2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/govern/conspjfk/mys00637.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-10 | 856.2 KB

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3000 alt.conspiracy:17727 sci.skeptic:28936
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:45:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 47
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
||
||
||Just in case anyone still had doubts, the report typed up that had Clay
||Shaw's alias as Clay Bertrand is now published in a book by Jim DeGincini, or
||something like that. It's called Destiny Betrayed.
|
|No one has ever questioned whether "Clay Bertrand" was listed as an alias
|on Shaw's booking report. The question was, did Shaw actually give it, or
|did the officer just type it in from his own knowledge?

Are you kidding? Why would would you doubt a routine questioning by a police
officer over a suspect brought in for questioning? Since when does this happen?
That is fantastic. Does that mean that anything anyone says to a police officer
can later be taken back by saying that that officer simply made a mistake? Get
real, I suppose is the apt phrase.

|I believe some other technical argument prevented Garrison from using the
|typed report as evidence.

This is true. But it was BS.

||Jim also found that orders for Oswald's 544 Camp street pamphlets by the CIA
||from the publishers of those pamplets.
|
|Hey, wait a second! This sentence makes no sense!
|Are you saying someone found a CIA order for the same pamphlets from the
|national Fair Play for Cuba Committee? If so, is this tied in any other way
|than being the same pamphlet to Oswald's order?
|If so, this is big news, but give us details!

It is a simple story, and you can read Jim Dieugenio's book for the details.
Basically, the CIA orderd the Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamplets that Oswald
and Bannister had. Recpiets were found by someone who claimed to work for
a "Basic Pampleting" company.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:49:18 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 54
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
||
||Just in case anyone still had doubts, the report typed up that had Clay
||Shaw's alias as Clay Bertrand is now published in a book by Jim DeGincini, or
||something like that. It's called Destiny Betrayed.
||
||Jim also found that orders for Oswald's 544 Camp street pamphlets by the CIA
||from the publishers of those pamplets. Note also that a stack was found in
||Bannister's office by Garrison. This proves that Oswald was working for the
||CIA.
||
|
|Oswald was only 20 when he went to the USSR, supposedly as a "CIA
|operative." That means that his alleged training must have taken
|place while he was literally a teenager.
|
|Does anybody have the slightest REAL evidence that the CIA or other
|U.S. agencies have ever recruited and trained "teen agents," and sent
|them off on life-or-death games of spy and counterspy?
|
...
|Unless anyone can show some SOLID evidence that the CIA has actually
|recruited Teen Agents (and messed-up ones, at that), and sent them
|into enemy territory on high-risk missions, this notion of "Teen
|Agents" is one of the silliest parts of the Conspiracy yarns.

Well, I wrote paritally in jest, but it is plain from studying our mischevious
Oswald that he did in fact have CIA connections, definitely intelligence
connections. There is no smoking gun of course, but just at looking at
Oswald's actions, it seems clear enough to any sceptical person.
|--
|
|        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]
|
| Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
|
|       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
|        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
|        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
|        where it will end."
|                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"


--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:05:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 55
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
|[e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
|| Just in case anyone still had doubts, the report typed up that had Clay
|| Shaw's alias as Clay Bertrand is now published in a book by Jim DeGincini, or
|| something like that. It's called Destiny Betrayed.
|
|The reason the alias on the booking card was thrown out of court was that, in
|accordance with police procedures, the detainee signed the card before any
|of the blanks were filled in. Later, the blanks were filled in from data on
|the arrest sheet. In addition, other people who were witnesses to Shaw's
|signing the card testified that Shaw had never been asked for aliases. This
|is why Officer Habighorst's uncorroborated and contradicted testimony was
|disallowed. Naturally, Garrison fails to confront these details in "On the
|Trail of the Assassins," even to rebut them.

What are you talking about? If it was "in accordance with police procedures",
why was it thrown out? Why did Shaw sign the card if nothing was filled in?
If the data was filled in with the arrest sheet, then why would you think that
the alias was simply made up? Why was Habighorst nearly blown away when a car
bomb exploded in his car?

|| Jim also found that orders for Oswald's 544 Camp street pamphlets by the CIA
|| from the publishers of those pamplets.
|
|Uh-huh.
|

Uh huh.

|| Note also that a stack was found in
|| Bannister's office by Garrison. This proves that Oswald was working for the
|| CIA.
|
|Garrison never found any pamphlets in Bannister's office. By the time
|Garrison had begun his excursions into paranoid fantasy, Bannister was
|dead (died in 1964). The story of the pamphlets being found in Bannister's
|file cabinet came from Bannister's widow. She also said she destroyed them.
|Another one for the "how convenient" file.

Garrison "found" a witness to the pamplets. Big deal. You know that the WR
*ignored* Bannister's connection. Bannister not only had
pamplets, but had a whole file on the fair play for cuba comittee, as well as
one for the CIA, and Shaw's International Trade Mart.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Date: 15 Aug 1992 02:22:51 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] writes...
||Mitchell S Todd |
||Bruce Schuck ||
||Robert "Skeptical of one side only" Sheaffer |||
||David Wright ||||
|
|||||Oswald was only 20 when he went to the USSR, supposedly as a "CIA
|||||operative." That means that his alleged training must have taken
|
||
||||So. They train teenagers to fly fighter planes.
|
|||    Since when? Last I checked, you have to be a college grad
|||    to fly one.
|
||Did you check 1959/1960?
|
|    The last time non-college grads were admitted to flight training
|    was 1954. I know because my father was one of the last non-college
|    cadets to get into flight school (and he was over twenty a the
|    time as well).

Just what is it you guys are arguing about anyway? Oswald was being trained for
deadly and important missions since his days when he flew with Ferrie. This is
obviously ideal from the CIA's point of view. They get a young recruit, do a
few odd and ends, nothing to dangerous, and then can have some deap cover.
I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It is not as though the CIA went
actively looking, but if someone like Oswald joins the Civil Air Patrol at an
early age, they might want to keep him for some purpose. After all, the Soviets
say they knew Oswald was an agent anyway, and they didn't kill him or put his
life in danger.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Garrison Tapes (JFK)
Date: 15 Aug 1992 02:27:21 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|In article <[e-mail]
|>, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|>
|> In article <[e-mail]
|> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
|> 2) A memo from George Bush (!) warning the FBI of rumours of a possible
|>    assassination was shown, but the source of this document was not stated.
|>
|> have you gotten a source for this yet, by any chance?
|>
|You may have missed my post re the Hard Copy (AUS.TV) show:
|By pausing and slow motion on my video the following was obtained from the film
|"The Garrison Tapes " produced by John Barbour:
|
|Photocopy of
|":US SECRET SERVICE memo
|  Re James Milton Parrott
|  Houston on November 22 advised that George H. W. Bush, a reputable
|  businessman, furnished information to the effect that Jim Parrott
|  has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston..."
|
|It is a poor photocopy so you need a good video copy to read it.

Thank you. It seems to be the very George Bush we have all been waiting
for.

|> |Also the Bronson film showing that there was no one on the sixth floor
|> |is very important.
|>
|> ? Thompson says that his photo experts say two people (or more?) were on the
|> 6th floor.
|
|
|In the Garrison Tapes video it shows the "The Bronson film" in colour.
|It shows no activity at any of the TSBD 6th floor windows during the parade.
|Watch it for yourself and decide. (The film also shows US Govt Memo 63-43
|dated 11/25/63, claiming that the film does NOT show the TSBD and is of poor
|quality and irrelevant). Why?

Just a note: what you or I see is not particularly usefull. He claims that
looking at the originals he sees people moving around. I don't see it either,
and his stills of the film are not entirely convincing.


--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3005 alt.conspiracy:17729 sci.skeptic:28939
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!oracle!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Was: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:51:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 125

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Sue Haley {AISG/Admin NC}) writes:

>
> just to set the record in a realistic mode.  I know for a fact that
> during the late 40's early 50's the CIA did use teens. My father-in-law
> according to his DD214 was a member of the OSS (CIA) he was born in
> 28 and in 1945 was recruited by the OSS making him 17. and continued
> in this field of employment

Thank you, Sue.

I believe that we can now conclude that there was at lease one teenage spy
and dispose of Robert's silly syllogism "no spy is a teenager", which has
gotten much undeserved mileage.

Recall that one can 'prove' that no spy is a teenager only by
creating an exhaustive list of spies along with their ages, each of
which must be more than 19.  Clearly His Doubtfulness hasn't done that,
nor is he capable of doing it, nor is it likely that anyone will do
it.  Just last night, I was re-reading a rather humorous portion
of "Plausible Denial" in which Hunt's lawyers deliberately attempt to
use techniques employed unwittingly by our very own Questionus Minimus
as he attempts to rebut Oswald's teenage spydom using anything and
everything except specific facts from Oswald's life.

Robert is entitled to assert that "to the best of his knowledge" no spy
is a teenager, he is completely within reason to have an opinion that
Oswald was not a spy, and I am entitled to be skeptical of the reach of
conclusions based so much upon so little.

Neither Robert's personal experience, nor his imagination constitute a
valid and exhaustive sample of human possibility.  Simply because he
doesn't know any teenage spies doesn't 'prove' that there aren't any;
simply because he can't imagine why the government might employ teenagers
doesn't prove that they didn't; and because he can't fathom what the
young Oswald's mission in Russia might have been doesn't 'prove' that
there wasn't one.

Part of the humor in Lane's book derives from the fact that a government
witness, 'known' to have been employed for many years by the CIA, under
deposition, was unable to 'prove' that he was a CIA employee.  This man
had been called by Hunt's lawyers to help establish that Marita Lorenz
didn't have a relationship with the agency.  His testimony was little
more than a personal description -- "To the best of his knowledge, Lorenz
was not an agent."  In other words, he didn't know.  Lane quickly exposed
the sleight of hand.

Q: Can you say that Marita Lorenz was not an employee of the CIA?
A: No.

Lane's a smart enough guy.  He was just having fun with the shroud of
secrecy surrounding intelligence activity.  The CIA doesn't admit
much, even its successes, even its known operatives.  Recall that
the Warren Commission also grappled with this issue when confronted
with DA Wade's allegation that Oswald was an FBI informant.
Horrified, the Commission learned that it would neither be able to
prove nor disprove the allegation, and thanks to the candor of ex-CIA
director Dulles, the WC learned that no official of that agency, including
Hoover who they were counting on, could necessarily be believed
to testify correctly about it.  It was just as possible that the official
would deceive as clarify.  Why?  Because his subordinates might have
lied to him.  Or, he might lie to protect them, or the agency,
or "national security."  Ironically, Dulles himself concealed much from
the Warren Commission.  Richard Helms, a key player in the JFK case,
was later convicted for lying to a Senate committee, and Clare George
is getting his ass harpooned even as we speak for the exact same thing.
Old habits die hard.

It seems that this spy stuff is tricky business -- not straighforward;
not obvious. Things just aren't as they appear.  Occam doesn't like it.

What I'm saying is that the statement "X is a spy" is very difficult
to 'prove' in the normal sense, particularly when practiced within a
context of "plausible deniability", a context in which the respective
agency is able to disavow its knowledge of the operative, just like
on television.  Investigators are generally forced to target a moving set
of assertions, descending in weakness, some of which are more easily
proved than others.

1. X is a spy.
2. X is an "employee" of the CIA (or FBI or whatever)
3. X was an "(contract) agent" of the the CIA
4. X performed activities on behalf of the CIA
5. X performed activities on behalf of someone for whom 1. - 4. is true
6. X was known to have associated with others who have engaged in 1. - 4.
above.

Sometimes 3. - 5. are stated as X had a "special relationship" with the
CIA.  Sometimes 4. & 5. are used to establish 3., which if it occurs over
an extended period of time is used to indicate 2 or 1.

Questions more easily answered are, "Do you think that Oswald was engaged
in activities on behalf of a government agency?", "Do you think that there
is a pattern of such behaviour?", and "Which agencies for which countries?".

My opinion as of this time, based on information some of which has floated
previously on the network, is that Oswald was politically, a rightist, who
had a "special relationship" with both the CIA and FBI, and during that
relationship developed a "cover" which was that of a political leftist.
This scenario is very firmly established in evidence, so much so that we
now routinely take it for granted, not remembering the days when Oswald was
still seen as the Warren Commission painted him -- a kind of left-leaning,
Squeaky Fromm-Commie-wannabee, and a loner. For a lefty loner, Oswald
sure had an extensive network of righty consorts.

Oswald's cover was seized upon by the WC, and was never "penetrated" by them
despite many obvious, near-comical attempts by someone to draw attention
to Oswald during the time immediately preceding the assassination.
Eventually, the cover was blown sky high by, among others, Jim Garrison
and his investigation, something for which Garrison is rarely given proper
credit.

Garrison got it right -- Lee Oswald, boy spy, easily explains a whole bunch
of data that the WC was struggling to explain, and, because of this,
Occam likes it a lot.

Paul Collacchi

(P.S. -- Don't forget.  Now that Boris has opened up the Commie files, we'll
 get to see what THEY thought of Oswald.  Stay tuned.)




Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3006 alt.conspiracy:17732 sci.skeptic:28950
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 15 Aug 1992 02:44:34 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Cla
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Lines: 29

In many postings, Mitchell S Todd is arguing with many other posters about
whether LHO could have been a spy at the age of 17.

You have a point about LHO being enlisted for a high class spy operation.
It is hard to fathom that.  But they seem to have the point against you in
that you don't seem to be able to imagine the various realistic different
people and situations that true spies would be called upon to take part in.

You keep holding up either the highly educated spy who sits in an office
and is an expert at deciphering some bit of data or the spy who goes
under cover (and a bit Bondish at that) in some hostile country.
You are ignoring all that we have learned about some of the seemy
characters like Sturgis who I would not be able to place in either of those
categories.
The most believable spy scenario of LHO found in the assassination books is
that he was part of the Defector program which placed americans into the
USSR.  I seem to remember that a defector spy wasn't necessarily used to
gather information or make spy contacts.  The purpose was to put him into
the Russkies society and let professional spies watch just how he was
treated and sniffed at and reacted to by the KGB.  This low level spying
would have fit LHO to a tee.  They didn't have to train him or rely upon
him to do fantastic things.  He would have been thrilled to be part of
something that gave him the secret upper hand.  Gee, I'm a spy and you
don't know it.  Remember those "I've Led Three Lives" shows he was glued to.
To be a spy(low level) and not to have to work hard to do it would be just up
his alley.
Other scenarios that have LHO being a secret superspy has never been
convincing to me either.  He was too lazy.  Too unsociable.
ALAN ROGERS
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 09:10:47 GMT
Lines: 38

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

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

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

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!batcomputer!reed!henson!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 09:22:24 GMT
Lines: 9

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
>
>It also involves his attempted contact with one of the other
>'defectors' while in the USSR.
>
Hmm.. Where'd you get this?


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!spacebbs!mark.stevens
From: [e-mail] (Mark Stevens)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Garrison Tapes (J
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark Stevens)
Lines: 24


To: [e-mail] (Chuck Anderson)

>I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the special two day Court TV
>special trial next Monday and Tuesday.  It will try Oswald again.

CA>Is this the same trial that I saw a few years ago?  The prosecuting
CA>attorney was Leo Buscaglia (is that right?), the man who prosecuted
CA>Charles Manson.

This was an all new trial that the ABA sponsored as part of their
convention in San Francisco on Monday and Tuesday.  It got a lot of
press coverage.  The highlight was a 3d re-creation of the shooting.
I saw a news story of how the 3d video was made.


The jury was asked the simple question of "Did Oswald shoot JFK".
The jury deadlocked with 5 saying he didn't and 7 saying he did.

I'd like to get a copy of it but I don't think court TV is on many
cable services.  Hopefully this will surface sometime.
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #42 .

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!spacebbs!mark.stevens
From: [e-mail] (Mark Stevens)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Garrison Tapes (J
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark Stevens)
Lines: 12


To: [e-mail]

CU>If you mean in the film "The Garrison Tapes", then you must have seen it.
CU>When and where, David?


Viewers Choice is showing it when they show JFK on their PPV channel.
Unfortunetly most people have Request 1 and 2 for PPV's.
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #42 .

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3011 alt.conspiracy:17739 sci.skeptic:28953
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 08:06:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 16

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:
>
>About his wages: there are several things that indicate that Oswald
>spend more than his official earnings. His debt to the state department
>was paid too soon. Don't forget that the only tax form he ever filled out
>(I believe in 1962) is still classified (see Summers).
>

Very interesting.  How can we get it declassified?


Furthermore, $3000 worth of photographic equipment was found in Oswald's
room. That's not cheap in those days.

The fact that the rifle was a cheap $12 MC, doesn't sound like Oswald's
style.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:44:03 GMT
Lines: 33

Tom Warner > writes:
Bruce Schuck (me) >>


>>
>>It also involves his attempted contact with one of the other
>>'defectors' while in the USSR.
>>
>Hmm.. Where'd you get this?

From Anthony Summers "Conspiracy"

The Rand employee 'defector' was Robert Webster, a young plastics
experts who 'defected' after an exhibition in Moscow. He worked for
the Rand Development Corporation. The President of Rand D was Henry
Rand , a senior veteran of the OSS.

Webster was a former Navy man who defected two weeks before Oswald.

Webster, who had a wife in the US, took a Russian common-law wife who
was probably a KGB agent.

He left the USSR, apparently disillusioned with the USSR two weeks
before Oswald did.

In 1961, before leaving the USSR, Oswald inquired about Websters fate.

Oswald either met Webster, or had heard of him.


Later, back in the US, Marina told a friend that LHO defected from a
trade show in Moscow, which was Websters story, not LHO's.

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 16 Aug 1992 05:27:18 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject:    I AINT GONNA WORK ON MAGGIES DRAWERS NO MORE
Lines: 390

[For those who are musically impaired the subject line is a play on a
title of one of Bob Dylan's songs "I aint gonna work on maggie's farm no
more"]


Here are selections from three sources on the shooting ability of
LHO.  The first comes from LHO's brothers book and shows
generally what Robert's observations and opinions are on the
subject.  It also places in perspective just where Lattimer's
quotes are coming from when he uses Robert to back up his
theories.
The second is from LHO's marine buddies who saw him shoot during
his tenure in the service.  It should be noted that they observed
LHO when he had already gone through basic training and had come
back to the States from being in Japan.  These experiences were
related at the second time LHO was officially tested, not the
first time when LHO had shown some small passable ability in
firing a rifle after being trained to the teeth in basic
training.  I think these testimonies call into question from
which testing period Lattimer is showing off his score book.

The third selection is from NightLine's special segment on the
Oswald/KGB files.  It shows the official and unofficial
observations of LHO's rifle ability.  Forrest Sawyer not only saw
the KGB files but interviewed LHO's friends that he made while in
the USSR.  As a singularity, these findings can be called into
question as Russian propaganda but when matched with all the
other findings show a smooth conformity with all the rest that
belies any quibbling over evidence given by the Russians.

What is consistent through all three selections is the
observation by all parties that LHO exhibited a distinct
awkwardness, a deficiency in coordination that not only prevented
him from being any good with a rifle but also held him back from
such things as learning to drive a car.  Any testimony to
reflexes or arm strength loses its importance when weighed
against this physical disability.

In all the testimony and literature on the subject, as far as I
can survey, you will find no one who had first hand knowledge and
personal acquaintance with LHO who described him as being a good
marksman or even a passable marksman.

As I have stated before in other postings, LHO's poor
marksmanship does not prove that he didn't do it.  One does have
to face the fact that anyone can be put into the same situation
and regardless of their ability with a rifle, they can just close
their eyes and fire away leaving pure luck to let the bullets
find their intended mark.  That there is the slim possibility
that this can be successful cannot be totally ignored.  But in
reality, no one can ignore the question of just how improbable
that situation is.
One improbable factor in an event does not make the
interpretation of that event invalid.  It is when you pile one
improbable factor after another, as I judge this situation, that
you begin to stretch the acceptability of this interpretation
beyond what can be judged acceptable.  They all start to weigh
that interpretation down until we have to reject it as a whole.
The pro-WC posters and authors have in many instances presented
various factors as possible but with a low probability level,
sinking the whole edifice into a well of high unbelievability.
It is a collection of weak possibilities that have to face other
contentions that have stronger probability levels.

************Selection One******************************
From the book "LEE a portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by his
brother, Robert L. Oswald"

From page 37
"A few years later he(Lee) learned to hunt and shoot when he
followed John and me into the woods."

From page 38
"Lee looked up to both of us and used to tag along after us
everywhere we went, when we'd let him.  Later, when we learned to
shoot, we passed along our knowledge to Lee.  John could always
outshoot me on targets, but I liked to get out in the fields and
hunt.  I could keep up with John in the field, and even do a
little better.  Lee learned from both of us.  He did pretty well
on targets --- just a notch or two below me --- but in the fields
was awkward.

From page 81
"In December(1956), about five weeks after he went into the
Marine Corp. Lee scored 212 on his test, two points about the
minimum requirement for a "sharpshooter" rating (he didn't do as
well two and a half years later, when his score of 191 on another
range just barely qualified him for a "marksman" rating.)

From page 208:
"If Lee did not spend a considerable amount of time practicing
with that rifle in the weeks and months before the assassination,
then I would say the Lee did not fire the shots that killed the
President and wounded the Governor."
(the above is in response to the WC findings that there was no
credible evidence that LHO practiced anywhere with the MC.  In
fact, the WC gave ample evidence to prove that the MC laid unused
rolled up in that blanket in the Paine's garage.)

From page 209:
"It would have taken hours of practice for Lee to become
acquainted with the characteristics of the rifle, its recoil, and
especially the use of the scope.  He had to know, for example,
whether the scope was zeroed in for one hundred yards or one
hundred and fifty yards or two hundred yards.  Unless he knew
that, he could have overshot any target.
I have always felt that the rifle tests made by the Warren
Commission staff were meaningless.  The Commission did not try to
find three or four men whose Marine Corps records indicated about
Lee's level of skill.  Lee's scores in the Marine Corps prove
beyond a doubt that he was never an expert rifleman.  Instead,
the Commission selected three or four of the best riflemen in the
United States, set up conditions that did not duplicate those of
November 22, and then ignored any of the test results that cast
doubt upon Lee's ability to fire the rifle accurately within the
known time limits.
For the tests to have any validity, obviously the Commission
should have begun by choosing three or four riflemen of average-
--or even below average---skill.  The men who were chosen should
not have had any longtime familiarity with telescopic sights,
since never before April, 1963, to my knowledge had Lee used a
telescopic sight.  They should have spent no more time in
practicing with the weapon than the Commission contends Lee
spent.  And, of course, the basic conditions should have been
duplicated exactly.  The shots should have been fired from the
same height, at a target moving at the same speed, under similar
light conditions, and in exactly the same period of time.  I
understand that the Commission's test failed to meet five of
these six rather obvious requirements."

(Robert goes on about testing himself or choosing those to be
tested, trying to match Lee's idiosyncracies as a shooter and it
is here, at the end of this segment that Lattimer gets his quoted
information.  ALAN)

"I have some idea of the speed of Lee's reflexes, both from my
general observation of him while we were growing up and
specifically because of a game we used to play.  Sometimes Lee
and I would walk up to each other and fake an unexpected punch,
to test each other's reactions.  I discovered from this game that
Lee had very rapid reflexes.  He was also much stronger than he
looked.  For a small man, he had unusual strength in his hands,
and his forearms were well developed and powerful."

(Does anyone reading this get the impression that Lattimer is
perhaps taking these comments out of the overall context? ALAN)

************Selection Two**********************************

From HSCA report book 8, starting on page 233, the testimony of
Nelson Delgado who was stationed in same unit as LHO while in
California after LHO came back from Japan:

(Relatively large sections describing the conditions of the
firing range are left in this transcription because the details
are needed to understand the testimony of fakery at the ending
answers.  ALAN)

Delgado:  As I said to the men that interviewed me before, we
          went to the range at one time, and he didn't show no
          particular aspects of being a sharpshooter at all.
Leibeler: He didn't seem to be particularly proficient with the
          rifle; is that correct?
Delgado:  That's right.
......
Leibeler: Did you have to use the rifles to stand inspection?
Delgado:  That's right.
Leibeler: Do you remember whether or not Oswald kept his rifle in
          good shape, clean?
Delgado:  He kept it mediocre.  He always got gigged for his
          rifle.
Leibeler: He did?
Delgado:  Yes; very seldom did he pass an inspection without
          getting gigged for one thing or another.
Leibeler: With respect to his rifle?
Delgado:  With respect to his rifle.  He didn't spend as much
          time as the rest of us did in the armory cleaning it
          up.  He would, when he was told to.  Otherwise, he
          wouldn't come out by himself to clean it.  He was
          basically a man that complained quite frequently.
.........
Leibeler: You were about to tell us,...... about the rifle
          practice that you engaged in.  Would you tell us about
          that in as much detail as you can remember?
Delgado:  We went out to the field, to the rifle range, and
          before we set out we had set up a pot.  High score
          would get this money; second highest, and so forth down
          to about the fifth man that was high.
Leibeler: How many men were there?
Delgado:  Oh, in our company there was about roughly 80 men, 80
          to 100 men, and I would say about 40 of us were in the
          pot.  All low ranking EM's though.  By that I mean
          corporal or below.  None of the sergeants were asked to
          join.  Nine times out of  ten they weren't firing, just
          watching you.  They mostly watched to see who was the
          best firer on the line.
Leibeler: You say there were about 40 men involved in this pot?
Delgado:  Yes.
Leibeler: And you say that Oswald finished fifth from the
          highest?
Delgado:  No; he didn't even place there.  He didn't get no money
          at all.  He barely got his score, which I think was
          about 170, I think it was, just barely sharpshooter.
Leibeler: Sharpshooter is the minimum......
Delgado:  minimum.
Leibeler: Rank?
Delgado:  It's broken down into three categories:
          sharpshooters....no; pardon me, I take that back; it's
          marksman is the lowest, sharpshooters, and experts.
          And then Oswald had a marksman's badge, which was just
          a plain, little thing here which stated "Marksman" on
          it.
Leibeler: And that was the lowest one?
Delgado:  That was the lowest.  Well, that was qualifying; then
          there was nothing, which meant you didn't qualify.
Leibeler: Did you fire with Oswald?
Delgado:  Right; I was in the same line.  By that I mean we were
          on line together, the same time, but not firing at the
          same position, but at the same time, and I remember
          seeing his.  It was a pretty big joke, because he got a
          lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses,
          but he didn't give a darn.
Leibeler: Missed the target completely?
Delgado:  He just qualified, that's it.  He wasn't as
          enthusiastic as the rest of us.  We all loved----
          liked, you know, going to the range.
Leibeler: My recollection of how the rifle ranges worked is that
          the troops divided up into two different groups, one of
          which operates the targets.
Delgado:  Right.
Leibeler: And the other one fires?
Delgado:  Right.
Leibeler: When you said before that you were in the same line as
          Oswald, you meant that you fired at the same time that
          he did?
Delgado:  Right.  And then all of us went to the pits, our
          particular lines: then we went to the pits, you know.
Leibeler: Oswald worked the pits with you, the same time you did?
Delgado:  Right.  And he was a couple of targets down.  It was
          very comical to see, because he had the other guy
          pulling the target down, you know.  and he will take
          and maybe gum it once in a while or run the disk up;
          but he had the other guy pulling it up and bringing it
          down, you know.  He wasn't hardly going to exert
          himself.
Leibeler: Do you remember approximately how far away Oswald was
          in the line from you when he fired?
Delgado:  Yes, he was just one over from me.
.................
Leibeler: My recollection of the rifle range from the time I was
          in the Army is that sometimes the scores that were
          reported------
Delgado:  Were erroneous.
Leibeler: Were erroneous.  Has that been your experience also?
Delgado:  Oh, yes; if there is not close supervision.
..................
Leibeler: You told the FBI that in your opinion Oswald was not a
          good rifle shot; is that correct?
Delgado:  Yes.
Leibeler: And that he did not show any unusual interest in his
          rifle, and in fact appeared less interested in weapons
          than the average marine?
Delgado:  Yes.
....................
Leibeler: You did not tell the FBI that in your opinion Oswald
          had penciled in his qualifying score, did you? Or did
          you tell them that?
Delgado:  He may have done, you know; but if you got away with it
          you were more than lucky.
Leibeler: Did you talk to the FBI about that possibility?
Delgado:  Yes, I told him he may have, to qualify, because there
          was a lot of "Maggie's drawers" on his side.  Now, he
          may have had some way of knowing who was pulling, that
          is another thing.  You don't know who is out there in
          the pits, pulling it, see; and it could be a buddy of
          yours or somebody you know, and they will help you out,
          you know, get together, like before we all go and
          separate, you know, and I will say to my buddy.  "Well,
          look, I want to try and get on line 22, you get on
          target 22, and I will try to the the first one on
          line"; so help each other like that.  And when they go
          to the pits, they have their choice of getting on the
          lines, you know, as I will try to work it out with the
          fellow out there.  But sometimes it doesn't work out
          that way.  You just have to take your chances.
Leibeler: You told us that in this particular rifle practice, or
          firing, that the scores were kept by NCOs.
Delgado:  Yes.
Leibeler: Was it a common practice for the privates to make deals
          like this with the noncommissioned officers in
          connection with a thing like this?
Delgado:  They are making a deal with the other guys pulling the
          targets.  See, the guy back there is also keeping a
          score.  Now, your NCO, particularly your NCO, may want
          to push you or make you qualify, because he doesn't
          want another day out there on the rifle range, see;  so
          it's not all that strict.  Like if I was line NCO and I
          had five men in my section, and four of them qualified,
          that means that some other day, maybe on my day off, I
          will have to come in with this other fellow, so I will
          help him along and push each other along.
          You don't try to mess nobody up, but you can't take a
          man that is shooting poorly and give him a 190 score,
          see; you could just give him the bare minimum, 170 or
          171, to make it look good.
Leibeler: Just to qualify him?
Delgado:  Just to qualify him.
Leibeler: So it is a possibility that that might have happened
          even in connection with this?
Delgado:  Right.


From Henry Hurt's book "Reasonable Doubt", page 99:

"In fact, judging from Oswald's movements and from the evidence
available, he did not use the Mannlicher-Carcano for a period of
nearly two months prior to the assassination.
The Warren Commission heard testimony from one former Marine,
Nelson Delgado, who stated that Oswald's marksmanship was "a
joke," that he could hardly qualify on the range.  This was not
included in the Warren Report, but Delgado's comments about
Oswald's shooting ability may explain why so few Marines were
interviewed.
In 1977 the author located and interviewed more than fifty of
Oswald's Marine Corps colleagues, who had never been questioned
by officials or journalists. (This was done in connection with
research for Legend by Edward J. Epstein.) On the subject of
Oswald's shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to
Delgado's opinion that it was laughable.
Sherman Cooley, an expert hunter who grew up in rural Louisiana,
knew Oswald well during their Marine Corps service.  Cooley's
comment capsulizes what several dozen Marines had to say about
Oswald's ability as a marksman: "If I had to pick one man in the
whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald.  I saw that man
shoot, and there's no way he could have ever learned to shoot
well enough to do what they accused him of.  Take me, I'm one of
the best shots around, and I couldn't have done it."
Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of
coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that
he had difficulty learning to shoot.  They believed it was the
same deficiency in coordination responsible for his reported
inability to drive a car.

************Selection Three**********************************

From NightLine ---- The Oswald/KBG Files.

From on camera interview with Eduard Tishkevich, Hunting Club
President and LHO co-worker in Minsk:
     "He didn't practice.  Only once he took part in the
     competition of the work shop team.  He shot very badly.  He
     wasn't on target but around it."

From testimony from Forrest Sawyer, who had direct access to the
KGB files, in response to questions from Ted Koppel:

Koppel:   Before we go on lets go back a little bit, Forrest, and
          talk to me about the gun for a moment.  I am intrigued
          that on the one hand that one of his fellow factory
          workers said he was a lousy shot but he also said he
          came out only once.  Can we really conclude anything
          from one such isolated example?

Sawyers:  If it were isolated, we would have some trouble making
          that conclusion but Mr. Tishkevich's comments are not
          alone.  There are other people there who remember him
          as a bad shot and there is the file.  Informants
          writing that he was a bad shot when he went out with
          the factory hunting club and there is a notation that
          when he did try to shoot that it simply didn't work at
          all.  He finally sold that rifle for about $20.

Koppel:   You also told me about the story about LHO going
          hunting with a bunch of russian friends.

Sawyers:  It is a story that goes around that they went out
          looking for rabbits and everybody had to bring back a
          rabbit before they could go home.  Somebody came up
          behind him and took the rabbit out because Oswald
          couldn't hit it.

Koppel:   So there's no evidence then within the context of the
          shooting in the Soviet Union that he was a spectacular
          shot or even an adequate shot for that matter.

Sawyers:  Exactly the contrary and also evidence that he had
          little or no interest in shooting.

ALAN ROGERS

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!potrzebi
From: [e-mail] (potrzebi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Trial and error
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 03:16:45 CST
Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB
Lines: 8

RE: This Lee Harvey Oswald trial thing.  Is this the same bit that
aired recently on A&E ?

Potrzebie

;--- (potrzebi) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64
;E-mail: [e-mail]
;system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3015 alt.conspiracy:17753 sci.skeptic:28991
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decprl!decprl!boyd
From: [e-mail] (Boyd Roberts)
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: prl313.prl.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:16:39 GMT
Lines: 12

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


Boyd Roberts            [e-mail]

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3016 alt.conspiracy:17757 sci.skeptic:28993
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Aug 92 23:46:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 23

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Moss) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>
>>The quality of the photo looked better than what I get with my modern FAX
>>machine.
>>
>>
>
>Many people on the net are making a big deal about the fact that this photo
>seems too clear to have been received in New Zealand via wire.
>
>Maybe it wasn't.   But this proves nothing.
>
>Oswald shows up in wire service story.  Newspaper looks up in files for
>picture of Oswald.  They find an old picture.  They print it.
>
>Remember, Oswald had had newspaper coverage before, when he defected, and
>when he returned to the U.S.


Name one article with Oswald in it, before Nov. 63.

I doubt there is one.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3017 alt.conspiracy:17758 sci.skeptic:28996
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:55:40 GMT
Lines: 45

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Moss) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>
>>>The quality of the photo looked better than what I get with my modern FAX
>>>machine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Many people on the net are making a big deal about the fact that this photo
>>seems too clear to have been received in New Zealand via wire.
>>
>>Maybe it wasn't.   But this proves nothing.
>>
>>Oswald shows up in wire service story.  Newspaper looks up in files for
>>picture of Oswald.  They find an old picture.  They print it.
>>
>>Remember, Oswald had had newspaper coverage before, when he defected, and
>>when he returned to the U.S.
>
>
>Name one article with Oswald in it, before Nov. 63.
>
>I doubt there is one.

God, this is just so pathetic. No, there probably was no article in the Christ-
church Star with Oswald's photo prior to 11/63. The wires did run brief articles
on his defection and return to America, but I doubt they had pictures, and I
doubt any paper in NZ picked them up.

The point is WHO CARES!!!!! If you really think this is worth pursuing, find
out what the Star was using to receive wire photos as of 1963. I doubt very
much it was a whole lot less detailed than the typical portable fax AP
photographers drive around in their cars these days.

GO TO A LIBRARY! READ UP ON TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY! READ UP ON TYPESETTING
TECHNOLOGY! QUIT MAKING ARGUMENTS BASED ON ABSOLUTE ZERO KNOWLEDGE!

thank you.

C
C
A


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: I AINT GONNA WORK ON MAGGIES DRAWERS NO MORE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:53:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


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

|One improbable factor in an event does not make the
|interpretation of that event invalid.  It is when you pile one
|improbable factor after another, as I judge this situation, that
|you begin to stretch the acceptability of this interpretation
|beyond what can be judged acceptable.

Here here!
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Sender: [e-mail]
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Where was George during JFKill? (previously The Garrison Tapes (JFK))
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:37:00 -0500
Lines: 52

 > From: [e-mail]
 >
 > In article <[e-mail]
 > >, [e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
 > >
 > > In article <1992Aug10.054930.
 > [e-mail]>
 > [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
 > writes:
 > > 2) A memo from George Bush (!) warning the FBI of rumours
 > > of a possible assassination was shown, but the source of this
 > > document was not stated.

 > You may have missed my post re the Hard Copy (AUS.TV)
 > show:By pausing and slow motion on my video the following
 > was obtained from the film
 > "The Garrison Tapes " produced by John Barbour:
 >
 > Photocopy of
 > ":US SECRET SERVICE memo
 >   Re James Milton Parrott
 >   Houston on November 22 advised that George H. W. Bush, a reputable
 >   businessman, furnished information to the effect that Jim Parrott
 >   has been talking of killing the President when he comes
 >   to Houston..."
 >
 > It is a poor photocopy so you need a good video copy to
 > read it.

Also, a completely DIFFERENT document:

Mark Lane's book Plausible Denial has a copy of a memo from
J. Edgar Hoover, obtained from the Freedom of Information
Act in 1978 (before Bush entered Presidential politics) and
discovered in the 1980's from within a FIA pile of 100,000
documents.  In this memo, it speaks of George Bush "of the CIA"
being in a meeting with other TOP officials regarding who
could have possibly been behind the JFK assassination.

There is quite a story there, of which I have barely scratched
the surface.  See Plausible Denial for details (which I don't
have handy aymore) -- someone who has Plausible Denial please
follow up.  I am surprised that it has not made the headlines.

However, I am less and less surprised by our species.

"The next creature feature is the JFK conspiracy;
 brought to you by the same species that made the halocaust,
 North Korea, the KGB, the crucifixion, and other fine products."

Vote Clinton-Gore or quit complaining.

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3020 alt.conspiracy:17761 sci.skeptic:29003
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!noao!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 92 04:55:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes...
>Name one article with Oswald in it, before Nov. 63.
>
>I doubt there is one.

When Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in November 1959, Richard
Snyder of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow (and CIA) notified United Press
International of the defection (around November 2).  UPI sent reporter
Aline Mosby to interview Oswald a week later, and she wrote a story
which UPI distributed and which appeared in the Fort Worth, Texas newspaper
under the headline "FORT WORTH DEFECTOR CONFIRMS RED BELIEFS."  After
Mosby, Oswald was also interviewed by Priscilla Post Johnson of the
American Newspaper Alliance (and also an employee of the State Department)
and another story was published by her on November 26, 1959.
   In New Orleans in August 1963, Oswald appeared on WDSU TV following
his court appearance regarding his altercation with Carlos Bringuier
which occurred on August 9, made television again four days later with
a pro-Castro demonstration in front of the International Trade Mart,
and appeared on WDSU radio's "Latin Listening Post" program on August
17 and in a debate on the same station on August 21.

Why not do a little research yourself, Derek?

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3021 alt.conspiracy:17765 sci.skeptic:29011
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!cc.newcastle.edu.au!ccasm
From: [e-mail]
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 20
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:38:44 GMT

Aploogies to whoever posted the following

>>>...and 1 former Marine, fresh from the Atsugi Air Base, where U2's flew
>>>out of -- Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>>                                  [from Conspiracy by Anthony Summers]


Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
(or was that Eisenhower)?.

Isn't it possible that LHO was involved in action/information which could
compromise these flights, and hence the President, during his time in Russia?

Alternatelty perhaps he was to watch for the methods the Russians used to down
Garry Powers and others, or perhaps help pilots who had ejected?




Big Al.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3022 alt.conspiracy:17766 sci.skeptic:29013
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:47:39 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
>(or was that Eisenhower)?.

Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
though, not by the CIA. I don't think they were used much during Kennedy's
term, since Powers was shot down in '59.

>Isn't it possible that LHO was involved in action/information which could
>compromise these flights, and hence the President, during his time in Russia?

That's been suggested, but I don't see how it makes a great deal of sense.
Who is supposedly trying to compromise Eisenhower? The CIA? I don't get it.
It also seems like too difficult of a mission for a 20-year-old spy.
>
>Alternatelty perhaps he was to watch for the methods the Russians used to down
>Garry Powers and others, or perhaps help pilots who had ejected?
>
Oswald defected shortly before Powers was shot down, and I for one am not
about to be convinced that the whole thing was staged. :)

I don't think a 20-year-old kid in Minsk under constant KGB surveillance
would be much use to a downed U2 pilot.

>Big Al.

Oswald did announce in the U.S. embassy, where he could be sure his words
were being sent back to Washington and in fact were, that he had offered
to give technical information to the Soviets. The only really valuable info
Oswald had was what he knew about U2s from his work at Atsugi.
I haven't seen anything yet to either confirm or solidly refute the
possibility that information given by Oswald helped the Soviets down Powers.
But everything I've seen from the Russians -- including recent work by
independent Russian newspapers and magazines -- has the KGB extremely wary of
Oswald. Izvestia recently carried a report, summarized from some magazine over
there, that said the KGB kept Oswald under close surveillance the entire time
he was in Minsk (a fact never admitted during the Soviet era, including to the
late '80s Nightline investigation). If Oswald had supplied good info, good
enough to pull off what was for them a major victory in the techno-Cold war,
I doubt they would have treated him so distrustfully.

On the other hand, if Oswald had supplied them with bad info, when they
were already in the possession of good enough info to shoot down Powers, then
the Soviets would likely have done much more nasty things to him than
just keep him under surveillance.

My guess is that if Oswald did tell them anything, he told them something
they already knew, and that our side already knew they knew. Perhaps his
mission was to feel them out for how much they knew based on what kinds of
questions they asked a marine from a radar base.

I've always wondered if perhaps Oswald didn't seriously botch his assignment,
and from there on out deal mainly with people on the fringes of the agencies
(de Mohrenschildt, Bannister, Ferrie, perhaps Shaw) rather than the agencies
themselves.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3023 alt.conspiracy:17776 sci.skeptic:29026
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:32:43 CST
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 36

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes...
>>Name one article with Oswald in it, before Nov. 63.
>>
>>I doubt there is one.
>
> When Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in November 1959, Richard
> Snyder of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow (and CIA) notified United Press
> International of the defection (around November 2).  UPI sent reporter
> Aline Mosby to interview Oswald a week later, and she wrote a story
> which UPI distributed and which appeared in the Fort Worth, Texas newspaper
> under the headline "FORT WORTH DEFECTOR CONFIRMS RED BELIEFS."  After
> Mosby, Oswald was also interviewed by Priscilla Post Johnson of the
> American Newspaper Alliance (and also an employee of the State Department)
> and another story was published by her on November 26, 1959.
>    In New Orleans in August 1963, Oswald appeared on WDSU TV following
> his court appearance regarding his altercation with Carlos Bringuier
> which occurred on August 9, made television again four days later with
> a pro-Castro demonstration in front of the International Trade Mart,
> and appeared on WDSU radio's "Latin Listening Post" program on August
> 17 and in a debate on the same station on August 21.
>
> Why not do a little research yourself, Derek?
>
> Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
> Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721

    I think any research done would prove more fruitful if it was
research to examine the methods of the CIA to plant disinformation rather
than quibbling over the details of wire-service technology of that era.
    Books by Agee (an ex-CIA agent who now lives in Germany and
can't even get a US passport anymore after CIA persecution), McGehee,
and Victor Marchetti, gofer boy for Richard Helms during this dark era,
who authored "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, et al, et al.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3024 alt.conspiracy:17778
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: <None>...U2 Flights
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:43:50 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 32

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Aploogies to whoever posted the following
>
>>>>...and 1 former Marine, fresh from the Atsugi Air Base, where U2's flew
>>>>out of -- Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>>>                                  [from Conspiracy by Anthony Summers]
>
>
> Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
> (or was that Eisenhower)?.
>
> Isn't it possible that LHO was involved in action/information which could
> compromise these flights, and hence the President, during his time in Russia?
>
> Alternatelty perhaps he was to watch for the methods the Russians used to down
> Garry Powers and others, or perhaps help pilots who had ejected?
>
>
>
>
> Big Al.

U2 flights were controlled by the CIA.  As a radar operator at Atsugi, LHO
had access to critical information such as flgiht altitude for which he
would have needed at least a secret clearance.  His file as reported to
the WC showed only a confidential clearance.  He went to Russia shortly
before the U2 with Gary Powers was shot down.

Interestingly, the CIA denied debriefing Oswald after he left the Soviet
Union...a supposed turncoat with critical information re the U2 who loved
Communism and was in Minsk when the U2 was downed.  Hmmmmm.  Many, including
myself, take this as supporting evidence that Oswald was CIA.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3025 alt.conspiracy:17779 sci.skeptic:29029
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!john
From: [e-mail] (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:45:30 GMT
Lines: 17

Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes:
]In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
]
]Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
]though, not by the CIA. I don't think they were used much during Kennedy's
]term, since Powers was shot down in '59.
reconnaisance, not espionage.

I believe that U2 pilots were often CIA employees. I know that U2's
were used long after '59, and I believe are still used for reconnaisance.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
[e-mail] ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz![e-mail]
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3026 alt.conspiracy:17780 sci.skeptic:29031
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!arsmith
From: [e-mail] (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
 <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 15:37:11 GMT
Lines: 21

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
.au writes:
>Aploogies to whoever posted the following
>
>>>>...and 1 former Marine, fresh from the Atsugi Air Base, where U2's fl
w
>>>>out of -- Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>>>                                  [from Conspiracy by Anthony Summers

Didn't that hurt??
>
>
>
>
>
>Big Al.

Who, by the way, *aint* me.

Big Al.  (No, I'm not paranoid, am I?)

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3027 alt.conspiracy:17781 sci.skeptic:29035
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:24:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 51

[e-mail] (Paul Collacchi) writes:

> I believe that we can now conclude that there was at lease one teenage spy
> and dispose of Robert's silly syllogism "no spy is a teenager", which has
> gotten much undeserved mileage.

We can now move on to the reductio ad absurdum that because it cannot
be proved absolutely that there has never been a "spy" under the age of
20, the Oswald must have been a spy. It's true that he led an unusual
life, but since he seems especially unsuited and unqualified for espionage
work, it's not necessary to make the leap that he was a spy. He mainifests
the characteristics of an uneducated, then self-educated person: his mind
is a random patchwork of knowledge. He could convince himself, because of
his reading of idealistic Marxist books, that the Soviet Union was a
paradise.

> My opinion as of this time, based on information some of which has floated
> previously on the network, is that Oswald was politically, a rightist, who
> had a "special relationship" with both the CIA and FBI, and during that
> relationship developed a "cover" which was that of a political leftist.

You can believe this, but you can't prove it. The overwhelming evidence is
that Oswald was a Marxist. The reason for having a cover is to appear--
plausibly--to be something else. An American who defects to the Soviet
Union is very implausible indeed. It does not make a good cover because it
draws so much attention to its strangeness.

> This scenario is very firmly established in evidence, so much so that we
> now routinely take it for granted, not remembering the days when Oswald was
> still seen as the Warren Commission painted him -- a kind of left-leaning,
> Squeaky Fromm-Commie-wannabee, and a loner. For a lefty loner, Oswald
> sure had an extensive network of righty consorts.

Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.

> Garrison got it right -- Lee Oswald, boy spy, easily explains a whole bunch
> of data that the WC was struggling to explain, and, because of this,
> Occam likes it a lot.

Occam nicked himself shaving. The "boy spy" only explains Garrison's web
of half-truths; it does not explain much of what really happened.

> (P.S. -- Don't forget.  Now that Boris has opened up the Commie files, we'll
>  get to see what THEY thought of Oswald.  Stay tuned.)

This was covered on Nightline some months back. They did not say much more
than Nosenko said after he defected in 1964.

John
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3028 alt.conspiracy:17784 sci.skeptic:29040
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell.com!pbhya!whheydt
From: [e-mail] (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:15:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 19

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes:
> ]Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
> ]though, not by the CIA. I don't think they were used much during Kennedy's
> ]term, since Powers was shot down in '59.
> reconnaisance, not espionage.
>
> I believe that U2 pilots were often CIA employees. I know that U2's
> were used long after '59, and I believe are still used for reconnaisance.

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

    --Hal
--
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
[e-mail]    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Oswald's motions in the TSBD after the assassination.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:02:00 GMT
Lines: 182

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
Tony Simon >>
Bruce Schuck > & >>>

>>>What? If he heard Baker and Truly while on the stairs, then they would
>>>have heard him.
>
>>No.Oswald didn't want to be caught. This provided him with a reason for trying
>>to be quiet on the stairs.
>
>Do you realize how silly that sounds. Try and run down 4 flights of
>stairs 'quietly'. You either run and make noise or you walk quietly.
>Quietly is slow, real slow.
>

You assume that one has to run down the stairs to get down in a reasonable
amount of time. The Warren Commission showed that it could be done at a fast
walk. Also, quietly does not have to be "slow, real slow." I can go quickly
down several flights of stairs and hardly make a sound while I hear others who
make alot of noise. I have done it. Alot depends on whether you want to be
quiet or not and whether the people coming up the stairs want to hear something
or are more interested in going up quickly.

>>>If he didn't hear them until in the vestibule, then he was alreay home free.
>>>Walking down a corridor is not going to make much noise if any.
>>>
>
>>But Oswald might not have been sure that they didn't hear him come down the
>>stairs, therefore, he may have decided to act calm, like nothing happened.
>
>In the vestibule, waiting to be seen?

I guess you don't fully read my messages, do you? Oswald would not have waited
to be seen. He would have paused to consider what he should do next. People do
that, you know. When a person considers which direction he/she wants to take,
he/she doesn't move in one direction until they've decided. It's known as
hesitation.

>If Roffman is quoting the FBI report, then he was misinformed.
>I couldn't find her testimony in vol 6 of the Hearings, which seems to
>have all the TSBD employees in it. She was probably never interviewed
>by the WC because of what she told the FBI.
>

However, the 12:25 time that Roffman uses is from Mrs. Arnold's statement. Go
read Roffman again, will you? He even states that the statement is in her own
words. Is he lying or did he not follow up on that statement? It's not a typo
because he uses that time twice.

>Here's what she told Summers.
>
>"About a quarter of an hour before the assassination, I went into the
>lunchroom...Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right
>hand side as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be
>having lunch. I did not speak to him, but recognized him clearly. It
>was about 12:15. It may have been slightly later."
>
>Sounds pretty clear to me.

"It was about" and "it may have been later" aren't very precise statements.
How was she so sure that it was 12:15? Did she look at the clock before going
downstairs to the lunchroom? Did she look at a clock in the lunchroom and
think to herself, "it's 12:15"? I do not have access to Summer's book, so I
can't check her full story out.

>>>Jarman and Norman strolled through the lunchroom between 12:20 and
>>>12:25 on the way upstairs to watch the motorcade. Thats when Oswald
>>>saw them. He would have had to have ESP to know they did that if he
>>>really wasn't in the lunchroom as late as 12:20/12:25.
>>>
>
>>Where do you get Oswald's statement that he saw them as they were strolling
>>upstairs? Why couldn't it have been when they were walking out to the sidewalk,
>>which means that the time is earlier than 12:20/12:25? Did Jarman and Norman
>>say that they saw Oswald while on their way up to the 5th floor?
>
>The only time they strolled through the room 'together' was while
>walking upstairs. Before that, Norman had been eating lunch alone
>and Jarman had come to meet him. They went outside together, but they
>only walked through the room 'together' between 12:20/12:25.

You still didn't indicate where you get Oswald's statement. According to three
of the people who interviewed Oswald, there are varying stories as to where he
said he was. On 11/23/63, Hosty and Bookhout claimed that Oswald said he ate
lunch on the first floor lunchroom. On 11/25/63, Bookhout claimed that Oswald
had said that he had eaten lunch alone and that he saw Junior and the short
individual walking through the room (no indication of what floor or time).
Thomas Kelley said that Oswald said that he had eaten lunch with Junior and a
little short negro boy (no indication of which floor or when). H. D. Holmes (on
Dec. 17, 1963) claimed that Oswald was supposed to meet one of the Negro
employees for lunch. Before Oswald could finish what he was doing, there was a
commotion surrounding the assassination. So, we have no exact statement as to
where, when, and what was going on with Oswald.

In any case, Oswald could not have seen Norman and Jarman pass through the
lunchroom either on the second floor or first floor as neither of them passed
through the lunchroom on their way to the fifth floor (see Roffman who cites
Volume 3 page 202 of the WC Report). Roffman claims that they "got together"
near the south side of the building, so Oswald couldn't have seen them in the
luchroom before they left the building. Either Oswald was lying about seeing
them pass through the room, or he saw them at some other place. This means that
they could have been exiting the building when he saw them or see them
returning, if he indeed saw them. It does not mean that he definitely saw them
when they returned to go up to the 5th floor.

Jarman ate his lunch on the first floor alone and said that he didn't see
Oswald. Jarman went outside the building with Norman between 12:00 and 12:10.
They came back in around 12:20 and 12:25 to go to the 5th floor. According to
Roffman (who cites their testimonies), they went up by way of the west freight
elevator. In order to do this, they walked around to the back of the building
and entered on the first floor through the rear door and took the elevator up.

Now you claim that Oswald was seen by Mrs. Arnold on the first floor lunchroom.
Is this the Domino Room? If not, what room was it?

>Carolyn Arnold is the *only* person who saw Oswald *anywhere* at
>12:15. I at least have *one* witness, plus Oswalds testimony of what
>went on in the lunchroom between 12:20/12:25. You have nothing!

Carolyn Arnold is not exactly sure of the time. You haven't convinced me that
Oswald saw Jarman and Norman at 12:20 to 12:25. Produce Oswald's statement
about where he saw them strolling.

>>Maybe Brennan did see him. He saw somebody who looked like Oswald. Again, he
>>couldn't be 100% certain.
>
>His testimony is worthless and has been torn to shreds by many people.

By whom and why is it worthless (please supply any contradictory evidence)?

>> Is Carolyn Arnold 100% sure that she saw him later
>>than 12:15 pm? Especially when she said that she went downstairs at 12:25 and
>>others said it was 12:15?
>
>She said 12:15 to Summers.

How many years had passed after she made that statement? How sure was she?
What do "about 12:15" and "It may have been slightly later." mean? Is that
12:15 +/- 5 minutes? +/- 3 minutes? +/- 1/2 minute? What?

>>Do you have any witnesses that put Oswald anywhere else in the building from
>>12:15 to 12:30. Sure you've got Carolyn Arnold, but it appears to me that
>>she didn't really know what time it was if/when she saw him.
>
>She knows *exactly* when she saw him. 12:15.

Not by what you quoted above, she doesn't. Again, terms like "about 12:15"
and "may have been slightly later" do NOT mean exactly.

>>The way I see it. . . Oswald came downstairs around noon. A man named Piper said
>>he saw and talked to Oswald at that time. Oswald ate lunch quickly and saw
>>Jarman and Norman head out of the building between 12:00 and 12:10 (Norman's
>>statement). Oswald then went upstairs and was possibly seen by Carolyn Arnold
>>(I say possibly, because I am not convinced that she did see him). He reached
>>the 6th floor and made his way to the sniper's nest making careful to not be
>>seen by Williams.
>
>Ahhhhh. The old 'running quietly' trick. Williams would have had to be
>deaf not to have heard someone walking around.

Since when do assassins try to call attention to themselves. Do you think
Oswald would have been walking around singing "Hey, I'm up here" so that
anybody around would know he was there?

>>Possibly he made his way along the North and East walls.
>>According to Williams, he could only see to the west and to the back (north)
>>from where he sat. Oswald then got into the nest and waited. While there, he
>>was seen by Arnold. A few minutes later, Williams left the floor to go to the
>>5th floor. Then Oswald was seen at ~12:30 by Brennan and Euins as he fired the
>>last shot. Oswald then made his getaway.
>
>Nice fantasy. Not one scrap of evidence though.

And the best you can do is have one woman who says she saw him "about 12:15"
in the lunchroom. By the way, Oswald never claimed to have seen her. Why not?
You'd think that he would have been trying for all the support he could get.
Maybe she convinced herself over time that she did see him at 12:15 when, in
fact, she didn't. Her statement to the FBI says that she thought she saw him.
Jarman says that he didn't see Oswald, when Oswald saw him and a short negro.
Did Jarman lie? Why?

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Oswald's motions in the TSBD after the assassination.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:58:38 GMT
Lines: 42

Tony Simon >
Bruce Schuck >>

>>Do you realize how silly that sounds. Try and run down 4 flights of
>>stairs 'quietly'. You either run and make noise or you walk quietly.
>>Quietly is slow, real slow.
>>

>You assume that one has to run down the stairs to get down in a reasonable
>amount of time. The Warren Commission showed that it could be done at a fast
>walk. Also, quietly does not have to be "slow, real slow." I can go quickly
>down several flights of stairs and hardly make a sound while I hear others who
>make alot of noise.

Sure. I believe you. :)

>>>But Oswald might not have been sure that they didn't hear him come down the
>>>stairs, therefore, he may have decided to act calm, like nothing happened.

>>In the vestibule, waiting to be seen?

>I guess you don't fully read my messages, do you? Oswald would not have waited
>to be seen. He would have paused to consider what he should do next.

Very convenient of him to wait around to be seen by Baker don't you think?

*Nothing* Oswald did points to him assassinating JFK.

*None* of his actions point to his guilt.

*Everything* he did was perfectly normal for an employee of the TSBD.

>And the best you can do is have one woman who says she saw him "about 12:15"
>in the lunchroom.

And the best you can do is offer bizarre explanations for ordinary
events.

I'm not going to bother continuing this pointless debate until you
produce *some* evidence that Oswald was even on the 6th floor after 12:00.

Since the WC and HSCA failed to do it, I doubt you will be able to.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3031 alt.conspiracy:17788 alt.activism:31268 alt.society.civil-liberty:5923 alt.individualism:12521 alt.censorship:11143 talk.politics.misc:90629 misc.headlines:23610 soc.culture.usa:7791
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!tarpit!fang!att!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Part XV, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:40:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 179


       I made the following transcript from a tape recording of
       a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
            WBAI-FM (99.5)
            505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
            New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                          (continuation)
DAVID LIFTON:
Now that is the evidence that something happened between Dallas and
Bethesda. And the consequence of that medical alteration -- if it
occurred -- is that the Dallas doctors thought that something exited
from the rear of the head. The Bethesda doctors thought that
something entered from the rear and blew out the top. Did the
doctors recognize it?  Was this a perfect medical forgery?
Absolutely not.  They did recognize it because the FBI documents
that I've obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicate
that the FBI wrote down what the doctors said. So if I'm correct,
my interpretation not only goes to what happened on the body, but
what happened in the room. In other words, to paraphrase the old
question from Watergate: What did the doctors know, and when did
they know it.  Well, according to the FBI, the doctors IMMEDIATELY,
and I stress, immmediately recognized that there had been surgery
of the head area -- namely, in the top of the skull. That's what I
think the record shows in this case.

This is not some kind of a perfect crime! It's a very sloppy crime.
I think that a special prosecutor ought to question these doctors
who are still alive -- and they MUST be questioned before they pass
on. I think that we would get some stunning new information about
this case because I personally interviewed one of the FBI agents,
and I know that he's going to stand behind his statement, contrary
to a foolish affidavit, excerpted in some weird fashion and
published by professor Blakey in a report in which they tried to
make it appear that the FBI agents said that this was not true.

So that's what happened in the area of the head. I believe that the
configuration of the wounds was changed.  Now, in the area of the
neck we have a similar problem. We have a tracheotomy, supposedly,
according to the sworn testimony of Doctor Malcolm Perry in Dallas,
done through the neck wound. That tracheotomy, Doctor Perry told me
in 1966, was two to three centimeters. And according to everybody
there, it had neat edges -- neat edges as made with a knife. I
would be more than willing to testify before any investigation that
Perry told me that it was two to three centimeters, in 1966, and to
offer my telephone interview tapes as evidence. In 1966, I
interveiewed all the doctors on this issue of the length of the
tracheotomy incision. At the Dallas end of the line it was two to
three centimeters -- four, some of them said. There's one or two
stragglers who say it was a little bit bigger. But Perry made the
incision. He told me it was two to three centimeters. In the
autopsy report, that thing is listed as six-and-a-half centimeters
with widely gaping edges. And under oath, [Dr.] Humes said it was
seven to eight centimeters, and it has, according to the autopsy
report, widely gaping irregular edges.  So that is the issue: that
something happened to the throat wound between Dallas and Bethesda.

Now, if it was an entry wound, as the Dallas doctors originally
alleged and believed -- if a bullet or fragment entered at the front
of the throat and lodged, as most of them believed, at the top of
the right lung, isn't it interesting that when the body was opened
at Bethesda, where the Dallas doctors thought there was a bullet,
the Bethesda doctors found a bloody bruise with a pyramid-shaped
scar. That's circumstantial evidence, of course, but I think it's
probative.  So that's the situation.  I believe that there was
bullet extraction from the area of the throat too.  All of this put
together raises again this question of probability. Can all these
doctors ..... can this pattern be an accident?  Can we simply be
looking at mistaken medical observations, mistaken FBI reports,
mistaken observations of those who know what kind of casket was used?
I think not. I think this is the kind of stuff that the can opener
of a special prosecutor could pry wide open.

GARY NULL:
Okay.  That's a good presentation. Now we're going to summarize
here for a moment. What you're suggesting is that there is hard
evidence, good documentation that the casket and the state of the
President's body that left Dallas is not the same casket and state
of the President's body that arrived in Bethesda.

DAVID LIFTON:
Right.  There's not only a break in the chain-of-possession, but
there is alteration of the evidence.

GARY NULL:
Alright.  So they altered evidence. Now if this were put on trial,
that would be a major issue.

DAVID LIFTON:
That would be a major allegation. I can also guide you a little bit,
if you wish, into the way that the rebuttal would work so the
reader can understand the nature of this problem.

GARY NULL:
Okay.  I'm going to ask you to hold onto that thought because
there's a lot more information. Now we're going to go, in just a
few moments, over to our other guest, Doctor Cyril Wecht, on this
issue.  There is also the Leibeler Memorandum which I want to talk
about.  And I want to talk about some new information and the
emergence of a new hypothesis.  I want to talk about the Seibert
and O'Neill Report.  And I want to look at the X-rays and the
photographs, and the allegations of Doctor John Ebersole, and some
of the comments from the House Select Committee in 1978. Alright?
We'll be doing that in a few moments.

I do want to mention to our audience that three times a year, here
on WBAI, non-commercial, public, free-access radio, part of the
Pacifica Network, that we must take a break to do some fund-raising
so that we can continue paying our bills. We're going to come back
to our guests in about ten minutes and continue on with this
information, presenting more documentation that the American Public
has not been made privy to, but which it must in order to make
reasonable judgments about the conclusions drawn by the Warren
Commission; about the role that the media has played in the
official position, and what this means.

Yesterday, you heard us talk about the fact that various members of
Organized Crime were implicated in this, and certain middle-level
members, by name, of the CIA; certain members of the FBI, by name,
such as Guy Bannister; the pro and anti-Castro movements [involving]
Oswald, and the fact that, up to this point, we cannot find
evidence that Oswald was implicated in the assassination. It's so
easy to have a single gunman, a single person, and end it there.
But we CANNOT end it there if the evidence doesn't indicate that it
should be ended there. And it does not. And so we're looking hard,
and we're looking where mainstream media either has chosen not to
look, or has looked and chosen not to accept the evidence.
                     (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    Now that we know that they have systematically deceived and
    betrayed the American People, that they have subverted our
    democracy, that they have replaced our democracy with their
    oligarchy, their plutocracy .... now that we know, do we intend
    to do something about it, or do we intend to just lay back and
    accept our gradual decline into totalitarianism and poverty?
    The ruling elite intends to dissolve the American People's liberty
    and prosperity so gradually that it won't upset us enough to
    drive us to rebel. As patriotic citizens, we must care enough
    about our inalienable rights and about our human dignity to
    uphold them. As loving parents, we must care enough about the
    the dignity and the human rights of our children to redouble our
    resolve to defend their most precious legacy.

    Daniel Sheehan and Gary Null are striving to inform the people of the
    truth concerning the Government-sponsored political assassinations
    and their cover-ups which have crushed the people's democratic spirit
    throughout the past thirty years. They also want the American people
    to know that President Kennedy was trying to stop the ruling elite
    from concocting a major war in Vietnam, and that's why they murdered
    him. They then went on to murder fifty-eight thousand young Americans
    of my generation and two million Vietnamese people. The ruling elite
    fabricated the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War strictly for profit
    and for their greater world empire. The ruling elite increase their
    wealth by robbing us of our earnings in so many subtle ways, and
    they increase their power by robbing us of our liberties.

    We must all unite in our common defense, for we are all suffering,
    and we will suffer increasingly as victims of the ruling elite
    who have never relaxed in their neurotic pursuit of ever-greater
    wealth through ever-greater domination of our people and of all
    peoples of the world.

    These old men who rule from the shadows showed us the magnitude of
    their evil when they scattered President Kennedy's brains all over
    the streets of Dallas. They have had some thirty years in which to
    intensify their power by usurping our democratic power. We haven't
    a day to waste. Please write to Daniel Sheehan and express your
    support for his public-interest lawsuits against Government crimes
    and the cover-ups which are fabricated under the duplicitous guise
    of "the national security".

                 Daniel Sheehan, Lead Attorney
                 The Christic Institute
                 8773 Venice Blvd.
                 Los Angeles CA 90034           [phone]

    John DiNardo
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3032 alt.conspiracy:17789
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!stanford.edu!apple!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:20:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
>[e-mail] (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>
>> I believe that we can now conclude that there was at lease one teenage spy
>> and dispose of Robert's silly syllogism "no spy is a teenager", which has
>> gotten much undeserved mileage.
>
>We can now move on to the reductio ad absurdum that because it cannot
>be proved absolutely that there has never been a "spy" under the age of
>20, the Oswald must have been a spy.

No one is suggesting this. Other evidence -- the lack of scrutiny given
to Oswald on return, his mysterious appearance in Finland with no commercial
routes to Finland on that day, his office in the same building as Bannister,
his


 It's true that he led an unusual
>life, but since he seems especially unsuited and unqualified for espionage
>work, it's not necessary to make the leap that he was a spy. He mainifests
>the characteristics of an uneducated, then self-educated person: his mind
>is a random patchwork of knowledge. He could convince himself, because of
>his reading of idealistic Marxist books, that the Soviet Union was a
>paradise.
>
>> My opinion as of this time, based on information some of which has floated
>> previously on the network, is that Oswald was politically, a rightist, who
>> had a "special relationship" with both the CIA and FBI, and during that
>> relationship developed a "cover" which was that of a political leftist.
>
>You can believe this, but you can't prove it. The overwhelming evidence is
>that Oswald was a Marxist. The reason for having a cover is to appear--
>plausibly--to be something else. An American who defects to the Soviet
>Union is very implausible indeed. It does not make a good cover because it
>draws so much attention to its strangeness.
>
>> This scenario is very firmly established in evidence, so much so that we
>> now routinely take it for granted, not remembering the days when Oswald was
>> still seen as the Warren Commission painted him -- a kind of left-leaning,
>> Squeaky Fromm-Commie-wannabee, and a loner. For a lefty loner, Oswald
>> sure had an extensive network of righty consorts.
>
>Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
>were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
>welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.
>
>> Garrison got it right -- Lee Oswald, boy spy, easily explains a whole bunch
>> of data that the WC was struggling to explain, and, because of this,
>> Occam likes it a lot.
>
>Occam nicked himself shaving. The "boy spy" only explains Garrison's web
>of half-truths; it does not explain much of what really happened.
>
>> (P.S. -- Don't forget.  Now that Boris has opened up the Commie files, we'll
>>  get to see what THEY thought of Oswald.  Stay tuned.)
>
>This was covered on Nightline some months back. They did not say much more
>than Nosenko said after he defected in 1964.
>
>John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:29:00 GMT
Lines: 47

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

>>     Which leads to the big question: what was Oswald supposed to
>>     find out? Garrison claimed that Oswald had been sent over to
>>     see whether or not U2's left contrails in the Soviet sky.
>>     It's a bullshit claim --that feature could be checked over
>>     other, safe pieces of territory. Furthermore, in an age of
>>     radar, it's a moot point.

