2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/govern/conspjfk/mys00709.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-10 | 657.3 KB

Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: [e-mail] ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Survey on JFK Assassination - please respond.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Apr 91 20:17:33 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 56


I'm taking a survey of your opinions regarding the JFK assassination.  If
enough people respond I will post the results.  Please answer the following
five questions:


1. Do you think President John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald
acting alone (i.e. he planned and executed the assassination alone)?

2. How probable is it that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?
   a. almost 100% probable.
   b. highly likely.
   b. somewhat likely.
   c. not very likely.
   d. 0 chance

3. If you think a conspiracy may have resulted in JFK's death, please
indicate with which groups the conspirators may have been associated.
   a. pro-Castro Cubans.
   b. anti-Castro Cubans.
   c. KGB
   d. CIA
   e. FBI
   f. U.S. Army commanders
   g. U.S. Army soldiers (incl. Bay of Pigs vets)
   h. Mafia
   i. LBJ and friends
   j. Civil Air Patrolmen
   k. other governments, please specify
   l. other groups, not mentioned, please specify
   m. none of the above.

4. How would you rate your familiarity with the evidence in the case,
including materials published by the Warren Commission, House Select
Committee on Assassinations, the Garrison investigation, David Lifton
and other assassination researchers?
   a. excellent.
   b. good.
   c. fair.
   d. poor.

5. Did you see the recent NOVA program on PBS which dealt with the JFK
assassination (originally shown in 1988)?

6. Is it important to determine with certainty who killed JFK?

--

        Steve Feinstein

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  INTERNET:  [e-mail]                                       |
|  USmail:    S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave.,            |
|             Lexington, MA 02173  USA                                    |
|  VOICE:     [phone]                                              |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!hsdndev!rice!uw-beaver!milton!tvex
From: [e-mail] (t@vex)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The UFO "Conspiracy" - The Final Word.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Apr 91 02:05:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: t@vex
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 39

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeremy Reimer) writes: (text deleted)

>        e) And, get this, they tie in the JFK assasination conspiracy theory
>           (what a bonus) by saying JFK wanted to "expose" the UFO
>           coverup, and was therefore disposed of by his own officials.
>
>Now look, speculations about extraterrestrial life are fine.  Debating whether
>or not they could have landed here some time in the past, well, OK.  But this
>is ridiculous.  NO government could have possible covered up such a story
>for over four decades (they can't even keep a simple sex scandal undercover, I
>mean, really)


From the tone of your post, I gathered that you felt personally threatened by
Cooper's position. I was curious that you bothered to read the material at all;
after all, it fills at least a solid half-hour--and that's just for starters.
Everyone knows that John Lear is a phony (and some of our Neo-Nazi brethren and
sistren who also hold opinions about the nature of the UFO phenomenon have
suggested that he is a pawn of ZOG). Why not Bill Cooper as well? And if the
entire question is as absurd as you seem to want it to be, why did you bother
posting to the internet? Ethnography can sometimes be a humorous pursuit--no
-one says you have to discover god in every piece of the written record. I
personally feel that Original Hostage Krll would laugh at your some of your
suggestions (if there was ever such an entity and if said entity was ever
capable of laughter). I was amused by your mention of the JFK biz: JFK has
served as supporting evidence for more conspiracy theories than I can count.
And what if the unsuccessful coverups of lame-o sex scandals were being used
by the bad guys to give our stellar media services grist and take some of the
heat (if not all of it) away from areas that were a little too close to home?
Do you remember the incident that made front-page news @ TASS two years ago? I
didn't think so.

This is no flame, really. And it is certainly not meant in that kind of way at
all. I simply find it humorous that you mention "Scientific Debate", JFK, Cooper
and numerous other interesting tidbits in the same small post.

appreciatively, t@vex
________________________________________________________________________________from low on the banks of elliot bay we sit and await the coming of evening.
________________________________________________________________________________
Path: ns-mx!uunet!van-bc!cynic!arkham!jaguar
From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Reimer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The UFO "Conspiracy" - The Final Word.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Apr 91 03:45:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Chez Cthulhu [phone]  "Caterers to the Elder Gods"
Lines: 51

[e-mail] (t@vex) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jere
>
> >        e) And, get this, they tie in the JFK assasination conspiracy theory
> >           (what a bonus) by saying JFK wanted to "expose" the UFO
> >           coverup, and was therefore disposed of by his own officials.
> >
> >Now look, speculations about extraterrestrial life are fine.  Debating wheth
> >or not they could have landed here some time in the past, well, OK.  But thi
> >is ridiculous.  NO government could have possible covered up such a story
> >for over four decades (they can't even keep a simple sex scandal undercover,
> >mean, really)
>
>
> From the tone of your post, I gathered that you felt personally threatened by
> Cooper's position. I was curious that you bothered to read the material at al
> after all, it fills at least a solid half-hour--and that's just for starters.
> Everyone knows that John Lear is a phony (and some of our Neo-Nazi brethren a
> sistren who also hold opinions about the nature of the UFO phenomenon have
> suggested that he is a pawn of ZOG). Why not Bill Cooper as well? And if the
> entire question is as absurd as you seem to want it to be, why did you bother
> posting to the internet? Ethnography can sometimes be a humorous pursuit--no
> -one says you have to discover god in every piece of the written record. I
> personally feel that Original Hostage Krll would laugh at your some of your
> suggestions (if there was ever such an entity and if said entity was ever
> capable of laughter). I was amused by your mention of the JFK biz: JFK has
> served as supporting evidence for more conspiracy theories than I can count.
> And what if the unsuccessful coverups of lame-o sex scandals were being used
> by the bad guys to give our stellar media services grist and take some of the
> heat (if not all of it) away from areas that were a little too close to home?
> Do you remember the incident that made front-page news @ TASS two years ago?
> didn't think so.
>
> This is no flame, really. And it is certainly not meant in that kind of way a
> all. I simply find it humorous that you mention "Scientific Debate", JFK, Coo
> and numerous other interesting tidbits in the same small post.
>
> appreciatively, t@vex
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> _____________________________________________________________________________

Well, it is a flame, really, and I think you missed the point.


_____________------======[e-mail]======------____________
Jeremy Reimer aka The Jaguar\ "Right.  When you call for/Sunny Vancouver BC
(The Car,The Cat,The Lunatic)\ ale, I pass water."     //Canada, where it's
Known to be Armed and Cynical\\    - Baldric          // fun,fun,fun..
===========================================================================
  You see this hand?  It is mine.  You see these things?  THEY are mine!
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: [e-mail] ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Survey
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Apr 91 18:35:33 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 76


Since I only got three responses to this, I'm taking one last shot.  I've
had complaints in the past that people have a hard time sending email to
me, so here's the address to reply to:   [e-mail]
If your nameserver can't find this, try srf@[129.55.55.1].  I'd like to
get a decent sample of opinions.

1. Do you think President John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald
acting alone (i.e. he planned and executed the assassination alone)?

2. How probable is it that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?
   a. almost 100% probable.
   b. highly likely.
   b. somewhat likely.
   c. not very likely.
   d. 0 chance

3. If you think a conspiracy may have resulted in JFK's death, please
indicate with which groups the conspirators may have been associated.
   a. pro-Castro Cubans.
   b. anti-Castro Cubans.
   c. KGB
   d. CIA
   e. FBI
   f. U.S. Army commanders
   g. U.S. Army soldiers (incl. Bay of Pigs vets)
   h. Mafia
   i. LBJ and friends
   j. Oilmen, e.g. H.L. Hunt
   k. David Ferrie et al
   l. William Greer (the driver)
   m. Secret Service
   n. Jack Ruby
   o. Lee Harvey Oswald
   p. Richard Nixon
   q. French Corsicans
   r. other governments, please specify
   s. other groups, not mentioned, please specify

4. How would you rate your familiarity with the evidence in the case,
including materials published by the Warren Commission, House Select
Committee on Assassinations, the Garrison investigation, assassination
researchers such as Penn Jones, Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, Harold
Weisberg, Josiah Thompson, Peter Dale Scott, David Lifton, Robert Groden,
Jim Marrs and many others?
   a. excellent.
   b. good.
   c. fair.
   d. poor.

5. Did you see the recent NOVA program on PBS which dealt with the JFK
assassination (originally shown in 1988)?

6. Should investigations continue to determine who killed JFK


--

        Steve Feinstein

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  INTERNET:  [e-mail]                                       |
|  USmail:    S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave.,            |
|             Lexington, MA 02173  USA                                    |
|  VOICE:     [phone]                                              |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--

        Steve Feinstein

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  INTERNET:  [e-mail]                                       |
|  USmail:    S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave.,            |
|             Lexington, MA 02173  USA                                    |
|  VOICE:     [phone]                                              |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dxc4
From: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Apr 91 03:33:02 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 24
Xref: ns-mx soc.history:4530 alt.conspiracy:5021
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns5.ins.cwru.edu


There have been a few posts recently on this subject (on soc.history);
I have a tidbit or factoid to offer and I profoundly apologise that it
is very sketchy and incomplete but maybe someone else can help fill it
in; (in fact that's the main reason why I am mentioning it). Here goes:

John Hockenberry of NPR had a late-night radio show called "HEAT" that
only ran for only seven months and was cancelled, although _I_ thought
it was a fabulous show. Hockenberry is now back in the Middle East doing
his usual outstanding work there.

On one occasion, Hockenberry interviewed a man who claimed to have
found, in a trunk in his attic, cables from Naval Intelligence (channelling
CIA business, as was frequently the case at that time) directing the
man's father, now deceased, to set the operation in motion to assassinate
Kennedy. The wording of the alleged cables, as given in the interview,
was pretty explicit. The man, although clearly upset about the whole
business, believed the cables were authentic and felt it had to be made
public, and he had had them examined by experts who said they were genuine.

I have tried and failed to find any mention of these disclosures in any
print source. Did anybody else hear this broadcast? Thanks for sharing.

David
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!pencil!rich
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination
Message-ID: <rich.672265335@pencil>
Date: 21 Apr 91 20:22:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: UMC Math Dept.
Lines: 9
Xref: ns-mx soc.history:4533 alt.conspiracy:5030

[e-mail] (David Condon) writes:
>I have tried and failed to find any mention of these disclosures in any
>print source. Did anybody else hear this broadcast? Thanks for sharing.

I didn't hear the broadcast, but I did see it in print in my local
newspaper.  If I recall, the man gave the papers to the FBI, which subsequently
denied having them.  End of story, effectively.

Rich
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!horus.esd.sgi.com!thant
From: [e-mail] (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Survey
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Apr 91 17:58:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Thant Tessman)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 39

Just a couple of points about the Nova about the JFK assasination.

Nova is one of my favorite shows, but this one disappointed me.

First, they ignored a lot of stuff.  I guess they wanted to limit
themselves to what 'science' had to say about the situation.  But
even so there were a couple of glaring mistakes.

The first was that they failed to mention that more bullet fragments
were recovered than could have possibly come off the 'single' bullet.

They also ignored the fact that Govorner Whatsisname was holding his
hat at a time when the single bullet theory requires his wrist to have
been shattered.  In fact, for going to all the work of creating a
3D map of the place, they really ignored a lot of timing and geometry
issues.  Very disappointing.

Also, the Zapruder film shows a large piece of JFK's skull and brain
being thrown on to the back hood of the car which would suggest that
the assasin was in front.  To try to explain this, skulls filled with
paint were shot at.  Film shows one of the shots tossing paint and the
skull off the ladder toward the gun.  What they didn't point out was
that the ladder the skull was placed on went away from the gun.  What
effectively happened was that the skull bounced off the ladder transfering
its momentum to the ladder which did move away from the gun.  The Zapruder
film shows JFK's entire body being thrown towards the back of the car.
The Warren commission even 'accidentally' reversed two of the frames of the
Zapruder film to try to cover this.

There was unquestionably somebody shooting from the front of the car.

Anyway, I'm sure everybody's heard all this stuff before...

And as for reopening the investigation, I don't think anything would
come out of it.  People have seemed to manage to forget about Iran-Contra
even while one of its participants is still President of the United States.
All those flags and yellow ribbons seem to have hypnotized everyone.

thant
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!riacs!pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!chguest
From: [e-mail] ( Charles J. Guest )
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Guardians of Infinity 'To Save Kennedy' game was: Re: JFK Survey
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Apr 91 19:49:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: ... a Republic... if you can keep it.
Lines: 25


Yea, I know this doesn't really follow the subject line, but there is a
PC game out called Guardians of Infinity, to Save Kennedy' that is
bassed on the theory/fact that Kennedy was killed by persons other than
Oswald himself.  It is actually quite an involved game which comes with
two seperate books and involves over 200 people, everyone from the
president to the under seceratary of stapler procurement's wife.  :-)

Anyhow, has anyone else seen or played this thing?  Wanna e-mail me any
hints?

Thanks,
Charles


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ *READ* ---> The opinions expressed above are to the best of my knowledge, +
+ however all options should be discussed with persons who have professional+
+ training with the subjects covered here. * ALL POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS APPLY!+
+ ____FROM: [e-mail] =>or<= sun!ames!pioneer!chguest____+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  ...One useless man is called a disgrace, two are called a law firm, and  +
+     three or more become a congress....                                   +
+ A new Soviet/American truism - KGB does NOT stand for Kinder Gentler Boys +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!natchez!abw
From: [e-mail] (Al Wesolowsky)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Apr 91 01:22:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <rich.672265335@pencil>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: Boston University
Lines: 16
Xref: ns-mx soc.history:4546 alt.conspiracy:5048

In article <rich.672265335@pencil> [e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
[e-mail] (David Condon) writes:
+>I have tried and failed to find any mention of these disclosures in any
+>print source. Did anybody else hear this broadcast? Thanks for sharing.
+
+I didn't hear the broadcast, but I did see it in print in my local
+newspaper.  If I recall, the man gave the papers to the FBI, which subsequently
+denied having them.  End of story, effectively.

There was an article on this in Texas Monthly, last Fall, I think. Might
have been written by Paul Burka.

--
|     Al B. Wesolowsky  [e-mail] or [e-mail]    |
|"The event you have just witnessed is based on sworn testimony. Can  |
| you prove that it didn't happen?" Criswell-_Plan 9 from Outer Space_|
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!apple!amdcad!dgcad!dg-rtp!patriot!grossg
From: [e-mail] (Gene Gross)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Survey on JFK Assassination - please respond.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Apr 91 14:59:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet Administration)
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.
Lines: 38

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


>1. Do you think President John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald
>acting alone (i.e. he planned and executed the assassination alone)?

No.  I don't think Oswald was even one of the people who popped a cap
on JFK.  He was merely the greatest patsy of all times.


>2. How probable is it that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?
    a. almost 100% probable.


>3. If you think a conspiracy may have resulted in JFK's death, please
>indicate with which groups the conspirators may have been associated.

I'm still banking on the ultra-right wing as having pulled all the
pieces together.  The actual hitmen may have worked for known
organizations like the Mafia or the CIA, but the money and impetus
came from the ultra-right.

>4. How would you rate your familiarity with the evidence in the case,
>including materials published by the Warren Commission, House Select
>Committee on Assassinations, the Garrison investigation, David Lifton
>and other assassination researchers?
    a. excellent.

>5. Did you see the recent NOVA program on PBS which dealt with the JFK
>assassination (originally shown in 1988)?

Saw it, so?

>6. Is it important to determine with certainty who killed JFK?

Ultimately, yes.  It has to be clearly stated and proven by action
that no one is above the law -- even if it takes a long time for the
law to bring the guilty to trial.  Settling our differences with
violence solves nothing.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!pacdata!johnr
From: [e-mail] (John Reed)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: President Bush: CIA man?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Dec 91 00:00:04 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (John Reed)
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Lines: 85





Is/was George Bush a CIA agent?



Here are some references from an article on the Kennedy assassination
that I saved some time ago:



|In 1988 Bush told Congress he knew nothing about the illegal
|supply flights until 1987, yet North's diary shows Bush at the first
|planning meeting Aug. 6, 1985. Bush's "official" log placed him
|somewhere else. Such double sets of logs are intended to hide Bush's
|real role in the CIA; to provide him with "plausible deniability." The
|problem is, it fell apart because too many people, like North and
|Rodriguez, have kept records that show Bush's CIA role back to the
|1961 invasion of Cuba. (_Source: The Washington Post, 7/10/90_).


|A memo from FBI head J. Edgar Hoover was found, stating that, "Mr. George
|Bush of the CIA had been briefed on November 23rd, 1963 about the
|reaction of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami to the assassination
|of President Kennedy. (_Source: The Nation, 8/13/88_).


|George Bush claims he never worked for the CIA until he was
|appointed director by former Warren Commission director and then
|President Jerry Ford, in 1976. Logic suggests that is highly unlikely.
|Of course, Bush has a company duty to deny being in the CIA. The CIA
|is a secret organization. No one ever admits to being a member. The
|truth is that Bush has been a top CIA official since before the 1961
|invasion of Cuba, working with Felix Rodriguez. Bush may deny his
|actual role in the CIA in 1959, but there are records in the files of
|Rodriguez and others involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba
|that expose Bush's role. The corporations would not put somebody in
|charge of all the state secrets held by the CIA unless he was
|experienced and well trained in the CIA. (_Source: Project Censored
|Report, Feb 1989, Dr Carl Jensen, Sonoma State College_).


|Recently I interviewed former CIA liaison officer L. Fletcher
|Prouty. He is a consultant for the excellent new movie on how the
|CIA killed JFK, being made by Oliver Stone. He told me that one of
|the projects he did for the CIA was in 1961 to deliver US Navy ships
|from a Navy ship yard to the CIA agents in Guatemala planning the
|invasion of Cuba. He said he delivered three ships to a CIA agent
|named George Bush, who had the 3 ships painted to look like they
|were civilian ships. That CIA agent then named the 3 ships after: his
|wife, his home town and his oil company. He named the ships:
|Barbara, Houston & Zapata. Any book on the history of the Bay of Pigs
|will prove the names of those 3 ships.



If indeed George was a CIA agent, then I would think this information
would get out to the public in some fashion.  If he really was, don't
you think the Israelis would know it?  And if the Israelis know it,
then wouldn't they be in the perfect position to blackmail old Georgie?

George certainly seems to have an interesting and long career prior
to becoming president.  As president, his past has certainly come under
intense scrutiny.  Certainly, I would think information about his being
in the CIA would leak out from somewhere.  (perhaps it already is)

Anyway, I am interested in further discussion of this thread.  If anyone
else has any more information, please post!



JR

--


   /------------------------------------------------------------------\
  |  John Reed                           {ucsd,uunet}!pacdata!johnr    |
  |  Pacific Data Products               [e-mail]   |
  |                    ---------------------                           |
  |     Interest on the Federal debt is now at about $1 billion per    |
  |     day and growing.             --From: CNN Crossfire--           |
   \------------------------------------------------------------------/
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!ux.acs.umn.edu!acm
From: [e-mail] (Acm)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Dec 91 22:08:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: University of Minnesota, Academic Computing Services
Lines: 146
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:50117 alt.conspiracy:9389


    STONE'S _JFK_ MAKES RECKLESS JUDGMENTS, ABSURD ACCUSATIONS
                       by Peter Kauffner

     The release of Oliver Stone's movie _JFK_ has allowed at least
one sector of the economy to recover from recession: the
Kennedy assassination conspiracy industry. Polls show that 56
percent of Americans now reject Warren Commission's conclusion that
Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John Kennedy in 1963 on his
own.

     Conspiracy mongers have never allowed evidence or common
sense to get in the way of good theory. If a well financed group
wanted to kill a president, they would presumably hire an expert
marksman with a high-powered rifle, plenty of ammunition, and an
escape plan. In contrast, Oswald was a mediocre shot, used a World
War II surplus carbine, had only four bullets, and did not appear to
have a coherent escape plan.

     Since Oswald is such an unlikely instrument of a conspiracy,
`second gunmen' plots are the most popular type of conspiracy
theory. According to the typical second gunman plot, Oswald is
only a fall guy for a professional hit man who fired from the
`grassy knoll' near Kennedy's motorcade. Oliver Stone's scenario is
even more far fetched. He has gunmen firing from three different
locations around Dealey Plaza for a total of five to seven shots,
as opposed to the Warren Commission's three.

     Stone's theory is based on an audio tape recorded by the Dallas
police and analyzed in a 1978 congressional report. In this report,
the House Select Committee on Assassinations claimed that the
probability that a second gunman fired from the grassy knoll was
`95 percent or better.' There were six noises on the tape that passed
preliminary screening tests as possible rifle shots.

     The report's claims were thoroughly refuted by a 1982 National
Academy of Sciences study. The NAS panel concluded that `the acoustical
analysis does not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot,
and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95
percent probability of such a shot.' The part of the tape alleged
to contain the sound of gun shots was actually `recorded about
one minute after the president had been shot.'

     A home movie of the murder, called the Zapruder film, provides
the best evidence that there was neither a fourth shot nor a
second gunman. After each of Oswald's three shots, the camera
shakes visibly. A high powered rifle firing from the grassy knoll
would have made a deafening noise from where Zapruder stood,
according to _Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic
Comparisons of Their Assassinations_ (1980) by John Lattimer.

     Having gunmen at widely separated locations fire in succession
would only make an operation more difficult to coordinate. If the
Secret Service had reacted quickly, the first shot would have
been the assassin's only chance. Why let Oswald fire the first
shot if a professional marksman was available? As it turned out,
the Secret Service failed to react quickly enough to protect
Kennedy. Presumably, this wasn't something potential conspirators
could count on.

     The sort of conspiracy envisaged by Stone would require the
involvement of so many people that someone would have spilled
the beans by now. But about the closest thing to an insider's view
of the conspiracy that we have is the testimony of Charles Speisel.
Speisel was called to testify against alleged Kennedy assassin Clay
Shaw in 1969 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (the hero of
_JFK_, played by Kevin Costner).

     On cross examination, Speisel confirmed that he had a filed suits
against the New York police, among others, for allegedly torturing him
and keeping him under hypnosis. He estimated that 50 to 60 people had
hypnotized him in order to plant wild ideas in his head.  The jury
acquitted Shaw after deliberating for less than an hour.

     How does Stone maintain Garrison's heroic image in the
face of such a fiasco? Speisel is explained as `one of [Bill] Boxley's
witnesses.' Boxley was a Garrison aid. In _JFK_, he's a double agent
working for the Central Intelligence Agency. Since he is also dead,
he can't sue for libel.

     The murder of Oswald by nightclub owner Jack Ruby helps give
conspiracy theories a certain plausibility. This occurred only
two days after Kennedy was shot and while Oswald was being
transferred out of the headquarters of the Dallas police. Some
have speculated that Ruby was assigned to `shut Oswald up.'

     Oswald's transfer was delayed by 19 minutes. If Ruby planned
the killing in advance he should have been waiting for Oswald
outside the police station. But according to the time stamp on
a receipt he was carrying, Ruby was at a nearby Western Union office
transferring money only four minutes before the shooting. The
fact the Ruby carried a gun with him at all times supports his
claim that he acted on impulse.

     Did Oswald's murder really have `all the earmarks of a gangland
slaying'? Not many mob hit men strike when they are surrounded by
police and sure to be arrested.

     In their zeal to show that Oswald couldn't possibly do what the
Warren Commission claims he did, conspiracy theorists make much of the
low marksmanship scores Oswald got while he was in the Marines. But
according to tests results published by Lattimer, Oswald's score in
the seated position--the position he used when he shot Kennedy--was
excellent. On one scorecard he hit a head-and-shoulders sized target
49 out of 50 times from a distance of 200 yards without telescopic
sights. He shot Kennedy from less than 100 yards and used telescopic
sights.

     The Kennedy assassination certainly isn't the first prominent
killing to become the subject of crackpot speculation. `One never
speaks of this assassination without making reckless judgments. The
absurdity of the accusation, the total lack of evidence, nothing
stops them.' That was Voltaire writing about the assassination of King
Henry IV of France in 1610.

     What is unusual about the Kennedy case is the way that doubt and
speculation has increased with the passage of time. When the Warren
Commission report was released, few Americans doubted that Oswald was
the sole assassin. By 1967, two-thirds believed that Kennedy
was done in by a conspiracy.  Each new conspiracy theory makes
headlines.  Careful rebuttals, like the NAS report, are lucky if they
get a few column inches on an inside page.


References:

Lardner, George Jr., `On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland,' _The Washington
Post_, May 19, 1991, p. D1.

Lardner, George Jr., `...Or Just a Sloppy Mess?' _The Washington Post_, June
2, 1991, p. D3.

Lattimer, John, _Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of
Their Assassinations_ (1980).

Moss, Armand, _Disinformation, Misinformation, and the `Conspiracy' to Kill
JFK Exposed_

Stone, Oliver, `Stone's _JFK_: A Higher Truth?' _The Washington Post_ June 2,
1991, p. D3.


Peter Kauffner                      UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!peterk
Minneapolis, Minnesota              INET: [e-mail]

Libertarians put freedom first. Vote for Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord in 1992!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+
From: [e-mail] (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 01:06:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 4
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9392 rec.arts.movies:50135
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

>STONE'S _JFK_ MAKES RECKLESS JUDGMENTS ...

Do people think this debate is going to be longer or shorter
than the shotgun argument?  Place your bets now.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley![e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 16:15:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 277

[e-mail] (Acm) writes:

<     STONE'S _JFK_ MAKES RECKLESS JUDGMENTS, ABSURD ACCUSATIONS
<                        by Peter Kauffner

<      The release of Oliver Stone's movie _JFK_ has allowed at least
< one sector of the economy to recover from recession: the
< Kennedy assassination conspiracy industry. Polls show that 56
< percent of Americans now reject Warren Commission's conclusion that
< Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John Kennedy in 1963 on his
< own.

It was closer to that figure when the disappointing Warren Commission Report
was released. It's now, according to something I read recently, about 80%.

<      Conspiracy mongers have never allowed evidence or common
< sense to get in the way of good theory.

That's certainly an indictment against theories that ignore common sense
or aren't supported by evidence.

< If a well financed group
< wanted to kill a president, they would presumably hire an expert
< marksman with a high-powered rifle, plenty of ammunition, and an
< escape plan. In contrast, Oswald was a mediocre shot, used a World
< War II surplus carbine, had only four bullets, and did not appear to
< have a coherent escape plan.

If this author can prove that Oswald did it, the nation would love to
hear about it. The amazing fact is (amazing to me, anyway--I just started
reading up on this conspiracy stuff to see if there was anything to it)
that no one ever proved that Oswald shot the President. What the Warren
Commission put forth as evidence would not stand up in a court of law. A
good lawyer would have gotten Oswald off, if not in a lower court, then
most certainly on appeal. The only thing that is known for sure is that
Oswald was in the building.

<      Since Oswald is such an unlikely instrument of a conspiracy,
< `second gunmen' plots are the most popular type of conspiracy
< theory. According to the typical second gunman plot, Oswald is
< only a fall guy for a professional hit man who fired from the
< `grassy knoll' near Kennedy's motorcade. Oliver Stone's scenario is
< even more far fetched. He has gunmen firing from three different
< locations around Dealey Plaza for a total of five to seven shots,
< as opposed to the Warren Commission's three.

Stone combines a lot of theories into one big one, which is dramatic but
doesn't prove anything. The best the movie can do is tell a good story
and get people interested in what is one of the most fascinating murder
mysteries in history.

As for Oswald, he is not the "lone nut" that the Warren Commission made him
out to be. He was fluent in Russian (which he learned in the Marines); he
was a radar operator outside of Tokyo in the late fifties, which gave him
information about the U.S. U-2 flights over the Soviet Union; he defected
with his secrets to Russia after leaving the Marines; two and a half years
later he returned to the U.S., with virtually no questions asked; he lived
in Dallas and had friends who were CIA operatives; he went to New Orleans
in the summer of '63 and worked with people who were part of the CIA/Cuban
exile alliance to invade Cuba.

<      Stone's theory is based on an audio tape recorded by the Dallas
< police and analyzed in a 1978 congressional report. In this report,
< the House Select Committee on Assassinations claimed that the
< probability that a second gunman fired from the grassy knoll was
< `95 percent or better.' There were six noises on the tape that passed
< preliminary screening tests as possible rifle shots.

<      The report's claims were thoroughly refuted by a 1982 National
< Academy of Sciences study. The NAS panel concluded that `the acoustical
< analysis does not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot,
< and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95
< percent probability of such a shot.' The part of the tape alleged
< to contain the sound of gun shots was actually `recorded about
< one minute after the president had been shot.'

This same committee (HSCA) also concluded that a conspiracy was probable,
and that the Mafia were the likely conspirators. We were talking about
the CIA, now it's the mob. What's up? As revealed by the Church Committee
(Senate?) in 1975, the CIA linked up with certain Mafia members in the
early '60s with the goal of assassinating Castro and his government. The
goals were the same but the motives were different: the CIA feared a commie
state 90 miles off our shore at the peak of the Cold War; the Mafia wanted
all their hotels and casinos back.

<      A home movie of the murder, called the Zapruder film, provides
< the best evidence that there was neither a fourth shot nor a
< second gunman. After each of Oswald's three shots, the camera
< shakes visibly.

This may be true, but two shots fired near simultaneously would not cause
two shakes of the camera.

< A high powered rifle firing from the grassy knoll
< would have made a deafening noise from where Zapruder stood,
< according to _Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic
< Comparisons of Their Assassinations_ (1980) by John Lattimer.

Zapruder said that one of the shots definately came from behind him (the
grassy knoll). Additionally, about two thirds of the Dealey Plaza witnesses
said they heard a shot coming from the grassy knoll and many people ran
up the knoll looking for the culprit. Also, a number of witnesses described
hearing two distinct sounds, one a sound like a distant firecracker, another
a close up rifle sound from the knoll.

<      Having gunmen at widely separated locations fire in succession
< would only make an operation more difficult to coordinate.

There was a time gap between the first two and the third shots (as evidenced
by the impacts seen in the Zapruder film). The third shot was the fatal shot
to Kennedy's head. It may only have been fired because the earlier shots
didn't hit the mark.

< If the
< Secret Service had reacted quickly, the first shot would have
< been the assassin's only chance.

So why didn't they react? Wasn't that their job?

< Why let Oswald fire the first
< shot if a professional marksman was available?

There's no proof he fired a single shot.

< As it turned out,
< the Secret Service failed to react quickly enough to protect
< Kennedy. Presumably, this wasn't something potential conspirators
< could count on.

One SS agent did react. He was the closest to Kennedy's convertible. He
jumped on the back but that didn't prevent the fatal shot.

Besides, who knows what "potential conspirators" can count on?

<      The sort of conspiracy envisaged by Stone would require the
< involvement of so many people that someone would have spilled
< the beans by now.

Many have. And there are those who have died after having been subpoened
by government investigative authorities: Santos Trafficante (Florida mob
boss), murdered before he was to testify before the HSCA; ditto John Roselli,
main Mafia member in the CIA/Mafia plot to assssinate Castro; Oswald's
CIA contact from Dallas committed suicide three hours after hearing he would
be called before the HSCA; Sam Giancana (mob boss of Chicago), murdered
after appearing before the Church Committee. And Oswald, of course, who
claimed he was a patsy and was killed before he had a chance to talk (there
is no record of his 11 hour interrogation by Dallas police). That's just for
starters.

< But about the closest thing to an insider's view
< of the conspiracy that we have is the testimony of Charles Speisel.
< Speisel was called to testify against alleged Kennedy assassin Clay
< Shaw in 1969 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (the hero of
< _JFK_, played by Kevin Costner).

<      On cross examination, Speisel confirmed that he had a filed suits
< against the New York police, among others, for allegedly torturing him
< and keeping him under hypnosis. He estimated that 50 to 60 people had
< hypnotized him in order to plant wild ideas in his head.  The jury
< acquitted Shaw after deliberating for less than an hour.

Speisel was a lousy witness, alright. Shaw was a peripheral figure in
Garrison's investigation. He decided to go after Shaw because the main
figure he wanted to get, David Ferrie, committed suicide immediately after
word of Garrison's investigation got into the press.

<      How does Stone maintain Garrison's heroic image in the
< face of such a fiasco? Speisel is explained as `one of [Bill] Boxley's
< witnesses.' Boxley was a Garrison aid. In _JFK_, he's a double agent
< working for the Central Intelligence Agency. Since he is also dead,
< he can't sue for libel.

Boxley was a CIA agent who claimed to be an ex-agent, let go because of a
drinking problem. Garrison hired him as an investigator after he convinced
Garrison he was sympathetic to the cause.

<      The murder of Oswald by nightclub owner Jack Ruby helps give
< conspiracy theories a certain plausibility. This occurred only
< two days after Kennedy was shot and while Oswald was being
< transferred out of the headquarters of the Dallas police. Some
< have speculated that Ruby was assigned to `shut Oswald up.'

<      Oswald's transfer was delayed by 19 minutes. If Ruby planned
< the killing in advance he should have been waiting for Oswald
< outside the police station.

He's got it backwards. Oswald was delayed until Ruby showed up.

< But according to the time stamp on
< a receipt he was carrying, Ruby was at a nearby Western Union office
< transferring money only four minutes before the shooting.

To make his next act look spontaneous...

< The
< fact the Ruby carried a gun with him at all times supports his
< claim that he acted on impulse.

Ruby insisted his motive was to spare Jackie Kennedy from a trial of Oswald.
This from a strip joint operator who had mob associations going back to Al
Capone.

<      Did Oswald's murder really have `all the earmarks of a gangland
< slaying'? Not many mob hit men strike when they are surrounded by
< police and sure to be arrested.

They do when they're told to do it or else. Why wasn't Oswald eliminated
the day of the assassination? Probably a glitch in the plan.

<      In their zeal to show that Oswald couldn't possibly do what the
< Warren Commission claims he did, conspiracy theorists make much of the
< low marksmanship scores Oswald got while he was in the Marines. But
< according to tests results published by Lattimer, Oswald's score in
< the seated position--the position he used when he shot Kennedy--was
< excellent. On one scorecard he hit a head-and-shoulders sized target
< 49 out of 50 times from a distance of 200 yards without telescopic
< sights.

Top marksman have been unable to duplicate "his feat" of getting off three
shots in six seconds with the cheap mail order gun he was supposed to have
used.

< He shot Kennedy from less than 100 yards and used telescopic
< sights.

And through a verdant tree top with a misaligned sight.

The Dallas police found no prints on the gun. It was taken to the FBI lab
in Washington. They found no prints. It was brought back to Dallas. By
this time Oswald was in a funeral home. FBI agents spent hours with the
corpse behind closed doors. They fingerprinted him, which had already been
done three times while he was alive. The mortician described washing the
ink off his hands. The gun was taken back to the FBI lab. Voila! Oswald's
prints are found on the gun.

<      The Kennedy assassination certainly isn't the first prominent
< killing to become the subject of crackpot speculation. `One never
< speaks of this assassination without making reckless judgments. The
< absurdity of the accusation, the total lack of evidence, nothing
< stops them.' That was Voltaire writing about the assassination of King
< Henry IV of France in 1610.

You have to be naive or uninformed at this point to believe that Oswald
acted alone (or even acted at all). There's an abundance of evidence that
he did not.

<      What is unusual about the Kennedy case is the way that doubt and
< speculation has increased with the passage of time. When the Warren
< Commission report was released, few Americans doubted that Oswald was
< the sole assassin.

Not true. When the FBI came out with their "lone nut" theory on the Monday
following the assassination, many people were shocked and expected the
Warren Commission to clear up the confusion. It came as a further surprise
when the Commissioners merely attempted to bolster Hoover's ready-made theory.

Three of the eight Commissioners disagreed with the official findings. As a
compromise, the language was watered down to elicit their agreement. Of the
five gung-ho members, one (Allen Dulles) was the former head of the CIA who
had presided when the CIA/Mafia plots to assassinate Castro. He was fired by
Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. Another, Gerald Ford, was the FBI's mole on
the Commission. He reported on all the Commission's work to the FBI. The
FBI, it should be noted, was the sole source of investigative material for
the Commission.

< By 1967, two-thirds believed that Kennedy
< was done in by a conspiracy.  Each new conspiracy theory makes
< headlines.  Careful rebuttals, like the NAS report, are lucky if they
< get a few column inches on an inside page.

These "careful rebuttals" continue to reiterate the badly flawed Warren
Commission report, as if saying it over and over again makes it true. It's
interesting to note that the CIA, by their own admission, carries a number
of authors and jounalists on their payroll. Why? Public opinion can affect
them from time to time, so it's useful to have a tool to counter it.

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!tim
From: [e-mail] (Tim Richardson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 20:21:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: techNET, San Jose, CA
Lines: 48
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:50209 alt.conspiracy:9405

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
=In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
=
=|> Top marksman have been unable to duplicate "his feat" of getting off three
=|> shots in six seconds with the cheap mail order gun he was supposed to have
=|> used.
=
=On the contrary, ordinary marksmen have bettered it.  And they did so
=a *long* time ago.
=
=Over 20 years ago I saw a prime-time CBS reports that investigated
=this particular point.  They placed state troopers with identical
=Carcanos who had equivalent target-shooting scores in a tower
=corresponding to the Depository.  They ran a dummy by on a dolly
=corresponding to the path the limo took with respect to the Depository.
=They *all* got 3 shots off in the necessary time, and they averaged
=more lethal hits than Oswald did.
=
EXCUSE ME!!!
  I have that 60 Minutes report on tape, it wasn't "over 20 years ago", it
was done in 1975.  They did not use "identical Carcanos" and most importantly
NOT 1 OF THEM WAS ABLE TO GET OFF 3 SHOTS with bolt action rifles of ANY
type in the time-frame established by the Warren Commission as the period
in which Oswald had to have fired his 3 shots (any longer or any more shots,
and the whole Warren Commission theory is immediately null and void).  The
CBS film does clearly show riflemen shooting at that "dolly" and shooting
with some considerable accuracy and speed.  However, as is not highlighted
in the "report", the times when speed is being demonstrated by the rifleman,
it is NOT WITH THE BOLT ACTION CARCANO, nor, as was later proved, was the
shooting actually done with shooters of "ordinary" capability.

This CBS "report" was, as CBS was finally forced to admit; highly contrived,
and was generated with a firmly held pre-conceived conclusion in mind.  All
in all, this CBS report was a well constructed, carefully conceived piece
of pure propaganda, which if the average American was able to see several
times in succession, could easily come to understand where it is fately
flawed.

The fact still remains, that to date, no one has EVER been able to duplicate
the shooting feat the Warren Commission ascribed to LHO... period.
--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET"
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!yfn.ysu.edu!ysub!psuvm!cunyvm!rohvm1!mbadbh
From: [e-mail] (David B. Horvath, CDP)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: What's happened to the Warren Commission since 196X
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 19:20:05 GMT
Organization: Hidden - I don't speak for them...
Lines: 15

Has anyone paid attention to what has happened to the members of the
Warren Commission since their involvement?

I don't have my copy of the report in front of me, so this may not be
100% accurate:
  * Gerald Ford - senator, VP, president
  * Arlen Spector - (lawyer), elected to PA state government, then US
                    senator
  * Earl Warren - I know he moved 'up'


I know that there was at least one more member who made quite a name for
himself (I include support staff as members).

    - David
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!linus!mwunix!m16532
From: m16532@mwunix (Steven Bayer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 21:47:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Lines: 2
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:50225 alt.conspiracy:9408
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org

If these discussions can't focus on the movie, why don't we move them
to some other list?  Just a thought.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!lll-winken!taurus!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: What's happened to the Warren Commission since 196X
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 22:31:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 41

[e-mail] (David B. Horvath, CDP) writes:

> Has anyone paid attention to what has happened to the members of the
> Warren Commission since their involvement?
>
> I don't have my copy of the report in front of me, so this may not be
> 100% accurate:
>   * Gerald Ford - senator, VP, president
>   * Arlen Spector - (lawyer), elected to PA state government, then US
>                     senator
>   * Earl Warren - I know he moved 'up'
>
> I know that there was at least one more member who made quite a name for
> himself (I include support staff as members).

Most of the 8 Commissioners are dead. The only one I'm sure is alive is
Gerald Ford. Spector was a staff attorney working for the Commission. Many
of the other attorneys are probably around, since they tended to be younger
than the Commissioners. Eleven commission members became involved in the
Watergate affair--Leon Jaworski, for instance.

Ford and another staffer, David Benin, co-wrote an article for the Washington
Post. I read the reprint in today's San Jose Mercury. It's called "There Is
No Conspiracy" and like all this junk they spout a lot of platitudes but
never rebut the evidence that supports a conspiracy. They stress two main
points. 1) That pathologists generally agree that the shots came from behind.
But even allowing for this to be true, that still doesn't prove that Oswald
did it, or even handled the gun. 2) That a friend of Dallas Homicide Captain
Will Fritz's was allowed to question Oswald for thirty minutes before he was
taken to the basement (where Ruby shot him). That this friend, a postal
inspector, was on his way to church when he just happened to stop in to
see Fritz and Oswald. Since Ruby could not have known about this chance
occurance and since Ruby was in a Western Union office 4 minutes before
killing Oswald, the murder was also a chance event. What they don't tell
you is that what is likely, as researchers have speculated, is that Oswald
was held up until Ruby arrived. Now here is the excuse for the procrastination:
the postal inspector. So what business does this guy have questioning Oswald
for thirty minutes, delaying a carefully coordinated plan to get him safely
to the jail? And was this postal inspector one of Fritz's Klansman buddies?

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|ichips!inews!stravinsky!jreece
From: [e-mail] (John Reece)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 23:59:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 13
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:50241 alt.conspiracy:9412

In article <[e-mail]>, m16532@mwunix (Steven Bayer) writes:
|> If these discussions can't focus on the movie, why don't we move them
|> to some other list?  Just a thought.

Well, not deleting the cross-post to rec.arts.movies in the followup was
my fault.  And I canceled the cross-post within 30 seconds. And look at all these responses anyway!

Sheesh!

--

John Reece
Intel spokesman?  Not!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: What's happened to the Warren Commission since 196X
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 00:03:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 15

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B. Horvath, CDP) writes:
>Has anyone paid attention to what has happened to the members of the
>Warren Commission since their involvement?
>
>  * Earl Warren - I know he moved 'up'

Seeing as how Earl Warren was already a former Governor of
California and current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
at the time of the Warren Commission, I'm not sure where
he moved "up" to.
--
Ted Frank          + "You cannot reason a person out of something he has
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  not been reasoned into."  -- Jonathan Swift
U o' C Law Skool   + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
Chi, IL 60637      +      -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!oliver
From: [e-mail] (James D. Oliver III)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 05:05:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 8
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9416 rec.arts.movies:50250
In-Reply-To: Louis Blair's message of Thu, 19 Dec 1991 20: 06:25 -0500
Nntp-Posting-Host: ballard1.mit.edu

Wait a minute, you mean JFK *dies* in the film?  Why didn't you put a
spoiler warning in??

--
____________________________
    Jim Oliver
    [e-mail] /    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!asparagus.berkeley.edu!chenchen
From: [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 08:11:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 14
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9419 rec.arts.movies:50260
NNTP-Posting-Host: math1mac4.berkeley.edu

NOVA did a show on the assassination a month or so ago.  They examined
the conspiracy theories from the point of view of physical evidence, and
concluded that all "evidence" that points towards multiple gunmen, people
on the Grassy Knoll, etc., was at best flimsy.  I missed about half of the
show, though.

Any commentary on this?


--
Where's Zen-Waldo?  |------------------------------------------------------|
       by           |                               |
Cheng-Jih Chen      |                               |
                    |------------------------------------------------------|
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 08:27:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 17
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9420 rec.arts.movies:50265 sci.skeptic:18699

[e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes:
>NOVA did a show on the assassination a month or so ago.  They examined
>the conspiracy theories from the point of view of physical evidence, and
>concluded that all "evidence" that points towards multiple gunmen, people
>on the Grassy Knoll, etc., was at best flimsy.  I missed about half of the
>show, though.
>
>Any commentary on this?
>
If you add up all of the conspiracy theories, there were thirty-three
gunmen at Dealey Plaza that day.

--
Ted Frank          + "You cannot reason a person out of something he has
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  not been reasoned into."  -- Jonathan Swift
U o' C Law Skool   + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
Chi, IL 60637      +      -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!mlb.semi.harris.com!opus.mlb.semi.harris.com!cbh
From: [e-mail] (Cherie R. Slasor)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 14:48:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL
Lines: 30
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9421 rec.arts.movies:50271
Nntp-Posting-Host: opus.mlb.semi.harris.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes:
>NOVA did a show on the assassination a month or so ago.  They examined
>the conspiracy theories from the point of view of physical evidence, and
>concluded that all "evidence" that points towards multiple gunmen, people
>on the Grassy Knoll, etc., was at best flimsy.  I missed about half of the
>show, though.
>
>Any commentary on this?
>

I watched the show, and they concluded that there are just too many
things that can't be proven either way to make a definitive judgement.
In other words, maybe Oswald acted alone and maybe he didn't.  I thought
they did a good job of presenting both sides of each theory and not
trying to slant the evidence one way or the other.

On a side note - wasn't Zapruder's film in black & white?  The film they
kept showing on Nova was in color (and a closeup of Kennedy's head) which
made it much more graphic than any other time I've seen it.  Maybe it
was computer-enhanced & colorized.  It was much more disturbing than
watching a theatrical movie production, because I knew it was *real*.

Cherie


--
====================================================================
Cherie Slasor                 |    Harris Semiconductor
Phone:    [phone]         |    P.O. Box 883, MS #62B-022
Internet: [e-mail]    |  Melbourne, FL   32902-0883
Path: ns-mx!uunet!world!bzs
From: [e-mail] (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 17:55:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
Lines: 29
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9428 rec.arts.movies:50275
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 21 Dec 91 14:48:22 GMT


>On a side note - wasn't Zapruder's film in black & white?  The film they
>kept showing on Nova was in color (and a closeup of Kennedy's head) which
>made it much more graphic than any other time I've seen it.  Maybe it
>was computer-enhanced & colorized.  It was much more disturbing than
>watching a theatrical movie production, because I knew it was *real*.

I'm old enough to remember the assasination and I remember the stills
in LIFE magazine the following week, from the Zapruder film, as being
in color.

But memory is funny like that.

I also remember watching TV and they were taking Oswald down some hall
with the cameras rolling and...wait...what was
that...a...shot...ladies and gentlemen Lee Harvey Oswald appears to
have been shot!

I remember that quite vividly, they re-played it a moment later in
slow motion which they referred to as something-scope, let's replay
that in xty-scope and try to see what happened...over and over.



--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [e-mail]          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!princeton!strawber.princeton.edu!daly
From: [e-mail] (John Daly)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 18:08:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (CFD)
Lines: 15
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9430 rec.arts.movies:50278 sci.skeptic:18706
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: strawber.princeton.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ted Frank) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes:
|>>
|>> NOVA did a show on the assassination a month or so ago.  They examined
|>> the conspiracy theories from the point of view of physical evidence, and
|>> concluded that all "evidence" that points towards multiple gunmen, people
|>> on the Grassy Knoll, etc., was at best flimsy.  I missed about half of the
|>> show, though.
|>>
|>> Any commentary on this?
|>>
|> If you add up all of the conspiracy theories, there were thirty-three
|> gunmen at Dealey Plaza that day.

Golly!  That's more assassins than tried to kill Clouseau at Oktoberfest.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!think.com!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ingria
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 21:18:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 11
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of Sat, 21 Dec 1991 08:27:57 GMT


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

   If you add up all of the conspiracy theories, there were thirty-three
   gunmen at Dealey Plaza that day.

Itself clearly a cover-up, since Discordian numerology tells us there
would be TWENTY-three.

-30-
Bob
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cactus.org!rdd
From: [e-mail] (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Opinion on Newsweek's review of "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 91 19:27:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Dorsett)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society
Lines: 11
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9434 rec.arts.movies:50282

Did anyone else feel that the Newsweek articles failed to justify their
criticisms of the movie?  Read closely, it's more of a "How dare they do
something like this" piece, rather than much salient criticism of its
conclusions...



---
Robert Dorsett
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!wupost!swbatl!jburnes
From: [e-mail] (Jim Burnes - 235-7444)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: What's happened to the Warren Commission since 196X
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 91 22:31:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Lines: 17

David B. Horvath, CDP <[e-mail]> writes:
> Has anyone paid attention to what has happened to the members of the
> Warren Commission since their involvement?
>
>   * Earl Warren - I know he moved 'up'

Before that Earl Warren was apparently the primary architect of the
Japanese American concentration camps.  This is from Plausible Denial.
Lane gives a detailed history of Warren before his appointment to the
supreme court.   I have yet to corroborate this though.

-----------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin          ! We are all sleepwalkers
SWBell Advanced Technology Labs    ! We only see the things we want to see
[phone]                     ! We dream in color
[e-mail]             ! We paint each other black&white -Level 42
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
From: [e-mail] (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK conspiracy evidence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 91 09:54:54 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns1.ins.cwru.edu


I have recently gotten interested in the Kennedy assassination by
hearing Mark Lane  on a radio talk show and reading Jim Garrison's
1988 book. I noticed when I saw JFK that quite a bit of evidence
in Garrison's book is left out of the movie. A couple of points that
I thought were particularly interesting:
   (1) The Dallas paper prior to Kennedy's arrival showed on the
front page a motorcade route which was more direct than that actually
taken and which would have bypassed Dealy Plaza. The copy of that
paper as examined by the Warren Commission (according to Garrison)
is blanked out where the motorcade map appeared. Passing strange.
    (2) The mayor of Dallas was the brother of General Charles Cabell,
a high CIA official recently fired by Kennedy (along with CIA chief
and Warren Commission member Allen Dulles). Curiouser and Curiouser.
   Lane, by the way, is convinced that it was the CIA. His arguement
is that a number of groups might have pulled off the assassination,
but of the likely suspects only the CIA had the resources to conduct
a coverup of the magnitude which has in fact occurred. I think anybody
who wants to refute a conspiratorial hypothesis has got to come to
terms with the coverup - which amounts at its most fundamental to an
unbelievably sloppy job of investigation by the Warren Commission
combined with an uncritical acceptance of that pathetic excuse for
an investigation by virtually all the established orgns of public
opinion. To my mind a CIA conspiracy hypothesis accounts for this in
a way other hypotheses do not.
   In closing, if Garrison and Lane are correct in their contention
that COnstitutional government was overthrown in a coup d'etat in
1963, what can we do about it. (Sane and legal suggestions only please).
     Hope to hear some discussion,
     Steve
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!unido!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!seunet!im.se!tope
From: [e-mail] (Torbj|rn Pettersson IMD)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 91 21:06:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Industri-Matematik Data AB, Sweden
Lines: 23
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9439 rec.arts.movies:50301 sci.skeptic:18719
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 21 Dec 91 08:27:57 GMT

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>[e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes:
>>NOVA did a show on the assassination a month or so ago.  They examined
>>the conspiracy theories from the point of view of physical evidence, and
>>concluded that all "evidence" that points towards multiple gunmen, people
>>on the Grassy Knoll, etc., was at best flimsy.  I missed about half of the
>>show, though.
>>
>>Any commentary on this?
>>
>If you add up all of the conspiracy theories, there were thirty-three
>gunmen at Dealey Plaza that day.
>

 Of course it was! Haven't you read 'Illuminatus!'?

--
-----
Torbj|rn Pettersson                     Tel     08 - 676 51 70
Industri Matematik Data AB              Email   [e-mail]
Kungsgatan 8                                    ..!sunic!imtws3!imdpy1!tope
S-111 43 Stockholm, Sweden
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 91 17:12:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 52
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:50303 alt.conspiracy:9440

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Zapruder said that one of the shots definately came from behind him (the

Go see the Zapruder film.  The shot that killed JFK came from the
front.  His brains were splattered rearward with tremedenous velocity
and his head was snapped back.  (Dan Rather said that when he saw
the film the head shot forward.  Some have speculated that the FBI
had produced doctored copies with reverse frames of the fatal shot
to try to convince people of their lone assassin theory).

>grassy knoll). Additionally, about two thirds of the Dealey Plaza witnesses
>said they heard a shot coming from the grassy knoll and many people ran
>up the knoll looking for the culprit. Also, a number of witnesses described
>hearing two distinct sounds, one a sound like a distant firecracker, another
>a close up rifle sound from the knoll.
>
><      Having gunmen at widely separated locations fire in succession
>< would only make an operation more difficult to coordinate.

>
>Speisel was a lousy witness, alright. Shaw was a peripheral figure in
>Garrison's investigation. He decided to go after Shaw because the main
>figure he wanted to get, David Ferrie, committed suicide immediately after
>word of Garrison's investigation got into the press.
>
One thing the movie doesn't mention.  Garrison was also a crusader
against homosexuals (Ferrie and Shaw were gay).  For that reason,
Garrison is biased.  Ferrie certainly was involved in the conspiracy,
but Shaw may not have been.
>
>Ruby insisted his motive was to spare Jackie Kennedy from a trial of Oswald.

Ruby's associates said he hated the Kennedys.
>
>They do when they're told to do it or else. Why wasn't Oswald eliminated
>the day of the assassination? Probably a glitch in the plan.
>
Some informants claim he was supposed to have been shot in the
Texas theater where he was to have met someone to get him out
of the country.  Tippit may have been the one who was supposed
to bump Oswald off.
>
>Not true. When the FBI came out with their "lone nut" theory on the Monday

The lone nut theory was discussed by J Edgar Hoover on the *day* of
the assassination.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "When in danger, or in doubt
[e-mail]     |  Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!world!eff!iWarp.intel.com|ichips!inews!stravinsky!jreece
From: [e-mail] (John Reece)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 03:30:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 34
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9441 rec.arts.movies:50304

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

|> Go see the Zapruder film.  The shot that killed JFK came from the
|> front.  His brains were splattered rearward with tremedenous velocity
|> and his head was snapped back.

In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...

|> >grassy knoll). Additionally, about two thirds of the Dealey Plaza witnesses
|> >said they heard a shot coming from the grassy knoll and many people ran
|> >up the knoll looking for the culprit.

It seems to me that the logical reaction when a sniper opens fire is
for people to run to the nearest *cover*, rather than towards the gunman.
I suspect that's really why all those people were heading for the grassy
knoll, and that many of these witnesses's memories has been altered by
years of debate and speculation.


|> >Also, a number of witnesses described
|> >hearing two distinct sounds, one a sound like a distant firecracker,
|> > another a close up rifle sound from the knoll.

Gunshot echos, as well as the "crack" made by a bullet traveling faster
than sound, often sound like "distant firecrackers".  Also, most of
those people were facing the limo, and away from either LHO or the
grassy knoll.

--

John Reece
Intel spokesman?  Not!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 91 17:17:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 24
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9442 rec.arts.movies:50305

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cherie R. Slasor) writes:

>
>On a side note - wasn't Zapruder's film in black & white?  The film they
>kept showing on Nova was in color (and a closeup of Kennedy's head) which
>made it much more graphic than any other time I've seen it.  Maybe it
>was computer-enhanced & colorized.  It was much more disturbing than
>watching a theatrical movie production, because I knew it was *real*.
>
The original was in color as were virtually all home movies in 1962
(Kodachrome, usually).  What people may not know (neither did the
Warren Commission) is that there was another home movie taken that
day from across the street by another woman spectator with a good
view of the knoll behind Zapruder.  The FBI picked up her film
to develop it.  It has never been seen again.  The FBI admits having
collected the film but reports it as "lost".



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "When in danger, or in doubt
[e-mail]     |  Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK conspiracy evidence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 91 17:32:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 50

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

>   Lane, by the way, is convinced that it was the CIA. His arguement
>is that a number of groups might have pulled off the assassination,
>but of the likely suspects only the CIA had the resources to conduct
>a coverup of the magnitude which has in fact occurred. I think anybody
>who wants to refute a conspiratorial hypothesis has got to come to
>terms with the coverup - which amounts at its most fundamental to an
>unbelievably sloppy job of investigation by the Warren Commission
>combined with an uncritical acceptance of that pathetic excuse for
>an investigation by virtually all the established orgns of public
>opinion. To my mind a CIA conspiracy hypothesis accounts for this in
>a way other hypotheses do not.
>   In closing, if Garrison and Lane are correct in their contention
>that COnstitutional government was overthrown in a coup d'etat in
>1963, what can we do about it. (Sane and legal suggestions only please).

You don't have to believe that J Edgar Hoover or Allen Dulles
masterminded the assassination to believe them capable of covering it
up.  The subsequent 25 years has shown us that cover up is the
government's middle name.  The truth can be dangerous, especially
when you aren't sure were all the leads lead.  Far better to
sanitize it for the American people.  Those who killed Kennedy
invited the cover up by setting up a "Communist" patsy like Lee Oswald
to make it very palatable to the powers that be to accept the
lone assassin theory.  Oswald was delivered on a silver platter
and the Warren Commission was set up to bless that interpretation.
Warren's questioning of Ruby shows that he definitely was not
interested in hearing about any conspiracy, try as Ruby would
to tell him about one.

I myself don't know who killed JFK.  I am reasonably sure from
what I've read that there were elements of the CIA, Cuban Exiles,
and Mafia involved.  Who was the tail and who was the dog I don't
know.  But to answer your question, unless we can find some way
to pry out the secret files of the assassination (locked up for
75 years) by the time we find out, there won't be anyone left
alive to punish, if that is the aim.  With former CIA head Bush
as president, and the liberal media on his side on this one,
it is very unlikely that the can of worms will be opened during
our lifetime.

Could it happen again?  Of course it can.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "When in danger, or in doubt
[e-mail]     |  Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!lll-winken!taurus!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Opinion on Newsweek's review of "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 91 22:48:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 11
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9446 rec.arts.movies:50318

[e-mail] (Robert Dorsett) writes:

> Did anyone else feel that the Newsweek articles failed to justify their
> criticisms of the movie?  Read closely, it's more of a "How dare they do
> something like this" piece, rather than much salient criticism of its
> conclusions...

The dick was probably ordered to write a negative review--his heart wasn't
in it.

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!kilcup
From: [e-mail] (Greg Kilcup)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 06:43:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Ohio State University; Physics Department
Lines: 56
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9448 rec.arts.movies:50324
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 23 Dec 91 03:30:59 GMT

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

>   In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
>   by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
>   from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...

Indeed they showed some old footage which demonstrated that if you
shoot at the base of an unattached skull, you can give it enough
backspin so that it will fly off backwards at some (low) velocity.
This seems to me to rather unrelated to the question of what
a skull will do when attached to a spine, let alone to the question
of where a shot must come from to get the skull moving backwards at
*high* velocity.  It is hard to evade Newtonian mechanics.

If I recall the gospel according to Warren, the backward movement of
JFK's head is ascribed to muscular contractions caused by the random
firings of a heavily damage nervous system.  I have no idea if that is
reasonable or not.  Any biomechanicians out there?

In general I was frustrated with the NOVA program. Walter Cronkite
presented each piece of evidence for the grassy knoll gunman,
followed by evidence againt, but generally without going back to the
conspiracy propopants for a rebuttal.  In each case we were left
with the statement that there was no firm scientific basis to
conclude there was a second gunman.

  I must say Uncle Walter's conclusions bother me a lot, since
(experimental) science is not in the business of stringing together
air-tight logical deductions.  Instead one looks for the simplest
consistent explanation among the alternatives. In order to believe in
the lone-assassin theory one must at least believe that (1) Oswald
managed to squeeze off his shots faster and more accurately than any
human being has been able to repeat, (2) that John Connally was
somehow mistaken when he stated that Kennedy was shot first, (3) that
the bullet which turned up on Connally's stretcher managed to do a
large amount of damage without becoming deformed, (4) that JFK's head
jerked back due to some neurological spasm, and (5) that the echo
pattern on the Dictabelt just happen to match the characteristic
fingerprint of a shot from the knoll.  Each of these hypotheses has
some chance of being right, but the probability of all being so seems
to me to be vanishingly small.  I would have hoped that Uncle Walter
came out with the statement that the weight of scientific evidence
comes down on the side of the conspiracy-minded.  But perhaps the
mantle of being the "most trusted man in America" is a heavy load, and
he decided to be cautious in his words, and simply let the evidence
speak for itself.  After all he did mention other bits of
(non-scientific) evidence---reports of surgery on JFK's head by
persons unknown, reports of fake Secret Service agents, etc.--- and in
the end suggested that the full truth might come to light by other
than scientific methods.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kilcup                   [e-mail]
Asst. Prof. of Physics        [e-mail]
The Ohio State University     [phone]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!ux.acs.umn.edu!acm
From: [e-mail] (Acm)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Stone's _JFK_ practices `big lie' revisionism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 12:10:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: University of Minnesota, Academic Computing Services
Lines: 143
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9450 rec.arts.movies:50337

I sorry I couldn't find the time to respond to all the replies to my article
`Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations.' However, much of the criticsm was
quite helpful and I believe the many of the points that were made are
addressed in this revised version of the article:


               STONE'S _JFK_ PRACTICES `BIG LIE' REVISIONISM
                          by Peter Kauffner

The release of Oliver Stone's movie _JFK_ has allowed at least one sector of
the economy to recover from recession: the Kennedy assassination conspiracy
industry. The film makes an eloquent plea for openness and allowing the
public to make up its own mind. But Stone certainly doesn't feel bound by the
standards he advocates for others. The movie practices the `big lie'
technique it condemns by rigorously excluding all evidence which points to a
conclusion other than conspiracy.

Some of the unmentioned evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald: ballistics tests
established that bullet fragments found at the scene of the crime were fired
from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Stone claims that the well known
picture of Oswald with this rifle is a fabrication, but a print exists that
has an inscription in Oswald's handwriting on the back.

