




>
>According to Jim Marrs, the FBI report went on to say,
>"the damage to the curbing would have been much more
>extensive if a rifle bullet had struck the curbing without
>first having struck some other object."




 I agree. But the damage may have been caused by a regular lead tipped bullet
from either a rifle or handgun or the angle at which it hit the curb was
just slight enough to make the bullet ricochet.





<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 14:34:21 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 26
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10837 rec.arts.movies:52359


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Louis
 Blair) writes...

>If you could document your numbers, I and just about everyone
>would immediately agree that the Warren report belongs in
>the trash can.  Let's see how quickly you come up with some-
>thing definite.


  I don't have any references available here but I can say that the actual
 numbers were stated in High Treason by Groden/Livingstone as well as one
 or two of the other books I have read on the subject.





<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!fraser.sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 14:48:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 25

[e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:


>That's your interpretation; it doesn't seem that way to me.  At any
>rate, it doesn't matter much, since after checking it out I've
>realized that the Magic Bullet theory is true after all, and that
>there was in fact a hole in Kennedy's neck at the time that he raised
>his fists and elbows.
>--
>Brian Holtz


Which means it was the first shot that Nellie and John Connally
reacted to. Thanks for admitting that.

Since you now agree the first shot exitted Kennedy's throat ,
it must then be true that Connally was hit by the second shot ,
because it doesn't take 2-3 seconds for a bullet to travel
the space from Kennedy to Connally.

That means the third shot heard was the head shot.

Why does the Warren Commission insist one of the bullets
missed? The answer is to account for the shot that hit
the curb. Where did that fourth bullet come from?
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!fraser.sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 15:06:26 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 31

As I understand it , the 'magic' bullet theory explains
the back wound as an entrance wound , and the throat
wound as an exit wound.

The bullet supposedly went on to hit John Connally
in the back , exit from his chest , wound him in
the wrist and end up in his left thigh.

As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.

As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
as if the bullet was tumbling.

How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
2-3 feet between them.

How was it explained that a bullet fired from 6th floor
of the TSBD , travelling down , entered the Presidents back,
changed directions to go up and out of the throat ,
and then changed directions again to go down into
Connally's back?

I might buy that story if the bullet was travelling
at a very shallow angle ( 1st or second floor shot ),
and Kennedy was slightly bent over. But I can't buy
the idea that one bullet changed directions after
leaving Kennedy's throat.


Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 15:29:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 78
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>    Considering Mr Banks' method and materials, I have no
>>    doubt that he could not find a stereo effect in the pictures.
>>    To begin with, I doubt that the reproductions in Marrs' book
>>    are anything else than inferior. God knows what generation
>>    Marrs' original photos were to begin with, and probably
>>    two more generations of printing would pass before the
>>    photos appeared before Gordon's eyes. Furthermore,
>>    Mr Banks wasn't using even a rudimentary steroscope,
>>    relying instead on his eyes' peculiar talent.

>Again, you betray your lack of knowledge of stereo photography
>with such remarks.  A stereoscope is superfluous to those experienced
>with the eye-crossing technique, as anyone who is into it can tell you.

    You don't know me very well, Mr Banks. I suggest that you
    refrain from speculating about my 'knowledge'.

    However, as I noted before, the trick of getting the
    stereo effect out of a pair of photos like the
    backyard pair is in aligning the photos correctly.
    Stereo cameras make it easy; the photos are 'pre-aligned'.
    That's why I made the remark about your eye's peculiar
    talent.


>I have actually seen large blow ups of the photos which Marrs presented
>at a Symposium at the Univ. of Pittsburgh.  These are needed to see the
>airbrushed alterations made in which part of the telescopic sight is
>airbrushed out and Oswald's chin is cut off in another photo.  At
>that time, I wasn't aware of the stereo claim, so I couldn't ask
>Marrs about it.  Undoubtedly, larger reproductions that the book
>provides would help.

    I've already noted that the photos in the book are
    later generation copies of the originals, and not
    nearly as sharp or as accurate as the original photos,
    especially since they (or at leat one of them) are copied
    from the prints rather than negatives.

    As for the 'crop line' on Oswald's chin, the HSCA panel
    discovered that it is actually part of a waterstain,
    one of several on the photo, that marrs the original print.
    The stain gets transferred to later generation copies.

    I know that Life magazine airbrushed its the copies of
    the backyard photos for the cover of the magazine.
    I wonder if Marrs is using copies of those, rather than
    copies of the originals?


>Is there someplace we can find these, or
>do we rely on the words of some photo panel, who could very well
>be CIA assets?

    They could also be Illuminati, Mr Banks.

    The original photos are in the National Archives, along
    with the one surviving negative.

    Considering that the HSCA photo panel was made up
    of outside experts (from universities, private
    business, and the NYPD), I doubt that they are
    a bunch of CIA assets. But then, I think you would
    believe it.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!lll-winken!taurus!huxley![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Theories Fallen By the Wayside
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 16:57:35 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 20

On a lighter note, I occasionally come across conspiracy theories for
the assassination that haven't <ahem> stood the test of time--as
measured by continued interest in them.

> Marguerite Oswald (Lee's mother) became quite a researcher and letter
  writer. She had a house full of books and documents. One of her
  theories was that Kennedy and Connally shot each other in a political
  dispute. Cowboy vs. Yankee. Cowboy wins.

> Then I suppose everyone knows that Lee Oswald was Jack Ruby's lover.

> And the mysterious Saul, the second gunman. He was in the Dal-Tex
  building blasting away at Kennedy at the same time as Oswald. But the
  ultimate plan failed. The Secret Service was supposed to see Oswald,
  and fire away at the TSBD window. Saul had Oswald in his sights and
  was going to nail him. Oswald would fall from the window, the SS would
  get the credit. Case closed. Only the idiot SS never even pulled their
  guns.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM!male!asgarrd!merlyn
From: [e-mail] (Michael Miller - Rev. Admin.)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 18:23:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 47

(From [e-mail] (Brian Holtz))
>Fax me a copy, willya?  I've seen clips from the Nix film, and only
>its low resolution of such background figures across the street could
>ever let you hallucinate that one of them is Oswald.  Remember, there
>was also a photo of "Oswald" standing on the steps of the TSBD during
>the shooting, but turned out to be Billy somebody, who worked in the
>TSBD and was of the same build as Oswald.  Your "Oswald" is
>undoubtedly another such case.


What??? You want me to fax you a copy of my hallucination? After all it is UNDOUBTEDLY
not Oswald.  Eventhough you would be a great candidate for any future Warren Commission
type inquirys, how about I just photocopy it and send it through the inter office mail.

>>(from Michael)
>>Maybe it was an Oswald look alike planted there for some reason that
>>only the conspirators know.

>(from Brian)
>Aw, come on.  Don't you feel a little silly making statements like this?

Not as silly as saying only one bullet hit Kennedy and Connaly.  The thought occurred
to me after reading Brad Pierce's posting on MLK wherein he mentions the CIA and
using false identities.  There was speculation on some that the Oswald that went
to Russia is not the same Oswald that came back but a double.  I haven't heard to
much about that so I don't believe it, but there seems to be quite a few LHO involved
in this plot.

>You folks talk about The Conspirators like they go around in capes
>with a big "C" on their chest.

If they did, we wouldn't have to go through all this speculation.

>Is there anything The Conspirators couldn't do?

Yes, they can't make the whole country swallow that pathetic inquiry called the
Warren Commission Report.

>There _are_ strange
>splice marks in some prints of the film, but there are no missing
>frames.


You mean somebody cut the film carefully and glued it back together for no other
reason then to put cut marks on the film?  Why???

-mdm
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 17:45:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 73
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes...

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Lee Thiel) writes:

>||The TV show NOVA had this same question.  They did the scientific thing...
>||they ran some experiments.  Watermellons consistently flew backwards when
>||shot.  You can probably check this show out at your local library, Sun Coast
>||video store, or maybe even rent it at a big video store.

>|You tell us to discuss this elsewhere and then add fuel to the fire?  Which is
>|it?  Also it is incredibly stupid to assume a watermelon is the same thing as a
>|human head.  I thought even Nova knew better than that.  As I said previously,
>|I have seen many people shot in the head.  Two years as a Marine sniper in
>|Beirut gave me that unfortunate experience.  I never saw anyone go in the
>|opposite direction of the shot.

>that is most people's observation: people who get hit in the head fall forward.
>To think otherwise is pretty silly. However, even if head flys backwards, it
>does so in the opposite direction of the shot. However, Kennedy's head does
>not fly in the opposite direction of the sniper's nest in Book Store
>depository.  It flies up and to the left, as well as to the rear: exactly
>as if hit from the grassy knoll area , where more than half the witnesses
>said they heard a shot.

    'Half the witnesses', my ass. Look in the appendices in
    _Six Seconds in Dallas_, or the table of data presented
    to the HSCA (in vol 12, I believe). The vast majority
    of people could not place the shots.


    A spontaneous firing of the right motor cortex would also cause
    JFK to move backwards and to the left. The location of the
    JFK head wound would, in the 'brain jet' theory, cause JFK to
    move backward and to the left.

    Consider this:

    Remember Joe Braugher's momentum analysis? I checked Thompson's
    _Six Seconds_  and found that Braugher's numbers
    for the backward speed of JFK's head seem to be in error.
    I also found the speed of the head immediately preceeding
    the head shot. The rearward speed of the head is, according
    to Thompson, .8ft/sec to the rear. The forward speed of
    the head is 3.3ft/sec to the front. The net is 4.1ft/sec,
    more than twice the speed used by Braugher. I also screwed
    my own calulations up by not canceling out a two. It
    would be nice to plug this number into Braugher's equations
    again. Any takers?


>Copper jacketed bullets of the type Oswald was supposed to have used, typically
>leave small entrance and small exit wounds, even when people are hit in the
>head, as they at times were in WWII Italy.

    Lattimer, who was a field surgeon in the ETO during WWII,
    maintains that FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds.
     He has experimental data behind him, his the HSCA's,
    the WC's, etc.

    I don't know about anybody else, but I prefer definate
    sources and hard experimantal data to fuzzy attributions
    any day.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!sousa!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 13:09:31 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 39


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
>
>>    Numer two, there were some casings found that were from Oswald's
>>handgun, but these do not match the bullits found in Tippits body. In fact,
>>there were two types of bullits found: winchester and Colt, if my memory
>>recalls the other kind.
>
>The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from
>Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons.  The problem is
>that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in
>Tippit's body.  This is very strange, but not the sort of obvious
>slip-up that competent conspirators would commit.

   This part always bothered me. If Oswald was carrying a 6 shot revolver,
  why were there 4 spent cartridges on the ground. Semi-auto pistols eject
  the cartridge, revolvers don't.

>It's hard to see how Oswald _couldn't_ have killed Tippit, unless he
>was cooperating with a scheme to make it look like he did.  The only
>gap in our knowledge of his whereabouts after the assassination is
>precisely the amount of time it would have taken him to hurry toward
>the site of the Tippit killing.  The spent cartridges found there
>could only have been fired by the gun Oswald was caught with minutes
>later.

 Why could the spent cartridges found have only been fired from Oswalds gun?



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - dictabelt recording
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 18:10:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 79
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Acm) writes...
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Eckelman) writes:

>>>I understand that the dictabelt recording has been pretty much
>>>discredited as evidence because of a clock chime or other sound
>>>which demostrates that the tape was not made at the time of the
>>>shooting.

>>It wasn't a chime. It was Sheriff Decker's voice. He was saying,
>>`Move all men available out of my department back to the railroad
>>station yards there...to try to determine just what and where it
>>happened down there...And hold everything secure until the homicide
>>and other investigators can get here.' Since he gave this command
>>about a minute after the assassination, the noises on the tape made at
>>the same time can not be the shots that killed Kennedy.

>  Oh no, not again. Bolt,Beranek and Newman of Cambridge,Mass. analyzed the
> dictabelt and found that what was purported to be the original was really
> a copy. Somebody obviously tampered with it. They also found 4 sounds
> that were definitely attributable to gunfire and two that they stated as
> 90 percent probability of being gunshots....... read the report.

    It's obvious that the BB&N was given a copy; it is something
    of a leap to say the tape was tampered with. There wouldn't
    happen to be any other evidence of fakery, would there?

    Perhaps you should read the report again, Mr Busta. Dr James
    Barger, who conducted the study for BB&N, never said
    anything about the 'noise pulses' being '*definately*
    attributable' to gunfire. The determination that two
    shots were '90 percent probable' (the exact number is 86)
    was based on "matching" (they had a broad view of the term)
    the noise pulse trains of the dictabelt recording with
    the pulse trains of the HSCA's Dealy's firing trials.

    Barger admitted that his method for finding probabilities
    was problematic; he also admitted that no one really
    knew if the stuck microphone was in Dealy Plaza. The
    National Academy of Sciences faulted his study on both
    counts.

    It is interesting that a third study of the dictabelt
    given to the HSCA came to the conclusion that the
    'shots' were 'fired' over a minute after the
    shooting, and it didn't use the Ch 2 crosstalk
    to figure that out, either.

    It's also interesting to note that an enlargement of
    a picture of the motorcycle in question showed
    that the microphone was switched to the wrong channel.



>>The House Assassination Committee's `shots' were probably just bursts of
>>static.
>
>  `probably'? by whose account?
>
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
>Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
>        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
>        --or-- [e-mail]
>
>           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
>                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!rufus!dsteele.almaden.ibm.com!dave
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Hard Copy Interview with Oswalds Brother
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 19:35:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Distribution: usa
Lines: 29


   I had the pleasure of watching the Hard Copy interview with
   Oswalds brother on Jan 21.

   They had him view the JFK movie and then give his opinion.
   The advertisements of course claim to blow the lid off the movie
   and prove all kinds of horrible lies were in it.

   His opinion can be summarized as follows. He would prefer that
   his brother had been a lone nut who murdered the president over
   the movie plot that had him associated with homosexuals.
   Because of his homophobia, he hates the movie and believes the
   Warren Report.

   The only information that seemed new ( to me anyway ) actually supports
   the conspiracy. He claimed to have spoken with LHO after his arrest
   and when he confronted him with the reports of witnesses,  the gun etc
   LHO said something to the effect of "Don't believe all that evidence".
   So this is consistant with the claims that LHO has maintained he was
   a "patsy" til the end.

   There also followed a revolting parody of a new Stone movie that
   combined clips of JFK with Elvis.  I hope it is possible for
   Stone to sue them over this.


           Dave


Path: ns-mx!uunet!sco!scolex!hiramc
From: [e-mail] (Hiram Clawson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Seen Alive
Keywords: They have the photos and everything
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 17:12:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Account for Usenet System)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 16



'Tis the truth, I saw it at the Supermarket last night on
the front page of the "Weekly World News", photos of JFK
meeting with world leaders recently.  They also did a
metal detector check of the grave under the eternal
flame, and there is NO casket under the grave.
JFK is not dead, it was all faked.

Case closed...

--Hiram

 [*~   Hiram Clawson - Member, Technical Staff, The Santa Cruz Operation    ~*]
 [*~   P.O. Box 1900, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 - tel. [phone] ext. 7519    ~*]
 [*~ FAX: [phone], Electronic mail: uunet!sco!hiramc or [e-mail] ~*]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 20:30:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 74
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>As I understand it , the 'magic' bullet theory explains
>the back wound as an entrance wound , and the throat
>wound as an exit wound.

>The bullet supposedly went on to hit John Connally
>in the back , exit from his chest , wound him in
>the wrist and end up in his left thigh.

>As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
>and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.
>As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
>as if the bullet was tumbling.

>How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
>a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
>2-3 feet between them.
>How was it explained that a bullet fired from 6th floor
>of the TSBD , travelling down , entered the Presidents back,
>changed directions to go up and out of the throat ,
>and then changed directions again to go down into
>Connally's back?

    Remember that the base of the neck in the front is lower
    than the base of the neck in the back. JFK had an unusually
    large amount of mass on his shoulders, because of his
    swimming and his use of cortisone derivatives. The HSCA revised
    the Warren Commission's location of the back wound, placing
    it somewhat lower (the WC back wound is, I seem to remember,
    in the neck itself), but the bullet path is still more or less
    straight through the back/neck, when JFK is sitting straight up.


>I might buy that story if the bullet was travelling
>at a very shallow angle ( 1st or second floor shot ),
>and Kennedy was slightly bent over. But I can't buy
>the idea that one bullet changed directions after
>leaving Kennedy's throat.