>In Oliver Stone's movie, his reasoning for Oswalds going to the Soviet
>Union was to inform them that a U2 spy plane was going to fly a mission
>over the Soviet Union just a couple of weeks prior to the summit
>conference between the U.S. and the S.U.  This would then give a reason
>for the S.U. to withdraw from the summit.  Stone theorized that high
>officials in the CIA did not want a summit.  This does sound plausible.

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

        .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .

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




                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:48:00 GMT
Lines: 82

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

>|||||Oswald was only 20 when he went to the USSR, supposedly as a "CIA
>|||||operative." That means that his alleged training must have taken

>||||So. They train teenagers to fly fighter planes.

>|||    Since when? Last I checked, you have to be a college grad
>|||    to fly one.

>||Did you check 1959/1960?

>|    The last time non-college grads were admitted to flight training
>|    was 1954. I know because my father was one of the last non-college
>|    cadets to get into flight school (and he was over twenty a the
>|    time as well).

>Just what is it you guys are arguing about anyway?

    Ask Bruce. He brought it up.


>Oswald was being trained for
>deadly and important missions since his days when he flew with Ferrie.


    When did Oswald ever "fly with Ferrie"? Ferrie may have been
    involved in the same CAP outfit as Oswald; however, Oswald
    seemed little interested in the organization and soon quit,
    and there is really no evidence that the two ever met.


>This is obviously ideal from the CIA's point of view. They get a young
>recruit, do a few odd and ends, nothing to dangerous, and then can have some
>deap cover. I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It is not as
>though the CIA went actively looking, but if someone like Oswald joins the
>Civil Air Patrol at an early age, they might want to keep him for some purpose.

    I should let this statement stand on its own as an example of
    conspiracy-think. But I'm not, of course.

    The whole idea that the CIA would recruit, or even be interested
    in, a young derelict whose affiliation with the cover
    organization was short and shallow is at the far edge of
    believability. Also, David seems to assume that the CAP was
    automatically some CIA front, along with all its members),
    something that I've seen little or no real basis for.



>After all, the Soviets say they knew Oswald was an agent anyway, and they
>didn't kill him or put his life in danger.

    The Soviets claim only that they suspected that he was a spy
    not that they "knew" in the way of being able to prove it.
    The Soviet Union, and Czarist Russia before it, was known
    for, among other things, an acute case of xenophobia. Even
    Peter the Great, who endeavored to import Western knowledge
    into Russia, kept the European experts segregated away from
    the general populace. The Soviets were no less xenophobic;
    after the end of WWII, many non-German foreigners in the
    occupied lands, including many Americans and the Sweedish hero
    Raul Wallenberg, never to be heard from again. The KGB would
    have suspected Oswald of being a spy from the start. Such
    was the Soviet way.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:13:23 GMT
Lines: 30

Mitchell S Todd) writes:


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

From the testimony of John Donovan, former Marine Lieutenant:

"...shortly before I got out of the Marine Corps, which was in
mid-December 1959, we received word that he had showed up in Moscow.
This necessitated a lot of change of aircraft call signs, codes, radio
frequencies, radar frequencies.
  He had access to the location of all bases in the West Coast area,
all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, and
the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in
a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentification code
of entering an exitting the ADIZ, which stands for Aircraft Defense
Identification Zone. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range
of our radio. And he knew the range of the surrounding units' radio
and radar."   [8H 298]

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

If he was a real defector, he had nothing to offer. [More sarcasm]

If he was an ONI plant he had nothing to offer. [Even more sarcasm]

Sure Mitchell. Thats the ticket. [Tons of sarcasm]

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3036 alt.conspiracy:17797 sci.skeptic:29079
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:31:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 78
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
|[e-mail] (Paul Collacchi) writes:
|
|| I believe that we can now conclude that there was at lease one teenage spy
|| and dispose of Robert's silly syllogism "no spy is a teenager", which has
|| gotten much undeserved mileage.
|
|We can now move on to the reductio ad absurdum that because it cannot
|be proved absolutely that there has never been a "spy" under the age of
|20, the Oswald must have been a spy.

There was no reductio ad absurdum. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence
indicating that Oswald had intelligence connections. It was somehow thought
that bringing up Oswald's early age would somehow falsify the case. It does
not, as it was shown that there were in fact Teen Agents, of various sorts.

| ...It's true that he led an unusual
|life, but since he seems especially unsuited and unqualified for espionage
|work, it's not necessary to make the leap that he was a spy.

The circumstanial evidence does not rest on the fact that he led an unusual
life, but rather on the kind of life, i.e., working for Atsui air force base in
Japan etc... There are lots of people leading unusual lives that no one
considers to have intelligence connections.

|| My opinion as of this time, based on information some of which has floated
|| previously on the network, is that Oswald was politically, a rightist, who
|| had a "special relationship" with both the CIA and FBI, and during that
|| relationship developed a "cover" which was that of a political leftist.
|
|You can believe this, but you can't prove it. The overwhelming evidence is
|that Oswald was a Marxist.

Why would a Marxist be hired at a photo firm that requires a security
clearence? (Just for starters)

|| This scenario is very firmly established in evidence, so much so that we
|| now routinely take it for granted, not remembering the days when Oswald was
|| still seen as the Warren Commission painted him -- a kind of left-leaning,
|| Squeaky Fromm-Commie-wannabee, and a loner. For a lefty loner, Oswald
|| sure had an extensive network of righty consorts.
|
|Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
|were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
|welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.

Wasn't it the Paine's, who have connections with intelligence, that got Oswald,
not Marina, the job at the TSBD, at a time when Marina was *seperated*
from Oswald? In any event, your distinction between helping Oswald and helping
Marina seems irrelevent, since you could, and probably will, argue that to help
one is to help the other!

|| Garrison got it right -- Lee Oswald, boy spy, easily explains a whole bunch
|| of data that the WC was struggling to explain, and, because of this,
|| Occam likes it a lot.
|
|Occam nicked himself shaving. The "boy spy" only explains Garrison's web
|of half-truths; it does not explain much of what really happened.

Oswald's record should not be confused with the case against Shaw.

|| (P.S. -- Don't forget.  Now that Boris has opened up the Commie files, we'll
||  get to see what THEY thought of Oswald.  Stay tuned.)
|
|This was covered on Nightline some months back. They did not say much more
|than Nosenko said after he defected in 1964.

And what a story *that* was, wasn't it?
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: JAMA, Perry and Lifton: the throat wound
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:40:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 39
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


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

[From Pacifica Radio Interview]

| ...That tracheotomy, Doctor Perry told me
|in 1966, was two to three centimeters. And according to everybody
|there, it had neat edges -- neat edges as made with a knife. I
|would be more than willing to testify before any investigation that
|Perry told me that it was two to three centimeters, in 1966, and to
|offer my telephone interview tapes as evidence. In 1966, I
|interveiewed all the doctors on this issue of the length of the
|tracheotomy incision. At the Dallas end of the line it was two to
|three centimeters -- four, some of them said. There's one or two
|stragglers who say it was a little bit bigger. But Perry made the
|incision. He told me it was two to three centimeters. In the
|autopsy report, that thing is listed as six-and-a-half centimeters
|with widely gaping edges. And under oath, [Dr.] Humes said it was
|seven to eight centimeters, and it has, according to the autopsy
|report, widely gaping irregular edges.

In the JAMA article, as I have pointed out before, Perry says that the wound
in the Autopsy photos, and presumably according to the Autopsy report, looked
similiar to the wound as it was in Dallas. Clearly, however, he is conflicting
with his own statements to Lifton, that the treacotomy was only 2-3
centimeters and had smooth edges. This is also simliar to Livingston's
interviews with people's modern opinions of the throat wound, many seem
to have said it was smaller in the past, and changed their views recently.
I wonder why.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:51:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 66
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|[e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
||In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|||In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] writes...
||||Mitchell S Todd |
|
...
|
||This is obviously ideal from the CIA's point of view. They get a young
||recruit, do a few odd and ends, nothing to dangerous, and then can have some
||deap cover. I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It is not as
||though the CIA went actively looking, but if someone like Oswald joins the
||Civil Air Patrol at an early age, they might want to keep him for some purpose.
|
|    I should let this statement stand on its own as an example of
|    conspiracy-think. But I'm not, of course.

There is nothing conspiratorial about it. How do you think the CIA recruits
people for deep cover anyway? It has already been shown that they in fact do
look at young people Oswald's age.

|    The whole idea that the CIA would recruit, or even be interested
|    in, a young derelict whose affiliation with the cover
|    organization was short and shallow is at the far edge of
|    believability. Also, David seems to assume that the CAP was
|    automatically some CIA front, along with all its members),
|    something that I've seen little or no real basis for.

I see. It's just a coincidence that Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP?
It is just a coincidence that Oswald goes to the Atsui Air Force base in Japan,
or comes back and does work that needs a secret clearance, or gets
venereal disease in "the line of duty"? You must have read the connections, the
ease at which he passed between countries, his confession that he was going to
spill secrets to the Soviets, etc...What do you make of this?
|
||After all, the Soviets say they knew Oswald was an agent anyway, and they
||didn't kill him or put his life in danger.
|
|    The Soviets claim only that they suspected that he was a spy
|    not that they "knew" in the way of being able to prove it.

Is there a point to this mindless distinction? Maybee they could prove it.

|    The Soviet Union, and Czarist Russia before it, was known
|    for, among other things, an acute case of xenophobia. Even
|    Peter the Great, who endeavored to import Western knowledge
|    into Russia, kept the European experts segregated away from
|    the general populace. The Soviets were no less xenophobic;
|    after the end of WWII, many non-German foreigners in the
|    occupied lands, including many Americans and the Sweedish hero
|    Raul Wallenberg, never to be heard from again. The KGB would
|    have suspected Oswald of being a spy from the start. Such
|    was the Soviet way.

What about Catherine the Great and the Cossacks? What about Abraham Lincoln and
Daniel Boone? Must have been a slow day....
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3039 alt.conspiracy:17808 sci.skeptic:29089
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!oracle!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Cla
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:26:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|>
|> [stuff deleted.....addresses Mitchell's points against LHO as teen spy ]
|>
|> You keep holding up either the highly educated spy who sits in an office
|> and is an expert at deciphering some bit of data or the spy who goes
|> under cover (and a bit Bondish at that) in some hostile country.
|> You are ignoring all that we have learned about some of the seemy
|> characters like Sturgis who I would not be able to place in either of those
|> categories.

Funny you should mention Sturgis, Alan.  Here's an excerpt from the taped
interview of Sturgis by Michael Canfield.  It was made after the Rockefeller
Commission deduced that Sturgis didn't "work for" the CIA, by failing to find
any Agency documents that indicated that he did.

The excerpt is taken from "Coup D'Etat in America" by Canfield and Webberman.

STURGIS: -- and a number of other people and so forth.  Okay, well, I
think I told you earlier that I don't know if I'm a CIA agent or was a
CIA agent or not
because the top brass in CIA first denies me then they acknowledge me, then
they deny me, so I don't know what the hell I am, but all I know is I've
been involved in a lot of activities for the United States government, from
the very beginning -- from the time that I joined the United States Marine
Corps when I first turned seventeen years old up until the present day, and
I have three honorable discharges from the service.  I served in Europe, United
States, Latin America, and I served in Asia.  Now as far as domestic
intelligence.....


(Later in the interview, Sturgis admits to having been approached to perform a
"domestic" assassination, and states that he would do it, but would first
want to meet the controlling case officer face-to-face to make sure who
it was and verify that the case officer could authorize the mission.)

Hopefully, Sturgis' testimony reinforces two notions: 1.) some teens are
spies,
and 2.) its not easy to 'prove' one's relationship to the CIA.

Finally, though I don't think is necessary to explain or understand LHO's
mission in Russia, and I do believe the testimony associating him with
government operations is overwhelming enough to allow one to reasonably
speculate that LHO was an operative of the Feds, if not an outright agent
of the CIA, I will pass along speculation by "James Hepburn" author of
"Farewell America", who suggests that LHO's stay in Russia lasted long enough
(30 months) to be considered 'long-term' and that consistent with long
term work he may have done nothing at all for several years.  Hepburn also
suggests that things may have changed and he was recalled stateside.

Paul Collacchi

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3040 alt.conspiracy:17814 sci.skeptic:29092
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!mineng.dmpe.CSIRO.AU!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!cc.newcastle.edu.au!ccasm
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 18
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:23:03 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>     Books by Agee (an ex-CIA agent who now lives in Germany and
> can't even get a US passport anymore after CIA persecution), McGehee,
> and Victor Marchetti, gofer boy for Richard Helms during this dark era,
> who authored "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, et al, et al.

Sorry about the subject title (none) in two posts last week. Should have
included JFK for the skeptics. At the time I was having some hassles with the
USA Visa I am applying for.

FYI, the form asks whether I have any connections with the NAZI government of
Germany or have been involved in genocide - I had to laugh. But the question
about whether I had been arrested for anything (even if I had been acquitted,
pardoned, or not convicted) I thought was a bit unfair. Fortunately none of
these apply to me.

I remain......Big Al (my wife calls me this)... but it is not copyrighted.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Subject: Hollywood & Lee Harvey Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: JFK Oswald Assassination
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:55:05 GMT
Lines: 20

For anyone who may be interested, Entertainment Tonight on CBS will have a
small segment this evening (8/18/92) on Lee Harvey Oswald and Hollywood's
interest in his story.  Last night's preview did not give much detail as to
what they will present but it may prove interesting.  Just thought I'd toss it
out here.

Also, the season opener of Quantum Leap has Sam "leaping" into the body of Lee
Harvey Oswald.  The TV Guide article I read only briefly mentioned the two-hour
fall season opener and did not give any details about the program. But they did
have a picture of Sam in a photograph similiar to the 'backyard' photo of
Oswald.  More than likely they will follow the conventional wisdom and play it
safe for entertainment value so as not to upset the advertisers.

Then again, they may surprise me and actually pose some real questions those
who have followed this for so long have been asking for years.  We can only
hope.  Spur the interest in the general public to actually begin to 'think'
again rather than sponge intelligence from the well groomed network news and
programming.

Jack Field
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3042 alt.conspiracy:17823 sci.skeptic:29108
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!slc3.ins.cwru.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:37:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 56

[e-mail] (David Wright) writes:

> There was no reductio ad absurdum. There is a wealth of
> circumstantial evidence
> indicating that Oswald had intelligence connections. It was somehow thought
> that bringing up Oswald's early age would somehow falsify the case. It does
> not, as it was shown that there were in fact Teen Agents, of various sorts.

I've been following the thread and I don't agree that that has been shown
at all.

> |The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was a Marxist.
> Why would a Marxist be hired at a photo firm that requires a security
> clearence? (Just for starters)

It did not require a security clearance. They did some security work that
required some segregation of employees but security was lax and all
employees had access to the material (names of Soviet cities intended for
maps). The reason Oswald got the job was that he was neat, polite, and
demonstrated some knowledge of photography. His political affiliations
were not asked, as they are usually not in job interviews. Besides, Oswald
would have lied anyway.

What are the rest of your problems with Oswald being a Marxist?

> |Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
> |were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
> |welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.
>
> Wasn't it the Paine's, who have connections with intelligence, that got
> Oswald, not Marina, the job at the TSBD, at a time when Marina was
> *seperated* from Oswald?

I'm not aware of any connections the Paine's had to intelligence. That
seems unlikely given their interests. It was Ruth Paine who heard about
the job at the TSBD. She was separated as well. Her husband plays practically
no role in this affair.

> In any event, your distinction between helping
> Oswald and helping Marina seems irrelevent, since you could, and probably
> will, argue that to help one is to help the other!

You know me well, sir. Marina knew no English at that time. She had one
small child and was pregnant with another. Her income was coming from Lee
so, yes, it was very much in her interest that he be employed.

> |This was covered on Nightline some months back. They did not say much more
> |than Nosenko said after he defected in 1964.
>
> And what a story *that* was, wasn't it?

I tend to agree with Angleton, that Nosenko was unreliable in many respects.
However, that doesn't mean his core reason for defecting--if it was a
setup--to get the Soviets off the hook for Oswald, was wrong.

John
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!tadtec!tjfs
From: [e-mail] (Tim Steele)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: UK Channel 4 TV "Secret History" on RFK assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:22:30 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (news admin)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Tadpole Technology plc
Lines: 47
Nntp-Posting-Host: coffee.tadpole

Last night a one hour documentary was broadcast on UK TV regarding the
RFK assassination.  The programme appeared to be of British origin.
While flawed in some respects (sections of archive film repeated
several times, presenter obnoxious, meaningless computer graphics)
they made a pretty good case.

Pointers to a conspiracy mentioned by the film:

- Strong evidence 10+ bullets fired - Sirhan Sirhan's gun only fired 8
- Ballistics evidence shows some bullets did not come from SS's gun
- Eye witness evidence and reconstructions conflict strongly with LAPD account
- Third parties' injuries not consistent with LAPD account
- Police protection withdrawn from RFK on the day of the assassination
- LAPD coercion of witnesses to fit in with their story
- Destruction of evidence by LAPD (partition, photographs, officer statement)
- Security classification of autopsy results
- Attempts to discredit coroner

A friend of mine was critical of the programme and said:

> Some of the other evidence didn't seem to stand up to much in the
> way of examination, either, such as claiming that a woman in the street
> shouting `We killed him' or whatever must therefore have been evidence of
> a conspiracy; as if a CIA assasin would stand around answering questions.

to which I replied:

  Yes, however, I think it most likely that the three assassins involved
  were recruited (and quite possibly brainwashed) by the CIA to do the
  job, probably through a third party, in such a way that they couldn't
  easily be traced back to the CIA if they were caught.  This fits in
  with the CIA attempts to kill Castro, which included giving his
  girlfriend poison in a jar of cold cream to put in his food.
  (Really!)

  The three of them were amateurs with just sufficient ability to do the
  job, not hardened professional assassins.  They may also have been
  brainwashed - I know a lot of poppycock is talked about this, but the
  psychiatrist said that 10-20% of people are highly susceptible, and
  the CIA could pick and choose.  Also the CIA's own Operation Artichoke
  papers show that they had success in programming certain individuals
  to carry out "killings" with no subsequent memory of their actions.

  The CIA had even stronger motives to remove RFK than JFK.  And they
  did for him...

Tim
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3044 alt.conspiracy:17826
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!carbon!news.cs.indiana.edu!bsu-cs!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu!wb9omc
From: [e-mail] (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: <None>...U2 Flights
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:07:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 31

[e-mail] writes:
>>
>> Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
>> (or was that Eisenhower)?.
>>
>U2 flights were controlled by the CIA.

    I'd have to go look this up for certain, but I *believe* that
any and all actual overflights of the USSR had to be DIRECTLY
approved by the President.  In May of 1960, that was Ike - the election
was held that fall if memory serves correctly.  So all of this U2 stuff
was mostly under the Eisenhower White House.

    Now Kennedy DID approve using the U2's over Cuba during and preceeding
the "missile crisis".  Also after the fact to verify the removal of
said equipment.

    The downing of Powers' U2 pretty much ended overflights of the
USSR by that particular aircraft......and led to the use of the
Blackbirds as a more defensible aerial recon platform.  The CIA had
their A12 Blackbirds for a few years - it is not openly known if *they*
ever overflew the USSR.  They apparently DID overfly the People's
Republic of China.  Their use in Operation Black Shield over
North Vietnam is also now publically documented, or I should say the
fact that it was done.  Details are still sketchy.

    The CIA did not keep their A12 Blackbirds for long, either.  By
mid to late 1968 the mission was being done by the Air Force and
their SR71's - the A12's met an early retirement.....

Duane
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3045 alt.conspiracy:17828 sci.skeptic:29117
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|ssd.intel.com!jerryg
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Gaiser)
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: alaska
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:22:44 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
>>(or was that Eisenhower)?.
>
>Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
>though, not by the CIA. I don't think they were used much during Kennedy's
>term, since Powers was shot down in '59.

Small point. U2's were still being used during the Kennedy administration
and did flyovers of Cuba during the Missile Crisis.
--
Jerry Gaiser
         Usenet: [e-mail]
        Fidonet: 1:105/380
           PBBS: [e-mail]
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3046 alt.conspiracy:17830 sci.skeptic:29122
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!news.cs.indiana.edu!syscon!gator!fang!att!cbnewsc!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:00:27 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 10

[e-mail] writes:
>I believe that U2 pilots were often CIA employees. I know that U2's
>were used long after '59, and I believe are still used for reconnaisance.

Right... at least Gary Powers was recruited by the CIA (and paid by them).
He describes the recruitment in his book _Operation Overflight; The U-2
Spy Pilot Tells His Story_, Francis Gary Powers, 1970.

---
Joe Knapp    [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:24:00 GMT
Lines: 86

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

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

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

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

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

    Had you read the post carefully, you'd know that I as refering
    Stone's contention that Oswald was sent to Russia to torpedo the
    summit.

    However, since you insist...


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

    The Soviets would have garnered most of this information by then
    anyway. The location of bases would be easy enough to figure
    out, since your average Exxon highway map tends to include them.
    Other, more secret bases would be ferreted out by simple legwork.

    Information such as communications and radar frequencies,
    ADIZ authentication codes, radar range, and probably also
    radio range would be easily picked up by the Soviet version
    of national technical means, such as listening posts, those
    famous russian trawlers, and elint aircraft. I've generally
    been suprised at the brief amount of time between the Soviet's
    fielding of a new air defense radar system and a _Jane's_ article
    that points out which frequencies it operates on. The US
    would have known that information long before _Jane's_.
    Similarly, the Soviets would soon have the "digs" on our
    newly deployed systems.

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

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

    As for squadron strengths, commanding officer's names, etc,
    this information would be readily available to the Soviets.
    the names of commanding officers is not a secret. Strengths
    and aircraft types would be no further away than looking
    up the federal budget and similar open documents (the
    GRU routinely had agents observing congressional hearings
    on the military budget), along with a little legwork.

    At the most, Oswald might have been able to fill in a few
    gaps in the Soviets' knowledge At best, Oswald might fill in gaps
    in the Soviets' knowledge of our systems, and that's really
    not much. Had Oswald been involved with cryptography, however...



                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:52:00 GMT
Lines: 93

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

>||This is obviously ideal from the CIA's point of view. They get a young
>||recruit, do a few odd and ends, nothing to dangerous, and then can have some
>||deap cover. I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It is not as
>||though the CIA went actively looking, but if someone like Oswald joins the
>||Civil Air Patrol at an early age, they might want to keep him for some purpose.

>|    I should let this statement stand on its own as an example of
>|    conspiracy-think. But I'm not, of course.

>There is nothing conspiratorial about it. How do you think the CIA recruits
>people for deep cover anyway? It has already been shown that they in fact do
>look at young people Oswald's age.

    It has? where has this been shown, since I haven't seen it.

    Anyway, the first thing the CIA would want in a deep cover agent
    would be reliability, and unreliability was a character trait
    that Oswald fairly exuded.


>|    The whole idea that the CIA would recruit, or even be interested
>|    in, a young derelict whose affiliation with the cover
>|    organization was short and shallow is at the far edge of
>|    believability. Also, David seems to assume that the CAP was
>|    automatically some CIA front, along with all its members),
>|    something that I've seen little or no real basis for.

>I see. It's just a coincidence that Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP?

    Since Oswald attended only two or three meetings before
    losing interest and dropping out, I seriously doubt that
    there is anything more than a casual connection.


>It is just a coincidence that Oswald goes to the Atsui Air Force base in Japan,
>or comes back and does work that needs a secret clearance,

    What work that needed a secret clearence?


>or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?


>You must have read the connections, the ease at which he passed between
>countries,

    How hard would it have to be?

>his confession that he was going to spill secrets to the Soviets, etc

    Now this is a new one. Who did he say this to, and when?


..What do you make of this?

    Certainly not moutains out of molehills.


>||After all, the Soviets say they knew Oswald was an agent anyway, and they
>||didn't kill him or put his life in danger.

>|    The Soviets claim only that they suspected that he was a spy
>|    not that they "knew" in the way of being able to prove it.

>Is there a point to this mindless distinction? Maybee they could prove it.

    Well, you started out by saying that the Soviets knew Oswald
    was a spy. I saw the Nightline episode and the associated
    newspaper, etc articles, and they only claimed that the
    Soviets suspected that LHO was a spy. Since the Soviets
    have released their files on Oswald, I'm sure we'd know
    by now if they could prove it. The Soviets would have suspected
    Oswald whether he was a spy or not.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:24:59 GMT
Lines: 69

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Sure Mitchell.

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

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

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

See above.

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


Ahhhhh. Maybe you grasped the point after all.

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

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

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

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

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:36:55 GMT
Lines: 17

Mitchell S Todd  writes: >
David Wright >>

>>or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

>    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
>    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]




Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17840 sci.skeptic:29152 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3051
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:27:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 40

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Harwood) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>> The quality of the photo looked better than what I get with my modern FAX
>> machine.
>>
>>
>> Also electronic typesetting did not exist. Typesetting was done by hand and took
>> the whole night to typeset a newspaper.
>
>In the early sixties The News (Adelaide evening paper, closed shop last year)
>received wire photos and was able to remake the front page in half an hour and
>get the next edition on the streets in less than an hour.
>
>The photos by wire process was a true grey-scale process and could send
>photographs barely distinguishable from the originals. The output came
>on photographic paper, not office stationery.
>
>The paper was not set by hand, they used LinoType machines, which had been
>around since the nineteenth century. The first edition was about 11.00a.m.
>(if memory serves correctly) with later editions at about 1.00p.m., 3.00p.m.
>and 5.00p.m. (that's on the street in central Adelaide). Changes between
>editions usually included both the front page and several other editorial
>pages. I have seen events (unexpected, unpredicatable events) that happened
>after noon reported on the front page of the one o'clock edition. So, not
>only could they remake the paper and have it out in less than an hour,
>they could do it every day, year in, year out.
>
>For predicable events I think the record is held by the Melbourne Herald,
>which in those days could get the result of the Melbourne Cup with
>photograph on the streets within twenty minutes of the end of the race.
>


OK I eat my words. You've convinced me.

Prouty must be wrong.


Derek.
From: [e-mail] (Robert Frohwerk)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:14:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!hpscdc!hplextra!hpcc05!hpdmd48!froh
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 23


Getting back to the basenote for a moment:

>alt.conspiracy.jfk / [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
>/ 12:23 am  Aug  3, 1992 /

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


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

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

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

Bob
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17842 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3053 sci.skeptic:29164 misc.legal:35507
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Subject: Marilyn Monroe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:13:48 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 9


I was just wondering if there is any news regarding public response
to the book & Bill Bixby documentary called the "Marilyn Files."

The CIA and RFK were implicated in a cover up of her death/murder.


What is the likelyhood that a body exhumation or a Grand Jury hearing
will take place??
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3054 alt.conspiracy:17845 sci.skeptic:29170
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!pacbell.com!pacbell!oracle!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:09:18 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 107

> John Locke writes:
>>[e-mail] (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>
>> I believe that we can now conclude that there was at lease one teenage spy
>> and dispose of Robert's silly syllogism "no spy is a teenager", which has
>> gotten much undeserved mileage.
>
>We can now move on to the reductio ad absurdum that because it cannot
>be proved absolutely that there has never been a "spy" under the age of
>20, the Oswald must have been a spy. It's true that he led an unusual
>life, but ...  it's not necessary to make the leap that he was a spy.
>

Agreed --  he lead an unusual life; its not necessary to make the leap that
he was a spy.  In fact, I don't suggest that we do, and I didn't in the
article.

What I suggest is that we evaluate the proposition "Oswald was a spy",
based on its merits, on relevant fact, namely his actual history --
actions and associations -- rather then on personal speculation about
his psychological profile or guesses as to what we can imagine about
government agencies, or based on what we "think" makes sense.  All
of these latter things are essentially irrelevant to the suchness or
non-suchness of Oswald's spyhood, though perhaps we should keep them
in mind when evaluating the interpretation of REAL facts about his life.

>He mainifests the characteristics of an uneducated, then self-educated
>person: his mind is a random patchwork of knowledge. He could convince
>himself, because of his reading of idealistic Marxist books, that the
>Soviet Union was a paradise.
>

A good example of irrelevant speculation based on what YOU think rather
than what is so about Oswald.  A fact might be: X testified that Oswald
read a Marxist book; Y said that Oswald waxed longingly when referring to
his beloved Mother Russia, but those facts aren't presented in your claim,
and so we don't know if there are really any underlying facts to the
conclusion.  Besides, whose mind isn't a "random patchwork of knowledge?"

Here is an example of what I consider "strong" evidence:

    There was joy in the CIA's Tokyo station.  "It was a scene of
    great excitement, confusion, and wild talk.  The conservatives
    were obviously elated and there was talk of an invasion of
    Cuba," said Jim Wilcott, the Tokyo [CIA] station financial officer
    in 1963.  According to Wilcott, CIA hardliners "hated Jack
    Kennedy" because they felt he betrayed the agency over the Bay
    of Pigs.  Agents were breaking out bottles and having drinks to
    Oswald.  Tongues became loose, and there was a great deal of
    talk that Oswald worked for the agency.  This is what Wilcott
    says he learned:

       Oswald was originally under control of the Tokyo station's
       Soviet Russia Branch.  He was trained at Atsugi Naval Air
       Station, the secret base for Tokyo CIA special operations.
       [Oswald's standard biography has him stationed with a Marine
       Corps unit at Atsugi from 1956 to 1958.]  When Oswald
       returned from the USSR in June of 1962, he was brought back
       to Japan for debriefing.  They were having some kind of
       difficulty with Oswald.  The Soviets were on to him right
       from the start.  That apparently made him very angry and he
       became difficult to handle.

    Wilcott told the authors that at first he found it difficult to
    accept that the man who was said to have shot the president
    worked for the CIA.  "Then I heard about more and more employees
    who had been working on the Oswald project in the late 1950s.
    Part of Wilcott's job was to hand out cash for covert CIA
    operations.  "When I expressed disbelief, they told me 'Well
    Jim, so and so drew an advance from you for Oswald' or 'You gave
    out money for the Oswald project under such and such a crypto.'"[1]


I would say that this testimony, if true, points pretty strongly to
Oswald's having a "special relationship" to the CIA.  What would you
say?

>The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was a Marxist.
>

Make your case, John, we're all listening.

>
>Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
>were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
>welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.
>

Ouch.  You picked the wrong example.  It is probably true that most of
LHO's many righty cohorts didn't have deep, overwhelming feelings of warmth
and affection for him, but who am I to say.  The point is not that they
loved him, but that they associated with him.  He wasn't a "loner" like the
Warren Commission said.  There can't be much testimony about someone who
no-one associates with.  There's tons of testimony about Oswald.  He's
no Squeaky Fromm -- he gets around.

About De Morenschildt -- I'm soon to post an article which talks about him
in more detail.  About Oswald, De Morenschildt says, "He was a charming
guy," or delightful or something like that.  It seems to be that De
Morenschildt actually did like Oswald personally.  So did his wife.

Paul Collacchi


[1] From "The Fish is Red" by Hinkle and Turner.  Wilcott's testimony is
from his interview with the authors.

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3055 alt.conspiracy:17847
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!decwrl!deccrl!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!seunet!lin.foa.se!eriks
From: [e-mail] (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: <None>...U2 Flights
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:22:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (System PRIVILEGED Account)
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: fenix.lin.foa.se

[e-mail] (Duane P Mantick) writes:

>    The CIA did not keep their A12 Blackbirds for long, either.  By
>mid to late 1968 the mission was being done by the Air Force and
>their SR71's - the A12's met an early retirement.....

I suppose I'm nit-picking, but the A-12 and the SR-71 is essentially the same
aircraft.

--
Erik Svensson            Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division        National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm            Sweden

net.address:     [e-mail]

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3056 alt.conspiracy:17851 sci.skeptic:29179
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!deccrl!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!uknet!yorkohm!minster!aaron
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:31:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
Lines: 20
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

(Tom Warner) writes:
[e-mail] writes:

>>Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
>Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
>though, not by the CIA.

Not only did the CIA fly U2s over the Soviet Union some of the work
was contracted out to the RAF to circumvent the limits imposed by
congress on the number of flights that could be sanctioned
(reference: A recent BBC TV series on the CIA that included an interview
 with one of the RAF pilots and film that was shot during his training
 for the U2 flights)

I believe that U2s are still used for flights over Cuba
(I can confirm later)

    Aaron Turner        [e-mail]

P.S. Is this particularly relevant to alt.conspiracy.jfk?
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3057 alt.conspiracy:17853 sci.skeptic:29185
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jac54
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:27:10 GMT
Lines: 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>       Books by Agee (an ex-CIA agent who now lives in Germany and
>can't even get a US passport anymore after CIA persecution)

    Before using Phillip Agee as a source, you might want to
    ask him about his disciplinary record in the CIA and
    where he his money comes from.

    Alec Chambers
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3058 alt.conspiracy:17860 sci.skeptic:29202
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:05:33 CST
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 14

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>       Books by Agee (an ex-CIA agent who now lives in Germany and
>>can't even get a US passport anymore after CIA persecution)
>
>     Before using Phillip Agee as a source, you might want to
>     ask him about his disciplinary record in the CIA and
>     where he his money comes from.
>
>     Alec Chambers

    I would hardly expect a glowing report from the CIA on any
whistle-blowers.  What about Marchetti and McGehee?
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3059 alt.conspiracy:17861 sci.skeptic:29206
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist, e.g. Johnny Quest
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:27:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 154

[e-mail] (Paul Collacchi) writes:
# > John Locke writes:

# >We can now move on to the reductio ad absurdum that because it cannot
# >be proved absolutely that there has never been a "spy" under the age of
# >20, the Oswald must have been a spy. It's true that he led an unusual
# >life, but ...  it's not necessary to make the leap that he was a spy.
#
# Agreed --  he lead an unusual life; its not necessary to make the leap that
# he was a spy.  In fact, I don't suggest that we do, and I didn't in the
# article.
#
# What I suggest is that we evaluate the proposition "Oswald was a spy",
# based on its merits, on relevant fact, namely his actual history --
# actions and associations -- rather then on personal speculation about
# his psychological profile or guesses as to what we can imagine about
# government agencies, or based on what we "think" makes sense.  All
# of these latter things are essentially irrelevant to the suchness or
# non-suchness of Oswald's spyhood, though perhaps we should keep them
# in mind when evaluating the interpretation of REAL facts about his life.

The reason we have delved into speculation on his psychological profile,
possible motivations, etc., is because there's a dearth of real evidence
establishing that he was a spy or in the employ of intelligence agencies.
The real facts of his life show him to be the "lone nut" of lore. The
proposition that what he appeared to be is just some elaborate cover for
what he really was is interesting, but it hasn't been proved. That
interpretation is all based on speculation, in fact.

# >He mainifests the characteristics of an uneducated, then self-educated
# >person: his mind is a random patchwork of knowledge. He could convince
# >himself, because of his reading of idealistic Marxist books, that the
# >Soviet Union was a paradise.
#
# A good example of irrelevant speculation based on what YOU think rather
# than what is so about Oswald.  A fact might be: X testified that Oswald
# read a Marxist book; Y said that Oswald waxed longingly when referring to
# his beloved Mother Russia, but those facts aren't presented in your claim,
# and so we don't know if there are really any underlying facts to the
# conclusion.

Although we know what Oswald did, we do not know what he wanted to
accomplish, particularly by killing the president. We are therefore forced
to speculate on that crucially important second question of motivation. It
is far from irrelevant. The problem is that on the surface his rationales
are illogical. We are tempted to say, no one could be that unrealistic to
think that defecting to the USSR would be a good idea; that killing the
president would somehow result in a benefit. The kidnapper of the Lindbergh
baby, for instance, is either to fathom: the family has money, the kidnapper
holds the baby for ransom. It's a perfect pairing of action and motivation.
Oswald provides no such luxury, so conspiracy theorists have stepped in to
fill in a logical motivation where perhaps there is none. Since I see no
logical motivations for Oswald's grandiose actions, I have to wonder what
his illogical motivations may have been. I'm forced into this because of
a lack of evidence showing him to be more than what he appears.

# Besides, whose mind isn't a "random patchwork of knowledge?"

Let me put it another way. His grandiose illusions betray the haphazard
state of his self-education. He could imagine defecting to the USSR or
killing the president, but he could not see how unrealistic those goals
were to advancing his status in the world, or whatever his goals were.

# Here is an example of what I consider "strong" evidence:

Why did you put "strong" in quotes? That suggests irony.

#     There was joy in the CIA's Tokyo station.  "It was a scene of
#     great excitement, confusion, and wild talk.  The conservatives
#     were obviously elated and there was talk of an invasion of
#     Cuba," said Jim Wilcott, the Tokyo [CIA] station financial officer
#     in 1963.  According to Wilcott, CIA hardliners "hated Jack
#     Kennedy" because they felt he betrayed the agency over the Bay
#     of Pigs.  Agents were breaking out bottles and having drinks to
#     Oswald.  Tongues became loose, and there was a great deal of
#     talk that Oswald worked for the agency.  This is what Wilcott
#     says he learned:
#
#        Oswald was originally under control of the Tokyo station's
#        Soviet Russia Branch.  He was trained at Atsugi Naval Air
#        Station, the secret base for Tokyo CIA special operations.
#        [Oswald's standard biography has him stationed with a Marine
#        Corps unit at Atsugi from 1956 to 1958.]  When Oswald
#        returned from the USSR in June of 1962, he was brought back
#        to Japan for debriefing.  They were having some kind of
#        difficulty with Oswald.  The Soviets were on to him right
#        from the start.  That apparently made him very angry and he
#        became difficult to handle.
#
#     Wilcott told the authors that at first he found it difficult to
#     accept that the man who was said to have shot the president
#     worked for the CIA.  "Then I heard about more and more employees
#     who had been working on the Oswald project in the late 1950s.
#     Part of Wilcott's job was to hand out cash for covert CIA
#     operations.  "When I expressed disbelief, they told me 'Well
#     Jim, so and so drew an advance from you for Oswald' or 'You gave
#     out money for the Oswald project under such and such a crypto.'"[1]
#
# I would say that this testimony, if true, points pretty strongly to
# Oswald's having a "special relationship" to the CIA.  What would you
# say?

The "if true" part is the kicker. All the above comes through a single
witness, Mr. Wilcott. What incentive do we have to believe his story?
Is it corroborated? At least one contention is false, that Oswald was
"brought back to Japan for debriefing" in 1962. When exactly did this
happen? Oswald's time after he returned from Russia has been generally
blocked out, so this contention must be contrasted with evidence that
would place him elsewhere at the same time.

# >The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was a Marxist.
# Make your case, John, we're all listening.

All the obvious stuff: read Marxist literature, taught himself Russian,
defected to the USSR, promoted Castro, etc. That's overwhelming to me.
If you can demonstrate his real beliefs, if they are not Marxist, I'd
be interested in seeing the argument.

# >Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
# >were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
# >welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.
#
# Ouch.  You picked the wrong example.  It is probably true that most of
# LHO's many righty cohorts didn't have deep, overwhelming feelings of warmth
# and affection for him, but who am I to say.

He had no "righty cohorts." (Note that "cohort" implies more than mere
acquaintance. He knew rightists, like De Morenschildt, but they didn't
agree with his politics.)

# The point is not that they loved him, but that they associated with him.

Tolerated him would be more accurate, for Marina's sake.

# He wasn't a "loner" like the
# Warren Commission said.  There can't be much testimony about someone who
# no-one associates with.  There's tons of testimony about Oswald.  He's
# no Squeaky Fromm -- he gets around.

I don't think by "loner" the WC meant that he was anonymous. They meant
that he was close-lipped, had few friends, and generally kept to himself.
This is not consistently true. He seemed to have periods of sociability
during the Marines and for periods in Minsk, but generally he ended up
withdrawing into himself.

# About De Morenschildt -- I'm soon to post an article which talks about him
# in more detail.  About Oswald, De Morenschildt says, "He was a charming
# guy," or delightful or something like that.  It seems to be that De
# Morenschildt actually did like Oswald personally.  So did his wife.

De Morenschildt may have made some charitable comments about him, but
he and Oswald were never close.

John
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3060 alt.conspiracy:17862 sci.skeptic:29210
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!caen!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jac54
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:33:00 GMT
Lines: 36

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>
>>>       Books by Agee (an ex-CIA agent who now lives in Germany and
>>>can't even get a US passport anymore after CIA persecution)
>>
>>      Before using Phillip Agee as a source, you might want to
>>      ask him about his disciplinary record in the CIA and
>>      where he his money comes from.
>>
>>      Alec Chambers
>
>       I would hardly expect a glowing report from the CIA on any
>whistle-blowers.  What about Marchetti and McGehee?


    I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
    familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
    work seems to be sound.

    As far as Agee is concerned you still have to answer questions like:

a.      Why did Agee fail to report a number of trips to Cuba?

    As this was revealed in a public domain document and he
    didn't sue for defamation or libel I conclude that the
    report is true.

b.      Where DOES he get his money from?

    This is the big question and has shut him up on several
    occasions.


    Alec Chambers.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17863 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3061 sci.skeptic:29212 misc.legal:35528
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!myrddin!pdn!lej
From: [e-mail] (Leo James)
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Subsystem)
Nntp-Posting-Host: xlp1-ipc0
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:41:24 GMT
Lines: 23

Ok,  this is an interesting subject.   Last week's PEOPLE magazine did
a re-cap of the questions surrounding Marilyn's death and, essentially
accussed RFK of her murder.  They had photographic evidence of private
encounters with both  RFK and  JFK shortly before her death,  and they
implied that  Robert's motivation  was Marilyn's threat to "go public"
with her affair with JFK  which JFK had stopped.  They also claim that
she aborted either JFK's or RFK's baby during this time.   The methods
they accused the Kennedys of using  to cover up this  "embarassment to
the administration"  will sound  very familiar  to the readers of this
newsgroup:  suppression of evidence, falsification of records, tamper-
ing with the scene of a crime, and murder. They briefly mentioned that
there are schools of thought that Marilyn  was murdered  either by the
Cubans or by organized crime to "get at" JFK.  They closed with an al-
ledged quote from Marilyn's ex-husband Joe DiMaggio who, upon oversee-
ing her funeral,  stated that he "didn't want to see any of those damn
Kennedys" at the service. What's the opinion of the newsgroup concern-
ing this issue?  Is this a Red Herring?   A smear job on the Kennedys?
Or, does this actually fit in somewhere with the JFK murder?
--
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|Leopold E. James     | "A heart, a soul, AND | AT&T Paradyne         |
|ph: [phone]   |  a mind are terrible  | P.O. Box 2826, LG-132,|
|[e-mail] |  things to waste."    | Largo, FL 34649 (USA) |
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3062 alt.conspiracy:17866
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:30:30 GMT
Lines: 85

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

>    I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
>    familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
>    work seems to be sound.

Excerpted without permission from:

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected

by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991

...

Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network.  Prouty's
<The Secret Team> was recently republished by Noontide Press, the
publishing arm of the historical revisionist Institute for Historical
Review (IHR). IHR promotes the theory that the accepted history of
the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews.

In 1974, Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy
director of the CIA, co-authored <The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence>,
a well-received best-seller and the first book the CIA tried to
suppress through court action. By 1989, however, Marchetti had been
recruited into a close alliance with Carto's Liberty Lobby network.
In 1989, Marchetti presented a paper at the Ninth International
Revisionist Conference held by the Institute for Historical Review.
The title of Marchetti's paper, published in IHR's <Journal of
Historical Review>, was "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the
CIA Manufactures History." Marchetti edits the <New American View>
newsletter, which as one promotional flyer explained, was designed
to "document for patriotic Americans like yourself the excess of
pro-Israelism, which warps the news we see and hear from our media,
cows our Congress into submission, and has already cost us hundreds
of innocent, young Americans in Lebanon and elsewhere."

Marchetti describes himself as a person whose "intelligence expertise
and well-placed contacts have provided me with a unique insight
into the subversion of our democratic process and foreign policy
by those who would put the interests of Israel <above> those of
America and Americans." Marchetti is also the publisher of a
Japanese-language book <ADL and Zionism>, written by LaRouche
followers Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg.

Marchetti was co-publisher of the <Zionist Watch> newsletter when
it was endorsed in direct mail appeals on Liberty Lobby stationery
by the now deceased Lois Petersen, who for many years was the
influential secretary of the Liberty Lobby board of directors. The
October 5, 1987 <Spotlight> reported that Mark Lane had been named
associate editor of <Zionist Watch>, which is housed in the same
small converted Capitol Hill townhouse as Liberty Lobby/<Spotlight>.

While concern over Reagan Administration participation in joint
intelligence operations with Mossad is legitimate, the use of
anti-Zionism as a cover for conspiracist anti-Jewish bigotry can
be seen in an article in the August 24, 1981 issue of <Spotlight>:

"A brazen attempt by influential "Israel-firsters" in the policy
echelons of the Reagan administration to extend their control to
the day-to-day espionage and covert-action operations of the CIA
was the hidden source of the controversy and scandals that shook
the U.S.  intelligence establishment this summer. "

"The dual loyalists, whose domination over the federal executive's
high planning and strategy-making resources is now just about total,
have long wanted to grab a hand in the on-the-spot "field control"
of the CIA's worldwide clandestine services. They want this control,
not just for themselves, but on behalf of the Mossad, Israel's
terrorist secret police. "

...

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3063 alt.conspiracy:17868 sci.skeptic:29228
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:16:57 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 46

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
>>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>
>>>>       Books by Agee (an ex-CIA agent who now lives in Germany and
>>>>can't even get a US passport anymore after CIA persecution)
>>>
>>>      Before using Phillip Agee as a source, you might want to
>>>      ask him about his disciplinary record in the CIA and
>>>      where he his money comes from.
>>>
>>>      Alec Chambers
>>
>>       I would hardly expect a glowing report from the CIA on any
>>whistle-blowers.  What about Marchetti and McGehee?
>
>
>     I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
>     familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
>     work seems to be sound.
>
>     As far as Agee is concerned you still have to answer questions like:
>
> a.      Why did Agee fail to report a number of trips to Cuba?
>
>     As this was revealed in a public domain document and he
>     didn't sue for defamation or libel I conclude that the
>     report is true.
>
> b.      Where DOES he get his money from?
>
>     This is the big question and has shut him up on several
>     occasions.
>
>
>     Alec Chambers.

    Agee's character I could not begin to attest to one way or
the other;i.e., is he disreputable or a victim of the 'big smear'.
    What he has to say, however, is right in line with Marchetti
and McGehee.  Let's face it.  Any former agent who goes public
with an insider's viewpoint of intelligence activities knows the
price of poker ...and it appears to have been a hefty price.  McGehee
particularly impresses me as a real patriot who just never could
sell his conscience.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17869 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3064 sci.skeptic:29229 misc.legal:35534
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!npirs!jheath
From: [e-mail] (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:15:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Lines: 21

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Derek Abbott):
>
> I was just wondering if there is any news regarding public response
> to the book & Bill Bixby documentary called the "Marilyn Files."
>
> The CIA and RFK were implicated in a cover up of her death/murder.
>
>
> What is the likelyhood that a body exhumation or a Grand Jury hearing
> will take place??

Little and none and little just caught the last train for the
coast.

After 30 years, what could be determined and would there be much
left of the body besides the hair and skeleton?
--
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3065 alt.conspiracy:17870 sci.skeptic:29230
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!jyusenkyou!arromdee
From: [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Keywords: teen agents exist, e.g. Johnny Quest
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet news system)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:49:12 GMT
Lines: 8

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

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail])
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3066 alt.conspiracy:17878
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jac54
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:17:11 GMT
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>
>>      I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
>>      familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
>>      work seems to be sound.
>
>Excerpted without permission from:
>
>Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.
>
>RIGHT WOOS LEFT:
>
>Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
>Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected
>
>by Chip Berlet
>
>Political Research Associates
>
>December 16, 1991

    What I had in mind is was publications critical of the CIA.  There
    is a great deal to be said for informed criticism of the agency and
    I have no problem with that.  Certainly, why the CIA wanted to
    make some of the deletions I have seen in "Cult" is a mystery to me.
    I have it at home and it's somewhere on my list to be read.  I also
    found McGehees book and read some of it last night.  His story is
    told by members of all intel. agencies and the CIA should address
    the concerns he raises.

    I knew nothing of Marchetti's politics and find this article most
    interesting [substantially deleted only to save bandwidth].
    Incidentally, you will find a bunch of intel. officers mad at
    the Israelis for a variety of reasons.

    The only problem I had with the original posting was the incantation
    of the Agee mantra.  There is a lot that Agee doesn't tell us about
    himself that leads me to believe that he isn't writing out
    of the goodness of his heart.

    Your comments appreciated,

    Alec Chambers.


>Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
>it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
>foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
>the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
>now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network.  Prouty's
><The Secret Team> was recently republished by Noontide Press, the
>publishing arm of the historical revisionist Institute for Historical
>Review (IHR). IHR promotes the theory that the accepted history of
>the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews.

    The only contact I had with the Liberty Lobby was finding one of
    their newsletters in a second-hand book I bought.  I had
    problems dealing with a sentence that had the phrase "Nixon's
    liberal appointees" (paraphrased) in it.

    Alec.

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3067 alt.conspiracy:17879 sci.skeptic:29267
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jac54
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:26:50 GMT
Lines: 40

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>      As far as Agee is concerned you still have to answer questions like:
>>
>> a.      Why did Agee fail to report a number of trips to Cuba?
>>
>>      As this was revealed in a public domain document and he
>>      didn't sue for defamation or libel I conclude that the
>>      report is true.
>>
>> b.      Where DOES he get his money from?
>>
>>      This is the big question and has shut him up on several
>>      occasions.
>>
>>
>>      Alec Chambers.
>
>       Agee's character I could not begin to attest to one way or
>the other;i.e., is he disreputable or a victim of the 'big smear'.

    These are not questions of character.  These are facts that
    Agee and his acolytes seem averse to bringing out into
    public view.



>       What he has to say, however, is right in line with Marchetti
>and McGehee.  Let's face it.  Any former agent who goes public
>with an insider's viewpoint of intelligence activities knows the
>price of poker ...and it appears to have been a hefty price.  McGehee
>particularly impresses me as a real patriot who just never could
>sell his conscience.

    McGehee's story is not unique to him or to the CIA.  I haven't
    finished the book yet but I suspect that he is raising the same
    points that a number of disaffected agents and defectors have
    raised.  These are points that need to be addressed.

    Alec Chambers.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3068 alt.conspiracy:17896
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu!wb9omc
From: [e-mail] (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: <None>...U2 Flights
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:18:43 GMT
Lines: 54

[e-mail] (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>[e-mail] (Duane P Mantick) writes:

>>    The CIA did not keep their A12 Blackbirds for long, either.  By
>>mid to late 1968 the mission was being done by the Air Force and
>>their SR71's - the A12's met an early retirement.....

[e-mail] (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>I suppose I'm nit-picking, but the A-12 and the SR-71 is essentially the same
>aircraft.

    No it isn't.  The general appearance is similar, the engines are
roughly the same with a mostly titanium airframe.  At about that point
similarities end.  The Sr71 was a two-seater with pilot and RSO (Recon.
Systems Operator), while the A12 was a single seat aircraft (excepting for
the two-place trainer and the two M12 drone carriers).  On the SR71
the recon. equipment is carried in the nose and/or in chine bays.  On
the A12 the space which became the second seat for the YF12's and the SR71
was full of recon. gear with a hatch over the top.  So far as most of us
can tell, the A12 did NOT carry gear out in the chines - mostly the chines
were not part of the airframe proper but an add-on made of some good
junk called pyro-ceram.  Pyro-ceram was neat stuff that not only could stand
up to the heat of Mach 3+ but did some radar attenuation as well,
according to most of the available reports.  The chines on the SR71
were pretty well fixed in place and were, in general, not attributed to
being *more* stealthy than the rest of the airplane.

    The actual line and form of the chines is different between the
two, with the A12 being considerably more angular and "pointy" than
the Sr71.  The tail of the SR is longer and the SR can carry more
fuel for a longer range than the A12.  The A12 was lighter in weight
and was rumoured to fly not only a bit *faster* than the SR, but
higher as well.

    (The YF12, of course, was really vastly different than either
the A12 or the SR71.  YF12's were killers that had look-down, shoot-
down capability; a capability that was demonstrated to work as far
as 110 miles! As a long range, high speed stand-off interceptor, the
YF12 was probably unmatched in it's capabilities.  And those could have
been considerably expanded in production by incorporating the sort
of fire control that went into planes like the F14.)

    Back the the A12 and the SR71.  A12's never got the improvements
in engine and flight controls that went into the SR71's.  The SR's
were, by most accounts, an easier airplane to fly because of this.

    While many details of both the A12 and SR71 remain unavailable,
suffice to say that there are enough differences that you really can't
call them the same plane.  "Close", perhaps.  Maybe not even that.

Duane

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17906 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3069 sci.skeptic:29309 misc.legal:35579
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:56:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Heath) writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Derek Abbott):
>> I was just wondering if there is any news regarding public response
>> to the book & Bill Bixby documentary called the "Marilyn Files."
>>
>> The CIA and RFK were implicated in a cover up of her death/murder.
>>
>>
>> What is the likelyhood that a body exhumation or a Grand Jury hearing
>> will take place??
>
>Little and none and little just caught the last train for the
>coast.
>
>After 30 years, what could be determined and would there be much
>left of the body besides the hair and skeleton?

Them expensive polished wood coffins last a long time. Especially if the
ground is fairly dry. What's the winter weather in LA like?

An exhumation would establish whether the story of a snapped syringe needle
stuck under her left breast is true or not.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3070 alt.conspiracy:17907
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Aug 92 08:31:35 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 99

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brad Pierce) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>
>>    I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
>>    familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
>>    work seems to be sound.
>
> Excerpted without permission from:
>
> Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.
>
> RIGHT WOOS LEFT:
>
> Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
> Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected
>
> by Chip Berlet
>
> Political Research Associates
>
> ...
>
> Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
> it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
> foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
> the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
> now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network....

    [see original post for lengthy text]

> In 1974, Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy
> director of the CIA, co-authored <The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence>,
> a well-received best-seller and the first book the CIA tried to
> suppress through court action....

    [txt deleted]

> Marchetti describes himself as a person whose "intelligence expertise
> and well-placed contacts have provided me with a unique insight
> into the subversion of our democratic process and foreign policy
> by those who would put the interests of Israel <above> those of
> America and Americans." Marchetti is also the publisher of a
> Japanese-language book <ADL and Zionism>, written by LaRouche
> followers Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg.
>
> Marchetti was co-publisher of the <Zionist Watch> newsletter when
> it was endorsed in direct mail appeals on Liberty Lobby stationery
> by the now deceased Lois Petersen, who for many years was the
> influential secretary of the Liberty Lobby board of directors. The
> October 5, 1987 <Spotlight> reported that Mark Lane had been named
> associate editor of <Zionist Watch>, which is housed in the same
> small converted Capitol Hill townhouse as Liberty Lobby/<Spotlight>.
>
> While concern over Reagan Administration participation in joint
> intelligence operations with Mossad is legitimate, the use of
> anti-Zionism as a cover for conspiracist anti-Jewish bigotry can
> be seen in an article in the August 24, 1981 issue of <Spotlight>:
>
> "A brazen attempt by influential "Israel-firsters" in the policy
> echelons of the Reagan administration to extend their control to
> the day-to-day espionage and covert-action operations of the CIA
> was the hidden source of the controversy and scandals that shook
> the U.S.  intelligence establishment this summer. "
>
> "The dual loyalists, whose domination over the federal executive's
> high planning and strategy-making resources is now just about total,
> have long wanted to grab a hand in the on-the-spot "field control"
> of the CIA's worldwide clandestine services. They want this control,
> not just for themselves, but on behalf of the Mossad, Israel's
> terrorist secret police. "


    What point is it you are making with respect Marchetti?

    a) That his "Cult of Intelligence" is unreliable because
       of his later political activity?

    b) That he is anti-jewish because he associates with Paul
       Goldstein, Jeffrey Steinberg and Mark Lane...all Jews?

    c) That he is anti-jewish because he questions the policies
       of the state of Israel?  Many people in Israel question
       the policies of the state of Israel.

    As I recall from Mark Lane's book, Plausible Denial, Marchetti
made his mark by a gutsy article published in the Spotlight claiming
CIA agent Hunt was in Dallas at the time of or just prior to the
JFK assassination.  Hunt sued the Spotlight for libel and lost on
appeal when the Spotlight was defended by lane.  From what I understand
about the trial in Miami, poorly covered by the press, this trial
was the closest thing yet to courtroom success in establishing a
conspiracy wrt the assassination.







Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3071 alt.conspiracy:17910
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 04:37:25 GMT
Lines: 229

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

>    What point is it you are making with respect Marchetti?
>
>    a) That his "Cult of Intelligence" is unreliable because
>       of his later political activity?
>
>    b) That he is anti-jewish because he associates with Paul
>       Goldstein, Jeffrey Steinberg and Mark Lane...all Jews?
>
>    c) That he is anti-jewish because he questions the policies
>       of the state of Israel?  Many people in Israel question
>       the policies of the state of Israel.

In his/her followup to my post "f_gaut" deleted the important
information that:

    "In 1989, Marchetti presented a paper at the Ninth International
     Revisionist Conference held by the Institute for Historical
     Review."

"f_gaut" also removed "alt.revisionism" from the newsgroups line.

Marchetti gave a speech at the international conference of Holocaust
deniers. Therefore, Victor Marchetti is a Jew hater.

I expose Jew haters whenever possible.  Hence, my posting.

-- Brad Pierce --

P.S.

Here is "f_gaut"'s posting, followed by my original posting:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brad Pierce) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>>
>>>    I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
>>>    familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
>>>    work seems to be sound.
>>
>> Excerpted without permission from:
>>
>> Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.
>>
>> RIGHT WOOS LEFT:
>>
>> Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
>> Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected
>>
>> by Chip Berlet
>>
>> Political Research Associates
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
>> it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
>> foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
>> the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
>> now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network....
>
>    [see original post for lengthy text]
>
>> In 1974, Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy
>> director of the CIA, co-authored <The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence>,
>> a well-received best-seller and the first book the CIA tried to
>> suppress through court action....
>
>    [txt deleted]
>
>> Marchetti describes himself as a person whose "intelligence expertise
>> and well-placed contacts have provided me with a unique insight
>> into the subversion of our democratic process and foreign policy
>> by those who would put the interests of Israel <above> those of
>> America and Americans." Marchetti is also the publisher of a
>> Japanese-language book <ADL and Zionism>, written by LaRouche
>> followers Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg.
>>
>> Marchetti was co-publisher of the <Zionist Watch> newsletter when
>> it was endorsed in direct mail appeals on Liberty Lobby stationery
>> by the now deceased Lois Petersen, who for many years was the
>> influential secretary of the Liberty Lobby board of directors. The
>> October 5, 1987 <Spotlight> reported that Mark Lane had been named
>> associate editor of <Zionist Watch>, which is housed in the same
>> small converted Capitol Hill townhouse as Liberty Lobby/<Spotlight>.
>>
>> While concern over Reagan Administration participation in joint
>> intelligence operations with Mossad is legitimate, the use of
>> anti-Zionism as a cover for conspiracist anti-Jewish bigotry can
>> be seen in an article in the August 24, 1981 issue of <Spotlight>:
>>
>> "A brazen attempt by influential "Israel-firsters" in the policy
>> echelons of the Reagan administration to extend their control to
>> the day-to-day espionage and covert-action operations of the CIA
>> was the hidden source of the controversy and scandals that shook
>> the U.S.  intelligence establishment this summer. "
>>
>> "The dual loyalists, whose domination over the federal executive's
>> high planning and strategy-making resources is now just about total,
>> have long wanted to grab a hand in the on-the-spot "field control"
>> of the CIA's worldwide clandestine services. They want this control,
>> not just for themselves, but on behalf of the Mossad, Israel's
>> terrorist secret police. "
>
>
>    What point is it you are making with respect Marchetti?
>
>    a) That his "Cult of Intelligence" is unreliable because
>       of his later political activity?
>
>    b) That he is anti-jewish because he associates with Paul
>       Goldstein, Jeffrey Steinberg and Mark Lane...all Jews?
>
>    c) That he is anti-jewish because he questions the policies
>       of the state of Israel?  Many people in Israel question
>       the policies of the state of Israel.
>
>    As I recall from Mark Lane's book, Plausible Denial, Marchetti
>made his mark by a gutsy article published in the Spotlight claiming
>CIA agent Hunt was in Dallas at the time of or just prior to the
>JFK assassination.  Hunt sued the Spotlight for libel and lost on
>appeal when the Spotlight was defended by lane.  From what I understand
>about the trial in Miami, poorly covered by the press, this trial
>was the closest thing yet to courtroom success in establishing a
>conspiracy wrt the assassination.
>

------------------  MY ORIGINAL POSTING  ---------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Path: ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:30:30 GMT

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

>    I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
>    familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
>    work seems to be sound.

Excerpted without permission from:

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected

by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991

...

Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network.  Prouty's
<The Secret Team> was recently republished by Noontide Press, the
publishing arm of the historical revisionist Institute for Historical
Review (IHR). IHR promotes the theory that the accepted history of
the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews.

In 1974, Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy
director of the CIA, co-authored <The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence>,
a well-received best-seller and the first book the CIA tried to
suppress through court action. By 1989, however, Marchetti had been
recruited into a close alliance with Carto's Liberty Lobby network.
In 1989, Marchetti presented a paper at the Ninth International
Revisionist Conference held by the Institute for Historical Review.
The title of Marchetti's paper, published in IHR's <Journal of
Historical Review>, was "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the
CIA Manufactures History." Marchetti edits the <New American View>
newsletter, which as one promotional flyer explained, was designed
to "document for patriotic Americans like yourself the excess of
pro-Israelism, which warps the news we see and hear from our media,
cows our Congress into submission, and has already cost us hundreds
of innocent, young Americans in Lebanon and elsewhere."

Marchetti describes himself as a person whose "intelligence expertise
and well-placed contacts have provided me with a unique insight
into the subversion of our democratic process and foreign policy
by those who would put the interests of Israel <above> those of
America and Americans." Marchetti is also the publisher of a
Japanese-language book <ADL and Zionism>, written by LaRouche
followers Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg.

Marchetti was co-publisher of the <Zionist Watch> newsletter when
it was endorsed in direct mail appeals on Liberty Lobby stationery
by the now deceased Lois Petersen, who for many years was the
influential secretary of the Liberty Lobby board of directors. The
October 5, 1987 <Spotlight> reported that Mark Lane had been named
associate editor of <Zionist Watch>, which is housed in the same
small converted Capitol Hill townhouse as Liberty Lobby/<Spotlight>.

While concern over Reagan Administration participation in joint
intelligence operations with Mossad is legitimate, the use of
anti-Zionism as a cover for conspiracist anti-Jewish bigotry can
be seen in an article in the August 24, 1981 issue of <Spotlight>:

"A brazen attempt by influential "Israel-firsters" in the policy
echelons of the Reagan administration to extend their control to
the day-to-day espionage and covert-action operations of the CIA
was the hidden source of the controversy and scandals that shook
the U.S.  intelligence establishment this summer. "

"The dual loyalists, whose domination over the federal executive's
high planning and strategy-making resources is now just about total,
have long wanted to grab a hand in the on-the-spot "field control"
of the CIA's worldwide clandestine services. They want this control,
not just for themselves, but on behalf of the Mossad, Israel's
terrorist secret police. "

...

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

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: where to get _Six seconds in Dallas_
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:39:18 GMT
Lines: 10

I just received notice from my local bookstore that they can't get a
copy of Thompson's _Six seconds in Dallas_. Is this book, which is cited
so often, really unavailable or is it my bookstore that did a lousy job?
If it is still available somewhere I would very much like to have
information on that.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17913 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3073 sci.skeptic:29334 misc.legal:35588
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:43:49 GMT
Lines: 32

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Heath) writes:
>>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Derek Abbott):
>>> I was just wondering if there is any news regarding public response
>>> to the book & Bill Bixby documentary called the "Marilyn Files."
>>>
>>> The CIA and RFK were implicated in a cover up of her death/murder.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the likelyhood that a body exhumation or a Grand Jury hearing
>>> will take place??
>>
>>Little and none and little just caught the last train for the
>>coast.
>>
>>After 30 years, what could be determined and would there be much
>>left of the body besides the hair and skeleton?

>Them expensive polished wood coffins last a long time. Especially if the
>ground is fairly dry. What's the winter weather in LA like?

>An exhumation would establish whether the story of a snapped syringe needle
>stuck under her left breast is true or not.

As far as I know, MM wasn't burried at all. She rests in peace in one of
those 'wall cemetries'.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Subject: The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: JFK OSWALD ASSASSINATION
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:34:26 GMT
Lines: 102

I purchased this book at my local Waldenbooks yesterday (8/20/92) and have not
had a chance to read it yet.  The following is from the flyleaf cover:

                     THE PEOPLE VS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY WALT BROWN

Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc.         ISBN 0-88184-869-7
260 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY  10001                     $25.00

             ---------------- BEGINNING OF INSIDE FLYLEAF ---------------

"Walt Brown weaves an engrossing narrative that will answer once and for all
the most fundamental question surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy:
 Could Lee Harvey Oswald have been convicted?

Brown, a historian and former Special Agent for the Justice Department, brings
before the "court of history" hundreds of witnesses and documents, some rarely
seen before.  He constructs an extraordinary courtroom drama, and he does so
with an historian's concern for scholarship as well as with a federal agent's
understanding of the inner-most workings of the American judicial system.

A sample of the testimony:  Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas testifies
that the White House instructed him on how to word Oswald's indictment.  A man
by the name of Willie Sommerset tells the court what he learned once he had
penetrated a right-wing organization.  The members of this organization had
been promised that Kennedy would be eliminated and that someone would be
swiftly arrested to satisfy the grieving public.  Secret Service Agent Clint
Hill, testifies that the rear portion of the President's head had been removed
by the bullet.  Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig relates how a man - a suspect
whom he arrested in the railroad yards immediately following the shooting -
simply disappeared.  Presidential Assistant Kenneth P. O'Donnell tells the
court how he was pressured to testify that the shots came from the rear of the
limousine, when, in fact, the shots he heard came from in front of the
President's car.  Gordon Arnold and Mary Moorman explain how the film they took
of the motorcade was seized by authorities and has not been seen since.  Itya
Mamantov, who was contacted by intelligence agents on November 22 to serve as a
translator for Marina Oswald, stresses that Mrs. Oswald could not identify the
telescopic sight on the rifle she was shown.  This suggests that she had not
seen or photographed Oswald with that rifle in the now famous backyard photos.

What were Oswald's motives?  How many witnesses identified him?  How accurate
was a twenty-five year old surplus weapon in the hands of a mediocre shot?
What is to be learned from fingerprint evidence?  Is the autopsy report on JFK
an honest document?  Was there a "second" or even "third" Oswald?  Was all the
"evidence" admissible?  Why were FBI experts unable, under the most favorable
conditions, to duplicate Oswald's shots?  Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?

OSWALD:  Presidential assassin or patsy?  BOOK DEPOSITORY:  Sniper's nest or
stage prop?  GRASSY KNOLL:  Killing zone or figment of fifty witnesses'
imaginations?

If THE PEOPLE V. LEE HARVEY OSWALD convinces you of Oswald's guilt, it's "case
closed" with respect to the events on November 22, 1963.  If, however, this
book convinces you of Oswald's innocence, it may be time for a new, impartial
national review of the case of the century.

YOU DECIDE.

WALT BROWN served with the Justice Department in Washington, DC, and New York,
and subsequently earned a Ph.D. in American History at the University of Notre
Dame.  He is currently on a leave of absence from his position as Adjunct
Professor of American History at Ramapo College, New Jersey.

MARTIN GARBUS, one of America's leading trial lawyers, was invited by his
former client, Vaclav Havel, to write the section on civil liberties in the new
Czech constitution.  He practices law in New York City.