Conspiracy mongers get around this inconvenient evidence by insisting that
there was a `second gunmen' whose bullets were, for some reason, never
recovered. In this view, Oswald was only a fall guy for a professional hit
man who fired from the `grassy knoll' near Kennedy's motorcade. But of the 20
physicians who examined Kennedy's autopsy photographs and X-rays, 19 have
concluded that all the shots came from the rear, the direction Oswald shot
from. Only one suggested that a shot from the direction of the grassy knoll
was possible.[1]

What about the `51 witnesses' who heard the a shot coming from the grassy
knoll? Echoes can fool people about which direction a noise comes from.

Having gunmen at widely separated locations fire in succession would only
make an operation more difficult to coordinate. If the Secret Service had
reacted quickly, the first shot would have been the assassin's only chance.
So one would expect conspirators to assign their best marksman to shoot
first. But in _JFK_ the first shot said to be a `diversion' which misses the
limousine entirely and is intended only to distract the Secret Service.

The sort of conspiracy envisaged by Stone would require the involvement of so
many people that someone would have spilled the beans by now. (In the movie's
only moment of self-doubt, a staffer brings up precisely this point in a
conference.)

About the closest thing to an insider's view of the conspiracy that we have
is the testimony of Charles Speisel. Speisel was the principle witness
against Clay Shaw, whose 1969 trial is the movie's climax.

On cross examination, Speisel confirmed that he had a filed suits against the
New York police, among others, for allegedly torturing him and keeping him
under hypnosis. He estimated that 50 to 60 people had hypnotized him in order
to plant wild ideas in his head.[2] The jury acquitted Shaw after
deliberating for less than an hour.

The most controversial aspect of _JFK_ is Stone's choice for the role of hero:
Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner), the New Orleans District Attorney who
prosecuted Shaw. Garrison's two year investigation kept `uncovering' one
conspiracy after another. Even fellow conspiracy researchers usually write
him off as a kook.

How does Stone maintain Garrison's heroic image in the face of a fiasco like
the Shaw trail? Speisel isn't even mentioned in the movie. The case against
Shaw is used simply as device which allows Costner to give a lengthy monolog
about `magic bullets' and a scenario in which gunmen fire at the president
from three different locations around Dealey Plaza for a total of six shots.
Its ironic that Stone, who puts so much weight on witness testimony on the
issue of which direction shots came from, casually overlooks the fact that
most witnesses counted only three shots.

Stone's theory is based on an audio tape recorded by the Dallas police and
analyzed in a 1978 congressional report.[6] There were six noises on the tape
that passed preliminary screening tests as possible rifle shots. [3] In its
report, the House Select Committee on Assassinations claimed that the
probability that a second gunman fired from the grassy knoll was `95 percent
or better.' [5]

The report's claims were thoroughly refuted by a 1982 National Academy of
Sciences study. The NAS panel concluded that `the acoustical analysis does
not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there
is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95 percent probability of such a shot.'
The part of the tape alleged to contain the sound of gun shots was actually
`recorded about one minute after the president had been shot.' [5]

A home movie of the murder, called the Zapruder film, provides the best
evidence that there was neither a fourth shot nor a second gunman. After each
of Oswald's three shots, the camera shakes visibly.[4] A high powered rifle
firing from the grassy knoll would have made a deafening noise from where
Zapruder stood, according to _Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic
Comparisons of Their Assassinations_ (1980) by John Lattimer.

To support the assertion that Oswald couldn't possibly do what the Warren
Commission claims he did, conspiracy theorists make much of the low
marksmanship scores Oswald got while he was in the Marines. But according to
tests results published by Lattimer, Oswald's score in the seated position--
the position he used when he shot Kennedy--was excellent. On one scorecard he
hit a head-and-shoulders sized target 49 out of 50 times from a distance of
200 yards without telescopic sights. He shot Kennedy from less than 100 yards
and used telescopic sights.[4]

How was Oswald able to reload his bolt action rifle so quickly? According to
Marina, his wife, he practiced reloading for several hours a day for weeks
before the assassination. Given the weapon's quirks, it shouldn't be
surprising that he was able to reload faster than marksmen unfamiliar with
the weapon.

The Kennedy assassination marks the beginning of a watershed shift in
conspiracy thinking. Such thinking was once associated with the anti-Semitic
right. But all the best known conspiracy theories today are left-wing in
origin. Whether its Salvador Allende's overthrow in Chile, Khmer Rouge
atrocities in Cambodia, the Korean airliner shot down by Soviet warplanes in
1983, or drug running in Central America, today's left has a conspiracy
theory which blames the problem on the US government and the Central
Intelligence Agency.


References:

[1] Ford, Gerald and Belin David, `Kennedy Assassination: How About the
    Truth,' Minneapolis _Star Tribune_, December 22, 1991, p. 25A.

[2] Lardner, George Jr., `On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland,' _The Washington
    Post_, May 19, 1991, p. D1.

[3] Lardner, George Jr., `...Or Just a Sloppy Mess?' _The Washington Post_,
    June 2, 1991, p. D3.

[4] Lattimer, John, _Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons
    of Their Assassinations_ (1980).

[5] Moss, Armand, _Disinformation, Misinformation, and the `Conspiracy' to
    Kill JFK Exposed_ (1987).

[6] Stone, Oliver, `Stone's _JFK_: A Higher Truth?' _The Washington Post_
    June 2, 1991, p. D3.


Peter Kauffner                      UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!peterk
Minneapolis, Minnesota              INET: [e-mail]

Libertarians put freedom first. Vote for Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord in 1992!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 09:23:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 47
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9451 rec.arts.movies:50340 sci.skeptic:18734

I (Mr. Right Wing Republican) used to feel that all conspirators should get
a life, but after examining all the available evidence in the JFK
Assasination, I must side with the conspiracy freaks I used to make fun of.

I saw the JFK movie on Friday and i find it difficult to belive that ANYONE
who sees it will ever feel the same about the Warren Commision and their "lone
assasin" theory.

You non-beleivers must realize that the House Committee on Assasinations
(which re-opened the JFK case) came to this conclusion:

"The Assasination of President Kennedy most probably (90% probability) was the
result of a conspiracy involving more than one shooter."

ANOTHER CLEAR POINT OF EVIDENCE:

The photograph taken by Mary Moorman (aiming her polaroid towards the grassy
knoll at the time of the final shot (1/60th of a second afterwards).

When blown-up by scientists at MIT, the photograph shows "clearly" an assasin
dressed as a Dallas Policeman behind the picket fence on the knoll aiming at
the President with a smoking rifle.

The House Select Committee on Assasination's conclusion was followed by an
order to the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.  The order said to investigate their findings
further, so that they might find the conspirators.   As of now, the U.S.
Justice department has yet to open ANY KIND OF  INVESTIGATION.

I invite any skeptic to read:  "On the Trail of the Assasins" by Jim Garrison
                               "Crossfire" by Jim Mars
           or to simply view:
                               "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" a documentary by
                                                            Nigel Turner

Open your eyes!   Don't beleive me, don't beleive the same government that's
                  brought us Irangate, Watergate and more, seek the truth
                  for yourself.  It is the only way this country will survive.
                  But by all means, don't be negative without knowing the
                  facts!  Just take a few whiffs-- even if you just read the
                  War ren Report itself (for those weary of conspiracy nuts)
                  andI'm sure you will smell a rat!






Path: ns-mx!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!andromed
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: CREDIT TO JOHN F. KENNEDY
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 14:16:28 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lines: 13

I think we should all say " Thanks Jack. "  for the way

the events now happening on this planet are occuring. It

was JFK who started the " Road to Peace " and it is only

fitting that he be given the honours for this.

 "  THANKS  JACK  "



                 mike
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rice!spacsun.rice.edu!bemo
From: [e-mail] (Brian D. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ practices `big lie' revisionism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 15:02:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian D. Moore)
Organization: Dept. of Space Physics, Rice University, Houston TX
Lines: 7

All of this discussion of the JFK conspiracy makes me wonder: was there a second director for "Highlander II"?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Moore              | Homebrewing -- the only sport exclusively for
Space Physics and Astronomy |                anal-retentive alcoholics.
Rice University, Houston TX |       Relax -- have a home brew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!lll-winken!taurus!huxley![e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy
Subject: "JFK" -- Punishing the Establishment
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 16:07:30 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 231
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:50352 alt.conspiracy:9460

"JFK" is more than a movie. It's also a populist political event, the
public airing of the Great Democracy's dirty laundry. In my mind, the
movie as drama and the movie as event should be considered separately.

                                The Drama
                                ---------

"JFK" is a brilliant and complex political thriller in which the plot
overpowers the characters involved. When it's everyone's story--the murder
of the popularly-elected president--it can't be any one's story. So Jim
Garrison, the DA of New Orleans and the only person to try anyone for the
assassination, is made to stand in for Everyman, a man who becomes so
obsessed with discovering the truth that he forgets the rest of his life.
Adequately played by Kevin Costner (though I found myself yearning for
Jimmy Stewart's intensity of performance in "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington"), he's a homage to the "conspiracy nuts" without whom this film
could not have been made. (I'm reminded of the scene in "Annie Hall" where
Alvie free associates about the Warren Report while his wife is begging him
to make love.)

The drama is bracketed by two crucial scenes. An early sequence
demonstrates the reaction of the public to the assassination, the utter
shock felt by ordinary people at the death of a president who charmed his
admirers like perhaps no other. This sequence is bound to resonate deeply
with people who lived through the experience, but it's also important for a
younger generation to understand the pain that gave birth to the search for
truth in this case. I watched this scene and wondered why I had never seen
it before.

The film concludes with Garrison's closing arguments in the trial of Clay
Shaw.  The lengthy speech is an eloquent and occasionally emotional
summation of the rights and responsibilities of free citizens in a
democracy, and how they relate to the assassination. I wish I could
remember more of this scene but I was by this time suffering massive
sensory overload because...

Inbetween the two scenes is the story of Jim Garrison's investigation into
the assassination of JFK and the subsequent trial of Clay Shaw, a
three-hour tommy gun burst of information and ideas, a relentless montage
of facts and speculation that astonishes by its breadth and virtuosity.
Director Oliver Stone skillfully blends the contemporaneous action with
still photos, news reels, flashbacks, the Zapruder film, alternate versions
of events--the film probably has more seams than any film ever made, yet
flows seamlessly and naturally toward its conclusion. It's a technical tour
de force. The location work--Dealey Plaza, the Texas School Book
Depository, New Orleans--is especially effective in establishing
verisimilitude. I always felt like I was seeing the real events unfolding.
And despite the constant blending of scenes from different times, the story
was never confusing.  Each category of shot seemed to have a visual style
to set it apart. The flashbacks, for example, are in black and white, with
the camera always moving, making the scene a little hazy, leaving only the
remembered detail.  Still, there's a lot there; it's the kind of film that
will continue to reveal itself on repeated viewings.

The story is a great one, really dozens of strange tales rolled into one.
You have to wonder why Hollywood, ever hungry for new and relevant
material, passed it by for so long. Is it simply that the time wasn't right
until now?  There are no dull moments. The film grabs hold of you and never
lets loose, delivering one spine chill after another.

Along the way are great characters and a number of fine performances, best
of which may be Gary Oldman's uncanny portrayal of one of the most
enigmatic figures in modern times, Lee Harvey Oswald. Joe Pesci is good as
the bizarre David Ferrie, but not as intense as in his career-making role
in "GoodFellas."  John Candy plays hipster attorney Dean Andrews and I
think I spotted him as Dallas cop Marrion Baker in one of the flashbacks.
Tommy Lee Jones is excellent as Clay Shaw; ditto Kevin Bacon as a male
prostitute.  There are also a number of interesting cameos...

Could I fault this movie (as a movie)? (That's obligatory, isn't it?)
Costner's Garrison would make more sense as a character if he grew into his
scepticism more.  Growth is hinted at but, really, the graph is
flat--there's never any doubt that convincing proof of a conspiracy will be
found. Compare "JFK," in this respect, with "All the President's Men." In
the latter, the effect of piling on the layers of a deepening mystery is
better paced and maybe more exciting.

Sissy Spacek is fine as Garrison's wife, but her character seems to exist
only as an index of Garrison's emotional estrangement from his family. In
the end, after Bobby Kennedy has been killed, she can admit that her
husband was right all along but, still, it's not clear whether she thought
the sacrifice of his attention worth it.

I also didn't care for the extravagent homosexual romp scene, particularly
since the real Clay Shaw was a bondage freak with a leather and chains
lounge. The subterranean hostility inherent in Shaw's true predilictions
makes a better fit dramatically, so why chuck it?  Perhaps Stone made the
mistake of relaxing himself with a Ken Russell picture the evening before he
wrote that scene.

But these are all secondary questions when, in fact, the plot is the real
star of the movie, and it sings.

I give "JFK" $5.50 on the $0 to $6.25 scale.

                                The Event
                                ---------

While watching "JFK," it became immediately obvious why the political
establishment has convulsed in reaction. The film is a ham-fisted belly
blow to our conventional belief in how the power to rule America is
established. Most people leaving the theater will feel at least some
paranoia about the government; some people will feel a lot of paranoia.

However, not all of the reaction has been negative, as shown by these
excerpts from an editorial in the San Francisco Examiner:

        First consider whether you believe the Warren Report. If you don't,
        consider seeing..."JFK," which depicts the assassination as a coup
        d'etat staged by a vast conspiracy. But if you do believe the Warren
        Report, there may be even more reason to see the movie--to challenge
        your assumptions about Nov. 22, 1963, and after.
        ...
        Writer-producer Stone's theories...may or may not hold water. But
        they make us consider the possibilities.
        ...
        There's plenty of evidence the Warren Commission's lone-gunman
        theory doesn't solve the case. If there isn't a national soul-
        searching over what really happened, why isn't there? We should
        want the truth.

(It's ironic that a paper that refused to run ads for "Citizen Kane" in
1941, a paper that runs a weekly editorial by William Randolph Hearst Jr.
that could not be any more laudatory of Washington's conservative rulers,
would "get" a film like "JFK.")

The disease, of which "JFK" is a symptom, is deeply-rooted.  The
establishment botched the investigation so badly, and have continued to
pigheadedly defend their preposterous conclusions (as embodied in the
Warren Report), that private citizens, with the liability of inadequate
resources and official apathy, have had to step in to fill the void. It's
no wonder that this haphazard volunteer investigative force has produced
its share of hokum. It's the nature of the beast. But they've also turned
up a lot of solid evidence, evidence that the Warren Commission never
considered. They've turned the Warren Report over and over, and what you're
left with is that a whole lot of extremely unlikely events had to have
occurred in quick succession for the Report to be correct. One or maybe two
of these things, we could accept. But when so many aspects of the Report
require a suspension of disbelief, reasonable people cry foul. At the same
time, we have a long record of missing evidence, altered evidence, planted
evidence, destroyed evidence, forged evidence, secret evidence, censored
evidence, witnesses threatened, witnesses killed.  At some point, it can't
all be explained away by coincidence and human error. There's more going
on than the government admits.

But while it's easy to discredit the citizen investigators by highlighting
their errors or their occasionally silly conclusions, it's very hard to
consider the totality of evidence that challenges the Warren Report and
dismiss it all with a shrug. It's too compelling. But you will not find the
Warren principals--Commissioner and ex-President Gerald Ford, staff
attorneys David Benin or Senator Arlen Spector, or others--rebutting the
evidence that contradicts their conclusions. They're beyond defending the
truth; they're defending their reputations. No one of them wants to be
party to a process that finds them culpable in such an abject failure.
Their appeal anymore is to people who are looking for any excuse to believe
that the government never lies.

Still, "JFK" needs to be put into perspective. Though it may extend beyond
the film world in importance, it is not a documentary and must succeed as a
film first and a proposed historical revision second. It has to have a
plot, characters, and a dramatic structure. The main character is Jim
Garrison, and his investigation/trial becomes the plot on which a wild
array of fact and speculation hangs. Much artistic license is taken to
weave the mass of material into a coherent whole. One character is a
composite of real characters and speculation--Kevin Bacon's Willie O'Keefe.
Donald Sutherland's X was invented to provide eyewitness confirmation of
what is, in fact, only Garrison's opinion. Garrison's point of view is
fleshed out and affirmed by having him know things that weren't discovered
until after the story's time frame. In general, the drama is fleshed out
with extrapolated conversations and scenes, e.g. no one has confessed
faking the photos of Oswald, but the faking is shown. Does all this license
matter? Purists will be bothered because the film allows people to believe
things that aren't necessarily true. But, on the whole, moving people from
a position of knowing too little to knowing too much is probably a net
gain. Because the center of the story has never been discovered, the
fringes are not that far from the middle ground.  The main point of the
film is not to tell Garrison's story; it's to present a unified theory of
the assassination. Garrison's only real purpose is as a spokesman for those
who want to learn the truth.

There is an important difference between Garrison, the film's icon, and
Garrison, the real person, though. The real Garrison rejected the
possibility that organized crime played any role in the assassination. But
at the same time, Garrison appears to have been on New Orleans' petty graft
gravy train, courtesy of Carlos Marcello, the formerly powerful Mafia boss
of Louisiana, a notoriously corrupt state. This caused Garrison to
overlook, perhaps intentionally, the strong possibility that Marcello
played a role in the assassination. Critics of Garrison have even suggested
that the entire trial was a sham invented to deflect attention away from
the mob; though bringing the nation's attention to bear on New Orleans
would be a dangerous way of trying to divert attention from Marcello,
particularly since the government's lethargy (in wanting more answers than
the Warren Commission provided) demanded no counteraction. And since David
Ferrie had admitted (to the FBI) ties to Marcello, putting the spotlight on
Ferrie could not have caused Marcello any comfort, regardless of his guilt
or innocence. Stone shores up Garrison's blind spot a little by inserting
references to lower-level mob involvement. They become part of the film's
complex mosaic of detail.

But Stone probably made the right move in pointing the finger at government
conspiracy, if the film is to be a means and not an end. For there's no
doubt that the government is hiding something, though perhaps not
government complicity in the assassination. But as long as they continue to
deny the obvious and bury the truth, citizens have every right to fear the
worst. It's a just punishment for the establishment's crime of letting the
president's killers go free.  Stone is really trying to force the
government's hand with this film. He could have picked another plausible
scenario--the assassination as a Mafia hit, for instance, or an act of
vengeance by anti-Castro Cubans, or a balanced blend of CIA/Mafia
complicity--but that would not have exerted the maximum pressure on the
government to tell what they know. If the establishment doesn't like the
film's message, that's fine. They have the power to change perception. If
they want to prove Stone or anyone else wrong they are welcome to expose
their secret documents to the light of day. As Stone writes in a New York
Times article:

        The issue of our times--as the media keep repeating--is democracy.

        The real issue is trusting the people with their real history.

        The real issue is opening all the files of the House Select
        Committee on Assassinations, embargoed until 2029, today.

        The real issue is opening all CIA, FBI and military intelligence
        files, held for all eternity, on Oswald, Ruby, Kennedy and Dallas
        1963. All of them--without the crucial parts blacked out.

        Only then can we start to have a real democracy. "JFK" strikes a
        blow for that open debate.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 16:23:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 44
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9462 rec.arts.movies:50355

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

>
>In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
>by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
>from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...
>
Anyone who knows anything about conservation of momentum will
tell you that this is impossible.  If the skull flew backwards,
then someother part of it flew forwards with even more velocity.
The "official" theory for why the head flew backwards was a
reflex of the neck muscles at the moment of impact.  This reflex,
of course, is conjectural.

>|> >grassy knoll). Additionally, about two thirds of the Dealey Plaza witnesses
>|> >said they heard a shot coming from the grassy knoll and many people ran
>|> >up the knoll looking for the culprit.
>
>It seems to me that the logical reaction when a sniper opens fire is
>for people to run to the nearest *cover*, rather than towards the gunman.
>I suspect that's really why all those people were heading for the grassy
>knoll, and that many of these witnesses's memories has been altered by
>years of debate and speculation.
>
But then why did they tell people on the day after the assassination
that the reason they ran up the knoll was to look for the perpetrators?
Read Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" and I assure you, you won't be making
this argument then.
>
>Gunshot echos, as well as the "crack" made by a bullet traveling faster
>than sound, often sound like "distant firecrackers".  Also, most of
>those people were facing the limo, and away from either LHO or the
>grassy knoll.
>
But what were the echos off of?  The area behind the knoll is open,
with no building for echos.  Any echos would have come off the
School Book Depository from shots fired from the knoll.  (I've
scoped the site out myself when I was in Dallas a few years ago.)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "When in danger, or in doubt
[e-mail]     |  Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 16:28:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 40

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Kilcup) writes:
>
>Indeed they showed some old footage which demonstrated that if you
>shoot at the base of an unattached skull, you can give it enough
>backspin so that it will fly off backwards at some (low) velocity.

The autopsy photos show the wound to be above ear level, not at the base.

>
>If I recall the gospel according to Warren, the backward movement of
>JFK's head is ascribed to muscular contractions caused by the random
>firings of a heavily damage nervous system.  I have no idea if that is
>reasonable or not.  Any biomechanicians out there?
>
Pure speculation.  Could not be proved one way or another.  It is
true that a hit from behind could have resulted in brain matter
being sprayed behind as well as in front of Kennedy.  But looking
at the Zapruder film, my physical intuition tells me that the
impact came from in front of him.  (Of course, most assassination
researchers think there were shots from both sites).


>to me to be vanishingly small.  I would have hoped that Uncle Walter
>came out with the statement that the weight of scientific evidence
>comes down on the side of the conspiracy-minded.  But perhaps the
>mantle of being the "most trusted man in America" is a heavy load, and
>he decided to be cautious in his words, and simply let the evidence
>speak for itself.  After all he did mention other bits of

Or he was not allowed to say what he really thought but had to tow
the CBS line.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "When in danger, or in doubt
[e-mail]     |  Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ practices `big lie' revisionism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 16:48:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 81

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Acm) writes:
>I sorry I couldn't find the time to respond to all the replies to my article
>`Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations.' However, much of the criticsm was
>quite helpful and I believe the many of the points that were made are
>addressed in this revised version of the article:
>
Peter, before writing the next version, may I suggest you read
"Crossfire" by Jim Marrs?  (I'm assuming you haven't read it
by what you say in the article.)  It may change your mind about
a few things.
>
>Some of the unmentioned evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald: ballistics tests
>established that bullet fragments found at the scene of the crime were fired
>from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Stone claims that the well known
>picture of Oswald with this rifle is a fabrication, but a print exists that
>has an inscription in Oswald's handwriting on the back.
>
There is a third picture, never shown to the public of Oswald with the
Daily Worker and "his" Rifle.  It has the same head as the other
shots, but the body is standing considerably further from the camera.
None of the "lone assassin" folks have ever explained it.  Take a
look at the 3 pictures.  Make your own measurments of the shadows
on the head, the body, the relative sizes of the head and bodies.
When Oswald was shown the photos, he said "these are fakes.  I
have done this sort of thing myself and know how easy it is."
Why if he was so anxious to make such incriminating photos (holding
the Daily Worker in one hand and the Rifle in the other) establishing
him as a "communist assassin", did he consistently deny it?  Why
make the photos in the first place?  Most nutball assassins don't
deny it but proudly admit what they have done.  I smell a set up.

>Conspiracy mongers get around this inconvenient evidence by insisting that
>there was a `second gunmen' whose bullets were, for some reason, never
>recovered.

Witnesses documented the recovery of several bullets from Dealey
Plaza.  They were given to the FBI and subsequently disappeared.
About the only thing that is sure about the bullets is that the
one recovered never hit anything harder than a bucket of water.
This is the one that was matched to Oswald's rifle.

 In this view, Oswald was only a fall guy for a professional hit
>man who fired from the `grassy knoll' near Kennedy's motorcade. But of the 20
>physicians who examined Kennedy's autopsy photographs and X-rays, 19 have
>concluded that all the shots came from the rear, the direction Oswald shot
>from. Only one suggested that a shot from the direction of the grassy knoll
>was possible.[1]

The first doctors to see the body (not the photos) from Parkland
Hospital felt the wound in the anterior neck was an entrance wound.
The gave detailed descriptions of it.  When they saw the autopsy
photos, they said that wound had been altered after the president's
body left Parkland.  Read Lipton's book (Best Evidence) that deals totally with
the autopsy.  There were tremendous problems with the way it
was done, totally out of line with how any other forensic autopsy
is to be done.
The Warren Commission went to great pains trying to get Kennedy
to turn around so that he could be shot in the neck from the rear.
Unfortunately, there was so much evidence that he never turned around
that they finally had to make it an exit wound (of a small fragment
of the bullet that was found intact on the stretcher).

>
>The Kennedy assassination marks the beginning of a watershed shift in
>conspiracy thinking. Such thinking was once associated with the anti-Semitic
>right. But all the best known conspiracy theories today are left-wing in
>origin. Whether its Salvador Allende's overthrow in Chile, Khmer Rouge
>atrocities in Cambodia, the Korean airliner shot down by Soviet warplanes in
>1983, or drug running in Central America, today's left has a conspiracy
>theory which blames the problem on the US government and the Central
>Intelligence Agency.
>
Don't forget the assassination of Pope John Paul I.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "When in danger, or in doubt
[e-mail]     |  Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK conspiracy evidence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 17:36:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 19

[e-mail] (Gordon Banks) writes:

> Warren's questioning of Ruby shows that he definitely was not
> interested in hearing about any conspiracy, try as Ruby would
> to tell him about one.

Burt Griffin was the staff attorney for the Warren Commission who investigated
Jack Ruby. He was becoming aware of the extent of Ruby's mob affiliations
even though the CIA and FBI were completely uncooperative in giving him
their information on Ruby. He became very disturbed when he was excluded
from questioning Ruby. Warren and Gerald Ford traveled to Dallas to conduct
the circumspect interrogation.

The Warren Commission was also heavily pressured by LBJ to hurry up the
investigation (because 1964 was an election year?). So when Griffin turned
up leads that implicated Ruby in mob activities, he was told not to pursue
them--no time.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Keywords: Conspiracy, JFK, Connally, shattered wrist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 19:01:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 53


I have not yet seen Oliver  Stone's  *JFK*,  but  I  have  always
believed  that  JFK was the victim of a conspiracy.  I think that
the best evidence for a conspiracy can be seen  in  the  Zapruder
film, particularly in the head shot.

The head shot shown in the Zapruder film  is  horrible.   JFK  is
shown  lying  on his side, his head resting on Jackie's shoulder.
Suddenly, his head disappears in a cloud of  red  mist,  and  his
body  is driven violently backwards and to the left.  This motion
is inconsistent with a shot from  the  Book  Depository,  but  is
consistent  with  a  shot  from the grassy knoll.  Any talk about
"retrograde  recoil"  or  involuntary  muscle  spasms  as   being
responsible  for  this  motion  can  be  put  to rest by a simple
examination of these horrifying few frames of film.

Another problem is with the famous "single  bullet"  theory.   It
claims  that  JFK and Governor Connally were struck with the same
bullet.  Supposedly, this bullet enters  JFK's  back,  exits  his
throat,  then  continues  on  to  strike  Connally  in  the back,
shattering one of his ribs, then finally striking his right wrist
and  ending  up  embedded in his leg.  Take a careful look at the
Zapruder film.  It shows  the  limo  emerging  from  behind  that
famous street sign.  JFK is clutching his throat, showing that he
has obviously been hit. Connally  is  staring  directly  forward,
seemingly  unaware that anything is goint on.  His right hand can
be seen clutching his hat. According to the single bullet theory,
his  right  wrist  had  been  shattered  by  the so-called "magic
bullet".  I don't know  if  anyone  else  has  pointed  out  this
inconsistency.

I also saw the  NOVA  program  on  the  JFK  assassination.   The
program showed a computer-animated sequence of images showing the
assassination sequence.  Stick figures played the  roles  of  JFK
and  Connally.  In order to make the two men line up so that they
could have both been hit by the same bullet, the  makers  of  the
animation  had to move their stick figures around and put them in
awkward, improbable positions.  However, a careful examination of
the  Zapruder  film (and other still photos) should be sufficient
to determine the EXACT positions of both JFK and Connally without
having  to  resort  to guesswork or supposition.  I would like to
see someone with access to a large computer attempt  to  do  this
simulation correctly.


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "Round up the usual suspects."    *
2000 North Naperville Road    **************************************
P. O. Box 3033
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                     Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ practices `big lie' revisionism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 19:10:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 82

[e-mail] (Acm) writes:

* Some of the unmentioned evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald: ballistics tests
* established that bullet fragments found at the scene of the crime were fired
* from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

That doesn't prove that Oswald shot the rifle, or that the fragments came
out of the rifle on that day. Some of the fragments were found in the limo.
If the FBI had such a cut and dry case, why did they hose the car down so
soon? That's not very a conservative approach to evidence, particularly
when the crime is of such historical significance.

* Having gunmen at widely separated locations fire in succession would only
* make an operation more difficult to coordinate.

Difficult to coordinate, all right. Imagine how much more difficult
Schwarzkopf's job was in coordinating 20 countries, thousands of tanks,
choppers, trucks, hundreds of thousands of people. Makes the JFK assassination
look like a cakewalk.

* If the Secret Service had
* reacted quickly, the first shot would have been the assassin's only chance.
* So one would expect conspirators to assign their best marksman to shoot
* first. But in _JFK_ the first shot said to be a `diversion' which misses the
* limousine entirely and is intended only to distract the Secret Service.

Maybe it was just a bad round.

* About the closest thing to an insider's view of the conspiracy that we have
* is the testimony of Charles Speisel. Speisel was the principle witness
* against Clay Shaw, whose 1969 trial is the movie's climax.

* On cross examination, Speisel confirmed that he had a filed suits against the
* New York police, among others, for allegedly torturing him and keeping him
* under hypnosis. He estimated that 50 to 60 people had hypnotized him in order
* to plant wild ideas in his head.[2] The jury acquitted Shaw after
* deliberating for less than an hour.

Yes. It's no doubt Garrison, perhaps irresponsibly, conducted a trial of Shaw
with a paucity of good evidence. His main interest seems to have been his
desire to get the conspiracy evidence in the public eye. And even his
detractors admit he discovered a lot of important stuff. As for losing the
trial, so did John Scopes, but they teach evolution in the schools, anyway.

* The case against
* Shaw is used simply as device which allows Costner to give a lengthy monolog
* about `magic bullets' and a scenario in which gunmen fire at the president
* from three different locations around Dealey Plaza for a total of six shots.

If you can make a case for the single-bullet theory, a lot of us would love
to see it.

* Its ironic that Stone, who puts so much weight on witness testimony on the
* issue of which direction shots came from, casually overlooks the fact that
* most witnesses counted only three shots.

Witnesses varied on their shot counts from two to nine. I think we can agree
there was a lot of confusion. But read Marrs and see what the totality of
the evidence makes you think.

* The report's claims were thoroughly refuted by a 1982 National Academy of
* Sciences study. The NAS panel concluded that `the acoustical analysis does
* not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there
* is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95 percent probability of such a shot.'
* The part of the tape alleged to contain the sound of gun shots was actually
* `recorded about one minute after the president had been shot.' [5]

You place far too much weight on the inconclusive evidence and not enough
on the substantial evidence. Evidence falls within a wide range of
reliability. Plucking out all the ambiguous bits only proves that not all
the evidence helps.

* How was Oswald able to reload his bolt action rifle so quickly? According to
* Marina, his wife, he practiced reloading for several hours a day for weeks
* before the assassination. Given the weapon's quirks, it shouldn't be
* surprising that he was able to reload faster than marksmen unfamiliar with
* the weapon.

Marina has recanted most of her testimony, saying that she was asked
leading questions and threatened with deportation if she didn't cooperate.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!finess!rburns
From: [e-mail] (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK conspiracy evidence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 19:38:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 33

I saw JFK this weekend. It is quite a good movie--I expect to see some
Oscars awarded for this one.

The part that I found curious and interesting were some facts that are
known but were left out of the story:
1) Oswald's address book had in the Arlington, VA address and phone number of
   George Lincoln Rockwell-leader of the US Nazi party.
2) The White Russian Morenschildt(sp?) shown in the movie was not just someone
   who chummed around with Oswald, he was the guy who picked Lee and his wife
   up at the Airport when they returned from Russia. The connections of the
   White Russians to the intelligence community was mentioned, but their
   connection to Nazism was not.
3) I've heard reports that Oswalds "communist links" where deepened by reports
   from General Edwin Walker that Oswald had taken potshots at him. Interestingly
   these reports showed up in a German neo-Nazi publication a few days before the
   assassination.

JFK has a lot of interesting detail-I expect that I will have to watch the film
several times to really get everything it goes into. I'm  also aware that some of
the characters were composite characters created for dramatic effects. I do wish
that this had been mentioned in the credits or in the opening to the film.

Still, I do think that JFK is a major political event.  Right now, there are more
people who are becoming deeply suspicious of the CIA and the intelligence
establishment than ever before. I know when I first learned some of the details
discussed in JFK, I found them rather disturbing.  When I was growing up, I had
to confront the fact that our president was resigning because he was a criminal-
the young people of today have to confront the real possibility that the
government under which they've grown up is largely a collection of murderers and
liars. I can't help but to think that this will either 'kill or cure' the kind of
government we now have, either the worse fears expressed in JFK will be realized
or hopefully, we will produce a democracy far less vulnerable to manipulation and
subterfuge.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!sheaffer
From: [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 91 22:16:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 22
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9473 rec.arts.movies:50382

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
>by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
>from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...
>
It seems no one is familiar with what a UCB physicist has written
about this, the late Luis Alvarez. He was intrigued by this matter,
so he experimented by firing bullets into canteloupes. (A canteloupe
is a good substitute for a human head, he explains). The canteloupes
fell over backwards. It seems that the impact of the bullet sends
out "stuff" flying forward that causes the canteloups (skull) to
snap back. I can't recall exactly where I read this, perhaps someone
else can help.

--

  Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

  Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I Do Not speak,

  Author of *utterly offensive* books!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Summary: Retrograde recoil
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 03:40:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 78
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9481 rec.arts.movies:50394

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >
> >In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
> >by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
> >from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...
> >
> It seems no one is familiar with what a UCB physicist has written
> about this, the late Luis Alvarez. He was intrigued by this matter,
> so he experimented by firing bullets into canteloupes. (A canteloupe
> is a good substitute for a human head, he explains). The canteloupes
> fell over backwards. It seems that the impact of the bullet sends
> out "stuff" flying forward that causes the canteloups (skull) to
> snap back. I can't recall exactly where I read this, perhaps someone
> else can help.

I have a copy of Luis Alvarez's  paper  on  the  subject  of  the
Kennedy assassination.  The reference is

   A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film,  Luis  W.
   Alvarez, American Journal of Physics, Vol 44, 813-827 (1976).

I vaguely remember that Professor Alvarez also wrote a  book  (or
did  a  chapter  in  a  book)  on this subject.  However, I don't
remember the reference on this.

Luis Alvarez was not just your ordinary physicist.   He  won  the
Nobel  Prize,  and  he was one of the primary contributors to the
theory that the impact of a gigantic  meteorite  was  responsible
for the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Basically the idea is this:  The  problem  with  reconciling  the
Zapruder  film  with the Warren Report is that JFK's head appears
to snap violently BACKWARDS at the  instant  of  the  fatal  head
shot.   This  fact  seems to argue persuasively for a shot coming
from the front rather than  the  rear.   Simple  conservation  of
momentum  would  seem  to  require this.  However, Alvarez argues
that the rearward head snap could be consistent with a shot  from
the  Book  Depository  if  a  jet  of  brain  and  blood had been
projected violently forward at the time of the  bullet's  impact.
If  the  forward  momentum  of this jet was significantly greater
than that of the original bullet, conservation of momentum  would
require that the momentum of JFKs head be to the REAR in order to
account  for  the  difference.  Hence  the  rearward  head  snap.
Alvarez    calls    this   effect   "retrograde   recoil".    The
aforementioned paper has the equations to back all this up.

Alvarez did some actual experiments with melons wrapped in Scotch
tape  to  simulate  the  human  head.   On several occasions, the
melons did recoil in a retrograde fashion when they were hit with
bullets.  However, this did not ALWAYS happen.

Can this account for the rearward snap of JFKs head?  Well,  yes,
I  suppose  it  could, but only if there was, in fact, actually a
forward-flying jet of brain and blood matter at  the  instant  of
the  fatal  impact.   The Zapruder film does have a streak or two
which may indicate jets of brain matter being ejected,  but  they
seem  to  be  flying  upward and somewhat to the rear rather than
strictly forward.  In addition, if there  was  indeed  a  jet  of
brain matter that projected forward, the forward part of the limo
(the windshield, the Secret Service drivers, and  Gov.  and  Mrs.
Connally)  should have been sprayed with bits and pieces of JFK's
brain.  This does not seem to have been the case; in  fact,  most
of  the  bits  and  pieces  of  JFK's  head  seem  to  have blown
BACKWARDS.  Jackie crawled out on to the  back  of  the  limo  in
order to retrieve one of them.

Comments?


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road    *   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033            **************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!rice!spacsun.rice.edu!bemo
From: [e-mail] (Brian D. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 05:11:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian D. Moore)
Organization: Dept. of Space Physics, Rice University, Houston TX
Lines: 23

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Banks) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|>
|> >
|> >In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
|> >by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
|> >from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...
|> >
|> Anyone who knows anything about conservation of momentum will
|> tell you that this is impossible.  If the skull flew backwards,
|> then someother part of it flew forwards with even more velocity.
|> The "official" theory for why the head flew backwards was a
|> reflex of the neck muscles at the moment of impact.  This reflex,
|> of course, is conjectural.

     The NOVA footage is definitive, your understanding of physics notwithstanding.  The "official" theory is similarly flawed.  If you watch the Zapruder film, you see a considerable bit of 'some other part of it' fly forward -- it's just no longer that solid.  Physics conjecture is one thing; oftentimes (myself included) one finds that physics keeps track of more than one considered.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Moore              | Homebrewing -- the only sport exclusively for
Space Physics and Astronomy |                anal-retentive alcoholics.
Rice University, Houston TX |       Relax -- have a home brew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!att!fang!tarpit!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Opinion on Newsweek's review of "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 02:30:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 42
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9486 rec.arts.movies:50403

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>Did anyone else feel that the Newsweek articles failed to justify their
>criticisms of the movie?  Read closely, it's more of a "How dare they do
>something like this" piece, rather than much salient criticism of its
>conclusions...
>
>
>
>---
>Robert Dorsett
>Internet: [e-mail]
>UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

If you look at the various media and see how many *big* guns are being
brought to bear against the movie..it's amazing..so far I've seen from
Jerry Ford, to this past Sunday's edition of "This week with David
Brinkley" where Cokey Roberts led off the attack, followed by George
Will, etc..then on "CrossFire" just tonight (12/23/91) where Robert
Novak "The Prince of Darkness" was badgering a former Senate Cmitt
member on the JFK investigation (can't recall his name)...there's
many of the media that give the _impression_ that Stone's movie is
an outright FRAUD and it seems (to me) that they are UPSET that
the movie was done in the first place..

The one thing is to remember is whether its "this or that" conspiracy
theory, the *important* issue is that the movie is bound to stimulate
discussion that perhaps the "people in the shadows" are trembling about.

What was the _last_ movie that you saw that an Ex-President come forth
and rail and rant against?

I think some of these pundits are afraid of re-opening the JFK assassination
and finding (possibly) "The Truth" (whatever it turns out to be).

Don


--
-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal PROMIS?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. William Henry /\/\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!jfb200
From: [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Opinion on Newsweek's review of "JFK"
Summary: Some observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 15:16:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill -  Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 69
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9489 rec.arts.movies:50411

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dorsett) writes:
> >Did anyone else feel that the Newsweek articles failed to justify their
> >criticisms of the movie?  Read closely, it's more of a "How dare they do
> >something like this" piece, rather than much salient criticism of its
> >conclusions...
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Robert Dorsett
> >Internet: [e-mail]
> >UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
>
> If you look at the various media and see how many *big* guns are being
> brought to bear against the movie..it's amazing..so far I've seen from
> Jerry Ford, to this past Sunday's edition of "This week with David
> Brinkley" where Cokey Roberts led off the attack, followed by George

I can hardly call Cokie Roberts an objective observer in this matter.
Her father (Rep. Hale Boggs) was a member of the Warren Commission.
However, she did mention this on the program.

> Will, etc..then on "CrossFire" just tonight (12/23/91) where Robert
> Novak "The Prince of Darkness" was badgering a former Senate Cmitt
> member on the JFK investigation (can't recall his name)...there's
> many of the media that give the _impression_ that Stone's movie is
> an outright FRAUD and it seems (to me) that they are UPSET that
> the movie was done in the first place..
>
> The one thing is to remember is whether its "this or that" conspiracy
> theory, the *important* issue is that the movie is bound to stimulate
> discussion that perhaps the "people in the shadows" are trembling about.
>
> What was the _last_ movie that you saw that an Ex-President come forth
> and rail and rant against?
>
> I think some of these pundits are afraid of re-opening the JFK assassination
> and finding (possibly) "The Truth" (whatever it turns out to be).
>

I too have noticed that an unusually large number of people in the mass
media have come down quite hard on this movie.  I wonder why?  After all,
it IS a movie, and has some degree of liberty taken with the historical
facts in order to achieve a dramatic effect.  Unlike the conspiracy books
like Jim Marrs' *Crossfire* (which is very good, by the way), Stone's
*JFK* will reach millions and millions of people.  If enough of the public
comes to believe that there was, indeed, a conspiracy, then perhaps
pressure can be brought to bear to have ALL the secret files released and
a thorough investigation finally be carried out.

I have never believed that Jim Garrison's investigators "cracked" the
case.  Jimbo had too many wackos on his staff (some even believed in
the existence of the Illuminati conspiracy) in order for his case to
be really credible.  It took only a few minutes for the jury to acquit
Clay Shaw.  However, it might be the case that Jim Garrison was a victim
of a media "pile-on".  So many in the media were down on him and wanted
to make him look bad that our impression of Big Jim may have been
colored by what these people have to say about him.


Joe Baugher            **************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "I'm shocked!  Shocked to find    *
2000 North Naperville Road    *  that gambling is going on here!"  *
P. O. Box 3033            **************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
[phone]
ihlpb!jfb                  Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
[e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mips!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!hpsrad.enet.dec.com!jwilliams
From: [e-mail] (John Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 16:59:33 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 34


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes...
>The head shot shown in the Zapruder film  is  horrible.   JFK  is
>shown  lying  on his side, his head resting on Jackie's shoulder.
>Suddenly, his head disappears in a cloud of  red  mist,  and  his
>body  is driven violently backwards and to the left.  This motion
>is inconsistent with a shot from  the  Book  Depository,  but  is
>consistent  with  a  shot  from the grassy knoll.  Any talk about
>"retrograde  recoil"  or  involuntary  muscle  spasms  as   being
>responsible  for  this  motion  can  be  put  to rest by a simple
>examination of these horrifying few frames of film.

I am surprised by how many people forget high school physics. The momentum
of the entire system is conserved through the entire episode. The fact
that Kennedy's head is thrust back can be explained by the brain matter
that was expelled forward. Some of the energy of the bullet was transfered
to brain matter. The brain matter is expelled forward causing the skull
to lunge back. They did some experiments just to prove it to the dopes.

I'm not saying there was or was not a conspiracy, but the bullet that hit
Keneddy in the head definitely came from behind. If the bullet had lodged
in the brain and no matter had been expelled, then it would have been
a different story.

This is high school physics, people.

                            John.

+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| John Williams  (508)-467-6141 | [e-mail]   |
| Digital Equipment Corporation +---------------------------------+
| 700 Forest St.  MRO1-2/S10    | "If all you have is a hammer,   |
| Marlboro, MA  01752           |  everything looks like a nail." |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!hpsrad.enet.dec.com!jwilliams
From: [e-mail] (John Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 17:26:00 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 28
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9493 rec.arts.movies:50412


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes...
>Can this account for the rearward snap of JFKs head?  Well,  yes,
>I  suppose  it  could, but only if there was, in fact, actually a
>forward-flying jet of brain and blood matter at  the  instant  of
>the  fatal  impact.   The Zapruder film does have a streak or two
>which may indicate jets of brain matter being ejected,  but  they
>seem  to  be  flying  upward and somewhat to the rear rather than
>strictly forward.  In addition, if there  was  indeed  a  jet  of
>brain matter that projected forward, the forward part of the limo
>(the windshield, the Secret Service drivers, and  Gov.  and  Mrs.
>Connally)  should have been sprayed with bits and pieces of JFK's
>brain.  This does not seem to have been the case; in  fact,  most
>of  the  bits  and  pieces  of  JFK's  head  seem  to  have blown
>BACKWARDS.  Jackie crawled out on to the  back  of  the  limo  in
>order to retrieve one of them.

This can be explained easily by the fact that they were traveling in
a car at time time and were subject to air resistance.

                        John.

+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| John Williams  (508)-467-6141 | [e-mail]   |
| Digital Equipment Corporation +---------------------------------+
| 700 Forest St.  MRO1-2/S10    | "If all you have is a hammer,   |
| Marlboro, MA  01752           |  everything looks like a nail." |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ingria
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Opinion on Newsweek's review of "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 17:56:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of Tue, 24 Dec 1991 15:16:21 GMT

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

   I too have noticed that an unusually large number of people in the mass
   media have come down quite hard on this movie.  I wonder why?

There was a suggestion in a discussion on CNBC in the last week that
the reason mainstream media types, particularly reporters, dislike it
so violently is that THEY are supposed to report the news and
stimulate discussion of historical events, not film-makers.  I think
there probably is an element of this in the criticisms from this
source, whatever other political considerations may play a role.

-30-
Bob
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 18:23:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 26

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

< >Can this account for the rearward snap of JFKs head?  Well,  yes,
< >I  suppose  it  could, but only if there was, in fact, actually a
< >forward-flying jet of brain and blood matter at  the  instant  of
< >the  fatal  impact.   The Zapruder film does have a streak or two
< >which may indicate jets of brain matter being ejected,  but  they
< >seem  to  be  flying  upward and somewhat to the rear rather than
< >strictly forward.  In addition, if there  was  indeed  a  jet  of
< >brain matter that projected forward, the forward part of the limo
< >(the windshield, the Secret Service drivers, and  Gov.  and  Mrs.
< >Connally)  should have been sprayed with bits and pieces of JFK's
< >brain.  This does not seem to have been the case; in  fact,  most
< >of  the  bits  and  pieces  of  JFK's  head  seem  to  have blown
< >BACKWARDS.  Jackie crawled out on to the  back  of  the  limo  in
< >order to retrieve one of them.

< This can be explained easily by the fact that they were traveling in
< a car at time time and were subject to air resistance.

The car had slowed to 10-15 mph to make the 120-degree onto Elm. After
the first shot had been fired, the car came to a virtual stop. After
the fatal shot, the driver stepped on it.

John
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!bgsuvax!valdes
From: [e-mail] (oscar Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 20:44:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Crusade to Eliminate Political Correctness
Lines: 23

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

>The car had slowed to 10-15 mph to make the 120-degree onto Elm. After
>the first shot had been fired, the car came to a virtual stop. After
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    If this is true it clearly proves  there was a conspiracy and
the Secret Service was part of it.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a Secret Service
agent, by virtue of his training, to make this type of mistake.

>the fatal shot, the driver stepped on it.

    How nice of him !!!



*******************************************************************************

     "Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense"

                Tom Clancy

*******************************************************************************
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!psgrain!qiclab!pdxgate!eecs!jprice
From: [e-mail] (James Price)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Keywords: Conspiracy, JFK, Connally, shattered wrist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 16:37:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
Lines: 39

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
>
>Another problem is with the famous "single  bullet"  theory.   It
>claims  that  JFK and Governor Connally were struck with the same
>bullet.  Supposedly, this bullet enters  JFK's  back,  exits  his
>throat,  then  continues  on  to  strike  Connally  in  the back,
>shattering one of his ribs, then finally striking his right wrist
>and  ending  up  embedded in his leg.
>According to the single bullet theory,
>his  right  wrist  had  been  shattered  by  the so-called "magic
>bullet".  I don't know  if  anyone  else  has  pointed  out  this
>inconsistency.
>
>Joe Baugher            **************************************
>AT&T Bell Laboratories        *  "Round up the usual suspects."    *
>[e-mail]


     This is what REALLY happened:

   Operative Oswald shoots his wad, the magic bullet goes through
Kennedy's back, hits his ties clip, and ricochetes back through
his throat, graze's Jackie, ricochete's off Jackie's handbag, hits
the Texan, rebounds of the dashboard, and lands in Tex's pocket.
Later, when he is put on the stretcher, it falls out of his pocket
and rolls, unharmed, intact onto the cot.

     Seen the pinball machine version? You "shoot" the ball out,
and try to rack up points by pinging figures of JFK, Jackie, and
the govenor repeatedly. You get 3 shots....

James



 jprice          The reactions and behavior of those who try to control
   @         alcohol-drug using/abusing people create MORE damage to society,
jove.cs      relationships and children than the users themselves.
pdx.edu                    - Beverly "there were _none_" Cadotte
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!psgrain!qiclab!pdxgate!eecs!jprice
From: [e-mail] (James Price)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Keywords: Conspiracy, JFK, Connally, shattered wrist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 17:05:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
Lines: 20


 I write:
>     Seen the pinball machine version? You "shoot" the ball out,
>and try to rack up points by pinging figures of JFK, Jackie, and
>the govenor repeatedly. You get 3 shots....
>

  Maybe this is what happened:

  Op Oswald fires, hits Jack's head, hits Tex, hits Jack, strikes
Jackie, strikes Jack, hits Tex, hits Jack again, shoots off Jackie's
hat, hits Jack again, hits Tex again, and then flies off and
hits a tree on the grassy knoll, causing the illusion of gunshots
up there, and was eaten by a bird and never recovered. Yeah, yeah,
that's it.

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
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!psgrain!qiclab!pdxgate!eecs!jprice
From: [e-mail] (James Price)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Opinion on Newsweek's review of "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 17:33:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
Lines: 30

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes:
>
>What was the _last_ movie that you saw that an Ex-President come forth
>and rail and rant against?
>
>I think some of these pundits are afraid of re-opening the JFK assassination
>and finding (possibly) "The Truth" (whatever it turns out to be).
>
>Don
>-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the best of us.
>USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
>UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal PROMIS?
>/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. William Henry /\/\


    The case is getting old now, its 3 decades colder now....
let's face it, whether or not there was a conspiracy (the papers,
contrary to logic, immediately insisted there couldnt be)
if there was one they got away with it clean. If there was one,
and it's _possible_ there was, despite any clues they left they
won. They pulled it off. If not, I think an awful lot of people
must nonetheless have guilty consciouses about other crimes long
if not deeply buried. One thing I know for sure: the FBI cheered
when RFK and MLK were done, its documented that agents cheered.

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
Path: ns-mx!uunet!igor!worf!wab
From: [e-mail] (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 22:06:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Joan Vollmer Womens Academy
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Williams) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes...
>>Can this account for the rearward snap of JFKs head?  Well,  yes,
>>I  suppose  it  could, but only if there was, in fact, actually a
>>forward-flying jet of brain and blood matter at  the  instant  of
>>the  fatal  impact.   The Zapruder film does have a streak or two
>>which may indicate jets of brain matter being ejected,  but  they
>>seem  to  be  flying  upward and somewhat to the rear rather than
>>strictly forward.  In addition, if there  was  indeed  a  jet  of
>>brain matter that projected forward, the forward part of the limo
>>(the windshield, the Secret Service drivers, and  Gov.  and  Mrs.
>>Connally)  should have been sprayed with bits and pieces of JFK's
>>brain.  This does not seem to have been the case; in  fact,  most
>>of  the  bits  and  pieces  of  JFK's  head  seem  to  have blown
>>BACKWARDS.  Jackie crawled out on to the  back  of  the  limo  in
>>order to retrieve one of them.
>
>This can be explained easily by the fact that they were traveling in
>a car at time time and were subject to air resistance.

A car that had come almost to a stop when the fatal head shot came!
The big chunk of Kennedy's skull and brain that Jackie tried
to retrieve was quite clearly blown from the back of his head
by great force, far too great to be explained by the minimal
wind caused by car movement or even an involuntary head jerk
of the dying Kennedy.  The most plausible explanation is that
the skull and brain would have been blown away in the
direction of bullet travel.

It's a small point, but if you look at the wall in the DA's
conference room where Costner gives one of his big speeches,
you see what I think is a graphic of the Warren Commission's
explanation of the rear head shot: It shows  a bullet coming
from behind that explodes the right side of Kennedy's head
laterally.  Yet in the trial testimony multiple doctors
testify that there was a large exit wound at the *rear* of his
head, not the side.  This is really the crux of the multiple
shooter theory.  All the other shots can be linked to a rear
(Book Depository) gunman.  A headshot with a large rear exit
wound could only have come from a frontal area, like the
grassy knoll.

Besides, it would take a hell of a wind to blow back the jet
of brains, bone, and blood that would be ejected by the
passage of a high velocity rifle bullet.  Some the material
would have been ejected into the still air pocket behind the
windshield and almost certainly have splattered on the glass
from the inside, even if the remainder was blown back onto the
rear of the car.  This didn't happen, but one of the
motorcycle cops escorting at the rear of the car reported
feeling the impact of body material from Kennedy's head.  Body
material blown forwards from Kennedy's skull and then back
onto the cop wouldn't have had a real impact; body material
blasted out from the rear by a front impacting bullet would.

I leafed through a book in the library that purported to show
how the Kennedy autopsy photos had been altered to make the
head wound look like a lateral explosion.  It included
pictures that were claimed to be the original autopsy photos
and pointed out how the photos that were released with the
autopsy had been altered.  The released photos sure looked
like they'd been retouched to hide a large rear exit wound and
some kind of front entrance wound over the right eye.  What
were claimed to be the real pictures clearly showed a front
entrance wound and a large rear exit wound.  I don't remember
the title of the book but it was a fairly recent publishing
and the pictures sure looked authentic.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!usc!apple!netcomsv!douglas
From: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 22:50:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Approach Software Corp.  Redwood City, CA  94063
Lines: 20
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9505 rec.arts.movies:50437

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>I also remember watching TV and they were taking Oswald down some hall
>with the cameras rolling and...wait...what was
>that...a...shot...ladies and gentlemen Lee Harvey Oswald appears to
>have been shot!

What the heck ever became of Jack Ruby?  Since Oswald was still only
"charged" with a crime, seems that Ruby's shot would constitute murder.

I wondered if people were giving him the "high five" or if he was actually
arrested and charged for shooting someone.

-DM


--
Douglas Mason                                    [e-mail]
Network administration / software development    [e-mail]
Approach Software Corporation                    +1 415.306.7889
Path: ns-mx!uunet!igor!worf!wab
From: [e-mail] (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 23:14:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Joan Vollmer Womens Academy
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Williams) writes:
[...]
>I am surprised by how many people forget high school physics. The momentum
>of the entire system is conserved through the entire episode. The fact
>that Kennedy's head is thrust back can be explained by the brain matter
>that was expelled forward. Some of the energy of the bullet was transfered
>to brain matter. The brain matter is expelled forward causing the skull
>to lunge back. They did some experiments just to prove it to the dopes.

I'm constantly surprised by how many people misapply Newtonian
mechanics, including this dope.  First, the "equal and
opposite reaction" to the force of brain matter being
expelled forwards would have applied to the bullet that
was imparting the force, *not* to the rest of Kennedy's
body.  What you're saying is that a high velocity bullet
entered the rear of Kennedy's skull and traveled most of
the way through his head without imparting any kinetic
energy (which would have been clearly shown by Kennedy's
head being thrown forward, which didn't happen) and only
then imparting kinetic energy on the front part of skull
and brain, and *then* somehow magically imparted the
kinetic energy of the ejecting brain matter back upon
Kennedy's head instead of back upon the original object
imparting the original kinetic energy, i.e. the bullet.
You're thinking of the bullet impact as if it was an
explosion in Kennedy's head that imparted momentum in all
directions, but it wasn't. Even the expansion of a hollow
point bullet (which Oswald didn't use) is not the same as
an explosion; the kinetic energy of the bullet is divided
into a number of force vectors at angles to the original
trajector, but those angles must be less than normal (perpendicular)
to the original trajectory.  The only way to apply your
theory would be if the bullet or fragments thereof
bounced off some hard surface inside of Kennedy's skull
(like a steel plate; the inside of his skull could not
have "bounced" a bullet) and then reimpacted into
Kennedy's brain, driving him backwards.  *Your* magic
bullet would have had to travel through most of Kennedy's
head without imparting any kinetic energy, ricochet
inside the head without imparting any kinetic energy, and
only then impart energy and knock his head backwards and
take out the rear of his skull.

The problem with this cockamamy theory and any other rear
shot theory is that it would result in a huge gout of
blood and brains being blown forwards from Kennedy's
skull.  Clearly...*clearly* there was none in the
Zapruder film.  If you'd just taken a second to look at
the film and think, you'd have realized that it totally
disproved any rear gunshot theory.

>I'm not saying there was or was not a conspiracy, but the bullet that hit
>Keneddy in the head definitely came from behind. If the bullet had lodged
>in the brain and no matter had been expelled, then it would have been
>a different story.

Occam's razor would tell you that the most likely
direction of bullet travel would be the direction in
which brain matter was expelled.  That would be to the
rear and to the right, meaning the bullet came from the
front.  This fits perfectly with Newtonian mechanics and
wound ballistics and is the simplest answer.

>This is high school physics, people.

Guess you flunked, pal.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 91 23:44:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 27
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9510 sci.skeptic:18762

[e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:
>[Re was Kennedy shot from the rear or the front]
>Occam's razor would tell you that the most likely
 ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>direction of bullet travel would be the direction in
>which brain matter was expelled.  That would be to the
>rear and to the right, meaning the bullet came from the
>front.  This fits perfectly with Newtonian mechanics and
>wound ballistics and is the simplest answer.
>
As long as we're going to apply Occam's Razor, I think
the conspiracy theory requiring twenty-eight years of
silence from dozens of government officials and the
co-operation of a media that idolized Kennedy needs a
shave.

It always amazes me that, given the success rate of
American governmental covert actions (Watergate,
Iran/Contra, Castro assassinations, Bay of Pigs)
people think that a joint operation between the FBI,
CIA, and Mafia would work so smoothly with nary a
credibly detectible trace.
--
Ted Frank          + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
1307 E 60 St, #109 +          -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
U o' C Law Skool   + "Take off that jumpsuit/You look like Grace Slick"
Chi, IL 60637      +                -- Camper Van Beethoven
Path: ns-mx!uunet!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!world!bzs
From: [e-mail] (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 91 00:15:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
Lines: 16
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9511 rec.arts.movies:50439
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 24 Dec 91 22:50:07 GMT


>What the heck ever became of Jack Ruby?  Since Oswald was still only
>"charged" with a crime, seems that Ruby's shot would constitute murder.

Even if Oswald were convicted of a crime Ruby's shot would constitute
murder, of course.

As I remember (and I'm sure I will be corrected 3,743 times if wrong),
Jack Ruby died of cancer, in prison, while serving time for the murder
of Lee Harvey Oswald.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [e-mail]          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!mips!apple!netcomsv!bitbug
From: [e-mail] (James Buster)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 91 01:14:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.
Lines: 12

Some poster says that a UCB professor attempted to show that if the
bullet transferred more momentum to the expelled brain matter than
it itself had, then the President's head could move backward after
a rear head shot.

My understanding of physics says that this is impossible. It is not
possible for the bullet to transfer more momentum than it possesses.
If some new law of physics has been found that allows this, I would
appreciate somebody explaining it to me.
--
                James Buster
                 [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!jif.berkeley.edu!chenchen
From: [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 91 02:44:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 33
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9518 sci.skeptic:18764
NNTP-Posting-Host: jif.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>As long as we're going to apply Occam's Razor, I think
>the conspiracy theory requiring twenty-eight years of
>silence from dozens of government officials and the
>co-operation of a media that idolized Kennedy needs a
>shave.
>
>It always amazes me that, given the success rate of
>American governmental covert actions (Watergate,
>Iran/Contra, Castro assassinations, Bay of Pigs)
>people think that a joint operation between the FBI,
>CIA, and Mafia would work so smoothly with nary a
>credibly detectible trace.

Actually, this reasoning doesn't quite work.  We don't know how
many covert government operations there were, so that
we have half-a-dozen horrible failures does not imply that
government operations tend to screw up.

Secrets have also been kept by large numbers of people.  The
Manhattan Project, for instance, and ULTRA was kept silent
for, what?, 10 years after the war.

But then, in neither of those two cases is there a great monetary/
celebratorial incentive to open up.  There'd be very little interest
in a book exposing all the smut behind cracking the German code, I
think.

--
Where's Zen-Waldo?  |------------------------------------------------------|
       by           |                               |
Cheng-Jih Chen      |                               |
                    |------------------------------------------------------|
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!decvax.dec.com!mv!mem
From: [e-mail] (Mark E. Mallett)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Opinion on Newsweek's review of "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 91 02:29:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Lines: 43
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9519 rec.arts.movies:50445

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
>[e-mail] (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>
>> Did anyone else feel that the Newsweek articles failed to justify their
>> criticisms of the movie?  Read closely, it's more of a "How dare they do
>> something like this" piece, rather than much salient criticism of its
>> conclusions...
>The dick was probably ordered to write a negative review--his heart wasn't
>in it.