    Kennedy was already slouching forward; this slouch can be
    seen in photos taken before the shooting started. This
    slouch apparently has something to do with JFK's
    lower back problems (which were exacerbated by his
    cortisone treatments), and the corset and bandages that
    trussed him up as he rode in the limosine. Connally
    said to JFK 'you can't say that Dallas doesn't love you
    now. [famous last words!]' right before the shooting. It is
    not unlikely that JFK was bending forward to hear him.
    Furthermore, JFK might have been reacting to Connally's
    turning around to the left. We don't know JFK's
    exact position at the time he was shot; he was behind the
    sign at the time.

            .    .    .    .

        From the I-would've-posted-this-sooner-but-
        the-server's-been-fucking-me-over department:

    On a related note, it seems that not all of the Parkland
    staff was ignorant of the back wound. Dr Jenkins discovered
    it by accident whil he was trying to support JFK's head.
    As soon as he found the back wound, he realized that the
    throat wound was an exit wound, and that the entry wound
    was in the back.
                ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!widener!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 20:43:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 9

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>     Lattimer, who was a field surgeon in the ETO during WWII,
>     maintains that FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds.

You can get an expert for any position you want. In the real world of
the law business, the other guy's expert is called the "liar for hire."

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Farewell America
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 21:29:54 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 30

Has anyone ever seen a copy of the legendary JFK conspiracy book
"Farewell America"? It was published in the late sixties in France,
Germany and Canada, but never published here in America though
copies were brought in from Canada.

The titular author was James Hepburn, but the book had composite
authorship by either French intelligence agents or the KGB using
French intelligence as a front.

The book apparently had a lot of detailed information about CIA
operations within the U.S. which made it seem as if the authors
knew what they were talking about. The book didn't name names of
assassination conspirators, but did make a case that financing was
provided by Texas oilmen and that the hit squad was made up of
Marseilles mafiosi (which was one of the points made in "The Men
Who Killed Kennedy" on A&E).

An interesting sidebar concerns RFK and his suspicions of conspiracy.
Immediately after the assassination he convened a secret committee,
headed by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York), to determine
whether the Secret Service had been part of a conspiracy. The committee
found no evidence of conspiracy, but excoriated the SS worse than the
Warren Commission did. RFK had been immediately suspicious of Jimmy
Hoffa, but the committee cleared him as well. At that point, RFK's
interest in the official investigation came to a grinding halt. When
Moynihan was asked about his role by a reporter, he said he would
respond later, but when he did he refused to comment and refused to
deny the story.

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!sdd.hp.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!watchtower!andyb
From: [e-mail] (Andy Bensky)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Gemstone Files?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 23:05:27 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 11

A friend asked me to look for any references I can find to these files or
this matter or whatever it is.  If anyone even knows what the
Gemstone Files are please let me know.

I was told that more information can be accessed from PeaceNet.  Does
anyone know how someone on the Internet can get PeaceNet access?

Thanks for the info.  Please email me directly if you can help me out.

andy
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!muvms3!rcbi27
From: [e-mail] (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Warren Commission
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 17:55:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Marshall University
Lines: 14

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tim Richardson) writes:
> Anyone ever notice that "Warren Commission", when abbreviated "WC" is
> also what most of the world would recognize as the abbreviation
> for Water Closet?

    That does it--definately a CONSPIRACY!

    --danny   ;_)

--
    "Were his solid black square paintings really,
    as the artist claimed, simply neutral, abstract
    compositions devoid of external references and
    meanings?" ***********************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 22:36:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 24

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
< In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

< >As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
< >and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.
< >As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
< >as if the bullet was tumbling.

< >How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
< >a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
< >2-3 feet between them.

What about this, Mr. Todd?

<     Connally
<     said to JFK 'you can't say that Dallas doesn't love you
<     now. [famous last words!]' right before the shooting. It is
<     not unlikely that JFK was bending forward to hear him.

You're confused. The statement was from Mrs. Connally and they can't
have been her last words because she was talking about it on Larry
King the other night.

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!convex!visser
From: [e-mail] (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Theories Fallen By the Wayside
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 01:32:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 28
Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

+>On a lighter note, I occasionally come across conspiracy theories for
+>the assassination that haven't <ahem> stood the test of time--as
+>measured by continued interest in them.

+>> Marguerite Oswald (Lee's mother) became quite a researcher and letter
+>  writer. She had a house full of books and documents. One of her
+>  theories was that Kennedy and Connally shot each other in a political
+>  dispute. Cowboy vs. Yankee. Cowboy wins.

+>> Then I suppose everyone knows that Lee Oswald was Jack Ruby's lover.

+>> And the mysterious Saul, the second gunman. He was in the Dal-Tex
+>  building blasting away at Kennedy at the same time as Oswald. But the
+>  ultimate plan failed. The Secret Service was supposed to see Oswald,
+>  and fire away at the TSBD window. Saul had Oswald in his sights and
+>  was going to nail him. Oswald would fall from the window, the SS would
+>  get the credit. Case closed. Only the idiot SS never even pulled their
+>  guns.

    Don't forget the Jackie Kennedy did the head shot theory.

    Or the CIA implanting a bomb in his head at some point and
    detonating it in Dallas.

    Or Bobby Kennedy plotting with Hoover to Kill JFK to
    save themselves from a mafia hit.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!fraser.sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 02:15:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 53

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>As I understand it , the 'magic' bullet theory explains
>>the back wound as an entrance wound , and the throat
>>wound as an exit wound.

>>The bullet supposedly went on to hit John Connally
>>in the back , exit from his chest , wound him in
>>the wrist and end up in his left thigh.

>>As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
>>and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.
>>As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
>>as if the bullet was tumbling.

>>How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
>>a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
>>2-3 feet between them.

>>[...magic bullet direction changes...]


>    On a related note, it seems that not all of the Parkland
>    staff was ignorant of the back wound. Dr Jenkins discovered
>    it by accident whil he was trying to support JFK's head.
>    As soon as he found the back wound, he realized that the
>    throat wound was an exit wound, and that the entry wound
>    was in the back.
>

Are you trying to say that the ONLY reason they thought the throat
wound was an exit wound was because they found the back wound?

Are you trying to say that there was no physical evidence that
the throat wound was an exit wound?

Are you saying they described the throat wound as an exit
wound because it fit the TSBD / Oswald as Lone Gunman theory?

Are you saying that the throat wound was so clean and circular --
with no characteristics of an exit wound -- that :

a) It could have been an entrance wound.

or

b) If it was an exit wound there is no way that it was tumbling
   when it left Kennedy's throat , thereby making it damned
   unlikely it was the tumbling bullet that hit John Connally
   in the back causing an oblong entrance wound.

Thanks for the above revealing tidbit of information.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!fraser.sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 02:27:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 15

[e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>     Lattimer, who was a field surgeon in the ETO during WWII,
>>     maintains that FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds.

>You can get an expert for any position you want. In the real world of
>the law business, the other guy's expert is called the "liar for hire."

If FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds -- why was the throat wound
so clean? Ignore the results of the tracheotomy which made a mess
of the throat wound.

You can't have it both ways Mitchell.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!inqmind.bison.mb.ca!turtle
From: [e-mail] (Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK BOOKS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 06:17:11 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: The Inquiring Mind  1 204 488-1607
Lines: 107

To all,

      Following is a list of 4 books I recently read on the JFK
assassination.  Thought I would share the reviews with those
interested in doing a little extra reading.  If you have any
comments please e-mail to my address since my location does not
receive the alt.conspiracy feed.

      Also, since I am interested in any talk regarding the JFK
assassination and STONE's new movie would it be possible for some
kind sole to forward a few articles from this group to me via
e-mail.  Thanks.

*******************************************************************

                  JFK Assassination Books

Crime of the Century, by Michael L. Kurtz, University of Tennessee
press, 1982 (Lib. - 973.922092 KUR).

Written by a historian who has made a subjective analysis of the
evidence surrounding the assassination of US President John F.
Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.  Kurtz's conclusion is that the findings
of the Warren Commission were wrong and that there are many
questions regarding the assassination which remain unanswered.  He
concludes that the assassination was a conspiracy, probably
supported by the Cuban Government.  He also comes up with one
additional conclusion that I had not previously heard.  Kurtz
determines that the President was struck with three bullets, one
in the back and **TWO** in the head.  He feels that the first head
shot came from the area of the Grassy Knoll and propelled Kennedy
backward.  JFK was then almost immediately struck by a second shot
to the back of his head.  This shot drove him forward onto the seat
of the car.  Remember the photo of the car pulling up to Parkland
Hospital with the President's foot hanging out of the back seat.
Ever wonder how he got into that position?


Final Disclosure, by David W. Belin, Charles Scribner's Sons, New
York, 1988 (Lib. - 973.922 KENNEDY).

David Belin was a special council to the Warren Commission and was
in charge of gathering and analyzing some of the evidence for the
Commission.  Of course he supports the findings of the Warren
Commission and concludes that Oswald was the lone assassin.  He's
uncertain if Oswald indeed acted alone and states that some form
of conspiracy may have existed, but he is certain that Oswald alone
killed Kennedy and Dallas policeman Tippet.  The evidence is
incontrovertible!!


A Heritage of Stone, by Jim Garrison, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York,
1970 (Lib. - 364.152 GAR).

Garrison was the District Attorney of New Orleans at the time of
the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and in 1967 launched
his own investigation into the assassination of Kennedy.  He was
convinced that the Warren Commission was a farce and that there was
definitely a conspiracy involved in the killing of the President.
He concentrated his investigation in the New Orleans area where
Oswald lived in the summer of 1963, a few months before moving to
Dallas to become the "patsy".  Garrison's theory is that several
factions of the government from the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas
Police, and Lynden Johnson to the National Defense Industrial
Complex were responsible for the assassination plot and that it was
carried out, not by Oswald, by a group of hired guns.  Oswald may
have been involved to some extent but never did any actual
shooting.  Garrison's investigation centred around two New Orleans
citizens David Ferrie and Clay Shaw.  Shortly after Ferrie's death
from an apparent suicide Shaw was indicted for conspiring to kill
the President.  Garrison's investigation and the trial itself was
pretty much of a circus, and Shaw was eventually acquitted,
however, to this date it remains the only public prosecution in the
murder of John F. Kennedy.  Recently, produce Oliver Stone has
dramatized the Garrison investigation and the former district
attorney's conspiracy theories in the movie JFK, a must see for all
conspiracy advocates.  It has recently been reported that the movie
may be successful in convincing Congress to open many of the sealed
Government files on the JFK assassination.  Keep your fingers
crossed.


Counterplot, by Edward Jay Epstein, The Viking Press, New York,
1968, 1969 (Lib. - 364.152 EPS).

Epstein presents an in depth analysis of New Orleans District
Attorney Jim Garrison's theories and methods of operation.  He
exposes many of Garrison's errors and the ways he abused his power
in order to further his investigation into the conspiracy to murder
President John F. Kennedy.  Epstein exposes the unusual methods
Garrison used to obtain testimony and gather evidence and then
criticizes his conclusions.  Apparently Garrison used hypnosis and
lie detectors to test many of his witness.  Garrison felt this was
a radical new approach to investigation that would insure
acceptance of his theories.  In fact, many critics claim that much
of the "evidence" Garrison claims to have uncovered was
manufactured in the minds of his witness while they were under the
influence of hypnosis.  Think about it.

******************************************************************

Any comments, please e-mail to  "[e-mail]"

      --Barry

[e-mail]
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 04:28:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Tim Richardson) writes:

>=what is the name of someone who died after naming Shaw?
>
>Try David Ferrie.

I don't think so.  To whom did Ferrie allegedly denounce Shaw?  Try again.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 04:34:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>   This part always bothered me. If Oswald was carrying a 6 shot revolver,
>  why were there 4 spent cartridges on the ground. Semi-auto pistols eject
>  the cartridge, revolvers don't.

The witnesses saw Oswald eject the cartridges and reload as he left
the scene.  The cartridges found were revolver cartridges.

> Why could the spent cartridges found have only been fired from Oswalds gun?

I think it's because the cylinder and firing pin leave distinctive
marks on the cartridge.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Summary: If no Magic Bullet, where did the other bullet end up?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 04:56:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 49
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>realized that the Magic Bullet theory is true after all, and that
>>there was in fact a hole in Kennedy's neck at the time that he raised
>>his fists and elbows.
>
>Which means it was the first shot that Nellie and John Connally
>reacted to.

Non sequitor.

>Since you now agree the first shot exitted Kennedy's throat ,

I never said the first shot exited Kennedy's throat; I said
_a_ shot exited Kennedy's throat.  I think it's more likely that it
was the second shot.

>it must then be true that Connally was hit by the second shot ,
>because it doesn't take 2-3 seconds for a bullet to travel
>the space from Kennedy to Connally.

You're assuming that Connally reacted as soon as the bullet struck
him.  Bad assumption.

>That means the third shot heard was the head shot.

The last shot was undoubtedly the head shot.  I know of no witnesses
who heard more shots after the gruesome head shot.

>Why does the Warren Commission insist one of the bullets
>missed? The answer is to account for the shot that hit
>the curb.

Completely wrong.  The WC insisted one bullet missed because a) it did
not think the Zapruder film allows enough time for two separate shots
to hit Kennedy and Connally, b) the Kennedy and Connally wounds can
really only be explained if the same bullet caused them, and c) only
one bullet was found, even though the non-JFK-head-wounds should not
have destroyed any of the bullet(s) that caused them.  If the Magic
Bullet theory is false, where did the other non-head-shot bullet
disappear to?

>Where did that fourth bullet come from?

There was no fourth bullet.  The curb nick was too slight and too
copper-free to have been caused by an pristine impact by a rifle
bullet.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 05:25:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 45
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>  From looking at overhead photos of the area it appeared to me that
> the angle from the TSBD to the limo to the curb was not in any way
> a straight line. If the mark was caused by a bullet fragment, then
> I would have to admit after deflecting off of whatever it hit, it
> could possibly have reached that section of curb.

It looks to me like a fragment would only have to make a 15-degree
right turn to reach the curb nick.  Kennedy was hit in the right side
of the head.

>  I agree, but Oswalds alleged `first' shot was the one the Warren
> Commission claims missed, no?

They never committed themselves on the issue, but it's most likely
that it was the first shot that missed.

> Isn't this shot the one they also claim hit the curb?

No!  The FBI told the WC that the mark was too slight to have been
caused by an unimpeded rifle shot.

>>the absence of copper precluded `the
>>possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made
>>by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such
>>as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher.'"
>
> Which could also mean it came from a regular, everyday lead bullet.

Or from the lead core of the copper-jacketed bullets Oswald was using
that day.  There is no evidence of non-jacketed bullets being fired in
Dealey Plaza that day.

>>"the damage to the curbing would have been much more
>>extensive if a rifle bullet had struck the curbing without
>>first having struck some other object."
>
> I agree. But the damage may have been caused by a regular lead tipped bullet
>from either a rifle or handgun or the angle at which it hit the curb was
>just slight enough to make the bullet ricochet.

Res non multiplicandum est.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 05:35:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,

This can be explained by the skin around the exit wound being
supported against tearing by the collar and tie.

>As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
>as if the bullet was tumbling.
>
>How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
>a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
>2-3 feet between them.

Somebody posted the mathematics of this a few days ago, and it seemed
reasonable.  I would also note that perhaps tumbling is more likely to
set in during media transitions (e.g., neck -> air).

>How was it explained that a bullet fired from 6th floor
>of the TSBD , travelling down , entered the Presidents back,
>changed directions to go up and out of the throat ,

This was one of my biggest problems with the Magic Bullet theory,
until I used two mirrors to look at myself sideways.  The bottom of
the neck's front is definitely lower than the bottom of the neck's
back.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee?
Summary: And clearences too.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 06:01:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 56


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|
||try to produce references for your claims....)  The CIA naturally had
||a 201 file opened on Lee Harvey Oswald, since as a defector he was of
||potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance.  But Lee
||Harvey Oswald never worked for the CIA.
|
|Isn't a 201 file a personnel file, and not an investigative subject file?

Holtz, in a later article, claims that the file is opend when the CIA
has "potential for significant information" or something like that.

The evidence that Oswald was a CIA or Intelligence person seems pretty
good.

