Article 2 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Book List v1.1 Date: 12 Mar 1992 20:54:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 124 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar12.055014.23090@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:12184 alt.conspiracy.jfk:2 In article <1992Mar12.055014.23090@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mkennedy@isis.cs.du.edu (Max Kennedy) writes: >For example, say Harin Boltz is consistently >obnoxious in your opinion. It is easy, then, to ignore his rantings of >books if you wish, while others who may want Harin Boltz ratings on >books can easily find them. Hmm, looks like somebody's been staying up nights playing with his anagram generator.... :) >Silent Coup: the removal of Richard Nixon > Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin [WaGa] Gave this as a Christmas present. Apparently, the authors think Haig and Woodward accelerated Nixon's fall in order to keep some obscure wiretapping scandal from becoming public. >Legend: the secret world of Lee Harvey Oswald > Edward Jay Epstien [JFK] Pretty thorough book on Oswald. Surprisingly little detail on the events of the fateful weekend, though. >On the Trail of the Assassins > Jim Garrison [JFK] I've got a copy, but I haven't had the stomach to look at it too closely. >High Treason: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy > Robert J. Groden & Harrison Edwared Livingstone [JFK] Breathless, angry, would-be expose of the plot by "the Secret Team" to kill JFK. Groden and Livingstone hurt their case by making no pretense of a balanced examination of the evidence. Lots of interesting photographs, including jacket photos of the two sneering, I'm-tough-as-nails authors, and a diagram of Dealey Plaza showing six "known and suspected firing points". >Reasonable Doubt: an investigation into the assassination of JFK > Henry Hurt [JFK] A thorough summary of what is known and not known. Some uninteresting photographs, but an thoroughly indexed and footnoted. Marred by a stand-alone chapter based on the confessions of somebody that even Hurt concedes is a crackpot. If you read only one book on the case, read this one. >Plausible Denial: was the CIA involved in the assassination of JFK? > Mark Lane [BUSH] Mainly a narrative of Howard Hunt's losing libel suit. >Kennedy and Lincoln > Dr J K Lattimer [JFK] I wish I had a copy of this. >Best Evidence: disguise and deception in the assassination of JFK > David S. Lifton [JFK] A rambling, first-person narrative of Lifton's twenty-year obsession with the JFK case. Pitifully indexed. At no point does Lifton lay out what he thinks he can prove at the end of his investigative odyssey; he entertains and embellishes some sub-theories throughout the book, only to completely discard them near the end when new evidence surfaces. Lifton spends over 700 pages telling us about all the investigating he did, but never bothers to spend 100 solid pages telling us what he thinks in the end he knows. Many shocking, glossy photos, unfortunately accompanied by baldly disingenous captions. (E.g., "a dark area ... widely interpreted as smoke by critics in 1966" -- but no longer so interpreted. Or seeing "what appears to be a surgical clip" in the head wound, but claiming that the clearly-visible rear entry wound "is not discernable".) That this manuscript survived professional editing and became a bestseller is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy in its own right. >Crossfire: the plot that killed Kennedy > Jim Marrs [JFK] The authoritative catalog of paranoia on the Kennedy case. Decent footnotes, but a very poor index, and few photographs. The lack of a good index is partly compensated for by excellent organization built around a detailed table of contents. Includes an 8-page list of people connected to the case who have died. The first sentence says "Do not trust this book", but unfortunately Oliver Stone believed every sentence in the book *except* for that one. >Master index to the J.F.K. assassination investigations > Sylvia Meagher [JFK] From what I understand, an invaluable index to the Warren Commission volues. >Six Seconds in Dallas: a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination > Josiah Thompson [JFK] A balanced study of the physical evidence available in 1966. Includes a nice table of all the earwitnesses, summarizing their testimony. Lots of interesting photographs, and lots of good drawings of Zapruder frames. >Warren Commission Report & Evidence > Warren Commission If you read only two books on the case, read _Reasonable Doubt_ and the Warren Report. >HSCA Report & Evidence > House Select Committee on Assassinations Authoritative treatment of many of the open issues in the case. Makes a convincing case that the single bullet theory is true, but bases conspiracy conclusion on acoustic evidence later shown to be faulty. You can add: Mafia Kingfish and Contract On America, two books that claim it was a mob hit. The Death Of A President, the Jackie-endorsed kid gloves account of the fateful weekend. -- Brian Holtz Article 5 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK-3 Date: 17 Mar 1992 04:41:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:5 alt.conspiracy:12309 In article bbs.gary@jwt.UUCP (Gary Stollman) writes: > Ruby had demonstrated his > extreme loyalty and ability to work with the CIA during the > planning for the bay of pigs operation. He had actually > come in to his own during these operations and made fast > friendships with undercover agents, men like Lee Harvey > Oswald and David Ferrie. Mooney stated Ruby had even given > Ferrie a job in his Carousel Club. Does Mooney have even a shred of evidence for these fantasies? > The look on Oswald's face at the sight of a man > he knew, should have tipped the cops, Mooney admitted There was no such "look" on Oswald's face. > "S*(* , I heard the were Q***r for each other." Mooney said. Mooney really helps his credibility with remarks like this. And since when is "queer" an obscene (as opposed to merely spiteful) word? Are those asterisks yours, or the book's? > There wasn't an outfit guy alive who didn/t think it > was better to die in prison or in the chair than to die at > the hands of Mooney's vengeful enforcers for a messed up > job. The memory of Action Jackson lingered, Ruby had to. And yet the "outfit" was utterly incapable of silencing Ruby after he was imprisoned, despite his repeated public threats to reveal everything he knew. I suppose the "outfit" has ESP, and knew with complete confidence that Ruby was only teasing Earl Warren. > It appears they had inside men at all > points both in the FBI and secret service I love this part. When people like David Ferrie die of natural causes, the conspiracy theorists gravely inform us that the CIA et al. have ways of killing people that make death appear perfectly natural. Then they turn around and tell us that the Secret Service was in on the operation, but they nevertheless chose to kill Kennedy in broad daylight in front of dozens of cameras. Why didn't they just kill Kennedy late one night went he got up to get a drink of water? -- Brian Holtz Article 7 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 17 Mar 1992 19:08:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 112 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:7 alt.conspiracy:12326 alt.activism:22685 In article <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes: > Summary: the following began with the "Disappearing Witnesses" article > by Penn Jones Jr., starting 314 lines below this one. But I > was moved to expand upon an idea I've considered for some time: > > [...] his murder was never solved, i.e. there never was > any legal proceeding based on the evidence to ascertain--in a > court of law--whether Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else was > judged to be guilty of the crime by a jury of his peers. Guess what? No one was ever finally judged to be guilty of the crime of killing Lee Harvey Oswald, *either*! Does that mean we don't know who killed Oswald? > [...] a world where the > differences between cultures and races are not simply > tolerated, but where all our differences combine to form > beauty and meaning. > > In 1970 a lawyer using the pen-name of William Torbitt (his > real name was David Copeland) wrote in an unpublished manuscript, > "Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal," > > [...]The message, still resonating almost > thirty years later, is, "but if someone were elected president who > was actually some kind of true radical reformer she or he would > simply be killed Get a clue. John Kennedy was President for three whole years. What major civil rights legislation was passed during his administration? What major social legislation? The only "radical reform" he accomplished was to end the practice of wearing top hats at inaugerations. The conspiracy theorists like to paint Warren and Johnson as the reactionary villains of this piece. But: whose Supreme Court unanimously delivered Brown v. Board of Education? Whose Supreme Court finally delivered on the Constitution's promises to protect the rights of the accused? Whose Supreme Court started applying the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to racial discrimination by private business? Earl Warren's. And: whose administration passed the original Civil Rights Act? Whose administration passed the original Voting Rights Act? Whose administration enacted the War on Poverty? Lyndon Johnson's. Take it from me, a card-carrying conservative: Kennedy was a good conservative. He cut taxes, he campaigned against the spectre of a "missile gap" with the Russians, he stood up to Communist expansionism. "Ich bin ein Berliner" and "pay any price, bear any burden" are *not* the words of someone who was planning to somehow magically end the Cold War. Kennedy's only sin was unfortunately unforgivable: he chose a closet radical reformer named Johnson to be his vice president, and then managed to get himself killed. Leftists don't like Johnson because he didn't walk or quack like a leftist, but his domestic policy was undeniably the most socialistic since FDR, and the country has been suffering for it ever since. As a Johnson-basher I would just *love* it if we could pin JFK's death on Johnson, but it just didn't happen that way. > It is really too late to continue to > debate whether or not a conspiracy does exist to kill liberal > leaders in this country. After the deaths of President > Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm > X, Ambassador Stevenson, and Medgar Evers, conspiracy debates > should be ended. Let's see: the Kennedy brothers were killed by lone nuts. King and Evers were killed by racists. X was killed by another militant faction, was he not? (And how did Stevenson die?) I don't see a conspiracy. And how do you explain the two attempts on Ford, the shooting of Reagan, and the shooting of Wallace? Were they staged in order cover up the conspiracy to kill liberals? > Zapruder sold his famous film of the assassination for > $1,000,000 then tried to pretend he only got $25,000. That's what he tried to pretend, but he in fact was only paid $150,000. > it has been shown only on > court order or very sparingly to individuals who wangle a > showing at the National Archives in Washington. Looks like the conspirators have gotten a little sloppy since 1970. I've taped the Z film off of TV broadcasts three separate times in the last month alone. > he body of the President seems to be plunging down behind > his wife from the force of the bullet. It's interesting that Jones declines to mention the initial slight *forward* snap of Kennedy's head. > He was dead the instant of the massive head wound. For all practical purposes, yes, although he still had a pulse for a little while at Parkland. > told the court that > he had seen the film many times and that he thought the > material from the President's head flew forward-- > indicating a shot from the rear. He was right. None of material visible on the film flew backward at all. -- Brian Holtz Article 14 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 18 Mar 1992 06:58:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Mar17.210408.15610@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:12356 alt.conspiracy.jfk:14 In article <1992Mar17.210408.15610@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >Throughout JFK's term he was reviled by conservatives, >right-wingers and cold warriors. True. But since I was born after Kennedy died, I can't be held responsible for the opinions of people who called themselves "conservative" back then. So during the campaign, what did Nixon say when Kennedy accused his administration of allowing the Russian's to create a "missile gap"? Do you deny that Kennedy campaigned on the basis of being tougher on defense than Eisenhower was? Do you deny that Kennedy wrote some of the classic lines in the Cold Warrior's rhetoric manual? Do you deny that Kennedy's record as a domestic reformer was meager compared to Johnson's? (Hey, I get it -- the whole Johnson-and-the-Right-murdered-Camelot bit is just a way for the Left to distance themselves from the discredited policies that Johnson implemented at their behest. It's kind of sad to see the bizaare epicycles that people like Oliver Stone have to introduce into their worldview when their most cherished beliefs stop working.) >I know you're not the first conservative to state this. Seems like it came >into vogue after Pres. Reagan was elected. Note that Reagan was a Truman Democrat, as I recall. I guess the problem is that the Left would rather believe that the John Birch/McCarthy Right killed Kennedy and has run things ever since, than to accept the fact that the Looney Right just plain died out and that the new Right is the true modern heir to Kennedy's philosophy. -- Brian Holtz Article 15 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 18 Mar 1992 07:05:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <13873@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? In article <13873@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Guess what? No one was ever finally judged to be guilty of the crime >>of killing Lee Harvey Oswald, *either*! Does that mean we don't know >>who killed Oswald? >> >Ruby was convicted for the killing of Oswald Ah, but the conviction was overturned, and Ruby died awaiting a new trial. The fact remains that no person is currently considered legally guilty for the murder of one Lee Harvey Oswald. To suggest that this means we don't know who killed Oswald is, of course, laughable. >>It's interesting that Jones declines to mention the initial >>slight *forward* snap of Kennedy's head. >> >Even more interesting that only a precious few seem to be able >to see such a snap. I certainly can't. It's plainly apparent if you have equipment to single-step through frames 312-314. The forward head-snap was well-known as early as 1967 (_Six Seconds In Dallas_), and since then just about every conspiracy theorist has claimed that the double-snap was caused by near-simultaneous head shots from different directions. -- Brian Holtz Article 16 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 18 Mar 1992 07:29:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <6211@shodha.enet.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? In article <6211@shodha.enet.dec.com> m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com () writes: >>Let's see: the Kennedy brothers were killed by lone nuts. King and >>Evers were killed by racists. X was killed by another militant >>faction, was he not? (And how did Stevenson die?) I don't see a >>conspiracy. > >You hold to what the mass public has been told like it's the God's only truth >without a doubt - even though there is a large amount of evidence AGAINST the >"official" version in most of these cases. 1. God does not exist. :) 2. I did not say that there is no doubt in these cases. I have often said that there *are* doubts in the JFK case. 3. The context was a claim that the pattern of dead liberals *alone* showed a conspiracy, regardless of who was supposed to have killed them. I tried to show that it's not implausible for all the official explanations to be simultaneously true. >There was a very, very slight movement of the head forward just before the >backward/left head snap. It could just as easily be attributed to Kennedy >himself moving. However you explain it, you can't use an action occurring between frames 312-313 to explain a mechanical *re*action that doesn't happen until frame 315. The bullet is long gone after frame 313, and thenceforth could not affect the movement of Kennedy's head one iota. I think the best explanation is that Kennedy's head rebounded c. 315. His chin was about as far down to his chest as a human head will allow, and no amount of force (that a bullet can muster) could push Kennedy's head much further forward than it got. Try it. Put your head like JFK's in Z312, and push yourself on the back of your head. Your head will hardly move. >>He was right. None of material visible on the film flew backward at all. > >Then what do you do with the testimony of the motorcycle policeman who was >riding to the rear/left of the presidents car? He says a spray of blood and >brains flew all over him and his cycle. He was right. Remember, I said that I see nothing on the film flying backward. Does that mean nothing flew backward? No. Does that mean that hardly anything flew backward, and that much more flew forward? Yes. (Somebody reminded me that on the most excellent copies of the Z film, one can make out the piece of scalp flying back that Jackie reached out and picked up. The point I'm making is that overwhelmingly more of what we see is moving forward instead of backward, and that that implies that overwhelmingly more of what we *don't* see *also* moved forward instead of backward.) -- Brian Holtz Article 13 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: JFK-3 Date: 18 Mar 1992 06:39:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <13868@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13868@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>I suppose the "outfit" has ESP, and knew with >>complete confidence that Ruby was only teasing Earl Warren. >> >The book appears to claim they also had Warren (along with Nixon, >Johnson, and Reagan). If so, they didn't have to worry about >what Warren would do. Sure, but Ruby made these teasing statements in front of reporters and film crews. Are all reporters and film crews owned by the "outfit"? >>Why didn't they just kill >>Kennedy late one night went he got up to get a drink of water? > >Maybe they wanted to make an example of him. Beautiful. The conspirators couldn't afford to just eliminate Kennedy. They had to murder him in a way that gets a message across to potential presidents, without getting the murder pinned on the conspirators themselves. So they shoot him and set up a patsy, but they are careful to be just sloppy enough that people will realize there was a conspiracy and so potential presidents therefore will take heed. It's obvious that the only way to expose the conspirators once and for all is with kryptonite. :) -- Brian Holtz Article 22 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 19 Mar 1992 02:28:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:22 alt.conspiracy:12392 alt.activism:22758 In article <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >I've seen others claim that Kennedy's head moved initially forward. I've seen >the footage in slow motion and am yet to be convinced his head moved forward. _Six Seconds In Dallas_ demonstrates it conclusively by superimposing outlines of JFK's head from frames 312 and 314. There is no doubt. >Any slight forward motion does not explain the huge hole in the back of his >head though. No such hole ever existed, as is evident in both the Zapruder film and autopsy photos. >The 3 shots in 6 seconds does it for me though. If the best shots in the >world can't make it, how could a very average marksman? It was 3 shots in 8 seconds. CBS filmed marksmen getting more hits (3 of 3) in less time. >And why shoot him from behind through a tree? None of the shots, at c. Z160ff, c. Z210ff, and Z313, were obstructed by the tree. (The WR says the tree obstructed the view from Z166 to Z210, except for a fleeting moment at Z186.) -- Brian Holtz Article 23 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 19 Mar 1992 02:56:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <18MAR199209032479@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov> <13896@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? In article <13896@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >Every doctor who saw him, including the Bethesda autopsy pathologists >claimed there was such a hole. Most of the Parkland doctors changed their minds when Nova showed them the autopsy photos. The _Bethesda_ doctors said the back of the head was intact, except for a small entry wound. The confusion is easy to understand when you look at the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos. The wound created two big flaps of scalp, one hinged near the back of the head, and one hinged near the temple. When you look at Kennedy while he's lying on his back (as the Parkland doctors saw him, and as he appears in Lifton autopsy photos 2, 3, and 6), the front flap lies in place but the back flap hangs open, making it look like only the back of the head has been blown out. But when Kennedy is lying on his face (as the Parkland doctors never saw him, and as he appears in the disputed Dox drawing, and as he appears in Lifton autopsy photos 4 and 5), the front flap hangs open but the back flap lies in place. >The WC was given a photo which probably was either faked or >not that of JFK. Apparently only Earl Warren himself saw this photo, >as he declined to use it in evidence. I'm not sure exactly which photo was shown to Warren, but Lifton makes the same laughable claim about the Dox drawing and the similar autopsy photos that he published. (I think in _Best Evidence_ he claimed they did reconstructive surgery on the back of the head, but he apparently has figured out how ludicrous this is, because in his recent posting on alt.conspiracy I remember he said he now thinks the photos were simply faked.) As far as I can tell, the *only* evidence for fakery is that people like Lifton have a desperate need to believe in the mistaken impressions the Parkland doctors formed because they never rolled Kennedy over. The result: Lifton labels as fake every photo of a rolled-over Kennedy. -- Brian Holtz Article 36 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: Why shoot him from behind? [was: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: ...] Date: 20 Mar 1992 05:17:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <18MAR199220510364@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:36 alt.conspiracy:12435 alt.activism:22812 In article <18MAR199220510364@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) writes: > Why not open > fire when the car was approaching him on Houston Street? The main reason is that all the security personnel in the motorcade would be facing directly toward an Oswald who would have to be square in the middle of his window. If Oswald waits, nobody is facing him, and because the shot is at an angle from the window, he gets shielded from most of the crowd by the wall to his left. -- Brian Holtz Article 37 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: MBT Volume 2 [was: Why shoot him from behind?] Date: 20 Mar 1992 05:24:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <18MAR199220510364@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> <19MAR199209301326@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:37 alt.conspiracy:12438 alt.activism:22815 In article <19MAR199209301326@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes: >>None of the shots, at c. Z160ff, c. Z210ff, and Z313, were obstructed >>by the tree. (The WR says the tree obstructed the view from Z166 to >>Z210, except for a fleeting moment at Z186.) > >The second shot, the infamous "Magic Bullet", not only hit JFK and Connally >, but was aimed through a tree? If the tree obstructed the view from Z166 >to Z210 and the second shot was fired c. Z210, it would have to have been a >"blind" shot No. I said the second shot was c. Z210ff, meaning from Z210 to Z217 or so. Oswald could have tracked the dark blue limo through the green foliage, and zeroed in as Kennedy cleared it. >Or did the Warren >Commission place the second shot to match the MBT (had to occur "behind the >sign" in the Z film and offer an view unobstructed by the tree)? Yes, in the sense that anybody who puts the back/neck shot before Z210 has to give us someone to fire it. There ain't no such shooter. -- Brian Holtz Article 38 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 20 Mar 1992 05:51:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <19MAR199212282083@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:38 alt.conspiracy:12440 alt.activism:22816 In article <19MAR199212282083@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes: >how exactly is it evident in the Zapruder film that the >hole in the back of JFK's head never existed? The Liftonites describe the back of the head as blown out or missing. Yet on the Zapruder film, nothing about the back of the head changes, and yet a gruesome wound and scalp flap open up above the right ear. It's really quite comical how desperately Lifton struggles to ignore the photographic evidence and concentrate on the jumbled recollections of frantic doctors who never saw Kennedy except as he lay on his back. For instance, Lifton's reproductions of Z312-Z314 are of laughably poor quality; he knew perfectly well that he didn't dare show his readers high-quality (much less color!) frames of the head wound as it was inflicted. Instead he dissects the stories of Parkland staffers who never turned Kennedy over, and yet has the *nerve* to call his book "Best Evidence"! >>It was 3 shots in 8 seconds. CBS filmed marksmen getting more hits (3 >>of 3) in less time. > >>None of the shots, at c. Z160ff, c. Z210ff, and Z313, were obstructed >>by the tree. (The WR says the tree obstructed the view from Z166 to >>Z210, except for a fleeting moment at Z186.) > >If it were 8 seconds, that puts the speed of the camera at 19.125 frames >per second (the time keeps growing almost like a fishing story :)). No. You can take the 18.3 frames/sec figure to the bank. My Z160ff is just my recollection of when people are said to start looking around, and I round to 8 seconds based on that fuzziness. >Acually, if one to break it down, 8 seconds places an average of 4 seconds >between shots (clock starts at shot 1, shot 2 is at 4 seconds, and shot 3 >is at 8 seconds), which is a little quick for the average person to fire and >operate a bolt-action rifle, but feasible. "A little quick"? Get real. I timed myself cycling a bolt-action rifle and pulling the trigger: 10 times in 16 seconds, or 1.6 seconds between shots. The Warren Commission said one needs a minimum of 2.3 seconds to cycle and aim, and experts were able to reproduce the shooting at speeds like this. Four seconds is almost a luxurious pace. >at a target he couldn't >see until he pulled the trigger (in effect initiating the trigger pull >before he could see the target). Hmm... Says who? The target came into full view at Z210, and he pulled the trigger sometime before Z220. >Actually, a lone gunman theory works a little better if shot 1 hit JFK, >causing him to clutch his throat after emerging from behind sign in the Z >film, the second shot hitting Connally c. Z235 (per some of the >"alternative theories"), and shot 3 at Z313. However, this negates the MBT. This is in fact the theory that I posted in my very first JFK article in alt.conspiracy. I was willing to argue that Oswald could have gotten off the wild 2nd shot into Connally in only 1.7 seconds, but I couldn't defend the idea that a rifle shot could either a) penetrate only an inch or two into JFK's back and then disappear, or b) exit his throat and then vanish from the limousine. -- Brian Holtz Article 39 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 20 Mar 1992 06:33:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <18MAR199209032479@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov> <1992Mar18.183724.14625@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <13913@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? In article <13913@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >All physicians who saw JFK's cadaver reported the occipital >wound, as did all technicians and nurses. Note that most or all of these people only saw JFK lying on his back. If you look at the autopsy photos of JFK in this position, the temple looks intact but all kinds of gory stuff is hanging down from the back of the head. I think this is why these people described the back of the head as having been blown out. >The sketches made at the autopsy also show the wound. Don't you mean the Parkland doctor's sketch? I don't remember any autopsy sketches that show the back of the head missing. >Only the photos don't. If you only showed me the autopsy photos of JFK on his back, I would say what the Parkland people said. >Four of the Parkland physicians were shown the autopsy photos and >were told that a flap of scalp was pulled down over the wound Yes; a gloved hand can be seen holding the alleged flap in place. I wouldn't say that the flap was pulled "down"; it's being held in place, to the right and a little up. >No such flap of scalp existed according to the autopsy No, I think it's described as follows: There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. ... From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows: [a. and b. describe the two tears involved in the anterior flap] c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midlane antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm. d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm postero-laterally. >The Zapruder films seems to show the occipital wound, Hardly. The back of Kennedy's head does not change, while a gruesome wound and anterior scalp flap materialize above and barely behind the right ear. >although Zapruder was not filming from the back. Kennedy is facing a little to his left, and winds up slumping away from Zapruder. We see the gory red wound above the ear, but at no point is there any red on the back of the head. -- Brian Holtz Article 40 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 20 Mar 1992 06:40:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.154042.4618@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Mar18.050604.1367@marlin.jcu.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: what does assassination in America say about the how justice is done? Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:40 alt.conspiracy:12443 alt.activism:22817 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >The FBI memo in the WR states that James Tague could only have been >wounded by a shot fired at 410 ( if it came from the TSBD ) What does the memo say, exactly? 410 is probably when the limo passed Tague's position; the shot that ended up nicking him need not necessarily have been fired as the limo passed him. >If 313 was the final shot according to the WC, how did Tague >get wounded. My guess is that a ricochet from the first shot hit the curb down by Tague and a splinter of curb/bullet hit him in the cheek. Note that Hinkley hit Reagan with a ricochet off the limo. Does anyone know if Oswald played billiards? ;-) -- Brian Holtz Article 46 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: "An Introduction to the Assassination Business," by L. Fletcher Prouty Date: 23 Mar 1992 02:11:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 116 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar20.222929.10005@odin.corp.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: clandestine ops include domestic psychological warfare and murder Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:46 alt.conspiracy:12530 alt.activism:22931 In article <1992Mar20.222929.10005@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes: > The following appeared in the September, 1975 issue of "Gallery," > a porno magazine which billed Fletcher Prouty as the "National > Affairs Editor." [...] It is a telling indictment of the reality > of the lack of public access to the mainstream corporate press, > that a man like Fletcher Prouty [...] would find his writings and > analysis of these important issues essentially barred from the > most generally accessible publications. It's not very "telling", because the mainstream press tends to like its authors to be able to back up innuendo with evidence. Prouty can't. > AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ASSASSINATION BUSINESS > (c) 1975 By L. Fletcher Prouty > Consider the following event. > The autopsy was routine: suicide. A high government official, > recently promoted, was found alone in his house, dead and with his > rifle beside him. A single bullet had shattered his head. There > were no other signs of violence. A poorly typed note to his wife > and son lay on the table near him. The hastily scribbled signature > was his own. But the "suicide" was an assassination. Gee, too bad ol' Fletch doesn't have any *evidence* for this conclusion that he feels he can part with... > the official had found papers in the files of his > predecessor that showed that the law had been broken, that huge > payoffs had been made, and that cases had been judged on the basis > of favoritism and bribery. Assuming that this vague and spooky-sounding tale is anywhere near true, I guess Prouty is trying to tell us that it is beyond his mental capacities to believe that a whistleblower can commit suicide. > He had begun to drink heavily, and when he > was drunk, he had talked. How does Prouty know this? Did the guy "talk" to Prouty? > He reconstructed what had happened and prepared a complete > report and had just about finished it. How does Prouty know this? If it's true, then the assassins completely failed in their attempt from keeping the information from becoming public. > On one of those evenings his wife had gone off on a visit and > his son was at college. > The phone call was calm and official-sounding: "This is the > police. [...] The policeman said he would come right over [...] > The car pulled up quietly. There was a quick knock on the door. > The policeman entered, showed his identification and was invited to > sit down. At the split second when the official turned to usher > the "policeman" into the house, he was hit a sharp blow on the back > of the head. He suffered a massive concussion and was dead. [...] > He hoisted the > body up on the end of the rifle with the muzzle in the victim's > mouth. One shot blew the top of the head off, removing evidence of > the first blow. The suicide note had already been typed [...] No wonder Prouty can't get published in the mainstream press; he's a fiction writer. No responsible journalist can write this kind of tripe without telling his readers how he knows it's true. > one month before President John F. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, > a prominent Washington lawyer died. It was ruled a suicide because > it appeared that he had put his own rifle in his mouth and pulled > the trigger. His name was Coates Lear, and he was a law partner of > Eugene Zuchert, then Secretary of the Air Force. Lear knew a lot > about special airlift contracts and about the plans for Kennedy's > fatal visit to Texas. Then, for unexplained reasons, he began > drinking excessively. And when he drank, he talked. Soon he was > dead. > The same pattern fits the case of William Miles Gingery, the > scenario of whose death we have outlined above. Well, this shows that Prouty couldn't even get published as a fiction author. His fantasies are one-size-fits-all. > Since World War II, there have been hundreds of "coups > d'etats"--a euphemism for assassination. What a joke. Two hundred or more changes of government involving the killing of a head of state since WW II? Sorry, Prouty, but since WW II not even a *hundred* heads of state have died in office from *all* causes. > That list will grow as > long as the United States does its diplomatic work clandestinely. > Why else has Henry Kissinger "shuttled" from country to country in > the Middle East? If his relationship with each of these countries > is an undercover relationship, then he cannot meet with them > publicly and in a group. What an utter moron Prouty is. Kissinger had to shuttle around the MidEast in those days because Middle Eastern leaders *refused* to be in the same meetings with each other. > All the conspirators had to do was to let > the right "mechanics" know where Kennedy would be and when and, > most importantly, that the usual precautions would not have been > made and that escape would be facilitated. No precautions were relaxed, and no escapes were facilitated. > This is the greatest > single clue to that assassination. Who had the power to call off > or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that always > are in effect whenever a president travels? Their names are a matter of public record. Why is Prouty afraid to print them? One word: libel. -- Brian Holtz Article 70 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: JFK-3 Date: 28 Mar 1992 18:31:30 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: <20615029@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <20615029@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> tneff@haleiki.nyc.ny.us (Tom Neff) writes: >>In article bbs.gary@jwt.UUCP (Gary Stollman) writes: >>> Ruby had demonstrated his >>> extreme loyalty and ability to work with the CIA during the >>> planning for the bay of pigs operation. He had actually >>> come in to his own during these operations and made fast >>> friendships with undercover agents, men like Lee Harvey >>> Oswald and David Ferrie. Mooney stated Ruby had even given >>> Ferrie a job in his Carousel Club. >> >an even better question: does any >evidence *exist* for these assertions? >[...] check Summers, which I think >even Brian admits elsewhere is fairly closely researched. You think wrong. I haven't been able to get a copy of Summers's book. >Most of this is extensively gone into and footnoted on pages 436-472 >of the edition I have (Sphere 1989). The notes cite the Warren >Report (e.g. vols 23&26), as well as interviews and the HSCA results. > >I submit that there is nothing "fantastic" about the prospect of these >sleazoids knowing or employing each other. *I* submit that page numbers do not constitute evidence. Again, slowly, so you can understand: what is the *evidence* for these "assertions"? What do those pages *say*? >Verifying the Cuba connections, for instance, is work Brian could >easily have done before taking lazy pot-shots at someone else's >mention of them. It's not my job to show that there is no support in any credible JFK book for every random assertion on alt.conspiracy. Needless to say, I know of no support for Mooney's "assertions". >>And yet the "outfit" was utterly incapable of silencing Ruby after he >>was imprisoned, despite his repeated public threats to reveal >>everything he knew. > >Ruby didn't tell what he knew. That counts as silenced. You think this >is some kind of game here? This is life and death. Exactly. Life and death. No conspirator could afford even the *possibility* that Ruby would talk. So Ruby must have been bluffing when he said he would reveal a conspiracy. The problem is, if he is owned by the conspiracy he has no good reason to make such a bluff. But if he acted alone, then the bluff would have been useful in trying to muck with his prosecution. >>I love this part. When people like David Ferrie die of natural >>causes, > >[...] read about the big empty bottle of Proloid sitting >at bedside. [...] If >a John Gotti enforcement consultant barged in here and made me eat 100 of >them, I think I'd reach for my suicide stationery on general principles! >The embolism would be waiting for me. That's how Ferrie went. He was >clearly a hypochondriac and self-medicating crank. People like that are >completely vulnerable. Ah, I get it now. If the evidence that someone committed suicide is overwhelming, then that's a sure sign that somebody took advantage of the situation to murder the guy. So I guess nobody interesting ever commits suicide, eh? >Pursue the question. Why would they kill Kennedy publicly, and Ferrie >privately? Would the reverse be to anyone's advantage? If you have the magic power to kill anybody anwhere anytime and make it appear natural, shooting somebody in front of dozens of cameras is *never* to your advantage. The risks outweigh the benefits by orders of magnitude. -- Brian Holtz Article 71 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: "The Manchurian Candidate" and JFK Date: 28 Mar 1992 18:43:11 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 35 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Mar22.175736.9340@cs.brown.edu> <9c+jk!+anson@netcom.com> <1992Mar25.162553.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:12722 alt.conspiracy.jfk:71 In article nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >There is a diary of Sirhan's where he has written "RFK must die" >randomly amoung his normal writing as if the words just pop to the >surface for no reason and Sirhan had no recolection of writing the >"RFK must die" words. So? You mean if I want to kill you, I can escape blame for it simply by writing "NCW must die" a few times and then saying I don't remember it? In article <1992Mar25.162553.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >Seriously, wasn't Sirhan Sirhan hypnotised to kill Robert F Kennedy? I think that's just what Sirhan himself claimed. Why is it that any bozo who shoots a Kennedy automatically becomes some kind of sympathetic anti-hero whose every post-assassination claim is taken at face value? >That he didn't succeed is disputed, but it was my recollection that RFK's >bodyguard accidentally shot Bobby behind the ear at point blank range in an >attempt to shoot Sirhan who was in such a trance that it was difficult to >overpower him. Amazing. RFK is shot in a crowded room, and people try to invent ways that a bodyguard could have shot him. JFK is shot in a limo on film, and people try to tell us the film shows the driver casually turning around to shoot Kennedy in the head. I suppose now we should go over the films of Oswald getting shot, to figure out who *really* shot him.... -- Brian Holtz Article 95 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: "The Guns of Dallas" by L. Fletcher Prouty Date: 14 Apr 1992 03:57:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 159 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar27.161114.26346@odin.corp.