There were about 8 pages in that issue devoted to the JFK film and
surrounding subjects.  I think if you read them all you'll find that
they presented a gamut of opinion.  While there was criticism of the
film, that criticism did not dominate the section.  Much of it
examined reasons why there are so many believers in conspiracy, and
disbelievers of the Warren report.  Some of it tried to show the other
side.  Some of it supported the notion -- as expressed in this
newsgroup -- that the film was not to be taken as history, but to
provide a platform for questioning the official government version of
this event in particular, and of facts in general.  On the whole, it
was not an attempt to write a negative review.  In fact, I got the
opposite opinion: that in general, the authors were quite supportive
of fictionalization that tried to get people to think, or contributed
to a good film, or helped a process of getting at the truth.

( Also, I got to find out who Woody Harrelson's father is.  :-) )

You can find this same sort of support in a review of the film by
Tom Bethell in the Dec 16 issue of the National Review.  Mr. Bethell
begins by saying he was part of Garrison's staff in investigating
the Kennedy investigation, and makes it clear that he was pleased
neither with Garrison nor with the film-as-history.  Yet the review
ends up being quite supportive of the film's motives and its
overall value.  Though, I admit, you might not find that without
reading the entire thing.

-mm-

--
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: [phone]    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: [e-mail]  ( uucp: ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 91 12:18:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 18
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9522 sci.skeptic:18765
Nntp-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ted Frank) writes:
>It always amazes me that, given the success rate of
>American governmental covert actions (Watergate,
>Iran/Contra, Castro assassinations, Bay of Pigs)
>people think that a joint operation between the FBI,
>CIA, and Mafia would work so smoothly with nary a
>credibly detectible trace.

Here we've got something akin to the anthropic principle in operation:  Why
don't you discuss any of the other SUCCESSFUL coverups? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!nsisrv!amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov!packer
From: [e-mail] (Charles Packer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,soc.history
Subject: Easy to keep secrets (was: JFK ... Zapruder Film)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 91 12:46:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Lines: 18
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9523 sci.skeptic:18766 soc.history:8766
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Nntp-Posting-Host: amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes...
>Secrets have also been kept by large numbers of people.  The
>Manhattan Project, for instance, and ULTRA was kept silent


Indeed, there were no official censorship laws in the U.S.
during WW II, I think. The press cooperated fully by
self-censoring without the need for them. For example, a few
journalists were kept abreast of developments in the Manhattan
Project with the proviso that they wouldn't write about them
until after the war.

Compartmentalization of knowledge also helped to keep the Bomb
secret. My father, a chemical engineer, was brought into the
project just after the first reactor was operated in Chicago and
eventually was sent to Hanford to work in plutonium production.
Everybody he worked with suspected that they were working on a
weapon, but they didn't =know=.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 91 15:55:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 28
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9525 sci.skeptic:18769

[e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Ted Frank) writes:
>>It always amazes me that, given the success rate of
>>American governmental covert actions (Watergate,
>>Iran/Contra, Castro assassinations, Bay of Pigs)
>>people think that a joint operation between the FBI,
>>CIA, and Mafia would work so smoothly with nary a
>>credibly detectible trace.
>
>Here we've got something akin to the anthropic principle in operation:  Why
>don't you discuss any of the other SUCCESSFUL coverups? :-)

Agreed, that there *could* be successful coverups of
incidents, coverups that lasted 28 years.  So far, though,
this is a cover-up that includes the Warren Commission,
the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the
press, underneath a *huge* amount of scrutiny.  You
would think that one of these would have broken, or the
Cubans or Soviets would have publicized it for propaganda
reasons once they found out.  The coverup and covert
action would require the participation and cooperation of
hundreds of people whose incentives are *not* to cover
it up.
--
Ted Frank          + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
1307 E 60 St, #109 +          -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
U o' C Law Skool   + "It's too bad you saw me, Timmy.  Now I'm going to have
Chi, IL 60637      +  to kill you."     -- Santa Claus
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
From: [e-mail] (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ practices `big lie' revisionism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 05:33:36 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 23
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns1.ins.cwru.edu


In an article which my news software does not permit me to quote,
Peter Kauffner closes with some moderately derogatory remarks
aimed at conspiracy theory generally. In response I would like
to point out what I think is the common experience of most of us.
PEOPLE CONSPIRE. Who here has neber gotten together with other
people to make things happen behind someone else's back. In small
everyday matters this occurs so routinely that nobody even thinks
to classify it as "conspiracy". It is only when it is suggested
that such things occur in the arenas of national and international
political and financial affairs that the sanity or motives of
those suggesting it tend to be questioned.
   I would suggest that people in positions of great power are
(1) more likely than others to conspire because of the great
stakes involved and (2) more likely to have resources to
conceal their activities from investigators.
   Many people seem to consider the absense of a conspiracy as
their default assumption. It seems more sensible to me to make
the existence of conspiracies surrounding significant events
the default assumption.
     Thanks for listening,
      Steve
Path: ns-mx!uunet!morrow.stanford.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Montana-CroMagnon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 06:00:21 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Lines: 140

[443]   WED 12/25/91 21:08 FROM GC.TLR "Montana-CroMagnon": 83 LINES

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> >
>> >In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
>> >by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
>> >from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...
>> >
>> It seems no one is familiar with what a UCB physicist has written
>> about this, the late Luis Alvarez. He was intrigued by this matter,
>> so he experimented by firing bullets into canteloupes. (A canteloupe
>> is a good substitute for a human head, he explains). The canteloupes
>> fell over backwards. It seems that the impact of the bullet sends
>> out "stuff" flying forward that causes the canteloups (skull) to
>> snap back. I can't recall exactly where I read this, perhaps someone
>> else can help.
>Basically the idea is this:  The  problem  with  reconciling  the
>Zapruder  film  with the Warren Report is that JFK's head appears
>to snap violently BACKWARDS at the  instant  of  the  fatal  head
>shot.   This  fact  seems to argue persuasively for a shot coming
>from the front rather than  the  rear.   Simple  conservation  of
>momentum  would  seem  to  require this.  However, Alvarez argues
>that the rearward head snap could be consistent with a shot  from
>the  Book  Depository  if  a  jet  of  brain  and  blood had been
>projected violently forward at the time of the  bullet's  impact.

>If  the  forward  momentum  of this jet was significantly greater
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>than that of the original bullet, conservation of momentum  would
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Forgive me, but where would this greater momentum originate? The
"best" resultant force from an impact should cause immobilization,
as the material "jets" forward to counterbalance the thrust.

>require that the momentum of JFKs head be to the REAR in order to
>account  for  the  difference.  Hence  the  rearward  head  snap.
>Alvarez    calls    this   effect   "retrograde   recoil".    The
>aforementioned paper has the equations to back all this up.
>
>Alvarez did some actual experiments with melons wrapped in Scotch
>tape  to  simulate  the  human  head.   On several occasions, the
>melons did recoil in a retrograde fashion when they were hit with
>bullets.  However, this did not ALWAYS happen.

One wonders if the center of gravity of the cantaloupe was taken
into account. If a soft, unsupported cantaloupe might spin rearward
if hit below c of g. Comparing a human skull to a cantaloupe
stretches the imagination significantly. I KNOW (despite opions to
the contrary) that my head is harder than a mellon.


>Can this account for the rearward snap of JFKs head?  Well,  yes,
>I  suppose  it  could, but only if there was, in fact, actually a
>forward-flying jet of brain and blood matter at  the  instant  of
>the  fatal  impact.   The Zapruder film does have a streak or two
>which may indicate jets of brain matter being ejected,  but  they
>seem  to  be  flying  upward and somewhat to the rear rather than
>strictly forward.  In addition, if there  was  indeed  a  jet  of
>brain matter that projected forward, the forward part of the limo
>(the windshield, the Secret Service drivers, and  Gov.  and  Mrs.
>Connally)  should have been sprayed with bits and pieces of JFK's
>brain.  This does not seem to have been the case; in  fact,  most
>of  the  bits  and  pieces  of  JFK's  head  seem  to  have blown
>BACKWARDS.  Jackie crawled out on to the  back  of  the  limo  in
>order to retrieve one of them.
>
>Comments?
>
>
>Joe Baugher                     **************************************
>AT&T Bell Laboratories          *  "You see, something's going to    *
>2000 North Naperville Road      *   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
>P. O. Box 3033                  **************************************
>Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033
>[phone]
>ihlpb!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!
>[e-mail]
>
As a preface, I was raised in large family on a limited income,
and spent a great deal of my youth hunting for food. (jesus, am
getting pc or what).

In years of inflicting high-velocity bullets on living things,
I NEVER saw forward motion on point of impact. It seems absurd
to even consider such. If I remember correctly, I once read that
it takes about 200ft/lbs per sq in to rupture the human skull.
(I read some interesting things as a youth). Kinetic energy imparted
is a straight line force(which can be dispersed as in striking
a rounded surface, such as a skull).
                 ^ /
                / /
==============>> |  ======> major component of force.
                \ \
                 v \
I don't know the actual fps imparted, I could look it up, but
the impact would drive the head in the same direction as the
line of the bullet's travel. The angle, direction or the velocity
of the bullet might change(due to impact), but the initial thrust
would be in a straight line. The only way that there would be a
motion opposite the line of bullet travel is if the impact occurred
below the head, in which the chest would be thrown back and the
head forward(or vice versa).

As I say, I know that my head is harder than a cantaloupe.
Fluid dynamics may cause a different reaction in a reasonably
uniform substance such as a cantaloupe, but any counter-thrusting
jet of spray would have to be almost instantaneously forced through
the anterior bones of the skull-one presumes that they would
"interfere" with this "optimum" effect.

As I said, I have killed an unusual number of living things, and I
have never observed this phenomenon.

As far as spasms go...  There has to be a lag between the time of
impact and a spasm reaction. Spasms can do interesting things to
a human body(I am currently studying Physical Therapy), but they
are not instantaneous. The trauma has to occur, the synapses have
to fire, the impulse has to travel to the spine, then the muscles
have to contract. So, the jet of blood would have to over come the
forward momentum and start the rearward motion, then the spinal
muscles would have to contact to pull him back.

Seems a bit farfetched to me.

BTW, a lot of things can occur in head traumas, but the rule
of thumb is that trauma induced spasms tend to pull you forward,
into a protective ball, as part of the body's hard-wired protective
devices.

Sorry this got so long, but this point has been irritating me.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
life is brutish, ugly, and short(as am I)                       |
"All archeologists care about is sex, drugs, booze and money."  |
"And the money's not that good."                                |
Terrance L. Rowe    [e-mail]                 |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!cliffw
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 06:49:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News on Muncher)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 58
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9536 sci.skeptic:18773

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] writes:
>>[e-mail] (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>It always amazes me that, given the success rate of
>>>American governmental covert actions (Watergate,
>>>Iran/Contra, Castro assassinations, Bay of Pigs)
>>>people think that a joint operation between the FBI,
>>>CIA, and Mafia would work so smoothly with nary a
>>>credibly detectible trace.
>>
'nary a credibly detectible trace'??
If there were no traces, then there would be no conspiracy theory at
all, would there? All the current theories start with a 'trace'-
Oswalds life, the balistic/forensic evidence, etc, etc.

>
>Agreed, that there *could* be successful coverups of
>incidents, coverups that lasted 28 years.  So far, though,
>this is a cover-up that includes the Warren Commission,
>the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the
>press, underneath a *huge* amount of scrutiny.  You
>would think that one of these would have broken, or the
>Cubans or Soviets would have publicized it for propaganda
>reasons once they found out.  The coverup and covert
>action would require the participation and cooperation of
>hundreds of people whose incentives are *not* to cover
>it up.
a succesfull coverup did not require concerted actions
by all these people. The Warren Commission was the object
of the cover-up, not a perpetrator; all the books i have
read indicate the Commission simply didn't recieve all
the evidence. (best example: Jack Ruby's organized crime
connections were unknown to the Commission)
It is important to realize that the non-conspiracy solution
had support unrelated to a 'cover-up' - the FBI, in particular
was supporting the 'lone nut' idea not because of the 'facts'
but becuase proof of a conspiracy would also have provided
proof of various FBI mistakes - and Hoover's FBI spent a great
deal of time making Hoover look good. Any workable conspiracy
involves a bunch of people who were known to the FBI (the right-wingers
Oswald were all in their files)and any proof of this conspiracy
would have immediatly lead to the question, 'why didn't the FBI
stop this?'
A 'lone nut' - especially a lone nut with documented Communist
leanings -fitted perfectly with the FBI's needs and Hoover's
ideas -given the right patsy, the FBI could be relied upon to
find the right ideas, *without* any actual organized cover-up
instructions needed.


you have both ignored the most likely group behind the hit- the
far right-wing (check Joesph Milteer's statements in the book
High Treason)

--
cliffw

'When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro'- HST
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!att!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ practices `big lie' revisionism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 07:34:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 12

[e-mail] (Steve Crocker) writes:
>   I would suggest that people in positions of great power are
>(1) more likely than others to conspire because of the great
>stakes involved and (2) more likely to have resources to
>conceal their activities from investigators.
And (3) are under more scrutiny from (4) a larger number of
people who (5) have much more incentive to reveal the conspiracy.
--
Ted Frank          + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
1307 E 60 St, #109 +          -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
U o' C Law Skool   + "It's too bad you saw me, Timmy.  Now I'm going to have
Chi, IL 60637      +  to kill you."     -- Santa Claus
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!cliffw
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 07:04:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News on Muncher)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 38

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (oscar Valdes) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
>
>>The car had slowed to 10-15 mph to make the 120-degree onto Elm. After
>>the first shot had been fired, the car came to a virtual stop. After
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    If this is true it clearly proves  there was a conspiracy and
>the Secret Service was part of it.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a Secret Service
>agent, by virtue of his training, to make this type of mistake.

-two proofs

-photos show the brake lights of the limo coming on

-Clint Hill, a Secret Service agent was  able to leave the follow-up
car and run to the limo and climb on board before they drove away-
just how fast can a man in a suit and leather shoes run?
>
>>the fatal shot, the driver stepped on it.
>
>    How nice of him !!!
>
>
>
>*******************************************************************************
>
>     "Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense"
>
>                Tom Clancy
>
>*******************************************************************************


--
cliffw

'When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro'- HST
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 13:36:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 21
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9539 sci.skeptic:18777
Nntp-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>It is important to realize that the non-conspiracy solution
>had support unrelated to a 'cover-up' - the FBI, in particular
>was supporting the 'lone nut' idea not because of the 'facts'
>but becuase proof of a conspiracy would also have provided
>proof of various FBI mistakes - and Hoover's FBI spent a great
>deal of time making Hoover look good. Any workable conspiracy
>involves a bunch of people who were known to the FBI (the right-wingers
>Oswald were all in their files)and any proof of this conspiracy
>would have immediatly lead to the question, 'why didn't the FBI
>stop this?'

Perhaps because that's the job of the Secret Service, not the FBI?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!cliffw
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 15:54:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News on Muncher)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 43
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9544 sci.skeptic:18783

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>It is important to realize that the non-conspiracy solution
>>had support unrelated to a 'cover-up' - the FBI, in particular
>>was supporting the 'lone nut' idea not because of the 'facts'
>>but becuase proof of a conspiracy would also have provided
>>proof of various FBI mistakes - and Hoover's FBI spent a great
>>deal of time making Hoover look good. Any workable conspiracy
>>involves a bunch of people who were known to the FBI (the right-wingers
>>Oswald were all in their files)and any proof of this conspiracy
>>would have immediatly lead to the question, 'why didn't the FBI
>>stop this?'
>
>Perhaps because that's the job of the Secret Service, not the FBI?

Close but no cigar, carl..
The SS has the job of immmediate Presidental protection-
uncovering big criminal conspiracies is more the job of the
FBI...
but what i was mainly talking about was the *tapes* the FBI had..
tapes of people like Joesph Milteer talking about hitting Kennedy-
tapes of various La Cosa Nosta types talking about getting
JFK dead.....telexs mentioning 4 man hit teams waiting
for JFK in Chicago...(an FBI agent lost his job over that one-
read High Treason)...now the FBI obviously didn't have the
big picture mapped out before the event, but they had all of
these real interesting pieces...very few of which went to
the Warren Commision..the FBI did have a role in the Big Con..
mostly covering its Own Ass....
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
>Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
>understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
>unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
>organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
>hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.


--
cliffw

'When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro'- HST
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!john
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz>
Date: 26 Dec 91 15:39:40 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA
Lines: 14
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9545 sci.skeptic:18785

Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
]you have both ignored the most likely group behind the hit- the
]far right-wing (check Joesph Milteer's statements in the book
]High Treason)

Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
over !
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john [e-mail] anasaz![e-mail]
 - - Affirmative Action is Tokenism by another name - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 18:17:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 33
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9546 sci.skeptic:18786
Nntp-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>Close but no cigar, carl..
>The SS has the job of immmediate Presidental protection-
>uncovering big criminal conspiracies is more the job of the
>FBI...
>but what i was mainly talking about was the *tapes* the FBI had..
>tapes of people like Joesph Milteer talking about hitting Kennedy-
>tapes of various La Cosa Nosta types talking about getting
>JFK dead.....telexs mentioning 4 man hit teams waiting
>for JFK in Chicago...(an FBI agent lost his job over that one-
>read High Treason)...now the FBI obviously didn't have the
>big picture mapped out before the event, but they had all of
>these real interesting pieces...very few of which went to
>the Warren Commision..the FBI did have a role in the Big Con..
>mostly covering its Own Ass....

Again, there's a flaw in this reasoning that's akin to the anthropic principle,
viz.: We know about those little bits and pieces of information that indicated
that some people wanted Kennedy dead only because somebody succeeded in killing
him (or actually, because somebody took a shot at him).  Now, as far as I know,
there may have been equally large amounts of evidence that somebody (not
necessarily the same somebody, of course) wanted all of our presidents dead, at
one time or another.  If this is, indeed, the case, then the FBI wouldn't have
had nearly the incentive you claim to hide these facts.  Perhaps the FBI simply
didn't think they were relevent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ practices `big lie' revisionism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 20:00:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 21

[e-mail] (Alex Lopez-Ortiz) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ted Frank) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Steve Crocker) writes:
>> >   I would suggest that people in positions of great power are
>> >(1) more likely than others to conspire because of the great
>> >stakes involved and (2) more likely to have resources to
>> >conceal their activities from investigators.
>> And (3) are under more scrutiny from (4) a larger number of
>> people who (5) have much more incentive to reveal the conspiracy.
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You mean Reagan has much more incentive to reveal the conspiracy
>in Irangate?
>Don't make me laugh.

Dingbat, read the post.  What noun does the clause refer to?
--
Ted Frank          + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
1307 E 60 St, #109 +          -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
U o' C Law Skool   + "It's too bad you saw me, Timmy.  Now I'm going to have
Chi, IL 60637      +  to kill you."     -- Santa Claus
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!ames!sgi!omni!igor!worf!wab
From: [e-mail] (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film (LBJ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 20:30:56 GMT
References: <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Joan Vollmer Womens Academy
Lines: 13
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9553 sci.skeptic:18790

In article <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
[...]
>Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
>over !

LBJ made his senatorial career on being a red-baiter.  He
was a "liberal" only on domestic issues.  If you accept
Stone's thesis that Kennedy was replaced by LBJ for being
soft on Communism (instead of the other theories that
KKK/far right types killed him for being sympathetic to
civil rights or the Mafia killed him), then the point is
proven by the fact that LBJ went on to bomb flat huge
swaths of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!neumann.waterloo.edu!alopez-o
From: [e-mail] (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 21:20:21 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News Owner)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 27


In article <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz>, john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
> Keywords:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> ]you have both ignored the most likely group behind the hit- the
> ]far right-wing (check Joesph Milteer's statements in the book
> ]High Treason)
>
> Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
                                           ^^^^^^^
Lyndon Johnson a Liberal? Read Counsel to the President by Clark Clifford
(Secretary of Defense). Clifford talks about a conservative Johnson who
surprised him a few times by criticizing McCarthy, and defending Truman's
civil rights bill. Johnson was JFK vicepresident as a compromise with
the right wing of the democratic party. He also hints a VERY CORRUPT
Johnson.


--
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              [e-mail]
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario
--
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              [e-mail]
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!cherokee!knox!guyw
From: guyw@knox (Guy Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 21:09:41 GMT
References: <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Telegraph Row)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Lines: 18
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9556 sci.skeptic:18793
Nntp-Posting-Host: knox.uswest.com

>> Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
>                                           ^^^^^^^
>Lyndon Johnson a Liberal? Read Counsel to the President by Clark Clifford

CLARK CLIFFORD!!???!!!???!!!

Yes, the very same guy wrapped up in the middle of the BCCI scandal,
helping foreign sheiks to control, manipulate, deceive, ransom, rip-off
more people in the free world than any other SCAM known to this day.

Oh, Yeah, I'm Sure To Take This Guy's Word.

Corruption, thy name is CLIFFORD

--
--
Guy M. Wells <[e-mail]>  Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, no
U S WEST Advanced Technologies  one elses, and certainly not USWEST's!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!finess!rburns
From: [e-mail] (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 22:49:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 43

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Ted Frank) writes:
>[e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:
>>[Re was Kennedy shot from the rear or the front]
>>Occam's razor would tell you that the most likely
> ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
 >As long as we're going to apply Occam's Razor, I think
>the conspiracy theory requiring twenty-eight years of
>silence from dozens of government officials and the
>co-operation of a media that idolized Kennedy needs a
>shave.
....................
Well, this may well be related to
1) the _internal_ cover story that the KGB/Castro was responsible for
   the hit. People could be convinced to keep their mouths shut because they
   thought there would be a war.
2) I doubt if there were more than 15 people who really knew details like
   who the originator of the scheme was and who else knew. There were a lot more
   folks who were carrying around a wide variety of cover stories. Most folks
   were people who acted either out of indifference-they really didn't care who
   had killed JFK(and they may have personally benefited from his death) or
   people who really thought that case 1) above was true. Remember, 1963 was not
   that long after the McCarthy period. Ted and some of the other folks here may
   be a bit young to remember, but it would have been easy to generate a lot of
   anti-communist hysteria during this period. It seems like even RFK-someone who
   was as motivated as anyone to get to the bottom of this, may have believed
   there really was a communist link at first(he apparently stonewalled some
   investigations by the Mexican police into some "Oswald" links to the Soviet
   embassy in Mexico City. I sincerely doubt if even RFK and the people in their
   camp were really privy to how effective certain groups in the intelligence
   community had gotten at carrying out an intelligence operation.

>It always amazes me that, given the success rate of
>American governmental covert actions (Watergate,
>Iran/Contra, Castro assassinations, Bay of Pigs)
>people think that a joint operation between the FBI,
>CIA, and Mafia would work so smoothly with nary a
>credibly detectible trace.
 Well first off, the cooperation with the Mafia may have been
pretty minimal. Secondly, the operations that you've mentioned are
not typical of covert CIA operations-there are many, many more
which have never made the press. In fact, the Iran/Contra and Watergate
operations may well be evidence of _internal_ wars within the
intelligence establishment.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!stanford.edu!bu.edu!natchez!abw
From: [e-mail] (Al Wesolowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 22:37:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boston University
Lines: 16

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Williams) writes:
+
+In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.f.baugher) writes...
+>[asks why, if JfK was shot from behind, cranial contents flew
+>bakcwards]
+
+This can be explained easily by the fact that they were traveling in
+a car at time time and were subject to air resistance.

Hmmmm....at the time of the fatal head shot(s), the limo was moving at an
estimated 5-7 mph. Not much of a breeze there, I'm afraid.

--
|     Al B. Wesolowsky  [e-mail] or [e-mail]    |
|   Managing Editor, Journal of Field Archaeology, Boston University  |
|       675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston MA 02215 [phone]       |
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!neumann.waterloo.edu!alopez-o
From: [e-mail] (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 23:23:46 GMT
References: <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Owner)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 46
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9560 sci.skeptic:18794

In article <[e-mail]>, guyw@knox (Guy Wells) writes:
> >> Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
> >                                           ^^^^^^^
> >Lyndon Johnson a Liberal? Read Counsel to the President by Clark Clifford
>
> CLARK CLIFFORD!!???!!!???!!!
>
> Yes, the very same guy wrapped up in the middle of the BCCI scandal,
> helping foreign sheiks to control, manipulate, deceive, ransom, rip-off
> more people in the free world than any other SCAM known to this day.
>
> Oh, Yeah, I'm Sure To Take This Guy's Word.
>
> Corruption, thy name is CLIFFORD

Relax, don't believe everything you read in the news. Clifford is a
guy who made his law career by selling influences all over Washington
before and after the BCCI scandal. Selling influences in the manner
Clifford did is NOT ILLEGAL (it is, nevertheless, immoral, but ALL
lawyers are immoral 1/2 :-).

By the way, Clifford was chairman of the First American Bank, which was
owned by BCCI. He was more a pawn than an architect. Jimmy Carter
did for BCCI very much the same things as Clifford did. But there's no
inquiry for Jimmy. He is past news. Clifford, on the other hand, sells well.

Apart from that, C.C. served as a counsel in one way or another to all
democratic presidents since Truman and is THE godfather of the
democratic party (the godmother was Eleanor Roosevelt).

If Clifford is convicted, then any other lawyer in the USA should

(That's an idea!).



> Corruption, thy name is CLIFFORD


You been watching to many soap operas, my son.


--
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              [e-mail]
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: CREDIT TO JOHN F. KENNEDY
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 00:18:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I think we should all say " Thanks Jack. "  for the way
>the events now happening on this planet are occuring. It
>was JFK who started the " Road to Peace " and it is only
>fitting that he be given the honours for this.
> "  THANKS  JACK  "
>
>                 mike

If JFK hadn't been shot, today he'd be know as just another corrupt,
wife cheating, self-centered, unqualifed, son-of-a-criminal, "what can
my presidential off do fo me?" president.

My $0.02 worth.

Lance


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe          [e-mail]           [phone]  |
|  "How did the Scarcrow know he didn't have a brain?"                   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!finess!rburns
From: [e-mail] (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: CREDIT TO JOHN F. KENNEDY
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 01:34:18 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 34

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
 >If JFK hadn't been shot, today he'd be know as just another corrupt,
>wife cheating, self-centered, unqualifed, son-of-a-criminal, "what can
>my presidential off do fo me?" president.
 Well, Kennedy was no saint. In fact, he was elected in large part with the
influence of the kind of Mafiosi which are according to some folks credited
with helping assassinate him. It is really rather questionable how much his
father, Joe Kennedy, really believed in the social justice principals his
son's made their political careers with(Joe Kennedy used to pal around with
some Nazi sympathizers while ambassador to the UK).

Still, lets look at the unambiguous facts:
 The only jury to ever try a case in the Kennedy killing stated that they
 believed there had been a conspiracy(the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw),
 the simply doubted that it had been proven Clay Shaw was involved in it.

 The majority of the American public do not believe the conclusions of the
 Warren report.

 After 28 years there simply is no clear consensus on why Kennedy was killed.

--------------------------------------
Does anyone seriously doubt that with the evidence readily available today,
that any fair jury would acquit Lee Harvey Oswald in this case? What this means is
that our justice system failed not only to protect the president, but to even
bring the criminals to justice. What this means is that either our judicial and
investigative institutions in this case were  negligent, incompetent or
co-opted or some combination thereof. Any of these prospects is really pretty
frightening.

Even if Kennedy was a sleazebag, he was a presidential sleazebag. If our institutions
cannot protect the president, who can they protect? Perhaps the ultimate danger of
the Kennedy assassination is the sense of terror and doubt that it created within
the American public.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!island!fester
From: [e-mail] (Mike Fester)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 20:56:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Island Graphics, Marin County, California
Lines: 30

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
>>by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
>>from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...

I think what happened was that the head was at or near the back of the
front seat of the car and when the bullet struck the head, it passed through,
 struck the seat and the recoil forced the head backwards. I have seen several
slow-mo films demonstrating this, most of them not in conjunction with the
JFK story though I did see it in one program examining the assasination.

>Anyone who knows anything about conservation of momentum will
>tell you that this is impossible.  If the skull flew backwards,
>then someother part of it flew forwards with even more velocity.
>The "official" theory for why the head flew backwards was a
>reflex of the neck muscles at the moment of impact.  This reflex,
>of course, is conjectural.


I have shot several items that have "flown back" at me. The more "stuff' that
flies out the back, the more likely this seems to be.  That does not seem to
be the case in the JFK incident (see above).


A personal aside/question: I seem to remember that in 1865, when Lincoln was
assasinated, there were attempts made on various members of the Lincoln
government (Sec of War, etc.). Can anyone direct me to a source with details
of those attempts? It seems that such an overt attempt to wipe out multiple
members of the government would dwarf the supposed Kennedy conspiracy.
Thanks
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!john
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film (LBJ)
Message-ID: <1991Dec27.005131.24226@anasaz>
Date: 27 Dec 91 00:51:31 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA
Lines: 53

Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:
]In article <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
][...]
]>Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
]>over !
]
]LBJ made his senatorial career on being a red-baiter.  He
]was a "liberal" only on domestic issues.  If you accept
]Stone's thesis that Kennedy was replaced by LBJ for being
]soft on Communism (instead of the other theories that
]KKK/far right types killed him for being sympathetic to
]civil rights or the Mafia killed him), then the point is
]proven by the fact that LBJ went on to bomb flat huge
]swaths of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

No, the point isn't proven. We are talking about Kennedy who:
  -stood nose to nose with the Soviets over the Cuban Missile Crises
  -tried to kill Castro numerous times
  -authorized American action in VietNam
  -gave the "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech.

There is no question in my mind that Kennedy was anti-communist.
Speaking as a "right winger" myself, I find the suggestion that
LBJ was preferable to JFK to a right winger laughable - ludicrous
in fact.

But then, Oliver Stone has a hell of a political agenda he has been
pushing for years - the standard Amerika is Fascist/Right-Wing crap
that has been standard from the extreme left. Am I surprised that Oliver
Stone is again blaming the right wing for all evil? - Of course not.
Do I believe his propaganda - not for a second - he has distorted
history beyond all reasonableness.

What he has done is morally reprehensible!

By the way, I don't necessarily believe that the Warren Commission was
completely correct in ruling out a conspiracy. I just have great trouble
believing any conspiracy that would require so many people to stay
quiet for so long. If Castro helped out Oswald in hopes that Oswald
would off JFK - well, that wouldn't be a surprise - Fidel can keep
a secret. What I cannot accept is that a whole bunch of powerful
people were involved and yet managed to keep a secret this long.

Furthermore, Stone uses a lot of easily discredited evidence - such as the
direction that Kennedy's head moved.

--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john [e-mail] anasaz![e-mail]
 - - Affirmative Action is Racism by another name - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Path: ns-mx!uunet!igor!worf!wab
From: [e-mail] (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Summary: Maybe his head was taken over by aliens!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 05:11:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Joan Vollmer Womens Academy
Lines: 38

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Fester) writes:
>I think what happened was that the head was at or near the back of the
>front seat of the car and when the bullet struck the head, it passed through,
> struck the seat and the recoil forced the head backwards. I have seen several
>slow-mo films demonstrating this, most of them not in conjunction with the
>JFK story though I did see it in one program examining the assasination.

Oh for Christ's sake!  I've never read so much garbage
about concrete facts.  Kennedy's head was nowhere near
the front seat of the limo, and it would be impossible
for his head to bounce off the front seat because CONALLY
WAS BETWEEN HIM AND THE @#$@$% FRONT SEAT!!!  I don't
know what films you *may* think you've seen, but the
Zapruder film and the eyewitness testimony of a lot of
people proves your theory is a total crock!

My God....

Look, the reason Stone reruns the headshot section of the
Zapruder film over and over is to drive home the most
important point of the murder: The final, most damaging
shot almost had to have come from a front right position.
Sure, if you shoot detached objects like cantelopes or
bowling pins you may get odd effects as the momentum of
the bullet puts spin on your target.  However, as noted
by others, large body-type objects don't jerk in the
opposite direction of the bullet trajectory.  Even the
Warren Commission theory doesn't wash: No amount of
muscular spasm can account for a large amount of
Kennedy's brain being blasted over the rear of the car,
impacting people 15-20 feet away so hard they could feel
it.

I wouldn't absolutely conclude that there was a
grassy knoll gunman just from the movement of Kennedy's
head, but given that there were numerous witnesses that
claimed to see one I don't see the point to casting about
for a much less likely theory.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!gollum!dmunroe
From: [e-mail] (David Munroe)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK's head movement (was: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 04:58:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc
Lines: 48

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Williams) writes:
>[...]
>>I am surprised by how many people forget high school physics. The momentum
>>of the entire system is conserved through the entire episode. The fact
>>that Kennedy's head is thrust back can be explained by the brain matter
>>that was expelled forward. Some of the energy of the bullet was transfered
>>to brain matter. The brain matter is expelled forward causing the skull
>>to lunge back. They did some experiments just to prove it to the dopes.
>
>I'm constantly surprised by how many people misapply Newtonian
>mechanics, including this dope.

Actually, he is not that far off.

    [ a whole bunch of stuff omitted ]

I omit what you describe because that is not what happens.  The HSCA and
who knows how many ballistics experts have been through this so many times and
have proven -- even with actual human heads (dead ones of course!) -- that a
shot from the rear causes the head to move violently *towards* the rifle.
Although I don't think I could procure a human head on short notice, I would be
happy to demonstrate this effect with my own weapons and a suitable target
if anyone is interested.


>The problem with this cockamamy theory and any other rear
>shot theory is that it would result in a huge gout of
>blood and brains being blown forwards from Kennedy's
>skull.  Clearly...*clearly* there was none in the
>Zapruder film.  If you'd just taken a second to look at
>the film and think, you'd have realized that it totally
>disproved any rear gunshot theory.


I have looked at that film frame by frame for over 20 years.  In still, slow
motion, and at 18.3 frames per second.  I have a tape from Groden's enhanced
Z-film.  That is *exactly* what *is* happening.  A huge gob of blood, brains,
and bone are blown forward (keeping in mind that Elm curves to the left and
so in a line-of-sight to Kennedy's head, the "forward" point is his right
temple).  Also, the car is not almost stopped; I believe it was going about
6 to 8 mph at it's slowest speed.

There is no evidence, not a single shred of hard evidence, of a shot from the
knoll or the overpass.  I have been there and I have hundreds of photos to
prove that the knoll is a very poor hiding place for any would-be assassin.

-Dave
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!mips!apple!netcomsv!sheaffer
From: [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 05:33:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Fester) writes:
>
>A personal aside/question: I seem to remember that in 1865, when Lincoln was
>assasinated, there were attempts made on various members of the Lincoln
>government (Sec of War, etc.). Can anyone direct me to a source with details
>of those attempts? It seems that such an overt attempt to wipe out multiple
>members of the government would dwarf the supposed Kennedy conspiracy.

Yes, there *was* a genuine Conspiracy to kill President Lincoln, and other
American leaders. I believe this is detailed in "The Day Lincoln was Shot"
by Bishop (?), and no doubt elsewhere. J.W. Booth recruited several others
like himself burning with anger at the defeat of the Confederacy, whose envy
at Yankee success called out for vengeance. Each was designated to kill a
different govenrment official.
But the conspirators were
basically drunken good-for-nothings who, in the end, accomplished practically
nothing. Nonetheless, they were all hanged, as I recall.
--

  Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

  Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I Do Not speak,

  Author of *utterly offensive* books!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!cdp!pfranklin
From: [e-mail] (Paul Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Definitive JKF article
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 03:11:00 GMT
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 3
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1299600011:000:114
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!pfranklin    Dec 26 19:11:00 1991


Response 1 & 2 of this topic consist of an article that appeared in
High Times Magazine about the JFK situation.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!cdp!pfranklin
From: [e-mail] (Paul Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Definitive JKF article
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 03:14:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 268
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1299600011:cdp:1299600012:000:15961
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!pfranklin    Dec 26 19:14:00 1991


                       Heritage of Stone

Reprinted with permission from "High Times" magazine, September
1991, with help from Mark Zepezauer at the Santa Cruz Comic News.

by Steven Hager
Although John F. Kennedy was neither a saint nor a great
intellectual, he was the youngest president ever elected, which may
explain why he was so well attuned to the changing mood of America
in the '60s. Americans had grown weary of Cold War hysteria. They
wanted to relax and have fun. Like the majority of people across
the planet, they wanted peace.
    The President's primary obstacle in this quest was a massive,
power-hungry bureaucracy that had emerged after WWII ~
a Frankenstein monster created by anti-Communist paranoia and
inflated defense budgets. By 1960, the Pentagon was easily the
world's largest corporation, with assets of over $60 billion. No
one understood this monster better than President Dwight D.
Eisenhower. On January 17, 1961, in his farewell address to the
nation, Eisenhower spoke to the country, and to his successor, John
Kennedy.
     "The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
large arms industry is new in the American experience," said
Eisenhower. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex."
    At the beginning of his administration, Kennedy seems to have
followed the advice of his military and intelligence officers. What
else could such an inexperienced President have done? Signs of a
serious rift, however, first appeared after the Bay of Pigs, a CIA-
planned and executed invasion of Cuba that took place three months
after Kennedy took office. The invasion was so transparent that
Kennedy refused massive air support and immediately afterward fired
CIA Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director General Charles Cabell
and Deputy Director of Planning Richard Bissell.
    Kennedy's next major crisis occurred on October 16, 1962, when
he was shown aerial photos of missile bases in Cuba. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff pressed for an immediate attack. Instead, Attorney
General Robert Kennedy was sent to meet with Soviet Ambassador
Anatoly Dobrynin. In his memoirs, Premier Nikita Krushchev quotes
the younger Kennedy as saying: "The President is in a grave
situation... We are under pressure from our military to use force
against Cuba... If the situation continues much longer, the
President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and
seize power."
    Military hopes for an invasion of Cuba evaporated as Krushchev
and Kennedy worked out a nonviolent solution to the crisis. In
return, Kennedy promised not to invade Cuba. Angered over the Bay
of Pigs fiasco, the CIA refused to bend to Kennedy's will and
continued their destabilization campaign against Castro, which
included sabotage raids conducted by a secret army, as well as
plots against Castro's life, which were undertaken with the help of
such well-known Mafia figures as Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana, and
Santos Trafficante. A bitter internal struggle developed around
Kennedy's attempts to disband the CIA's paramilitary bases in
Florida and Louisiana.
    On August 5, 1963, the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union
signed a limited nuclear-test-ban treaty. Engineered by President
Kennedy and long in negotiations, the treaty was a severe blow to
the Cold Warriors in the Pentagon and the CIA. On September 20,
1963, Kennedy spoke hopefully of peace to the UN General Assembly.
"Today we may have reached a pause in the Cold War," he said. "If
both sides can now gain new confidence and experience in concrete
collaborations of peace, then surely, this first small step can be
the start of a long, fruitful journey."
    "Years later, paging through its formerly classified records,
talking to the National Security Council staff, it is difficult to
avoid the impression that the President was learning the
responsibility of power," writes John Prados, in his recent book
Keepers of the Keys, an analysis of the National Security Council.
"Here was a smoother, calmer Kennedy, secretly working for
rapprochement with Fidel Castro and a withdrawal from Vietnam."
    Although Kennedy's Vietnam policy has not received widespread
publicity, he turned resolutely against the war in June of 1963,
when he ordered Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor to announce from
the White House steps that all American forces would be withdrawn
by 1965. At the time, 15,500 US "advisors" were stationed in South
Vietnam, and total casualties suffered remained a relatively low
100.
    On November 14, Kennedy signed an order to begin the withdrawal
by removing 1,000 troops. In private, Kennedy let it be known the
military was not going to railroad him into continuing the war.
Many of the hard-line anti-Communists ~ including FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover ~ would have to be purged. Bobby Kennedy would be put
in charge of dismantling the CIA. President Kennedy told Senator
Mike Mansfield of his plans to tear the CIA "into a thousand pieces
and scatter it to the wind." But these plans had to wait for
Kennedy's reelection in 1964. And in order to win that election, he
had to secure the South. Which is why Kennedy went to Texas later
that month.
    Could John Kennedy have stopped the war in Vietnam, as was his
obvious intention? America will never know. His command to begin
the Vietnam withdrawal was his last formal executive order. Just
after noon on November 22, President Kennedy was murdered while
driving through downtown Dallas, in full view of dozens of ardent
supporters, and while surrounded by police and personal bodyguards.
Twenty-eight years later, grave doubts still linger about who
pulled the trigger(s), who ordered the assassination, and why our
government has done so little to bring justice forth.
    In 1963, no American wanted to believe that President Kennedy's
death was a coup d'etat, planned by the military establishment and
executed by the CIA. Today, such a claim can no longer be
dismissed. Why has the national media done such an abysmal job of
presenting the facts to the American people? Hopefully, some light
will be shed by Oliver Stone's upcoming film, JFK, a $30-million
epic starring Kevin Costner, scheduled for release December 20. As
his focal point for the story, Stone has chosen former New Orleans
District Attorney Jim Garrison, the only prosecutor to attempt to
bring this case to court, and a man subjected to one of the most
effective smear campaigns ever orchestrated by the US government.
It is a frightening story of murder, corruption and cover-up. Even
today, 24 years after he brought the case to court, a powerful
media disinformation campaign against Garrison continues.

Born November 20, 1921, in Knoxville, Iowa, Earling Carothers
Garrison ~ known as "Jim" to friends and family ~ was raised in New
Orleans. At age 19, one year before Pearl Harbor, he joined the
army. In 1942, he was sent to Europe, where he volunteered to fly
spotter planes over the front lines. Following the war, he attended
law school at Tulare, joined the FBI, and served as a special agent
in Seattle and Tacoma. After growing bored with his agency
assignments, he returned to New Orleans to practice law. He served
as an assistant district attorney from 1954 to 1958.
    In 1961, Garrison decided to run for district attorney on a
platform openly hostile to then-New Orleans Mayor Victor Schiro. To
the surprise of many, he was elected without any major political
backing. He was 43 years old and had been district attorney for
less than two years when Kennedy was killed. "I was an old-
fashioned patriot," he writes in On the Trail of the Assassins,
(Sheridan Square Press, NY), "a product of my family, my military
experience, and my years in the legal profession. I could not
imagine then that the government would ever deceive the citizens of
this country."
    A few hours after the assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was
arrested. Two days later, while in Dallas police custody, Oswald
was murdered by nightclub-owner Jack Ruby. Garrison learned that
Oswald was from New Orleans, and arranged a Sunday afternoon
meeting with his staff. With such an important case, it was their
responsibility to investigate Oswald's local connections.
    Within days, they learned that Oswald had been recently seen in
the company of one David Ferrie, a fervent anti-Communist and
freelance pilot linked to the Bay of Pigs invasion. Evidence placed
Ferrie in Texas on the day of the assassination. Also on that day,
a friend of Ferrie's named Guy Bannister had pistol-whipped Jack
Martin during an argument. Martin confided to friends that
Bannister and Ferrie were somehow involved in the assassination.
Garrison had Ferrie picked up for questioning, and turned him over
to the local FBI, who immediately released him. Within a few
months, the Warren Commission released its report stating that
Oswald was a "lone nut" murdered by a misguided patriot who wanted
to spare Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of testifying. Like most
Americans, Garrison accepted this conclusion.
    Three years later, in the fall of '66, Garrison was happily
married with three children and content with his job, when a chance
conversation with Senator Russell long changed his views on the
Warren Commission forever.
    "Those fellows on the Warren Commission were dead wrong," said
Long. "There's no way in the world that one man could have shot up
Jack Kennedy that way."
    Intrigued, Garrison went back to his office and ordered the
complete 26-volume report. "The mass of information was
disorganized and confused," writes Garrison.  "Worst of all, the
conclusions in the report seemed to be based on an appallingly
selective reading of the evidence, ignoring credible testimony from
literally dozens of witnesses."
    Garrison was equally disturbed by the background of the men
chosen by President Johnson to serve on the commission. Why, for
instance, was Allen Dulles, a man fired by Kennedy, on the panel? A
master spy during WWII, Dulles had supervised the penetration of
the Abwehr (Hitler's military intelligence agency) and the
subsequent incorporation of many of its undercover agents into the
CIA. He was powerful, well-connected and had been Director of the
CIA for eight years. Certainly, he was no friend to John Kennedy.
Serving with Dulles were Representative Gerald Ford, a man
described by Newsweek as "the CIA's best friend in Congress," John
McCloy, former assistant secretary of war and Commissioner for
Occupied Germany, and Senator Richard Russell, chairman of the
powerful Senate Armed Services Committee. Russell's home state of
Georgia was filled with military bases and government contracts.
The balance of the commission was clearly in the hands of the
military and the CIA. The entire "investigation" was supervised by
J. Edgar Hoover, who openly detested the Kennedy brothers.
    Another interesting link turned up; The mayor of Dallas was
Earle Cabell, brother of the General Charles Cabell JFK had earlier
fired from the CIA. Earle Cabell was in a position to control many
important details involved in the case, including the Dallas police
force.
    Based on these general suspicions, Garrison launched a highly-
secret investigation around Lee Harvey Oswald's links to David
Ferrie and Guy Bannister. Unfortunately, Bannister had died nine
months after the assassination. An alcoholic and rabid right-
winger, Bannister had been a star agent for the FBI and a former
Naval Intelligence operative. He was a member of the John Birch
Society, the Minutemen, and publisher of a racist newsletter. His
office at 544 Camp street was a well-known meeting place for anti-
Castro Cubans.
    Ferrie's background was even more bizarre. A former senior
pilot for Eastern Airlines, Ferrie had been the head of the New
Orleans Civil Air Patrol, an organization Oswald had  joined as a
teenager. Ferrie suffered from alopecia, an ailment that left him
hairless. He wore bright red wigs and painted eyebrows. Ferrie had
founded his own religion, and kept hundreds of experimental rats in
his house. He reportedly had flown dozens of solo missions for the
CIA in Cuba and Latin America, and had links to Carlos Marcello,
head of the Mob in Louisiana. Like Bannister, he was extremely
right wing. "I want to train killers," Ferrie had written to the
commander of the US 1st Air Force. "There is nothing I would enjoy
better than blowing the hell out of every damn Russian, Communist,
Red or what-have-you."
    On the day of the assassination, Dean Andrews, a New Orleans
attorney, had been asked to fly to Dallas to represent Oswald. When
asked by the Warren Commission who had hired him, Andrews had
replied Clay Bertrand. Bertrand, Garrison discovered, was a
pseudonym used by Clay Shaw, director of the International Trade
Mart. Shaw, a darling of New Orleans high society, was also well-
connected in international high-finance circles. He was also an
associate of Bannister and Ferrie. Like many others connected with
the assassination, Shaw was a former Army Intelligence operative.
The case against Shaw was circumstantial, but Garrison did have an
eyewitness willing to testify that Shaw had met with Lee Harvey
Oswald just prior to the assassination.
    Just as Garrison was marshalling his case, some strange events
took place. On February 17, 1967, the New Orleans States-Item
published a story on Garrison's secret probe, indicating that he
had already spent over $8,000 of taxpayer's money investigating the
Kennedy assassination. Soon thereafter, Garrison received an
unusually strong letter of support from a Denver oil businessman
named John Miller, hinting that Miller wanted to offer financial
support to the investigation. When Miller arrived in New Orleans,
he met with Garrison and one of his assistants.
"You're too big for this job," said Miller. "I suggest you accept
an appointment to the bench in federal district court, and move
into a job worthy of your talents."
    "And what would I have to do to get this judgeship?" asked
Garrison.
    "Stop your investigation," replied Miller calmly.
    Garrison asked Miller to leave his office.
    "Well, they offered you the carrot and you turned it down,"
said his assistant. "You know what's coming next, don't you?"

Suddenly, reporters from all over the country descended on New
Orleans, including the Washington Post's George Lardner, Jr. At
midnight on February 22, 1967, Lardner claims to have conducted a
four-hour interview with Ferrie. The following morning, Ferrie was
found dead. Two unsigned, typewritten suicide notes were found. The
letter made reference to a "messianic district attorney."
    Three days later the coroner announced that Ferrie had died of
natural causes and placed the time of death well before the end of
Lardner's supposed marathon interview. Lardner's complicity in the
affair would never be called into question, while his highly-
influential articles in the Washington Post branded Garrison's
investigation a "fraud." It was just the beginning of a long series
of disruptive attacks in the media, and the first in a long series
of bodies connected with the case that would mysteriously turn up
dead.
    With Ferrie gone, Garrison had only one suspect left. He rushed
his case to court, arresting Clay Shaw.
    Ellen Ray, a documentary filmmaker from New York, came to New
Orleans to film the story. "People were getting killed left and
right," she recalls. "Garrison would subpoena a witness and two
days later the witness would be killed by a parked car. I thought
Garrison was a great American patriot. But things got a little too
heavy when I started getting strange phone calls from men with
Cuban accents." After several death threats, Ray became so
terrified that instead of making a documentary on the trial, she
fled the country.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!cdp!pfranklin
From: [e-mail] (Paul Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Definitive JKF article
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 03:16:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 301
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1299600011:cdp:1299600013:000:17917
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!pfranklin    Dec 26 19:16:00 1991


    Attorney General Ramsey Clark, a close friend of President
Lyndon Johnson, announced from Washington that the federal
government had already investigated and exonerated Clay Shaw.
"Needless to say," writes Garrison, "this did not exactly make me
look like District Attorney of the Year."
    Meanwhile, all sorts of backpedalling was going on at the
Justice Department. If Shaw had been investigated, why wasn't his
name in the Warren Commission Report? "The attorney general has
since determined that this was erroneous," said a spokesman for
Clark. "Nothing arose indicating a need to investigate Mr. Shaw."
    Realizing he was in a political minefield, Garrison presented
his case as cautiously as possible. A grand jury was convened that
included Jay C. Albarado. "On March 14, three criminal-court judges
heard Garrison's case in a preliminary hearing to determine if
there was enough evidence against Shaw to hold him for trial,"
Albarado wrote recently in a letter to the New Orleans Times-
Picayune. "What did they conclude? That there was sufficient
evidence. Garrison then presented his evidence to a 12-member grand
jury. We ruled there was sufficient evidence to bring Shaw to
trial. Were we duped by Garrison? I think not."
    Thanks to all the unwanted publicity, Garrison's staff had
swollen with volunteers eager to work on the case. The 6'6"
Garrison, now dubbed the "Jolly Green Giant," had already become a
hero to the many citizens and researchers who had serious doubts
about the Warren Commission. Unfortunately, a few of these eager
volunteers were later exposed as government informers. Shortly
before the case went to trial, one of the infiltrators Xeroxed all
of Garrison's files and turned them over to Shaw's defense team.
    On September 4, 1967, Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that
Garrison's case was worthless. The New York Times characterized the
investigation as a "morbid frolic." Newsweek reported that the
conspiracy was "a plot of Garrison's own making." Life magazine
published the first of many reports linking Garrison with the
Mafia. (Richard Billings, an editor at Life, had been one of the
first journalists to gain access to Garrison's inner circle, under
the guise of "wanting to help" the investigation.) Walter Sheridan,
a former Naval Intelligence operative and NBC investigator,
appeared in New Orleans with a film crew. Their purpose? An expose~
titled The Case of Jim Garrison, which was broadcast in June '67.
"It required only a few minutes to see that NBC had classified the
case as criminal and had appointed itself as the prosecutor,"
writes Garrison.
    Puzzled by the intensity of NBC's attack, Garrison went to the
library and did some research on the company. He learned the
network was a subsidiary of RCA, a bulwark of the military-
industrial complex whose defense contracts had increased by more
than a billion dollars from 1960 to 1967. Its chairman, retired
General David Sarnoff, was a well-known proponent of the Cold War.
    "Some long-cherished illusions about the great free press in
our country underwent a painful reappraisal during this period,"
writes Garrison.
    Clay Shaw was brought to trial  on January 29, 1969. It took
less than one month for Garrison to present his case.
    Demonstrating the cover-up was the easy part. Although the
overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses in Dealy Plaza testified that
the fatal shot came not from the Texas School Book Depository ~
where Oswald worked ~ but from a grassy knoll overlooking the
plaza, the FBI had encouraged many witnesses to alter their
testimony to fit the ~lone nut' theory. Those that didn't were
simply ignored by the commission. The ballistic evidence was flawed
and obviously tampered with. Even though the FBI had received
several warnings of the assassination, they had ignored them.
Security for the President was strangely lax. Although Oswald's
killer, Jack Ruby, had ties to the CIA and the Mafia, this evidence
had been suppressed. Ruby was never allowed to testify before the
commission, and when interviewed in a Texas jail by Chief Justice
Warren and Gerald Ford, he told them: "I would like to request that
I go to Washington... I want to tell the truth, and I can't tell it
here... Gentlemen, my life is in danger." Ruby never made it to
Washington. He remained in jail and died mysteriously before
Garrison could call him as a witness.
    Even more disturbing was the treatment given the deceased
President's corpse. Under Texas law, an autopsy should have been
performed by a civilian pathologist in Dallas. Instead, the body
was removed at gunpoint by the Secret Service and flown to a naval
hospital in Maryland, where an incomplete autopsy was performed
under the supervision of unnamed admirals and generals. The notes
from this "autopsy" were quickly burned. Bullet holes were never
tracked, the brain was not dissected, and organs were not removed.
The autopsy was a botched, tainted affair, performed under military
supervision. (The medical aspects of the case were so weird, they
would later form the basis for a best-selling book on the
assassination, Best Evidence by David Lifton [Macmillan, New
York].)
    The most important and lasting piece of evidence unveiled by
Garrison was an 8mm film of the assassination taken by Abraham
Zapruder, a film that only three members of the Warren Commission
had seen, probably because it cast a long shadow of doubt across
their conclusions. A good analysis of the film can be found in
Cover-Up by J. Gary Shaw with Larry Harris (PO Box 722, Cleburne,
TX 76031):

Had the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination been shown on
national television Friday evening, November 22, 1963, the
Oswald/lone assassin fabrication would have been unacceptable to a
majority of Americans... The car proceeds down Elm and briefly
disappears behind a sign. When it emerges the President has
obviously been shot... Governor Connally turns completely to the
right, looking into the back seat; he begins to turn back when his
body stiffens on impact of a bullet. Very shortly after Connally is
hit, the President's head explodes in a shower of blood and brain
matter ~ he is driven violently backward at a speed estimated at
80-100 feet per second.

Although Time, Inc. could have made a small fortune distributing
this film around the world, they instead secured the rights from
Zapruder for $225,000, then held a few private screenings before
locking the film in a vault. It was shown to one newsman, Dan
Rather, who then described it on national television. Rather
asserted that Kennedy's head went "forward with considerable force"
after the fatal head shot (a statement that would have supported a
hit from behind, from the direction of the School Book Depository).
Several months later, Rather was promoted to White House
Correspondent by CBS. As if to buttress this fabrication, the FBI
reversed the order of the frames when printing them in the Warren
Report. When researchers later drew this reversal to the FBI's
attention, Hoover attributed the switch to a "printing error."
    Although Garrison proved his conspiracy, the jury was not
convinced of Clay Shaw's role in it. He was released after only two
hours of deliberation.

The end of the Clay Shaw trial was just the beginning of a long
nightmare for Garrison. On June 30, 1971, he was arrested by
federal agents on corruption charges. Two years later, the case
came to trial at the height of Garrison's reelection campaign.
Although he won the case, he lost the election by 2,000 votes.
However, the Jolly Green Giant remains widely respected in his home
state, and has recently been elected to his second term on the
second highest court in Louisiana.
    In 1967, the machinations of the CIA were unknown to most
Americans. Today, thankfully, many brave men have left their
comfortable careers in the agency and spoken out against CIA-
sponsored terror around the world. One of these is Victor
Marchetti, who was executive assistant to Director Richard Helms,
and then coauthored The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence with John
D. Marks. In 1975 Marchetti confirmed that Clay Shaw and David
Ferrie had been CIA operatives, and that the agency had secretly
worked for Shaw's defense.
    Over the years, many high-ranking officials have come forward
to support Garrison's theory. "The big story in the Kennedy
assassination is the cover-up," says retired Colonel L. Fletcher
Prouty, Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
until 1964. Prouty was on assignment in New Zealand on the day of
the assassination. After carrying a New Zealand newspaper article
back to Washington, he checked the time of Oswald's arrest against
the hour the paper had been printed and, with great horror,
realized Oswald's biography had gone out on the international
newswire before Oswald had been arrested by the Dallas police.
Prouty has since become one of the most persuasive and persistent
critics of the Warren Commission. His book, The Secret Team: The
CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World,
is a frightening portrayal of the hidden rulers of America.
    On March 6, 1975, the Zapruder film made its national-
television debut on ABC's Goodnight America. As a result of this
long-delayed national screening, enough public pressure was put on
Congress to reopen the case. Unfortunately, this investigation
became  as carefully-manipulated as the Warren Commission,
eventually falling under the control of G. Robert Blakey, a man
with close ties to the CIA. As could be expected, Blakey led the
investigation away from the CIA and towards the Mob. Blakey's
conclusion was that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a
conspiracy, and that organized crime had the means, method and
motive. "The Garrison investigation was a fraud," said Blakey.
Richard Billings, the former Life editor, was a prominent member of
Blakey's staff.
    Recently, however, a number of highly-detailed books on the
assassination have appeared, most of which support Garrison's
thesis rather than Blakey's. The best of these include Conspiracy
by Anthony Summers (Paragon House, New York), Crossfire by Jim
Marrs (Carroll & Graf, Inc., New York) and High Treason by Robert
Groden and Harrison Livingstone (Berkeley, New York).
    "Could the Mafia have whisked Kennedy's body past the Texas
authorities and got it aboard Air Force One?" writes Garrison.
"Could the Mafia have placed in charge of the President's autopsy
an army general who was not a physician? Could the Mafia have
arranged for President Kennedy's brain to disappear from the
National Archives?"
    Today, we know that the CIA frequently hired Mafia assassins to
carry out contracts. Undoubtedly some of these men were involved in
the assassination and the cover-up. Shortly before his
disappearance, Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa said, "Jim Garrison's a
smart man. Anyone who thinks he's a kook is a kook himself." Was
Hoffa silenced because he knew too much about the plot? Just before
their scheduled appearances before the House investigation, Johnny
Roselli and Sam Giancana were brutally murdered in gangland
fashion. Was this a message to other Mob figures who had
fragmentary information on the case?
    In July 1988, The Nation published an FBI memorandum from
Hoover dated November 29, 1963. Obtained through the Freedom of
Information Act, the memo implicated "George Bush of the CIA" in
the Kennedy assassination cover-up. Although President Bush denies
any contact with the CIA prior to his being named director in 1976,
it is reasonable to assume that Zapata, the oil company Bush
founded in 1960, was a CIA front.
    Former President Richard Nixon is also implicated in the cover-
up. Nixon was in Dallas the day before the assassination, and his
greatest fear during the early days of Watergate was that the "Bay
of Pigs thing" would be uncovered. According to H.R. Haldeman in
The Ends of Power, "Bay of Pigs" was Nixon's code phrase for the
Kennedy assassination.
    As liaison between the CIA and the Pentagon during the Bay of
Pigs, Fletcher Prouty was put in charge of ordering supplies for
the invasion. "The CIA had code-named the invasion ~Zapata,'"
recalls Prouty. "Two boats landed on the shores of Cuba. One was
named Houston, the other Barbara. They were Navy ships that had
been repainted with new names. I have no idea where the new names
came from."
    At the time Bush was living in Houston. His oil company was
called Zapata, and his wife's name was Barbara.
    If Garrison's investigation was not a fraud, it's reasonable to
assume that high-placed individuals in the conspiracy would either
be dead or would have obtained considerable power in the last 28
years. According to an article in the March 4 issue of U.S. News
and World Report, Nixon and Bush have remained close associates.
"Nixon is in contact with Bush or his senior staff every month,"
writes Kenneth Walsh. "Nixon also speaks regularly on the phone
with [National Security Adviser] Brent Scowcroft... and Chief of
Staff John Sununu."
    Earlier this year Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin published
Silent Coup, a well-documented analysis of the real forces behind
the Watergate scandal. According to the authors, Nixon fell prey to
a military coup after refusing to work with the Pentagon. They
claim the famous Deep Throat was, in fact, General Alexander Haig.