First of all, his employer in California is quoted as saying that all his
employees had secret, not confedential clearences. Oswald was one of these.
Second, he was able to gather important evidence about the U2 spy plane,
despite Holtz's claim he was just a low level employee. He would be able
to provide information about the hight of the U2, how it landed and took
off, what it looked like, and various other things about it. He could
get related information on supplies and spare parts for it. In fact,
the plane was stored in the same building as the supplies of the Radar
tower were in. Oswald was also seen taking notes and pictures around
the base. Oswald's "comrads" knew a lot about the U2, and said so
publicly to a reporter.
    Note that the U2 is owned, and operated by, the CIA.
    At his job in California, he knew secret codes, communications
frequencies, and assorted things that would be very valuble to the
Soviets.
    Yet, after defecting, he is not debriefed by the FBI, or CIA, or
whoever handles these things for the previous 10 defectors. Instead, gets
a job for a firm that contracts for the defense department.  This makes no
sense. In fact, in order to get into the USSR, who initialy refuses to
take him, he walks into the American embassay and says to th consulate
that he is going to give the USSR military secrets. Whatever these are,
and he certainly must have *some* with even a confidential clearence,
he should be tried for treason. Instead, he is let out of the country,
in fact subsidized, and meets up with the very consulate officer
that he threatend to give away american secrets to.
    His ability to get visas is incredible. He even *goes* back to the
USSR another time, comes out with no hassles, and settles in New Orleans.
He heads a chapter of the FPCC (?) which later is discoverd that the
organization is infiltrated by the CIA. Was it Oswald's chapter? No one
knows.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!bigtex!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Remarkable Windshield
Keywords: I wish I had one of these on MY car!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 92 06:31:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Charles Blair) writes:

>> No witness's memory or descriptions are ever faulty in Mr.
>>Lifton's world.  It must have been a rude shock to him when his
>>Parkland doctors retracted their contradictory descriptions after
>>seeing the autopsy photos.
>
>   I would be interested in specific references (eg congressional hearings?)
>on this.

In the mid-to-late-80's (maybe 87, the 25th anniversary) Walter
Cronkite narrated a Nova episode that got permission to show the
autopsy photos to the Parkland doctors.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 12:14:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 25


This "debate" that Brian Holtz and I started a while back dealing with the
Oswald rifle that was so srewed up that it couldn't even be test fired without
being modified was started when I presented "evidence" that comes not from
"JFK, CROSSFIRE" or any other "looney piece of trash."

All the evidence that I presented in my original post is within the 26 volumes
of the Warren Report itself (right next to the pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald's
pubic hair.).

It is interesting to note Mr. Holtz' theory that LHO "dropped the gun."
It is by far a greater argument than ANY offered by the commission members or
the "government experts" who had to test the weapon.  They simply ignored the
evidence and "hid" it within the un-indexed, seemingly disorganized report.

Mr. Holt has the right to beleive whatever he wants, but the "SPECULATION"
that LHO dropped his weapon carries no official recognition.

I presented this information as an example of the "selective" (and at best
"weak") information that was released to the public for the sole purpose of
convicting LHO in public.


--Dusty
in L.A.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 13:45:16 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 57


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
 Holtz) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>>|The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from
>>|Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons.  The problem is
>>|that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in
>>|Tippit's body.

    Definitely fired from Oswalds pistol? How did you come to this conclusion?
  I read that they could not match the casings or the bullets recovered from
  Tippits body to Oswalds revolver....


>No -- the empty catridges at the scene were fired from the pistol
>found on Oswald thirty minutes later.  Oswald was arrested six blocks
>away.  His whereabouts during the murder are unknown -- except for the
>fact that he had to have been passing through the area.

  Empty cartridges found on the scene. Tell me, why would there have been
 empty cartridges found on the scene? Oswald alledgely used a revolver which
 doesn't eject its spent cartridges like a semi-auto pistol would. Did Oswald
 fire four shots into Tippit, remove the four empty cartridges, leaving two
 live rounds, and toss them on the ground to leave some evidence for the DPD?
 Sounds just a little shakey to me.......


>>(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found
>>on the ground.
>
>If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the
>pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it?

  Say what you will, but there is no proof.....


>>|...  The spent cartridges found there could only have been fired by
>>|the gun Oswald was caught with minutes later.
>>
>>Why do you say that?
>
>Hurt says it is "indisputable".  The firing pin and cylinder of a
>pistol uniquely mark a cartridge when it is fired.

 A semi-auto pistol that ejects its' empty cartridges, yes. A revolver leaves
no marks on the casing and only one small round dent from the firing pin on the
primer.....

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 15:24:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 24
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Locke) writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>     Lattimer, who was a field surgeon in the ETO during WWII,
>>     maintains that FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds.

>You can get an expert for any position you want. In the real world of
>the law business, the other guy's expert is called the "liar for hire."

    That's true, but it doesn't refute any thing Lattimer has
    said, now does it? Especially when you consider that Lattimer
    did his own research for his own reasons using his own time
    and his own money.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Summary: The 50 cent tour of terminal ballistics.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 15:52:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 67
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

>>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>>     Lattimer, who was a field surgeon in the ETO during WWII,
>>>     maintains that FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds.

>>You can get an expert for any position you want. In the real world of
>>the law business, the other guy's expert is called the "liar for hire."

>If FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds -- why was the throat wound
>so clean? Ignore the results of the tracheotomy which made a mess
>of the throat wound.
>You can't have it both ways Mitchell.

    How many times have I gone over this?

    To begin with, the context of the original post deals
    with the head wound. When a bullet passes through the
    body, it creates a massive compression (or 'shock', though
    this term is somewhat misleading) wave. The compression
    wave causes the soft flesh around the bullet's path to
    rebound outward, creating what is known as a 'temporary
    cavity', which soon closes as the energy from the
    bullet is absorbed throughout the body, forming the permanent
    cavity. A typical temporary cavity may be 25 times the
    diameter of the permanent cavity.

    Of course, bone isn't soft flesh; bone is far more brittle
    and less able to absorb the compression wave's energy by
    distorting. In the skull, for this reason, and a few others,
    like the geometry and thickness of the skull, the energy is
    released as the skull cracks and breaks over an area of
    the scale of the temporary cavity in the braincase.
    Since the wound in JFK's head is more or less tangential
    to the path of the bullet, a very large exit wound is to
    be expected.

    Exit wounds in fleshy areas are a little different. Soft flesh
    is capable of a suprising degree of distention; also, there
    is additional flesh surrounding the the temporary cavity that
    supports the distended material, helping to prevent the
    flesh of the t.c. from tearing. At the exit, the skin and the
    flesh just under it are not so supported, and they tear.
    In some cases, however, external things can support the
    skin preventing the tearing commonly associated with an
    exit wound, like certain types of clothing. The collar of
    a dress shirt --and the throat wound was well within the
    band of his collar-- is just such a thing. Lattimer believed
    that JFK's collar had, in fact, prevented a large, torn
    exit wound at the throat; he'd seen this happen in WWII.
    His firing trials prove his theory. they're written up
    in _Kennedy and Lincoln_.

    Sometimes, you can have it both ways.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:01:12 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 42


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
 Holtz) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>   This part always bothered me. If Oswald was carrying a 6 shot revolver,
>>  why were there 4 spent cartridges on the ground. Semi-auto pistols eject
>>  the cartridge, revolvers don't.
>
>The witnesses saw Oswald eject the cartridges and reload as he left
>the scene.  The cartridges found were revolver cartridges.

  Ahhhh, so here's a man who just allegedly shot the President and a cop and
 after the fact, as he leaves the scene, he removes only 4 spent cartridges
 from his revolver leaving 2 live rounds and reloads. Give me a break, Mr.
 Holtz. Anyone who has handled guns, (and I have for over 20 years), knows
 how completely absurd that sounds. Did he leave the casings to make it
 easier for the DPD to make a case against him?

  As for the cartridges being `revolver' cartridges, a cartridge is a cartridge
 is a cartridge. No difference whether revolver or semi-auto....
>
>> Why could the spent cartridges found have only been fired from Oswalds gun?
>
>I think it's because the cylinder and firing pin leave distinctive
>marks on the cartridge.

  I've already addressed that also. The cylinder leaves no mark and the firing
 pin mark would be the same as any other guns firing pin mark unless of course
 there was some deformity of the pin due to being misused in some manner which
 is highly, highly, unlikely.....

  A semi-auto will leave marks on the cartridge as it ejects them....

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:16:29 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 53


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
 Holtz) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>  I agree, but Oswalds alleged `first' shot was the one the Warren
>> Commission claims missed, no?
>
>They never committed themselves on the issue, but it's most likely
>that it was the first shot that missed.
>
>> Isn't this shot the one they also claim hit the curb?
>
>No!  The FBI told the WC that the mark was too slight to have been
>caused by an unimpeded rifle shot.

  I see. The Warren Commission must have been mistaken........


>
>>>the absence of copper precluded `the
>>>possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made
>>>by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such
>>>as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher.'"
>>
>> Which could also mean it came from a regular, everyday lead bullet.
>
>Or from the lead core of the copper-jacketed bullets Oswald was using
>that day.  There is no evidence of non-jacketed bullets being fired in
>Dealey Plaza that day.



  Let's see. Copper is much harder than lead, yet the copper jacketing
 shatters and sprays all over the place after hitting JFK in the head but
 a chunk of lead from that bullet remains large enough to go through the
 limosine windshield and take out a big enough piece of curb to throw
 cement debris in the face of bystander James Tague which causes him to
 bleed.......


  And you think the conspiracy theorists are nuts????....




<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:09:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 80
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Locke) writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>< In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>< >As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
>< >and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.
>< >As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
>< >as if the bullet was tumbling.

>< >How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
>< >a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
>< >2-3 feet between them.

>What about this, Mr. Todd?

    Bullet's aren't exactly leisurely in their tumbles.

    OK, let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.
    Per Lattimer's diagrams, the throat wound is consistent with
    the bullet yawing up to about 15 degrees as it exited the
    throat. Now, the bullet passed through about 6 inches of
    JFK. Assuming that the rate of tumble is a linear function
    of the amount of flesh a bullet passes through, a rough
    maximum estimate of the rate of tumble as the bullet
    exits JFK's throat is 30 deg/ft. Using this:

        A(ngle of bullet striking JBC's back)=
        R(ate of tumble)*D(istance)+I(tnital amount
        of [Y]aw).

        R=30 deg/ft
             D=2 and 3 ft
        IY= 15 deg

    Plugging it in:

        A=30deg/ft * 2 ft + 15 deg
        A=75deg

    and:

        A=30deg/ft * 3ft + 15deg
        A=105deg

    The wound in JBC's back is fully consistent with these
    rough figures. Actually, It's probable that the IY is
    less than 15 deg, and R is greater than 30deg/ft.

    Furthermore Lattimer, in his firing trials, placed a
    piece of cardboard in front of his artifical 'Kennedy'
    neck so that the distance between the two was the
    same as the distance between JFK and JBC. The bullet
    holes in the cardboard matched the wound in Connally.


><     Connally
><     said to JFK 'you can't say that Dallas doesn't love you
><     now. [famous last words!]' right before the shooting. It is
><     not unlikely that JFK was bending forward to hear him.

>You're confused. The statement was from Mrs. Connally and they can't
>have been her last words because she was talking about it on Larry
>King the other night.

    Perhaps I was.

    The term 'famous last words' connotes not only the ironic
    last words of a dying person, but also the 'last words'
    said before a disaster of whatever magnatude.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Theories Fallen By the Wayside
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:36:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 45
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lance Visser) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

>+>On a lighter note, I occasionally come across conspiracy theories for
>+>the assassination that haven't <ahem> stood the test of time--as
>+>measured by continued interest in them.

>+>> Marguerite Oswald (Lee's mother) became quite a researcher and letter
>+>  writer. She had a house full of books and documents. One of her
>+>  theories was that Kennedy and Connally shot each other in a political
>+>  dispute. Cowboy vs. Yankee. Cowboy wins.

>+>> Then I suppose everyone knows that Lee Oswald was Jack Ruby's lover.

>+>> And the mysterious Saul, the second gunman. He was in the Dal-Tex
>+>  building blasting away at Kennedy at the same time as Oswald. But the
>+>  ultimate plan failed. The Secret Service was supposed to see Oswald,
>+>  and fire away at the TSBD window. Saul had Oswald in his sights and
>+>  was going to nail him. Oswald would fall from the window, the SS would
>+>  get the credit. Case closed. Only the idiot SS never even pulled their
>+>  guns.

>    Don't forget the Jackie Kennedy did the head shot theory.

>    Or the CIA implanting a bomb in his head at some point and
>    detonating it in Dallas.

>    Or Bobby Kennedy plotting with Hoover to Kill JFK to
>    save themselves from a mafia hit.

    Or, the plot was executed by the surviving Diems to
    avenge President Diem's death during the '63 coup.

    Or, CHUCK JONES KILLED JFK!!!!

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!tamsun!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:29:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 94
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>>As I understand it , the 'magic' bullet theory explains
>>>the back wound as an entrance wound , and the throat
>>>wound as an exit wound.
>>>The bullet supposedly went on to hit John Connally
>>>in the back , exit from his chest , wound him in
>>>the wrist and end up in his left thigh.

>>>As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
>>>and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.
>>>As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
>>>as if the bullet was tumbling.

>>>[...magic bullet direction changes...]

>>    On a related note, it seems that not all of the Parkland
>>    staff was ignorant of the back wound. Dr Jenkins discovered
>>    it by accident while he was trying to support JFK's head.
>>    As soon as he found the back wound, he realized that the
>>    throat wound was an exit wound, and that the entry wound
>>    was in the back.

>Are you trying to say that the ONLY reason they thought the throat
>wound was an exit wound was because they found the back wound?
>Are you trying to say that there was no physical evidence that
>the throat wound was an exit wound?

    No. 'They', by which I assume you mean the members of
    the Parkland staff other than Jenkins, didn't know
    about the hole in the back. They thought that the throat
    wound was an entry wound. They saw a hole that wasn't
    an obvious exit wound, and they knew of no other
    holes on the other side of the body. Since bullets
    don't magically appear in people and make their way out,
    It's not suprising that they would conclude that the
    throat wound was an entry.

    The main piece of evidence for the throat wound being
    an entry is it's small size. Generally, one would
    expect a larger exit from a high powered rifle.
    Of course, the exit wound in JFK's throat falls
    under the 'exception' category, for reasons that
    I have already mentioned.

    Bullet entries into a body cause what is known as an
    'abrasion collar' around the wound. this is caused by
    the friction of the bullet against the skin as it
    penetrates the skin. I've found no mention of such a
    feature in the Parkalnd reports.


>Are you saying they described the throat wound as an exit
>wound because it fit the TSBD / Oswald as Lone Gunman theory?

    Not at all. Either you seem to be reading too much into what
    I've said, or I'm not doing a good enough job of getting
    my point across.


>Are you saying that the throat wound was so clean and circular --
>with no characteristics of an exit wound -- that :

>a) It could have been an entrance wound.
>or
>b) If it was an exit wound there is no way that it was tumbling
>   when it left Kennedy's throat , thereby making it damned
>   unlikely it was the tumbling bullet that hit John Connally
>   in the back causing an oblong entrance wound.

>Thanks for the above revealing tidbit of information.

    You are reading to much into what I've said.

    The descriptions of the throat wound have it
    as oblong, Mr Schuck. The account of one of
    the docctors describes it as 'ragged'. While
    the words 'roughly circular' do appear, it is
    obvious that the throat wound was not 'so
    clean and circular' as you would like to believe.


                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 19:00:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 174


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
||||Also, there were two witnesses who said that
||||two people shot Tippet, and that one was heavier than Oswald.
|||
|||You mean Acquilla Clemmons?  She simply said that there were two men
|||beside the police car, but that only one had a gun.
||
||No. Acquilla Clemmons says she saw one man who shot Tippet, the other just
||stood around.
|
|Exactly what I said!  Only one man shot Tippet.

In any case, her story does not match up to the WC.

||If you throw out the witness
||testimony, and the bullets are not matched to the gun, then all you have is
||the fact that the murder and Oswald bought similiar bullets.
|
|No -- the empty catridges at the scene were fired from the pistol

You only have cartiridges fired from Oswald's gun.

||(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found
||on the ground.
|
|If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the
|pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it?