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: conspiracy is only effective as long as the trick is a secret Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:95 alt.conspiracy:13158 alt.activism:24005 In article <1992Mar27.161114.26346@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes: > The following appeared in the October, 1975 issue of "Gallery," a porno > magazine which billed Fletcher Prouty as the "National Affairs Editor." > THE GUNS OF DALLAS > (c) 1975 by L. Fletcher Prouty > [...] They were all pawns, just > like Nixon was. This is a game for the biggest stake of all-- > absolute control of the government of the United States of America; > and, with control of this government, control of the world. Damn, he's on to us. > [...] But if we don't act now, there will be consequences. > These will begin with either the cancellation of elections in 1976 > or with elections that will be a total sham. For who will dare run > against the candidate of the conspiracy? Well, Prouty looks awfully stupid now, doesn't he? Or was Jimmy Pureheart Carter also a "candidate of the conspiracy"? > Arlen Specter [...] says the first > bullet hit JFK, passed through the muscle of his upper back exited Prouty should get his facts straight. The WC didn't commit itself to whether the first or the second shot hit Kennedy in the back. We now know that it almost certainly was the second shot. > the bullet would have had to have made a > right and upward turn upon leaving JFK's throat, paused in midair > for more than two seconds, Sorry, but c. Z218 the wounds were lined up just fine, all in the same split second. > It is not too difficult to determine precisely when (what frame > of the movie film) the first shot was fired; It's not *too* easy. The best evidence is that Connally turns to his right in Z162-167, which is what he says he did immediately after hearing the first shot. > he performed this feat in super-marksmanship time of 6.8 seconds Given that 4.6 seconds was the minimum time needed, 6.8 seconds is almost leisurely. > James Tague. He was hit by a fragment of concrete knocked off the > curb by a bullet that had hit a curbstone near where he stood. No, it was probably a bullet *fragment* that hit the curb. > The Zapruder film makes it abundantly clear that the top of the > President's head was blown off Prouty's eyesight is as bad as his hearing (from his performance on C-SPAN, he's either senile or half-deaf). The wound in the Z film is on the right side of Kennedy's head. > The earliest time a shot could line up with the President > was at Z-210. At that time the tree was no longer in the way. > What did the Warren Commission think? Apparently, nothing. It > ignored the tree. Prouty LIES. The Warren Report says: [...] the agents concluded that at frame 166 of the Zapruder film the Presdidentt passed beneath the foliage of the large oak tree and the point of impact on the President's back disappeared from the gunman's view as seen through the telescopic lens. For a fleeting instant, the President came back into view in the telescopic lens at frame 186 as he appeared in an opening among the leaves. The test revealed that the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered from behind the tree [was] at frame 210. This is completely consistent with shots at c. Z161 and c. Z218. > (See photos 10,11. [NUMBERs 10, 11. Two pictures > confirming that a shot struck JFK at Z-189. Compare photo number 7 > with number 10. Picture number 10 is Z-190. JFK's right hand > snaps slightly forward in 1/18 second. From here until he goes > behind sign (Z-204) JFK's right hand drops steadily and begins to > clench into a fist. No way. Doesn't happen. Look at the film. > Willis said he snapped photo in reaction to hearing first shot. > Photo was sanpped at Z-202 How did Prouty get this number? The WR says the picture was taken at approximately Z210. That would make Willis' reaction time either .7 seconds or over 1 second; either way, pretty darn slow for a startle reaction. At any rate, Willis must be wrong that he was reacting to the "first shot", because the first shot occurred way back c. Z161 and caused Connally to turn to his right. I think the most we can say is that Willis slide 5 was taken near the time of the second shot. > 13-16. [NUMBERs 13-16. This series of frames from the Zapruder > film show that JFK's right hand is still falling and clenched as he > emerges from behind the sign (up to frame Z-225). Note the drastic > change in his position: hands, head, elbows, shoulders, and arms > (between Z-225 and Z-227) in just 2/18 of a second. This indicates > a second shot striking him in the back at Z-225.]) No, his movements from Z224ff are all one continuous reaction to the shot that struck him in the back c. Z218. > The acceleration back to the left in the first two frames > following Z-313 have been calculated by Josiah Thompson in "Six > Seconds in Dallas" at more than 75 feet per second per second. > The shot came from the grassy knoll, right to front.]) Huh? In the first two frames after impact JFK's head moves *forward*. > Of course, the umbrella man could have been a perfectly innocent > guy, why not find out? He was, and the HSCA did. He was protesting Kennedy's alleged appeasement policies by displaying the trademark of Chamberlain, the world heavyweight appeasement champion. > As important as this Altgens photograph is, it was > found that it had been severely cropped when it was tucked into the > Warren report. Why did someone go to that trouble? When you blow up a photo, you either crop it, or print it as a poster. That the Warren Report was not published as a poster series is not very strong evidence of a conspiracy. > And worse still, there is absolutely no record anywhere that > these men were booked that day. There are no "blotter" records > at all. The men have simply vanished. (See photos 32-35 > [NUMBERs 32-35.* Policeman with "tramps." The DPD released their arrest records recently. "Inside Edition" or some such TV show tracked down one of them; he was clearly a clueless ex-hobo. > Then one begins to wonder--understanding full well the > capability of modern-day communications and reporting--who it was > that was able in so short a time to come up with such a life > history of so obscure a twenty-four-year-old "loner." Wire services and major newspapers work up and maintain biographies of all figures that they report on. As a double defector, Oswald was hardly "obscure". > [3] X-rays show a piece of the bullet is still in Connally's thigh bone, > yet there is no fragment that size missing from that bullet. Wrong. There is no evidence that the Connally fragments are inconsistent with CE 399. -- Brian Holtz Article 107 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism Subject: Re: "The Guns of Dallas" by L. Fletcher Prouty Date: 26 Apr 1992 17:24:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar27.161114.26346@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Apr15.122840.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:107 alt.conspiracy:13571 alt.activism:24520 In article <1992Apr15.122840.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >>> Of course, the umbrella man could have been a perfectly innocent >>> guy, why not find out? >> >> He was, and the HSCA did. He was protesting Kennedy's alleged >> appeasement policies by displaying the trademark of Chamberlain, the >> world heavyweight appeasement champion. > >The HSCA said: > - umbrella man was found? Yes; they brought him in to testify. > - umbrella man was innocent? Yes; there was nothing suspicious about him. > - Kennedy had an appeasement policy? I didn't say the HSCA said that. I said the umbrella guy thought that; it was a common sentiment in the South. > - umbrella man was protesting that policy? > - Chamberlain used an umbrella as a trademark? That' what the umbrella man told the HSCA. > - Chamberlain was world heavyweight appeasement champion? I don't know if the HSCA said this, but it's common knowledge. > - umbrella man was displaying the Chamberlain trademark? > - umbrella man was protesting? That's what the umbrella man told the HSCA. -- Brian Holtz Article 108 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story of JFK's Assassination Date: 26 Apr 1992 18:13:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 80 Message-ID: References: <1992Apr22.151258.25712@odin.corp.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Keywords: US mainstream press played pivotal roll in keeping public in the dark Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:108 alt.conspiracy:13572 In article <1992Apr22.151258.25712@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes: > the following appeared in the March 31, 1992 issue of the "Village Voice:" > JFK: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story > By Robert Hennelly & Jerry Policoff > > [...] an astonishing 77 percent of Americans reject > the Warren Report's conclusions. How did such a tremendous > credibility gap come about? And, assuming that the majority of > Americans are right, how did a free press so totally blow one of > the biggest stories of the century? Brilliant assumption, guys. Now how about telling us precisely what miniscule fraction of those 77 percent are familiar with even the most basic facts of the case? > [...] For the "Times," creating a supportive > climate for the Warren report seemed an institutional imperative. > The "Times" was going to run the report in the paper and then go > commercial with it: collaborating with the Book of the Month Club > and Bantam Books to publish it in September of 1964. > On May 24, 1964, Clifton Daniel of the "Times" wrote Warren > Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin expressing gratitude to > Chief Justice Earl Warren for facilitating publication of the > Warren report. Certainly any vigorous critical evaluation of the > Commission's findings at this juncture would have jeopardized this > great relationship. Morons. Government reports aren't copyrighted; anybody is allowed to publish and sell them. > (Although from the very beginning--with a November 1963 > "Life" article on Oswald headlined "The Assassin: A Cold Lonely > Man Who Resented All Authority"--there was no presumption of > innocence Don't these two clods know that it's the *justice system*, and not the *press*, which is required to presume innocence? > Nice try. Of course, as all the world would learn years later, > it was the back of the president's skull that would explode, > suggesting an exit wound, "Nice try", yourself. It's obvious from watching the Z film that what exploded was JFK's right temple. > "The Warren > Commission Report" itself never addressed the backward motion of > the president's head, thus sparing itself the burden of having to > explain it. And these two guys, of course, never addressed the initial *forward* motion of the head from 312-314. > Kenny O'Donnell, a confidant and adviser to JFK who was in the > motorcade. In Tip O'Neill's book "Man of The House," O'Neill > describes a conversation with O'Donnell, who told him he was sure > that two shots had come from the fence behind the grassy knoll. > O'Neill said to O'Donnell, "That's not what you told the Warren > Commission." O'Donnell responded, "You're right, I told the FBI > what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way > and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way > they wanted me to. What a riot, portraying O'Donnell as just another strong-armed witness. Hennelly and Policoff neglect to mention that O'Donnell was heavily responsible for Kennedy's body being hijacked out of Dallas -- a key event in most accounts of an alleged conspiracy. > But it is growing harder for the American public to accept > the government's suppression of these files. The Cold War's over, > right? In any other case, the Village Voice would be leading the cheers for keeping secret all these raw reports containing unsubstantied allegations . I guess some people are only fair weather civil libertarians... -- Brian Holtz Article 109 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - Stone getting flak... Date: 26 Apr 1992 18:46:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <282.29E9BEB4@business.UUCP> <3550004@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:109 alt.conspiracy:13573 In article <3550004@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> lea00@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Larry Akers) writes: > There was a special "live" show broadcast on channel 31 in >Denver last night that tied many things together. Things from >Watergate, Nixon, Johnson, CIA, and the "S FORCE". [...] > I didn't see the show except for the last 15 minutes where >they were doing their summary. But from what I saw they looked >like they had done their homework. Not! The show was a farce, complete with this hilarious exchange between James Earl Jones and Ron Lewis, author and alleged Oswald confidante: Jones: "Was Oswald involved in the plan to kill Kennedy?" Lewis: "Yes, he was." Jones: [pause] "Oh." [pause] "Yes --" [points toward Lewis while looking offstage toward someone; Lewis fidgeting] Lewis: [looks offstage in response to a woman's whisper, then turns to Jones, shrugs and whispers:] "Forgot my line." Jones: [whispers] "Yeah. Yeah." [giving up, and apparently skipping ahead in the script] "Later in the show, we'll actually hear from the KGB..." The more-seasoned conspiracy authors on the show seemed a little amused by the amateurishness of the whole effort. My favorite character was the guy who played David Ferrie in the reconstructions. His manic intensity made Stone's Ferrie look positively sedate, especially when he was gushing about the near-metaphysical assurance of success that is afforded by a "triangulation" shooting pattern... -- Brian Holtz Article 117 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - Stone getting flak... Date: 29 Apr 1992 01:02:39 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <282.29E9BEB4@business.UUCP> <3550004@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> <181262@pyramid.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:117 alt.conspiracy:13652 In article <181262@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >Do you suppose you could take some time and do us all a favor and >transcribe it[?] Yipe! That would be a lot of work. There was little, if anything, new in the show. It basically presents the whole _High Treason_ /Fletcher Prouty version of events. Jean Hill sits in the studio to plug a new book that was ghost-written for her. There are film clips of deaf mute Ed Hoffman behind the grassy knoll fence telling us what he saw; I hadn't realized that he meant that the rifle was allegedly carried off down the tracks *away* from the overpass, instead of *toward* it. (This may represent a change in his story; I'd have to check to be sure.) They also show a clip of a recent interview with Beverly Oliver, the "Babushka Lady". And there is a fascinating speeded-up clip of Oswald's movements between the TSBD and the Tippit slaying. It's kind of startling to see how ordinary all the places are where these momentous events happened. Discredited Garrison witness Perry Russo gets tons of uncritical air time, as he narrates a hokey re-enactment of Ferrie/Shaw/Russo/Oswald concocting the conspiracy. They flash on the screen a picture of an alleged CIA purchase order for some pamphlets connected to Oswald; they didn't say where they got it. -- Brian Holtz Article 275 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Jack Ruby Date: 20 Jun 1992 20:12:14 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun12.055644.10840@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:14976 alt.conspiracy.jfk:275 sci.skeptic:25741 In article <1992Jun12.055644.10840@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >I read somewhere that Ruby died of cancer 4 years after he shot Oswald. >Is this true? Yes. >Am I right in assuming that he was jailed for life, and died in jail? No. He was convicted of Oswald's murder and sentenced to death. His conviction was overturned, and he was awaiting retrial when he died. >If so, is there any record of all the people who visited him in jail He was visited by at least his biographer/friend Seth Kantor and some members of the Warren Commission. >and a record of anything he said during this period? He gave lots of vague hints about what he could say if only he were taken somewhere "safe", like Washington, D.C. He never explained why, if he was so "unsafe" in Texas, he was never silenced ahead of time to stop him from doing all the talking that he had repeatedly said he was willing to do. -- Brian Holtz Article 274 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: President Ford Date: 20 Jun 1992 20:05:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun11.072645.13543@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun11.072645.13543@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >The film jfk clearly involves the Warren Commission in a cover-up >conspiracy. False. >As ex-Pres. Ford was part of the Warren Commision doesn't the movie by >implication slurr Ford's reputation? No, it just makes Stone look silly. >Is there is visible slurring of Ford in the USA today? No. >If so, then can Ford legally sue Oliver Stone for libel? No. Ford is a public figure, so he would have to prove malice. At any rate, Stone admits that his movie is a "myth". >Because if he doesn't, that would say something about >his innocence. Hardly. -- Brian Holtz Article 273 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Arrest at the Texas Theatre Date: 20 Jun 1992 20:02:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun10.065901.17167@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun10.065901.17167@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >The Dallas police apparently picked up Oswald at the Texas Theatre >for walking in without paying for a ticket. False. Shoestore manager Johnny Brewer had heard on the radio about the nearby Tippit killing, and then saw a man duck into his doorway as a police car went by. He saw the man enter the Texas Theater, and he found out from the ticket seller that the man had entered without paying. They called the police, who responded in force not because of somebody beating a movie ticket, but rather because somebody may have found Tippit's assailant. -- Brian Holtz Article 285 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Oswald's arrest Date: 21 Jun 1992 18:16:58 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <23600@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> <5758@pdxgate.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: trace him to USSR/Castro and its WWIII / lone nut we live: you decide In article <5758@pdxgate.UUCP> jprice@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (James Price) writes: > Interestingly, the witnesses to the Tippett shooting disagree on many key >points, such as what Oswald was wearing. One person claimed he wore >no jacket, while another swore he was wearing *two* jackets. More interestingly, nine of the witnesses said the gunman was Oswald. >Oswald had both his own ID and a second, different ID, that of his >alias Alek James Hidell, when captured and taken to the police station. >The police did not know WHICH he was, and when they asked him what his >name was, he said that they were the cops and it was their job to figure it >out. It wasn't too hard. The Hidell ID was a draft card with Oswald's photo on it, but real draft cards don't have photos on them. >Hoover made a phone call to LBJ 2 hours after the assassination itself, >casting Oswald a nut and a commie, portraying him as the archetypal >crazed assassin. Amazingly, at the time of Hoover's call, the Dallas >police had still not divined their prisoners real name. One must wonder >what prescience Mr Hoover had, with his instant damning file on Oswald, The Dallas police had two names. One was a name from a phony-looking draft card. The other was the name of a Dallas re-defector whom the FBI had been keeping tabs on. No prescience required. >When Oswald was captured, he demanded a lawyer famed for specialising in >cases of conspiracy, a lawyer whom Oswald asked for by name Attorney John Abt had recently defended the leaders of the American Communist Party against federal conspiracy charges. (Several months earlier, Oswald had sent two of the defendants, Gus hall and Benjamin Davis, honorary membership cards in his Fair Play for Cuba chapter.) [_Legend_, p. 246] It's specious to say that Oswald was interested in Abt more for his conspiracy expertise than for his reputation of defending communists. -- Brian Holtz Article 286 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Zapruder Film Date: 21 Jun 1992 19:34:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun12.054453.9236@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:14998 alt.conspiracy.jfk:286 sci.skeptic:25775 In article <1992Jun12.054453.9236@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >There are, however 4 or 5 frames missing from the Warren Report. > >b) What is the pet conspiracy theory explanation for the omission? Groden claims the conspirators got Time-Life Inc. to destroy those frames (apparently, within days or weeks of the shooting) because they might show Willis lowering his camera, thus proving that Kennedy was hit as early as 189-191, back when Oswald's view was obstructed by a tree. Groden is silly. 1) Willis seems to be still *raising* his camera in the frames before the missing frames, and so his statement that he snapped the picture as a startle reaction to the shot would contradict the notion of a shot c. 190. 2) Willis' upper body leaves the Zapruder film's view at the start of the damaged frames. 3) It's ludicrous to suggest that, so soon after the shooting, the conspirators would know a) which Zapruder frames corresponded to when Oswald's view was obstructed, and b) that Willis took a picture that he would claim was simultaneous with the neck shot. 4) If the conspirators were going to tamper with the Z film, why not get rid of the damning frames showing Kennedy's reaction to the head shot? Better yet, why not just destroy the entire film? Only Lifton rivals Groden as the sloppiest of the conspiracy authors. For example, Groden publishes Z413 and claims that it shows the back of a man's head in the bushes behind the knoll's retaining wall. But if you look at where Zapruder was filming from, you see that the shrub in which the "man" is hiding is in fact a puny tree about 8 feet tall right in front of Zapruder, trimmed so that it only has about 4 feet of foliage in it. Zapruder would have noticed if even an elf were hiding in that tree. To top it off, the "wall" in Groden's photo is not the retaining wall at all, but rather the bottom edge of Zapruder's film. -- Brian Holtz Article 287 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Warren Commision Date: 21 Jun 1992 19:37:39 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun12.060356.11140@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun12.060356.11140@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >What was the reason that so much work & effort went into producing >the voluminous Warren Report? > >Standard practice every time a VIP gets shot?? No. It is merely standard practice when an American President is murdered, and a murder trial is prevented by a vigilante gunning down the President's murderer. -- Brian Holtz Article 289 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Ford Date: 22 Jun 1992 01:13:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 49 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun11.071735.13107@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <182090@pyramid.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15003 alt.conspiracy.jfk:289 In article <182090@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >there is no question that the Warren Commission was part of the >cover up, its there in complete black & white for anyone to read. Oh, *is* it now? When you say *the* cover-up, can we assume you mean that the Warren Commission was working in concert with the alleged conspirators? What shred of evidence do you have for this? >As Mark Lane puts it, he has no more interest in attempting to prove >conspiracy than attempting to prove the earth is flat. You mean he doesn't keep the profits from the conspiracy books that he sells? Can you say "naive"? >The hard part is to look at something which is so OBVIOUS and not see >it completely for what it is, a whole bunch of people pretending to be >part of a commission uncovering the truth, starting with a pre-concieved >notion (documented) of GUILT, Do you deny that there was a prima facie case for Oswald's guilt? >ignoring, suppressing, accepting without >question, fabricating evidence inconsistent with the established line, Come up for air. Why would they fabricate evidence *in*consistent with the established line? What evidence? >The memo documenting the discussion between Hoover and Johnson, in which >they agree upon the final outcome of what the not yet formed Warren >Commission is going to decide was distributed on this network. Refresh my memory. As I recall it, they simply wanted the preliminary indications of Oswald's guilt to be either confirmed or denied by a thorough investigation. >The cover-up, obstruction of justice, IS PROVABlE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT >TO A MORAL CERTAINTY. IT IS FULLY DOCUMENTED. Where? >What is no longer provable >beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty is that this man, or these >men were guilty of assassinating JFK. And just what is *this* sentence supposed to mean? -- Brian Holtz Article 290 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: The Zapruder Film Date: 22 Jun 1992 01:56:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun16.042321.6439@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM sci.physics:22312 alt.conspiracy.jfk:290 In article <1992Jun16.042321.6439@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >I've read reports that say the Zapruder film conclusively shows >(by the direction of movement of jfk's body) that jfk received a shot >from the front. It doesn't. When you compare Z312 (before Kennedy's head was hit) with Z313 (the first frame after the head was hit), you see that the head is actually propelled slightly *forward*. There isn't much change between Z313 and Z314, and only between Z314 and Z315 do we first see the beginnings of the celebrated backward movement. The Zapruder film also shows a massive exit wound above and behind the right ear, which is completely consistent with the autopsy X-rays and photographs. No damage is apparent on the back of the head, which conspiracy theorists insist was blown out by a shot from the right front. Different conspiracy theorists deal with these inconvenient facts in different ways. Authors like Thompson and Groden/Livingstone say that Kennedy's head was hit by two shots in the 3/18 of a second between Z312 and Z315. (But they don't say why the film reveals no rear exit wound, nor any tissue spraying from the alleged second impact.) Authors like Lifton just conveniently have the CIA fake the forward motion in Z312-313, and airbrush out the rear exit wound in those and subsequent frames. Authors like Hurt ignore the forward movement altogether, while slamming the Warren Commission for "handl[ing] the matter of the left rearward head-snap by not mentioning it"! >Does anyone know for sure what the Zapruder film really shows?? It shows Kennedy being shot in the back of the head, then pitching backwards and raising his right elbow, and finally slumping into his wife's lap. Given that his backward motion is pivoted at his waist instead of his neck, and given that his elbow's motion was due to muscular force which ended when his rearward motion ended, it's pretty clear to me that his rearward motion was muscle-driven. -- Brian Holtz Article 291 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Zapruder Date: 22 Jun 1992 03:39:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun16.041428.6154@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jun16.214947.1119@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1992Jun17.005733.18429@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:291 alt.conspiracy:15004 sci.skeptic:25779 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >If you look at frames 289 - 291, you can clearly see Connally jerk >around 90 degrees in about 2 frames [1/9th of a second]. > >He goes from looking directly rearwards to looking out sideways. > >I posted many months ago that he was either reacting to a shot, or in >fact was being shot Note that in the very same frames, Jackie also turns nearly 90 degrees and leans her head forward. Was she turning her gaze from Connally's antics to her husband's upper-thoracic distress, or was she *also* hit by the the same bullet that hit Connally? :) In Z289-291, Connally is falling off his jump seat and into his wife's lap, hence his sudden movement. Connally only remembers being hit once -- which happened sometime between Z207 and Z238. If you want to see people turning their head in response to hearing a shot, look at Z155-Z169. First Kennedy, and then Connally -- each turns his head sharply to the right in only a few frames' time. Connally says he did so after hearing the first shot (which missed). >[I suggested he may have been wounded in the wrist at this time] How? Connally's wrist is nowhere in sight. Human wrists hit directly by an unimpeded bullet disintegrate, but Connally's wrist was only fractured. Where did this extra bullet go? I guess the conspirators took it, when they sprinkling the limo with fragments from bullets fired from Oswald's rifle... -- Brian Holtz Article 292 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.physics,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Exploding Watermelons and JFK Date: 22 Jun 1992 03:48:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun17.011634.24004@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jun17.021429.17324@reed.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15005 alt.conspiracy.jfk:292 sci.physics:22314 sci.skeptic:25780 In article carls@triton.unm.edu (Mr.HolierThanThou) writes: > Ok, let's talk about the recording of a gun shot from the >grass knoll. Forget the bullshit about the frequency jump the >recording of that shot is distinctive and it could only have come >from the grass knoll. Says who? The alleged shots on the audio tape occurred minutes after JFK left Dealey Plaza. >to hit a moving target at that range he would >have to have been a pretty good shot 50-70 yards. A 4x-scope. On a rest. At a target moving very slowly, directly away from the gunman. -- Brian Holtz Article 293 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.physics,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Exploding Watermelons and JFK Date: 22 Jun 1992 04:09:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun17.011634.24004@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jun18.001626.29554@wpi.WPI.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15006 alt.conspiracy.jfk:293 sci.physics:22315 sci.skeptic:25782 In article <1992Jun18.001626.29554@wpi.WPI.EDU> harvie@maxine.wpi.edu (Larry Harvie) writes: >what do I do with all these people who saw smoke 20th century rifles and ammunition produce very little smoke. Some of the people who now say they say smoke were not saying so on the weekend in question. >people handing guns to each other Again, this didn't became part of Ed Hoffman's account until years afterward. >the picture of Badge Man? Splotches of light. Consider: 1) The "badge man" only appears when they draw in the outlines, or colorize the black-and-white photo, etc. 2) The rest of the acoustic and eyewitness evidence puts the alleged grassy knoll gunman on the west leg of the fence, not the north leg. 3) The north leg offers a crummy view of the motorcade, obstructed by the pergola retaining wall and a tree. 4) The "badge man" photo allegedly shows a muzzle flash, and yet Kennedy's head has already been hit. 5) The "badge man" photo allegedly shows serviceman Gordon Arnold standing only a few feet in front of the muzzle flash. And yet Arnold claims that he hit the dirt after the first shot, while all witness agree that the head shot was the *last* shot. -- Brian Holtz Article 295 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Book Intro: "The Taking Of America, 1-2-3" Date: 22 Jun 1992 06:29:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun4.223739.17980@odin.corp.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: our electoral system was taken away from us starting in 1963 Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.activism:27715 alt.conspiracy.jfk:295 alt.conspiracy:15010 In article <1992Jun4.223739.17980@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes: > This is an introduction to the book "The Taking of America, 1-2-3," > by Richard E. Sprague, self-published by the author first in 1976, > revised in 1979, and updated in 1985. > So that total time span is less than 17 seconds--if you > add up the 5.7 seconds after the end of the Hughes film, > plus the 6-plus seconds while the shots were being fired, > plus the 3.5 seconds before Dillard and Powell's photos were > taken--of blank, non-coverage of that window and there's no > way Oswald could have gotten into the window, aimed, fired > three shots, and gotten out of the window so you that > couldn't see him in 17 seconds. Wrong. There is plenty of wall next to the window to hide behind as the motorcade came up Houston. Why do you think Oswald passed up a frontal shot in the first place? Answer: because a whole carload of Secret Service men would have been looking straight at him. So he kneels into position only as the motorcade turns the corner onto Elm. As for why Oswald isn't at the window 3.5 seconds after the last shot -- that's even easier to figure out. Oswald was on his way across the 6th floor toward the stairs. > But anyway there was another film taken by Beverly Oliver > otherwise known as the Babushka lady that was confiscated by > News Orleans FBI agent Regis Kennedy Hold on a minute. 1. Oliver claims to be the Babushka Lady, but I've never once read why the conspiracy authors believe her. Her credibility is slim at best. In 1963 she was a nineteen-year old working at the strip-tease club next to Ruby's. She was a friend of Ruby's, and claims to have been introduced to Oswald and Ferrie. She married a mafia killer, but is now born-again and married to an evangelist. 2. She claims her film was taken by the government, but the government has never heard of her film. When shown a picture of New Orleans FBI agent Kennedy, she claimed he was the one who took the film the monday after the assassination. But no conspiracy author I know of even *attempts* to place agent Kennedy in Dallas on that day. > and a still photograph > taken by Norman Similas, confiscated by the Royal Canadian > Mounted Police from "Liberty" magazine (which was going to > publish the photo), who then turned the photo and its > negative over to the FBI. I interviewed Similas and the > "Liberty" magazine editor both of whom told me they had > carefully examined the photograph and had seen no one in the > photograph appearing in the eastern-most sixth floor window, Similas should get his story straight. Marrs quotes Similas as telling "Liberty" magazine that his picture showed a rifle and *two* men in a sixth-floor window. Similas also said that he sold his pictures to a daily newspaper, which said it "lost" the crucial photo. No mention is made of the RCMP, nor of the FBI. I doubt whether the FBI ever had its hands on the photo; I doubt whether the photo ever existed in the first place. > I made two attempts soon after the Freedom of Information > Act "viewing room" in the FBI office in Washington, D.C. was > created, to request to see the Similas photograph and > Beverly Oliver film, but each time the FBI person assigned > to me was not able to find these photograhs. Read: the FBI said that it has never heard of any such photographs. -- Brian Holtz Article 296 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Physics and the JFK Assassination Date: 22 Jun 1992 06:57:18 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun19.033144.21835@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Alvarez, retrograde recoil In article <1992Jun19.033144.21835@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >In the Zapruder film, JFK's entire body from his hips upward seems to be >projected backwards, almost as if it were a rigid body which was toppled >over by an impact which struck it near the top. Unfortunately for your analysis, there was on Nov. 22 this thing between JFK's hips and head called a "neck". :) I don't see how a force applied to Kennedy's head could have caused his head and shoulders to move backwards, as opposed to his head rolling back on his neck. >What can we conclude from all this analysis? First, the hypothesis of a >Grassy Knoll rifleman leads to an agreement with observation with a fewer >number of assumptions than does the hypothesis of a rifleman in the TSBD. Except, you have to "assume" that the laws of physics were suspended for 1/18th of a second, while Kennedy's head moved *forward* between frames 312 and 313. Or, you can "assume" that two bullets hit Kennedy in 3/18ths of a second, with the second shot (allegedly from the right front) leaving no trace of an exit wound in either the Zapruder film or the autopsy photos and X-rays. >Second, the postulate of a TSBD >assassin requires the existence of an improbably-high energy jet of brain >and blood matter immediately after the fatal impact. Or, it requires that Kennedy moved backwards under his own power. Note that Kennedy's right elbow managed to move upwards under its own power as his torso rocked backwards. >This jet would have >been sufficiently energetic to have been readily apparent, both on the >Zapruder film and to observers inside and outside the limo. Had this >forward-flying jet struck something, it would have caused considerable >damage. The front of the car, the windshield, The windshield was cracked by a particle from the head shot. >the Connallys, the Secret >Service drivers should all have been splattered with the bits and pieces >of JFK's brain. No such effect was actually observed. Au contraire. Connally described being covered by Kennedy's brain tissue like "birdshot". >In fact, there is much evidence to indicate that the bulk of the >matter blasted from JFK's head was thrown to the REAR. None of that evidence is photographic, however. The Zapruder film clearly shows that the majority of the visible brain matter was blasted forward and up. -- Brian Holtz Article 305 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Exploding Watermelons and JFK Date: 23 Jun 1992 04:06:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun17.011634.24004@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jun17.104037.6481@prl.dec.com> <15295@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <15295@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >It is *possible* for Oswald to have lucked out and made the >shot with the MC and a missighted scope. Nobody knows whether the scope was misaligned when the shooting occurred, or whether it got misaligned when the rifle was stashed. >It is *possible* that he was able to squeeze off the fatal >shot 1.8 seconds after the last one. Maybe so, but the shot that killed Kennedy (at Z313) was fired 5 seconds after the shot that hit him in the back (Z210-220). (The shot that missed had been fired about 2 3/4 seconds earlier, at Z155-165.) >It is *possible* that given the right contorted positions >of JFK and Connolly that one bullet might have gone through >both men. The HSCA showed that no contortions were necessary. >It is *possible* that Oswald got down to the lunch room after hiding >the gun in 90 seconds. Especially given that both of the re-enactments of Oswald's actions by the Secret Service took at least 12 seconds *less* than 90. >It is *possible* that he covered the mile between his >house and where he supposedly killed Tippet in 7 minutes. Not quite a mile, and probably more than 10 minutes. -- Brian Holtz Article 306 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph Date: 23 Jun 1992 06:11:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun9.065705.21095@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun9.065705.21095@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >Concerning the famous photograph of Oswald on the front cover of Time >magazine: You mean, Life magazine. >How do the experts who claim that the photograph is not a fake >explain that the shadow under Oswald's nose goes straight down, but >the shadow of his body is at a different angle?? The shadow under his nose *doesn't* go straight down. Look at the blow-ups in _High Treason_. >PS. Are there any modern forensic image processing techniques that could be >used to detect if there has been any vignetting on the photograph?? Sort of. Mitchell Todd said on this newsgroup that analysis revealed that the feature near the chin, alleged to be a crop line, was in fact an artifact from the development process. -- Brian Holtz Article 315 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Exploding Watermelons and JFK Date: 23 Jun 1992 20:23:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 92 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <5322@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <182174@pyramid.pyramid.com> <5340@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <182210@pyramid.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15053 alt.conspiracy.jfk:315 sci.skeptic:25867 In article <182210@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >The case against Oswald, [...] was given every >imaginable resource and opportunity it needed to present itself, including >those which would be disallowed in a jury trial. It was denied *any* >opposition, let alone meaningful opposition. Oswald was not on trial. >The commissioners were even allowed to cheat. How so? >Yet they failed to make their case. Says you. I says otherwise. >The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The Warren Commission wasn't prosecuting anybody. They were trying to answer the question "who killed JFK?", not "was Oswald guilty of murder in the state of Texas for killing JFK?" Anybody who rejects the Warren Commission's explanation of JFK's killing had better be able to either show us a contradiction in it, or provide a *better* alternate explanation of the events. Nobody has yet done so. Care to try? >Are you [John Locke] saying that a "right" conclusion based on wrong >data gathered by a wrong process using wrong reasoning can be >re-arrived at by looking at it differently? I call this "backing >into" the pre-ordained conclusion. Isn't that 'un-scientific'[?] No. If a lunatic had said in 1904, "E=mc^2", would Einstein's future work be rejected as "unscientific"? Can you say "genetic fallacy"? >What would happen if we *started* with the question, "Who killed President >Kennedy?, rather than "How can we prove that Oswald did it?" That's what the Warren Commission did. But I suppose you wouldn't have been satisfied unless the WC said, "OK, let's ignore this guy who worked in the building from which the shots came, who was unaccounted for during the shooting, whose rifle was found where the shots came from, whose rifle matched the fatal bullets, whose prints were on the rifle and sniper's nest, who was seen bringing a long package into work that morning, who was seen killing a policeman 40 minutes later -- let's ignore this obvious dead end, roll up our sleeves, and figure out who *really* killed JFK." >Every single piece of evidence is in >question, and for good reason Sure: it's much more fun to believe in conspiracies than it is to explain events. >-- few pieces of evidence were admissable, It wasn't a trial. >and most of it is mysteriously missing or "unavailable" for inspection. What's missing, besides the brain that RFK stole, and the fantasized evidence that self-styled witnesses announced years later had been taken from them? What's "'unavailable' for inspection", except for precious National Archives materials, to every crackpot conspiracy theorist looking to make a buck off the other crackpots? >Thirty years ago, seven politicians were locked in a room, told to >prove that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, and were conveniently spoon fed >whatever data they asked for in order to "arrive at the truth". If this is an example of your standards of historical accuracy, then this whole discussion is pretty pointless... >Whenever the data didn't work, the FBI conveniently supplied >new data, Cite us an example. I dare you. Go ahead. Make my day. >none of which was admissable, none of which was placed under >cross examination, It wasn't a trial. >and none of which is still available today. The Zapruder film. The autopsy photos. The autopsy X-rays. The eyewitness testimony. The murder rifle and fatal bullets. Etc., etc. All still exist; all still point to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. -- Brian Holtz Article 316 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Exploding Watermelons and JFK Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: 23 Jun 1992 20:27:45 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun17.011634.24004@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jun17.104037.6481@prl.dec.com> <15295@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15054 alt.conspiracy.jfk:316 In article ingria@BBN.COM writes: >According to the Warren Report, the three shells found in the Texas >School Depository Building had evidence of having been discharged from >the MC many times, You mean, of course, cycled through the bolt action, not fired from the gun. >as if Oswald had practiced increasing his speed in >moving the bolt. I don't remember ever reading this. Can you quote the Warren Report? (Follow-ups to alt.conspiracy.jfk.) -- Brian Holtz Article 324 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Alvarez, Watermelons, JFK and Physics. Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: 24 Jun 1992 04:09:56 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun23.023622.28305@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <11796@inews.intel.com> <1992Jun24.000551.19577@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM sci.skeptic:25889 alt.conspiracy:15067 alt.conspiracy.jfk:324 In article <1992Jun24.000551.19577@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >The reason I was under the impression that the brain squirted backwards >was because the people behind said they got splattered, but the people >on the front seat didn't. No, the people ahead of JFK *did* say they got splattered. In particular, Connally said that he was splattered with brain tissue "like birdshot". Also, the head shot left a crack in windshield, and also left two decent-sized bullet fragments on the front seat. If the head shot was fired from the grassy knoll, then a "magic bullet" is *indeed* needed in order to make a greater-than-90-degree right turn at JFK's head. Thus, *all* the non-JFK bullet damage occurred downrange from JFK along Oswald's line of sight: the Connally wounds, the windshield, the nicked curb, the Tague wound, and the front-seat bullet fragments. (Follow-ups to alt.conspiracy.jfk.) -- Brian Holtz Article 327 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Ford Date: 24 Jun 1992 05:27:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 223 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun11.071735.13107@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <182090@pyramid.pyramid.com> <182263@pyramid.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15073 alt.conspiracy.jfk:327 In article <182263@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: > rather certain embarrassment of having to admit that the FBI had known > about the conspiracy and didn't do anything. There is no credible evidence that the FBI knew of the attempt on JFK beforehand. That story is pure fabrication twelve years after the fact by ex-FBI clerk William Walter, and is supported by no evidence. >You can't really "investigate" the CIA can you? Its a rigged game. How ironic it is that you conspiracy buffs who hate the CIA the most, are the very people who try to build the CIA up into this all-knowing, infallible monolith. The rest of us recognize the CIA for what it is: a bureaucracy that could only rarely put together a halfway competent Third World coup; that couldn't invade its way out of a paper bag; that couldn't assassinate a petty tyrant only 90 miles off our coast; that was totally blind to the upheavals in Iran, the Eastern bloc, and elsewhere; that was such a bunch of screw-ups that they got themselves totally emasculated by congressional investigations and executive orders in the mid to late 70's. Of course, you'll solemnly assure us that this is simply the CIA's ingenious false front. Ha! If the CIA is on the ball enough to monitor Usenet -- which I doubt --, then I bet those poor schmucks have a great big laugh at your expense when they read your postings. >As Garrison notice, riggin an old-fashioned jury trial, to the CIA, must >have been like shootin' fish in a barrel. Right. So I guess it's just metaphysically impossible for it to have been the case that Garrison's prosecution of Shaw was exactly what it appeared to be: a ridiculous, frivolous, paranoid, homophobic attack on an innocent man. Fine. OK. What, were you born with a gland or something, that tells you when it's safe to ignore what the facts scream at you, and lets you know when the facts themselves are "false"? >But, for the record, I do believe that at least one member, Dulles, was >a plotter, and one other member, Ford, was an accessory after the fact. >That's my opinion about these men. Let's get this straight. Are you saying that on Nov. 21, Allan Dulles knew that JFK would be killed soon? And that Ford found this out later, and did nothing about it? >I just read in the paper yesterday, the line "According to the Warren >Commission, Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy." [...] Its the >creation of an authoritative myth to which one can refer in the event >of not knowing the truth oneself. Are you saying that unless one was a member of the Warren Commission, the best one can do is choose among "myths"? I suppose you consider it a "myth" that George Washington was America's first President... :) >They don't say, "According to Paul >Collacchi, Oswald may not have lifted a finger against the President." That's because Paul Collacchi didn't interview anybody. Paul Collacchi didn't publish 26 volumes of evidence. Paul Collacchi didn't conduct scientific analysis of the physical evidence. Don't these distinctions count for *anything* in your little world? :) >I was just recently struck by the possibility of a coup d'etat in >which the major broad strokes are choreographed well in advanced and >orchestrated as a complete covert action by the CIA under direction >of a single coherent planning body and covered up by a number of >willing participants in all ranks of government. [...] You don't >think its possible do you? Of *course* I do. *Lots* of things are "possible" -- if you want a sampler, just pick up a copy of the National Enquirer. I guarantee you that they never print headlines such as "Alien reveals 1+1=3" or "Housewife solves halting problem". But I'm not very interested in the merely "possible". I'm interested in knowing what theory best explains the available evidence. >How would you know? Did you see any of the "evidence" for yourself. >Were YOU the jury, or was the WC the jury, sort of, and you "trusted" >them. How do *you* know that George Washington was ever President, or that such a man ever even existed? How do *you* know you weren't hatched from an egg? >We trust them because we trust the integrity of our system >and its men. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. What I *do* trust is the marketplace of ideas. For example, I trust that if the WC misrepresented the views of a particular witness, somebody would talk to her and then try to make a buck writing about the discrepency. I've done a lot of comparative shopping in the marketplace of JFK assassination ideas, and I have found that the WC theory holds up to everything its critics have thrown at it so far. >But I am unaware of any part which stands up to courtroom >standards. If you know of some evidence that you can produce and show to >me, then by all means feel free. Easy: Oswald worked in the building from which the shots came; was unaccounted for during the shooting; his rifle was found where the shots came from; his rifle matched the fatal bullets; his prints were on the rifle and sniper's nest; he was seen bringing a long package into work that morning; he was seen killing a policeman 40 minutes later. >|> Do you deny that there was a prima facie case for Oswald's guilt? > >Of course. Oswald's "guilt" is the authoritative myth, bolstered by false >facts. "False facts". I love it. Be careful, or smoke will start coming out of your ears... :) >There was never any "case". Oswald was denied "representation". He was DEAD! >There was never cross examination. It was not a trial. >No evidence was ever made available to me, or my chosen designees so >that I might inspect it. Go to the library. Watch TV. I've got tapes of at least a dozen different broadcasts of the Zapruder film. I've got books with copies of the autopsy report, photos, and X-rays. I've got quotes from named witnesses. I've got all the evidence you need. >Why do you think they killed him, or have you forgotten >about that part? Ruby killed Oswald as an act of stupid vengeance. >|> >As Mark Lane puts it, he has no more interest in attempting to prove >|> >conspiracy than attempting to prove the earth is flat. >|> >|> You mean he doesn't keep the profits from the conspiracy books that he >|> sells? > [...] >The man that you just slandered, volunteered himself precisely >because he was familiar with our "system", Watch your mouth. I "slandered" no one. You said that Mark Lane had no interest in proving a conspiracy, and I demonstrated that he does. >and just "noticed" that the Warren Commission, and the newspapers, >and everyone really, kind of "forgot" to employ its principals, due >process, in arriving at a decision about this man's innocence. If you or Mark Lane knew the first thing about our legal system, you'd know that dead people can be found neither guilty *nor* innocent, that they cannot be tried, that they have no right to due process, etc. >He went on to find out for himself. When he >interviews witnesses, its not hearsay to him. Get it? His interviews are just as much "hearsay" to you as the Warren Commissions'. Get it? How do you *know* that either the WC *or* Lane ever interviewed *anybody*? YOU DON'T. Does that mean you can draw any reasonable conclusions about this matter? > (By the way, are you aware of the fact that the >Warren Commission investigated Mark Lane and classified those documents? >A most unusual legal procedure don't you agree? Kind of a cross between >shooting the messenger and shooting the defense counsel. The CIA >investigated him also. Could you possibly explain this to me, Brian?) Could you possibly cite some evidence for either of these claims? >We read books. We watch television. That isn't evidence. The Zapruder film isn't evidence? The autopsy report, photos, and X-rays aren't evidence? The first-hand accounts of eyewitnesses aren't evidence? What *is* evidence? >How do YOU know that there is or was any evidence against Oswald? Listen, pal, for all I "know", nobody named Oswald or Kennedy ever existed, and all I've ever seen are actors and special effects on TV. However, I assign a very low probability to this contingency. That's what adults do: assign probabilities, based on the available evidence. By contrast, children go watch horror movies, and then sleep with the lights on, because it's *fun* to be scared silly. >|> Refresh my memory. As I recall it, they simply wanted the preliminary >|> indications of Oswald's guilt to be either confirmed or denied by a >|> thorough investigation. > >Not close. They even decided on the number of shots. They didn't "decide". It was already known how many spent cartridges were found in the TSBD. If no new physical evidence for other shots could reasonably be anticipated, why *shouldn't* they mention how many shots they already knew about? >If you want, I'll re-post the memo. Please do. >The Mexico City evidence was fabricated. Which evidence? Be specific. >Hosty destroying the Oswald note under order. Quite probably, yes. (For people who don't know, Hosty alleges that Oswald left a note threatening Hosty if he didn't stop trying to interview Oswald's wife.) Apparently, Hosty's boss didn't want to have to explain to the nation why Oswald wasn't checked up on in connection with JFK's visit. (In fact, even though the Secret Service -- with 20/20 hindsight -- disagreed, the FBI makes a good case that it did not have a basis to refer the SS to Oswald.) That does not a conspiracy make. -- Brian Holtz Article 328 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Bobby Kennedy Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: 24 Jun 1992 05:37:39 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun19.064238.6902@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1624@necis.UUCP> <10851@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM sci.skeptic:25896 alt.conspiracy.jfk:328 In article <10851@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@platypus.uofs.edu writes: >In article <1624@necis.UUCP>, dlyons@necis.UUCP (Dave Lyons) writes: >|> >|> the assasination had to be handled by local and state authorities > >Then what right did the Secret Service have in refusing to allow the >Dallas Coroner to perform the autopsy?? They didn't "refuse to allow" a local autopsy, so much as they simply insisted that the body was coming with them. It's not as if, when the Secret Service heard that the locals might do an autopsy before burying JFK, the SS said "Oh, in *that* case, we demand the body"... >Doesn't it strike anyone >else how the official story tries to have it both ways?? No. Think about it. The decision about the body was made on the spur of the moment, less than an hour after the President had been killed, with a nervous new President wanting to get back to D.C. to reasure the nation, and with a devoted, blood-spattered widow refusing to leave the side of her husband's body. I leave it as an excercise for the reader to contrast the above circumstances with the circumstances under which the decision was made as to who should conduct the investigation. >No. I don't see any irregularities here. ;-) Open your eyes. -- Brian Holtz Article 329 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Part I, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy Date: 24 Jun 1992 05:52:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 53 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Jun23.195518.2541@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Pacifica Radio investigates the assassination of Pres. Kennedy In article <1992Jun23.195518.2541@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes: >HAROLD WEISBERG: >He [Katzenbach] wrote Lyndon Johnson, through his [Johnson's] >channel, Bill Moyers, recommending to Lyndon Johnson that they >had to convince the country that Oswald was alone, that Oswald >was the assassin, that he had no confederates who were still >at-large, and that the evidence was such that he would be >convicted in trial. The typed copy is dated early Monday morning >the first working day after the assassination, November 25, 1963. In other words, the day after it became apparent that no trial would ever have a chance to settle the questions in the case. So the feds wanted to make sure that an authroitative investigation took place. So? >I also happen to have gotten Katzenbach's handwritten copy, which >he wrote when he had no typist available on Sunday. And from the >FBI I got a record which said that Katzenbach had discussed it >with Hoover on Sunday, as soon as Oswald was killed. Exactly. >So as soon as the Government knew that there would be no trial of Lee >Harvey Oswald, they closed the books, the crime was solved, and that >was it. No, precisely the opposite. Without a trial, the books would remain open *until* an authoritative investigation was performed. >GARY NULL: >[Jim Marrs says that] earlier in that day, in Fort Worth, there >was also a motorcade for President Kennedy, but that motorcade >was substantially different. It was VERY very heavily guarded >on proper protocol by the Secret Service. What is this supposed to mean? The same SS contingent followed JFK from Fort Worth to Dallas! >And the police were maintained, meaning that sharpshooters were >stationed on rooftops, no window was allowed to be opened, Did Marrs cite his evidence for this assertion? >But all of that was suspended at Dealey Plaza and for >the trip through Dallas. WHY? WHO was responsible? Who caused >the rescinding of these orders? No such orders (for sharpshooters and closed windows) were *ever* "suspended" or "rescinded" in Dallas. This is pure fabrication. -- Brian Holtz Article 330 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Exploding Watermelons and JFK Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: 24 Jun 1992 06:55:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 245 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <5340@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <182210@pyramid.pyramid.com> <37327@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15075 alt.conspiracy.jfk:330 In article <37327@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||Yet they failed to make their case. >| >|Says you. I says otherwise. > >How can you say otherwise if there is no trial? Only a moron would think that only a trial can establish the best explanation of a body of evidence. Where did they hold the "trial" that proved George Washington guilty of being the first president? >Why is that when we want to know who killed someone, we put that someone >*on trial*, No, we do *not* hold a trial "when we want to know who killed someone". We hold a trial WHEN WE WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR PERSON IS LEGALLY GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDERING THAT PARTICULAR PERSON. When we want to settle a history question such as "who killed X?", we put together a commission, or publish in a history journal, etc. We do *not* hold a trial. >The whole point of a trial is to discover the truth. Wow, you really *are* ignorant of the most basic tenets of our legal system, aren't you? Sorry, but the "whole point of a trial" is to either establish legal guilt or to acquit. The point is *not* to "discover the truth", or to show innocence, etc. >In our society, in order to >find if someone is guilty of a crime, we have a trial. Hey, *now* you're getting it! >You were correct to say the >WC did not follow this, but it *should* have, No, it should *not* have, because dead people cannot ever be "guilty of a crime". >since, in the end, it found Oswald guilty in murdering JFK and Tippet, False. I cannot find the words "guilt" or "guilty" anywhere in the WR's conclusions. The report simply said that the shots that killed Kennedy and Tippit were fired by Oswald. >|Anybody who rejects >|the Warren Commission's explanation of JFK's killing had better be >|able to either show us a contradiction in it, or provide a *better* >|alternate explanation of the events. > >How can you say this when the government got all the evidence, Just what is this supposed to mean? Are you saying you want to poke your fingers into JFK's wounds? What's wrong with photographs, X-rays, interview transcripts, etc.? >and either lost it's chain of possesion or did not examine it >carefully at the time? This is not true of any of the most significant evidence. >The WC took charge of the investigation, gave us an improbable >scenario, and now you want the anti-WC people to do what it was >supposed to do. No! I want you people to take the major pieces of evidence that the WC presented, and either *explain* it, or *explain* why you think it is tainted and therefore doesn't need explaining. Those are your only choices. Ignoring the evidence is not allowed. >It refused to follow leads that pointed to conspiracy, Such as? >the unliklihood of Oswald shooting Tippet, Nine people said Oswald was the gunman. How many *should* they have found? >or the other questionable evidence involving Oswald. Such as? >How do you account for the coaborative witness testimony of other >shooters, Name a single witness who went on record the weekened of the assasination as having seen another shooter. To my knowledge, these witnesses all only start remembering such trivial details only a decade or so later, after being contacted by assassination "researchers"... >or when, for example, Hoover forbid his agents to talk to certain >witneses? Which witnesses? What is the evidence that this ever happened? >The gun cannot be fired, It's a WW I piece of junk, as you people constantly remind us. If it could barely work when Oswald used it, what makes you think it would keep on working for the amusement of every crackpot who wants to write a book? >the body cannot be re-autopsied according to modern >medical standards, Bodies decay. >tape recordings are destroyed, bullet fragments lost, photos >lost, xrays, Which ones? Just because an assassination researcher can, a decade or more after the fact, get somebody to say that he remembers an item of evidence of which there is no other record, does *not* mean that that item once existed and has since been "destroyed" or "lost"... >witnesses are dead, So, that witnesses aren't immortal is a sign of a conspiracy? >autsopsy notes are burned, Humes said he copied everything that were on the burned notes. Why would he say that any notes were ever burned, if he was part of a conspiracy? >recipts of missles have no missle, Both the giver and receivers of the receipt agree that it was for one of the autopsy fragments. >a bullet was found in the grass is no longer there, Myth. Look it up. All started from a picture of somebody pointing to marks in the grass. >the limo was hidden, How so? >there was the bullet hole in the street, The curb nick? There's no evidence that it was tampered with. >the original Stemmons Freeway sign, It was only missed after it was removed. I wonder why... >then entry wound on Connally, the original bag containing the rifle What about them? >the Mauser that was seen by three deputies, Name them. The source of that story soon readily admitted his innocent mistake, leaving only nut-case Roger Craig sticking to this canard. >the placement of the shells, There was nothing wrong with them. >the "automatic" handgun reported on the scene at the Tippet shooting, Not a handgun. A cop simply assumed an automatic had been used, since he didn't think anybody would empty the cartridges out of their revolver as they left the scene. >the markings on the Tippet shells by the policemen, The detective admits he can't swear to putting his initials there. >the fingerprint lifted from the gun, What about it? >even the Zapruder film itself was taken to the CIA! Spare us the innuendo, and either tell us which frames you don't believe and why, or shut up. >They were told to prove that L.H.O. did it by Hoover. Quote, please. >Why do you think there *was* a Warren Commission? To settle the question of who killed JFK, given that no one was going to be tried for the crime. Haven't you been paying attention? >The Zapruder film points to the conclusion that Oswald Killed Kennedy? Yes. The head moves forward for one frame after impact, before Kennedy's upper body starts moving backward under its own power. >Hardly. It points to a shot from behind as well as from the front. Nope. The frontal shot would have pivoted his head at the neck, instead of pivoting his upper body at the waist. In addition, no rear exit wound is apparent on either the Z film or the autopsy photos and X-rays. >From the rear where? The most likely scenario is not from Oswald's position. No, it lines up best with Oswald's position. >The evidence against Oswald is that his print was found on his >rifle. Which he carried to work that day in a long package. His prints were all over the package, as well as on the sniper's nest. >The print is not admissible, Sure it's "admissible". You can't just say, 'Oh, that print was found by the authorities, who of course were in on the conspiracy, so that print doesn't count'. >and the rifle was first reported to have been a Mauser. The guy who did so realized his mistake. Why the fuck would the conspirators frame Oswald with the wrong rifle? >Oswald was also seen and accounted for as much as anyone, Get real. Other employees were on film, or in each other's presence, etc. Oswald was unaccounted for during at least the 15 minutes before the shooting. >Also, since he was seen 90 seconds later in the lunch room, he harldy >would have time to re-arrange the sniper's nest, It wasn't rearranged. Why the fuck would it have been re-arranged *after* the shooting? Think! >which the HSCA found was created after the assassination. On what basis? Fuzzy photographs like the ones that show "Oswald" on the TSBD steps, or "Milteer" on the street, or the "badge man" gunman, or the "kneeling on the car" gunman, or the "black dog" gunman, or the "walkie-talkie man"? -- Brian Holtz Article 333 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph Date: 25 Jun 1992 00:23:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun24.043647.27355@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:333 alt.conspiracy:15089 sci.skeptic:25919 In article <1992Jun24.043647.27355@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >If the famous photograph of Oswald holding up an MC rifle is not >a fake, then how does one explain the fact that the shadow of his body >is at about 10 O'clock, whereas the shadow under his nose lies at 12 O'clock?? It doesn't. Look at the blow-ups of the photo in _High Treason_. -- Brian Holtz Article 334 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Oswalds' Mexico links (was Re: Ford) Date: 25 Jun 1992 05:09:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 108 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun24.133244.28566@engage.pko.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15097 alt.conspiracy.jfk:334 In article <1992Jun24.133244.28566@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: > The HSCA sent one Edwin Lopez to investigate Oswalds' Mexico links. He > returned to the HSCA with a 275 page report, which was read by certain > members of the HSCA and then promptly sealed. No mention of its' contents > in the Volumes or the Report. Why? You mean the HSCA says the report doesn't exist? When did Lopez first tell his story about the alleged report? I'm skeptical of disgruntled government employees who years later try to convince us they've seen damning evidence that has been kept from the rest of us. > According to Mr. Lopez, who, by the way > is not supposed to discuss what was in the report he submitted, he found > that there were at minimum, three people posing as Oswald leaving `false' > trails of his movements at the Soviet and Cuban embassies in the months > preceding the assassination. Now if there was no conspiracy in the JFK > assassination, why were these individuals posing as Oswald? I don't ask you guys to explain evidence that the Warrenites merely *claim* exists; why should *I* have to explain evidence that this guy Lopez claims exists? > Why was he denied representation from the moment he was arrested > until the time he was killed? What are you talking about? From the Warren Report: [Captain] Fritz warned Oswald that he was not compelled to make any statement and that statements he did make could be used against him. [...] [At both of his arraignments] the justice of the peace advised Oswald of his right to obtain counsel and the right to remain silent. [...] On Friday evening, representatives of the ACLU visited the police department to determine whether Oswald was being deprived of counsel. They were assured by police officials and Justice of the Peace Johnston that Oswald was being allowed to seek a lawyer. On Saturday Oswald attempted several times to reach John Abt, a New York lawyer, by telephone, but with no success. In the afternoon, he called Ruth Paine and asked her to try to reach Abt for him, but she too failed. Later in the afternoon, H. Louis Nichols, president of the Dallas Bar Association, visited Oswald in his cell and asked him whether he wanted the association to obtain a lawyer for him. Oswald declined the offer, stating a first preference for Abt and a second preference for a lawyer from the ACLU. As late as Sunday morning, according to Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, Oswald said that he preferred to get his own lawyer. After his arraignment for Tippit's murder, Oswald *did* complain in front of a camera that he "was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing", but I know of no reason to think that it was standard practice to hold up arraignments while suspects went shopping for lawyers. >>Ruby killed Oswald as an act of stupid vengeance. > > You really can't be that naive. He was risking the `chair' because of > `stupid vengeance'. Laughable...... Are you saying that all murders are committed only when a coolly rational analysis reveals that the benefits outweigh the risks? You really can't be that dense. > [Mark Lane] makes a damn fine living as an attorney, he hardly > needs the money from the books. Then why does he keep it? > He can make more practicing law than he can spending > months behind a keyboard writing a book. What, are you privy to Lane's tax returns or something? Remember, some people prefer living life as self-styled crusaders to running in the rat race. >>You said that Mark Lane had >>no interest in proving a conspiracy, and I demonstrated that he does. > > You did? Yes, when I pointed out that he keeps the profits from the conspiracy books he sells. As an exercise for the reader, compare the profits made since 1963 writing conspiracy books with the profits made writing contra-conspiracy books. >>If you or Mark Lane knew the first thing about our legal system, > > And you do? You're really stretching, aren't you? Quote me in context, or not at all. The rest of the quote goes "you'd know that dead people can be found neither guilty *nor* innocent, that they cannot be tried, that they have no right to due process, etc." Do you dispute any of this? >you are extremely selective in whose accounts you believe. You tend >to believe the accounts of eyewitnesses who parrot the party (WC) >line and disbelieve the rest. No. I tend to believe the accounts of eyewitnesses who came forward immediately, and who didn't need a decade or more (and prodding from assassination "researchers") in order to remember to add to their stories minor details like extra gunmen, confiscated film, alleged FBI telexes, etc. -- Brian Holtz Article 335 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: L. Fletcher Prouty Date: 25 Jun 1992 05:19:11 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun24.044352.27707@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15098 alt.conspiracy.jfk:335 sci.skeptic:25931 In article <1992Jun24.044352.27707@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >Is Fletcher Prouty in the same position as the average conspiracy buff >in terms of knowledge, or is he qualified to speak with some authority >if he says there is a conspiracy?? He was Pentagon-CIA liason in the late 50's or so, but I don't think he had that job in the early 60's. >If he speaks with inside knowledge & authority, then why hasn't he been >killed off?? Why? I would say "because there was no conspiracy". Prouty might say "because he moved on to a different job before he had a chance to come into official contact with the conspiracy". -- Brian Holtz Article 352 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Arrest at Texas Theatre Date: 26 Jun 1992 18:22:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.024554.15498@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <37377@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37377@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >(Derek Abbott) writes: >|If there was such a powerful conspiracy, why did the PCG allow >|the officer to contradict Wade? > >The conspiracy was powerfull, but fraught with hazards no one could predict. >There was a lot of post-assassination patching up. Here's a challenge, David: I dare you to identify a single part of the evidence that you think is hard for a conspiracy theory to explain. I bet you can't, and I bet you don't even try. (Readers of this newsgroup will recall that I have often posted a list of the evidence that I think is hardest for the Warren Commission's theory to explain.) -- Brian Holtz Article 356 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 26 Jun 1992 19:04:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:356 alt.conspiracy:15186 sci.skeptic:26040 In article <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >If there wasn't a killer on the grassy knoll, how do you explain >jfk's throat wound??? The throat wound is an exit wound from the second shot, which hit JFK from behind. >The final head shot that blew his brains out was clearly from >behind, as demonstrated by the Alvarez watermelon discussion. I disagree. The watermelon discussion completely ignores the fact that JFK's head initially went *forward*, just as it ignores the fact that he should have pivoted at the *neck* (instead of at the waist) if a mechanical force were applied to his head. That the head shot was from behind is proved by the forward head motion, the exit wound on the Z film, the autopsy X-rays and photographs, the cracked windshield, and the front-seat bullet fragments. -- Brian Holtz Article 351 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Parafin Test Date: 26 Jun 1992 18:13:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.023516.15023@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:351 alt.conspiracy:15181 sci.skeptic:26032 In article <1992Jun26.023516.15023@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >The parafin test on Oswald's cheeks were negative showing that >he hadn't fired a rifle. The test on his hands were positive showing >that he fired a gun. No. The paraffin tests merely showed that nitrates were detectable on Oswald's hands, but not on his cheek. Firing a rifle is one way to get nitrates on your cheek, but a) there apparently are others ways to do it, and b) paraffin tests don't always find nitrates on a shooter. Early this year Dusty Garza (dusty@abode.ttank.com) posted that > an FBI agent fired "three rounds with 'Oswald's' > rifle in rapid succession" and tested NEGATIVE on both his hands > and face afterward. Dusty didn't give his source for this data. >Pro conspiracy buffs EXPLAIN THIS: >If there was a conspiracy, why would they admit that the cheeks >were negative?? Why didn't they fake the evidence[...]? Good question. The conspiracy believers will of course say that there was confusion among the conspirators, or that the conpirators didn't want the case against Oswald to look *too* tidy. Remember, no possible evidence can even convince someone who wants to believe in a conspiracy, because they can always say that the evidence is part of the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable, and therefore not very scientific. -- Brian Holtz Article 353 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph Date: 26 Jun 1992 18:24:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <12954@mindlink.bc.ca> <1992Jun26.062624.27124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15183 alt.conspiracy.jfk:353 sci.skeptic:26034 In article <1992Jun26.062624.27124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: > 2) The shadow under Oswalds nose is at 12 O'Clock No, it's not. Look at the blow-ups in _High Treason_. > but his body shadow is at 10 O'Clock. > 3) I believe modern day forensic image processing techniques > may show up any vignetting, but no one seems to have > thought of doing this. The HSCA did this, and concluded that the photo was genuine. -- Brian Holtz Article 354 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Marina Oswald Date: 26 Jun 1992 18:29:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.063258.27312@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15184 alt.conspiracy.jfk:354 sci.skeptic:26035 In article <1992Jun26.063258.27312@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >Does any one know the status of Marina Oswald today? >Is she inncommunicado or is she approachable to buffs and researchers?? Eminently approachable. Just a few months ago she appeared on a chintzy Jack Anderson TV expose'. Marina knows which side her bread is buttered on. WC critics like to throw away all her WC testimony because she was too cooperative, but they conveniently ignore the fact that now she has nothing but incentive to pander to the critics. -- Brian Holtz Article 355 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Warren Commission Date: 26 Jun 1992 18:32:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.063710.27597@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15185 alt.conspiracy.jfk:355 sci.skeptic:26036 In article <1992Jun26.063710.27597@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >The Warren Commission was set up only 7 days after the >assassination. In fact, the need for an authoritative investigation was realized as soon as Oswald's trial was precluded by his murder. >Am I missing something? Yes: with no trial, there needed to be a single authoritative investigation. -- Brian Holtz Article 356 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 26 Jun 1992 19:04:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:356 alt.conspiracy:15186 sci.skeptic:26040 In article <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >If there wasn't a killer on the grassy knoll, how do you explain >jfk's throat wound??? The throat wound is an exit wound from the second shot, which hit JFK from behind. >The final head shot that blew his brains out was clearly from >behind, as demonstrated by the Alvarez watermelon discussion. I disagree. The watermelon discussion completely ignores the fact that JFK's head initially went *forward*, just as it ignores the fact that he should have pivoted at the *neck* (instead of at the waist) if a mechanical force were applied to his head. That the head shot was from behind is proved by the forward head motion, the exit wound on the Z film, the autopsy X-rays and photographs, the cracked windshield, and the front-seat bullet fragments. -- Brian Holtz Article 381 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 27 Jun 1992 05:59:05 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:381 alt.conspiracy:15229 sci.skeptic:26093 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >[...] skull pieces that flew towards JFK's rear and left. [...] >blood and brain tissue splattering motorcycle policemen Hargis and >Martin who were behind and to the left of JFK. > >*Only* a shot from the grassy knoll explains the above. Then how does a grassy knoll shot explain the upward and somewhat forward jets of brain matter visible on the Zapruder film? How does a grassy knoll shot explain the cracked windshield? Or the splattering of the Connollys? Or the right temporal exit wound visible on the Zapruder film and autopsy photos? Or the rear entrace wound visible on the autopsy photos and X-rays? Or the lack of a rear entrance wound on any of these? When you shoot a skull, matter is going to splatter in lots of directions. >More than one person was seen on the >6th floor at the time that the WC insists Oswald was alone there. I know of no such reports that are credible. -- Brian Holtz Article 380 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Palm Prints Date: 27 Jun 1992 05:39:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 81 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.021855.14617@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <182312@pyramid.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:380 alt.conspiracy:15228 sci.skeptic:26092 In article <182312@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >For example, the so-called murder weapon started >out by being identified as a Mauser. The two officers who misidentified the weapon later admitted their mistake. >It later became a Mannlicher-carcano, >that wouldn't fire straight and had a bad site. It fires plenty straight. The sight as found was misaligned; it might have gotten misaligned when it was deposited in its hiding place. >It was coincidentally, >without any kind of fingerprints or palm prints that I am aware of. It's >news to me that the FBI EVER reported finding anything on the weapon. On Nov. 25 DA Wade announced that a palmprint had been found on the barrel of the rifle, and that it matched Oswald's right hand. Lt. Day of the DPD says he lifted the print on the night of the 22nd before turning the rifle over to the FBI. >The weapon suddenly ends up back in Dallas, The FBI took it to examine on the night of Nov. 22, and returned it on Nov. 24. After Oswald was killed and the FBI took over investigation of the case, the rifle was given back to the FBI on Nov. 26. >there is testimony that it >gets to the funeral home (!!!!!!!) Marrs says that researcher Gary Mack says that FBI agent Richard Harrison said in 1978 that when he drove another agent to the Oswald funeral home "he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes'". >whereafter it suddenly has a "latent" >palm print lifted from the underside of the barrel where the stock meets >the wood, all courtesy of the Dallas police force. The print wasn't allegedly found after the FBI visited Oswald's funeral home. Lt. Day says that he lifted it on the night of the 22nd. >There is alleged to >be a film showing another rifle being discovered and displayed triumphantly >as the murder weapon. The claim is made by Garrison. Garrison says that "Dallas Cinema Associates" filmed the DPD taking a sightless rifle down from the TSBD roof via the fire escape. Garrison says it was shown to him by research Sprague, and that it now resides at the Western New England College, Springfield, Mass. Given Sprague's remarkable ability to see riflemen when none are there (such as on the Nix film), and given that no documentary I've ever seen bothers to show this film, I'm pretty skeptical of this story. >Army files of Oswald, gone. The 112th Military Intelligence Group in San Atonio had a file on A. J. Hidell, which was an alias that Oswald was using in New Orleans in his Fair Play For Cuba work. The file said that Hidell was an alias for Oswald; the military may have learned of the alias when Oswald (ex-Marine and ex-defector) was arrested in New Orleans in connection with his FPC work. The file was destroyed in 1973. The Army says "the Oswald file was destroyed routinely in accordance with normal file management procedures, as are thousands of intelligence files annually". My guess is that the fact that the file was on "Hidell" instead of "Oswald" may have contributed to it being "routinely" destroyed. > CIA files gone. The HSCA found a 1964 CIA memorandum noting that some documents from Oswald's 201 file were missing, but the HSCA accepted CIA assurances that the documents simply happened to be checked out of the file on the day the memo was written. -- Brian Holtz Article 396 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph Date: 28 Jun 1992 21:18:07 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun24.043647.27355@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jun26.181608.10277@gagme.chi.il.us> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:396 alt.conspiracy:15256 sci.skeptic:26130 In article <1992Jun26.181608.10277@gagme.chi.il.us> anton@gagme.chi.il.us (Andrzej Borowiec) writes: >>>how does one explain the fact that the shadow of his body is at >>>about 10 O'clock, Oswald is leaning, so his shadow leans. >>>whereas the shadow under his nose lies at 12 O'clock?? >> >>It doesn't. Look at the blow-ups of the photo in _High Treason_. > >Are you talking about pictures between pp 210, 211 in paperbak edition, 1990? Yep. >The shadow sure as hell comes straight down his nose. Nope. Take a thread. Stretch it straight up and down so that it divides his nose evenly. Look at the shadow. Substantially more of the shadow is left of the thread than is right. >And he had plastic surgery done on his chin especialy for this picture too. Get a clue. The two pictures that Groden and Livingstone compare were taken under completely different conditions. The 'faked' photo was taken outdoors with bright sunlight above; the eyes, upper lip, and bottom outline of the chin completely disappear in the harsh shadows. The 'real' photo was taken indoors; the eyes are completely visible, there is no shadow under the nose, and the bottom outline of the chin stands out well against the well-lighted neck. -- Brian Holtz Article 397 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 28 Jun 1992 22:24:57 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <37442@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37442@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >he caries his photograph with an alias that he used to buy the rifle >that he knows he is going to throw on the floor. The authorities already knew that Hidell was an Oswald alias. At any rate, he got away from the scene and back to his apartment with no problem. >He goes out of his way to murder a police officer, Tippit found *him*; he didn't find Tippit. But note what Oswald did earlier, when he got to his apartment. He took off his wedding ring, and left with a loaded pistol and extra ammunition. He probably expected to go out in a blaze of glory. >and even though has $20 in his pocket, does not buy a >ticket to the movie, but goes in without paying, thus alerting the >authorities. The authorities were not alerted because Oswald entered without paying. They were alerted because Oswald was seen ducking into a shoe store to avoid being seen by a police car, only a few minutes/blocks from the Tippit murder. >Oswald could have easily and simply done things that would have made >him innocent, and yet must have been a master planner if he was >guilty. No. To get off, he would've had to have gotten the rifle out of the TSBD, which would have been next to impossible. Even if he *had*, he would have been investigated, and Marina and Ruth Paine would have had to not tell anyone that Oswald owned a rifle. >He was stitting calmly eating lunch until ten minutes to the >assassination, even though it could have been a little early or >later. He was last seen (by one person) at 12:15 at the latest, which was 15 minutes before the assassination. >He had to madly assemble his rifle. He had all morning to assemble the rifle. >He had to practice shooting his >rifle since the sight may have been misaligned. "Practice"? What does that mean? No shots were heard before the motorcade arrived. And there is no direct evidence that the sight was misaligned before the rifle was deposited in its hiding place. >He ran down the stairs at top