In the meantime, a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign
against Oliver Stone's movie has predictably appeared, long before
Stone could even begin editing his film. Longtime Kennedy
researchers were not surprised to find the charge led by George
Lardner, Jr., of the Washington Post, the last man to see David
Ferrie alive.
    "Oliver Stone is chasing fiction," wrote Lardner in the May 19
edition of the Post. "Garrison's investigation was a fraud." Later
in the article, he adds: "There was no abrupt change in Vietnam
policy after JFK's death."
    "That is one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard,"
says Zachary Sklar, editor of On The Trail of the Assassins, and
coscreenwriter with Stone on JFK. "Kennedy was trying to get out of
Vietnam, and Johnson led us into a war in which 58,000 Americans
died. Lardner's article is a travesty."
    "I wouldn't give Lardner the time of day," adds Gary Shaw. "I
think he's bought and paid for."
    Mark Lane, author of Rush to Judgment, one of the first books
critical of the Warren Commission, agrees. "The CIA is bringing out
the spooks who pose as journalists," says Lane. "The amazing thing
about the Lardner piece is he's reviewing the film months before
it's even completed."
    Time magazine also slammed the film long before its release.
"Garrison is considered somewhere near the far-out fringe of
conspiracy theories," writes Richard Zoglin, a film critic who
admits to knowing "very little" about the assassination. (For the
25th anniversary of the assassination back in '88, Time ran a cover
story titled "Who Was the Real Target?" Inside was an excerpt from
The Great Expectations of John Connally, a curious book that argued
that Oswald really meant to kill Connally and only hit JFK by
mistake. Someday this book may be viewed as a textbook example of
CIA-sponsored disinformation.)
    Time, Inc., it will be remembered, is the same company that hid
the Zapruder film for five years. When High Times requested slides
from the film to accompany this article, the current copyright
holder sent them a three-page contract to sign. It included a
prohibition against "any reference... that the Zapruder film was
ever owned by Time, Inc...."
    High Times decided not to run the photos rather than assist
Time, Inc. in their continuing cover-up of the real facts behind
John F. Kennedy's assassination.
    In the next few months, the American people will be bombarded
with information about the Kennedy assassination. Most of it will
be critical of Stone and Garrison. It's important to understand
that much of this criticism will be written by intelligence assets
working for the CIA. Although the Cold War is supposed to be over,
the CIA budget is at an all-time high; $30 billion of taxpayer's
money buys a lot of propaganda.
    How extensive is the CIA's infiltration of the national media?
I called former agent Ralph McGeehee, author of Deadly Deceits, who
has compiled a database on everything published about the agency.
"In 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote an article in Rolling Stone that
named over 400 journalists uncovered by the Church Committee who
were working for the CIA," says McGeehee. If anything, their
numbers have only increased in the last 12 years.
    When will the subversion of the national media end? When the
American people demand it. Unfortunately, the public has not flexed
any muscle in this country since they ended the war in Vietnam. If
you want to help bring justice in this case, there's plenty you can
do: 1) Assist the Assassinations Archives in Washington in their
quest to obtain the documentation on the Kennedy case that remains
sealed to the public. For more information call Jim LeSar at (202)
393-1917. 2) Subscribe to Covert Action Information Bulletin, a
national newsletter on covert CIA activities. For more information
call [phone]. If you want more detailed information on the
CIA, McGehee's database can be purchased for $99. For more
information call him at [phone]. 3) Write your
representatives in Congress. Tell them you want a law passed
prohibiting journalists from working for the CIA. Although such a
bill has been proposed many times, it never makes its way out of
committee.
    Finally, stop accepting everything you hear on TV and read in
the newspapers. Buy books on the assassination and cover-up and
educate yourself. Only in this way can we keep hope alive that one
day America will be the sweet land of liberty her founders
intended.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film (LBJ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 12:38:27 GMT
References: <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:
>In article <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>[...]
>>Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
>>over !
>
>LBJ made his senatorial career on being a red-baiter.  He
>was a "liberal" only on domestic issues.  If you accept
>Stone's thesis that Kennedy was replaced by LBJ for being
>soft on Communism (instead of the other theories that

Er, have you ever read _The_Missiles_of_October_?

>KKK/far right types killed him for being sympathetic to
>civil rights or the Mafia killed him), then the point is
>proven by the fact that LBJ went on to bomb flat huge
>swaths of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!motcsd!starnet!rburns
From: [e-mail] (Randall J. Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK & Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 09:35:26 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133
Lines: 17


One point that is important. Even if Oswald was a lone nut that acted
on his own initiative, this still doesn't mean that there wasn't a
systematic coverup to keep the public from understanding that
he had connections to the intelligence establishment, to keep the
public unaware of the incompetence of the FBI and Dallas Police and
the purposeful floating of false stories by J. Edgar Hoover for
political gain. Is is really that implausible to suggest that
J. Edgar Hoover and Dulles would admit that they had hired a guy
who had killed the president and perhaps even exposed him to the
kind of people that would make such and action seem acceptable?
Is it really that far fetched to believe that J. Edgar Hoover
would cover up his own agencies confusion and mistakes?
Is is really that far fetched to suggest that neither JFK or RFK
or even MLK would _not_ have been killed had they been given the same
protection as would have been given a more conservative figure of
similar national stature?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!mcsun!unido!mpifr-bonn.mpg.de!specklea.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de!dfi
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 13:41:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Max Planck Institut fuer Radioastronomie
Lines: 25
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9576 rec.arts.movies:50509
Nntp-Posting-Host: specklea

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Shein) writes:
>As I remember (and I'm sure I will be corrected 3,743 times if wrong),
>Jack Ruby died of cancer, in prison, while serving time for the murder
>of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Wasn't the gun Ruby used to kill Oswald on an auction these days (or will be
next week)? Heard the minimum offer is some $500000.

But back to movies & JFK - on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the
assassination, German TV was filled solidly with movies about the event,
including one based obviously on the Warren report (all details I remembered
from documentaries were perfectly reproduced here). And there was a *big*
one, about 10 hours long (broadcast in three parts) that was a fictional
trial of Oswald, but with real law people and the original witnesses. This
one was *most* impressive (and highly graphic at times - original enhanced
slow motion sequences of JFK's head exploding...). This 'trial' let to the
conviction of Oswald as the only one responsible and said no to any
conspiracy. The objections by Oswalds would-be lawyer, esp. on the
'mystery bullet', though, weren't answered conclusively, IMHO. In addition,
the Germans also had an 'experts table' discussing the 'trial' and coming to
virtually the same conclusion (Oswald, and only him), but only one guy
was not convinced because of a) the bullet, and b) the discrepancy between
Oswald's shooting capabilities and the actual assassination scenario. And
then, of course, there was also the documentary (?) that 'prooved' that the
mafia did it, by computer-enhancing a fuzzy b/w still photograph. Oh, well...
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 10:46:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer ServicesKeywords:
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Baker) write

>I wouldn't absolutely conclude that there was a
>grassy knoll gunman just from the movement of Kennedy's
>head, but given that there were numerous witnesses that
>claimed to see one I don't see the point to casting about
>for a much less likely theory.



EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW:   That in the recently aired (on A&E) documentary
                        "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" Americans saw for
                        the first time, a blown-up image of the famous
                        Mary Moorman photograph of Kennedy being shot.

                       (This photo was 1/60th of a second after the fatal
                        headshot while she faced towards the grassy knoll)

                        The photo shows -without doubt- a man in a Dallas
                        police uniform shooting a (smoking) rifle from
                        behind the picket fence.

                         To say the least, I was shocked and got goose bumps
                        when I saw the photo, which by the way was a polaroid
                        and was originally blown up by scientists at MIT.
                        Upon finding the image, the school made a statement to
                        the effect that there appeared to be a gunman
                        previously not seen in any films or photos.
                        After a visit by FBI officials a couple of days later,
                        the school withdrew their statements- without further
                        explanation.

                        Unfortunatelly, for them, the picture had already been
                        seen and made its way to researchers.

                        The existence of this photo along with previously
                        reported audio "fingerprints" of Dealy Plaza as
                        as captured by police radio should conclusively
                        PROVE that there was a second gunman and therefore
                        a "conspiracy" of more than one.

                        It is interesting to note that a deaf mute witness who
                        was watching the parade from a nearby freeway- behind
                        the picket fence saw two men behind the fence- one of
                        them wearing a police uniform and carrying a rifle.
                        After he saw the man fire the rifle, he (the cop)
                        tossed the gun to his partner who quickly took it
                        apart (into two pieces) and placed it in a nearby
                        utility box (like the ones you find at intersections
                        that control traffic lights).   His story which was
                        told to authorities in 1963- fully colaborates with
                        the evidence in the new picture.

It is also a credit to Mr. Stone's research for "JFK" that the man who appears
as the assasin behind the picket fence on the knoll, is wearing a police
uniform in the movie.   He certainly did his research.  I was surprised.


--Dusty
in L.A.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 17:01:38 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 28
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9580 rec.arts.movies:50519


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

>> This does not seem to have been the case; in  fact,  most
>>of  the  bits  and  pieces  of  JFK's  head  seem  to  have blown
>>BACKWARDS.  Jackie crawled out on to the  back  of  the  limo  in
>>order to retrieve one of them.
>
>This can be explained easily by the fact that they were traveling in
>a car at time time and were subject to air resistance.
>                         John.
>



  Watch the Zapruder film again. The Presidential limosine was all but
 stopped when the fatal head shot occurred...... hence, no `air resistance'.

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

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

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!fang!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - EOC1.TXT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:48:25 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 626




*EOC1.TXT*

------BEGIN PART 1/4---------------------------------------------------------

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY                                         February 28, 1986
Vol. 8, #1                                                        Paul L. Hoch

<<"Reasonable Doubt":>>
     Henry Hurt's book should be in your local bookstore now, although it did
not reach some of the big chains quickly.  The official publication date was
January 27.  (Holt Rinehart Winston, 555 pp., $19.95)
     I am too close to the case (and to the book) to judge "Reasonable Doubt"
as a whole, rather than by assessing each piece of evidence as new or old, and
each argument as familiar or unfamiliar, persuasive or implausible.
     We will see what the reviewers and publicists do with a book which claims
that it is not pushing a specific solution to the mystery of the JFK assass-
ination.  So far, I have seen no ads and only the reviews listed below.
     Hurt's reluctance to endorse a single solution is particularly under-
standable in light of the history of his involvement in the case.  Exposure to
the legendary Ed Epstein and then to a volunteered "confession" could make
anyone wary of anybody's solution.  The beneficial result of that introduction
is that Hurt was very willing to look at the work of critics who could provide
hard facts and careful analysis.  Even the jacket copy says nice things about
the buffs, and nothing about who killed JFK.
     Understandably, Hurt is not optimistic about the chances for a resolution:
"The seeds of neglected evidence sown across the landscape in the wake of the
assassination have matured into a jungle of powerful contradictions.  Nourished
by solid information, each promising theme contends with other themes.  The
entanglement has become so impenetrable that no single theory, no final
answer, can break free to stand unchallenged as a solution...."  (P. 429)
Hurt endorses Jim Lesar's suggestion of a special unit in the Justice Depart-
ment, with specific Congressional funding, patterned after the anti-Nazi
Office of Special Investigations.
     Since I don't think I know who killed Kennedy, Hurt's approach generally
appeals to me.  I think the book does a good job of reflecting the ambiguity of
much of the evidence, and the variety of plausible explanations.

<<A new perspective on the murder of J. D. Tippit:>>
     Hurt's most striking new evidence, surprisingly, does go directly to the
question of "who did it" -- but in the Tippit case.  He does not overemphasize
it, but it is a lead which raises the same kind of basic challenge to the
integrity of the Dallas evidence as David Lifton's work does to the Bethesda
evidence.
     Hurt persuaded me that Tippit was in Oak Cliff an hour after JFK was shot
to take care of some very personal business.  Hurt talked to a woman who had
an affair with Tippit.  She thought she was pregnant by Tippit; the timing
suggests that she may have just learned this on November 22.  This was a
problem not only for Tippit, who was married, but also for the woman.  She had
recently been reconciled with her ex-husband, who was previously jealous
enough to follow her and Tippit around Oak Cliff at night.
     Hurt's exposition reflects the kind of caution that lawyers would be
expected to encourage.  For example, he does not name the woman, whom I will
refer to as Rosetta Stone.  Her name is available to anyone with access to the
HSCA volumes who can ignore a typo in Hurt's footnote and find the Tippit
material in Vol. 12.  (Or see "Coverups," 12/85)  Her name has been known to
some critics for years.  Hurt credits Larry Harris with finding her, prompted
by an anonymous 1968 letter to Jim Garrison which Gary Shaw obtained.
(Rosetta was not named in that letter, but described as a waitress who worked
with Tippit at Austin's Barbecue.)
     It is not clear if Hurt believes that he and Harris have discovered why
Tippit was killed, or merely why he was in Oak Cliff.  He seems persuaded by
other evidence that Oswald did not do it.
     The jealous husband and Rosetta "both deny any knowledge of Tippit's
death other than what is in the official account."  (P. 168)  Hurt does not go
into detail, but I doubt that he accepted Mr. Stone's denial at face value.
8 EOC 1                              -2-

     Hurt does quote a retired DPD officer who "asserted flatly and without
prompting that he believed Tippit was killed as a result of a volatile
personal situation involving his lover and her estranged husband.  He added,
`It would look like hell for Tippit to have been murdered and have it look
like he was screwing around with this woman....  Somebody had to change the
tape....  Somebody had to go to the property room and change those [cartridge]
hulls and put some of Oswald's hulls in there....'"  Other DPD officers
reportedly share these beliefs.
     The book contains a brief discussion of the implications of this account.
"The purpose [of the alteration of evidence], perhaps, would be twofold:
to seal the case against Oswald [in the JFK case] by showing irrevocably his
capacity for violence and to wrap up the case of Tippit's murder without
disgracing him, his family, and the unborn child.  And, of course, there would
be an outpouring of grief [and financial support - PLH] for a police comrade
slain by the presidential assassin."  (P. 168)  I would emphasize that if such
relatively innocent tampering can be confirmed, the question of tampering with
the evidence against Oswald in the JFK case has to be raised with new intensity.
     This area seems ripe for additional investigation, official or unofficial.
For example, what can we now make of the sighting (near the Tippit murder
scene) of a license plate number traced back to a friend of Tippit, Carl
Mather?  (12 HSCA 37)  The HSCA apparently failed to reach a conclusion, but if
you ignore the claim that Oswald was in the car, the story -- and Mather's
nervousness when interviewed by Wes Wise -- might be significant.
     Hurt reviews the familiar evidence on Tippit's problematic presence in
Oak Cliff, and the radio instructions which sent him there.  He interviewed
R. C. Nelson, supposedly instructed to go to Oak Cliff at the same time, who
seemed puzzled by Hurt's questioning and reluctant to talk.  Dispatcher Murray
Jackson "stoutly denied knowledge of any fraudulent manipulation of the tapes
in order to provide an excuse for Tippit's being so far away from his assigned
district at the time of his death," but his account seems unsatisfactory to
me.  (Pp. l62-3)
     Before I knew about Rosetta Stone, I argued that the messages in question
didn't sound right.  In November 1981, I raised this issue in a letter to Dr.
James Barger.  (#1986.1, 2 pp.)  If tampering with any of the recordings could
be shown, the timing problem in the acoustical analysis resulting from the
"hold everything secure" crosstalk match might have to be reconsidered.
     I suggested that both the tone and wording of two key messages were in
the "formal mode" which one would expect only in important messages -- or in a
later re-creation.  "You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?" seemed
significantly more formal than "What's your location?", "Are you en route to
Parkland, 601?", and similar inquiries recorded that day; it resembles "You do
not have the suspect.  Is that correct?", where the "formal mode" is expected.
Similarly, "You will be at large for any emergency that comes in" contrasts
with "Remain in downtown area, available for call" and "Stand by there until
we notify you."
     This kind of analysis has been of evidentiary value in at least one other
case, involving a tape (released by Larry Flynt) purportedly of a conversation
between John De Lorean and FBI informant James Hoffman.  Jack Anderson
reported that psycholinguist Murray Miron was able to establish that the tape
had been faked.  (24 May 84, SFC, #1986.2)  In addition to the anomalously
unresponsive content of "Hoffman's" remarks, his "speech cadences... `are
consistent with those to be expected from one who has rehearsed or is reading
from a script.'"  Anderson described Miron as a "longtime FBI consultant."
The Justice Department should certainly sponsor that kind of analysis of the
Tippit messages.

<<JFK's physician believes in a conspiracy:>>
     There is a second very provocative piece of new evidence, resulting from
Hurt's 1982 phone call to Adm. George Burkley.  He said "that he believed that
8 EOC 1                              -3-

President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy."  He
subsequently refused "to discuss any aspect of the case."  (P. 49)
     As JFK's personal physician, and the only doctor present at Parkland and
the Bethesda autopsy, Burkley was in an especially crucial position.  He did
not testify to the Warren Commission (which published his contemporaneous
report containing basically no medical details, CE 1126.)  He did give five
interviews to William Manchester (the last one in July, 1966).  Manchester
recently told me that Burkley did not then believe there had been a conspi-
racy.  However, Hurt notes that in a 1967 oral history interview, Burkley was
asked if he agreed with the Warren Commission on the number of bullets that
hit JFK; he replied, "I would not care to be quoted on that."  The HSCA
interviewed Burkley at least once, generating in addition an outside contact
report and an affidavit -- all unpublished and unavailable.
     Along with the Tippit evidence, the Burkley assertion of conspiracy calls
for intense examination by the Justice Department and, I hope, by some
reporters.  (For my letters to Assistant AG Stephen Trott, ask for #1986.3
[1 Feb 86, on Burkley] and #4 [2 pp., 4 Feb 86, on Tippit].)
     Hurt devotes only a few pages in a "grab bag" chapter to Lifton's thesis,
but there is some interesting speculation in an area where Burkley might know
crucial facts.  (Incidentally, much of the "classical" critique of the single
bullet theory and other aspects of the medical and physical evidence in Hurt's
earlier chapters seems obsolete.  The SBT is implausible but supported by a
surprising amount of HSCA evidence; if it is wrong, tampering on a Liftonesque
scale must have taken place, and we need to either pursue Lifton's argument or
come up with another scenario.  Studying the flaws in the official inves-
tigations is not likely to produce progress in this area.)
     Hurt concludes that "Lifton builds a powerful case" that JFK's body was
separated from the ceremonial motorcade, and that his "evidence is equally
strong on the point that <<something>> happened to the wounds on the body between
Dallas and Bethesda.  However, his sinister interpretation of what might have
happened does not have the strong supportive evidence found for his basic
points."  (P. 427)
     Hurt suggests that "the Secret Service and other powerful elements in the
government might have felt an overwhelming necessity to examine the body for
evidence at the soonest possible moment," given fears of a conspiracy.  "It
does not seem unreasonable that these circumstances could have coalesced into
an overriding concern for national security that demanded the President's body
be placed on an autopsy table as soon as humanly possible -- without awaiting
the folderol of transporting the body through the streets with the family and
public at hand.  Moreover, it does not seem unreasonable that certain security
people in the government were appalled that the official autopsy was going to
be conducted at the whim of the family and by Navy brass with pitifully little
experience in forensic pathology."
     When I saw this speculation in Hurt's draft of this section, it struck me
as plausible and well worth pursuing.  The perspective of people who realized
that the body might provide conclusive evidence of a conspiracy should be
taken into account (and I don't think it generally has been).
     Certainly an "innocent national security autopsy" does not explain away
Lifton's evidence indicating changes to the wounds, and Lifton can discourse
at great length (and with considerable persuasiveness) against such a hypo-
thesis, which I raised with him in general terms long ago.
     At the very least, however, Hurt's analysis might lead us to new infor-
mation about what key people really think happened to JFK's body before the
Bethesda autopsy.  I have assumed for years that there must be some expla-
nation going around in official and family circles, and I was surprised that
none surfaced after "Best Evidence" was published.
     Hurt's manuscript led me to check the record on the authorization of the
autopsy.  Is it possible, I wonder, that the record significantly minimizes
Jacqueline Kennedy's opposition to an autopsy?  If the opposition was very
8 EOC 1                              -4-

strong or more prolonged than is generally assumed, I have no trouble
believing that someone decided to go ahead with an "inspection" regardless.
     Burkley's own account noted that, while kneeling before Jackie, he
"expressed [the] complete desire of all of us and especially of myself to
comply with her wishes, stating that it was necessary that the President be
taken to a hospital prior to going to the White House.  She questioned why and
I stated it must be determined, if possible, the type of bullet used and
compare this with future material found."  (CE 1126, p.6)  This makes more
sense if you insert a few words:  "her wishes to go directly to the White
House, but stating...."  In his oral history interview, Burkley said that
Jackie's decision to go to Bethesda was arrived at "after some consideration,"
which might mean it took a while to convince her.
     It is not unfair to read Burkley's comments critically, with the
suspicion that he was minimizing Jackie's reluctance to authorize an autopsy
or even his own knowledge of alternative plans.  As late as the 1967 oral
history interview, he took the Kennedy family line on JFK's adrenal and back
problems, describing JFK as an "essentially normal, healthy male," with above-
average "vigor and vitality."
     Kenneth O'Donnell testified that "we didn't tell her [Jackie] there was
to be an autopsy."  (7 WCH 454-5)  Evidently the matter was discussed with her
in terms of going to a hospital to remove bullets.
     Restrictions during the Bethesda autopsy have been dealt with in some
detail by both the HSCA and Lifton.  The HSCA did not publish anything about
earlier restrictions -- e.g., Jackie's resistance to the whole idea of even a
limited effort to remove the bullets.  The HSCA may well have gathered
relevant evidence.
     One reason Hurt's hypothesis appeals to me is that concern for Jackie's
feelings -- since her wishes were essentially bypassed -- might explain why
there was no quasi-official detailed rebuttal to Lifton's book.  I would be
glad to share more of my thoughts on this hypothesis with reporters or anyone
else in a position to work on it.

<<More highlights of "Reasonable Doubt":>>
     The chapters on Oswald in New Orleans and on the questions relating to
intelligence agencies are particularly good.
     Neither the HSCA nor its case against the Mafia gets a lot of attention.
I generally like Hurt's analysis of Garrison, but I am not impressed by his
treatment of Blakey and the HSCA.
     The detailed citations, including many to unpublished FBI and CIA
documents, add to the value of the book as an overview.  There are also many
references to Hurt's own interviews.
     Some interesting hypotheses were already familiar to me (and some got to
Hurt through me), but I'm particularly pleased to see them in wider circulation.
     For example, Hurt explores the idea that Oswald was (or thought he was)
working on behalf of Sen. Thomas Dodd's investigation of mail-order firearm
sales.  This was suggested by Sylvia Meagher ("Accessories," p. 194) and
pursued in detail by Fred Newcomb.  It might explain Oswald's peculiar weapons
purchases.  (P. 300 ff.)
     In this context, Hurt also reports some of my old analysis of a Klein's
Sporting Goods ad in Oswald's possessions, torn from a magazine which was
found in Adrian Alba's garage -- after a mysterious stranger, claiming to be a
friend of Alba's, showed up on the morning of November 23rd to "borrow" some
magazines.  (P. 297)
     Hurt also reports Larry Haapanen's observations on the official concern
about Commie influence in the Clinton civil rights drive, and its possible
relevance to Oswald's alleged presence there.  (See 3 EOC 7, pp. 3-5.)
     The book also includes quite a few interesting points which were
completely new to me.  For example:
     A Naval Intelligence officer at the Moscow Embassy says he thought that
8 EOC 1                              -5-

Oswald was being handled for the CIA by someone in the Naval Attache's office.
(P. 243)
     There is some new information from Hurt's old interviews (for "Legend")
of some of Oswald's Marine associates.  One such person told Hurt that he had
been recruited for intelligence work when he left the Marines.  (P. 243)
     SA Vince Drain believes the palmprint on the rifle was faked.  (P. 109)
     There is a more-plausible-than-most story of a telephone warning by Ruby
to Billy Grammer of the Dallas Police.  Hurt notes that if Ruby was really
under Mafia pressure to kill Oswald, it would make sense for him to try to
abort the transfer with such a phone call.  (P. 407)
     A technical examination done for Hurt suggested that the curbstone at the
location of the Tague shot may well have been patched.  (P. 138)
     Hurt interviewed alleged Marcello and Ruby associate Harold Tannenbaum,
who was not as dead as the HSCA thought.  He denied any Mafia connections.
(P. 180)
     Billy Joe Lord, who shared Oswald's cabin on the boat to Europe, added
little of substance about Oswald, but told of a peculiar interest in him by
someone in France.  Hurt suggests this could have been a KGB check to see if
U.S. intelligence was talking to people who had been associated with Oswald.
(P. 207)
     Louise Latham of the Texas employment office made some odd comments,
suggesting that she sent Oswald out for a job more than once.  Hurt seems
suspicious of her husband's "post office" career.  (P. 221)
     John Hurt's widow told Henry Hurt that he had admitted being drunk and
trying to call Oswald in jail.  (This should take care of that story.)
(Pp. 244-5; cf. 2 EOC 7, p.5)
     Hurt speculates that the KGB's interest in the Oswalds may have been to
establish Marina as a sleeper agent.  (Might that explain the allegedly
anomalous friendship between the Oswalds and the DeMohrenschildts?)  (P. 240)

<<And now for something completely different:>>
     It's... Chapter 12, "The Confession of Robert Easterling."
     At least, I think it's completely different.
     I find Easterling's story too incredible to be worth summarizing here.
Whenever I hear about meetings involving the speaker, Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie,
and Shaw, I reach for my skepticism.  In fact, any story involving Clay Shaw
starts with two strikes against it.  Hurt makes a point of the alleged
uniqueness of Easterling's claim of direct involvement (pp. 348-9), but what
strikes me is the similarity of so many elements in his story to others we
have heard over the years.
     I do not believe Easterling's story has anything like the same level of
plausibility as even the most speculative allegations elsewhere in the book.
My impression is that this chapter fails to reflect the critical judgment
which Hurt applied to the more familiar evidence in other chapters.
     The chapter both starts and ends with descriptions of Easterling as a
psychotic, alcoholic, violent criminal.  A long footnote (p. 351) describes
aspects of his "confession" as "flagrantly preposterous" and delusional.
Certainly Hurt can't be accused of hiding all the flaws in Easterling's story.
     Some of Hurt's justification for devoting a chapter to Easterling is mild
enough.  He grants that "By any standard, [he] is a terribly sullied witness."
However, "in the absence of a full revelation of facts by government agencies,
it would be irresponsible not to present Easterling's story."  (P. 383)  As a
reader, I would have settled for an appendix or a long footnote.
     Fortunately, Easterling's name does not appear outside this one chapter.
But this confession is what got Hurt into his own research on the case, as he
explains in the introduction.  (P. 7)  It must have colored his approach to
the evidence he later encountered.  His personal experience in dealing with
the FBI on this matter certainly contributed to his very negative evaluation
of the official investigations of the JFK case.  That is, Hurt learned that
8 EOC 1                              -6-

Easterling's was definitely not the best of the conspiracy allegations which
were not taken seriously.
     The publisher's handout (#5, 5 pp.) does devote a paragraph to "the most
shocking revelation of all" in the book, alleging that "Easterling presents...
a convincing case that he could have been involved with a group that murdered
the president."  As is all too common in a publisher's supplementary material,
the other specifics mentioned in this handout fail to reflect the general
coherence and scope of the book.  They include some familiar questions which
the book does not claim to answer.  (For example,  why did Humes burn his
notes?  The book just reviews the old evidence; Hurt called Dr. Humes about
Lifton's book, but he would not discuss details.  [Pp. 42, 427].  Similarly,
"what government official permitted [Souetre's] deportation?"  See p. 419;
Hurt doesn't seem to know.)   Unfortunately, this handout may discourage
reviewers from focusing on the important new information.
     It would be disappointing if many readers and reviewers dismiss the whole
book because of this one chapter.  On the other hand, if any official
investigators, or many reviewers or EOC readers, seem to be taking Easterling
seriously, I will be glad to jump into any debate on the details.
     One structural problem is that the bad Easterling story has the same
relationship to the rest of the book as the good story about Mr. & Mrs.
Rosetta Stone does to the Tippit chapter:  each appears towards the end, each
is fairly heavily qualified (and many readers won't be able to tell how much
of the caution is <<pro forma>>), and there is not the detailed followup or
evaluation of the new material that I would like.
     Disclaimers aside, there are signs that Hurt has taken Easterling very
seriously at some point.  (Some of his language suggests that his conclusions
were rewritten and somewhat weakened.)  For example, "In the end, [his]
claims... could not be substantiated to the point that no doubts about the
veracity of his confession remained."  (Intro, p. 8-9)  The chapter itself has
a slightly less disturbing formulation:  "In the final analysis it is not
possible to prove that the Easterling confession is true."  I think it is
possible to conclude, from Hurt's presentation, that the confession is false.
Hurt's fallback justification is more defensible, although I do not agree with
it:  "However, it is possible to show that there is, at least, every reason
for the FBI to investigate Easterling's leads vigorously."  (P. 389)
     Another example of hedging which gives Easterling's account more support
than it deserves:  "A careful reading of Easterling's account cannot lead to
any certain conclusion as to who killed John F. Kennedy.  It is perhaps
significant, however, that when one considers those who may have wanted
Kennedy dead -- Cuban exiles, Fidel Castro, fanatical right-wing oil men,
renegade elements of the intelligence services, the mob -- they all play roles
in this remarkable story."  (P. 390)  I would turn this observation around:
almost all the plotters in the most popular conspiracy theories play roles in
Easterling's account.
     Unfortunately, the section of this chapter entitled "A Final Assessment"
includes a recounting of some of the familiar old evidence which allows Hurt
not to dismiss Easterling entirely, but which in fact supports any number of
conspiracy theories.  The existence of such evidence is indeed crucial to a
final assessment, but only in combination with a very skeptical approach to
Easterling.
     My guess is that Easterling's alcohol-soaked brain became incapable of
distinguishing between what he remembered happening to him, and what he had
heard about the JFK case.  I wonder if a psychiatrist familiar with the crim-
inally insane would tell us that this particular kind of delusion is common.
     In any case, the omission of a professional psychiatric opinion of
Easterling's story, by someone familiar with the kind of details on the JFK
case which have been publicized, is a conspicuous deficiency in this chapter.
     As noted in my comments on Blakey's book, there may well be no signif-
icance to a claim by Johnny Roselli that he "knew" there was a shot from the
8 EOC 1                              -7-

grassy knoll.  (3 EOC 3, p. 3)  I have no trouble believing that Roselli or
some member of his family (or Family) heard Mark Lane's lecture (if not
Garrison's scenario) and was convinced.  (Everyone has heard Lane, it seems.)
Admittedly, it is a little harder to picture Easterling in a public library,
reading "Accessories After the Fact."  Still, anyone living in Baton Rouge at
the time of the Garrison investigation would be exposed to a regular flow of
details about the mysteries of the case.  (P. 379)
     I think the most likely explanation for Easterling is not simply a hoax
but a basically genuine delusion, supplemented by the prospect of financial or
other benefits.
     Hurt says that, if Easterling's confession is a hoax, "then there is a
fascinating story to be told about such an extraordinary scheme."  (P. 351)
True enough, and even if it is a delusion which Easterling himself never
understood, there should be an interesting story about how and why Hurt (and
the Reader's Digest) took it seriously enough to pursue.
     Hurt does not discuss the Digest's original interest in the project, or
its decision not to publish the book.  (See 6 EOC 2, p. 6.)  Hurt told me
that the new editor-in-chief was not completely persuaded that the thrust of
the book was correct.  In fact, the book does not identify Hurt or the two men
to whom the book is dedicated as Reader's Digest employees.  (Why, the reader
might wonder, was Hurt doing interviews for Epstein's "Legend"?  [P. 7])  Was
the Digest ready to publish the Easterling story in one of the three excerpts
which were to appear starting in the June 1984 issue, using more of the
confession and fewer of the doubts?  There may well be a story buried here.
     Although it is hard to take the confession seriously enough to really
worry about its impact if the Digest had endorsed it, any allegations
involving Fidel or Raul Castro have a potential for serious mischief.
In 1974, the brother of Easterling's original Cuban contact showed him photos of
material "apparently... exhibited in Raul Castro's den."  (Pp. 380-1)  This
included photos of Easterling, Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, and Shaw/Banister, with
X's over the faces of the deceased and a question mark for Easterling.  Oh,
and also the Czech rifle which had been used, mounted, with a plaque reading
"Kennedy 1963."  The best I can say about this fantasy is that Easterling
might have thought -- if he was thinking at all -- that the Reader's Digest
wanted to hear it.
     I have many specific objections to Hurt's analysis.  For example, he has
the same problem as the HSCA with the claim that Shaw was associating with
David Ferrie and Oswald.  The stories (of Easterling, and of the Clinton
witnesses) are much more plausible if it was Guy Banister, not Shaw.  The HSCA
wrote around the witness-credibility problem, concluding that Oswald had been
seen with "Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw."  (HSCAR 145)  Similarly, Hurt talks
about Easterling being with Ruby and the man he believed was Clay Shaw.  (Why
not "Shaw and the man he believed was Jack Ruby"?)  (Pp. 363, 381)
     If I had any reason to find Easterling's story credible in the first
place, I would do a thorough search of published sources to see where similar
elements appear.  For example, Hurt notes that Easterling's claim to have
driven Oswald from New Orleans to Houston fills in a gap in the official
account of his travels.  I would start by testing the hypothesis that Easter-
ling read about this problem.  I certainly would not treat this as "perhaps the
most significant point of confirmation for Easterling's story."  (P. 369)
     Likewise, what about the coincidence between Easterling's claim that he
was to wait for Oswald in Monterrey, Mexico, and the allegation by Donald
Norton that he delivered $50,000 to "Harvey Lee" in that city?  (RD, p. 367;
Brener, "The Garrison Case," p. 195)  Or the similarity between Easterling's
firing test (with coconuts!) and a test-firing scene at the beginning of
"Executive Action" (the book, if not the movie)?
     Not surprisingly, the points which Hurt could even try to verify had
little direct connection to the assassination.  Discovering (even with
difficulty) that there was a fire like one Easterling described does nothing
8 EOC 1                              -8-

to support his claim that he was picking up Oswald nearby.  The story of Igor
Vaganov (Esquire, 8/67) is a useful reminder that there were many odd things
going on in Dallas in November 1963 which had nothing to do with the JFK
assassination.
     Easterling may well have been up to something, perhaps criminal, perhaps
with some Cubans.  Even it if could be established that he knew Ferrie or some
other person who has been named in the assassination controversy, which
in itself would not be unusual, the odds would still be high that his
"confession" was nothing but a delusion.

<<Reviews of "Reasonable Doubt":>>
     6.  22 Nov 85  (Pub Wkly)  Brief and mostly favorable.  "The prose is a
bit breathless at times," but "the components of [the] mystery are laid out
with notable clarity."  The theory of a "Cuban conspiracy" involving an Oswald
impostor "does not seem so outlandish after [Hurt] produces a likely candidate
[Thomas Eli Davis, I suppose] and a witness whose testimony, though `terribly
sullied,' provides an abundance of plausible detail."
     7.  23 Feb 86  (NYT Book Review)  "Oswald and others?" asks reviewer Adam
Clymer, a veteran reporter who is now an assistant to Abe Rosenthal.  A fairly
short and quite positive review of Hurt's "compelling yet fundamentally calm
analysis."  Clymer likes Hurt's critical analysis but non-conspiratorial
evaluation of the old investigations.  "Original research is not what commends
this book," and the reviewer mentions none, except for the "psychotic drifter"
Easterling.  He endorses the book's least credulous comments on that story:
"Hurt does not take this source as a touchstone.  Instead, he argues that Mr.
Easterling's story ought to be given official attention."

<<More details about Oswald in Mexico:>>
     "The Lobster" has reprinted almost all of the Afterword from the U.S.
paperback edition of Tony Summers' "Conspiracy."  Summers reported significant
progress in his search for Maurice Bishop, and prepared additional information
for articles in the London Observer.  "Unfortunately," notes Steve Dorril,
"owing to continuing legal difficulties with David Phillips, they were never
officially published.  Much of the material appears now in [the] Afterword and
the following notes (which are the responsibility of The Lobster.)"  [#1986.8,
4 pp., from issue #10; the Afterword alone was previously listed as #1981.314]
     Dorril's notes include much information which seems to come from a good
HSCA source, if not from the HSCA's Mexico City staff report (which, Summers
revealed in 1983, he had "had sight of"; see 6 EOC 1, p. 1).  For example:
"We understand that the [HSCA] confirmed that [journalist Hal] Hendrix was a
CIA contract agent."
     "A number of Phillips' colleagues... have indicated that the Phillips/
`Bishop' identity `holds water.'  They include the Naval Attache in Cuba."
Incidentally, Gary Mack reports that Phillips has threatened to sue Hurt.
(Coverups, 12/85)  So perhaps I should emphasize that, whether or not Phillips
was Bishop, I am not inclined to believe Antonio Veciana's story that he saw
him with Oswald.
     Dorril gives the real names of "Ron Cross," "B. H.," and "Doug Gupton."
"Cross" allegedly helped set up the DRE (but not Bringuier's N.O. chapter).
     The CIA man in charge of surveillance of the Cuban consulate in Mexico
City recently was the director of the Berlitz School in Madrid.  (On Oswald's
alleged contact with Berlitz, see "Oswald in New Orleans," pp. 344 and 348,
and "Conspiracy," p. 318.)
     "In a long memorandum or manuscript [Winston] Scott refers to `a photo of
Oswald.'  Three CIA officers claim to have seen it [the memo? the photo?]
whilst two others claim to have heard of it."  Phillip Agee is among the five,
all named.  (I'll pass up the opportunity to list unfamiliar people here.  Any
reporter who wants to make a test case out of those CIA names is welcome to do
so.  I hear that "The Lobster" is developing a reputation in the U.K. for
8 EOC 1                              -9-

naming sensitive names.)
     A named CIA officer "is believed to have told an untruth to the HSCA"
about the 1 Oct 63 photo of the mystery man.  The 10 Oct 63 teletype to CIA
headquarters about this "was, in fact, doctored, according to evidence devel-
oped by the HSCA investigators."  (This sounds like what Counsel Sprague was
going on about in 1977; I have still seen no evidence to support this claim.)
     Virginia Prewett, a journalist whom Summers found from a clue provided by
Veciana, "was a CIA asset handled by Phillips."  The five CIA "disinformation
agents" in Mexico City (four run by Phillips) and two other agents of Phillips
are named by "The Lobster."
     This is clearly very important material, but I'm rating it only two stars
as a reminder to be careful:  just the fact that the HSCA staff believed it
and it got locked up for fifty years doesn't make it all true.
     In the case of Phillips-as-Bishop, at least, there is evidence that some
CIA people were trying to mislead the HSCA.  As with the Nosenko case, the
HSCA may have bumped into issues of great sensitivity inside the CIA, where
selected facts were passed around for the purpose of making one faction or the
other look bad.  (For example, one can be skeptical of the account of Angleton
making off with a photo of Oswald.)
     Although I am inclined to trust the HSCA staffers who specialized in the
CIA investigation, I have many problems with what I know about the unpublished
and published investigation in other areas, and I know that some HSCA sources
doubt some conclusions of the Mexico City staff report.

<<Jim Garrison -- on the bench and off the wall:>>
     In October 1985, Garrison told Ted Gandolfo that he was working on a new
book, entitled "A Farewell to Justice."  He said that "there is no question in
my mind that it is the absolute and ultimate truth down to the last detail
about the Kennedy assassination," but that he can not get a publisher "because
they are controlled by the CIA."  (This is from the first issue of Gandolfo's
newsletter, "Assassination U.S.A."  Write him at 1214 First Ave., NYC 10021,
or ask me for information.)
     Garrison sent a long letter to Louis Sproesser, a buff who inquired about
this book.  [#9, 30 Dec 85, 3 pp.]  The book is "completed" and being
considered by a publisher.  Garrison has been working on it for four years.
     Garrison's rhetoric has not softened over the years, and I'll be very
surprised if his critical attention to the facts has improved.
     Judge Garrison asserts (on Court of Appeal stationery) that "Anyone who
wishes to understand the assassination, must appreciate at the outset that the
deep involvement of the Agency in the President's assassination requires that
it give the maximum reinforcement to the two major false sponsors which it has
created:  Organized Crime and Fidel Castro....  If the author [of a book] so
much as infers that Organized Crime or Castro were behind what so plainly was
an <<Agency project>>.... then one has in his hand the typical product of one of
the Agency's stable of hungry scribes."
     Garrison also disputes allegations that Organized Crime is behind him.
"While I lay no pretense to being the epitome of virtue, with regard to
connections with organized crime I think that you can safely place me as
having approximately the same such connections as Mother Theresa and Pope
Paul."  Obviously the CIA's disinformation machinery is at work, he says.
(Is Garrison dropping a hint about various popes?  And this "Mother Theresa,"
usually known as "Teresa" -- is she related to Vinnie Teresa?)
     In particular, Garrison complains that a recent book "by a dashing
Englishman (one of the Agency's more accommodating prostitutes) refers to `a
secret meeting'" between Garrison and John Rosselli.  "The `author's'
complicity in this attempted discreditation is underscored by his having had
the book published without ever troubling to learn that I have never even seen
John Rosselli in my life..."
     The reference is to p. 498 of "Conspiracy," by Tony Summers (who is,
8 EOC 1                              -10-

indeed, sort of dashing), which accurately asserts that the CIA found such a
meeting "particularly disturbing."  Summers quotes (but does not cite) an HSCA
staff report by Mark Flanagan, which in turn refers to an unpublished page of
the CIA Inspector General's Report.  The allegation of a Garrison-Rosselli
meeting also appears on page 118 of the IG Report, which is published.  (See
10 HSCA 190-1 (note 55), 4 HSCA 146-7.)
     As usual, there is a trace of validity in Garrison's complaint.  The IG
Report is obviously not an unimpeachable source, even if endorsed by an HSCA
staffer.  But Garrison's overall certitude doesn't seem to need much anchoring
to reality.
     Hurt's book includes a rather good discussion of the Garrison affair, and
of the subtleties of the interactions between Garrison, the real New Orleans
evidence about Oswald, and the vulnerability of Clay Shaw due to his
apparently irrelevant CIA links and homosexuality.
     If any of you want to spring to Garrison's defense, here is my $64
question:  at the time he arrested Clay Shaw, what serious evidence did he
have that he had in fact conspired with anyone to kill JFK?

     <<Subscription information:>>  There were only 3 issues of EOC last year.
The mimimum rate for a paid subscription is $0.05 per page plus postage, or
$1.96 for 1985 in the U.S. and Canada.  For postage to Europe, add $0.48 per
issue; to Australia, $0.60.  Payment must be in U.S. currency; please make any
checks payable to me, not to EOC.

     <<Credits:>>  Thanks to S. Dorril (#8), G. Hollingsworth (6,7), H. Hurt (5),
R. Ranftel (7), and L. Sproesser (9).

<<More press coverage of Hurt's book:>>
     The following items arrived as this issue was being completed.  They are
from the Chicago Sun-Times, 9 Feb 86.  (Thanks to J. Gordon.)
     10.  "Who killed JFK?  Not Oswald, book claims"  [2 pp., with a big
page-one headline]  Apparently based on an interview of Hurt by William Hines.
Castro "had ample reason to want Kennedy dead, Hurt said....  Revenge was
clearly Castro's motive to mount a counter-assassination campaign, and
organized crime in the U.S. was his avenue of attack."  A Hurt quote is
singled out for emphasis in large type:  "My feeling is that some combination
of Cuban interests and organized crime in this country pulled off the
assassination.  How they did it, I don't know."
     Is that reasonable?  I doubt it.  The book doesn't allege that, much less
make a case for it.  Even if Castro was in control of Cubela, Hurt concluded,
"that does not yield a clear answer to the ultimate question of whether Castro,
as a desperate act of self-preservation, brought about the assassination.
Today, all that can be said is that whatever his connection, if any, Castro was
better served than any other leader in the world by [JFK's] death."  (P. 345)
     Mafia involvement in a Castro plot has been advanced from time to time,
notably by Roselli and by George Crile (who focused on the Castro-Trafficante
relationship; 5 HSCA 308-11).  In their book, Blakey & Billings rejected this
theory, "because all the reasons that militated against Castro's striking at
Kennedy by himself could be applied to his doing it in conjunction with
gangsters."  (P. 156)  They also made the first of many obvious counter-
arguments:  that Oswald, "a known leftist, pointed squarely at Castro."
     11.  "A Startling Confession"  [3 pp.]  A long article by Jim Quinlan.
"According to Hurt, the center of this historical storm was Robert Easter-
ling...."  Except for a reference to Easterling's mental state, this article
applies no critical judgment to his account.
     12.  A photo of Hurt, and a sidebar on his secluded office in Redeye, Va.
     13.  Photos accompanying #11.  [3 pp., routine]

*From Illumi-Net BBS - [phone]* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is
still up ].

---END-----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal PROMIS?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. William Henry /\/\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!asparagus.berkeley.edu!chenchen
From: [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 19:14:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: math1mac4.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Fester) writes:
>
>A personal aside/question: I seem to remember that in 1865, when Lincoln was
>assasinated, there were attempts made on various members of the Lincoln
>government (Sec of War, etc.). Can anyone direct me to a source with details
>of those attempts? It seems that such an overt attempt to wipe out multiple
>members of the government would dwarf the supposed Kennedy conspiracy.

That companion book to the PBS Civil War series has an article on it.
It might be easier to find than most other books, since every bookstore
must have it for the Christmas overstock by now.  You can probably
sit there and browse through it.

Attempts were made on the Sec of War and the Vice Pres, I think.  I don't
remember very well, however.  One was stabbed, and survived.  The other
had someone assigned to shot him, but the assassin chickened out.

Booth's cabal consisted of drunks and disturbed individuals.

Oh, I think there was a plot to kidnap Lincoln a few months before
the assassination, again by the aforementioned cabal.  Lincoln would
sometimes spend nights at a nearby army base, or something like that.
They were waiting on the road to the base, but Lincoln changed his
plans that night.
--
Where's Zen-Waldo?  |------------------------------------------------------|
       by           |                               |
Cheng-Jih Chen      |                               |
                    |------------------------------------------------------|
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!fang!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - INTRO
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:46:23 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 46



-----------------------------------------------------
    JFK Text file:  "Echoes of Conspiracy" INTRO
-----------------------------------------------------

All this continued discussion on Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK" has
prompted me to look through my collection of text files and see
what I could find. I found this piece, done by Paul L. Hoch in
1986, which was on a Conspiracy Sig section of a BBS a few
years back. It's being posted in 4 parts.

I've glanced through it and am presenting it for your perusal,though
I'm *not* making any claims as to it's conclusions. Rather, I leave
it to you, the reader, to judge for yourself whether or not it has
merit.

Comments are welcome, flames to me are in-appropriate as I didn't write
the article. Take it or leave it for what it's worth :-)

File lengths (excluding header,sig and part designation):
---------------------------------------------------------

eoc1.txt - 41392 bytes
eoc2.txt - 40344 bytes
eoc3.txt - 39752 bytes
eoc4.txt - 41050 bytes
           -----
          162538 bytes - Total

---------------------------------------------------------
Note: Thanks to [e-mail] (John),
[e-mail] (Gordon Banks), and [e-mail] (Acm) Peter
Kauffner for their lucid comments on this thread. I've enjoyed all
of their postings.

Happy Holidays to all!

Don


--
-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal PROMIS?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. William Henry /\/\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!fang!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - EOC2.TXT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:49:33 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 617




*EOC2.TXT*

-----BEGIN PART 2/4-----------------------------------------------------------

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY                                             July 17, 1986
Vol. 8, #2                                                        Paul L. Hoch

<<Quotation of the day:>>
     "An interesting theory can always outrun a set of facts," according to
psychologist A. Holliday, at a 1959 conference on LSD therapy chaired by Dr.
Paul Hoch, CIA consultant and "opinion leader."
     From "Acid Dreams:  The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Rebellion," a new book
by Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain (Grove, $12.95).  A fascinating social
history, particularly the chapters on the CIA's early interest in LSD.
("Funny and irreverent" - WP)
     There are a few references to John and Robert Kennedy, but nothing new on
the Mary Pinchot Meyer story.  If people like Meyer's friend Angleton knew of
her dabbling in drugs with Leary and apparently with JFK, did it matter?  I
wonder, but the book avoids speculation along such lines.  There is no mention
of "Did Lee Harvey Oswald Drop Acid?," the article co-authored by ex-AIB'er
Lee.  (5 EOC 1, p. 4)  (#1986.14:  Publisher's press release, consisting of
advance comments by Ginsberg, Stockwell, Krassner, et al.)

<<Forthcoming TV coverage:>>
     In November, Showtime will present four hours of "The Trial of LHO," with
Vincent Bugliosi for the prosecution and Jerry Spence for the defense.  (Ed
Bark, DMN, 21 Jun 86, reprinted in Coverups, 6/86 [#15].)  An earlier report
by Jerry Rose identifies the producers as London Weekend Television.  (See
2 3D 3.21; that is, The Third Decade, Vol. 2, #3 [Mar 1986], p. 21)  Although
there are risks in having lawyers present the case, this should a good show.

<<The 22nd anniversary:>>
     16.  22 Nov 85  (Fredericksburg, VA "Free Lance-Star")  "JFK questions
persist"   A summary of what has and hasn't happened since the HSCA report, by
guest columnist (and buff) Harry Nash.  "The simple fact is that Justice, like
many agencies of government over the years, would like for the question to go
away.  If you think the reason is just 'bureaucratic', think again.  The
murders [of JFK and MLK] did not occur in a vacuum.  William Faulkner (in
another context) said it best:  'The past isn't dead; it isn't even past.'"
     This is the only anniversary article I recall which dealt with the
ongoing controversy over the assassination.  Were there others?  (I have the
original version of the widely publicized account of how the WC damaged the
Hoover-Warren relationship; it should be in the next EOC.)

<<The RFK case:>>
     17.  5 Mar 86  (LA Herald-Examiner)  "RFK slaying report lacks all the
facts"  [2 p.]  Quotes Paul Schrade and Greg Stone, who said that "what is
important is the 97% of material which remains withheld."  The commission
asked Mayor Bradley to form a committee to develop standards and a schedule
for release of the remaining material.  This advisory panel has been set up.
     People interested in encouraging fuller disclosure should get in touch
with Stone or Phil Melanson.  There is much concern about the processing of
the remaining material.  The summary report itself costs $150 ($0.10/page!)
plus postage, and is probably not worth it.  For earlier coverage of the
release process, see 7 EOC 3, p. 1.
     18.  5 Mar  (NYT)  "Summary of Report Released...."   "Critics said the
commission's report contained nothing that was not published in [Robert
Houghton's] 1970 book...."  Stone tells me that it is worse than that;
published information has now been deleted.
     19.  5 Mar 86  (LAT)  "Summary of Police Probe Says Sirhan Acted Alone"
[3 pp.]  Page one, but hardly news.  "Release of the 1,500-page summary [on
March 4] did little to mollify critics...."  Schrade accused the police
commissioners of "arrogance" and challenged Chief Gates to explain the
trajectory of the bullet which struck him.
8 EOC 2                              -2-

     20.  5 Mar  (SFX)  "RFK murder probe is 'a P.R. gesture,' victim
complains"  [2 pp.]  Also quotes Prof. Melanson.
     21.  4 Mar  [25 pp.]  Partial transcript of the board meeting, including
comments by critics.
     Other March 5 reports, mostly from wire services:  #22, USA Today
(incomplete copy); #23, AP; #24, Hartford Courant; #25, SFC (from LAT),
[2 pp.]; #26, Detroit News.
     27.  6 Mar  (LAHE)  Editorial, "A call for public disclosure"
     28.  9 Mar  (Dubin, Phila. Inquirer)  "RFK summary sharpens demands for
all files"  [2 pp.]  A rather good summary, including comments from Stone and
Schrade (whose doctor called it "crazy to think that Sirhan acted alone").
     29.  16 Mar  (Providence Journal)  "Assassination and gun control:  RFK
report puts spotlight on protection of president"  [3 pp.]  Primarily an
interview of Melanson.
     30.  28 Mar  (LAT)  "Sirhan Denied Parole; Crime's 'Enormity' Cited"
A staff psychiatrist described him as "generally rehabilitated."

<<"Reasonable Doubt":>>
     31.  20 Apr 86  (Boston Herald)  "JFK's death:  Let's find the truth"
An op-ed piece by Henry Hurt, directed at Boston Congressional candidate
Joseph P. Kennedy.  "The bond of silence that began with Robert Kennedy has
remained inviolate.  Indeed, the members of this illustrious family are among
a tiny minority of Americans who have not vigorously debated this important
issue....  In a recent profile of Joe Kennedy in Life Magazine, he is quoted
as saying that it is time for his campaign 'to take the initiative on
something.'...  If Joe Kennedy fully accepts the simplistic official version
of JFK's death, then let him say so."  (Reprinted in 2 3D 4.4.)
     32.  (Same paper, same date)  "Joe Kennedy urged to reopen JFK probe:
Author cites conspiracy theory"  (but not Easterling)   A page-two news story
based on an interview of Hurt.  Joe Kennedy was not available for comment; his
campaign manager said he may make a statement.  (As far as I know, he has made
none, and nothing has come of this.)
     33.  16 Feb 86  (WP Book World)  [2 pp.]  Reviewer Anthony Lukas notes
that Hurt "is most convincing in his meticulous dissection of [the WC]
scenario," but "less persuasive when he seeks to assemble an alternative
scenario.  Everyone in his story has a purpose....  There is little room for
chance....  And the only major piece of new evidence [Easterling's testimony]
is singularly unconvincing."  Lukas concludes that, until there is access to
the secrets Hurt believes to be still locked up, "anything and everything is
possible."  I don't think he is being sarcastic; perhaps Hougan's revisionist
analysis of Watergate, which Lukas took seriously (#1984.180), influenced his
perspective on the JFK case.
     34.  March 86  (3D)  A nine-page "review essay" by Jerry Rose, positive
in general but with several points of disagreement.  (You should have your
subscription copy, so I won't describe it further here.)
     In response, Hurt has written a letter to Rose, challenging readers to
name another "detailed, on-the-record account of personal involvement in a
successful conspiracy."  Perhaps such a distinction can be drawn, but in my
opinion the similarities between Easterling's story and many others far
outweigh the differences.
     35.  Mar 86  (Coverups)  "Significant Doubt about 'Reasonable Doubt'"
Gary Mack considers the book "one of the most disappointing and misleading
'major' works" on the case.  I disagree with some of the specific points Mack
disputes - e.g., the John Hurt phone call, and Harrelson as the tall tramp -
and I have no problem with the book leaving out the backyard photos, the
umbrella man, and even the acoustics.  In any case, Mack's specifics do not
establish his most serious criticism, that the book was "very carefully,
cleverly constructed" to build a case that Castro did it, and to give the
8 EOC 2                              -3-

impression that it completely covers the major open questions.  I didn't get
that impression from the book; if the Justice Department or many reviewers
were to respond that way, I would reconsider.
     36.  Jun 86  (Coverups)  Reporter Johann Rush recounts his own
impressions of Easterling, who was trying to sell his story for money when
Rush talked to him in 1981-83.  The records of the alleged "diversionary fire"
show no damage to the building, just a little to some furniture; no hydrant
was used, alleges Rush.  [2 pp.]
     37.  26 Jan 86  (Cincinnati Enq.)  A "must read," but the reviewer
complains (with some validity) that Hurt ignored Dr. Lattimer's work on the
single-bullet theory and the head snap.
     38.  9 Feb  (St. Petersburg Times)  "Another dubious conspiracy"
"The conspiracy theorists' main fault is that they, like Hurt, deprive Oswald
of personality."
     39.  16 Feb  (Baton Rouge Sun)  A short review, mostly negative ("a
rehash").  "The Easterling chapter is riveting, but not worth the $19.95...."
     40.  23 Feb  (Richmond T-D)  A mixed review by a retired member of the
Foreign Service.  "The endless reporting on Easterling raises the question of
why a well-regarded journalist should have devoted so much time to 'Reasonable
Doubt.'  The surest answer lies in the incredible divergence of the reports
from governmental investigations of the assassination."
     41.  Mar 86  (Village Voice Literary Supp.)  A positive review - even
Easterling's story "compels attention" - consisting mostly of the reviewer's
favorite old anti-WC arguments.  (Carl Oglesby is singled out among those who
have previously made "extremely plausible guesses" about the culprits.)
     42.  3 Mar 86  (Pub. Wkly)  "Challenge, Inc. Continues Two Libel Actions"
Also, David Phillips "is considering a suit" against Hurt "for allegations...
that he was 'Maurice Bishop,' CIA case officer for Lee Harvey Oswald."
     43.  7 Mar 86  (SFC)  "From Castro's Plot To the Botched Autopsy"
"Like the creature from the swamp in a C-grade movie, it [the case] won't be
put to rest."  Tantalizing, but "conspiracy is not really explosive news at
this date unless you can name the conspirators," and Hurt's book, like the
HSCA report, "suffers from that deficiency."
     44.  10 Mar 86  (Roanoke Times)  "'Reasonable Doubt' a lesson for shuttle
investigation"   (That is, "be thorough, get it right the first time," unlike
the Warren Commission.)
     45.  12 Mar 86   My rough handwritten notes on Hurt's appearance on WWCN
radio, Albany.  Does he think that "Mr. Stone" killed Tippit?  Here, he says
that he has come up with the person "who probably did."  Hurt thinks that JFK
would have "gotten Castro out of this hemisphere"; that LBJ thought Castro
killed JFK, and got the message, thus deciding to fight Communism in Vietnam
instead of Cuba.  Given the evidence on JFK's involvement in Vietnam, and the
ongoing pressure against Castro under LBJ, this is too speculative for me.
     46.  23 Mar 86  (Milwaukee Journal)  "More doubt on JFK"   Reviewer David
Wrone is critical of the Easterling chapter ("No cub reporter would turn in a
story like this") and of much more.  The anti-WC chapters are "solid" but Hurt
"cannot evaluate witness testimony" and "is blinded by an anti-Communism"
which "enables him... to portray the murder as the work of Castro Communists
[and] the Mafia."
     47.  Apr 86  (Freedom)  [2 pp.]  A generally negative review, suggesting
that Hurt deliberately played down the possibility of government involvement.
(This monthly magazine, linked to the Scientologists, publishes investigative
reports on various important topics, but unfortunately a substantial part of
what it prints ranges from a bit overdone to quite silly indeed.)
     48.  6 Apr 86  (Oakland Tribune)  "Volume opens forum to more JFK
assassination theories"  [2 pp.]  A favorable review by Jonathan Marshall, now
the Trib's editorial page editor, focusing on Burkley, Tippit, and suppression
of evidence by federal agencies.  "Worst of all, however, was the decision of
8 EOC 2                              -4-

the [HSCA] to put a 50-year seal on most of the thousands of pages of
documents it assembled.  'The irony of the situation... is clear,' noted
Berkeley-based assassination scholar Paul Hoch.  'The congressional
investigators who broke the JFK case wide open and reversed the official
government verdict have left us with more material withheld than ever
before.'"  (4 EOC 5.1)
     "The assassination deserves whatever study it still receives.  For even
if the conspirators are never identified, much less caught, careful analysis
of the crime and its aftermath will continue to shed light on the many
political pathologies that rippled outward from the center of the
assassination itself."
     49.  13 Apr 86  (Phila. Inquirer)  A review by Jean Davison, author of
"Oswald's Game."  (5 EOC 4)  On the whole, she is not overly negative:
"Anyone who has followed the controversy will probably want to read the latest
round in the debate.  Whether one agrees with them or not, conspiracy books
like this one are seldom dull."
     "It is not unusual... for conspiracy theorists to make their attacks on
the Warren Report sound utterly convincing - until they try to explain what
<<really>> happened.  Then some sticky questions inevitably arise.  For instance,
why does all the physical evidence point to Oswald's rifle and to no other
weapon?...  If a better rifle was used, where did its bullets go?...  Hurt
provides a novel explanation....  Readers who prefer complex solutions to
simple ones will find much to admire in <<Reasonable Doubt>>."  (She might be
wrong about any given area of evidence, but she does have a point.)
     Easterling's confession "has the dreamlike quality of a delusion....
[He] seems to have been working for everyone on the conspiracy theorists' list
of Top Ten Suspects....  It seems not to have occurred to Hurt that Easterling
could have gotten many of his ideas from reading earlier books about Dallas."
(Hurt certainly did think about that explanation, but, indeed, you wouldn't
know that from the book itself.)  "Sadly, Easterling's confession sounds like
an unconscious parody of the theories presented there."
     50.  22 Apr 86  [3 pp.]  A letter from Hurt to the Inquirer, defending
his handling of the neutron activation analysis and noting that Davison's book
was not, as the Inquirer said, "a critical examination of conspiracy theories"
but, in Davison's publisher's words, "an anti-conspiracy book about Oswald's
assassination of President Kennedy."  Hurt also says "I accept Miss Davison's
attack on the credibility of Robert Easterling."
     51.  19 Apr 86  (Montreal Gazette)  A positive review by Brian McKenna,
who directed two CBC documentaries on the JFK case.  He notes Hurt's work on a
report of Oswald handing out FPCC literature in Montreal, and regrets that
Easterling may have taken Hurt away from "more fertile trails."  "In his
graceful and diplomatic treatment of the lonely work of the critics, Hurt
refrains from the poisonous backbiting that has so divided many of the best
ones over the years."  (Reprinted in Coverups, June 1986)
     52.  (Same paper, date, and author)   "How careers like Dan Rather's were
built on [the] JFK assassination"   Rather told McKenna in 1978 that he
personally believed there was a conspiracy, but despite the HSCA he allegedly
continues to reflect the lone-nut view, and was among those who vetoed a
potential story by "60 Minutes" based on Lifton's evidence.  Quite far out for
a sidebar (a far-out-bar?):  "What this suggests is that like many high U.S.
officials in every branch of government, Rather's career and the official
story are welded together."  McKenna's brings up Rather's erroneous
description of the Zapruder film, and the WC's "printing error" resulting in
transposed frames (both of which I accept as non-sinister mistakes).
     53.  25 May 85  (Jackson, MS Clarion-Ledger & News)  "Book explores
confession in Kennedy assassination"  [2 pp.]  Hurt, who used to work for the
Jackson News, met with two FBI agents "who had examined Easterling's file.
'The whole tone was, one of, "Listen, you're a fairly sensible fellow, how can
8 EOC 2                              -5-

you get taken in by this man?"  And my position was I'm not being taken in by
him.  I'm trying to find out the full story.  I don't understand why you folks
haven't taken a more vigorous interest in the man,' Hurt said....  Attempts to
contact the FBI about Easterling's story were unsuccessful."  (#53a: an
accompanying review, not noteworthy.)
     There is some interesting information on Hurt (rather than on the case)
in the following articles from Virginia papers, which are mostly profiles
based in part on interviews:
     54.  16 Feb 86  (Danville Register)  [3 pp.; photo: #54A]
     55.  9 Mar  (Richmond T-D)  [2 pp.]
     56.  10-12 Mar  (Lynchburg News)  [5 pp.]  Also quotes Ed Tatro.
     57.  16 Mar  (Roanoke Times)  [2 pp.]
     A few more reviews, short and/or not particularly noteworthy:  #58 (19
Jan), Fort Wayne Journal; #59 (23 Jan), Macon, MS Beacon; #60 (16 Feb),
Anniston, AL Star;  #61, Detroit News; #62 (24 Apr), Daily Express (UK).