         ---------------- ENDING   OF   INSIDE   FLYLEAF ---------------

           -------------- BEGINNING OF BACKSIDE FLYLEAF ---------------

EVIDENCE FROM THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD

- Verbatim testimony from Parkland Hospital Emergency Room Staff that
contradicts the Prosecution's case.
- Documents indicating fraudulent autopsy conclusions regarding the President's
brain.
- No Oswald fingerprints or palmprints to link him to the alleged assassination
weapon.
- No eyewitness who could identify Oswald although many say a rifle in the
sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.
- Proof that "Secret Service" agents on the Grassy Knoll who initially took
charge of the investigation were impostors.
- Proof that FBI experts were unable to substantiate or match Oswald's alleged
marksmanship abilities despite Oswald not being a great shot.
- Proof that three different rifles were referred to in the arrest report.
- Verbatim testimony from Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr regarding White
House interference in Oswald's indictment.
- FBI document showing that the alleged assassination weapon was sighted for a
left-handed person.
- Documents showing that photographic evidence was seized at Dealey Plaza and
has not been seen since.
- Proof that J. Edgar Hoover knew of Oswald before the Dallas police did.
- Proof that twelve other suspects were taken into custody and then released.
- Proof that the magic bullet never existed.

               -------------- ENDING OF BACKSIDE FLYLEAF ---------------

 It appears to do a more thorough job than the recent Court TV mock trial or
the older "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" from about 1985.

Jack Field
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3075 alt.conspiracy:17919
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:57:24 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 47

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>
>>>      As far as Agee is concerned you still have to answer questions like:
>>>
>>> a.      Why did Agee fail to report a number of trips to Cuba?
>>>
>>>      As this was revealed in a public domain document and he
>>>      didn't sue for defamation or libel I conclude that the
>>>      report is true.
>>>
>>> b.      Where DOES he get his money from?
>>>
>>>      This is the big question and has shut him up on several
>>>      occasions.
>>>
>>>
>>>      Alec Chambers.
>>
>>       Agee's character I could not begin to attest to one way or
>>the other;i.e., is he disreputable or a victim of the 'big smear'.
>
>     These are not questions of character.  These are facts that
>     Agee and his acolytes seem averse to bringing out into
>     public view.
>
>
>
>>       What he has to say, however, is right in line with Marchetti
>>and McGehee.  Let's face it.  Any former agent who goes public
>>with an insider's viewpoint of intelligence activities knows the
>>price of poker ...and it appears to have been a hefty price.  McGehee
>>particularly impresses me as a real patriot who just never could
>>sell his conscience.
>
>     McGehee's story is not unique to him or to the CIA.  I haven't
>     finished the book yet but I suspect that he is raising the same
>     points that a number of disaffected agents and defectors have
>     raised.  These are points that need to be addressed.
>
>     Alec Chambers.

    I'm interested in reading more on Agee.  Any suggestions?  I
wish I remembered more of the details of an article on Agee and some
of his problems in a recent Houston Chronicle article.  As I recall, and right
now I am not prepared to be more specific, my impression was that there
were some misrepresentations about him, deliberate or otherwise.
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!indiana
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re:getting a copy of "Six Seconds in Dallas"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:24:07 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lines: 13

   On the publishing info page of my old paperback copy of Josiah Thompson's
"Six Seconds in Dallas"(copyright 1967,1976.):
   "Published by arrangement with Bernard Geis Associates, 128 East 56th Street,
New York, N.Y.10022.
   "Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 67-23577" (Do they Xerox copies ???)
                SBN 425-03255-8  (Whatever that means !)
   (my paperback)--BERKLEY MEDALLION BOOKS are published by Berkley Publishing
Corporation, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y.10016.
   This old paperback was printed in Nov.,1976. I hope the publishing co.is
still in existence, and that this is of some help to you. If not, it might mean
writing all the old second-hand bookstores.I think there is a "Book-Finders"
company (New York ? London ?)but don't have the address.
   Am intrigued by your name. Is there an English version of Sjoerd ?
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17927 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3077 sci.skeptic:29380 misc.legal:35614
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!amdcad!sono!porky!mayer
From: [e-mail] (Ron Mayer)
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17: 41:24 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc
Sender: [e-mail] (Ron Mayer)
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:38:36 GMT
Lines: 43



Note: This thread doesn't belong here so misc.legal removed from followups.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leo James) writes:
>Last week's PEOPLE magazine did a re-cap of the questions surrounding
>Marilyn's death and, essentially accussed RFK of her murder.  [...]
>The methods they accused the Kennedys of using to cover up this
>"embarassment to the administration" will sound very familiar to the
>readers of this newsgroup: suppression of evidence, falsification of
>records, tampering with the scene of a crime, and murder. [...]
>What's the opinion of the newsgroup concerning this issue?  Is this
>a Red Herring?  A smear job on the Kennedys?  Or, does this actually
>fit in somewhere with the JFK murder?

Bizzare.  How many women is this family accused of raping, killing, or
otherwize abusing!  I heard Presedent Kennedy had a reputation of
being a womanizer, but I don't know how how he treated them.  Now the
accusuation that R. Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe because of an affair
with JFK.  That other Kennedy reportedly reacted very poorly after he
killed that woman by driving her off a bridge and leaving her to drown
without even seeking help.  The recent rape trial of another member of
the Kennedy family just adds to the pattern.  [Sorry, I forgot both
these guy's names; I'm sure someone on the net'll fill in the details.]
Could the value system of that family be so messed up that it results
in such behavior?

It seems that in this political climate where rumors about candidates
frequently destroy's their political carreers, the Kennedy family has
gotten away with a quite a few really severe accusations with at least
some evidence backing them up.

While I don't really believe any of the wilder allegations; the
pattern of accusations seems indicate that the family fosters a
rather warped set of attitudes, especially towards women.

Are any of you voters, especially women, concerned that such a value
system may be inappropriate for politicians in this country?

(Maybe Bush should give the Kennedy family a family values speech:-))


Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3078 alt.conspiracy:17943
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Victor Marchetti (Was: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 10:31:26 GMT
Lines: 50

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

>    c) That he is anti-jewish because he questions the policies
>       of the state of Israel?  Many people in Israel question
>       the policies of the state of Israel.
>
>    As I recall from Mark Lane's book, Plausible Denial, Marchetti
>made his mark by a gutsy article published in the Spotlight claiming
>CIA agent Hunt was in Dallas at the time of or just prior to the
>JFK assassination.  Hunt sued the Spotlight for libel and lost on
>appeal when the Spotlight was defended by lane.  From what I understand
>about the trial in Miami, poorly covered by the press, this trial
>was the closest thing yet to courtroom success in establishing a
>conspiracy wrt the assassination.
>
    The Spotlight Article, printed during the House committee investigation,
reported on a secret CIA plan to frame Hunt for the assassination as a way of
diverting attention from higher leadership. Hunt's case for libel came down to
proving that he had not been in Dallas on 11/22/63, which he was not able to do.
    One shady caracter not being able to prove they weren't in Dallas on
11/22/63 does not prove conspiracy, however. Hunt really didn't have a case,
counting on the average American's loathing of anti-Semitic org leaders to
give him a big award in a jury trial.
    I have a lot of opinions about Lane with respect to his JFK theories --
I often think he's wrong but I think he tries hard to be right, and his only
detectable agenda in that work, in my opinion, is leftist.
    What it says about people that they work for Willis Carto and write
a magazine whose readership is obviously going to be largely anti-semitic
is a question I wouldn't try and answer for anyone. But seems to me, something
has to be dead inside.
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Date: 22 Aug 1992 19:03:14 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 116
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
|[e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
|| There was no reductio ad absurdum. There is a wealth of
|| circumstantial evidence
|| indicating that Oswald had intelligence connections. It was somehow thought
|| that bringing up Oswald's early age would somehow falsify the case. It does
|| not, as it was shown that there were in fact Teen Agents, of various sorts.
|
|I've been following the thread and I don't agree that that has been shown
|at all.

What has been shown at all? There *were* teen agents. See the post on Sturgis,
and the other post of someone who said their father was recruited when he
was seventeen.

|| |The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was a Marxist.
|| Why would a Marxist be hired at a photo firm that requires a security
|| clearence? (Just for starters)
|
|It did not require a security clearance. They did some security work that
|required some segregation of employees but security was lax and all
|employees had access to the material (names of Soviet cities intended for
|maps). The reason Oswald got the job was that he was neat, polite, and
|demonstrated some knowledge of photography. His political affiliations
|were not asked, as they are usually not in job interviews. Besides, Oswald
|would have lied anyway.

They worked on maps for some intelligence agency, did they not? And as far
as the security clearance, that comes from a few books, one which interviewed a
former employer. Where does your source come from?

But let us not get too trite. You must know of Oswald's actions, let's review
them:

1. Joins CAP
2. Joins Air Force
3. Works at Atsui Air Force Base: at U2 base
4. Learns Russian so well that real Russians don't know he is US.
Makes communist statements while in the Air Force but every one knows this is a
joke.
5. Meets with unknown people and gets venereal disease "in the line of duty"
6. First job at the US is intelligence related
7. Says he is going to "defect" the USSR, and nothing done to stop him. His
   return home is financed by the State Department.
8. The USSR thinks he is an agent.
9. Works at work that requires a security clearence (or is at least sensitive).
10. No flag is put on his Visa.

The attorney general of Dallas recieves word that Oswald is an FBI agent, that
gets $200 a month. Although Hoover denies this, when pressed by members of the
WC in a secret closed door session, he says he cannot say for sure weather
Oswald is or not an agent, nor can the Commission members be sure that any
agents would not lie to protect the identity of an agent.

Let us not forget that both Quigly and Hosty burn their notes concerning
Oswald.

Military intelligence spills the beans on Oswald, and happens to have a file
linking Hiddell to Oswald, which they conveintly give the Dallas police only an
hour or two after the assassination. Along with the Oswald's CIA file, and FBI
file, all files on him or either missing, lost or destroyed.

Witnesses place Oswald with Bannister, who helps run the military supply
operation for intelligence activities against Castro. Oswald hands out leaflets
with Bannister's office address on them. Other witness place Oswald with
Ferrie, fellow member of the CAP, and who also worked with Bannister. Also,
they are connected to Clay Shaw, who worked for intelligence.

While Oswald was in the states, he befriended many would be related to
intelligence: including George DeMorganschild, the Paine's, and others.

|| Wasn't it the Paine's, who have connections with intelligence, that got
|| Oswald, not Marina, the job at the TSBD, at a time when Marina was
|| *seperated* from Oswald?
|
|I'm not aware of any connections the Paine's had to intelligence. That
|seems unlikely given their interests. It was Ruth Paine who heard about
|the job at the TSBD. She was separated as well. Her husband plays practically
|no role in this affair.

Ruth's whole family was involved in intelligence, but there is no way to trace
her own employers since for some reason her tax records are classified. Imagine
that, I wonder why.

|| In any event, your distinction between helping
|| Oswald and helping Marina seems irrelevent, since you could, and probably
|| will, argue that to help one is to help the other!
|
|You know me well, sir. Marina knew no English at that time. She had one
|small child and was pregnant with another. Her income was coming from Lee
|so, yes, it was very much in her interest that he be employed.

So your arguement is pretty silly.

|| And what a story *that* was, wasn't it?
|
|I tend to agree with Angleton, that Nosenko was unreliable in many respects.
|However, that doesn't mean his core reason for defecting--if it was a
|setup--to get the Soviets off the hook for Oswald, was wrong.

The point was why was Nosenko hushed up, nearly starved to death, and confined
to a special security room for 10 odd years? His treatment was reprehsible, and
his only crime was addmitting the truth about Oswald: that the Soviets thought
he was CIA, not KGB.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!news.larc.nasa.gov!ames!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:17:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 172
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|[e-mail] (David Wright) writes...
||[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
||||This is obviously ideal from the CIA's point of view. They get a young
||||recruit, do a few odd and ends, nothing to dangerous, and then can have some
||||deap cover. I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It is not as
||||though the CIA went actively looking, but if someone like Oswald joins the
||||Civil Air Patrol at an early age, they might want to keep him for some purpose.
|
|||    I should let this statement stand on its own as an example of
|||    conspiracy-think. But I'm not, of course.
|
||There is nothing conspiratorial about it. How do you think the CIA recruits
||people for deep cover anyway? It has already been shown that they in fact do
||look at young people Oswald's age.
|
|    It has? where has this been shown, since I haven't seen it.
|

well, Here is Paul's article, carefull, I didn't bother double quoting it:

In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] writes:
||
|| [stuff deleted.....addresses Mitchell's points against LHO as teen spy ]
||
|| You keep holding up either the highly educated spy who sits in an office
|| and is an expert at deciphering some bit of data or the spy who goes
|| under cover (and a bit Bondish at that) in some hostile country.
|| You are ignoring all that we have learned about some of the seemy
|| characters like Sturgis who I would not be able to place in either of those
|| categories.

Funny you should mention Sturgis, Alan.  Here's an excerpt from the taped
interview of Sturgis by Michael Canfield.  It was made after the Rockefeller
Commission deduced that Sturgis didn't "work for" the CIA, by failing to find
any Agency documents that indicated that he did.

The excerpt is taken from "Coup D'Etat in America" by Canfield and Webberman.

STURGIS: -- and a number of other people and so forth.  Okay, well, I
think I told you earlier that I don't know if I'm a CIA agent or was a
CIA agent or not
because the top brass in CIA first denies me then they acknowledge me, then
they deny me, so I don't know what the hell I am, but all I know is I've
been involved in a lot of activities for the United States government, from
the very beginning -- from the time that I joined the United States Marine
Corps when I first turned seventeen years old up until the present day, and
I have three honorable discharges from the service.  I served in Europe, United
States, Latin America, and I served in Asia.  Now as far as domestic
intelligence.....


(Later in the interview, Sturgis admits to having been approached to perform a
"domestic" assassination, and states that he would do it, but would first
want to meet the controlling case officer face-to-face to make sure who
it was and verify that the case officer could authorize the mission.)

Hopefully, Sturgis' testimony reinforces two notions: 1.) some teens are
spies,
and 2.) its not easy to 'prove' one's relationship to the CIA.

Finally, though I don't think is necessary to explain or understand LHO's
mission in Russia, and I do believe the testimony associating him with
government operations is overwhelming enough to allow one to reasonably
speculate that LHO was an operative of the Feds, if not an outright agent
of the CIA, I will pass along speculation by "James Hepburn" author of
"Farewell America", who suggests that LHO's stay in Russia lasted long enough
(30 months) to be considered 'long-term' and that consistent with long
term work he may have done nothing at all for several years.  Hepburn also
suggests that things may have changed and he was recalled stateside.

Paul Collacchi

And here is another article by someone who I did not get the name of. This is
not double quoted as well. Next time, please keep up with the net.

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

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

Besides Audy Murphy was only 15 when he enlisted (lying about his age).



||I see. It's just a coincidence that Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP?
|
|    Since Oswald attended only two or three meetings before
|    losing interest and dropping out, I seriously doubt that
|    there is anything more than a casual connection.

You can doubt all you want. I don't know why you don't the doubt the obvious
things like Oswald was *not* connected to intelligence.

||It is just a coincidence that Oswald goes to the Atsui Air Force base in Japan,
||or comes back and does work that needs a secret clearance,
|
|    What work that needed a secret clearence?

"-Stiles" or whatever the name of the photographic work he did, as well as his
work in California. See Summers' Conspiracy, or Mealanson's book.
|
||or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?
|
|    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
|    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

Just another in one of your casual connections? Why would a doctor put such a
thing down if it was lie?

||You must have read the connections, the ease at which he passed between
||countries,
|
|    How hard would it have to be?

Can you say Cold War?

||his confession that he was going to spill secrets to the Soviets, etc
|
|    Now this is a new one. Who did he say this to, and when?
|

It is not new at all. It is in Conspiracy, Garrison's book, Marrs' book. Maybe
you should spend less time reading exotic articles on ballistics and more
on the case.

|..What do you make of this?
|
|    Certainly not moutains out of molehills.
|

Just a thousand casual connections that the WR did not want us to know about?

||||After all, the Soviets say they knew Oswald was an agent anyway, and they
||||didn't kill him or put his life in danger.
|
|||    The Soviets claim only that they suspected that he was a spy
|||    not that they "knew" in the way of being able to prove it.
|
||Is there a point to this mindless distinction? Maybee they could prove it.
|
|    Well, you started out by saying that the Soviets knew Oswald
|    was a spy. I saw the Nightline episode and the associated
|    newspaper, etc articles, and they only claimed that the
|    Soviets suspected that LHO was a spy. Since the Soviets
|    have released their files on Oswald, I'm sure we'd know
|    by now if they could prove it. The Soviets would have suspected
|    Oswald whether he was a spy or not.

Let us say they thought Oswald was a spy with a certain probability, and yet
they did not kill, torture or wound him.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17968 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3081 sci.skeptic:29422 misc.legal:35680
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:19:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 30

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Heath) writes:
>>>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Derek Abbott):
>>>> I was just wondering if there is any news regarding public response
>>>> to the book & Bill Bixby documentary called the "Marilyn Files."
>>>>
>>>> The CIA and RFK were implicated in a cover up of her death/murder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the likelyhood that a body exhumation or a Grand Jury hearing
>>>> will take place??
>>>
>>>Little and none and little just caught the last train for the
>>>coast.
>>>
>>>After 30 years, what could be determined and would there be much
>>>left of the body besides the hair and skeleton?
>
>>Them expensive polished wood coffins last a long time. Especially if the
>>ground is fairly dry. What's the winter weather in LA like?
>
>>An exhumation would establish whether the story of a snapped syringe needle
>>stuck under her left breast is true or not.
>
>As far as I know, MM wasn't burried at all. She rests in peace in one of
>those 'wall cemetries'.

Arrrrgh! You mean they cremated her?
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17972 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3082 sci.skeptic:29438 misc.legal:35688
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!utcsri!torsqnt!geac!r-node!generic!generic!terranet!albo
From: [e-mail] (Alexander Bosika)
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
Organization: People-Net [terranet], Thornhill Ontario
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:36:07 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (UUCP administrator)
Lines: 9

Marilyn Monroe was killed by the MOB, to smear the Kennedy's, knowing full
well, of their sexual desires and so on...WHY? Because the MOB had propped up
the Kennedy's only to find them under attack through RFK's organized crime
campaigns...not only that, the Kennedy's were given many women for encounters
from the MOBfathers, themselves!

UUCP: zoo.toronto.edu!generic!terranet!albo
ARPA: generic!terranet![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy:17987 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3083 sci.skeptic:29486 misc.legal:35723
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!torn!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!cs.mun.ca!garfield.cs.mun.ca!craigs
From: [e-mail] (Betsy Brett)
Subject: Re: Marilyn Monroe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP server account)
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:21:37 GMT
Lines: 33

[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

>>>>> I was just wondering if there is any news regarding public response
>>>>> to the book & Bill Bixby documentary called the "Marilyn Files."
>>>>>
>>>>> The CIA and RFK were implicated in a cover up of her death/murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the likelyhood that a body exhumation or a Grand Jury hearing
>>>>> will take place??
>>>>
>>>>After 30 years, what could be determined and would there be much
>>>>left of the body besides the hair and skeleton?
>>
>>>Them expensive polished wood coffins last a long time. Especially if the
>>>ground is fairly dry. What's the winter weather in LA like?
>>
>>>An exhumation would establish whether the story of a snapped syringe needle
>>>stuck under her left breast is true or not.
>>
>>As far as I know, MM wasn't burried at all. She rests in peace in one of
>>those 'wall cemetries'.

>Arrrrgh! You mean they cremated her?

She is in a crypt in Los Angeles, as she did not want to be buried underground.
As for nature's decomposing vs. help from bugs and the like, I do not know.
I seriously doubt there will be any exhuming, though.

--
Betsy Brett                          email [e-mail]
Box 442 RR1                          (specify to Betsy in subject line)
Paradise, NF  A1L 1C1 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canada /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 07:23:33 GMT
Lines: 16

According to several accounts Ruby was sighted during the events
at Dealey Plaza. For instance, a Mrs. Mercer saw him unloading a guy
with a gun case at the other side of the grassy knoll (Jim Garisson,
On the trail of the assassins). There are also several photographs
showing a fellow who looks like Ruby. But...  in Summers' Conspiracy
you'll find that Ruby was at the office of one of the Dallas newspapers
(I believe it was the Dallas Morning News) placing an ad. I'm not sure
whether there are witnesses accounting for his whole stay there, but it
seems that both before and after the assassination he was seen there.
I wonder if there's more on that. One thing is for sure, it's only a
few minutes from the newspaper's building to Dealey Plaza.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!isovax!SALTZMAN
From: [e-mail] (Bob Saltzman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: where to get _Six seconds in Dallas_
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:04:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: isovax.crd.ge.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:
>I just received notice from my local bookstore that they can't get a
>copy of Thompson's _Six seconds in Dallas_. Is this book, which is cited
>so often, really unavailable or is it my bookstore that did a lousy job?
>If it is still available somewhere I would very much like to have
>information on that.
>--
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
>| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
>| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |

"Six Seconds in Dallas" by Professor Josiah Thompson is extremely
hard to come by.  It was first published in the lates 60's in hard
cover by Bernard Geis in New York City.  It was published again in
paperback (one of the major publushers) in the mid 70's.  Since then
there have been no new printings.  All interested persons should
keep an eye out for this invaluable resource in used book stores
and private collections.  It is extremely well illustrated and is
a classic in the sense of being well organized, with complete
references to evidence.  It is of equal caliber with Sylvia
Meagher's "Accessories After the Fact", another classic that
belongs on the bookshelf of serious researchers.

Bob Saltzman,
Committee to Investigate Assassinations
Schenectady, NY, USA
==============================================================================
Robert B. Saltzman (Bob)            Internet: [e-mail]
Information System Operation        Snailnet: Bldg KW, Room C120, PO Box 8
General Electric Company            AT&Tnet:  518-387-5828(B), 387-6560(FAX),
Corporate Research and Development            370-2222(H)
Schenectady, New York 12301 USA     ICBMnet:  42 50 04 N, 73 54 14 W, Alt 246
AEMT-4 Paramedic/Firefighter        HAMnet:   WB2ARK
==============================================================================
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!oracle!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: The Garrison Probe (part IV)
Keywords: William W. Turner article in RAMPARTS magazine
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:20:10 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 354

This is part IV of "The Garrison Commission on the Assassination of
President Kennedy" by William W. Turner.  It appeared in the January 1968
edition of Ramparts magazine.


Paul Collacchi

_______

_
[THE ELIMINATION OF A PATSY]

"/---\ DIDN'T KILL ANYBODY ... I'm just a patsy," Oswald shouted to newsmen
   |   while in police custody.  A marked patsy contends Garrison --
   |   one who was not supposed to have lived long enough to utter his
   |   cry of innocence.  But something had misfired, and Oswald fell
 \---/ not into the hands of his would-be executioners, but into the
comparative safety of the Dallas jail.  The denouement presented
a crisis that the conspirators could solve only by pressing police buff
Jack Ruby into service.
    Although the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald ducked into
his Oak Cliff rooming house to pick up the .38 revolver, later
confiscated from him in the Texas Theater, it did not explain why, if he
had gone to work at the School book Depository that morning intending to
kill the President and escape, he did not take the revolver with him.
That he made a beeline to his rooming house for the sole purpose of
getting the revolver speaks of a man who desperately wanted to protect
himself from treacherous comrades rather than from the police.
Notwithstanding the mild resistance he put up in his refuge in the Texas
Theater, Oswald's demeanor in custody gave every indication that he
would resolve the great riddle -- given the time.
    Oswald does not appear to be the only double-cross victim of that
bloody afternoon:  the evidence is persuasive that someone other than
the accused assassin killed Officer J.D. Tippit, a friend of Jack Ruby,
whose patrol area included the Harlandale Street section headquarters of
the Free Cuba group.  The Commission's star witness in fingering Oswald
was Mrs. Helen Markham, a billing that precipitated strong dissent among
some staff members, notably Wesley Liebeler who called her testimony
"contradictory" and "worthless" (Inquest, p.109)  Although ballistics
tests could not positively match the bullets in the dead officer's body
with Oswald's revolver, they did determine that three bullets were of
one manufacture, the fourth of another, while the four recovered shell
casings were evenly divided between the two manufacturers.  The
Commission wriggled out of this dilemma by wildly speculating that five
shots were fired, one completely missing (Report, p. 172).
    Moreover, the police radio logs describe a killer other than
Oswald.  Sergeant Gerald Hill alerted all cars that "Shells at the scene
indicate the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a
pistol" (presumably, Hill noted the distinctive marks made by the
ejector of an automatic).  In the same vein, Patrolman H.L. Summers
announced, "He's apparently armed with a .32 dark finish automatic
pistol..." First flashes had the killer with "black wavy hair" and a
"white shirt," certainly not a description of Oswald that day (Sawyer
Exhibit No. A, pp. 396-397).  And the best placed eyewitness, Domingo
Benavides, described a killer quite different from Oswald:  "I remember
the back of his head seemed like his hairline sort of went square
instead of tapered off -- it kind of went down and squared off and made
his head look flat in back."
    Garrison posits that the real killer hid in a cavernous building at
the corner of Tenth and Crawford which in 1963 was known as the Abundant
Life Temple.  In an aerial view of the area, the Commission traced the
killer's escape path from the scene near Tenth and Patton to Jefferson
Boulevard one block south, thence to the Texaco service station one
block west at Jefferson and Crawford.  A "white jacket" was found at the
rear of the station, which the Commission said was Oswald's.
Consequently, it had the killer reverse his path so as to bring him back
onto Jefferson and proceeding in a westerly direction toward the theater
(CE 1968).
    Rejecting this arbitrary reconstruction, Garrison points out that
the killer could have proceeded straight ahead from the rear of the
Texaco station, across an alley and into the rear door of the Abundant
Life Temple.  This view is corroborated by police radio logs.  Shortly
after 1:40 p.m., Sergeant Hill came on the air: "A witness reports that
he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block.  We are
fixing to go in and shake it down."  On an alternate channel, Car 95
ordered, "Send me another squad over here to Tenth and Crawford to check
out this church basement."
    At this point Car 223 burst in excitedly, "He's in the library on
Jefferson east 500 block... I'm going around back, get somebody around
the front, get them here fast."  The dispatcher complied, and Car 19
soon affirmed, "We're all at the library."  There was no suspect at the
library, but the Abundant Life Temple had been spared a shakedown.
    The grave problem, of course, was how to eliminate Oswald, who knew
too much.  This was where Jack Ruby came in.  Although the Warren
Commission pictured Ruby as a blustery night club operator with a soft
spot in his heart for dogs and dames, who killed Oswald on an impulse of
one-man justice, the real Ruby was no buffoon.  The fiction that he
executed Oswald out of compassion for the Kennedy family was conjured up
by his first attorney, the late Tom Howard.  "Joe, you should know this,"
Ruby scribbled to a succeeding attorney, Joe Tonahill.  "Tom Howard
told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy
wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify.  OK?"
    In a memorandum dealing with his background, Ruby specialists on
the Commission compiled a list of persons seemingly "the most promising
sources of contact between Ruby and politically motivated groups
interested in securing the assassination of President Kennedy" (CE
2980).  Included were Ruby's sister, Eva Grant, and a brother, Earl, of
Detroit, who sent "a telegram of undisclosed nature to Havana, Cuba,
April 1, 1962" and made "calls to Welsh [sic] Candy Company" in Belmont,
Massachusetts, then owned by Birch Society founder Robert Welch.  Also
listed by the Commission was Thomas Hill, an "official of the John Birch
Society" in Belmont whose name was in Jack Ruby's notebook, and Lamar
Hunt, the son of H.L. Hunt, who subsequently denied knowing Ruby.
    Ruby was an admirer of General Edwin A. Walker.  He told former
Oklahoma City police detective Cliff Roberts, who had been hired by
Walker to investigate the potshot taken at Walker in April 1963, that
Walker was "100 per cent right" about Castro's Cuba and it should be
"blown out of the ocean."  William McEwan Duff, who served as the
retired general's "Batman" from late 1962 to early 1963, advised the
Secret Service that Ruby, who was addressed only as "Jack," visited
Walker "on the basis of about once a month, each time in the company of
two unidentified white males" (CE 2389).
    A cross-section of Ruby's acquaintances can be found in the list
of 66 persons he favored with permanent passes to the Carousel Club.
There is of course a passel of local businessmen.  But there is also
W.F. (Bill) Alexander, the hardbitten Dallas assistand DA, and three men
pegged by a Garrison investigator as Dallas Minutemen.  Since no facet
of the investigation seems compolete without a strange coincidence, it
can be noted that when Carousel Club passholder Sue Blake vacated her
apartment, 10746D Lake Gardens, the next occupant was Sergio Arcacha
Smith, formerly of 544 Camp Street, New Orleans.
    Also on the pass list is H.H. (Andy ) Anderson, at the time manager
of the Adolphus Hotel.  Last May, Garrison sought to explain the legal
materiality of Clay Shaw's notebook in terms of an entry, "Lee Odom, PO
Box 19106, Dallas, Tex."  He pointed out that it corresponded to "PO
19106" in Oswald's address book, and theorized that it might be a coded
version of Ruby's unlisted telephone number.  Within a few days a Lee
Odom came forth in Dallas to explain away the coincidence.  In 1966, he
was in New Orleans "trying to promote a bull fight" and asked the
manager of the Roosevelt Hotel who might put him in contact with the
right people.  "He suggested Mr. Shaw," said Odom, "so I called him --
or the manager called him... He came over to the hotel and we talked."
The manager of the Roosevelt was Anderson, who had moved from Dallas.
In subsequent versions fo the story, including the one told to a
national audience on CBS television, Odom left Anderson completely out
of it and maintained he and Shaw had introduced themselves at a bar.
    Ruby's affinity for Cuba is well-documented.  The Warren Report
advises that in January 1959, just after Castro took power, "Ruby made
preliminary inquiries, as a middleman, concerning the possible sale to
Cuba of some surplus jeeps located in Shreveport, La., and asked about
the possible release of prisoners from A Cuban prison" (p. 369).  Ruby
had telephoned a Houston man named Robert Ray McKeown, known throughout
Texas as a friend of Castro, offering a total of $15,000 to use his
influence to obtain the release of three Americans held in Havana.  The
money, Ruby told McKeown, would come from a Las Vegas, Nevada source (CE
1689).
    McKeown heard nothing more about the prisoner deal, which may be
explained by the news report on January 6, 1961 that three Americans had
made their way out of jail and back to the United States.  But a few
weeks after the telephone call, Ruby contacted McKeown in person, this
time offering him $25,000 for a letter of introduction to Castro.
According to McKeown, Ruby "Had an option on a great number of jeeps
which were in Shreveport, Louisiana, and he desired to sell them to
Castro at a very profitable figure."  McKeown agreed to arrange the
introduction, but once again Ruby failed to follow through.  The reason
may have been that Maurice Brooks Gatlin of the New Orleans-based
Anti-Communism League of the Caribbean scotched the deal.  Minutemen
defector Jerry Brooks discloses that the minute Gatlin found out that
Ruby proposed to sell Castro 100 jeeps, he warned the venturesome night
club owner to call it off.  Gatlin may have detected signs that the new
Cuban Premier was about to surface as a communist.
    The Warren Report observes that during the period of the jeep
negotiations, gambler Russell D. Matthews, described as a "passing
acquaintance" of Ruby's returned to Dallas from Havana, then several
months later went back to the Cuban capital for a year.  It also makes
the correlation that Matthews' ex-wife in Shreveport received a lengthy
telephone call from Ruby's Carousel Club on October 3, 1963.  But with a
denial from Matthews that he knew anything about the "jeep deal," and an
inability on the part of Mrs. Matthews to remember the long distance
call, the Commission ran out of curiosity.  Matthews is no lightweight:
in the heyday of the Dallas rackets a couple of decades ago he ran with
a crowd whose luminary was Benny (Cowboy) Binion, who moved to Las Vegas
and founded the Horseshoe Club.
    The account given by Ruby of his trip to Cuba in September 1959
also strains credulity.  "Ruby traveled to Havana as guest of a close
friend and known gambler, Lewis J. McWillie," the Report declares (p.
370).  "Both Ruby and McWillie state the trip was purely social."  Ruby
gulled the Commission with a story that he stuck close to the hotel, got
bored stiff, and left within a week.  But Thayer Waldo, an old Latin
hand with sources inside Cuba, reports that Ruby boasted to at least two
Americans that he was "in with both sides" while sitting in Castro's
domain.  Among the Cuban exiles he claimed to be close to was Rolando
Masferrer, a former Batista official who had headed "The Tigers," a
dreaded private army during the dictator's regime.
    One of the many Dallas police officers who frequented the Carousel
Club has told Garrison that in mid-1962 Ruby left on a two-week trip,
saying he was going to New Orleans and then to Cuba "to pick up an act
for the club."  When he returned he was uncharacteristically
tight-lipped about his trip -- and without an act.  Whether Ruby
circumvented the travel ban and got to Cuba is a moot question.
However, there remains Earl Ruby's unexplained telegram to Havana on
April 1, 1962.  And word that circulated through Cuban emigre circles in
1963 had Ruby visiting Havana via Mexico Cit that year (e.g. CE3055).
    If Ruby did go to Cuba in 1962, it may have been on narcotics
business.  As long ago as 1956, a woman named Eileen Curry told the FBI
that her paramour, James Breen, had become cozy with Ruby and had
"accompanied RUBY to an unnamed location, where he had been shown moving
pictures of various border guards, both Mexican and American."  Curry
said that Breen "was enthused over what he considered an extremely
efficient operation in connection with narcotics traffic."  Curry went
to the FBI after Breen failed to return from a trip to Mexico, and
repeated her story in 1963 after the assassination (CE1761, 1762).
    Texas editor Penn Jones Jr has delved into a story consistent with
Eileen Curry's.  On November 20, 1963, a woman name Rose Chermi was
thrown form a moving automobile near Eunice, Louisiana.  Hospitalized
with injuries and narcotics symptoms, she said she was a Ruby employee
traveling to Florida with two men to pick up a load of narcotics for
Ruby.  She told the attending physician that Kennedy and other officials
were going to be killed on their impending visit to Dallas.  Shown a
news story after the assassination in which Ruby denied knowing Oswald,
Miss Chermi chortled, "They were bed mates."  When his probe got
underway, Garrison attempted to locate her but was too late.  On
September 4, 1965 she was killed by a hit-and-run driver while walking
along a highway near Big Sandy, Texas.
    It is also possible that Ruby's alleged 1962 trip to Cuba concerned
gunrunning.  Nancy Perrin Rich told the Commission that she and her late
husband, who had ties to organized crime, attended a metting Dallas in
1962, in which plans were discussed to smuggle guns into Cuba and
refugees out.  The key planners were Ruby, an Army "light colonel," and
a heavy-set "Cuban or Mexican," and she gathered that Ruby was the "bag
man" who handled the funds.  She said the guns were to be procured
through a Mexican contact (Vol. 14, p. 330ff).  Garrison has additional
evidence of gun-running by Ruby which cannot be divulged at this time.
    The allegations of narcotics trafficking and gun-running should be
put in some perspective.  In 1962, Cuba and Red China reportedly had
entered into a barter agreement in which Cuban sugar would be exchanged
for narcotics, but the narcotics were a white elephant until sold for
U.S. dollars.  This is where buck-hungry organized crime elements came
in, and just possibly Jack Ruby.  In this context his claim that he was
playing both sides of the street may not have been sheer braggadocio.
In the strange accommodations of international intrigue, Ruby may well
have been smuggling narcotics into the United States and guns into the
hands of Cuban insurgents.
    It is fair to say that not much in the way of Caribbean intrigue
went on in those days without the CIA, or at least CIA operatives, having
a finger in it.  Thus the allegations of Gary Underhill, a weapons
expert and sometime CIA "unperson," may be quite plausible [RAMPARTS,
June 1976].  Immediately after the assassination, a distraught Underhill
told friends that a semi-autonomous CIA clique which had been
profiteering in narcotics and gun-running was implicated in the
assassination.  Several months later, Underhill was found dead of a
bullet would in the head; although police decided it was self-inflicted,
the circumstances indicated otherwise.  When an old friend wrote to
Underhill's widow asking about his demise, the reply came from an
official of a now defunct Washington firm, Falcon Aeronautics, Inc.,
which smacks of having been an ad hoc CIA front.  The official dismissed
Underhill's allegations with the comment that they were "similar to
those flights of his imagination which he had during the last year or
so of his life."
    The question remains whether or not newsmen in the police
basement had flights of imagination when they thought they detected a
flicker of recognition on Oswald's part just before Ruby shot him.  We
have already examined the report of attorney Carroll Jarnagin [RAMPARTS,
November 1966] -- who claims that he eavesdropped on a Ruby-Oswald
conversation in the Carousel Club the night of October 4, 1963, in which
the desire of organized crime to do away with Governor Connally was
discussed -- and the statement of Wilbryn "Bob" Litchfield that he sat
next to Oswald in the Carousel Club office in early November while both
were waiting to see Ruby [RAMPARTS, June 1967].
    In addition, there is the cogent statement of Harvey L. Wade, a
Chattanooga building inspector who dropped into the Carousel Club the
night of November 10, 1963.  Wade said that a club photographer snapped
a shot of a customer and in the background were three men sitting at the
bar.  Ruby strode over to the photographer and "yelled that the
photographs did not turn out."  One of the men in the background was
identified by Wade as Oswald.  He described the others as a young man of
"very fair pale complexion," and an older, stocky Latin man who had
"numerous bumps on his face and was believed to have a one-inch scar in
the eyebrow of his left eye" (CE2370).  The two match the descriptions
of prime suspects in Garrison's investigation, the latter of the
bull-necked Cuban who tagged around after Oswald in New Orleans in the
summer of 1963.
    Further indication of a Ruby-Oswald link appears in the
statement of the Rev. Clyde Johnson which was filed by Garrison in
answer to a Clay Shaw defense motion.  Rev. Johnson, a candidate for
governor of Louisiana in 1962, who ranted against Kennedy in his
campaign, said that he twice attended meetings that fall at which
Oswald, Ruby, Shaw, and an unknown Cuban were present.  The first was in
the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans, the second on September 29 in the
Capitol House Hotel in Baton Rouge.  He recalled that Oswald was
introduced as Leon, Ruby as Jack, and Shaw as Alton Bernard.  On the
latter occasion, he said, Shaw passed manila envelopes to Oswald and
Ruby which purportedly contained money.
    While such eyewitness accounts must be weighed with the credibility of
the witness in mind, there is documentary evidence of a Ruby-Oswald link
as well.  Oswald's address book contains the entry "Midland 2550";
Ruby's has the entry "Newton 2550."  While their significance is unknown
-- Garrison speculates they may be communications signals of some sort
-- the odds against the same four-digit numbers preceded by the names of
Texas cities being in two unrelated person's adress books by sheer
happenstance are astronomical.  It was, in fact, just this kind of
mathematical improbability that was instrumental in the recent
convictions of a mugging team in Los Angeles County.
    And there are other "coincidences" as well.  In his address book,
Oswald twice jotted down the number of a Ft. Worth television station,
PE 8-1951; in June 1963, Ruby twice called that number (CE 1322, p.
517).  On September 24, 1963, David Ferrie's telephone was charged with
a call to Chicago number WH4-4970; on November 20, 1963, this number was
called from Kansas City by Lawrence Meyers, a Chicago businessman and
close friend of Ruby's.  Meyers arrived in Dallas from Kansas City that
same night, and was in touch with Ruby through the traumatic
post-assassination hours (Vol. 25, p. 335).
    The Dallas number FR5-5591 appears twice in the last pages of
Oswald's book, which leads to another correlation.  The number is listed
to Kenneth Cody, a Continental Trailways bus driver on the Shreveport run
and an uncle of Dallas police officer Joe Cody.  A homicide bureau
detective, Cody was the partner of Detective James R. Leavell, one of
the pair of officers escorting Oswald through the police basement when
he was shot by Ruby.
    In an FBI interview, Joseph Cody acknowledged having known Ruby "12
or 13 years."  He met Ruby at one of his clubs during the Korean War,
when Cody was "assigned in the Counter Intelligence Corps" and stationed
for a time in Dallas.  Cody related that he enjoyed ice skating at Fair
Park, as did Ruby, and "there had been at least a half dozen times in
the last two or three years that RUBY had arrived at Fair Park while he,
CODY, had been skating" (CE1736).
    Garrison contends that Ruby's stagey behavior between the
assassination and his slaying of Oswald was a way of disassociating
himself from the plot by "reversing the magnetic field" -- drawing
attention to himself as the opposite of what he actually was.  Andrew
Armstrong, a Carousel employee, told the Commission that his boss was
crying on the afternoon of the 22nd.  In the early morning hours of
Saturday, Ruby rousted a club flunkey, Larry Craford, who watched while
his boss took a Polaroid picture of a Birch Society "Impeach Earl
Warren" billboard.  That afternoon, Ruby displayed the picture in Sol's
Turf Club, his favorite haunt, with suitable expressions of indignation.
He went to the post office with companions, peered at the box receiving
responses to the black-bordered "Wanted for Treason" ad in Friday's
Dallas Morning News, and uttered words of outrage.
    Ruby's survival as a "little big shot" in Aryan Dallas depended
upon his obsequiousness to powerful masters.  Some of those whose boots
he licked were Nazis, and subliminally he became one of them.  As
Garrison put it, "The connecting link at every level of operation, from
the oil-rich sponsors of the assassination down to the Dallas police
department, down through Jack Ruby and including anti-Castro
adventurers, at the operating level were Minutemen, Nazi oriented.  It
was essentially a Nazi operation.
    Ruby's letters, smuggled out of jail by a trusty, reveal that
towards the end, he realized what his masters really were [RAMPARTS,
February 1967].  The letters, sold by the reputable New York document
auctioneer Charles Hamilton, portray a man acutely aware of his
Jewishness who realizes with anguish that he has served not
ultraconservatives but Nazis.  "They are going to come out with a story
that it was the Minutemen who killed the Jews," he wrote, "don't you
believe it, they are using that to cover up for the Nazis....Oh the way
I fucked up this world who would ever dream that the motherfucker was a
Nazi and found me the perfect setup for a frame....I was used to silence
Oswald.  I walked into a trap the moment I walked down that ramp Sunday
morning."

[end of part 4]



Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!isovax!SALTZMAN
From: [e-mail] (Bob Saltzman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: New book on Stone movie "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:33:53 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 304
Nntp-Posting-Host: isovax.crd.ge.com

Several months ago I obtained a copy of an interesting new book that may
have value to researchers and other interested persons.  I recommend it.
(This is not a review.)

       +-----------------------------+
       | "JFK": The Book of the Film |
       +-----------------------------+

    By:
    Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar

    Based on:
    "On the Trail of the Assassins" by Jim Garrison, and
    "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" by Jim Marrs

    Published in 1992 by:           Applause publishes many titles
    Applause Books                  under its "The Book of the Film"
    211 West 71st Street            Screenplay Series.
    New York, NY 10023
    212-595-4735, fax: [phone], order line 1-800-937-5557

    ISBN: 1-55783-127-0 (paper cover)
    ISBN: 1-55783-128-9 (cloth cover)

    Paper cover: 593 pages, $18.95 U.S., $26.95 Canada, L12.99 U.K.

This book is typically displayed in the "performing arts", "movies" or
"films" section of most bookstores, although some have displayed it under
"current non-fiction" with other books on the JFK assassination.  I
found it in Waldenbooks, Lauriats, and B. Dalton.

On the frontispiece is printed:

    "Study the past...
     Past is prologue...
     Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty..."

I believe that these are the mottoes cut into the stone walls of the
National Archives in Washington, D.C.  I recall them appearing in the
final scene of the movie.

This books contains the complete screenplay of the movie "JFK" with 340
research notes, a debate on the JFK assassination which includes 97
reactions and commentaries by such persons as Norman Mailer, Tom Wicker,
Gerald R. Ford, David Belin, L. Fletcher Prouty, Garry Trudeau, etc.,
followed by some interesting historical documents, and listings of
credits, references and sources.

Table of Contents (printed here without permission)

I. "JFK": The Documented Screenplay
-----------------------------------
    Screenplay with historical annotations                        1

Includes numerous black and white photographs of various scenes from
the movie.  Also includes embedded research notes and references.
The research notes were compiled for Oliver Stone by Jane Rusconi.

II. The JFK Debate: Reactions and Commentaries
----------------------------------------------
The editors state:
"Certain authors whose work was sought to form the following cross
section of reaction declined to be included.  The editors especially
regret the absence of George Will, Arlen Specter and Anthony Summers
from our selection."

Most of these articles had been previously published in various
newspapers and magazines, and were reprinted with permission by the editors.

    About the Debate
    Frank Mankiewicz                                        187
    "JFK" Movie and Book Attempt to Rewrote History
    Jon Margolis                                            189
    On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland
    George Lardner, Jr.                                     191
    Stone's "JFK": A Higher Truth?
    Oliver Stone                                            198
    Outlook: Or Just a Sloppy Mess?
    George Lardner, Jr.                                     202
    More Shots in Dealey Plaza
    Richard Zoglin                                          205
    Oliver Stone's "JFK"
    Oliver Stone                                            207
    The Shooting of "JFK"
    Robert Sam Anson                                        208
    Stone Shoots Back
    Oliver Stone                                            229
    The Political Rorschach Test
    Jefferson Morley                                        231
    The Garrison Probe: The Story Hollywood Won't Tell
    James O'Byrne                                           234
    Does "JFK" Conspire Against Reason?
    Tom Wicker                                              241
    Via the Director's Viewfinder
    Oliver Stone                                            246
    An Adviser Speaks Out
    L. Fletcher Prouty                                      248
    Interview with Oliver Stone
    Robert Ebert                                            249
    Kennedy Assassination: How About the Truth?
    Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin                       253
    The JFK Assassination - What About the Evidence?
    Oliver Stone                                            257
    Free for All
    L. Fletcher Prouty                                      262
    Roger Kosson                                            263
    Donald Squires                                          263
    Jaime Aparisi                                           264
    Cyril H. Wecht                                          265
    Harold Weisberg                                         266
    "JFK": Tragedy into Farce
    Andrew O'Hehir                                          269
    A Better Conspiracy Theory than Oliver Stone's
    Jonathan Kwitny                                         274
    Who is Rewriting History?
    Oliver Stone                                            276
    Oliver Stone's Patsy: "JFK" Film Revives a Malicious Prosecution
    John P. MacKenzie                                       278
    Is History That Which Gets Broadcast the Loudest?
    Bob Katz                                                280
    The Politics of "JFK"
    Thomas Oliphant                                         282
    The Sum of All Fears
    David Klinghoffer                                       283
    Twisted History
    Kenneth Auchincloss, Ginny Carroll, Maggie Malone       289
    What Does Oliver Stone Owe History?
    David Ansen                                             294
    The Troublemaker for Our Times
    David Ansen                                             295
    Plunging Into the Labyrinth
    Lance Morrow, Martha Smilgis                            298
    Hollywood Wonders if Warner Brother's Let "JFK" Go Too Far
    Bernard Weinraub                                        303
    Switching Channels on JFK Memories
    Jimmy Breslin                                           307
    Facts Knit the Single-Bullet Theory
    Kenneth Klein                                           309
    History by Default: The Blame Transcends Oliver Stone
    Brent Staples                                           311
    Suppression of the Facts Grants Stone a Broad Brush
    Alan M. Dershowitz                                      313
    Chicago Tribune Editorial                                   315
    Students Seek the Truth in The JFK Case
    John Hanc                                               316
    The Blurred Vision of "JFK"
    Steve Parks                                             319
    The Many Theories of a Jolly Green Giant
    Michael Dorman                                          322
    Oliver's Twist
    Bill Marvel                                             325
    The Paranoid Style
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan                                 328
    Stone's Film Trashes Facts, Dishonors J.F.K.                332
    The Plot to Assassinate the Warren Commission
    Richard M. Mosk                                         333
    "JFK" is Not Irresponsible - Choosing to Ignore the Evidence Is
    Oliver Stone                                            335
    The Case Against Jim Garrison
    Nicholas Lemann                                         337
    For the Defense
    Zachary Sklar                                           345
    Lemann Replies
    Nicholas Lemann                                         348
    Oliver Stone Talks Back
    Oliver Stone                                            349
    Conspiracy? ... Not!
    Michael Albert                                          358
    "JFK" and Us
    Michael Albert                                          364
    Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts
    Robert O'Harrow, Jr.                                    370
    New Film Fires a Bullet at Specter's Re-election
    Katherine Seelye                                        372
    Reflections on the Grassy Knoll
    Stefan Kanfer                                           376
    Stone Doubts Bush's Faith in Warren Report
    David Robb                                              377
    J.F.K. and "JFK"
    Alexander Cockburn                                      379
    Overkill
    Garry Trudeau                                           384
    Shadows on the American Storybook
    Tom Hayden                                              386
    "JFK"
    Anthony Lewis                                           387
    Warren Panel Findings Should Stir Outrage
    Oliver Stone                                            389
    Kennedy and Vietnam
    Leslie H. Gelb                                          391
    "JFK": Truth and Fiction
    Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.                                 393
    Taking a Darker View
    Ron Rosenbaum                                           396
    The 'Gimmick' in J.F.K.'s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan
    John Newman                                             401
    Speech to the National Press Club
    Oliver Stone                                            403
    Get the Rest of the J.F.K Story                             408
    The Zapruder Film: Shots Seen Round the World
    Richard B. Stolley                                      410
    J.F.K.'s Murder: Where Are the Media?
    Robert Hennelly                                         413
    Seeking J.F.K.'s Missing Brain, 'Secret' Files
    Michael Isikoff                                         416
    Boren Seeks Opening of Assassination Papers                 418
    Pundits Go Astray Taking Aim at "JFK"
    Robert Ebert                                            419
    Critic Sees Stars After Editor Kills Review of "JFK"        421
    A Concoction of Lies and Distortions
    Joseph A. Califano, Jr.                                 422
    Ford Urges House Leaders to Seek Release Of All Records
     on Kennedy Assassination
    George Lardner, Jr.                                     423
    Ex-Warren Staffers Urge J.F.K. Data Release
    Geroge Larnder, Jr.                                     424
    The Conspiracy That Won't Go Away
    Carl Oglesby                                            425
    Footfalls in the Crypt
    Norman Mailer                                           438
    "JFK"
    Edward S. Herman                                        448
    No Evidence for a Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy
    William Manchester                                      451
    In 60's, They Missed Assassination Evidence
    Alfred Lee                                              453
    The Stoning of Oliver
    Todd Gitlin                                             454
    The Big 'Lies' of "JFK"
    David W. Belin                                          458
    Turn to Stone
    Oliver Stone                                            462
    Earl Warren's Assassins
    David W. Belin                                          464
    In Defense of the Warren Commission
    Alexander Cockburn                                      466
    Exchange: Jousting After Camelot
    Zachary Sklar                                           472
    The Quest for the Grail
    Peter Dale Scott                                        473
    Morte D'Arthur
    Michael Parenti                                         477
    Cockburn Replies
    Alexander Cockburn                                      478
    J.F.K.: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story
    Robert Hennelly and Jerry Policoff                      484
    The Kennedy Assassination
    Stepping on Stone: Who Can You Trust?
    Gaeton Fonzi                                            499
    Valenti Calls "JFK" 'Hoax' and 'Smear'
    Bernard Weinraub                                        506
    Heart of Stone
    Jeff Yarbrough                                          508
    Gates Orders Release of Secret CIA Files on Oswald Before '63
                                517
    A Stone's Throw
    Oliver Stone                                            519
    Loose Bazooka
    John Newman                                             520
    Hunkered in the Bunker
    Philip Green                                            522
    Liebeler Replies
    Wesley J. Liebeler                                      524
    Cockburn Replies
    Alexander Cockburn                                      525

III. Historical Documents
-------------------------
    Overview: J.F.K. and Vietnam Policy                         531
    National Security Action Memo No. 55                        534
    National Security Action Memo No. 56                        535
    National Security Action Memo No. 263                       536
    Draft of National Security Action Memo No. 273              537
    National Security Action Memo No. 273                       540
    National Security Action Memo No. 57                        543
    Jim Garrison's Closing Statement                            545
    CIA Document #1035-960                                      550
    1992 Joint House and Senate Resolution to Open the
     Files on the J.F.K. Assassination                          555

IV. Credits
-----------
    Bibliography                                                573
    Information on Sources                                      578
    Movie Credits                                               581

-----------

Prepared, July, 1992 by:
Robert B. Saltzman
Committee to Investigate Assassinations
Schenectady, NY USA

Not responsible for typographical errors.

-end-
==============================================================================
Robert B. Saltzman (Bob)            Internet: [e-mail]
Information System Operation        Snailnet: Bldg KW, Room C120, PO Box 8
General Electric Company            AT&Tnet:  518-387-5828(B), 387-6560(FAX),
Corporate Research and Development            370-2222(H)
Schenectady, New York 12301 USA     ICBMnet:  42 50 04 N, 73 54 14 W, Alt 246
AEMT-4 Paramedic/Firefighter        HAMnet:   WB2ARK
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Resolving Power of Moorman camera?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:31:00 GMT
Lines: 9

I was wondering if someone could post some information about Mary Moorman's
camera. In particular, what is the lens diameter, the aperture diameter, and
focal length of the lens. Is there a source for this information?

Also, is there any information about the film?

Thanks in advance.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:00:00 GMT
Lines: 44

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes...
>According to several accounts Ruby was sighted during the events
>at Dealey Plaza. For instance, a Mrs. Mercer saw him unloading a guy
>with a gun case at the other side of the grassy knoll (Jim Garisson,
>On the trail of the assassins). There are also several photographs
>showing a fellow who looks like Ruby. But...  in Summers' Conspiracy
>you'll find that Ruby was at the office of one of the Dallas newspapers
>(I believe it was the Dallas Morning News) placing an ad. I'm not sure
>whether there are witnesses accounting for his whole stay there, but it
>seems that both before and after the assassination he was seen there.
>I wonder if there's more on that. One thing is for sure, it's only a
>few minutes from the newspaper's building to Dealey Plaza.

According to a Dallas Morning News story Section 1 page 19 from Nov. 26, 1963,
Ruby entered the ad department at 12:10 pm. Donald Campbell was sure of the
time because he looked at the clock. Deadline was at noon and he said Ruby
was usually late, so that's why he noticed the time. Ruby talked to him for
awhile and Campbell left Ruby in the office at 12:20 pm.

Between 12:20 and 12:45 nobody confirms seeing Ruby although some persons
vaguely said they believed Ruby sat at John Newnam's desk to layout his own
ad.

Newnam returned to his desk "about 12:45" and noted Ruby sitting at the desk
working on the ad layout. Apparently Newnam hadn't heard about the assassination
yet. Coley (another ad rep) came in around 1 pm and said that Kennedy was
shot. Ruby was described as looking extermely shaken. The three men went
to Promotion director Dick Jeffrey's office to watch the T.V. Later, Ruby
returned to Newnam's office to work on the ad, but decided to cancel the ad
after hearing others call Newnam over the phone to cancel their ads.

So, it is possible for Ruby to have been at Dealey Plaza (the Dallas Morning
News was only four blocks from the assassination site). However, Ruby would
have had to make it there, do whatever he supposedly did, then return and work
on the layout. I guess the question I would have for Newnam is "How much work
was done on the layout when he saw Ruby?" If there was alot, then it's unlikely
Ruby was near the site.

One argument against Ruby being there would be that he had to leave the DMN
at 12:20 pm to get to Dealey Plaza. However, Kennedy was supposed to have been
at Dealey Plaza earlier than the 12:30 pm time that he did arrive, so Ruby's
timing would have been off for whatever "work" he had to do there.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:07:17 GMT
Lines: 22

[e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:



>So, it is possible for Ruby to have been at Dealey Plaza (the Dallas Morning
>News was only four blocks from the assassination site). However, Ruby would
>have had to make it there, do whatever he supposedly did, then return and work
>on the layout. I guess the question I would have for Newnam is "How much work
>was done on the layout when he saw Ruby?" If there was alot, then it's unlikely
>Ruby was near the site.

>One argument against Ruby being there would be that he had to leave the DMN
>at 12:20 pm to get to Dealey Plaza. However, Kennedy was supposed to have been
>at Dealey Plaza earlier than the 12:30 pm time that he did arrive, so Ruby's
>timing would have been off for whatever "work" he had to do there.

Thats the exact same argument you quickly dismiss when Oswalds
alibi is discussed.

How come you so readily accept it for Ruby's alibi?


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!Endor!nanderso
From: [e-mail] (Norman Anderson)
Subject: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <nanderso.714863715@Endor>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: endor.sim.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:15:15 GMT
Lines: 8

For those interested in Quantum Leap on NBC this fall, watch for the
season opener in a few weeks. (Date unknown). At the end of last season,
Sam Becket "leaps" into Lee Harvey Oswald's "body" just before his photo
was taken that morning in front of his house. (Who took that photo anyway,
mother, wife,...) I have no idea where the story line is heading, or who
is the technical advisor(s) are for this episode. Some of you may be
interested enough in the subject to click it on....I know I am. =)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:30:07 GMT
Lines: 16

[e-mail] (Norman Anderson) writes:

>For those interested in Quantum Leap on NBC this fall, watch for the
>season opener in a few weeks. (Date unknown). At the end of last season,
>Sam Becket "leaps" into Lee Harvey Oswald's "body" just before his photo
>was taken that morning in front of his house. (Who took that photo anyway,
>mother, wife,...) I have no idea where the story line is heading, or who
>is the technical advisor(s) are for this episode. Some of you may be
>interested enough in the subject to click it on....I know I am. =)

I heard that Bellisaurio[sp] the producer is going to stick to
the Warren Report.

Thats very fitting. A fictional TV show based on a work of fiction.


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!oracle!unrepliable!bounce
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: [e-mail] (Chuck Dupree)
Subject: Re: <None>
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 17 Aug 92 07:47:39 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Oracle News Poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hqsun2.us.oracle.com
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:46:43 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.
Lines: 28

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

>   >Isn't it possible that LHO was involved in action/information which could
>   >compromise these flights, and hence the President, during his
>   >time in Russia?

>   That's been suggested, but I don't see how it makes a great deal of sense.
>   Who is supposedly trying to compromise Eisenhower? The CIA? I don't get it.
>   It also seems like too difficult of a mission for a 20-year-old spy.

Then there's the theory, described in detail by Dave Ratcliffe who
often posts here, that the downing of Powers' U2 was not an act of the
Soviets, but an act of those in the US military-industrial complex who
didn't want Eisenhower's scheduled meeting with Kruschev (sp?) to come
off, because indications were that some sort of peace initiative might
have arisen.  It appeared that both Eisenhower and Kruschev were
looking for some way to exit the arms race...  One of the facts that
seems to support this theory is that (according to the books, I'm not
an expert in this area myself) in the early '60's the Soviets did not
have any weapon that could shoot down the U2.  They knew about the
overflights, but could not prevent them.

Powers himself, according to Jim Marrs in "Crossfire", offered the
opinion in a radio interview that his plane had been sabotaged.
Within a couple of weeks he died in a helicopter accident.

- Chuck Dupree

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 27 Aug 1992 01:12:08 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject:    JFK SOURCES
Lines: 184

I was going to email this list to Sjoerd but thought that it
would be better to post it so all can benefit from it.  This list
is not complete by any measure.  I have many more entries and
there are plenty more I expect to find as I trudge on in this
interest.

All sources listed below are named without any endorsement from
myself except where specifically mentioned.

BOOKS  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

*    THE LAST HURRAH BOOKSHOP
     937 Memorial Avenue
     Williamsport, PA   17701
     Propietor:  Andy and Linda
     Books on assassinations and political subjects

     Comment: You cannot find better people than Andy and Linda.
     They are up on any of the new books coming out.  They scour
     the countryside for used books and put out a quarterly
     listing which gets gobbled up pretty fast.  Their prices are
     reasonable and they stock many paperbacks which they sell
     for under 4 bucks.  You couldn't get better prices at the
     huge yearly book sales held in the summer.

*    President's Box
     P.O. Box 1255
     Washington, DC  20013
     Books on Washington politics, many on the assassinations.
     I am told that they have a lot of expensive collector's
     items.

*    Cloak & Dagger Books
     9 Eastman Avenue
     Bedford, NH  03102
     Spy, CIA, Guerrilla Warfare, etc.

*    Tom Davis Books
     P.O. Box 1107
     Aptos, CA  96001
     Assassinations, spy, etc

*    M&A Book Dealer
     P.O. Box 2422
     Waco, TX  76703
     JFK related materials

*    David Park Books
     555 Pierce St.
     Albany,  CA   94706

*    Prevailing Winds Research
     P.O. Box 23511
     Santa Barbara, CA   93121
     Books, Tapes, Videos, etc.
     If you like Mark Lane and John Judge or L. Fletcher Prouty,
     these people publish everything and more on the views and
     actions surrounding these people (and many others).

*    Harold Weisberg
     7627 Old Receiver Road
     Frederick, MD  21702
     Weisberg publishes privately his Whitewash series of books
     which consist of:
          WhiteWash One & Oswald in New Orleans
               photocopies only                   $27 each
          WhiteWash II  & WW IV                   $7.25 each
          WW III/Photographic WW                  $9.95 each
          PostMortem  & Frameup                   $12.50 each
     I have most of these books and plan to complete the set
     soon.  Weisberg was a pillar of the critic's community and
     only age has made him guiet in the last few years (he is in
     his 70's).  He was a professional Congressional investigator
     for many years before the JFK assassination.  His efforts,
     along with his attorneys, have made FOIA history, swaying
     Congressional voting actions.  His books are jam packed with
     nuggets and motherloads he has forced the government to make
     public but you will pick up an anger that imbues all his
     writings.  He is an old lion, growling with snakes venom at
     Hoover and the FBI, and justifiably so in my opinion.  His
     meticulous analysis of the secret WC transcripts and other
     documents is worth the price of the books alone.  On the
     phone he is quite a mellow and helpful person and he insists
     that he was in the second wave of critics.  It is true that
     there was a first wave of writers who took up criticism
     early but I contend that Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, and (I
     cross myself against evil) Epstein were the wave that
     mattered.  Without them, the first wave would have sank into
     the quicksand of moving news focus.  They were the first
     writers who penetrated deeply into the public awareness.

DATABASE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

*    PUBLIC IMFORMATION RESEARCH
     P.O. Box 5199
     Arlington, VA   22205
     These people put out two databases which are indespensible
     to anyone doing serious research into these subjects.  I
     have both and can attest to this.  It is quite enlightening
     to look up a new name you have come across and see how much
     information is already in the printed media on him/her.

     NAMEBASE. An index to published references of individuals,
               etc. connected with JFK, covert operations, CIA,
               Cuban intelligence, etc.  This DB doesn't have the
               entries that point into the WC books but have vast
               connections to everything else.

     AARC INDEX.  A partial holdings guide to AARC (their FBI
               index).  Included are indices into all of the
               books comprising the WC report and hearings and
               the HSCA volumes.  This rivals and at times
               surpasses Meagher's book index into the same
               sources.

     I believe that each of these DBs are under a $100.

*    CIABASE
     P.O. Box 5022
     Herndon, VA  22070
     This is new.  I don't know how much overlap this one has
     with NAMEBASE.  When I can get the cash, I will probably
     purchase this myself.  The brochure says that McGehee was
     the one who compiled this material.

RESEARCH FACILITIES AND NEWSLETTERS<<<<<<<<<<

*    AARC
     ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES AND RESEARCH CENTER
     918 F Street  NW  #509
     Washington, DC  20004
     Dues $25/yr.
     JFK,RFK,MLK,CUBA,CIA OPS,ETC.
     I can't say this any more firmly that this:  This resource
     should not be allowed to fall away.  They've been in
     financial dowldrums for a while.  They are the main
     repository for all the published and unpublished documents
     and other media for a decade now.  Because of limited funds
     it takes a long time to get something from them, but THEY
     HAVE IT ALL.  Want a FOIA released FBI report that is not in
     any library, they have it.  I urge you to support it.

*    THE THIRD DECADE
     State University College
     Fredonia, NY   14063
     Attn: Prof. Jerry Rose
     A year ago, someone turned me on to this newsletter.  I
     subscribed and picked out a couple of back issues that
     looked like they might be informative.  I found the articles
     so full of up-to-date fascinating data that I ordered the
     whole of the back issues and have not regretted it.  I have
     talked to Rose many times on the phone and he is going to
     extend his editorship into the fourth decade.  I have seen
     some of the other newsletters and I'm not running them down
     but this is the caddilac of them all (Hoch's Echos of
     Conspiracy comes up close but he is just not interested in
     putting this out anymore).  Mostly original research, it
     includes accounts of current happenings also.

*    AIC
     Assassination Information Center
     603 Munger
     Box 40
     Dallas, TX  75202
     I haven't tapped into this resource yet but I've heard alot
     about them.  They sell books, artifacts, videos, posters and
     put out numerous newsletters.

MAPS<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

*    Craig Ciccione
     1970 Washington
     Birmingham, MI   48009
     At the Chicago JFK Symposium, I picked up his Dealey Plaza
     map for $25.  I don't know what his current asking price is
     but I was pleased with the purchase.  It is quite up-to-
     date with much more information in it than the Sprague maps
     from C & A.  Size is 3 X 4 I think.  I used this to confirm
     Josiah Thompson's 8 degrees of lateral angle to the head
     shot.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ALAN ROGERS


Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3095 alt.conspiracy:18041 alt.activism:31821 alt.society.civil-liberty:5963 alt.individualism:12571 talk.politics.misc:92606 misc.headlines:23936 soc.culture.usa:8080 alt.censorship:11333
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,alt.censorship
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part XVI, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:51:15 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Lines: 185


        I made the following transcript from a tape recording
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
GARY NULL:
We're allowing you to make the decision, rather than making it for
you. We'll be back with this special investigative report.
Eighteen more [one-hour] parts to this series to come. Bit by bit,
we're laying the information out. It's too much to lay out all at
once. It would be too confusing. .....

..... one type of cover-up, and that involves the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy. Later on in this series we'll be dealing
with other issues, other forms of cover-up.

Most Americans, for a long period of time, believed the Warren
Commission, which said that two bullets fired by one man, who had
no connection to anyone, killed the President. There was never a
detailed effort to try to understand the inconsistencies, the
missing or altered evidence, nor the media's compliance with this
particular single view. We are now looking at new information and
trying to see whether or not the American Public has been given all
the information by the media to allow it to make an intelligent
decision about what really was involved.

My guest on today's program is Jerry Policoff from WXIX-TV in
Cincinnati, Ohio, a researcher since 1966 whose articles on the
assassination of John F. Kennedy appeared in GALLERY MAGAZINE. He
has also written for ROLLING STONE, NEW TIMES, THE REALIST and
other publications, and in the op-ed pages of the New York Times
and the Washington Post. Most recently he wrote a very fine article
in the VILLAGE VOICE, co-authored with Robert Hennelly.

My other guest is Jim Marrs, author of CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT
KILLED KENNEDY. He is also a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram. He was a reporter for the Denton Record Chronicle at the
time of the assassination of John Kennedy. He teaches at the
University of Texas at Arlington on the assassination of JFK.
Welcome to our program, Jerry Policoff.

JERRY POLICOFF:
Hi. How are you?

GARY NULL:
and welcome to our program, Jim Marrs.

JIM MARRS:
It's good to be with you.

GARY NULL:
Jim, we're going to begin with you, and I'm going to be giving
information, through you, which the American Public simply has not
been made generally aware of, so we can throw new light on this
entire issue. I'm going to run through some issues with you. I'd
like for you to address them. First and foremost, let's try to
understand all the different things that occurred in Dealey Plaza
that most people had not even considered; not even the Warren
Commission. We've been led to believe that it was just part of a
regular motorcade; that this man just HAPPENED to have known the
[details of the] motorcade, planted himself there in very short
order, and was able to get off what is simply the fastest, most
accurate shooting in the HISTORY of marksmanship -- and that that's
how it went down. Nothing outside of that occurred that should
throw any suspicion upon this. And, by and large, most of the media
in America, for all these years, has accepted that.