Only one shell was found. Then, weeks later, the Dallas police suddenly
discover 3 more.

|||Less than mile in about 12 minutes?  Not too unlikely for someone
|||trying to put distance between himself and the residence of a
|||Presidential assassin.
||
||He did not run, according to the WC, and further, where was he going?
|
|I don't know that he'd have had to run to cover the distance in 12
|minutes.  I don't know where he was going.  He wound up in a nearby
|theater.

|||The police radio log shows that he was ordered to go there.
||
||But why was he orderd there?
|
|The log only lists who was ordered to go where; it doesn't say why.

Exactly. Every other cop was sent to the airport, Dealy plaza, or the Parkland
hospital.

|||"White male, approximately thirty, slender build, 5'10", 165 lbs." is
|||pretty accurate.  And Oswald would have been walking at a pretty good
|||clip to get there, making him even more conspicuous.
||
||That matches thousands of people in Dallas that day.
|
|How many of those thousands happened to be seen by a cop while they
|were hurrying down a residential sidewalk?

Then why would Oswald be hurrying? Consider. He shoots Kennedy, and leaves
the TSBD. He does so without being hurried, and must have noticed that other
employees were leaving. He believes, at this point, according to the WC
story, that no one has anything on him. So where was he going? What was he
doing?

| Still, the match was
|unsurprising enough for Tippit to be casual in his dealings with
|Oswald: first talking to him through the passenger window, then
|casually approaching him around the front of his squad car.


This makes no sense. If Tippit did not have any evidence that Oswald was
the Killer, then why would Oswald shoot Tippit?

|||"Just as
|||tantalizing is the report that Oswald and Tippit were seen together on
|||at least one earlier occassion, but no known reports of such an
|||association can be established."
||
||By  estabilshed he means more than witness testimony.
|
|Or, more than _one_ witness.  I think the Oswald/Tippit story is just
|the fantasy of one nightclub denizen.

Fine. But the star witness for the Tippit murder gives outright conflicting
evidence, but you seem to believe her.

||Tippet casually walked
||up and engaged in friendly conversation.
|
|Which is what you'd expect from a cop casually making sure that, no,
|of course you weren't in Dealey Plaza a half hour ago, ok, just show
|me some ID, I'll take your name, keep an eye out for somebody nervous
|matching your description, see ya later.  Oswald could not afford to
|let such a conversation get underway.

He could easily afford it.

|||...  The spent cartridges found there could only have been fired by
|||the gun Oswald was caught with minutes later.
||
||Why do you say that?
|
|Hurt says it is "indisputable".  The firing pin and cylinder of a
|pistol uniquely mark a cartridge when it is fired.

I will have to look into this.

||| He was seen at the scene by nine people.
||
||" of the nine witnesses, only one actually saw the shooting. "
|
|Hmm.  Hurt says "at least two witnesses claimed in some fashion that
|they watched Oswald shoot Tippit."  Forgive the rest for only looking
|up after the shooting stopped.
|
||The one
||who did see the shooting could not pick Oswald out of a line up, untill
||lead on by the prosecuting attorney. He had to ask 4 times,
|
|No.  She picked Oswald out of the line-up.  Later, in front of the
|Warren Commission, she was asked repeateldy if she "recognized" anybody in the
|line-up, and her responses sound to me like she might have thought she
|was being asked whether anyone in the line-up was an acquaintance of
|hers: "I didn't know anybody".  Seconds later, she affirmed "Number
|two is the one I picked."

She was led on by the prosecutor. She had to be coaxed into picking Oswald.
The actual police line up was biased against Oswald. He was beat up and
bruised, put in with people who looked nothing like him, and a witness
could hear him shout that he was being framed.

Again, 4 times the prosecutor had to ask. You are only quoting part of the
testimony. The prosecutor asks "Did you recognize anyone in the line-up" The
witness says no. After being led on, Markham says, "..When I saw this man *I
wasn't sure*, but I had cold chills just run all over me". Great witness.

||Kurtz goes on to say that the nine witnesses
||had conflicting stories.
|
|In any significant way?  I'd be surprised if nine people described
|something the same way.

Of course. Just pick the witness you want.

||Another witness, Domingo Benavides, siad that it was not Oswald too.
|
|Hurt says he "could not identify Oswald as the gunman".  Do you want
|me to explain the difference?

If you assume reasonable doubt is assessing the evidence against Oswald, then
there should be no difference.

||Another who identified Oswald from a photograph did so after originally
||saying he didn't --changing his story after getting shot in the head.
|
|Before, he had said that he was "of the opinion" that the fleeing
|gunman was Oswald, though he could not "definitely identify" him.
|After the shooting, he was more sure.  So his story got stronger, but
|it did not flip-flop.

What a nit picker. He changed his story.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 19:05:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 61


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
|||I'd like to know: why were "shims" needed?  Didn't the scope have
|||the usual adjustment screws?  What sort of forces does it take to
|||screw up such a scope in the way that Oswald's was screwed up?  Was
|||the true aim point even within the area visible through the scope,
|||so that Oswald could have learned to compensate?
||
||I think this train of thought doesn't really lead anywhere.
|
|Hah!  You mean you don't care to know whether Oswald's sight could
|have been screwed up by the way he stashed it?  Yer really dedicated
|to truth, there, Mr. Wright.

No, I meant that the train of thought you were/are developing is worthless.
The sights could have been messed up or not, we don't know, we will never
know, and it is unimportant.

||how do you hold a hat with a smashed wrist?
|
|For two seconds?  Put a hat in your hand, hold still, and I'll show
|you. :)

How do you hold a had with a smashed wrist?

|||Not _too_ fantastic.  Obviously, _some_body was able to hit JFK from
|||behind with at least one rifle bullet.
||
||I think there were two people in the TSBD, or one person in another building.
|
|An extra guy in the TSBD doesn't make for a more accurate shot, and
|every other building was either further away or presented a transverse
|target at equivalent range.

It was fantastic. Two shooters shooting would have a greater chance for the
hit, especially if they were sing better rifles.

||They arrested someone who went in and said he used the phone, on the *third*
||floor. Then they just released him.
|
|Yes.  Jim Braden.  He was in town on oil business.  I know of no weapons
|found either on him or in the Dal-Tex building that he had been in.

He was not on oil business. He had a rap sheet a mile long.

|Mitchell says Lattimer's son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting.

I doubt this, and wonder why we should believe Lattimer's son over the
three other tests conducted by people who had no incentive to produce
negative results?
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!sousa!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 14:36:52 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 29


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
 Holtz) writes...

>  In fact, they've been so thorough that in one picture,
>what was always thought to have been a low mound of dirt was actually
>a G.I. who had managed to flatten after the very first shot, and who
>shipped out to Alaska a day or two later without giving his name to
>anyone official.

   The G.I.s name is Gordon Arnold. This is the same man who stated that the
  reason he hit the deck was because a bullet came whizzing past his head
  from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. He also stated that he had
  his mothers 8mm movie camera and was filming the motorcade as it passed.
   Shortly after he hit the ground, a man in police uniform approached him,
  asked if he was filming, when he replied that he was, the `officer' took the
  camera, removed the film, threw the camera on the ground, gave Arnold a kick,
  and walked away.

   This interview is on videotape.....

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!sousa!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - dictabelt recording
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 14:57:40 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 66


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitchell
S Todd) writes...

>    Perhaps you should read the report again, Mr Busta. Dr James
>    Barger, who conducted the study for BB&N, never said
>    anything about the 'noise pulses' being '*definately*
>    attributable' to gunfire. The determination that two
>    shots were '90 percent probable' (the exact number is 86)
>    was based on "matching" (they had a broad view of the term)
>    the noise pulse trains of the dictabelt recording with
>    the pulse trains of the HSCA's Dealy's firing trials.



      And they matched, did they not?


>
>    Barger admitted that his method for finding probabilities
>    was problematic; he also admitted that no one really
>    knew if the stuck microphone was in Dealy Plaza. The
>    National Academy of Sciences faulted his study on both
>    counts.


      If it wasn't in Dealy plaza, then tell me, how do you explain
     the fact that the shots on the dictabelt match the reactions on the
     Zapruder film timewise. They fit perfectly.....


>
>    It is interesting that a third study of the dictabelt
>    given to the HSCA came to the conclusion that the
>    'shots' were 'fired' over a minute after the
>    shooting, and it didn't use the Ch 2 crosstalk
>    to figure that out, either.



       Wow! If that is the case, it's one hell of a coincidence that the `shots'
      did match the reactions in the Zapruder film......



>
>    It's also interesting to note that an enlargement of
>    a picture of the motorcycle in question showed
>    that the microphone was switched to the wrong channel.



        Who came to the conclusion and how did they come to the conclusion
      that this particular bike was the one with the stuck microphone?




<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 19:35:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 72


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
|
||In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Terry Lee Thiel) writes:
|
||||The TV show NOVA had this same question.  They did the scientific thing...
||||they ran some experiments.  Watermellons consistently flew backwards when
||||shot.  You can probably check this show out at your local library, Sun Coast
||||video store, or maybe even rent it at a big video store.
|
|||You tell us to discuss this elsewhere and then add fuel to the fire?  Which is
|||it?  Also it is incredibly stupid to assume a watermelon is the same thing as a
|||human head.  I thought even Nova knew better than that.  As I said previously,
|||I have seen many people shot in the head.  Two years as a Marine sniper in
|||Beirut gave me that unfortunate experience.  I never saw anyone go in the
|||opposite direction of the shot.
|
||that is most people's observation: people who get hit in the head fall forward.
||To think otherwise is pretty silly. However, even if head flys backwards, it
||does so in the opposite direction of the shot. However, Kennedy's head does
||not fly in the opposite direction of the sniper's nest in Book Store
||depository.  It flies up and to the left, as well as to the rear: exactly
||as if hit from the grassy knoll area , where more than half the witnesses
||said they heard a shot.
|
|    'Half the witnesses', my ass. Look in the appendices in
|    _Six Seconds in Dallas_, or the table of data presented
|    to the HSCA (in vol 12, I believe). The vast majority
|    of people could not place the shots.

I have two references for the half figure, and one for a 2/3rd's figure. I
really don't care to squabble. It is clear that a large number of very
reliable witnesses heard shots from the area.

|    A spontaneous firing of the right motor cortex would also cause
|    JFK to move backwards and to the left.

    There was no right motot cortex.

| The location of the
|    JFK head wound would, in the 'brain jet' theory, cause JFK to
|    move backward and to the left.

Absurd. The jet would have to go in the opposite direction of the motion of
JFK's body. Instead, bone fragments and blood were found in all directions.


||Copper jacketed bullets of the type Oswald was supposed to have used, typically
||leave small entrance and small exit wounds, even when people are hit in the
||head, as they at times were in WWII Italy.
|
|    Lattimer, who was a field surgeon in the ETO during WWII,
|    maintains that FMJ bullets cause massive exit wounds.
|     He has experimental data behind him, his the HSCA's,
|    the WC's, etc.
|
|    I don't know about anybody else, but I prefer definate
|    sources and hard experimantal data to fuzzy attributions
|    any day.


that makes sense, from your point of view.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 19:46:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 61


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] writes...
||As I understand it , the 'magic' bullet theory explains
||the back wound as an entrance wound , and the throat
||wound as an exit wound.
|
||The bullet supposedly went on to hit John Connally
||in the back , exit from his chest , wound him in
||the wrist and end up in his left thigh.
|
||As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
||and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.
||As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
||as if the bullet was tumbling.
|
||How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
||a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
||2-3 feet between them.
||How was it explained that a bullet fired from 6th floor
||of the TSBD , travelling down , entered the Presidents back,
||changed directions to go up and out of the throat ,
||and then changed directions again to go down into
||Connally's back?
|
|    Remember that the base of the neck in the front is lower
|    than the base of the neck in the back. JFK had an unusually
|    large amount of mass on his shoulders, because of his
|    swimming and his use of cortisone derivatives. The HSCA revised
|    the Warren Commission's location of the back wound, placing
|    it somewhat lower (the WC back wound is, I seem to remember,
|    in the neck itself), but the bullet path is still more or less
|    straight through the back/neck, when JFK is sitting straight up.
|

In any case, there is no way a bullet fired from the TSBD could go through
the back wound, and out into the neck. The angle is too steep. On top of
this, Kennedy was *not* slouched over, since the Zapruder film shows
that Kennedy is upright.

||I might buy that story if the bullet was travelling
||at a very shallow angle ( 1st or second floor shot ),
||and Kennedy was slightly bent over. But I can't buy
||the idea that one bullet changed directions after
||leaving Kennedy's throat.
|
|    Kennedy was already slouching forward; this slouch can be
|    seen in photos taken before the shooting started. This

no way.


--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sco!scolex!hiramc
From: [e-mail] (Hiram Clawson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Grassy Knoll GI
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:36:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Account for Usenet System)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 39


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
>In fact, they've been so thorough that in one picture,
>what was always thought to have been a low mound of dirt was actually
>a G.I. who had managed to flatten after the very first shot, and who
>shipped out to Alaska a day or two later without giving his name to
>anyone official.

In the "Investigative Reports" television special, they had this GI
on the show.  They said it was the first time he had ever been
interviewed.  They had him walk around the RailRoad parking lot
describing his movements.  He said that several times officials with
identification (I forget whether he said Secret Service, or CIA) told
him to clear the area.  He kept moving due to these requests until
he was on the lawn of the grassy knoll.  After that, "Investigative
Reports", at what looked like his kitchen, continued the interview
and showed him this fuzzy photograph they had colored to enhance
the supposed image of him next to "the badge man".  This guy had
never heard of the existence of this photograph, or at least that
it could show him being there.  At this point this guy begins to
become very emotional, beginning to cry, and said in effect that
if he knew there was such evidence attaching him to this location
and the possible grassy knoll shooters, he would have thought otherwise
to allowing these people to interview him.  Which doesn't really
make any sense to me, because, by agreeing to the interview in the
first place, and showing them where he was, it was clear that he
didn't care about being identified.  All in all, this "Investigative
Reports" show was pretty sleazy like this, but they sure had the
best image of the Z film that I've ever seen anywhere, as well as
collections of other TV shots of that day.

I'm going to be seeing the final 2.5 hours of this show come Friday.
I'll see if I can obtain details when and where it was first broadcast.

--Hiram

 [*~   Hiram Clawson - Member, Technical Staff, The Santa Cruz Operation    ~*]
 [*~   P.O. Box 1900, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 - tel. [phone] ext. 7519    ~*]
 [*~ FAX: [phone], Electronic mail: uunet!sco!hiramc or [e-mail] ~*]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!cherokee!jaynes!steven
From: [e-mail] ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Good Copies of Zapruder Film?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 20:01:53 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Telegraph Row)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Lines: 11
Originator: steven@jaynes
Nntp-Posting-Host: jaynes.uswest.com

From TV specials and shows on JFK, I have snippets of the Zapruder film.  However, I'd like to
get the entire 22 seconds, and a more pristine copy besides.  Anyone know where I could
purchase one?

Thnx muchly.  E-mail is fine.

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Jan 92 19:10:00 GMT
Lines: 27


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

 > Sigh.  In my original posting last month I listed the reasons why I'm
 > _not_ certain that Oswald acted alone.   [...]

 >> What I'd like to know is why you are so
 >> desperate to convince us that every circumstance of the case is
 >> normal and straightforward.

 > Not "every".  Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists focus on
 > circumstances that aren't all that puzzling to me.
 > --
 > Brian Holtz

On that, we have partial agreement, though I'd say "many" rather
than "most" conspiracy theorists "focus" on soft evidence, depending
upon who you call a "conspiracy theorist".  Regardless of the quantity
and kinds of data, there are so many hard facts that are questionable.

However, it IS WORTH hashing it ALL out to separate the soft from the
hard, even assuming the soft is true.  There's also the question of
whether several tons of soft stuff adds up to a ton of hard, in and
of itself.  (Ooooh, touchy subject.)

 * Origin: Jeezus, we animals must sleep, some time (1:109/10)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Another JFK Question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Jan 92 19:32:02 GMT
Lines: 28


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

 >> According to newspapers, the parade route was straight down Main St. If
 >> Oswald was just some `lone-nut' assassin, how did he know the route had
 >> been changed (unpublished) to go right on Houston onto Elm? He most likely
 >> would have found somewhere along Main St. to make the hit, no?