<<More thoughts the murder of Officer Tippit:>>
     Several people have challenged me to explain how Tippit's affair might
have actually played a role in the events of November 22.  Indeed, it would be
quite a coincidence if he happened to be the victim of a killer with a
personal grudge just when Oswald was in the vicinity.  Such things do happen -
that's why they are called coincidences - and it is plausible that the DPD
would have used the dead Oswald to clear up an unsolved crime.  But a more
complex scenario may make more sense.  Joanne Braun speculates that Tippit's
problems may have caused him to go to some unsavory characters for help, for
example to get some money which his wife would not know about, and that he may
have gotten entangled with, and in debt to, some hypothetical conspirators,
who then set him up as they set Oswald up.  Also, David Lifton reminded me of
the eyewitness evidence suggesting that Tippit had been waiting for someone
coming from the same direction as Oswald.  (Ramparts, Nov 66)  And of course
Tippit's affair might explain only why he was in Oak Cliff.

<<Judge Garrison responds (and Hoch dissents):>>
     Ted Gandolfo sent Jim Garrison part of 8 EOC 1, and sent me a copy of
Garrison's reply.  (Letter of 14 Apr 86 to Gandolfo, #1986.63; quoted almost
in full here.)
     The Judge had "nothing to say concerning [Hoch's] comments about me.
Frankly, I found them to be incoherent."
     "I cannot guess as to the origin of his emotional hang up [sic] about me.
In any case, I will not attempt to reply to him in a similar vein...."  Some
of my earlier research on the assassination was "quite competent.  Moreover --
in view of the solid front presented by the federal government in its cover-up
of the assassination -- it seems to me childlike for one assassination critic
to attempt to dis-credit another publicly."  (I suppose calling Tony Summers
"one of the [CIA's] more accomodating prostitutes" doesn't count.)
     "One statement of Hoch's, however, does concern me enough to require a
comment.  He refers to the 'vulnerability of Clay Shaw due to his apparently
irrelevant C.I.A. links and homosexuality.'  Mr. Hoch should go straight to
the bathroom and wash his mouth with soap."
     "Throughout our trial, in everything I have ever written and in every
public statement I have ever made -- I never once have made any reference to
Clay Shaw's alleged homosexuality.  What sort of human being is Mr. Hoch that
he is impelled to so gratuitously make such a reference in a newsletter which
he widely distributes to the public?  For all his faults or virtues, Shaw is
dead and unable to defend himself from that kind of off the wall canard.  No
matter how virtuously Hoch might couch it, a smear is still a smear."
     I will let you decide if my reference (or Hurt's) was gratuitous.  Out
here, referring to someone's homosexuality stopped being a canard years ago;
8 EOC 2                              -6-

at least, it's not as serious as charging someone with conspiring to kill JFK.
     Does Garrison now think Shaw was involved in the conspiracy which led to
JFK's death?  If so, the reference to "all his faults or virtues" is
remarkably mild.
     In 1969, J. Edgar Hoover himself called me "a smear artist", for
suggesting that there may have been an undisclosed relationship between Oswald
and the FBI.  [#64, 2 pp.]  So Garrison is in good company.
     As for my question in 8 EOC 1 about Garrison's case, asking what evidence
he had when he arrested Shaw:  The most enthusiastic answer came from
Gandolfo, who said, "Did't you know that Shaw was connected with Permindex,
which just happens to be one of the most efficient assassination organizations
around??  Didn't you know that Shaw was CIA?"  Also, Shaw's friend Ferrie was
CIA and there is Russo's testimony.  That is, of course, exactly the sort of
evidence which I did know about but which does not relate to my question.
     Gandolfo also promised to expose me as "just a CIA coverup bastard" in
his newsletter, to which I do not subscribe.  Does anyone out there want to
send me a copy?
     The best semi-serious answer came from Robert Ranftel and Jim Lesar, who
sent me an FBI letterhead memo dated March 2, 1967, the day after Shaw's
arrest.  (#65, 2 pp.)  The memo, discussed in Hurt's book (p. 281), notes that
one of Shaw's alleged homosexual contacts said on March 19, 1964, that Shaw
was into S&M.  On February 24, 1967, two sources reported that they thought
Shaw had "homosexual tendencies," and two sources (possibly the same ones)
indicated that Shaw was Clay Bertrand, who allegedly contacted Dean Andrews on
Oswald's behalf.  Unnamed FBI sources are not necessarily reliable, but in any
case none of this evidence even suggests that Shaw conspired with anyone to
kill JFK.  Sorry, but the prize for my $64 question remains unawarded.
     Incidentally, Lou Sproesser pointed out a problem with the Hurt-HSCA
hypothesis that Banister, not Shaw, was with Oswald and Ferrie in Clinton.
Marshall J. Manchester testified at the Shaw trial that he checked out the car
and that Shaw said he was from the Trade Mart.  (NYT, 7 Feb 69, 2 pp., #66)
Manchester is not necessarily credible, but this shows that untangling the
Clinton story by believing just some of the testimony is not easy.
     While I was in the mood to discredit my fellow critics, I came across a
letter from Garrison to "Freedom" (May 1986, #67) which is worth some
attention.  It offers a rare opportunity to scrutinize Garrison's analytical
work in an area where the evidence is accessible and not crucial.
     I think the buffs should keep in mind that what got many of us into the
case in the first place was the demonstrable inadequacy of the Warren Report -
for example, conclusions and summaries in the Report which did not even
adequately reflect the published evidence, much less what was not published.
In my own case, at least, the inference was that any investigation which was
so clearly unreliable on details could certainly not be trusted to get the
difficult and uncheckable answers right.
     These days, assertions by Garrison and his ilk tend to get accepted into
the mythology of the case if they sound plausible, without much detailed
scrutiny.  It is not easy to deal with most such claims.  For example, no
matter how exaggerated Garrison's (or Sprague's) comments about the HSCA staff
and investigation under Blakey seem, and how implausible their conclusions
about what was behind the HSCA, most of the rebuttal evidence is known only to
HSCA people, and everyone who dealt with the HSCA knows their investigation
was inadequate in many ways - at least in many small areas.  So, it is hard to
argue against the conclusions of Garrison or Sprague (either Sprague, in fact)
without seeming to defend certain indefensible aspects of the HSCA's work.
     Likewise, when implausible things are said about Oswald in New Orleans
(by the HSCA) or about Cuban exiles, one may be reluctant to be properly
critical if one believes, as most of us do, that those areas probably are
central, and that someone might well have come up with new and important
8 EOC 2                              -7-

(but unverifiable) evidence.
     So I have no qualms about taking a close look at Garrison's charge that
the Warren Commission may have relied on a CIA asset to solve one evidentiary
problem.  Garrison wrote that an earlier "Freedom" article on Hemingway "may
have contributed to the identification of a possible CIA 'asset.'"  In about
1961, Dr. Howard Rome, a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist, gave Hemingway shock
treatments.  In September 1964, Rome gave the WC an analysis of Oswald, which
"would appear to have been obtained and inserted just prior to the printing
deadline in order to mask one of the major holes still remaining in the
official fiction:  Oswald's motivation.  The thrust of Dr. Rome's evaluation
was that Oswald's spelling problem was not inconsistent with his having
murdered the president of the United States."  In Wesley Liebeler's words,
"the frustration which may have resulted [from Oswald's reading-spelling
difficulty] gave an added impetus to his need to prove to the world that he
was an unrecognized 'great man.'"
     Garrison does qualify his factual conclusion (enough to make it
nonlibelous?):  "One cannot ignore the fact that it is just possible that Dr.
Rome might have been functioning all along primarily as an agency 'asset.'"
Then he takes off again:  "Those men who function clandestinely as CIA assets
will do anything and help destroy anyone for a share of the CIA's cornucopia.
To give but one example, consider how successful the media and 'journalistic
author' assets have been in giving life to the two remaining scapegoats in the
JFK assassination -- Fidel Castro and organized crime."
     It is the jump to such a broad allegation which justifies attention to
Garrison's comments on the Rome matter.  His analysis is, basically,
unsupported by the evidence Garrison himself refers to, and to some degree
contradicted by it.  Some terse one-word assessments spring to mind, but I
don't want to be told again to wash my mouth out with soap.
     The details are not interesting enough to reproduce here, but I'll send
my analysis to anyone who wants it, at no charge.  (#68, 3 pp.)  If very few
people ask for it, I'll probably draw some inferences from that.
     One question for the third decade (and for Jerry Rose's journal as well)
is how to deal with the survival of myths about the assassination other than
the Warren Commission's.  That is, what is the role of "scholarly research"
when many of the people still interested in the case are sure that the head
snap proves there was a shot from the front, that the single-bullet theory is
a joke, that the HSCA's primary goal was to hide the truth, or that Garrison
solved the case with the arrest of Clay Shaw?
     The April and May 1986 issues of "Freedom" include a long article by
Richard E. (critic) Sprague and two "Freedom" staffers, "The Ultimate Cover-
up," focusing on the CIA, the HSCA, Ruby, and mind control.  (There are also
parts of a long series by Fletcher Prouty on the CIA, dealing with the
assassination in the May issue.)  Each issue is $1.50 from 1301 N. Catalina
St., Los Angeles, CA 90027.  Certainly many of the details are correct, and
maybe some of the big charges are, but I do not think these articles
consistently meet essential standards of exposition and logical argument.

<<The supporters and friends of Paulino Sierra:>>
     What follows is essentially the complete text of a letter I sent to the
Justice Department on May 13, 1986.  Once again, an assassination lead brings
us back to the hidden history of the Kennedy administration's war against
Cuba.
     In connection with the Justice Department review of the report of the
House Select Committee on Assassinations, I would like to bring to your
attention one area in which the report was incomplete.  I believe that the
published information may be unfair to one of the named individuals, Paulino
Sierra Martinez.
     Mr. Sierra is mentioned on page 134 of the HSCA report, which states that
8 EOC 2                              -8-

a certain "arms deal was being financed through one Paulino Sierra Martinez by
hoodlum elements in Chicago and elsewhere."  A staff report on the organi-
zation he headed (JGCE, the Junta del Gobierno de Cuba en el Exilio) is
published in Vol. l0, pp. 95-103.  This HSCA report appears to be based
entirely on a review of existing documents (mostly from FBI and CIA files).
     The HSCA's information relating to Sierra is summarized in a book by HSCA
staff members Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, "The Plot to Kill the
President."  The Sierra material takes up a substantial part of the chapter
entitled "Cuban Exiles and the Motive of Revenge."
     Blakey and Billings said that a "background check [on Sierra] stimulated
our interest in a Cuban exile - Mafia connection that just might have had a
bearing on the assassination."
     Sierra reportedly said that he had backers who would provide a large sum
of money - $30 million - to finance an invasion of Cuba.  "Sierra was saying
publicly that it [the money] was being donated by U.S. corporations whose
assets in Cuba had been expropriated....  According to several sources, the
real benefactors were members of the underworld, whose gambling interests in
Cuba had indeed been expropriated by Castro....  There were other indications
that organized-crime figures were behind the Sierra plan...."  By June 1963,
the FBI in Chicago concluded that Sierra was "a con artist."
     Blakey and Billings said that they "were able to document in detail
Sierra's activities and his apparent connection, or that of his backers, to
organized crime," but that "the relevance to the assassination remained
undetermined."  (P. 174)
     My colleague Peter Dale Scott and I studied the HSCA's Sierra material in
some detail when the report was published.  At first, Scott (like Blakey and
Billings) was interested in the apparent connections between Sierra and
various people whose names had become familiar in the JFK assassination
controversy.  (For example, Antonio Veciana, Gerry Patrick Hemming, and Rich
Lauchli.)  Scott found additional possibilities for links between Sierra's
associates and Lee Harvey Oswald.
     Scott came to doubt Blakey's belief that organized crime was the dominant
force behind Sierra's Junta.  Scott interviewed a number of the principals,
including Sierra.  (Sierra's employer, William Browder, essentially supported
Sierra's account of the formation of the JGCE.)  Sierra was displeased that
the HSCA had depicted him in such a sinister light, and that he had not been
interviewed by the Committee or its staff.
     Sierra specifically objected to the implication that he was working in
opposition to the policy of the Federal government.  According to Blakey and
Billings, "Sierra told the exile leaders that he spoke for a group of American
businessmen in Chicago who wanted to join forces with them to overthrow
Castro, with or without the approval of the U.S. government."  (P. 174)
     Scott found a published reference to Sierra which indicates that he was
indeed coordinating some of his actions with the U.S. government at a high
level.
     In his biography of Robert Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger discussed an anti-
Castro operation in Central America involving Manuel Artime.  "Hal Hendrix of
the <<Miami News>> supposed [this operation was] managed either by CIA or, 'on a
hip pocket basis,' by the Attorney General [Robert Kennedy] himself."  Luis
Somoza, "son of the thieving Nicaraguan dictator," tried to learn of the
attitude of the U.S. government toward that operation.  Somoza "was soon
telling Carribean notables that he had received a 'green light' from Robert
Kennedy...."
     Schlesinger noted that a State Department official said that Somoza had
not in fact gotten that approval, when Somoza's claims were repeated to him in
a meeting in August 1963.
     Scott was able to obtain a memorandum concerning that meeting under the
Freedom of Information Act....  (Memo by John H. Crimmins, Coordinator of
8 EOC 2                              -9-

Cuban Affairs in the State Department, August 17, 1963)
     The man who repeated Somoza's claims was Paulino Sierra, who said that he
had been in touch with Somoza, who had offered him a site for a base.  "Sierra
and Rivero said they had to know what truth there was in Somoza's assertion
about U.S. support for him before deciding whether to accept his offer or to
go it alone."  (Crimmins memo, p. 2)
     Sierra and his associate, Felipe Rivero, described themselves as
"[d]evoted... to the United States and conscious of the need to do nothing
that would run counter to U.S. policy."  (P. 4)  Sierra "emphasized again the
desire of his supporters not to operate contrary to U.S. policy."  (P. 6)
     Prior to the meeting, the Attorney General's office informed Crimmins
that "the Attorney General had been talking to Enrique Ruiz Williams and that,
as a result, Dr. Sierra would be calling [Crimmins] for an appointment."
Williams, also known as Harry Williams, is generally considered to have been
Robert Kennedy's principal liaison with the anti-Castro Cuban community.
In his phone call, Sierra apparently suggested that Williams was a "mutual
friend" of himself and Crimmins.
     It is possible, of course, that this contact with the government was an
attempt by Sierra to provide a cover for his true motives.  However, Scott
believes that the operations of the Junta may have been part of the policy of
"autonomous operations" against Cuba, which was formally approved in June
1963.  While the Kennedy administration was openly cracking down on the most
prominent anti-Castro groups operating in the U.S., it was also encouraging
deniable operations abroad.
     According to the HSCA, State Department counsel Walt Rostow "proposed a
'track two' approach to Cuban operations to parallel regular CIA-controlled
Cuban teams."  The U.S. "would provide general advice, funds and material
support," but "would publicly deny any participation in the groups[']
activities."  "All operations had to be mounted outside the territory of the
United States."  (10 HSCA 77)
     In contrast, Blakey and Billings emphasized that when Sierra came on the
scene in Miami just a month earlier, in May 1963, "the exile movement was in
disarray:  the United States had just stopped funding the Cuban Revolutionary
Council; U.S. law enforcement agencies were cracking down on guerrilla
activities; and factions within the exile community were politically
polarized...."  (P. 171)
     Blakey and Billings noted that Sierra was "virtually unknown (his only
mark of public prominence was that he had formed a Cuban lawyers association
in Chicago)...."  (P. l7l)  After talking with Sierra, Scott concluded (with
support from documents at the Kennedy Library) that Robert Kennedy's office
was worried about the many Cuban exile professionals who were doing menial
work in the U.S., and directly encouraged the formation of such organizations.
That is, Sierra's previous public activity may be not an exception to his
relative obscurity but a clue to his key sources of support.
     As Schlesinger noted, the record of the mid-1963 anti-Castro efforts
based in Central America "is unusually murky."  Someone in the CIA got the
Crimmins memo, although its existence is not reflected in the CIA material
quoted by the HSCA.  Blakey and Billings quoted a CIA memo dated two days
before the assassination of President Kennedy, whose author reportedly found
it "curious that Sierra had for so long managed to hold a position in the
exile hierarchy:  'Perhaps his mysterious backers are providing him with
sufficient funds to keep the pot boiling....'"  (Pp. 173-4)
     To improve the historical record, I think that the Justice Department
should at least perform a more complete file review than reflected by the
published HSCA material.
     In addition, any surviving principals should be allowed to respond to the
HSCA's charge that the JGCE may have been a tool of organized crime.

8 EOC 2                              -10-

     69.  Excerpts from Schlesinger, "Robert Kennedy and his Times."
     70.  Crimmins memo, 17 Aug 63, 6 pp.
     In an informal interview published in "Lobster" (#1985.99), Peter Scott
apparently gave Robin Ramsay his "three-hurricane theory" of the
assassination.  That expression, from Mark Allen, derives from a powerful
alcoholic drink popular in New Orleans, after three of which any buff will
tell you what he <<really>> thinks happened in Dallas.
     "I think that the Kennedys really had started a new type of Cuban exile
movement against Castro, the chief element of which was that there would be
money to go anywhere else they liked, in the Caribbean, to find their bases.
They would get money for training and they would get a green light, but it
meant the Cubans got out of the U.S....  And I think this operation was
penetrated from the very beginning.  This may be the key to the assassination,
in fact.  [Ramsay:  Penetrated by whom?]  First of all by the CIA because they
wanted to know what was going on, for a minimum.  But this was another slap at
them:  the Kennedys doing what they were supposed to do.  And they, that is
the CIA, were being accused by Bobby Kennedy of having dealt with organized
crime people.  And I think the first thing the CIA did was to get Cubans into
the operation who quickly turned round and started dealing with organized
crime figures.  This was the so-called Junta....  The CIA files on this
operation, the Junta, make it look more and more like an organized crime
operation from beginning to end.  The House Committee, rather foolishly,
without interviewing anybody, put the contents of this file into Vol. 10 of
its report as if it were all fact.  Now, what a perfectly invulnerable vantage
point to have shot Kennedy from, if you used the assets of that operation to
kill him.  That would explain Bobby's sense of paralysis, because it was his
operation."
     Based on what I know at the moment (i.e., not counting all the material
from Scott which I have forgotten), the possibility of relevance to Oswald or
the assassination is intriguing, but it seems so tentative, indirect, and
speculative that I don't want to offer a further opinion at the moment.
     In any event, the Sierra story says something interesting about the HSCA
investigation.  Putting it as generously as possible, it suggests that
Blakey's expertise in finding organized crime links had the effect of a filter
in a case where obscure links also pointed in other directions.  This problem
differed from those the HSCA faced with Oswald and Ruby, where most of the
alternative interpretations were well known in advance.  I am not saying that
the organized-crime angle was definitely absent, but the actual situation
regarding Sierra was both more complicated and more interesting than the
Blakey & Billings version indicates.
     Peter Scott's half of the unpublished 1980 book "Beyond Conspiracy" dealt
in part with the milieu of the Chicago Junta, and related matters.  Although
the manuscript was set aside after Pocket Books decided not to publish it, we
have not forgotten about it and still hope to get the information out in due
course.

<<Credits:>>
     This issue of EOC is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Dr. Cornelia
Hoch-Ligeti, who died in May at age 79, after a long career in medical
research.  (WP, 31 May, p. B6)
     Thanks to T. Cwiek (#49), T. Gandolfo (63), G. Hollingsworth (30),
H. Hurt (37-42, 44, 49-50, 53-60), F. Krstulja (19, 22), P. Lambert (19),
M. Lee (14), H. Livingstone (51-2), B. McKenna (51-2), G. Mack (15, 35-6),
J. Marshall (18, 20), P. Melanson (27, 29), J. Mierzejewski (26, 61), H. Nash
(16), R. Ranftel (33, 41, 65), M. Reynolds (41), J. Rose (34), M. Royden (62),
P. Scott (69-70), G. Stone (17-8, 21, 28), E. Tatro (31-2), and D. Wrone (46).
And thanks to L. Iacocca and Cheerios for the address labels.

*From Illumi-Net BBS - [phone]* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is
still up ]

---END-----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal PROMIS?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. William Henry /\/\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!fang!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - EOC3.TXT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:50:34 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 613




*EOC3.TXT*

---BEGIN PART 3/4-------------------------------------------------------------

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY                                          October 31, 1986
Vol. 8, #3                                                        Paul L. Hoch

<<The acoustical evidence:>>
     One reason for questioning the authenticity of the DPD Dictabelt is the
presence of certain messages relating to Officer Tippit.  Basically, the
following exchanges are suspect because of their content, the formal tone of
transmissions 590 and 592, and the apparent absence of the expected reaction.
(See 3 EOC 7.2.  The message numbers and the transcriptions are from the
Kimbrough transcript.)
     389.  [Disp.]  87, 78, move into central Oak Cliff Area.
     390.  [78 (Tippit)]  78, I'm about Kiest and Bonnie View.
     391.  [87 (Nelson)]  87's going north on Marsalis on R. L. Thornton.
     392.  [Disp.]  10-4....
     588-589  [Disp.]  78.  [78]  78.
     590.  [Disp.]  You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?
     591.  [78]  Lancaster and Eighth.
     592.  [Disp.]  You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.
     583.  [78]  10-4.
     I sent my analysis to Prof. Murray Miron, a psycholinguist whose work on
another case was described in 8 EOC 1.2.  The following is from a letter I
sent to the Justice Department on September 16, 1986, describing his
independent analysis, which provided some support for my own work:
     "Prof. Miron... has not yet prepared a formal report, but he has provided
me with the following conclusions:  'Our preliminary findings... suggest that
the communications directed to Officer Tippit are anomalously at variance with
the other transmissions of the tape record....  The transmissions to Tippit
are quite stilted.  They have the appearance of transmissions made more for an
audience's benefit than those for which the intent is to convey instructions.
The query regarding Tippit's current position is rhetorical rather than
questioning.'"
     "Prof. Miron emphasized to me that his analysis does not preclude a quite
innocent explanation for the anomaly.  The messages could have been added to
the recording after the fact, or they might have been made in 'real time' but
sound anomalous because the persons involved knew that something unusual was
going on."
     "For example, if Tippit was taking time to attend to personal business
(as suggested by Mr. Hurt's book), a dispatcher might have covered for him by
assigning him to the Oak Cliff area, with his voice betraying his knowledge
that the assignment was not routine but somehow designed to keep Tippit out of
trouble.  (This is clearly speculation, of course.)"
     "Even alteration of the recording after Tippit's death could have been
motivated by nothing worse than a desire to protect his reputation."
     "On the other hand, the rebuttal of the HSCA's acoustical analysis by the
Ramsey Panel rested in part on the belief that the police would not tamper
with important evidence."
     The rest of this letter [#71; 4 pp., including my 1981 letter to Barger
on these messages] mostly repeats information from EOC (e.g., 7 EOC 2.2), with
one other new point:
     "Mr. Todd Vaughan sent me a copy of a letter from the National Archives
to him, dated March 2, 1982.  [#1986.72]  In response to an inquiry about the
disposition of the Dallas Police Dictabelts, Mr. George Perros told Vaughan
that the Justice Department, since receiving that evidence from the HSCA, has
'returned it to the Dallas Police Department, according to an official of the
Justice Department.'  I hope that you did keep copies; in any event I think
you really should get the originals back."
     Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that anyone will do anything with
this; my letters to Justice are not even routinely acknowledged these days.
As far as I know, the JD has neither finished nor abandoned its long-overdue
review of the HSCA report.
8 EOC 3                              -2-

<<London Weekend Television program:>>
     73.  31 Jul 86  (NY Post)  "23 year[s] later, Oswald goes on trial"
Twenty-five witnesses recently appeared before TV cameras (and a judge and
jury from Dallas) in London.  They included medical, forensic, and ballistics
experts, and some eyewitnesses; several were not called by the Warren
Commission.  The verdict is being kept secret.  Edited highlights will be
shown on two nights, around November 22.
     Harry Chandler, director of program development at Showtime, said that
some of the witnesses "had a real tough time on the stand.  It was
fascinating.  There were matters brought up which were not considered by the
Warren Commission, matters relating to the body of the President and his
wounds.  The jury saw a version of the Zapruder film... which was enhanced...
and there was information in the stills I was unaware of."
     "Said prosecutor [Vincent] Bugliosi:  'In the future, this is the
document that researchers into the assassination will want to get their hands
on.'  Defense attorney [Gerry] Spence:  'It doesn't matter who won the case.
The American people are the winners here.'"  Spence is good at dramatically
presenting the innocence and virtue of his clients - probably not the best way
to get at the historical truth about Oswald, but we'll see.
     I hope that LWT will be able to make available any information which was
too complicated for TV but of potential value to researchers.  Letters to
Showtime can't hurt.
     74.  16 Jul 86  (AP)  General comments by a LWT spokesman.  The program
"would be 'a documentary exercise, not a dramatized reconstruction.'"  It
"would be modeled on the company's recent mock trial of... King Richard III."
     75.  16 Jul 86  (AP)  Comments by U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton (a
cousin of LBJ), who was to play the judge (trying the case under present
federal law, not 1963 Texas law).

<<Also on TV:>>
     I missed "Yuri Nosenko, KGB" on HBO in September.  Would someone like to
give us more information than these clippings?
     76.  31 Aug 86  (NYT)  The story is told "from the perspective of the CIA
agent [in the Soviet Bloc Division, under Angleton] who virtually scuttled his
own career by insisting that Mr. Nosenko was a Soviet double-agent sent to
spread disinformation."  British playwright Stephen Davis said he "spent six
months trailing around after people from the intelligence community who were
centrally involved."
     77.  5 Sep  (LAT)  A very favorable review.  Davis' best guess:  Nosenko
was a disinformation agent whose "job was to be dangled in front of the CIA in
Europe, but... he was not supposed to defect....  The central mystery is why
the CIA went to such extraordinary lengths to rehabilitate Nosenko, as if he
had been trustworthy.  I think the case is unresolvable."
     78.  5 Sep  (UPI)  The 90-minute program is "fascinating... history."
     79.  Sep 86  (Cable Guide)  [2 pp.]  "Davis spent a year researching the
script with the help of Edward Jay Epstein."  The Russian emigre actor who
played Nosenko thinks he was a real defector.  Davis concluded that "every way
you turn it around you find it's like a Rubik's Cube that won't ever quite
work out."  Not a bad analogy for the whole JFK case.

<<Worthy organizations:>>
     If you did not get a letter from AARC in mid-August, please ask me for a
copy.  (#80, 2 pp., no charge)  This includes a "special plea for permanent
members" from Bud Fensterwald.  The primary goal is not to get the membership
fees, but to demonstrate a substantial degree of public support when
approaching private foundations - the few which are willing to become involved
with such a controversial topic.  Institutional memberships would be
particularly appreciated.
8 EOC 3                              -3-

     Item #80 also includes a progress report, dated August 1.  Among other
things, Jeff Meek's massive index of (mostly) published JFK material has been
computerized.  I am now on the Board of Advisors, not the Board of Directors.
     "The Third Decade" (see 6 EOC 4.4) needs (and deserves) more subscribers.
     I have a descriptive form letter from FAIR, "Fairness & Accuracy in
Reporting."  [#81, Sep 86, 2 pp.]  The director of this new progressive
counterpart to AIM is Jeff Cohen; fellow AIB veterans Marty Lee and Bob Katz
are also involved.  FAIR has been involved "in the effort to expose and
counteract ABC's pending 12-hour miniseries, 'Amerika.'"

<<The saga of Earl and Edgar:>>
     A story on the Warren Commission got a lot of newspaper play on the day
after Thanksgiving last year - remarkable, even though that was, as usual, a
slow news day.  As noted in the NYT's news summary (#82, 29 Nov 85), the WCR
"apparently ended a long political alliance between [Warren and Hoover],
according to Government documents just released.  The commission criticized
the FBI for what it called its 'unduly restrictive view of its role in
preventive intelligence.'  Mr. Hoover said the criticism was unjust."
     The story itself appeared on page 32, with a Durham (NC) dateline, as a
"special to the NYT" with no authorship indicated.  (#83, with photos)  The
article seems rather unfocused.  (It does not even specify what 1300-page file
had been released under FOIA; it was the FBI's file on Warren.)
     Among other things, the dispute got Warren dropped from Hoover's list of
favored correspondents, although he had been there on a first-name basis.
     The NYT story derived from an article in the Durham Morning Herald by
Durham lawyer Alexander Charnes (aided by a grant from the Fund for
Investigative Journalism).  [#84, 24 Nov 85, 3 pp.]  Experts quoted include
Harold Weisberg, who "believes that Warren knew that the FBI was withholding"
but "felt that it was his 'national duty to preserve tranquility,'... and
therefore... did not press the FBI."  (Charnes noted that some of his
information came from previously released documents which Weisberg had.)
Warren biographer Edward White said that "the chief justice really believed,
given what they were investigating, that the FBI and CIA would cooperate with
the commission."
     The rift is not news to us; it was mentioned in some of the press
coverage of the 1977 FBI release.  Charnes' account emphasizes how closely
Hoover cooperated with Warren in previous years.
     The topic of the FBI-WC interaction (expecially on the question of what
the FBI knew about Oswald) has long been a special interest of mine.  It was
the subject of a draft manuscript which I put together in 1972, in those pre-
Watergate days when I thought what we had to do was persuade some people, with
detailed arguments based on WC documents, that just maybe the Warren
Commission (without being part of a conspiracy) had blown it.  That manuscript
is quite out of date, of course.  Now I often find myself trying to convince
people that the original investigation was not simply a complete and
deliberate coverup.  The released FBI documents tend to support my original
analysis - although the FBI's hostility was far worse than I could infer from
the WC files.  The manuscript did serve some purposes; among other things, I
think it led the HSCA to uncover much of the story of the deletion of the
Hosty entry from the FBI listing of Oswald's notebook.  (HSCAR 186)  If you
did not see that 1972 manuscript long ago, please let me know if you are
interested.  (98 pages, each two reduced pages of double-spaced clean
typescript; index included; cost (including postage):  $6 or less, depending
on the number of requests received by January 1, 1987.)


<<A break from clippings (for the rest of this issue, at least):>>
     Current clippings are generally less interesting than, e.g., old
8 EOC 3                              -4-

clippings and the HSCA volumes.  What are people interested in reading about
in EOC, or getting copies of?  (My Garrison analysis [#1986.68] generated just
one request for a copy.)  What about new FBI and CIA documents, or my old
files of WC documents?
     I would particularly like to hear from the people who have been helpful
by sending me clippings, especially if you feel I have incurred an obligation
to list them in EOC, or to otherwise preserve or disseminate them.
     I just drifted into doing a newsletter; should I drift back to reading
documents, or to some other projects?  Do we collectively have the computer
power, the time, and the interest to divide up work on indexes, lists of
clippings and documents, and chronologies?  I would appreciate help with these
difficult questions.  In the meantime, some documents, more or less from the
top of the pile on my desk.

<<From the Warren papers:>>
     As noted in 7 EOC 3.10, some of Warren's files at the Library of Congress
have been released.
     In March 1974, Alfred Goldberg (the WC's staff historian) interviewed
Warren about the Commission's work.  The transcript [11 pp.] is #85;
correspondence about it is #86 [2 pp.]  Warren took Goldberg up on his offer
to make changes; according to his secretary's letter, he "expressed
reservations to me about the wisdom of including the material concerning the
personal and political views of certain members of the Commission....  He has
never made any comment about the difficulties he may have encountered with the
other members, and after reading what he had told you he felt it would be
better if those portions were not included."
     Of course, the passages marked for deletion are the most interesting.
"The Department of Justice sent a young man over to the Commission to act as
liaison with them.  He was very critical of me from the time he came over to
us.  Lee Rankin as Chief Counsel was in a very delicate position."  This
reference is probably to Howard Willens (age 32), who was listed as liaison
with the Justice Department, and who can be rather difficult, I am told.
Warren may also have been thinking of Charles Shaffer (age 31), who (according
to John Davis' book) was detailed to the WC by RFK to keep an eye on Hoffa-
related leads.
     There are other deletable tidbits on personnel matters, and other fairly
interesting comments.  For example, Sam Stern's report on the SS and FBI was
not thought to be "objective or logical" (his work was actually quite good);
the story of Oswald in Alice, Texas, held up the Report (news to me, if true);
there were "no special problems from Hoover and the FBI"; and the testimony of
the autopsy doctors was the "best evidence" on the wounds.
     Warren's files include a nonsubstantive response to Wesley Liebeler's
memo of November 1966, in which he recorded David Lifton's observation of the
"surgery of the head" remark in the Sibert-O'Neill report.  (See "Best
Evidence," Ch. 10.)  In a short note to Rankin, dated 12 Dec 66, Warren said
that what Rankin told "Liebler" in his letter of 1 Dec "was correct and in the
right tone.  I believe that many people who were somewhat enamored by Lane and
Epstein are finally becoming disillusioned."  (#87)
     Speaking of the Warren Commission staff, "Professional men who wear bow
ties to the office are distrusted by almost everyone, says image consultant
John Molloy.  Attorneys traditionally avoid putting a bow tie wearer on a jury
because they believe the wearer is not likely to be moved by sound argument."
(#88, UPI, 28 Dec 85)
     Also from the Warren papers:  a letter from the publisher of "Six Seconds
in Dallas" to John McCloy, urging him to do the right thing [#89, 5 pp.];
McCloy's draft response, saying that he was not impressed [#90, 16 Jul 69,
3 pp.], and an exchange of letters between McCloy and Warren [#91, 3 pp.], in
which Warren agreed with McCloy but suggested that he not send the letter.
8 EOC 3                              -5-

<<CIA interest in identifying the Mexico Mystery Man:>>
     Last November, the CIA released eleven documents to Bud Fensterwald in
connection with his FOIA request for records relating to efforts to identify
the Mexico Mystery Man (MMM), the man whose description (taken from Embassy
surveillance photos) was attached to Oswald in October 1963.
     The new documents are among 54 which "relate to a theory explored in 1977
that a particular foreign national might be the 'unidentified man.'  That
individual had been a target of CIA intelligence interest for many years for
reasons unconnected with the Kennedy assassination."  (From #92, CIA to
Fensterwald, 29 Nov 85, 2 pp.)
     The substance of this material interests me less than the fact of the
CIA's interest.  The suspect's nationality is withheld, but I would guess he
is Russian or Cuban.  I see no reason to assume that he was thought to be a
KGB or DGI covert operative, rather than (say) someone involved in "innocent"
diplomatic or technical activities of interest to the CIA.
     The basic CIA analysis is a "memorandum for the record," dated April
1977.  (#93, 12 pp., with much deleted)  Oddly, the author seems to take
seriously the "Saul" story in Hugh McDonald's book, "Appointment in Dallas."
(Although I found little credible in that book, McDonald and his purported
friend, Herman Kimsey, were interesting people.)  Over half of this memo
tallies "striking parallels between the backgrounds of 'Saul' as given in
McDonald's book and [deletion]."  (Only the published half of these parallels
is not deleted.)  After noting that "McDonald said he believes 'Saul' was
telling true story," the CIA author wrote "I do too."
     This memo seems to have been prompted by the fact that "On 17 March 1977,
[deletion] recognized photographs of the unidentified man as [deletion]."
(#94 records a request of March 11 to show an MMM photo to an unnamed
subject.)  McDonald's Indenti-Kit composite of Saul is said to "bear a
striking resemblance to the photos of [deletion]."  (Speaking of striking
resemblances, anyone who is not convinced that they sometimes occur by
coincidence, not conspiracy, should have a copy of my #95, including a photo
of Zbigniew Brzezinski looking rather like the MMM.  I will not entertain
conspiracy theories involving Brzezinski.)
     Items #96 (25 & 29 May 77, 3 pp. in all) relate to a photographic
comparison which concluded that, within the limitations of poor photo quality,
the two subjects "could very likely be the same person."
     Another memo, also dated only April 1977, seems to be a summary of the
theory.  (#97, 3 pp.)  Practically everything of substance is deleted.
     This information may have been made available to the HSCA.  Scott
Breckinridge was instructed to review this material and make it available to
Blakey and Gary Cornwell "if appropriate."  (13 Jul 78, #98)  The author of
this memo tried to maintain some distance from the theory.  "Although the
material contained in the attached folder is entirely theoretical and does not
constitute an official file or position of this Division or Agency, it may be
of interest to... the HSCA."  If made available, it would be "with the
understanding that it is a theoretical unofficial research undertaking."  The
folder contains "informal and preliminary research based on a <<theory>> that
[deletion] might be identifiable with" the MMM.
     What do we know about the CIA researcher who pursued this hypothesis?
Only that she "undertook to research the theory that [deletion] might be the
unidentified man as a result of the indepth study she conducted as the
[deletion] of this Division's efforts to determine if there could have been
Cuban complicity in the John F. Kennedy assassination."  (From #98)
     What an interesting effort for the CIA to undertake during the HSCA
probe.  I assume it was not done to absolve Castro.  Why was it done, at least
in part, "unofficially," and by someone who took the Saul story seriously?
What else did she and her colleagues believe?  Can anyone tell us more about
this in-depth CIA study?  I guess it was related to the Task Force Report
8 EOC 3                              -6-

prepared in response to the Schweiker Report.  (HSCAR 108, 10 HSCA 156)
     The memos, as released, do not say much about possible Cuban involvement.
The second April 1977 memo asks three questions, including "Could [deletion]
be 'Saul'?" and "Could [deletion], therefore, be mystery man who boarded plane
in Mexico City for Havana on 22 November 1963?"  (Cf. HSCAR 117)  (The third
question is deleted.)
     Related released documents:  #99, 4 pp.  The CIA list of 40 documents on
this subject (dated 12/62 through 7/78, mostly withheld) is #100, 3 pp.

<<Nazis and other anti-Communists:>>
     Former Justice Department official John Loftus made some noteworthy
comments in his House testimony on a GAO report on Nazi war criminals in the
U.S.  (For more on Loftus, see 6 EOC 4.10.)  In a list of 29 areas which he
could talk about only in executive session, he included "17.  Nazi connection
with covert assassination programs" and "19.  Warren Commission files
involving Nazi recruitment programs."
     Does anyone know what this might be about?  Larry Haapanen suggested that
CD's 597, 8l7, 1096, and 1544 might be related.  CD 1096 (6 pp.) appears to be
a routine review of a French book entitled "Fascists and Nazis Today," which
speculated that right-wing Hungarian refugees were under close FBI
surveillance; this book came to the Commission's attention because it was
mentioned in the NYT.  CD 597, described as a BND [West German Intelligence]
file, came to the WC from the FBI.  According to CE 3107 (to which CD 1544
relates), CD 597 is a routine-sounding unsupported allegation of a pre-
assassination reference to Oswald.  CD 597 could be the material forwarded by
the WC to the CIA, whose reply, CD 817 (CIA #660-833), was described (in the
uncensored CD list) as relating to allegations concerning Anton Erdinger.  The
CIA indicated that the subject matter was so peripheral to the WC's work as to
call for no further investigation.
     Loftus' testimony is #1986.101 [17 Oct 85, House Judiciary Committee
Serial 39, 8 pp.]  Among other interesting points, he noted that several of
the most famous KGB moles in England were involved with Nazi immigration into
the U.S., and he said that "the Nazi groups which we imported from the British
[were] riddled with communist double agents."  (P. 90)
     Loftus also alleged that "in 1944, the Eastern European fascist leaders
began to defect back to the British and were reorganized into a new front
group called ABN (the Anti-Bolshevic Bloc of Nations)."  (P. 89)
     In 1959, the secretary-general of the American Friends of the ABN was
Spas T. Raikin.  He is now a history professor at East Stroudsburg University,
in Pennsylvania; his letter on the history of the oppression of his fellow
Bulgarians recently appeared in the NYT.  (#102, 10 May 86)
     As a volunteer for Traveler's Aid, Raikin talked with the Oswalds on
their return from the USSR.  (Peter Scott discovered Raikin's interesting past
connection to ABN; see "The Assassinations," p. 366, or "The Dallas
Conspiracy, p. II-23.)  I know of no actual evidence that his contact with
Oswald was other than routine.
     Raikin apparently was the conduit for a claim by Oswald that he went to
Russia with the State Department's approval, either to work as a radar
specialist or to serve with the Marine Corps at the Embassy.  (CD 1230, p. 3;
26 WCH 12; Oswald's claim is erroneously reported as a fact known to HEW in CD
75, p. 461, and Summers, p. 217.)
     Most probably Oswald himself was trying to mislead people about his stay
in Russia.  I wonder, however, if Raikin might have had an interest in
portraying Oswald as an agent of the State Department, rather than (say) as a
loner, or as an agent of another intelligence agency?  (Just speculating.)
.CP 6
8 EOC 3                              -7-

<<Book news:>>
     Kitty Kelley's new book on Frank Sinatra ("His Way," Bantam, $21.95) is
rather political, with quite a bit on the Kennedy-Exner-Giancana-Sinatra
nexus.  I think there is some new information, much of it apparently based on
allegations by Peter Lawford (who would not talk about JFK's "broads").
     For example, Lawford "formally approached his brother-in-law by making an
appointment to see the attorney general in his office at the Justice
Department.  There Lawford begged Bobby to listen to Sinatra's pleas for
Giancana.  Robert Kennedy intended to make Frank's mobster friend the Justice
Department's top priority in Chicago and curtly told Lawford to mind his own
business."  (P. 293)
     Notre Dame professor "Paul Blakey" (then a JD lawyer) told Kelley about
an opposing attorney who indicated an acquaintance with the then-Attorney
General, RFK; Blakey was told that, from electronic surveillance, it was known
that the attorney "had Sinatra's money in West Virginia and that it was mob
money."  (P. 530(n))
     "FBI records indicate that when in 1961 Carlos Marcello... had become one
of Bobby Kennedy's targets for deportation, the New Orleans don contacted
Santo Trafficante... who in turn called Frank to use his influence with 'the
President's father' on Marcello's behalf."  (P. 295)  This story has appeared
(with little emphasis) in the Blakey-Billings book (which does not specify
that a contact with Sinatra was made; p. 242) and at 9 HSCA 70 (which does not
specifically refer to JFK's father).
     Years after the JFK assassination, "when [Sinatra] learned that Lee
Harvey Oswald had watched <<Suddenly>> a few days [sic] before shooting the
President, he withdrew the 1954 movie in which he played a deranged assassin
paid to kill the president.  He also forbid the re-release of <<The Manchurian
Candidate>>."  (P. 328; cf. 1 3D 6.13, noted at 7 EOC 3.9)
     In a column prompted by the book, W. Safire called Reagan's award of the
Medal of Freedom to Sinatra "obscene."  [30 Sep, #103]  In 1975, Safire had
strong words about the Sinatra-Exner-Giancana story (Davis, pp. 740-1); I
don't know if the Church Committee took up his challenge to question Sinatra.
     There is a provocative sentence in Dan Moldea's new book on Reagan, MCA,
and the Mafia, "Dark Victory."  In a discussion of Joseph Hauser, "a convicted
insurance swindler who... allowed himself to be used as the hub of several FBI
sting operations... that yielded a pending indictment against [Trafficante]
and the bribery conviction of Carlos Marcello...," Moldea asserts that "Hauser
had also received thinly veiled admissions on tape from Marcello during...
BRILAB... that he had been directly involved in the assassination of John
Kennedy twenty years earlier."  This unfootnoted claim is contrary to what I
recall from earlier reports, which were along the lines of Blakey's assertion
that even though Marcello admitted his Mafia membership, he "pointedly refused
to discuss" the assassination.  (Blakey & Billings, p. 242)
     Can anyone clarify this issue for us?  One reason for my skepticism is
apparent overstatement in some other references to the JFK case.  Moldea says
that Oswald "had close ties with the Carlos Marcello Mafia family in New
Orleans, particularly with Charles Murret, a top man in Marcello's Louisiana
gambling network.  Oswald had also been seen by numerous witnesses meeting
with Marcello's personal pilot just days before he murdered the president."
While Murret's importance to Marcello and his closeness to Oswald are
debatable, the claim in the subsequent sentence is news to me.  Also news to
me in part, and disputable in part:  that "many of those on the panel [i.e.,
the Warren Commission] had been directly involved with the CIA in the CIA-
Mafia plots to murder Fidel Castro - which the Kennedy brothers had no
knowledge of until May 1962, at which time they ordered them stopped."  Who on
the WC besides Dulles?  (See Moldea, pp. 234-5, 338-9; #104 [2 pp.])
     I have also read "Alias Oswald," by W. R. Morris and R. B. Cutler, and
"JFK:  The Mystery Unraveled," from the Liberty Lobby's "Spotlight."
8 EOC 3                              -8-

(#105: ad from "Spotlight" for the book [107 pages for $6.95]; see #1985.102
for one chapter.)  I would prefer not to have to say more about these books,
so I won't, at least in this issue.
     I have some relatively routine reviews of the Hurt book, and a few of the
Davis book (which is now out in England, and will appear next March in a
German edition with new material on Marcello).  The first part of "Best
Evidence" has been out in Japan for some time now, and you can have a sample
page to impress your friends.  (#106, with drawings of the head wound)
     If you are interested in the problems facing authors of serious
nonfiction, I recommend "Publishers wary of lawsuits:  Libel Lawyers Wield
Blue Pencils on Books."  (#107, LAT, 26 Jun 86, 3 pp.)

<<KAL 007:>>
     Three months after the KAL disaster, while the press was noting the
twentieth anniversary of the JFK assassination, the government was seemingly
commemorating it with a major coverup, arguably the biggest in twenty years.
     On the occasion of the publication of Seymour Hersh's new book, "The
Target is Destroyed," Time magazine drew a different parallel:  "Like the
Kennedy assassination, the KAL incident has created a cottage industry of
conspiracy theorists....  Hersh's explanations [excerpted] in the <<Atlantic>>
seem far more convincing.  They involve no conspiracies or even any evil
intent on either side.  Yet that is hardly reassuring.  It is in some ways
more frightening to be reminded just how fragile sophisticated military
systems are and how frail their human operators can be."  (#108, 1 Sep)
A valid enough conclusion, but I think it is a misreading of Hersh's book, and
even more so of his evidence, to call his account nonconspiratorial.
     # 109 is a favorable review and good summary by J. Nance.  (28 Sep, SFC)
Hersh's main point is "the mishandling of intercepted electronic intelligence
by the Reagan administration....  He paints a fascinating picture of how an
outraged government seized on the worst possible interpretation of the
earliest intelligence reports and jumped to the conclusion (without adequate
evidence) that the Russians had indeed indentified the target as a civilian
airliner," although Air Force Intelligence knew promptly that they had not.
     There are indeed parallels to the JFK controversy.  Hersh' appearance on
TV in SF was very deja vu, reminiscent of the Lane - Belli encounters of 1964.
Hersh was cast into the Belli role, arguing against allegations that KAL 007
was on a spy mission, partly with facts and partly by asking if people could
really believe that our CIA would send 269 people to certain death.  The role
of Mark Lane was taken by Melvin Belli, of all people, who is representing the
families of some victims.  Belli acted old and lawyerly.  The direct
involvement and intensity supplied by Marguerite Oswald in 1964 was provided
by the mother of one of the victims.  To my surprise, the studio audience was
very conspiratorial, and I found myself sympathizing with Hersh.
     There is, of course, very little hard evidence available.  The argument
about whether 007 could have been off course by accident is reminiscent of the
acoustical analysis.  It is even more technical, and looks to me like an
argument among experts, unresolvable by laymen.  For its flavor (with somewhat
out-of-date information), see the rather nasty exchange between M. Sayle and
D. Pearson (#110, NYRev, 25 Apr and 26 Sep 85, 27 pp.)
     Hersh's Arlen Specter is airline pilot Harold Ewing, whose "single-bullet
theory" is a detailed reconstruction of the chain of errors and omissions
which could have put 007 on the course it took.  Remember, I'm inclined to
believe the SBT, so that is not a putdown - but if you believe Ewing's account
you may never want to fly again.
     Hersh's Angleton is General James Pfautz, the head of Air Force
Intelligence.  He is not as peculiar as Angleton, but almost as heavy.  The
book, however, does not speculate on the possible importance of the split
represented by someone of his rank going public with his dissent.
8 EOC 3                              -9-

     One parallel drawn by "Time" and others is basically misleading - the
allegedly nonconspiratorial nature of Hersh's "innocent" explanation.  Indeed,
Hersh seems to treat the ideology of Reagan and his crew as an external,
almost extenuating, factor.  (They rushed to judgment "in what amounted to
good faith...."  [P. 249])  The story of how the Air Force version was
discounted emphasizes normal inter-service bureaucratic infighting and
personal conflicts.
     With the same facts, someone could make what happened sound like a very
substantial conspiracy.  Hersh does tell us that a general requested a phony
report justifying provocative action against Russia, but was turned down
(p. 74), and that a hardline deputy to William Clark discussed military action
against Cuba (p. 122-3).  The government's insistence on "look[ing] the other
way when better information became available" (p. 249) is arguably at least as
bad as planning a covert action which unpredictably failed.  I don't find that
alternative as implausible as Hersh tried to make it sound when arguing with
the conspiracy buffs.  The government's anti-Soviet campaign based on false
intelligence undeniably did endanger many innocent people, albeit obviously to
a lesser degree than using an airliner on an intelligence mission.
     For a moderately conspiratorial view, see the book "Shootdown," by Oxford
professor R. W. Johnson.  (#111 [2 pp.] is his own summary, from the London
Telegraph (18 May 86), as reprinted in Intelligence/Parapolitics.)  Before
reading the Hersh book, I found "Shootdown" quite plausible in concluding that
KAL 007 was probably being used as a passive probe, in the reasonable
expectation that the worst that could happen was that it would be forced to
land.  Hersh did not completely convince me that Johnson was wrong.
     Johnson, in contrast to Hersh, is emphatic about how extreme - and how
besotted with covert operations and dubious information - the Reaganites are.
After all, they have given us the Contras, the plot against the Pope, Grenada,
Libyan hit squads, and Star Wars.  Johnson's distance from an American
perspective is occasionally off-putting, but more often helpful.
     Hersh's debunking of more conspiratorial accounts is often persuasive,
but not always.  For example, his suggestion that the Russians planted a phony
black box, and that the crash site can be located in Russian waters from the
testimony of Japanese fishermen who turned up with gasoline-soaked notes more
than 30 days later, may be true, but the book doesn't deal with Johnson's
detailed arguments about the search for the black box.
     Hersh has no indexed reference to the KCIA (whose alleged connections to
KAL get much attention from Johnson).  More relevant to his own story, Hersh
does not (I think) refer at all to Korean COMINT capabilities, or to the
presence or absence of US COMINT facilities in Korea.  In my mind, this leaves
a gap in his assertion that he came across no indication of any prior or real-
time knowledge of a mission involving KAL 007, and that he would have done so.
     The book certainly doesn't give the impression that the story was in any
sense handed to Hersh, or that he is a friend of the intelligence community.
For example, he throws in an apparently gratuitous disclosure of the location
of some NSA facilities.  (P. 47n)  There are many other juicy details.  But
one has to wonder if what he learned represents a major ongoing split within
the government.  People talked to him, and he got things using FOIA.  Was that
just because he is a good reporter?
     The existence of dissenting positions in the intelligence community is
not a completely new story; some newspapers reported on it in 1983 (pp. 177,
265), and there was a bit of a flap when a witting Pierre Trudeau revealed
some of what he knew in October 1983.
     I wonder about the timing of a decision by "a senior military
intelligence officer" to give Hersh his "first account" of the abuse of COMINT
in this case "late in 1984."  [P. xi]  Did the people in the intelligence
community who knew the story wait until the 1984 elections were out of the way
before spilling the beans?  As with Watergate and Epstein's "Legend", the
8 EOC 3                              -10-

disclosure of important information may itself be a bigger part of the real
story than the casual reader (of "Time," and even of this book) would think.
     This is in EOC because we all should be interested, not just because of
the parallels with the JFK case.  The case is in the courts and will not just
go away.  There seems to be a network of 007 buffs - are any EOC readers in
touch with them?
     Readers of the Grassy Knoll Gazette are familiar with Bob Cutler's
analysis, according to which KAL 007 was not shot down by the Russians, but
destroyed by an on-board explosion at the same time the Russians shot down a
U.S. military plane.  Cutler has published a book, titled "Explo 007."  If you
are willing to keep Occam's Razor sheathed, and if you trust Cutler to have
convincingly eliminated all simpler explanations, you should read that book;
I haven't.

<<Queries from readers:>>
     Q77.  According to P. Maas' book on Ed Wilson, in 1964 the CIA helped get
Wilson a job as an advance man in Humphrey's VP campaign, in connection with
his assignment to "Special Operations."  (P. 24, #112)  On the assumption that
the capitalization is not a typo, can anyone tell us about such a CIA unit?
     Q78.  Can anyone provide a copy (or photocopy) of "Lucky Luciano," by
Ovid Demaris (Monarch Books paperback, 1960, 148 pp.)?
     Q79.  Does anyone have an FBI document describing a test, prior to
November 29, 1963, of the firing speed of Oswald's rifle?

<<Castro again:>>
     Speaking of theories of Cuban involvement (as we were on page 5):  in his
March 16 speech on Contra aid, President R. Reagan closed with an anecdote
from Clare Booth Luce, who recently spoke of an encounter with JFK.  She said
that history has time to give any great man no more than one sentence.
Kennedy asked what she thought his would be.  "'Mr. President,' she answered,
'your sentence will be that you stopped the Communists - or that you did not.'
Tragically, John Kennedy never had the chance to decide which that would be."
(#113, NYT, 17 Mar 86)
     It sounds like Reagan was just one word away from blaming the Communists
for JFK's death.  ("Tragically" could have been "ironically" or "of course" or
"it is no coincidence that.")  (See 6 EOC 3.6 for Reagan's 1979 suspicions.)
The case may not be quite as dead as it seems.
     For a different perspective, see "One Thousand Fearful Words for Fidel
Castro," a pre-invasion 1961 poem by S. F.'s Lawrence Ferlinghetti.  "It looks
like Curtains for Fidel/ They're going to fix his wagon/ in the course of
human events....  History may absolve you, Fidel/ but we'll dissolve you
first, Fidel."  This copy [#114, 4 pp.] bears the rubber stamp of the S. F.
chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, with genuine phone and P.O. box
numbers.

<<Late news:>>
     David Phillips is to receive "substantial" damages in a settlement of a
libel suit against the London Observer, over excepts from Summers' book
"Conspiracy."  ("Challenge" press release and clips, #115, 2 pp.)

<<Credits:>>  Thanks to M. Ewing (#115), B. Fensterwald (80), J. Goldberg (73),
L. Haapanen (101), G. Hollingsworth (77-8, 105), M. Lee (81), D. Lifton (106),
P. McCarthy (83), J. Marshall (102), S. Meagher (84), J. Mierzejewski (79),
G. Owens (76), R. Ranftel (85-7, 89-94, 96-100, 107, 110), P. Scott (104,
112), E. Tatro (74-5), and T. Vaughan (72).

*From Illumi-Net BBS -- [phone]* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is
still up ]

---END------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal PROMIS?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. William Henry /\/\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!fang!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - EOC4.TXT (end)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:52:26 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 618



*EOC4.TXT*

-----BEGIN PART 4/4-----------------------------------------------------------

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY                                          December 8, 1986
Vol. 8, #4                                                        Paul L. Hoch

<<Showtime show trial:>>
     Among EOC readers, access to Showtime cable TV seems scarcer than
interest in the LWT production, "On Trial:  Lee Harvey Oswald."  I was able to
see the program, so it seemed like a good idea to get this issue out as soon
as possible.  It is less edited than usual; my allocation of space probably
does not accurately reflect the relative importance of the various witnesses,
or of the program as a whole.
     The mock trial used real lawyers, real witnesses, and no script.  Five
and a half hours were broadcast on November 21 and 22.  (An additional 18
hours will reportedly be shown next January, or maybe it will be just 12 and a
half hours.)  There were 21 witnesses in all - 14 called by prosecutor Vincent
Bugliosi, seven by defense lawyer Gerry Spence.  There were nine "November 22"
witnesses (six who were in Dealey Plaza, two on the Tippit case, and one from
Bethesda); four people who knew or investigated Oswald and one who knew Ruby,
and seven people who testified to or participated in the HSCA and Warren
Commission investigations.  Not much documentary material was used in the
trial, other than the Zapruder film and some 1963-64 film clips.
     High points, in my opinion, for viewers already familiar with the case:
Ruth Paine talking about Oswald, Ed Lopez on his HSCA investigation of Oswald
in Mexico, Paul O'Connor on the circumstances of the autopsy.
     Low points:  the cross-examination of Ruth Paine, Jack Anderson as a
commentator, conspiracy witness Tom Tilson, Cyril Wecht's testimony on the
single-bullet theory, the trial as a fact-finding vehicle, and Gerry Spence
(who came across like Mark Lane imitating Sam Ervin).
     Prior to the filming, I talked with (and consulted for) some of the LWT
people, primarily producer Mark Redhead and researcher Richard Tomlinson.
They had a good understanding of the subtleties of the case, and of the
limitations imposed by the trial format.  Unfortunately, those limitations
were more apparent in the final program than the new insights and information
they developed.  In real life, I am told, there is more of a fact-finding
process in the work of trial lawyers than the jury ever knows.  The LWT effort
might look much more productive after we see the outtakes (or if there is a
book or long article - I have heard nothing about one.)  LWT definitely got
some interesting comments from potential witnesses who were not even mentioned
in the final version.