Quickly, let's go through it and decide what happened on November
22nd of 1963 in Dealey Plaza: the motorcade, the crowd, the suspicious
men, the "babuska lady", the Texas School Book Depository, the
districting[?] seizure, the man in the doorway, the Oswald encounter,
the triple underpass, the smoke from the grassy knoll, the third
wounded man, the Zapruder Film, the "black-dog man", the "badge man",
the grassy knoll witnesses ..... Let's go through all of this so
that the American People can know that, all along, this information
was available, that people were coming forward, and that this was
excluded from being properly investigated or reported on.

JIM MARRS:
Right.  And I think you've pretty well touched on it here. If you
look at any one single issue in this whole case, then there is
always doubt, there is always the possibility of a coincidence, or
maybe of just a mistake, or whatever. But you have to look at this
evidence in its totality. All of this evidence -- everything we
could talk about -- still comes back to one thing. And that is the
"single bullet theory". The "single bullet theory" says that one of
the bullets struck both Kennedy and Connally, causing seven wounds
to these two men, including shattering Connally's fifth rib and
shattering his wrist bone. Now if the one bullet did not hit both
men, then there has to be more than one shooter, in which case,
we've got a crossfire; we've got a conspiracy. And that elevates
this thing to a whole new ball game. So I'd like to address that
first.

They knew how long the assassination took because of the Zapruder
Film. The FBI diligently checked his camera and  found out that it
ran at eighteen frames per second. So they know that all of the
shooting happened within 5.6 seconds.  Alright. Now, within 5.6
seconds it is physically impossible for one man with a bolt-action
rifle to fire more than three rounds. Hence, they had to say that
there were only three shots fired.  Alright. Two of those shots are
accounted for, which leaves only ONE bullet to account for the
seven wounds to Kennedy and Connally. So how did they go about
this?


They simply told us -- and they are STILL TELLING US (people within
the Warren Commission: [President] Gerald Ford, David Dillon[?])
are STILL telling us that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck,
did not hit anything, and then went on to hit Connally. In fact,
the Warren Commission Report itself, number one, "Findings", said:
"President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at
the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of
his neck."   Now the problem is that this is a small, but critical
LIE. And I say it's a lie because I'll prove it to you in just a
minute.  The President was struck in the back. Okay? And they were
unable to probe the wound. However, even if they had probed it,
they claimed that it went upward and exited out his neck. Now --
there's no question about this. The autopsy face-sheet shows it.
It's marked "verified" by his personal physician. The autopsy
doctors were quoted in the Seibert-O'Neill Report as saying that
the wound was in the back -- the middle of the back. everybody says
that. The shirt and jacket, which are still available, plainly show
a bullet in the middle of the back. The death certificate says:
a wound in the posterior back at the level of the third thoracic
vertebrae. And even Glenn Bennett, one of the Secret Service agents,
in his report from hand-written notes on the day of the
assassination, said that he saw the shot hit the President about
four inches down from the right shoulder.
                        (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    Now that we know that they have systematically deceived and
    betrayed the American People, that they have subverted our
    democracy, that they have replaced our democracy with their
    oligarchy, their plutocracy .... now that we know, do we intend
    to do something about it, or do we intend to just lay back and
    accept our gradual decline into totalitarianism and poverty?
    The ruling elite intends to dissolve the American People's liberty
    and prosperity so gradually that it won't upset us enough to
    drive us to rebel. As patriotic citizens, we must care enough
    about our inalienable rights and about our human dignity to
    uphold them. As loving parents, we must care enough about the
    the dignity and the human rights of our children to redouble our
    resolve to preserve their most precious legacy.

    Daniel Sheehan and Gary Null are striving to inform the people of the
    truth concerning the Government-sponsored political assassinations
    and their cover-ups which have crushed the people's democratic spirit
    throughout the past thirty years. They also want the American people
    to know that President Kennedy was trying to stop the ruling elite
    from concocting a major war in Vietnam, and that's why they murdered
    him. They then went on to murder fifty-eight thousand young Americans
    of my generation and two million Vietnamese people. The ruling elite
    fabricated the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War strictly for profit
    and for their greater world empire. The ruling elite increase their
    wealth by robbing us of our earnings in so many subtle ways, and
    they increase their power by robbing us of our liberties.

    We must all unite in our common defense, for we are all suffering,
    and we will suffer increasingly as victims of the ruling elite
    who have never relaxed in their neurotic pursuit of ever-greater
    wealth through ever-greater domination of our people and of all
    peoples of the world.

    These old men who rule from the shadows showed us the magnitude of
    their evil when they scattered President Kennedy's brains all over
    the streets of Dallas. They have had some thirty years in which to
    intensify their power by usurping our democratic power. We haven't
    a day to waste. Please write to Daniel Sheehan and express your
    support for his public-interest lawsuits against Government crimes
    and the cover-ups which are fabricated under the duplicitous guise
    of "the national security".

                 Daniel Sheehan, Lead Attorney
                 The Christic Institute
                 8773 Venice Blvd.
                 Los Angeles CA 90034           [phone]

    John DiNardo

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:41:00 GMT
Lines: 43

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
>
>>So, it is possible for Ruby to have been at Dealey Plaza (the Dallas Morning
>>News was only four blocks from the assassination site). However, Ruby would
>>have had to make it there, do whatever he supposedly did, then return and work
>>on the layout. I guess the question I would have for Newnam is "How much work
>>was done on the layout when he saw Ruby?" If there was alot, then it's unlikely
>>Ruby was near the site.
>
>>One argument against Ruby being there would be that he had to leave the DMN
>>at 12:20 pm to get to Dealey Plaza. However, Kennedy was supposed to have been
>>at Dealey Plaza earlier than the 12:30 pm time that he did arrive, so Ruby's
>>timing would have been off for whatever "work" he had to do there.
>
>Thats the exact same argument you quickly dismiss when Oswalds
>alibi is discussed.
>
>How come you so readily accept it for Ruby's alibi?
>

The argument is the same. No one knew where Oswald was between 12:10 and 12:30.
Therefore, it was possible for him to be on the 6th floor at that time. Of
course, you'll point out Carolyn Arnold again, but her information in Summers
is tainted by the fact that she didn't know exactly what time she was
downstairs. Again, if you check Roffman, her statement (which he says is in
her own words) to the FBI indicated that she went downstairs at 12:25. Others
who were with her said it was 12:15. Oswald did not tell anyone that he saw
Mrs. Arnold while he was in the lunchroom, but said that Junior and a small
black man passed through. Neither of them admitted to seeing Oswald. So, there
is no concrete evidence that Oswald ate his lunch downstairs while the
assassination was happening. Therefore, he could have been on the 6th floor.
You seem to conclude that I was trying to prove that Oswald WAS on the 6th
floor. All along, I was trying to show that there was a distinct possibility
that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. Nothing more.

Concluding that Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News for the full 25 minutes
between 12:20 and 12:45 requires more input to be complete. You'll note that
I did ask the question of how much work was done on the ad when Newnam saw
it. If alot, then Ruby was most likely there the full time. If not, then he
could have been elsewhere.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:48:32 GMT
Lines: 41

[e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:


>>
>>Thats the exact same argument you quickly dismiss when Oswalds
>>alibi is discussed.
>>
>>How come you so readily accept it for Ruby's alibi?
>>

>The argument is the same. No one knew where Oswald was between 12:10 and 12:30.
>Therefore, it was possible for him to be on the 6th floor at that time.

You miss the point [again].

There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
after the assassination.

There were witnesses who saw Ruby in the Dallas Morning News before and
after the assassination.

There were *no* witness who saw Oswald on the 6th floor
during the assassination.

However, there *were* witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza when he
was supposed to be at the Dallas Morning News.

Thats the crucial difference.


>Concluding that Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News for the full 25 minutes
>between 12:20 and 12:45 requires more input to be complete. You'll note that
>I did ask the question of how much work was done on the ad when Newnam saw
>it. If alot, then Ruby was most likely there the full time.

You sure are quick to dismiss the eyewitness accounts who put Ruby
in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:22:00 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
>
>>>
>>>Thats the exact same argument you quickly dismiss when Oswalds
>>>alibi is discussed.
>>>
>>>How come you so readily accept it for Ruby's alibi?
>>>
>
>>The argument is the same. No one knew where Oswald was between 12:10 and 12:30.
>>Therefore, it was possible for him to be on the 6th floor at that time.
>
>You miss the point [again].

No. You miss the point [again].

>
>There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
>after the assassination.

There is only one witness that you provided and she was uncertain of the time.

After the assassination he left the scene of the crime and there were witnesses
who did see him leave. I have no argument with that.

>
>There were witnesses who saw Ruby in the Dallas Morning News before and
>after the assassination.
>
>There were *no* witness who saw Oswald on the 6th floor
>during the assassination.

This does NOT prove that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor. If every criminal
had to be seen at the place of the crime, then our prisons would have alot
less people in them.

>
>However, there *were* witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza when he
>was supposed to be at the Dallas Morning News.
>

Who? How many? Did they know Ruby so that they could identify him? If Ruby
was there and they didn't know who he was, then he would have had to do
something for them to remember him. Otherwise, he's basically another face in
the crowd. But, then if he had done anything to call attention to himself, the
witnesses should have told the police.

>Thats the crucial difference.
>
>>Concluding that Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News for the full 25 minutes
>>between 12:20 and 12:45 requires more input to be complete. You'll note that
>>I did ask the question of how much work was done on the ad when Newnam saw
>>it. If alot, then Ruby was most likely there the full time.
>
>You sure are quick to dismiss the eyewitness accounts who put Ruby
>in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

Because I haven't heard them with their proof. If they (or you) can provide
me with sufficient evidence, then I'll believe he was there. You'll note that
I have said that there is a 25 minute period when he could have been at places
other than the Dallas Morning News.

It still seems that you have a problem with proving someone was somewhere and
showing that it was possible for someone to be somewhere. These are two
different concepts.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!decalod-85!jdahl
From: [e-mail] (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:21:52 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: decalod-85.rchland.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Rochester
Lines: 32

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Norman Anderson) writes:
|>
|> >For those interested in Quantum Leap on NBC this fall, watch for the
|> >season opener in a few weeks. (Date unknown). At the end of last season,
|> >Sam Becket "leaps" into Lee Harvey Oswald's "body" just before his photo
|> >was taken that morning in front of his house. (Who took that photo anyway,
|> >mother, wife,...) I have no idea where the story line is heading, or who
|> >is the technical advisor(s) are for this episode. Some of you may be
|> >interested enough in the subject to click it on....I know I am. =)
|>
|> I heard that Bellisaurio[sp] the producer is going to stick to
|> the Warren Report.
|>
|> Thats very fitting. A fictional TV show based on a work of fiction.
|>
|>

     The adds that I saw seemed to indicate that they may be leaning
towards a pro-conspiracy view-point.  I think that it will be a cop-out
though, with Sam "leaping" out before anything incriminating happens.
I just don't think that NBC has the guts to go head on with this topic.


jared Dahl
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, |
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:32:18 GMT
Lines: 55

[e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:

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



>>
>>There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
>>after the assassination.

>There is only one witness that you provided and she was uncertain of the time.

She was *very* certain of the time. 12:15.

>>
>>There were witnesses who saw Ruby in the Dallas Morning News before and
>>after the assassination.
>>
>>There were *no* witness who saw Oswald on the 6th floor
>>during the assassination.

>This does NOT prove that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor. If every criminal
>had to be seen at the place of the crime, then our prisons would have alot
>less people in them.

>>
>>However, there *were* witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza when he
>>was supposed to be at the Dallas Morning News.
>>

>Who? How many? Did they know Ruby so that they could identify him?

If you read the Warren Commission Hearings you could get their names.

The Police Officer who ran to the top of the grassy knoll said the man
who had Fake SS id looked like Ruby.

Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, said Ruby was outside the TSBD immediately
after the assassination questioning some of the witnesses.

From Warren Commission Hearings Vol. 6 pp 386-393:

Miss Adams: There was a man that was standing on the corner of Houston
            and Elm asking questions there. He was dressed in a suit and a hat,
            and when I encountered Avery Davis going down, we asked who he was,
            because he was questioning people as if he was a police
            officer....and this man was asking questions very
            effaciously  and we said, "I guess
            he may be a reporter," and later on on television,
            there was a man that looked very similar to him,
            and he was identified as Ruby.




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!decalod-85!jdahl
From: [e-mail] (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:45:12 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: decalod-85.rchland.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Rochester
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
|>
|>
|> >>
|> >>Thats the exact same argument you quickly dismiss when Oswalds
|> >>alibi is discussed.
|> >>
|> >>How come you so readily accept it for Ruby's alibi?
|> >>
|>
|> >The argument is the same. No one knew where Oswald was between 12:10 and 12:30.
|> >Therefore, it was possible for him to be on the 6th floor at that time.
|>
|> You miss the point [again].
|>
|> There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
|> after the assassination.
|>
|> There were witnesses who saw Ruby in the Dallas Morning News before and
|> after the assassination.
|>
|> There were *no* witness who saw Oswald on the 6th floor
|> during the assassination.
|>
|> However, there *were* witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza when he
|> was supposed to be at the Dallas Morning News.
|>
|> Thats the crucial difference.
|>
|>
|> >Concluding that Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News for the full 25 minutes
|> >between 12:20 and 12:45 requires more input to be complete. You'll note that
|> >I did ask the question of how much work was done on the ad when Newnam saw
|> >it. If alot, then Ruby was most likely there the full time.
|>
|> You sure are quick to dismiss the eyewitness accounts who put Ruby
|> in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

     Could Ruby have walked outside, gotten into the truck driven by the
man Mrs. Mercer saw Ruby dropping off, and gotten back in 25 minutes?
Maybe this was his way of providing himself an alibi.  Does anyone know
the distance from the DMN to the back of the knoll?  This would still be
somewhat of a problem since traffic should have been very heavy?  Possibly
a non-direct route was taken to avoid the Dealey Plaza traffic.

     Addressing the problem with the time of Kennedy's arrival.  Is it
possible that the conspirator's delayed the motorcade intentionally?
This could be done quite easily.  Why was the motorcade late?  If they
knew that the motorcade was going to be 10 minutes late, then the hit teams
would all establish alibi's at or around 12:20pm, so if caught, they could
use the excuse "if I was really one of the shooters, why was I here at 12:20?"

     This, by the way, would not clear Oswald.  But it would indicate a
large-scale involvement by the government.  The driver of the limo could
easily have done this.  Remember, he kept his foot on the brakes while
the shooting was going on.  Giving Mediocre Oswald an even easier shot(not
that he did the shooting alone)?


Jared "Flame me, I'm a newbie here" Dahl
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, |
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!decalod-85!jdahl
From: [e-mail] (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Oswald as trigger-man??(THEORY)
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:03:58 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Nntp-Posting-Host: decalod-85.rchland.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Rochester
Lines: 35


     Something just occurred to me as I was posting something else
here.  If Oswald was acting as part of the conspiracy, and shot at
Kennedy hitting him in the shoulder, why would he then hide the rifle
in the book depository?  He would have known that he would be implicated
because of his "communist activities" and the fact that he was on the
scene.

     It is possible that Oswald didn't know about the Mannlicher-
Carcanno(sp?) that was planted sometime before he went to the sixth floor
to take his shots at Kennedy with a MAUSER.  This would explain the
proliferation of rifles at the scene, and why the photograph was possibly
faked.  The rifle Oswald actually used "disappeared" after the Dallas PD
got their hands on it.

     Oswald had no idea he was being set up, and it's possible that
he was proceeding to the movie theatre to meet his contact to get
"out of the country!"  Or maybe he knew that he was going to be the
fall guy, but that he would be taken out of the country before the
authorities could get him.  But his fellow conspirators had other
plans for him.

     This is theory at best, and I have used much "unproven" evidence
to support it (ie... many rifles in TSBD, faked photos ).  Poke some
holes in it.  Shed the light of logic upon it.  Theory first, emprical
evidence second, truth last.

Jared "I can't get mail, so don't bother" Dahl
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, |
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!olivea!decwrl!deccrl!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Aug 92 08:58:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 44

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jared Dahl) writes:

[...]
>     Could Ruby have walked outside, gotten into the truck driven by the
>man Mrs. Mercer saw Ruby dropping off, and gotten back in 25 minutes?
>Maybe this was his way of providing himself an alibi.  Does anyone know
>the distance from the DMN to the back of the knoll?  This would still be
>somewhat of a problem since traffic should have been very heavy?  Possibly
>a non-direct route was taken to avoid the Dealey Plaza traffic.

>     Addressing the problem with the time of Kennedy's arrival.  Is it
>possible that the conspirator's delayed the motorcade intentionally?
>This could be done quite easily.  Why was the motorcade late?  If they
>knew that the motorcade was going to be 10 minutes late, then the hit teams
>would all establish alibi's at or around 12:20pm, so if caught, they could
>use the excuse "if I was really one of the shooters, why was I here at 12:20?"

    The motorcade was about 5 minutes back on schedule. This was
    mainly due because the president's limousine stopped a few times
    to shake hands (not the limousine... the president I mean).
    I think that this was always the prez's initiative. But I agree
    with you that the driver could have catched up; he was really
    driving slowly... too slow according to Prouty.

>     This, by the way, would not clear Oswald.  But it would indicate a
>large-scale involvement by the government.  The driver of the limo could
>easily have done this.  Remember, he kept his foot on the brakes while
>the shooting was going on.  Giving Mediocre Oswald an even easier shot(not
>that he did the shooting alone)?
>

>Jared "Flame me, I'm a newbie here" Dahl
>--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, |
>| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
>| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!deccrl!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Aug 92 08:51:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 36

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

[...]
>>Who? How many? Did they know Ruby so that they could identify him?

>If you read the Warren Commission Hearings you could get their names.

>The Police Officer who ran to the top of the grassy knoll said the man
>who had Fake SS id looked like Ruby.

>Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, said Ruby was outside the TSBD immediately
>after the assassination questioning some of the witnesses.

    I don't get it. Ruby was at the grassy knoll AND at Houston/Elm
    at about the same time?

>From Warren Commission Hearings Vol. 6 pp 386-393:

>Miss Adams: There was a man that was standing on the corner of Houston
>            and Elm asking questions there. He was dressed in a suit and a hat,
>            and when I encountered Avery Davis going down, we asked who he was,
>            because he was questioning people as if he was a police
>            officer....and this man was asking questions very
>            effaciously  and we said, "I guess
>            he may be a reporter," and later on on television,
>            there was a man that looked very similar to him,
>            and he was identified as Ruby.




--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!decwrl!deccrl!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: JFK SOURCES
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:02:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 10

Alan, thanks for this very nice list. I'll try some of the sources.
I also like the Weisberg entry. I've been looking for his books
too, but couldn't find them anywere.

--
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!yorkohm!minster!aaron
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:23:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
Lines: 33
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Chuck Dupree ([e-mail]) wrote:
: One of the facts that seems to support this theory is that
: (according to the books, I'm not an expert in this area myself)
: in the early '60's the Soviets did not have any weapon that could
: shoot down the U2.  They knew about the overflights, but could not
: prevent them.
:
: Powers himself, according to Jim Marrs in "Crossfire", offered the
: opinion in a radio interview that his plane had been sabotaged.
: Within a couple of weeks he died in a helicopter accident.
:
: - Chuck Dupree

A recent series on BBC TV concerning the CIA included a programme on U2
flights. It included an interview with a member of a Soviet anti-aicraft
team who had attempted to shoot down a U2 (not Powers). He seemed to be
sure that they did have weapons that could in theory destroy the U2, although
in his case they accidentally shot down one of their own chase aircraft with
a SAM.

Other interesting information concerning U2s was evidence concerning the
personnel who flew U2s over the USSR. They included USAF, CIA and Royal
Airforce Pilots. The latter were used in an attempt to circumvent the
limits on flights imposed by Congress as the missions were, for admin.
puposes, British.

[As an aside on of the CIA analysts of the period was quoted as saying that
 they were attempting to depict the Soviet military threat as that of a
 10 foot giant when in fact they were facing a 4 foot dwarf. After all
 many of their ICBMs were in fact cardboard cut outs and they had few
 strategic bombers]

    Aaron Turner        [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:21:00 GMT
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>>>
>>>There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
>>>after the assassination.
>
>>There is only one witness that you provided and she was uncertain of the time.
>
>She was *very* certain of the time. 12:15.
>

However, if we believe Roffman, then she claimed it was 12:25. Do you state
that Roffman is incorrect? He did say it was her statement in her own words.
If she later stated to Summers it was 12:15, then she gives conflicting
testemony and therefore, she is not certain as to the time.

>>>
>>>There were witnesses who saw Ruby in the Dallas Morning News before and
>>>after the assassination.
>>>
>>>There were *no* witness who saw Oswald on the 6th floor
>>>during the assassination.
>
>>This does NOT prove that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor. If every criminal
>>had to be seen at the place of the crime, then our prisons would have alot
>>less people in them.
>
>>>
>>>However, there *were* witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza when he
>>>was supposed to be at the Dallas Morning News.
>>>
>
>>Who? How many? Did they know Ruby so that they could identify him?
>
>If you read the Warren Commission Hearings you could get their names.
>

I rather make you *PROVE* something for a change. Besides, I don't have access
to all 26 volumes.

>The Police Officer who ran to the top of the grassy knoll said the man
>who had Fake SS id looked like Ruby.
>
>Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, said Ruby was outside the TSBD immediately
>after the assassination questioning some of the witnesses.
>

As someone already stated, these two statements puts Ruby in two places at once,
you use that argument as support for Oswald's not being on the 6th floor. How
come it doesn't apply to Ruby?

>From Warren Commission Hearings Vol. 6 pp 386-393:
>
>Miss Adams: There was a man that was standing on the corner of Houston
>            and Elm asking questions there. He was dressed in a suit and a hat,
>            and when I encountered Avery Davis going down, we asked who he was,
>            because he was questioning people as if he was a police
>            officer....and this man was asking questions very
>            effaciously  and we said, "I guess
>            he may be a reporter," and later on on television,
>            there was a man that looked very similar to him,
>            and he was identified as Ruby.
>

Ruby is not a very distinguishable person and saying that someone looked like
him, doesn't make it him. I want some evidence that someone who knew him had
seen him there.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:33:00 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>>     Addressing the problem with the time of Kennedy's arrival.  Is it
>>possible that the conspirator's delayed the motorcade intentionally?
>>This could be done quite easily.  Why was the motorcade late?  If they
>>knew that the motorcade was going to be 10 minutes late, then the hit teams
>>would all establish alibi's at or around 12:20pm, so if caught, they could
>>use the excuse "if I was really one of the shooters, why was I here at 12:20?"
>
>    The motorcade was about 5 minutes back on schedule. This was
>    mainly due because the president's limousine stopped a few times
>    to shake hands (not the limousine... the president I mean).
>    I think that this was always the prez's initiative. But I agree
>    with you that the driver could have catched up; he was really
>    driving slowly... too slow according to Prouty.
>

The problem with having the driver catch up to schedule could still be due to
Kennedy wanting to be accessible to the crowds. What's the point in stopping
twice to shake hands in one area while rushing around in others so that people
only get a glimpse. After all, he was a politician about to start a new
election year. Sure he would be arriving at the Trade Mart late, but then
he was the president. I doubt that people at the Trade Mart would walk out on
him.

The Secret Service had a hard time keeping up with the president. In some
articles in the Dallas Morning News within a few days after the assassination,
you find cases where Kennedy and his Secret Service agents walking into a
building, then suddenly Kennedy turns and walks into the crowd to shake hands.
Certainly, the Secret Service should take some blame for not protecting the
President fully, but I think that they'd have been hard-pressed to do much
better under the same conditions.

Tony Simon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:06:39 GMT
Lines: 27

Sjoerd de Vries writes: >
Bruce Schuck (me) >>

>[...]
>>>Who? How many? Did they know Ruby so that they could identify him?

>>If you read the Warren Commission Hearings you could get their names.

>>The Police Officer who ran to the top of the grassy knoll said the man
>>who had Fake SS id looked like Ruby.

>>Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, said Ruby was outside the TSBD immediately
>>after the assassination questioning some of the witnesses.

>    I don't get it. Ruby was at the grassy knoll AND at Houston/Elm
>    at about the same time?

The top of the grassy knoll is at the end of the part of Elm that goes into
the railway yards. That is about 240/300 feet from the entrance to
the TSBD. You can walk 100 yds in less than a minute. Ruby had to walk
in that direction to get back to the Dallas Morning News.

It would have been very easy for him to play the SS Agent and then
pretend he was cop in front of the TSBD a minute later. It probably
took Miss Adams a minute or so to get to the steps of the TSBD after
the assassination.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:14:34 GMT
Lines: 83

Tony Simon > & >>>
Bruce Schuck >>>> & >>

>>>>There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
>>>>after the assassination.
>>
>>>There is only one witness that you provided and she was uncertain of the time.
>>
>>She was *very* certain of the time. 12:15.
>>

>However, if we believe Roffman, then she claimed it was 12:25. Do you state
>that Roffman is incorrect? He did say it was her statement in her own words.
>If she later stated to Summers it was 12:15, then she gives conflicting
>testemony and therefore, she is not certain as to the time.

We've been over this and you already know the answer, but I'll give
it again.

Roffman was using an FBI Report of their interview with Carolyn
Arnold. The Warren Commission did not get Mrs. Arnold to testify, so
we don't have her *unfiltered* testimony until Summers was researching
his book "Conspiracy".
W
hen Anthony Summers showed Mrs. Arnold her FBI *testimony* she said
they had completely misquoted her. I believe *her* because the FBI has
been proven to have destroyed and altered evidence in the JFK
assassination.

Mrs. Arnold said she saw Oswald at 12:15. ANd she is *very* certain.

>>>>However, there *were* witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza when he
>>>>was supposed to be at the Dallas Morning News.

>>The Police Officer who ran to the top of the grassy knoll said the man
>>who had Fake SS id looked like Ruby.
>>
>>Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, said Ruby was outside the TSBD immediately
>>after the assassination questioning some of the witnesses.
>>

>As someone already stated, these two statements puts Ruby in
>two places at once,

No it doesn't. If you had a map of Dealey Plaza, you would know they
are less than 100 yds apart. Since Victoria Adams probably took at
least one minute to get to the steps of the TSBD, it would be easy for
Ruby to play the SS man and then play a cop to dig for information on
who saw what outside the TSBD a minute later.

>>From Warren Commission Hearings Vol. 6 pp 386-393:
>>
>>Miss Adams: There was a man that was standing on the corner of Houston
>>            and Elm asking questions there. He was dressed in a suit and a hat,
>>            and when I encountered Avery Davis going down, we asked who he was,
>>            because he was questioning people as if he was a police
>>            officer....and this man was asking questions very
>>            effaciously  and we said, "I guess
>>            he may be a reporter," and later on on television,
>>            there was a man that looked very similar to him,
>>            and he was identified as Ruby.
>>

>Ruby is not a very distinguishable person and saying that someone looked like
>him, doesn't make it him.

Ruby's face and hat are *very* distinguishable.

> I want some evidence that someone who knew him had
>seen him there.

Of course you do. Your standard of evidence changes depending on
whether it was Oswald or Ruby.

For Ruby you want someone who knows him to have seen him in Dealey
Plaza. You know , if the Criminal Justice System required that witnesses
knew the criminal before they saw him commit the crime, the prisons
would be empty. :)

As I've said before, there were witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza
when he claims [with no corroboration] to be somewhere else.

*Nobody* saw Oswald on the 6th floor after 11:55.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:02:00 GMT
Lines: 121

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Mitchell S Todd writes: > & >>>
>Bruce Schuck >>

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

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

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

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


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

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

>Sure Mitchell.

    you could say something substantiative.



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

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


    The military routinely changes codes and call signs, because
    they know that a persistent adversary will figure them out.
    Oswald's defection just prompted an earlier-than-usual change.

    Some things, like radar frequency, are quite simple to find out.
    You can determine the frequencies of several over-the-horizon
    radar systems with a simple short-wave reciever. A trawler with
    an air-search radar working in concert with a radio will pick
    up the ADIZ codes --all you have to do is wait for an aircraft
    to fly into the ADIZ, wait, and listen to the challenge to
    him and his response.

    If you want to find out the range of American radar systems,
    fly, say, a Bear bomber at the coast, and see when and where
    their air defense system challenges you.


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

>See above.

    Your "above" is nothing.


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


>Ahhhhh. Maybe you grasped the point after all.

    Ahhh. So now you've "discovered" a "new point." Excuse me if I
    don't "oooohh! a new point" like Homer Simpson.


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

    Actually, it wouldn't have established much in the way of
    credentials. The Soviets would know that anything Oswald
    told them would be already known, of little use, or of
    little damage to the US. A defector who spilled his guts
    about such information would do little to establish his
    credibility with the Soviets.


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

    The US would have known of Oswald's defection fairly quickly
    and would have had enough warning to change call signs, etc,
    before any real harm could be done. The military wouldn't
    have to rely on Oswald's announcement to give them an excuse
    to change codes anyway.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:04:00 GMT
Lines: 28

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

>>>or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

>>    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
>>    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]

    How many Marine's medical records have you inspected, Bruce?


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:37:00 GMT
Lines: 167

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

>||There is nothing conspiratorial about it. How do you think the CIA recruits
>||people for deep cover anyway? It has already been shown that they in fact do
>||look at young people Oswald's age.

>|    It has? where has this been shown, since I haven't seen it.

>well, Here is Paul's article, carefull, I didn't bother double quoting it:

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


[...]

>Funny you should mention Sturgis, Alan.  Here's an excerpt from the taped
>interview of Sturgis by Michael Canfield.

>The excerpt is taken from "Coup D'Etat in America" by Canfield and Webberman.

>STURGIS: -- and a number of other people and so forth.  Okay, well, I
>think I told you earlier that I don't know if I'm a CIA agent or was a
>CIA agent or not
>because the top brass in CIA first denies me then they acknowledge me, then
>they deny me, so I don't know what the hell I am, but all I know is I've
>been involved in a lot of activities for the United States government, from
>the very beginning -- from the time that I joined the United States Marine
>Corps when I first turned seventeen years old up until the present day,


    Actually, its a leap to use this as evidence that Sturgis was
    a CIA agent in the Marines. All Sturgis said is that he was
    "involved in a lot of activities for the US government" from
    the time he joined the Marines. It could possibly mean that
    Sturgis was a teenage spy, but more likely it means that
    Sturgis started out as a teenager in the Marine Corps, and
    later was involved in several other government activities,
    including the CIA.


>And here is another article by someone who I did not get the name of. This is
>not double quoted as well. Next time, please keep up with the net.

>>just to set the record in a realistic mode.  I know for a fact that during
>>the late 40's early 50's the CIA did use teens. My father-in-law according to
>>his DD214 was a member of the OSS (CIA) he was born in 28 and in 1945
>>was recruited by the OSS making him 17. and continued in this field of
>>employment
>>until 1968.

    But what did daddy do for the OSS? was he a field operative or
    a desk jockey?



>||I see. It's just a coincidence that Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP?

>|    Since Oswald attended only two or three meetings before
>|    losing interest and dropping out, I seriously doubt that
>|    there is anything more than a casual connection.

>You can doubt all you want. I don't know why you don't doubt the obvious
>things like Oswald was *not* connected to intelligence.

    Maybe it's because the case for Oswald being a secret agent
    is a tempest in a teacup.



>||It is just a coincidence that Oswald goes to the Atsui Air Force base in Japan,
>||or comes back and does work that needs a secret clearance,

>|    What work that needed a secret clearence?

>"-Stiles" or whatever the name of the photographic work he did, as well as his
>work in California. See Summers' Conspiracy, or Mealanson's book.

    Oswald's clearence in the Marines was "confidential," the lowest
    of clearences. Further, although the graphics company that Oswald worked
    for did classified work, it did many other, not-at-all secret
    things. So far as I have seen, there is no evidence that Oswald
    worked in the secret end of the business.



>||or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

>|    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
>|    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

>Just another in one of your casual connections? Why would a doctor put such a
>thing down if it was lie?

    Just to be a nice guy? Also, folks with military experience
    tell me that VD cases are handled by corpsmen suprisingly often.
    Oswald could have convinced/paid the person making the report
    to put the "in the line of duty."

    One  possibility that is not considered is that Oswald was
    infected while donating blood. That would be considered
    "in the line of duty."


>||You must have read the connections, the ease at which he passed between
>||countries,

>|    How hard would it have to be?

>Can you say Cold War?

    Which countries are we talking about here?  The US couldn't
    help Oswald get into the Soviet Union, and I have yet to
    see it shown that Oswald got into the US abnormally easily.


>||his confession that he was going to spill secrets to the Soviets, etc

>|    Now this is a new one. Who did he say this to, and when?

>It is not new at all. It is in Conspiracy, Garrison's book, Marrs' book. Maybe
>you should spend less time reading exotic articles on ballistics and more
>on the case.

    So you mean while he was in the US embassy in the Soviet Union.
    Ok, I know about that. I thought for some reason that he was
    supposed to have said it before he left for Russia.



>|..What do you make of this?

>|    Certainly not moutains out of molehills.

>Just a thousand casual connections that the WR did not want us to know about?

    Much, much fewer than a thousand, and even those are tenuous
    at best.




>|    Well, you started out by saying that the Soviets knew Oswald
>|    was a spy. I saw the Nightline episode and the associated
>|    newspaper, etc articles, and they only claimed that the
>|    Soviets suspected that LHO was a spy. Since the Soviets
>|    have released their files on Oswald, I'm sure we'd know
>|    by now if they could prove it. The Soviets would have suspected
>|    Oswald whether he was a spy or not.

>Let us say they thought Oswald was a spy with a certain probability, and yet
>they did not kill, torture or wound him.

    I'm sticking to what the Soviets said and not what "we" say.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!torn!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!cs.mun.ca!garfield.cs.mun.ca!craigs
From: [e-mail] (Betsy Brett)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP server account)
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:12:19 GMT
Lines: 16

[e-mail] (Norman Anderson) writes:

>For those interested in Quantum Leap on NBC this fall, watch for the
>season opener in a few weeks. (Date unknown). At the end of last season,
>Sam Becket "leaps" into Lee Harvey Oswald's "body" just before his photo
>was taken that morning in front of his house. (Who took that photo anyway,

The airdate for the season premiere, last I heard was sometime mid-October.
It airs Tuesday eveings, if that helps find the right date.


--
Betsy Brett                          email [e-mail]
Box 442 RR1                          (specify to Betsy in subject line)
Paradise, NF  A1L 1C1 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canada /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!marco
From: [e-mail] (Marco)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 13:12:35 CST
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB
Lines: 11

[e-mail] (Jared Dahl) writes:

> |> I heard that Bellisaurio[sp] the producer is going to stick to
> |> the Warren Report.

I heard the same. I also heard that Bellisaurio KNEW Oswald. (This I read
on GEnie in the ShowBiz RT...)

  +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | John Perry*Voice [phone]*Internet [e-mail]   |
  +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!access.usask.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:59:44 GMT
Lines: 91

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

It sure took you a long time to think up a reply Mitchell.

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

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

>    If you want to find out the range of American radar systems,
>    fly, say, a Bear bomber at the coast, and see when and where
>    their air defense system challenges you.

The Bear's flew over the pole Mitchell. They were challenged
over Alaska or Canada or the North Pacific. The radar that picked
them up was the Dew Line or the Pine Tree Line and wouldn't
have told them anything about the West Coast Installations.
Oswald could have.

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

>>See above.

>    Your "above" is nothing.

So was your statement. Since when does radio allow you to place names
with faces. Ha ha ha. If you are so sure that the USSR knew everything
that Oswald knew *before* he defected, then why did the military
bother keeping *anything a secret?

The KGB weren't omnipotent. Listening posts are no substitution
for the information Oswald had. Or do you really believe the West
Coast of the US was so riddled with KGB agents that they already knew
everthing?


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

>    Actually, it wouldn't have established much in the way of
>    credentials. The Soviets would know that anything Oswald
>    told them would be already known, of little use, or of
>    little damage to the US. A defector who spilled his guts
>    about such information would do little to establish his
>    credibility with the Soviets.

So, it's now Mitchell S Todd KGB Spymaster and expert on what the
USSR wanted to find out during the Cold War. Excuse me while
I snicker. [Snicker]

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

>    The US would have known of Oswald's defection fairly quickly
>    and would have had enough warning to change call signs, etc,
>    before any real harm could be done. The military wouldn't
>    have to rely on Oswald's announcement to give them an excuse
>    to change codes anyway.

Let's look at the facts:

When informed of Oswalds defection, the military changed *everthing*
it could that they knew Oswald had information on.

Oswald didn't have to walk into the US Embassy to defect.

Nobody in the US or US Embassy knew of Oswalds existence in the
USSR until Oswald walked into the Embassy.

Why do you insist that the military *wouldn't* have to rely on
Oswald's announcement to change codes and radar frequencies?
They *did* rely on Oswalds announcement, and if Oswald had not
walked into the Embassy the military might *never* have found out
about Oswald's defection.

He did them a big favour.

And he did them that favor because he was probably an ONI agent.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!access.usask.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:18:11 GMT
Lines: 27


Mitchell S Todd  writes: > & >>>
Bruce Schuck (me) >>
David Wright >>>>

>>>>or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

>>>    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
>>>    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]

>    How many Marine's medical records have you inspected, Bruce?

Just one. It was Oswalds.

How about you Mitchell. How many of you inspected?

Do you have *any* evidence Marines were allowed to claim they caught
VD in the 'line of duty' as a normal course of events?

Since the publication of Marrs book, how many Marines have volunterred
that they too caught VD in the 'line of duty'? :)


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:30:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 32
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


[Mitchell S Todd]
[bruce:]

||Thanks to his announcement in the US Embassy that he planned to
||pass such information on, the military could go ahead and change the
||codes and frequencies immediately instead of waiting until Oswalds
||defection could be found out through intelligence contacts.
|
|    The US would have known of Oswald's defection fairly quickly
|    and would have had enough warning to change call signs, etc,
|    before any real harm could be done. The military wouldn't
|    have to rely on Oswald's announcement to give them an excuse
|    to change codes anyway.

I think the point is that anyone with Oswald's information, that attempted to
or said he was going to defect would normally send off alarm bells from the
state department to the CIA to military intelligence. Quite likely, Oswald was
attempting to tell secrets to the Enemey, which is probably against the law.
At the very least, anyone doing what Oswald did would be thrown in jail or
investigated in the Cold War spirit of the times. Instead of any likely hostile
treatment, Oswald gets treated with kids gloves, gets visas, and even gets
funds on his return to the US. All this to me is extremly suspicious.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:45:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 179
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|(David Wright) writes...
||[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
||||There is nothing conspiratorial about it. How do you think the CIA recruits
||||people for deep cover anyway? It has already been shown that they in fact do
||||look at young people Oswald's age.
|
|||    It has? where has this been shown, since I haven't seen it.
|
||well, Here is Paul's article, carefull, I didn't bother double quoting it:
|
||In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] writes:
|
|[...]
|
||Funny you should mention Sturgis, Alan.  Here's an excerpt from the taped
||interview of Sturgis by Michael Canfield.
|
||The excerpt is taken from "Coup D'Etat in America" by Canfield and Webberman.
|
||STURGIS: -- and a number of other people and so forth.  Okay, well, I
||think I told you earlier that I don't know if I'm a CIA agent or was a
||CIA agent or not
||because the top brass in CIA first denies me then they acknowledge me, then
||they deny me, so I don't know what the hell I am, but all I know is I've
||been involved in a lot of activities for the United States government, from
||the very beginning -- from the time that I joined the United States Marine
||Corps when I first turned seventeen years old up until the present day,
|
|
|    Actually, its a leap to use this as evidence that Sturgis was
|    a CIA agent in the Marines.

It does not seem to be a leap at all. Sturgis  is talking about weather he is a
CIA agent, and says that he has been involved in a lot of activities from his
age of 17 untill the present, where he does engage in intelligence activities,
call it CIA or not. He does not say that he did normal marine work when he
joined and is now doing intelligence work. He makes no distinction. He implies
a general pattern of behavior that is consistent from the time he joined the
marines till the present. That is the point he is making.


|
||And here is another article by someone who I did not get the name of. This is
||not double quoted as well. Next time, please keep up with the net.
|
|||just to set the record in a realistic mode.  I know for a fact that during
|||the late 40's early 50's the CIA did use teens. My father-in-law according to
|||his DD214 was a member of the OSS (CIA) he was born in 28 and in 1945
|||was recruited by the OSS making him 17. and continued in this field of
|||employment
|||until 1968.
|
|    But what did daddy do for the OSS? was he a field operative or
|    a desk jockey?

What did daddy do for the OSS? Are you being insultive on purpose, or is it
something you cannot avoid when being proved wrong?

||||I see. It's just a coincidence that Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP?
|
|||    Since Oswald attended only two or three meetings before
|||    losing interest and dropping out, I seriously doubt that
|||    there is anything more than a casual connection.
|
||You can doubt all you want. I don't know why you don't doubt the obvious
||things like Oswald was *not* connected to intelligence.
|
|    Maybe it's because the case for Oswald being a secret agent
|    is a tempest in a teacup.

None the less the evidence is overwelming that he had intelligence
connections.

||||It is just a coincidence that Oswald goes to the Atsui Air Force base in Japan,
||||or comes back and does work that needs a secret clearance,
|
|||    What work that needed a secret clearence?
|
||"-Stiles" or whatever the name of the photographic work he did, as well as his
||work in California. See Summers' Conspiracy, or Mealanson's book.
|
|    Oswald's clearence in the Marines was "confidential," the lowest
|    of clearences. Further, although the graphics company that Oswald worked
|    for did classified work, it did many other, not-at-all secret
|    things. So far as I have seen, there is no evidence that Oswald
|    worked in the secret end of the business.

Please read Summers' conspiracy, then. In any event, Oswald leaves a trail of
these secret clearence jobs from the time he comes back from Atsui till the
photographer's job.

||||or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?
|
|||    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
|||    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?
|
||Just another in one of your casual connections? Why would a doctor put such a
||thing down if it was lie?
|
|    Just to be a nice guy? Also, folks with military experience
|    tell me that VD cases are handled by corpsmen suprisingly often.
|    Oswald could have convinced/paid the person making the report
|    to put the "in the line of duty."
|
|    One  possibility that is not considered is that Oswald was
|    infected while donating blood. That would be considered
|    "in the line of duty."

That was not consisderd since you cannot get vd while donating blood.

||||You must have read the connections, the ease at which he passed between
||||countries,
|
|||    How hard would it have to be?
|
||Can you say Cold War?
|
|    Which countries are we talking about here?  The US couldn't
|    help Oswald get into the Soviet Union, and I have yet to
|    see it shown that Oswald got into the US abnormally easily.

The US let Oswald into the Soviet Union, and paid for his way back, and yet
the CIA apparently did not even meet with him.

||||his confession that he was going to spill secrets to the Soviets, etc
|
|||    Now this is a new one. Who did he say this to, and when?
|
||It is not new at all. It is in Conspiracy, Garrison's book, Marrs' book. Maybe
||you should spend less time reading exotic articles on ballistics and more
||on the case.
|
|    So you mean while he was in the US embassy in the Soviet Union.
|    Ok, I know about that. I thought for some reason that he was
|    supposed to have said it before he left for Russia.

So why did he get such a nice treatment when he left the USSR, if he expressed
the desire to defect?

|
|||..What do you make of this?
|
|||    Certainly not moutains out of molehills.

||Just a thousand casual connections that the WR did not want us to know about?
|
|    Much, much fewer than a thousand, and even those are tenuous
|    at best.
|

I see. Just a coincidence then.

|||    Well, you started out by saying that the Soviets knew Oswald
|||    was a spy. I saw the Nightline episode and the associated
|||    newspaper, etc articles, and they only claimed that the
|||    Soviets suspected that LHO was a spy. Since the Soviets
|||    have released their files on Oswald, I'm sure we'd know
|||    by now if they could prove it. The Soviets would have suspected
|||    Oswald whether he was a spy or not.
|
||Let us say they thought Oswald was a spy with a certain probability, and yet
||they did not kill, torture or wound him.
|
|    I'm sticking to what the Soviets said and not what "we" say.

If the Soviets suspected Oswald was a spy, and did nothing about it, then that
proves how supposedly dangerous a spy mission would be.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!indiana
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:12:40 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lines: 7

Don't forget about the policeman who was driving his daughter toward Dealey Plaz
just after the killing had occurred. Didn't he see "Ruby" come down from the
western side of the overpass, chuck something into the back of a vehicle, and
then drive off ? Policeman drove after him,but decided it wasn't worth getting
his daughter killed and stopped pursuit.
   (Sorry not to recall the policeman's name, but he was the one who said he
"wasn't a white hat" at Dallas Police HQ, and so was ignored there.)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:06:00 GMT
Lines: 191

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Mitchell S Todd writes: > & >>> & >>>>>
>Bruce Schuck >> & >>>>

>It sure took you a long time to think up a reply Mitchell.

    Perhaps it's beacuse I was out of town for a week, Sherlock.


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

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

>>    If you want to find out the range of American radar systems,
>>    fly, say, a Bear bomber at the coast, and see when and where
>>    their air defense system challenges you.

>The Bear's flew over the pole Mitchell. They were challenged
>over Alaska or Canada or the North Pacific. The radar that picked
>them up was the Dew Line or the Pine Tree Line and wouldn't
>have told them anything about the West Coast Installations.
>Oswald could have.

    Not all of these Bear flights went over the pole.
    The Soviets flew ELINT missions towards the Pacific Northwest,
    flying rather south of the DEW and Pine Tree. Also, the Soviets
    flew similar missions near Japan and near the intra-european
    frontier. These flights would be picked up by air defense
    radars of the type used by Oswald. Since all models of particular
    radar set type use the same frequencies, etc, picking out the range
    information of one gives you the range of all.



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

>>>See above.

>>    Your "above" is nothing.

>So was your statement. Since when does radio allow you to place names
>with faces. Ha ha ha.

    I didn't mean "place names with faces" literally. However, it's
    not difficult to find out which squadrons are at which air
    bases. The squadron designations are usually printed at the
    main gate of the bases. Further, the flight lines of these
    bases are visible from outside the base, bases being cordoned
    off from the outside by chain-link fences. A camera and a
    telephoto lens would tip any would be spy off to the serial
    numbers and squadron markings of the aircraft on base. All that
    is left is to sit around watching the aircraft taking off and
    landing while listening to the radio chatter.

    In WWII, the Germans were quite good at identifying allied
    aircraft by squadron. They made use of this information
    in their propaganda broadcast.


>If you are so sure that the USSR knew everything
>that Oswald knew *before* he defected, then why did the military
>bother keeping *anything a secret?

    The military knows that the Soviets will find things out
    eventually, but there's no reason to make it easy for them.
    The Soviets knew about the A12/SR71 long before the American
    public did. Some things aren't secret at all. Occaisionally
    you'll see announcements in the weapons-trade press about
    some new missle or a modification to an existing weapon
    that will reveal things like the radar frequency, etc.


>The KGB weren't omnipotent. Listening posts are no substitution
>for the information Oswald had. Or do you really believe the West
>Coast of the US was so riddled with KGB agents that they already knew
>everthing?

    No, the KGB (actually, the GRU) wouldn't know *everything*
    (neither did Oswald), but they would spend every possible
    effort to find out what was important to them. They really
    wouldn't need an army of men to find this out. Further,
    the Soviets would have the opportunity to monitor quite a few
    military establishments by eyesight/photography to complement
    listening activities.


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

>>    Actually, it wouldn't have established much in the way of
>>    credentials. The Soviets would know that anything Oswald
>>    told them would be already known, of little use, or of
>>    little damage to the US. A defector who spilled his guts
>>    about such information would do little to establish his
>>    credibility with the Soviets.

>So, it's now Mitchell S Todd KGB Spymaster and expert on what the
>USSR wanted to find out during the Cold War. Excuse me while
>I snicker. [Snicker]

    Well, my father flew "spyplanes" for the USAF. Not SR71's
    or U2's, mind you, but the ones that flew day in and day out.
    Mostly EC/RC-135s out of Eilson AFB, and, in Vietnam, EC-47's.
    I doubt that he knew everything about what information the
    US was trying to ferret out, but he seems to have known what
    the purpose of his missions were. Before his stint in the USAF,
    dad was a radar technician for Westinghouse. The man knows
    radars, how they are built, and how they are installed.
    Of course, he hasn't told me all he knows, but I've
    heard enough stories.

    Also, its simple to figure out what the Soviets would want
    from knowing how radar works, knowing the history and theories
    of air warfare, and the history of Soviet spying in America.
    The most important thing to the Soviets was our cryptology
    technology, high tech in general, and what we knew about them
    (Walker's information, for instance, changed the direction
    of Soviet submarine design.)

    It's something of a laugh that Bruce snickers at me for being an
    armchair "KGB spymaster" while he indulges in the same pursuit
    himself.


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

>>    The US would have known of Oswald's defection fairly quickly
>>    and would have had enough warning to change call signs, etc,
>>    before any real harm could be done. The military wouldn't
>>    have to rely on Oswald's announcement to give them an excuse
>>    to change codes anyway.

>Let's look at the facts:

>When informed of Oswalds defection, the military changed *everthing*
>it could that they knew Oswald had information on.

    That's called a reasonable precaution. Most, if not all, of the
    stuff that was changed would have been eventually changed anyway.


>Oswald didn't have to walk into the US Embassy to defect.
>Nobody in the US or US Embassy knew of Oswalds existence in the
>USSR until Oswald walked into the Embassy.

    Not for a while, anyway. The Soviets generally announced
    defections, since they made good propaganda for the grist
    mill. Anyway, Oswald's behavior while trying to defect,
    including his suicide attempt, would have tipped off
    the US Embassy.


>Why do you insist that the military *wouldn't* have to rely on
>Oswald's announcement to change codes and radar frequencies?
>They *did* rely on Oswalds announcement, and if Oswald had not
>walked into the Embassy the military might *never* have found out
>about Oswald's defection. He did them a big favour.
>And he did them that favor because he was probably an ONI agent.


    Had Oswald been an ONI agent, they would have known when
    he defected, and thus when to change codes, without needing
    the benefit of a trip to the Embassy. If such an announcement
    would be a flagrant tip-off that Oswald was a spy, then why
    would ONI try it, knowing that the Soviets would figure it
    out immediately?

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:10:00 GMT
Lines: 40

[e-mail] writes...
>Mitchell S Todd  writes: > & >>>
>Bruce Schuck (me) >>

>>>>>or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

>>>>    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
>>>>    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

>>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
>>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
>>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]

>>    How many Marine's medical records have you inspected, Bruce?

>Just one. It was Oswalds.

>How about you Mitchell. How many of you inspected?

    One. Oswald's. But then again, I'm not the one who's claiming
    that it's an anomaly explainable only by assuming that
    Oswald was a spy. It's the burden of proof kind of thing.

>Since the publication of Marrs book, how many Marines have volunterred
>that they too caught VD in the 'line of duty'? :)

    How many people have checked?

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:27:00 GMT
Lines: 61

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

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

>|    The US would have known of Oswald's defection fairly quickly
>|    and would have had enough warning to change call signs, etc,
>|    before any real harm could be done. The military wouldn't
>|    have to rely on Oswald's announcement to give them an excuse
>|    to change codes anyway.

>I think the point is that anyone with Oswald's information, that attempted to
>or said he was going to defect would normally send off alarm bells from the
>state department to the CIA to military intelligence. Quite likely, Oswald was
>attempting to tell secrets to the Enemy, which is probably against the law.

    I imagine that prosecution, or at least a detailed
    investigation, would be dependent on the quality of secrets
    we're talking about here. Oswald didn't exactly have the
    hottest information; hence his "confidential" clearence.


>At the very least, anyone doing what Oswald did would be thrown in jail or
>investigated in the Cold War spirit of the times. Instead of any likely hostile
>treatment, Oswald gets treated with kids gloves, gets visas, and even gets
>funds on his return to the US. All this to me is extremly suspicious.

    The Embassy probably would have asked the military "what would
    this guy know?" The answer would be something like "well, this
    guy was a corporal, with a confidential clearence, and he was
    a radar operator. The secret information he knows is either
    ephemoral, or is most likely already known by the enemy. He's
     not even active duty. It's not a big deal."

    1959/1960 was not really the height of the Cold war: that would
    come with the first two years of the Kennedy Administration,
    the Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, etc. If anything, the late
    50's saw something of a thaw, with Kruschev touring the US, and
    talk of summitry in the air.

    Finally, I have yet to see any information indication that
    Oswald's treatment by the US after he returned was some strange
    anomaly.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!parsifal.umkc.edu!vax1.umkc.edu!rtiger
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Garfield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:15:02 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Parsifal Administration)
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
Lines: 6


Could it have been Garfield??

Roy TIGER

(Hear me roar!)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:07:00 GMT
Lines: 224

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


>||||There is nothing conspiratorial about it. How do you think the CIA recruits
>||||people for deep cover anyway? It has already been shown that they in fact do
>||||look at young people Oswald's age.

>|||    It has? where has this been shown, since I haven't seen it.

>||well, Here is Paul's article, carefull, I didn't bother double quoting it:

>|[...]

>||Funny you should mention Sturgis, Alan.  Here's an excerpt from the taped
>||interview of Sturgis by Michael Canfield.

>||STURGIS: -- and a number of other people and so forth.  Okay, well, I
>||think I told you earlier that I don't know if I'm a CIA agent or was a
>||CIA agent or not
>||because the top brass in CIA first denies me then they acknowledge me, then
>||they deny me, so I don't know what the hell I am, but all I know is I've
>||been involved in a lot of activities for the United States government, from
>||the very beginning -- from the time that I joined the United States Marine
>||Corps when I first turned seventeen years old up until the present day,

>|    Actually, its a leap to use this as evidence that Sturgis was
>|    a CIA agent in the Marines.

>It does not seem to be a leap at all. Sturgis  is talking about weather he is a
>CIA agent, and says that he has been involved in a lot of activities from his
>age of 17 untill the present, where he does engage in intelligence activities,
>call it CIA or not. He does not say that he did normal marine work when he
>joined and is now doing intelligence work. He makes no distinction. He implies
>a general pattern of behavior that is consistent from the time he joined the
>marines till the present. That is the point he is making.

    Oh, but it is *quite* a leap.

    All Sturgis says is that he worked for the government, an
    organization that contains not only the CIA, but also the
    Marines, and myriad other organization. Sturgis statement
    could possibly mean that his time in the CIA was concurrent
    with his time in the Marines, but it could also mean that
    he was in the Marines, then with the CIA (if not other
    agencies). Most people, when they use such "umbrella"
    terms, tend to refer sequential involvement with the
    activities, rather than concurrent involvement.
    Why doesn't Sturgis say "I was with the CIA from the
    time..." instead of using the blanket term "government?"


>||And here is another article by someone who I did not get the name of. This is
>||not double quoted as well. Next time, please keep up with the net.

>|||just to set the record in a realistic mode.  I know for a fact that during
>|||the late 40's early 50's the CIA did use teens. My father-in-law according to
>|||his DD214 was a member of the OSS (CIA) he was born in 28 and in 1945
>|||was recruited by the OSS making him 17. and continued in this field of
>|||employment until 1968.

>|    But what did daddy do for the OSS? was he a field operative or
>|    a desk jockey?

>What did daddy do for the OSS? Are you being insultive on purpose, or is it
>something you cannot avoid when being proved wrong?

    What the hell is "insultive?"

    Actually, I was asking a germane question. The point of
    debate was whether the intelligence community would
    use a teenager as a spy, given a choice. It is *not*
    "what is the youngest age the CIA [for instance] will
    hire someone?" If poster X's father was a desk jockey,
    then the post is beside the point.


>||||I see. It's just a coincidence that Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP?

>|||    Since Oswald attended only two or three meetings before
>|||    losing interest and dropping out, I seriously doubt that
>|||    there is anything more than a casual connection.

>||You can doubt all you want. I don't know why you don't doubt the obvious
>||things like Oswald was *not* connected to intelligence.

>|    Maybe it's because the case for Oswald being a secret agent
>|    is a tempest in a teacup.

>None the less the evidence is overwelming that he had intelligence
>connections.

    Overwhelming, my ass. It's speculation built on little information,
    dubious assumptions, half assed innuendo, and misconstruance.



>||||It is just a coincidence that Oswald goes to the Atsui Air Force base in Japan,
>||||or comes back and does work that needs a secret clearance,

>|||    What work that needed a secret clearence?

>||"-Stiles" or whatever the name of the photographic work he did, as well as his
>||work in California. See Summers' Conspiracy, or Mealanson's book.

>|    Oswald's clearence in the Marines was "confidential," the lowest
>|    of clearences. Further, although the graphics company that Oswald worked
>|    for did classified work, it did many other, not-at-all secret
>|    things. So far as I have seen, there is no evidence that Oswald
>|    worked in the secret end of the business.


>Please read Summers' conspiracy, then. In any event, Oswald leaves a trail of
>these secret clearence jobs from the time he comes back from Atsui till the
>photographer's job.

    Well, I've read it, and Summer's just doesn't make a compelling
    case, to say the least.

    Oh, and you might like to read about Summers' 1989 interview
    with McClelland.



>||||or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?

>|||    Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
>|||    "in the line of    duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

>||Just another in one of your casual connections? Why would a doctor put such a
>||thing down if it was lie?

>|    Just to be a nice guy? Also, folks with military experience
>|    tell me that VD cases are handled by corpsmen suprisingly often.
>|    Oswald could have convinced/paid the person making the report
>|    to put the "in the line of duty."

>|    One  possibility that is not considered is that Oswald was
>|    infected while donating blood. That would be considered
>|    "in the line of duty."

>That was not consisderd since you cannot get vd while donating blood.

    Actually, it's possible. Disposable syringes, etc, weren't as
    common in the 1950's as they are today. If the guy before
    you had VD, gave blood, and the attendant didn't properly
    sterilize the nbeedle that goes into your arm, you could be
    easily infected. Military hospitals aren't known for having
    the most competent personel.

    I keep on hearing this refrain of "Oswald's record says he
    got VD 'in the line of duty'...who gets VD in the line of
    duty?" What I don't hear is a mad rush to find out who
    would get VD in the line of duty, or how anomalous LHO's
    case would have been.



>||||You must have read the connections, the ease at which he passed between
>||||countries,

>|||    How hard would it have to be?

>||Can you say Cold War?

>|    Which countries are we talking about here?  The US couldn't
>|    help Oswald get into the Soviet Union, and I have yet to
>|    see it shown that Oswald got into the US abnormally easily.

>The US let Oswald into the Soviet Union, and paid for his way back, and yet
>the CIA apparently did not even meet with him.

    Two questions:

    How could the US have kept Oswald from entering the Soviet
    Union?

    and:

    How anomolous was Oswald's re-entry into the US?



>||Just a thousand casual connections that the WR did not want us to know about?

>|    Much, much fewer than a thousand, and even those are tenuous
>|    at best.

>I see. Just a coincidence then.

    Or wishful thinking.


>|||    I saw the Nightline episode and the associated
>|||    newspaper, etc articles, and they only claimed that the
>|||    Soviets suspected that LHO was a spy. Since the Soviets
>|||    have released their files on Oswald, I'm sure we'd know
>|||    by now if they could prove it. The Soviets would have suspected
>|||    Oswald whether he was a spy or not.

>||Let us say they thought Oswald was a spy with a certain probability, and yet
>||they did not kill, torture or wound him.

>|    I'm sticking to what the Soviets said and not what "we" say.

>If the Soviets suspected Oswald was a spy, and did nothing about it, then that
>proves how supposedly dangerous a spy mission would be.

    Who said the Russians did *nothing* about Oswald?

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:39:24 GMT
Lines: 71


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

>>The KGB weren't omnipotent. Listening posts are no substitution
>>for the information Oswald had. Or do you really believe the West
>>Coast of the US was so riddled with KGB agents that they already knew
>>everthing?

>    No, the KGB (actually, the GRU) wouldn't know *everything*
>    (neither did Oswald), but they would spend every possible
>    effort to find out what was important to them. They really
>    wouldn't need an army of men to find this out.

Actual confirmation by a *real* defector would have been an invaluable
addition to anything gleaned by electronic means.

>>So, it's now Mitchell S Todd KGB Spymaster and expert on what the
>>USSR wanted to find out during the Cold War. Excuse me while
>>I snicker. [Snicker]

>    Well, my father flew "spyplanes" for the USAF.

Not even for a second do I believe this Mitchell.

>>When informed of Oswalds defection, the military changed *everthing*
>>it could that they knew Oswald had information on.

>    That's called a reasonable precaution. Most, if not all, of the
>    stuff that was changed would have been eventually changed anyway.

But Oswalds defection made them change it early. It was important
enought to sepnd the time and money to change it.

>>Oswald didn't have to walk into the US Embassy to defect.
>>Nobody in the US or US Embassy knew of Oswalds existence in the
>>USSR until Oswald walked into the Embassy.

>    Not for a while, anyway. The Soviets generally announced
>    defections, since they made good propaganda for the grist
>    mill.

The Soviets do *not* announce defections of people with
valuable intelligence while that intelligence is still valid.

>>Why do you insist that the military *wouldn't* have to rely on
>>Oswald's announcement to change codes and radar frequencies?
>>They *did* rely on Oswalds announcement, and if Oswald had not
>>walked into the Embassy the military might *never* have found out
>>about Oswald's defection. He did them a big favour.
>>And he did them that favor because he was probably an ONI agent.


>    Had Oswald been an ONI agent, they would have known when
>    he defected, and thus when to change codes, without needing
>    the benefit of a trip to the Embassy.

Changing the codes without a tipoff would have been the
death warrant for a spy. It's obvious the ONI wanted things
both ways. They didn't want the USSR to have all of Oswalds
intelligence to be vaild for a long time so they had him
make his dramatic announcement in the US Embassy.

And then, when Oswald was coming home, to show how displeased they
were with him defecting, they paid his and Marinas way home. Sure,
thats the ticket. We'll punish him severely for defecting, we'll pay
for his passage home. How many other defectors got their passage paid
for by the US State Department?



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:51:48 GMT
Lines: 16



Bruce Schuck (me) >> & >>>>

>>>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
>>>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
>>>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]

I'm still waiting for some proof that 'regular' Marines are allowed to
claim they 'caught VD in the line of duty'.

Since you now claim to have a close personal relative who flew
spyplanes, maybe you have a close personal relative who caught VD in
the "line of duty' too? [Snicker]


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!jph
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hanson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: New Movie
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:33:36 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 3


    Have you heard about the latest JFK assasination movie?  It's called
"The Man Who Injected Cancer into the Man Who Shot the Man Who Shot JFK."
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Back in harness
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:33:53 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 37


Back, after several weeks in New England on business and a
week of vacation.  Vacationing with my good buddy
Chuck Crenshaw.   ;^)

An off-line correspondent - Tony Beason - has asked me to
ask the group a question.  Tony can read this file but
for obscure technical reasons cannot post.

The question: Has anyone read a book called _The Rather Narrative_
by Monte Evans?  It is published by Barbara Books.

Quoting from Tony's e-mail:

"... (Monte Evans) wants to find out CBS Newsmans (was or was not)
in Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963.   ... Mr. Evans goes as far
as saying that Rather might be a paid agent for the CIA.  Mr. Evans
goes into how the American media just tells the public what the
government wants us to know and that the CIA has infiltrated the
media and has placed paid agents in high places to control news
stories that we read everyday."

"We all know that after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS tried
to purchase the Zapruder film from the Zapruders, CBS authorized him
to bid no higher than $10,000 for the film, but when "Life" magazine
outbid CBS, Rather (was pissed offf) that he didn't get the film
(and) ran right back to the CBS studios, he went on the air and stated
that he had seen the Zapruder film and then when the President was
shot in the head, that he rocketed forward instead of backward."

Anyway, Tony wonders if anyone has read this book and, if so,
what opinions do people have?

Starting Wednesday, we shall take a detailed look at Dr. Lattimer's
book.  Should be fun!

Joel
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:42:00 GMT
Lines: 31

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

>Bruce Schuck (me) >> & >>>>

>>>>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
>>>>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
>>>>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]

>I'm still waiting for some proof that 'regular' Marines are allowed to
>claim they 'caught VD in the line of duty'.

    The burden of proof is still on you, matey. You are the person
    who claims that the "VD in the line of duty" would be a tag
    unique to some sort of intelligence agent. Just saying "well,
    this says that Oswald caught VD in the line of duty [and does
    anyone exactly what Oswald had? Gonnonrhea?], so he must have
    been a secret agent" doesn't cut it.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!indiana
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Judith Campbell Exner
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:12:05 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lines: 4


    Judith Campbell Exner, JFK mistress and presumed Giancana mistress, and
admitted go-between between the two men, is scheduled to be on the Larry King
show this week.(CNN, 9 p.m.EDT.)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!ajs9462
From: [e-mail] (SIMON, ANTHONY JOE)
Subject: Re: Ruby's alibi around the time of the assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:57:00 GMT
Lines: 132

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
Bruce Shcuk: >>>>>>> & >>> & >

Tony Simon:  >>>> & >>

>>>>>>>There were witnesses who saw Oswald other than on 6th floor before and
>>>>>>>after the assassination.
>>>
>>>>There is only one witness that you provided and she was uncertain of the time.
>>>
>>>She was *very* certain of the time. 12:15.
>>>
>
>>However, if we believe Roffman, then she claimed it was 12:25. Do you state
>>that Roffman is incorrect? He did say it was her statement in her own words.
>>If she later stated to Summers it was 12:15, then she gives conflicting
>>testemony and therefore, she is not certain as to the time.
>
>We've been over this and you already know the answer, but I'll give
>it again.
>
>Roffman was using an FBI Report of their interview with Carolyn
>Arnold. The Warren Commission did not get Mrs. Arnold to testify, so
>we don't have her *unfiltered* testimony until Summers was researching
>his book "Conspiracy".
>When Anthony Summers showed Mrs. Arnold her FBI *testimony* she said
>they had completely misquoted her. I believe *her* because the FBI has
>been proven to have destroyed and altered evidence in the JFK
>assassination.
>
>Mrs. Arnold said she saw Oswald at 12:15. ANd she is *very* certain.

If you read Roffman correctly, he uses TWO reports. The first is a FBI report
of what she said in the FBI agent's words. I do NOT refer to this one. The
second one is a statement made by Mrs. Arnold in which she claims it was
12:25 pm. Roffman says that the second statement is in her own words. Did
Anthony Summers show her both statements? If Roffman is telling the truth, then
she is UNCERTAIN as to the time, becuase she tells Summers it was 12:15. If
Roffman is wrong when he says that the second statement is in her own words,
then Roffman is misleading everybody who reads his book. Which is it?!

How was Mrs. Arnold so certain that it was 12:15 or a little later? I do not
have access to Summers's book. Explain why she is so certain. When the Dallas
Morning News ad person knew Ruby was at the DMN at 12:10, he claimed that he
knew because it was past deadline and he looked at the clock to see how late
Ruby was. That's why he is sure. Can Mrs. Arnold be that sure?

>>The Police Officer who ran to the top of the grassy knoll said the man
>>who had Fake SS id looked like Ruby.
>>
>>Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, said Ruby was outside the TSBD immediately
>>after the assassination questioning some of the witnesses.
>>
>>From Warren Commission Hearings Vol. 6 pp 386-393:
>>
>>Miss Adams: There was a man that was standing on the corner of Houston
>>            and Elm asking questions there. He was dressed in a suit and a hat,
>>            and when I encountered Avery Davis going down, we asked who he was,
>>            because he was questioning people as if he was a police
>>            officer....and this man was asking questions very
>>            effaciously  and we said, "I guess
>>            he may be a reporter," and later on on television,
>>            there was a man that looked very similar to him,
>>            and he was identified as Ruby.
>>

>Ruby's face and hat are *very* distinguishable.