 > Have you seen a map of Dealey Plaza?  Main is only 60 feet from Elm at
 > the point on Elm at which the fatal shot occurred.  In fact, Oswald's
 > ignorance of the Houston/Elm deviation goes a long way to explaining
 > why Oswald didn't shoot when the limo was on Houston.
 > --
 > Brian Holtz

The difference in distance from Oswald would have been considerably
more than 20 yards difference.  Same for the Grassy Knoll shooter.
Also, if JFK were tralelling along Main, the shot would have been tougher
because JFK would have been moving in a transverse direction.  But on
Elm, JFK was moving along the line of sight -- longitudal direction.

Everyone else knew -- probably because it was apparent from the
roadblocks and crowd lining up along the street along the new route.
I'd think it's most probable Oswald would be one to know in advance
if he were the assassin.

 * Origin: Jeezus, we animals must sleep, some time (1:109/10)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK: Tell the Truth!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Jan 92 19:42:03 GMT
Lines: 31


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

 >> But it may make sense if someone was trying
 >> to establish leftist credentials for him (or nut credentials).

 > Then Oswald would have to have been cooperating with this plan,
 > because there is uncontestable evidence of him doing a good job
 > of this himself.  If you have the real Oswald, why use a fake many
 > inches shorter, who is certain to be remembered as different from
 > Oswald?
 > --
 > Brian Holtz

A "patsy" is often just that -- someone who doesn't realize the true
reasons he is being manipulated into doing something.  Oswald was a
perfect patsy -- an intelligence operative who is POSING as a defector
and far left-winger.  No "fake" was needed -- that was his IMAGE.

It happens all the time -- secret manipulation -- both in "defense"
and of course in organized crime not associated with the government
(as well as the countless in-betweens).

IMO, the focus should be on LHO's true associations and background in
counterintelligence, not whether the photos were real or not.  The
photos seem so peripheral a topic -- a real sidetrack, and what
significant additional thing does it prove?  There's lots of other
hard, less debatable, clearer evidence.

 * Origin: Jeezus, we animals must sleep, some time (1:109/10)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Database - Bush, the CIA, and JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Jan 92 22:05:04 GMT
Lines: 156


 > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
 > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

 > In article <[e-mail]>
 > [e-mail] (Mark Prado) writes:

  >>(It might be notable that the
  >>person closest to Lee Harvey Oswald and assigned to take care of
  >                                          ^^^^^^^^
  >>the Oswalds' needs, was established CIA operative George
  >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  >>DeMornschildt.
 >>
  > Evidence, please?
 >>
 >> We can start with statements by none other than Jeanne
 >> DeMohrenschildt right after her husband was killed by gunshot
 >> (again, supposedly by suicide...)

 > She said these things "right after" her husband's death?  Hmmm.

Yes, and he was killed HOURS after arranging a meeting with an
investigator from the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

 >> She not only stated that her husband worked for U.S.
 >> intelligence and had for a long time, but also stated that
 >> his closest friend at the time of the JFK assassination was
 >> J. Walter Moore, who was at the time Dallas' top CIA man

 >> (BTW, Mrs. DeMohrenschildt stated that cuban refugees were used
 >> to shoot Kennedy.)

 > How did she know this?  Did her husband supposedly tell her?
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
 > Did her husband bother to mention who he got his orders from?

You discount ALL word of mouth testimonies, no matter in what
quantity and no matter who the witness.  So what would it matter
to YOU if he told her?  *YOU* would dismiss it anyway, according
to your track record.

You're not going to get me to run around exhaustively like a gofer
doing your research, looking for
top secret statements in order to satisfy your
extremist fringe specifications, especially given your published
track record in this conference.  It may also be notable that when
I worked for defense, few people discussed with their wives the
details of who was giving whom orders, and in fact this was
discouraged in no uncertain terms in my case.  My wife knew GENERALLY
what I did and a FEW of the key players in my realm, but this
knowledge turns out to have been pretty exceptional (judging from
other wives we knew).  Mr. DeMohrenschildt was into intelligence
OPERATIONS (far more compartmentalized than my work) which was
social in nature, but social stuff often results in greater exposure of
wives to people in one's community.  This is what Mrs. DeMohrenschildt
revealed.  And Mr. DeMohrenschildt's CLOSEST associates, according to
Mrs. DeMohrenschildt, turned out to be top CIA operatives, according to
established records.  Nonetheless, ignoring all of that, there are also
records of DeMohrenschildt working for CIA fronts for operations
nonetheless (despite CIA efforts to keep that secret -- you know how
they operate).

Of her statements, I don't have a copy of the newspaper articles
themselves.  I'm not a researcher, and do not have all of the
material at hand.  I also don't have the time.  (And I've been
into this stuff only since after Christmas.)  However, I think
that readers would find this information if they followed the
newspaper references which I gave you.  Many other researchers
have the actual clippings, too.

I should add that the DeMohrenschildts deny having anything to do
with the actual assassination.  They were cut out of the loop in
early 1963.  They also fervently denied that Oswald was truly
communist (they being extreme right wingers) and also fervently
stated that it was not Oswald's nature at all to shoot Kennedy.
They claimed that Oswald was a scapegoat.

 >>Parts of her statements were reported by newspapers, e.g., the Ft.
 >>Worth Star-Telegram, May 11, 1978.

 > Which parts?  Were the parts I quoted above in the newspaper?

I don't know for sure, as I don't have a copy, but I would think so.
Lots of other people have copies, I hear.

 >> It's also
 >> known from routine documents that DeMohrenschildt travelled
 >> representing companies that were known CIA fronts, and for stated
 >> purposes that were sometimes ludicrous (e.g., for stamp collecting
 >> when he wasn't a stamp collector).

 > Now we're getting closer to real evidence.  What documents?
 > What companies?

 >> He and his wife were even shot
 >> at in Yugoslavia in 1957 by guards of none other than Marshal Tito.

 > _That_ makes them CIA agents?  Hah.

You laugh so fast, but you're laughing into the fan...

Let's take this one as one example.  He spent a whole year in
Yugoslavia representing the International Cooperation Administration,
which became a very well known CIA front.

 > In sum, you've given me little evidence that GdM was an
 > "established CIA operative", and _no_ evidence that GdM was
 > "assigned to take care of the Oswalds' needs".

There you go again.  There's no question that he was taking care of
the Oswalds' needs, until he turned things over to the Paines in early
1963 (whose income tax returns and those of their relatives are
classified, but KNOWN CIA-related).  There are good sources of data on
this material.

Again, I'm not going to waste my time playing your game, Brian.

  >> DeMohrenschild had the following entry in his address
  >> book: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum
  >> Midland".
 >>
  > Again: evidence?
 >>
 >>Oh, give me a break, Brian.
 >>
 >>But you will be happy to know that I'm getting out of this conference

 > I didn't mean to scare you away.

Delusions of grandeur on your part.  YOU certainly didn't scare me
away.  You contributed to KEEPing me here ...

I might not get out of the conference 100% but will be taking it easy
because I'm short on time and have been threatened by others, of which
I've already posted the information here.

However, I'm apparently not the only one tired of YOUR statements with
an air of authority but with serious blinders on, YOUR lack of
references nearly as hard as mine, your easy challenges of OTHERS
to prove their conclusions while you easily make your flimsy
conclusions, and especially your silly sarcasms and put-downs.

 > All I wanted was a reference I could
 > look up in a library.  Or do we just have to take your word for
 > everything?
 > --
 > Brian Holtz

Speak for yourself.  You say so many things with overconfidence
and an air of authority which are quite questionable, yet YOU are
much thinner on references.

Enough.

 * Origin: Jeezus, we animals must sleep, some time (1:109/10)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Jan 92 03:34:00 GMT
Lines: 13

>   Which begs the question, just how does Connelly (and
>   his wife) know? His theory is going to have to get
>   around the elongated bullet hole in his back. The
>   bullet that hit him was travellnig sideways at the
>   moment of impact: it was tumbling end over end.
>   It's obvious that the bullet that hit Connelly
>   hit something else first. The problem is that
>   the only obstruction between the Texas Governor
>   and the rifle is JFK.

Curious question: What about Connally's carseat?

 * Origin: PerManNet, Washington, DC 202-296-6304, 4 lines (1:109/349)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!fraser.sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:05:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 32

[e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
>>as if the bullet was tumbling.
>>
>>How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
>>a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
>>2-3 feet between them.

>Somebody posted the mathematics of this a few days ago, and it seemed
>reasonable.  I would also note that perhaps tumbling is more likely to
>set in during media transitions (e.g., neck -> air).

If the bullet didn't start tumbling in the 'media transition'
of air -> back -- it sure wasn't going to start tumbling after
it left Kennedy's throat. Since there is no physical evidence
of tumbling through Kennedy's body it is damned unlikely the bullet
that supposedly left Kennedy's throat is the one that entered
Connally's back !

Again I ask the question -- what is the physical evidence that
proves they are the same bullet?



--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"An 'acceptable' level of unemployment means that the government economist
to whom it is acceptable still has a job. - Murphy    Bruce_Schuck@.sfu.ca
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:21:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 57
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>No, I meant that the train of thought you were/are developing is worthless.
>The sights could have been messed up or not, we don't know, we will never
>know, and it is unimportant.

Well, even though I lean toward the idea that Oswald did the shooting
with that rifle, I disagree that it's unimportant.  If we had answers
to the questions I asked, we would know for sure whether it was
possible for Oswald to have done the shooting with that rifle.

>How do you hold a had with a smashed wrist?

For how long?  A minute, or for a second and a half during which
you're not even aware you've been shot?  If the latter, it's simple:
how many (if any) of the tendons in his wrist that keep his fingers
curled were severed?

>|An extra guy in the TSBD doesn't make for a more accurate shot, and
>|every other building was either further away or presented a transverse
>|target at equivalent range.
>
>It was fantastic. Two shooters shooting would have a greater chance for the
>hit, especially if they were sing better rifles.

Well, gee, since Kennedy was indeed hit, I guess it's obvious that a
highly-advanced CIA prototype laser sighting system was employed.
Case closed.

And just where did the extra shooter and his rifle disappear to?
There was a cop at the bottom of the TSBD stairs almost before anyone
had time to get down from the sixth floor; you conspiracy theorists
even say that Oswald would have had trouble getting to where he was
seen on the _second_ floor.

>|Yes.  Jim Braden.  He was in town on oil business.  I know of no weapons
>|found either on him or in the Dal-Tex building that he had been in.
>
>He was not on oil business. He had a rap sheet a mile long.

He had a rap sheet, but he was indeed in town to talk to oilman Hunt.

>|Mitchell says Lattimer's son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting.
>
>I doubt this, and wonder why we should believe Lattimer's son over the
>three other tests conducted by people who had no incentive to produce
>negative results?

The other tests were conducted by people unfamiliar with using a
Mannlicher-Carcano.  And I think the other tests were conducted to
test the Separate Bullets 1.6 Seconds Apart Theory.  The resulting
Magic Bullet Theory leaves the shooter with at least four seconds to
line up his two hits.  Four seconds with a 4x-scoped, rested rifle and
a target at 50-70 yards moving slowly and directly away is just not a
very hard shot.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ingria
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:24:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 28
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 23 Jan 92 14:36:52 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
    Holtz) writes...

   >  In fact, they've been so thorough that in one picture,
   >what was always thought to have been a low mound of dirt was actually
   >a G.I. who had managed to flatten after the very first shot, and who
   >shipped out to Alaska a day or two later without giving his name to
   >anyone official.

      The G.I.s name is Gordon Arnold. This is the same man who stated that the
     reason he hit the deck was because a bullet came whizzing past his head
     from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. He also stated that he had
     his mothers 8mm movie camera and was filming the motorcade as it passed.
      Shortly after he hit the ground, a man in police uniform approached him,
     asked if he was filming, when he replied that he was, the `officer' took the
     camera, removed the film, threw the camera on the ground, gave Arnold a kick,
     and walked away.

      This interview is on videotape.....

Where is this, or its transcript, available?  When did he first claim
that a bullet from the Grassy Knoll made him duck?  If he made these
claims early on, it gets hard to say he was someone changing his story
to satisfy conspiracy nuts.

-30-
Bob
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:36:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 67
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>    Definitely fired from Oswalds pistol? How did you come to this conclusion?
>  I read that they could not match the casings or the bullets recovered from
>  Tippits body to Oswalds revolver....

Read again.  _No_ bullets could be matched to Oswald's revolver
because it the barrel had widened, causing each bullet to rattle down
the barrel and receive unique markings.  However, even conspiracy
author Hurt conceded that it is "indisputable" that the cartridges
were fired from Oswald's pistol.

>  Empty cartridges found on the scene. Tell me, why would there have been
> empty cartridges found on the scene?

Because several witnesses saw Oswald reload, tossing the spent
cartridges.  He knew that he'd be facing more police before the day
was over.

> Did Oswald
> fire four shots into Tippit, remove the four empty cartridges, leaving two
> live rounds,

Hey, you're arithmetic is real good.  Of _course_ he would keep the
two live rounds.

>and toss them on the ground to leave some evidence for the DPD?

No.  He tossed them as he was leaving the scene.  I imagine that he
was more worried about staying alive for the next hour or so than he
was about trial evidence.  Note that he didn't shoot at any of the
witnesses standing around who saw him kill Tippitt and run away.

>>>(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found
>>>on the ground.
>>
>>If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the
>>pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it?
>
>  Say what you will, but there is no proof.....

Well, gosh, you're right, there's no continuous videotape of the
cartridges from the time they were picked up to the time they were
given to the Warren Commission.  Darn.  Unfortunately for your silly
argument, there's _also_ no proof that the cartridges were planted.
But don't let that bother you; I know it's pure reflex for a
conspiracy theorist to suppose that inconvenient evidence was planted.

>>>|...  The spent cartridges found there could only have been fired by
>>>|the gun Oswald was caught with minutes later.
>>>
>>>Why do you say that?
>>
>>Hurt says it is "indisputable".  The firing pin and cylinder of a
>>pistol uniquely mark a cartridge when it is fired.
>
> A semi-auto pistol that ejects its' empty cartridges, yes. A revolver leaves
>no marks on the casing and only one small round dent from the firing pin on the
>primer.....

Oh, are you a ballistics expert, now?  You better re-check your
conspiracy bible, Reverend.  The accepted gospel among the conspiracy
theologians is that the cartridges were so indisputably fired from
Oswald's pistol that they theorize that the DPD fired them later and
simply claimed that they were found at the scene.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:42:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>   The G.I.s name is Gordon Arnold. This is the same man who stated that the
>  reason he hit the deck was because a bullet came whizzing past his head
>  from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

Yes.  The problem is, there's no physical evidence of any of the early
shooting coming from anywhere but behind the limousine.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:48:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>> Isn't this shot the one they also claim hit the curb?
>>
>>No!  The FBI told the WC that the mark was too slight to have been
>>caused by an unimpeded rifle shot.
>
>  I see. The Warren Commission must have been mistaken........

No, no, no.  You are simply wrong that the Warren Commission ever
claimed that an unimpeded rifle shot hit the curb.  If you think
you're right, why not quote the Warren Report for us?

>  Let's see. Copper is much harder than lead, yet the copper jacketing
> shatters and sprays all over the place after hitting JFK in the head but
> a chunk of lead from that bullet remains large enough

Size has nothing to do with; it's kinetic energy.  I guarantee you
that you cannot throw even a whole bullet through a windshield.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 92 22:03:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 46
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>First of all, his employer in California is quoted as saying that all his
>employees had secret, not confedential clearences.

What employer?  A few days ago you screwed up and called Oswald's
clearance "top secret"; it's plain that ignorant people frequently
make mistakes about distinctions among clearance levels.

>Second, he was able to gather important evidence about the U2 spy plane,
>despite Holtz's claim he was just a low level employee. He would be able
>to provide information about the hight of the U2,

What evidence do you have that U2's flew at their top-secret
operational height when they were in range of Oswald's air traffic
radar?  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Nadda.

>how it landed and took off, what it looked like,

It rolled down the runway.  It had glider-like wings.  At the ranges
and speeds that Russian radar watched the U-2 operate, it already
could surmise these things.

>He could get related information on supplies and spare parts for it.
>In fact, the plane was stored in the same building as the supplies of
>the Radar tower were in.

Source?

>    At his job in California, he knew secret codes, communications
>frequencies, and assorted things that would be very valuble to the
>Soviets.

He knew nothing that wasn't changed periodically anyway.  All they had
to do was change them again when he left.