speed, A Secret Service agent was able to beat Oswald's time twice in a row by merely *walking* -- without getting winded. >but was out of breadth on the landing, As you know, there is no evidence that Oswald was winded. As you should know, walking *down* four flights of stairs wouldn't wind *any*body. -- Brian Holtz Article 399 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 29 Jun 1992 00:08:08 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 117 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:399 alt.conspiracy:15260 sci.skeptic:26133 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>Then how does a grassy knoll shot explain the upward and somewhat >>forward jets of brain matter visible on the Zapruder film? > >Backsplash. Right. That's why some matter went backward, even though it's not enough to show up on the Zapruder film. >>How does a grassy knoll shot explain the cracked windshield? > >You mean the windshield that was rushed out of Dallas along with the >limo to eliminate all evidence? No, I mean the one that is seen to be intact in photos taken between Kennedy's throat trauma and his head shot, and is seen to be cracked in a photo taken only seconds after the head shot. >Also, I believe a second bullet impacted the rear of JFK's head at >Z325. Kennedy moves rapidly forward at this time, PuhLEEZ. JFK bounces off his seatback and is collapses into Jackie's lap. This motion is even *more* pronounced around Z335, when Jackie pushes forward on the back of his head as she gets ready to climb out onto the trunk. And I suppose it doesn't faze you at all that there isn't an *iota* of flying tissue visible from this alleged Z325 impact? >in the same way he >moved rapidly backwards starting at 313. No. In Z313 (the first frame in which an impact can be seen to have occurred), JFK's head has moved slightly *forward* from it's position in Z312. In Z314, there is no change in head position from Z313. Only in Z315 do we first see that his head has moved backwards when compared to the preceding frame. Almost all WC critics have an answer for this (double-impact: Wecht, Lattimer, Groden/Livingstone; double-impact-or-Z-film-tampering: Lifton, Marrs). Why do you so conveniently ignore it? >>Or the right temporal exit wound visible on the >>Zapruder film and autopsy photos? > >I think the autopsy photos are fakes because they do not show the hole >in the back of the head described by all the staff at Parkland. The Parkland staff saw exactly what the autopsy photos show when JFK IS ON HIS BACK: the front flap hanging nicely in place, and the rear flap hanging gorily down as if the back of the head were open. The Parkland staff never saw the head wound as it appeared with JFK lying on his stomach. >The Z film does not show a temporal exit wound. It shows a massive wound above the right ear, exposed by a flap of scalp that is folded forward on a hinge that is oriented up-and-down above the right ear. This is *exactly* what the autopsy photos show when JFK is lying on his stomach. >What it does show is the skin flap that was torn from the skull by >the impact of the explosive bullet. Sorry, but explosive bullets don't make massive entrance wounds and *no* exit wounds. >>Or the rear entrace wound visible on the autopsy photos and X-rays? >>Or the lack of a rear entrance wound on any of these? > >Maybe you meant rear exit wound? Yes. My mistake. >It was covered up by the fake autopsy photos. It was "covered up" only by a flap of scalp that lies in place when JFK is lying on his stomach, and which is held in place by a gloved hand in the famous photo that shows the rear entrance wound. >The Parkland staff saw the rear exit wound. They *couldn't*, because JFK was lying on his back. What they saw was pieces of scalp, skull, and brain hanging down from the wound area. >>When you shoot a skull, matter is going to splatter in lots of >>directions. > >Splatter in lots of direction did occur. Right! Like *backwards*, for instance. >But....nothing but a bullet fired from the grassy knoll explains the >Harper fragment, a 5cm x 7cm piece of occipital bone ending up to >JFK's left and rear. Bzzzt. "Nova" showed most of a *whole skull* flying backwards in response to a shot from the rear. >>>More than one person was seen on the >>>6th floor at the time that the WC insists Oswald was alone there. > >>I know of no such reports that are credible. > >You refuse to admit they are more credible than the one person who >claimed to see Oswald Brennan never claimed to "see Oswald". He saw a man in the sniper's window and gave a description that was consistent with Oswald's appearance. Brennan and one other witness, Amos Lee Euins, saw a rifleman firing from Oswald's window. Three other witnesses (Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert H. Jackson, newsreel cameraman Malcom O. Couch, and the wife of Mayor Earle Cabell) saw a rifleman withdrawing his rifle from that window. Another witness (James N. Crawford) saw a man leave that window immediately after the shooting. -- Brian Holtz Article 397 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 28 Jun 1992 22:24:57 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <37442@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37442@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >he caries his photograph with an alias that he used to buy the rifle >that he knows he is going to throw on the floor. The authorities already knew that Hidell was an Oswald alias. At any rate, he got away from the scene and back to his apartment with no problem. >He goes out of his way to murder a police officer, Tippit found *him*; he didn't find Tippit. But note what Oswald did earlier, when he got to his apartment. He took off his wedding ring, and left with a loaded pistol and extra ammunition. He probably expected to go out in a blaze of glory. >and even though has $20 in his pocket, does not buy a >ticket to the movie, but goes in without paying, thus alerting the >authorities. The authorities were not alerted because Oswald entered without paying. They were alerted because Oswald was seen ducking into a shoe store to avoid being seen by a police car, only a few minutes/blocks from the Tippit murder. >Oswald could have easily and simply done things that would have made >him innocent, and yet must have been a master planner if he was >guilty. No. To get off, he would've had to have gotten the rifle out of the TSBD, which would have been next to impossible. Even if he *had*, he would have been investigated, and Marina and Ruth Paine would have had to not tell anyone that Oswald owned a rifle. >He was stitting calmly eating lunch until ten minutes to the >assassination, even though it could have been a little early or >later. He was last seen (by one person) at 12:15 at the latest, which was 15 minutes before the assassination. >He had to madly assemble his rifle. He had all morning to assemble the rifle. >He had to practice shooting his >rifle since the sight may have been misaligned. "Practice"? What does that mean? No shots were heard before the motorcade arrived. And there is no direct evidence that the sight was misaligned before the rifle was deposited in its hiding place. >He ran down the stairs at top speed, A Secret Service agent was able to beat Oswald's time twice in a row by merely *walking* -- without getting winded. >but was out of breadth on the landing, As you know, there is no evidence that Oswald was winded. As you should know, walking *down* four flights of stairs wouldn't wind *any*body. -- Brian Holtz Article 382 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 27 Jun 1992 06:16:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <37405@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37405@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >They explain [the throat wound] as an exit wound, even though there >is no evidence for this. The best evidence is that it lines up with the other wounds caused by the single bullet. >In fact, all the evidence points to an entrance wound, as 99% of the >people at Parkland thought. They didn't know about the back wound. >you have several witnesses independently seeing a dark complectioned >man both in the TSBD, Remember, there were three black men watching on the 5th floor. >and driving a Rambler Staion wagon picking up someone who looks >like Oswald. Oswald's route home via bus and taxi is very well documented. >and they found a gun on the roof as well as on the 4th floor I wouldn't take Sprague's word for that, if I were you. Nobody but Garrison seems to, and Garrison is laughable... -- Brian Holtz Article 383 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 27 Jun 1992 06:23:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:383 alt.conspiracy:15230 sci.skeptic:26094 In article cessu@cs.hut.fi (Kenneth S A Oksanen) writes: >If LHO was the lone gunman in TSBD why didn't he pull the trigger >earlier while the limo was heading towards TSBD or passing it? The Secret Service tended to be looking forward. To shoot at JFK head-on, Oswald would have had to expose himself to all the spectators. By waiting until JFK is on Elm, he can partially hide himself behind the edge of the window. Also, it may not have been easy to squeeze the trigger while staring right at the face of the handsome young president through a 4x scope. Re: "passing it", Oswald needed to wait until the limo was going directly away from him, after the turn. -- Brian Holtz Article 384 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 27 Jun 1992 06:55:33 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 76 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:384 alt.conspiracy:15231 sci.skeptic:26098 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >The shooting started around frame 189 of the Zapruder film [some claim >earlier, but offer no proof] Both Connally and JFK turn their heads sharply to the right between Z156 and Z169. Connally described this head turn as his reaction to the sound of the first shot (which missed). The first shot occurred c. Z155. By contrast, there's no good evidence of a shot c. Z189. >Since there was a tree between the 6th floor snipers >location and JFK, this shot was probably fired from the grassy knoll, The tree did not obscure Oswald's view until Z166. >and probably hit JFK in the windpipe. > >There was probably a shot around 210/225, 180 feet from the TSBD. >This shot probably hit JFK in the back. TSBD or Dal-Tex. Right, except it also caused the JFK neck wound and the Connally wounds. It was probably fired at Z215 (+- 4 or so). >There was a shot at 237, about 200 feet from the TSBD. >This shot his Connally in the back near his right armpit. Nope, Connally is just reacting to his hit here. His wrist is no longer in line with his wounds. >There was probably a shot at 289, it might have hit Connally in the >wrist. Or it may have been the missed shot that hit Tague. There is no good evidence of a shot anytime near Z289. Tague was probably hit by a ricochet from the first shot, which missed the limo. >Another at 312 , about 265 feet from the TSBD. It hit JFK in the right >temple and was probably fired from the grassy knoll. Impossible. Rifle bullets don't cause 4" entrance wounds and 15x6mm exit wounds. Also, JFK's head moved forward between Z312 and 313, and didn't move backward until Z315. >There was probably another shot at 325, probably from the Dal-Tex, >hitting JFK in the back of the head. Why Z325? All of the conspiracy authors with a double-head-shot theory reverse it, saying rear @ 313, followed by right-front @ 315 at the latest. >Amazingly, all the early shots failed to kill JFK. Lattimer thinks the X-ray shows that the shot through the neck caused what would have been a fatal trauma to the spinal cord. >the assassins started firing as soon >as the limo could be seen [or blamed on] by someone in the TSBD. Yes, *assuming* a shooter placed at the grassy knoll. But why place one there and wait, causing inevitable speculation about Oswald not opening fire while JFK was on Houston? >The mafia is not traditionally associated with killing with rifles. >So...under pressure they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn door >[so to speak] until the target was close to the grassy knoll, at a >distance of less than 80 feet, and travelling only 11 miles an hour. "Tradition" would preclude them from finding *some*body who can handle a rifle? Also, given that the grassy knoll shot was a high-deflection shot, it might have been a more difficult shot than the head shot that Oswald actually took. -- Brian Holtz Article 398 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Parafin Test Date: 28 Jun 1992 22:52:49 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 82 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.023516.15023@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <92179.025432U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:398 alt.conspiracy:15258 sci.skeptic:26131 In article <92179.025432U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes: >>Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable, and >>therefore not very scientific. > >Oh!!!! I see. When Nixon's tapes [...] When Ollie North [...] spent >the night shredding documents....... And when the CIA confessed to >spying on citizens groups in the 70's... Learn to read. I said that conspiracy theories are "unfalsifiable". I did *not* say that they are unproveable. >Those who believe strongly in conspiracy theories with >no evidence are being stupid. Exactly. >Those who believe there are no >conspiracies are extremely naive. Name a single person who believes "there are no conspiracies". >Reasons for the assassination: take your pick; > continuing Vietnam war > pressure off the mob > keeping CIA intact > pushing US into invading Cuba > forestalling Hoover's retirement > revenge for Castro attempted hits > forestalling civil rights movement > or any combination of above Has it occurred to you that when *any* President is killed, it's trivial to come up with a list of possible motives at *least* this long? Can you name *one* U.S. President whose death would not have served the interests of a long list of people? >Reasons for the coverup: preventing war with USSR > preventing unstable conditions in US > avoiding clash with Hoover > enable clean election of LBJ > enable stronger case against LHO (DPD) > hiding govermental involvement in killing > hiding gov. connection with LHO > hiding incompetence in protecting JFK > or any combination of above Real smooth, how you just *assume* there was a conspiracy that could be "covered up". What you need to do is relabel your list "reasons for the WC concluding that LHO acted alone". Perhaps *then* you could bring yourself to add to your list the mundane, unglamorous, unexciting possiblity that LHO *did* act alone. Why are you so afraid to admit this as even a *possibility*? >When a Dallas police person falsifies a palmprint, There is indeed a possibility that the DPD faked the palmprint. >when a autopsy doctor fakes a detail, No autopsy details were "faked". >when commission lawyer worms false testimony from a witness, Such as? >when an assassin team sets up a patsy There's no evidence that one did. >The doctor takes orders, even dire orders. There is no evidence of any such orders. >The lawyer was instructed to avoid any ties to conspiracy. Not true. -- Brian Holtz Article 402 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 29 Jun 1992 01:58:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 204 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:402 alt.conspiracy:15265 sci.skeptic:26137 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>Both Connally and JFK turn their heads sharply to the right between >>Z156 and Z169. Connally described this head turn as his reaction to >>the sound of the first shot (which missed). The first shot occurred >>c. Z155. > >Nonsense. There is no evidence of a shot at this time. Gee, thanks for completely ignoring Connally's turn and his later description of it as being in reaction to hearing a shot... >If a shot had been this early and missed it would have deflected off >the street into the crowd of people across the street from the TSBD. It did. It hit James Tague. >The impact would certainly have been noticeable Says who? >and I don't know of >any witnesses who saw a shot hit the street this early. Virgie Rachley (now Mrs. Donald Baker) says she saw a bullet hit the street at the time of the first shot. She says it hit the middle of the left lane just behind the presidential limo. >>By contrast, there's no good evidence of a shot c. Z189. > >Thompson demonstrated on NOVA I too remember Thompson trying to demonstrate this, but it wasn't on Nova. I can't find whatever show it was on my tapes. >that there was a little girl One of Willis' daughters, either Rosemary or Linda -- I don't know which. >blithley skipping down Elm directly behind the limo and clearly >visible in the Zapruder film. Just after 189 she stops and turns >around to looks behind her. She stops, but she does not look behind her. She could be stopping for many reasons: she just ran past her parents; she has now run out of sidewalk and is onto the grass; the limo has just now started to pull ahead of her pace and she can't keep up. >It is obvious when you look at the frames >that nothing untoward has happened until 189, "Obvious"? Connally makes a turn in Z165-169 that he described as in reaction to the first shot! As for the crowd being "blithe", William Newman is still waving at Z240, 2.7 seconds after you say JFK was shot in the back or throat. Charles Brehm (the guy in front of the Babushka Lady) is still clapping when he leaves the picture at Z290, even though JFK and Connally have been reacting to their wounds for several seconds. >and that after 189 the little girl >registers that something has happened behind her. >Interestingly enough, behind her as she was running down Elm is the >Dal-Tex Building. The TSBD is across the street from her Yes, she would have to cross Elm to get to the TSBD, but while Dal-Tex is, in fighter pilot lingo, at her "6" (well, her 5:30), the TSBD sniper's nest is at her 4:30. >and I don't >think she looks in that direction. Check out the frames yourself. I did. She doesn't turn around at all. >>it also caused the JFK neck wound and the Connally >>wounds. It was probably fired at Z215 (+- 4 or so). > >Nonsense. Connally was fine enough to turn to his right and try and >look back well after 225. His testimony about when he was hit matches >exactly to frame 237/238. Ha! The only time Connally looks back after Z225 is well after his famous contortions in Z237-238: he looks back starting around Z250, while generally slumping and collapsing into his wife's lap. He was hardly "fine" when he looked back. Also, Connally says he was hit at Z231-234 -- even though the WC critics say the bullet didn't touch him until Z237-238! >>Nope, Connally is just reacting to his hit here. His wrist is no >>longer in line with his wounds. > >Who cares about his wrist. Only people who feel silly a) saying that a separate bullet caused every skin puncture that day, and b) assigning one of these impacts anytime a limo occupant budges on the Zapruder film. >Connally was still holding onto his hat >into the 280's. His wrist was fine at 237. Look at Z229-231. His right hand pops up off his left thigh and is clutched close to his chest. Look at his wrist at Z250ff; it's limp. The bullet that pierced his wrist had already gone through two human chests, and only fractured the wrist bones. Fingers curl naturally; it takes muscle power to open them. Your fingers don't just spring open when a bullet hits you. >At 289 Connally makes a 90 degree turn in 2 frames [1/9th of a second] It wasn't 90 degrees, and it wasn't just 2 frames. But yes, he's stopped looking at Kennedy, and slumps backward off his jump seat and into his wife's lap. So? At almost the same time, Jackie's head turns almost as much and almost as quickly -- while being driven FORWARD! Was she, too, hit by a bullet at that point, or was she merely turning her attention from Conally's gyrations to attend to her stricken husband? >Alvarez's work on Zapruders film shows that Zapruder jerks as if he >heard a shot at 289. Alvarez dismissed this because it didn't fit into >all the preconceived notions about Oswald. But you, you're willing to take any evidence you can get for the fusillade of bullets you think were directed at the limo, aren't you? Does it bother you at all that Alvarez had only four jiggles, while you have at least six shots being fired? I don't think Alverez has a jiggle at Z189, does he? (What was his list of jiggles, again?) >As for Tague, if he was hit by the missed 'first' shot, it was a >pretty good miss. If you draw a line from the TSBD to the limo at 189, >a missed shot would have missed Tague by 300 feet. The curb next to Tague was most likely hit by a ricochet from the street near the limo. >>Rifle bullets don't cause 4" entrance wounds and 15x6mm exit wounds. > >What you mean is that copper jacketed bullets don't. >Explosive bullets or dum-dums can. Bullshit. I defy you to cite a single case of a bullet being fired directly into a human head causing no damage other than a 4" wound at the point of impact. Only a sawed-off shotgun could cause that kind of wound. Say, when are you going to explain the rear entrace wound seen on the autopsy photos and X-rays, or the rear-to-front row of bullet fragments seen on the head X-ray? Oh, right, they don't fit your theory, so of course they are fakes... >> Also, JFK's head moved forward between Z312 and 313, and >>didn't move backward until Z315. >[...] >>Why Z325? All of the conspiracy authors with a double-head-shot >>theory reverse it, saying rear @ 313, followed by right-front @ 315 at >>the latest. > >Joe Baugher published a wonderful graph the other day to show that JFK >moved back after the 312 head shot and forward again starting around 325. How many times are you going to ignore (and yet *excerpt*!) my statement that the head moves *forward* in between Z312 and Z313? >Also, there are enough witnesses who heard a double shot at the time >of the fatal head shot. Can you say "echo"? >Also, the HSCA tape of the shots in Dealey Plaza show a shot from the >grassy knoll as the second to last shot. The HSCA matched this shot to >'before' 312 and called it a miss. If you move this shot to 312, then >the last shot occurs around 325. The acoustic evidence has already been completely discredited. Besides, moving it around messes up the earlier shots. (What was the HSCA's mapping of the recorded shots to the Z film, again?) Doesn't it bother you that even though people have put gunmen into sewers, the driver's seat, and even an umbrella, *nobody* but you has ever suggested shots at c. Z290 and Z325? >>Yes, *assuming* a shooter placed at the grassy knoll. But why place >>one there and wait, causing inevitable speculation about Oswald not >>opening fire while JFK was on Houston? > >The assassins wanted a crossfire. Ah yes, A Crossfire. What is this mystical grip that A Crossfire has on the nuttier Prouty/Garrison brand of conspiracy theorists? You remind me of the schmuck who played David Ferrie on the farce hosted by James Earl Jones; the manic intensity of this "Ferrie" made Joe Pesci's Ferrie look positively sedate, especially when he was gushing about the near-metaphysical assurance of success that is afforded by a "triangulation" shooting pattern... >They were wrong about the driver, but >right about needing multiple shooters. I think the only "need" for multiple shooters is in certain people's minds... ;-) -- Brian Holtz Article 403 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 29 Jun 1992 03:20:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:403 alt.conspiracy:15267 sci.skeptic:26139 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >The Harper fragment, 5cm x 7cm of occipital bone [the back of the >skull] No, the HSCA concluded that it *wasn't* occipital. >went to JFK's rear and left. No, it was found the day after the shooting, somewhere to the left. I know of no evidence to show that it went rearward at all; do you? >>And I suppose it doesn't faze you at all that there >>isn't an *iota* of flying tissue visible from this alleged Z325 impact? > >If you look at the Z film it is very obvious that the skin flap has >enlarged considerably between 325 and 335. Utterly false. Also, thanks for not answering my question... >>Parkland staff never saw the head wound as it appeared with JFK lying >>on his stomach. > >You mean JFK magically appeared on the operating table face up without >anybody handling him? No, I mean that he was never on his stomach at Parkland. >You mean nobody looked at the back of his head >when they washed his body in preparation for putting in the coffin? Plenty of people at Parkland saw the back of the head and the gruesome rear flap hanging open. None of them saw JFK lying on his stomach, with the rear flap resting shut. The bullet that hit JFK's head did not petrify it. Look at "autopsy photo 2" in _Best Evidence_, with JFK on his back. Doesn't it look to you as though the back of JFK's head has been blown off? Then look at photo 4, with JFK on his stomach, and a gloved hand holding the rear flap in place, showing the entrace wound through it. If they were going to "fake" the autopsy photos, why would they snap photo 2, which seems to contradict their story? >The pieces of skull , including the Harper fragment, had to come from >somewhere. It came from "a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." >You and your fellow WC supporters all claim their was *no* >massive wound in the back of JFK's skull. You claim there was just a >tiny little entrance wound [ the one in the faked autopsy photos] Don't forget, it was also "faked" in the autopsy X-rays. Remember, *all* the physical evidence was "faked" or touched up -- the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and X-rays, the stretcher bullet, the front-seat fragments, the cracked windshield -- because it *all* points to the WC's theory. In your mind, the self-consistency of all the physical evidence is probably a *sure* sign of conspiracy... -- Brian Holtz Article 421 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 29 Jun 1992 17:49:17 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 202 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:421 alt.conspiracy:15290 sci.skeptic:26168 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>>>Both Connally and JFK turn their heads sharply to the right between >>>>Z156 and Z169. [...] >>Gee, thanks for completely ignoring Connally's turn and his later >>description of it as being in reaction to hearing a shot... > >Connally turned *after* emerging from behind the street sign. Z225. Are you telling me that you don't see Connally turn his head sharply to the right at Z165-169? How many times am I going to have to ask you about this before you answer me? >If you look at a map of Dealey Plaza and draw a line from the limo to >JFK at 160 [which *you* claim to to be the first shot] and extend it >to the edge of the map, the closest this line would be to Tague is 300 >feet! Look at a good map of Dealey Plaza, such as that in _Reasonable Doubt_. If you draw a line between Oswald's window and JFK at Z160, then as viewed from above that line intersects perfectly with Tague's position. Yes, a ricochet off the street just to JFK's right is required for the shot to flatten out and hit near Tague (as opposed to burrowing into the street near JFK and continuing on a subterranean path that passes many yards below Tague's feet). >Even the FBI said it would take until Z frame 410 for a close miss to >line up from the TSBD to the limo to Tague. That's assuming a direct hit on the nicked curb. The damage to the curb was too slight to have been caused by a direct hit from a high-powered rifle. >>She stops, but she does not look behind her. > >She stops dead and then looks behind her. Oh, this is *too* rich! You don't see Connally turning his head in Z165-169, and yet you think you see the Willis girl turning *completely* around in Z189ff. I love it! Never *mind* that even if the girl *did* turn around, she would be looking very close to the southeast corner of the TSBD... >Even Zapruder said he thought Kennedy hand been hit *before* he went >behind the street sign at Z 210. So? Nobody denies that a shot had been heard well before Z210, and yet there is nothing on the Zapruder film to make us think Kennedy has reacted to being hit before Z210. Zapruder has no basis for his statement. >>"Obvious"? Connally makes a turn in Z165-169 that he described as in >>reaction to the first shot! > >Connally *never* thought he was shot at 165-169. Bzzzt. I said Connally turns in reaction to the *missed* first shot. Connally and I agree that the first shot did not hit him. (Connally's problem is that he thinks the first shot hit Kennedy.) >When he looked at the Z film he thought he was at or around 237. "at or around 237"? Yeah, you *better* fudge that number, considering that Connally says he was hit at Z231-234, and yet the WC critics think they see the physical impact occur between Z237 and Z238... >>Ha! The only time Connally looks back after Z225 is well after his >>famous contortions in Z237-238: > >Nonsense. He starts looking back just after emerging from the street >sign. Quit distorting what is in the Z film. It's so pathetic. What's "pathetic" is you deleting what I said next: "he looks back starting around Z250, while generally slumping and collapsing into his wife's lap." What's "pathetic" is you not having the courage to assign Zapruder frame numbers to your assertion. The *fact* is that as Connally emerges from behind the sign (Z222) Connally is still turning back from his right to a straight-ahead orientation (Z235). It was during this turn that Connally says he was hit. In Z235-250 he grimaces, clutches his right wrist to his chest, and spins to his right. At Z250 he sharply turns his head from looking right to looking back (at JFK). I *dare* you to dispute this description. >>Also, Connally says he was hit at Z231-234 -- even though the WC >>critics say the bullet didn't touch him until Z237-238! > >3 whole frames difference? How shocking. Yes, "shocking", unless you're going to tell us that the reactions Connally identifies in Z231-234 were a *premonition* of an impact that you say didn't occur until Z237-238! The *point*, of course, is that Connally agrees with the WC and me that he was hit *before* Z237, and that he disagrees with you and the WC critics. >Connally's radial nerve and tendon to his thumb was damaged. It would >have been hard to hold onto his hat with a smashed wrist and nerve >damage. It also would have been hard for him to move his right arm so much and torque himself around in his seat with a massive chest wound. Yet he managed to do this sort of thing for the same two or three seconds that he failed to drop his hat, before he finally collapsed into unconsciousness. >>>At 289 Connally makes a 90 degree turn in 2 frames [1/9th of a second] > >>It wasn't 90 degrees, and it wasn't just 2 frames. > >It was 90 degrees and it was two frames. Quit distorting whats in the >Z film . It's pathetic. It wasn't 90 degrees. Connally is at profile at Z289, and doesn't actually look fully into the camera until Z304. It wasn't 2 frames. In Z290, Connally's turned from 180 to about 165 degrees. In Z291, he's turned to about 140 degrees. In Z292, he's turned to about 110 degrees. From Z293 to Z304, he gradually turns from 100 degrees to a full, face-on 90 degrees. Connally turns about 70 degrees in 3 frames. It wasn't 90 degrees, and it wasn't just 2 frames. Pretending it *was* is what's "pathetic". >>The curb next to Tague was most likely hit by a ricochet from the >>street near the limo. > >You're pathetic. If you had a map of Dealey Plaza you would know Tague >was 300 feet from the path of a bullet fired at 160. I *have* a map, and it shows plain as day that a shot fired from Oswald's window at JFK's Z160 position has to deflect neither left nor right to hit the curb near Tague. It merely has to ricochet *up* from the street next to JFK. >>>Also, there are enough witnesses who heard a double shot [...] > >>Can you say "echo"? > >Can you "prove" echo? No, just like you can't prove it *wasn't* an echo. So, what do we do? Well, 1) most of the earwitnesses didn't describe the head shot as a double shot. 2) We can explain the ones who *did* hear it as either an echo, or a second shot, or a thunderclap, or firecracker set off by Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom in a desperate last-second effort to prove his innocence, etc. None of these explanations can be either proven or disproven. Reason demands that we choose the simplest explanation that is consistent with all the evidence. Therefore, it was most likely an echo. QED. >The only reason it was dismissed is >because of some crosstalk from another channel. The tape was later >shown to be a copy because of two 60 hz hum tones. Says who? >Zapruder jerked his camera at Z289 as if he had heard a shot. Or as if he heard a siren being turned on (according to Alvarez, according to what somebody told me in e-mail). Or as if he's just holding a camera up on a pergola. Remember, Zapruder was prone to vertigo, and asked his secretary to stand next to him and steady him. Remember, too, that the jiggle analysis (with shots at 177 215 290 313) hurts your overall theory more than it helps it. >Connally jerked as if he had been shot or heard a shot at Z289. Connally turns as if he's slumping off of his jump seat and into his wife's lap. >The HSCA tape can be interpreted to show a shot at Z289. No. That messes up the timings of the other shots. The HSCA said: 157-161: 1st shot misses. 188-191: 2nd shot hits JFK and Connally. 295: 3rd shot is fired from the grassy knoll. It misses. 313: Fatal head shot - 4th shot. Again: why don't all six of your shots show up on the HSCA tape, or as jiggles on the Zapruder film? >Doesn't it bother you that you still cling to the laughable 'magic' >bullet theory? The HSCA endorsed the single bullet theory, just as it endorsed your Z189 shot (before the acoustic evidence was discredited). Conspiracy theorist Paul Hoch wrote in his conspiracy newsletter: 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. In other words, just as with the head shot, the physical evidence supports the WC theory, and if you want to fantasize otherwise, you're going to have to believe that the CE399 wounds were tampered with, too. -- Brian Holtz Article 422 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 29 Jun 1992 18:08:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:422 alt.conspiracy:15291 sci.skeptic:26170 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Dr. Cairns. He said it was occipital bone. The FBI report says that he "stated the bone specimen looked like it came from the occipital region of the skull". >Dr Angel , working for the HSCA, only saw a photograph of the Harper >fragment and could not conclusively find where it fit into the skull >X-Ray. Right. The hole in the skull was much bigger than the Harper fragment. >>No, it was found the day after the shooting, somewhere to the left. I >>know of no evidence to show that it went rearward at all; do you? > >Bystander Charles Brehm saw a fragment of JFK's skull fly off the back >of his head to the rear and left. > >A Motorcycle Policeman to JFK's left and rear were hit by skull >pieces, blood and brain tissue. > >Detective Seymour Wietzman also found pieces of skull on the curb and >grass of Elm street to the left of the limo. Like I said, there's no evidence that the Harper fragment went rearward at all. >Most of the medical staff saw a hole in the back of JFK's head with >cerebellum leaking out. They thought they saw cerebellum. They were wrong -- as some admitted after seeing the autopsy photos on Nova. >>If they were going to "fake" the autopsy photos, why would they snap >>photo 2, which seems to contradict their story? > >If the coverup was perfect then there wouldn't be so much evidence >around that contradicted the official story. But why would the conspirators *create* evidence to contradict their story? Hello? Earth to Bruce? >Just because the coverup was imperfect doesn't mean there wasn't a >coverup. Ah, yes, the ol' Perfectly Imperfect Conspiracy, designed no doubt to give people like me ammunition against conspiracy theories. Remember, kiddies, planting evidence against your cover story is for Advanced Conspirators only. Do not try this at home. >The occipital is the back of the head. Please point out to me the 13cm >wound that extends into the occipital in any of the existing autopsy >photos. The Harper fragment wasn't occipital. >The wound described by Humes does not show up in >*any* of the autopsy photos. Then whose wound is shown in "autopsy photo 7" in _Best Evidence_? And why would Hume describe a wound different from what they faked for the autopsy photos? Why did the AMA lay all this nonsense to rest in their recent article? -- Brian Holtz Article 418 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Oswald's Palm Prints Date: 29 Jun 1992 16:08:07 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 93 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.021855.14617@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <182312@pyramid.pyramid.com> <37441@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37441@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|The two officers who misidentified the weapon later admitted their mistake. > >There were four officers: Boone, Craig, Weitzman, and Fritz. Boone filed a >sworn affadavit saying it was a 7.65 Mauser. Boone admits that "Mauser" is to him a generic term, and that he can't tell the difference. >Craig said the words Mauser were on the Barrell. Craig's testimony is not to be trusted. He became obsessed with the case, lost his job and his wife, and eventually killed himself. >Even after attempts on Craig's life, he never agreed to go >along and say the rifle was a Mannlicher. Gosh, you mean a conspiracy crackpot says he's sticking to his story even though he says there have been multiple attempts on his life? Gee, he must have been *so* brave... >As late as >midnight the 22nd, *Wade* told the press it was a Masuser. It was only 12 hours after the shooting, and he was only echoing his officers' initial reports. Now, would you care to answer these questions: *why* would the conspirators futz around with different rifles? Why would they have Oswald order a rifle that people would say was inadequate for the job? Why? I don't know which is dumber: the conspirators doing this, or somebody thinking the conspirators would do this... :) >Even though they may appear the same, Exactly. >one is a piece of trash, and the other is a fine killing machine. Ok, give me a MC and three rounds, and you drive away in a convertible. I'll even let you misalign my scope for me... :) >Merely a reciting of the facts looses the essential issues. *Some*body has to recite the facts here... >The police found the weapon, did not report any prints, The police made no report whatsoever. Christ, Kennedy wasn't even cold yet! >the gun is sent to the Washington FBI, and they said no prints were >found. Note that Dallas did not inform Washington that any prints >were found. The Dallas police are in a pickle: a print would clinche >their case. The print was announced only *after* Oswald was too dead for a trial. >You say that the midnight trip to the cemetary was to confirm a print. No, I said that Marrs said that Mack said that FBI agent Richard Harrison said in 1978 that when he drove another agent to the Oswald funeral home "he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes'". I don't really believe Harrison. >But why wasn't a record of the print made on the 22nd, when the rifle >was sent to the FBI? Day photographed all his other prints, but not >that one. It was late at night. Day says he just plain stopped working when the FBI took the rifle. >Why did Dallas weight so long to tell anyone of their find, >precisely when the rifle was returned and the FBI found no prints? Day thinks his "lift" of the print may have lifted it completely. I think it's quite possible that Day and the DPD faked this print as a 'safe' way to enhance their 'Monday morning' case against Oswald. For example, the DPD is thought to have covered their ass about how Ruby got into the parking garage, blaming it on a flatfoot instead of on the higher-ranking people who he probably walked past. >The Army has a file on the person who assassinated a President of the >United States, and destroys it? Can't you read? I said the Army had a file on "A. J. Hidell", and that it probably wasn't looked at too hard before being put in with the files that are routinely destroyed. -- Brian Holtz Article 419 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Arrest at Texas Theatre Date: 29 Jun 1992 16:27:50 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.024554.15498@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:419 alt.conspiracy:15287 sci.skeptic:26165 In article <1992Jun26.024554.15498@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >Wade announced to the public that Oswald pulled a trigger on the >arresting officer, at the Texas theatre. However, the gun misfired >and the bullet didn't go off. He said that he has the bullet >with a strike mark on it Did he? I can't find anything to back this up. People at the scene heard the click of a misfire, but the WR says that the hammer never touched the shell. >However, the arresting officer said that he gripped Oswald's >hand, preventing him from pulling the trigger. No, Officer McDonald says he grabbed the butt of the pistol, but that Oswald still had his hand on the trigger. >Where is this bullet with the strike mark?? McDonald told the A.P. that day that the primer on the cartridge was dented, but I know of no other evidence that it was. McDonald may have just assumed that there was a dented cartridge, since I gather that's what results when you try to fire a dud. -- Brian Holtz Article 423 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 29 Jun 1992 19:45:45 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jun29.045106.11513@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:423 alt.conspiracy:15293 sci.skeptic:26173 In article <1992Jun29.045106.11513@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >On the autopsy photos, the entrance hole behind jfk was on the upper >portion of his back *below* the neck. Below the *back* of the neck. The bottom of the back of the neck is much higher than the bottom of the front of the neck. >You would have to postulate an upwards moving second bullet. Nope. >I take it that you are not supporting the magic bullet theory, correct? I support the single bullet theory. No magic required. -- Brian Holtz Article 424 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Tree Obscuring the TSDB Date: 29 Jun 1992 19:47:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun29.082725.17770@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15294 alt.conspiracy.jfk:424 sci.skeptic:26174 In article <1992Jun29.082725.17770@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >My simple question is: is the tree deciduous or evergreen?? I think it's a live oak. It had its leaves on Nov. 22, 1963. -- Brian Holtz Article 426 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Parafin Test Date: 29 Jun 1992 20:49:58 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 182 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.023516.15023@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <92179.025432U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> <92181.025212U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:426 alt.conspiracy:15297 sci.skeptic:26178 In article <92181.025212U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes: >>>>Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable, and >>>>therefore not very scientific. >> >>I said that conspiracy theories are "unfalsifiable". >>I did *not* say that they are unproveable. >> > I will go out right now and take a course on reading immediately. > Thanks for the advice. > Lets see. Your point appears to be that there is a vast difference > between "unfalsifiable" and "unprovable". This is nice After your course on reading, take a course on Introductory Epistemology, or perhaps Philosophy of Science, and you will learn that there is *indeed* a vast difference between falsifiability and proveability. > but it is what is implied in your paragraph that I am speaking to. > the Implication is that they can be dismissed as unscientific and > therefore meaningless. My contention is that for a theory to be scientifically meaningful it has to be falsifiable. >>Name a single person who believes "there are no conspiracies". >> > Those who so glibly dismiss the possibility of conspiracy in the > JFK controversey are being extremely naive. Feel any better? No. Name a single person who "glibly dismisses the possibility of conspiracy in the JFK controversy". I have always said that a conspiracy was possible, if unlikely. I don't see too many conspiracy theorists entertaining the unglamorous possibility that Oswald acted alone... >>Has it occurred to you that when *any* President is killed, it's >>trivial to come up with a list of possible motives at *least* this >>long? Can you name *one* U.S. President whose death would not have >>served the interests of a long list of people? >> > Has it occured to me? Yes. Has it occured to me that it is trivial. > Sorry, NO!!!. Just because it's not trivial for *you* doesn't mean it's not trivial for someone who happens to know a little about the presidency in question. For instance, I happen to know a lot about post-Hoover American history. Can you name a president since Hoover whose death would not have served the interests of a long list of people? (This oughtta be good...) > Again, casual dismissal is the current thread in your > line of thought here. "Casual dismissal" of *what*? Of the possibility of a conspiracy? No. Of sloppy thinking? Yes. The idea that a long list of assassination beneficiaries is evidence for a conspiracy is sloppy thinking. > In a more mundane murder case, if we went looking for > who had motive for the crime by looking to see who benefited, [...] In a more mundane murder case, the victim doesn't have a built-in list of enemies by virtue of his occupation. > Do I in other frameworks, consider that one of the possibilities is > that LHO did the shooting alone? Yes. Spare me the mumbo-jumbo about "frameworks", "forests", and "trees" (oh my!). Do you or do you not consider it possible that LHO *acted* alone in killing JFK? > In watching pro-WC proponents argue their side, I see them twist > and turn, squeezing facts into incredible shapes, ignoring blatant > problems with the evidence, and rushing to the feet of anyone who, > pontificating from some petard of authority, makes statements that > bolster the WC case. Next, you should take a Logic course, in which you will learn that an argument's validity is not affected by the personal attributes of the people who happen to agree with it. > are you afraid of the possibility of LHO being innocent or > not being the only shooter? Not at all. I don't deny the romantic appeal of Oswald as anti-hero, nor that of the young knight Kennedy being cut down by the most powerful of forces before he could Change The World. I don't deny that it doesn't feel good to think of Kennedy's death as senseless. > Can your mind be changed, Brian? Of course. I'd like to hear from the unknown bystander who walked up the grassy knoll steps as soon as Kennedy's head exploded, and hear what he saw up there. I'd like to hear from even *one* person who was in on the conspiracy (even after the fact) and can give us a falsifiable account of it. I'd like somebody to find the Babushka Lady's film in their basement, or the "lost" Similas photo that allegedly showed a rifle and two men in a sixth-floor window. I'd like Officer Tilson to find the piece of paper on which he wrote the license number of a car the left the scene of the shooting after its Ruby-resembling driver came from the grassy knoll and tossed something in the back seat. (Photos of the area show no such car, however.) I'd like it, but I doubt it's going to happen. > I do not perceive a vast difference between your stance and theirs. > You're both so sure you know absolutely what happened on Nov. 22,63. Wrong. I'm not absolutely sure what happened, and willing to say so. They're not sure what happened, either -- after all, that's their religion. The problem is, their religion calls for them to *be* absolutely sure they know what *didn't* happen: Oswald acting alone. >>No autopsy details were "faked". >> > Hopes are dashed. Pardon me but I missed your name on the list > of those who attended the autopsy. Grow up. You and I don't even know that men named Oswald or Kennedy ever even existed, much less that one of them had an autopsy. If you want to play *this* game with me, you're going to lose. Badly. > Your statements are getting too terse. I have to interpret this > dogmatic assertion as saying that the autopsy doctors cannot lie or > make false statements. You're projecting other people's dogma onto me. When I tersely say "X", I don't mean "(not X) is impossible". I mean that "the evidence tells us X" or "there is no credible evidence for (not X)". >>>when commission lawyer worms false testimony from a witness, >> >>Such as? > > Well, I was thinking about Sylvia Meagher's well referenced > assault on Belin's examination of Given's testimony and it's > historical transition into a basic tenet of the WC case. Who's Given? What tenet? No Given is mentioned in any of my JKF books. > And his ludicrous reply to her assault but there are plenty of > other instances. I'm skeptical of this, since I routinely demolish such "other instances" posted to this newsgroup by simply looking them up *in the conspiracy books themselves*. >>>The doctor takes orders, even dire orders. >> >>There is no evidence of any such orders. >> > All this again is missing the point and switching the argument > from the realm of speculation to the realm of evidence. Well, excuuuuuse *me*. :) >>>The lawyer was instructed to avoid any ties to conspiracy. >> >>Not true. > > go to your library [...] the first words out of Warren's mouth on > the goal of their investigation was to quash talk of conspiracy. People keep saying this, and I keep asking for even one quote, and they never come up with it. Forgive me for not doing your research for you... > the assertion that the main purpose of the WC was to quash talk of > conspiracy is a *FACT* It is no longer a speculation. Sorry, but 'everybody knows...' isn't an argument. The WC critics have used that one too many times for it to work any more. The WC *was* set up "to quash talk of a conspiracy" -- and replace it with the true story of what actually happened, whatever that turned out to be. The problem, of course, was that such uninformed "talk" wasn't going to be "quashed" in the usual way: with a trial. You many consider it a "coverup" for the government to want an authoritative investigation to displace uninformed "talk", but I don't. -- Brian Holtz Article 427 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Ford: House Rep or super sleuth? Date: 29 Jun 1992 21:10:50 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <182281@pyramid.