To you, because you've seen pictures of him and have reason to remember his
face and hat. If you look at people of that period, they do wear similar hats
and clothes. You notice that Mrs. Adam's statement said she saw someone
who looked like Ruby asking questions. That doesn't mean it was him. It is
no crime to look like Jack Ruby.

>> I want some evidence that someone who knew him had
>>seen him there.
>
>Of course you do. Your standard of evidence changes depending on
>whether it was Oswald or Ruby.

My standards haven't changed. Did Mrs. Arnold know Oswald? Was she sure of
the time? How was she sure? There are questions about how well she knew the
time. Also, how well did she know Ruby? There was another man at the TSBD who
bore a resemblance to Oswald. Could she have been confused at the time and then
over the years convince herself that it was Oswald? These are distinct
possibilities.

In Ruby's case, I'm saying it was possible for Ruby to be at Dealey Plaza and
get back to the DMN (until I have further evidence to prove one way or the
other). The evidence of the newspaper article does say that some people gave
some vague indications that he was there the whole time. However, statements
like that aren't enough.

     So, I am saying that it was possible for Oswald to be on the 6th floor of
the TSBD (until I have further evidence to *prove* one way or the other). He
could have been elsewhere in the building. However, this does not prove his
innocence or guilt. Mrs. Arnold's statements are conflicting until you can
prove that her written statement that Roffman mentions is false. Mrs.
Adam's statement that she saw someone who looked like Ruby isn't enough
to put Ruby at Dealey Plaza. Is there corroboration for Mrs. Adams's story? The
policeman's statement that the fake-S.S. Agent looked like Ruby isn't enough
either. When the Secret Service Agent talked to the policeman, did he show him
some credentials? If so, what was the "fake" name? If not, then why did the
policeman just trust him?

>
>For Ruby you want someone who knows him to have seen him in Dealey
>Plaza. You know , if the Criminal Justice System required that witnesses
>knew the criminal before they saw him commit the crime, the prisons
>would be empty. :)

Yes, I want someone to have known Ruby. If the person that Mrs. Adams claims
is acting like a reporter were to distinguish himself from other reporters,
then I'd have a better reason to believe her. However, there were other
reporters at the scene. So, why should she remember this one better than any
others. You'll note that Mrs. Adams didn't say that the person she saw was
Ruby, but that he looked very similar to Ruby. That doesn't make the man Ruby.
It just makes him similar in appearance.

On the other hand, criminals who are seen committing a crime tend to give
people a better reason to remember them, that's why people can pick them
out in a line-up.

>As I've said before, there were witnesses who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza
>when he claims [with no corroboration] to be somewhere else.
>
>*Nobody* saw Oswald on the 6th floor after 11:55.

Again, you confuse "proof of someone being somewhere" with the "possiblity that
someone is somewhere". Go read a logic book.

Tony Simon
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:21:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 36
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
|
|>Bruce Schuck (me) >> & >>>>
|
|>>>>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
|>>>>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
|>>>>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]
|
|>I'm still waiting for some proof that 'regular' Marines are allowed to
|>claim they 'caught VD in the line of duty'.
|
|    The burden of proof is still on you, matey. You are the person
|    who claims that the "VD in the line of duty" would be a tag
|    unique to some sort of intelligence agent. Just saying "well,
|    this says that Oswald caught VD in the line of duty [and does
|    anyone exactly what Oswald had? Gonnonrhea?], so he must have
|    been a secret agent" doesn't cut it.

I think it cuts it just fine. Forms and regulations are designed to
give information. If the form says he got VD in the line of duty, then
I imagine, untill told otherwise, that that is correct. Why would
anyone without some evidence believe otherwise? Why would one suspect
that the doctor would lie and potentially get himself in trouble? What
purpose does it serve to second guess the evidence based on your own
bias?
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!concert!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
From: [e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:00:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Triangle Computer Society
Lines: 32

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> ....
>    How many Marine's medical records have you inspected, Bruce?

    Oh, god, TaolHook, and now you suggest that the average Marine
    commonly gets VD "in the line of duty" ...

    The Pentagon CHiefs of Staff will ove this!

    A real balanced argument there ...

    Are you for real?
>
>
>                                |
>                      \ | /
>                               \|/
>_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
>\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
>  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
>    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
>      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
>         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
>                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


    And your wings are unbalanced, too.  You probably fly like
    your reason, like your wings look:  shorttucked, onside, and
    spiralling!

royc
>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Subject: Oswald's Motive?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: JFK OSWALD ASSASSINATION MOTIVE
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:03:22 GMT
Lines: 32

I have recently been reading a new book that seems to have appeared without any
fanfare in the papers or the press.  The title is THE PEOPLE VS. LEE HARVEY
OSWALD written by Walt Brown who is identified as a former Special Agent for
the Justice Department and historian with a Ph.D. in American History from
Notre Dame.  The book is written as if Oswald survived the murder attempt on
his life by Jack Ruby and went to trial for the murder of President Kennedy.
It is very well written piece of fiction where the author uses the testimonies
given by witnesses to the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, and other public records as the witnesses testimony in court.

In it on several occasions the author brings up several point I have never
considered nor have heard anyone else mention before.  I found this particular
one interesting.

One of the things virtually no one has ever been able to determine was Oswald's
motive for assassinating JFK.  In this book, Mr. Brown speculates the opposite.
 If Oswald was truly a disgruntled Communist as the Warren Report would like
everyone to believe (although in Oswald's own words, he was a Marxist not a
Communist), it would be to Oswald's advantage to keep JFK alive not to kill
him.  JFK already had a reputation of being "soft" on communism; the Berlin
Wall crises, arms agreement with USSR, Bay of Pigs incident, etc.  Since JFK
had publicly stated the plan to withdraw 1,000 advisors from Viet Nam by the
end of 1963 and privately stated he wanted the US completely out by 1965 and if
we follow the predominate belief of the period that if we did pull out all of
Southeast Asia would fall to the Communist.  The whole idea of a Communist
sympathizer killing Kennedy for political purposes is absurd.

I have finished three quarters of the book so far and have found more
interesting than I thought it would be when I first purchased it.  Just thought
I'd post this to see what response it may bring.

Jack Field
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!gumby!yale!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!concert!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Subject: The People Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald Book
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: JFK Oswald Assassination Book
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:33:51 GMT
Lines: 115

The following is information from the slipcover of a new book I purchased a
couple week ago.  So far it has been a good read with several thought provoking
ideas I have not heard brought up in the JFK affair before.  This is a repost
of a couple weeks back for those who may have missed it.

Jack Field

THE PEOPLE VS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY WALT BROWN

Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc.         ISBN 0-88184-869-7
260 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY  10001                     $25.00

---------------- BEGINNING OF INSIDE FLYLEAF ---------------

"Walt Brown weaves an engrossing narrative that will answer once and for all
the most fundamental question surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy:
 Could Lee Harvey Oswald have been convicted?

Brown, a historian and former Special Agent for the Justice Department, brings
before the "court of history" hundreds of witnesses and documents, some rarely
seen before.  He constructs an extraordinary courtroom drama, and he does so
with an historian's concern for scholarship as well as with a federal agent's
understanding of the inner-most workings of the American judicial system.

A sample of the testimony:  Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas testifies
that the White House instructed him on how to word Oswald's indictment.  A man
by the name of Willie Sommerset tells the court what he learned once he had
penetrated a right-wing organization.  The members of this organization had
been promised that Kennedy would be eliminated and that someone would be
swiftly arrested to satisfy the grieving public.  Secret Service Agent Clint
Hill, testifies that the rear portion of the President's head had been removed
by the bullet.  Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig relates how a man - a suspect
whom he arrested in the railroad yards immediately following the shooting -
simply disappeared.  Presidential Assistant Kenneth P. O'Donnell tells the
court how he was pressured to testify that the shots came from the rear of the
limousine, when, in fact, the shots he heard came from in front of the
President's car.  Gordon Arnold and Mary Moorman explain how the film they took
of the motorcade was seized by authorities and has not been seen since.  Itya
Mamantov, who was contacted by intelligence agents on November 22 to serve as a
translator for Marina Oswald, stresses that Mrs. Oswald could not identify the
telescopic sight on the rifle she was shown.  This suggests that she had not
seen or photographed Oswald with that rifle in the now famous backyard photos.

What were Oswald's motives?  How many witnesses identified him?  How accurate
was a twenty-five year old surplus weapon in the hands of a mediocre shot?
What is to be learned from fingerprint evidence?  Is the autopsy report on JFK
an honest document?  Was there a "second" or even "third" Oswald?  Was all the
"evidence" admissible?  Why were FBI experts unable, under the most favorable
conditions, to duplicate Oswald's shots?  Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?

OSWALD:  Presidential assassin or patsy?  BOOK DEPOSITORY:  Sniper's nest or
stage prop?  GRASSY KNOLL:  Killing zone or figment of fifty witnesses'
imaginations?

If THE PEOPLE V. LEE HARVEY OSWALD convinces you of Oswald's guilt, it's "case
closed" with respect to the events on November 22, 1963.  If, however, this
book convinces you of Oswald's innocence, it may be time for a new, impartial
national review of the case of the century.

YOU DECIDE.

WALT BROWN served with the Justice Department in Washington, DC, and New York,
and subsequently earned a Ph.D. in American History at the University of Notre
Dame.  He is currently on a leave of absence from his position as Adjunct
Professor of American History at Ramapo College, New Jersey.

MARTIN GARBUS, one of America's leading trial lawyers, was invited by his
former client, Vaclav Havel, to write the section on civil liberties in the new
Czech constitution.  He practices law in New York City.

---------------- ENDING   OF   INSIDE   FLYLEAF ---------------

-------------- BEGINNING OF BACKSIDE FLYLEAF ---------------

EVIDENCE FROM THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD

- Verbatim testimony from Parkland Hospital Emergency Room Staff that
contradicts the Prosecution's case.

- Documents indicating fraudulent autopsy conclusions regarding the President's
brain.

- No Oswald fingerprints or palmprints to link him to the alleged assassination
weapon.

- No eyewitness who could identify Oswald although many say a rifle in the
sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

- Proof that "Secret Service" agents on the Grassy Knoll who initially took
charge of the investigation were impostors.

- Proof that FBI experts were unable to substantiate or match Oswald's alleged
marksmanship abilities despite Oswald not being a great shot.

- Proof that three different rifles were referred to in the arrest report.

- Verbatim testimony from Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr regarding White
House interference in Oswald's indictment.

- FBI document showing that the alleged assassination weapon was sighted for a
left-handed person.

- Documents showing that photographic evidence was seized at Dealey Plaza and
has not been seen since.

- Proof that J. Edgar Hoover knew of Oswald before the Dallas police did.

- Proof that twelve other suspects were taken into custody and then released.

- Proof that the magic bullet never existed.

-------------- ENDING OF BACKSIDE FLYLEAF ---------------


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!gumby!yale!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!concert!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Subject: Oswald's Paraffin Test
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: JFK Oswald Assassination Paraffin
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:20:52 GMT
Lines: 179

The following is from Mark Lane's book Rush To Judgement concering Oswald's
paraffin test which the Dallas police administered.  Any errors are just simply
typos, I did the best I could transcribing this section.

PARAFFIN TEST

RUSH TO JUDGMENT by Mark Lane, 1966


Q.  Chief, we understand you've had the results of the paraffin tests which
were made to determine whether Oswald had fired a weapon.  Can you tell us what
those tests showed?
Chief Curry:  I understand that it was positive.
Q.  What did the tests find?
Q.  What does that mean?
Chief Curry:  It only means that he fired a gun.
                    Interview recorded by WFAA-TV,
                    Dallas Police & Courts Building,
                    November 23, 1963


Gordon Shanklin, FBI agent in charge at Dallas, said today that . . . a
paraffin test, used to determine whether a person has fired a weapon recently,
was administered to Oswald shortly after he was apprehended Friday, one hour
after the assassination.  It showed that particles of gunpowder from a weapon,
probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands.
                    The New York Times
                    November 25, 1963


In the weeks after the assassination, articles marshaling the facts against
Oswald gave prominence to the paraffin test result as proof of his guilt.

When a weapon is discharged, burning powder and gases usually escape from the
breach and particles containing nitrates in suspension are implanted on the
skin.  Warm paraffin was is applied to the subject's hands and face, and the
particles of unburned powder come off and adhere to the cast, which is then
treated with a solution of diphenylamine in sulfuric acid.  Nitrates present in
the cast turn deep blue - a positive response - but any contaminating
substances containing either nitrates or nitrites also will turn blue.  As one
of the strongest proponents of the paraffin test concedes, cigarette ash, food,
and many other substances may yield a positive response.  Most experts,
including those quoted by the Warren Commission, agree that among the other
substances containing nitrates or nitrites are various kinds of toothpaste and
paints and other products in everyday use.

The paraffin test report in the Oswald was among the Photostats given to me in
January 1964 by Hugh Aynesworth of The Dallas Morning News .  Three exhibits
has been tested: a paraffin cast made of the right side of Oswald's face, a
cast of Oswald's left hand and a cast of Oswald's right hand.  The examination
was made 'to determine if nitrates are present on exhibits (1), (2), and (3)';
and the request for examination came from the Dallas Police Department.  The
test revealed that 'no nitrates were found on exhibit (1)', the cast of the
right side of Oswald's face, and that 'nitrites were found on exhibits (2) and
(3)', the casts of Oswald's left and right hand.
 Since this was the only paraffin test conducted, FBI Agent Shanklin was wrong
if he said, as The New York Times said he did, that the test showed there was
gunpowder on Oswald's cheek.  When I appeared before the Commission on March 4,
1964, I made known to the Commission the contents of the paraffin test report.
Although the Commission did not publish the test report, it nevertheless
confirmed that 'the paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the
test.  The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction.

A positive response on both hands and a negative response on the face is
consistent with innocence.  It is also consistent with Oswald's claim that he
had not fired a rifle on November 22.  Chief Curry was perhaps aware that the
test provided weak foundation for the conclusion he offered, for although he
discussed the report freely with newsmen, he declined to show it to them.

On November 22 before the assassination, some of the Book Depository employees
were at work placing freshly painted plywood boards on the sixth floor of the
building.  By doing so they undoubtedly secured nitrate particles on their
hands; and if a paraffin test had been administered to them, in most cases a
positive response would have resulted from casts of both hands, while a
negative response would have resulted from casts of the face.  Both hands are
usually tested for the presence of nitrates because a positive response on the
hand that allegedly pulled the trigger is of probative value only if there is a
negative response on the other hand.

The only test finding indicative of guilt is a positive result for one hand, a
negative result for the other and - in the case of a rifle - a positive result
on the fact.  The paraffin test on Oswald showed a positive result for both
hands and a negative result for the face, indicating that the nitrates present
were caused by some activity other than the use of a firearm.  A positive
result for both hands tended to prove that Oswald had handled material
containing nitrates earlier that day or during the two or three preceding days.
 Furthermore, nitrates which ordinarily might be present after firing an old
and cheaply constructed rifle were not found on Oswald's face.

The paraffin, or dermal nitrate, test cannot establish Oswald's innocence, of
course, but that burden is not usually on the defendant in an American court.
It does fortify the presumption of innocence, and it helps to establish one
point:  Shanklin and Curry, the director of the Dallas FBI office and the
Dallas Chief of Police respectively, if not misquoted, made inaccurate
statement to the press after reading the paraffin test report.

Confronted with but one legitimate interpretation - that the paraffin test
results were consistent with innocence - the Commission concluded that the
test, formerly presented as a cornerstone in the case against Oswald, was
'completely unreliable'.

The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by experiments run
by the FBI.  In one experiment, conducted prior to the assassination, paraffin
tests were performed on 17 men who had just fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber
revolver.  Eight men tested negative in both hands, three men tested positive
on the idle hand and negative on the firing hand, two men tested positive on
the firing hand and negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on
both their firing and idle hands.

The Commission spoke of yet another series of paraffin tests conducted on 29
persons, also prior to the assassination.  Why did the Commission devote so
much space to experiments conducted with a pistol before November 22.  The
instant matter had to do with the nitrates produced by a specific weapon - a
rifle - which was in the possession of the Commissioners and available to them
for tests, yet the Report devoted just five lines to one test performed on the
rifle in question by one agent of the FBI.
In the course of its investigation, the Commission relied heavily on both
Shanklin and Curry; much important evidence passed through their hands and was
produced by their subordinates.  In this instance, they both appear to have
made inaccurate statements.  The Commission implied that it had investigated
the matter.

The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this
statement publicly.

But as proof it cited Commission Exhibit 2584, a document without relevance to
Shanklin or the paraffin test.  The Report also cited Commission Exhibit 3087,
a letter from J. Edgar Hoover.  This letter, delivered by courier to Rankin,
undoubtedly reveals more than intended.  It refers to a 27-page transcript of
remarks made by me on the Barry Gray radio program in New York and to page 26
of a transcript of my remarks at a New York Town Hall discussion.  My remarks
were extemporary on both occasions; the two lengthy verbatim transcripts
evidently had been prepared by FBI agents in the audience.  In defense of
Shanklin, Hoover noted that I asked my audience to recall that 'Chief Curry
told the press . . . that the paraffin test . . . was positive'.  He went on to
say, ' You can readily see in this instance Mr. Lane attributes this statement
concerning the paraffin test to Chief Curry of the Dallas Police Department'.

The Commission was presumably content with that unusual explanation by which
the blame was shifted from Shanklin and Curry to Curry alone, even though
Shanklin and not Curry had been quoted by The New York Times  as stating that
the test showed gunpowder 'remained on Oswald's cheek'.  The Commission did not
call Shanklin or the reporter from The New York Times.   It accepted a hearsay
denial in defense of Shanklin.  Curry did testify, but he was spared the
embarrassment of a single question about his statement.  The Commission's faith
in the federal and local police was thus chastely preserved.

Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek.  Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general atomic
division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the paraffin
cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission.  Dr. Guinn said
that he and his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of the
powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also
come back'.  They decided 'to try looking for elements by putting the wax
impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor'.  Guinn said he had
informed the FBI that it would be worthwhile to utilize 'activation analysis'
because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.

'We bought a similar rifle from the same gun shop as Oswald and conducted two
parallel tests,' Guinn said.  'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions'.
The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of
radioactivity 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both
hands and both cheeks.  Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them
in a nuclear reactor'.  Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about
Oswald because it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission
Report.'

The secret has indeed survived publication of the Report.  The Commission,
evidently differing with its own authority, stated only that it was 'impossible
to attach significance' to the radioactive response to Oswald's paraffin casts.
 The Commission, which gave much space to the results of tests conducted with a
pistol prior to the assassination, refused to inform its readers of the results
of tests performed after the assassination with an Italian carbine identical to
the so-called assassination rifle.  Although Dr. Guinn worked closely with the
FBI on behalf of the Commission, was entrusted with the precious paraffin casts
by the Commission and submitted his findings to the Commission, there is no
reference to his name in the Report.


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Conspiracy Quotations
Keywords: JFK Assassination Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:11:46 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Lines: 65

The following is a list of quotations I have gathered while reading several
books:

Robert Kennedy - "Did the CIA kill my brother?" to CIA Director McCone.  June
3, 1968 San Fernando State College, "Only the powers of the Presidency will
reveal the secrets to my brother's death."

Lyndon Johnson - "I am convinced that there was a plot in connection to the
assassination" and that the CIA had something to do with it.  LBJ to Marvin
Watson 1967 FBI report.

Richard Nixon - "This entire affair [Watergate] may be connected to the Bay of
Pigs and if it blows up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown."  RMN to H R Haldeman to
tell the CIA if they do not help cover-up the break-ins and interfere with FBI
investigations.

Fidel Castro - Upon hearing of JFK's assassination, he asked concerning LBJ,
"What authority does he have over the CIA?" to French journalist Jean Daniel

J. Edgar Hoover - "The thing I am most concerned about, and so is Mr.
Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that
Oswald is the real assassin."

F.  Cardinal Cushing - "I never believed the assassination was the work of one
man."

Senator Richard B. Russell -In the early 1970's Senator Russell stated, "I have
never believed that Oswald that planned altogether by himself.  There were too
many things, the fact when he was at Minsk, and that was the principal center
for educating Cuban students.  There were six or seven hundred of them there.
He was very close to some of them and the trip that he made to Mexico City and
a number of discrepancies in the evidence as to, or conflicts in the evidence
as to his means of transportation, the luggage he had, and whether or not
anyone was with him, caused me to have doubts that he planned it all himself.
I think someone else worked with him."

Judge Edward A. Haggerty - Judge at the Jim Garrison/Clay Shaw trial said
believed Shaw had CIA connections and had foreknowledge of the assassination.

Victor Marchetti - The purpose of secrecy in government is not to keep our
enemies from knowing what is going on but to keep the American people from
knowing what is going on.  Any evidence that could tie any one person or group
into the Kennedy assassination has already been destroyed.  Even if all the
government documents are released finding the guilty party will be now
impossible.

Authors

Jim Garrison - Attorney, District Attorney, Judge - On The Trail of the
Assassins
Mark Lane - NY State Assemblyman, attorney, teacher - Rush To Judgement,
Plausable Denial
Robert Groden - Optical Enhancement Expert, HSCA - High Treason
David Lifton - Engineering Physicist (NASA, UCLA & Cornell) - Best Evidence
Hugh McDonald - Law Enforcement Officer & Security Specialist - Appointment In
Dallas
L. Fletcher Prouty - Retired Intelligence Officer - The Secret Team
Harold Weisburg - Government Intelligence Analyst - Whitewash  Series
Sylvan Fox - Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter - Unanswered Questions About JFK
Assassination
Josiah Thompson - Philosophy Professor - Six Seconds in Dallas
Walt Brown - Ph.D. Historian & Special Agent Justice Dept. - The People vs. Lee
Harvey Oswald


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!uswnvg!nv10.uswnvg.com!scott
From: [e-mail] (Scott Eckelman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:45:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: US West NewVector, Inc., Bellevue, WA
Lines: 37

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] writes...
>|
>|>Bruce Schuck (me) >> & >>>>
>|
>|>>>>>Sure Mitchell. It happens all the time. The medical records of the
>|>>>>>Marine Corps are littered with Marines who caught VD 'in the line of
>|>>>>>duty'. [Really heavy sarcasm]
>|
>|>I'm still waiting for some proof that 'regular' Marines are allowed to
>|>claim they 'caught VD in the line of duty'.
>|
>|    The burden of proof is still on you, matey. You are the person
>|    who claims that the "VD in the line of duty" would be a tag
>|    unique to some sort of intelligence agent. Just saying "well,
>|    this says that Oswald caught VD in the line of duty [and does
>|    anyone exactly what Oswald had? Gonnonrhea?], so he must have
>|    been a secret agent" doesn't cut it.
>
>I think it cuts it just fine. Forms and regulations are designed to
>give information. If the form says he got VD in the line of duty, then
>I imagine, untill told otherwise, that that is correct. Why would
>anyone without some evidence believe otherwise? Why would one suspect
>that the doctor would lie and potentially get himself in trouble? What
>purpose does it serve to second guess the evidence based on your own
>bias?

Actually, Line-of-Duty investigations aren't that accurate.  Any time
there is an accident with injury, an LOD investigation is required.  If
the finding is Not in the Line of Duty, punishment of some kind is
usually administered, either Article 15 punishment (fines, and possibly
demotion), or if serious enough, Court Martial (possibly jail).
Many commanders consider VD and other minor infractions to
be In the Line of Duty just to avoid administering punishment for an
offence which didn't harm anyone.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:18:00 GMT
Lines: 71

(Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>> ....
>>    How many Marine's medical records have you inspected, Bruce?

>    Oh, god, TailHook, and now you suggest that the average Marine
>    commonly gets VD "in the line of duty" ...

    For the record, I never said that Oswald got VD directly in
    the line of duty. That's Bruce and Dave's work. I said that
    the LoD tag could have easily been added as a small favor to
     Oswald, or for some procedural reason (the latter seems likelier
    and likelier as I look into the matter more).

    The point in question is whether the "line of duty" tag is
    as anomalous as Bruce, Dave, and their host claim. I've
    not posted the most probable reason for the LoD tag, because
    Bruce is going to say that I'm lying again, rather than
    any substantiative refutation, and I'm getting tired of that.
    However, I note that someone else has posted it for me.


>    A real balanced argument there ...

    What is a balanced argument? As I'e noted, Bruce and Dave are
    the two people who claim that Oswald's medical record is
    exceptional, and can only be taken as evidence that Oswald
    was a spy. They have noted the "VD in the line of duty" note
    in the medical record; however, they have been entirely
    unwilling and/or unable to show that this was an anomaly.



>>                            \ | /
>>                               \|/
>>_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
>>\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
>>  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
>>    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
>>      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
>>         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
>>                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


>    And your wings are unbalanced, too.  You probably fly like
>    your reason, like your wings look:  shorttucked, onside, and
>    spiralling!


    I haven't flown in a long time. Suffice to say that I did it
    well.

    The .sig is not meant to be symmetrical. Partly, this is so I
    can maximize the amount of space where the fancy saying
    goes, but mostly it's a compositional consideration.
    A totally symmetrical pair of wings would look static
    and boring, not a bit unlike you.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:41:00 GMT
Lines: 53

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

>|>I'm still waiting for some proof that 'regular' Marines are allowed to
>|>claim they 'caught VD in the line of duty'.

>|    The burden of proof is still on you, matey. You are the person
>|    who claims that the "VD in the line of duty" would be a tag
>|    unique to some sort of intelligence agent. Just saying "well,
>|    this says that Oswald caught VD in the line of duty [and does
>|    anyone exactly what Oswald had? Gonnonrhea?], so he must have
>|    been a secret agent" doesn't cut it.

>I think it cuts it just fine. Forms and regulations are designed to
>give information. If the form says he got VD in the line of duty, then
>I imagine, untill told otherwise, that that is correct. Why would
>anyone without some evidence believe otherwise? Why would one suspect
>that the doctor would lie and potentially get himself in trouble? What
>purpose does it serve to second guess the evidence based on your own
>bias?

    The argument has two points and one conclusion. The first
    point is that Oswald's medical record shows that he was
    treated for VD and claims he acquired it "in the line of
    duty." The second point is that this is either strangely
    anonalous, or that it could only have happened if Oswald
    contracted the disease if he were some sort of agent.
    The concvlusion is, of course, that Oswald was a spy.
    The first point has been established, the second point
    has not, by any means. The burden of proof is not on me.
    It is on David and Bruce, who are arguing the case. They
    have to establish the second point.

    I also see that David has little experience with beuracratic
    organizations. Personel records from these things often
    reflect favortism, brown nosing, just plain laziness, and
    are often inaccurate on small issues. When records say
    silly things, then this generally indicates that someone
    is being noce to someone else.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Part One, Lattimer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:19:54 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 136


In the past we have discussed some aspects of Dr. John K. Lattimer's
analysis of the medical and ballistics evidence of the assassination.
But it has been sporadic and un-systematic.  I intend, over the
next couple of weeks or so, to set forth Dr. Lattimer's principal
research results, point by point.  I don't expect the usual
pro-conspiracy suspects in here to do other than yawn.  But as
I know from my e-mail when I post in here, there are plenty
of people out there who, though pro-conspiracy, have never
been made aware of the fact that the medical and ballistics
aspects of this case have been formulated into testable hypotheses
and that those hypotheses have been tested.

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

The HSCA's work was excellent in many respects.  Their medical
panel, for instance, included forensic anthropologists who
determined conclusively that the individual seen in the
autopsy x-rays and photographs was John F. Kennedy and no other
person.  The photo experts determined conclusively that none
of the material had been tampered with; the photos and x-rays
are not phonies or composites.  They are the genuine article.

But I don't have this research material at hand and cannot
quote chapter and verse.  I do have Lattimer - it is out of
print - and would like to present his analysis.  As I say, I
know that there are "read-only" folks out there whose interest
was piqued by the movie "JFK" (or perhaps some book like
"Best Evidence" or "HTII" or "Crossfire" or whatever) but who
have never really delved deeply into the case.  I myself supported
2nd gunman and pro-conspiracy views until around the time the
NRC's Committee on Ballistic Acoustics blew the HSCA's dictabelt
tape analysis out of the water in late '82.  But one finally
realizes that the 2nd gunman theories ultimately rest on the
(practically speaking) impossible happening.  One ultimately learns
that while anyone can *say* anything, there are limits to the
manipulation of physical matter.  And that one really must look
at what nature does and does not allow in order to cut through
all the crapola and get to the truth of the medical and
ballistics evidence.

Dr. Lattimer does as good a job of this as any one individual.

So let's look at Lattimer's book, _Kennedy and Lincoln, Medical
and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations_ and find out
what can be learned through the device of physically testing
hypotheses.

Lattimer's book was published in 1980, though major portions were
first printed in refereed medical journals such as "International
Surgery", "The Forensic Science Gazette" and "Surgery, Gynecology
and Obstetrics."  Lattimer has been dismissed as "only a
urologist" by people like Dr. Wecht, but this is a silly objection
to his work.  First, Lattimer's initial expertise stems from
his experiences as a WWII army surgeon treating bullet wounds
caused by German and Italian army rifles.  Second, he was able
to call upon, during the course of his 15+ years of research,
experts relating to many aspects of the case.

Like any other non-fiction writer, Lattimer is not perfect.
But I would suggest that truly disputing his findings requires
doing better tests than he did, and I have seen nothing in
that area from any second gunman theorists.  (as we shall
see, it was Lattimer himself who did experiments to determine
what might happen to a skull if hit by a bullet fired from
the grassy knoll; where are the experiments from the grassy
knoll theorists disupting his discoveries?)

And what are his findings?

I think we should start with those areas of the Warren
Commission Report in which he had doubts.  In subsequent
days and weeks we'll look closely at how he resolved those
doubts and answered the questions that he and others had
raised about the WCR.  Some of his questions were more
amenable to testing than others and it is those questions on
which we will chiefly focus.  But in the interest of fairness
and completeness we'll look at how Dr. Lattimer approached
the following questions, which questions he poses between
pp. 179- 183 of his book: (pp. 180-181 = a diagram)

1. Why had the X-rays and photographs been taken away from
Drs Humes, Boswell and Finck prior to their final report?

2. Why wasn't this material included in the final WCR?

3. Why had Dr. Humes burned his orignal autopsy notes?

4. Did the bullet holes in JFK's clothing indicate a bullet
passed of back-to-front?

5. Why were the bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt lower
than the corresponding hole in JFK's upper back?

6. Was there definite evidence of a bullet track running
through and through JFK's body in this area?

7. If so, in what direction did the bullet travel?

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

9. How come when government ballistics experts tried to reproduce
JFK's skull wound they didn't get a closer match, if indeed the
bullet had entered in the lower right/rear portion of JFK's skull?

10. How come the official drawings of the head wound showed relatively
little skull shattering?

11. Was there any evidence of a bullet traveling through JFK's body
from any direction other than from the rear?

12. What about the state of JFK's adrenal glands?

13. Was CE399 really the same bullet that went through JFK's
neck?

14. Was this bullet in fact pristine; or, if not, in what way
was it deformed?

15. Could Kennedy have survived this first wound?

16. Why did his elbows jerk up in response to the first bullet
wound in such an odd manner?

17. Why, if his first wound was so serious, did JFK not
crumple out of sight?

18. Why was the hole in the front of JFK's neck so small if it
was in fact an exit wound?

We shall see how Lattimer approached these (and other) questions
in subsequent postings.

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|ichips!intelhf!agora!jamesp
From: [e-mail] (James Price)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Open Communications Forum
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:39:37 GMT
Lines: 46

>
>For those interested in Quantum Leap on NBC this fall, watch for the
>season opener in a few weeks. (Date unknown). At the end of last season,
>Sam Becket "leaps" into Lee Harvey Oswald's "body" just before his photo
>was taken that morning in front of his house. (Who took that photo anyway,
>mother, wife,...) I have no idea where the story line is heading, or who
>is the technical advisor(s) are for this episode. Some of you may be
>interested enough in the subject to click it on....I know I am. =)
>
>
>

  think of the possibilities!

    Sam could save Kennedy! And he could save Oswald, both of them.
Maybe even save Officer J. D. Tippit too, and Jackie's dress.
what are the scenarios?

   1) He can keep Kennedy from Being Murdered
       a) as Oswald he fails to take any action to murder Kennedy
       b) as Oswald he prevents some person(s) from murdering Kennedy

   2) He cannot keep Kennedy from Being Murdered:
       a) as Oswald he murders Kennedy
       b) as Oswald he fails to stop some person(s) from murdering Kennedy

    its troubling to consider that the show could let Kennedy live.
It would have a hollow ring to it, if you ask me. But what a thought,
the world that _could_ have been had not the shining knight been murdered,
and trappings. No military-industrial porkbarrel (no 50K + 2M deaths in Nam),
no Second Civil War, no Nixon, no LBJ, no Hoover, no '63 Overthrow!


   I'm not sure which is the most interesting. Or most likely. I do know
one thing: NBC is telling the story.

   I'll be watching alright......
James
Net: [e-mail]        "Justice is incidental to law and order."
Globe: 45 31 25 N 122 40 30 W                          - J. Edgar Hoover
Unity not uniformity | NBC = GE   "Reading musses up my mind." - Henry Ford
--
jamesp   Never let anyone persuade you to smoke even one marijuana cigarette.
   @     It is pure poison.  -- "Living Death", Bureau of Narcotics, 1965
 agora   ...I tried smoking marijuana one time and I remained very lucid.
rain.com  I did not blow up.... --  William F. Buckley, Jr. to Congress
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!plains!plains.NoDak.edu!kruger
From: [e-mail] (Donovan Kruger)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:51:26 GMT
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: plains.nodak.edu

This reminds me of a show I saw in which someone went back in time as
one of JFK's advisors and friends.  I think it was an Amazing Stories
episode or such.  Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to save JFK and then
couldn't because he saw what would happen in the future if JFK stayed
alive in the cold war.  Since JFK was this man's idol, he thought the only
was to save JFK was to become him himself.  At the end of the episode
during the shooting, The man's body, not JFK's, was on the ambulance.

I'm not exactly sure if I got all that right.  Does anyone else remember
seeing this?
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| DONOVAN KRUGER                         <[e-mail]> |
| [phone]                            <[e-mail]> |
| ISD, State of North Dakota                                       |
| [phone]                                "Sting's The Thing" |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!reed!kuch
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Kuch)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:32:23 GMT
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Ernie's Elegiacal Emporium
Lines: 42

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donovan Kruger) writes:
>This reminds me of a show I saw in which someone went back in time as
>one of JFK's advisors and friends.  I think it was an Amazing Stories
>episode or such.  Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to save JFK and then
>couldn't because he saw what would happen in the future if JFK stayed
>alive in the cold war.  Since JFK was this man's idol, he thought the only
>was to save JFK was to become him himself.  At the end of the episode
>during the shooting, The man's body, not JFK's, was on the ambulance.
>
>I'm not exactly sure if I got all that right.  Does anyone else remember
>seeing this?

This was an episode of the new Twilight zone that aired in either the fall
of 1985 or the spring of 1986, if you're referring to the same show that I'm
thinking of.  I can't really remember how the set-up was for necessitating
Kennedy's death... I have a vague recollection that if JFK was saved,
Khruschev would be assassinated, thus leading to World War III in some
vaguely unspecified, but nonetheless horrible manner.  Thus, at the moment
of truth this guy and JFK switch places, and the story ends with JFK
lecturing to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard in 2239
or something...

There were a few really lame spots in this episode... for instance when LBJ
or one of the secret service men on Air Force One picks up a quarter that
the protagonist dropped and sees the 2200 minting date on it... shudder...
talk about a heavy-handed demonstration that this guy was from the future.


>+------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| DONOVAN KRUGER                         <[e-mail]> |
>| [phone]                            <[e-mail]> |
>| ISD, State of North Dakota                                       |
>| [phone]                                "Sting's The Thing" |
>+------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>


--
Jerry Kuch ([e-mail]) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!qualcom!elambert
From: [e-mail] (Eber Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <elambert.715550122@qualcom>
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:55:22 GMT
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: qualcom.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (Jerry Kuch) writes:

>There were a few really lame spots in this episode... for instance when LBJ
>or one of the secret service men on Air Force One picks up a quarter that
>the protagonist dropped and sees the 2200 minting date on it... shudder...
>talk about a heavy-handed demonstration that this guy was from the future.

Actually it was a Kennedy half dollar that the character from the future
had as a good luck piece or possibly to help prove himself when he made
the move to save JFK.

eel
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!decalod-85!jdahl
From: [e-mail] (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 21:35:39 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: decalod-85.rchland.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Rochester
Lines: 31

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Kuch) writes:
|>
|> This was an episode of the new Twilight zone that aired in either the fall
|> of 1985 or the spring of 1986, if you're referring to the same show that I'm
|> thinking of.  I can't really remember how the set-up was for necessitating
|> Kennedy's death... I have a vague recollection that if JFK was saved,
|> Khruschev would be assassinated, thus leading to World War III in some
|> vaguely unspecified, but nonetheless horrible manner.  Thus, at the moment
|> of truth this guy and JFK switch places, and the story ends with JFK
|> lecturing to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard in 2239
|> or something...

The man from the future was a college professor and descendant of Kennedy's
that went back in time to FILM the shooting and solve the controversy.  He
focuses his "future camcorder" on the TSBD (hahaha) to catch Oswald in the
act.  Just before Kennedy is killed, he yells and causes a commotion, and
Kennedy is saved.  At the end, Kennedy dissapears from the car and this guy
reappears in his place taking the bullets himself.  The Secret Service is
sworn to secrecy by a colleague from the future, hence the government
cover-up.

Sounds like the Warren Commission is into writing TV plots also.

Jared Dahl
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, |
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!watson!johniac.austin.ibm.com!john
From: [e-mail] (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Sender: @watson.ibm.com
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 22:57:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Iacoletti)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Marco) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Jared Dahl) writes:
|>
|> > |> I heard that Bellisaurio[sp] the producer is going to stick to
|> > |> the Warren Report.
|>
|> I heard the same. I also heard that Bellisaurio KNEW Oswald. (This I read
|> on GEnie in the ShowBiz RT...)

Bellisario was in the Marines, and remembers running into a nutcase
spouting off communist propoganda sometime in the late fifties.  He
didn't know the man's name until after JFK was assassinated, and he
recognized Oswald as being that guy.  The QL episode is indeed going
to stick to the WR (Bellisario is a staunch supporter of it), and JFK
will not be saved.  Sam will be so swallowed up by Oswald's assassin
persona that he will be unable to stop himself.

--
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: [e-mail]
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3149 alt.conspiracy:18164 sci.skeptic:30445
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!gatech!concert!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
From: [e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:19:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Triangle Computer Society
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> ...
>Oswald was only 20 when he went to the USSR, supposedly as a "CIA
>operative." That means that his alleged training must have taken
>place while he was literally a teenager.

... like his marine training and Russian language training, hmmm?
Or does the Marine Corp train teenagers as well?  If he was old enough
to be a marine, he was old enough to be recruited.

>
>Does anybody have the slightest REAL evidence that the CIA or other
>U.S. agencies have ever recruited and trained "teen agents," and sent
> ...

... since all such evidence MUST come from the CIA, ipso facto, if the
CIA say it didn't, there must not be any ...  get real!  Oswald
scored 50% on a Russian test while in Japan ...  why would
he know Russian if not in Intelcom work?

royc
uunet!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!concert!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
From: [e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:02:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Triangle Computer Society, RTP NC
Lines: 39

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> ...
>>>    I 've never known hunters
>>>    to use frangibles for anything other that target practice.
>
>>Your description of the characteristics of frangible ammunition fits
>>very well with the two head shot theory.
>
>    It might, if there was any evidence of an impact of frangiable
>    ammo in the x-rays. Unfortunately, there isn't, as Petty has
>    attested to. Further, nobody in their right mind would

...  if an assassin can be said to be in his/her right mind ...

>    intentionally use frangiables to try and kill someone.

Bunk.  An assassin will use a shell for maximum accuracy folowed by maximum
damage.  Frangibles cover this precisely.  Why else use a dumdum at all?

The term "frangible" is unfortunately used ambiguously to refer to multiple
types of ammunition:

    1)  Dumdums, or solid cones designed to fragment at impact
    2)  Hollow points, dsigned to spread at impact
    3)  Particulates designed to fragment and spread before/on impact
      for maximum damage
    4)  _Explosives_ designed to pop just after entry.

The only type of shell an assassin would _not_ be likely to use (other than
an ordinary shell) in a high energy rifle would be 3).  Since _no tests_
seem to have been done by the WC on the aspect of chemanalysis, 4) is a rather
open possibility.  Perhaps the reason the "neutron activation" tests were not
released is the availability of "footprint" in the trace signature
therein provided, relative to chemical composition analysis:  the presence of
an identifiable compound _not_ present in the ordinary "Carcano" scenario would
be rather embarrassing, wouldn't it?

royc
duke.edu!wolves.durham.nc.us!tcsrtp.uucp!royc
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!concert!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
From: [e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:21:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: uunet!duke.cs.duke.edu!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
Organization: Triangle Computer Society
Lines: 32

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> ....
>    How many Marine's medical records have you inspected, Bruce?


    Chuckle!   First TailHook; and now you have the temerity to
    suggest that the average Marine gets VD commonly in the
    Line of Duty!

    Oh, the Pentagon Chiefs of Staff  will love this!

    Gotta admit you have a balanced approach ...

    Are you for real?
>
>
>                                |
>                      \ | /
>                               \|/
>_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
>\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
>  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
>    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
>      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
>         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
>                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Your wings are lopsided too.
>


royc
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:27:17 GMT
Lines: 55

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

>5. Why were the bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt lower
>than the corresponding hole in JFK's upper back?

>6. Was there definite evidence of a bullet track running
>through and through JFK's body in this area?

>7. If so, in what direction did the bullet travel?

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

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

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

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

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

Using a scale map of Dealey Plaza, I have mapped out the corresponding
angles as they would have occurred in JFK's upper chest area.

Accordingly, if JFK's upper chest was 4.5 inches thick -- which is
ridiculously thin -- a bullet could have entered 1 3/8 inches to the
right of his spine and exitted from the centreline of his throat if
fired from the TSBD and JFK was looking straight ahead.

If JFK was looking to the right [which he was] or his
upper chest was thicker than 4.5 inches [it certainly was] then it
would have been impossible for such a bullet to enter and exit where
the WC and pro-WC supporters like Lattimer and Joel claim.
The bullet would certainly have exitted an inch or more to the *left*
of the centreline of JFK's throat.

If the angles are mapped out, it clearly points towards a building
closer to directly behind JFK as the firing point.

The Dal-Tex and the County Records Building fit such criteria.

Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

In light of the above facts Joel, please recount Lattimers explanation
for the *horizontal* angle through JFK's body in relation to the
supposed 6th floor snipers nest in the TSBD.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!msuinfo!eecae.ee.msu.edu!grimm
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Michael Grimm)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Michigan State University
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 06:26:46 GMT
Lines: 47

[e-mail] (James Price) writes:

>>
>>For those interested in Quantum Leap on NBC this fall, watch for the
>>season opener in a few weeks. (Date unknown). At the end of last season,
>>Sam Becket "leaps" into Lee Harvey Oswald's "body" just before his photo
>>was taken that morning in front of his house. (Who took that photo anyway,
>>mother, wife,...) I have no idea where the story line is heading, or who
>>is the technical advisor(s) are for this episode. Some of you may be
>>interested enough in the subject to click it on....I know I am. =)
>>

>  think of the possibilities!

>    Sam could save Kennedy! And he could save Oswald, both of them.
>Maybe even save Officer J. D. Tippit too, and Jackie's dress.
>what are the scenarios?

>   1) He can keep Kennedy from Being Murdered
>       a) as Oswald he fails to take any action to murder Kennedy
>       b) as Oswald he prevents some person(s) from murdering Kennedy

>   2) He cannot keep Kennedy from Being Murdered:
>       a) as Oswald he murders Kennedy
>       b) as Oswald he fails to stop some person(s) from murdering Kennedy

>    its troubling to consider that the show could let Kennedy live.
>It would have a hollow ring to it, if you ask me. But what a thought,
>the world that _could_ have been had not the shining knight been murdered,
>and trappings. No military-industrial porkbarrel (no 50K + 2M deaths in Nam),
>no Second Civil War, no Nixon, no LBJ, no Hoover, no '63 Overthrow!

>James
>Net: [e-mail]        "Justice is incidental to law and order."

Having read interviews with Don Bellasario, the show's exec. producer, it
will be that Sam cannot stop the assassination.

A curious note is that Bellesario and Oswald served in the same Marine unit
back in the '50s.  Bellesario has stated that the LHO he knew would've
shot Kennedy or any other American president if possible.

So, watch QL.  I certainly will.


Mike Grimm

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3154 alt.conspiracy:18170 alt.activism:32218 alt.society.civil-liberty:6005 alt.individualism:12598 alt.censorship:11511 talk.politics.misc:94080 misc.headlines:24133 soc.culture.usa:8286
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Part I, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:26:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 143


        I made the following transcript from a tape recording
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
GARY NULL:
There is criticism on the part of the media to opening up the
John F. Kennedy assassination to a new investigation. However,
there are individuals who are willing to challenge this stance.
They feel that there are more than enough reasons to open up
the Warren Commission findings and to take another look;
even to convene another impartial group of researchers and
investigators who have subpoena power; even a special prosecutor,
if necessary, to delve into this issue without the FBI and the
CIA being the ones who are primarily responsible for giving the
information, as some doubt has been raised concerning their
objectivity in the original Warren Commission hearings and
research-gathering.

Our first guest on today's program is Harold Weisberg, the
House Subcommitee on Assassinations investigator, the author
of a book on Lee Harvey Oswald and the post-mortem, the whitewash
and the frame-up. He has also written a book on the assassination
of Martin Luther King. Welcome to our program, Mr. Weisberg.
I would like you to give us your professional assessment of the
House Select Committee on Assassinations -- since you were a
primary investigator there -- on their findings, on the Warren
Commission, and on ....

HAROLD WEISBERG:
I had no connection with the House Committee. I was the source
for most of the stories that appeared that were critical of them.
It was a synthetic duplication of the Warren Commission. It began
with the intent (now, I'm not talking about each individual
member. I'm talking about the staff who did it; especially
Blakey, the general counsel and chief-of-staff) .... It began
with the intent of putting down all the critics. Each hearing
-- each public hearing -- began with what he called "the
narration", and he picked out the critics whose work he was
going to address, and then the hearing was dedicated to debunking
them and proving them wrong. And I'm happy to say that there's
only one critic he managed to avoid; and that's me. He wasn't
going to pick a fight with me.

All of their [the Committee's] work was faulted in varying
degrees of ways, but they NEVER investigated the crime itself.
In that, they did exactly what the FBI did, and exactly what
the Warren Commission did. They did NOT -- any one of them --
investigate the crime itself.

Now, I think you should know that, unlike the other books,
there are no theories in my book. I'm a former investigative
reporter, a Senate investigator, an intelligence analyst; and
that's not my bag. And I don't think that that's what the people
of the country need for the democratic system to work. They're
factual. Now, I'm going to quote, accurately from memory, a
record I got through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Perhaps it would help your audience to understand more about
where I'm coming from to say that I filed about a dozen Freedom
of Information Act lawsuits against the Government. Most of them
are on the Kennedy assassination. And most of the records I got
were from the FBI. In all, I have about a third of a million
pages of records. These are the same ones that Oliver Stone has
been promoting for himself in his movie by saying that they're
suppressed.

Now, from the Department of Justice and from the FBI I got a
record of a memorandum. Nicholas Katzenabach -- who was then
the Deputy Attorney-General of the United States and acting
Attorney-General as of the time in question, because Bobby
Kennedy was not there because of the crime and the tragedy.
He [Katzenbach] wrote Lyndon Johnson, through his [Johnson's]
channel, Bill Moyers, recommending to Lyndon Johnson that they
had to convince the country that Oswald was alone, that Oswald
was the assassin, that he had no confederates who were still
at-large, and that the evidence was such that he would be
convicted in trial. The typed copy is dated early Monday morning
the first working day after the assassination, November 25, 1963.
I also happen to have gotten Katzenbach's handwritten copy, which
he wrote when he had no typist available on Sunday. And from the
FBI I got a record which said that Katzenbach had discussed it
with [FBI Director] Hoover on Sunday, as soon as Oswald was killed.

So as soon as the Government knew that there would be no trial of
Lee Harvey Oswald, they closed the books, the crime was solved, and
that was it. So you see, when the crime itself was never
investigated, there are no leads for other people to follow. And I
address this so that your audience can understand that those
people, who develop theories and advance them as solutions, do it
without a factual basis. I don't know of any theory that is
factually supportable by the known evidence. And now I'm talking
about the official investigative reports of the FBI and things
like that which do establish some fact.

GARY NULL:
Okay, we thank you very much, Mr. Weisberg, for sharing your
views and for giving us this insight on this important piece of
critical information. I appreciate your being on with us today.
Let's go now to another guest who is standing by, who has a
different point of view, and who has additional information.
I would like to invite Jim Marrs [author of CROSSFIRE] onto our
program again. Welcome to our program, Jim.

I'd like to pick up where we left off yesterday. For those of you
who were not here yesterday and who didn't hear the program, we did
a careful assessment, going step-by-step through the events that
led up to the actual shooting, showing that the American Public
has never been made aware of the fact that earlier in the day, in
Fort Worth, there was also a motorcade for President Kennedy, but
that motorcade was substantially different. It was VERY very
heavily guarded, on proper protocol, by the Secret Service. And the
police were maintained, meaning that sharpshooters were stationed on
rooftops, no window was allowed to be opened, there was adequate
protection. But all of that was suspended at Dealey Plaza and for
the trip through Dallas. WHY?  WHO was responsible?  Who caused
the rescinding of these orders? Those are questions that have to
be thoroughly analyzed.

I would like just a brief summary of some of the points from
yesterday -- an overview of some of the discrepancies between
what we have been led to believe and what actually occurred.
Then I would like to go into the area that our previous guest,
Mr. Harold Weisberg has suggested  -- that there is NO evidence
to support any of the assassination theories. I would like you to
give us YOUR information, your belief, and whatever documentation
you have that could, in any way, directly or indirectly, tie in
any of a number of proposed agendas such as the renegade CIA
agents, the knowledge that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover could
have known or may have known in advance that the assassination
was imminent, certain right-wing extremists, certain members of
the military, and also members of Organized Crime, and some
anti-Castro Cubans.

Now, all of these have been alleged -- depending upon the theorist
-- to have participated. But you have some unique insights and
and I would like you to share with us some of those insights at
this time.
                        (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
    Transcribed by John DiNardo
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 4 Sep 1992 02:01:45 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald's Motive?
References:  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 82

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jack Field)
says:
>
>One of the things virtually no one has ever been able to determine was
>Oswald's motive for assassinating JFK.  In this book, Mr. Brown speculates
>the opposite.
> If Oswald was truly a disgruntled Communist as the Warren Report would like
>everyone to believe (although in Oswald's own words, he was a Marxist not a
>Communist), it would be to Oswald's advantage to keep JFK alive not to kill
>him.  JFK already had a reputation of being "soft" on communism; the Berlin
>Wall crises, arms agreement with USSR, Bay of Pigs incident, etc.  Since JFK
>had publicly stated the plan to withdraw 1,000 advisors from Viet Nam by the
>end of 1963 and privately stated he wanted the US completely out by 1965 and
>if we follow the predominate belief of the period that if we did pull
> out all of Southeast Asia would fall to the Communist.
The whole idea of a Communist sympathizer killing Kennedy for political
>purposes is absurd.
>
Nice exposition on the book, Jack.  I've been hearing about this book for
several days now and will hunt it down.
The idea of LHO as a commie sympathizer inflamed into a fever dream of
killing JFK for essentially political purposes is not as absurd as it is
portrayed here.  An author, Jean Davison, wrote a book in 1983 called
"Oswald's Game" in where she proposes that LHO indentified with Castro as
a Marxist rebel, as opposed to the Soviet bureaucrat he found in Russia, and
was inflamed by radio and newspaper accounts of Castro accusing the U.S.
of plots to kill him, also mentioning that they could stand a dose of their
own medicine.  According to Davison, this pivotal exposure was enough to
send LHO on to his fateful destiny.
By ignoring many, many other incongruities in this case and just focusing
on LHO's possible motive, her contention is well covered in her work and
can't be ignored.  But as with all speculation around this case, it is not
with out problems.
Paul Hoch, in his EOC, has pointed out that if we are to follow Davison's
path and take a close look at what LHO was reading and being influenced by
we can also look at the articles in the Daily Worker which LHO subscribed to
which had several writers analyzing the Cuban problem in a way that
emphatically was sympathetic to JFK and his stances towards Cuba/Castro.
The writers go out of their way to enlist their readers to support JFK's
more moderate stances over the hard core right which was openly calling
for another invasion.  Just what portion of what LHO was reading should we
rely upon for evidence of motive?
Though we can't ignore Davison's thesis and she presents it well, Hoch has
revealed the tenuousness of it's core connection.  With out further support
from others at the scene, this core contention is just as plausible as any
of its opposing contenders.

But further thought should also pluck more substance from such a speculation.
If LHO was caught up in some fever dream of being a Marxist rebel hero
killing the leader of the Capitalist world, then I would expect this
behavior of his to be present through all of his travails before he was
cut down by Ruby.  One could plausibly expect LHO to plan his assassination
in such a way as to get away with it without being caught.  The WC version
of LHO is not bereft of some cunning.  But once he was caught and such
items as the rifle was connected to him, I would expect him to follow others
who were of the same mold and scream "Death to all tyrants" or some such
from his cell.  One can't be a Marxist hero unless the world knows one's
Marxist deeds.  Doesn't this fit better the WC profile of LHO?  Isn't it
evident that the WC was befuddled on the question of motive precisely
because he doesn't fit this mold?
There are also numerous problems with LHO as a dyed in the wool Marxist
as presented in the WC profile.  For someone who has all these scenes of
obvious communist sympathies, LHO is seen hanging around with the wrong
type of people.  And beyond this, what I have personnally found absent in
both pro and anti-WC writer/researchers is the other side of the coin.
Why isn't there more substantial connections to leftist organizations in
the Dallas and New Orleans areas?  I have interviewed persons who were
active in the leftist movements of those times, in those areas and they
were always amazed that no one, and that's an absolutely no one, could
remember anyone who had any contact with LHO.  With all his posturing such
as his passing out leaflets, he never made any move to contact those who
would have gladly been out there with him on the pavement.  When critics
paint these posturings as phony attempts to fix LHO's public mask, they
have a lot of weight behind these contentions.
No, this aspect of motive is an enigma as long as one tries to continue
to keep the illusion of LHO as a lone nut assassin.  As soon as one
frees up one's mind to other possibilities and admits that this angle of
motive is weak, other scenarios of LHO as a patsy or part of a conspiracy
left holdiing the bag becomes much stronger as a key to tie many of the
strange and baffling pieces together into scenarios that hold up better
under close scrutiny.
ALAN ROGERS
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!ibmarc!dsteele.almaden.ibm.com!dave
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: "Libra"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:23:22 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Lines: 14
Nntp-Posting-Host: dsteele.almaden.ibm.com


   I highly recommend  the novel "Libra" by Delillo.

   It is an extremely well written fictional account of
   the JFK assassination but the author has obviously
   done a lot of research as many of you readers have
   been doing. I think the book could be of interest
   to both camps as there is some ambiguity as to how
   how effective the conspiracy elements are.


             Dave [e-mail]


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Explosive Bullets (was: How easy was the rifle shot?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:50:35 GMT
Lines: 29

[e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:

>The term "frangible" is unfortunately used ambiguously to refer to multiple
>types of ammunition:

>    1)  Dumdums, or solid cones designed to fragment at impact
>    2)  Hollow points, dsigned to spread at impact
>    3)  Particulates designed to fragment and spread before/on impact
>      for maximum damage
>    4)  _Explosives_ designed to pop just after entry.

>The only type of shell an assassin would _not_ be likely to use (other than
>an ordinary shell) in a high energy rifle would be 3).  Since _no tests_
>seem to have been done by the WC on the aspect of chemanalysis, 4) is a rather
>open possibility.  Perhaps the reason the "neutron activation" tests were not
>released is the availability of "footprint" in the trace signature
>therein provided, relative to chemical composition analysis:  the presence of
>an identifiable compound _not_ present in the ordinary "Carcano"
>scenario would be rather embarrassing, wouldn't it?

In Dr Guinn's NAA testing, he found elements not normally associated
with Mannlicher-Carcan ammunition.

In addition to Lead, Silver, and Antimony, he found Sodium , Chlorine,
and Aluminum. Would these 'extra' elements point to an explosive
bullet?



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!caen!batcomputer!reed!kuch
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Kuch)
Subject: Re: Explosive Bullets (was: How easy was the rifle shot?)
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Wilbur's Wacky Weasel World
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:31:15 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 37

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:
>
>>The term "frangible" is unfortunately used ambiguously to refer to multiple
>>types of ammunition:
>
>>    1)  Dumdums, or solid cones designed to fragment at impact
>>    2)  Hollow points, dsigned to spread at impact
>>    3)  Particulates designed to fragment and spread before/on impact
>>      for maximum damage
>>    4)  _Explosives_ designed to pop just after entry.
>
>>The only type of shell an assassin would _not_ be likely to use (other than
>>an ordinary shell) in a high energy rifle would be 3).  Since _no tests_
>>seem to have been done by the WC on the aspect of chemanalysis, 4) is a rather
>>open possibility.  Perhaps the reason the "neutron activation" tests were not
>>released is the availability of "footprint" in the trace signature
>>therein provided, relative to chemical composition analysis:  the presence of
>>an identifiable compound _not_ present in the ordinary "Carcano"
>>scenario would be rather embarrassing, wouldn't it?
>
>In Dr Guinn's NAA testing, he found elements not normally associated
>with Mannlicher-Carcan ammunition.
>
>In addition to Lead, Silver, and Antimony, he found Sodium , Chlorine,
>and Aluminum. Would these 'extra' elements point to an explosive
>bullet?
>

So, uhhh, which bullet are you talking about here?  CE399, or one of the
Connally, Kennedy or limo fragments?

--
Jerry Kuch ([e-mail]) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!utcsri!turing.toronto.edu!bill
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: [e-mail] (Bill Monhemius)
Subject: David Lifton's Book - anyone read it?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:06:50 GMT
Lines: 34

I'm currently reading David Lifton's book BEST EVIDENCE.  Has anyone read this
book and have any comments?

I find his theory that both the Parkland and Bethesda autopsies could be
legitimate if the body was altered in transit very interesting.  Furthermore,
I find the opinion that the Warren Commission would deliberately falsify
evidence to cover up a conspiracy hard to believe.

What Lifton describes is the legal concept of 'best evidence' where evidence is
prioritized and thus, contrary evidence that is not well substantiated is
discarded.  I'm not saying I agree with this concept but this is probably what
happened with the Warren Commission - they decided that the Bethesda report was
the best evidence and that eye-witness reports of a grassy-knoll gun-man were
unreliable.  This happens all the time in courts - lawyers are not paid to look
for the real truth, they're looking for a 'legal' truth that they can convince
a jury of.

I recommend the book.  It has a more personal style than most JFK books out
there.  The author spent about 15 years of his life to his research.

-Bill

--
+-------------------------------------------------+
|* * * * * *|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| * * * * * |            Bill Monhemius           |
|* * * * * *|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| * * * * * |            [e-mail]  |
+-----------+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|                        University of Toronto    |
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|                        Turing Language Group    |
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
+-------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!utcsri!skule.ecf!epas!pgiltner
From: [e-mail] (Philip W. Giltner Jr.)
Subject: the real answer
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:17:12 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET)
Nntp-Posting-Host: epas.utoronto.ca
Lines: 5

Consider: 22 November was Charles de Gaulle's birthday. A coincidence?
I think not!



Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!ames!network.ucsd.edu!cs!mark
From: [e-mail] (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: David Lifton's Book - anyone read it?
Date: 4 Sep 1992 21:52:26 GMT
Organization: W.A.S.T.E.
Lines: 52
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: beowulf.ucsd.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Monhemius) writes:
>I'm currently reading David Lifton's book BEST EVIDENCE.  Has anyone read this
>book and have any comments?
>
> ...
>
>I recommend the book.  It has a more personal style than most JFK books out
>there.  The author spent about 15 years of his life to his research.
>

I thought it was a great book, mostly because it was a story of Lifton
and his journey into the world of assination research.  After reading
the book, I went and looked up some reviews of the book when it was
first published.  Although reviews were unable to accept the conclusions
of the book, most found the quality of research to be noteworthy.

David Lifton was recently doing a book signing tour that stopped
by a local bookstore.  I stopped by and chatted with him for awhile.
I signed up for his mailing list and got a copy of "BE Newsletter".

He is working on book about Oswald, written in much the same style
as Best Evidence.

I've not bought any of the products below and can not comment on
their quality.  I did see the Best Evidence Video at a local
Video Store, but have yet to rent it.

mark

-------- from the "BE Newsletter" put out by lifton.

It is distributed by B.E. Video
11500 W. Olympic Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angles CA 90064
[phone]

Lifton is working on two manuscripts, the sequel
to best evidence and a book on oswald.

The Video company sells the following products
BEST EVIDENCE: THE RESEARCH VIDEO @$14.95 (35 mins)
autographed copies of Best Evidence @13.95
Copies of the Zapruder Film @$29.95 (13 mins)
KRON-TV PROGRAM TV documentary @$29.95 (50mins)
The appearences on HARDCOPY @$29.95 (35 mins)
TV's Current Affair episonde @$29.95 (56 mins)
HARDCOPY shows (3) on Oswald @29.95 (32mins)

Shipping and Handling $2.50 first item, $1.00
for each additional item.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: trajectories
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  4 SEP 92 17:51:48 PDT
Lines: 96


re: _Best Evidence_

Harrison Livingstone does a pretty good number on Lifton's
daffy theory in HTII.

re: 3174  (Bruce Schuck)


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

    Er, what do you mean by "deliberately"?  Do you mean
    something like: Lattimer believed the horizontal
    angle proved the bullet couldn't have come from
    the SE corner, 6th floor, TSBD - and "deliberately"
    withheld the information?  If you believe Lattimer
    did this, kindly present the evidence to support
    this claim?  If not, then, what exactly is your
    point?

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

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

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

    And the HSCA says it was 26 degrees, based on a shot
    at frame 190.  I believe the angle was somewhat larger,
    as it seems quite clear that the first bullet struck
    JFK around frame 220.

    Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of all trajectory
    analysis of the shot that hit JFK in the upper back,
    because no one knows precisely where the car was or
    what position JFK was in at the precise moment of
    impact.  If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
    about a difference of a couple of inches out of
    150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
    of a pin" territory.

>Using a scale map of Dealey Plaza, I have mapped out the corresponding
>angles as they would have occurred in JFK's upper chest area.

>Accordingly, if JFK's upper chest was 4.5 inches thick -- which is
>ridiculously thin -- a bullet could have entered 1 3/8 inches to the
>right of his spine and exitted from the centreline of his throat if
>fired from the TSBD and JFK was looking straight ahead.

>If JFK was looking to the right [which he was] or his
>upper chest was thicker than 4.5 inches [it certainly was] then it
>would have been impossible for such a bullet to enter and exit where
>the WC and pro-WC supporters like Lattimer and Joel claim.
>The bullet would certainly have exitted an inch or more to the *left*
>of the centreline of JFK's throat.

>If the angles are mapped out, it clearly points towards a building
>closer to directly behind JFK as the firing point.

>The Dal-Tex and the County Records Building fit such criteria.

    Interestingly, no one saw any rifles being fired from
    those buildings, no one recovered any rifles from
    those buildings, and no bullets or bullet fragments
    matching any rifle but LHO's were ever recovered.

    Anyway, what the angles were depends entirely upon
    when you believe the shot was fired.  And, as I say,
    I have doubts that any of the precise analysis done
    can possibly be proved to be 100% accurate.

>Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
>the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
>low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

>In light of the above facts Joel, please recount Lattimers explanation
>for the *horizontal* angle through JFK's body in relation to the
>supposed 6th floor snipers nest in the TSBD.

    Lattimer doesn't address the horizontal angle.  My guess
    is that because both CE399 and the limo fragments came
    from LHO's gun, because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
    a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,
    TSBD, there was no reason for him to do any independent
    testing on this matter.

    As for the matter of the vertical trajectory, in my opinion
    Lattimer was off.  But that's getting ahead of the story.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: Lattimer, part two
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  4 SEP 92 17:58:52 PDT
Lines: 38


In the interest of completeness (and anticipating cries of
cover up!) I'll present all of Lattimer's conclusions, even
though his evaluation of the medical and ballistic evidence
per se is by far the most interesting.

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

Lattimer's conclusion: "Humes did not know it at the time,
but all these photographs and X-rays were commandeered during
the autopsy and taken away by Treasury Department agents
before the pictures could be developed.  This was done to
avoid the shocking effect they would have on the public if
they were exploited, and particularly on members of the family if
they were forced to see these photographs of the bloody remains
of their relative's head displayed in lurid bookstore windows.
While this quest for privacy was certainly understandable and
legitimate, to deprive the autopsy team of the benefit of the
photographs andparticularly the X-rays on which they would depend so
heavily made it impossible for Humes and Boswell to assemble the accurate
report they had planned to make.  This led to an avalanche of
criticism [at the time, I was one of the small critical rocks -
jg] of the entire post-mortem examination, which was to
continue for several years, until the family finally relented
and permitted the photographs to be developed and then to be
inspected by a panel of experts."  [The Clark Panel, jg]

In some ways, Dr. Lattimer was utterly naive...

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: trajectories
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:05:46 GMT
Lines: 116

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

>re: 3174  (Bruce Schuck)


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

>    Er, what do you mean by "deliberately"?  Do you mean
>    something like: Lattimer believed the horizontal
>    angle proved the bullet couldn't have come from
>    the SE corner, 6th floor, TSBD - and "deliberately"
>    withheld the information?  If you believe Lattimer
>    did this, kindly present the evidence to support
>    this claim?  If not, then, what exactly is your
>    point?

He 'deliberately' left it out or he 'deliberately' didn't analyze
the physical evidence available to him.
In either case, it completely invalidates his other claims.

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

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

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

>    And the HSCA says it was 26 degrees, based on a shot
>    at frame 190.  I believe the angle was somewhat larger,
>    as it seems quite clear that the first bullet struck
>    JFK around frame 220.

>    Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of all trajectory
>    analysis of the shot that hit JFK in the upper back,
>    because no one knows precisely where the car was or
>    what position JFK was in at the precise moment of
>    impact.  If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
>    about a difference of a couple of inches out of
>    150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
>    of a pin" territory.

Of course you are skeptical, because analysis of the horizontal
angle completely disproves the possibility of JFK being shot
in the back from the TSBD 6th floor window.

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

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

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

>>If the angles are mapped out, it clearly points towards a building
>>closer to directly behind JFK as the firing point.

>>The Dal-Tex and the County Records Building fit such criteria.

>    Interestingly, no one saw any rifles being fired from
>    those buildings, no one recovered any rifles from
>    those buildings, and no bullets or bullet fragments
>    matching any rifle but LHO's were ever recovered.

Nobody saw any rifles being fired from the TSBD either.
A shell casing was found on the roof of the County Records
Building many years later.
The grooves in the sidewalk alongside Elm, made by a bullet,
point back towards the Dal-Tex, not the TSBD.

>
>    Anyway, what the angles were depends entirely upon
>    when you believe the shot was fired.  And, as I say,
>    I have doubts that any of the precise analysis done
>    can possibly be proved to be 100% accurate.

I picked the shallowest angle possible. If the bullet was
fired earlier, it would have exitted even *further* to the left.