>he walks into the American embassay and says to th consulate
>that he is going to give the USSR military secrets. Whatever these are,
>and he certainly must have *some* with even a confidential clearence,
>he should be tried for treason.

Sorry, Judge Wright, but saying you're going to commit a crime for
which there is no evidence that it was actually committed, is not a
crime in and of itself.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!fraser.sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 03:19:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 15

[e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>   The G.I.s name is Gordon Arnold. This is the same man who stated that the
>>  reason he hit the deck was because a bullet came whizzing past his head
>>  from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

>Yes.  The problem is, there's no physical evidence of any of the early
>shooting coming from anywhere but behind the limousine.
>--
>Brian Holtz

Except that the throat wound could have been an entrance wound
since the physical evidence does not rule this out.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: The Physics of the JFK Assassination (Revisited)
Keywords: physics, angular momentum conservation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 04:18:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 131


A couple  of  recent  posts  mentioned  the  "back  of  the  envelope"
calculation  that I did concerning the fatal head shot.  While looking
through the calculation, I noticed that I  did  make  a  rather  silly
error--the moment of inertia of a rigid rod about a perpendicular axis
passing through one end is 1/3 M d^2, not 1/2 M d^2.   However,  since
the  analysis  is  so  crude  anyway,  factors of 1/2 or 1/3 shouldn't
matter all that much.

Someone also pointed out that I had overstated the velocity  of  JFK's
head  by approximately a factor of two.  I actually got the 1.6 ft/sec
number from Alvarez's paper.  Alvarez, in turn, mentioned that he  had
obtained this number from Josiah Thompson's book.  That'll teach me to
rely only on secondary sources!  Unfortunately, my copy of  Thompson's
"Six Seconds in Dallas" has long ago vanished.  The conspiracy must be
far deeper than any of us had dared imagine :-).

However, factors of 2, pi, sqrt(3), 1/2, 1/3 and  the  like  shouldn't
matter  all  that  much, since all we are interested in is an order of
magnitude estimate.

Here is the calculation again, with the correction in  the  moment  of
intertia expression included:

First, the question of the velocity  with  which  JFK'sad  snapped
backward   at   the   time   of   the fatal head shot. Josiah Thompson
(author of *Six Seconds in Dallas*) did a careful measurement  of this
velocity   by   examining  six frames of the Zapruder film. He came up
with a value  of  1.6  ft/sec   (0.5   meters/sec),   which   is  much
smaller   than  the  numbers quoted in most of the other posts to this
newsgroup.

In this analysis, I shall assume that ALL  of  the  momentum  of   the
incoming   bullet   is   transferred   to   JFK.   Alvarez's  analysis
indicates that jets of brain matter could play an important   role  in
the  physics  of  the  problem.   However,  no  such jets are apparent
in the Zapruder film.  Consequently,  I  shall  ignore  such  effects.
Since JFK obviously topples backwards and to the left, this argues for
a shot coming from the general direction  of  the Grassy Knoll.

Now for the velocity of the bullet which struck  JFK.   We  don't know
what   kind   of  rifle  was used by the proposed gunman on the Grassy
Knoll.  Furthermore, we don't know the mass of the  bullet,  since  it
shattered into many fragments when it struck JFK's head.  So I have to
use estimates.  I will assume the mass of the bullet to  be  10  grams
(0.010  kilograms)  and  the  velocity of the bullet to be 3000 ft/sec
(900 meters/sec).  I  got  these  numbers  from Alvarez's paper;  they
are typical of a 30.06 rifle.

Now for the  physics.   It  has  been   pointed   out   that   it   is
unrealistic to consider the motion of JFK's head alone.  The fact that
it was connected to his body should not be ignored.  I shall  do  this
in the following analysis.

In the Zapruder film, JFK's entire   body   from   the   hips   upward
seems   to  be  projected backwards. I will take JFK's upper body as a
rigid body that topples over, since this  is   approximately   how  it
behaves  during  the  fatal  head shot sequence. So the physics of the
assassination can  be  approximated  as  a  rigid  rod  being  toppled
over  by  a bullet which strikes it near the top.   I will assume that
all of the momentum initially present in  the  bullet is   transferred
to  JFK's  toppling  body,  with  none  transferred to "jets" of brain
matter.

Let the length of JFK from his hips to the  topof   his   head   be
designated   by d.    This   should   be about 3 feet, but the exact
number doesn't matter, since d cancels out in the analysis.  I'll take
the     weight     of    JFK's   upper   body   to   be   100   pounds
(corresponding to a mass of about 45 kilograms).

The problem can be solved by conserving angular momentum about an axis
passing  through  JFK's hips.  The initial angular momentum before the
impact is

                        m(bullet)v(bullet) d

where m(bullet) is the mass of  the  bullet  (0.010   kilograms)   and
v(bullet)  is  the  initial  velocity  of the bullet (900 meters/sec).
Assuming that all the angular   momentum   is   transferred   to   the
toppling JFK, the angular momentum after the impact is

                        1/3 M(jfk) d^2 v(jfk)/d

where M(jfk) is the mass of JFK's  upper  body  (45   kilograms)   and
v(jfk)   is  the  velocity  of  JFK's head (0.5 meters/sec).  Equating
these two angular momenta gives

                m(bullet)v(bullet) d =  1/3 M(jfk) d^2 v(jfk)/d

Cancelling out the length factor d gives

                m(bullet)v(bullet) =  1/3 M(jfk) v(jfk)

Now, plug in the numbers to see if this is a reasonable analysis:

              (0.010 kg)(900 m/sec) = 1/3 (45 kg)(0.5 m/sec)

or

              9 kg m/sec  =  7.5 kg m/sec

The agreement is not bad, especially considering the  crudity  of  the
analysis and the uncertainty in the numerical factors.

The results are consistent with a rifle bullet being  fired  from  the
general   direction  of the Grassy Knoll.  Now, I readily admit that a
significant jet of matter from JFK's brain could alter  the  analysis.
However,   I think that those who argue for such a jet of matter being
a valid explanation for  a  shot  from  the   Book  Depository   being
consistent    with   the  motion  of  JFK's  head  are  obligated   to
demonstrate   the   REAL   rather    than    just    the   theoretical
existence  of  such  a jet.  None can be seen in the Zapruder film.

Comments?

Sources:

  A Physicist  Examines  the  Kennedy Assassination  Film,   Luis
  Alvarez, American Journal of Physics Vol. 44, No. 9, 813 (1976).

  Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson, Geis, 1967.


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "Round up the usual suspects."    *
2000 North Naperville Road    **************************************
P. O. Box 3033
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                     Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: The Path of the "Magic Bullet"
Keywords: Warren Commission, questions, autopsy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 04:38:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 24


I have been following all  this  JFK  assassination  talk  with  great
interest.   Questions  about  the  location and nature of JFK's wounds
seem to be hopelessly snarled up in questions about  the  validity  of
the autopsy photos, notes, and x-rays.  I do have one question which I
think is crucial to the analysis.  So far as I am aware I  have  never
heard any convincing evidence that there is any connection between the
mysterious upper back wound  (which  seems  to  move  around  or  even
disappear, depending on who is is talking) and the well-verified wound
in the throat.  If the Warren Report is to  be  believed,  there  MUST
have  been a path through JFK's body connecting these two wounds.  Was
such a path ever actually traced by the autopsy  doctors,  or  is  the
existence  of  this  bullet path only an assumption on the part of the
Warren Commission?


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "Round up the usual suspects."    *
2000 North Naperville Road    **************************************
P. O. Box 3033
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                     Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 05:29:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 54
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

>||(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found
>||on the ground.
>|
>|If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the
>|pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it?
>
>Only one shell was found. Then, weeks later, the Dallas police suddenly
>discover 3 more.

_Reasonable Doubt_ says on p. 155 that all the cartridges were turned
over to the FBI by the DPD within *six days* of the killing.

>This makes no sense. If Tippit did not have any evidence that Oswald was
>the Killer, then why would Oswald shoot Tippit?

I _told_ you:

>|Which is what you'd expect from a cop casually making sure that, no,
>|of course you weren't in Dealey Plaza a half hour ago, ok, just show
>|me some ID, I'll take your name, keep an eye out for somebody nervous
>|matching your description, see ya later.  Oswald could not afford to
>|let such a conversation get underway.
>
>He could easily afford it.

Hardly.  For all he knew, the name of the missing TSBD employee had
already gone out over the radio.

>||Another witness, Domingo Benavides, siad that it was not Oswald too.
>|
>|Hurt says he "could not identify Oswald as the gunman".  Do you want
>|me to explain the difference?
>
>If you assume reasonable doubt is assessing the evidence against Oswald, then
>there should be no difference.

Pure bullshit.  Someone saying "it was not Oswald" would help
exonerate Oswald, but someone saying he "could not identify Oswald as
the gunman" would neither help nor hurt Oswald's case.

>|Before, he had said that he was "of the opinion" that the fleeing
>|gunman was Oswald, though he could not "definitely identify" him.
>|After the shooting, he was more sure.  So his story got stronger, but
>|it did not flip-flop.
>
>What a nit picker. He changed his story.

Do you care about the truth, or don't you?  His story did not go
unaltered, but it's flatly misleading to say that he changed the basic
thrust of his story: that the fleeing gunman was Oswald.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed?  Put up or shut up.
Summary: I've defended MY theory, and it explains a lot.  What's YOURS?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 06:58:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 73
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord


I've been semi-interested in the JFK assassination for quite a while,
and I'd always thought that there was as good a chance of a
conspiracy as there was that Oswald acted alone.  Before the last few
weeks, I had always concentrated on the physical evidence and material
witnesses, partly because I knew that the most important question was
whether Oswald did all the shooting, and partly because I didn't want
to have to read up on the endless circumstantial evidence surrounding
Oswald and Ruby.

After watching "JFK", reading _Crossfire_ and re-reading _Six Seconds In
Dallas_, I posted my theory that Oswald did all the shooting, but that
the Magic Bullet theory was wrong and that separate bullets caused the
two back wounds.  Mitchell convinced me that the Magic Bullet theory
had in fact been found to be correct by Lattimer and the HSCA, because
of the experiments, the time vs. alignment analysis of the wounds, the
nature of Connally's back wound, the unreasonable shallowness of the
JFK back wound, the disappearance of the unmagical second bullet, etc.

Then the conspiracy theorists (you know who you are ;) started
challenging me to explain Oswald's military career, defection to
Russia, alleged CIA connections, etc.  At first I thought I would just
write it all off as circumstantial evidence, but after checking I
found that the "evidence" ranged from flimsy to non-existent.
Recently the theorists have tried to challenge Oswald's guilt in the
Tippitt murder, and I was similarly surprised to find the evidence
against Oswald to be so complete and convincing.

But my biggest problem with the conspiracy theorists is _not_ how they
blatantly distort, misrepresent, select, and -- here on the net, at
least -- fabricate the evidence.  No, my problem is that they fail to
advance a coherent theory of their own that explains even a fraction
of the evidence that is explained by the Warren Commission's theory.
Instead, they simply propogate a cult of conspiracy, in which no
scintilla of evidence is ever troubling to them, because the unnamed
conspirators are able to do anything to the evidence that the
conspiracy theorists need them to do.  That sort of thinking is
unfalsifiable, and so the only thing it can be called is a religion.

The conspiracy "theorists" have had their turn trying to find
weaknesses -- of which there _are_ a few -- in the theory that Oswald
acted alone.  I here and now challenge the conspiracy "theorists" to
actually give us a _theory_, so we can see if it stands up as well as
the Warren Commission's.  Tell us: how many shots were fired, by whom,
from where?  Who killed officer Tippitt?  Who was in a position to
order Ruby to kill Oswald?  What government officials were in on the
conspiracy before Nov. 22 (as opposed to just being in on a cover-up)?
Who was in a position to stand down the military, alter the motorcade
route, get Oswald a job overlooking the not-yet-planned route, etc.?
What if anything was done to Kennedy's body en route to Bethesda, and
why?  Did Johnson or any of the Warren Commissioners know who really
had Kennedy killed?  Was the HSCA in on the cover-up?  Was the media
in on the cover-up?

In short: prove to us that you have a theory, and not just a creed.


In the meantime, I'm going to stop correcting all the facile
criticisms of the Warren Report every time the conspiracy theorists
repeat them.  Instead, I'm going to try to confine myself to only
commenting on new material.  The two most important questions that I
haven't seen authoritatively answered here are:

- What did the HSCA say about the entrance wound/blood clot in the
  back of Kennedy's head in that famous drawing of the autopsy photo?
  The HSCA's top forensics guy said on "Primetime Live" that the photo
  definitely shows an entrance wound.  If he's right, that leaves
  nothing for a grassy knoll gunman to do.

- Did the government's shooting experiments necessitate, or simply
  test the validity of, the Magic Bullet theory?
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
From: [e-mail] (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 08:35:51 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns9.ins.cwru.edu


Well, I found out a little more about Charles Cabell's role at
the Bay of Pigs. Recall that while Cabell is conventionally
considered to have advocated a second air strike in the face
of JFK's opposition, E. Howard Hunt depicts him entering the
command center and insisting that an already pre-approved second
strike really should be cleared with Dean Rusk. This account raises
the possibility that Cabell actually acted to sabotage the Bay of
Pigs air cover.

Well, I went and looked up Dean Rusk's memoirs ("As I Saw It"
publuished in 1990). He has Cabell and Bissell arriving to
request permission for further strikes, and claiming they had
already been authorized. Rusk said he couldn't authorize them,
and offerred to get Kennedy on the phone. Cabell and Bissell
declined to make the call. This is in marked contrast to other
accounts which have it that Cabell and Rusk actually contacted
JFK by phone and Kennedy turned them down. If we are to believe
Rusk's account the notion that "Kennedy canceled the Bay of Pigs
air cover" has got to be relegated to a myth of the sixties. It
lends support to the idea I saw somewhere
(forget where) that the CIA sabotaged the Bay of Pigs to embarrass
Kennedy.
(Just got my 5 minute notice - will follow up directly)

    -Steve
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
From: [e-mail] (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 08:52:06 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns9.ins.cwru.edu


The significance of Charles Cabell's possible role as saboteur of
the Bay of Pigs is this. Cabell is superficially a prime suspect
for a CIA conspirator in the JFK assassination based on his  CIA
background, the fact that he was recently fired by Kennedy, and
the fact that his brother Earle was mayor of Dallas. The problem
is this. Either we give up Cabell as a conspirator, or we give up
"Kennedy's" sabotage of the Bay of Pigs as a motive.

Maybe this isn't really a problem. Other motives are plentiful
from Vietnam to Oil Depletion to Kennedy's proposed plan to
substitute billions of $$$ in Treasury notes for Federal Reserve
notes, just to name a few. (Personally I've been wondering about
his well documented opposition to the Israeli nuclear bomb - see
for example Andrew & Leslie Cockburn "Dangerous Liason"). In any
case we seem to have established a constraint on plausible
theories, albeit a minor one. Cabell as a conspirator or a botched
Bay of Pigs as a motive - but not both.     -Steve
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!cynic!arkham!jaguar
From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Reimer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Top 10 Lesser-Known JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 09:48:16 GMT
Organization: Chez Cthulhu [phone]  "Caterers to the Elder Gods"
Lines: 53


Proudly taken from our very own campus undergrad Science Newspaper... the 432..

10  The National Enquirer was thinking of its future

9   The second gunman was a camouflaged elf (the GRASSY GNOME THEORY)

8   KENNEDY was just the PATSY in an elaborate plot to kill LEE HARVEY OSWALD

7   The assassination was orchestrated by mastermind LLOYD BENTSEN in order to
    beat DAN QUAYLE in the 1988 Vice-Presidential debate

6   Oswald did it to impress JODI FOSTER'S MOTHER

5   A hunter mistook him for a deer

4   Oswald fired in self-defence

3   J. EDGAR HOOVER lost a bet

2   BOBBY to JACK: "Tag, you're it!"

and the number one lesser-known JFK assassination conspiracy theory is....


^L

1  They were *ALL* exit wounds!


Seriously, people, all this MASSIVE volume of debate here on alt.conspiracy and
no-one appears to be able to keep their facts straight, much less have half a
clue about what really happened.  How many times can we argue how fast the limo
was going and how fast bullets travel and how watermelons behave when shot?  Or
whether Jackie was grabbing brain parts or merely fleeing?  (My question:  why
on earth would anyone want to grab a piece of someone's brain that has just
been blown into the back of a car?  I cannot for the life of me fathom this
sort of behaviour.  Mind you, I've never been shot at.)