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Sleazy Commissioner, lack of ethics, unlawful disclosure, tainted inquiry Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:427 alt.conspiracy:15298 sci.skeptic:26181 In article <182281@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >The following appears as a footnote in Mark Lane's book, "Plausible >Denial". It makes reference to an FBI memo written by Cartha DeLoach, the >then number three man at the FBI. [...] > >After many years in the House as a representative from Michigan, Gerald >Ford had distinguished himself with but one piece of proposed legislation: Ford was a top-ranking Republican in the House; in fact, I think he was minority leader already. For Lane to gratuitously call him "undistinguished" nicely calibrates the level at which Lane operates. >he betrayed the trust invested in him and became the FBI's agent there. Backchannel communication is a commonplace in Washington. >The documents show Ford fed top-secret information to the FBI while >he was a member of the Warren Commission. Ha. Most of the WC's "top-secret" information *came* from the FBI. I don't suppose Lane has any crocadile tears to spare for the people whose privacy would be violated if the WC's raw FBI background reports had their classifications removed prematurely... >Ford did not disclose to the other six members of the Warren >Commission his course of improper and illegal conduct. Ha. I'd *love* to see Lane try to name a law violated by what Ford did. -- Brian Holtz Article 507 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 05:12:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 90 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:507 alt.conspiracy:15445 sci.skeptic:26399 In article schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>Are you telling me that you don't see Connally turn his head sharply >>to the right at Z165-169? How many times am I going to have to ask >>you about this before you answer me? Thanks for not answering this, yet again. >> If you draw a line between Oswald's window and JFK at Z160, >>then as viewed from above that line intersects perfectly with Tague's >>position. > >Nonsense. Get a *better* map. One to scale. Hurt's map *is* to scale. In fact, Hurt is using Guth's map. >There is an FBI memo in >the WR Exhibits section that clearly states that only at Z frame 410 >does the limo , Tague , and the 6th floor snipers nest line up. In space, or in the X-Y plane? I'm talking about the X-Y plane, because I'm talking about a ricochet. >At 410, the limo has moved over 200 feet past it's position at 160. >Tague, the limo, and the TSBD can not line up at 410 and 160. Yes it can, because Elm is an S-curve. >Do you even know where Tague was, or the limo for that matter? Tague was between Main and Commerce, about 40' east of the bridge. The limo was in the middle lane of Elm, roughly between the 'Willis' tree and the 'obscuring' tree across the street. The shot at 160 would have missed to the right, and ricocheted off the right lane. >At 205, the girl's face is *clearly* in profile and she is looking >directly behind the direction she was running until 189. Yes, her body >is facing Zapruder, but she is clearly *looking* behind her. In 205, her head appears to be in profile, yes. That means that shes looking across the street at the TSBD sniper's nest. (Consult your map of Dealey Plaza. A right angle at her position from Zapruder's points directly at the TSBD.) >He said that he had >heard the first shot, turned to his right to look at JFK. Right! And, AGAIN, does his turn to the right not happen in Z165-169? Does that not place the first shot before Z165? >When I said 237, I guess I meant he visibly reacted >at 237....you know...the puffed cheeks etc. Connally starts reacting to the wound at Z225. As he emerges from behind the sign (Z222), he is continuing his slow turn back toward straight-ahead from when he looked right at Z165-169. Then, from Z225 to Z228, he violently snaps his head 45 degrees more, and his wounded right wrist jerks up from its resting place on his wounded left thigh. >it's ridiculous to say it took >60-70 frames for Connally to turn to his right and back after the >first shot. It's much more likely the first shot was at 189 and >Connally took 30 - 40 frames to turn to his right and back again. Are you insane? "Much more likely"? The guy's ON FILM, for Christ's sake! There's no "likely" *about* it! Connally turns to his right from Z165 to Z169, and is looking to his right from Z169 to Z228. It is simply impossible to deny this, which is probably why you continue to ignore the issue of how early Connally turned to his right... >>Connally turns about 70 degrees in 3 frames. It wasn't 90 degrees, >>and it wasn't just 2 frames. Pretending it *was* is what's "pathetic". > >It might be closer to 70 than 90. Thank you. >However, 292 - 290 = 2. >So...that's 70-80 degrees in 2 frames [1/9th of a second] Nope. Connally is last in profile in Z289. In Z290 he's already turned a little (15 degrees or so); you can tell because his brow comes from shadow into sunlight, as he starts turning toward the sun. 70 degrees in 3 frames is still a sharp turn, though, and so what you need to pay attention to is why he's turning so suddenly: he's slumping off his seat and into his wife's lap. -- Brian Holtz Article 508 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 05:24:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:508 alt.conspiracy:15446 sci.skeptic:26400 In article schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>>Dr. Cairns. He said it was occipital bone. > >>The FBI report says that he "stated the bone specimen looked like it >>came from the occipital region of the skull". > >Right. The bone was occipital. No, Cairns stated the bone specimen "looked like" it was occipital. >I'll stick to the analysis of the one qualified person who actually >touched the Harper Fragment. And I'll stick to the analysis of an expert in physical anthropology who had access to more information than Cairns, a local pathologist, had. >1) *Not* behind the ear. It doesn't come anywhere near the occipital. You're not looking at "autopsy photo 7". >2) Much smaller than 13cm. Thats 5.2 inches long. The wound in Best >Evidence is no more than 2.5 - 3 inches long. You're *still* not looking at "autopsy photo 7". This is the one with the scalp peeled back, exposing the rear of the skull, and the massive defect Humes described. -- Brian Holtz Article 512 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Parkland Vs. Bethesda Vs. HSCA (was Re: jfk's throat wound) Date: 3 Jul 1992 16:19:47 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <37466@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37466@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >I know of no pictures of JFK lying on his stomach. See _Best Evidence_, autopsy photos "4" and "5". "4" is the photo on which was based the drawing showing a gloved hand holding the rear flap in place in order to show the entrance wound. >The "Back of the head" photo is in exactly the same position that two >of the doctors who lifted up Kennedy's head in Parkland. Nonsense. In the autopsy photo, Kennedy is lying on his stomach, with his nose on the gurney. He was never laid out that way at Parkland. >The photos and enhanced X-rays disagree: the photo shows the face >intact, the xray and Boswell's atopsy drawing shows damage to the >right eye. No, they don't. The X-rays don't, and the drawing merely indicates that there was bone damage behind the right eye. (The X-rays show a trail of fragments from the entrance wound to behind the right eye.) -- Brian Holtz Article 514 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Parafin Test Date: 3 Jul 1992 17:14:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <92179.025432U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> <37465@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37465@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >The Autopsy report conflicts with the HSCA report on the medical >analysis. How so? >although certainly if they were men of outstanding and heroic >integrity, they would have walked out as soon as the Brass said "I'm >in charge here, don't dissect that wound!". Admiral Burkley was JFK's personal physician, and was representing the interests of the family. >Well, certainly, we just had a post here about Meagher's article >quoting Revlin that Givens could be bought. I didn't see it. Could somebody repost this? >One good example is the "delayed reaction" theory. In the WR, it said >that it was "likely" that Connnally had a delayed reaction. In the WC >testimony, it was clear that the doctors thought it was very >*unlikely*, and so on. Weren't they talking about two different things? The doctors were probably talking about the likelihood of an adult male having a delayed reaction to a rifle shot. The WR was talking about the likelihood of Gov. John Connally being shot at c. Z215 and not reacting until Z225. >Many of the witnesses who testified as such are now dead. Doesn't >that make you stop and think? No, it makes me stop and check into how these people died. And it turns out that there is no reason to think they died because they were witnesses. >||The lawyer was instructed to avoid any ties to conspiracy. >| >|Not true. > >That is exactly what Hoover told Warren, what Warren told the other members of >the Commission, and assurdly that is what they instructed their staff. Quotes. I want quotes. >...Mary Ferrell, another researcher in this case, reports "a mid-70's luncheon >in which (Police Chief) Fritz said, to a friend, that Lyndon B. Johnson called >him the day after the assassination and said " You've got your man, the >investigation is over." (Hight Treason) Ooh, now *that's* a solid quote! Bozo Fritz, a decade after the fact, in a luncheon conversation that he probably denies ever took place. Besides, Fritz wasn't part of the Warren Commission investigative team. >Consider Garrison's note of the investigation of Bannister's office. >They said that "after an exhaustive investigation" they turned up >nothing. And yet, when Garrison investigated the place, he found a >stack of Fair-Play-for-Cuba Committee leaflets--with the 544 Camp St. >address, Bzzzt. First, only one leaflet ever had the Camp St. address on it. Second, Garrison is walking joke, and if he says that three years after the investigation he suddenly found "left-over" leaflets there, I have no doubts as to how those "left-overs" found their way there. The only question is whether he had to drug/hypnotize anybody to get them there, or whether the mob paid him to put them there. >There wasn't an investigating body that did not try to aviod any ties >to a conspiracy. Then why are there 61 pages in the Warren Report alone entitled "Investigation of Possible Conspiracy"? -- Brian Holtz Article 515 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 17:57:07 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 78 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun29.111516@cozy.Prime.COM> <37468@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37468@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >An unidentified "FBI" agent got a bullet out of the ground, Myth. Never happened. Look it up. Officer J.W Foster merely found a mark in the turf. A newspaper took a picture of people examining the spot, and the newspaper mistakenly said that a bullet was found. Nobody in the picture ever said a bullet was seen. The conspiracy authors know this, but they deliberately mislead people into thinking a bullet was found. >The Tague chip on the curb was coverd up, 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. >as >was the Stemmons sign (where one witness said he saw a bullet hole in it) What witness? I think this too is a myth. >And of course the Limo was sent to get washed and cleaned after the >supposed bullet was found. What should they have done, turn it into a shrine? Also, two bullet fragments were found in the limo, *not* a whole bullet. >The Magic Bullet was found by Thompson, Tomlinson. >The first two men say the bullet was no CE399, it was shorter, >pointier, a larger, ribbed base. No, I think only Tomlinson complained about remembering the bullet differently. So, either a) Tomlinson memory was a little faulty, or b) the conspirators went to the trouble of planting the wrong bullet, and then switched it later. Yeah, right. (I suppose you'll say that the conspirators have a track record of indecision, given that they couldn't make up their mind which or how many rifles to plant in the TSBD, whether or not to put an Oswald print on the rifle, etc.) >Another doctor testified when they brand in the coffin to Bethesda that a >bullet rolled out on the floor. Capt. David Osborne thought he remembered a bullet, but nobody else who was there remembered it. Groden says that Osborne later said that he wasn't sure he actually saw it. >Then there is the famous "reciept of a missle" from Humes to the FBI *during* >the autopsy. Although some people say that these were the bullet fragments, Namely, the people who gave and received the receipt! >|What if someone had taken a clear photo of the grassy knoll gunmen? > >The Bubushka lady apparently did, and her film was confiscated, according to >her. And yet Moorman's film wasn't, and she had an even better position to photograph the knoll that the Babushka Lady. 1. Oliver claims to be the Babushka Lady, but I've never once read why the conspiracy authors believe her. Her credibility is slim at best. In 1963 she was a nineteen-year old working at the strip-tease club next to Ruby's. She was a friend of Ruby's, and claims to have been introduced to Oswald and Ferrie. She married a mafia killer, but is now born-again and married to an evangelist. 2. She claims her film was taken by the government, but the government has never heard of her film. When shown a picture of New Orleans FBI agent Kennedy, she claimed he was the one who took the film the monday after the assassination. But no conspiracy author I know of even *attempts* to place agent Kennedy in Dallas on that day. -- Brian Holtz Article 516 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 18:03:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun30.145219.1968@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:516 alt.conspiracy:15465 sci.skeptic:26416 In article <1992Jun30.145219.1968@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > The fragment was found on the left side of the road In the grass, allegedly. > This Harper fragment was the piece of JFK that Jackie was reaching out > over the back of the limosine in an attempt to retrieve it Sorry, but the Jackie fragment was on the trunk of the limo, and not in the grass. -- Brian Holtz Article 517 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 18:14:18 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:517 alt.conspiracy:15466 sci.skeptic:26417 In article <182383@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: > that it struck the curb near Tague? By how many feet above Kennedy's > head does this shot miss. I heard somewhere that it was over 30 feet? That's assuming a direct impact on the curb, which wasn't damaged enough for a direct impact. I think the curb was hit by a ricochet. > what shot 1 is Walter Cronkite talking about in the NOVA program? > [...] Did NOVA "mis-portray" the first miss? Yes. The fire it one car-length too early, and fail to have it miss to the right of the limo, as it probably did. -- Brian Holtz Article 518 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 18:33:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun29.045106.11513@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jul2.043611.24404@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:518 alt.conspiracy:15467 sci.skeptic:26418 In article <1992Jul2.043611.24404@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >jfk's death certificate says the back wound occured at the 3-4th >thoratic vertebrae, which would place it 5-6inches LOWER than the >front neck wound. No, the track through his body was only slightly upward, assuming JFK perfectly erect. But JFK was slouched a little, and Connally was leaning back as he was looking back in response to the first shot. Also, bullets don't always travel through flesh without changing direction. On Nova they show a gunscope view of a re-enactment that shows how the wounds line up just fine. >Hmmmm, but what about later on when the single bullet makes a U-turn >a la Jim Garrison?? How do you explain that? Garrison assumes that Connally was hit later than he actually was. Connally's wounds don't line up when Garrison wants the shot to happen, because Connally is *already reacting* to the hit, by jerking his wounded right wrist up and away from his wounded left thigh. Garrison *assumes* JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets, uses that information to determine (incorrectly) when Connally was hit, and then says that at that point Connally is not in position to be hit by the same bullet! It's really quite laughable... -- Brian Holtz Article 519 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 19:27:17 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 122 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Bruce is finally out of rope. Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:519 alt.conspiracy:15468 sci.skeptic:26419 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Now...draw a line from the snipers nest to the limo and extend it to >the edge of the map. No. Draw a line from the sniper's nest to the *right lane* of Elm. JFK was sitting at the extreme right side of the limo, and a miss would almost certainly be off to his right. Also, note that Oswald was at the extreme east edge of his window. >Oh , by the way, if you are using Guths map, move Tague to about 5-10 >feet in front of the Triple Underpass. If you check out High Treason >you will find a picture of Tague and thats where he really was. What counts is where the curb nick was. Are you saying that Hurt has mislabeled it? >If Tague is withing 200 feet of you line [the scale is in the bottom >left corner] you've done it wrong! The line I draw hits the corner of the grass south of main. That's 45 feet from where the curb nick was. More importantly, a line drawn between the curb nick and the window misses JFK by only about 10 feet. When you remember that bullet fragments exploding off a street impact do not all travel in exactly the same direction, it's easy to see how the curb nick was caused by a first-shot miss. >The FBI were assuming a vertical miss by a few feet I'm assuming a miss to the right. >there is not a chance in hell that it then went on to leap over the >curbing along Elm to hit the curbing between Main and Commerce. It didn't have to "leap" at all. Elm goes downhill, and the curb nick is at the very top of the curb. (See the picture in High Treason. Interestingly, next to it is a picture of an alleged bullet mark on the sidewalk north of Elm. If it's authentic, it lines up nicely with Tague.) >>Right! And, AGAIN, does his turn to the right not happen in Z165-169? >>Does that not place the first shot before Z165? > >I'm looking at those frames in the HSCA right now. At no time does >Connally attempt to look over his right shoulder. Squirm on, Bruce. He looks suddenly to his right, which is what he said he did when he heard the first shot. No, he doesn't twist around to actually face backwards, but his testimony was precisely that he couldn't see anything over his right shoulder, and so started turning the other way. The Z165-169 right turn is the *only* right turn Connally makes before being hit. Feel free to continue ignoring this... >It is very clear that Connally is looking about 45% to the right of >looking straight head. I *love* it! Your disingenuity is complete. You say that at no time does he attempt to look "over" his right shoulder, being very careful not to acknowledge that he *does* turn sharply to his right. Then you speak ("is looking") as though Connally came onto camera already looking to his right. I will ask you for the FIFTH TIME: do you or do you not see Connally turning his head sharply to the right in Z165-169? >JFK is clearly stil non-chalantly waving to the crowd. I don't >see any evidence of them reacting to a shot. You don't see JFK turn his head sharply to the right at Z156? You don't see Connally turn his head sharply to the right at Z165? I *dare* you to answer "no" to these questions. >Nellie Connally is very clear that JFK was reacting to his throat >wound after she heard the first shot and turned around. >The first shot hit JFK, Nellie turned and saw JFK reacting, Funny how Nellie sees a reaction that the Zapruder film doesn't show. >Connally turned to his right, When?! WHAT FRAME?! I *dare* you to answer this question. >>Are you insane? "Much more likely"? The guy's ON FILM, for Christ's >>sake! There's no "likely" *about* it! Connally turns to his right >>from Z165 to Z169, and is looking to his right from Z169 to Z228. > >Connally may have been looking out the right side of the car, but so >was JFK. Yes! Now tell us: WHEN did both men start looking to the right? The *answer* is Z155 and Z165 respectively. You of course will continue to ignore this... >Thats what Politicians do. They don't stare straight ahead >like zombies. I LOVE IT! How many ways will you find to ignore the fact that Connally turns sharply to his right (before being hit) *only* in Z165-169? >Connally's testimony clearly states that he was hit *after* starting >to turn to the left and reaching the midpoint of his turn. Actually, he says that he had almost returned to facing straight ahead when he felt the wound. But I trust the Zapruder film more than I trust Connally's memory when it comes to the topic of precisely what direction Connally was facing when he started to react to his wounds. The simply fact is that at Z225 he was still turning from his right, and he suddenly grimaced, jerked his head the rest of the way toward straight ahead, and jerked his right hand up from where it lay on his left thigh. Connally's memory is *far* more useful in sequencing sounds with the *voluntary* actions that he remembered performing as a result: 1. Connally said he heard the first shot and turned to his right. 2. Connally turns to his right in Z165-Z169. 3. Therefore, the first shot had to have been fired before Z165. -- Brian Holtz Article 520 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 19:52:10 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:520 alt.conspiracy:15469 sci.skeptic:26420 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>No, Cairns stated the bone specimen "looked like" it was occipital. > >Hmmmm. The chief pathologist of Methodist Hospital holds a piece of >bone in his hand and says it "looked like" it was occipital, and you >infer some problem with that??? If I hand him a femur, he'll say "This is a femur." If I hand him the Harper fragment, he says "This looks occipital." There's a difference. >>And I'll stick to the analysis of an expert in physical anthropology >>who had access to more information than Cairns, a local pathologist, >>had. > >How can a picture be *more* information than the actual piece of bone? He had more expertise than Cairns. He had photos and X-rays of the head wound. He had more information. >>You're *still* not looking at "autopsy photo 7". > >Photo 7 tells me nothing. There are no reference points. You can't >tell whether it was JFK or some cadaver they found on the street. Well, since people of your ilk say that the autopsy photos showing JFK's *face* are actually models, I shouldn't be surprised that you conveniently, summarily reject any autopsy photo that doesn't even show his face. Lucky for you Usenet can't tell us when you're blushing... :) >Just point me in the direction of an autopsy photo that shows a 13cm >wound extending into the occipital that is clearly a picture of JFK. >Thats not *too* hard a request is it? Oh, so all you want is a single photo that shows both JFK's face *and* the back of his head? Well, I guess we'll have to take the autopists' shocking failure to use hollography as yet another piece of evidence for a conspiracy.... -- Brian Holtz Article 521 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Stone's character `X' Date: 3 Jul 1992 19:55:32 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun30.044217.4956@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <37491@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37491@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >(Derek Abbott) writes: >|press for publication, but as the time diffrence in New Zealand is many >|hours ahaed of the USA it got published `too early' before Oswald was >|officially implicated by the police. > >I think some people from that area or who had the newspaper stories could not >confirm this. Apparently it was the evening paper that came out, some 6 hours >Dallas time after the assassination. This is all from memory. However, I do >remember thinking that the times given did not support the Prouty story. Correct. >there was more in the story that appeard in public: lots of details >that probably could only have come from his FBI, CIA or Army Intelligence >file. Incorrect. Oswald was a re-defector. All major news organizations keep a bio on file for every figure whose ever been in the news. -- Brian Holtz Article 522 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Behaviour Date: 3 Jul 1992 20:34:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun30.043125.4525@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:522 alt.conspiracy:15470 sci.skeptic:26421 In article <1992Jun30.043125.4525@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >what was he doing with a false alias in the first place? They say it was planted on him. Or that he thought he was under cover, trying to penetrate the conspiracy. >was a rifle missing from their garage. (Why would she lie? - in >veiw of the fact that she is now cooperating with conspiracy buffs). Marina cooperates with whomever it's in her interest to cooperate with at the time. She could be lying then or now; it's hard to say. >What was he doing associating with pretty bad dudes like Ruby in the >first place? There's no credible evidence that he was. >What bugs me is that that the shots at jfk looked quick, clean, >professional and well planned. Pray tell, how does a "shot" look "quick, clean, professional and well planned"? What would the shots have looked like if they had none of these qualities? >A crappy MC rifle It was all Oswald could afford. Would you want to get shot at by one? >with a misaligned sight There is no direct evidence that the sight was misaligned during the shooting. It may have been misaligned when the gun was deposited in its hiding place. >Why would the rifle be bought through mail order in a traceable manner? He probably didn't think that anybody in Dallas could trace the "Hidell" alias to him. He may have even hoped to get the rifle out of the building; it took quite a while to find, even after the shells were found. -- Brian Holtz Article 523 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Oswalds' Mexico links (was Re: Ford) Date: 3 Jul 1992 21:01:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 87 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun30.140214.543@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:15471 alt.conspiracy.jfk:523 In article <1992Jun30.140214.543@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > Also David Atlee Phillips stated, himself, that Oswald was being > impersonated in Mexico.... Interesting. Where can I read about this? >>> why were these individuals posing as Oswald? >> >>why should *I* have to explain evidence that this guy Lopez claims exists? > > As stated above, Lopez is not the only one whos says it exists..... But do Blakey et al. agree with Lopez that the report says men were posing as Oswald? > `Assured by police officials', ad naseum. I feel much better about > it now......;^) Do you *deny* that Oswald was offered a lawyer by the head of the Dallas Bar Association? Do you *deny* that Oswald was allowed to repeatedly try to phone New York attorney John Abt? >>Are you saying that all murders are committed only when a coolly >>rational analysis reveals that the benefits outweigh the risks? > > `All murders'? Hardly. But in Rubys' case, what did he have to gain by > putting himself in this position? Nothing. But didn't you just agree that some murders are irrational? Why *must* this one be rational? >>>>You said that Mark Lane had >>>>no interest in proving a conspiracy, and I demonstrated that he does. >[...] > So what does this have to do with anything? As I said (and as you excerpted but apparently ignored): "you said that Mark Lane had no interest in proving a conspiracy, and I demonstrated that he does." > Somebody makes a profit > from some work they performed so that makes these works suspect? Did I say that? No. I merely refuted the notion that Mark Lane has "no interest in proving a conspiracy". >>"you'd know that dead people can be found neither guilty *nor* >>innocent, that they cannot be tried, that they have no right to due >>process, etc." Do you dispute any of this? > > No, not at all, but you insinuate that Mark Lane, as an attorney, doesn't > realize this. I'm quite sure he does.... Pay attention. Paul Collacchi wrote that Mark Lane "just 'noticed' that the WC [...] kind of 'forgot' to employ its principals, [sic] due process, in arriving at a decision about this man's innocence." And I responded: If you or Mark Lane knew the first thing about our legal system, you'd know that dead people can be found neither guilty *nor* innocent, that they cannot be tried, that they have no right to due process, etc. > Many came forward immediately with information that didn't fit the > WC dogma and was tossed aside because of it...... You mean, many were found years later by assassination "researchers", and suddenly started saying that their original testimony was different than what got written down at the time.... > Also many of the witnesses you tend to believe, along with the WC, > weren't prodded by WC members in order to remember to add to their > stories minor details like being able to identify Oswald six stories > up, Brennan *never* identified Oswald, and never said he *could* idnetify the rifleman he saw in the window. He merely gave a description that matched Oswald's appearance. > the missile received at the autopsy was only fragments, not a whole > bullet (which FBI agent O'Neill stated it was) Yeah, right. Got a cite for this? -- Brian Holtz Article 524 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Why the big rush during the autopsy??? Date: 3 Jul 1992 21:12:32 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Jul1.065629.3143@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:524 alt.conspiracy:15472 sci.skeptic:26422 In article <1992Jul1.065629.3143@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >If there was no conspiracy, why the big rush during the autopsy??? Jackie Kennedy was in the hospital, and she refused to go back to the White House without her husband's body. >Why the big panic and moving the body between two hospitals?? What panic? JFK was treated at Parkland, and autopsied at Bethesda. >Why the big rush to clean up the limo??? Who says there was a "rush"? They swept it for evidence, and then it went back into service. -- Brian Holtz Article 525 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph Date: 3 Jul 1992 21:28:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.181608.10277@gagme.chi.il.us> <1992Jul2.050710.25290@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jul3.123842.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:525 alt.conspiracy:15473 sci.skeptic:26423 In article <1992Jul3.123842.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >Can't tell on my copy of the photo, but he sure is standing at an awkward >(unnatural) angle. Which is why his shadow is at an angle. >His body is angled but his head is vertical. People naturally orient their head to point up, as defined by local gravity. >How can anyone >stand like that without leaning on something or falling over? Most of his weight is on his right foot. It's easy. > If you line up the hypothetical string with the vertical fence palings and >house, not the side of the picture (the camera must have been tilted), the > amount of shadow on each side under his nose is *exactly* equal. What are you talking about? >If you draw a line between the eyes to the middle of the chin: same result. False. >The shadows from his eyes are also vertical and equal. Eye shadows will always be that way if the light is from anywhere close to overhead. >But the shadow from his chin is clearly to one side. Just as the shadow from his nose is. Whatever "fence palings" analysis you apply to the nose applies to the chin as well. >The shadow from the top of the ears are equal. The top of the ears, just like the eyes, are a cavity. Cavities form shadows when the light is near overhead. >The more I look at it the more obvious that it is possibly faked The more you look it, the more I just have to laugh at all the collective human CPU time that is expended on this and other minutiae of the case... >but no head shadow. The head shadow is clearly visible. -- Brian Holtz Article 526 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph Date: 3 Jul 1992 21:44:18 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.181608.10277@gagme.chi.il.us> <1992Jul2.050710.25290@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:526 alt.conspiracy:15474 sci.skeptic:26425 In article <1992Jul2.050710.25290@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >>Oswald is leaning, so his shadow leans. > >I tried this with my own body in sunlight and found that my >shadow only leans a much as I lean. I tried it, and it works fine for me. What, should we trade polaroids now? This is ridiculous. No professional photographic analysist will testify that the photos are fakes. The HSCA's stereo and photogrammetric studies showed "no evidence of fakery". The photos are genuine. >>>The shadow sure as hell comes straight down his nose. >> >>Nope. Take a thread. Stretch it straight up and down so that it >>divides his nose evenly. Look at the shadow. Substantially more of >>the shadow is left of the thread than is right. > >I tried this. "Substantially" is stretching the truth. In other words, I'm right, and "straight down his nose" is wrong. There is a clear majority of the shadow to the left of the thread. Case closed. >note that ALL the shadow is BELOW the nose. There is no shadow >coming off the side of the nose, as you would expect if the sun is >at 10-11 O'Clock. If the sun is at 10-11 o'clock, there will never be a shadow *beside* the nose. It will always be *below* the nose. But note that since the tip of the shadow nose is slightly to the left of the tip of the real nose, this is perfectly consistent with angled sunlight. You conspiracy types really crack me up. I'm sure if you stared at the jacket photos of author Groden long enough, you'd tell us you see signs of fakery *there*, too... -- Brian Holtz Article 527 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Part II, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy Date: 3 Jul 1992 22:09:05 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 76 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Jun30.162640.22853@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Keywords: WBAI-FM & Gary Null host leading researchers on the JFK assassination In article <1992Jun30.162640.22853@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes: > I made the following transcript from a tape recording of a > broadcast by Pacifica Radio station > WBAI-FM Radio (99.5) >JIM MARRS: >There should be some very clear-cut answers based on >scientific, medical, forensic evidence to say: "Here's what >happened. He was shot three times from the rear." That's exactly what the physical and photographic evidence tells us. In fact, it's so clear-cut that the conspiracy "researchers" have been forced to painstakingly try to show how the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report have all been doctored to point directly to this conclusion. >I could go down the whole list of doctors in Dallas who said that he >had a large gaping hole in the right rear portion of his head. Fine; after all, that's just what the autopsy said. >we have an autopsy >photograph that has come out of the Government that purports to >show the back of President Kennedy's head, and there's no large >gaping hole there. All there is is a small hole that the House >Committee told us was an entrance wound. That's not "all". There's also a gloved hand holding the scalp in place. In the photos with the scalp peeled back, your large gaping hole in the skull is exposed for all to see. >And yet, the autopsy doctor, Dr. Humes, in his testimony to the House >Committee said: "Well, I don't know what that was, but that wasn't >any wound of entrance. And I know that for sure." Nice try, Jim. In fact, Humes was merely confused over *which* of two marks on the intact-looking back-of-the-head was the small entrance wound. Marrs knows this, but quotes Humes out of context, because, after all, there are books to be sold, and royalties to be collected... >now you've got an upward trajectory *Assuming* JFK was sitting bolt upright, which he wasn't. >you've got Governor Connally's >wrist X-ray, which shows that there are still more pieces of >bullet in his wrist today than are missing off of the bullet Nice try, again. The number of pieces isn't what counts; it's their *mass* that counts, and X-rays don't measure mass. Government experts are satisfied that the X-ray particles wouldn't weigh more than the bullet's missing mass. >GARY NULL: >Anyhow, [the AMA Journal] says that this is all nonsense. There was no >conspiracy; that the Warren Commission was right. >[...] (and I don't know why >JAMA would be sticking it's nose into something that it knows >nothing about, to begin with) Gee, why *would* the AMA stick its nose into history's most famous autopsy? What does the AMA know about autopsies, anyway... >when the AMA has the audacity to come onto a press conference -- >with the muddled background that they have for having been caught >engaging in the restraint of trade and in monopolistic practices >-- claiming that others have ulterior motives, I think it's >absolutely absurd. Oh right. People like Marrs, who have been making their living off the case for decades, are unbiased, but the AMA, which happens to have lost a court case on business practices utterly unrelated to the JFK case, should be second-guessed... I *love* it. -- Brian Holtz Article 536 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 5 Jul 1992 20:22:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <132kgqINNhvf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:536 alt.conspiracy:15498 sci.skeptic:26468 In article <132kgqINNhvf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >The HSCA people long ago determined >that they were going to show that the suped up WR version of events was >possible, and that this was their main activity. What a joke. The HSCA concluded there were two shooters, and thus a conspiracy. >Two of the photos we do know about, i.e., the Back of the Head >Photos, try to *disguise* the occipital area! Nonsense. Some autopsy pphotos show the scalp peeled back; some don't. -- Brian Holtz Article 537 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 5 Jul 1992 20:28:11 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1992Jul4.004708.11621@wpi.WPI.