<<Summary and commentary:>>
     The first evening's segment (three hours) comprised the prosecution case.
It was the basic WC-HSCA evidence against Oswald, presented in a rather
straightforward way by Bugliosi.
     Bugliosi's presentation included relatively little that offended me,
except for a few things like some comments in his opening statement about
Oswald as a Commie (which Spence pounced on).  Bugliosi was much worse on
"People are Talking" in S.F. in mid-November, where he dredged up Joseph
Goebbels and the "big lie" to bash the critics with.  Bugliosi's trial
presentation did tend to refer more to what "the critics" had said than to "my
opponent," and he tried to discredit Wecht by calling him "the darling of the
conspiracy buffs."
     Opening statements followed a brief introduction by Edwin Newman,
including some stock footage.  The stated aim of the show was to restore the
rights of Oswald to a trial, and of the American people to see justice done.
The London set looked like a courtroom, with a jury brought over from Dallas,
an apparently working court reporter, and an audience of actors.
     Bugliosi's real record was one acquittal in 106 felony prosecutions, and
Spence had not lost a jury trial in 17 years; at some level these guys were
clearly playing for keeps.  This may have led to strategies aimed at winning,
rather than at, say, coming up with newsworthy new evidence or good TV.
8 EOC 4                              -2-

     Bugliosi began his opening statement with negative comments about
conspiracy buffs.  A frameup is a "preposterous" idea; Oswald was a "deeply
disturbed and maladjusted man" and a "fanatical Marxist."
     Spence said that when he started work on this trial, he thought Oswald
(generally referred to as "Lee") was guilty, but he was now convinced that we
have been carrying a "national lie" with us.  At the end of the trial, the
jury would still want to know why Bugliosi, representing "this huge polithera
[sic] of power in this country" had still not come forward with the whole
truth, and would therefore have to return a "not guilty" verdict.
     By and large, the prosecution witnesses repeated their earlier
statements, often by saying "yes" to Bugliosi's leading questions.  I suppose
that was like a real trial, and it certainly kept the proceedings from
dragging, but in many cases this limited the opportunity to judge the demeanor
of the witness.  I'm not sure anything came out in direct testimony which we
didn't already know, but if it did, we would have trouble judging whether it
was a real subtlety or one introduced by Bugliosi's paraphrasing.
     First witness:  <<Buell Frazier>>, slightly graying.  He lives "here in
Dallas."  He said that Oswald was the only employee missing at a roll call.
Spence opened with a little joke, and bugged Bugliosi by mispronouncing his
name.  He led Frazier to say that Oswald was nice, liked kids, was not a
madman, and had not previously lied to him.
     The real issues involving Frazier, particularly his interrogations by the
police, did not surface.  (LWT had been referred to Chapters 10 and 11 of
George O'Toole's book "The Assassination Tapes.")  Of course, all my comments
about what was not done are subject to revision when we see the rest of the
testimony next year.
     <<Charles Brehm>> described what he saw of the shooting.  To Spence, he
conceded that he had called himself an expert on those few seconds.  The
Zapruder film was shown, to make the jury experts too.  Brehm argued a bit
when Spence described the head snap in exaggerated terms.  Spence carried on
about the direction tin cans move in when hit by rocks, and he was reprimanded
for his theatrics.  There's a mind-bender.  If a witness misbehaved, would he
be cited for contempt of television?  (And sentenced to watch "Dallas"?)
     <<Harold Norman>> was led through his description of hearing the shots and
falling cartridge cases on the next floor up.  Spence aptly noted that Norman
did not try to escape from the armed man in the building, and Spence
inscrutably suggested that what he heard could have been other metal objects
dropping.  Norman seemed a bit evasive, or perhaps just understandably puzzled
by the whole exercise.  Oddly, he indicated that he had resisted the efforts
of the FBI to put words in his mouth, on the question of whether what he heard
was "above" or "right above" him.  Spence tried (inadequately) to clarify the
issue of when employees were freed to leave the building.
     Sheriff <<Eugene Boone>> described the sniper's nest, and his discovery of
the rifle, saying that "Mauser" was used as a generic term.  Typically, Spence
did not really cross-examine Boone about what he had said, but used his
testimony as a way of presenting his own speculation.  Spence suggested that
the gun was meant to be found, and that the cartridge cases were found in
positions inconsistent with ejection to the right from the rifle.
     As in a real trial, I guess, Boone didn't get to point out that
cartridges can bounce, and he played along with Spence's resurrection of the
old Mannlicher - Mauser identification problem.  Boone conceded that he was
not able to identify the rifle as the one he found, just in the sense that it
did not have his marks on it.  Having testified that he found no powder burns
on the foliage on the knoll, he conceded that there were none on the sixth
floor either.
     Officer <<Marrion Baker>> described his encounter with Oswald on the second
floor.  Spence emphasized that Oswald did not seem excited.
     <<Ted Callaway>> told of seeing Oswald run past his used-car lot with his
8 EOC 4                              -3-

pistol, and of checking Tippit's pulse and calling in on his radio.  On cross,
Bugliosi objected to Spence cutting off Callaway's responses, but was
overruled.  I wonder if anyone got to sit down with these witnesses and have a
decent session of questioning without playing by legal rules, and if a record
of such conversations will ever become available.  If not, that would be a
real loss.
     About an hour into the show, there was the first exchange I found
potentially valuable.  Callaway conceded that Capt. Fritz said before the
lineup that they wanted to wrap up the case on Oswald, and linked him to JFK's
murder, but Callaway said he had asked first.  He continued to defend the
handling of the lineup (e.g., the clothing worn) and the validity of his
identification:  "I could have made it, sir, if they had been 'nekkid.'"
     Bugliosi called Frazier back, to identify Billy Lovelady standing in the
doorway a few steps in front of Frazier.  Spence had gotten Callaway and Baker
to say that the man in the Altgens photo resembled Oswald.  Spence tried to
make an issue of Frazier not having identified Lovelady before.  This is a
good example of muddying up the facts on what really is a non-issue.
     <<Jack Brewer>> (known to us as Johnny Calvin Brewer) told of seeing Oswald
outside his shoe store, and of his role in the capture of Oswald.  Did we know
that the police briefly held a gun on him?  Good testimony from a human-
interest viewpoint, but we did not learn how Brewer felt about jumping into
that dangerous situation.  To Spence, he conceded that Oswald's odd behavior
was consistent with being a patsy, that a policeman struck Oswald, and that he
did testify that he heard someone say "Kill the President, will you" - but he
does not know who, or even if it was a policeman.  (It did not come out that
he told David Belin that it was "some of the police," and that he thought he
"had seen him [Oswald] some place before.  I think he had been in my store
before."  [7 WCH 6, 4])
     After a "break," during which Ed Newman retraced Oswald's route, <<Cecil
Kirk>> testified about his HSCA photo analysis, primarily of the Zapruder film
and the backyard photos.  Kirk had better graphics capabilities this time -
stop action video, and a light pen (as used for play analysis in football
games).  This production reportedly cost about $1 million; the HSCA spent only
about $5.5 million investigating the JFK and MLK cases.
     Spence suggested, in a patronizing and artificial way, that the sudden
stop of the running girl (Rosemary Willis) may have been caused by her mother
- she presumably did have one, right? - calling her name.  Spence tried to get
Kirk to admit that he could not detect a CIA or KGB fraud; he stood his
ground.  I remain impressed by Kirk.  I really believe that many of the HSCA
panelists would have been delighted to come up with evidence of conspiracy.
(That has been said about the WC staff too, but there I have strong doubts.)
     An odd bit of role-playing:  Bugliosi objected to the playing of a 1964
clip of Connally talking about the shots, when he must have realized that it
was good television and would not be passed up.
     Dr. <<Charles Petty>> testified about the HSCA pathology panel, attributing
the head snap to a neuromuscular reaction.  Cross-examination was dreadful -
did you ask the FBI or the CIA "to produce the brain of the President?"  Even
expert witnesses don't get to talk.  The HSCA public hearings were usually a
lot better than a real trial, imperfect as they were.  (Remember "I just have
one more question, Mr. White.  Do you know what photogrammetry is?"  [2 HSCA
344])   Petty looked authentically and appropriately amused by the antics of
the lawyers.
     Bugliosi and Spence seemed genuinely puzzled by the panel's observation
that the photos and X-rays contradicted the autopsy surgeons on the location
of the head entry wound.  (7 HSCA 129)  Spence erroneously introduced this as
a conflict between the photos and the X-rays, and the real issue here (which
the HSCA was unable to resolve) was totally obfuscated.
     HSCA firearms expert <<Monty Lutz>> described a re-enactment he did for
8 EOC 4                              -4-

Bugliosi this May, getting three hits in 3.6 seconds once, and two hits the
other four times.  Spence noted that this was not an exact duplication.  He
made this point in such an obnoxious way that his success with juries both
surprises and disturbs me.
     <<Vincent Guinn>> testified about his neutron activation analysis.  The
cross-examination (reproduced on p. 9) was in some ways typically awful.
Spence emphasized that Guinn had not examined 28 additional bullet fragments
which were "found" in the head.  (In fact, they were "found" in X-rays.)  The
erroneous implication that 28 other fragments were removed and then ignored
just slipped by.  (Or was that my inference, not Spence's implication, as Mark
Lane used to say?)  Guinn wasn't allowed to say what he knew on that point.
     Insofar as there is a real inauthenticity issue, i.e. in the context of
Lifton's evidence, it was not pursued in any meaningful way on the air.
     The next witness was a surprise to me, and a new face:  former FBI
documents expert <<Lyndal Shaneyfelt>>.  He gave straightforward testimony about
the Klein's order form for the rifle and Oswald's diary and letters, with a
reading of the sections indicating the most hostility to the U.S.  Spence
played the innocent:  "Well.  Do you realize what you've been used for here,
doctor?... to smear my client, isn't that right?"  Presumably used to this
sort of thing in real life, Shaneyfelt did little but answer the questions.
Reading from 8 HSCA 236, Spence noted the expert testimony that the diary was
written in only a few sittings.  Shaneyfelt stood up to him on his use of
microfilm copies for analysis.
     Spence suggested, hypothetically, that assuming Oswald was working for
"the CIA or for the Army Intelligence or for the Navy Intelligence," he might
establish his loyalty by sending anti-American letters through the censored
mail.  A confused double hypothesis:  an agent wouldn't ordinarily keep a
diary, but he wanted his to be read.  Shaneyfelt conceded that it was a "fair
assumption" that the CIA and FBI can create good forgeries.
     A bit of real-life drama emerged in the testimony of <<Nelson Delgado>>, now
a chef in Arkansas.  He and Oswald were both "130%" pro-Castro in the Marines.
He agreed with Spence's description of his (previously reported) fears that
the FBI would get him, and Bugliosi wondered - without probing the reasons for
his fears - if Delgado didn't think that the FBI would have gotten him if they
really wanted to.  Delgado said he was "just old news" now, and revealed that
he had indeed been shot in the shoulder.
     The last government witness - on the stand for about 25 minutes - was
<<Ruth Paine>>.  Wasn't this her first extended public appearance?  It was
interesting to see her in person, but the constraints of the format were
overwhelming.  She was trying to be precise, thoughtful, and fair, and
apparently found talking about Oswald a difficult experience; the lawyers were
busy acting like lawyers.  For example, Spence asked if she were a CIA or KGB
agent, ridiculing her (as she noted) for laughing at the first question.  He
badgered her about the coincidences involved in her studying Russian (to work
for US-USSR friendship), befriending Marina, having the gun in her garage, and
getting Lee the TSBD job - all, it seems, to make the point that she now knows
how Lee would have felt about being (falsely) accused.  Dreadful.  Why she sat
still for this, I don't know.  She did say that she hoped to show "for the
historical record" that a "very ordinary person" like Lee "can kill the
President without that being something that shows on them in advance."
     A discussion with Ruth Paine on her own terms could have been very
illuminating.  There are many questions she has apparently not been asked -
about her previous interrogations, for example.  I'm sure that even the buffs
with suspicions about her relationship with the Oswalds could come up with a
list of questions which could be asked in a productive and non-hostile manner.
I hope she doesn't think Spence is a typical critic; I think some of us should
write to her and apologize.
     If Spence's whole case really were typical of what the critics have to
8 EOC 4                              -5-

offer, it would be time to retire.  My reaction to Mark Lane in 1964 was that
all those little points must add up to something; my reaction to Spence is
quite the opposite.  His ability and inclination to suggest doubts about
whatever a prosecution witness said told me less about what happened in Dallas
than about how lawyers work.
     The first defense witness was <<Bill Newman>>, who described seeing Kennedy
and Connally hit.  It was established that there was room for doubt in his
opinion of the direction of the shots, since (when he was excited and upset)
he signed a statement saying the JFK had stood up in the car.
     Spence called <<Tom Tilson>> of the DPD to tell his story about someone who
looked just like Ruby (whom he knew) throwing something into a car just past
the knoll, right after the shooting.  Tilson then followed him but the license
number he called in was apparently not pursued, and Tilson's copy was lost.
Sure.  Bugliosi didn't get Tilson to recant on the stand, but his story
certainly didn't look plausible when he was done.
     Earl Golz's article on Tilson does not suggest that he thought the man he
chased was Ruby.  (#116, 2 pp., DMN, 20 Aug 78, just six days before the HSCA
interviewed Tilson; see also 12 HSCA 15-16, or "Conspiracy," p. 82.)  Golz's
most provocative statement (given Hurt's account of funny business in the
Tippit case) is that Tilson was close enough to Tippit to be a pallbearer.
     Of all the conspiracy witnesses around, why would Spence want this one?
I fear he really chose to suggest that Ruby was running around Dallas, on the
knoll with a gun and planting a bullet at Parkland.  That is hardly a leading
hypothesis for a conspiracy involving Ruby; the only advantage seems to be
that one can exploit it, in a very naive way, to incorporate some of Seth
Kantor's testimony and at the same time cast doubt on Guinn's.
     The testimony of Dr. <<Cyril Wecht>> generally resembled his HSCA appearance,
in tone as well as content.  Wecht still takes a hard line on the question of
how he could be right and the rest of the HSCA panel wrong, suggesting the
"subconscious" influence of their government grants and appointments.  In the
program's second gratuitous reference to nudity, Wecht asserted that he was
the only panelist with "the courage to say that the king was nude and had no
clothes on."
     In response to Wecht's best point - the condition of CE 399 - Bugliosi
did not bring up the test firings by Dr. John Nichols (and later by Dr. John
Lattimer), where shooting this ammunition into a block of wood left the bullet
in good condition.  (Lattimer, p. 271-2)  That's not the same as a comparable
bullet from a real shooting, but it should be noted.
     I cannot defend Wecht's use, in attacking the single-bullet theory, of
the same schematic diagram he presented to the HSCA (1 HSCA 341).  It is an
unfair representation of what the government now claims CE 399 did.  One can
debate the SBT trajectory, but one must now start with the results of the
HSCA's trajectory analysis.  There may be minor errors on that work, but the
SBT path is clearly not as implausible as Wecht presented it.  Bugliosi scored
a point by asking where the Kennedy bullet went if it did not end up in
Connally, but he did not bring up the HSCA's trajectory work.
     Perhaps the most impressive defense witness was hospital corpsman <<Paul
O'Connor>>, one of the important Bethesda witnesses in Lifton's "Best Evidence."
He described the removal of JFK's body from a body bag, the "constant"
interference by Dr. Burkley (apparently on behalf of the family), and the
condition of the head, which left no need for the procedure he usually
performed to cut the skull and very little of the brain to be removed.
     Bugliosi's cross-examination produced one dramatic moment.  First he
established that the surgeons did "most of the mundane jobs" usually done by
the technicians, but O'Connor insisted there was no brain to remove.  If this
was so shocking, Bugliosi wondered, why didn't he tell the HSCA?  He seemed
genuinely surprised when O'Connor said he had been "under orders not to talk
until that time."
8 EOC 4                              -6-

     Unfortunately, issues relating to these orders were not pursued on the
air.  O'Connor, who was nervous, referred to getting permission from the HSCA
to talk to Navy brass, and also indicated that the HSCA had not asked the
right questions.  The sequence of events is unclear:  Bugliosi referred to an
hour-and-a-half interview with the HSCA; I think the volumes cite only an
"outside contact report" (which was often based on a phone call) dated June
28, 1978, but that does not preclude an earlier interview.  The 1963 orders
not to talk were not modified until March 1978, when permission to talk with
the HSCA was reluctantly given.  (Best Evidence, p. 608)
     The broadcast did not mention the Sibert-O'Neill report or the other
indications of head surgery.  Spence seems to have used O'Connor's evidence
only to establish the absence of the brain, without much of a scenario to
explain it.  O'Connor's interpretation was not brought out; Lifton's book said
he basically believed the Warren Report.
     Spence also brought up the missing brain with Wecht and Petty, and in
connection with the Zapruder film.  As with his version of a Ruby conspiracy,
the missing brain is representative of but not really central to the mysteries
of the medical evidence.  Bugliosi's presentation of the HSCA investigation of
RFK's probable role in the post-autopsy destruction of a brain may have unduly
lessened the impact of O'Connor's testimony.
     Former FBI SA <<James Hosty>> was called as an adverse witness.  It was
valuable to see him, but I don't recall much new information in his testimony
on Oswald's note, the information "withheld" from him about Oswald's Mexico
trip, and other matters.  (Spence's grasp of the evidence seemed imperfect; he
indicated at first that a page had been removed from Oswald's notebook
itself.)  It was Bugliosi who got Hosty to say that he was not suggesting
Soviet consul Kostikov was involved in the assassination.
     Hosty thinks the Mexico mystery man was assumed to be Oswald because
prior wiretap information suggested - at the time - that Oswald was going to
come over to pick up his visa.  Where has this explanation been dealt with?
     The next witness was HSCA researcher <<Edwin J. Lopez>>, barely recognizable
as a short-haired and properly attired lawyer, talking about Oswald in Mexico.
(His style during the HSCA investigation was informal; see p. 211 of Gaeton
Fonzi's article on the HSCA, 2 EOC 10.2.)  Like O'Connor, Lopez did not
provide many facts the buffs did not already know, but he probably made quite
an impression on the viewing audience.  His personal conclusions were that
Oswald was in some way associated with the CIA, and was a patsy.
     Lopez concluded that there had been an Oswald impostor for all the
Embassy visits - partly on the basis of his review of CIA photos taken from
three sites.  He specified that the surveillance was around-the-clock,
contrary to David Phillips.  [The Night Watch, p. 124; cf. Summers, p. 384]
Spence noted that, in a real trial, Lee could have demanded production of the
still-classified 280-page HSCA report on Mexico.  On cross-examination,
Bugliosi let Lopez talk a bit, and managed to effectively touch on some of the
evidentiary difficulties with his conspiratorial conclusions.
     The final defense witness was <<Seth Kantor>>, whose testimony provided a
pretty good summary of the basic issues relating to Ruby, whom he knew.
Bugliosi raised some of the standard non-conspiratorial rebuttals.  I don't
recall any facts which are not in Kantor's book on Ruby or the HSCA volumes.
     In terms of factual information alluded to, Kantor, Lopez, and O'Connor
certainly deserve more space in EOC than all the prosecution witnesses put
together.  However, we have not heard Lopez' evidence - he said he was still
bound by his secrecy oath.  The fact that Lopez went public with his personal
conclusions is significant, in any case.  On the whole, the evidence involved
in the defense case was better than Spence's presentation of it.
     I am told that the taped testimony included three additional witnesses,
and that three more were flown to London but not used.  (I do not know the
names of those witnesses.)
8 EOC 4                              -7-

     Bugliosi's closing arguments were effectively delivered and generally
straightforward.  He did not push a "no conspiracy" argument, but alleged that
Oswald was "guilty as sin."  He could have been much worse; he cited Oswald's
defection to the USSR not as evidence of his serious political beliefs, but as
one indication that he was "utterly and completely nuts" and "bonkers," as one
must be to shoot the President.  He noted that Spence kept his cowboy hat on
the table and didn't put it on anyone as a conspirator.
     There were certainly holes in Bugliosi's argument - when he asked, for
example, if there was such a sophisticated conspiracy, why frame a poor
marksman who had a $19 rifle?  That one can be answered.  In general, I don't
think an uninformed viewer got a good sense of the political context of the
assassination.  Bugliosi said Spence was too smart to say the FBI or CIA
killed JFK, which would sound "downright silly," and he asserted that neither
the CIA nor the Mafia had "any productive motive whatsoever" to do so.
     Spence propped a photo of Lee in a chair, and said that Lee would
probably say he was scared and could not explain a lot of the evidence.
Spence would tell him to just trust the jury.  Of course, he emphasized that
each juror had to dispel all his reasonable doubts.  (Neither lawyer was about
to abandon successful techniques for this very special case, which is why
Spence had to argue with Kirk about the running girl, for example.)  Spence
dragged up all the "coincidences" involving Ruth Paine, and various other
alleged coincidences.  He said that the only firm truth in this case is that
the "closet" of hidden evidence is still locked.
     Spence closed with a melodramatic metaphor in which a bird in a child's
hand represented Lee's fate in the jury's hands.  The speech's distance from
the hard facts reminded me of Garrison.  At this point, if I had been a juror,
Spence's style would have led to me decide that some of the doubts he had
planted were not really "reasonable" and could be ignored.  One small
consolation is that the lawyers did not get a lot of money for appearing on
the program - just a lot of publicity.
     While waiting for the verdict, we heard a discussion involving defense
lawyer Alan Dershowitz and two men who could well have been witnesses, former
AG Ramsey Clark and Jack Anderson.
     Anderson's self-promoting remarks argued for a verdict of guilty as part
of a conspiracy.  Among other things, he claimed that he began digging into
the CIA after the assassination, and that he found that the CIA had recruited
Mafia killers to get Castro.  Oswald killed JFK "little over three [sic]
months" after Castro's "warning" interview with Daniel Harker of the AP, "and
we've had plenty of testimony showing [Oswald's] links to the Castro
movement."  John Roselli was killed by Trafficante's people because he gave
Anderson details of Castro's involvement.  Anderson also talked about an
immediate briefing of RFK by McCone.  He also said that Hoover "made a public
statement" to the effect that he was "under pressure to finger" Oswald.  As a
guide to Anderson's reliability, note that he referred to the acoustical
evidence as if the HSCA's results had not been seriously challenged.
     Does Anderson have some sort of first-amendment immunity against being
properly questioned?  His 1967 column suggesting that Castro had retaliated
against plots pushed by the Kennedys was certainly an event in the
controversy, not just a description of it.  (Ed Newman, at least, did
challenge his Roselli story.)
     If anyone wants to transcribe Anderson's comments, or other parts of the
program, I can provide an audio tape.
     Among other things, Ramsey Clark suggested that the Castro-did-it theory
is CIA disinformation.  He praised the Warren Commission for doing a
"marvelous job," and alleged that RFK had no doubts about FBI or CIA
involvement.  The issue, he thinks, is how we can keep our idealism without
succumbing to "irrationality and to violence."
     Dershowitz emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the
8 EOC 4                              -8-

fact-finding process.  Even more than Spence, he would have emphasized that
the process had been tampered with.  Clark said that sort of thing happens all
the time.  Dershowitz thought Spence got some new facts out, and showed the
advantages of the adversary process.  Clark, correctly, disputed that.
     Spence and Bugliosi made a few general remarks to the TV audience, mostly
on the value of the mock trial.
     The jury's verdict:  guilty.  On the question of conspiracy:  seven no,
three yes, two undecided.
     There was also a telephone-poll verdict, provided by an unspecified
number of viewers who saw at least part of the defense case and thought giving
their opinion was worth fifty cents:  14% guilty, 86% not guilty in the West,
15% and 85% in the East.  That is generally consistent with the 1983 Gallup
poll often referred to by Hurt, and with Fensterwald's poll of "experts."
(#1984.36, #1984.166-7)  Newman thought the variance of the two verdicts was a
"remarkable" state of affairs.  (For my sentiments about polls of the general
public, note item #126 below.)  Newman said that the unavailable evidence, if
relevant, should be made public, in light of the "continuing disquiet."
     How I would have voted?  In a real trial, not guilty (unless the rest of
the jury was unanimously not guilty, in which case I might have taken the
opportunity to hang the jury and get some more facts out the next time
around); in a mock trial, based just on what was aired, guilty and conspiracy.
But, as with my limited real-life trial experience, my strongest opinion was
that at least one of the lawyers should be locked up.  Despite my bias against
Bugliosi for his prior comparison of some buffs to Dr. Goebbels, I think he
did an acceptable and often persuasive job on the air.
     The credits included special thanks to Tony Summers and Mary Ferrell.
The copyright is held by LWT.

<<Clippings:>>
     117.  For 15-16 Nov 86  (Seth Kantor, Cox papers and NYT service)
[3 pp.]  "Despite the impact of the testimony, the realistic trial is
dominated by the hand-to-hand courtroom combat" of Spence and Bugliosi, who
"do not like each other, on and off camera."  A good pre-broadcast overview,
with a few quotes from the witnesses.
     118.  9 Nov 86 (LAT)  "Oswald goes on trial"  [4 pp.]  An amusing account
by Bill Bancroft of Dallas, who worked as a researcher for the program.
Norman was hard to locate; Amos Euins was afraid to participate; a judge who
looked like one was not easy to find; some "jurors" (deliberately chosen to be
under 35) were (understandably) suspicious of the LWT offer.  (One checked
Bancroft's credit rating.)  There was much tension during the filming.  "All
18 hours are scheduled to be shown on Showtime in 1987."
     119.  Nov 86  (Cabletime)  This Showtime ad does not mention LWT, but
does use the dreaded "d" word:  "Innocent or guilty?  You decide after
watching this docu-drama of the controversy behind the Kennedy assassination."
     120.  21 Nov 86  (SF Examiner)  "Oswald inherits his day in court at
last; a goose teaches a boy to be a man"  (Two separate items.)  "In a curious
way, this massive program elevates the 'People's Court' genre while degrading
both the reality and the mythos behind legendary 'Inherit the Wind' court
battles."  TV critic Michael Dougan is more generous to Spence than I can be:
he "transfixes the jurors (and, I suspect, many viewers) with his intense
magnetism, his down-home demeanor, his unflappability and confidence."  But
Dougan sees the basic problem:  "Where 'On Trial' disappoints is in the
implied promise that this may be a ground-breaking investigation, bringing
fresh evidence - or, at least, perspective - to the fore....  Alas, most of
the time is devoted to rehashing old arguments...."
     121.  16 Nov  (Schneider, NYT)  "Bringing Lee Harvey Oswald to 'Trial'"
The "main weakness", Bugliosi said, was the time limitation on cross-
examination and closing statements.
8 EOC 4                              -9-

     122.  19 Nov  (AP)  "Kennedy case put to a jury"  [2 pp.]  Researcher
Tomlinson said the program "produces no new evidence" and is not "the final
word on who killed Kennedy."  O'Connor's "dramatic" testimony is noted.
     123.  4 Nov  (LA News in NY News)  "TV gives Oswald his day in court"
Spence is "best known as the flamboyant lawyer who won a multi-million-dollar
verdict in the Karen Silkwood case."  (I am told that the Law Enforcement
Intelligence Unit played a role in that case; to get some idea of why I am
interested in the LEIU, and the possibility that it knew about Oswald, see the
documents listed in EOC for 16 Jun 79.)  "The lawyers were chosen not only
because of their visibility but also because... 'We wanted people who would
take this seriously.'"  Bugliosi "combed through" the WC and HSCA volumes,
"and 'all the books by the conspiracy buffs.'"  (Did he talk to any of us?
Not that I know of.)
     124.  22 Nov  (LAT)  "Oswald Skeptics' Night in Court"   "If the emotions
aren't genuine, then these witnesses are among the world's best amateur
actors.  The posturing is by lawyers, not witnesses, proving that real people
telling real stories are far more compelling and believable than characters
speaking dialogue."
     Speaking of flamboyant lawyers whose style didn't cut it in this case:
     125.  23 Nov  (Wice, Hartford Courant, in SFC)  "The Botched Trial of
Jack Ruby"  [3 pp.]  "A lawyer less concerned [than Melvin Belli] with his
public image probably would not have gambled his client's life on an
implausible [epilepsy] defense."  The press, prosecutor, and judge didn't do
so well either, making "a mockery out of due process of law."
     126.  3 Nov (SFC)  In a poll at four named colleges, 30% of the 1000
responding students said they believed that "aliens from outer space visited
Earth in ancient times."  About the same fraction believe in Bigfoot and
Atlantis.  More than half "said they are creationists."  So let's not take our
85% in the JFK case too seriously.
     127.  20 Nov 86  (Corry, NYT)  A good critique of the lawyers' styles and
the witnesses' demeanor; quotable, but I'm short on space and time.

<<An excerpt:>>
     The entire broadcast cross-examination of Prof. Vincent Guinn:
     GS:  Well, I'd rather cross-examine Mr. Bugliosi than the doctor, since
he's the one that's given all the testimony.  [Judge:  But the doctor's on the
stand.]  Doctor, will you answer my questions, nice and simple, yes and no,
like you did for Mr. Bugliosi?
     VG:  Wherever that's possible, yes, sir.
     GS:  Here's a picture of the skull, X-ray of the skull, of the President.
And what we see are an artist's drawing of the fragments that were seen in the
X-ray.  I understand that you examined only two of the 30 fragments that were
found in the skull; is that correct?
     VG:  There were only two that were delivered to me, I'm not sure...
     GS:  (Interrupting)  Please, is that correct?  [VG:  That is correct.]
You did two.  [Yeah.]  Only two.  And do you know which two?  [No.]  And so do
you know what the composition is of the other 28 fragments found in his brain?
     VG:  Yes.
     GS:  Have you checked them?
     VG:  No, but I know what they are.
     GS:  Well, have you examined them, put them through the neutron
activation analysis?
     VG:  They were not available, the other pieces.
     GS:  Thank you.  Now, doctor, did you analyze the large copper fragment
that was found in the limousine?
     VG:  No, this was only an analysis of bullet lead.
     GS:  I'm gonna ask you once more, Dr. Guinn, did you analyze the large
copper fragment that was found in the limousine?  [VG:  No.]
8 EOC 4                              -10-

     GS:  Are you aware of the fact, doctor, that dishonest evidence can be
honestly examined?  [VG:  Of course.]
     GS:  That means that an honest examination can be made of evidence that's
been manufactured or planted.  [VG:  It's always possible, yes.]
     GS:  Your testimony isn't to be interpreted by the jury that you find
that this is honest evidence, is it?
     VG:  I cannot say; I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the
evidence; [VG ignored GS's interruption:  No, but you can't say one way or the
other, can you?]  it came to me in the original FBI containers with their
designations on them, and in all appearances the specimens matched what was in
the Warren Commission report description of them.  I have no reason to doubt
that they are completely authentic; they were brought to me from the National
Archives by a man of the National Archives.
     GS:  I'm understanding that, sir, but you're not testifying to this jury
that you can vouch for their authenticity, are you?
     VG:  No, you never can do that, in any criminal case.
     GS:  Your testimony isn't to be interpreted to mean that you know that
the bullet parts that you examined actually came from the body of the
President?  [VG:  No way, unless I were the surgeon.]
     GS:  And you just examined what they gave you, isn't that true, doctor?
     VG:  Correct.  [GS:  Thank you, doctor.]

<<Postscripts relating to Tony Summers:>>
     The "settlement" referred to at 8 EOC 3.10 did not involve any admission
or court ruling that Phillips had been libeled.  It seems safe to assume the
the potential cost of going to trial resulted in a settlement.  The Observer
conceded that the Summers extracts "could have been read to suggest that Mr.
Phillips was himself involved in a conspiracy relating to the assassination
and in the suppression of evidence about it," and "accepted that there was
never any evidence to support such a suggestion."  The case involved not only
excerpts from "Conspiracy" but subsequent articles in the South China Morning
Post based on Summers' research, as distributed by the Observer.
     "Goddess" is out in paperback (Onyx, $4.95), with a substantial new
chapter (45 pages) on various aspects of the Monroe-Kennedy story.

<<Queries and comments:>>
     Q80.  WBAI's anniversary program featured John Davis, David Lifton, and
Phil Melanson.  Can someone provide a tape?
     Q81.  Investigations of Oswald's activities in New Orleans turned up
several references to Tulane (where some FPCC handbills were found, for
example) and (I think) one or two to Loyola.  Does anyone know of any
references to LSU at New Orleans (now the University of New Orleans)?  That
was the downtown public college, and at least as likely a place for Oswald to
do his work as the two major private colleges.  (I know of only 10 HSCA 127,
which says that Guy Banister checked out Cuban students at LSUNO for the CRC.)
     I have again gotten far behind in my correspondence, and I expect to
catch up now that the case is quiet again - unless someone comes up with a
photo of Col. North on the grassy knoll.  (I'm being sarcastic only about the
tendency of a few conspiratorialists to link some of the mysterious old
evidence to whoever emerges in the newest scandal.  Some aspects of the latest
disclosures certainly have roots in the Cuban issues of 1963, and we should
not be surprised if some of the newly prominent names can be linked to people
who have been mentioned in the assassination controversy.  Peter Scott has
already come up with some interesting ideas along these lines.)

<<Credits>>:  Thanks to B. Fensterwald (#116), J. Goldberg (127), G. Hollingsworth
(122, 124), S. Kantor (117), P. Melanson (118, 123), G. Owens (121),
R. Stetler, and G. Stone (118).

*From Illumi-Net BBS - [phone]* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is still
up ]

---END OF ARTICLE---------------------------------------------------------------


--
-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal PROMIS?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. William Henry /\/\
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!asparagus.berkeley.edu!chenchen
From: [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 19:29:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: math1mac4.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>
>EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW:   That in the recently aired (on A&E) documentary
>                        "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" Americans saw for
>                        the first time, a blown-up image of the famous
>                        Mary Moorman photograph of Kennedy being shot.
>
>                       (This photo was 1/60th of a second after the fatal
>                        headshot while she faced towards the grassy knoll)
>
>                        The photo shows -without doubt- a man in a Dallas
>                        police uniform shooting a (smoking) rifle from
>                        behind the picket fence.

I'm not an assassination buff, so please don't nail me to the wall.
Anyway, was this photo analyzed in the NOVA show on the assassination
a couple of months ago.  My recollection is that they thought the
photo was inconclusive.  But then, I haven't seen it myself, so I'm
not sure if this was the one they were talking about.

>
>                        The existence of this photo along with previously
>                        reported audio "fingerprints" of Dealy Plaza as
>                        as captured by police radio should conclusively
>                        PROVE that there was a second gunman and therefore
>                        a "conspiracy" of more than one.

I thought the "audio fingerprints" from the Dallas PD radio was already
refuted.  Isn't there conclusive evidence that the "gunshots" were recorded
a minute after the assassination?





--
Where's Zen-Waldo?  |------------------------------------------------------|
       by           |                               |
Cheng-Jih Chen      |                               |
                    |------------------------------------------------------|
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!jamesr
From: [e-mail] (Jim Richard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK:  summary of Garrison's evidence (LONG)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 19:29:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 730
Xref: ns-mx sci.skeptic:18804 alt.conspiracy:9592



After seeing "JFK" last weekend and then reading Garrison's book I had a very
clear sense of what Garrison thought happened in Dallas.  However, the support
for those claims and the sources for the information on Shaw, Ferrie and
Banister were pretty fuzzy.  So I wrote down the claims that Garrison had
made and then went through his book a second time, writing down all the
things that supported his various charges.  The result is this summary.
Almost all the information that follows came from:

Jim Garrison, *On the Trail of the Assassins*, New York: Warner Books, Inc,
1988.


1. More than one gunman shot at Kennedy.


a. Zapruder film showed that shots took place over 5.6 seconds, only enough
   time for a single assassin to get off three shots.  One shot is known to
   have missed the limousine and hit bystander Tague in the jaw.  The third
   shot was the final fatal head shot.  That leaves one bullet to account for
   all other wounds received by Kennedy and Connally.  There was a back wound
   and throat wound on Kennedy.  Connally had a back wound, pierced lung, a
   fractured wrist and a grazed leg.  According to the Warren Commission one
   bullet did this.  It entered Kennedy's body travelling downward at 17
   degrees and then travelled upward, departing through his neck.  The bullet
   then entered Connally at the rear of his right armpit heading leftward.  It
   travelled downward at 27 degrees, hitting Connally's fifth rib and exiting
   his chest.  The bullet continued downward and passed through Connally's
   left wrist, shattering his radius bone, and finally lodged in his left leg.

   The bullet was found in a corridor of the Parkland Hospital with only
   slight damage to the base of the bullet.  More fragments were recovered
   from Connally's wrist then were missing from this bullet.

   The Zapruder film shows Connally's cheeks puff out over a second after
   Kennedy clutches his throat.  The puffing out was caused by Connally's
   lung collapsing and the air it contained being forced out.

   Connally did not testify that he and Kennedy were hit simultaneously; he
   said Kennedy was hit first.

b. Many witnesses said they heard shots from the grassy knoll just in front
   and to the right of the presidential limousine.  These include Tague
   who was cut in the face by a bullet or asphalt, and Abraham Zapruder, who
   was filming the motorcade.  Some witnesses said they saw smoke rising
   from the trees located at the top of the knoll.

   Behind the knoll was a railroad yard.  The knoll and the yard were
   separated by a five foot high picket fence.  The switchman for the
   railroad yard, Lee Bowers, was in a glassed-in tower 14 feet off the
   ground.  Earlier in the day he had seen a man driving around the railroad
   car apparently speaking into a microphone.  A few minutes before the
   shooting, Mr. Bowers saw two unfamiliar men standing behind the picket
   fence.  After the shooting he watched fifty to a hundred policemen converge
   on the railroad yard within five minutes.  Bowers stopped some departing
   trains and these were searched.

   A Sergeant Harkess reports that some tramps and hoboes were pulled off
   the train but no guns were found.  The transients were arrested and brought
   to the station and questioned.  However, there is no record of their
   arrest or even there names.  Analysis of news photos taken after the
   shooting traces the flight of three men from the grassy knoll to the
   box-cars.  The photos show that the hoboes were clean-shaven and had fresh
   haircuts.  The soles of their shoes are not worn and their clothes are
   shabby but clean.  The photos also show that the police officers leading
   the tramps away are holding there rifles very casually, not at port arms.
   The trousers of one of officers did not fit him.  A radio receiver earclip
   is visible in one officer's ear.  Garrison says he knew of no local police
   force that possessed these earclips in 1963.

c. Dr. Robert McClelland signed the admission note at Parkland Hopital which
   said that Kennedy's death was caused by a gunshot wound of the left temple.
   A wound in the left temple would not be consistent with the shooter being
   behind Kennedy.

d. Several witnesses saw two or three people in the sixth floor of the Texas
   Book Depository shortly before the shooting.  Oswald supposedly shot from
   the easternmost end of the sixth floor.  Arnold Rowland, a student, saw an
   elderly black man at the easternmost end fifteen minutes before the shooting.
   At the westernmost end he saw a man with a rifle in his hands standing just
   back from the window.  Carolyn Walther saw a man with a white shirt and light
   hair in the easternmost window.  He was holding a rifle with a very short
   barrel.  Standing next to him was a man in a brown suit.  A 16-year old,
   Amos Euins, saw a man with a white bald spot doing the shooting.  John
   Powell, an inmate in the county jail directly across from the depository,
   saw two men with a rifle, one of whom had a very dark complexion.  Richard
   Carr, a steel worker at a building under construction about 500 feet away,
   saw a heavy-set man with horned rim glasses at the window next to the
   "assassin's lair".  After the shooting, Carr ran down the building he was
   working on and saw four men running out of the Book Depository.  One of
   these men walked away.  The other three, one of whom was the same man he
   had seen on the sixth floor, walked a block and jumped into a Nash Rambler
   station wagon.  The driver was Spanish or Cuban and had a very dark-
   complexion.  Roger Craig, a Dallas deputy sheriff, saw the Dallas police
   unsuccessfully questioning a Spanish speaking Latino on Elm Street minutes
   after the shooting.  Craig recognized this same man pull up to the Depository
   in a Nash Rambler some minutes later.  A man Craig identified as Oswald
   jumped into the wagon which then tore off.  Craig says that he went to the
   police headquarters and told Captain Will Fritz about the Nash Rambler.
   Oswald commented that the car belonged to Mrs. Ruth Paine, the woman who
   Oswald's wife was staying with.  Another deputy later confirmed that Mrs.
   Paine owned a Nash Rambler but the homicide unit did not follow up on this.
   Fritz later denied that Craig had even been to police headquarters that day
   but a news photo surfaced six years later showing that Craig was in fact
   there.

e. Shortly before the motorcade arrived, a Latin man had an epileptic
   seizure.  He was taken to Parkland Hospital where he walked off, refusing
   to be treated or to identify himself.  This seizure caused police officer
   Joe Smith to leave his post at the corner of the Depository and would
   have allowed gunmen on the grassy knoll to move into position.  It also
   made unavailable the ambulance that was on standby in case of injury to
   the President.

f. Julia Ann Mercer, wife of a former congressman, was caught in a traffic
   jam near the grassy knoll sometime before the arrival of the motorcade.
   She saw a man get out of a pickup truck carrying a poorly concealed
   rifle and climb up the grassy knoll.  The next day she identified the
   driver of the pickup as Jack Ruby.  This was the day before Ruby shot
   Oswald.  The FBI altered her statement so that it did not mention the
   positive identification.  The sheriff's office filed a notarized affidavit
   that said Mercer was not able to identify the driver.  Mercer said that
   she had never been brought before a notary and that her signature on
   the affidavit had been forged.

f. In 1979 the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that
   Kennedy "was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."  This
   was based largely on acoustical evidence which indicated that shooting
   occurred both from behind Kennedy and from the grassy knoll in front
   of him.  The committee called on the Justice Department to reopen the
   investigation.  In September 1988, the Justice Department announced
   that it had found no persuasive evidence of a conspiracy.

---


2. Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy.


a. The day he was arrested, Oswald was tested for nitrates on his cheeks to
   see if he had fired a rifle in the last 24 hours.  The test was negative.
   The results were withheld for 10 months.  Oswald's hands did react
   positively to the test.

b. Oswald was seen in luncheon room on second floor 90 seconds after the
   shooting. He was drinking a coke.  In 90 seconds he would have to had
   hidden the rifle under a pile of boxes, run down four flights of stairs
   and purchased a coke.

c. No fingerprints of Oswald were found on the rifle when it was examined in
   FBI labs in Washington, D.C.  The rifle was returned to Dallas police who
   later announced that a palm print of Oswald's had been found on the rifle.

d. Three empty cartridges from a Mannlicher-Carcano were found near the
   easternmost window on the sixth floor.  They were arranged close together
   and nearly in parallel even though a cartridge is flung violently away when
   the rifle is fired.

e. Officer Seymour Weitzman, part of the Dallas search team that discovered
   the rifle on the sixth floor of the Depository, identified it as a highly
   accurate, German-made 7.65 Mauser.  Weitzman operated a sporting goods
   store and was quite familiar with weapons.  Roger Craig, who was also part
   of the search team, recalled the word Mauser inscribed on the metal of the
   rifle and Deputy Boone also described it as a Mauser.  A film taken of the
   rifle being removed from the depository shows a rifle without a sight
   mounted on it.  Both the Carcano and the Mauser have sights.

f. The sight on the Mannlicher-Carcano was not aligned.

g. Oswald's fellow Marines testified that he was a very poor shooter.

---


3. U.S. government involved in cover-up of conspiracy.


a. A fourth bullet was apparently found during Kennedy's autopsy.  The
   chief pathologist, Commander James Humes, told the Warren Commission
   that he had not found any bullets during the autopsy.  However, an
   FBI memo from November 22, 1963, released under the Freedom of Information
   Act, acknowledged the receipt of a missile removed by Commander Humes
   on that date.

b. Despite being told by Texas officials that Texas law required that a
   civilian autopsy be performed on Kennedy in Dallas, the secret service
   had the body flown to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where three military
   pathologists examined it.

c. The military pathologists did not probe Kennedy's neck wound to trace
   the path of the bullet and to possibly recover the bullet, even though
   civilian doctors at Parkland Hospital had diagnosed the wound as an
   entrance wound.

d. Fifteen to twenty photographs and X-rays of Kennedy's body were delivered
   to secret service agent Roy Kellerman but the Warren commission never
   examined them.

e. One of the military pathologists, Dr. Finck, testified that the operation
   was coordinated under the direction of an Army general and that "when
   you are a lieutenant colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at
   the end of the autopsy we were specifically told - as I recall it, it was
   by Admiral Kinney, the surgeon of the Navy - this is subject to
   verification - we were specifically told not to discuss the case."

f. The front page of the Dallas Morning News for November 22 showed a map of
   the planned parade route.  This route shown did not go by the Texas Book
   Depository because this change was made that morning.  A copy of the
   front page that was introduced as a Warren Commission exhibit had a
   large square of solid gray on the five-sixths of the page that showed
   the motorcade route.  (The Warren Commission did hear testimony on the
   motivation for the route change.  It was to avoid a difficult, 100
   degree turn beyond the railroad overpass to depart on Stemmons Freeway.)

g. Two frames of the Zapruder film were reversed so that it appeared that
   Kennedy's head moved forward instead of backward after the fatal shot.
   When the Warren Commission asked the FBI what had happened to the film,
   J. Edgar Hoover replied that an inadvertent printing error had occurred.

h. In 1972, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a pathologist, obtained a court order allowing him
   to examine Kennedy's brain, which had been preserved in formalin.  The
   examination could have revealed the direction from which Kennedy had been
   hit.  Unfortunately, it was found that Kennedy's brain had disappeared.

i. Beverly Oliver filmed the motorcade facing the grassy knoll.  The FBI took
   her film and never returned it.  They claimed to have lost it.

j. FBI had altered Julia Ann Mercer's testimony, removing her positive
   identification of Jack Ruby as the driver of a pickup trick carrying
   a gunman.

k. Arnold Rowland, the man who saw an elderly black man on the sixth floor was
   told by the FBI agents who interviewed him that this wasn't relevant to the
   case and to just forget it now.

l. The mayor of Dallas at the time of the assassination, Earle Cabell, was
   the brother of a former deputy director of the CIA, Charles Cabell.  Charles
   Cabell had been in charge of the Bay of Pigs invasion and was afterwards
   fired by Kennedy.

m. The secret service cleaned and washed out the presidential limousine on
   the day of the assassination.

n. Secret service sent Connally's suit to be cleaned and pressed.

o. Congressmen Goodell originally proposed an investigative commission of seven
   senators and seven congressmen to look into the assassination.  President
   Johnson shortly announced formation of Warren Commission with two Senators
   and two congressmen.  The commission members had a strong pro-military
   background.  These include Allen Dulles, the former CIA director, Gerald
   Ford, a strong supporter of the CIA, and Richard Russell, the chairmen of
   the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

p. Ruth Paine got Oswald his job in the Texas Book Depository.  Paine's father
   and her brother-in-law had worked for the Agency for International
   Development which may have been a CIA cover.

q. The CIA claimed that Oswald had visited Cuban and Soviet Embassies in
   October 1963 even though photos and tape recordings didn't match Oswald.

---


4. Banister was involved in assassination conspiracy.


   Guy Banister was a former Chicago FBI agent and former New Orleans police
   deputy working as a private detective in New Orleans.  Banister had strong
   anti-communist views.  A young attorney that Garrison played chess with
   reported that while in college he had been hired by Banister to infiltrate
   radical campus groups.  There was a Banister-Oswald connection.  When
   Oswald was arrested on August 9, 1963, he was handing out Marxist pro-Cuba
   literature.  The address stamped on the pamphlets was the same office
   building as Banister worked in.  Banister's secretary, Delphine Roberts,
   also reported that Banister had closed door meetings with Oswald and that
   Banister arranged for Oswald to have a third floor office.

   Jack Martin was a private detective who worked out of Banister's office.
   He spoke to Garrison off the record and reported that during the Summer
   of 1963 he saw many Cubans come and go from Banister's office.  Dave
   Ferrie practically lived at the office and Lee Harvey Oswald also spent
   time there.  Martin's job was to handle the small amount of private
   detective work that came in to the office.

   The August 1st and 2nd editions of the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported
   that the FBI had seized a cache of bombs from a house on the north shore of
   Lake Pontchartrain.  The house was occupied by Jose Juarez, a Cuban refugee.
   The FBI reported that the bombs were seized in connection with an
   investigation of an effort to "carry out a military operation against a
   country with which the United States is at peace."  According to Martin,
   the raid also included a training camp where nine Cuban and two American
   trainees were arrested.  This was corroborated by an FBI report.  Martin
   described Banister's activities as part of a supply line that ran from
   Dallas to Miami.  The supplies were meant to be used against Cuba.

   Banister died about nine months after the assassination.  His widow
   told Garrison that she had come across some pro-Cuba leaflets while
   emptying his office.  Federal government agents had taken away his
   locked filing cabinets an hour or two after his death.

---


5. Banister worked for CIA.


a. Banister was a former FBI agent.

b. Banister's office in New Orleans was located amidst the intelligence
   agencies located there.

c. Garrison feels the anti-Castro activity including the Lake Pontchartrain
   training camp were CIA sponsored.

---


6. Ferrie was involved in assassination conspiracy.


   Ferrie was an associate of Guy Banister's who frequently visited his office.
   Garrison learned that Ferrie had driven from New Orleans to Houston
   shortly after the assassination.  The source was someone who knew Jack
   Martin.  In Houston, Ferrie was seen at an ice rink, making and receiving
   numerous telephone calls.  When asked why he had driven to Houston during
   a violent thunderstorm just to go to an ice rink, Ferrie was evasive.
   Ferrie was also found to have driven to Galveston, Texas.  Galveston is
   where Jack Ruby called on Saturday night, the day before he shot Oswald.

   Ferrie's apartment was searched the weekend of the assassination and an
   assortment of Army rifles and other equipment were found.  A large map of
   Cuba was on the wall.

   Ferrie also had a mob connection.  When reputed mob boss Marcello was
   deported by Robert Kennedy and dumped in Guatamala, it was Ferrie who
   flew Marcello back to the U.S.

   Additional evidence is listed under evidence for claim that Clay Shaw was
   involved in assassination conspiracy.

---


7. Ferrie worked for CIA.


   Gordon Novel was pursued to learn his role in a raid on a Schlumberger
   Corporation explosives bunker in southern Louisiana.  He announced that he
   had participated in the raid and had been working as a CIA operative.
   He identified David Ferrie as another CIA employee and participant in
   the raid.  Novel said that the bunker was "a CIA staging point for
   munitions destined to be used as part of the abortive Bay of Pigs attack on
   Casto's Cuba."  The arms were brought back in a laundry truck and divided
   equally between Ferrie's apartment and Banister's office.

   Garrison states twice that Ferrie worked at the Lake Pontchartrain training
   camp as an instructor (pages 141 and 204) but he gives no source for this
   information.  Garrison considers the training camp to be a CIA operation.

---


8. Shaw was involved in assassination conspiracy.


    Clay Shaw was head of the International Trade Commission and a
    prominent civic leader.  On the day after the assassination, a Clay
    Bertrand asked his lawyer Dean Andrews to fly to Dallas and represent
    Oswald according to Andrews testimony to the Warren Commission.  But,
    when interviewed by Garrison, Andrews denied having ever seen Clay
    Bertrand or knowing who he really was.  Andrews, in his first FBI
    interview, had described Bertrand as 6'2".  Later, Andrews told the
    Warren Commission that Bertrand was 5'8".  He had also told the FBI that
    Bertrand had previously asked him to help with the citizenship problems
    that Oswald's wife, Marina, was having.  The FBI final reported stated
    that the phone call from Bertrand had been a figment of Andrews'
    imagination.

    Garrison's investigators covered the bars in New Orleans' French
    Quarter asking about Clay Bertrand.  Bartenders and many others
    said it was common knowledge that Clay Shaw went by the name Clay
    Bertrand.  A young man and friend of Shaw's named William Morris did
    so on the record.  Others followed.  A hostess at the V.I.P. room for
    Eastern Airlines said that a Clay Bertrand had signed the guest
    register.  Her description of him matched Shaw's.  Later on, when
    Garrison had Shaw arrested, Shaw was asked by the booking officer,
    Aloysius Habighorst, if he had any aliases.  Shaw replied Clay
    Bertrand.

    In September 1963, Oswald was seen in the small town of Clinton, in deep
    south Louisiana, accompanied by two men whose descriptions matched Clay
    Shaw and David Ferrie.  A barber, Edwin McGehee, reported that he gave
    Oswald a haircut and that Oswald had mentioned he was applying for a
    job at a hospital in nearby Jackson.  McGehee suggested that he register
    to vote in the parish to improve his chances of getting the job.  A major
    drive was underway to register black voters.  Oswald was seen by several
    people who recalled that he was the only white standing in a long line
    of blacks registering to vote.  A number of witnesses reported that the
    two men matching Shaw's and Ferrie's descriptions waited in a black
    limousine whose license plate showed it was registered to the International
    Trade Mart.

    Garrison found several other people who stated that Shaw knew David
    Ferrie.  Jules Rico Kimble said that Ferrie flew him and Shaw to
    Canada to pick up a heavy-set Cuban who was balding in front.  David
    Logan says that Ferrie introduced him to Shaw and that Shaw invited
    him to dinner at his house where Logan and Shaw were seated at opposite
    ends of a long dining table.  Another friend of Ferrie's, Raymond
    Broshears, had dined with Ferrie and Shaw together.  Broshears said
    that Ferrie would discuss the Kennedy assassination only when he was
    drunk and that then he would emphasize that his role was marginal.
    Broshears said that Ferrie's role was to drive to Houston where he
    was to pick up two members of the assassination team and fly them to
    a more distant location.  Edward Whalen, a professional criminal, told
    Garrison that Ferrie and Shaw had offered him $25,000 to kill Garrison.
    Whalen said that they had been tipped off by Dean Andrews about Garrison's
    investigation.  Whalen refused the offer because he did not want to kill a
    district attorney.

    Perry Russo, a 25-year old Equitable insurance agent from Baton-Rouge,
    testified that Ferrie and Shaw had discussed Kennedy's assassination
    in September 1963.  Russo dropped in at a party at Ferrie's where
    Shaw, some Cubans and someone who was called Leon Oswald were gathered.
    Russo could not firmly identify Leon Oswald as Lee Harvey Oswald.  They
    first discussed plans to assassinate Castro and the difficulties involved.
    When the Cubans left the conversation switched to getting Kennedy and
    how this could be blamed on Castro and lead to an invasion of Cuba.
    Ferrie emphasized that triangulation of fire, using three shooters
    from different directions, would be the best method to kill Kennedy.
    Shaw said that they would all need alibis and that he would be on the
    west coast.  The talk of alibis made it clear to Russo that the Kennedy
    assassination was not a hypothetical discussion but a plot that was
    going to be carried out.

    A narcotics offender, Vernon Bundy, said he had seen Shaw and Oswald
    together.  Bundy had gone to the seawall at Lake Pontchartrain to get a
    fix.  While he was there, Shaw and Oswald held a 15 minute conversation
    within twenty feet of him.  During the conversation, Shaw handed Oswald
    some money.

    Richard Case Nagell told Garrison that he had worked for an unnamed
    government agency.  Nagell was assigned to infiltrate a group that
    included Oswald.  By September 1963 it had become clear that a large
    operation directed toward assassinating Kennedy was underway.  Nagell
    feared he was being drawn into a trap so he had himself arrested and
    jailed to prevent any charges being levelled against him.  Nagell named
    Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw as the other men involved
    with Oswald.

    Charles Spiesel, an accountant from New York, said he met Ferrie and
    Shaw on a trip to New Orleans and heard them discuss the possible
    assassination of Kennedy.  Spiesel was thoroughly discredited under
    cross examination.  He testified that the New York city police had
    hypnotized and tortured him.  He could tell when an attempt was being
    made to hypnotize "when someone tries to get your attention - catch
    your eye.  That's a clue right off."  He said that he been hypnotized
    in order to plant thoughts in his head that were untrue.  Spiesel
    also admitted that he fingerprinted his daughter whenever she left
    for school at L.S.U. at again when she returned to make sure she was
    the same person.

---


9. Shaw worked for CIA.


    Shaw was on the board of directors of the Centro Mondiale Commerciale.
    Some articles in the Italian newspaper, Paesa Sera, identified the
    directors as being so strongly anti-communist they wished to swallow up
    all those who wanted decent East-West relations.  The paper also
    indicated that the Center may have been the creature of the CIA.

    A CIA staff employee named Marchetti said that during Shaw's trial, he
    heard CIA officials asking about the status of the trial and whether the
    CIA was doing enough to help.  Marchetti was told that Shaw had been
    a contact of the CIA.

    The former CIA director Helms testified that Shaw had been "one of the
    part-time contacts of the Domestic Contact Division, the people that
    contacted businessmen, professors, and so forth, and who traveled in and
    out of the country."

---


10. Oswald did not murder officer Tippit.


a. Tippit was murdered between 1:06 and 1:10 PM.  Oswald was seen at a bus
   stop at 1:04 a mile to the south of the murder.

b. The closest of the witnesses to Tippit's murder, Domingo Benavides,
   wouldn't identify Oswald as the murderer.

c. Warren Reynolds saw a gunmen fleeing from the shooting.  At first, he
   told the FBI he would hesitate to name Oswald as the gunmen.  Reynolds
   was subsequently shot in the head in a car basement and, after recovering,
   he testified that the gunman was Oswald.

d. Helen Markham testified that the gunman was Oswald but she also said
   that she did had never seen any of the men in the police line-up,
   which included Oswald.  Markham also claimed to have tried to talk
   to Tippitt for twenty minutes after the shooting but all the other
   witnesses said he died immediately.

e. There were other witnesses who testified to the Warren Commission but
   Garrison dismisses them as "inconsequential."

f. There were a few witnesses not interviewed by the Warren Commission who
   gave different versions of the shooting.  Acquilla Clemons saw two men at
   Tippit's police car.  The gunman was short and heavy.  Frank Wright reported
   that the gunman fled the scene in a gray car parked next to the police car.
   FBI director J. Edgar Hoover ordered FBI agents not to question Clemons
   and Wright, as revealed in an FBI memo.

g. Minutes after the shooting, a report describing the suspect said he was
   armed with an automatic pistol.  The first report from the scene said that
   the shell at the scene indicated an automatic pistol.  Oswald was found
   with a revolver, not an automatic.  Revolvers and automatics are easily
   distinguished, as are their shells.

h. Four different bullets were removed from Tippit.  Three were Winchester
   Westerns and the fourth was from Remington-Peters.  It would be unusual
   for a single gun to contain two types of bullets since bullets are not
   sold in mixed lots.  The FBI labs could not confirm that the four bullets
   had been fired by Oswald's revolver.

i. The cartridges entered as evidence were confirmed to have been fired by
   Oswald's revolver but these cartridges did not have the initials etched
   on them by either the officer at the scene or the officer who received
   them at police headquarters (the officer at the scene believed he had
   marked the cartridges but could not swear to it).

---


11. Someone impersonated Oswald to make him appear a Communist.


a. When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963 he took a job at Reilly
   Coffee Company.  Reilly was strongly anti-Castro and the job may have
   been arranged because of this.  However, there were dozens of job
   application found with Oswald's signature on them.  All of these listed
   Oswald's height as 5'9".  However, Oswald was probably 5'11".  An
   impersonator could have applied for the jobs, forging the signatures but
   listing his actual height to avoid arousing suspicion.

b. On January 20, 1961, while Oswald was in Russia, two men representing
   Friends of Democratic Cuba inquired about buying 10 Ford pickup trucks.
   One was a Cuban the other a man called "Oswald".  One of the incorporators
   of FODC was Guy Banister.

c. The CIA claims that Oswald was in Mexico City in October 1963 trying to
   defect to Cuba or the USSR.  They released a murky photo supposedly of
   Oswald, although the man was portly, greying and older.  A Cuban Embassy
   worker, Silvia Duran, was arrested and released by the CIA only after she
   identified Oswald as a visitor to the Cuban Embassy.  In 1978 she described
   Oswald as blond and 5'3".  The Cuban Consul, Eusebio Azcue, had three
   confrontations with the man claiming to be Oswald.  Azcue stated that
   photographs of Oswald did not show the same man as he met.  The Warren
   Commission tried to get tapes of Oswald's calls from the Soviet Agency
   but the CIA said they had none.  However, FBI agents at Oswald's post-arrest
   interrogation heard them and thought them to be of somebody else.

d. Someone claiming to be Lee Oswald went to a Lincoln-Mercury dealership
   in early November 1963.  He drove like a wild man and, when told the
   amount needed for a down payment, commented that maybe he would have to go
   back to Russia to buy a car.  The salesmen said that this man had a
   different hairline than Oswald and was shorter.

---


12. Oswald worked in counter-intelligence.


a. Eight marines associated with Oswald at the El Toro Marine Base testified
   to the Warren Commission that Oswald had no Marxist inclinations.  Only
   Kerry Thornley disagreed.  (Garrison implicates Thornley as the possible
   impersonator of Oswald).

b. About six months before defecting to the Soviet Union, Oswald was given
   a Russian language examination.

c. When travelling to the Soviet Union, Oswald arrived in England on October
   9, 1959.  According to the Warren Commission Report he left for Helsinki
   the same day but his passport shows he did not leave until the 10th.
   Oswald checked into a hotel in Helsinki on October 10th.  However, there
   was no direct commercial flight from London to Helsinki on October 10th.

d. A CIA finance officer, James Wilcott, testified to the HSCA that Oswald
   had been recruited by the CIA for a double agent assignment in the Soviet
   Union.  Wilcott said that he had handled funding for the project Oswald
   was on.  This testimony was denied by other agents.

e. Oswald was given a repatriation loan when he returned to the U.S.  This
   was only given to those who had unquestionable loyalty to the U.S.

f. After returning to U.S., Oswald was given a security clearance to work at
   company that apparently worked on military maps for U-2 missions over Cuba.
   This was in October 1962.

g. Accepted by conservative White Russian community who one would expect to
   reject a Soviet defector and Marxist sympathizer.

h. The Life cover photo that showed Oswald holding a rifle in one hand,
   a Marxist newspaper in his right and a pistol on his right hip is
   claimed by some to be a fake.  There are a few different photos of
   Oswald taken at different distances.  His face is always the same and
   the size of the head doesn't change but that of his body does.

i. Associated with Banister who was a former FBI agent.

j. Oswald hired people from local employment office to hand out pamphlets for
   Fair Play for Cuba Committee.  Spoke with FBI agent John Quigley when
   arrested.

k. Wagoner Carr, the attorney general of Texas, testified to the Warren
   Commission that Oswald had been an FBI informant during the year
   before the assassination, receiving $200 a month.  Carr had acquired
   this evidence from Allan Sweatt, the chief of the criminal division
   of the Dallas Sherriff's office.

---


13. Dallas police department involved in conspiracy.


a. No notes were taken of 12 hour interrogation of Oswald following his
   arrest and no attorney was present.  This would have made any statements
   he made inadmissible in court.

b. The police department possible concealed or altered evidence such as the
   7.65 Mauser identified at the sixth floor of the Depository, and the
   ballistic evidence in Tippit's murder.

c. The police department did not follow up on Deputy Sherriff Craig's report
   of a Nash Rambler station wagon leave from the Depository carrying Oswald.

d. Insufficient protection was offered to protect Oswald.

e. Julia Ann Mercer's affidavit was fabricated.

---


14. U.S. government involved in conspiracy.


a. Five days before the assassination the New Orleans FBI received a telex
   warning that an attempt would be made on Kennedy's life in Dallas.  The
   warning was not passed on to the Secret Service.  The telex disappeared
   from the New Orleans file shortly after the assassination.

b. FBI agent James Hosty notified Dallas police that he had information
   that showed Oswald was capable of committing the assassination at 2:50
   PM on the day of the assassination.  This was before the FBI had mentioned
   that Oswald was a suspect.  The tenant of a former FBI agent who knew
   Hosty had heard that Oswald was an FBI informant and that Hosty was
   Oswald's contact.

c. On the day of the assassination, the secret service had removed the plastic
   bubble used to cover the presidential limousine on the day of the
   assassination.  (The Warren Commission had been told that the bubble was
   not bulletproof and the skies had cleared).

d. The secret service failed to secure the roofs of the buildings in Dealy
   Plaza or to make sure that windows would be closed.

e. The local army unit that would normally have been involved in the
   security duties for Kennedy's visit to Dallas were told that they
   would not be needed. [Mentioned in Stone's movie but not Garrison's
   book. Stone sticks pretty closely to Garrison's book but he assigns
   a much larger role to the CIA than Garrison does.  Garrison believes
   that the plan to assassinate the president was carried out by rogue
   elements within the CIA or its contract agents.  These encompassed
   Shaw, Ferrie, Banister and the Cuban guerillas.  Stone, though,
   indicates that these rogue elements were actually directed by higher
   ups in the CIA.  Stone's evidence for this comes from the interview
   with X.]

f. Extensive biographical information on Oswald was published in New
   Zealand newspapers immediately after the assassination [mentioned in
   Stone's movie but not Garrison's book].