Yet.



    /\     FUSCHAL: THE PROMISED LAND. Where those who have faith shall wear
>==/  \==> hats of great majesty, yea, though they be made of cardboard and
  /____\   have humourous arrows through them. (Red Dwarf)
                     .----------------------------------. Sunny Vancouver BC
Jeremy Reimer, aka   [ => [e-mail] <= ] CANADA, where it's
The Jaguar! The Car, `----------------------------------' fun, fun, fun...
the Cat, the Lunatic  George: What time is it?            ^^^  ^^^  ^^^
--------------------  Edmund: Three o'clock in the afternoon, Your Highness.
PININ FOR THE FJORDS  George: Oh thank GOD for that I thought I'd overslept!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 12:45:05 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 31


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Ingria) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>    The G.I.s name is Gordon Arnold.
>>
>>      This interview is on videotape.....
>>
>Where is this, or its transcript, available?  When did he first claim
>that a bullet from the Grassy Knoll made him duck?  If he made these
>claims early on, it gets hard to say he was someone changing his story
>to satisfy conspiracy nuts.



 The interview was filmed for the `Men who killed Kennedy' documentary that
 aired on A&E last autumn. Arnold came across as very down to earth and
 extremely legitimate. He stated that he had been telling this to people
 since the day it happened but nobody would believe him




<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 13:43:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 59
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
>|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
>||how do you hold a hat with a smashed wrist?

>|For two seconds?  Put a hat in your hand, hold still, and I'll show
>|you. :)

>How do you hold a had with a smashed wrist?

    I believe that only one of the bones in JBC's forearm is
    damaged. Offhand, I'd consider the possibility that the
    smaller of the two bones would provide enough support to
    hold a hat.

    Now, Mr Wright, you get a chance to answer my question:

    Given Connally's position in just before frame 236,
    how does a bullet enter JBC's back just outside the right
    scapula, exit his body just under the right nipple,
    make a hard right turn, barrel roll around the forearm,
    enter the upper side of the wrist, exit the palmar side
    of the wrist, make a hard left, and hit Connally in the thigh.

>|Mitchell says Lattimer's son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting.

>I doubt this, and wonder why we should believe Lattimer's son over the
>three other tests conducted by people who had no incentive to produce
>negative results?

    Both of Lattimer's sons, and Lattimer himself, were
    able to *hit* three targets representing JFK's head (at
    the appropriate distances, of course) in 6.5 seconds
    without much difficulty. Oswald fired three shots in
    no less that 7.1 seconds (according to the Commission),
    and missed Kennedy's head twice. I believe that both the
    Army marksmen used by the WC and the Dallas Police
    marksmen used by the HSCA were able to post results
    similar to Lattimer's.

    Since the conspiracy mongers are under the erronious assupmtion
    that Oswald had to fire all three shots in 5.6 seconds,
    I can see why they consider Oswald's shooting to be
    'inhumanly fast'. Actually, the Commission has Oswald
    firing the shot into JFK and Connally, and then the head
    shot, with another shot somewhere either before or after
    the other two.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvm!was104
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 14:29:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
Lines: 51
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitchell S
Todd) says:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>As I understand it , the 'magic' bullet theory explains
>>the back wound as an entrance wound , and the throat
>>wound as an exit wound.
>
>>The bullet supposedly went on to hit John Connally
>>in the back , exit from his chest , wound him in
>>the wrist and end up in his left thigh.
>
>>As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole ,
>>and only appears large because of the traecheotomy.
>>As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong ,
>>as if the bullet was tumbling.
>
>>How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by
>>a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only
>>2-3 feet between them.
>>How was it explained that a bullet fired from 6th floor
>>of the TSBD , travelling down , entered the Presidents back,
>>changed directions to go up and out of the throat ,
>>and then changed directions again to go down into
>>Connally's back?
>
>        Remember that the base of the neck in the front is lower
>        than the base of the neck in the back. JFK had an unusually
>        large amount of mass on his shoulders, because of his
>        swimming and his use of cortisone derivatives. The HSCA revised
>        the Warren Commission's location of the back wound, placing
>        it somewhat lower (the WC back wound is, I seem to remember,
>        in the neck itself), but the bullet path is still more or less
>        straight through the back/neck, when JFK is sitting straight up.
>
>
>                        .       .       .       .

   But your theory still does not explain how the bullet got through all of the
 above mentioned sholder bone and back muscle.  If what you are saying is true,
 then the shot would have to have been in the neck itself and not in the right
sholder.  How did the bullet get from point A ( the sholder of Kennedy) and go
through point B (the front base of his neck) with out traveling upward and make
 a drastic turn to the left so that it could exit though point B and enter cona
lly's back near the right lower arm pit with out changing direction again.

Oh well just a though

                                           bill

                    Keep the Faith!!!!!!!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - dictabelt recording
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 14:02:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 73
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitchell
>S Todd) writes...

>>     The determination that two
>>    shots were '90 percent probable' (the exact number is 86)
>>    was based on "matching" (they had a broad view of the term)
>>    the noise pulse trains of the dictabelt recording with
>>    the pulse trains of the HSCA's Dealy's firing trials.

>      And they matched, did they not?

    The HSCA obtained over twenty examples of gunfire from
    Dealy plaza. Of those, Dr Barger was able to find
    no more than three 'matches' for any 'shot' on the
    dictabelt recording. Considering a rather liberal
    criteria for matching that Barger used, they're not
    exactly conclusive.


>>    Barger admitted that his method for finding probabilities
>>    was problematic; he also admitted that no one really
>>    knew if the stuck microphone was in Dealy Plaza. The
>>    National Academy of Sciences faulted his study on both
>>    counts.


>      If it wasn't in Dealy plaza, then tell me, how do you explain
>     the fact that the shots on the dictabelt match the reactions on the
>     Zapruder film timewise. They fit perfectly.....

    Not really. The supposed 'shot' from the grassy knoll
    is too early. The first and second 'shots' *are* 1.6
    seconds apart, corresponding to the time between JFK's
    disappearence behind the sign and frame 236, where
    John Connally shows obvious distress. However, Connally
    couldn't have been hit while he rested his right arm on the
    window sill of the car, and JFK was probably hit just
    before he emerged from the sign, perhaps at about
    frame 220. That leaves only about .5 seconds between
    the two shots.


>>    It is interesting that a third study of the dictabelt
>>    given to the HSCA came to the conclusion that the
>>    'shots' were 'fired' over a minute after the
>>    shooting, and it didn't use the Ch 2 crosstalk
>>    to figure that out, either.
>>    It's also interesting to note that an enlargement of
>>    a picture of the motorcycle in question showed
>>    that the microphone was switched to the wrong channel.

>        Who came to the conclusion and how did they come to the conclusion
>      that this particular bike was the one with the stuck microphone?

    I'm not sure. It seems to be assumed in the HSCA reports and
    testimony. The guy (can't remember his name, though I remember
    it was Italian and started with a 'P') who came to the
    conclusion that the 'shots' occured after the assassination
    noted that there was a motorcycle officer stationed at the
    Trade Mart whose microphone had a history of sticking.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 14:10:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 58
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
>||that is most people's observation: people who get hit in the head fall forward.
>||To think otherwise is pretty silly. However, even if head flys backwards, it
>||does so in the opposite direction of the shot. However, Kennedy's head does
>||not fly in the opposite direction of the sniper's nest in Book Store
>||depository.  It flies up and to the left, as well as to the rear: exactly
>||as if hit from the grassy knoll area , where more than half the witnesses
>||said they heard a shot.

>|    'Half the witnesses', my ass. Look in the appendices in
>|    _Six Seconds in Dallas_, or the table of data presented
>|    to the HSCA (in vol 12, I believe). The vast majority
>|    of people could not place the shots.

>I have two references for the half figure, and one for a 2/3rd's figure. I
>really don't care to squabble. It is clear that a large number of very
>reliable witnesses heard shots from the area.

    And what are these mysterious sources?


>|    A spontaneous firing of the right motor cortex would also cause
>|    JFK to move backwards and to the left.

>    There was no right motot cortex.

    Correct, Mr Wright! JFK's right motor cortex was extensively
    damaged by a bullet that just happoened to be passin' by
    at the time. This could easily cause the massive neuromuscular
    reacction I described.


>| The location of the
>|    JFK head wound would, in the 'brain jet' theory, cause JFK to
>|    move backward and to the left.

>Absurd. The jet would have to go in the opposite direction of the motion of
>JFK's body. Instead, bone fragments and blood were found in all directions.

    Two forward moving jets of flesh and blood can be easily
    seen in the Z film. Further, compare the descriptions of the
    Connally's and the people following the limo in the
    motorcade. The former report being hit by rather large
    chunks of Presidential grey matter, the latter don't.

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 14:16:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 38
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>|    Remember that the base of the neck in the front is lower
>|    than the base of the neck in the back. JFK had an unusually
>|    large amount of mass on his shoulders, because of his
>|    swimming and his use of cortisone derivatives. The HSCA revised
>|    the Warren Commission's location of the back wound, placing
>|    it somewhat lower (the WC back wound is, I seem to remember,
>|    in the neck itself), but the bullet path is still more or less
>|    straight through the back/neck, when JFK is sitting straight up.
>|

>In any case, there is no way a bullet fired from the TSBD could go through
>the back wound, and out into the neck. The angle is too steep. On top of
>this, Kennedy was *not* slouched over, since the Zapruder film shows
>that Kennedy is upright.

    We don't know exactly what posture JFK had at the time he was
    hit, since he was behind the sign at the time.

    The Z film (if you watch it carefully) clearly shows JFK's
    shoulders forward, and his head craned out in front of his
    body. This is generally known as 'slouching'. He certainly
    wasn't sitting bolt upright. Still photographs of JFK up
    and down the motorcade route show him in this position, as
    well.

            ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Another JFK Question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 14:21:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 41
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Prado) writes...

> > From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
> > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

> >> According to newspapers, the parade route was straight down Main St. If
> >> Oswald was just some `lone-nut' assassin, how did he know the route had
> >> been changed (unpublished) to go right on Houston onto Elm? He most likely
> >> would have found somewhere along Main St. to make the hit, no?

> > Have you seen a map of Dealey Plaza?  Main is only 60 feet from Elm at
> > the point on Elm at which the fatal shot occurred.  In fact, Oswald's
> > ignorance of the Houston/Elm deviation goes a long way to explaining
> > why Oswald didn't shoot when the limo was on Houston.

>The difference in distance from Oswald would have been considerably
>more than 20 yards difference.  Same for the Grassy Knoll shooter.
>Also, if JFK were tralelling along Main, the shot would have been tougher
>because JFK would have been moving in a transverse direction.  But on
>Elm, JFK was moving along the line of sight -- longitudal direction.

>Everyone else knew -- probably because it was apparent from the
>roadblocks and crowd lining up along the street along the new route.
>I'd think it's most probable Oswald would be one to know in advance
>if he were the assassin.

    Actually, I just saw a copy of the Dallas _Times Herald_
    "Final Edition's" front page for Nov 21 1963. It clearly
    shows the motocade route as passing down Elm.


                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Path of the "Magic Bullet"
Keywords: Warren Commission, questions, autopsy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 14:51:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 66
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes...

>So far as I am aware I  have  never
>heard any convincing evidence that there is any connection between the
>mysterious upper back wound  (which  seems  to  move  around  or  even
>disappear, depending on who is is talking) and the well-verified wound
>in the throat.  If the Warren Report is to  be  believed,  there  MUST
>have  been a path through JFK's body connecting these two wounds.  Was
>such a path ever actually traced by the autopsy  doctors,  or  is  the
>existence  of  this  bullet path only an assumption on the part of the
>Warren Commission?

    The attempts of the autopsy doctors to track the hole in the
    back were nothing less than clumsy, and they could follow
    a the path less than the length of a finger. They wanted
    to dissect the track, but permission was denied (from
    the accounts I've read, Humes, et al. had to get permission
    from the White House physician before doing almost anything).
    Any evidence for a through-the-neck bullet track, therefore,
    is generally going to be indirect. What we have:

    A description of the back wound as being smoothly round
    and having an identifiable abrasion collar that would
    identify the wound as being an exit.

    A description of the throat wound as being 'irregular'
    and 'jagged', without any mention of an abrasion collar.

    The autopsy found no penetration of the pleural cavity
    either in the fron or the back. Humes did report that
    the upper tip of the right lung and the top of the pleura
    were bruised --consistent with a shot passing all the
    way through.

    The only person who observed both wounds, Parkland's Dr
    Jenkins, believed that a bullet entered the back wound
    and exited at the throat.

    The oblong nature of Connally's back wound indicates that
    the bullet that had hit him had hit something (or someone)
    else. The only obstruction between Oswald and Connally
    was JFK.

    A high velocity bullet, like that fired by any would-be
    assassin, would penetrate more than two inches into JFK's
    body. Even a pistol bullet should penetrate more than two
    inches.

    J K Lattimer's firing tests duplicated all of the wounds
    seen in JFK, JBC's back wound, and the damage to JFK's
    clothing with single shots passing all the way through
    "Kennedy's" body.


    Is that enough?

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!rutgers!orstcs!reed!pdxgate!eecs!jprice
From: [e-mail] (James Price)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 15:09:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
Lines: 26


   Although I have not yet read the whole work, I heartily
recommend, _Spy Saga_ to everyone interested in the links
between the CIA and Mr. Oswald.... this book takes
data long known and weaves a very good case, full
of profound revelationsd, that Oswald was almost certainly
a spook, engaged in work for the CIA....
looks, like he was coninually showing a pro-communist
front while negaged in espianage work for the US....
he was definately being handled, and my suspcion is that
he is entirely innocent of pulling the trigger, that he
really was just eating his lunch at the wrong place and
the wrong time, and was entirely set up for the fall.. the man
was definately manuevered into being there to catch the blame...

read this book, its got a dozen passages in the 1st
chapter alone that leave you saying "of course, so THAT'S why..."

or, believe the Warren report, and "let sleeping dogs lie".....

James

 jprice          The reactions and behavior of those who try to control
   @         alcohol-drug using/abusing people create MORE damage to society,
jove.cs      relationships and children than the users themselves.
pdx.edu                                        - Beverly Cadotte
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!ukma!psuvax1!psuvm!was104
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK: "Back and to the left."
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 16:12:13 GMT
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
Lines: 6
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.

If the WC reports are true (which they are not, in my opinion) and Oswald did s
hoot JFK, why then in the Zapruder film does Kennedy go "Back and to the left."
as the right side of his head explodes outwards.


                                                bill
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Part I, CIA Agent Testifies on Her Role in the Kennedy Assassination
Keywords: CIA operative reveals her involvement in the Kennedy assassination.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 17:12:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 288
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:10942 alt.activism:21216 talk.politics.misc:58915 misc.headlines:19738 soc.rights.human:8477 soc.culture.usa:2570


The following excerpts from the book, PLAUSIBLE DENIAL by Mark Lane
were sent to me by Jim Burnes, jburnes@uunet!swbatl

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           "Domestic fury and fierce civil strife, ...
            Blood and destruction shall be so in use,
            And dreadful objects so familiar,
            That mothers shall but smile when they behold,
            Their infants quartered...
              ...Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war"

                  - Mark Antony, Act III, Scene I, Julius Ceasar
                    William Shakespeare
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is the sworn testimony of Marita Lorenz, the ex-lover of Fidel
Castro whom the CIA had convinced was in mortal danger (along with her child)
from the wrath of Castro.  She later worked with E. Howard Hunt and Frank
Sturgis in Operation 40, which was a CIA attempt to discredit and possibly
assassinate Castro. (BTW: it was run during the Eisenhower Administration
by Richard Nixon)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
MARK LANE:
During 1977, according to Lorenz who was then living in New York City,
Sturgis threatened to kill her.  She called the local police and Sturgis
was arrested.  At that time, I contacted Lorenz to discuss evidence tying
her to the initial stages of the plan to assassinate President Kennedy.

...she told me in some detail of her knowledge of the plan to assassinate
President Kennedy and of the roles played by Sturgis and Hunt.  ...

...Years later...I located her and asked her if she would testify at the
trial in Miami.  She seemed genuinely frightened and said, "You don't know
these people.  They have killed and would not hesitate to kill again."  She
said she was terrified at the prospect of returning to Miami.