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:537 alt.conspiracy:15499 sci.skeptic:26469 In article <1992Jul4.004708.11621@wpi.WPI.EDU> harvie@maxine.wpi.edu (Larry Harvie) writes: >One bullet bounced off the street and hit Tague. A fragment hit Tague, not a "bullet". >Are you saying a second bullet hit the curb, or are you saying it was >part of the bullet that hit Tague? I'm saying that a shot hit Elm to the right and in front of Kennedy, and that a resulting fragment caused the Tague wound. The same fragment may have caused the curb nick near Tague, or it may have been caused by another fragment from the same bullet -- or it may have been there all along. -- Brian Holtz Article 538 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 5 Jul 1992 21:52:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 173 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:538 alt.conspiracy:15500 sci.skeptic:26473 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >if it missed to the right it would have hit Connally or the >limo driver. A miss overhead or to the left is much more likely. Nonsense. Just look at the scope's-eye-view photograph of the re-enactment in _High Treason_. In this photo, which corresponds to Z210, the angular distance to the limo's edge is equal if you go either up or right from Kennedy (to the left the distance is *much* further). At Z160, the angular distance up would grow substantially (since Oswald would be looking more 'down into' the limo), making a miss to the right more plausible than a miss high. >>What counts is where the curb nick was. Are you saying that Hurt has >>mislabeled it? > >I don't have Hurts map. I have Guth's and the one from the 'big' WR. Ah, so you're saying that you don't even know where the curb nick *is*. Ooookay. >If you draw a line from the curb nick to the 6th >floor snipers nest, it goes over the centre lane well after frame 312. You assume a miss high. I assume a miss right. >If your line is closer than 200 feet you are wrong. You are wrong. Given that you have the ricochet point wrong and the impact point wrong, and that all you seem to know is where to assume the shot was fired from, forgive me for disagreeing... >Connally was to JFK's right [in Oswalds view] So was the limo driver >and the rest of the limo. No. Look at the re-enactment photo. Connally is directly behind (and a tiny bit above) JFK -- hence the single-bullet theory! --, and the driver is above and to the left. >Oswald would had to miss over 15 feet to the right. End of argument. Anyone with access to he _High Treason_ photo can now conclude that you're on drugs. >>>there is not a chance in hell that it then went on to leap over the >>>curbing along Elm to hit the curbing between Main and Commerce. > >>It didn't have to "leap" at all. Elm goes downhill, and the curb nick >>is at the very top of the curb. > >The bullet didn't hit Elm's curb. It hit the curb between Main and Commerce. I didn't imply otherwise. In your words, we were talking about "the curbing between Main and Commerce". More precisely, it's the curb of Main on the South (Commerce) side of Main. >the mark points to the Dal-Tex, not the TSBD. > >There is also a bullet strike along the sidewalk beside Elm. That's the one I'm *talking* about. It *doesn't* point to Dal-Tex. (The one that *does* point to Dal-Tex would have been an *incredible* miss: JFK was at the extreme right edge of the center lane, and the "Dal-Tex" mark is two lane-widths and one manhole-width off to the left -- a miss of about 35 feet to the left. >Thats 4 bullets if you don't count the one from the grassy knoll and >you don't count the bullet in the grass found by Buddy Walters and >Officer Foster. I'm not especially convinced that *any* of the chips in the concrete (the two on either side of Elm, and the one by Tague) were made during the shooting. Concrete on city streets get chips all the time. I'd also like to see somebody fire a MC at the right lane to see what kind of damage my hypothesize miss should have caused. No bullet was found in the grass by Walters or Foster. Just ask them. This myth was caused by a photograph of them examining marks in the grass tht they thought might have marked a bullet strike. (The idea of a rifle bullet ending up on the grass is as laughable as the idea that CE 399 worked its way out of a shallow wound on JFK's back. Intact rifle bullets have a lot of energy to shed, and it takes either a couple of human thoraxes, or a few yards of dirt, to stop one.) >>The Z165-169 right turn is the *only* right turn Connally makes before >>being hit. > >Connally had lots of time to look over his right should while he was >behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Oh, come ON. By that logic, I could say that JFK and Connally had "lots of time" to line up their wounds for the Single Bullet... >>I will ask you for the FIFTH TIME: do you or do you not see Connally >>turning his head sharply to the right in Z165-169? > >Nope. I do not see Connally turn sharply. I see him looking 45 deg. to the 45 degrees? Get real. Zapruder's angle to the limo is *itself* almost 45 degrees, and yet by Z169 Connally is looking way off to Zapruder's left. >right from dead center. I don not see a sharp turn of his head. "I see him looking...". This is beautiful. Weasel Bruce has once again managed to not even admit that Connally turned at all during Z165-169. OK, if you're *this* desperate, I'm going to have to get pedantic: Is or is not Connally looking forward in Z164? Is or is not Connally's head turned at least 60 degrees to the right in Z169? Does this or does this not constitute the only right turn of Connally's head that we see before he reacts to being hit? >Connally has always said he tried to look over his right shoulder and >got turned around as far as he could. Liar. He *never* said anything about being turned around as far as he could. As for his shoulder, he said: "I instinctively turned to my right because the sound seemed to come from over my right shoulder... but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye.... Failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn." If Connally turned any *more* to his right while conveniently hidden behind the sign, he would have seen Kennedy. Your double-Connally-turn theory really is quite laughable. I know of no assassination researcher who's had the nerve to deny that Z165-169 isn't the turn that Connally testifies about. >Connally has always testified that JFK was shot by the 'first' shot he >heard. Connally is not competent to testify to that, given that by his own testimony and as shown on the Zapruder film, he did not even see Kennedy between the first and second shots. In fact, Connally doesn't even seem to understand the single bullet theory. He seems to think the SBT requires him to be hit by the first shot, and so in 1978 he told the HSCA: I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet.... I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and was not hit by that bullet. >So has Nellie Connally. The Zapruder film contradicts her testimony, also. It shows that she turned in response to the first shot, at the same time as her husband does, but that JFK is not reacting as she says he was. She returns to looking forward, and again turns to her right after the second shot. >JFK wasn't hit at 165-169. True. >He was hit between 210 and 225. True. >Thats the shot Connally heard. False. Connally says he turned to the right after hearing the first shot. He turns to his right in Z165-169, and faces that way continually until he starts reacting at Z225. >Connally was hit in the 230's -- probably 237/238. Ah, and so the reactions that both Connally and I see in at least Z231-234 are just Connally having a premonition of being shot. Oookay... -- Brian Holtz Article 539 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 5 Jul 1992 22:08:03 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.083410.875@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:539 alt.conspiracy:15502 sci.skeptic:26474 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>If I hand him a femur, he'll say "This is a femur." If I hand him the >>Harper fragment, he says "This looks occipital." There's a >>difference. > >The only difference is that ones a femur and ones occipital bone. No, the difference is that one's a femur, and one "looks" occipital. >>He had more expertise than Cairns. > >Prove it. Look up "physical anthropology". Then look up "pathology". >> He had photos and X-rays of the >>head wound. He had more information. > >And he still couldn't conclusively figure out where it fit into the >X-Ray As I told you before, that's because the hole is bigger than the fragment. >or conclusively identify the type of bone. Cairns did. Cairns identification was not "conclusive". >>>>You're *still* not looking at "autopsy photo 7". >>> >>>You can't tell whether it was JFK or some cadaver [...] > >>[...] conveniently, summarily reject any autopsy photo [...] > >*No* autopsy photo exists that >pictures the wound described by Humes in his autopsy report. You mean, no autopsy photo that you don't feel embarassed for conveniently rejecting. That you have a high threshold for embarassment is hardly evidence for a conspiracy... >Where is it hiding. Why are they hiding it? It's hiding in plain sight, but you choose to be blind. >Haven't you heard of a profile shot? JFK's right side with the wound >showing and his profile will do. They took some pictures with the scalp reflected (to show the skull), and some not. When they reflect the scalp and center the skull defect in the view, the face is not visible. *This* is evidence of a conspiracy? It is to laugh... >If the wound extends from the temporal through the parietal into the >occipital That's what Lifton photo 7 shows. >I'll be happy. No, you won't. Or are you willing to say here and now that you disagree with Lifton and Groden, and assert that the autopsy photos that *do* show Kennedy's face are indeed authentic photos of JFK's authentic wounds? No, I suspect you're going to continue labelling as fraudulent any evidence that doesn't conform to your fantasies.... -- Brian Holtz Article 565 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Oswald's Behaviour Date: 7 Jul 1992 01:05:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun30.043125.4525@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Jul6.040419.8520@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <6JUL199212011029@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:565 alt.conspiracy:15538 sci.skeptic:26546 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >If Oswald did fire from the TSBD snipers nest, he missed JFK with at >least two shots from the shortest distance [ ~160 feet]. No. He missed with his first shot, and hit with his second two. >One missed completely, at least according to the WC, and one hit Connally. The WC said that Oswald scored two hits out of three on JFK; Connally was wounded only because he was sitting on the other side of JFK. >At the longest distance, 265 feet, Oswald suddenly regained his >marksmanship, and put one in the back of JFK's head. You're essentially trying to apply a statistical analysis to 3 data points. That's dumb. -- Brian Holtz Article 564 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Why the big rush during the autopsy??? Date: 7 Jul 1992 00:56:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <1992Jul1.065629.3143@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <137vlsINNr50@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:564 alt.conspiracy:15537 sci.skeptic:26544 In article <137vlsINNr50@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||If there was no conspiracy, why the big rush during the autopsy??? >| >|Jackie Kennedy was in the hospital, and she refused to go back to the >|White House without her husband's body. > >So what? If there was a desire to find out the medical evidence There was. Burkley's orders were that they should expedite the autopsy, and not do a full autopsy only if they didn't need to. >in the case, then who cares where Jackie wants to be? Oh, right. On the evening of Nov. 22, 1963, the nation was gripped by a steely determination to squelch all possibility of a conspiracy cult arising out of this case, and was completely oblivious to the feelings of that silly debutante-cum-widow named Jacqueline Kennedy. I forgot. How silly of me... >It is almost sick the way Jackie gets blamed for all the errors >comitted by the SS and Bethesda that happend that way. How ironic, that you exhibit the same macho/chivalrous/"Jackie"-first- name-basis/Camelot psychology that *caused* the very rush you decry... >The panic was that the body was taken away by gunpoint, illegally, from >Parkland, by SS agents The insistence that JFK's body be taken came from Kennedy's personal aides, not from the Secret Service. Are you suggesting that Kennedy's personal aides were part of a conspiracy to have JFK killed? (For that matter, are you suggesting that a even single member of the Dallas Secret Service contingent was part of such a conspiracy? Put up or shut up.) -- Brian Holtz Article 574 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: jfk's throat wound Date: 7 Jul 1992 03:27:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 8 Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Derek Abbot writes: >Are you saying that that you agree that the rear wound was 5-6 inches >below the front neck wound or not? 5-6 inches? Not. -- Brian Holtz Article 578 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: jfk's throat wound Date: 7 Jul 1992 04:01:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 105 Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Bruce Schuck writes: >>>A miss overhead or to the left is much more likely. >> >>the angular distance to the limo's edge is equal if you go either up >>or right from Kennedy (to the left the distance is *much* further). > >at Z160 [...] A shot would have had to miss by more than 6 feet to >the right to miss the limo if Oswald was aiming at JFK's head. First it was "15 feet", now it's "6". Ah, progress. :) Now compare for us the angular distance of a miss to the right with a miss high and a miss left. And try to be honest the *first* time, so that I can save myself a trip to the library to see the Z160 re-enactment photo for myself... :) >The witnesses who did see a bullet strike Elm said it struck the >street *behind* the Limo. You mean, "witness", right? I'm not so sure people can see a ricochet, or at least see exactly where it occurred. >Plus, you are always forgetting that a downward angle of 25 >degrees is necessary at Z160. A bullet fired downwards at 160 would >not get close to Tague at all. Ricochet. >>>Oswald would had to miss over 15 feet to the right. > >>End of argument. Anyone with access to he _High Treason_ photo can >>now conclude that you're on drugs. > >Try the photo in the WR for Z160. That's where you said the miss was. >If you want to claim the miss was at 210, then we'll have to start >this argument over again. I *said* that I only had a Z210 re-enactment photo to look at. I *also* predicted that in a Z160 photo, a high miss would be even *more* unlikely than a right miss (as opposed to *equally* unlikely in the Z210 photo). >Use the right *fucking* photo before you >accuse me of being on drugs asshole! You said 15 feet. I said you were on drugs. You changed it to 6 feet. And then you called me an asshole... >>I'm not especially convinced that *any* of the chips in the concrete >>(the two on either side of Elm, and the one by Tague) were made during >>the shooting. > >The Tague one is a definite since Tague was bleeding. All that tells us is that Tague was definitely hit by a fragment from somewhere. It doesn't tell us that the fragment had definitely ricocheted off concrete; much less does it tell us that the fragment had definitely left a mark in any concrete that it might have hit. >>No bullet was found in the grass by Walters or Foster. Just ask them. > >Foster *saw* the bullet impact! According to Marrs, Foster merely found a spot where he thought he saw signs of a bullet having impacted the sod. Do you know something Marrs doesn't? >They gave the bullet to someone >claiming to be an FBI Agent. They said the bullet was a .45. I have never seen any conspiracy author come up with a quote from Foster or Walters saying that either one held a bullet in their hand, or even saw one. Do you have such a quote? >Why is it so laughable for a bullet to >miss JFK by a foot or so and end up in the grass along Elm? Take a gun. Fire it into some grass. Take a shovel. Dig along the path of the bullet. After you've dug a yard or two, you should get the idea... >I have a real problem with people claiming he was shot at 215 by the >'magic' bullet and then waited around til the 230's to react. He starts to react at Z225. That's a reaction time of about half a second. >As Dr. Shaw testified -- a person hit by a bullet in a bone [and >Connally was struck in the 5th rib and the wrist] will physically >react immediately. What does that mean, in terms meaningful to an analysis of the Zapruder film? Did Shaw say that the victim's mouth will automatically and instantly open/close, or that his head will automatically and instantly turn, or what? >The remains of that bullet were probably found in the bottom of the >limo and deliberately misidentified as the bullet that hit JFK in the >head because the planted bullet , CE 399 , was necessary to convict >the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. No, the two large (head-shot) bullet fragments from the front seat were ballistically determined to have been fired by Oswald's rifle. -- Brian Holtz Article 579 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 7 Jul 1992 04:12:56 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <132kgqINNhvf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <13afq3INN282@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy.jfk:579 alt.conspiracy:15553 sci.skeptic:26576 In article <13afq3INN282@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >Lane says that Blakey did not supeona one document from the CIA, even >though he had the power to do so. Gee, that'd be *real* interesting, IF the CIA had ever refused to show Blakey a document that he'd asked for. Did such a thing ever happen? >Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassinations documents Blakey's >spurious charges against Garrison. Spurious, me eye. Garrison was owned by the mob, which is the *one* organization that Garrison conveniently declined to throw into his pot o' conspirators. The HSCA thought the mob did it, so naturally Garrison wants to make the HSCA look as discredited as he himself is. >Blakey's own book was cleared by the CIA and the FBI! Such clearance is required by law for people who have held certain sensitive positions. >|Some autopsy pphotos show the scalp peeled back; some don't. > >the back of the head photo clearly disquises the back of the head [...] Why don't you shut up for a second about "the" back of the head photo, and look at the *other* back of the head photos, in which the scalp *is* peeled back? Or look at the head X-rays. -- Brian Holtz Article 580 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Part III, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy Date: 7 Jul 1992 04:28:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Jul6.170715.4677@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy In article <1992Jul6.170715.4677@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes: >HARRISON LIVINGSTON: >I discovered that the X-rays were fake in that they show the entire >face missing on the right side. No, they don't. >The photographs, of course, show extensive >retouching and evidence of forgery. No, they don't. >Doctor Fink [...] testified that the hole in the back was an entry >hole that did not penetrate into the chest. Yes, it could not be traced with a probe through the shifting sheets of muscle in the back. However, damage was noticed along the track to the neck wound, including a bruised upper right pleura. -- Brian Holtz Article 2324 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 20 Feb 1993 22:55:32 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb16.142636.8459@cbnews.cb.att.com> <0096853F.59D58E00@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1993Feb19.153217.13165@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <1993Feb19.153217.13165@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >To get to the bottom of the murder plot, I think that in lieu of physics, >conservation of momentum, or exactly what piece of JFK's anatomy Jackie >was going after on the trunk, more answers will be found in politics, >history, what JFK the man was trying to do, and who his enemies were. Squeaky Fromme took a shot at Ford, and Hinckley actually wounded Reagan. Tell us, Joseph: what "answers [can] be found in politics, history, what [each] man was trying to do, and who his enemies were"? Mental masturbation can be fun, but it is of little use in arriving at historical truth. -- Brian Holtz Article 2322 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: close Date: 20 Feb 1993 22:22:47 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb15.145340.1@molbiol.ox.ac.uk> <16FEB199315150336@summa.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >mst4298@summa.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: > >*some* of the melons moved back and towards the shooter -- who >was only 30 feet away and firing rounds at 3000 fps instead of 2000 >fps -- meaning that it was much more likely JFK was hit by a high >velocity fragmenting round from his left rear than with a medium >velocity FMJ round from his right rear!!! Thats if you take into >account all the differences in variables! Who cares? JFK's celebrated back-and-to-the-left movement was *not* mechanical. In Z313 (the first frame in which an impact can be seen to have occurred), JFK's head has moved slightly *forward* from its position in Z312. In Z314, there is no change in head position from Z313. Only in Z315 do we first see that his head has moved backwards when compared to the preceding frame. Any conspiracy theory attributing the back-and-to-the-left movement to the Z313 impact has to assume that the laws of physics were suspended for 2/18ths of a second. No, the backward movement was neuromuscular. The backward movement is first seen to have occurred in Z315, which is the first frame in which his right elbow has started to move upward, apparently under muscular impulse. The two motions continue until Z319, at which point the head stops moving back and the elbow stops rising. After Z319, the muscle impulse is spent, and gravity takes over. By contrast, the "variables" that WC critics are forced to introduce to explain the forward movement are ludicrous. Wecht, Lattimer, and Groden/Livingstone posit a near-simultaneous second shot at Z315 which reverses the head direction *without* leaving any evidence of an impact on the Z film or in the autopsy. Lifton and Marrs simply wish the problem away by suggesting that the Z film was tampered with -- *without* explaining why the 'incriminating' backward movement was left mostly intact, or why the conspirators didn't just dispose of the film entirely. >Don't forget the Harper fragment, a piece of occipital bone [ back of >the head ] found on the grass to the left and rear of JFK's location >at the time of the head shot! [...] >Also, don't forget the spray of blood and brain tissue that hit the >motorcycle officers to JFK's *left* and rear very hard. Look at the Z film; blood and brain tissue went everywhere. Connally described being pelted with brain matter like it was "birdshot". But more importantly, ALL of the PHYSICAL evidence -- the cracked windshield, the two front-seat fragments, the pattern of fragments in the JFK head X-rays, the alignment of the entrance and exit wounds, the beveling of the rear entrance wound, the forward appearance of the exit wound on the Z film -- points to a bullet traversing Kennedy's head roughly back to front. NONE of the PHYSICAL evidence indicates a bullet traversing roughly front to back. >The large wound in the right rear was probably the result of a bullet >hitting JFK just behind his right ear and exitting from right rear of >his head -- a tangential strike. Reverse the bullet direction, and you've just about got it. -- Brian Holtz Article 2323 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Penetrating Power of Bullets Date: 20 Feb 1993 22:27:49 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >If you are a WC or HSCA disciple, please explain the inherent >contradictions in claiming that JFK was hit in the head and in the >back by the same type of bullet. One bullet directly impacted the hardest bone in the human body. The other bullet penetrated one and a half torsos before hitting any bone whatsoever. Next question? -- Brian Holtz Article 2325 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A@E Date: 20 Feb 1993 23:08:22 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <1lrnsjINNr20@usenet.pa.dec.com> <1993Feb19.221452.7605@mksol.dseg.ti.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <1993Feb19.221452.7605@mksol.dseg.ti.com> dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com writes: >> Thus, waving an umbrella in front of Jack Kennedy's face would >> be the equivalent, today, of waving a model of the >> Chappaquiddick bridge in front of Teddy Kennedy. > >I find this explanation totally ridiculous. To say that this would occur >at the moment right before Kennedy was shot is too much of a coincidence. >If you consider the timing of the opening of the umbrella, you almost >have to say that this individual was a piece in the consipacy puzzle. Hmm, let's see. Mary Moorman snapped her famous polaroid right at the moment of the head shot. So she was in on it. William Newman was waving his hand at the limo at the same time that JFK was reacting to his upper chest wound. So he was in on it. Charles Brehm was clapping as the limo passed by him, only one second before the head shot. So he "was a piece in the conspiracy puzzle". Etc. Get a clue! The President of the United States was shot while driving through a crowd. As his limousine passed each person, each reacted to the President of the United States driving by. Are you saying that if a President gets shot while driving through a crowd, the people nearest him in the crowd at the time are automatically part of the conspiracy if they were reacting in any way to the President's presence? Get real. -- Brian Holtz Article 2331 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 21 Feb 1993 02:34:08 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb19.153217.13165@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Feb21.021140.16744@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1993Feb21.021140.16744@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >>Squeaky Fromme took a shot at Ford, and Hinckley actually wounded >>Reagan. Tell us, Joseph: what "answers [can] be found in politics, >>history, what [each] man was trying to do, and who his enemies were"? > >We are not discussing "Abstract Problems Involving >Pot Shots at US Presidents, with Reference to Occam's Razor." We are >discussing the assassination of one particular president of the US. Sorry, still *too* "abstract". Indeed, we are discussing the fact that at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, on Elm St. in downtown Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was shot in the head. See, you want to hold an abstract discussion that would be valid if Kennedy had been murdered at any time during his Presidency, anywhere in the world, under any circumstances. In effect, you are telling us that if one is merely a competent historian of American political history up through Nov. 21 1963, one is already well-equipped to "get to the bottom of the murder plot". PuhLEEZ. >But do keep working on your Grand Unified Theory. Hah. *You're* the one with the Grand Unified Theory Of Who The Enemies Of JFK Were. *You're* the theorist who's going to "get to the bottom of the murder plot" without reference to any of the tedious data about the trivial circumstances surrounding the actual physical taking of JFK's life. Suppose Clinton were assassinated tomorrow. Without knowing anything more about the crime, are you saying that you, Sherlock Knapp, would be able to round up the prime suspects, base on "politics, history, what Clinton the man was trying to do, and who his enemies were"? It is to laugh. -- Brian Holtz Article 2334 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 21 Feb 1993 07:12:00 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 56 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb21.021140.16744@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Feb21.041107.17711@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <1993Feb21.041107.17711@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >If JFK was killed by street bum in DC, said bum probably would not >have had connections to David Ferrie, Carlos Marcello, >or travel experience in the USSR. Oswald's childhood connection to Ferrie is extremely tenuous; the Marcello "connection" strains that word beyond its limits. As for Oswald's personal history as a self-styled leftist revolutionary, it in fact explains his act rather well. Of course, that explanation doesn't satisfy Camelot fans, whose hero deserved a far grander and more meaningful martyrdom than history deigned to arrange for him... >Just a guess. His fellow street urchins would probably >provide fairly dull material. Guess again. The conspiracy industry has recently generated at least one book devoted to the theory that the three Dealey Plaza hobos were the primary gunmen -- even though, just beforehand, the long-standing mystery of their identities had been solved when a DPD arrest report surfaced. (The report was found after DPD opened its records in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's movie. Conspiracy theorists had long sought to make hay of the then-presumed 'fact' that the three 'conspirators' were let go without even being booked.) >We might be left with a "Squeaky Fromme" situation. Indeed. But wait: Fromme was connected to an infamous cult leader. And Hinckley's father was a well-placed government employee. Plenty of conspiracy fodder here, but I guess conspiracy-theorizing isn't as fun when the target isn't a martyred young Champion Of Progress... >I certainly want a Unified Theory, to be sure, as all theories should >be. Whether or not the theory could fit it in equally well with >Hinckley and Reagan, for example, is something I'll leave to GUT >dreamers. The GUT that has appealed to US historians is of course >that of the lone nut. Nonsense. YOUR unified theory is that the way to "get to the bottom of" any assassination "plot" (as if there can be no other kind of assassination!) is to blame those who would profit from it. Your unified theory guarantees that all assassinations are conspiracies. MY unified theory is that the way to solve a murder is to investigate the crime itself. NO ONE advances the "unified theory" that "lone nuts" can explain all assassinations. In fact, "U.S. historians" have NEVER had any problem blaming the archetypical American assassination (Lincoln's) on a conspiracy. -- Brian Holtz Article 2337 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 21 Feb 1993 20:15:11 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 88 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb21.041107.17711@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Feb21.140605.23189@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <1993Feb21.140605.23189@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >>As for Oswald's personal history as a self-styled leftist >>revolutionary, it in fact explains his act rather well. Of course, >>that explanation doesn't satisfy Camelot fans, whose hero deserved a >>far grander and more meaningful martyrdom than history deigned to >>arrange for him... > >See folks? Mention treating JFK like a man instead of a slab of beef >and the revisionists start sneering about "Camelot." My, my, the >resentment must still run deep. Save it. I happen to think that Kennedy was one of our greatest presidents. But after all the paeans sung in the conspiracy literature about the Golden Age that Kennedy was supposedly about to usher in, it really is pathetic that you would dare call *me* a "revisionist". If you want to talk about JFK "the man", why not talk about how his Cuba policy could win him enemies on the FPCC? The answer, of course, is that this explanation is too humdrum, too pedestrian, too untragic. >>is to blame those who would profit from it. Your >>unified theory guarantees that all assassinations are conspiracies. > >Umm, where did I say this? I have to keep reminding you that I am not >proposing a general way to solve an assassination. Sure you are. You said that to "get to the bottom of" this case, you have to look at what the assassinated guy "was trying to do, and who his enemies were". Are you now going to say that this methodology only works when the assassinated guy was young, handsome, progressive, and married to Jackie Oh? >>MY unified theory is that the way to solve a murder is to investigate >>the crime itself. > >Well, I realize that you are not really proposing a GUT. But why do you >play like others are when they mention a JFK conspiracy? Because you yourself said that the way "to get to the bottom of [this] murder plot" is to treat it not as a murder, but as an expression of political opposition from his political "enemies". With this methodology, only a politician with no "enemies" can be killed without a conspiracy. >I.e., you challenge them to reconcile it with Hinckley, Fromme, etc. I'm not asking you to "reconcile" completely unrelated events with each other. I'm asking you to use the same methodology and standards in explaining each event. You refuse to do so, because you know that doing so always yields a conspiracy. You don't want to look quite *that* foolish, so you reserve this methodology for dead husbands of Jackie Oh. >>NO ONE advances the "unified theory" that "lone nuts" can explain all >>assassinations. In fact, "U.S. historians" have NEVER had any >>problem blaming the archetypical American assassination (Lincoln's) on >>a conspiracy. > >The accepted conspiracy as far as that one goes is pretty limited, isn't it? Yep. It's limited to explaining the EVIDENCE. What a drag... >Inherent in the "anti-conspiracy" model of US history is that whatever >happened, it had nothing to do with a coup or any official part of government. Your own words betray you. Skeptics and professional historians don't have an "anti-conspiracy model of US history". We simply recognize when events are and ARE NOT related, and adopt the most parsimonious explanation for the available evidence. By contrast, paranoid radicals *DO* have a "conspiracy model of US history", and it is a lens that distorts everything they see. To people like you, the absence, in the accepted explanation, of an "offical", "government" connection in the Lincoln "coup" is probably prima facie evidence that there WAS such a connection. It seems never to enter your mind that there just might not have *been* any such connection. In your world (and on TV), the Bad Guys have such a huge interest in killing the Good Guy, that the death of the Good Guy can only have been caused by the Bad Guys. Well, I'm sorry, but history doesn't care about its Nielson ratings, and doesn't always arrange that the coolest explanation is the correct one. -- Brian Holtz Article 2338 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Military Intelligence Date: 21 Feb 1993 20:20:00 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb17.164135.19279@linus.mitre.org> <1993Feb21.132953.22877@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <1993Feb21.132953.22877@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >Seems to me that if the Lone Nut types want to salvage any credibility >at all, they should acknowledge that LHO was some kind of intelligence >operative, We would, except that there's no convincing evidence for this. >who was still possibly a loose cannon (a la G. Gordon Liddy) Liddy was hardly a "loose cannon"; I can't think of anything he did that wasn't under orders. -- Brian Holtz Article 2346 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 22 Feb 1993 06:17:55 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 99 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb21.140605.23189@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Feb22.001047.3428@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <1993Feb22.001047.3428@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >Or have you given up the line that right wingers had no motive to >kill JFK because he was a military-industrial complex sugar-daddy and >the ultimate cold-warrior? I never disputed that Kennedy had right-wing opponents. What I disputed was the revisionism that painted JFK as a "true radical reformer". Given the revisionism generated by the JFK conspiracy industry, I'd say that you're throwing stones in a glass house. >JFK takes steps to stop anti-Castro Cuban raids AFTER overseeing the Bay Of Pigs invasion. >as well as promising >Khruschev that we wouldn't invade Cuba, AFTER imposing a naval blockade and coming within a hair's breadth of re-invading. At any rate, Oswald had no inkling of JKF's promise. If he *had* had that kind of inside knowledge, he would likely have been far more interested in Kennedy's plots to assassinate Castro. >preaches peaceful coexistence >against the tide of right-wing anti-Communism Can you cite any examples of such preaching? All I remember is missile gaps, "pay any price, bear any burden", "Ich bin ein Berliner", etc. >and that's supposed to piss >off the FPCC (a non-militant group anyway)? Yes -- given Oswald's grasp of events, and his delusions of grandeur. You complain about JFK being treated as a "slab of beef", but the simple fact is that he was just riding in a car. What JFK "the man" was "trying to do" that day was simply some political fence-mending, and the only "enemies" on his mind that day were the rival politicians who might compete for the support of Texas voters. By contrast, Oswald was on that day making decisions and committing actions that were the most important of his life. But how do the conspiracy theorists treat Oswald? Not as "a man" -- with a personality, a marriage, a way of thinking about himself. Instead, he is just a mug shot -- a childhood acquaintance of Bad Guy Ferrie, a nephew of an alleged small-time mafia operative, a guy seen handing out pamphlets with a suspicious address on them. Where is the consideration of *Oswald* "the man"? A man is little more than a brain and its actions. In Dealey Plaza that day, one brain culminated its peculiar life-trajectory by making some interesting decisions inside the TSBD. The other brain was pretty much just driving through, heard a strange pop or two, felt a sharp pain in the upper thorax it was connected to, and then proceeded to get blown to bits. Now, tell us AGAIN which of the two we should study as "a man", and which we should study as a "slab of beef". >>Are you now going to say that this methodology >>only works when the assassinated guy was young, handsome, progressive, >>and married to Jackie Oh? > >It works in THIS case. So you say. What I want to know is -- why THIS case, and not OTHERS? >Whether or not his attributes happen to stimulate >some peoples' inferiority complex is irrelevant. Hah. You just keep projecting; I'll leave it to long-time readers of this newsgroup to decide for themselves whether there's anyone I consider myself "inferior" to... ;-) >Yes, yes, I believe you! Historians have done such a good job so far, >how could I have doubted them? Not. Hmm, I suppose by YOUR standards of reasoning, the self-correcting nature of history as a professional, peer-reviewed discipline probably makes you think you can casually dismiss its conclusions. "Yes, yes, I believe Einstein! Physicists like Ptolemy and Newton have done such a good job so far, how could I have doubted them? Not." Actually, that raises an interesting point. A modern, rigorous discipline is characterized by the ability of peer-reviewed investigators to come to the same conclusions independently, and accrete a solid foundation that at any given is widely affirmed. How do you explain that the conspiracy that seems so obvious to you eludes a convergence of opinion among professional journalists and historians? Just *how big* do you think this conspiracy *is*? :-) (Actually, this raises an interesting meta-point. I've asked the above question several times before in this newsgroup, and never once gotten an answer. I wonder why...) -- Brian Holtz Article 2348 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Military Intelligence Date: 22 Feb 1993 07:01:43 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb21.132953.22877@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article kilcup@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Greg Kilcup) writes: >One wonders what evidence one >should expect to find, if LHO were indeed an intelligence agent. How about: any document or witness saying that he *was* such an agent? Even poor George DeMohrenschildt was in one CIA document referenced as being debriefed after a trip abroad. > -- When stationed in Japan, LHO contracted a case of VD. > His medical records note that this was "in the line of duty" Well, I guess studly Agent Oswald beguiled one too many femme fatale for his own good. :-) It's an interesting piece of trivia, but not much more than that. > -- Oswald apparently was trained in Russian at the Defense > Language Institute. One source for this is a "Top Secret" > WC transcript which surfaced only in 1974. One wonders > why an ordinary enlisted man would be sent to language school. He wasn't. Didn't happen. Your "transcript" just has a WC counsel saying that they were looking into that possibility. > -- According to James Wilcott of the CIA, who testified before > the HSCA, LHO was recruited in Japan to work for the CIA > in the USSR. Marrs says that Wilcott says that, based on "conversations" with "colleagues", Wilcott "became convinced" that Oswald was recruited. Given Marrs' tendency to stretch testimony past the breaking point, I'd like to see what Wilcott *actually* told the HSCA. > "I was under the protection of the ... uh ... that is to > say, I was not under the protection of the American > government ... but I was at all times considered an > American citizen." Right; he tried to renounce his citizenship, but the consulate was closed. > -- Among LHO's possessions which the Dallas Police recovered > in November 1963 was a Minox camera. Popular in the spy > community, the camera was not available to the general > public at that time. Interesting, if true. Where did you hear this? What does "not availabe to the general public" precisely mean? Not, I hope, that it's of Italian make and can only be mail-ordered... ;-) > the CIA had a "201" file on LHO. According to many > sources that code is used only for employees. The "sources" are wrong. Even Lifton admits that a 201 file is "opened when a person is considered to be of potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance." _Best Evidence_, p. 246. > -- There are also reports from at least two FBI employees > that the FBI maintained an informant file on LHO. > -- Then there is the report relayed by a Dallas deputy sheriff > that LHO was an FBI informant, with ID number S-179 and > a salary of $200/month. Where did this deputy hear this? At any rate, the FBI of course was monitoring Oswald, since he was a re-defector. (Why monitor an American agent?) >all the people who knew LHO and simply felt or even "knew" there was >more than met the eye. Oswald was weird. So am I. Neither of us were agents. -- Brian Holtz Article 2347 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Penetrating Power of Bullets Date: 22 Feb 1993 06:30:39 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>One bullet directly impacted the hardest bone in the human body. > >Are you talking about Connally's wrist bone Of course not -- I said "directly impacted". >It's too bad 6.5mm FMJ rounds *never* fragmented into the number of >pieces the JFK head shot did in *any* of the WC testing. What do you mean by the "the number of pieces"? The head shot resulted in just two big fragments (the front-seat ones); the rest were very small, with many only seen by X-ray and never extracted. >Yet the JFK head shot >fragmented into at least 40 pieces -- as seen on the X-Rays -- BTW, does this mean you endorse the authenticity of the X-rays (which show fragments radiating out from a *rear* entrance wound)? Or are you going to say that the conspirators faked an X-ray that refuted the ammunition they wanted us to believe Oswald used? >soft-nosed hunting rounds fragment on impact. 