---


A few of the pieces of evidence listed above are dubious as stated.  How
could a witness describe a man in the Texas Book Depository as being heavy-set
and wearing horned-rim glasses (1.d) from 500 feet away?  There were many
witnesses to the Tippit murder but Garrison dismisses most of them as
"inconsequential" without any attempt to refute their testimony (10.e).

Garrison also has ignored some important pieces of evidence against a
conspiracy.  He does not mention the experiments of U.C. Berkeley
physicist, Luis Alvaraz, in which taped melons were shot at and some were
observed to move towards the rifle.  He does not mention that twenty
pathologists were shown the autopsy photographs of Kennedy and nineteen said
that Kennedy had been hit from behind (but it has also been claimed that the
autopsy evidence was tampered with).  Garrison also fails to mention that the
acoustical evidence for a second gunman that the HSCA had based its conspiracy
charge on was refuted by a subsequent study performed by the National Academy
of Sciences in 1982.

There are a few instances where Garrison presents seemingly strong evidence
for a claim but then buries additional facts that mitigate the evidence in
a notes section in the back of the book.  The notes section contains the
facts that Oswald's hands reacted positively to the nitrate test, that the
Warren Commission heard testimony about the motorcade route change and that
the plastic bubble that had been removed from the limousine was not
bulletproof.

The above shortcomings do not destroy the claim that there were more than
one gunmen.  There are just too many other pieces of evidence.

The attempts to implicate the CIA are more dubious.  There is are too few
witnesses and no corroborating evidence to indict Banister, Ferrie and Shaw.
Only four witnesses were found who accused Shaw and Ferrie of plotting the
assassination:  these were Broshears, Russo, Nagell and the paranoid Spiesel.
Their involvement in the CIA is also poorly supported.  Only Gordon Novel is
recorded as saying Ferrie was a CIA employee.  Shaw's only known involvement
with the CIA was that he debriefed businessmen who were returning from
overseas.

--
All views expressed are mine, not my employers.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bnk
From: [e-mail] (Bob N Keenan)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK ASSASINATION / MJ-12 CONNECTION
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 19:49:30 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 738
Originator: [e-mail]


Hello,
  I am posting this here because of the recent posts on the JFK
  assasination.  It mainly talks about about the Government MJ-12
  coverup and a therory that connects that with the assasination.  I
  recently have begun studying the assination and all the conspiracy
  theories   A part of the following
  attached text talks about a new (to me and what Ive read on the
  newsgroup) theory that JFK was shot by the driver of his own car
  William Greer, in a conspiracy by the CIA.  I have enlosed the entire
  transcripted  text because at the authors request not to alter it in any way.
  I am nowhere near an expert on the the JFK subject and I post this
  with no proof whether its true or not, even though the person whom
  is quoted here from a lecture he gave swears it is the absolute
  truth and has the documents and films to prove it.  I got the text
  from a bulletin board in Wisconsin.  The JFK info starts at line
  417 of this file. Here it is:
  _________________________________________________________________


            What follows is a transcript of a 45 minute lecture that I at-
          tended on 11-17-89 at the "Whole Life Expo." in Los Angeles,
          California. Speaking was Mr. Milton William Cooper who I first
          became acquainted with through a text file I downloaded from a
          local computer BBS. The file dealt with the subject of UFO's and
          our government's concealment of the truth about them in such a
          way that it made a lasting impression on me, which is why I
          attended his lecture; to learn more. Please forgive my probable
          misspelling of some of the proper names in the transcript which
          follows and allow that I have taken it as best I could, word-
          for-word, from a less than acceptable micro-cassette recording.
            If you are as moved by what you are about to read as I was in
          hearing it first hand, I ask that you please spread it as far
          and wide as possible. Upload it to every BBS in your reach and
          please, don't change anything. Also, please give considerable
          thought to Mr. Cooper's suggestions as to what we all can do to
          see that this information is confirmed by our government to make
          them stop what they are up to.
                         Thank you, and now, Milton Cooper:

            "For those of you who don't know who I am, I was raised in a
          military family. My family, my ancestors, since they came to
          this country, have been government people. We have served in the
          military, we have been patriots, we have fought in all the wars,
          we care about this country and believe in the constitution of
          the United States. We know, as many people don't know, that the
          Constitution of the United States of America IS the United
          States of America! And that's why we've always been ready ...to
          do the things needed ...to preserve and protect it."
            "When I left home I went into the Air Force, the Strategic Air
          Command. As a child I'd heard stories from my father and pilots,
          other pilots, my father was a pilot, about Foo Fighters, UFO's,
          strange craft that were not made on this Earth. And as a kid,
          you hear that in passing, and it's neat, and you giggle about
          it, and you go out and play "Space Man", and you forget it."
            "When I was in the Air Force I met men who had participated in
          alien crashed-craft recoveries. Now this intrigued me, it in-
          terested me, but it was usually after quite a few bottles of
          beer that these stories would come out, and sometimes the next
          morning I couldn't remember what the heck the guy said."
            "When I left the Air Force I went into the Navy, and this is
          where everything began to happen for me. I had originally inten-
          ded to just go from service to service and do something that
          very few people have ever done before. I was a very adventurous,
          very crazy ...young man, and I thought that that would be a
          pretty exciting life. I volunteered for submarines, and while on
          the submarine U.S.S. Tyroot, SS-416, on a transit between the
          Portland/Seattle area and Pearl Harbor, which was our home port;
          the Pearl Harbor sub base, as the port lookout I saw a craft,
          saucer-shaped, the size of a Midway class carrier, aircraft
          carrier, for those of you who don't know how big that is; it's
          huge, come up out of the water approximately 2 1/2 nautical
          miles off the port bow, which is about 45 degrees to the left of
          the pointy end of the submarine. It tumbled slowly on its own
          axis, and went up into the clouds. It appeared to be moving
          slowly to me at a distance of 2 1/2 nautical miles, but in
          reality it was moving pretty fast because it came up out of the
          water, did a few tumbles and it was gone!"
            "I then reported it to the officer of the deck. I didn't tell
          him what it was that I saw because my Daddy didn't raise no
          fools and in case nobody else saw it I didn't want to be the
          only looney onboard the ship. So I asked the officer of the deck
          to help me cover that area, and he did, which is common for of-
          ficers and lookouts to help each other while on bridge watch be-
          cause they all hang together if something bad happens. After a
          few seconds of watching, the same craft, or another craft exact-
          ly like it, came down out of the clouds, tumbled again on its
          own axis, and went into the water. Ensign Ball, who was the of-
          ficer of the deck, was literally shocked! What could I say? Sea-
          man Dejeralimo, who was the starboard lookout, had also witnes-
          sed this, and ensign Ball called the captain to the bridge who
          was followed by the chief quartermaster who brought a 35MM cam-
          era, and we watched for between 7 and 10 minutes the same craft,
          or different craft that looked exactly alike, enter and leave
          the water. It was an incredible show. I don't know if they knew
          we were there, or if they even cared, but the craft did not
          glow, they were metal, they were machines without a doubt, they
          were obviously intelligently guided, they were HUGE, and having
          been in the Air Force and the Navy and knowing what it takes, I
          knew without a doubt, and know it today, that that machine was
          not made on the face of this Earth. Because there's nothing that
          man can make, that can fly through the air at a speed like that,
          tumble on its own axis, and enter the water and effectively fly
          beneath the sea."
            "If you've ever been aboard an airplane and then gone aboard a
          submarine, I know there's probably some of you in this room who
          have visited a submarine at one time or another, you can readily
          see just without even any of the technicalities involved how
          difficult such a thing would be to do. Where would it be built,
          that size? It was absolutely incredible. It changed my life
          because then all the stories that I'd heard all my life I knew
          were true, and I began seeing the world in a different light."
            "It wasn't long after that I was trained by Naval security in
          intelligence. I was sent to Viet Nam. I was assigned as a patrol
          boat captain, first in DaNang harbor, given a crew, given a
          multi-million dollar patrol boat. My job was to gather intel-
          ligence from the people who lived around the harbor and the
          fishermen who transited the harbor, and maintain the safety and
          security of the harbor and the shipping. After about 5-months I
          was sent up North to the DMZ, to a place called Qua Vieaf [sp],
          on the Tacan [sp] river. Our base camp was at the river mouth.
          We were only 3-miles South of the North Vietnamese border and
          our job was to patrol the Tacan river from the river mouth to
          Dang Ha [sp], and then up the Quang Tree [sp] cutoff to Quang
          Tree city, again to get to know the people on the bank, gather
          intelligence, and to patrol every night and maintain the safety
          and security of the river and the river traffic."
            "It was while there that I discovered that there was a tremen-
          dous amount of UFO and alien activity in Viet Nam. It was always
          reported in official messages as `enemy helicopters.' Now any of
          you who know anything about the Viet Nam war know that the North
          Vietnamese did not have any helicopters, especially after our
          first couple of air raids into North Viet Nam. Even if they had
          they would not have been so foolish as to bring them over the
          DMZ because that would have insured their demise. Our troops
          were fired on occasionally by these `enemy helicopters,' enemy
          troops were fired on occasionally by these `enemy helicopters,'
          and occasionally people would disappear. And on one instance
          that I know for sure at least one entire village disappeared one
          night due to alien activity. The reason they used the term
          `enemy helicopters' in messages and dispatches was that in Viet
          Nam you could be overrun at any time, no matter where you where.
          They did not bring crypto encoding equipment into Viet Nam, I'm
          talking about the machinery. What we did is we had crypto tab-
          les, and once we every 24-hours those codes would be no good. So
          that's what we used. We also, because of the inability to use
          crypto transmitting equipment, had to devise code words such as
          `enemy helicopters.'"
            "When I left Viet Nam I was eventually attached to the head-
          quarters staff of the Commander in Chief of the United States
          Pacific Fleet at Macalappa, [sp] Hawaii, which is a little hill
          overlooking Pearl Harbor, it's a beautiful white building up
          there, and I was specifically attached to the Intelligence
          Briefing Team of the Commander in Chief of the United States
          Pacific Fleet."
            "It was during this tour of duty that, in the course of my
          duties, documents were placed in my hands that were so unbeliev-
          able and so incredible that it took me quite a while to adjust
          to the fact that what I was seeing was real. Now for those of
          you who don't understand how I could come to see this informa-
          tion let me give you a little short course in security clearance
          and "the need to know" and how you get to see classified infor-
          mation if you're in the military or in the government, it does-
          n't matter which, the rules are the same."
            "Number one you need a security clearance, and you've got to
          have clearance at the level that the information you want to see
          is classified at. In this instance it was classified `Top Sec-
          ret, Magic, Restricted Information,' which I came to find out
          later is the highest security classification in the Nation. To
          get that type of clearance, all you have to have is a Federal
          Bureau of Investigation background check, which takes about six
          months and they send federal agents to your home, to your old
          schools, to all your teachers, to your friends, to everybody you
          put down on your security clearance forms, to all your old ad-
          dresses, your neighbors, everybody that you've worked for, and
          it's embarrassing because they don't tell them what they're
          checking on. They just show them their identification and start
          asking questions and that's when you find out who's your friend
          and who's not, because a lot of people get scared and think,
          `Bill just robbed a bank and I'm not talkin' to him anymore.'"
            "Now once you get that it's called a `B.I.' and for those of
          you who have received a copy of my service record look on the
          first page, the DD-214 where it says `Security Clearance,' you
          will see the term `B.I.' That's a `Bureau of Investigation'
          clearance. Now at that point, you have the clearance for every-
          thing including Top Secret and above. What determines what you
          get to see is your need to know, and the job that you have de-
          termines what your need to know is."
            "I was assigned to the Intelligence Briefing Team of the Com-
          mander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, who had to
          know everything concerning his area of operations which was one-
          half of the Earth's surface; the Indian ocean, the Pacific
          ocean, and all the land masses in between. Believe it or not, if
          we go to war, if we ever go to war, it's the United States Navy
          that strikes the first blow and attempts to keep the enemy at
          bey while we can get ourselves together, at least historically.
          Nuclear weapons have kind of done away with that concept, but
          military commanders like to talk about it anyway."
            "Because of this, and you have no conception of the amount of
          material and information that an area commander has to know,
          it's unbelievable, and he has to keep track of this, he has to
          keep on top of it. He has to know what's happening, he has to
          make the right decisions. Because it's almost humanly impossible
          for anyone to do that, they have what's called a briefing team,
          and it's our job to make sure that he has the correct informa-
          tion, all the time, on a 24-hour basis. And every morning, be-
          tween 8 and 9 AM, we would give a briefing which covered every-
          thing that happened in the previous 24-hours, and everything
          scheduled to happen in the next 24-hours, and all the pertinent
          intelligence reports that we had received since the last brief-
          ing that he needed to know and that his staff members needed to
          know. Occasionally we would get messages marked `Top Secret,
          Magic, Restricted Information,' and it would be coded in such a
          way that all you had were answers to questions which you didn't
          know what the questions were so you really didn't know what the
          message was all about."
            "But eventually I found myself in possession, holding two
          documents; one called `Project Grudge,' another one called `Op-
          eration Majority.' Project Grudge contained the history of alien
          involvement since around 1936, and it began talking about
          Germany's involvement with a crashed-disk that they had reco-
          vered in 1936 and were attempting to duplicate the technology.
          They were not successful despite what all these Nazi hunters
          want to tell you. If they had been successful, we would not have
          won the war, because you cannot beat those weapons! You cannot
          outfly those craft, you can't even think about it with conven-
          tional aircraft. If Germany had been successful, we would now
          have a German flag up in front of this podium."
            "They did make some headway. When we went into Punta Mundy
          [sp] we captured documents, we got some scientists, we got some
          hardware. The Russians also got some documents, some scientists,
          and some hardware. It wasn't until 1947 that we were able to
          capture a craft, a whole craft, not all together but it was
          everything. And that occurred near the city of Roswell, New
          Mexico. There were dead aliens recovered from the craft. In Pro-
          ject Grudge I saw photographs of these dead aliens, of the
          craft, I saw photographs of live aliens, I saw photographs of
          autopsies, internal organs, I saw photographs of the alien des-
          ignated `E.B.'[or Ebe] which was held in captivity from 1949 un-
          til June the 2nd, 1952 when he died. I saw the history of what
          they had been able to at that time put together, from incidents
          in the 1800's which involved aliens and their craft."
            "I saw the names of projects. I saw a project that was to fly
          recovered alien craft that had been recovered intact and undam-
          aged, and some of them were recovered intact and undamaged, and
          how that happened I have no idea. It was called `Project Red-
          light,' and first was conducted from the Tonopah test range in
          the Nevada test sight and then was moved to a specially built
          area, ordered built by president Eisenhower, called `Area-51,'
          code named `Dreamland,' in the Groom [sp] dry lake area of the
          Nevada test sight, by secret executive order. It doesn't exist
          officially, if you ask anyone, or if you write letters to the
          government they will tell you it doesn't exist. However if you
          go out there at several places and see it, fly outside the
          boundaries and look down and see it, you know it's there, but
          according to the government it doesn't exist."
            "The project to fly, test fly these craft, was ongoing until
          sometime in 1962 when a craft blew up not far from the test
          sight, in the air, and the explosion was seen over a three-state
          area. The pilots were killed, they had no idea what had happened
          or why the craft blew up, but they put Project Redlight on hold
          until a later date when the aliens supplied us with 3-craft and
          personnel to help us learn how to fly these craft. That project
          is ongoing and we now have not only alien craft that we are fly-
          ing, we have craft we have built, using the captured technology,
          and some of the UFO's that people report seeing in the United
          States, and maybe even elsewhere, are flown by United States
          personnel."
            "That may come as a shock to you. We have technology way be-
          yond the limits of what we have been told. A lot of our develop-
          ment technologically, since the end of World War II, has been
          due to the exchange of technology which occurs in the area
          called `Area-51' on a regular basis ...ongoing."
            "When James Oberth, professor Oberth retired, many of you
          don't know who he is ...not too many space people in here. Pro-
          fessor Oberth was probably one of the greatest rocket scientists
          and space commentists that ever lived. When he retired, the gov-
          ernment gave him a special award, there was a press conference,
          all kinds of ceremony, and when he got up to speak he said,
          `Gentlemen,' and I quote professor Oberth, he said, `Gentlemen,
          we cannot take credit for all the technological developments
          that we have had in the last decade. We have had help,' and
          that's where he stopped."
            "One of the reporters raised his hand and said, `Professor
          Oberth, can you tell us what other country helped us?'"
            "He said, `It was those little guys from out in space,' and
          then he got down and and would not comment any further. Now this
          occurred in 1959. I can go on and on but time doesn't allow it."
            "I will tell you ladies and gentlemen that there are all kinds
          of things going on all the time, we are making rapid progress in
          exposing this. Since I have begun talking, people have been com-
          ing out of the woodwork at a rapid rate, who know and have
          pieces of this puzzle, and are helping us to put it together,
          because I don't have all the answers. I saw an awful lot of ma-
          terial, I have remembered an awful lot of it, I have probably,
          in my remembering, made some mistakes, and I guarantee you
          they're minor ones, if I have."
            "We have just recently, for those of you who didn't believe
          that the Jason Society of the Jason Scholars, the secret group
          existed, we now have a letter from the Pentagon, with 51 names
          of the Jason Scholars, an admission from the Pentagon that they
          hold the highest security clearances in the nation, an admission
          from the Pentagon that they hold the protocol rank of Rear Ad-
          miral, and are treated as such on any military installation or
          in any government office. There are 6 Nobel Prize winners on
          that list, there are the elite of the elite of the scientific
          world, they are the only ones who really know the truth about
          the technology today and about the real science of physics, be-
          cause the one that we're being taught all the time... If you
          send your kids to college to learn physics you're wasting your
          money because they're teaching them stuff that doesn't work,
          it's not true, it's not real. Gravity is not what we think it
          is. There IS a Unified Theory! We already know what it is, it's
          what makes these craft work. It's absolutely incredible what's
          going on."
            "How many of you keep up with Billy Goodman's show on KVEG out
          of Las Vegas? For those of you who don't, I would try tuning in
          on any night between 10:00 PM and 1:00 AM. It's 840 on your AM
          dial, and the subject every night are those subjects that no
          other media person in the United States will touch with a 10-
          foot pole, every single night except Saturday night. It's the
          only show that you can call in and talk to another caller,
          you've got 3-minutes to say whatever you want to say as long as
          you don't cuss or swear or slander anyone, and every night
          they're helping to expose this."
            "When John Lear and I first said what was going on out at
          Groom Lake everybody said, `You're nuts, there's nothing going
          on out at Groom Lake!' The listeners of the Billy Goodman radio
          show put together an excursion and went up to Groom Lake and
          they all, ever since, every night, they go up there and watch
          them test fly the alien craft ...every night! The first night
          they had 100 people there. And 100 people saw 4 alien craft fly,
          doing things that no airplane and no helicopter can do. Now they
          don't tell us anymore that there's nothing happening at Groom
          Lake. What they tell us now is there's no such thing as aliens,
          it's all government secret projects. That's okay because we'll
          prove that wrong too eventually, it just takes awhile. Because
          where we WERE ...it's not where we're AT, and I'm really happy
          about that."
            "Now, if you want to see what's happening right now, keep
          watching your movies, keep watching your television commercials,
          your alien programs on television, read Whitley Streeper's
          `Majestic' which is a part of the contingency plan called `Ma-
          jestic' to test the reaction of the population to the presence
          of aliens on the Earth. And I have just finished my study of
          Whitley Streeper's book `Majestic,' and I'm gonna tell you right
          now that most of the documents in there, that he says are fic-
          tion, are real documents that came right out of Project Grudge.
          It is part of the government's campaign to leak information out
          in ways that they can always deny that it's real. There's only
          one thing wrong with the information in that book, the stories
          of the characters in there I know nothing about. What I'm talk-
          ing about are the supposed government documents that he has in
          that book. I'm telling you tonight they're real. Those are some
          of the same documents that I saw in Project Grudge back between
          1970 & 1973, and where we have wondered before, now we know that
          Whitley Streeper IS working for the government. And we had a
          suspicion anyway because in the front of his book he states that
          he got information and was helped by the research team of Moore,
          Shanderey, and Friedman. William Moore has publicly admitted on
          July the 1st that he is an agent of the United States Govern-
          ment, and we know that the others are too."
            "This is gonna come out, and the reason they're doing it the
          way they're doing it is they know eventually you're gonna find
          out that it's all true and real. They're desensitizing you so
          that you're not shocked, so that there's no collapse of society
          as we know it, so that the religious structure doesn't fall to
          pieces, so that the stock market doesn't go crazy, because these
          were their original fears. Now, there's nothing we can do about
          the last one because it's already happened, there will be a seg-
          ment of the population that worships the aliens, even though
          they're no different than us they're just from somewhere else,
          and they may look a little different. They are not gods. But
          there are already people worshiping the aliens and they predic-
          ted this would happen when they slapped the secret stamp all
          over all this stuff."
            "You know, there's really nothing wrong with what's been hap-
          pening except for 3 things;" [Cooper forgot to mention the 3rd
          thing, or was sidetracked, or included it into the 2nd thing.]
            Number one, when they decided to keep it secret they needed to
          finance it, they couldn't tell the public so they couldn't tell
          Congress. They decided to finance it with the sale, importation
          and sale, of drugs. Now in the documents that I read, in Opera-
          tion Majority, it specifically stated that when George Bush was
          the president and CEO of Sapata [sp] Oil, he, in conjunction
          with the CIA, organized the first large scale drug importation
          into this country from South and Central America by fishing
          boat, to the offshore oil platforms of Sapata Oil, and then from
          there into the beach, thus bypassing all Customs inspections and
          law enforcement inspections of any kind. They are still bringing
          in drugs, to a limited extent, in this manner. Another manner is
          by CIA contract aircraft which, one of their bases of landing is
          Homestead [sp] Air Force Base in Florida. We have affidavits
          from air controllers who have vectored the planes in, who have
          made sure that they're not interfered with in any way. We have
          affidavits from personnel at Homestead Air Force Base who say
          the planes have been met by Zeb Bush, who's George Bush's son.
          We have affidavits from people who work in the Gulf of Mexico,
          in the offshore oil business, that yes indeed, the drugs are
          coming in, at least some of them, from the offshore oil plat-
          forms."
            From the audience came a clear statement, "Just say no?"
            "Pardon? ...Right! Just Say No! Well that's what we're gonna
          do ladies and gentlemen with your help ...we are going to say
          NO, no more! And you gotta do it, you gotta act. You either
          gotta act, or watch your country go down the tubes."
            "Now, that's one of the things that's wrong. The next thing
          that's wrong is, to keep the secret, they killed a lot of people
          who tried to leak it out. And if I hadn't done it the way that I
          did it, you wouldn't be seeing me anywhere standing or walking
          on this Earth now. They killed president Kennedy and during the
          workshop, for those of you haven't seen the tape, I will show
          you, on the tape, who shot the president and why. Between '70
          and '73, in Operation Majority it stated verbatim that President
          Kennedy ordered MJ-12 to cease the importation and sale of drugs
          to the American people, that he ordered them to implement a plan
          to reveal the presence of aliens to the American people within
          the following year. His assassination was ordered by the policy
          committee of the Vilderbergers. MJ-12 implemented the plan and
          carried it out in Dallas. It involved agents of the CIA, Divis-
          ion-5 of the FBI, the Secret Service, and the office of Naval
          Intelligence. President Kennedy was killed by the driver of his
          car, his name was William Greer, he used a recoilless, electric-
          ally operated, gas-powered assassination pistol that was spe-
          cially built by the CIA to assassinate people at close range. It
          fired an explosive pellet which injected a large amount of
          shellfish poison into the brain, and that is why, in the docu-
          ments, it stated that President Kennedy's brain was removed. If
          you've studied the case, you will find that indeed his brain
          disappeared. The reason for that is so that they would not find
          the particles of the exploding pellet or the shellfish poison in
          his brain which would have proved conclusively that Lee Harvy
          Oswald was NOT the assassin. In fact, Lee Harvy Oswald never
          fired a shot, he was the patsy."
            Mr. Cooper paused briefly, and a lady in the audience asked
          the obvious question, "Why haven't YOU been assassinated?"
            "If they were to kill me right now, what would you think?"
          Cooper posed.
            "That it's the truth," several people chimed.
            "I've got `em right where I want `em. If they touch me,
          everyone who's ever heard me talk is gonna be absolutely enraged
          and is gonna know that everything I've said is true. As long as
          they don't touch me there's gonna be some of you who are always
          gonna be wondering. But eventually we're gonna bring enough
          proof out, and if you're here during the workshop you're gonna
          see an awful lot of it that's gonna prove to you that it's true.
          It's real. And it's happening!"
            "Okay, I've tried to cover a lot of stuff, just briefly, be-
          cause there's no time in 45 minutes to get into anything very
          much."
            Mr. Cooper then announced the scheduled workshop session the
          following day in which tangible proofs could be seen but regret-
          tably I was unable to attend. He then opened up the floor to
          questions and answers.
            A muffled question was barely heard coming from the front of
          the room which in essence asked, "What about all the people in
          the press and others who were in Dallas and who saw the assass-
          ination? Couldn't they tell where the shot came from, why didn't
          they come forward? There must have been plenty."
            "There was, we know that there was at least 18 who were all
          murdered within 2-years of the event. The odds of that happening
          are 1 in 300,000 trillion," Cooper replied.
            Again a muffled question, "Why did the DRIVER have to shoot
          Kennedy?"
            "Because the other fools missed! There were a total of 3-shots
          fired at President Kennedy, one hit him in the throat and didn't
          kill him and 2 of them hit John Connelly [sp]. The one that was
          fired from the grassy knoll hit the president in the throat. The
          other 2-shots came from directly behind the limousine, not the
          school book depository building, and hit Governor Connelly. Gov-
          ernor Connelly, in intelligence community circles, is known as a
          `can do' man, because he took 2-hits and still kept his mouth
          shut."
            "How is it that the driver, sitting on the front, left-hand
          side of the car was able to blow off the right side of Kennedy's
          brain when the bullet actually entered in, and it would have
          been virtually impossible..." another person asked.
            Mr. Cooper seized the gist of his question and injected, "For
          those of you who have been listening to all these talk show
          hosts, whose job it is to be a talk show host, and who have not
          done any legitimate research into this, if you come to the work-
          shop, I will show you, on the tape, how it was done. You will
          see that Kennedy was, in fact slumped over against Jackie, his
          head was turned [this direction], it was very simple, it was
          easy and you will see it with your own eyes."
            Another muffled, off-mike question from a member of the audi-
          ence inquiring why no one else had come forward with the infor-
          mation Mr. Cooper was disseminating, and why those who knew it
          had kept it secret for so long was quickly answered, "It hasn't
          been, I'm talkin' about it now. Bill English was talkin' about
          it 8-years ago but everybody laughed at Bill English. John
          Lear's been talkin' about it for 3-years and everybody laughed
          at him. Now there's so many people have been talkin' about it,
          people are startin' to listen and it's about time. Because it's
          about time we that we quit being fools, and that's exactly what
          they think we are and we prove it to them every day."
            Almost all of the questions from the audience were to faint to
          hear. The next one dealt with the alien technology and asked in
          essence, "Hasn't any one else [other than the government] come
          up with the energy technology that the aliens have?" to which
          Mr. Cooper answered, "There's been quite a few people who've
          come up with it and they've ALL been stopped, and they'll all
          continue to be stopped. Because once you have it you have FREE
          ENERGY. Once you have free energy they no longer have power over
          you. You understand? That's why they stop it."
            Another question asking, "In the film of the assassination
          which was examined greatly by experts, why didn't THEY conclude
          that Kennedy's driver shot him?", to which Cooper asked, "Exam-
          ined by WHO greatly?", and continued, "Most of the film that you
          can purchase has that segment cut out, and you can always tell
          it by the person running in the background, they'll run up to
          here... all of a sudden they'll be down here... running. You
          will see in most of the clips that you've ever seen on televi-
          sion, or in the movies, or that you're able to get your hands
          on, you'll see William Greer start to turn like this...", then a
          muffled comment from the audience, then Cooper answered, "That's
          because they clipped it out! And on a lot of them, I'll bet you
          most of you, every time you've seen the clip on television,
          never looked at the driver anyway. If you're really honest with
          yourself, and with me, you know your eyes were right on
          Kennedy."
            A woman asked if any of the alien technology was being used in
          present-day military equipment and was answered, "Yes, there's a
          lot of alien technology contained in the Stealth bomber, that's
          right. The Stealth fighter was flying for 10-years before you
          even knew it existed."
            As the hour drew late another question, more clearly stated,
          was asked of Mr. Cooper by a woman closer to my ears, "Before
          you let us all out of here, there's a bunch of us here wondering
          what can we all do to help bring this all out?"
            A single word, "REVOLT" issued from several listeners simul-
          taneously but Cooper responded, "Don't revolt. What you need to
          do is what you should have been doing all along. You need to get
          involved with your government. The first thing you need to do is
          purchase a copy of the Constitution, which I know that most of
          you don't have anywhere in your house, and if I were to go
          around this room and ask each person what the Constitution says,
          most of you couldn't tell me what the Constitution says from
          your grocery bill. And that's the truth! And that IS your coun-
          try! So if you don't know what your Constitution is you're dead
          already, so the first thing you do is you get a copy of your
          Constitution. The second thing you do is you learn it! The third
          thing you do is you start calling your senators and your repre-
          sentatives, and the President of the United States and you start
          leaning on them, and you tell them, `Unless you straighten up
          the government, and unless we start getting the truth, and I
          mean the whole truth, and no more of this baloney, this's the
          last job you're ever gonna have, period. And I'll do everything
          in my power to make sure that comes true.' And then write them,
          frequently, saying the same thing. And then when they're in your
          area, in their area offices, take a little delegation and go see
          them, and make them understand that they're gonna be living in
          poverty because they're not gonna have a job anymore come elec-
          tion day. You see, the secret government may own the executive
          branch, but you people, all of us, we own the Congress, and the
          Congress makes the laws, and the Congress can impeach the entire
          executive branch! You also have the right to petition the gov-
          ernment for a redress of injuries. So you ARE powerful, you've
          just forgotten that you're powerful, you've forgotten that that
          vote that you haven't been doing every time election comes
          around, that vote has abdicated your power. That vote you did
          not cast abdicated your power and gave it to those who are
          subverting the Constitution and are ruining this country."
            A gentleman then asked, "What was traded to the aliens for
          their technology?"
            "People and animals," replied Cooper succinctly.
            Another man asked, "Is the Soviet Union in on any of this?"
            "The Soviet Union and the United States of America have been
          close allies since the end of World War II and have been closely
          participating in the secret space program all this time. The
          Soviets have the same thing we have, yes. What you see happening
          in the Soviet block right now is not the result of people stand-
          ing up and saying, `We want to be free.' It's the result of the
          international bankers saying, `You tear down these barriers, and
          you meet the West half way, give your people some freedom, the
          West is gonna take some freedom away from their people so that
          we can put together a one-world economic system ...and have all
          the power. That's what's happening! If you don't believe it,
          stick around and watch it!"
            A dubious woman then asked, "Why was the shellfish poison
          necessary? A lot of his brain was blown off anyway."
            Cooper: "The shellfish poison? If you go to kill someone, one
          thing I've learned, I learned it real good, I learned it espe-
          cially good when I went to Viet Nam; just `cause you shoot some-
          one doesn't mean they're gonna die. And if they don't die,
          they're gonna be MAD. And if they've got a gun, you're dead. So
          you want the first time to be the last time. So if you really
          want to to kill somebody you don't play around. If you REALLY
          want to kill somebody ...you KILL them, you don't play, you make
          sure that when you shoot them, they're dead. That way they can't
          hurt you, can't hurt you at all."
            Regrettably, the next question was totally unintelligible, I
          was thankful however that Mr. Cooper had a good public address
          system to amplify his reply, "The first moon landing was May the
          22nd, 1962... or excuse me, that was the first landing on Mars.
          I'm sorry, May the 22nd, 1962 was the winged probe that used a
          hydrozine propeller, flew around approximately 3-orbits and lan-
          ded on May the 22nd, 1962, was a joint United States / Russian
          endeavor. The first time that we landed on the moon was sometime
          during the ...probably middle 50's, because at the time when
          President Kennedy stated that he wanted a man to set foot on the
          moon by the end of the decade we already had a base there."
            "What about Mars?" came another quick question.
            "We have a base on Mars also," Cooper calmly replied.
            "When did that happen?"
            "I don't know the exact date but I know the project's name, it
          was `Adam and Eve'."
            "How long have you known about this?"
            "Well, I revealed it publicly for the first time on July the
          2nd, 1989, and within 3-weeks of the time I revealed it public-
          ly, the government, to get the American people not to listen to
          me, came out and said that they planned to build a base on the
          moon and a colony on Mars. Now, 3-days previous to my speech,
          representatives from NASA said, `We can never have a colony on
          Mars, it's impossible that there's a colony on Mars because Mars
          is a dead planet.' And it's NOT a dead planet, they've lied to
          you about Mars."
            "My name is Dave [unintelligible], I'm a representative of the
          Crystic Institute, and I'd like to know why it was that when we
          sent a representative down to your home, at your request, you
          failed to produce any documentation to substantiate your allega-
          tions."
            "In the first place it was NOT at my request, I have never
          contacted the Crystic Institute in my life. I was on the Carol
          Hemingway Show, she contacted the Crystic institute, she told
          Daniel Shehan [sp] that I had just said something about Bush and
          drugs on her show. HE called ME and told me he wanted to send an
          investigator, in fact he told me to even help the investigator
          because he was new at the job, his name was Wayne Nelson, he is
          a very good gentleman, he stayed at my house for 2-days, slept
          overnight on my couch, I gave him everything I had. I never told
          Daniel Shehan that I had any documents and I never told Wayne
          Nelson that I had any documents. In fact what I told Wayne Nel-
          son, and I quote, `Wayne, if I did have the documents I couldn't
          admit it and I don't know you from Adam, and I don't know Daniel
          Shehan from Adam and what makes you think I would give them to
          you.' Who am I going to give them to and how quick are they go-
          ing to disappear, that was my thought. Wayne Nelson also came to
          my house with a stack of documents this thick already substanti-
          ating the presence of aliens and extraterrestrial craft on this
          planet, and they are keeping it a secret, because they're afraid
          somebody'll laugh at them and they'll loose their credibility."
            "We need some patriots in this country, not people trying to
          make a name for themselves, trying to expose some drug runners,
          because those are just the bag-men. The real crook is in the
          White House! And you can tell THAT to Daniel Shehan!"
            "Why didn't Jackie Kennedy report [the source of the lethal
          shot]?" asked another audience member.
            "Who's she gonna tell? The Secret Service just killed her hus-
          band and they're assigned to protect the President. Also, who
          had her children? The same Secret Service had her children at
          the time."
            "Wasn't the craft at Roswell, New Mexico destroyed and all the
          aliens killed?" another young man asked.
            "All the aliens were dead but the craft was not completely
          destroyed, it was severely damaged yes."
            On an unrelated note an older gentleman asked, "Does that mean
          that `Alternative-3' is true?"
            "Alternative-3 is absolutely true and so is `Alternative-2'."
            Then a man in his late 20's or early 30's raised his hand,
          said something I couldn't hear, and was apparently recognized by
          Mr. Cooper who asked him to take the podium and address the aud-
          ience.
            "What I said was that I thanked him [Cooper] very much for
          coming forward and saying something. A lot of my friends out
          here know that I was involved in the United States Special For-
          ces, UFO Tracking and Research from the years 1971 to 1975. My
          name is Richard Murray, I was based out of the 71st Tac Controll
          Flight, McDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida. We were `Mobile
          Radar Command,' that was combat and war ready. We could be load-
          ed on aircraft within an hour and many times were taken into
          areas [to] set up radar. A lot of times we were set up around
          Egland [sp] Air Force Base because that's where they have the
          `Altered Temperature Weather Control', where they can test vari-
          ous aircraft for their shrinkage and their dimension change dur-
          ing altered temperature. So, you know, I was told to shut up
          twice in 1982 and they finally threatened my parents life so I
          stayed quiet, and, that's when Wendel Stevens was taken off the
          streets... Just like that! And I hid for quite awhile, and deci-
          ded to come back out when I heard that you're [Cooper] of such
          high rank as you were, and I felt just in saying that your cre-
          dentials are true, and that what you have to say, everything
          you've said here today, I've heard before behind closed doors.
          And you've really tied the link for me to the Kennedy killing.
          And there's a few more links that have to go on with the Colum-
          bia Cartel and the money laundering. I think there's more than
          one cartel involved, and they're shutting one of them down so
          one can maintain a power, it just seems to be the way it works."
            A muffled question then came from someone in the audience
          regarding the person referred to as "Colonel Stevens."
            "Uh, Colonel Stevens is out of jail now," replied Murray who
          was quickly asked another question I couldn't hear to which he
          answered, "I sure hope to hell so, he is a wonderful man and I
          give him my utmost respect and it was one of the saddest days in
          my life to see what happened to him happen to him. But I don't
          care what they say about Wendel Stevens, in my heart you can't
          discredit that man to me. I don't care who the hell you are. I
          won't listen to it, I don't give a shit if he was screwin' ba-
          bies. You know... that doesn't... he's not that kind of a man, I
          don't care what you say, I know him personally."

            The lecture was then essentially over. The "Alternative-2 and
          -3" that were referred to briefly are, to the best of my know-
          ledge, two government contingency plans and I don't know which
          is which, to 1: Declare Martial Law and invalidate the Constitu-
          tion on the premise that a terrorist group had entered the coun-
          try with a Nuclear weapon with plans to detonate it in a major
          city. All dissidents would be rounded up and placed in concen-
          tration camps and the press and media would be nationalized. All
          this, if the information becomes public before they want it to
          or if the aliens attempt a takeover, and 2: Another contingency
          plan to contain or delay the release of this information, the
          details of which I am probably wrong about anyway.
            My own personal reaction to Milton William Cooper; Mr. Cooper
          is a man who appears to be in his late fourties, of medium
          height and weight, and was dressed casually when I saw him. His
          hairline was receding slightly and he carried himself with con-
          fidence and purpose. Bill Cooper, as he was called by several in
          attendance, is not a professional speaker. His presentation
          lacked the polish of repeated deliveries which all the other
          lectures I heard during the Expo. had, but what it lacked in
          fine tuning was easily made up for in its content. Weather or
          not everyone in the audience was convinced of his sincerity I do
          not know, but the thunderous peal of applause which exploded as
          he concluded the session spoke for me and the majority of those
          in attendance. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that
          Bill Cooper believes everything he said, and I'm about as
          skeptical as they come.

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Bob N. Keenan                     | DISCLAIMER?? I don't even KNOW HER!!
~ University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee |
~ [e-mail]              |
~ [e-mail]        |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film (LBJ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 19:40:43 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 49


>In article <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:

>No, the point isn't proven. We are talking about Kennedy who:
>  -stood nose to nose with the Soviets over the Cuban Missile Crises

   Did he? He gave up US missiles parked on Turkish soil in order for the
  Soviets to agree to remove missiles from Cuba...

>  -tried to kill Castro numerous times

   Did he? When informed of attempts on Castros' life by the CIA/mafia, he
  ordered them to stop....(which they didn't, by the way...)

>  -authorized American action in VietNam

   Did he? Eisenhower/Nixon did this. In a speech he made 2-3 weeks prior to
  his assassination he stated he had plans in the works to have all US troops
  out of SE Asia by 1965....

>  -gave the "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech.

   He did.....


>What he has done is morally reprehensible!

 It's only a movie, period. Anyone who watches movies and understands them to
 be completely factual has no grip on reality.....

>By the way, I don't necessarily believe that the Warren Commission was
>completely correct in ruling out a conspiracy. I just have great trouble
>believing any conspiracy that would require so many people to stay
>quiet for so long. If Castro helped out Oswald in hopes that Oswald
>would off JFK - well, that wouldn't be a surprise - Fidel can keep
>a secret. What I cannot accept is that a whole bunch of powerful
>people were involved and yet managed to keep a secret this long.

  It HAS been done.....

 Paul
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

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

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!uunet!mcsun!fuug!mits!karttu
From: [e-mail] (Antti Karttunen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.drugs
Subject: JFK & Leary & LSD
Keywords: JFK,LSD,Leary,Flashbacks
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 23:13:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: MITS, Helsinki, Finland
Lines: 17
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9598 alt.drugs:19705



In his autobiography, "Flashbacks", Timothy Leary gives reader
the impression that JFK was using LSD, and this was (one) reason for
his assassination. Also, the middlewoman between Leary and JFK,
called Mary something (cover name), was later found assassinated.
I'm not sure if I buy this, but anyway, interesting connection,
if it's true.
I have no "Flashbacks" here now, but if somebody of you have,
then could you quote a little bit from that Mary I-forgot-the-surname
chapter? (Thanks).

Follow-ups to alt.conspiracy, please!

--
Antti J. Karttunen            No employer, No disclaimer, No money.
[e-mail]          Kie estas la kato? La kato estas en la luno!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!psinntp!dg-rtp!patriot!grossg
From: [e-mail] (Gene Gross)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 22:03:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet Administration)
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.
Lines: 46
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9599 rec.arts.movies:50528

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Banks) writes:
>
>|> Go see the Zapruder film.  The shot that killed JFK came from the
>|> front.  His brains were splattered rearward with tremedenous velocity
>|> and his head was snapped back.
>
>In the recent Nova special on the assassination they examined this point
>by placing a skull filled with, uh, stuff, on a pedestal and firing at it
>from behind.  When hit it flew *backward* towards the gun...

This does not duplicate what was shown in the film, John.  JFK's head
was already moving forward at roughly 60fps.  Suddenly his head whips
back during the explosion at nearly twice the previous speed.  I have
yet to see that explained.

Further, we have a real problem with Oswald.  He barely made marksman
in the Marine Corps (note that marksman is the lowest rating for
weapons proficiency, unless you include bolo).  Later testimony shows
that Oswald never improved in his marksmanship abilities.

During tests of the Mannlicher, the "experts" had trouble hitting a
stationary target with the weapon.  Once they became acclimated to the
weapon, they still had trouble repeating Oswald's supposed feat of
wonder.

Now OR suggests that the simplest answer to all this is that Oswald
didn't pull the trigger.  And in fact, more than one shot was fired.

BTW, has anyone heard of testing the multiple shots theory as they
keep testing the lone nut theory?

>|> >grassy knoll). Additionally, about two thirds of the Dealey Plaza witnesses
>|> >said they heard a shot coming from the grassy knoll and many people ran
>|> >up the knoll looking for the culprit.
>
>It seems to me that the logical reaction when a sniper opens fire is
>for people to run to the nearest *cover*, rather than towards the gunman.
>I suspect that's really why all those people were heading for the grassy
>knoll, and that many of these witnesses's memories has been altered by
>years of debate and speculation.

Slight problem here -- a person says that he ran toward the hill to
apprehend the shooter.  But you say he was mistaken and merely running
for cover.  Think I ought to take your word for it!?  Naw.  I think
that the man who ran in that direction knew why he was running there.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!igor!worf!wab
From: [e-mail] (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film (LBJ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 23:02:03 GMT
References: <1991Dec27.005131.24226@anasaz>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Joan Vollmer Womens Academy
Lines: 74

In article <1991Dec27.005131.24226@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>Keywords:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:
>]In article <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>][...]
>]>Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
>]>over !
>]
>]LBJ made his senatorial career on being a red-baiter.  He
>]was a "liberal" only on domestic issues.  If you accept
>]Stone's thesis that Kennedy was replaced by LBJ for being
>]soft on Communism (instead of the other theories that
>]KKK/far right types killed him for being sympathetic to
>]civil rights or the Mafia killed him), then the point is
>]proven by the fact that LBJ went on to bomb flat huge
>]swaths of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
>
>No, the point isn't proven. We are talking about Kennedy who:

We are talking about an LBJ who:

>  -stood nose to nose with the Soviets over the Cuban Missile Crises

Gave McNamara the green light for a huge nuclear
build-up in the late 60's.

>  -tried to kill Castro numerous times

Authorized the overthrow of numerous non-aligned
governments.

>  -authorized American action in VietNam

Hugely expanded American action in Vietnam.

>  -gave the "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech.

Out red-baited McCarthy.  He defeated Coke Stevens,
one of the most conservative politicians in American
history, by painting him as soft on Communism.

>There is no question in my mind that Kennedy was anti-communist.
>Speaking as a "right winger" myself, I find the suggestion that
>LBJ was preferable to JFK to a right winger laughable - ludicrous
>in fact.

Well, I hope you enjoy laughing at yourself.  There
is no question that prior to assuming the
Presidency, LBJ was considered to be more
conservative than JFK on Communism and foreign
policy in general.  Sure, LBJ was a New Deal-er and
authored the Great Society, but these are *domestic*
issues.  Before becoming president, LBJ's railings
against Communism might be considered suspect since
they were so clearly geared towards drawing votes.
After he became president, though, he engineered his
own little conspiracy (Tonkin Gulf) so that he could
get America into the war.  If he had been secretly
soft on Communism, he would have used his rhetoric
to cover for *reducing* American involvement;
instead he talked and schemed to cover for
*increased* American involvement.

LBJ went much farther in escalating the Vietnam War
than JFK ever would have.  Proof by observation:
50,000+ tombstones.

[...]

>Furthermore, Stone uses a lot of easily discredited evidence - such as the
>direction that Kennedy's head moved.

AAAUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mips!sgi!odin!news
From: [e-mail] (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK & Leary & LSD
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 00:08:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Lines: 45

---
[e-mail] (Antti Karttunen) writes:
|In his autobiography, "Flashbacks", Timothy Leary gives reader
|the impression that JFK was using LSD, and this was (one) reason for
|his assassination. Also, the middlewoman between Leary and JFK,
|called Mary something (cover name), was later found assassinated.
 [...]

From "Acid Dreams: the CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Rebellion",
by Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain, pp 85-6:

    It is known that during this period Leary gave LSD to
    Mary Pinchot, a painter and a prominent Washington
    socialite who was married to Cord Meyer, a high-level CIA
    official. [...] Leary and Pinchot struck up a cordial
    friendship during her occasional visits to Cambridge in
    the early 1960s.  She asked him to teach her how to guide
    an LSD session so she could introduce the drug to her
    circles in Washington.  "I have this friend who's a very
    important man," she confided to Leary.  "He's very
    impressed with what I've told him about my own LSD
    experience and what other people have told him.  He wants
    to try it himself."  Leary was intrigued, but Pinchot
    wouldn't tell him who she intended to turn on. Nor did
    she inform her LSD mentor of her marriage to a CIA
    bigwig.

    Leary explained the basic rules of set and setting,
    emphasizing the importance of a comfortable, sensuous
    environment for an LSD trip.  From time to time, Pinchot
    reported back to him.  "I can't give you all the
    details," she said, "but top people in Washington are
    turning on.  You'd be amazed at the sophistication of
    some of our leaders. We're getting a little group
    together..."  Leary had no way of knowing that Mary Pinchot
    was one of President Kennedy's girlfriends and that she
    and JFK smoked pot together in the White House.  Pinchot
    was murdered less than a year after Kennedy was
    assassinated, and her diary disappeared from her home.

---
[e-mail]      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The absence of any corrective action year after year can only be explained
by bureaucratic rigidities and the abject worship of that bitch-goddess,
cost reduction."  --Ralph Nader, in Unsafe at Any Speed
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!uwvax!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Speed of limo
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 91 23:12:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 15
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9603 rec.arts.movies:50532

[e-mail] (Gene Gross) writes:
>
>This does not duplicate what was shown in the film, John.  JFK's head
>was already moving forward at roughly 60fps.  Suddenly his head whips
                                       ^^^^^

Can the assassination buffs make up their minds how fast Kennedy was
moving?  So far I've heard that the driver stopped the car so that
the gunman would have a clear shot, that the car was only going
7-8 mph, and now this poster is claiming 40 mph.
--
Ted Frank          + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
1307 E 60 St, #109 +          -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
U o' C Law Skool   + "It's too bad you saw me, Timmy.  Now I'm going to have
Chi, IL 60637      +  to kill you."     -- Santa Claus
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!asparagus.berkeley.edu!chenchen
From: [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Cold War paradigm (JFK & LBJ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 00:42:36 GMT
References: <1991Dec27.005131.24226@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 55
NNTP-Posting-Host: math1mac4.berkeley.edu

I'm trying to refute Oliver Stone's rationale for a conspiracy here:

From what I remember of my history classes, all the rosy assessments
of JFK's intentions wrt Vietnam don't really hold water.  What we would
now call a Kennedy Liberal less JFK and more RFK and Ted, both of whom
were deeply affected by the assassination.  The idea of social change
originating from JFK is more likely due to what LBJ did afterwards
in Kennedy's name (telling Congress to pass legislation in the dead
President's memory.  "He would have wanted it this way.").  His record
on civil rights is at best splotchy.  He reacted more to inevitable social
change than initiated it.  Oh, I seem to have gotten off the track, and
stopped talking about Vietnam.

Anyway....

The author of _America's Longest War_ (whose name escapes me) argues
convincingly (but then, I'm not a historian) that JFK's and LBJ's
actions in Vietnam have to be understood in the context of the Cold
War.  They were traditional Cold War Democrats, and the logic of
Containment (as formulated by the Truman and Ike administrations)
required them to intervene in Southeast Asia.  This intervention, again
through the logic of Containment, would most likely have escalated, no
matter who the President was.  The contention is that the Vietnam
war was more or less inevitable, and only a paradigm shift would have
prevented it.  This shift happened with the Tet Offensive, in 1968.
Before this, the majority of the American public supported the war,
and thought we could win.  The Kennedy Administration did not represent
this paradigm shift.  His withdrawal of 1000 troops shortly before his
assassination is arguably only a show, and more troops would have been
reinserted if the conflict worsened.  I don't know the context of his
speech that all US troops would be withdrawn by 1965 (someone please
tell me), but I'd suspect that this was more from a timetable of
victory than anything else.  By then, South Vietnam would have stabilized,
and could take care of itself (oh, contemporary statements like it should
be the ARVN that should be fighting instead of US troops doesn't hold,
I think.  Traditionally, the US has always wanted "indigenous" soldiers
to do our fighting.  This was part of the rationale for NATO (let the
Europeans share part of the defense burden, we'll supply the equipment),
and may have been involved with such things as the scheduling of D-Day
(let the Soviets fight the Nazis, we'll give moral support).  The US
almost always prefers not the use troops, and supply weapons instead.),
so the thinking went.

This does not say there was not a conspiracy.  This is more to cast some
doubt on Stone's motive for the assassination.  Physical evidence, such
as the single bullet, tends to argue for multiple gunmen, and some sort
of obfuscation.  Though, arguably, it may have been the FBI covering
it's own ass for botching the investigation up.  I don't know.


--
Where's Zen-Waldo?  |------------------------------------------------------|
       by           |                               |
Cheng-Jih Chen      |                               |
                    |------------------------------------------------------|
Path: ns-mx!uunet!igor!worf!wab
From: [e-mail] (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film (LBJ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 02:30:51 GMT
References: <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Joan Vollmer Womens Academy
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:
>>In article <1991Dec26.153940.10243@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>>[...]
>>>Right... the Far Right really wanted Mr. Liberal Lyndon Johnson to take
>>>over !
>>
>>LBJ made his senatorial career on being a red-baiter.  He
>>was a "liberal" only on domestic issues.  If you accept
>>Stone's thesis that Kennedy was replaced by LBJ for being
>>soft on Communism (instead of the other theories that
>
>Er, have you ever read _The_Missiles_of_October_?

No, I haven't, although I read plenty of historical
analyses of the Cuban Missile Crisis for Pol. Sci.
courses.  You seem to be implying that either or
both Kennedy and LBJ were soft on Communism; a
cryptic reference isn't enough to distinguish.

"If you accept..."  All I'm saying is that it's nuts to claim LBJ was a
bleeding heart liberal, not make any judgements
about Kennedy's choices during the CMC, and that was
kind of clear from my original post.  Read Caro
or most other LBJ biographers for a picture of LBJ
as a red-baiter.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cadence!vince
From: [e-mail] (Vince Gibboni)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 03:52:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Lines: 25
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9607 rec.arts.movies:50541
Nntp-Posting-Host: beepbeep

[e-mail] (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>As I remember (and I'm sure I will be corrected 3,743 times if wrong),
>Jack Ruby died of cancer, in prison, while serving time for the murder
>of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>

    Just a _slight_ correction.

    Ruby died of cancer in jail (1967?) while awaiting a retrial after his
    original conviction was sucessfully appealed. If I remember correctly he
    admitted the crime (it'd be pretty tough to deny) but was going to plead
    temporary insanity. Anyway, technically, for what it's worth, he wasn't
    serving time but awaiting trial.

    By the way, I saw an interview with Oliver Stone in which he said that
    there is only one character in the movie who knows "everything" (the
    entire conspiracy) and that it would take a very observant person to
    figure out who it is was. Anyone have any guesses ?

--
                                                         [e-mail]

    "All ended happily with Mrs. Churchill throwing napkins at
     her husband."   - Martin Gilbert
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!asparagus.berkeley.edu!chenchen
From: [e-mail] (Cheng-Jih Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 05:37:05 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 17
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9608 rec.arts.movies:50542
NNTP-Posting-Host: math1mac4.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vince Gibboni) writes:
>    By the way, I saw an interview with Oliver Stone in which he said that
>    there is only one character in the movie who knows "everything" (the
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    entire conspiracy) and that it would take a very observant person to
>    figure out who it is was. Anyone have any guesses ?

Bo?

I'm sorta half watching _The Fly II_, so the thinking circuits are
off.  Sorry all.

--
Where's Zen-Waldo?  |------------------------------------------------------|
       by           |                               |
Cheng-Jih Chen      |                               |
                    |------------------------------------------------------|
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!mips!sgi!cdp!speakout
From: [e-mail] (Speak Out!)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK ASSASINATION / MJ-12 CONNECTION
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 04:36:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 4
Nf-ID: #R:[e-mail]:-718102151:cdp:1299600014:000:86
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!speakout    Dec 27 20:36:00 1991



Just FYI, William Cooper is a sham.  So is his story about the driver
shooting JFK.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK ASSASINATION / MJ-12 CONNECTION
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 06:48:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 15


BEWARE:   Of anything William (Bill) Cooper says.   The man is a KOOK!
          It is important to note that Cooper shows a B/W version of
          the Zapruder film.   The original was in color.

          When you see the COLOR ("full screen") version you will see
          that Cooper's claim is fraudulent.

          It is also worth noting that he sells VHS copies of copyrighted
          material (mostly meaning the film-- and it isn't his) as you
          walk out the door of his already expensive (ill-organized)
          speeches.

Just BEWARE!
     ------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
From: [e-mail] (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK & Leary & LSD
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 11:22:08 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 8
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns1.ins.cwru.edu


JFK is not the only prominent person rumored to have done acid
with Leary during the heyday of legal experimentation. Two names
I have heard mentioned are Henry Kissinger and Henry Luce of
Time-Life. No documentation, unfortunately, just old hippie
street talk.
    -Steve
Path: ns-mx!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!cc.helsinki.fi!leisti
From: [e-mail] (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 17:21:02 GMT
References: <1991Dec27.005131.24226@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Uutis Ankka)
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 9

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

> LBJ went much farther in escalating the Vietnam War
> than JFK ever would have.  Proof by observation:
> 50,000+ tombstones.

On the American side, that is.  On the Vietnamese: 1 000 000+ dead.

--  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!cc.helsinki.fi!leisti
From: [e-mail] (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 17:22:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Uutis Ankka)
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 12

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

>>No, the point isn't proven. We are talking about Kennedy who:
>>  -stood nose to nose with the Soviets over the Cuban Missile Crises

>    Did he? He gave up US missiles parked on Turkish soil in order for the
>   Soviets to agree to remove missiles from Cuba...

If I remember correctly, the missiles in Turkey were scheduled to be
withdrawn anyway.

--  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!mea
From: [e-mail] (mark.e.anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 20:28:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 29
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9615 rec.arts.movies:50551

In article  [e-mail] (Vince Gibboni) writes:

>    By the way, I saw an interview with Oliver Stone in which he said that
>    there is only one character in the movie who knows "everything" (the
>    entire conspiracy) and that it would take a very observant person to
>    figure out who it is was. Anyone have any guesses ?

My guess would have to be the infamous Lee Harvey Oswald.  The part
I think he didn't know until it was too late was that he was the
fall guy.  After that became apparant, he knew everything.

This is a great film and presents lots and lots of information.  The
key piece of information that I found most disturbing is the picture
of Oswald on the cover of Life magazine.  This photograph is an obvious
fake that even this amateur photographer can deduce.  Life magazine
is known for its excellence in photography.  How could they not figure
this out????  Since this copy of Life magazine is in public domain,
I think I'll be checking out the library's micrifiches to look into
this more.

If this story does nothing more than get people like me to the libraries
to read newspaper accounts of what was going on at that time, it will
be a success.  I am deeply disturbed that, because of this assassination,
we lost 20 years and trillions of dollars and thousands of young lives to
see the end of the cold war.

Let's hope LBJ gets described by history correctly.

Mark Anderson
Path: ns-mx!uunet!convex!egsner!csccat!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!finess!rburns
From: [e-mail] (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 91 07:31:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 11

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Vince Gibboni) writes:
 > By the way, I saw an interview with Oliver Stone in which he said that
 > there is only one character in the movie who knows "everything" (the
 > entire conspiracy) and that it would take a very observant person to
 > figure out who it is was. Anyone have any guesses ?

The most like characters like this would be John Foster Dulles on the Warren
Commission. I don't think that Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover were depicted in
the film.  I seem to remember a famous prediction that within 50 years the majority
of the worlds adult population will see the Kennedy hit as a conspiracy involving
these folks.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 91 02:11:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 15
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9619 rec.arts.movies:50558
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

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

>key piece of information that I found most disturbing is the picture
>of Oswald on the cover of Life magazine.  This photograph is an obvious
>fake that even this amateur photographer can deduce.

Are you talking about the real photographs, or the ones Stone created
for the movie?  Stone had to make his own, of course, since he needed
his Oswald actor to be in them to not draw attention away from the
alleged fakery, but the ones he posed for the movie are at a _far_
higher resolution than the real McCoys, and I personally could only
detect the alleged evidence of fakery in _Stone's_ pictures.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!uchinews!quads!pmb2
From: [e-mail] (peter maitland bell)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 91 00:41:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
    *The head is connected to the body by means of the neck*
    I saw the film of the head-on-a-platform recoiling toward the shooter
    The posts from the hunters, then, are the most relevant.  They were
    Having al
Lines: 5


    Peter Bell
    [e-mail]

*my opinions are not those of the U of C, or anyone else I can think of.  I
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!uwvax!uchinews!quads!pmb2
From: [e-mail] (peter maitland bell)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination and the Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 91 03:31:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 54


    Sorry, my last posting got eaten by the editor;  I am hoping this
will go through as composed.
    Some time back in the part of this thread devoted to the kinetics of
JFK's head movement in the Zapruder film, someone wondered if a
biomechanic were reading the net.  I am not a biomechanic but an
anatomist. I restate, with the full weight of my formal training, a
point which has been made too infrequently when considering the
effects of bullets on heads:
  *The head is attached to the body by means of the neck*
    This is true;  you can test if for yourselves.
    I have seen the Nova program about the assassination, and I noted
that in the head-on-a-stepladder footage, while the head did recoil
toward the shooter, the added confusion of the neck was excluded, as
it was when Dr. Alvarez studied his canteloupes.  I have enjoyed the
review of high school physics as much as the assistants in the course
have enjoyed giving it, and I can only add that one other lesson from
high school physics that I remember is that a model must be tested.
My colleages here in Chicago also often harp on this point;  perhaps
that is why it is still fresh in my memory.  Hence, the Nova footage
and the Alvarez experiments do not speak to the real question.  I do
not understand why no footage of shots fired into a head from behind
whilst that head was attached to a body were included in the Nova
program;  but in their absence, we have no public evidence of the
result.
    In this instance, the hunters' evidence becomes important, as they
have conducted the experiment.  As I understood them, one person had
seen heads recoil toward the shooter and one had seen heads move away.
Hence, the results are as yet inconclusive on this front.
    IMHO at this point, in order to think about where the shots came
from, the ear witnesses become crucial.  Apparently, their evidence is
consistent with guns fired from multiple locations, in front of and
behind the limosine.  Here, JFKs head motion would be interpreted as
the result of a shot from the front.  My viewing of the Z film is that
this is the most plausible explanation, unless I see footage
demonstrating that heads shot from behind normally snap back in the
direction from which the bullet originates.
    Point the second:  Someone referred to there being a conspiracy
"theory" about US involvement in the elimination of democracy from
Chile by assisting in the ouster its President and supporting the
fascist
government which replaced him.  There is no "theory" of US involvement;
the US *did* bankroll Pinochet and his allies before and after the
coup.  (Further, prominent members of the Nobel-studded Economics
faculty of this august institution assisted him after the coup.  Henry
Kissinger got a Nobel Peace Prize, so they were following a great
man's precedent.)  Additionally, the CIA was advised that Chilean
security operatives were preparing to enter the US illegally in order
to silence Orlando Letelier;  after Letelier's car was bombed in DC,
DCI George Bush explained that he hadn't had a chance to read all his
mail and had missed the information on the assassins.
        Peter Bell
        [e-mail]
*my opinions in no way reflect those of the University of Chicago*
Path: ns-mx!uunet!jwt!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Stollman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK: Why are we talking??
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 91 03:23:49 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Waffle login)
Organization: The Matrix
Lines: 3

The bastards did it!!  Let's hang them all!!