>>Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
>>the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
>>low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

>>In light of the above facts Joel, please recount Lattimers explanation
>>for the *horizontal* angle through JFK's body in relation to the
>>supposed 6th floor snipers nest in the TSBD.

>    Lattimer doesn't address the horizontal angle.  My guess
>    is that because both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>    from LHO's gun, because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>    a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,

Bzzzzztttt. *Nobody* saw a rifle fired from the 6th floor of the
TSBD. Some witnesses saw a rifle in the window. *None* saw it fired.

>    TSBD, there was no reason for him to do any independent
>    testing on this matter.

Wrong. If this was analysis of the assasination, he should have
analyzed all possibilities. What Lattimer really did was set up
all his testing to prove Oswald did it. *None* of his testing
tried to disprove Oswalds involvement.




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Explosive Bullets (was: How easy was the rifle shot?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:23:09 GMT
Lines: 44

[e-mail] (Jerry Kuch) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>[e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:
>>
>>>The term "frangible" is unfortunately used ambiguously to refer to multiple
>>>types of ammunition:
>>
>>>    1)  Dumdums, or solid cones designed to fragment at impact
>>>    2)  Hollow points, dsigned to spread at impact
>>>    3)  Particulates designed to fragment and spread before/on impact
>>>      for maximum damage
>>>    4)  _Explosives_ designed to pop just after entry.
>>
>>>The only type of shell an assassin would _not_ be likely to use (other than
>>>an ordinary shell) in a high energy rifle would be 3).  Since _no tests_
>>>seem to have been done by the WC on the aspect of chemanalysis, 4) is a rather
>>>open possibility.  Perhaps the reason the "neutron activation" tests were not
>>>released is the availability of "footprint" in the trace signature
>>>therein provided, relative to chemical composition analysis:  the presence of
>>>an identifiable compound _not_ present in the ordinary "Carcano"
>>>scenario would be rather embarrassing, wouldn't it?
>>
>>In Dr Guinn's NAA testing, he found elements not normally associated
>>with Mannlicher-Carcan ammunition.
>>
>>In addition to Lead, Silver, and Antimony, he found Sodium , Chlorine,
>>and Aluminum. Would these 'extra' elements point to an explosive
>>bullet?
>>

>So, uhhh, which bullet are you talking about here?  CE399, or one of the
>Connally, Kennedy or limo fragments?

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

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

I don't have the JFK head fragment results in front of me.
The HSCA vol 1 had to go back to the library at the end of
the semester.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!reed!kuch
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Kuch)
Subject: Re: Explosive Bullets (was: How easy was the rifle shot?)
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: OoogaNooga's Self Nullifying Cubicle
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:15:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Jerry Kuch) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:
>>>
>>>>The term "frangible" is unfortunately used ambiguously to refer to multiple
>>>>types of ammunition:
>>>
>>>>    1)  Dumdums, or solid cones designed to fragment at impact
>>>>    2)  Hollow points, dsigned to spread at impact
>>>>    3)  Particulates designed to fragment and spread before/on impact
>>>>      for maximum damage
>>>>    4)  _Explosives_ designed to pop just after entry.
>>>
>>>>The only type of shell an assassin would _not_ be likely to use (other than
>>>>an ordinary shell) in a high energy rifle would be 3).  Since _no tests_
>>>>seem to have been done by the WC on the aspect of chemanalysis, 4) is a rather
>>>>open possibility.  Perhaps the reason the "neutron activation" tests were not
>>>>released is the availability of "footprint" in the trace signature
>>>>therein provided, relative to chemical composition analysis:  the presence of
>>>>an identifiable compound _not_ present in the ordinary "Carcano"
>>>>scenario would be rather embarrassing, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>>In Dr Guinn's NAA testing, he found elements not normally associated
>>>with Mannlicher-Carcan ammunition.
>>>
>>>In addition to Lead, Silver, and Antimony, he found Sodium , Chlorine,
>>>and Aluminum. Would these 'extra' elements point to an explosive
>>>bullet?
>>>
>
>>So, uhhh, which bullet are you talking about here?  CE399, or one of the
>>Connally, Kennedy or limo fragments?
>
>The data I have in front of me concerns the difference between
>CE399 and the Connally wrist fragment.
>
>The wrist fragment contained 25% more silver, 850% more copper,
>2400% more Sodium, and 1100% more chlorine than CE399. It also
>contained 8.1 ppm aluminum while CE399 contained none.

Is this the HSCA data?  What's the deal with the Sodium and chlorine?

>I don't have the JFK head fragment results in front of me.
>The HSCA vol 1 had to go back to the library at the end of
>the semester.

The SFU library had the HSCA volumes?  Impressive....

--
Jerry Kuch ([e-mail]) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!concert!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
From: [e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:18:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Triangle Computer Society
Lines: 162

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> ...
>>    Oh, god, TailHook, and now you suggest that the average Marine
>>    commonly gets VD "in the line of duty" ...
>
>    For the record, I never said that Oswald got VD directly in

    Of course not!  Then you would have made a direct statement
    about what occured, instead of sliding off into digressiopn
    about possible alternative substantive interpretations ...
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            (heavy sarcasm)

>    the line of duty. That's Bruce and Dave's work. I said that

    Wups!  Try again!

>    the LoD tag could have easily been added as a small favor to

    You are unfortunately ENTIRELY correct; please note that this
    substantiates the line of reasoning that

        CORRUPTION

    is more a matter of established precedent ni the US military
    as well as CIA ...

        unless of course you wish to presume to state that
        Cheney's remark in re TailHook

            and official DoD policy

    are so much fancy words intended to BS (beg slime) the public?

    Or do you wear your wings where the Navy flyboys did:
        centrally located, with wingtips at the hands.


    For the audience:  please note this guys continual digression
    into argumentative irrelevance.  It is a standard disinformation
    practice.  Fall into it, and half the battle is his.

        If the a.c.jfk groupo wants to _progress_
        toward resolving the open issues present
        surounding the assassination, the best thing to do
        is simply ignore this type of BO

        WHich I will do (totally, Mr. Todd)  after this
        posting ...

            unless you come up with something relevant

                for a change

>     Oswald, or for some procedural reason (the latter seems likelier
>    and likelier as I look into the matter more).
>
>    The point in question is whether the "line of duty" tag is
>    as anomalous as Bruce, Dave, and their host claim. I've
>    not posted the most probable reason for the LoD tag, because
>    Bruce is going to say that I'm lying again, rather than
>    any substantiative refutation, and I'm getting tired of that.

    Garbage.  You haven't got the balls to continually lay it on
    the line.  "I'm hurt and I won't play with any more ..."

    You know every time you post unpopular reasoning

        or incorrect or specious or prevaricative etc.

    here in this group you ARE going to get hit, so its pure

        obfuscative blustering hypocritical BS

    to assert you are tired of it.  If you were you'ld SHUT UP

        asnd leave the group

    or would have emailed back to me instead of posting.

    But your purpose here is NOT to clarify, is it?  Hmm?

>    However, I note that someone else has posted it for me.
>
>
>>    A real balanced argument there ...
>
>    What is a balanced argument? As I'e noted, Bruce and Dave are

    YOu actually do know ... and will not admit it ...
    because that would mean objective "full coverage"
    criteria would then be applied against the ratiocinale structure

        which any properly trained high school student can follow

        which you do not use nor advocate ...

>    the two people who claim that Oswald's medical record is
>    exceptional, and can only be taken as evidence that Oswald
>    was a spy. They have noted the "VD in the line of duty" note

    Misquoting again, Todd?

>    in the medical record; however, they have been entirely
> ..
>
>    I haven't flown in a long time. Suffice to say that I did it
>    well.

    Ah.  Substantiate that ....  as you so ably say to other
    folks.

        ... and I am sorry (truly) that you haven't flown in a
        long time.  As I have not flown at all (ly loss),
        but with a father who has, I wish you well in that
        arena.

        But when you lie through digressional disinformation tactics,

            we notice ....

>
>    The .sig is not meant to be symmetrical. Partly, this is so I
>    can maximize the amount of space where the fancy saying
>    goes, but mostly it's a compositional consideration.
>    A totally symmetrical pair of wings would look static
>    and boring, not a bit unlike you.

    Oh thank you!  When discussing "logical" reasoning, a creatuve
    speaker is the last thing desired.

    Chuckle.  Bothersome to have people poke _Accurate_ fingers
    at tin plated Gods like the WC? ...

    Audience:  note the argument ad hominem again.  I point to
    deliberate gaps in his reasoning process and he starts the name
    calling.

    I hope our military officer corp (you are one?) has a better
    approach than yours ...

        or TailHook will stay the norm ...

>
>
>                                |
>                      \ | /
>                               \|/
>_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
>\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
>  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
>    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
>      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
>         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
>                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
>


....  wastes bandwidth ....

royc
uunet!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!uunet.ca!canrem!dosgate![[e-mail]]
From: "davidr turner" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: quantum leap (nbc)
Message-ID: <1992Sep6.306.3770@dosgate>
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:50:28 EST
Reply-To: "davidr turner" <[e-mail]>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Lines: 42

       on 06-09-92 in the  U-ALTCONSP conference
       regarding ' QUANTUM LEAP (NBC) SAM LE '

       JERRY KUCH wrote...

JK>·  Newsgroup: alt.conspiracy.jfk
JK>· Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
JK>·    Subject: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald

JK>In article <20116#plains.NoDak.edu> [e-mail] (Donovan Kruger)
JK>tes:
JK>>This reminds me of a show I saw in which someone went back in time as
JK>>one of JFK's advisors and friends.  I think it was an Amazing Stories
JK>>episode or such.  Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to save JFK and then
JK>>couldn't because he saw what would happen in the future if JFK stayed
JK>>alive in the cold war.  Since JFK was this man's idol, he thought the only
JK>>was to save JFK was to become him himself.  At the end of the episode
JK>>during the shooting, The man's body, not JFK's, was on the ambulance.

As mentioned by others, it was the Twilight Zone.
The guy who went back was a teacher, and adescendant of JFK.  He was
doing a study of the man.  He went back in time to Dallas to witness the
event, and at the last minute, got so concerned, he yelled out, thus
saving JFK's life.

Somehow (I don't recall), the Secret Service grabbed him & brought him
to JFK's attention later.  JFK then asked him to come with him on the
rest of the Dallas trip.

Later, JFK suspects that something odd is going on, and the teacher
confesses the truth.  JFK figures he was supposed to die, and so, we
then watch the next day as 'JFK' is assassinated in Dallas.

The show ends with JFK teaching in the future, and we then realize that
the teacher had switched places with him in the car.

Later...

 * SLMR 2.1a * Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Explosive Bullets (was: How easy was the rifle shot?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:02:29 GMT
Lines: 36

Jerry Kuch writes: >>> & >
Bruce Schuck (me) >>

>>
>>>So, uhhh, which bullet are you talking about here?  CE399, or one of the
>>>Connally, Kennedy or limo fragments?
>>
>>The data I have in front of me concerns the difference between
>>CE399 and the Connally wrist fragment.
>>
>>The wrist fragment contained 25% more silver, 850% more copper,
>>2400% more Sodium, and 1100% more chlorine than CE399. It also
>>contained 8.1 ppm aluminum while CE399 contained none.

>Is this the HSCA data?

It's from Guinn's paper in HSCA vol 1 .
I'm using Kurtz's "Crime of the Century" as a source because I have
photocopies of those pages.
I've seen Guinn's paper and the percentages correspond.

>What's the deal with the Sodium and chlorine?

Darn good quuestion. All I know is the figures prove to *me*
that CE399 didn't leave fragments behind in John Connallys wrist.
The fragments must have come from some other bullet.

>>I don't have the JFK head fragment results in front of me.
>>The HSCA vol 1 had to go back to the library at the end of
>>the semester.

>The SFU library had the HSCA volumes?  Impressive....

It actually had a good JFK assassination collection. Maybe one
of the librarians was/is a buff. It also has the full Warren Hearings.

Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3170 alt.conspiracy:18194
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!network.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!cc.newcastle.edu.au!ccasm
From: [e-mail]
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 28
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:57:59 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roy Andrew
Crabtree) writes
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>> ...
>>Oswald was only 20 when he went to the USSR, supposedly as a "CIA
>>operative." That means that his alleged training must have taken
>>place while he was literally a teenager.
>
> ... like his marine training and Russian language training, hmmm?
> Or does the Marine Corp train teenagers as well?  If he was old enough
> to be a marine, he was old enough to be recruited.
>
>>
>>Does anybody have the slightest REAL evidence that the CIA or other
>>U.S. agencies have ever recruited and trained "teen agents," and sent
>> ...
>
> ... since all such evidence MUST come from the CIA, ipso facto, if the
> CIA say it didn't, there must not be any ...  get real!  Oswald
> scored 50% on a Russian test while in Japan ...  why would
> he know Russian if not in Intelcom work?
>
> royc

What else do you know of Oswald's background? When and why was he in Japan?

Big Al.

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Message archives
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Sep 92 06:08:00 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 7

I just need to know if anyone is keeping archival copies of
messages on this conference.  I was, but they were recently
destroyed.  If anyone has the last month's messages, please
send me a private reply.

Thanks,
- Mark
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald's Paraffin Test
Keywords: JFK Oswald Assassination Paraffin
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:19:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Field) writes:
|The following is from Mark Lane's book Rush To Judgement concering Oswald's
|paraffin test which the Dallas police administered.  Any errors are just simply
|typos, I did the best I could transcribing this section.
|
|PARAFFIN TEST
|
|RUSH TO JUDGMENT by Mark Lane, 1966

|The only test finding indicative of guilt is a positive result for one hand, a
|negative result for the other and - in the case of a rifle - a positive result
|on the fact.

Can anyone back UP Lane's charge here? Seems reasonable.

|kTests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek.  Dr.
|Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general atomic
|division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the paraffin
|cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission.  Dr. Guinn said
|that he and his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of the
|powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also
|come back'.  They decided 'to try looking for elements by putting the wax
|impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor'.  Guinn said he had
|informed the FBI that it would be worthwhile to utilize 'activation analysis'
|because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.
|
|'We bought a similar rifle from the same gun shop as Oswald and conducted two
|parallel tests,' Guinn said.  'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions'.
|The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of
|radioactivity 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both
|hands and both cheeks.  Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them
|in a nuclear reactor'.  Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about
|Oswald because it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission
|Report.'
|
|The secret has indeed survived publication of the Report.  The Commission,
|evidently differing with its own authority, stated only that it was 'impossible
|to attach significance' to the radioactive response to Oswald's paraffin casts.
| The Commission, which gave much space to the results of tests conducted with a
|pistol prior to the assassination, refused to inform its readers of the results
|of tests performed after the assassination with an Italian carbine identical to
|the so-called assassination rifle.  Although Dr. Guinn worked closely with the
|FBI on behalf of the Commission, was entrusted with the precious paraffin casts
|by the Commission and submitted his findings to the Commission, there is no
|reference to his name in the Report.


This stuff is very interesting.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:22:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


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

|>... Forms and regulations are designed to
|>give information. If the form says he got VD in the line of duty, then
|>I imagine, untill told otherwise, that that is correct.
|
|Actually, Line-of-Duty investigations aren't that accurate.  Any time
|there is an accident with injury, an LOD investigation is required.  If
|the finding is Not in the Line of Duty, punishment of some kind is
|usually administered,

What? What about if he is on leave for a weekend?
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:36:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 52
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|In the past we have discussed some aspects of Dr. John K. Lattimer's
|analysis of the medical and ballistics evidence of the assassination.
|But it has been sporadic and un-systematic.

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


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

Lattimer is a goof ball.

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

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

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

Are you saying that that the JFK case should be decided by experts?
That is too bad, since few people are experts. The overiding consensus
of the testimony of the individuals invovled point to the fact that
the Xrays and Photos are not accurate. Note that one expert, Groden,
did *not* find that the xrays and photos were originals, and claimed
that they are fakes.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: trajectories
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:46:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:
|
|re: _Best Evidence_
|
|Harrison Livingstone does a pretty good number on Lifton's
|daffy theory in HTII.

Just a note on this. H. Livingstone does a very *bad* job on
everything in HTII. Note that when he talks to witnesses he does not
recognize, for the most part, that he is leading them, and tries to
bargain with the Dallas people to give them their dignity in exchange
for interview time.

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Lattimer, part two
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:48:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:
|
...
|1. "Why had the X-rays and photographs been taken away from
|the doctors who did the autopsy before they had a chance to
|use them to document their findings as they had expected to
|do?  There was no doubt that this withholding had added to the
|questions and to the shortcomings of the Warren Commission
|report."
|
|Lattimer's conclusion: "Humes did not know it at the time,
|but all these photographs and X-rays were commandeered during
|the autopsy and taken away by Treasury Department agents
|before the pictures could be developed.

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

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!abakker
From: [e-mail] (Arno BAKKER)
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:06:13 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donovan Kruger) writes:
>This reminds me of a show I saw in which someone went back in time as
>one of JFK's advisors and friends.
>Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to save JFK and then
>couldn't because he saw what would happen in the future if JFK stayed
>alive in the cold war.  Since JFK was this man's idol, he thought the only
>was to save JFK was to become him himself.  At the end of the episode
>during the shooting, The man's body, not JFK's, was on the ambulance.
>
>| DONOVAN KRUGER                         <[e-mail]> |

As I remember it is was a Twilight Zone show:
A man from the future, a descendant of JFK, diguised as a professor at Havard
in 1963. On the 22nd of november he went to Dallas and watched the cade in the
public. As it went passed him he stopped it and warned them for the
upcoming assault. So JFK was saved but that evening the situation in
Berlin escalated and the Third World War was about to break out.
JFK and the professor, who could travel through time, decided that JFK
had to die in Dallas, but they traded places. JFK went back to the future
to take the professors place and the professor 'leaped' back into
the limo just before the fatal moment.


            Arno
--
===========Arno BAKKER
Department of Computer Science,
Vrije Univeristeit Amsterdam, Holland.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Message-ID: <cortez.715939134@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:58:54 GMT
Lines: 294

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>In the past we have discussed some aspects of Dr. John K. Lattimer's
>analysis of the medical and ballistics evidence of the assassination.
>But it has been sporadic and un-systematic.  I intend, over the
>next couple of weeks or so, to set forth Dr. Lattimer's principal
>research results, point by point.  I don't expect the usual
>pro-conspiracy suspects in here to do other than yawn.  But as
>I know from my e-mail when I post in here, there are plenty
>of people out there who, though pro-conspiracy, have never
>been made aware of the fact that the medical and ballistics
>aspects of this case have been formulated into testable hypotheses
>and that those hypotheses have been tested.

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

Gee, what a surprise. For someone who shows that melons can be made to
fall toward the direction they are shot from and then announces he has
shown how Kennedy's whole body was made to fly backward and toward the left
by a shot from the back and right, this must have been SO difficult to ...
.... contrive.

>The HSCA's work was excellent in many respects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>But I don't have this research material at hand and cannot
>quote chapter and verse.  I do have Lattimer - it is out of
>print - and would like to present his analysis.

Hmmm. I don't have a Bible to quote from but I have a book by Pat Robertson
about the Bible, and would like to present his analysis ;)

>As I say, I
>know that there are "read-only" folks out there whose interest
>was piqued by the movie "JFK" (or perhaps some book like
>"Best Evidence" or "HTII" or "Crossfire" or whatever) but who
>have never really delved deeply into the case.  I myself supported
>2nd gunman and pro-conspiracy views until around the time the
>NRC's Committee on Ballistic Acoustics blew the HSCA's dictabelt
>tape analysis out of the water in late '82.

Ah, yes of course, your one exception to "excellent in most respects" and
my one of several exceptions to political whitewash in most respects.

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

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

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

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

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

>One ultimately learns
>that while anyone can *say* anything, there are limits to the
>manipulation of physical matter.  And that one really must look
>at what nature does and does not allow in order to cut through
>all the crapola and get to the truth of the medical and
>ballistics evidence.
A
Yeah, which is why there is still no plausible official explanation for
the motion of Kennedy's body immediately after the final gunshot.

>Dr. Lattimer does as good a job of this as any one individual.
>So let's look at Lattimer's book, _Kennedy and Lincoln, Medical
>and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations_ and find out
>what can be learned through the device of physically testing
>hypotheses.

>Lattimer's book was published in 1980, though major portions were
>first printed in refereed medical journals such as "International
>Surgery", "The Forensic Science Gazette" and "Surgery, Gynecology
>and Obstetrics."  Lattimer has been dismissed as "only a
>urologist" by people like Dr. Wecht, but this is a silly objection
>to his work.  First, Lattimer's initial expertise stems from
>his experiences as a WWII army surgeon treating bullet wounds
>caused by German and Italian army rifles.  Second, he was able
>to call upon, during the course of his 15+ years of research,
>experts relating to many aspects of the case.

>Like any other non-fiction writer, Lattimer is not perfect.
>But I would suggest that truly disputing his findings requires
>doing better tests than he did, and I have seen nothing in
>that area from any second gunman theorists.  (as we shall
>see, it was Lattimer himself who did experiments to determine
>what might happen to a skull if hit by a bullet fired from
>the grassy knoll; where are the experiments from the grassy
>knoll theorists disupting his discoveries?)

>And what are his findings?

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

>I think we should start with those areas of the Warren
>Commission Report in which he had doubts.  In subsequent
>days and weeks we'll look closely at how he resolved those
>doubts and answered the questions that he and others had
>raised about the WCR.  Some of his questions were more
>amenable to testing than others and it is those questions on
>which we will chiefly focus.  But in the interest of fairness
>and completeness we'll look at how Dr. Lattimer approached
>the following questions, which questions he poses between
>pp. 179- 183 of his book: (pp. 180-181 = a diagram)

>1. Why had the X-rays and photographs been taken away from
>Drs Humes, Boswell and Finck prior to their final report?

uhhh... because Humes, Boswell and Finck never had them in the first place?

>2. Why wasn't this material included in the final WCR?

Because the Dallas doctors could have taken one look and known they were fakes?

>3. Why had Dr. Humes burned his orignal autopsy notes?

Because his original draft was too explicit about the non-transiting back wound?

>4. Did the bullet holes in JFK's clothing indicate a bullet
>passed of back-to-front?

Inasmuch as clothing can be relied upon to indicate either way, front-to-back.

>5. Why were the bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt lower
>than the corresponding hole in JFK's upper back?

You mean, lower than in the photos, lower than in the autopsy report, or
lower than where witnesses described the wound?
If you mean the first of the three, because he is being lifted and his skin
is being stretched, and the camera angle is funny? If you mean the second or
third, they weren't.

>6. Was there definite evidence of a bullet track running
>through and through JFK's body in this area?

Well, the autopsy doctors spent quite some time trying to
find a path, to no avail. Their final autopsy report clearly states that no
fragments or other obvious sign of travel could be found by x-ray or other
means. But the x-rays in evidence clearly show fragments in an obvious path!

Yup, sounds pretty definite to me.

>7. If so, in what direction did the bullet travel?

You mean the Magic Bullet? Every single damn direction it needed to, of course!

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

At what Z-frame was it twenty degrees?

Before you work too hard, don't worry, the answer's still no!B

>9. How come when government ballistics experts tried to reproduce
>JFK's skull wound they didn't get a closer match, if indeed the
>bullet had entered in the lower right/rear portion of JFK's skull?

Because they weren't willing to blatantly prostitute themselves in the
name of pseudo-science?

>10. How come the official drawings of the head wound showed relatively
>little skull shattering?

Because the portion of the skull that was visible in the photos was pretty
much just plain gone, not shattered. Some fracturing was concealed by the scalp
also.

>11. Was there any evidence of a bullet traveling through JFK's body
>from any direction other than from the rear?

Uh, gee, you mean like the fact that the motion of Kennedy's body after
the final hit is completely irreconcilable with a shot from the rear according
to the basic laws of physics? Or that the throat wound was too neat to be
an exit? Nah, that's not evidence, that's just conjecture.

Is there any evidence of a bullet traveling through JFK's body from the rear?
If not, conecture will do just fine.

>12. What about the state of JFK's adrenal glands?

Who cares?

>13. Was CE399 really the same bullet that went through JFK's
>neck?

Ha ha ha ha. Yup. And through Connally's upper torso, fracturing a rib along
the way, and his wrist, hitting another bone, and then into his thigh, leaving
several fragments described by the nurse that helped remove them as far
bigger than the total missing weight of CE 399.

Was there *anything* in the presidential limo that a bullet could have hit
from 50 yards on a downward trajectory and come out that intact? *Anything*
at all?
A
>14. Was this bullet in fact pristine; or, if not, in what way
>was it deformed?

It was nearly pristine; it's tip was almost perfectly intact but its base
was flattened.

>15. Could Kennedy have survived this first wound?

Who cares?

>16. Why did his elbows jerk up in response to the first bullet
>wound in such an odd manner?

Got me.
What was so odd about it?

>17. Why, if his first wound was so serious, did JFK not
>crumple out of sight?

"crumple out of sight"? Do you mean, collapse, or duck?

Gee, I don't kow, why don't you ask John Connally?

>18. Why was the hole in the front of JFK's neck so small if it
>was in fact an exit wound?

Because you are very loose with the expression, "in fact" ?

>We shall see how Lattimer approached these (and other) questions
>in subsequent postings.

Oh ... but I spent so long responding to this one ...

>Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

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

Tom Warner

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: trajectories
Message-ID: <cortez.715950783@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:13:03 GMT
Lines: 171

> Joel Grant
>> Bruce Schuck

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

>    Er, what do you mean by "deliberately"?  Do you mean
>    something like: Lattimer believed the horizontal
>    angle proved the bullet couldn't have come from
>    the SE corner, 6th floor, TSBD - and "deliberately"
>    withheld the information?  If you believe Lattimer
>    did this, kindly present the evidence to support
>    this claim?  If not, then, what exactly is your
>    point?

What's your point, Joel? That we can't prove why Lattimer chose not
to address an issue that, if he had addressed it, would have debunked his
own analysis? What do you want us to do, hunt him down and hook him up to
a seismograph?

I think the issue is, what would the horizontal angle through Kennedy's
neck be assuming a back-to-front traversing, and when, if ever, would it be
possible for a shooter from the sixth floor TSBD to line up with that angle,
based on the Z-film?

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

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

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

>    And the HSCA says it was 26 degrees, based on a shot
>    at frame 190.  I believe the angle was somewhat larger,
>    as it seems quite clear that the first bullet struck
>    JFK around frame 220.

>    Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of all trajectory
>    analysis of the shot that hit JFK in the upper back,
>    because no one knows precisely where the car was or
>    what position JFK was in at the precise moment of
>    impact.

Weren't you the one posting Lattimer's 20-degree vertical angle theory?
Trajectory analysis is only important to the point that it can establish
the range of possibilities. Without other evidence that range can be very
broad, and it is hard to disprove most hypotheses by trajectory analysis alone.
Unless, of course, the hypothesis has too many requirements, like the single
bullet theory, in which case it is possible.

>       If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
>    about a difference of a couple of inches out of
>    150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
>    of a pin" territory.

I don't follow your math. Kennedy's neck is not 150 feet wide.

>>Using a scale map of Dealey Plaza, I have mapped out the corresponding
>>angles as they would have occurred in JFK's upper chest area.

>>Accordingly, if JFK's upper chest was 4.5 inches thick -- which is
>>ridiculously thin -- a bullet could have entered 1 3/8 inches to the
>>right of his spine and exitted from the centreline of his throat if
>>fired from the TSBD and JFK was looking straight ahead.

>>If JFK was looking to the right [which he was] or his
>>upper chest was thicker than 4.5 inches [it certainly was] then it
>>would have been impossible for such a bullet to enter and exit where
>>the WC and pro-WC supporters like Lattimer and Joel claim.
>>The bullet would certainly have exitted an inch or more to the *left*
>>of the centreline of JFK's throat.

>>If the angles are mapped out, it clearly points towards a building
>>closer to directly behind JFK as the firing point.

>>The Dal-Tex and the County Records Building fit such criteria.

>    Interestingly, no one saw any rifles being fired from
>    those buildings, no one recovered any rifles from
>    those buildings, and no bullets or bullet fragments
>    matching any rifle but LHO's were ever recovered.

At least one bullet was found in Dealey plaza by Dallas police, retrieved by
a man thought to be FBI and then not placed in evidence. Neither CE399 or the
"limo fragments" are identifiable by their alleged finders as the items they
found, and the chain of possession is irretrievably lost. Thus, there is no
evidence connecting the bullet and fragments in evidence with Parkland
Hospital or the presidential limo, let alone Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 12:35 p.m.,
but there *is* evidence that at least one bullet was retrieved but not
placed in evidence. Add to this the pristine condition of CE399, which by
itself is strong evidence that it was not fired from the TSBD into the limo
at all, and you have strong evidence of both planted evidence and coverup.
Add to this the impossibility of all the shots fired coming from Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano and it becomes a certainty.

(See Marrs for photo and story on the missing Dealey plaza bullet.)

I have no opinion on the subject of the "rear shooters in other buildings"
except that it is a possibility that could not be discounted even if the
assertions you make were true. Why would someone involved in an assassination
of the president leave something behind that might be traceable?
You're assuming that a conspiracy would have to be as stupid as you have been
led to believe Oswald was, or to be more direct, that the real evidence would
be as obvious and easy to locate as the planted evidence. This is a very
weird assumption.

>    Anyway, what the angles were depends entirely upon
>    when you believe the shot was fired.  And, as I say,
>    I have doubts that any of the precise analysis done
>    can possibly be proved to be 100% accurate.

As a measure of the range of possibilities, angle measurements can be
very accurate. That's why you're hero Lattimer put so much effort into
contriving a way that the single bullet theory could be possible. I thought
you were going to post his analysis, which only attempts to show how the
single bullet theory can fit into the range of possibilities, and fails at
that. Have you changed your mind now?

>>Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
>>the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
>>low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

This assumes a back-to-front traversal of the neck, which is unlikely.

>>In light of the above facts Joel, please recount Lattimers explanation
>>for the *horizontal* angle through JFK's body in relation to the
>>supposed 6th floor snipers nest in the TSBD.

>    Lattimer doesn't address the horizontal angle.  My guess
>    is that because both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>    from LHO's gun,

Actually, I think the limo fragments are too small to be sure, but since
there is no evidence connecting the fragments in evidence to the actual
scene of the crime, I'll grant you that one just to be nice. :}

>       because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>    a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,
>    TSBD,

What about the witnesses that saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
building?

>       there was no reason for him to do any independent
>    testing on this matter.

Lattimer was the one doing the trajectory analysis; that he left out a vital
component of trajectory analysis debunks his own efforts. Now you want to
argue that the whole thing was unnecessary in the first place, because a
a bullet and two fragments (probably planted) match a gun (also
probably planted) owned by Oswald and because the only place where anyone with
a gun was being visible was in the location that the (probably planted) gun
and (too few to account for all the shots) shells were found.

:P

Weak, weak, weak, even by pro-WC standards.

>    As for the matter of the vertical trajectory, in my opinion
>    Lattimer was off.  But that's getting ahead of the story.

Oh, you are going to post Lattimer's trajectory anajysis. Oh good, I like
Science Fiction stories.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Tom Warner

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: trajectories
Message-ID: <cortez.715955202@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:26:42 GMT
Lines: 46

[e-mail] (David Wright) writes:


>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:
>|
>|re: _Best Evidence_
>|
>|Harrison Livingstone does a pretty good number on Lifton's
>|daffy theory in HTII.

>Just a note on this. H. Livingstone does a very *bad* job on
>everything in HTII. Note that when he talks to witnesses he does not
>recognize, for the most part, that he is leading them, and tries to
>bargain with the Dallas people to give them their dignity in exchange
>for interview time.

I disagree. Livingstone is a hopeless Kennedy idolater, but other than that,
he's one of the better researchers out there. Just the fact that he prints his
entire interviews in enough detail that you can see where he may have led the
witness some puts him a step above many other researchers.

(By the way, one thing you may not be aware of is that journalists ask very
leading questions routinely. You're pretty much trusting the journalist
to not quote people out of context every time you take a quote in a news story
at face value. The check on abuse of this power is the ability of sources to
complain in the letters page, which isn't necessarily a great check because
sources that are made to look bad tend to complain whether they were smeared
or whether they really are slimeballs. But interviewing a source ain't the
same thing as courtroom questioning of a witness; what standards there are are
much looser.)

But anyway, I don't see where Livingstone has tried to make anyone appear to
say something they didn't mean. And I think his conference between the Dallas
and Bethesda witnesses was an excellent thing to do, and really did demonstrate
how Lifton had taken threads of bad memory here and shreds of real (but likely
innocent) weirdness there and woven a very fantastic and illogical theory.

I doubt very much anyone ever stole the body, or that anyone would have the
nerve to try to operate on Kennedy post-mortem and then hand him over to
the Navy and expect them not to notice or say anything about it. If they were
that confident that the whole thing would be covered up for them, why go to
to effort of altering the wounds? It's such an incredibly risky tactic.




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Lattimer, part two
Message-ID: <cortez.715956507@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:48:27 GMT
Lines: 67

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>In the interest of completeness (and anticipating cries of
>cover up!)                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^
Don't flatter yourself.

>I'll present all of Lattimer's conclusions, even
>though his evaluation of the medical and ballistic evidence
>per se is by far the most interesting.

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

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

Treasury Department agents? Not that I believe Lattimer without
evidence, but if true. why the Treasury? Who would have gotten them into it?

>This was done to
>avoid the shocking effect they would have on the public if
>they were exploited, and particularly on members of the family if
>they were forced to see these photographs of the bloody remains
>of their relative's head displayed in lurid bookstore windows.

How nice, an after the fact rationalization that gets in a jab at researchers
with the same stroke. And an invocation of public interest as well. Brilliant!

Bullshit. Did anyone actually involved in "commandeering" evidence tell this
line to Lattimer, or did he just come up with it on his own?

>While this quest for privacy was certainly understandable and
>legitimate, to deprive the autopsy team of the benefit of the
>photographs andparticularly the X-rays on which they would depend so
>heavily made it impossible for Humes and Boswell to assemble the accurate
>report they had planned to make.

What an interesting story. For someone that makes his career trying to debunk
other authors' theories, Lattimer sure has a fertile imaginationn. Where did
he get the idea Humes and Boswell planned a more extensive report than they
wrote?

>This led to an avalanche of
>criticism [at the time, I was one of the small critical rocks -
>jg] of the entire post-mortem examination, which was to
>continue for several years, until the family finally relented
>and permitted the photographs to be developed and then to be
>inspected by a panel of experts."  [The Clark Panel, jg]

Oh good, we get in the part about the family not letting government do what it
ought to do also. Nevermind that the autopsy evidence belonged by right to the
government and that they were just using this as an excuse.

>In some ways, Dr. Lattimer was utterly naive...

Worse than naive. A loyalist of pathological proportions.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: David Lifton's Book - anyone read it?
Message-ID: <cortez.715957724@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:08:44 GMT
Lines: 67

[e-mail] (Bill Monhemius) writes:

>I'm currently reading David Lifton's book BEST EVIDENCE.  Has anyone read this
>book and have any comments?

I just made a post responding to a Joel Grant "trajectories" thread on this
subject. Bascially, when you're done reading Lifton, read Livingstone's
High Treason 2. His Kennedy idolatry is nauseating at times, but he shreds
Lifton mercilessly, and deservedly so.

>I find his theory that both the Parkland and Bethesda autopsies could be
>legitimate if the body was altered in transit very interesting.  Furthermore,
>I find the opinion that the Warren Commission would deliberately falsify
>evidence to cover up a conspiracy hard to believe.

I agree. But I find it even harder to believe that anyone with the opportunity
to steal Kennedy's body would take such an enormous risk for such an easily
discoverable alteration. Essentially, they would have been trusting the Navy
doctors to turn a blind eye to what would necessarily be an obvious amateur
job, and if they had that much trust, why go to such an extreme risk.

The thing is, the WC never had to deliberately falsify evidence to cover up
a conspiracy. However, I think it is now irrefutable that the WC and staff did
operate with a "convince the public there was no conspiracy" agenda from day
one. They didn't falsify evidence, someone did that for them. They just turned
a blind eye to anything and everything that pointed in a direction they didn't
like -- including, most interestingly, probably planted evidence that pointed
toward Cuban and Russian involvement..

The WC were part of the "not-in-the-know" cover-up. They didn't know who did it
and didn't want to. They were not investigators, they were government pr flaks.

Lifton's criticism of Lane and other first generation critics for imagining
the WC to be almost part of the conspiracy is valid, and his humanization of
the WC through Wesley Liebeler is also interesting. But Liebeler is still a
liar to say the WC staff would have gone after any serious evidence of
conspiracy; obviously, they buried any such evidence as deep as they could.
And compared to Belin, Ball, Specter, Ford, etc., Liebeler was a rogue.

>What Lifton describes is the legal concept of 'best evidence' where evidence is
>prioritized and thus, contrary evidence that is not well substantiated is
>discarded.  I'm not saying I agree with this concept but this is probably what
>happened with the Warren Commission - they decided that the Bethesda report was
>the best evidence and that eye-witness reports of a grassy-knoll gun-man were
>unreliable.  This happens all the time in courts - lawyers are not paid to look
>for the real truth, they're looking for a 'legal' truth that they can convince
>a jury of.

It's an excellent point, actually. But the WC's distortions ran far deeper than
the "Best Evidence" theory can make excuses for. The Warren Commission operated
under a different kind of "best evidence" model: that which doesn't lead to
conspiracy is best, that which does is worst.

>I recommend the book.  It has a more personal style than most JFK books out
>there.  The author spent about 15 years of his life to his research.

>-Bill

Unfortunately not as well spent as they could have been. His theory of a stolen
body and repeated entrances into the morgue with two coffins may have taken him
15 years to develop, but it took other conspiracy theorists probably all of 15
days to definitively rule out. Lifton simply runs too far too long on tiny
shreds of evidence, without doing the basic checking out that would show him
where he leaped to conclusions and got off track.

Anyway, read at least the related chapters in Livingstone. Guaranteed to get
you pissed off at Lifton for being such a crappy investigator.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!concert!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Subject: Destiny Betrayed - JFK, Cuba, & Garrison Case
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: JFK Cuba Garrison New Orleans
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:36:18 GMT
Lines: 98

I found a reference to this book at the end of the program hosted by James Earl
Jones called THE JFK CONSPIRACY, several months back.  Only recently have I
gotten around to ordering it (cost $19.95 + tax) and when it finally came in I
thought I would provide the information printed on the slipcover to this forum.


---------------------------  FRONT COVER  --------------------------

DESTINY BETRAYED - JFK, CUBA, AND THE GARRISON CASE - BY JAMES DIEUGENIO

INTRODUCTION BY ZACHARY SKLAR
Screenwriter with Oliver Stone of the movie "JFK"

---------------------------  INSIDE COVER  -------------------------

Almost thirty years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, his
murder continues to haunt the American psyche and stands as a turning point in
our nation's history.

The Warren Commission rushed out its Report, but the questions would not go
away.  Was there a conspiracy?  Was there a coup at the highest levels of
government?

Today, after millions upon millions have seen Oliver Stone's incisive film,
JFK, the drive to reexamine this crime of the century has reached a fever
pitch.  The core of that movement, the protagonist of JFK, is Jim Garrison.

On March 1, 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison electrified the
world by arresting local businessman Clay Shaw for conspiracy to murder the
President.  His co-conspirator, David Ferrie, had been found dead a few days
before.

Garrison charged that elements of the United States government, in particular
the CIA, were behind the crime.  From the beginning, his probe was virulently
attacked in the media and witnesses disappeared and died strangely.
Eventually, Shaw was acquitted after the briefest ofjury deliberations and the
only prosecution ever brought for the murder of President Kennedy was over.

But Garrison never stopped pursuing the case, and, over the years, an army of
investigators and researchers have confirmed the essence of his case; Jim
Garrison has been vindicated.  Only a small minority of Americans still support
the conclusions of the Warren Commission, and, since the release of JFK, that
minority is shrinking every day.  There is a growing demand for the
declassification of the mountains of documents that have been locked up in
government vaults for decades.  There are calls for a new and thorough
investigation.

James DiEugenio's DESTINY BETRAYED is the most up-to-date and clearest analysis
ever published of Garrison's pioneering inquiry and the assassination itself.
The author not only studied all the existing research, but also traveled the
U.S. interviewing many of the survivors of this drama, exploring the background
and associations of Clay Shaw as no one has ever done.  He was granted access
tot he privately held original Shaw trial transcripts.  He uncovered documents
never before published or described in  full.

DESTINY BETRAYED is one of the few works that truly furthers our understanding
of the assassination of JFK, its surrounding circumstances, and the continuing
mysteries.  Everything in this book is fully documented, with upwards of a
thousand notes and an extensive bibliography.  The author  was assisted in the
research by Bob Spiegelman, who helped research JFK.  And Zachary Sklar's
Introduction provides an intimate profile of Jim Garrison today.

JAMES DIEUGENIO has been investigating the Kennedy assassination and the
Garrison investigation since 1972.  He has degrees in Education and Film.  Mr.
DiEugenio was born in Erie, Pennsylvania.  He is a writer and teacher, living
in Sherman Oaks, California.

ZACHARY SKLAR edited Garrison's own ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS and was
nominated for an Academy Award for co-writing the screenplay of JFK with Oliver
Stone.

---------------------------  BACK COVER  ---------------------------

A fascinating companion piece to our movie, JFK.  It goes into the historical
canvas and details with references and citations that no film could undertake.
A worthy and logical response to the Lords of Print - those who would destroy
Jim Garrison's immense contribution to the truth.
                                               - Oliver Stone, Filmmaker

Having worked with Jim Garrison, I know that DESTINY BETRAYED faithfully
captures his struggle to learn and to reveal how and why John Kennedy was
assassinated.  This is the full account of how the military-industrial complex
and its civilian allies attempted to smother Garrison's investigation.  The
reader will be better able to understand the abuses of our national-security
state - a root cause of our society's corruption and decay.  This book
carefully preserves for posterity Garrison's lonely crusade and burning passion
for truth, peace, and democracy.
                                                - Vincent Salandria, Attorney

Sheridan Square Press
145 West 4th Street
New York, NY  10012

Distributed to the trade by National Book Network
ISBN 1-879823-00-4

---------------------------  END OF COVER  ---------------------------

Xref: icaen sci.skeptic:30641 alt.conspiracy:18213 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3184 talk.rumors:3214
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!walter!defect.kgb.su!lho
From: [e-mail] (Lee Harvey Oswald)
Subject: Kudos to My Many Fans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The KGB)
Nntp-Posting-Host: defect.kgb.su
Organization: The KGB Home for Aging Defectors
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:11:22 GMT
Lines: 11

Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?

                        -- Alek Hidell

P.S. Marina, you ignorant slut! You made love to The Second Oswald and never
complained.
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3185 alt.conspiracy:18215 alt.activism:32333 alt.society.civil-liberty:6035 alt.individualism:12620 alt.censorship:11541 talk.politics.misc:94506 misc.headlines:24189 soc.culture.usa:8337
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!gatech!psuvax1!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Part II, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the murder of President Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:44:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 144


       I made the following transcript from a tape recording
       of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
            WBAI-FM (99.5)
            505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
            New York, NY 10018        [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:
Well, first just let me say that the one thing I think that
everyone including Mr. Weisberg, including Gerald Ford, including
David Bigeley(?), including everybody who is connected with this
thing at this point .... I think the one thing that we can all
agree on is that there is substantial controversy over the death
of President Kennedy and over the subsequent investigation and
the medical evidence. Now, in this particular case, that
confusion, that controversy, that obfuscation, if you will, is
the basis of what can legitimately be called "the cover-up".
There should not have been a cover-up. There should not have been
this confusion. This was a case .... this was the President of
the United States, for God's sake. There was an autopsy at
Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was treatment at a reputable
hospital: Parkland, in Dallas. And there should not be this
confusion. There should be some very clear-cut answers based on
scientific, medical, forensic evidence to say: "Here's what
happened. He was shot three times from the rear." Or: "He was
shot once from the front and once from the rear." It should be
very clear, but it's NOT. It is TOTALLY muddled. It is TOTALLY in
confusion. And THAT is the nature of this cover-up. Not that
there has never been any information, but that there has been so
much information, and so much CONTRADICTORY information that it
has thrown the whole thing into confusion and controvery, so that
we can't seem to get to the bottom of this. I think that is very
self-evident.

Now, who has the power to do that? And who CAN do that? And who
could have saved us from all of this?  The Federal Government!
The Government who supposedly had him autopsied. The Government
who supposedly is in charge of the investigation. It should have
been clear-cut, but it's not. And, to me, that shows, in an
overview, that the Government has been responsible for all this
confusion, rather than clearing it up and actually presenting us
with factual information as to what happened. So this is what is
causing all of the problems, because the Government is STILL
saying: "Well, there's nothing there. It's all cut and dried."
And yet, it's not.

You can look at the evidence for yourself. For instance, in the
medical evidence, I could go down the whole list of doctors in
Dallas who said that he had a large gaping hole in the right rear
portion of his head. Even Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent
who jumped up on the back of the car in a vain effort to save his
life; in his Warren Commission testimony he says, quite bluntly,
quite to the point: "The right rear portion of his head was
missing." End-quote. Okay? How much clearer do you want to be?
And every doctor in Dallas backed him up. Doctor Jones says that
there was a large defect in the back side of his head. Dr. Perry
said: "I noted a large evulsive wound in the right
parieto-occipital area." I could go on and on and on. They all
said the same thing: that there was a gaping hole in the right
rear portion of his head. But today, we have an autopsy
photograph that has come out of the Government that purports to
show the back of President Kennedy's head, and there's no large
gaping hole there. All there is is a small hole that the House
Committee told us was an entrance wound. And yet, the autopsy
doctor, Dr. Humes, in his testimony to the House Committee said:
"Well, I don't know what that was, but that wasn't any wound of
entrance. And I know that for sure."  Okay? So what's going on
here? I mean, the confusion points the finger at what REALLY is
going on, and at who is generating all this. And it's the Federal
Government!

GARY NULL:
Alright, so let's take a look here. You're suggesting that the
Government, or various members of different areas of the
Government have participated in a systematic cover-up.

JIM MARRS:
Absolutely! For instance, the Warren Commission tells us -- and
the people who defend the Warren Commission to this very day tell
us -- that one of the shots (it started off that it was the first
shot. Now they're backing up by saying: Well, maybe it was the
second one or the third one) .... but one of the shots, they say,
went through Kennedy's neck and did not hit anything. It went on
to strike Governor Connally, causing all of his wounds --
which has become known as "the single bullet theory"; this idea
that one bullet went through both men. This is the foundation of
the "single assassin theory".  Okay? If you don't have one bullet
going through two men, then you've got more bullets, which means
more shooters, which means a conspiracy involving more than one
gunman. So to keep from having to admit that, they came up with
the "single bullet theory" which says that one bullet went
through Kennedy's neck and struck Connally.

Now, the problem is that the bullet did not go through his neck.
The Warren Commission plainly states that it hit him in the
middle of the back -- the third thoracic vertebrae, between the
shoulder blades. Doctor Humes places it there in the
Siebert-O'Neill FBI Report of the autopsy. His jacket and his
shirt, in the National Archives, show a bullet hole in the middle
of the back. Well, if there's a bullet hole in the middle of the
back, and you try to track that to the throat wound -- which is
what they do -- now you've got an upward trajectory, which
destroys the idea that this bullet somehow cursed downward and
struck Governor Connally. Plus, you've got Governor Connally's
wrist X-ray, which shows that there are still more pieces of
bullet in his wrist today than are missing off of the bullet that
the Government still claims caused the wound. So it's very
obvious that they're simply lying about what went on.

We now have the January 27th minutes of the Warren Commission, in
which their Chief Counsel admits that since we have a picture of
where the bullet entered the back, that it's below the place
where it came out the front. So how could it go and turn around,
etc.? They knew it, and so they chose to lie to us and simply
claim that the bullet went through his neck. And the supporters
of the Warren Commission are still telling us the same thing,
although this is totally opposite to what the medical evidence
shows us.

So it's a huge thing. You have to look at the totality of this
case. Any one particular issue can be picked apart or explained
away or rationalized as coincidence or happenstance, but if you
look at the total picture, you can begin to get an understanding
of what really went on.

GARY NULL:
Alright, Jim Marrs, I want you to hold on, because we're going to
present some new information. By the way, Jim Marrs is an award-
winning reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he was a
reporter at the time of the assassination for the Denton Record-
Chronicle. He teaches at the University of Texas at Arlington.
                      (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

      If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,
      please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other
      networks, and by posting hardcopies in public places,
      both on and off campus.  As evidence accrues concerning the
      mass media's thirty year cover-up of the coup d'etat
      against the People of the United States, the necessity of
      citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

      John DiNardo
Xref: icaen sci.skeptic:30647 alt.conspiracy:18216 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3186 talk.rumors:3215
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!torn!cunews!mjenkins
From: [e-mail] (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Message-ID: <mjenkins.715976558@cunews>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:22:38 GMT
Lines: 12

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:

>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?

Lee! Good to hear from you again!

So...how's Elvis?
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!uofs!prijat.cs.uofs.edu!bill
From: [e-mail] (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap (NBC) Sam leaps to Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:44:01 GMT
References: <nanderso.714863715@Endor> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA
Lines: 15
Nntp-Posting-Host: prijat.cs.uofs.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Donovan Kruger) writes:
|>
|> I'm not exactly sure if I got all that right.  Does anyone else remember
|> seeing this?

And the very ending shows JFK lecturing on Political Science in the 21st
century.

bill

--

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     [e-mail]   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     [e-mail]    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Xref: icaen sci.skeptic:30669 alt.conspiracy:18225 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3188 talk.rumors:3216
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!vincent2.iastate.edu!flar
From: [e-mail] (Bradley M Armitage)
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <[e-mail]> <mjenkins.715976558@cunews>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:24:38 GMT
Lines: 16

In <mjenkins.715976558@cunews> [e-mail] (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:

>>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?

>Lee! Good to hear from you again!

>So...how's Elvis?

Oh, pllllEEEEAAAASSSSEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! :)
Xref: icaen sci.skeptic:30679 alt.conspiracy:18231 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3189 talk.rumors:3217
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:19:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 15

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:
>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?
>
>                        -- Alek Hidell
>
>P.S. Marina, you ignorant slut! You made love to The Second Oswald and never
>complained.


Elvis, is that you?
Xref: icaen sci.skeptic:30680 alt.conspiracy:18232 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3190 talk.rumors:3218
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:00:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 16

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:
>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?
>
>                        -- Alek Hidell
>
>P.S. Marina, you ignorant slut! You made love to The Second Oswald and never
>complained.


Out of curiosity, how does one go about making up a fake address like that
used here?
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: trajectories
Date: 9 Sep 1992 03:52:15 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <cortez.715955202@milton>
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <cortez.715955202@milton> [e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes:
|[e-mail] (David Wright) writes:
|
|
|... H. Livingstone does a very *bad* job on
||everything in HTII. Note that when he talks to witnesses he does not
||recognize, for the most part, that he is leading them, and tries to
||bargain with the Dallas people to give them their dignity in exchange
||for interview time.
|
|.. Just the fact that he prints his
|entire interviews in enough detail that you can see where he may have led the
|witness some puts him a step above many other researchers.

Yes, I certainly appreciate that. But I also would like systematic
summaries.

|(By the way, one thing you may not be aware of is that journalists ask very
|leading questions routinely.

True. But in this example, it is interesting to compare Lifton's
intital interview with Perry and Livingston's. Lifton begins by
pretending he is a student of Liebeler's, doing a medical paper on the
case. He innocently asks what the size of the traechotomy incisionn
Perry did. I think he said 2-3 cm. Instead, Livingston likes to lead
people into saying that the 7-8 cm and later 12 cm Humes testified to
was compatible with both the picture and Perry's memory.

|But anyway, I don't see where Livingstone has tried to make anyone appear to
|say something they didn't mean. And I think his conference between the Dallas
|and Bethesda witnesses was an excellent thing to do, and really did demonstrate
|how Lifton had taken threads of bad memory here and shreds of real (but likely
|innocent) weirdness there and woven a very fantastic and illogical theory.

But on the contrary, if they previously believed in conspiracy, then
they will talke conspiracy, and vice versa. Consider McCeland, who at
first says the xrays are fake, then on the Nova program, and elsewhere
to a poster on this net that there was a flap, and then later to
Livingston that no flap exists. People at this stage will give just
about any story that backs up their preconcieved ideas. That is why I
liked Lifton and HT I, since it delt or seemed to deal more
objectively with the evidence. Now, sadly, the evidence is changed as
a result of Livingston's actions: witnesses now are fully manipulatable.

By the way, I am not saying Lifton's thesis  of body alternation must
be the truth, however, I thought Livingston did a rather poor job of
analyizing and getting witness testimony to demonstrate Lifton's
thesis was wrong.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Marrs on the Back entry wound
Date: 9 Sep 1992 04:02:51 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 41
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the murder of President Kennedy


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John DiNardo) writes:
|
|JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:

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

The third thoracic vertebrae is not "in the middle of the back".
However, it should be, for most people, lower than the neck. Weather
it is or not depends on the shape of JFK's body and so on.

|... Plus, you've got Governor Connally's
|wrist X-ray, which shows that there are still more pieces of
|bullet in his wrist today than are missing off of the bullet that
|the Government still claims caused the wound.

Oh really? I thought that depended on the testimony of one of the
nurses.

|We now have the January 27th minutes of the Warren Commission, in
|which their Chief Counsel admits that since we have a picture of
|where the bullet entered the back, that it's below the place
|where it came out the front. So how could it go and turn around,
|etc.?

That's better. To me, that is a very good indication that the WC is
lying and the magic bullet theory is full of beans. I whish we knew
what the Chief Counsel was looking at!

--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3193 alt.conspiracy:18241 alt.activism:32381 alt.society.civil-liberty:6046 alt.individualism:12632 alt.censorship:11560 talk.politics.misc:94677 misc.headlines:24207 soc.culture.usa:8353
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!gatech!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Part III, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:54:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 156


        I made the following transcript from a tape recording
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
GARY NULL:
Now, just today -- just less than an hour ago -- the American
Medical Association gave it's official position on the Kennedy
assassination, and a Doctor George Lundberg, the editor of the
Journal of the American Medical Association and Editor-in-Chief
of Scientific Publications of JAMA, read their position paper,
and I'll just quote something from it. Later in the show we're
going to come back to this, because we have a part of the press
conference recorded by WBAI. It says:

   "The recent Crenshaw book"
(and we had Dr. Crenshaw on the show)
   "is a sad fabrication based upon unsubstantiated allegations. The best
    explanation for the motivations of myriad conspiracy theorists are
    paranoia, the desire for personal recognition, public visibility and profit.

Anyhow, it says that this is all nonsense. There was no
conspiracy; that the Warren Commission was right. And THAT was
the press conference. We'll get more on the press conference, but
I just want you to know that finally JAMA (and I don't know why
JAMA would be sticking it's nose into something that it knows
nothing about, to begin with) came out and felt the need to hold
a press conference to say that the Warren Commission was right.
Everyone (they say) in the field writing books, doing broadcasts,
or offering information to the public, must be doing it for profit,
recognition or some other [personal] motive.

JIM MARRS:
I've got news for them. Talk to anybody who has known me and
they'll tell you that I've been making the same criticisms since
the early `70s, and I certainly never made any money. In fact,
people ....

GARY NULL:
Jim, let me ask you something. Have you ever been found guilty, in
an extended trial, of restraint of trade, monopolistic practices,
and, if so, was that conviction upheld all the way clear up to
all the different appeals courts, and now the conviction is
final?

JIM MARRS:
Not me.

GARY NULL:
Well that has happened to the American Medical Association. So,
when the AMA has the audacity to come onto a press conference --
with the muddled background that they have for having been caught
engaging in the restraint of trade and in monopolistic practices
-- claiming that others have ulterior motives, I think it's
absolutely absurd.

JIM MARRS:
Anybody who knows anything knows that the AMA is a FIRM supporter
of the status quo, and that it has been highly political for
years. And I would ascribe political motives to almost anything
that they do. The point that I want to make here is -- if my
understanding is correct -- if they are simply quoting from the
two autopsy doctors who worked on President Kennedy, well then,
this is just an affirmation [of that autopsy]. Of course, those
doctors are going to say the same things they said in 1963 and
1964, and it's going to support the Warren Commission's
contention. But this is a diversion. This is a red herring. This
is not the issue. The issue is that what the autopsy doctors saw
was not the same as what the doctors saw [at Parkland Hospital]
in Dallas. And there is a very DEEP discrepancy between the
wounds as viewed in Dallas .... I just quoted you all these
people who said that there was a large hole in the back of his
head. This was not seen at the autopsy -- or not reported. So
we've got some real discrepancies here, and this particular
little news conference and their pronouncements are simply
skirting the issue.

GARY NULL:
Okay, Jim, I want you to hold on because we're going to introduce
some new evidence and a new individual to our conference here.
He is Harrison Edward Livingstone, the author of HIGH TREASON II.
Welcome to our program, Mr. Livingstone.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Thanks for inviting me.

GARY NULL:
I would like to go straight to some of the most important issues,
and if you would, please give us the research that you have
uncovered on these. First, I would like to have you review, from
your perspective, the eyewitness descriptions of Kennedy's real
wounds.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Well, as you know, I've been able to interview almost every
living medical witness. I did not talk to Doctor Clark, although
he gave me certain answers through his secretary, twelve years
ago. I have talked to Doctor Humes, but I can't say that anything
was productive there, even after as much as an hour of talk.
But, other than that, my book presents the most complete history
of what these doctors are saying today, and put in perspective of
what they said and wrote in 1963. No other book or writer or
researcher has achiveved this.

GARY NULL:
We're not here to promote your book, as such. We're here for you
to please share your information with us. So if you could, please
go right to the information. Would you talk about the evidence of
forgery and retouching of the autopsy photographs and X-rays?

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
[initial words were drowned out by Gary Null's voice]
.... doctors and the two autopsies. And the point being that they
are trying to head off at the pass the research that I have just
published, and for no other reason; also [they're targeting] Doctor
Crenshaw's book and his statements. They made a number of totally
false statements at this press conference. For instance, that
Crenshaw (they quoted other doctors, and this is an example of how
they cooked their article by the American Medical Association) ....
that Crenshaw was not present at the autopsy -- when if you go and
read in Volume Six of the Warren Commission books, he is mentioned
by almost every doctor as having been there. And he was certainly
in a position to observe the wounds and to see what was going on.
And it doesn't take anybody more than an idiot to know that a
bullet is either an entry hole through the skin of the neck, or
it's an exit, because, if it's coming out, it's going to make
quite a tear. And anybody, basically, would see the difference.
I was pretty stunned, as you probably know, because I was at this
press conference today. You ask: Why is JAMA [the Journal of the
American Medical Association] doing this at this time, and I'm
just telling you there is only one reason why they're doing it.
It's because the whole cover-up perpetrated by the Government in
this case is directly threatened by the research that I have done
and by my making it possible for Crenshaw and the other doctors
to come forward.

GARY NULL:
Alright. Would you give us some link between Richard Nixon's men
and John Kennedy's killers that ties the assassination directly
to Watergate?  And could you please give us the facts?
                      (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

      If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,
      please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other
      networks, and by posting hardcopies in public places,
      both on and off campus.  As evidence accrues concerning the
      mass media's thirty year cover-up of the coup d'etat
      against the People of the United States, the necessity of
      citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

      John DiNardo
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: angels
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:55:35 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 121


re: 3186  (Bruce Schuck)
re: 3186  (Bruce Schuck)


>He [Lattimer] 'deliberately' left it out or he 'deliberately' didn't analyze
>the physical evidence available to him.
>In either case, it completely invalidates his other claims.

    I'm still interested in your word choice - `deliberately' -
    but despair of getting you to explicitly state the implication
    so I won't waste any more time about it.

    By `physical evidence' I assume you mean the horizontal
    trajectory?  And not measuring that invalidates his
    other "claims"?

    Hardly, but you like to grasp at straws so slurp away.

>>    Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of all trajectory
>>    analysis of the shot that hit JFK in the upper back,
>>    because no one knows precisely where the car was or
>>    what position JFK was in at the precise moment of
>>    impact.  If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
>>    about a difference of a couple of inches out of
>>    150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
>>    of a pin" territory.

>Of course you are skeptical, because analysis of the horizontal
>angle completely disproves the possibility of JFK being shot
>in the back from the TSBD 6th floor window.

    Now this is quite a leap.  I am skeptical of *all*
    analysis trying to be 100% accurate, including the
    HSCA's, which supports the TSBD window.

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

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

    So you think the HSCA is wrong because they are off
    by about two inches out of a distance of 150'.  Your
    alternative narrows it down, not to two inches, but
    to two buildings.  And you wonder at my skepticism?

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

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

>>    Interestingly, no one saw any rifles being fired from
>>    those buildings, no one recovered any rifles from
>>    those buildings, and no bullets or bullet fragments
>>    matching any rifle but LHO's were ever recovered.

>Nobody saw any rifles being fired from the TSBD either.
>A shell casing was found on the roof of the County Records
>Building many years later.
>The grooves in the sidewalk alongside Elm, made by a bullet,
>point back towards the Dal-Tex, not the TSBD.

    It simply isn't true that no one saw a rifle being
    fired from the 6th floor, SE corner, of the
    TSBD.  But you don't like to hear it I guess.

>>    Anyway, what the angles were depends entirely upon
>>    when you believe the shot was fired.  And, as I say,
>>    I have doubts that any of the precise analysis done
>>    can possibly be proved to be 100% accurate.

>I picked the shallowest angle possible. If the bullet was
>fired earlier, it would have exitted even *further* to the left.

    Angels.  Quarks.  Pins.  Take your pick.

>>    Lattimer doesn't address the horizontal angle.  My guess
>>    is that because both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>>    from LHO's gun, because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>>    a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,

>Bzzzzztttt. *Nobody* saw a rifle fired from the 6th floor of the
>TSBD. Some witnesses saw a rifle in the window. *None* saw it fired.

    Not true.  Howard Brennan and Amos Lee Euins saw it fired.
    But are you suggesting that someone just happened to be
    sticking a rifle out of that window as the motorcade
    passed by?  And maybe they had a tape recording of
    gunshots, a rifle bolt, and shells hitting the floor for
    the benefits of the TSBD employees standing on the
    fifth floor, right beneath Oswald?

>>    TSBD, there was no reason for him to do any independent
>>    testing on this matter.

>Wrong. If this was analysis of the assasination, he should have
>analyzed all possibilities. What Lattimer really did was set up
>all his testing to prove Oswald did it. *None* of his testing
>tried to disprove Oswalds involvement.

    What Lattimer actually tested was the medical and
    ballistic evidence.  This evidence indicates decisively
    that JFK was struck twice from behind, from bullets
    fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with serial
    #C2766.  It is Lattimer's opinion, which I share, that
    the guy pulling the trigger was the owner of the rifle,
    Lee Harvey Oswald.  You perhaps observe the difference?

    Lattimer had doubts about some of the WC conclusions and
    determined to consider the statements as hypotheses and
    test them.  Simple as that.  This is an approach that
    doesn't seem to occur to the WC critics...

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: unmarried shooters
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:05:03 PDT
Lines: 96


re: 3196  (David Wright)


||In the past we have discussed some aspects of Dr. John K. Lattimer's
||analysis of the medical and ballistics evidence of the assassination.
||But it has been sporadic and un-systematic.

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

    Ah, and here it is.  Several days before I was compelled to
    leave town on business for several weeks I announced that
    I was going to be leaving and suggested that folks like
    David Wright take their shots while I was still in town.
    I gave an estimated time of return to alt.jfk and was
    pretty close to that date.  And now, a couple of months
    after the fact, David suggests I am ignoring - what?  And
    wonders if I might leave town again?

    Well, if my company tells me to fly to New England or
    California or whatever for a few weeks then I guess I
    will be out of town.

    In the meantime, if there is something from the past you
    want to bring up, bring it up.


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

|Lattimer is a goof ball.

    Terrific.

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

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

    You ask "what does this mean?" and then provide a
    non-responsive answer.

    The single-assassin scenario has been confirmed by the
    medical evidence that shows shots only from behind,
    and by the ballistic evidence that shows the shots
    came only from one gun.  In a nutshell, that's why
    the single-assassin scenario has been confirmed.

    As to the identity of the assassin, that's another
    matter and other evidence is used to make that
    determination.

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

|Are you saying that that the JFK case should be decided by experts?
|That is too bad, since few people are experts. The overiding consensus
|of the testimony of the individuals invovled point to the fact that
|the Xrays and Photos are not accurate. Note that one expert, Groden,
|did *not* find that the xrays and photos were originals, and claimed
|that they are fakes.

    Even Blakey, no friend of the WC, said that Groden has a
    tendency to overreach the evidence.

    As for the overriding consensus of the testimony of the
    individuals involved etc., etc., I assume you mean Parkland
    doctors and/or Bethesda witnesses?  Your statement is not
    clear.

    Few people are experts, which is why their expertise is so
    valuable.  Courts recognize, for instance, people like
    Agent Frazier as being trained and experienced in particular
    aspects of criminal investigation.  And when investigating
    a crime it is vitally important to carefully weigh expert
    analysis of those aspects of the crime where such expertise
    can be brought to bear.  That's the way crimes are investigated,
    and the fact that the overwhelming consensus of the experts
    does not support your theories is just too bad for you, eh?

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: High Tea, Too
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:07:49 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 19


re: 3197  (David Wright)


||Harrison Livingstone does a pretty good number on Lifton's
||daffy theory in HTII.

|Just a note on this. H. Livingstone does a very *bad* job on
|everything in HTII. Note that when he talks to witnesses he does not
|recognize, for the most part, that he is leading them, and tries to
|bargain with the Dallas people to give them their dignity in exchange
|for interview time.

    I quite agree that, for the most part, Livingstone does
    a very bad job.  It so happens that he does a pretty
    good job on the body mutilation scenario.  I guess
    nobody is completely *imperfect*...

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!olivea!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Table Talk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:09:20 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 24



re: 3198  (David Wright)

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

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

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

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

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:24:00 GMT
Lines: 71

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

>>>>    I 've never known hunters
>>>>    to use frangibles for anything other that target practice.

>>>Your description of the characteristics of frangible ammunition fits
>>>very well with the two head shot theory.

>>    It might, if there was any evidence of an impact of frangiable
>>    ammo in the x-rays. Unfortunately, there isn't, as Petty has
>>    attested to. Further, nobody in their right mind would

>....  if an assassin can be said to be in his/her right mind ...

    If it was a professional/semiprofessional assasin, as conspiracy
    mongers claim, then it would be safe to assume, if not expect,
    that the assassin would be "in hios right mind."


>>    intentionally use frangiables to try and kill someone.

>Bunk.  An assassin will use a shell for maximum accuracy folowed by maximum
>damage.  Frangibles cover this precisely.  Why else use a dumdum at all?

    Frangiables are far from the "most accurate" bullets you can
    get. Further, they wouldn't cause the "maximum amount of damage,"
    either.

>The term "frangible" is unfortunately used ambiguously to refer to multiple
>types of ammunition:

>    1)  Dumdums, or solid cones designed to fragment at impact
>    2)  Hollow points, dsigned to spread at impact
>    3)  Particulates designed to fragment and spread before/on impact
>      for maximum damage
>    4)  _Explosives_ designed to pop just after entry.

>The only type of shell an assassin would _not_ be likely to use (other than
>an ordinary shell) in a high energy rifle would be 3).  Since _no tests_
>seem to have been done by the WC on the aspect of chemanalysis, 4) is a rather
>open possibility.

    "Frangiable ammo," in the sense that conspiracy theorists use
    the term, *is* your number 3. In most usages, fargiable refers
    to compressed-particulate bullets. In the other cases, either
    the descriptive term is used, or, occaisionally, trade names are
    used, ie Silvertips.