6.5mm medium velocity >FMJ rounds do not. At the most, they separate into core and jacket. Note that of the two big head-shot fragments, one looks mostly like jacket, and the other looks mostly like core. -- Brian Holtz Article 2355 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 22 Feb 1993 18:56:28 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 114 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb22.001047.3428@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Feb22.163746.20873@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1993Feb22.163746.20873@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >I think the record shows that he was radical enough with respect to the >status quo in 1963 to generate vociferous (and presumably un-vociferous) >enemies. Enemies that equated his positions, in fact, with "treason." Having right-wing enemies does not necessarily make one a "true radical reformer". Nor does having Marxist-Leninist enemies make one a capitalist running dog. So some people on the Right accused JFK of "treason"; big deal. Rep. Bob Dornan said worse things about Clinton during the campaign, and Clinton is no "true radical reformer". As for "enemies", why don't we take a look at the stuff published about JFK in the leftist revolutionary rags that Oswald subscribed to? Wanna take any bets on whether the President of the U.S. was treated very sympathetically? >Whether or not he was a "true radical reformer" is a semantic game >often played through the "distorted lens" of thirty years of subsequent >events. What major civil rights legislation was passed during his administration? What major social legislation? The only "radical reform" he accomplished was to end the practice of wearing top hats at inaugurations. The conspiracy theorists like to paint Warren and Johnson as the reactionary villains of this piece. But: whose Supreme Court unanimously delivered Brown v. Board of Education? Whose Supreme Court finally delivered on the Constitution's promises to protect the rights of the accused? Whose Supreme Court started applying the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to racial discrimination by private business? Earl Warren's. And: whose administration passed the original Civil Rights Act? Whose administration passed the original Voting Rights Act? Whose administration enacted the War on Poverty? Lyndon Johnson's. >>>as well as promising >>>Khruschev that we wouldn't invade Cuba, >> >>AFTER imposing a naval blockade and coming within a hair's breadth of >>re-invading. At any rate, Oswald had no inkling of JKF's promise. > >Huh? The steps against the anti-Castro Cuban paramilitary groups were >well known Huh? right back atcha. I was talking about his "promise" on invading Cuba, not his "steps" against anti-Castro Cubans. >1963 which sums up the public (or at least right-wing) view of JFK's >position on Cuba: JFK is lying in a hammock and a little cartoon figure >is telling him about how bad Castro's Cuba is. JFK's response is "Well, >what do you want me to do? You don't want NUCLEAR WAR, do you?" So it >seems that Kennedy's agreement with Khrushchev was at least tacitly >known by the public. Nonsense. The Right wanted to invade *now*. To them, not preparing to invade is the same thing as promising not to invade; either would have prompted such a cartoon. >The theme was a "re-examination" of the Cold War and >stressed peaceful coexistence. The Russian people loved it. Cold >Warriors hated it. Wonderful. Now tell us -- how was JFK treated in _The Worker_, and the other revolutionary newspapers that Oswald subscribed to? Oswald wasn't your run-of-the-mill liberal Stevenson Democrat. He was a self-proclaimed "hunter of fascists". He was also more interested in personal aggrandizement than in the practical political effects his actions (pamphleteering, shooting at generals and presidents). Of course, you'd know all this if you ever looked at Oswald as more of a man than a mug shot. >>one brain culminated its peculiar life-trajectory by making >>some interesting decisions inside the TSBD. The other brain was >>pretty much just driving through, heard a strange pop or two, felt a >>sharp pain in the upper thorax it was connected to, and then proceeded >>to get blown to bits. > >I really don't know where that little parable was trying to go. Then try reading my text instead of deleting it. I asked you: how do the conspiracy theorists treat Oswald? Not as "a man", but as a mug shot. >Sorry >for mentioning JFK "the man" though. It really seems to have set you off. What set me off was the patently silly notion that "more answers" can be found when a politician is shot by looking at who his "enemies" were, rather than looking at THE GUY WHO SHOT HIM. The Dealey Plaza "man" to investigate first is the one who ACTIVELY pulled a trigger, and not the one who PASSIVELY rode through the line of fire. Try a thought experiment. If, exasperated by my inexorable logic, you tracked me down and shot me, where would "more answers" come from? An examination of Brian Holtz, His Life, Times, And Enemies? Or: an examination of what Joe Knapp Might Have Had Against Brian Holtz? >>[...] history as a professional, peer-reviewed discipline [...] > >I tend to look askance at Einstein's theories of world politics [...] Red herring. Tell me, what were Einsteins credentials as a professional historian? In what peer-reviewed journals did he publish his socio-ethical theories in? Then again, I guess an inability to distinguish pop history from professional history is what characterizes most conspiracy devotees... -- Brian Holtz Article 2371 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 23 Feb 1993 19:16:32 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb22.163746.20873@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Feb22.230916.4370@cbnews.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1993Feb22.230916.4370@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >>As for "enemies", why don't we take a look at the stuff published >>about JFK in the leftist revolutionary rags that Oswald subscribed to? > >In case you missed it, JFK enemies who thought him traitorous were people >like the Deputy Director of the CIA and the Director of the FBI. Not >writers of student newspapers. Are you telling us that the only "enemies" that could have wanted JFK dead are those "who thought him traitorous"? Are you saying that 1) assassinating the leader of the Capitalist world, and 2) precipitating a splashy trial with anti-McCarthyite attorney John Abt riding to the rescue, are *not* the sort of things that a screwball "hunter of fascists" might do? >>What major civil rights legislation was passed during his >>administration? What major social legislation? > >What is the point? That Kennedy didn't want such programs? Or that Congress >didn't? Or what? The point is that, if JFK was shot 1000 days into what a "true radical reformer" would have to consider his do-nothing Presidency, why wasn't LBJ blown away in his first *100* days? LBJ's reforms make JFK look like Ike. To preserve the myth of the martyred reformer, conspiracy theorists are forced to resort to laughable revisionism about JFK and Vietnam. >>I was talking about his "promise" on invading Cuba > >don't you think it's relevant that >any Marxist-Leninist Cubanophile would have known this fact? Says who? You're very quick on the draw with JFK speech transcripts. Would you care to tell us what pro-Castro sympathesizers like Oswald's FPCC were writing about JFK during 1963? I doubt it, since considering Oswald's motives seems somehow taboo in the conspiracy industry... -- Brian Holtz Article 2372 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: close Date: 23 Feb 1993 19:24:52 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb23.095216.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1993Feb23.095216.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >> In Z313 (the first frame in which an impact can be seen >> to have occurred), JFK's head has moved slightly *forward* from its >> position in Z312. > >Brian for those of us who don't have immediate access to the frame-by-frame >stills of Zapruders film, could you describe how Z313 differs from z312 in more >detail. That is how does one best observe this forward head movement? It's probably harder to see in side-by-side stills. You definitely want to get a VCR that can move back and forth between the two frames. The movement is most pronounced when you look at the angle between his back and the back of his head. In Z313 the force of impact has clearly tilted the head forward from its position in Z312. -- Brian Holtz Article 2380 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Penetrating Power of Bullets Date: 24 Feb 1993 00:18:54 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>>It's too bad 6.5mm FMJ rounds *never* fragmented into the number of >>>pieces the JFK head shot did in *any* of the WC testing. > >>What do you mean by the "the number of pieces"? The head shot >>resulted in just two big fragments (the front-seat ones); > >You can claim the "front-seat ones" were from the head shot, but there >is no evidence of that. When analyzed, they contained no blood or >brain tissue on them meaning it is *very* unlikely they impacted a >human being. Then how did they get into the front seat? If they didn't hit anybody, what did they hit? Or, if they were planted, why were such "unlikely" fragments planted? I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that traceable quantities of blood will adhere to pieces of metal that explode out of human bodies at high velocity before rattling to a stop, getting picked up, passed hand to hand, and put into pockets. Does anyone have any independent data on how often this can be expected to occur? And again: what "number of pieces" do you have in mind? Can you describe the WC results more fully? >The WC supporters claim the X-Ray is real, which it probably isn't >because it is *missing* the head wound described by Parkland staff and >the autopsy staff. Flaps. Look at the autopsy photos. Large chunks of skull look like they were being held in place only by flaps of scalp. In some autopsy photos they are in place; in other photos they are allowed to hang open. The X-rays were taken with the flaps in place. >>the conspirators faked an X-ray that refuted the >>ammunition they wanted us to believe Oswald used? > >You agree the X-Ray refutes the claim that JFK was shot in the head by >6.5mm FMJ rounds then? :-) Yes, you'd BETTER put a smiley when you say, in effect, "The X-rays agree with the WC theory because they were faked; besides, the X-rays don't even agree with the WC theory. Yeah, THAT'S the ticket!" John Lovitz would be proud... >>>FMJ rounds do not. At the most, they separate into core and jacket. > >>Note that of the two big head-shot fragments, one looks mostly like >>jacket, and the other looks mostly like core. > >A .257 soft-nosed hunting round is partially jacketed, and would >result in a core and jacket as well as many fragments when the round >fragmented on impact. Goody. Are you now going to tell us that when FMJ rounds "separate into core and jacket", two and only two fragments are the result? Also: can't one tell a "soft-nosed" jacket from a "full metal" jacket? Which kind was the jacket-like front seat fragment? Oh, I forgot, those fragments were planted, just like the stretcher bullet, and the X-rays, the 6th-floor cartridges, and the Tippet cartridges; and the wound was operated on, and the Zapruder film of the head shot was tampered with, and the autopsy report was compromised. Come to think of it, are you sure JFK was shot in *Dallas*, and not somewhere else? Maybe his presense on the Zapruder film was faked, too. Is there ANY physical evidence that you do not choose to revise in your version of events? -- Brian Holtz Article 2380 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Penetrating Power of Bullets Date: 24 Feb 1993 00:18:54 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>>It's too bad 6.5mm FMJ rounds *never* fragmented into the number of >>>pieces the JFK head shot did in *any* of the WC testing. > >>What do you mean by the "the number of pieces"? The head shot >>resulted in just two big fragments (the front-seat ones); > >You can claim the "front-seat ones" were from the head shot, but there >is no evidence of that. When analyzed, they contained no blood or >brain tissue on them meaning it is *very* unlikely they impacted a >human being. Then how did they get into the front seat? If they didn't hit anybody, what did they hit? Or, if they were planted, why were such "unlikely" fragments planted? I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that traceable quantities of blood will adhere to pieces of metal that explode out of human bodies at high velocity before rattling to a stop, getting picked up, passed hand to hand, and put into pockets. Does anyone have any independent data on how often this can be expected to occur? And again: what "number of pieces" do you have in mind? Can you describe the WC results more fully? >The WC supporters claim the X-Ray is real, which it probably isn't >because it is *missing* the head wound described by Parkland staff and >the autopsy staff. Flaps. Look at the autopsy photos. Large chunks of skull look like they were being held in place only by flaps of scalp. In some autopsy photos they are in place; in other photos they are allowed to hang open. The X-rays were taken with the flaps in place. >>the conspirators faked an X-ray that refuted the >>ammunition they wanted us to believe Oswald used? > >You agree the X-Ray refutes the claim that JFK was shot in the head by >6.5mm FMJ rounds then? :-) Yes, you'd BETTER put a smiley when you say, in effect, "The X-rays agree with the WC theory because they were faked; besides, the X-rays don't even agree with the WC theory. Yeah, THAT'S the ticket!" John Lovitz would be proud... >>>FMJ rounds do not. At the most, they separate into core and jacket. > >>Note that of the two big head-shot fragments, one looks mostly like >>jacket, and the other looks mostly like core. > >A .257 soft-nosed hunting round is partially jacketed, and would >result in a core and jacket as well as many fragments when the round >fragmented on impact. Goody. Are you now going to tell us that when FMJ rounds "separate into core and jacket", two and only two fragments are the result? Also: can't one tell a "soft-nosed" jacket from a "full metal" jacket? Which kind was the jacket-like front seat fragment? Oh, I forgot, those fragments were planted, just like the stretcher bullet, and the X-rays, the 6th-floor cartridges, and the Tippet cartridges; and the wound was operated on, and the Zapruder film of the head shot was tampered with, and the autopsy report was compromised. Come to think of it, are you sure JFK was shot in *Dallas*, and not somewhere else? Maybe his presense on the Zapruder film was faked, too. Is there ANY physical evidence that you do not choose to revise in your version of events? -- Brian Holtz Article 2398 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: conspiracy Date: 24 Feb 1993 09:04:13 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb22.163746.20873@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1993Feb24.001724.16976@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <1993Feb24.001724.16976@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: >By the way, it's great to see you back Brian. Thanks; it's good to *be* back. (But don't tell my publisher I'm here; every day my book gets later and later. No, it's not on JFK; it's about ToolTalk. ;-) >While you are around maybe you could explain the mismatch between the >bullets in Tippet's body and the shell cases found. I'd have to put this one in the top five true mysteries surrounding the case; right up there with the Clinton, La. sightings and the CE399 stretcher mix-up. (John McA.: this is covered well in Hurt's _Reasonable Doubt_. But you seem to have access to the HSCA report, which is by far the most reliable source...) I know we don't know where Oswald got his MC ammo; do we know where he got his pistol ammo? Can anyone think of a way of accidentally acquiring ammo with a mixed make of bullet and casing? It's probably more likely that Oswald tossed a fifth (Winchester) casing that was never found. That would mean either that a fifth (Remington) shot was fired at Tippet and missed, or that Oswald encountered Tippet with an empty Remington casing in his revolver. >Ah, and also how the Mauser magically became an MC rifle. >Ah, and the rifle found on the roof of the TSDB.......... By contrast, these are two of the flimsiest myths to arise in the case. I've rebutted them too many times in the past to make the effort now. What this newsgroup needs is a FAQ. Or two FAQs, if the two camps can't cooperate... ;-) My favorite question in either FAQ would be: what evidence (if any) makes you most uncomfortable with your theory? (I can never get the conspiracy theorists to answer this -- a sure sign, in my opinion, that conspiracy is a religion.) To the three I listed above I would add: * the fake "Secret Service" men in Dealy Plaza * the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen * the "duplicate Oswald" sightings * precisely how did the first shot cause the Tague wound and curb nick? (Has anyone ever heard whether the street was explicitly swept for impact marks? Did they ever test-fire a MC at Elm St. to see what a mark would look like?) -- Brian Holtz Article 2479 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: false leads Date: 28 Feb 1993 00:46:04 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <00968A11.7D6A6440@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1993Feb25.154230.22076@linus.mitre.org> <00968C1E.54604060@vms.csd.mu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <00968C1E.54604060@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes: >A short autobiographical >sketch [Oswald] wrote for the benefit of the Cuban embassy said: > > I sought response from Latin American counsuls of which there are > many here in New Orleans. I infiltrated the Cuban Student > Directorate and then harassed them with information I gained, > including having the New Orleans city attorney general call them > and put a restraining order pending a hearing on some so-called > bonds for an invasion they were selling in the New Orleans area. > I caused the formation of a small, active FPCC organization of > members and sympathizers where before there was none. > >This by the way, is in Warren Commission Exhibit 93 (the spelling has >been cleaned up a bit). Amazing. I had surmised from the Bringuier incident that Oswald was probably attempting some amateur penetration of the anti-Castro Cubans, but the conspiracy literature never gave me any clue that there existed *documentary* evidence *from Oswald* to support this theory. The conspiracy literature simply isn't interested in explaining Oswald's motives. He is opaque -- a pawn, a dupe, a tool of the "mechanics". I've done double-takes like this before: - The conspiracy literature endlessly rehashes nutzo Deputy Craig's story of Oswald getting into a station wagon in Dealey Plaza, giving it no critical attention. So I was astonished to read in the Warren Report itself the eyewitness testimony that conclusively establishes Oswald's route home by bus and cab. The conspiracy literature just ignores this testimony, because Craig's fantasy is much more interesting. - The conspiracy literature plays up the one or two Tippit witnesses whose accounts conflict with Oswald being the lone gunman. Only in the WR itself do you get to hear about the half-dozen or so other eyewitnesses who were sure Oswald was the only gunman. The moral of this story is that, for a skeptic, it's more challenging to confine yourself to the conspiracy literature. If you actually look at the primary sources for yourself, and dispense with the filtering and spoon-feeding done by the conspiracy industry, the case for Oswald acting alone is overwhelming. So overwhelming, in fact, that you begin to question why you should bother being a conspiracy buff... -- Brian Holtz Article 2519 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: close Date: 2 Mar 1993 22:51:55 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <1993Feb23.095216.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <1993Mar1.102351.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1993Mar1.102351.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >>>how does one best observe this forward head movement? >> >> The movement is most pronounced when you look at the angle between >> his back and the back of his head. In Z313 the force of impact >> has clearly tilted the head forward from its position in Z312. > >I have VCR and have studied the film in slow motion, freeze frame, frame >advance and at normal speed and can see no forward movement at all. It is not >possible to identify VCR images with exact 16mm frames. Sure it is. The Z film is 1/18 speed, and TV is 1/30. Thus all Z frames show up when played on TV. After a while, you get good at counting backwards or forwards from the 'landmark' frames like Z225, Z237, Z313. Z312 is the last frame in which JFK's head is in one piece. Z313 is the first frame that shows the head flying apart. >So are you saying that you have seen a forward movement in a video, >or are you looking at (overlaying) stills? I'm saying that, when I'm freeze-framed on Z312, and then advance one frame to Z313, I clearly see that the back of the head has tilted forward. The same forward motion is clearly apparent to such conspiracy theorists as Wecht, Lattimer, Groden/Livingstone, Lifton, Marrs -- and our recent cone-of-ejecta poster on alt.conspiracy.jfk. (Speaking of whom: your article expired here before I could reply in detail. Could somebody send me a copy?) If you want to see overlain stills, look at Lattimer's _Six Seconds In Dallas_. He overlays two outlines of JFK's head, traced from Z312 and Z313. -- Brian Holtz Article 2543 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: close Date: 5 Mar 1993 06:13:37 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <1993Mar1.102351.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <93062.143835U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <93062.143835U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >6 Seconds in Dallas was authored by Josiah Thompson, not Lattimer who >authored "Lincoln and Kennedy". Yep, I goofed. I've consistently listed Lattimer among the conspiracy theorists who have addressed the forward head movement, when I meant Thompson. Regarding the head shot, someone was kind enough to forward one of Fudder's postings to me after it expired here: > the two bits > of ejecta 'clearly seen going forwards and up' in Z313: namely, the blob > and ejecta actually represent a conic emission from the right side of JFK's > head as it would be seen looking down the centerline of the cone. Two blobs do not a cone make. And besides, given tangential strikes, fragmenting bullets, and brain-inside-skull-inside-scalp, you're not going to be able to model the impact as a simple splash. > >slightly above the ear, and exitted near the rear centre > >of his head near the hairline Incredible. Two blobs turn into a cone, the entrance wound is a ghastly flap hanging *forward* all the way to the right eye, and the exit wound is in an area that looks perfectly intact. I'm sorry, but as Lifton realized, the only hope for a forward head shot is to reject all the photographic, X-ray, and autopsy evidence as doctored, and rely only on the Parkland testimony about stuff hanging from the back of the head. > >This scenario accounts for the rearward moving skull pieces, which the > >WC and HSCA scenarios ignore. Nonsense. Shoot any head. Pieces go everywhere. The same CANNOT be said for bullet fragments and other ejecta that can shatter glass. However, the conspiracy theorists all ignore the front-seat bullet fragments and the windshield crack that appeared at the same time as the head shot. (Either that, or they repeat their mantra of doctored physical evidence.) > after reviewing the post headshot sequence, i'd noticed two red spots > seemingly on the top edge of the door of the limo. anybody think they > could be traces of the spray coming out the side of JFK's head? Nope. They are the top of Jackie's bouquet of roses, which she drops in JFK's lap as his head explodes. They aren't on the door at all. -- Brian Holtz Article 4715 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: It was fun while it lasted Date: 7 Sep 1993 17:35:08 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 34 Distribution: usa Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord _Six Seconds In Dallas_ was my introduction to the JFK Assassination parlor game. It was all good fun, devouring the output of the conspiracy press and pondering all the wondrous possibilities. But then, about the same time that I stopped reading comic books, I found that I could no longer suspend critical thought for long enough to enjoy conspiracy theorizing. So I took a step back and tried to piece together what the evidence really looked like when you factored out each conspiracy author's distorted lens. That was even more fun, because you had to read footnotes, compare sources, and cross-check conspiracy authors to find the mutual contradictions. Then Posner had to come along and write _Case Closed_. And now any schmuck with $25 can have demonstrated for him in a weekend's reading what it took me over a year to piece together reading only conspiracy authors: Oswald, acting alone, missed at c. Z161, hit both men at c. Z220ff, and fired the single shot at Z313. Not only that, but he goes on to explain convincingly the things I've cited here as the most disturbing mysteries remaining: * the Clinton La. sightings of Oswald * the "duplicate Oswald" stories (especially Odio's) * the Winchester vs. Remington problem in the Tippit slaying * how the first shot missed and caused the Tague wound With all the answers in print for anyone to see, it becomes really hard to justify spending any more time convincing people of what should be screamingly obvious. What's worse, there wouldn't even be much sport in it any more. Instead of the (admittedly remote) possibility of mutual education that obtains when, say, you debate God's existence with a Christian, it becomes more like debating Santa's existence with a second-grader. -- Brian Holtz Article 4969 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Could Oswald have fired 3 shots that qu Date: 15 Sep 1993 22:53:35 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 31 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <26v7vt$cn2@uk-usenet.uk.sun.com> <272fsp$kin@uk-usenet.uk.sun.com> <272rfr$ogj@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <272rfr$ogj@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >So one reload of the rifle takes 42 Zfilm frames. [...] >The Commission/FBI determined that an Oak tree blocked the view of the >hypothesized shooter between ca. Z162 and Z210. [...] WR says Z166, not Z162. >If [JBC] was hit before >Z240, then a miss-hit-hit scenario would put the first "miss" at >Z240-42= Z198, a time when "Oswald" was aiming at the tree which blocked >his sight between ca Z162 and Z210. Most feel it unlikely that >"Oswald" would have shot through the tree. > >We are left with: hit-hit-miss. Wrong. The correct math is that a miss-hit-hit scenario would put the miss at Z240-X= Zn, where X>=42, leaving Zn <= Z198. Given the Oak tree, that becomes Zn <= Z166. Given JBC's testimony and on-film behavior, we get Zn = ca. Z162. >The revisionist HSCA had a decade to think up a better answer. They >decided to employ jiggle analysis and projectoreactonomy to deduce that >a shot occurred at Z162 The JBC/Zapruder evidence is dispositive here, in my opinion. Does anyone know whether the WC considered Z162ff and JBC's testimony as evidence for a Z162 miss? -- Brian Holtz Article 5022 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Could Oswald have fired 3 shots that qu Date: 17 Sep 1993 22:50:32 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <272rfr$ogj@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <2788qf$f49@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >The WC ruled out any shot before Z210. On what basis did it do so? Besides, when the WC rules out X, don't the conspiratti say it's a prima facie case for X? ;-) >This was an innovation of the HSCA. >The WC was coy and implied a possible shot, which your math rules out. Huh? How can the WC "rule out" a shot and yet "[be] coy and imply a possible shot"? Double-huh? How does my math rule out this "possible shot"? Oh, maybe you're talking about the WR's mention of a momentary view through the oak tree at Z186. I've never heard of a shot implied then, coyly or otherwise. In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Heeee's Baaaaccckkkk. :) No, I am NOT. I do not have time for this, what with peace breaking out in the UNIX industry, and my book being woefully late. Besides, it seems that John and Mitchell have full access to the WR and HSCA volumes, and are doing as good a job as I ever did. When I finish my book, maybe I'll have time to do the structured, living FAQ that I always wanted to do for this newsgroup. And I think it's high time the conspiracy skeptics took the offensive, and started systematically enumerating the gaping holes and inconsistencies that riddle every conspiracy theory offered so far. Posner's sprinkles the seeds of such an effort throughout his book. (Of course, the conspiratti will just resort to their anthem of not needing to explain anything, since being a blind gadfly is a lot more fun then seeing the truth...) >The JBC/Zapruder evidence is dispositive here [...] > >1) I think the Tague wounding rules out a z162 miss Thanks for completely ignoring my point; I only called the evidence "dispositive", so I can see why you might see fit not to address it... :-) At best, the way you construe the Tague wounding merely rules out a Z162 miss *that caused the Tague wounding*. Again: the JBC/Zapruder evidence seems dispositive for a shot of some kind being heard by JBC at Z162. [Except to you, who as I recall would rather place JBC's famous turn at Z289. Do you still stick to that? Have you ever found anyone who agrees with you?] > To hit Tague, Oswald would have to miss by over 20 feet up and 30 > feet to the right to hit the curb. Straw man. Name a single human who has ever posited a direct hit on the Tague curb. > Of course you could claim that > the bullet hit Elm and then bounced over the grassy median and > impact the curb near Tague -- on Main not Elm. The curb strike is clearly from some kind of ricochet or fragment. The only problem is figuring out what shot caused it, and how. -- Brian Holtz Article 5114 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Could Oswald have fired 3 shots that qu Date: 20 Sep 1993 02:06:34 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 105 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <27dmis$7n7@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <27dmis$7n7@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >|> >The WC ruled out any shot before Z210. >|> >|> On what basis did it do so? > >I don't really recall the basis. [...] >The WC rules out a shot before Z210 for reasons of their own, but appear to >leave open a miss-hit-hit scenario. Well, I looked it up, and what the WR ruled out was a *hit* before Z210. Nice try. >So they are coy by not being specific with the shot order, and >implying the possibility of a shot combination mis-hit-hit which has >been ruled out by their prior logic. Miss-hit-hit is entirely consistent with logic that rules out a hit prior to Z210. Yet another aspersion on the WC that just falls apart under the light of day... >The Z162 miss, might be a "real" miss, but it is hard to say that it >is "the" miss. How do you know it's not another shot? Nobody "knows". But res non multiplicandum est. Occam's razor denies me the sort of gall that the conspiratti have, which lets them associate a shot (or two! cf. Wecht) with every separate wound, Zapruder jiggle, Dictabelt pop, grass tuft, curb nick, and Conally twitch. :-) >|> At best, the way you construe the Tague wounding merely rules out a >|> Z162 miss *that caused the Tague wounding*. > >Yes. This is correct. > >JBC did look at the film himself. I posted the LIFE article. He did >not put "his" turn at that location Then when did he put it? What other turn to his right does he make before getting hit? Why did the HSCA put his turn at Z162? Was he shown the relevant frames? (Cf. Alvarez only starting with Z170.) Could you send me the LIFE article? After this miss-hit-hit business, I have a little less faith in your reading skills. :-) >|> [Except to you, who as I recall would rather place JBC's >|> famous turn at Z289. Do you still stick to that? Have you ever found >|> anyone who agrees with you?] > >You must be thinking of someone else. Yes, the latter part of my article was addressed to Bruce Schuck. Pay attention! :-) >|> > To hit Tague, Oswald would have to miss by over 20 feet up and 30 >|> > feet to the right to hit the curb. >|> >|> Straw man. Name a single human who has ever posited a direct hit >|> on the Tague curb. > >When examining the situation, Hoover certainly did. He concluded otherwise >because the curb strike did not have copper and did not have enough damage >to indicate the direct strike of a COPPER JACKETED BULLET. There has been >much talk as you know of hunting rounds being fired on the plaza. By Oswald? Says who? Such conspiracy arguments are mutually contradictory. You see, I want one of the following three things to happen: 1. The conspiratti explain how a direct strike from Oswald's copper-jacketed ammo could cause the curb nick. 2. The conspiratti explain why they think Oswald fired at least one unjacketed round amongst his other, jacketed rounds. 3. The conspiratti stop babbling about Oswald missing by 20 to 30 feet in order to hit the Tague curb. Read my lips: a wild 20'-30' miss causing the curb nick is a straw man. It addresses no argument ever advanced by any lone-gunman theorist. >It hard to imagine a fragment caroming with enough energy to knock the curb >into Tague's face. I can imagine it more easily than I can imagine a different gunman for each shot or wound, each firing bullets with the appropriate penetrating power, composition, and frangibility needed to avoid a lone-gunman hypothesis. >Also, assuming that the curb strike was a skip or bounce from >somewhere else, we're stuck with explaining the lack of copper I don't think it's so improbable that a deflection might send part of the lead core on its way without any jacketing. CE567, one of the two front-seat fragments from the head shot, looks like nothing but jacketing. The other, CE569, looks turned almost inside-out. Posner quotes Lattimer as saying that in his experiments with this sort of 6.5mm ammo, the lead core "often" separated from the jacket. Marrs mentions in passing that Sheriff Decker and Officer Starvis Ellis claim to have seen pavement strikes. Does anyone have any details on precisely where they said the hits occurred? -- Brian Holtz Article 5115 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: 2000 fps Date: 20 Sep 1993 02:39:43 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 29 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <2783o0$gjk@vine.cp10.es.xerox.com> <00972CAC.6C00D520@vms.csd.mu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <00972CAC.6C00D520@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes: >I find it implausible that a real conspiracy would have more than one >shooter in Dealey Plaza, but I find it entirely unbelievable that it >would shoot at JFK with any weapon not capable of killing him. Warning, John, you have violated alt.conspiracy* protocol. You are not allowed to ask inconvenient questions about "why would The Conspiracy do this?" or "why didn't The Conspiracy do that?". You are only allowed to discuss the conclusions, methods, and motives of the Warren Commission. Don't presume to second-quess The Secret Team. They're top-drawer. They're the best. They leave nothing to chance. And don't think for a second that they aren't monitoring this newsgroup, evaluating whether it's time for Paul or Bruce or somebody to meet with an unfortunate accident. Whoops, I forgot, they actually foment the conspiracy industry, in order to muddy the waters and cover their tracks (to mix metaphors). Damn, but they're good! And, by implication, we're in their ballpark. Because we're on their trail. They didn't fool us. Our very persistence is keeping them on their toes, maybe even making them sweat. They may even slip up or crack some day, and then we'll have the last laugh. In the meantime, since our conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable, we face no danger of finding out we were wrong all along. We can't afford to, anyway. Not after all the mental investment we've made in excusing the butcher of the President whose martyrdom defines our political worldview. -- Brian Holtz Article 5153 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Posner + USN & WR claim SBT at 224 Date: 21 Sep 1993 07:10:22 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <00972671.16ED00E0@vms.csd.mu.edu> <00972A37.13427780@vms.csd.mu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <00972A37.13427780@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes: >As for the windshield: if a fragment could dent the chrome on top of >the windshield (and one did), I vaguely remember reading once that the dent was already there, but now I can't find the reference. >then I don't see why a fragment with a >higher trajectory couldn't make it *over* the windshield. The question is whether there's a parabolic trajectory between JFK's head and the curb that goes over the windshield and yet still has enough velocity to damage the curb. What we need is a photograph with a line of sight between those two points, ideally with a car or even THE limo at the appropriate Z313 spot. Altgen's photo (Z255) comes close, and it looks like getting the right trajectory seems dicey. But maybe Elm slopes more steeply down by Z313, and maybe the south side of Main is on higher ground than the Z313 killing ground... Has anybody here been to Dealey Plaza and stood in Tague's footprints, as it were? For that matter, how many of y'all have been to Dealey Plaza? (Email me and I'll summarize.) Next time I'm in Austin, I think I'll pop up to Dallas and do Dealey. -- Brian Holtz Article 5176 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: did anybody see this? i posted last week and saw NO responses... Date: 22 Sep 1993 00:52:05 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <162313Z21091993@anon.penet.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <162313Z21091993@anon.penet.fi> an2008@anon.penet.fi writes: >will any of the WC supporters even take a half hearted swipe at this >or am i wasting my time? In general, if you're listening to Lifton, you're wasting your time. >>it seems likely that the conspirators who grabbed the >>body might not have been in the most sane state of mind -- they were >>taking the biggest risk of all, even greater than those doing the >>shooting. it is entirely believable to me that they were responsible >>for placing the fake "rear entry" wounds, using some manner of low- >>velocity pistol round [...] >> >>one other thing, while i'm thinking of it...has anybody considered >>that some monkey business was carried out WRT the clocks in the >>autopsy room? Ah, I see. So, The Conspirators concocted a plan that depended on their being able to grab the body of the President of the United States, and being able to monkey with clocks in the autopsy room of the hospital that the First Lady chose? If it was within the power of The Conspiracy to do this, why didn't they just kill JFK in his sleep, or make Air Force One crash? >>whoever carried this out wasn't the smartest bunch in the world It seems that their intelligence was inversely proportional to their power (over JFK's body, Jackie, the autopists, DPD, Secret Service, WC, FBI, CIA, HSCA, etc). -- Brian Holtz Article 5198 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed Date: 23 Sep 1993 06:28:28 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 14 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1993Sep17.164924.1@relay.upenn.edu> <1.4988.1101.0NB2B99D@execnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1.4988.1101.0NB2B99D@execnet.com> tony.tortorelli@execnet.com (Tony Tortorelli) writes: > 1. How is it possible for a copper-jacket bullet to hit a tree > branch (which is less dense than bone), become seperated from > its copper jacket and then continue on an altered trajectory, > with enough velocity to chip a concrete curb (the 'magic miss') > while another copper-jacket bullet fractures bone (twice) and > only shows a slight deformation? The second copper-jacketed bullet had been slowed by passing through one and a half adult male torsos. -- Brian Holtz Article 5199 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner Date: 23 Sep 1993 07:26:21 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: > What I want to know is how did Posner get from: > > Frazier's "may have been" to > Krauss' "could have" and "might have" to > Pence's "could" to > Lattimer's "often" to > Posner's "likely" to > Posner's conclusion of "almost certainly". Posner's sources were assessing the probability of bullets doing this in general, when fired through branches and actually hitting one. The Dealey Plaza situation is much more constrained. If the Tague mark was not caused by a fragment, then you have to invent another gunman to cause it. Occam's Razor. Say you come home and find some change that your wife left on the dresser. One coin is laying heads-up and the other six are laying tails-up. When one lays the seven coins down randomly, the experts will tell you only that this particular result "can" happen. But given what you see on the dresser, do you think that the probability that she laid them down randomly is really as low as the probability of this particular result? No, of course not. Why not? Because the next-most-likely explanation -- that she put down this pattern on purpose -- is much less likely. > This comment followed > studies where test bullets were put through "four feet of > ponderosa pine" and "two feet of elm wood" without any > semblance of a jacket separation. Entering a soft, uniform medium like a wood block does not seem as likely to shatter a bullet as a glancing blow with a curved branch. > [Furthermore, in regard to Posner's reasoning, he states that > the damage to the pavement could only have come from a bullet > fragment since there was no copper found on the curb. How > could one conclude that without a prior assumption that the > bullet that struck the curb must have had a copper jacket?] Let's see. There is no evidence that anything other than copper-jacketed rounds were fired in Dealey Plaza. Would you have us just ignore that minor detail when considering the curb mark? Of course, you ignored the fact that Posner mentioned this justification only two sentences after advancing the conclusion that you question... > According to > Posner, Mr. Zapruder was subject to a jiggle on four > occasions during an eight second period, and that three > of those occasions were absolutely indicative of shots, while > the fourth does not even merit such consideration. "absolutely indicative"? He says no such thing. He says "while sudden movement of Zapruder's camera may not prove a shot was fired, its absence is good evidence that there was no shot." It seems that the truth is always just a little too dull for you conspiracy types, and it always improves with a little spicing... ;-) I'm not sure how much stock to put into jiggle analysis. Has anyone ever tried it on the Nix and Muchmore films? -- Brian Holtz Article 5283 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed Date: 26 Sep 1993 00:48:39 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <1.4988.1101.0NB2B99D@execnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Well, actually, if you buy the WC, the bullet actually had only passed >through about 4-5 inches of neck, brushing a vertebrae, and then >passing through less than an inch of JBC before encountering and >pulverizing 10cm of his 5th rib. > >I would hardly call this "one and a half adult male torsos". > >And this was a bullet that supposedly managed to pass through 4 feet of pine >boards before stopping. >5-6 inches of politician are not going to slow it much at all. The WR suggests that this would take several hundred feet per second off of the velocity. This is a dramatic energy loss, since energy is the square of velocity. >If a tree branch -- despite evidence of it happening -- could have >separated the jacket from one of the most stable and strongest bullets >around, then why didn't pulverizing 10cm of rib cause any damage to >the bullet? 