     Gary Stollman(Who knows better!)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!psuvax1!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!lb2e+
From: [e-mail] (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 91 04:40:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,
    <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 17
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9623 rec.arts.movies:50560
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

Gene Gross writes:
>JFK's head was already moving forward at roughly 60fps.
>Suddenly his head whips back during the explosion at nearly
>twice the previous speed.  I have yet to see that explained.

Perhaps an explanation is that it didn't happen.  If I am
following you correctly, you are saying that Kennedy's
head moved backward at about 100 feet per second.  That
sounds more than a little improbable.  Zapruder's film
was running at about 20 frames per second.  If Kennedy's
head moved backward at 100 feet per second, then it would
move five feet in the time from one frame to the next.  I
don't even think that the total distance that Kennedy's
head moved backward was as much as five feet.  Certainly
it did not move five feet between one frame and the next.
If it had, we would not be able to see this movement replayed
in slow motion.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!stanford.edu!apple!well!gshubin
From: [e-mail] (Greg Shubin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: More JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 03:19:31 GMT
Distribution: alt
Lines: 24



I just saw JFK. I think the value of the movie is not that it gives
any definitive answers, but that it renews the public interest in the
assassination. I have a couple of questions myself.

1) Concerning the Zapruder film. Maybe this has been discussed
elsewhere, but I have not seen it. I thought I saw, "long after" the
fatal head shot, almost at the end of the Z film (or at least the
portion shown in JFK), a little red "puff". I thought it was between
Kennedy and Connally, and rose about 1-2 feet above the top of the
seat level. My first thought was that it was Connally getting hit,
but it went by too fast, and I wasn't looking for it. Anyone familiar
with this? Some people here have mentioned viewing the Zapruder film.
Is it available? How can I get a copy?

2) What ever happened to the guy who came forward recently (last
year?), who claimed that his father was one of DPD's finest, had
somehow been involved in the conspiracy, and had given him (the son)
a diary containing details? Didn't the FBI get involved, and the
diary mysteriously disappeared?

Thanks for any info,
Greg Shubin
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!phage!pjm
From: [e-mail] (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Keywords: JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 03:59:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NO MAIL)
Distribution: world, rec, usa, na
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Lines: 11

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Morris) writes:
>
>    I can't resist adding my $0.02 to all this JFK blather:
>2)Now that the cold war is over, we have some hope of hearing the Russians side
>of the issue.  KGB files might reveal what Oswald did in the USSR, whether
>Nosenko was a false defector etc etc.  Given the turmoil in the former USSR, it
>might even be true that we are more likely to hear the contents of their cold
>war files than our own!
>
didnt i hear that this was attempted but that it was thwarted
at the last moment by the (then existent) Kremlin bureaucracy.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus![e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: "JFK" lights fire under Sen. Specter
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 03:56:46 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 27
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:50892 alt.conspiracy:9904 talk.politics.misc:56993

Excerpts from "`JFK' puts a new blot on image of Specter" by Katharine
Seelye (Knight-Ridder News Service):

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., already running for re-election during a
recession, suddenly finds himself with another load of unwanted baggage--
courtesy of Hollywood.

Back in 1964, Specter was an investigator for the Warren Commission and
posited the single-bullet theory...

In a freak accident of bad timing for Specter, the movie "JFK" now
resurrects the single-bullet theory and portrays it as utterly prepos-
terous...

With it comes Specter's name--and the derisive hoots of moviegoers across
the country...

For Specter, the three-hour...movie boils down to the ultimate three-second
negative political spot.

In the movie,...Kevin Costner, playing...Jim Garrison, calls Specter "an
ambitious junior counselor" and brands his theory "one of the grossest lies
ever forced on the American people." At the mention of Specter's name, some
members of some audiences in Philadelphia and elsewhere hoot, cheer and
applaud in apparent agreement with the disparaging reference.

Asked if he intended to sue for libel, Specter said: "No comment."
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 08:09:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694662032@cancun>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 26


Ron Dippold says:     "THE UNTALENTED STONE STRIKES AGAIN."

I say:       How many awards for your talent have you won?
             How many movies have you directed or writen?

             Are you, Sir, more likely to appear on...
             a) The Oscars
             b) Amazing Discoveries
             c) Stupid Human Tricks

Mr. Stone is not the issue to attack on JFK.  He is a VERY talented filmaker-
something not even the Warren Commision could dispute (if it were still around).

As a producer myself, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Stone's work.  Tell me
have you ever seen "Midnight Express" or "Platoon?"   Both are multiple
Oscar winners and both were HUGE box-office successess.   I predict "JFK"
may be the same- whether you like it or not.

Even if Mr. Stone had created the biggest LIE in motion picture history- as
most skeptics would love to beleive, you have to still credit his storytelling
and filmaking talents.  He did a hell of a job lying didn't he?  He's not
only convinced me, but many others that something smells.

Then again, who's to say what ART and TALENT are.  All I know is I wouldn't
want to have you as a judge in ANY talent competitions.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <rdippold.694722844@cancun>
Date: 6 Jan 92 18:34:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694662032@cancun> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>Ron Dippold says:     "THE UNTALENTED STONE STRIKES AGAIN."

No I didn't.  I said the untalented genius Stone strikes again.
Paraphrasing someone who I've forgotten, probably PJ O'Rourke, Stone
is that favorite of American public figures, the untalented genius.
He makes movies with simple messages like "War bad,"  "Government bad,"
and then surrounds those messages with whatever crap is necessary to
get the message across, real and made up.  He's a genius, because he
knows that the public doesn't want facts, it wants emotional catharsis
without having to think about it.  It doesn't matter what he puts
around it, as long as it supports his message.

>Mr. Stone is not the issue to attack on JFK.  He is a VERY talented filmaker-
>something not even the Warren Commision could dispute (if it were still around).

He's everything to attack.  If he decides to go with a "docudrama"
news reenacment as was all the rage on the tabloid journalism shows a
while back, that's his decision.  Maybe we should be pissed at Marilyn
instead?

>Then again, who's to say what ART and TALENT are.  All I know is I wouldn't
>want to have you as a judge in ANY talent competitions.

I can imagine.  You'd most likely lose.






--
The naked truth of it is, I have no shirt.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!darwin!studier
From: [e-mail] (Jim Studier)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK Head shot and NBC film
Keywords: JFK
Message-ID: <studier.694726476@darwin>
Date: 6 Jan 92 19:34:36 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 13


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


 2.) In High Treason a bone fragment from JFK's head was mentioned
 that was found 25 feet behind the location of the JFK car at
 the time of the head shot. What does this say about whether the
 head shot came from the front?


    Jim Studier
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 20:31:20 GMT
References: <rdippold.694722844@cancun>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 30

[e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

> [Stone] makes movies with simple messages like "War bad,"

Let's get specific. Are you prepared to argue that Vietnam was good?

> "Government bad,"

Are you prepared to argue that the government did a cracking good job of
investigating JFK's assassination?

> He's a genius, because he
> knows that the public doesn't want facts, it wants emotional catharsis
> without having to think about it.

That wouldn't make him a genius, since most movies fit that modus aperandi
and it's not profound. Personally, I don't think he's a genius. Scorsese's a
genius. Stone is just a good commercial filmmaker.

> He's everything to attack.  If he decides to go with a "docudrama"
> news reenacment as was all the rage on the tabloid journalism shows a
> while back, that's his decision.  Maybe we should be pissed at Marilyn
> instead?

Let's face it: government investigators, for whatever reason, blew the
crime of the century. When you've heaped a just amount of the blame on them,
then you can use the remaining 2% to blame people whose speculations about
the case are too extravagent.

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 21:50:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <mg.694462512@elan> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 54
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

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

>>No, their eyes, being transfixed on Kennedy's head at the time, told
>>them where the shot came from.  Tell me, how many heard a grassy knoll
>>shot and _didn't_ see the head shot?
>>
>There were some, including a soldier named Arnold, standing in front
>of the knoll who hit the deck upon believing themselves between the
>shooter and shootee.

But Arnold is flat-out _wrong_ about the first shot being from the
grassy knoll -- all the physical evidence about the shooting that
Arnold reacted to (viz., the Kennedy and perhaps Conally wounds)
indicates that that shooting was coming from nowhere near him.

>The chance for physical evidence was destroyed.  The most egregious
>act was LBJ's ordering the complete refitting of the presidential
>limo two days after the shooting.

But not until after two bullet fragments had been found in it, and a
cracked windshield and dented chrome had been duly examined.

>A bullet was found in the
>grass and turned over to the FBI, which subsequently disapppeared.

I don't put much stock in this story.  The newspaper photograph I've
seen had a caption saying the people were looking at where a bullet
hit the grass, and not that they were looking at a bullet.  If it was
an entire bullet that was allegedly found, how on earth did it come to
be sitting "in the grass" instead of burrowed a few feet underground?
(Was somebody throwing bullets at Kennedy from the grassy knoll? ;)

Also, _when_ did this story enter the public record?  I don't trust
any story that assassination "researchers" manage to elicit years
after the events in question.

>A curbstone was shattered near the limo,

"Shattered"?  Have you _seen_ the picture of the nick in the curb?  It
is too slight to have been caused by an unimpeded rifle shot.
No traces of bullet jacket were found there, but traces of lead (a la
a fragment from a bullet core) were in fact found.  Also, the nick is
directly in line with a Kennedy head shot from the Depository sniper's
nest.

>but was patched the next
>week with fresh cement.

The curb was not examined until almost a _year_ later, at which time
the mark was indeed (almost?) gone.  Only in the early 80's did an
analysis of the curb say that its appearance was _consistent_ with
having been patched, but they weren't sure.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!walter!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <rdippold.694740177@cancun>
Date: 6 Jan 92 23:22:57 GMT
References: <rdippold.694722844@cancun> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 44
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

>> [Stone] makes movies with simple messages like "War bad,"
>Let's get specific. Are you prepared to argue that Vietnam was good?

No.  However I wouldn't argue against it by liberally interspersing
actual facts with fabricated facts, or taking an incredibly
stereotypical totally sympathetic character (or worse, taking an
actual person and "adding detail" to his life to make him more so) and
submitting him to all sorts of fabricated stereotypical bad guys, and
then give that as an argument against it.  I'm not arguing that war is
good, I'm saying that his message, in it's entirety, is War is bad.

>> "Government bad,"

>Are you prepared to argue that the government did a cracking good job of
>investigating JFK's assassination?

Fuck no, you're making up more and more claims for me as I go along.
Soon I won't have to think at all, I can just find out from you what
my opinion is.

There's a massive difference between Government being incompetent (we
all know that) and Government being involved in a huge conspiracy to
assassinate the president.  Indifference and malevolence is not the
same thing.

>> He's everything to attack.  If he decides to go with a "docudrama"
>> news reenacment as was all the rage on the tabloid journalism shows a
>> while back, that's his decision.  Maybe we should be pissed at Marilyn
>> instead?

>Let's face it: government investigators, for whatever reason, blew the
>crime of the century. When you've heaped a just amount of the blame on them,
>then you can use the remaining 2% to blame people whose speculations about
>the case are too extravagent.

Let's face it: conspiracy theorists and UFO buffs can "prove" anything
they want.  I'm not fully satisfied with the Warren commission, but
Stone's version is even worse.  He's willingly distorting the facts in
order to prove his point.
--
We should have had socialism already, but for the socialists. -- G B Shaw
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!billy
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz>
Date: 6 Jan 92 20:27:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Lines: 21
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9943 misc.legal:24199 alt.censorship:5580

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ben Delisle) writes:
->
->--
->   Why are there many files and documents that are sealed or locked away
->for a number of years, untill near the mid 21st century?
->   What is hidden in those files? Is there a way to force those
->documents to be opened, to be publicly read without censorship?
->Unless there WAS/IS a conspiracy, then there is no reason to hide the
->truth. What is there to stop people from going to the storage location
->of the files and breaking the seals on them?
->   Our Tax money paid for the investagation to begin with.
->
I don't know that there is any "authority" under which the files were sealed
or could be unsealed.  The fact is, they were sealed at the request of the
Kennedy family so the political reality is that they will remain sealed
until 2038.

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Bill Moore     [e-mail]    [phone]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!bigtex!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Physics of JFK Assassination
Keywords: Zapruder film, conservation of angular momentum
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 01:11:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

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

>indicates that jets of brain matter could play an important  role
>in  the  physics  of  the  problem.   However,  no  such jets are
>apparent in the Zapruder film.

Which Zapruder film have you been watching?  The film shows them.  The
Conallys (in front of Kennedy) reported being splattered with
_some_body's brain like "birdshot".  _All_ of the bullet fragments and
fragment effects from the head shot occurred directly opposite
Kennedy's head from the Depository: the cracked windshield, the two
bullet fragments found on the limo floor ahead of Kennedy, the curb
nick and Tague wound, and the Kennedy neck wound.  Finally, the head
wound is both an entrance _and_ exit wound, indicating a glancing hit
that had to come from near the plane defined by the wound's perimeter.
The grassy knoll is a lot further away from that plane than is the
Depository.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!cdp!plemkin
From: [e-mail] (Peter Lemkin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 02:30:00 GMT
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 856
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1299600017:000:17098
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!plemkin    Jan  6 18:30:00 1992


            COINCIDENCE OR CONSPIRACY?







1) Why were over 58 eye-witnesses to the assassination ignored

by the Warren Commission when they said they felt shots had NOT

come from the Book Depository?



2) Why did most persons in Dealey Plaza run up the Grassy Knoll

after the shots while the authorities ran to the Book Depository?



3) Why were MULTIPLE rifles found at the Book Depository and

then all but one made to 'disappear'?



4) Why were ongoing de-escalation plans for Vietnam reversed

within 48 hrs of the assassination?



5) Why were the twelve persons taken into custody in Dealey

Plaza all released, without so much as their names taken? What

is the evidence (officially ignored) that some of them were

directly involved?



6) How was 'Watergate' and the ensuing Watergate scandal

DIRECTLY connected to the JFK assassination?



7) What MULTIPLE lines of evidence connect the JFK, RFK and MLK

assassinations?



8) What are the known (often frightening and bizarre) details of

the over 200 persons who were murdered or died VERY suspiciously

(and conveniently) after 11/22/63 because they had seen the

'wrong' things, tried to speak up, etc.? Why did they die in

"clusters" when investigations were ongoing - sometimes just

hours before they were to be questioned?



9) Why was Nixon one of the few Americans who could not

correctly remember where he was when the assassination occurred?

Why may he have 'forgotten' he was on a plane out of Dallas?



10) Why could J.E. Hoover also not 'remember' he was in Dallas

for a meeting just days before the assassination? Why did he

show NO surprise at the announcement of JFK's death?



11) What is the evidence that FBI informants (perhaps even Lee

Harvey Oswald himself) had warned the FBI of an impending

assassination attempt on JFK which the FBI ignored and later

denied even getting?



12) What multiple lines of evidence show Ruby and Oswald's FBI

and CIA connections?



13) What documents are still being withheld from public scrutiny

in the National Archives and WHY? Why 'hide' any when the

government 'believes' the act was committed by a 'lone nut'!?



14) Why did so MANY government documents involving Lee Harvey

Oswald and others 'disappear' or were said to have been

'destroyed' - including Lee Harvey Oswald'S Army Intelligence

files, Lee Harvey Oswald'S letter to his FBI contact Hosty and

MUCH MORE?



15) Why when Lee Harvey Oswald returned to the USA from the USSR

was he NOT officially met by any representatives of the CIA,

FBI, State Dept. etc., but WAS met by Spas T Raiken, a former

Nazi collaborator with intelligence community connections who

the Warren Commission claimed was with 'Traveller's Aid'.



16) Why was Marina Oswald sequestered in a hotel, surrounded

with intelligence community connected persons, coached as to

what to say and what she had experienced, and threatened with

deportation if she did not cooperate?



17) What evidence connects EVERY president since the

assassination (with the lone exception of Carter) directly with

the assassination or its cover-up!? What are George H.W. Bush's

connections to the events of 11/22/63? Why was his name and

address  in Lee Harvey Oswald'S Dallas friend's address book?



18) Why did Jack Ruby repeatedly implore of the Warren

Commissioners to take him out of Dallas and to Washington where

he felt he could speak the truth? Why did they NOT take him up

on his offer and pleas?



19) What did Jack Ruby mean when he said that he was "no more

involved in a conspiracy than you gentlemen" when he spoke to

the Warren Commission?



20) Why did Ruby suddenly contract cancer and die just before

his new trial was to begin?



21) Why did Dorothy Kilgallan, the only reporter to interview

Ruby in prison, die mysteriously days after she said she would

"break the case wide open" and her best friend die some days

thereafter?



22) How do the events of 11/22/63 and its immediate aftermath

STILL effect our everyday political and even personal lives?



23) What Government agencies and other groups were involved in

the planning and execution of the President and then cover it up?



24) Why was the single-bullet or "Magic Bullet" theory of the

Warren Commission a physical and medical IMPOSSIBILITY?



25) Why do those who played prominently in the assassination and

its 'investigation' continually show up in contemporary

political life? Are they being 'rewarded' for a 'job well done"?



26) Why did the U.S. Government deliberately LIE to the American

People and World about what they knew of the events of the

assassination? Why do the CONTINUE to do so?



27) Who felt threatened by JFK? And who gained by his murder?

Who had the means to kill him and cover it up to look like the

work of a lone-nut?



28) How was the Media sometimes cleverly controlled and, at

times, complicit in the coverage of events, facts and fiction?



29) Which Mafia bosses and employees, many of whom worked for

and with the CIA, were involved in the assassination?



30) What did LBJ mean when he said the U.S. Government had been

running a 'Murder Incorporated' down in the Caribbean in the

'60's?



31) Why did LBJ insist on being sworn in on Air Force One when

he was quite legally President AUTOMATICALLY upon the death of

JFK?



32) Why were some of the very same persons who were in Dallas on

11/22/63 also just by 'coincidence' near the RFK murder and

Memphis for the MLK assassination?



33) Why did so MANY fear for their lives in the wake of an

assassination by a (then dead) lone-nut? Why did so many die

suddenly, mysteriously and 'conveniently'?



34) Why did the FBI not react to an informant's report that

Joseph Milteer knew in detail how JFK was going to be

assassinated weeks before the event? Why did the public never

hear that Milteer traveled hundred of miles to witness the

execution with his own eyes? Why was he never questioned by the

Warren Commission, House Select Committee or anyone else?



35) Why were the few who attempted to tell the truth of the

events harassed, punished, fired from their jobs, discredited,

intimidated, marginalized, threatened and often killed?



36) Why did all those who met in Ruby's apartment the evening

Ruby killed Oswald die mysteriously thereafter?



37) Why did so many bullets and so much of the physical evidence

'disappear'?



38) Who were the multitude of PHONY 'CIA' and 'Secret Service'

persons (complete with official looking ID) on the Grassy Knoll

and around Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Why were they stopping

persons from moving into certain locations?



39) Why did the driver of the Presidential limousine slow the

car during the fusillade rather than accelerate?



40) Why did Secret Service men jump over the body of LBJ and not

JFK?



41) Why were several of the Secret Service agents out drinking

very late the night before at a club owned by a friend of Ruby's?



42) What did Jack Ruby know when he said "I'm Jack Ruby. You

don't know me, but you soon will" just BEFORE the assassination?



43) What evidence is there that Ruby, Oswald and Tippit (as well

as others possibly involved) all knew and had been seen meeting

each other?



44) Why was so much evidence and testimony suppressed and at

times altered?



45) Why to THIS DAY do many live in fear to speak the truth of

what they saw or know of the events of Dallas 11/22/63?



46) Why are powerful forces trying to discredit the new JFK

movie? Why have 'critics' of the official version of events long

been subject to harassment, surveillance and more?



47) Why were so MANY of the movies and photos taken in Dealey

Plaza that day CONFISCATED by persons representing themselves as

government officials and NEVER returned nor shown to the public?



48) Why do governmental and extra-governmental forces STILL spin

dis-information stories related to 11/22/63 and its aftermath?



49) Why were several witnesses offered bribes and/or threatened

by the FBI and others to NOT disclose the truth of what they saw?



50) Why were witnesses coached and badgered to get the testimony

the Warren Commission 'wanted' to hear? Why were those who saw a

different scenario ignored or worse?



51) Why did Warren suggest the Report NOT be published to save

printing costs?



52) Why and how did police have a full description of Oswald

before those on the investigation scene could have assembled any

information to lead to such a conclusion?



53) Why did some newspapers get information only the FBI and CIA

had on Oswald to print in their stories within hours of the

event? Who leaked this information or had it on hand prior?



54) Why do so few know of the photos that show clear evidence of

a conspiracy and even show images of the other conspirators and

gunmen?



55) What is known of the multiplicity of mysterious activities

of many in Dallas and Dealey Plaza that day?



56) Why did the FBI and CIA at the HIGHEST levels suppress

information and work to foil a real investigation into aspects

of the assassination?



57) What were the many Nazi and Fascist connections to the

assassination?



58) What evidence is there of MULTIPLE gunmen in the School Book

Depository and other buildings, as well as the Grassy Knoll?



59) Why was 'Lee Harvey Oswald' repeatedly seen at several

places SIMULTANEOUSLY in the weeks before the assassination and

who were those impersonating him and why?



60) What evidence shows that the person murdered by Ruby is NOT

the person exhumed from that grave?



61) Why were so many of the medical evidences tampered with or

made to 'disappear'? Why were so many others seemingly altered?



62) Why did someone construct forged composite photos to frame

Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination?



63) Why did the JFK autopsy doctor who burned his notes and

first draft of the autopsy report get a promotion shortly after

this obstruction of justice and/or alteration of fact?



64) Why do the locations of wounds as seen by a team  doctors in

Dallas and that evening by another team of doctors in Bethesda

Naval Hospital NOT match in number or location!?



65) Why did the CIA and other government entities try to

discredit and obstruct Garrison's investigation and frame him on

false charges? Why were they so afraid of his investigation?



66) Who was the Army Intelligence man in and around the Texas

School Book Depository?



67) Why were Jack Ruby and several of the Dallas Police and

others seen repeatedly at multiple assassination-related

locations in Dallas that day? How did they seem to 'know' where

the 'action' was - or was to be?



68) Why do different documents and identifications of Lee Harvey

Oswald show different height and even  different faces - not to

mention names? What was Lee Harvey Oswald's REAL 'mission' in

the USSR and in New Orleans and Dallas after his return? Who did

he work for? CIA? FBI? ONI?



69) Who were the several different men seen fleeing from the

Plaza seconds after the shots rang out?



70) Why did the eye-witness reports of persons seeing men with

rifles in Dealey Plaza before and during the shooting receive so

little 'official' attention and even suppression?



71) Why was JFK's body ILLEGALLY removed from Dallas and Texas

jurisdiction? Why did the FBI remove all of the other physical

evidence to Washington? Why was a Grand Jury never convened?



72) Why did the Warren Commission and FBI seem to repeatedly and

consistently mis-spell the names of those who's involvement

might shed light on a possible conspiracy? Was this

'conspiratorial dyslexia' on the government's part?



73) Were one or more bullets and bullet fragments removed

secretly from JFK's brain as much evidence indicates?



74) Why was his brain never sectioned and studied? Why and to

where did it disappear along with other essential medical

evidence?



75) Why do the descriptions of the size, color and other details

of the coffin JFK's body was placed into in Dallas NOT match

those his body was in when it arrived for autopsy in Washington?

Was there a 'switch' and tampering with the body during the

flight?



76) Why were the autopsy doctors ORDERED to NOT follow certain

STANDARD medical procedures and investigate certain wounds etc.?



77) What was the Government's role in obstruction of justice

after the fact...if not before?



78) Why were the seven particular persons on the Warren

Commission selected? Why did several have intelligence community

connections? Why were some enemies of JFK?



79) Has our Government been 'illegitimate' since 11/22/63? Are

we still living with the legacy of a coup d'etat in America? Are

the 'coup' leaders still firmly in control?



80) Is: 'ignorance bliss'? Does: 'knowledge imply

responsibility'? Does: 'silence equal complicity'?



81) What can be done to understand and finally undo this entire

(long overdue) situation? Is Knowledge and Truth the first step

to talking back our country? What ARE the facts? Why are they

obscured from the average American?



82) Is the assassination of JFK the PIVOTAL event of American

History since the Second World War? Is an understanding of the

events a NECESSARY precursor to understanding EVERY MAJOR

political event that has happened since - right up to TODAY!?



83) Why did Jack Ruby suddenly have a dramatic improvement in

his financial situation just prior to the assassination?



84) Why did several persons not 'officially' thought to have

been involved suddenly flee Dallas immediately after the Event?



85) Why did the Washington D.C. phone system fail for several

minutes immediately during and after the assassination?



86) Why were most of the Cabinet conveniently and coincidentally

out of the country at the time?



87) Why was the Navy man with the launch codes for the atomic

weapons separated from JFK and LBJ? What foreknowledge did the

Military have? What possible participation?



88) Can the deaths and destruction at home and abroad in Vietnam

and ALL the subsequent wars be understood by an analysis of the

JFK assassination?



89) Was Lee Harvey Oswald a CIA agent, as much evidence seems to

indicate?



90) Need the American People question if our  government and

institutions of government have had ANY legitimacy since

11/22/63?



91) What Right-Wing groups and Businessmen were involved in the

plot? Why?



92) Why were NO notes kept by ANYONE who interrogated Lee Harvey

Oswald over a 48 hr period?



93) Why did Lee Harvey Oswald say "I am just a patsy"? Was he

100% correct?



94) Why does much evidence show that Lee Harvey Oswald did not

even hold a rifle that day - and perhaps NOT even OWN one?



95) Why did then Governor Reagan refuse to extradite several

persons suspected of direct involvement in the assassination for

trial and then get suggested as a Presidential candidate?



96) Why did Lee Harvey Oswald have to be executed within 48hrs

of his alleged crime? Was he 'supposed' to have been killed

prior?



97) How did Ruby gain entry into the Police station? Were the

police waiting for Ruby to enter  before moving Oswald?



98) Why did forces high in the FBI order the DESTRUCTION of a

note Oswald had given to FBI agent Hosty in Dallas days before

the assassination?



99) Why do CIA and other documents show a coordinated effort to

'destroy' the critics of the Warren Commission and the

Government's BIG LIE of the events of 11/22/63?



100) Did America DIE  along with JFK that day in Dallas

11/22/63? Can we revive it and take  back OUR country from the

assassins and their heirs? Are we as a People more satisfied

with THE 'COMFORTABLE LIE' OR THE 'UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH'?!?



            REFERENCES YOU SHOULD READ



1) High Treason, Groden, Robert J. and Livingstone, Harrison E.;

Berkeley Books, l990



2) On The Trail Of The Assassins, Garrison, Jim; Sheridan Quare

Press, l988



3) Crossfire, Marrs, Jim; Carroll and Graf, l989



5) Conspiracy, Summers, Anthony; Paradon, l989



6) Best Evidence, Lifton, David; Carroll and Graf, l988



7) Plausible Denial, Lane, Mark; Thunder's Mouth Press, N.Y.

l991 (HC)



8) Act Of Treason, North, Mark; Carroll and Graf, l991 (HC)



9) Spy Saga, Melanson, Philip; Praeger, l990 (HC)



10) Mafia Kingfish, Davis, John H.; McGraw Hill, l989,



11) Merkin Conspiracy, Melanson, Praeger, 1989. (MLK

Assassination)



DON'T FORGET TO QUESTION AUTHORITY AND SEEK THE TRUTH - YOURSELF!







BE AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN HISTORY AND LIFE AND NOT JUST A

SILENT OBSERVER! WORK TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH IN THE JFK,RFK, MLK

AND OTHER ASSASSINATIONS AND THE VARIETY OF 'BLACK' OPERATIONS

WHICH HAVE THREATENED AND ARE THREATENING OUR DEMOCRACY AND

BROUGHT US TO THE BRINK OF FASCISM AS WELL AS MORAL, FINANCIAL

AND ENVIRONMENTAL BANKRUPTCY IN AMERICA!







IF YOU DO NOT ACTIVELY WORK TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

AND OUR DEMOCRACY, REMEMBER - SOMEONE ELSE WILL BE ACTIVELY

WORKING TO DESTROY THEM!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!cdp!plemkin
From: [e-mail] (Peter Lemkin)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: 1967 GARRISON STATEMENT ON JFK HIT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 02:33:00 GMT
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Lines: 640
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1299600018:000:16376
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!plemkin    Jan  6 18:33:00 1992


            WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL







     An identifying characteristic of the super-state is its

readiness to conceal from the people facts which might make them

restless. In order to maintain power its officers must keep the

populace beleiving that it is living in the best of all possible

worlds. Consequently,  those  in  control  of   the

governmental



machinery sometimes find it necessary to  re-write  history as

fast as it happens.  The truth becomes not what occurred but

what they announce has occurred.  Reality becomes just another

government-controlled commodity.



     If the official myth to be presented is particularly

unbelievable it may be necessary to have honorable men study it

and announce that they have found it to be true [In 1939, after

having invaded and conquered western Poland because of alleged

Polish atrocities committed against German individuals, the

German government appointed a committee to make a careful study

to determine the facts with regard to the claimed Polish

misconduct. The final printed report of the study contained much

documentary evidence, including not only photographs, affidavits

and countless medical certificates but an authenticated

quotation from the year 1598 to the effect that barbarous

cruelty was one of the vices of the Polish people.  The report

confirmed that the Poles indeed bad committed atrocities against

Germans and it indicated that things would have been even worse

were it not for the timely arrival on Polish territory of the

German rescuers.  The conclusions of this painstaking study by a

government-appointed committee meant that Adolf Hitler would not

have to withdraw his armies and apologize to Poland.  See:

"Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in PoIand,"

German Library of Information, New York, 1940.]



    This is not really as difficult as it sounds because there is

nothing to which honorable men joined in an honorable cause will

not stoop in the name of duty.  As a general rule of thumb, the

more unbelievable the story the more honorable should be the men

assigned to prove its veracity.



     To date, George Orwell's 1984 provided the best fictional

portrait of the correction of history to suit current political

needs. In Oceania, that dismal land presided over by Big

Brother, the power of the government had become Gargantuan and

the rights of individuals virtually had vanished.  In order to

maintain this balance, the Ministry of Truth continually was

engaged in improving history to make it reflect govemment

pronouncements.  This was justified on the ground of 'national

security,' a reasonably honest rationale inasmuch as the

government could not have survived without such wholesale

concealment of facts.



     If, for example, Big Brother made an error which was

exposed by statistics, the offensive statistics were destroyed

and more satisfactory statistics were published.  If books or

newspapers described facts which were embarrassing to the

government, they were merely re-written so as to conform with

official legend.  The original troublesome material was simply

fed in the "memory hole," a chute leading down to the

incinerator.  The government's policy of vaporizing into

nothingness unpleasant facts contributed in great measure to the

calm of the populace of Oceania.  This was helped by the fact

that individuals who interfered with the public calm also tended

to disappear.



     "Who controls the past," said the official slogan of the

super-state, "controls the future."



     It now appears that, twenty years ahead of Orwell's

schedule, the United States has succeeded in producing the

classic model of re-writing history to conform to official

needs.  It is hard to assay this accomplishment when we are

still so close to it, but when our contributions to civilization

are added up this well may rank ahead of our invention of napalm.



     When the President of our country was executed on a public

street, one would have thought that there would have been a

general uncomplicated desire to catch the assassins and to bring

them all to justice. After all there was sufficient information

available concerning the strange movements of cars behind the

grassy knoll immediately prior to the assination, the fusilade

of rifle fire coming from there and the rapid departure of men

on foot and by car from that sector following the shooting.

Apparently, however, it was not as simple as an that. It appears

that when a President's heart stops beating considerations of

power and policy take over.



     Instead of running down the men who killed John Kennedy,

the U.S. government simply ratified his execution and moved on

to more important matters.  With regard to the men who actually

killed him, because of their displeasure with his foreign

policy, the assassination has been treated not as an offense but

as a mandate for change.



     The young man so promptly nominated by the Dallas Police

Force was duly elected the lone assassin.  He had excellent

qualifications, provided they were not examined too closely.  He

wore the tag of a Communist defector who had spent 3 years in

Russia.  He had been murdered, which assured that there would be

none of the time consuming problems of proof which a live

defendant would have presented.  And his gun and three empty

cartridges had been placed at the 6th floor of the book

depository.



     In spite of these conveniences there was a slight problem.

The overwhelming weight of legitimate evidence clearly indicated

that he could not possibly have fired a shot at the President.



     There was, to begin with, the fact that the rifle

originally brought down from the book depository at 1:05 p.m.,

and briefly exhibited as the assassins rifle, had, unlike Lee

Oswald's rifle, no telescopic sight.  There was the fact that

the Marine Corps shooting records showed that Oswald could not

hit the side of a barn. There was the tense fact that the

nitrate test indicated that Oswald bad not fired a rifle of any

kind. There was the fact that the ancient Italian rifle, which

Oswald was supposed to have used, could not conceivably have

accomplished the ballistic miracle with which it was credited -

particularly causing a single bullet to inflict seven different

wounds, including bone destruction, in two different men.  There

was the fact that the President was hit from several different

directions and that his fatal wound quite obviously was received

from his right front, in the area of the grassy knoll.



     To make matters worse, there were probably more witnesses

to President Kennedy's murder than to any other in history and

the great majority of them were very conscious of the fact that

most of the shots came from in front of the President.  There

was also the embarrassing evidence that Lee Oswald had been an

employee of the Central Intelligence Agency and had acquired the

stigma of a Communist defector while in the service of the

United States and as the result of instructions given him by the

United States government.  Most of the embarrassing evidence was

simply buried at the outset in a swift funeral devoid of

ceremony.



      The autopsy photographs and X-rays, for example, which

would have revealed that the President was struck from a number

of directions,  [Dr.  Robert N. McClelland, at Parkland

Hospital, examined the President and concluded that the cause of

death was a gunshot wound of the left temple.  Similarly, Dr.

Mahlon Jenkins recalled, in his testimony before the Warren

Commission, that there was a wound in the left temple, right in

the hair-line.  The book depository, although it may since have

been moved, at the time of the assassination was located to the

rear of the President.]



    These autopsy photographs and X-rays were whisked away and have

been kept hidden ever since.  By now there has been time to

construct new autopsy photographs and X-rays which more closely

harmonize with the official myth than did the original ones.

Hundreds of significant government files and memoranda have been

laid away in vaults where they cannot be seen.  Among the hidden

Central Intelligence Agency files alone are to be found such

titles as: "Oswald's Access to Information about the U-2,"

"Reproduction of Central Inteligence Agency Official Dossier on

Oswald" and "Information on Jack Ruby and Associates." Inasmuch

as we have been assured by horrorable men that neither Oswald

nor Ruby had any connection with the Central Intelligence Agency

it probably would be unpatriotic to speculate on what these

secret files contain.



     As bad luck would have it, a rash of conflagrations swept

away other vital evidence in the government's custody. The only

notes known to be taken during the long 12-hour interview of Lee

Oswald after the assassination appear to have been burned. Notes

taken by a federal agent who interviewed Oswald before the

assassination also went up in flames. A secret Central

Intelligence Agency memo concerning Oswald, written prior to the

assassination, went up in smoke while being thermofaxed.  This

phenomenal instance of spontaneous combustion occurred in

Washington the day following the asassination. The autopsy notes

describing the President's wounds were cremated in his fireplace

by the attending Navy pathologist.



     This is not to say that the government has not shown

concern for the people's right to know.  For those citizens who

are curious about how and why their President was killed, the

Ministry of Truth has made available the dental charts of Jack

Ruby, photographs of Russian scenery, grammar school records of

Oswald and Ruby, a careful analysis of Oswald's pubic hairs,

irrelevant letters, irrelevant telegrams, picture postcards

showing bullfights, a copy of the proceedings in an unrelated

divorce case, a list of traffic citations received by Jack Ruby,

and an excellent photograph of an unidentified man.



     For those whose curiosity about the assassination may not

have been satisfied with this frank display of evidence, it has

been announced that even the secret files will be made

available. There will, however, be a slight delay of 75 years

before they can be examined. This farsignted provision not only

assures a long



period of national tranquility with regard to the assassination,

but also substantially reduces the danger of the involved

government officials being lynched.



    Of course, there is no real guarantee that, even if you are

very patient, you will actually get to examine these files in 75

years.  New concerns by the government with regard to national

security may require an additional 75 years delay, and it even

might come to Pass that one day it will be announced from

Washington that actually no assassination ever occured.  In

time, it can be explained that John Kennedy really never existed

at all and that Dwight Eisenhower was followed by Grover

Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge, all depending on which words best

suit the government's Purpose at the time.  Any of these

announcements would be every bit as accurate as the official

myth that Lee Harvey Oswald, the lone assassin killed President

Kennedy



    In the super-state, it really does not matter at all what

actually happened.  Truth is what the government chooses to tell

you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.



     In Dealey Plaza reality destroyed illusion, the illusion

that we were fiving in the best of all possible worlds.  The

fairy tale of the lone assassin represents an effort to

resurrect the illusion, to legitimize it by proclamation and to

impose it by muscle.



     In the interest of tranquility the decision has been made

somewhere that it is better for you not to know what really

happened.  It is better for you not to know that at midday on

November 22nd there were many men who, in many places, were

glancing at their watches.  It is better for you to believe that

the successive murders of the President of the United States,

Officer Tippit and Lee Oswald were simply three meaningless

incidents which happened to occur one weekend in Dallas.



     Above all, it has been decided that you are not to know of

Lee Oswald's relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Nor are you to know that a number of the men actually involved

in the assassination had been employees of the Central

Intelligence Agency.  You are not to know about those matters

because of something called "national security."



     When national security is used as the excuse for concealing

essential facts surrounding a disaster, it usually refers to the

security of the men who allowed the disaster to occur.

Actually, the greater threat to national security is the cynical

concealment of such facts from the people.



     Behind the facade of earnest inquiry into the assassination

is a thought control project in the best traditions of 1984.

Because of their role in the Establishment and their failure to

conduct any effective inquiry, major news agencies have a vested

interest in maintaining public ignorance.  They look away from

the widespread evidence that something is wrong, just as the

members of the Warren Commission looked away from the autopsy

photographs and X-rays of the murdered President. [To a man the

members of the Warren Commissionrefused to examine the autopsy

photographs and X-rays. This evidence could have clarified once

and for all the number of times the President was shot and the

various directions from whcih he was shot. the Commission,

however loyally refused to play Russian Roulette with the "lone

assassin" theory. The unviewed autopsy evidence was locked away

behind concrete walls and the Dallas Police Department scenario

duly was adopted as the official national myth.]

                  Tranquility, the time-honored message reads, is better

than knowledge.



     In the authoritarian state, it is regarded as a selfevident

truth that the control of history is an inalienable right of

government.  All words are created free and equal.



     If it is proclaimed in Washington tomorrow that the moon is

made of Limburger cheese, a horde of honorable men can be

produced to attest to that fact.  If it is proclaimed that an

elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, a

phalanx of experts will appear to confirm it.  Anyone rash

enough to question these official verities can expect to be

exposed as a villain or a fool. The name of the game is not

truth it is power.



     The Ministry of Truth has announced that the assassination

of John Kennedy was investigated exhaustively, that no evidence

of a conspiracy was found and that the matter should be

considered closed.



     The greatest lies are told in the name of truth.  The

greatest crimes are committed in the name of justice.



     The American people have suffered two tragedies.  In

addition to the assassination of the President by dishonorable

men our national integrity is now being assassinated by

honorable men.  It does not matter what the rationale is -

whether to calm the public or to protect our image - the fact

remains that the truth is being concealed.



     The United States Constitution, assuming that it has not

accidentally been burned to a crisp, does not give anyone the

power to re-write history.  The fact that this has happened

should be evidence enough that it is far later than any of us

have dream.



     The question now is whether we have the courage to come

face to face with ourselves and admit that something is wrong,

whether we have the will to insist on an end to deception and

consealment with regard to the execution of John Kennedy-or

whether we win let the official fairy tale be told and re-told

until the truth itself fades into a vagrant rumor and finally

dies forever.



     If we will not fight for the truth now - when our President

has been shot down in the streets and his murders remain

untouched by justice - it is not likely that we will ever have

another chance.



                                JIM   GARRISON



                                New Orleans, Louisiana



                                September 1, 1967






Path: ns-mx!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!risky.ecs.umass.edu!giovin
From: [e-mail] (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 09:15:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz>
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 15
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9951 misc.legal:24208 alt.censorship:5581

In article <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ben Delisle) writes:
[stuff about JFK-related files being sealed deleted]

>I don't know that there is any "authority" under which the files were sealed
>or could be unsealed.  The fact is, they were sealed at the request of the
>Kennedy family so the political reality is that they will remain sealed
>until 2038.

So the Kennedy's were involved in it too?  I bet Willie Smith was
responsible.  How about JFK?  He is the least likely suspect in
perpetrating his own murder.  Pure genius!  He can never be tried!

deliriously-yours,
Rocky Giovinazzo
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!dusty
From: [e-mail] (Dusty Garza)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 09:44:01 GMT
References: <rdippold.694662032@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694722844@cancun>
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Lines: 23

In article <rdippold.694722844@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:

>>Then again, who's to say what ART and TALENT are.  All I know is I wouldn't
>>want to have you as a judge in ANY talent competitions.
>
>I can imagine.  You'd most likely lose.


Gee Ron,  I'd love to know JUST HOW TALENTED you might be. What do you do
for a living???

Not to brag, but this loser in your talent competition has not one, but
TWO Television EMMY Award nominations and 1 EMMY to my credit as a
"TALENTED" TV PRODUCER.   I may not agree with you perception of talent, but
many of my peers certainly think that I've got some.   Forgive my
immaturity, I'm only 25.

--Dusty
in L.A.

P.S. I THINK OLIVER STONE IS TALENTED, GUTSY, AND IF NOTHING ELSE- SMILING
     ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!psinntp!ultb!ultb!sew7490
From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "JFK" lights fire under Sen. Specter
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 14:55:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Lines: 25
Xref: ns-mx rec.arts.movies:51068 alt.conspiracy:9957 talk.politics.misc:57090
Nntp-Posting-Host: ultb

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

>In the movie,...Kevin Costner, playing...Jim Garrison, calls Specter "an
>ambitious junior counselor" and brands his theory "one of the grossest lies
>ever forced on the American people." At the mention of Specter's name, some
>members of some audiences in Philadelphia and elsewhere hoot, cheer and
>applaud in apparent agreement with the disparaging reference.
>
>Asked if he intended to sue for libel, Specter said: "No comment."

When I was home during break, I went to see JFK with a friend.  We
viewed the film in a Harrisburg (PA) theater, and most of the audience
had the same response as the one you refer to in Philadelphia.

In Rochester, however, when Specter's name was mantioned you could hear
a few whispers and murmurs.  Maybe they just weren't sure who Specter
was...

But I doubt by the sounds of things he should be expecting many votes
from Pennsylvania anytime soon.

-Sean
--
Sean E. Williams                      [e-mail]
Rochester Institute of Technology     Telecommunications Technology (ITFT)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bd481
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: _Men Who Killed Kennedy_
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 16:47:23 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 11
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns9.ins.cwru.edu


     I'm looking for someone that has the series that aired on
A&E recently, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", on videotape.  I was
following the series but was unable to finish it.  I would be
willing to reimburse someone for the cost of tape(s) and shipping.
Since I don't regularly follow this group, please email me at
[e-mail]

Thanx in advance,
--Kevin
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!phage!pjm
From: [e-mail] (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 16:58:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NO MAIL)
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Lines: 5

on PBS last night William Buckley had this to say
about JFK:

There probably was a conspiracy by Castro to kill
Kennedy but LBJ covered it up to avoid WWIII.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|inews!stravinsky...intel.com!jreece
From: jreece@stravinsky...intel.com (Soon to be jreece@dvorak)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 17:13:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mg.694462512@elan> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 36
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9961 rec.arts.movies:51083

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (seemed like a good idea at the time...) writes:

|> the chain of events claimed
|> in the "official" version of the assassination are such an unlikely
|> string of occurancess that the odds of them happening exactly as stated
|> dwindles to utter insignificance.  something is almost certainly (more
|> than 99% likely) at variance with the "official" version.


This is based on a false application of probability.  It's like declaring
that someone who says they just flipped 10 heads in a row or who drew a
straight flush is a liar because the odds of doing so are so low...

The fact is the conspiracy theories rely on arbitrarily rejecting
somewhat plausible, non-conspiratorial interpretations of many oddities
in favor of an incredibly complex conspiracy planned with an improbable
level of foresight.  For example, there are discrepancies between the
Dallas physicians' descriptions of JFK's wounds and the Washington autopsy.
One explanation is that the conspiracy anticipated the need to alter
wounds and had one of its (improbably many) operatives in place to do so.
Or maybe it's just because the Dallas physicians weren't pathologists, were
in a hurry, and just a little freaked out by events to do a proper.
Another example is the fact that Oswald's telescopic sight was out of
alignment.  This is could be viewed as evidence that someone else had
to have done the shooting.  Or it could just be evidence that he
dropped the rifle in a hurry to get away....

One final thing.  As unlikely as it is that Oswald, or someone firing
from the Depository, could "do the shooting", it was also a very
unlikely shot from other positions.  The limo was moving with respect
to those positions, and more cross-wise to their line-of-sight to boot.

--

John Reece
Intel spokesman?  Not!
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz
From: [e-mail] (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 18:17:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

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

>Mitchell S. Todd  posted that he had heard the bullets shot into the wrists
>of cadavers were almost as good (in shape?) as the prestine (magic) bullet.
>Bullet #399- found on Dallas Stretcher.
>
>Where did you hear that??   There is a vast diference.  And consider that
>the bullets that were fired into the cadavers and dead goats were only
>shot into something ONCE.  The prisitne bullet (supposedly) went through
>Kennedy and Connaly (wrist included).

Right.  The theory is that the intervening neck and chest slowed the
bullet to a speed at which it merely _splits_ the wrist bone on its
way through.  Have you seen x-rays of those cadaver wrists that had a
rifle bullet shot directly into them?  The wrist bones are completely
_destroyed_, the bullet is completely mangled, and the cadaver would
have lost the use of his wrist.
--
Brian Holtz
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!lll-winken!taurus!huxley!jxxl
From: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 18:16:27 GMT
References: <rdippold.694740177@cancun>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 71

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

< >> [Stone] makes movies with simple messages like "War bad,"
< >Let's get specific. Are you prepared to argue that Vietnam was good?

< No.  However I wouldn't argue against it by liberally interspersing
< actual facts with fabricated facts

You just slammed every movie ever made. All fiction is a combination of
known things and imagined things.

< or taking an incredibly
< stereotypical totally sympathetic character (or worse, taking an
< actual person and "adding detail" to his life to make him more so) and
< submitting him to all sorts of fabricated stereotypical bad guys, and
< then give that as an argument against it.

Are you referring to some characters in a movie? I don't know what you're
talking about.

< I'm not arguing that war is
< good, I'm saying that his message, in it's entirety, is War is bad.

How about when Ron Kovic gets less than four star treatment at a VA hospital?
In your mind, is that Oliver Stone's simplistic reduction that "war is bad"?

< >> "Government bad,"
< >Are you prepared to argue that the government did a cracking good job of
< >investigating JFK's assassination?

< Fuck no, you're making up more and more claims for me as I go along.
< Soon I won't have to think at all, I can just find out from you what
< my opinion is.

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

< There's a massive difference between Government being incompetent (we
< all know that) and Government being involved in a huge conspiracy to
< assassinate the president.  Indifference and malevolence is not the
< same thing.

Well, I doubt that you will be the first person to prove that every part
of the cover-up by government officials was inadvertent. The fact that this
is not known is what fuels the controversy.

< >Let's face it: government investigators, for whatever reason, blew the
< >crime of the century. When you've heaped a just amount of the blame on them,
< >then you can use the remaining 2% to blame people whose speculations about
< >the case are too extravagent.

< Let's face it: conspiracy theorists and UFO buffs can "prove" anything
< they want.  I'm not fully satisfied with the Warren commission, but
< Stone's version is even worse.

In general, I agree with you about "conspiracy theorists." However, don't
let the excesses of some theorists blind you to the possibility that there
was indeed a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The evidence here is stronger
than anywhere else.

< He's willingly distorting the facts in order to prove his point.

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

John
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK Investagation.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 17:41:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 25
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:9969 misc.legal:24233 alt.censorship:5585
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes...
>In article <1992Jan6.202723.9701@anasaz> billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
>[stuff about JFK-related files being sealed deleted]

>>I don't know that there is any "authority" under which the files were sealed
>>or could be unsealed.  The fact is, they were sealed at the request of the
>>Kennedy family so the political reality is that they will remain sealed
>>until 2038.

>So the Kennedy's were involved in it too?  I bet Willie Smith was
>responsible.  How about JFK?  He is the least likely suspect in
>perpetrating his own murder.  Pure genius!  He can never be tried!

    Well, Garrison *did* finger RFK as a conspirator.......

                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 18:21:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 13

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>    What bullet? Or are you referring to the picture that
>    Garrison cliamed contained an FBI agent picking up
>    a .45 bullet?

No, I'm referring to a witness who said they were present when a bullet
was dug out of the grass and given to someone who said they were FBI.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, Physics and Russian files.
Keywords: JFK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 18:44:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world, rec, usa, na
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Morris) writes:
>
>2)Now that the cold war is over, we have some hope of hearing the Russians side
>of the issue.  KGB files might reveal what Oswald did in the USSR, whether
>Nosenko was a false defector etc etc.  Given the turmoil in the former USSR, it
>might even be true that we are more likely to hear the contents of their cold
>war files than our own!
>

The former head of the KGB was on MacNeil/Lehrer last month.  They asked
him about Oswald, whether he had recruited him or tried to recruit him.
He replied that they did not recruit him because they thought he was CIA.










--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
[e-mail]   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsb.cb.att.com!colten
From: [e-mail] (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Summary: Buckley on Castro
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 18:53:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

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

Which is also the reason I've never thought of Castro as much of
a suspect.  If it was known that Cuba was behind the killing
of an American President (we're talking right away in the heat of
the moment) we'd have flattened the island.  They must have known
that.  People mention the Bay of Pigs, but don't forget - Cuba
won that!  You don't feel the need to personally punish someone for
the privilege of humiliating them.

Also, why would LBJ cover it up to avoid WW III?  He had no problem
sending troops halfway around the world to Viet-Nam despite the fears
of a head to head clash with Red China, supposedly followed by re-unified
COMINTERN monolithic Communist world.  If it was positively known
that Castro killed Kennedy he could have ordered an invasion (US troops,
not Cuban refugees) and no one would have dared squawk.


marc colten
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <rdippold.694811380@cancun>
Date: 7 Jan 92 19:09:40 GMT
References: <rdippold.694662032@cancun> <[e-mail]> <rdippold.694722844@cancun> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:
>In article <rdippold.694722844@cancun> [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Dusty Garza) writes:

>>>Then again, who's to say what ART and TALENT are.  All I know is I wouldn't
>>>want to have you as a judge in ANY talent competitions.
>>
>>I can imagine.  You'd most likely lose.
>Gee Ron,  I'd love to know JUST HOW TALENTED you might be. What do you do
>for a living???

You'd lose because (as obvious from the previous messages) we don't
agree on what talent is, not whether or not you are talented.  That
should be obvious, as I have no way to judge your talent, never having
seen your work.

>Not to brag, but this loser in your talent competition has not one, but
>TWO Television EMMY Award nominations and 1 EMMY to my credit as a
>"TALENTED" TV PRODUCER.   I may not agree with you perception of talent, but

Bob here has had some letters published in Penthouse Forum.  He can
probably get more "talent" milage out of that than you can claiming
you beat out Mr. Belevedere.





--
"Yes, but I have signatures from prisoners, too." -- Dukakis, on a petition
demanding the elimination of the Mass. furlough (Willie Horton) program
Path: ns-mx!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Prado)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 04:52:02 GMT
Lines: 29


 > From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
 > In article <mg.694462512@elan>, mg@elan (Michael Golan)
 >>[e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

 > I'll limit myself to the events in Dealy plaza and physical evidence.

Assuming the bullet DID come from behind, and ignoring the fact that
Oswald tested negative for having fired a gun (nitrite tests), what
is most intriguing is NOT so much the Dealy Plaza information as all the
surrounding information about the history on Oswald and Ruby.

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

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

>    Your existence on this Earth is based on an unlikely sequence
>    of events. Just how probable is it that two people (your
>    parents) would meet each other, get married (presumably),
>    and have a child that would turn out to be you.
>
>    Think about it.

Good point as regards the Creationism argument, but I don't think the
analogy is truly 100.0% applicable here (nor do I think the other
gentleman's argument is scientifically accurate).

 * Origin: Nat'l/int'l echomail hub, Washington D.C. (1:109/10)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!inetg1!tamsun!zeus.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 92 20:08:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
Lines: 21
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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

>>    What bullet? Or are you referring to the picture that
>>    Garrison cliamed contained an FBI agent picking up
>>    a .45 bullet?

>No, I'm referring to a witness who said they were present when a bullet
>was dug out of the grass and given to someone who said they were FBI.

    Which witness? This one's new to me.
                    ______
___________________/      \________________________________________________
\__               / mst4298\\\                                     _______/
  \__ Mitchell S  \ @zeus. ///  Thunder, Perfect Mind             ______////
    \__  Todd      \.tamu.///   All the usual, and even more   _______////
      \_____________\ edu///________________________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\  //////////////////////////////////////////////
                      \/\///
                         \/    Are you happy now, Clark?\
                                \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO-- SS MONITORS ON JFK
Message-ID: <rdippold.694825052@cancun>
Date: 7 Jan 92 22:57:32 GMT
References: <rdippold.694740177@cancun> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 62
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

[e-mail] (John Locke) writes:

>[e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>< [e-mail] (John Locke) writes:
>< >[e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:
>< >> [Stone] makes movies with simple messages like "War bad,"
>< >Let's get specific. Are you prepared to argue that Vietnam was good?
>< No.  However I wouldn't argue against it by liberally interspersing
>< actual facts with fabricated facts
>You just slammed every movie ever made. All fiction is a combination of
>known things and imagined things.

The next time I'm seeing "Aliens" as a documentary of the hazards of
space, I'll keep that in mind.

>< I'm not arguing that war is
>< good, I'm saying that his message, in it's entirety, is War is bad.

>How about when Ron Kovic gets less than four star treatment at a VA hospital?
>In your mind, is that Oliver Stone's simplistic reduction that "war is bad"?

That's part of his constant "Government bad" (not government is bad,
but Government, the current government) schtick, which was part
of his "Vietnam is bad" message.

>< >> "Government bad,"
>< >Are you prepared to argue that the government did a cracking good job of
>< >investigating JFK's assassination?

>< Fuck no, you're making up more and more claims for me as I go along.
>< Soon I won't have to think at all, I can just find out from you what
>< my opinion is.

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

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

>< He's willingly distorting the facts in order to prove his point.

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

I could show dissatisfaction with gun control by blowing away people
who didn't have guns to defend themselves, too.  There's a difference
between showing that the Warren Commission report didn't seem complete
and asserting an insane version, which not incidentally has Kennedy as
God and the military-industrial-complex and intelligence agencies as
Satan incarnate.  He was out to rewrite history, not just to take
issue with a current version.

It's impossible to prove that he didn't act alone unless they had a
videotape on him the whole time.  It would be possible to prove the
positive, that he didn't act alone, but not the negative.
--
Klein bottle for rent: Inquire within
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!pencil!rich
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane
Message-ID: <rich.694824620@pencil>
Date: 7 Jan 92 22:50:20 GMT
Organization: UMC Math Dept.
Lines: 26

Just a quick note to make a strong plug for this book.  I'm not finished
with it yet, hopefully I or someone else will have the time to post
some of its main points to this group.

Lane was the author of "Rush To Judgement", which was among the earliest
books (a bestseller) to question the warren commission's findings.
In the 80's, he defended the newspaper "the spotlight" against
a libel suit filed by E. Howard Hunt (of watergate fame) in response
to an article by ex-cia guy Victor Marchetti which was published
in the spotlight.  The article stated that Hunt and the cia were
involved in the jfk assassination.  During the trial Lane was able
to take sworn testimony from various cia officials regarding the murder.
The jury found for the spotlight.

Lane was also involved with the house assassinations committee, and shows
how it was de-fanged under pressure from the "intelligence community" before
its investigation was really underway.

He was also present at a public debate where a high level cia official
(David Atlee Phillips) stated or admitted that the CIA had no evidence
that Oswald ever made the famous mexico trip.
Lots of other goodies here.
Read this book!! Guaranteed to fascinate.  The publisher is Thunders Mouth
Press.

Rich
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!pencil!rich
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: buckley on jfk
Message-ID: <rich.694826382@pencil>
Date: 7 Jan 92 23:19:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: UMC Math Dept.
Lines: 8

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Monardo) writes:
>on PBS last night William Buckley had this to say
>about JFK:

Who in the world cares what a pompus cia propagandist has to say about
anything?

Rich
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!masscomp!peora!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Sealed Files (JFK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 92 06:50:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 83

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew Haigh) writes:
>The reason the files are being kept sealed until 2030 is to allow those
>involved in the assasination/conspiracy/coverup to be well rotted in
>their graves by the time the public finds out just how much they have
>been lied to and screwed over by their government throughout the entire
>episode

But of course this is the reason! What other possible explanation can
there _realistically_ be?

Talk about major cover-thy-ass..

If we Knew the truth..we might revolt against the criminals who stole
our Govt in 1963 and cause them to have a bad day!

I don't see the likes of Richard Armitage,Richard Secord,ad nauseum
getting thrown in jail, do you?

CIA...isn't that where MOST of the criminals are involved with their
Justice Dept and MAFIA "buds"?

You'll find out just how much your "wonderful" criminals-in-govt give
a shit about you towards the FALL of this year when they dash the
economy to pieces and you have NOTHING left. King George won't have
to be "re-elected" if a "crisis" happens before November. KING
by default..UNESCO/FEMA goes into effect and Draco aliens have their
snacks!

Do I "rant"?

Read: "The Proposed Constitutional Model" on pages 595-621  of a book
called "The Emerging Constitution" by Rexford G. Tugwell,copyright 1974
Harpers Magazine Press,Harper and Row Publishers Inc. Dewey Decimal
number 342.73 T915E, ISBN 0-06-128225-10...especially the LAST
chapter for your "NEW" UN guided charter.

New World Order has been working for a longggg time for "good and calm"
citizens..especially ones who are too drugged out to fight.

My .signature??

Read: Readers Digest Dec 91 issue..page 99, article "The Man Who Touches
The Stars"

Project SETI is a COVER operation to cloak an invasion force..

We have been sold down the proverbial river by our wonderful "King George"

If King George is so intent on his WoD...then why does he sit on the
board of Eli Lilly and sell chemicals to South America to process cocaine?

Conspiracy? You betcha!!

Questions,comments?? Call 704-297-2342 and ask for Walter..tell him this
"lunatic" (presumbly me :-) sent you..he knows who I am. Ask Walter
about the REAL "October Surprise"..let's see how many of you have the
GUTS to find out.

Naw...those reading will probably just say.."That's just another one
of Don's ravings"...and won't do it..to you I say "Eat lots of chocolate..
the Draco's might not eat you until later"

Carpe Diem!

You ain't got much time left....do you *really* think the economy is
getting better?? It's all a carefully laid out plan and once the
dollar goes..you have no money,no reason for a job and then your
"saviour" appears..best look at what GAIA is doing and why.

Mail is welcome:

Flamers get ignored
Assholes get their comments printed out to line kitty's litter box
Others will get answered.

Don


--
-* Don Allen *-               // Only   | Are you ready for SETI?
Internet: [e-mail]  \X/ Amiga   | Oct 12,1992 - ET comes to NM
UUCP: .........uunet!peora!bilver!dona  | The *real* "October Surprise"
Psi-Tech and alien brain-wave research -- Whats going on at Los Alamos?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!think.com!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!masscomp!peora!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Bush on "JFK"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jan 92 01:25:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>In today's (3 Jan 92) Helsingin Sanomat, a Finnish newspaper, there's a
>little story about George Bush's reaction to "JFK".  I don't think it
>will be much of a surprise:
>
>-----------------
>
>
>"There are conspiracy theories on everything.  It's said that Elvis
>Presley is alive somewhere, and I can't say that someone isn't making a
>movie about that, too", said Bush in Australia.  Bush has not seen
>Stone's film.
>
Ha! Anyone care to wager a sucker bet that he _won't_ see the film?

I thought so.. :-)

Don

--
-* Don Allen *-               // Only   | Are you ready for SETI?
Internet: [e-mail]  \X/ Amiga   | Oct 12,1992 - ET comes to NM
UUCP: .........uunet!peora!bilver!dona  | The *real* "October Surprise"
Psi-Tech and alien brain-wave research -- Whats going on at Los Alamos?
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zds-asg!gerry
From: [e-mail] (gerry)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The FBI vs. the Warren Critics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 92 00:35:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Zenith Data Systems, Buffalo Grove, IL
Lines: 17

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

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

Gerry Gleason