>Perhaps the reason the "neutron activation" tests were not
>released is the availability of "footprint" in the trace signature
>therein provided, relative to chemical composition analysis:

    Or, more likely, the results were just not very conclusive.
    If the WC/FBI etc were as crooked as you claim, they would
    have had positive "results" ready in 1964.



                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: The Adventures of Tom Warner
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:10:58 PDT
Lines: 207


re: 3200 (Tom Warner)

>Gee, what a surprise. For someone who shows that melons can be made to
>fall toward the direction they are shot from and then announces he has
>shown how Kennedy's whole body was made to fly backward and toward the left
>by a shot from the back and right, this must have been SO difficult to ...
>..... contrive.

    I see you don't understand either what bullets can and
    cannot do to bodies or what Lattimer had to say on the
    subject.  Since I will be presenting this systematically
    I shall defer this analysis until later.

>>The HSCA's work was excellent in many respects.

>Oh really.

    Yep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>quote chapter and verse.  I do have Lattimer - it is out of
>>print - and would like to present his analysis.

>Hmmm. I don't have a Bible to quote from but I have a book by Pat Robertson
>about the Bible, and would like to present his analysis ;)

    I don't have a Koran but I do have a Bible so I shall
    analyze the Bible.

>>As I say, I
>>know that there are "read-only" folks out there whose interest
>>was piqued by the movie "JFK" (or perhaps some book like
>>"Best Evidence" or "HTII" or "Crossfire" or whatever) but who
>>have never really delved deeply into the case.  I myself supported
>>2nd gunman and pro-conspiracy views until around the time the
>>NRC's Committee on Ballistic Acoustics blew the HSCA's dictabelt
>>tape analysis out of the water in late '82.

>Ah, yes of course, your one exception to "excellent in most respects" and
>my one of several exceptions to political whitewash in most respects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bullets don't knock people over, in and of themselves.

    Bullets that remove a good portion of a brain do in fact,
    by test and by observation, set up a massive neuromuscular
    response that is ultimately not completely predictable.
    One can determine very little of the source of the shot
    by looking at the Z-film.  It is a myth that because he
    moved backwards and to his left he had to have been
    reacting to the force of a bullet fired from his front
    right.  Of course, unexplained by you is the fact that
    JFK's head moves forward two inches between frames
    312-313.  Lifton hints that maybe the Z-film was
    somehow altered.  Lifton, you will recall, was present
    when Dr. Richard Feynman pointed this out.  Presumably,
    Lifton was there to lecture the good doctor on the
    laws of physics.

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

    How interesting for you.

    [follows a point-by-point]

    Sorry, but I am determined to present Lattimer's analysis
    systematically.  I do not have the time to respond to
    every point in every one of the many postings directed towards
    me.  Since I shall be covering every point eventually consider
    your points will be addressed in due course.

>>Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

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

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

Joel Grant (still speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: TAOTW II
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:18:11 PDT
Lines: 189


re: 3201  (Tom Warner)

>What's your point, Joel? That we can't prove why Lattimer chose not
>to address an issue that, if he had addressed it, would have debunked his
>own analysis? What do you want us to do, hunt him down and hook him up to
>a seismograph?

    A seismograph?  Was Lattimer a producer of earthquakes?
    In either case, Dr. Lattimer is deceased.

    My point in asking why Bruce Schuck chose the particular
    word `deliberately' in discussing Lattimer's lack of
    attention to the horizontal trajectory analysis of the
    first shot to hit JFK was to determine whether or not
    Bruce was trying to imply that Lattimer wrote something
    he believed to be wrong.  I have gotten and expect
    no clarification.

>I think the issue is, what would the horizontal angle through Kennedy's
>neck be assuming a back-to-front traversing, and when, if ever, would it be
>possible for a shooter from the sixth floor TSBD to line up with that angle,
>based on the Z-film?

    This is a malleable angle, depending upon JFK's exact position
    in the car, the car's exact position on the street and distance
    from the window, and so on.

>Weren't you the one posting Lattimer's 20-degree vertical angle theory?
>Trajectory analysis is only important to the point that it can establish
>the range of possibilities. Without other evidence that range can be very
>broad, and it is hard to disprove most hypotheses by trajectory analysis alone.
>Unless, of course, the hypothesis has too many requirements, like the single
>bullet theory, in which case it is possible.

    I agree that trajectory analysis presents a range of
    possibilities and that that range can be quite broad.
    In fact, I have been trying to make that point.  And
    we'll get to the SBT.

>>       If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
>>    about a difference of a couple of inches out of
>>    150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
>>    of a pin" territory.

>I don't follow your math. Kennedy's neck is not 150 feet wide.

    150 feet is a generous estimation of the distance from
    the car to the 6th floor window at the time the second
    bullet was fired.  I suspect it was closer to about
    180-185 feet.

>At least one bullet was found in Dealey plaza by Dallas police, retrieved by
>a man thought to be FBI and then not placed in evidence. Neither CE399 or the
>"limo fragments" are identifiable by their alleged finders as the items they
>found, and the chain of possession is irretrievably lost. Thus, there is no
>evidence connecting the bullet and fragments in evidence with Parkland
>Hospital or the presidential limo, let alone Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 12:35 p.m.,
>but there *is* evidence that at least one bullet was retrieved but not
>placed in evidence. Add to this the pristine condition of CE399, which by
>itself is strong evidence that it was not fired from the TSBD into the limo
>at all, and you have strong evidence of both planted evidence and coverup.
>Add to this the impossibility of all the shots fired coming from Oswald's
>Mannlicher-Carcano and it becomes a certainty.

    By "Dallas police" do you mean E. R. Walthers, who was a
    deputy sheriff of Dallas County?  He has denied finding
    any such bullet.  No photo exists of him or anyone else
    finding a bullet in the grass, though there is a photo
    of people *looking* for a bullet.  They just didn't
    find one.

    Should I ever get a law degree and decide to practice
    criminal law, and should I get the definitive version of
    the history of all the physical evidence in the JFK
    assassination, I will be better able to judge what would
    or would not be admissable due to a loose chain of
    possession.  Interestingly, you reject the limo fragments
    and CE399 because the chain of possession isn't tight
    enough for you, but accept the existence of a bullet
    that is apparently possessed by no one and which nobody
    actually claims to have found.  Rather startlingly different
    standards, what?

    As for the impossibility of Oswald slipping off three
    shots in the approximately eight seconds of the firing
    sequence, I suggest this is a feat that can and has
    been easily duplicated.

>(See Marrs for photo and story on the missing Dealey plaza bullet.)

    So Marrs's evidence is more tightly controlled - even though
    it doesn't seem to be in existence any more?

>I have no opinion on the subject of the "rear shooters in other buildings"
>except that it is a possibility that could not be discounted even if the
>assertions you make were true. Why would someone involved in an assassination
>of the president leave something behind that might be traceable?
>You're assuming that a conspiracy would have to be as stupid as you have been
>led to believe Oswald was, or to be more direct, that the real evidence would
>be as obvious and easy to locate as the planted evidence. This is a very
>weird assumption.

    Why would Charles Guiteau walk up and, in plain sight of
    everyone, pull the trigger?  Why do any crimes leave
    evidence?

>>    Anyway, what the angles were depends entirely upon
>>    when you believe the shot was fired.  And, as I say,
>>    I have doubts that any of the precise analysis done
>>    can possibly be proved to be 100% accurate.

>As a measure of the range of possibilities, angle measurements can be
>very accurate. That's why you're hero Lattimer put so much effort into
>contriving a way that the single bullet theory could be possible. I thought
>you were going to post his analysis, which only attempts to show how the
>single bullet theory can fit into the range of possibilities, and fails at
>that. Have you changed your mind now?

    No, I haven't changed my mind.  I presented Lattimer's
    18 questions about the WC findings.  See questions 13
    and 14.  I have now managed to present question one.
    When I finish responding (after a four-day weekend)
    to all the postings my previous postings generated,
    I'll go to number two.  See if you can guess what
    will follow number two.

>>>Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
>>>the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
>>>low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

>This assumes a back-to-front traversal of the neck, which is unlikely.

    Why are you extracting Bruce Schuck's statements and
    shoving them at me?  Take it up with Bruce.

    As to the posterior/anterior traversal of the neck, that
    is actually the direction in which the bullet traveled.

>Actually, I think the limo fragments are too small to be sure, but since
>there is no evidence connecting the fragments in evidence to the actual
>scene of the crime, I'll grant you that one just to be nice. :}

    The limo fragments were positively identified as having
    been fired from LHO's rifle, and no other rifle.  Apparently,
    Conspiracy Central did a good job in planting them in the
    limo, but a poor job in establishing (to your satisfaction)
    chain of custody.

>>       because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>>    a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,
>>    TSBD,

>What about the witnesses that saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
>building?

    No witnesses on that day came forward with any stories of
    anyone else with a rifle.  All such stories have been
    uncovered well after the fact.

>>       there was no reason for him to do any independent
>>    testing on this matter.

>Lattimer was the one doing the trajectory analysis; that he left out a vital
>component of trajectory analysis debunks his own efforts. Now you want to
>argue that the whole thing was unnecessary in the first place, because a
>a bullet and two fragments (probably planted) match a gun (also
>probably planted) owned by Oswald and because the only place where anyone with
>a gun was being visible was in the location that the (probably planted) gun
>and (too few to account for all the shots) shells were found.

>:P

>Weak, weak, weak, even by pro-WC standards.

    Ah, you set up a strawman and complain it catches fire
    easily.  Even little Dorothy wouldn't do something like
    that, now would she?

>>    As for the matter of the vertical trajectory, in my opinion
>>    Lattimer was off.  But that's getting ahead of the story.

>Oh, you are going to post Lattimer's trajectory anajysis. Oh good, I like
>Science Fiction stories.

    You must be very enamored of your own postings then?   ;^)

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: How 'bout them Huskies?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:23:01 PDT
Lines: 101


re: 3203  (Tom Warner)

>>In the interest of completeness (and anticipating cries of
>>cover up!)                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^
>Don't flatter yourself.

    I guess your mileage varies on the important
    flattery issue.

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

>Treasury Department agents? Not that I believe Lattimer without
>evidence, but if true. why the Treasury? Who would have gotten them into it?

    Kellerman and Greer were Secret Service agents.  The Secret
    Service is part of the Treasury Department.

>>This was done to
>>avoid the shocking effect they would have on the public if
>>they were exploited, and particularly on members of the family if
>>they were forced to see these photographs of the bloody remains
>>of their relative's head displayed in lurid bookstore windows.

>How nice, an after the fact rationalization that gets in a jab at researchers
>with the same stroke. And an invocation of public interest as well. Brilliant!

    Whether you like it or not, this in fact was Warren's
    reasoning.

>Bullshit. Did anyone actually involved in "commandeering" evidence tell this
>line to Lattimer, or did he just come up with it on his own?

    Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances involving
    the removal of the X-rays and photos.

>>While this quest for privacy was certainly understandable and
>>legitimate, to deprive the autopsy team of the benefit of the
>>photographs andparticularly the X-rays on which they would depend so
>>heavily made it impossible for Humes and Boswell to assemble the accurate
>>report they had planned to make.

>What an interesting story. For someone that makes his career trying to debunk
>other authors' theories, Lattimer sure has a fertile imaginationn. Where did
>he get the idea Humes and Boswell planned a more extensive report than they
>wrote?

    Am I correct in assuming you haven't actually read Lattimer's
    book?  I ask because only someone who has not read the
    book would suggest that Lattimer "makes his career"
    debunking "other authors' theories."

    Lattimer did not say, nor did I represent him as saying,
    that Humes planned a "more extensive" report.  What
    Lattimer and Humes have both said is that they had
    planned to use the X-rays and photographs to make a
    more accurate report.  Lattimer undoubtedly "got the
    idea" for this by noting the technical inaccuracies
    of the report and comparing them to the X-rays and
    photos (which he examined on three occasions) and
    adding the sum two plus two.

>>This led to an avalanche of
>>criticism [at the time, I was one of the small critical rocks -
>>jg] of the entire post-mortem examination, which was to
>>continue for several years, until the family finally relented
>>and permitted the photographs to be developed and then to be
>>inspected by a panel of experts."  [The Clark Panel, jg]

>Oh good, we get in the part about the family not letting government do what it
>ought to do also. Nevermind that the autopsy evidence belonged by right to the
>government and that they were just using this as an excuse.

    I do not know that the autopsy evidence belonged by right
    to the government; certainly, had the autopsy been performed
    in Dallas the materials would have been government property.
    At the time, assassinating a President was not a federal
    crime.  It is unclear to me that "the government" had
    title to this material.  That the Kennedy family assumed
    they owned the material and placed restrictions on their
    use is a matter of record.  Prior to being delivered to
    the National Archives the material was in the physical
    possession of JFK's personal physician, Dr. George
    Burkley.

>>In some ways, Dr. Lattimer was utterly naive...

>Worse than naive. A loyalist of pathological proportions.

    Now just how many doubts about the WC does one need
    to have in order to be diagnosed by Dr. Warner as
    "pathological"?  These days, the herd runs with the
    pro-conspiracy/2nd gunman theories.  Are you loyal
    to the herd?

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: Lattimer, Second Question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:26:18 PDT
Lines: 24


After time out to address the seven postings most recently
addressed to me, let's look at Lattimer's second question:

2. "Why were the actual photographs and X-rays not included in the
*final* Warren Commission report?"

Lattimer's conclusion: (p.192)  "Chief Justice Earl Warren had
written to me [a portion of the letter is reproduced on p. 193 - jg]
that withholding these materials from inclusion in the Warren
report was his personal decision, since the testimony was clear and
he wanted to spare the President's family."

Let me observe here that Congressman Joe Kennedy recently denounced
NBC News for showing one autopsy photo on the air.  The Congressman
appeared to be outraged.  Clearly, at least this member of the
family does not wish to have JFK's autopsy photos and X-rays
made a a part of the public record.

I personally feel that Warren was wrong in this decision; but
the question is why the decision was made.

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Explosive Bullets (was: How easy was the rifle shot?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Keywords: pretentious summaries confine us to derisive jeers
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:53:00 GMT
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Jerry Kuch) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>In Dr Guinn's NAA testing, he found elements not normally associated
>>>with Mannlicher-Carcan ammunition.

>>>In addition to Lead, Silver, and Antimony, he found Sodium , Chlorine,
>>>and Aluminum. Would these 'extra' elements point to an explosive
>>>bullet?

>>So, uhhh, which bullet are you talking about here?  CE399, or one of the
>>Connally, Kennedy or limo fragments?

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

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

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

    The amount of copper within a sample of an FMJ bullet
    would depend to great extent on whether the sample came from
    the middle of the core or adjacent to the jacket; a sample
    from the margin of the core would have a much greater amount
    of copper than one taken from the center of the core. The
    mechanism for the deformation for CE399, As shown by Lattimer
    and the WC goat tests, involves part of the core being squeezed
    out of the jacket like toothpaste from a tube. In the process,
    the lead of the outer margin of the resulting base extrusion
    would pick up minute amounts of copper from the jacket. The
    wrist fragments would be *expected* to have a higher amount
    of copper than CE399.

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


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:07:00 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    So much for Bruce's, too.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!tamvm1.tamu.edu!N020BA
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Z-film and Moorman photo GIFs-Where are they?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:40:50 GMT
Lines: 9

    Can anyone tell me where an FTP site for Z-film/Moorman photo
GIFs are?

========================================================================
The truth may hurt, but lies hurt more.  | My opinions are mine and mine
The difference between left-wing incomp- | alone. I speak for myself and
etance and right-wing incompetance is    | no-one else.
the difference between cat #$!& and dog  |______________________________
#$!&. Reply to [e-mail].        Bill and Opus in '92!!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: NAA
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 15:09:02 PDT
Lines: 25


re: 3225 (Todd Mitchell)

Let us also note the reasoning behind the "Guinn was a perjurer"
theory:

1. Guinn is somehow forced to "conclude" that his NAA analysis
would show a match between wrist fragments and CE399.

2. Guinn determines that the fragments and CE399 actually
do not match.

3. But, being forced to testify to the contrary...

4. Guinn decides not to present bogus findings and decides to...

5. Present findings which, were Mr. Shuck correct, would instantly
be noticed as completely bogus by any NAA expert.

6. And Guinn and the conspirators don't want anyone to know
that Guinn has been subverted by Assassination Central.


Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!wupost!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: The Adventures of Tom Warner
Message-ID: <cortez.716076528@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:08:48 GMT
Lines: 233

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

>re: 3200 (Tom Warner)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? What works for you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Joel Grant (still speaking on his own behalf)

Tom Warner
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!wupost!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: angels
Message-ID: <cortez.716091011@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:10:11 GMT
Lines: 61

>, >>> Joel Grant
>> Bruce Schuck

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

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

>    So you think the HSCA is wrong because they are off
>    by about two inches out of a distance of 150'.  Your
>    alternative narrows it down, not to two inches, but
>    to two buildings.  And you wonder at my skepticism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: High Tea, Too
Message-ID: <cortez.716092300@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:31:40 GMT
Lines: 32

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3197  (David Wright)


>||Harrison Livingstone does a pretty good number on Lifton's
>||daffy theory in HTII.

>|Just a note on this. H. Livingstone does a very *bad* job on
>|everything in HTII. Note that when he talks to witnesses he does not
>|recognize, for the most part, that he is leading them, and tries to
>|bargain with the Dallas people to give them their dignity in exchange
>|for interview time.

>    I quite agree that, for the most part, Livingstone does
>    a very bad job.  It so happens that he does a pretty
>    good job on the body mutilation scenario.  I guess
>    nobody is completely *imperfect*...

Oh, I think the jury's still out on that one, Joel. :)

Not that I think you formed your judgments on the basis of anything other
than prejudice, but I happen to agree with you. I would also say that it
has *always* been up to the the independent researchers to test each other's
theories in any intellectually honest way, since the pro-WC camp is, for
all intents and purposes, completely prejudiced toward one set of explanations
and completely without the balls to really take on the critics' ideas head-on.
Instead, it took Livingstone to do what the WC itself should have done in
1964: get the Baltimore and Dallas doctors and med techs together to reconcile
the apparent differences in what they saw.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: TAOTW II
Message-ID: <cortez.716093343@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:49:03 GMT
Lines: 251

>, >>> Joel Grant
>> Me (Tom Warner)
>>>> Bruce Schuck

>>What's your point, Joel? That we can't prove why Lattimer chose not
>>to address an issue that, if he had addressed it, would have debunked his
>>own analysis? What do you want us to do, hunt him down and hook him up to
>>a seismograph?

>    A seismograph?  Was Lattimer a producer of earthquakes?
>    In either case, Dr. Lattimer is deceased.

Oops on both counts. You got my point.

>    My point in asking why Bruce Schuck chose the particular
>    word `deliberately' in discussing Lattimer's lack of
>    attention to the horizontal trajectory analysis of the
>    first shot to hit JFK was to determine whether or not
>    Bruce was trying to imply that Lattimer wrote something
>    he believed to be wrong.  I have gotten and expect
>    no clarification.

No, you did get a clarification, I read it. You're dodging the real issue,
which is...

>>I think the issue is, what would the horizontal angle through Kennedy's
>>neck be assuming a back-to-front traversing, and when, if ever, would it be
>>possible for a shooter from the sixth floor TSBD to line up with that angle,
>>based on the Z-film?

>    This is a malleable angle, depending upon JFK's exact position
>    in the car, the car's exact position on the street and distance
>    from the window, and so on.

Obviously. That's why you end up with a range of possibilities, that gets
broader as the range of times you are willing to accept a shot occuring
within broadens.

>>Weren't you the one posting Lattimer's 20-degree vertical angle theory?
>>Trajectory analysis is only important to the point that it can establish
>>the range of possibilities. Without other evidence that range can be very
>>broad, and it is hard to disprove most hypotheses by trajectory analysis alone.
>>Unless, of course, the hypothesis has too many requirements, like the single
>>bullet theory, in which case it is possible.

>    I agree that trajectory analysis presents a range of
>    possibilities and that that range can be quite broad.
>    In fact, I have been trying to make that point.  And
>    we'll get to the SBT.

Yes, you'll have to, if you want to stick with the lone gunman with a
Mannlicher Carcano.

>>>       If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
>>>    about a difference of a couple of inches out of
>>>    150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
>>>    of a pin" territory.

>>I don't follow your math. Kennedy's neck is not 150 feet wide.

>    150 feet is a generous estimation of the distance from
>    the car to the 6th floor window at the time the second
>    bullet was fired.  I suspect it was closer to about
>    180-185 feet.

Kennedy's neck isn't 180-185 feet wide either. Again, it's the angle, not
the distance, that's at issue. It's a comparison of the angle from the
throat wound to the back wound, to the angle from the throat wound to the
6th floor TSBD. If you work out the geometry on paper, you'll see that your
"angel on the head of a pin" criticism is silly and wrong. You might even
ask yourself, how could anyone possibly suggest that a 2-dimensional
analysis is worth any more to your case than a pile of bat feces?

>>At least one bullet was found in Dealey plaza by Dallas police, retrieved by
>>a man thought to be FBI and then not placed in evidence. Neither CE399 or the
>>"limo fragments" are identifiable by their alleged finders as the items they
>>found, and the chain of possession is irretrievably lost. Thus, there is no
>>evidence connecting the bullet and fragments in evidence with Parkland
>>Hospital or the presidential limo, let alone Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 12:35 p.m.,
>>but there *is* evidence that at least one bullet was retrieved but not
>>placed in evidence. Add to this the pristine condition of CE399, which by
>>itself is strong evidence that it was not fired from the TSBD into the limo
>>at all, and you have strong evidence of both planted evidence and coverup.
>>Add to this the impossibility of all the shots fired coming from Oswald's
>>Mannlicher-Carcano and it becomes a certainty.

>    By "Dallas police" do you mean E. R. Walthers, who was a
>    deputy sheriff of Dallas County?  He has denied finding
>    any such bullet.  No photo exists of him or anyone else
>    finding a bullet in the grass, though there is a photo
>    of people *looking* for a bullet.  They just didn't
>    find one.

J. W. Foster, who guarded the bullet and watched the "agent" pick it up.
The photo and story, like I said, is in Marrs. The bullet isn't visible
in the photo, just Foster and another man standing in the background as
another man fingers the ground.

>    Should I ever get a law degree and decide to practice
>    criminal law, and should I get the definitive version of
>    the history of all the physical evidence in the JFK
>    assassination, I will be better able to judge what would
>    or would not be admissable due to a loose chain of
>    possession.  Interestingly, you reject the limo fragments
>    and CE399 because the chain of possession isn't tight
>    enough for you, but accept the existence of a bullet
>    that is apparently possessed by no one and which nobody
>    actually claims to have found.  Rather startlingly different
>    standards, what?

Not at all. First, we are talking about a murder case in which there
is a high probability of political motive. We also have Oswald, who
several suspicously obvious pieces of evidence point to but other
evidence proves could not have been in the suspiciously obvious
"assassins lair" at the time of the shooting, failed a paraffin test,
could not have fired all the shots with the supiciously obvious weapon,
and shortly after the assassination, was taken out by the mafia with
apparent cooperation from someone within the Dallas police.
Furthermore, CE399 is just too damn pristine to have caused *any* of
Connally's wounds, and the man who found the bullet just laying there on
a stretcher did not recognize it as the bullet he found, not to mention
that two witnesses claim to have seen Oswald's assassin at the hospital.
Is this not enough to make you think maybe, just maybe, someone
was planting evidence? Given all the circumstantial evidence of a frame-up
is the fact that the chain of possession is not only "not tight" but gaping
a mile wide of note? Puh-lease!

I'm not resting the whole case on Foster's statements, the way you are resting
your entire case on the authenticity of CE399 and the fragments. I was just
responding to something inaccurate (as best is known, I have no reason to
doubt Foster -- especially since such vital evidence as the "babushka lady"s
film has definitely disappeared) that you posted.

Also, I'm not interested in the issue of whether or not Oswald would have
been convicted, or could be now. I'd guess a yes and a no, but who cares?
The issue is, who done it?

>    As for the impossibility of Oswald slipping off three
>    shots in the approximately eight seconds of the firing
>    sequence, I suggest this is a feat that can and has
>    been easily duplicated.

You'll first have to show that your figure of eight seconds is plausible,
and that the gaps in between the 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd shots were
long enough, and that there were no more than 3 shots. Good luck.

Only if you get past those three tests will I discuss Oswald's firing
skill, which I consider an irrelevant point.

>>I have no opinion on the subject of the "rear shooters in other buildings"
>>except that it is a possibility that could not be discounted even if the
>>assertions you make were true. Why would someone involved in an assassination
>>of the president leave something behind that might be traceable?
>>You're assuming that a conspiracy would have to be as stupid as you have been
>>led to believe Oswald was, or to be more direct, that the real evidence would
>>be as obvious and easy to locate as the planted evidence. This is a very
>>weird assumption.

>    Why would Charles Guiteau walk up and, in plain sight of
>    everyone, pull the trigger?  Why do any crimes leave
>    evidence?

You don't get it. If Oswald didn't do it, which the evidence proves he didn't,
then there had to be a sophisticated frame up. Such conspirators would not
have left their rifles laying around in the Dal-Tex building.

>>>>Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
>>>>the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
>>>>low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

>>This assumes a back-to-front traversal of the neck, which is unlikely.

>    Why are you extracting Bruce Schuck's statements and
>    shoving them at me?  Take it up with Bruce.

Gee, I thought this was a public forum.
I was taking it up with Bruce, and everybody. I just think its important
to keep in mind that most of the evidence points to a non-traversing
back wound, which would allow for a sixth floor TSBD shooter to have
hit Kennedy at the point that the Z film appears to show him first
taking a hit.

>    The limo fragments were positively identified as having
>    been fired from LHO's rifle, and no other rifle.

Wrong. The fragments are too small to rule out all other rifles. To the
extent that they show anything, they do show a match to Oswald's rifle.
I think most likely they were shot from Oswald's MC, but the possibility
they were shot from a nearly identical MC is still a possibility.

>       Apparently,
>    Conspiracy Central did a good job in planting them in the
>    limo, but a poor job in establishing (to your satisfaction)
>    chain of custody.

I'm not accusing the handlers of the bullets of being part of the conspiacy.
They did, however, completely fail to document the chain of possession.
Any step of the way, the fragments could have been switched. Or perhaps they
are the real thing. The point is, planted evidence is all over this case and
there's no way of knowing where those fragments actually came from for certain.

>>>       because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>>>    a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,
>>>    TSBD,

>>What about the witnesses that saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
>>building?

>    No witnesses on that day came forward with any stories of
>    anyone else with a rifle.  All such stories have been
>    uncovered well after the fact.

First, who said "anyone else"? Other than who? I'm talking about the Rowlands,
who told the FBI that day they saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
building. They also claim to have told the FBI about a Black man being with
this man, but this is not in the records.

It may be true that no record of someone claiming on 1//22/63 to have seen
a rifle in a location in a different area altogether, I don't know. However,
the number of witnesses who, like the Rowlands, claim to have told more to
the FBI than is reflected in the records opens up some doubt.

>>>       there was no reason for him to do any independent
>>>    testing on this matter.

>>Lattimer was the one doing the trajectory analysis; that he left out a vital
>>component of trajectory analysis debunks his own efforts. Now you want to
>>argue that the whole thing was unnecessary in the first place, because a
>>a bullet and two fragments (probably planted) match a gun (also
>>probably planted) owned by Oswald and because the only place where anyone with
>>a gun was being visible was in the location that the (probably planted) gun
>>and (too few to account for all the shots) shells were found.

>>:P

>>Weak, weak, weak, even by pro-WC standards.

>    Ah, you set up a strawman and complain it catches fire
>    easily.  Even little Dorothy wouldn't do something like
>    that, now would she?

You set up the strawman. Those were the reasons you gave for a 3-dimensional
trajectory analysis being unnecessary. Are you asking me to respond to
something other than what you wrote?

Not to mention the patent absurdity of it all when *you* were the one touting
the value of the 2-dimensional analysis.

>Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Tom Warner
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: How 'bout them Huskies?
Message-ID: <cortez.716099261@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:27:41 GMT
Lines: 137

>, >>> Joel Grant
>> Me (Tom Warner)

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

>>Treasury Department agents? Not that I believe Lattimer without
>>evidence, but if true. why the Treasury? Who would have gotten them into it?

>    Kellerman and Greer were Secret Service agents.  The Secret
>    Service is part of the Treasury Department.

That's better.

>>>This was done to
>>>avoid the shocking effect they would have on the public if
>>>they were exploited, and particularly on members of the family if
>>>they were forced to see these photographs of the bloody remains
>>>of their relative's head displayed in lurid bookstore windows.

>>How nice, an after the fact rationalization that gets in a jab at researchers
>>with the same stroke. And an invocation of public interest as well. Brilliant!

>    Whether you like it or not, this in fact was Warren's
>    reasoning.

Are channeling Warren now?
Did Warren make this decision?

>>Did anyone actually involved in "commandeering" evidence tell this
>>line to Lattimer, or did he just come up with it on his own?

>    Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances involving
>    the removal of the X-rays and photos.

I was asking for facts. Claiming you know the truth without supplying any
evidence does not put you in a position to make assumptions about what I
know or don't know. It's your thread; it's your burden of proof.
I want to know what you think *you* know.

>>>While this quest for privacy was certainly understandable and
>>>legitimate, to deprive the autopsy team of the benefit of the
>>>photographs andparticularly the X-rays on which they would depend so
>>>heavily made it impossible for Humes and Boswell to assemble the accurate
>>>report they had planned to make.

>>What an interesting story. For someone that makes his career trying to debunk
>>other authors' theories, Lattimer sure has a fertile imaginationn. Where did
>>he get the idea Humes and Boswell planned a more extensive report than they
>>wrote?

>    Am I correct in assuming you haven't actually read Lattimer's
>    book?  I ask because only someone who has not read the
>    book would suggest that Lattimer "makes his career"
>    debunking "other authors' theories."

Bah. He was allowed access to the medical evidence in the early days
specifically because he was obviously a loyalist. He  most definitely
made a career attempting to debunk others' theories.
I've seen the book, I haven't read it all the way through. You
haven't yet presented anything that makes me want to.

>    Lattimer did not say, nor did I represent him as saying,
>    that Humes planned a "more extensive" report.  What
>    Lattimer and Humes have both said is that they had
>    planned to use the X-rays and photographs to make a
>    more accurate report.  Lattimer undoubtedly "got the
>    idea" for this by noting the technical inaccuracies
>    of the report and comparing them to the X-rays and
>    photos (which he examined on three occasions) and
>    adding the sum two plus two.

I should hope Lattimer got the idea from something Humes said. Do
you have a citation for such a quote?

>>>This led to an avalanche of
>>>criticism [at the time, I was one of the small critical rocks -
>>>jg] of the entire post-mortem examination, which was to
>>>continue for several years, until the family finally relented
>>>and permitted the photographs to be developed and then to be
>>>inspected by a panel of experts."  [The Clark Panel, jg]

>>Oh good, we get in the part about the family not letting government do what it
>>ought to do also. Nevermind that the autopsy evidence belonged by right to the
>>government and that they were just using this as an excuse.

>    I do not know that the autopsy evidence belonged by right
>    to the government; certainly, had the autopsy been performed
>    in Dallas the materials would have been government property.
>    At the time, assassinating a President was not a federal
>    crime.  It is unclear to me that "the government" had
>    title to this material. That the Kennedy family assumed
>    they owned the material and placed restrictions on their
>    use is a matter of record.  Prior to being delivered to
>    the National Archives the material was in the physical
>    possession of JFK's personal physician, Dr. George
>    Burkley.

It's my understanding that the materials stayed with the Secret Service
until 1965, when they were turned over to the Kennedy family at the National
Archives (the President's estate has space there). They stayed in that office
at the Archives until they were turned over by the Kennedys with conditions
attached to the Archives proper. In other words, they didn't have to leave the
building, ever, and there is no evidence Bobby Kennedy or any other member of
the Kennedy family or any employee of the family ever disturbed the foot locker
they were stored in until that time. It was at that time (sorry, date's not
handy) that all of the slides and the brain were found missing. This comes
from Livingstone HT2.

Where'd you get the Burkley story?

>>>In some ways, Dr. Lattimer was utterly naive...

>>Worse than naive. A loyalist of pathological proportions.

>    Now just how many doubts about the WC does one need
>    to have in order to be diagnosed by Dr. Warner as
>    "pathological"?

You mean to not be diagnosed as pathological? For someone who
was spent as much time with evidence as Lattimer, some. My point
is not how little he differs from the WC. My point is that he knew
his tests were shaky at best and outright dishonest at worst.
He obviously had a deep commitment to convincing Americans to
have faith in their government despite anything that might come
in his way.

>    These days, the herd runs with the
>    pro-conspiracy/2nd gunman theories. Are you loyal
>    to the herd?

One, not in my field they don't, two, no and never have been, three
that's not the issue. The issue is, was Lattimer a dogma-first,
facts-second phony hiding behind an illusory mantle of pseudo-science?
Everything I've seen about him tells me he was.
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!rpi!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!isovax!SALTZMAN
From: [e-mail] (Bob Saltzman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Part One, Lattimer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:39:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>,<cortez.715939134@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: isovax.crd.ge.com

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

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

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

Bob Saltzman,
Committee to Investigate Assassinations
==============================================================================
Robert B. Saltzman (Bob)            Internet: [e-mail]
Information System Operation        Snailnet: Bldg KW, Room C120, PO Box 8
General Electric Company            AT&Tnet:  518-387-5828(B), 387-6560(FAX),
Corporate Research and Development            370-2222(H)
Schenectady, New York 12301 USA     ICBMnet:  42 50 04 N, 73 54 14 W, Alt 246
AEMT-4 Paramedic/Firefighter        HAMnet:   WB2ARK
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: The Adventures of Tom Warner
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
References: <[e-mail]> <cortez.716076528@milton>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:07:00 GMT
Lines: 136

In article <cortez.716076528@milton>, [e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes...
>[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

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

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

    The "outside contact" radiologists were also asked to
    authenticate the x-rays. They did.


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

>The point is, that if the photos and x-rays were essential components
>of a highly sophisticated coverup, they would be very difficult to
>identify as forgeries by any standard method.

    We're talking about a coverup so sophisticated that the
    autopsy is botched, crucial documents are not altered
    or forged, "unreliable" people are allowed to see
    the evidence, the "magic bullet" is not obviously not
    sufficiently deformed.... According to the conspiracy
    mongers, almost every piece of evidence is obviously wrong.
    Then they talk about how sophisticated the conspiracy was...


>A panel of experts in the
>employ of the government spendinmg a few afternoons is not enough to
>settle the issue, although it may be enough to mollify people like yourself.

    What about the Baltimore Globe's own panel of experts?
    They also found no evidence of forgery.


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

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

    Find a decent copy of the enhanced x-rays. You should have little
    difficulty finding the lower half of the right eye socket.
    In the enhancement, you can trace the edges of the eye socket
    all the way 'round, until you come to a triangular piece
    that has been broken off and displaced a bit at the top of the
    orbit. This is the only piece of facial bone that is broken;
    it is mentioned in the autopsy report as "unusual mobility
    [of bone] in the right superorbital region." See for yourself.



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

>Alright, I will. It's startling to me the silly neurotrauma hypothesis
>is still being trumpeted.

    Why is it so silly?


>>    Bullets don't knock people over, in and of themselves.

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

    Bullet, scmullet. Since we're back into momenta analysis,
    consider the momentum of a bullet and the momentum of the
    gun it was fired from. Due to aerodynamic drag, the bullet
    slows down before it hits its target, so the bullet will
    have less momentum than the gun. Further, the gun will
    discharge combustion gasses and particulates along with
    the bullet, increasing the difference between the momenta
    of the gun and bullet. If a bullet will knock someone over
    in and of itself, then the gun the bullet was fired from
    will knock the shooter on his ass.

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

>Bullshit. First, it can clearly be seen from the film that Kennedy's head
>takes the hit and then impels the entire torso backward. His arms stay
>completely limp, and his back does not arch -- it simply gets thrown backward.
>There is absolutely no visbible sign of any muscular action at all.

    Considering that JFK was wearing a suit, and that the
    z-film isn't exactly the clearest photography ever done,
    I'm suprised that you, can say with such certainty that
    JFK doesn't arch his back at all. I'm also suprised that
    you don't seem to factor in the back brace and associated
    apparatus JFK was wearing at the time. Also, next time you
    watch the Z-film, watch JFK's right arm. I'm sure you'll find it
    interesting.

    Knoll-shooter fans never seem to bother to check the location
    of the wounds in JFK's head to the trajectory between the
    President and the knoll. The angle between the direction the
    limo is travelling and the knoll trajectory has been measured
    by the HSCA to be 50 degrees. JFK's head was turned about
     30 degrees to the left of the direction vector for the limo
    at z-312. The angle between a knoll shot at 312 and the
    direction JFK is facing is, then some 80 degrees. Now, if
    JFK was hit in the temple, then the exi wound should be
    on the *left* side of JFK's head.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\


Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3214 alt.conspiracy:18257 sci.skeptic:30774
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!sheaffer
From: [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <srtnm#[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:33:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:
>
>... since all such evidence MUST come from the CIA, ipso facto, if the
>CIA say it didn't, there must not be any ...  get real!  Oswald
>scored 50% on a Russian test while in Japan ...  why would
>he know Russian if not in Intelcom work?

Oswald's mother, a devout Marxist, learned Russian so that she could read
Leninist Holy Writ in its orignal language. I suppose it's *quite* impossible
that Lee Harvey, who shared his mother's religious faith, might have learned
some Russian at home?


--

        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

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

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re:  Jim Marrs on the Back Entry Wound
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:24:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28


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


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

>>JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:

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

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

    Jim Marrs doesn't mean the middle of his back as measured vertically
    from the neck to the bottom of the spinal column. He means the middle
    of his back as measured horizontally from shoulder to shoulder.
    That's the most common conception of the "middle of the back".
    He further clarifies himself by describing it as being "between the
    shoulder blades". Then he fixes the bullet entry point by citing the
    second of the two needed coordinates, the vertical coordinate, as
    being at the third thoracic vertebrae as measured on the vertical
    axis presented by the spinal column.

          John DiNardo
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3216 alt.conspiracy:18260 sci.skeptic:30788
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!caen!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jac54
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <srtnm#[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:39:30 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <srtnm#[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:
>>
>>... since all such evidence MUST come from the CIA, ipso facto, if the
>>CIA say it didn't, there must not be any ...  get real!  Oswald
>>scored 50% on a Russian test while in Japan ...  why would
>>he know Russian if not in Intelcom work?

    Excessively stupid question.  Why do I speak Russian?  I've
    never been involved in intel. work.  In fact, you will find that
    Russian speakers are quite rare at the CIA.  Robert Gates is an
    exception rather than a rule.

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

    Alec Chambers.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: Etcetera
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 SEP 92 12:18:12 PDT
Lines: 234


re: 3229  (Tom Warner)

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

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

    Perhaps someone with access to the HSCA can verify or refute,
    but my recollection was that they had a team of forensic
    anthropologists.  In either case, how much verification do
    you need that the person in the X-rays and photos was
    John Fitzgerarld Kennedy and no other person?  They/he did
    things like measured the angle of his nasal septum, various
    features of his ear, the lip profile, the network of
    wrinkles across his back and the side of his neck,
    dental records, operational records... the guy in the
    photos and X-rays was JFK.  I haven't heard you suggest
    otherwise, come to think of it.

    A forensic anthropologist is an individual who specializes
    in identifying human remains.  When they pull a WWII aircraft
    out of the jungles forensic anthropologists are part of the
    team that comes in to identify the remains.  If you are
    wondering why the HSCA pulled in such types it is because
    they wanted to determine a.) was the person in the
    X-rays and photos JFK, and b.) if so, were the photos
    and X-rays faked?

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

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

    The thing is, they can tell exceedingly well.

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

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

>No, it's not any more reasonable. I'm not convinced either way, and
>I see no reason why I should be.

    You should be convinced the photos and X-rays are
    genuine because they have been authenticated and
    tested and because you have no evidence to indicate
    they are fakes.

>The point is, that if the photos and x-rays were essential components
>of a highly sophisticated coverup, they would be very difficult to
>identify as forgeries by any standard method. A panel of experts in the
>employ of the government spendinmg a few afternoons is not enough to
>settle the issue, although it may be enough to mollify people like yourself.

    Why would they be difficult to identify as forgeries by any
    standard method?  What forgery methods were available to
    the forgers that would have allowed them to so thoroughly
    and undetectably fake an entire set of photos and X-rays.

    While you're at it, please let us all know just what sort
    of planning took place that placed forgers as part of an
    assassination team so sophisticated that its success
    depended upon a long series of events, culminating in
    the need for forged autopsy photos and X-rays.

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

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

    The HSCA, Lattimer, Lifton, and I am sure many other
    sources have copies of the computer-enhanced X-rays.
    HSCA, Menninger, and Lattimer have diagrams of the
    actual skull defect.

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

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

    Go out and raise some funds.  I am going to be doing
    that very thing myself within a couple of months -
    attempting to raise funds to do research into this
    case.  But the dictabelt tapes will be very low on
    my priority list as they were completely invalidated
    by the CBA in a most decisive manner.

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

>Really? What works for you?

    Professional secret.  ;^)

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

>Alright, I will. It's startling to me the silly neurotrauma hypothesis
>is still being trumpeted.

    I am not surprised it is startling to you.

>>    Bullets don't knock people over, in and of themselves.

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

    What kind of bullet knocks a person over?

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

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

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

    Yes, as I said, (and you seem to agree) the neuromuscular
    response is not completely predictable.  It has been
    studied, not only formally, but on the "killing streets"
    of the big cities on a daily basis.

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

    It is important to be skeptical of claims presented by
    all sides.  This is why I often go outside the JFK
    literature to see what I can find.  When I seek to
    understand what bullets do to bodies I find that what
    we in the JFK argument mindset regard as controversial,
    is treated as plain old ho-hum.  Rather like a bunch
    of people arguing about how many "outs" end an
    inning of baseball, only to actually read a book
    about baseball...

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

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

    I think his response is explained by a combination of
    two phenomena, namely, the jet propulsion effect,
    demonstrated experimentally, and the neuromuscular
    response.  I am not sure why you would expect to be
    able to directly observe the workings of JFK's muscles.

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

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

    It could be that he was hit by behind by one bullet.  But
    that would be the obvious explanation.

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

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

    Actually, my own view is that your style mocks itself
    rather than me.

    But, to state it yet again, I don't expect the Tom
    Warners of this world to read my postings and change
    their minds.  I know from experience that there are
    a lot of people who read these postings, who are either
    agnostic or even pro-conspiracy, but who have never
    been interested enough to look into the case very
    deeply.  Some of these people are surprised to learn
    that there is so much evidence in favor of the
    single-gunman theory, so little in favor of second
    gunman theories.  They are able to make up their
    minds on the basis of hearing both sides of the
    case.  There aren't many people in this forum
    willing to present the other side.

Joel Grant (speaking oh his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: More Warner Etc.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 SEP 92 12:21:06 PDT
Lines: 69



re: 3230  (Tom Warner)


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

    Two inches on a neck is indeed a big difference.  Getting
    to that degree of accuracy over a difference of 150-190
    feet is another thing altogether.  Not knowing the exact
    location and posture of the neck is yet another problem.

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

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

    I appreciate the compliment.

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

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

    Lattimer relied upon the ballistics evidence that
    showed both CE399 and the limo fragments came
    from C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles
    in the world.  This evidence is presented in
    the WCR.  It might make interesting reading for you.

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

    They compare more than rifling per se when they
    make these ballistic matches.  Again, try reading
    the ballistic evidence that was presented.

    See also the NAA analysis which not only ties
    the Connally wrist fragments to CE399, but the
    limo fragments to the fragment removed from
    JFK's head.

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

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

    Perhaps so, though I have noticed that "faith" is
    needed more desperately by those who have to keep
    inventing ways to explain away the mountains of
    physical evidence.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: Husky Fever
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 SEP 92 12:23:21 PDT
Lines: 293


re: 3232 (Tom Warner)

>>    My point in asking why Bruce Schuck chose the particular
>>    word `deliberately' in discussing Lattimer's lack of
>>    attention to the horizontal trajectory analysis of the
>>    first shot to hit JFK was to determine whether or not
>>    Bruce was trying to imply that Lattimer wrote something
>>    he believed to be wrong.  I have gotten and expect
>>    no clarification.

>No, you did get a clarification, I read it. You're dodging the real issue,
>which is...

    You are deliberately blowing smoke.  ;^)

>>    This is a malleable angle, depending upon JFK's exact position
>>    in the car, the car's exact position on the street and distance
>>    from the window, and so on.

>Obviously. That's why you end up with a range of possibilities, that gets
>broader as the range of times you are willing to accept a shot occuring
>within broadens.

    I quite agree.

>>    I agree that trajectory analysis presents a range of
>>    possibilities and that that range can be quite broad.
>>    In fact, I have been trying to make that point.  And
>>    we'll get to the SBT.

>Yes, you'll have to, if you want to stick with the lone gunman with a
>Mannlicher Carcano.

    A crime scene is a puzzle and the pieces need to be
    put together.  Must we re-hash the evidence placing
    a gunman in the 6th floor window firing three shots,
    two of which were recovered and matched to a rifle
    found on the 6th floor?  And the lack of any other
    gunman or rifle in any other buildings or Dealy
    Plaza locations?

    What trajectory analysis will show us is whether
    or not the place where the guy with the rifle was
    seen, the rifle was found, etc., is *consistent*
    with the other evidence.  Does the 6th floor, TSBD
    fall within that range?  The answer, clearly, is
    yes it does.

>>    150 feet is a generous estimation of the distance from
>>    the car to the 6th floor window at the time the second
>>    bullet was fired.  I suspect it was closer to about
>>    180-185 feet.

>Kennedy's neck isn't 180-185 feet wide either. Again, it's the angle, not
>the distance, that's at issue. It's a comparison of the angle from the
>throat wound to the back wound, to the angle from the throat wound to the
>6th floor TSBD. If you work out the geometry on paper, you'll see that your
>"angel on the head of a pin" criticism is silly and wrong. You might even
>ask yourself, how could anyone possibly suggest that a 2-dimensional
>analysis is worth any more to your case than a pile of bat feces?

    Note the "angle from the throat wound to the 6th floor TSBD"
    phrase there.  The 6th floor TSBD was between 150 and 190
    feet away from JFK's neck.  I am suggesting that, all things
    considered, trying to nail down that angle to a degree of
    accuracy equal to two inches is not a feasible enterprise.
    Guano argue with that one?  Since the measurements of the
    horizontal angle vary by at least 12 degrees, I'd say
    no 100% accurate results have as yet been developed.

>>    By "Dallas police" do you mean E. R. Walthers, who was a
>>    deputy sheriff of Dallas County?  He has denied finding
>>    any such bullet.  No photo exists of him or anyone else
>>    finding a bullet in the grass, though there is a photo
>>    of people *looking* for a bullet.  They just didn't
>>    find one.

>J. W. Foster, who guarded the bullet and watched the "agent" pick it up.
>The photo and story, like I said, is in Marrs. The bullet isn't visible
>in the photo, just Foster and another man standing in the background as
>another man fingers the ground.

    And this you regard as, somehow, a tighter chain of
    custody?

>>    Should I ever get a law degree and decide to practice
>>    criminal law, and should I get the definitive version of
>>    the history of all the physical evidence in the JFK
>>    assassination, I will be better able to judge what would
>>    or would not be admissable due to a loose chain of
>>    possession.  Interestingly, you reject the limo fragments
>>    and CE399 because the chain of possession isn't tight
>>    enough for you, but accept the existence of a bullet
>>    that is apparently possessed by no one and which nobody
>>    actually claims to have found.  Rather startlingly different
>>    standards, what?

>Not at all. First, we are talking about a murder case in which there
>is a high probability of political motive. We also have Oswald, who
>several suspicously obvious pieces of evidence point to but other
>evidence proves could not have been in the suspiciously obvious
>"assassins lair" at the time of the shooting, failed a paraffin test,
>could not have fired all the shots with the supiciously obvious weapon,
>and shortly after the assassination, was taken out by the mafia with
>apparent cooperation from someone within the Dallas police.
>Furthermore, CE399 is just too damn pristine to have caused *any* of
>Connally's wounds, and the man who found the bullet just laying there on
>a stretcher did not recognize it as the bullet he found, not to mention
>that two witnesses claim to have seen Oswald's assassin at the hospital.
>Is this not enough to make you think maybe, just maybe, someone
>was planting evidence? Given all the circumstantial evidence of a frame-up
>is the fact that the chain of possession is not only "not tight" but gaping
>a mile wide of note? Puh-lease!

    Your basic method of argument here is that you assume, in
    your premise, that which you seek to demonstrate for your
    conclusion.  This is known as begging the question.
    You ignore the physical evidence that ties limo frags and
    CE399 to Oswald's rifle, wrist frags to CE399 and head
    frags to limo frags.  This is a chain of custody tight to
    the atomic level.  And you prefer as an alternative a
    bullet that was not claimed to have been found by the
    man Foster says found it and is now nowhere in existence.
    This is the mile-wide gap, Husky.

>I'm not resting the whole case on Foster's statements, the way you are resting
>your entire case on the authenticity of CE399 and the fragments. I was just
>responding to something inaccurate (as best is known, I have no reason to
>doubt Foster -- especially since such vital evidence as the "babushka lady"s
>film has definitely disappeared) that you posted.

    It is not true that I rest the "entire case" on CE399 and
    frags.  Each piece of evidence serves its own purpose.

>Also, I'm not interested in the issue of whether or not Oswald would have
>been convicted, or could be now. I'd guess a yes and a no, but who cares?
>The issue is, who done it?

    The ABA recently staged a mock trial of LHO but I never
    heard the "verdict."  Anyone see that?  Bugliosi "won"
    his "case" against Oswald, but I don't regard that as
    significant in determining guilt.

>>    As for the impossibility of Oswald slipping off three
>>    shots in the approximately eight seconds of the firing
>>    sequence, I suggest this is a feat that can and has
>>    been easily duplicated.

>You'll first have to show that your figure of eight seconds is plausible,
>and that the gaps in between the 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd shots were
>long enough, and that there were no more than 3 shots. Good luck.

    Short version:

    Shot one - approximately Z-film 162
    Shot two - approximately Z-film 220 (3.17 sec)
    Shot three -             Z-film 313 (5.08 sec)

    Total time elapsed: 8.25 seconds.

    Why I would have to "prove" there were no more than three
    shots is unclear.  Three shells were found near Oswald's
    rifle, and three shots can be accounted for by the evidence.

>Only if you get past those three tests will I discuss Oswald's firing
>skill, which I consider an irrelevant point.

    If you consider it an irrelevant point, consider yourself
    excused from discussing it.

>>    Why would Charles Guiteau walk up and, in plain sight of
>>    everyone, pull the trigger?  Why do any crimes leave
>>    evidence?

>You don't get it. If Oswald didn't do it, which the evidence proves he didn't,
>then there had to be a sophisticated frame up. Such conspirators would not
>have left their rifles laying around in the Dal-Tex building.

    It is you that doesn't get it.  Your logic here is tangled
    beyond all hope of retrieval.  The evidence proves a negative,
    namely that Oswald didn't do it.  But the sophisticated
    frame-up has planted evidence that proves Oswald did do it.
    Mind readers, we know what these sophisticated conspirators
    would not have done.  And what they would have done.
    And they weren't sophisticated enough to fool you, eh?

    Now why don't you present your actual theory of the
    assassination?  Please include your conjectures of how
    many people might have been involved, what sort of
    planning needed to have taken place, how they chose
    Oswald as the patsy, when they chose Oswald as the
    patsy, how they managed to plant all that evidence,
    including the death of Officer Tippit.  I mean - none
    of this vague stuff here.  The Oswald-did-it scenario
    is detailed to the nth degree.  Conspiracy scenarios
    prosper to the extent they are vague, with some noteworthy
    exceptions.  So let's hear yours.  Expecting 100% airtight
    perfection in the case against Oswald while delivering
    murky innuendo is the epitome of the double-standard.

    I know you can do it.

>>    Why are you extracting Bruce Schuck's statements and
>>    shoving them at me?  Take it up with Bruce.

>Gee, I thought this was a public forum.
>I was taking it up with Bruce, and everybody. I just think its important
>to keep in mind that most of the evidence points to a non-traversing
>back wound, which would allow for a sixth floor TSBD shooter to have
>hit Kennedy at the point that the Z film appears to show him first
>taking a hit.

    Perhaps Bruce will address your point.  As for "most
    of the evidence" I presume you exclude the autopsy?

>>    The limo fragments were positively identified as having
>>    been fired from LHO's rifle, and no other rifle.

>Wrong. The fragments are too small to rule out all other rifles. To the
>extent that they show anything, they do show a match to Oswald's rifle.
>I think most likely they were shot from Oswald's MC, but the possibility
>they were shot from a nearly identical MC is still a possibility.

    They were too small to be matched via rifling to MC in
    general, but large enough to be matched to a particular
    rifle via microscopic analysis.  See Frazier's analyis.

>>       Apparently,
>>    Conspiracy Central did a good job in planting them in the
>>    limo, but a poor job in establishing (to your satisfaction)
>>    chain of custody.

>I'm not accusing the handlers of the bullets of being part of the conspiacy.
>They did, however, completely fail to document the chain of possession.
>Any step of the way, the fragments could have been switched. Or perhaps they
>are the real thing. The point is, planted evidence is all over this case and
>there's no way of knowing where those fragments actually came from for certain.

    Please explain how they managed to have the fragment recovered
    from JFK's head match the fragments found in the limo.

>>    No witnesses on that day came forward with any stories of
>>    anyone else with a rifle.  All such stories have been
>>    uncovered well after the fact.

>First, who said "anyone else"? Other than who? I'm talking about the Rowlands,
>who told the FBI that day they saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
>building. They also claim to have told the FBI about a Black man being with
>this man, but this is not in the records.

    You mean Arnold Rowland, singular.  His wife did not support
    his statements, indeed even made a comment to the effect that
    her husband had a tendency to tell tales.

>It may be true that no record of someone claiming on 1//22/63 to have seen
>a rifle in a location in a different area altogether, I don't know. However,
>the number of witnesses who, like the Rowlands, claim to have told more to
>the FBI than is reflected in the records opens up some doubt.

    Rowland actually first testified about seeing the black
    man when he was in front of the WC.  The WC took his
    statements seriously enough that they decided to interview
    each and every employee of the TSBD to see if they could
    substantiate Rowland's claim.  They found no such
    substantiation.

>>    Ah, you set up a strawman and complain it catches fire
>>    easily.  Even little Dorothy wouldn't do something like
>>    that, now would she?

>You set up the strawman. Those were the reasons you gave for a 3-dimensional
>trajectory analysis being unnecessary. Are you asking me to respond to
>something other than what you wrote?

>Not to mention the patent absurdity of it all when *you* were the one touting
>the value of the 2-dimensional analysis.

    I have said not one word about 2 or 3 or even 4 dimensional
    trajectory analysis.  All I have said about the horizontal
    TA is that analyses vary by as much as 12 degrees; that we
    don't know *exactly* where the limo was and what position
    JFK's body was in when he was struck by that bullet, and
    that therefore I am skeptical of *all* such analysis that
    attempts to be 100% accurate.

    As for the trajectory of the bullet path through JFK's
    back/neck, I have said I believe Lattimer was in error
    on this point.  But I will address that in more detail
    when I get to that point in my Lattimer presentation.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: Calling From Bellevue
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 SEP 92 12:39:40 PDT
Lines: 162


re: 3233  (Tom Warner)

>>    Whether you like it or not, this in fact was Warren's
>>    reasoning.

>Are channeling Warren now?
>Did Warren make this decision?

    As I have previously stated, Lattimer reproduces a
    portion of a letter from Earl Warren stating:

    a. It was my decision.
    b. Here was why I made that decision.

>>    Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances involving
>>    the removal of the X-rays and photos.

>I was asking for facts. Claiming you know the truth without supplying any
>evidence does not put you in a position to make assumptions about what I
>know or don't know. It's your thread; it's your burden of proof.
>I want to know what you think *you* know.

    I made the mistaken assumption that you had read the
    autopsy report.  The removal of this material, and
    by whom, is mentioned in the autopsy report.

>>    Am I correct in assuming you haven't actually read Lattimer's
>>    book?  I ask because only someone who has not read the
>>    book would suggest that Lattimer "makes his career"
>>    debunking "other authors' theories."

>Bah. He was allowed access to the medical evidence in the early days
>specifically because he was obviously a loyalist. He  most definitely
>made a career attempting to debunk others' theories.
>I've seen the book, I haven't read it all the way through. You
>haven't yet presented anything that makes me want to.

    Please show me the evidence you have indicating that
    Lattimer was allowed access because he was "obviously
    a loyalist."  Please tell me what specific authors
    Lattimer mentions in his book (that you haven't
    read all the way through) that he then sets up
    as being targets for debunking.

>>    Lattimer did not say, nor did I represent him as saying,
>>    that Humes planned a "more extensive" report.  What
>>    Lattimer and Humes have both said is that they had
>>    planned to use the X-rays and photographs to make a
>>    more accurate report.  Lattimer undoubtedly "got the
>>    idea" for this by noting the technical inaccuracies
>>    of the report and comparing them to the X-rays and
>>    photos (which he examined on three occasions) and
>>    adding the sum two plus two.

>I should hope Lattimer got the idea from something Humes said. Do
>you have a citation for such a quote?

    I don't have Hume's WC testimony or HSCA testimony
    in front of me but I wouldn't be surprised to find
    some mention of this matter somewhere in this testimony.
    It is hardly surprising that pathologists would want
    to rely upon photo and X-rays of the deceased when
    making their final report.

    If it is confirmation from Humes's mouth you want,
    look at the "JAMA" article of 5/27/92.

>>    I do not know that the autopsy evidence belonged by right
>>    to the government; certainly, had the autopsy been performed
>>    in Dallas the materials would have been government property.
>>    At the time, assassinating a President was not a federal
>>    crime.  It is unclear to me that "the government" had
>>    title to this material. That the Kennedy family assumed
>>    they owned the material and placed restrictions on their
>>    use is a matter of record.  Prior to being delivered to
>>    the National Archives the material was in the physical
>>    possession of JFK's personal physician, Dr. George
>>    Burkley.

>It's my understanding that the materials stayed with the Secret Service
>until 1965, when they were turned over to the Kennedy family at the National
>Archives (the President's estate has space there). They stayed in that office
>at the Archives until they were turned over by the Kennedys with conditions
>attached to the Archives proper. In other words, they didn't have to leave the
>building, ever, and there is no evidence Bobby Kennedy or any other member of
>the Kennedy family or any employee of the family ever disturbed the foot locker
>they were stored in until that time. It was at that time (sorry, date's not
>handy) that all of the slides and the brain were found missing. This comes
>from Livingstone HT2.

    The HSCA looked into this within the context of the disposition
    of JFK's brain.  Their research indicated that Roy Kellerman
    initially gathered the materials.  They were placed in the
    Protective Research Division of the Department of Justice.
    Later, they were transfered to the White House under the
    care of Dr. George Burkley.  In April, 1965, they were
    transfered to the National Archives, under the care of
    JFK's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln.  Robert Bouck, head
    of the PRD and George Burkely collaborated in the
    preparation of an inventory of the material.  With
    certain restrictions the Kennedy family transferred
    control of the material to the National Archives
    in October, 1966.

    In 1967 the Clark Panel, examining all the material,
    found no discrepancies between the original inventory
    and what they were given to examine, with the exception
    of a stainless steel container presumed to contain
    the brain.  When the material was transferred to
    the National Archives Drs. Humes and Boswell were
    called upon to authenticate the material, which
    they did.

    This is, to the best of my knowledge, the basic
    history of the material.

>Where'd you get the Burkley story?

    See above.

>>    Now just how many doubts about the WC does one need
>>    to have in order to be diagnosed by Dr. Warner as
>>    "pathological"?

>You mean to not be diagnosed as pathological? For someone who
>was spent as much time with evidence as Lattimer, some. My point
>is not how little he differs from the WC. My point is that he knew
>his tests were shaky at best and outright dishonest at worst.
>He obviously had a deep commitment to convincing Americans to
>have faith in their government despite anything that might come
>in his way.

    Your comments about what Dr. Lattimer "knew" and
    what his "deep commitment" was seem to me to
    be based upon sheer conjecture.  If you have
    some actual evidence (like, your channeling
    sessions, for instance) kindly present it.

>>    These days, the herd runs with the
>>    pro-conspiracy/2nd gunman theories. Are you loyal
>>    to the herd?

>One, not in my field they don't, two, no and never have been, three
>that's not the issue. The issue is, was Lattimer a dogma-first,
>facts-second phony hiding behind an illusory mantle of pseudo-science?
>Everything I've seen about him tells me he was.

    Your field is at odds with public opinion, which
    overwhelmingly supports conspiracy views.  Your
    sub-herd doesn't run with the Mother Herd.

    As for your characterizations of Lattimer and his
    research you have yet to present anything even
    remotely resembling evidence to support such
    statements.  And you accuse Lattimer of excessive
    a priorism?

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!news
From: [e-mail] (Jack Field)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:02:14 GMT
Lines: 68

Gentlemen,

Please forgive the intrusion into your thread but I thought you might be
interested in a word from someone who had a TOP SECRET/CRYPTO clearance during
armed forces related occupation between the age of 18 and 24.

I joined the Air Force in 1972 after three years of Junior Army ROTC in high
school (figure that one out).  Upon completion of Basic Training at San
Antonio, I was sent directly to the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing stationed at
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.  My job skill was in administration.  In
May of that year, we were deployed to reopen a closed base at Takli, Thailand
for the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing stationed in Da Nang, Viet Nam.  Our orders
read "FROM:  Holloman AFB     TO:  * * * * * .   But we all knew the only game
in town was in Southeast Asia.  Our goal was to provide a place for the 366th
to move to from Da Nang so "we could get all our boys out of Viet Nam".  Since
part of my duties included handling mail, distributing classified documents,
and occasionally acting as a courier, I was given a CONFIDENTIAL clearance
after a brief investigation into my personnel files.  I was 18 years old at the
time.

After my temporary tour of duty in Southeast Asia ended and I returned to the
states, I applied for and received a SECRET clearance in order to request a
position the Air Force has open on the east coast (my real goal was to get
closer to home).  I received my SECRET clearance after a BI (Background
Investigation) was completed by the FBI and local police in my home town.  By
that time I was 19.

The job I mentioned I applied for was with the 7602nd Air Intelligence Group,
which was stationed out of Bolling AFB but had a compound on Ft. Belvoir, VA
just outside DC.  Immediately upon arrival, an EBI (Extensive Background
Investigation) was performed delving even deeper by the FBI and who knows who
else into my 19 year old past for hints of subversive activities and generally
un-American attitudes.  Upon successful completion of the EBI, I received my
TOP SECRET at the ripe old age of 20 and held it till I separated the service
at age 24.

During my stint, we were provided pseudonyms and fake addresses which we
utilized during covert correspondence with our sites in unfriendly country's
embassies when gathering air power intelligence.  Passwords to access phones
and message traffic were changed monthly.  All our desks and safes had
combinations known only to ourselves and the security officers in charge.
Also, on many occasions I have shuttled document-ation from the Pentagon to the
NSA, to the CIA, to the DIA, and elsewhere in the course of my duties.
Needless to say, I was neither a spy nor some sort of special agent.  I was
simply an administrative specialist who required a high security clearance in
order to perform my duties handling classified materials on a "need-to-know"
basis involving their maintenance and destruction.

Being in DC during the time of the fall of Viet Nam, the Watergate hearings,
and Nixon's resignation, it was apparent that a considerable amount of paranoia
permeated the intelligence community during that period.  Various branches
cooperated with great reluctance between one another and the leaks were
maddening.  (Excellent example was Jack Anderson's daily newspaper columns
which often carried the same info I had just seen that morning in intelligence
debriefings.  It turned out he had a nephew that worked for Naval intelligence
who was feeding him the data as fast as it came rolling in.)

I have said all this to simply say that I personally do not feel it is beyond
the realm of possibility for branches of our military services (which are often
used as tools of government agencies) to recruit young men and women, mold them
in the fashion they desire, and then offer them positions where the adventure
and excitement of such a life would be very appealing.  Especially if you feel
that you are someone special with unique qualifications.  Lee Oswald, from what
I have read about him (as much as I can get a hold of), seemed to fall into
that category.  I do not feel being a 18 or 19 year old spy is that far
fetched.  Thanks for your time.

JLF
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3222 alt.conspiracy:18268 sci.skeptic:30810
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:37:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <srtnm#[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 36

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

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

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

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

Paul Collacchi
Xref: icaen alt.conspiracy.jfk:3223 alt.conspiracy:18275 alt.activism:32446 alt.society.civil-liberty:6093 alt.individualism:12644 alt.censorship:11584 talk.politics.misc:95119 misc.headlines:24243 soc.culture.usa:8392
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!sun-barr!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part IV, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:12:09 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Lines: 152


        I made the following transcript from a tape recording
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Before I get to that, you had asked me a question on this medical
evidence.  Do you recall?

GARY NULL:
Yes. I asked you for the evidence of forgery and retouching in
the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
This is my special area of research. I discovered that the X-rays
were fake in that they show the entire face missing on the right
side. And again, this is what JAMA tried to head off at the press
conference today. They tried to ridicule criticism of the medical
evidence without facing these facts. And I asked them at the
press conference:  "Didn't you notice that the face is missing --
that the President's face is missing in the X-rays, but it's NOT
missing in the photographs?"  And, of course, at that point, the
press conference became tumultuous, and the whole thing began to
be overturned. The photographs, of course, show extensive
retouching and evidence of forgery. And this was directly how the
Chief Justice of the United States was tricked -- with this faked
evidence. The doctors, most recently (quite a few that JAMA did
not interview, and they don't dare interview, and if they did,
like other researchers, they're not going to report it) ....
because those doctors insist, to this day, that that throat wound
WAS an entry hole. And the many people who were at the autopsy
.... and Doctor Fink, the forensic pathologist who was at the
autopsy, who was not interviewed by JAMA, and whom they claimed
declined, and I've talked to him. But he testified that the hole
in the back was an entry hole that did not penetrate into the
chest. So what JAMA did -- and as Jim Marrs just said: They're a
political action committee that doesn't dare let this evidence
link up because .... they've kept it compartmentalized. I asked
them:  "What about Doctor Humes's stating at the end of his
testimony to Arlen Specter that the bullet that hit John Connally
could not possibly have been the same bullet that went through
John Kennedy because of the fragments that were found in Connally?"
They said:  "We did not discuss John Connally in this article.
It's not relevant."  So that's an example of compartmentalizing
the evidence by a political action committee which has sought
to control the medical community in this country.

GARY NULL:
Okay.  Let's try to go back to the photographs. And please, if
you would, try to keep .... we have limited time and we want the
opportunity for you to give us as much information as you can.
Let's go specifically to the fraud that you are asserting, and
on the retouching of the photographs that no one else in the media
has picked up on.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Right. This is the key to the case, right now. The Chief Justice,
Earl Warren (and he mentions in his memoirs that he was shown
autopsy photographs) [said] that he was tricked by phony
photographs and X-rays which apparently show a shot that came from
behind. They claim that there is an entry hole in the area of the
cowlick, although the autopsists, Doctors Humes and Boswell, told
the committee of doctors at the House of Representatives that
they denied ....  He said: I defy you to see this hole here where
you say it is; that this is not a hole. It's something else. And
it was four inches -- as the Clark Panel found in 1968 -- from
where that entry hole was placed in the autopsy report by Doctor
Humes and Doctor Boswell. It was four inches above it. Then,
showing the face missing in the X-rays and not showing Earl
Warren the photographs that showed the President's face intact
made him think that his face was blown away.  And that's what we
see in the Zapruder film. And I believe that that's animated.