I asked her if she would consider testifying at a neutral site, a hotel
suite in Manhattan, if I agreed not to require her to state her home
address or telephone number and place of employment and if I agreed not to
inform Hunt's counsel, who of course would be present, of her home address.
She considered my suggestion and in time acceded to it.

The testimony began:

Q: What is your present employment?

A: I do undercover work for an intelligence agency.

Q: Are you permitted to discuss the nature of that work, or where you work?

A: No, I am not.

Q: Is it also true that, as I have stipulated, you do not wish to give your
   home address?

A: No.  I do not.

Q: Have you been employed by the Central Intelligence Agency?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you at liberty to discuss the details of that employment?

A: No.

Q: Have you been employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you at liberty to discuss that?

A: No.

Q: Have you been employed by the New York Police Department?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that intelligence work?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you at liberty to discuss the details of that work?

A: No.

Q: During 1978, did you appear as a witness before the United States House
   of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you appear as a witness after the chief judge of the United States
   district court of Washington had signed an offer conferring immunity upon
   you and compelling you to testify?

A: Yes.

       My questions and her answers established the foundation for the
       relationship that existed among Lorenz, Hunt, and Sturgis.  I then
       moved toward the matter at hand.

Q: During and prior to November 1963, did you live in Miami, Florida?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: I want you to understand, if I ask you any question which you are not
   permitted to answer, you may of course say that, but I will try, based on
   my previous interview with you, to just ask you questions which you can
   answer.

A: Yes.

Q: During and before November of 1963, did you work on behalf of the Central
   Intelligence Agency in the Miami area?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you work with a man named Frank Sturgis, while you were working
   for the CIA?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Was that in Miami, during and prior to November 1963?

A: Yes.

Q: What other names, to your knowledge, is Frank Sturgis known by?

A: Frank Fiorini, Hamilton; the last name, Hamilton.  F-I-O-R-I-N-I-.

Q: Was Mr. Fiorini or Mr. Sturgis, while you worked with him, also employed
   by the Central Intelligence Agency?

A: Yes.

Q: During that time were payments made to Mr. Sturgis for the work he was
   doing for the CIA?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever witness anyone make payments to him for the CIA work which you
   and Mr. Sturgis were both involved in?

A: Yes.

[misc tidbits deleted...]

       It was clear that Lorenz was about to reveal the name of the
       paymaster and control for Sturgis's secret operations. The
       courtroom was hushed. Even the miscellaneous spectator background
       sounds, coughing, clearing of throats, rustling of papers, and
       moving about came to a sudden, almost eerie, halt.

Q: Who did you witness make payments to Mr. Sturgis?

A: A man by the name of Eduardo.

Q: Who is Eduardo?

A: That is his code name; the real name is E. Howard Hunt.

       [At this point Hunt began to confer with his attorneys]

Q: Did you know him and meet him during and prior to November 1963?

A: Yes.

       We then moved to the events immediately preceeding the
       assassination of President Kennedy.

Q: Did you go on a trip with Mr. Sturgis from Miami during November of 1963?

A: Yes.

Q: Was anyone else present with you when you went on that trip?

A: Yes.

Q: What method of transportation did you use?

A: By car.

Q: Was there one or more cars?

A: There was a follow-up car.

Q: Does that mean two cars?

A: Backup; yes.

Q: What was in the follow-up car, if you know?

A: Weapons.

Q: Without asking you any of the details regarding the activity that you and
   Mr. Sturgis and Mr. Hunt were involved in, may I ask you if some of that
   activity was related to the transportation of weapons?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Mr. Hunt pay Mr. Sturgis sums of money for activity related to the
   transportation of weapons?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Mr. Sturgis tell you where you would be going from Miami, Florida,
   during November of 1963, prior to the time that you traveled with him in
   the car?

A: Dallas, Texas.

Q: He told you that?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he tell you the purpose of the trip to Dallas, Texas?

A: No; he said it was confidential.

Q: Did you arrive in Dallas during November of 1963?

A: Yes.

Q: After you arrived in Dallas, did you stay at any accommodations there?

A: Motel.

Q: While you were at that motel, did you meet anyone other than those who
   were in the party traveling with you from Miami to Dallas?

A: Yes.

Q: Who did you meet?

A: E. Howard Hunt.

       Marita Lorenz then provided details about her stay in Dallas.

Q: Was there anyone else who you saw or met other than Mr. Hunt?

A: Excuse me?

Q: Other than those?

A: Jack Ruby.

Q: Tell me the curcumstances regarding your seeing E. Howard Hunt in Dallas
   in November of 1963?

A: There was a prearranged meeting that E. Howard Hunt deliver us sums of
   money for the so-called operation that I did not know its nature.

Q: Were you told what your role was to be?

A: Just a decoy at the time.

Q: Did you see Mr. Hunt acutally deliver money to anyone in the motel room
   which you were present in?

A: Yes.

Q: To who did you see him deliver the money?

A: He gave an envelope of cash to Frank Fiorini.

Q: When he gave him the envelope, was the cash visible as he had it in the
   envelope?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you have a chance to see the cash after the envelope was given to
   Mr. Fiorini?

A: Frank pulled out the money and flipped it and counted it and said "that
   is enough" and put it in his jacket.

Q: How long did Mr. Hunt remain in the room?

A: About forty-five minutes.

Q: Did anyone else enter the room other than you, Mr. Fiorini, Mr. Hunt,
   and others who may have been there before Mr. Hunt arrived?

A: No.
                          (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
    transcribed by John DiNardo
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp!01mawatson
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 17:18:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Lines: 21

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (robert coo>
>> but think about physics for a second.  If
>> a small round bullet entered the back of your skull and left in a nice neat hole
>> in the front of your head, you would slightly obtain a forward motion in your
>> head.
>>
>> However, if the front of your skull explodes forward as JFK's unfortunately
>> did, the rest of your head would have to kick *backwards*, due to conservation
>> of momentum.  Hence, the video actually supports the gunman from behind theory.

If I remember correctly from the footage of the assassination, it was the
*back* of Kennedy's head that exploded, not the front.  And his head did
jerk back and to the left. This would tell me that he was hit from the
front right.
--
 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
< Michelle Watson (Luna)             "[e-mail]"  >
< Ball State University              "[e-mail]"       >
<                                                                      >
< "Am I buggin' you? I don't mean t' bug ya..."  -Bono                 >
 \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!stanford.edu!hsdndev!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ingria
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Path of the "Magic Bullet"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 17:04:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 24 Jan 92 14:51:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

                          What we have:

       A description of the back wound as being smoothly round
       and having an identifiable abrasion collar that would
       identify the wound as being an exit.
                                          ^^^^

I think you made a Freudian slip here.

-30-
Bob
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!stanford.edu!hsdndev!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ingria
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 17:11:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 23 Jan 92 21:42:00 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Brian Holtz) writes:
   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

   >   The G.I.s name is Gordon Arnold. This is the same man who stated that the
   >  reason he hit the deck was because a bullet came whizzing past his head
   >  from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

   Yes.  The problem is, there's no physical evidence of any of the early
   shooting coming from anywhere but behind the limousine.

Ahem.  You've thrown down the challenge to conspriacy believers as to
what would make them doubt their theories.  Doesn't it make you a
little curious that this witness, whose prone position IS physically
documented (you, in fact, were the one that brought him up in the
first place), gives the explanation for hitting the deck that a shot
went by him from the grassy knoll?  Doesn't it at lease make you go:
Hmm?  Perhaps his explanation was just retroactive rationalization,
but it is kind of curious...

(By the way, the lining up of Connally's wounds is, to my mind, a
pretty strong piece of evidence FOR the single bullet theory.)

-30-
Bob
Path: ns-mx!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!ali
From: [e-mail] (Ali Sadjadi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: OSWALD's Change of Nationality
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 18:06:56 GMT
Sender: ali@palm05 (Ali Sadjadi)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Lines: 16
Originator: ali@palm05


This is for all the lone assassin buffs!!
I would like to know one thing for people who beleive in Warren commission findings!
In the heat of cold war, Bay of pigs, and Cuban missle crisis,
How does someone who renounced his American citizenship, and is being labeled as a
communist, and goes and lives in Soviet Union for couple of years, gets his American
citizenship back in 48 hours, plus brings a Russian woman back to the U.S. ???

Does this guy ever gets questioned by FBI OR CIA ?
Does anybody keeps tabs on this guy?  Sure they would have! unless he was one of them!
Unless they knew exactly why he went to USSR for!

Couple of years ago there was a woman who was on the news, she had renounced
her citizenship, and became citizen of Cuba, and then decided to become a U.S. citizen
INS would not give her citizenship back. She had to go to INS court. and her case was
on for many month.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!ali
From: [e-mail] (Ali Sadjadi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK's secret files
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 18:14:41 GMT
Sender: ali@palm05 (Ali Sadjadi)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Lines: 10
Originator: ali@palm05


This is for those guys who think by opening the JFK's secret files something, or
somethings will be known.

Oh common guys! Do you really think if there was a conspiracy the documents would
be written and put into a file, so we can open and read it some day?
Have you guys forgotten about Oliver North's shredding party???
what ever happened to all the documents for Iran contra?
If there was a conspiracy, and I personally beleive it was, the documents have been
destroyed long long ago. Plus I do not beleive they ever existed.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 20:46:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 106


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
||No, I meant that the train of thought you were/are developing is worthless.
||The sights could have been messed up or not, we don't know, we will never
||know, and it is unimportant.
|
|Well, even though I lean toward the idea that Oswald did the shooting
|with that rifle, I disagree that it's unimportant.  If we had answers
|to the questions I asked, we would know for sure whether it was
|possible for Oswald to have done the shooting with that rifle.

Well, I have to take a step back here once again. According to Crime of the
Centruy, a deputy testifies that the gun was under 2 50 pound boxes--however
I think the literal quote is that 2 50 pound boxes *had to be removed* to
get at the gun. 6 Seconds in Dallas clearly shows the gun upright, under
no pressure whatsoever.
    I now take the veiw that is was extremely unlikely that the gun
had been damaged enough to alter the sights:--there is certainly no evidence
for it, and I don't think you can do this type of thing just by moving
fast. Again, since a bullet was in the chamber, I imagine that the
expert shooter Oswald would not have been *extremely* carless with
the rifle: i.e., he wouldn't have swung it around his head, used it
as a crutch or tool, or anything that would make the sights go out.
    Also, if the sights *were* damaged, you would think the WC or
FBI might notice it, as a welcome explanation as to how expert Oswald could
have pulled off a shot whereas FBI couldn't.

||How do you hold a had with a smashed wrist?
|
|For how long?  A minute, or for a second and a half during which
|you're not even aware you've been shot?  If the latter, it's simple:
|how many (if any) of the tendons in his wrist that keep his fingers
|curled were severed?

The point is there is no reason to suppose that Connelly could not feel
right away that he was shot in the rist: a place where there are lots of
nerves, bones, and tendons. If someone is shot in the wrist, the first thing
one does is stress his hand, wrist or arm. In fact, Connelly made a massive
amount of involuntary actions that would only take a milisecond to occur.

|||An extra guy in the TSBD doesn't make for a more accurate shot, and
|||every other building was either further away or presented a transverse
|||target at equivalent range.
||
||It was fantastic. Two shooters shooting would have a greater chance for the
||hit, especially if they were sing better rifles.
|
|Well, gee, since Kennedy was indeed hit, I guess it's obvious that a
|highly-advanced CIA prototype laser sighting system was employed.
|Case closed.
|
|And just where did the extra shooter and his rifle disappear to?
|There was a cop at the bottom of the TSBD stairs almost before anyone
|had time to get down from the sixth floor; you conspiracy theorists
|even say that Oswald would have had trouble getting to where he was
|seen on the _second_ floor.

The second or third or fourth shooter could have done just about anything,
since there was no investigation to speak of, and the Dallas Police were
clearly negligent in their duties. What seems odd is any one believing
that Oswald was the killer, especially since there was no evidence on him
for weeks.

|||Yes.  Jim Braden.  He was in town on oil business.  I know of no weapons
|||found either on him or in the Dal-Tex building that he had been in.
||
||He was not on oil business. He had a rap sheet a mile long.
|
|He had a rap sheet, but he was indeed in town to talk to oilman Hunt.

Hunt? Oh that makes him *perfectly* legitamate!

|||Mitchell says Lattimer's son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting.
||
||I doubt this, and wonder why we should believe Lattimer's son over the
||three other tests conducted by people who had no incentive to produce
||negative results?
|
|The other tests were conducted by people unfamiliar with using a
|Mannlicher-Carcano.

As Oswald was, I suppose?

| And I think the other tests were conducted to
|test the Separate Bullets 1.6 Seconds Apart Theory.  The resulting
|Magic Bullet Theory leaves the shooter with at least four seconds to
|line up his two hits.  Four seconds with a 4x-scoped, rested rifle and
|a target at 50-70 yards moving slowly and directly away is just not a
|very hard shot.

I will check up on this. But in any case, the angles for the Magic bullet
theory are wrong.



--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 16:49:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 27

[e-mail] (James Price) writes:

<    Although I have not yet read the whole work, I heartily
< recommend, _Spy Saga_ to everyone interested in the links
< between the CIA and Mr. Oswald.... this book takes
< data long known and weaves a very good case, full
< of profound revelationsd, that Oswald was almost certainly
< a spook, engaged in work for the CIA....
< looks, like he was coninually showing a pro-communist
< front while negaged in espianage work for the US....
< he was definately being handled, and my suspcion is that
< he is entirely innocent of pulling the trigger, that he
< really was just eating his lunch at the wrong place and
< the wrong time, and was entirely set up for the fall.. the man
< was definately manuevered into being there to catch the blame...

As a sidebar to this, it should be noted that the Communist Party of
the USA was so well infiltrated by the FBI at that time, that fully
ten percent of the membership were FBI informants. This included people
at *all* levels of the organization. So the idea of someone masquerading
as a communist to gather intelligence is not at all unique to Oswald.

Given the efficiency of our domestic intelligence operations, it's unlikely
that any left-leaning organization was free of infiltration, including
the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 92 20:55:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 76


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Holtz) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
||First of all, his employer in California is quoted as saying that all his
||employees had secret, not confedential clearences.
|
|What employer?  A few days ago you screwed up and called Oswald's
|clearance "top secret"; it's plain that ignorant people frequently
|make mistakes about distinctions among clearance levels.

Look it up yourself, if you already hadn't done so.

||Second, he was able to gather important evidence about the U2 spy plane,
||despite Holtz's claim he was just a low level employee. He would be able
||to provide information about the hight of the U2,
|
|What evidence do you have that U2's flew at their top-secret
|operational height when they were in range of Oswald's air traffic
|radar?  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Nadda.

Are you serious? What does the pilot say, gee I have to wait untill I am out
of range of the tower to climb up to the height I am going to fly because
we can't trust these people? I am sure! Why hire people to look at your
plane on radar that you can't trust for your altitude flight, a common
piece of information for radar operators?

||how it landed and took off, what it looked like,
|
|It rolled down the runway.  It had glider-like wings.  At the ranges
|and speeds that Russian radar watched the U-2 operate, it already
|could surmise these things.
|
||He could get related information on supplies and spare parts for it.
||In fact, the plane was stored in the same building as the supplies of
||the Radar tower were in.
|
|Source?

Go find it yoruself, once again. There are only a few dozen books written
since the HSCA, fewer still since the eighties. Why don't you read books
that go against what you think. It will be good for you to read this stuff.

||    At his job in California, he knew secret codes, communications
||frequencies, and assorted things that would be very valuble to the
||Soviets.
|
|He knew nothing that wasn't changed periodically anyway.  All they had
|to do was change them again when he left.

Sure, they do that for me all the time too. No problem. Just change a few codes
and we can even hire him back at full salary!

||he walks into the American embassay and says to th consulate
||that he is going to give the USSR military secrets. Whatever these are,
||and he certainly must have *some* with even a confidential clearence,
||he should be tried for treason.
|
|Sorry, Judge Wright, but saying you're going to commit a crime for
|which there is no evidence that it was actually committed, is not a
|crime in and of itself.

Sorry, Blind Brian, but I have established that 1) Oswald had secrets and 2)
Said he was going to divulge them and 3) The intelligence community, instead of
getting mad, thanked him, gave him money, and let him have all the visas he
ever needed. If you can't see that something is seriously wrong here, I
feel sorry for you!
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     |
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)