GARY NULL:
Okay, let's go to some specific references. I'm looking now at a
photograph of John Kennedy. It's called "the stare of death"
photograph. And I'd like for you to talk about the reference
black triangle that appears on the right upper forehead of
Kennedy in this photograph.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Yes, if you have a clear print of that in the negative, in the
negative there is no light whatsoever that comes through that
triangle. It's much clearer in a clear print. In my book, we were
able to do the best possible reproductions, but, of course,
they're screened and it's not that clear. But in a comparable
right profile photograph, which we publish there, you can see
what has been covered up. And they're from two DIFFERENT sets of
photographs. One, with the reference black triangle is known as
"the Fox set of photographs" which came into the possession of
Mark Crouch, who was a friend of the Secret Service man, James K.
Fox, who took the rolls of film from Bethesda Naval Hospital over
to be developed in the Navy labs. The other set of photographs,
which were in the possession of Robert Groden, show that there is
a major laceration extending into the forehead of the President.
This was NOT seen in Dallas, but two of the autopsy doctors did
describe this laceration to me. They brought it up. I did not
bring it up. And they told me about the laceration going a half
an inch into the forehead above the right eye. That's where that
reference black triangle is. What the reasons were for covering
it up in some of those photographs are not clear to me. I can't
answer that question. All I know is that they conflict with each
other -- these two different pictures, as do many of the
photographs conflict with each other.

GARY NULL:
Also, it's very clear that the whole right side of the head is
blackened out, and only the ear is visible. That is CLEARLY
retouching.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
That's it. And the whole back of the head, extending around
behind to the right ear was missing. And a major part of my
research was to try to resolve the puzzles of the medical
evidence. Exactly what did the wounds look like? I was able to
determine -- by having the doctors and the witnesses at the
autopsy and in Dallas draw on mannequin heads -- exactly where
the bone defect was and how much scalp was missing. And they are
identical. The wound was not altered, but there was a large hole
that went all the way around to the side of the head. The autopsy
report is accurate in that respect, but the problem was that
there was sort of a flap of scalp that was badly macerated and it
did have an egg-shaped-sized hole through it. But it could not
possibly cover up all of the missing bone that was underneath
there. And this caused a lot of confusion among engineers and
accountants and other people with that mindset who do this
research, because they can't semantically separate out the
issues, for instance, between alteration and tampering, or
between laceration and incision. A lot of the confusion in the
case (in the medical evidence) is semantic, so I was able to
determine that the body was not altered. It may have been
tampered with, but even that doesn't appear to have been
necessary when all they really had to do was to fake the
photographs and flash them at Earl Warren who put them aside
immediately because of their gore.
                      (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

      If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please
      assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards
      and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.
      As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year
      cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of
      the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes
      ever more striking.

      John DiNardo

Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Three Witnesses (Part 1)
Keywords: New Times article by Dick Russell
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:34:14 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 165


This is part 1 of an article which appeared in New Times magazine
in June of 1978.

Paul Collacchi

_______________________________________________________________________


THREE WITNESSES by Dick Russell

For more than two years, New Times has explored the mysteries surrounding
the assasswination of John F. Kennedy.  At first, our articles pointed
out the holes in the Warren Commission's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald
acted alone in Dallas on November 22, 1963.  After the House of
Representatives voted -- in the wake of Watergate and the exposure of FBI
and CIA abuses -- to investigate the assassination anew, we reported
extensively on the Committee's progress.  Now, of course, that
investigation has been crippled by the forced resignation of Chief
Counsel Richard Sprague (New Times, May 13).

What we present her is an intriguing series of tales surrounding the
assassination.  It is the story of three men: a baron, a gunrunner, and a
Cuban refugee.  One was a close acquaintance of Lee Oswald: the others
say they met him before the assassination.  One killed himself the very
day a House investigator planned to interview him; another will not let
his name be used, because he fears for his life.  All three talked at
length to Dick Russell, the author of a forthcoming book on the Kennedy
assassination.  Taken alone, their stories are scenes from Raymond
Chandler, snapshots of a once-incredible netherworld that has become
increasingly familiar.  As a whole, they may form the framework to the
answer to what really happened in Dallas.?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------                 "OF COURSE, THE TRUTH OF THE ASSASSINATION HAS NOT
COME OUT,"                 JEANNA DE MOHRENSCHILDT SAID.  "IT WILL *NEVER*
COME OUT.  BUT                 WE KNOW IT WAS A VAST CONSPIRACY."  THE BARON
TURNED TO FACE                 HER.  "OSWALD," HE SAID, "WAS A HARMLESS LUNATIC."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BARON
    Like Fitzgerald's Gatsby, Baron George Sergei de Mohrenshildt was
borne back ceaselessly into the past.  In June of 1976, a sultry day in
Dallas, he had stood gazing out the picture window of his second-story
apartment, talking casually about a young man who used to curl up on the
couch with the Baron's Great Danes.
    "No matter what they say, Lee Harvey Oswald was a delightful guy,"
de Mohrenshildt was saying.  "They make a moron out of him, but he was
smart as hell.  Ahead of his time really, a kind of hippie of those days.
In fact, he was the most honest man I knew.  And I will tell you this --
I am sure he did *not* shoot the president."
    Nine months later, on March 29, one hour after an investigator for
the House Assassinations Committee left a calling-card with his daughter,
the Baron apparently put a shotgun to his head in Palm Beach, Florida.
In his absence came forward a Dutch journalist and longtime acquaintance,
Willem Oltmans, with the sensational allegation that de Mohrenschildt had
admitted serving as a middleman between Oswald and H.L. Hunt in an
assassination plot involving other Texas oilmen, anti-Castro Cubans, and
elements of the FBI and CIA.
    But how credible was de Mohrenshildt?  As an old friend in Dallas'
Russian community, George Bouhe, once put it:  "He's better equipped than
anyobody to talk.  But we have an old Russian proverb that will always
apply to George de Mohrenschildt: 'The soul of the other person is in the
darkness.'"
    Intrigue and oil were the two constants in the Baron's life.  He
was an emigrant son of the Czarist nobility who spoke five languages
fluently and who, during the Second World War, was rumored to have spied
for the Germans, Soviets, and Latin Americans (The CIA's predecessor, the
OSS, turned down his application).  After the war, he went on to perform
geological surveys for major U.S. oil companies all over South America,
Europe and parts of Africa.  He became acquainted with certain of Texas'
more influential citizens -- oilman John Mecom, construction magnates
George and Herman Brown.  In Mexico, he gained audience in 1960 with Soviet
First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan.  In 1961 he was present in Guatemala
City -- by his account, on a "walking tour" -- when the Bay of Pigs troops
set out for Cuba.
    Finally, when Lee and Marina Oswald returned to Texas from the
Soviet Union in June 1962, the Baron soon became their closest friend.
Why?  Why would a member of the exclusive Dallas Petroleum Club take under
his wing a Trotsky-talking sheet-metal worker some 30 years his junior?
    The Warren Commission took 118 pages of his testimony to satisfy
itself of de Mohrenschildt's benign intent, but among critics the question
persisted:  Was the Baron really "baby-sitting" Oswald for the CIA?  While
de Mohrenshildt told the commission he'd never served as any government's
agent "in any respect whatsoever," a CIA file for the commission,
declassified in 1976, admits having used him as a source.  In the course of
several meetings with a man from its Dallas office upon de Mohrenschildt's
return from Yugoslavia late in 1957, "the CIA representative obtained
foreign intelligence which was promptly disseminated to other federal
agencies in ten separate reports."  The Dallas official, according to the
file, maintained "informal occasional contact" with the Baron until the
fall of 1961.
    The Warren Commission volumes, however, contain only passing
reference in de Mohrenshildt's testimony to a government man named "G.
Walter Moore."  His true name was J. Walton Moore, and he had served the
CIA in Dallas since its inception in 1947.
    In two brief, cryptic interviews with me in the 18 months before
his death, de Mohrenschildt claimed he would not have struck up his
relationship with Oswald "if Jim Moore hadn't told me Oswald was safe."
The Baron wouldn't elaborate on that statement, except to hint that it
constituted some kind of clearance.
    J. Walton Moore is now a tall, white-haired man in his middle
sixties who continues to operate out of Dallas' small CIA office.
Questioned at his home one summer evening in 1976 about de
Mohrenschildt's remarks, he conceded knowing the Baron as a "pleasant
sort of fellow" who provided "some decent information" after a trip to
Yugoslavia.  "To the best of my recollection, I hadn't seen de
Mohrenschildt for a couple of years before the assassination."  Moore
added, "I don't know where George got the idea that I cleared Oswald for
him.  I never met Oswald.  I never heard his name before the
assassination.
    For sure, the CIA did maintain an interest in de Mohrenschildt
at least through April of 1963.  That month, Oswald left Texas for New
Orleans and de Mohrenschildt prepared to depart for a lucrative
geological survey contract in Haiti.  On April 29, according to a CIA
Office of Security file, also declassified in 1976, "[Deleted] Case
Officer had requested an expedite check of George DE MOHRENSHILDT for
reasons unknown to Security."
    There is one alleged ex-CIA contract employee, now working for
an oil company in Los Angeles, prepared to testify that de Mohrenschildt
was the overseer of an aborted CIA plot to overthrow Haitian President
Francois ("Papa Doc") Duvalier in June 1963.  The existence of such a
plot was examined, but apparently couldn't be substantiated, by the
Church Committee.  Herb Atkin is sure the plot did exist.
    "I knew de Mohrenschildt as Philip Harbin," Atkin said when
contacted by telephone a few days after the Baron's suicide.  "A lot of
people in Washington have claimed that Harbin did not exist.  But he's
the one that ran me from the late fifties onward.  I'm certain that de
Mohrenschild was my case officer's real name."
    If so, the Harbin alias may have a readily identifiable origin.
De Mohrenshildt's fourth wife, Jeanna, was born in Harbin, China.
    One summer day in 1976, still in her bathrobe, she sat at a
dining room table cluttered with plants and dishes and watched her
husband begin to pace the floor.  "Of course, the truth of the
assassination has not come out, she said.  "It will *never* come out.
But we know it was a vast conspiracy."
    The Baron turned to face her.  "Oswald," he said, "was a
harmless lunatic."
    At our first interview, I had asked de Mohrenschildt what he
knew about the recurring reports of Oswald in the presence of Cubans.
He had nodded agreement.  "Oswald probably did not know himself who they
were," he replied.  "I myself was in a little bit of danger from the
Cubans [illegible] who they are.  Criminal lunatics.  "When I broached
the subject now in the presence of his wife, de Mohrenschildt said
something to her in Russian.  She then answered for him:  "That's a
different story.  But one must examine the anti-Castro motive of the
time.  After the Bay of Pigs."
    A few months later, de Mohrenschildt was committed by his wife
to the psychiatric unit of Parkland Memorial Hospital.  There were
rumors of a book naming CIA names in connection with Oswald, squirreled
away with his wife's attorney.  According to journalist Oltmans, upon
leaving the hospital de Mohrenschildt told him:  "They're going to kill
me or put me away forever.  You've got to get me out of the country."
In March, the Baron took a leave-of-absence from his French
professorship at Dallas' virtually all-black Bishop College.  He flew
with Oltmans to Belgium, wandered away during lunch, and wound up in
Florida at his daughter's home.  There, a tape machine being used to
transcribe a television program is said to have recorded his suicide.

________________

End of Part I.



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: Lattimer, Question Three
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 11 SEP 92 13:09:51 PDT
Lines: 65



Question #3: "When it came out that Dr. Humes had tossed the original
working drafts of the autopsy notes into the fire in his study,
after he finished his final copies, people wanted to know why
they were burned, and attached ominous implications to their
being burned.  If the doctor has merely thrown them in the wastebasket,
no one might have thought anything of it.  The act of burning them
conjured up sacrilegious implications in the columns of the critics.
Why were they burned?"

Well, now this sounds like debunking, doesn't it?

Lattimer's conclusion: (briefly told, since this one is pretty
old news; I expect we have all seen some version of it)

p. 195  "During the early years of his navy career, Humes had
at one point been assigned to the Detroit area and was sometimes
asked to escort visiting dignitaries on sightseeing tours there,
in addition to showing them the defense production lines at the
factories of the major automobile makers.  One of the great museums
of the world, to which he sometimes took visitors, is the late
Henry Ford's Greenfield Village Museum, at nearby Dearborn,
Michigan, which contains Americana from the mightiest locomotive
to the tiniest light bulb built by Edison, who was a great friend
of Ford's.  In this museum is the original rocking chair in which
Lincoln was sitting when he was shot.  On the upholstery of the
back of the chair, at the level where a man's head might rest,
is a dark area on the fabric.  Humes had watched crowds of visitors
persuade themsevles that this stain was Lincoln's blood [it wasn't,
jg] and then act in a morbid, sometimes joking manner about it,
which Humes found disrespectful."

"During the autopsy on Kennedy, for whom he had felt great admiration,
he made personal notations on loose sheets of paper.  These were,
as is inevitable, stained with blood and fat from his surgical gloves.
Normally, rough working notes such as these would be copied onto
clean paper and a rough draft of the autopsy report prepared - as
he later did.  This draft was then checked and rechecked for
clarity and accuracy with the other members of the autopsy team
and then put in final form.  After this, rough drafts and soiled notes
were discarded, according to normal procedure.  Humes finished
transcribing his notes, conferring with his colleagues, and making
final revisions at about noon on Sunday, November 24.  He then
crumpled up the soiled notes and preliminary drafts and threw
them into the fireplace in his study in the recreation room
of his home where he had sequestered himself while he wrote
up the report."

Lattimer then goes on to point out that, however disposed of,
the notes, because of the blood and fat splatters, would have
become rancid had they been stored.

Humes himself has stated that he burned his notes, not on
Sunday morning, but on Saturday night.  The burning of his
notes was "discovered" when Humes announced that he had
thrown them in the fire.

Next, we'll look at questions four and five together, as they
both deal with the bullet holes in President Kennedy's jacket
and shirt.

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)


Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: More Warner Etc.
Message-ID: <cortez.716278481@milton>
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:14:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 95

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

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

>    Two inches on a neck is indeed a big difference.  Getting
>    to that degree of accuracy over a difference of 150-190
>    feet is another thing altogether.  Not knowing the exact
>    location and posture of the neck is yet another problem.
>

I don't understad your point. Since all I was doing was standing up for
Bruce Schuck, who made a claim that at a particular Z-frame the hit could
not have both come from the the TSBD "assassin's lair" and traversed JFK's
neck, which you attempted to refute by displaying a misunderstanding of
basic geometry, I don't see any need to anything further. I don't think
the bullet traversed the neck, so it's not important to me.

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

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

>    I appreciate the compliment.

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

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

>    Lattimer relied upon the ballistics evidence that
>    showed both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>    from C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles
>    in the world.  This evidence is presented in
>    the WCR.  It might make interesting reading for you.

First, if you think it's so damn interesting, why don't you post it?

What chapter? My NYT copy has a lousy index.

You really think you've got something to refute that the fragments are
too small to rule out all other rifles in the world. In the WCR? Hahahaha.

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

>    They compare more than rifling per se when they
>    make these ballistic matches.  Again, try reading
>    the ballistic evidence that was presented.

>    See also the NAA analysis which not only ties
>    the Connally wrist fragments to CE399, but the
>    limo fragments to the fragment removed from
>    JFK's head.

Again, the NAA analysis could only and did only show that the
composition of the fragments did not rule out the copper jacketed
bullet and fragments in evidence. They didn't and couldn't "tie" anything
to anything.

This is typical of how you operate, Joel. Someone at some point questions
whether some piece of evidence might exclude the possiblity of the official
explanation occurring. Someone else shows that no, it doesn't. You take that
and try to present it as conclusive evidence that the official explanation
is true. Sorry, but it just isn't that easy.

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

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

>    Perhaps so, though I have noticed that "faith" is
>    needed more desperately by those who have to keep
>    inventing ways to explain away the mountains of
>    physical evidence.

All you've shown us are wispy threads. Where are the mountains?
For that matter, where is *any* evidence at all that Oswald fired the
rifle, or any rifle? Or was even on the sixth floor at the time?

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Etcetera
Message-ID: <cortez.716280958@milton>
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:55:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 158

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3229  (Tom Warner)

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

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

>    Perhaps someone with access to the HSCA can verify or refute,
>    but my recollection was that they had a team of forensic
>    anthropologists.  In either case, how much verification do
>    you need that the person in the X-rays and photos was
>    John Fitzgerarld Kennedy and no other person?

I need an explanation of why the front right of his face is missing when
in the photos its perfectly intact, and why the rear top in the x-rays
is intact when every medical witness described that area as missing.

>       They/he did
>    things like measured the angle of his nasal septum, various
>    features of his ear, the lip profile, the network of
>    wrinkles across his back and the side of his neck,

You're talking about the photos now. I'm still not convinced they're real;
but that's a different issue. If they're not, then it's a composite that
wasn't tested for.

>    dental records, operational records... the guy in the
>    photos and X-rays was JFK.  I haven't heard you suggest
>    otherwise, come to think of it.

No, I have, because the x-rays don't match the photos. I don't doubt that the
person in the photos and x-rays is JFK, I do think it very likely that the
photos and x-rays were tampered with.

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

>    The thing is, they can tell exceedingly well.

Well, I don't know why you believe that, and as a believer in government
of the people, by the people and for the people, I'm not going to accept
a panel of experts' opinions (which really boils down to one opinion
ratified by a panel) in place of real evidence. If they're so sure of
they're opinions, why do we have to take them at their word without being
able to check it out independently?

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

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

>>No, it's not any more reasonable. I'm not convinced either way, and
>>I see no reason why I should be.

>    You should be convinced the photos and X-rays are
>    genuine because they have been authenticated and
>    tested and because you have no evidence to indicate
>    they are fakes.

Archetypal pro-WC speak. Poorly refuted evidence is "no evidence," and
tests whose data we are not allowed to see is "authentication," even if
many issues were not even addressed by these tests.

>>The point is, that if the photos and x-rays were essential components
>>of a highly sophisticated coverup, they would be very difficult to
>>identify as forgeries by any standard method. A panel of experts in the
>>employ of the government spendinmg a few afternoons is not enough to
>>settle the issue, although it may be enough to mollify people like yourself.

>    Why would they be difficult to identify as forgeries by any
>    standard method?

Uh, because the forgers would anticipate such tests being done, if they were
experts in their field.

>       What forgery methods were available to
>    the forgers that would have allowed them to so thoroughly
>    and undetectably fake an entire set of photos and X-rays.

I'm not an expert, I don't know. The HSCA did, however, state that
it was possible to create forgeries they would not have detected.

>    While you're at it, please let us all know just what sort
>    of planning took place that placed forgers as part of an
>    assassination team so sophisticated that its success
>    depended upon a long series of events, culminating in
>    the need for forged autopsy photos and X-rays.

I don't follow your train of thought.

You're asking, why would forgers need to be involved? Because JFK was
hit from the right front, and they were framing Oswald on a sixth-floor
TSBD set-up. I don't see why they would need to be part of the plan from
the beginning, although I don't see why they couldn't have been either.

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

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

>    The HSCA, Lattimer, Lifton, and I am sure many other
>    sources have copies of the computer-enhanced X-rays.

Yes, and even an amateur can see the large amount of missing bone
structure on the upper right face as opposed to the upper left face.

>    HSCA, Menninger, and Lattimer have diagrams of the
>    actual skull defect.

With the upper right face intact, I presume.

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

>    I think his response is explained by a combination of
>    two phenomena, namely, the jet propulsion effect,
>    demonstrated experimentally,

Hahahahahahahahaha. With melons on sticks, which fell backwards sometimes
but not all the time, probably when Lattimer hit them below the mid-line.
No one has ever or will ever show that you can make a head fly backwards
by hitting it from behind.

Nevermind the motorcycle cop hit by fragments flying backwards from JFK,
or the fragment that landed on the trunk.

>       and the neuromuscular
>    response.  I am not sure why you would expect to be
>    able to directly observe the workings of JFK's muscles.

I don't mean directly seeing muscular action; after all he was wearing a
suit, wasn't he? I mean muscular action is indirectly evident, based on the
overall movement of the body. JFK's motion showed no sign of internal
motivation; the only part of his body pushing or pulling any other part
was his head. He was simply thrown back as a whole, with his head obviously
leading the way.
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Etcetera
Message-ID: <cortez.716285379@milton>
Date: 12 Sep 92 08:09:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 120


What follows is forwarded from a posting-impaired reader. :)

____________________________________________________________

From [e-mail] Thu Sep 10 09:42:48 1992
Received: from airy.stsci.edu by milton.u.washington.edu
    (5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.22 ) id AA27187; Thu, 10 Sep 92 09:42:45 -0700
Received: from avion.stsci.edu by avion.stsci.edu (PMDF #12584) id
 <[e-mail]>; Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:39 EST
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:39 EST
From: hey -- you -- get offa my goiter <[e-mail]>
Subject: oops...i screwed my directions up a little...use this instead if you
 do post it
To: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Vms-To: SMTP%"[e-mail]"
Status: RO

    i don't have direct access to any of the alt groups here
    (space telescope is still a little antsy about government
    funded agencies allowing people to read ALT.SEX.ALUMINUM.
    BASEBALL.BAT, i guess :-\) but i'm able to read them with-
    out posting to them through University of Maryland.  could
    you possibly post my response to this on ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK?
    i'd greatly appreciate it.

[e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes: >>> & >
>[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes: >>
>
>>re: 3200 (Tom Warner)

[much deleted]

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

[not so much deleted]

>
>>    One can determine very little of the source of the shot
>>    by looking at the Z-film.  It is a myth that because he
>>    moved backwards and to his left he had to have been
>>    reacting to the force of a bullet fired from his front
>>    right.
>
>Bullshit. First, it can clearly be seen from the film that Kennedy's head
>takes the hit and then impels the entire torso backward. His arms stay
>completely limp, and his back does not arch -- it simply gets thrown backward.
>There is absolutely no visbible sign of any muscular action at all. Remember,
>it would require a complex set of muscular actions, working in combination
>to perfection, to achieve a similar result. Even a conscious man would be hard
>pressed to imitate the appearance of having been hit in the right temple so
>well. For a man with half his brain gone, it's simply not possible.
>
>>       Of course, unexplained by you is the fact that
>>    JFK's head moves forward two inches between frames
>>    312-313.  Lifton hints that maybe the Z-film was
>>    somehow altered.  Lifton, you will recall, was present
>>    when Dr. Richard Feynman pointed this out.  Presumably,
>>    Lifton was there to lecture the good doctor on the
>>    laws of physics.
>
>Is it 312-313 or 311-312? A full two inches?
>This is genuinely weird and I haven't seen anything yet that satisfactorily
>explains it. It could be that JFK received two near-simultaneous hits. It
>could be something less obvious that I don't understand. I'm not convinced
>at this point that the motion is sudden or quick enough to rule outKennedy
>having moved forward just before the hit.
>
okay...down to business.  i frankly have always found the whole double headshot
theory to be pretty hokey.  the odds of two bullets hitting within 1/18 of a
second, even in a coordinated attack such as is being postulated, and (more
importantly) being split into two frames by mr. Z's camera are on the order of
those of a single bullet following the whole Magic Bullet route.  i think there
is a far more simple explanation for JFK's forward twitch prior to his massive
backwards snap that doesn't seem to get any play around A.C.JFK.

namely, JFK's head was NOT perfectly vertical at the time of impact.  also, it
was resting on the top of his neck which has a fairly well established range of
motions it can be allowed to move in without breaking.  consider this:  what
happens to your head and body if, while you are leaning slightly forward and to
the left, you apply a pressure to your right temple in a direction towards the
rear and left, allowing your parts to follow the motion of the pressure.

first, your head will be pushed in a rotational direction (counterclockwise
when viewed from above) as well as dropping the level of your chin (especially
if you include a downward component to the pressure being applied) and putting
your forehead relatively forward.  this will continue until your head reaches
the extent of its allowable movement.  when it reaches that point, it will
continue to try to move in said direction, but it will now also be dragging
your body after it due to the newly established rigidity of the neck.  it will
force the body back and to the left.

now what happens if you watch this event from a side position, say slightly
rotated clockwise (viewed from above) from the direction the pressure is being
applied in:
               __  / direction of pressure
  top view:   /  \'
              \__/ --- line of sight

you will see the head seem to bob forward momentarily before the whole shebang
flies abruptly backwards.

does this make sense?

can we think of an occasion where we might have seen something exactly like
this effect?  hmmmm....

>
>>Joel Grant (still speaking on his own behalf)
>
>Tom Warner

mike brutvan
space telescope science institute

(it's like my employers care what i think, only different)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Husky Fever
Message-ID: <cortez.716286197@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 08:23:17 GMT
Lines: 388

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3232 (Tom Warner)

>>>    I agree that trajectory analysis presents a range of
>>>    possibilities and that that range can be quite broad.
>>>    In fact, I have been trying to make that point.  And
>>>    we'll get to the SBT.

>>Yes, you'll have to, if you want to stick with the lone gunman with a
>>Mannlicher Carcano.

>    A crime scene is a puzzle and the pieces need to be
>    put together.  Must we re-hash the evidence placing
>    a gunman in the 6th floor window firing three shots,
>    two of which were recovered and matched to a rifle
>    found on the 6th floor?

I don't see any reason too. Keep in mind I think the shells and rifle
were left behind just so they would be found by police and lead to
Oswald as the assassin. CE399 was also almost certainly planted, since
it is too pristine to have caused *any* of the wounds to JFK or Connally
or to have hit anything else in the limo.

>       And the lack of any other
>    gunman or rifle in any other buildings or Dealy
>    Plaza locations?

And also, none of these other alleged rifleman waved brightly colored
flags, or yelled out *here I am, come get me now.* What's your point?
There are in fact several witnesses claiming to have seen riflemen in other
locations, most in the grassy knoll area. Others saw the famous puff of smoke.

>    What trajectory analysis will show us is whether
>    or not the place where the guy with the rifle was
>    seen, the rifle was found, etc., is *consistent*
>    with the other evidence.  Does the 6th floor, TSBD
>    fall within that range?  The answer, clearly, is
>    yes it does.

Even if you don't try and make the sixth-floor shooter use a Mannlicher-
Carcano, the front neck wound was too small to be an exit and the head wound
came from the right front, based on other evidence.

On trajectory analysis alone, all that can be ruled out is the single-bullet
theory. It also places limits on all other explanations, depending on what
explanation you're proposing.

>>>    150 feet is a generous estimation of the distance from
>>>    the car to the 6th floor window at the time the second
>>>    bullet was fired.  I suspect it was closer to about
>>>    180-185 feet.

>>Kennedy's neck isn't 180-185 feet wide either. Again, it's the angle, not
>>the distance, that's at issue. It's a comparison of the angle from the
>>throat wound to the back wound, to the angle from the throat wound to the
>>6th floor TSBD. If you work out the geometry on paper, you'll see that your
>>"angel on the head of a pin" criticism is silly and wrong. You might even
>>ask yourself, how could anyone possibly suggest that a 2-dimensional
>>analysis is worth any more to your case than a pile of bat feces?

>    Note the "angle from the throat wound to the 6th floor TSBD"
>    phrase there.  The 6th floor TSBD was between 150 and 190
>    feet away from JFK's neck.  I am suggesting that, all things
>    considered, trying to nail down that angle to a degree of
>    accuracy equal to two inches is not a feasible enterprise.
>    Guano argue with that one?

Yes, you still haven't figured it out. Why is the distance a problem?
The longer the distance, the *less* important the precision with which
you place JFK's throat wound is. The "two inches" does not come into play
in this angle measurement, really -- it comes into play in the measurement
of the angle you're comparing to, that is, the angle from the back wound
to the throat wound.

>       Since the measurements of the
>    horizontal angle vary by at least 12 degrees, I'd say
>    no 100% accurate results have as yet been developed.

I don't know why others have failed to agree with their measurements, but I
expect some (possibly on both sides) have fudged things in very obvious
ways. There is absolutely no reason why, using the existing film(s), very
precise measurements could not be taken.

>>>    By "Dallas police" do you mean E. R. Walthers, who was a
>>>    deputy sheriff of Dallas County?  He has denied finding
>>>    any such bullet.  No photo exists of him or anyone else
>>>    finding a bullet in the grass, though there is a photo
>>>    of people *looking* for a bullet.  They just didn't
>>>    find one.

>>J. W. Foster, who guarded the bullet and watched the "agent" pick it up.
>>The photo and story, like I said, is in Marrs. The bullet isn't visible
>>in the photo, just Foster and another man standing in the background as
>>another man fingers the ground.

>    And this you regard as, somehow, a tighter chain of
>    custody?

No, and I said so.

>>>    Should I ever get a law degree and decide to practice
>>>    criminal law, and should I get the definitive version of
>>>    the history of all the physical evidence in the JFK
>>>    assassination, I will be better able to judge what would
>>>    or would not be admissable due to a loose chain of
>>>    possession.  Interestingly, you reject the limo fragments
>>>    and CE399 because the chain of possession isn't tight
>>>    enough for you, but accept the existence of a bullet
>>>    that is apparently possessed by no one and which nobody
>>>    actually claims to have found.  Rather startlingly different
>>>    standards, what?

>>Not at all. First, we are talking about a murder case in which there
>>is a high probability of political motive. We also have Oswald, who
>>several suspicously obvious pieces of evidence point to but other
>>evidence proves could not have been in the suspiciously obvious
>>"assassins lair" at the time of the shooting, failed a paraffin test,
>>could not have fired all the shots with the supiciously obvious weapon,
>>and shortly after the assassination, was taken out by the mafia with
>>apparent cooperation from someone within the Dallas police.
>>Furthermore, CE399 is just too damn pristine to have caused *any* of
>>Connally's wounds, and the man who found the bullet just laying there on
>>a stretcher did not recognize it as the bullet he found, not to mention
>>that two witnesses claim to have seen Oswald's assassin at the hospital.
>>Is this not enough to make you think maybe, just maybe, someone
>>was planting evidence? Given all the circumstantial evidence of a frame-up
>>is the fact that the chain of possession is not only "not tight" but gaping
>>a mile wide of note? Puh-lease!

>    Your basic method of argument here is that you assume, in
>    your premise, that which you seek to demonstrate for your
>    conclusion.  This is known as begging the question.

You mean, I assume there is a possibility that evidence is planted,
which leads me to question the validity of *all* evidence, which leads
me to conclude that the bullet and fragments in evidence, without proof,
cannot be conclusively said to be the same items recovered from the
stretcher and limo? There is something wrong with this line of thinking?

>    You ignore the physical evidence that ties limo frags and
>    CE399 to Oswald's rifle,

No, I just add to this that they may be planted, and in CE399's case,
almost certainly was, either at the hospital or after.

>       wrist frags to CE399 and head
>    frags to limo frags.  This is a chain of custody tight to
>    the atomic level.

You greatly exaggerate the value of these tests. You actually believe
that there is a method by which little specks of metal can be conclusively
tied to individual fragments or bullets? There's not, sorry.

>       And you prefer as an alternative a
>    bullet that was not claimed to have been found by the
>    man Foster says found it and is now nowhere in existence.
>    This is the mile-wide gap, Husky.

First, please don't call me a Husky, I consider the term derogatory. :)

Second, I don't have any claim by Foster that anyone other than himself
found a bullet, do you?

More importantly...
A
>>I'm not resting the whole case on Foster's statements, the way you are resting
>>your entire case on the authenticity of CE399 and the fragments. I was just
>>responding to something inaccurate (as best is known, I have no reason to
>>doubt Foster -- especially since such vital evidence as the "babushka lady"s
>>film has definitely disappeared) that you posted.

>    It is not true that I rest the "entire case" on CE399 and
>    frags.  Each piece of evidence serves its own purpose.

If a piece of evidence is crucial to your case, i.e., without it you have no
case, then you are resting your entire case upon that evidence.

Obviously, if the bullet and fragments in evidence are not the same as the
bullet and fragments recovered from the limo and stretcher, then
the whole case against Oswald completely falls apart.

I don't know either way, I just don't know why you think you do. I'm willing
to accept the possibility that the framents are bona fide; I haven't seen
any plausible explanation for how CE399 got shot from the sixth floor TSBD
into *anything* in the limo and came out looking like it does.

>>>    As for the impossibility of Oswald slipping off three
>>>    shots in the approximately eight seconds of the firing
>>>    sequence, I suggest this is a feat that can and has
>>>    been easily duplicated.

>>You'll first have to show that your figure of eight seconds is plausible,
>>and that the gaps in between the 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd shots were
>>long enough, and that there were no more than 3 shots. Good luck.

>    Short version:

>    Shot one - approximately Z-film 162

Through the tree? Was this the miss then? How did it get to the curb
way on down the street from where the limo was at this point?

>    Shot two - approximately Z-film 220 (3.17 sec)
>    Shot three -             Z-film 313 (5.08 sec)

>    Total time elapsed: 8.25 seconds.

>    Why I would have to "prove" there were no more than three
>    shots is unclear.  Three shells were found near Oswald's
>    rifle, and three shots can be accounted for by the evidence.

Because JFK has three wounds, Connally has three wounds, a bystander
was hit by a fragment or shrapnel, and the curb was hit. You have
to be able to explain how all these hits were done by three bullets.

The fact that three shells, all neatly lined up in a row, were found
by the obvious "assassins lair" is only evidence of the number of shots
fired if you begin with the assumption that all shots were fired from that
rifle. Whose being circular, here?

>>>    Why would Charles Guiteau walk up and, in plain sight of
>>>    everyone, pull the trigger?  Why do any crimes leave
>>>    evidence?

>>You don't get it. If Oswald didn't do it, which the evidence proves he didn't,
>>then there had to be a sophisticated frame up. Such conspirators would not
>>have left their rifles laying around in the Dal-Tex building.

>    It is you that doesn't get it.  Your logic here is tangled
>    beyond all hope of retrieval.

No, you just want it to be, so you mix issues until it appears that way.

>       The evidence proves a negative,
>    namely that Oswald didn't do it.  But the sophisticated
>    frame-up has planted evidence that proves Oswald did do it.

You're following me accurately so far.

>    Mind readers, we know what these sophisticated conspirators
>    would not have done.  And what they would have done.
>    And they weren't sophisticated enough to fool you, eh?

Huh? I'm just trying to point out that if Oswald didn't do it, then we
*by necessity* have a sophisticated conspiracy on our hands, that planted
evidence to frame Oswald. You were claiming that the fact that no rifles
were left behind in any other location was evidence that the only shooter
was in the TSBD, which only works if you assume a *lack* of sophistication
on the part of the assassins. On the other hand, if you assume even a
modicum of competence on the part of the assassins, the fact that no other
rifles were left behind is entirely consistent with a frame-up of Oswald
as the lone assassin.
>
>    Now why don't you present your actual theory of the
>    assassination?

I entertain several, with a wide degree of uncertainty in all details.

>       Please include your conjectures of how
>    many people might have been involved, what sort of
>    planning needed to have taken place, how they chose
>    Oswald as the patsy, when they chose Oswald as the
>    patsy, how they managed to plant all that evidence,
>    including the death of Officer Tippit.

Very generally, somewhat more than needed to be, especially on the
mafia side. I think the operation was planned as a "get him in whatever
city we can" and most likely began in the mafia or right-wing-luny circle
and then someone made a contact in government somewhere that assured
low security. Either the Mafia, government or para-intelligence figures
could have chosen Oswald as patsy, and I think this very likely occurred
before the trip to Mexico City, in New Orleans, through Bannister. I'm not
certain on that, there may have been some other reason for Oswald's trip
to Mexico City. But the appearance is of creating an apparent connection
between the assassination and Cuba and the Soviet Union. I think that at least
part of the conspiracy fully intended to hang the whole thing on Cuba,
but LBJ, even though he apparently was convinced up to his death that
Cuba was involved, just didn't respond the way they thought he would.

All anyone needed was to know how to get Oswald's gun from his garage.
That's not all that hard, if you have someone talking to Oswald prior
to the assassination. Even if Oswald was just chosen because he worked
for the TSBD, and no one in on the plan really had much to do with him
until they decided they needed a patsy and found this guy with the "commie"
background at the TSBD, it still wouldn't be very tough.

As far as Tippit's death, someone shot him, possibly while Oswald was on the
scene. Possibly Oswald shot him.

>       I mean - none
>    of this vague stuff here.  The Oswald-did-it scenario
>    is detailed to the nth degree.  Conspiracy scenarios
>    prosper to the extent they are vague, with some noteworthy
>    exceptions.  So let's hear yours.  Expecting 100% airtight
>    perfection in the case against Oswald while delivering
>    murky innuendo is the epitome of the double-standard.

This is a crock. I believe there was a conspiracy primarily because
Oswald could not possibly have done it. The Oswald-did-it scenario is
detailed (bogus, but detailed) because the weaknesses of this scenario
is what drives belief in a conspiracy. Do you think we begin by imagining
some fully-wrought scenario down to all the details and then work
backwards from there? I don't, I look at the evidence, and where the
evidence is unclear, I consider all possibilities.

I don't expect 100% airtight perfection in the case against Oswald, just
something plausible. It isn't there.

If this case is ever seriously investigated and plausible case is built
agianst specific individuals, then we'll discuss details about it. Until
then, it's irresponsible to accuse people without evidence, and a waste of
time arguing about it.

>>>    Why are you extracting Bruce Schuck's statements and
>>>    shoving them at me?  Take it up with Bruce.

>>Gee, I thought this was a public forum.
>>I was taking it up with Bruce, and everybody. I just think its important
>>to keep in mind that most of the evidence points to a non-traversing
>>back wound, which would allow for a sixth floor TSBD shooter to have
>>hit Kennedy at the point that the Z film appears to show him first
>>taking a hit.

>    Perhaps Bruce will address your point.  As for "most
>    of the evidence" I presume you exclude the autopsy?

No, in fact, I rely most heavily upon the autopsy. At the autopsy, absolutely
no evidence of traversing was found. Checks were done both from the back,
looking for a path, and from the inside of the chest cavity, where the
autopsists quite logically assumed a bullet shot from above and behind would
pass into if it hit soneone in the back. They spent a great deal of time
trying to figure out where the bullet went and were under alot of pressure
to figure it out. Meanwhile, the FBI were hanging on the perimeter hoping for
a bullet or even just a fragment to take back to their lab, but the doctors
never found any, not even by x-ray (except in the head).
It was only after the autopsy was over with and the body was already done
up by the morticians that the Bethesda autopsists learned that the
throat wound they thought was only a tracheostomy opening had been a
wound. They then simply wrote into their final report that the bullet
must have traversed because they could make no other explanation for not
being able to find the bullet.

>>>       Apparently,
>>>    Conspiracy Central did a good job in planting them in the
>>>    limo, but a poor job in establishing (to your satisfaction)
>>>    chain of custody.

>>I'm not accusing the handlers of the bullets of being part of the conspiacy.
>>They did, however, completely fail to document the chain of possession.
>>Any step of the way, the fragments could have been switched. Or perhaps they
>>are the real thing. The point is, planted evidence is all over this case and
>>there's no way of knowing where those fragments actually came from for certain.

>    Please explain how they managed to have the fragment recovered
>    from JFK's head match the fragments found in the limo.

Please explain what the hell you're talking about.

>>>    No witnesses on that day came forward with any stories of
>>>    anyone else with a rifle.  All such stories have been
>>>    uncovered well after the fact.

>>First, who said "anyone else"? Other than who? I'm talking about the Rowlands,
>>who told the FBI that day they saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
>>building. They also claim to have told the FBI about a Black man being with
>>this man, but this is not in the records.

>    You mean Arnold Rowland, singular.  His wife did not support
>    his statements, indeed even made a comment to the effect that
>    her husband had a tendency to tell tales.

Where do you get this?

>>It may be true that no record of someone claiming on 1//22/63 to have seen
>>a rifle in a location in a different area altogether, I don't know. However,
>>the number of witnesses who, like the Rowlands, claim to have told more to
>>the FBI than is reflected in the records opens up some doubt.

>    Rowland actually first testified about seeing the black
>    man when he was in front of the WC.  The WC took his
>    statements seriously enough that they decided to interview
>    each and every employee of the TSBD to see if they could
>    substantiate Rowland's claim.  They found no such
>    substantiation.

Why would they? What would TSBD employees have over anyone else?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Calling From Bellevue
Message-ID: <cortez.716293610@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 10:26:50 GMT
Lines: 214

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3233  (Tom Warner)

>>>    Whether you like it or not, this in fact was Warren's
>>>    reasoning.

>>Are we channeling Warren now?
>>Did Warren make this decision?

>    As I have previously stated, Lattimer reproduces a
>    portion of a letter from Earl Warren stating:

>    a. It was my decision.
>    b. Here was why I made that decision.

I was responding to a claim about why the autopsy materials were seized
by the Secret Service the night of the autopsy. I was being satirical;
obviously Warren did not make that decision.

The other issue is: why were the autopsy photos and x-rays withheld
from the Warren report? This is a very ancillary issue to the question
of who did it and even how it was covered up, but I expect Warren withheld
them primarily for the reasons he stated.

>>>    Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances involving
>>>    the removal of the X-rays and photos.

>>I was asking for facts. Claiming you know the truth without supplying any
>>evidence does not put you in a position to make assumptions about what I
>>know or don't know. It's your thread; it's your burden of proof.
>>I want to know what you think *you* know.

>    I made the mistaken assumption that you had read the
>    autopsy report.  The removal of this material, and
>    by whom, is mentioned in the autopsy report.

Well, to be honest, I don't consider it worthwhile to commit every detail
of this case to memory. Nor do I find it particularly helpful to my self-
esteem to be able to lord things over people that have memorized less than
I have. If you want to know where I'm getting something, I'll give it to
you; if it's an unusual source or something I don't necessarily put a lot
of stock in, I give it up front.

Anyway, what was your point? I know who took the photos and x-rays. You were
I thought trying to say something about why.

>>>    Am I correct in assuming you haven't actually read Lattimer's
>>>    book?  I ask because only someone who has not read the
>>>    book would suggest that Lattimer "makes his career"
>>>    debunking "other authors' theories."

>>Bah. He was allowed access to the medical evidence in the early days
>>specifically because he was obviously a loyalist. He  most definitely
>>made a career attempting to debunk others' theories.
>>I've seen the book, I haven't read it all the way through. You
>>haven't yet presented anything that makes me want to.

>    Please show me the evidence you have indicating that
>    Lattimer was allowed access because he was "obviously
>    a loyalist."

I'll have to get back to you on this, but it's my understanding that
Lattimer had already published his original "jet-effect" silliness
before 1972, when he was allowed to see the x-rays.

>       Please tell me what specific authors
>    Lattimer mentions in his book (that you haven't
>    read all the way through) that he then sets up
>    as being targets for debunking.

I don't care who he mentions or doesn't mention by name.

>>>    Lattimer did not say, nor did I represent him as saying,
>>>    that Humes planned a "more extensive" report.  What
>>>    Lattimer and Humes have both said is that they had
>>>    planned to use the X-rays and photographs to make a
>>>    more accurate report.  Lattimer undoubtedly "got the
>>>    idea" for this by noting the technical inaccuracies
>>>    of the report and comparing them to the X-rays and
>>>    photos (which he examined on three occasions) and
>>>    adding the sum two plus two.

>>I should hope Lattimer got the idea from something Humes said. Do
>>you have a citation for such a quote?

>    I don't have Hume's WC testimony or HSCA testimony
>    in front of me but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>    some mention of this matter somewhere in this testimony.
>    It is hardly surprising that pathologists would want
>    to rely upon photo and X-rays of the deceased when
>    making their final report.

>    If it is confirmation from Humes's mouth you want,
>    look at the "JAMA" article of 5/27/92.

That he intended to use the x-rays? I don't recall that ever being
an issue. Unless you have some point to make about why the the
Secret Service really had to seize the photos and x-rays and just
couldn't let those doctors have them even one more day, I think
we're beating dead horses.

>>>    I do not know that the autopsy evidence belonged by right
>>>    to the government; certainly, had the autopsy been performed
>>>    in Dallas the materials would have been government property.
>>>    At the time, assassinating a President was not a federal
>>>    crime.  It is unclear to me that "the government" had
>>>    title to this material. That the Kennedy family assumed
>>>    they owned the material and placed restrictions on their
>>>    use is a matter of record.  Prior to being delivered to
>>>    the National Archives the material was in the physical
>>>    possession of JFK's personal physician, Dr. George
>>>    Burkley.

>>It's my understanding that the materials stayed with the Secret Service
>>until 1965, when they were turned over to the Kennedy family at the National
>>Archives (the President's estate has space there). They stayed in that office
>>at the Archives until they were turned over by the Kennedys with conditions
>>attached to the Archives proper. In other words, they didn't have to leave the
>>building, ever, and there is no evidence Bobby Kennedy or any other member of
>>the Kennedy family or any employee of the family ever disturbed the foot locker
>>they were stored in until that time. It was at that time (sorry, date's not
>>handy) that all of the slides and the brain were found missing. This comes
>>from Livingstone HT2.

>    The HSCA looked into this within the context of the disposition
>    of JFK's brain.  Their research indicated that Roy Kellerman
>    initially gathered the materials.  They were placed in the
>    Protective Research Division of the Department of Justice.
>    Later, they were transfered to the White House under the
>    care of Dr. George Burkley.  In April, 1965, they were
>    transfered to the National Archives, under the care of
>    JFK's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln.  Robert Bouck, head
>    of the PRD and George Burkely collaborated in the
>    preparation of an inventory of the material.  With
>    certain restrictions the Kennedy family transferred
>    control of the material to the National Archives
>    in October, 1966.

>    In 1967 the Clark Panel, examining all the material,
>    found no discrepancies between the original inventory
>    and what they were given to examine, with the exception
>    of a stainless steel container presumed to contain
>    the brain.

There were also many tissue slides in the original material, all
missing in '66.

>       When the material was transferred to
>    the National Archives Drs. Humes and Boswell were
>    called upon to authenticate the material, which
>    they did.

>    This is, to the best of my knowledge, the basic
>    history of the material.

>>>    Now just how many doubts about the WC does one need
>>>    to have in order to be diagnosed by Dr. Warner as
>>>    "pathological"?

>>You mean to not be diagnosed as pathological? For someone who
>>was spent as much time with evidence as Lattimer, some. My point
>>is not how little he differs from the WC. My point is that he knew
>>his tests were shaky at best and outright dishonest at worst.
>>He obviously had a deep commitment to convincing Americans to
>>have faith in their government despite anything that might come
>>in his way.

>    Your comments about what Dr. Lattimer "knew" and
>    what his "deep commitment" was seem to me to
>    be based upon sheer conjecture.  If you have
>    some actual evidence (like, your channeling
>    sessions, for instance) kindly present it.

>>>    These days, the herd runs with the
>>>    pro-conspiracy/2nd gunman theories. Are you loyal
>>>    to the herd?

>>One, not in my field they don't, two, no and never have been, three
>>that's not the issue. The issue is, was Lattimer a dogma-first,
>>facts-second phony hiding behind an illusory mantle of pseudo-science?
>>Everything I've seen about him tells me he was.

>    Your field is at odds with public opinion, which
>    overwhelmingly supports conspiracy views.  Your
>    sub-herd doesn't run with the Mother Herd.

No, and boy does it ever piss them off whenever that kind of thing happens.

>    As for your characterizations of Lattimer and his
>    research you have yet to present anything even
>    remotely resembling evidence to support such
>    statements.  And you accuse Lattimer of excessive
>    a priorism?

Bruce Schuck made the point that Lattimer did a 2-dimensional trajectory
analysis, which just begs the question, why leave out the other dimension?
My favorite Lattimer-science is the jet-effect, whereby a bullet can
actually (supposedly) cause a skull to recoil toward the bullet by forcing
a greater amount of mass-energy to be expelled from the front of the
skull than the bullet impacted with, thereby throwing the head back
with the counter-force. This he hoped to demonstrate by shooting at
melons on sticks, which did sometimes fall backwards, probably when
he hit them below their center of gravity, which would cause a fall-back
for a different reason altogether.
The point is, no reputable scientist has ever done anything but laugh at
this theory, and Lattimer presumably knew melons on sticks behave very
differently from heads on necks attached to bodies. And knew he could make
a dramatic effect for TV "news" that had no relevance to human beings.

Other than that, I'll respond to what's posted.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: The Adventures of Tom Warner
Message-ID: <cortez.716300325@milton>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
References: <[e-mail]> <cortez.716076528@milton> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:18:45 GMT
Lines: 104

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>In article <cortez.716076528@milton>, [e-mail] (Tom Warner) writes...

>    We're talking about a coverup so sophisticated that the
>    autopsy is botched, crucial documents are not altered
>    or forged, "unreliable" people are allowed to see
>    the evidence, the "magic bullet" is not obviously not
>    sufficiently deformed.... According to the conspiracy
>    mongers, almost every piece of evidence is obviously wrong.
>    Then they talk about how sophisticated the conspiracy was...

There's a difference between a sophisticated conspiracy and one that
controls every aspect of the U.S. government. Would it be more convenient
if I were only allowed to believe the latter, or none at all?

>    Find a decent copy of the enhanced x-rays. You should have little
>    difficulty finding the lower half of the right eye socket.
>    In the enhancement, you can trace the edges of the eye socket
>    all the way 'round, until you come to a triangular piece
>    that has been broken off and displaced a bit at the top of the
>    orbit. This is the only piece of facial bone that is broken;
>    it is mentioned in the autopsy report as "unusual mobility
>    [of bone] in the right superorbital region." See for yourself.

You have a copy which shows the edge of the defect further back, not
extending into the forehead?

>>It's startling to me the silly neurotrauma hypothesis
>>is still being trumpeted.

>    Why is it so silly?

Because neuromuscular trauma is just a big twitch. It isn't a force that impels
someone's head and torso toward and to the left of an impacting bullet.

>>>    Bullets don't knock people over, in and of themselves.

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

>    Bullet, scmullet. Since we're back into momenta analysis,
>    consider the momentum of a bullet and the momentum of the
>    gun it was fired from. Due to aerodynamic drag, the bullet
>    slows down before it hits its target, so the bullet will
>    have less momentum than the gun. Further, the gun will
>    discharge combustion gasses and particulates along with
>    the bullet, increasing the difference between the momenta
>    of the gun and bullet. If a bullet will knock someone over
>    in and of itself, then the gun the bullet was fired from
>    will knock the shooter on his ass.

It happens. Probably not too often with a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano, however,
even if we're assuming Oswald on the trigger. :)

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

>>Bullshit. First, it can clearly be seen from the film that Kennedy's head
>>takes the hit and then impels the entire torso backward. His arms stay
>>completely limp, and his back does not arch -- it simply gets thrown backward.
>>There is absolutely no visbible sign of any muscular action at all.

>    Considering that JFK was wearing a suit, and that the
>    z-film isn't exactly the clearest photography ever done,
>    I'm suprised that you, can say with such certainty that
>    JFK doesn't arch his back at all.

His shoulders stay forward of his back until after his back collides with
the seat.

>       I'm also suprised that
>    you don't seem to factor in the back brace and associated
>    apparatus JFK was wearing at the time.

You're right. But would these hold his shoulders forward?

>        Also, next time you
>    watch the Z-film, watch JFK's right arm. I'm sure you'll find it
>    interesting.

Don't be so mysterious. What do you see?

>    Knoll-shooter fans never seem to bother to check the location
>    of the wounds in JFK's head to the trajectory between the
>    President and the knoll. The angle between the direction the
>    limo is travelling and the knoll trajectory has been measured
>    by the HSCA to be 50 degrees.

At what point on the knoll?

>       JFK's head was turned about
>     30 degrees to the left of the direction vector for the limo
>    at z-312. The angle between a knoll shot at 312 and the
>    direction JFK is facing is, then some 80 degrees. Now, if
>    JFK was hit in the temple, then the exi wound should be
>    on the *left* side of JFK's head.
>

Based on the direction of Kennedy's head and torso, I would put the shooter
somewhat forward. As far as exit, I don't see why the bullet couldn't blow
out the rear top, or for that matter, splinter and come out multiple ways.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Response to Joels Lies and Bullshit
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:36:20 GMT
Lines: 118

Joel Grant spews >
Bruce Schuck >>

[Joel fails to grasp any point about subject lines - so what else is new]

>>If it is obvious that Oswald couldn't have fired the back shot
>>just by drawing a few lines on a scale map, then why bother writing
>>a whole book?

>    Since it is not obvious by drawing a few lines on a
>    scale map,

Yes it is. It's very obvious. Thats why Lattimer didn't do it, or
didn't publish it. And thats why you refuse to even try it.

>>>    So you think the HSCA is wrong because they are off
>>>    by about two inches out of a distance of 150'.  Your
>>>    alternative narrows it down, not to two inches, but
>>>    to two buildings.  And you wonder at my skepticism?

>>Try using your brain for once Joel!
>>We are talking about being off by 2 inches or more over the
>>thickness of JFK's chest -- NOT 150'.


>>- We know where the back wound was -- 1 3/8 inches to the right of
>>  JFK's spine.
>>- We know where the WC said it came out -- slightly to the
>>  right of the midline of JFK's throat.
>>- We know what the smallest angle of entry is.
>>- The bullet came out TOO far to the RIGHT over the
>>  THICKNESS OF JFK'S CHEST!!!!
>>Not 2 inches over 150 feet!!!!!
>>Thats too big an error to have occurred if Oswald really did fire from
>>the TSBD and the bullet did traverse back to front. The bullet had to
>>have come from a much shallower angle and THAT rules out the TSBD!

>    As I have said before, I am aware that you are talking
>    about the location of the two inches you are foaming
>    about.  You seem not to notice that that same two inches
>    also happens to be at least 150 feet away from the location
>    of the rifle.  The 150 (minimum) feet is relevant because
>    we don't know how exactly how far the rifle was from the
>    limo and we therefore cannot know exactly the angles involved.

If you knew *anything* about geomotry, you would know that the 150'
distance makes the angle *more* accurate and in turn less relevant.

You are a complete idiot Joel, as you proved in the JAMA discussion.
Go talk to someone who understands simple geometry, give them a scale
map, and the 1 and 3/8 inch from spine number and he will tell you the
same thing I've been telling you. Using the horizontal plane, and a
scale map, rules out the TSBD as the firing point of the bullet the WC
and HSCA claims went from JFK's back to his throat.

>    If we were postulating a rifle located two inches from JFK's
>    neck we would cut down on the variables.

Look you moron, it's *easy* to figure out the angle if the firing
point is 150' away. It would be *harder* if it was 2 inches away.

>       We also don't
>    know just what position JFK's body was in at the time.

Gee Joel, all the film shows him with his back parallel to the back of
the seat. If you have *any* pictures that show him in another position
at the time we are talking about, please tell me and I'll check.

>    I know you're proud of your little pencil exercise, but
>    an exercise in self-promotive restraint might be of
>    more lasting benefit to the Schuck legacy.

Its' obvious you are too *gutless* to do the exercise yourself.
You are just like a religious fanatic who has a totally closed mind
and refuses to listen to the truth by claiming it is heresy.


Please point me to any testimony that says they saw a muzzle flash or
recoil or smelled gunpowder or saw smoke coming from the rifle they saw.

If you knew anything, you would know Brennan says he saw someone
*standing* at the window with a rifle, when in fact the window
was 3 feet too low for anyone to have fired a rifle from a standing
position.

>>I'll tell you this. None of the TSBD employees standing on the ground
>>heard gunshots from above them. Most claimed shots came from the
>>grassy knoll area. Not ONE heard a rifle shot from the 6th floor.

>    Interestingly, most of the people on the triple overpass
>    thought the shots came from the TSBD.

None that I know of though that.

>>And you know what? He never duplicated the fragmentation pattern
>>of the bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the skull. Not once did
>>he get the fully jacketed 6.5mm rounds to fragment and leave dozens of
>>pieces behind in his test skulls the way the real bullet did in JFK's
>>skull?

>    He did reproduce the fragmentation pattern of the bullet;

He never *once* got the bullets to fragment into 30 - 40 pieces.
JFK had as many as 40 fragments of lead in his head, let alone all the
ones that left when most of his brain blew out. Lattimer did not get
*any* fragments left in his test skull.

>>Do you know why? Because JFK was hit by a different type of
>>bullet. He was hit by a soft-nosed partially jacketed round or a dum
>>dum.

>>And Lattimer did NO tests involving such ammunition!

>    Again an unsupported assertion placed in opposition to
>    the physical evidence.

Completely supported by the physical evidence and the conclusions of
experts in the field. Lattimer was a *urologist*. Ha ha ha!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Autopsy notes (Refuting Joels delusions)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:59:45 GMT
Lines: 39

Joel Grant >
Bruce Schuck >>

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

If you insist.

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

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

>>In the JFK autopsy:

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

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

>    Recreated notes are notes made when the originals
>    are lost.  The recreated notes are done from memory.
>    Humes did not use "re-created" notes - he copied directly
>    from the originals, word-for-word.

Prove it. Prove that he left in every word in the same location.
Prove he did no editting. Prove that he made no mistakes in the
transcription.

You can't because he burned the one and only record of the autopsy.

Hell Joel, his *fictional* notes don't match the notes the FBI took.

>Do you really think
>    that blood and tissue-spattered autopsy notes are regularly
>    hauled around in courtrooms?

No, but if a defence attorney wanted them, they would have to be
available.
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!usc!wupost!psuvax1!rutgers!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Generic Subject
Message-ID: <cortez.716549574@milton>
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:32:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 115

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3248  (Tom Warner)

>>I don't understad your point. Since all I was doing was standing up for
>>Bruce Schuck, who made a claim that at a particular Z-frame the hit could
>>not have both come from the the TSBD "assassin's lair" and traversed JFK's
>>neck, which you attempted to refute by displaying a misunderstanding of
>>basic geometry, I don't see any need to anything further. I don't think
>>the bullet traversed the neck, so it's not important to me.

>    Trying to do geometry without precise angles is impossible.
>    Statements about the horizontal angle have varied by as
>    much as 18 degrees.  Distance of limo to window vary by
>    at least as much as forty feet.  No one knows precisely
>    what position JFK's body was in at the instance he was
>    shot.  Very expert analysis of all the trajectories
>    involved indicate compatibility with the 6th floor
>    TSBD.  In light of all of the above, please don't lecture
>    me about geometry.  Rather, lecture yourself on the
>    limits of evidence.

I understand what you've said perfectly, but we were talking about a shot
at a particular Z-frame. You're right, it's hard to say exactly which frame
he was hit at. What I'd like to see is the range(s) of Z-frames when the
angle of supposed traversal would actually line up with the angle from the
assassin's lair, taking into account both vertical and horizontal angles.
Has any researcher done this?

>>>    Lattimer relied upon the ballistics evidence that
>>>    showed both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>>>    from C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles
>>>    in the world.  This evidence is presented in
>>>    the WCR.  It might make interesting reading for you.

>>First, if you think it's so damn interesting, why don't you post it?

>    These postings are already awfully long; read it yourself.

>>What chapter? My NYT copy has a lousy index.

>>You really think you've got something to refute that the fragments are
>>too small to rule out all other rifles in the world. In the WCR? Hahahaha

>    I also have a NYT copy and its table of contents is easily
>    sufficient to find this information.  Try Appendix X.

    "... each (fragment) had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the
basis of an identification. Based on a comparison with test bullets fired
from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were
identified as having been from the c2766 rifle."

    Other than an explanation of how such tests are done, including a
discussion of different ways the tests can be confounded, that's all there is
in the WCR about the bullets being from Oswald's MC. Nothing to counter my
point that the limo fragments do not have sufficient unmutilated surface
area to make an identification "to the exclusion of all other rifles." Sorry.

>>Again, the NAA analysis could only and did only show that the
>>composition of the fragments did not rule out the copper jacketed
>>bullet and fragments in evidence. They didn't and couldn't "tie" anything
>>to anything.

>    Dr. Guinn's conclusion was that the fragments found in
>    John Connally's wrist almost certainly came from CE399.
>    NAA does not provide 100% certainty but it certainly
>    works at a level of precision notably in excess of what
>    you suggest.

I'll leave this one to Bruce, who knows more about this than me. (Bruce
has pointed out in other posts that there were actually several differences
in the composition of CE399 and the fragment from Connally's wrist, which
Guinn apparently glossed over. I stand by my statement that, at best, such a
test can show that the bullet was of the same manufacture and lacks the
precision ascribed to it by Joel. By the way, did Guinn try and compare the
wrist fragment to either of the limo fragments?)

>>All you've shown us are wispy threads. Where are the mountains?
>>For that matter, where is *any* evidence at all that Oswald fired the
>>rifle, or any rifle? Or was even on the sixth floor at the time?

>    I don't suppose you expect me to obtain and then re-type
>    all 27 volumes of the Warren Report, all 14 volumes
>    of the HSCA, etc. etc. etc.?

If you think that any portion of these has any evidence that Oswald fired
c2766, or any other rifle, or was on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the time,
then you could at least refer the rest of us to this evidence.

>    Where is your evidence than anyone else was involved?

Same place. One Mannlicher Carcano, three empty cartridges, no fingerprints
anywhere on the rifle, one pristine bullet that somehow winds up just lying
there on a stretcher, at least five separate wounds to JFK and Connally, a
hit to a curb and a hit of shrapnel or fragment to a bystander.

Take the most generous interpretation scientifically possible: one bullet hit
JFK's head, one bullet caused all of Connally's wounds, one bullet caused
both of JFK's non-fatal wounds, and one hit the curb. That's still one too many
bullets, not to mention that one of these four bullets has to come out as
pristine as CE399, which not even a supposed back-to-throat JFK traversing hit
would allow.

There's oodles more, such as the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter, and of course,
the assassination of Oswald at the jail by a Dallas mafia figure.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

By the way, I too would appreciate it if you left the subject lines
alone. It throws off nn; not only are readers who want to follow threads lost,
but readers who *don't care* about them are tricked into thinking a new thread
has begun.

Tom Warner
Path: icaen!news.uiowa.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton!cortez
From: [e-mail] (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Another Generic Subject
Message-ID: <cortez.716553281@milton>
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:34:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 158

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

>re: 3249 (Tom Warner)

>>I need an explanation of why the front right of his face is missing when
>>in the photos its perfectly intact, and why the rear top in the x-rays
>>is intact when every medical witness described that area as missing.

>    The x-ray that is carted around that seems to show the
>    front right of JFK's face missing is simply a lousy x-ray.
>    Even though it is a lousy x-ray it has not stood in the
>    way of accurate analysis to those well-trained in reading
>    x-rays.  It is used as a visual aid used to fool people like you.

Well, it's nice that you're satisfied with whatever explanation has been
given you, but I still haven't seen it.

>    What "every" medical witness (I assume you mean besides
>    the pathologists?) has said about JFK's wounds varies
>    from witness to witness.

As best as I can decode here, you're taking the position that the Dallas
doctors described the wounds in a way that differs from the x-rays, but the
pathologists did not. I'm saying, differences between the Dallas and Bethesda
doctors' descriptions aside, the x-ray has the wound farther forward than
the Bethesda doctors described it.

>         Differences depend upon whether or
>    not one uses vague language like "rear top" or anatomical
>    terminology.

I understand the anatomical terminology (as long as I have a diagram handy :)
but I don't see any need to use it here to communicate my point.

>>You're talking about the photos now. I'm still not convinced they're real;
>>but that's a different issue. If they're not, then it's a composite that
>>wasn't tested for.

>    Look, the folks who make the fake photos and x-rays
>    claims will tell you that the forgery was obvious and
>    crude.  But since you think the HSCA did an imcomplete
>    job, kindly tell us what they should have done.  And
>    be as precise as possible.

Guess what: I can't, 'cause I'm not a photo expert. I guess you're claim
is proven now. :)

>>>    dental records, operational records... the guy in the
>>>    photos and X-rays was JFK.  I haven't heard you suggest
>>>    otherwise, come to think of it.

>>No, I have, because the x-rays don't match the photos. I don't doubt that the
>>person in the photos and x-rays is JFK, I do think it very likely that the
>>photos and x-rays were tampered with.

>    I said that I hadn't heard you say you doubted that person
>    in the photos was JFK.  You say "No, I have,..." and then
>    you say "I don't doubt that the person in the photos and
>    x-rays is JFK..."  Which is it?

Is it really so unclear? I'm suggesting that "the guy" is JFK, but not
everything you see is necessarily "the guy."

>    Now if you have done, or know someone who has run better
>    tests, kindly present it here.

Again, the fact that I am not a lab scientist has confirmed that Oswald
actually did shoot JFK. Quick, prepare the press release.

>>>    While you're at it, please let us all know just what sort
>>>    of planning took place that placed forgers as part of an
>>>    assassination team so sophisticated that its success
>>>    depended upon a long series of events, culminating in
>>>    the need for forged autopsy photos and X-rays.

>>I don't follow your train of thought.

>    Perhaps because it is linear.

No, it's back-asswards, Joel. Put it this way: if right after Iran-
Contra broke, a note allegedly hand-written by North or Poindexter
had surfaced that in some way cleared higher ups, which the alleged
author refuted, would the proposition that the note was a forgery
necessitate the forgers having been in on the whole plan from the start?

If that's too confusing for you how about this: ever considered the possibility
that the plan was to kill JFK from the TSBD if possible, but that shooter
didn't pull it off?

Or this: if you were part of a plan to kill JFK in a crossfire and hang it all
on Oswald, what plans would you make to try and make sure the frame-up stuck?
If there was any way someone in your circle could intercept the autopsy photos,
wouldn't it be worth it? Wouldn't you think of this in advance?

>>You're asking, why would forgers need to be involved? Because JFK was
>>hit from the right front, and they were framing Oswald on a sixth-floor
>>TSBD set-up. I don't see why they would need to be part of the plan from
>>the beginning, although I don't see why they couldn't have been either.

>    In other words, you cannot provide, even hypothetically,
>    an alternative scenario.

>    I am asking you to outline a scenario which culminates in
>    a need for forged autopsy photos.

See above. I'm saying forgery could have been part of the plan or it
could have been thought of afterwards. The only limits placed on the "scenario"
is that someone would have had to have been in a position to intercept the
photos and x-rays.

>>>    I think his response is explained by a combination of
>>>    two phenomena, namely, the jet propulsion effect,
>>>    demonstrated experimentally,

>>Hahahahahahahahaha. With melons on sticks, which fell backwards sometimes
>>but not all the time, probably when Lattimer hit them below the mid-line.
>>No one has ever or will ever show that you can make a head fly backwards
>>by hitting it from behind.

>    Alvarez and Lattimer both did tests with melons.  Lattimer
>    also did tests with skulls filled with brain matter.  We
>    will get to those tests in the Lattimer presentation.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>Nevermind the motorcycle cop hit by fragments flying backwards from JFK,
>>or the fragment that landed on the trunk.

>    A simple viewing of frame 313 of the Z-film shows the
>    direction in which the skull fragments were flying; upwards
>    and forwards.

One frame can not establish motion, and anyway, no skull fragments are
visible. Since thinks like flying skull fragments
would have been moving extremely quickly, it is not surprising that they
were not captured (visible near JFK's head) in any frame.

What is seen in Z-313 is a spray of liquid and brain matter. Since this too
is moving so quickly that by z-314 nothing is seen that can be traced to z-313,
the most that can be said is that within an 1/18th of a second of impact, most
of the liquid displaced had moved forward and up. Without some kind of
reference to the way exploding skulls look at various fractions of a second
after impact, depending on where they're hit (gee what a nice thought) I
think one frame is a basis for nothing more than guesses.

>       Tests have shown that such fragments and the
>    accompanying brain and dura mater can fly as high as 30-40
>    feet.  Clearly, the cop stationed on the left rear of the
>    limo rode *into* the falling matter.

At a mind-boggling 5 mph, yes. This, I suppose, is why he described the
impact as initially making him think he'd been hit by the shot.

>        Mr. and Mrs.
>    Connally and Kellerman and Greer were spattered with
>    blood and brain.  And they were in front of JFK.

Not as much as Jackie. They weren't hit by any fragments, either.