1. It had been slowed down. 2. It was tumbling, and did not hit nose-on. 3. The bullet was somewhat flattened and the core was extruded a little. Note that fragmentation on impact with a hard oak branch is consistent with the head-shot fragmentation, Paul's mantra of copper-jacketing notwithstanding. In Lattimer's skull expirements, did those bullets fragment also? Mitchell? >I know one of the pro-WC will insist CE399 wasn't >pristine and will point out it was slightly squished, It's good that you are starting to internalize the arguments of the conspiracy skeptics, but old habits die hard. Why did you say "didn't [...] cause any damage" when you know perfectly well that it did? >and I will respond that it was less squished than similar bullets >fired into cotton waste -- see HSCA. How many were less squished? Some? All? One? See Posner. FAA fired a similarly-slowed-down bullet into a cadaver's wrist, and it emerged far more pristine than the "pristine" CE399. -- Brian Holtz Article 5285 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed Date: 26 Sep 1993 01:57:07 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 99 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <191303Z21091993@anon.penet.fi> <27tg9o$5fk@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <27tg9o$5fk@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >How could Oswald have fired a rifle, given that NAA tests of the cheek cast >proved otherwise? Is this the nitrates test, or something else? The nitrate test of the hands and cheek was consistent with Oswald being the gunman. >The first challenge faced by the WC was Oswald's status as an FBI >agent. [...] Years later counsel Michael Goldsmith of the HSCA was >face-to-face with Richard Helms then director of the CIA. [...] Did >your agency document its efforts to establish this search? I don't >know. Is there any report detailing your effort? Not to my >knowledge. Would the CIA's files be sufficient to resolve the issue? >I don't know. Why don't *you* answer Goldsmith's question? What would it take to convince *you* that Oswald was not an intelligence agent? Would Goldsmith's hypothetical report do it? >You see, there is no proof or disproof of this kind of thing. No kidding. Religion is predicated on the belief in unfalsifiable propositions. >Every "new" person I know, spies mostly, perhaps unreliable but who knows, >say he was a spy. They don't count. Not on the record. Fine. Think. There are two relevant types of witnesses here: 1) those who were in a position to know whether Oswald was an agent, and 2) the kooks, cranks, and nut cases who imagine he was. Which type of witness are we most likely to run out of first? Of which type is there likely to be an eternal supply? >But this "version" of Oswald, a rightist intelligence agent, who developed >a "leftist" legend while penetrating leftist organizations [...] ...who was recruited at the age of 14, and told to act in such a way that no one in their right mind would trust him with anything of the least sensitivity... Note that Oswald "penetrated" zero leftist organizations(*), and couldn't get anybody to join the one he started. (*) No, subscribing to _The Militant_ does not count, nor does being put to manual labor in a Soviet factory. >What documentation does Posner assemble to rebut this? Oh, Oswald's actual life story, boring stuff like that. >Or does he simply paint a completely different picture? Fortunately, reality is often looks quite "different" from fantasy... >How can one ever "resolve" this issue? It's resolved; you just don't know it. A modern, rigorous academic discipline is characterized by the ability of peer-reviewed investigators to come to the same conclusions independently, and accrete a solid foundation that at any given time is widely affirmed. How do you explain that the conspiracy that seems so obvious to you eludes a convergence of opinion among professional journalists and historians? History departments across the nation are full of Marxists, post-structuralists, and lots of others who consider themselves to be quite anti-Establishment. Why hasn't some hotshot grad student been able to get on the tenure track by exposing the JFK coup in a peer-reviewed history journal? Doesn't this bother you just a *little*? Just *how big* do you think this conspiracy *is*? >In many cases, Posner may have gone back to a level of "fact" >accepted as such by the investigations, but it is a well known fact >among meticulous researchers that unless you go back to the raw >primary data [...] Have you even read Posner? 200 interviews. Just one example from his top-to-bottom recompilation of Marrs' silly death list: Sylvia Meagher, Robert Sam Ansom, and David Scheim all reported that Carlin died in August 1964 in a Houston hotel fire. But there is no record of such a fire, much less a death certificate. Moreover, Carlin testified a second time to the WC on August 24, 1964, after the date she was supposed to have died. The latter datum probably came from his re-indexing of the 26 WC volumes, apparently the first since Meagher's. He says Meagher lists only 23 citations for Oswald's tendency toward violence, but that he found more than 50 in just the fifteen volumes of testimony. In footnote after footnote, he shows how the primary sources demolish simple factual errors that the conspiracy press has been propagating for years. >Unless you get back and pore over the original media, you never know. Was >Posner really that "original?" I think not. Have you even read Posner? I think not. -- Brian Holtz Article 5286 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner Date: 26 Sep 1993 04:16:09 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 218 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <27t3hs$psn@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <27t3hs$psn@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >|> If the Tague mark was not caused by a fragment, then you have to >|> invent another gunman to cause it. Occam's Razor. > >Exactly. If the Tague mark was not caused by a "known" fragment then you >have to admit another gunman. And if it can be attributed to the known miss, then we do not. >Here, Occam's razor is irrelevent and used >in its face to justify an unbelievable explanation What is so "unbelievable" about a ricochet fired from the TSBD causing the Tague event? Let's take Posner's specific scenario for this ricochet. Since the whole thing is "unbelievable", you would be unable to believe in this specific form of the ricochet theory. Would you then say that it would be pointless to conduct tests with a MC and an oak tree, to see if the hypothesized ricochet can be reproduced? If so: why? What makes you so prescient that you know what such an experiment would reveal? If not: how can you call the theory "unbelievable" if you are afraid it could be experimentally verified? >when a simple, more elegent one is readily available. Some shots are fired in Dealey Plaza, and we're not sure where at least one of them hits. An impact is noted by Tague, and it is now "simple" and "more elegant" if we have a separate gunman for that impact? This is absurd. >What would happen if you said, "yeah, one possible explanation is >a second shooter?" Would the world end? OF COURSE a second shooter is a POSSIBLE explanation. Hell, the Prouty/Garrison/Stone "Secret Team" fantasy is a POSSIBLE explanation for the whole assassination. The problem is, these "possibilities" are very small. Your questions disturb me. Would *your* "world end" if you admitted the logical possibility that Oswald acted alone? Why do I get the feeling that the answer is yes...? >|> given what you see on the dresser, do you think that the probability >|> that she laid them down randomly is really as low as the probability >|> of this particular result? > >Shouldn't we just ask her if she left them that way intentionally? Duh. Shouldn't we just ask Oswald if there was a conspiracy? OK, if you really need help grokking this though experiment, then change "dresser" to "lunch counter". The coins are a tip, and the customer is unknown and long gone. >The probability of 1H,7T given random, independent >events is fixed and eternal. It is independent of context. Yes. In fact the probability is precisely equal to the number of possible 1H7T layouts divided by the total number of possible layouts. It is very small, but pretend it is as large as 1/100. Now: do you think that the probability that *this* customer laid *these* coins down randomly on *this* lunch counter is really as low as 1/100? (Answer: of course not. This is how an abstract 1/100 chance can get promoted to a near certainty in a specific situation in which other explanations are lacking.) >The Tague strike a.) contained no copper and b.) was probably >not "characteristic" of a direct hit from an FMJ round. This leaves open the >logical possibility that it *was* the direct strike of a non-FMJ, i.e. >hunting, round. Hunting rounds, soft nosed rounds, readily fragment and are >more likely to cause wounds such as JFK's head wound than jacketed rounds, >so I'm told. Do you know differently? Consider these two hypotheses: A. In addition to the jacketed rounds that we know were being fired, there were also unjacketed rounds being fired, and they caused the curb mark. B. Fragments from the jacketed rounds caused the curb mark. Just because fragmentation is more likely (and lead curb smears less likely) with unjacketed rounds does *not* mean that A is more likely than B, given everything else we know. >Aren't we starting to suspect that "the" head strike is a little too >uncharacteristic of a single full metal jacketed round? If you grow a forensic pathologist in a test tube, and then show him the Z film and the head X-rays, then yes! He may very well say that an unjacketed round is a more likely cause than a jacketed round. But when you show him all the rest of the evidence, he may very well change his estimation of the likelihood. Do you really not see what I'm getting at? Is consistency with all the available evidence something that you really just don't care about? >who *was* identified as *the* Oswald look-alike at the shooting >range, the one who appeared to be implicating Oswald, owned a gun >shop, which bought and sold ammo, was known to have purchased WCC/MC >ammo, some of which was known to have been re-loaded for hunting. How can any given Oswald look-alike be "identified as *the* Oswald look-alike at the shooting range"? What was the basis for the identification? That they both looked like Oswald? >Further this crack shot, Oswald look-alike, who owned a hunting shop which >handled WCC/MC founds re-loaded as hunting rounds, Does this guy have a name? >was seen consorting with at least one known, violent anti-Castro >Cuban, who had been placed with local, Dallas, alpha-66 group, and >was seen at the Harlendale house, a house identified by one ex-CIA >member as the assassination headquarters in Dallas, a house fingered >by a DPD officer as one in which Oswald was known to have visited Sorry, but I've played this game long enough to know that "was seen with" and "was seen at" mean next to nothing when coming from the conspiratti. Every duplicate Oswald I've heard of simply unravels when you pull on any string. Posner dismantles more than a dozen such sightings, from the easy ones (like Lovelady on the TSBD steps) through Delphine Roberts and on up to the tough ones like Syliva Odio and the Clinton La. sightings. Of course, any pattern in the recurring flimsiness of these duplicate-Oswald stories seems to completely elude the conspiratti, whose eye for suspicious patterns seems to have big blind spots... Ok, I'll play. For each witness: When did his story first get written down? Has it evolved in conspiracy-convenient directions since then? Was he "found" by a conspiracy researcher? Was he paid for his story, or his interview? Does he have a history of personal instability or substance abuse? For each sighting: could Oswald really have been there, given what we know of his whereabouts from his wife, his diary, his travel papers, his landlord, his fellow tenants? Of course, I have no doubt you will be unable to answer these questions, since the conspiracy press has little interest in reporting such boring details... >There is both evidence of non-jacketed rounds in Dealey Plaza and that such >rounds were handled by individuals suspected of having the means, motive, and >opportunity to engage in a plot to kill the President. Why would the Secret Team implicate Oswald with jacketed ammo, but then use unjacketed ammo to do some of the shooting? (Let's see. I've asked a conspiracy theorest to second-guess the Conspiracy. What are the odds that I'll get an answer...?) >Given that Willis 5 and the Zfilm are self-corroborating, W5 shows >Zapruder and the Zfilm shows Willis *taking* Willis 5 What, is there a blur where his finger is depressing the shutter? >and given that Willis said he >snapped Willis 5, involuntarily, as a "jiggle" reaction to a shot, Yeah, like Willis used the word "jiggle"... >which he >identified as the "first" shot, and given that Willis said that he *saw* JFK >get hit by the shot, just *before* the sign, something that Zapruder also >said, couldn't we at least consider the possibility of a shot, here? OF COURSE we should "consider the possibility". I'm doing so right now, and I reject the probability: Zapruder didn't "*see*" JFK get hit by the shot, because *we* don't "*see*" JFK get hit by the shot on the Z film. Did Willis say he saw a bullet hit JFK, or did he say he saw JFK react to a shot? More likely the latter. People can miss event A, or misperceive event A, or be mistaken about the (lack of) time between events A and B, but they more rarely put event B before event A. I don't doubt that Willis thinks he took his picture as a reaction to a shot, but I do doubt his ability to guage its simultaneity with any particular shot, or to recall hearing exactly one shot for every actual shot. By contrast, compare SS agent Bennett hearing the first shot, then turning and hearing another shot as he "saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder". This is consistent with Connally hearing the first shot and then feeling another, different shot. Connally thought JFK was hit by that first shot that he heard, but the Z film shows that he is mistaken. Posner points out something that I noticed long ago. JBC initially thought JFK was hit by the first shot, but later realized he was mistaken. Nellie though JFK was hit by the first shot, but she also said that JBC said "no, no, no" after that shot, and then was hit. JBC says (and the Z film shows) that he said it after he was hit, thus Nellie was mistaken too. When Posner told JBC this, he replied It may well be that Mrs. Connally was mistaken about seeing the President raise his arms after the first shot. That might have been after the second shot. And if that is true, it would make it all very, very consistent. The first bullet could have missed us both. The third bullet definitely only hit him. Based upong the angles, the second bullet, which went through his neck, could have gone through my back. The second bullet could have hit both of us. >Every piece of this self-corroborating evidence, elaborated with testimony, >is superior to every piece of evidence used to "justify" the z162 "miss." Hardly. Bennett's story is overwhelming evidence that the first shot missed JFK. Connally's story of turning after hearing the first shot is overwhelming evidence that the first shot happened c. Z162. >Does Posner even deal with this evidence? No. (He was already at 606 pages.) -- Brian Holtz Article 5288 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner Date: 26 Sep 1993 04:56:57 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: >>course, you ignored the fact that Posner mentioned this justification >>only two sentences after advancing the conclusion that you question... > >I don't understand. I thought I quoted Posner making this >justification. Why don't you post the sentence you reference? Please. "The 6.5mm bullets used in Oswald's gun had full copper jackets...", p. 325. I ask you yet again: would you have us just ignore that minor detail when considering the curb mark? >>> According to >>> Posner, Mr. Zapruder was subject to a jiggle on four >>> occasions during an eight second period, and that three >>> of those occasions were absolutely indicative of shots, while >>> the fourth does not even merit such consideration. >> >>"absolutely indicative"? He says no such thing. He says "while >>sudden movement of Zapruder's camera may not prove a shot was fired, >>its absence is good evidence that there was no shot." It seems that >>the truth is always just a little too dull for you conspiracy types, >>and it always improves with a little spicing... ;-) > >Let's see. Posner says: "... the jiggle between 220 - 228 is caused >by the second shot." Yeah, you BETTER put in the ellipsis, if you don't want to look like a *total* idiot. The *whole* sentence is: "As is discussed at pages 327-329, the jiggle between 220-228 is caused by the second shot." In other words, his conclusion of a shot c.Z224 is does NOT follow directly from a 220-228 jiggle, as you would have us believe. Rather, it is based on a thorough analysis of what JFK and JBC are *doing* in the Z film. By constrast, the 'missing' jiggle has nothing in the Z film to corroborate a shot. >"The largest spastic movement by Zapruder >came at frames 313-314, the moment of the head shot." Do you dispute this statement? More to the point: are you saying that in this sentence, Posner is following some kind of ironclad IF-jiggle-THEN-shot rule that he discards for the other jiggle? I think that's what you *are* saying, and it's a bald-faced lie, totally refuted by the Posner quote ("while sudden...") I gave above. >Those two statements sound pretty absolute. Your indictment of Posner here is the most pathetic thing I've seen on this group in quite a while... >And what does Posner say about the fourth (third sequentially) jiggle? > >Absolutely nothing. He says nothing about that *specific* jiggle, because nothing else on the Z film supports a shot at that time. But he *does* say that it is wrong to assume that a jiggle is absolutely indicative of a shot. So stop lying about Posner's logic. >I think the truth is that there was a fourth jiggle, >and to interpret that three of those jiggles had certain, identifiable >causes and to ignore the fourth jiggle is irresponsible journalism. What's "irresponsible" (or just plain pathetic) is to say that Posner is inconsistent in how he uses the four jiggles. He says that three corresond to shots identifiable on the film, and ignores the fourth obviously because it doesn't. >That "fourth event" is consistent with earwitness testimony >that Posner also ignores. Which witness said he heard a shot specifically at Z190? How could they know when they heard the shot? If you're talking about the witnesses (5%) who counted four shots: he also ignores that his 3-meaningful-jiggle analysis is consistent with what most witnesses (88%) counted. So? -- Brian Holtz Article 5289 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner Date: 26 Sep 1993 05:15:34 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <93266.124950U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <93266.124950U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >>Say you come home and find some change that your wife left on the >>dresser. [...] > >Once again after a refreshing respite from Holtz's fractured logic, >he feels moved to inflict us once again with his utterances. This from the guy who posted screen after screen of stuff about Zen and the dialectic... >What would the thinking be if we discovered this pattern five times >in a row on successive nights? Thanks for completely missing the point of my thought experiment. I thought the "say you come home and find" construction was enough to imply that you do not have perfect (or even arbitrarily extensible) knowledge about the situation. (If you did, I wouldn't have asked you about *probabilities*, now, would I?) Refer to my last posting to Paul if you need this thought experiment written out for you in crayons... >There is an old tale used in freshman logic. The irony here speaks for itself... > For he began to beat up this woman. [...] he kept kicking her [...] > >third person: Uh, Alan is not telling you the whole story. The > woman's clothes were on fire. Cute story, but the story in your example was not simpley incomplete, but patently inaccurate. "Beat up" carries all kind of assault baggage, and nobody kicks to put out a fire. Try again. >Finding a coin pattern on the dresser would inspire me to ask >relevant questions, not get lost in how many angels can be >placed upon the head of a pin type of mental masturbation. You can ask all you want, but sometimes the answers won't be coming. (E.g., "Mr. Oswald, why did you shoot at JFK?") Imperfect knowledge is a fact of life in the real world that exists outside of freshman logic (viz., down the hall in Statistics 101). Refer to my other article to see how a slim probability plus a constrained situation can lead to a conclusion of near certainty. -- Brian Holtz Article 5290 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed Date: 26 Sep 1993 05:34:17 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: >>What would it take to >>convince *you* [Paul] that Oswald was not an intelligence agent? > >I'm coming into the middle of this thread, so I don't know exactly >what was said previously. But I wonder why you phrase what may >have been a relationship between the CIA and LHO as "agent". Because Paul wrote: The first challenge faced by the WC was Oswald's status as an FBI agent. >I don't believe LHO was recruited at the age of 14, nor do I think >he ever achieved a trusted position with anyone in regard to any >of his activities. Does that preclude an association with the >intelligence community? No, but it *does* preclude Paul's idea that Oswald was "a rightist intelligence agent, who developed a 'leftist' legend while penetrating leftist organizations". That's all I *said* it precluded. Next time, try looking before you leap (into a thread). >1. The first shot was "almost certainly deflected by a branch". A little strong, but the most plausible theory for the Tague event. >2. The entry wound in JC was 1.25" long. Already explained by Mitchell. >3. LHO's activities and connections in New Orleans. >4. David Ferrie. >5. Ruby's connections to organized crime. What's to discuss? Posner blows these away. I have a suggestion for Mitchell and John. From now on, we (and other conspiracy skeptics) should refuse to discuss "links", "ties", "connections", and "associations". The conspiracy industry has drained these words of all meaning. Be specific or be gone. >6. The three tramps. I forget if Posner mentioned it, but their arrest report was recently found, and one tramp was located and interviewed. It turns out the three tramps were -- three tramps. >7. The Warren commissioners. Gee, why didn't you just add 8. The Conspiracy ? -- Brian Holtz Article 5296 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Joining the fray Date: 26 Sep 1993 17:43:48 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <1624200031@igc.apc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1624200031@igc.apc.org> David Stern writes: >with a magnitude so great that the motor- cycle cop travelling to the >left and rear who was hit by those avulsed portions thought he had >been shot himself? "magnitude so great". Sorry, but this statement has zero content for a physicist. When some people (e.g. Reagan) get shot, they don't even know it. Other people hear a shot, drive into a spray of brain and bone, and think they *have* been shot. You can only measure momentum by its *physical* effects, not by its *psychological* effects. The physical effects of the head shot were: - JFK's head is driven *forward* between Z312 and Z313. (The celebrated backward movement does not appear until Z314-Z315.) - All the ejecta visible on the Z film moves forward; none backward. - Fragments from the head shot crack the windshield and dent its chrome. - Fragments from the head shot are found in the *front* seat; none are found behind Kennedy. - The fragments in the head X-ray radiate forward from the rear point of impact. - JBC reports that he was pelted with brain and bone from JFK's head like "birdshot". - Some people suggest that the Tague curb mark/wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. >The law, not known to be violated under such mundane conditions, states that >energy and mass are conserved in any transaction between the two. Energy is >a vector, which implies that it has a direction component. Wrong, and wrong. Overall mass-energy is conserved, but mass and energy can be freely interconverted. Energy is not a vector; momentum is. You're confusing mass-energy conservation with momentum conservation. As noted above, all the observable and inferred momentum from the head shot is *forward*. -- Brian Holtz Article 5297 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner Date: 26 Sep 1993 17:48:58 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <27t3hs$psn@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: >presented, for the first time in thirty years as far as I can tell, >the testimony of an eyewitness to corroborate his hypothesis. Huh? Are you talking about Rachley's report of a street impact for the first shot? She reported that immediately. Can't you read a simple footnote? -- Brian Holtz Article 5299 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner Date: 26 Sep 1993 18:49:10 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: >Where does Posner say that there is nothing else on the Zfilm to >support a shot at that time? Where does Posner indicate that he >did any research of the Zfilm to draw that conclusion? Let me >help you. He doesn't. Hold on. Stop. Pretend that Posner included the following sentence in his sole paragraph about the jiggles: "The Z189 jiggle corresponds to nothing in the Z film indicating a shot." If he had done this, would you then not have called him "irresponsible"? What do you want? A list of all the possible corroborating evidence that he *doesn't* find on the Z film? Don't you realize such a list has infinite length? >A "jiggle analysis" is done. But not, apparently, by Posner or FAA. He says he is reporting Alvarez's work. >1. He doesn't analyze the Nix or Muchmore films to verify > the jiggles. Nobody else has, either (as far as I know). What, is Posner not allowed to report on Alvarez's work if he doesn't do all the related research that Mark Singer thinks Alvarez should have done? You have a curious notion of what constitutes "irresponsible journalism". >2. He doesn't analyze the Zfilm between frames 189 - 197 for > corroboration of the second event. How do you know? Did you watch him watch the Z film? All you know is that he doesn't report such a (presumably fruitless) analysis. Would you care to speculate as to how many fruitless analyses Posner conducted wile writing the book? >3. He doesn't analyze the jiggle more fully regarding the > time frame. I'm curious about that, two. First of all, I'm not sure what counts as a jiggle. Is it a rapid mini-pan of what the camera sees, or is it a blur in a consecutive frame or two? I see lots of the former, but only a few of the latter. The Z158-159 blur is perfectly consistent with Posner's first shot. He says the biggest blur is Z313-314, but Z318 is far blurrier than those. Z221 and Z227 are the only blurry ones I see in that neighborhood, and in Z223-Z224 we see the lapel flap. If the lapel flap is caused by his arm's reaction to the bullet, instead of by the bullet itself, then it fits well. Z192-3 are blurry, and Z198 is as blurry as Z318. I guess I would have to read Alvarez's paper to put much more faith in the whole notion of jiggle analysis. Posner certainly doesn't devote much attention to it. >I was referring to the "substantial majority" of eyewitnesses who >heard two shots "bunched" together (WR). A shot at frames 189 - >197 would be consistent with that earwitness testimony. Posner's shots are "bunched", too. Just how many ticks of a standard Cesium atom is one metric "bunch"? >Perhaps such reasearch would prove fruitless. Perhaps not. >Posner wouldn't know. Geez, he only devoted *one paragraph* to the whole notion of jiggle analysis. Just because your favorite paragraph doesn't get its own chapter doesn't make Posner "irresponsible". Your attack on Posner in this instance is totally baseless. >Perhaps I am just a total idiot, bald-faced, pathetic liar. This >is the second time I have tried to enjoin a Posner supporter in >a discussion of that book, and the second time that I have been >immediately assualted with name-calling and insults. Gee, after assaulting Posner for what he simply chose not to spend much time on, YOU sure do get touchy when you are asked about the falsehood implied by something you DID say! The most obvious reading of your original article was that Posner was "irresponsible" because he applies some "absolutely indicative" IF-jiggle-THEN-shot rule for his 3 shots, and then conveniently ignores the rule for the other jiggle. I said that such a charge is a lie. You now say this isn't what you meant. Fine. Next time you imply a blatant falsehood, I'll just call you "irresponsible"... -- Brian Holtz Article 5300 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed Date: 26 Sep 1993 19:06:23 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 56 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Anybody test 6.5mm FMJ rounds against human ribs, >slowed down by "several hundred fps"?? Good question. >>2. It was tumbling, and did not hit nose-on. > >It wasn't tumbling. No evidence. PuhLEEZ. You have been made painfully aware of the evidence and arguments for a tumbling impact on JBC's back; you simply interpret the evidence differently. Fine. But DO NOT say there is "no evidence". This is the kind of blatant evidence-ignoring that you only *wish* the WR engaged in. At LEAST say "no credible evidence". But don't sit there and LIE and say there is nothing that can be construed as evidence for tumbling. It's a lie. You know it. >> 3. The bullet was somewhat flattened and the core was >>extruded a little. > >Yes, but when compared to a bullet fired into cotton waste by the WC, >it is less flattened and has less lead extruded. See HSCA. And yet the HSCA endorsed the SBT. I wonder what the HSCA said about these tests that you're not bothering to tell us... >>In Lattimer's skull expirements, did those bullets >>fragment also? Mitchell? > >They left no fragments in the skulls. What basis do you have for this statement? >The did separate upon exit. What basis do you have for saying that they separated on exit, but not on entry? Why would transitting skull->air cause separation but air->skull not? >>>I know one of the pro-WC will insist CE399 wasn't >>>pristine and will point out it was slightly squished, > >>It's good that you are starting to internalize the arguments of the >>conspiracy skeptics, but old habits die hard. Why did you say "didn't >>[...] cause any damage" when you know perfectly well that it did? > >See comparison photo in HSCA. IT was less damaged [...] Goody. However, I would STILL like an answer to my question. Why did you say "didn't [...] cause any damage" when you know perfectly well that it did?" Doesn't this remark, and your "no evidence" lie, indicate that you just don't care much about the truth? -- Brian Holtz Article 5303 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Just suppose.... Date: 27 Sep 1993 03:46:18 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 88 Message-ID: References: <1993Sep26.175056.9336@henson.cc.wwu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1993Sep26.175056.9336@henson.cc.wwu.edu> paulf@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Paul dArmond) writes: >Just suppose.... > >1) That Oswald *did* shoot Tippet, but didn't shoot anybody else. Why would Oswald shoot just Tippit? >1) Somebody shot the president. [...] > >6) The Feds, in the resulting chaos, make the decision that Oswald has to >be shown *not* to be working as part of a conspiracy, due to the grave >danger of nuclear war. If Johnson wanted to avoid a nuclear war, he could have done it a way that would be less risky to his political career than a cover-up of the conspiracy that put him in office! >So they arrange a cover-up and frame Oswald Too risky. How could they know that the cover-up would succeed? How could they know that some conspirator wouldn't slip up or talk, or that some journalist would expose the conspiracy/cover-up, and thus end the careers of Johnson and the entire WC? >History is full >of blunders like this, the outbreak of WWI comes to mind. The asses that covered themselves here were in fact the asses responsible for dropping the ball. Johnson and the WC were not responsible for not protecting Kennedy. (Note that there was a minor cover-up on the part of the Dallas FBI, which destroyed a threatening note from Oswald instead of giving it to the WC. The FBI temporarily suspended offending agent Hosty, but returned the back pay in 1979 when he retired.) >Assume that there was (and continues to be) a conspiracy to prevent >the facts from coming to light. Why would the conspiracy continue? The Cold War is over. Johnson and the WC no longer have power to continue it. >It seems pretty clear >that Jackie was trying to help him get into the car. No, she was retrieving a piece of JFK's head. She handed it to Dr. Ron Jones in the ER at Parkland. >She doesn't start to rise out of the back seat until he slips. Nope; look at the Nix film. In article dsteven1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Duncan Stevens) writes: >Were Oswald's multitude of CIA ties just a coincidence, Oswald didn't have a multitude of such ties. The CIA simply had a passing interest in him as a defector, and as somebody who approached commie embassies in Mexico City. >or was he elected to be tied into everything because they had such a >huge file on him? Anyone who "elected" Oswald as the patsy had to be in on the planning of the assassination. (In fact, LHO "elected" himself when he shot JFK and Tippit, and then got himself arrested.) >And are we to suppose that they acted fast enough to arrange for >Ruby's little intervention two days after the assassination? Paul wasn't suggesting that the government chose Oswald over anybody, nor did he suggest that the government sent Ruby to kill Oswald. Paul's idea was that the cover-up started some time after Ruby killed Oswald. >I do like the theory, though--[...] it makes the case all the >stronger for reopening the investigation on official levels now. A ton of WC and HSCA files have just been released. They won't support this theory, because this theory is false. >The Cold War's over-- and yet the cover-up is being maintained. Q: Why? (A: No cover-up.) -- Brian Holtz Article 5310 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner Date: 27 Sep 1993 17:56:50 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 189 Message-ID: References: <93266.124950U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> <93270.054913U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <93270.054913U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> Alan Rogers writes: >>>What would the thinking be if we discovered this pattern five times >>>in a row on successive nights? >> >>Thanks for completely missing the point of my thought experiment. [...] >> >And as always, Holtz, missing the point of the reply [...]: >proper investigatory techniques(such as was apparently >*not* done in this case) are far superior to building simpleminded >scenariors of probability [...] No kidding. I defy you to quote me as saying that investigation is inferior to statistical analysis. I explicitly said that we do not have "arbitrarily extensible" knowledge; that is, investigation necessarily cannot yield perfect knowledge. You seem to have forgotten that this thread isn't about the best way to get at the truth of Nov. 22, 1962. This thread is about Mark's complaint that Posner illicitly promotes "could have"/"might have" to "almost certainly" in the case of jacket separation causing the Tague event. (In a recent posting I explicitly called for "investigation" in this matter: shooting a MC at an oak tree.) I am simply trying to educate Mark about how the probability of an abstract class of events can differ from the probability that an event of that class occured in a particular situation. THIS is "the point". Now, I defy you to explain how your reply addresses it. It doesn't. >>>third person: Uh, Alan is not telling you the whole story. >> >>the story in your example was not simpley incomplete, >>but patently inaccurate. [Note that your story is completely off "the point" of abstract probability changing to "almost certainly" in a particular case.] >Of course, "beat up" carries latent coercion. That's why I used it. >It is the same latent coercion found in several pro-conspiracy books >to persuade readers to believe that LHO was really a James Bond. It is >also the technique used by anti-conspiracy writers like Posner to >convince us that there is no other conceivable reason for a lapel flip >other than a bullet passing through it. Latent coercion is the >point [...] I defy you to explain how "latent coercion" has anything to do with Mark's question about abstract probability being changed in a particular case. How did "the point" get transmogrified into a general diatribe about faulty reasoning in the assassination press? >and I don't need to "try again." You will have to put on your thinking >cap, "again." Latent coercion is epitomized in the jocular question, >"So, when did you stop beating your wife?" and in the most flagrant >and most amusing example of its use in Posner where we are explicitly >beaten over the head with the continuous and implicit asking of this >question to LHO through more than half the book. That's nice. What on earth does this have to do with Mark's question about Posner's treatment of the probabilities of the Tague event? Feel free to continue ignoring "the point"... >Why if LHO continuously beat his wife, then he must have been someone >who was psychopathic enough to kill JFK. [This is completely off "the point", but I can't resist.] So, would you have had Posner completely ignore Oswald's treatment of Marina? If not, what should Posner have done differently. Be explicit. Whining about how the facts of LHO's life hurts your conspiracy argument does not count. >Just think of all those men who beat their wives then, they >all could have been potential presidential assassins. It's a wonder >we ever survived such a time. And if the "patsy" in the JFK case were a pacifist divinity student and conscientious objector, instead of a wife-beating ex-marine "hunter of fascists", are you saying that the likelihood of the lone-"patsy" theory would be the same? This is absurd. >Many times mistaken scenarios get passed off as 'absolute certainties" >because of the poverty of thought invested in trying to understand >what is possible in some instance. Lots of things are merely "possible". Posner and I are interested in what likely happened. >>You can ask all you want, but sometimes the answers won't be coming. > >And certainly not from you or Posner. Reliable ones, that is. [Gratuitous ad hominem, reproduced for the amusement of our home viewers.] >Yes, it seems that the world is saturated with imperfect knowledge >EXCEPT in the theories of Mr. Holtz and Mr. Posner. There, knowledge >has reached a plateau beyond any questioning or contrary opinion. Truly, sir, your satire has cut me to the quick! What stunning originality, what richness of though, to take the satirical tack of pretending that one's interlocutor holds a monopoly on truth, with apodictic certainty no less! Check and mate to Mr. Rogers. What argument could hope to stand against this devastating assault? I humbly withdraw all my proferred "theories", climb down from my "plateau", and eyes averted, await enlightenment at your foot. >>Refer to my other article to see how a slim probability plus a >>constrained situation can lead to a conclusion of near certainty. > >Wow, near certainty. Absolute nirvana!!!! How stupid we all are who >might view "slim probability + constrained situation = near certainty" >as stretching premises to fit the theory and distorting the facts to >bolster the tenets. By all means, continue frothing at the mouth, instead of addressing either Posner's analysis of the Tague probabilities or my thought experiment... >Yes, I took note of your other post. I think >that you should continue your practice of bellowing and browbeating >your assertions on your readers. Oh, I guess this is how you "address" my though experiment. No "bellowing" or "browbeating" here, no sir... >We are entertained by the fact that after you and >Posner uses the jiggle analysis to bolster your tenets, Does it not bolster Posner's theory (!= tenets)? For review, Posner's logic is: 1. While sudden movement of Zapruder's camera may not prove a shot was fired, its absence is good evidence that there was no shot. 2. Three of the four jiggles correspond to Posner's shots. 3. Therefore, the jiggle analysis bolsters Posner's theory. >and it was >pointed out that this jiggle analysis was distorted by exclusion, What exclusion? He mentioned all four jiggles, and admitted that jiggle presence does not necessarily imply shot. I ask you what I asked Mark: Pretend that Posner included the following sentence in his sole paragraph about the jiggles: "The Z189 jiggle corresponds to nothing in the Z film indicating a shot." If he had done this, would you then not have called him "irresponsible"? What do you want? A list of all the possible corroborating evidence that he *doesn't* find on the Z film? Don't you realize such a list has infinite length? >it now becomes "not that important" in your or his support of >"the only true theory supported by the facts." Your quotation marks lie. I never said either utterance, and Posner certainly didn't say "not that important" in connection with the jiggle analysis. And I'll bet that Posner never uttered "the only true theory supported by the facts". Didn't you simply make up these phrases and put quotes around them? Is that supposed to somehow NOT be "irresponsible"? What I *did* say is that Posner only devoted one paragraph to jiggle analysis in a 600-page book, and that he was apparently just reporting Alvarez's research. Again: what should he have done? Not discuss the jiggle analysis at all? >How many points of "fact" will you and he have to back off before the >main contention falls apart? Posner doesn't "back off", and I was never 'on' jiggle analysis in the first place. Hah. If a theory could "fall apart" because its supporters often have to "back off" from what they thought were "facts", the Conspiracy would have been reduced to quarks and leptons long ago. Here's a hint: if you want to critique Posner, stick to his carelessness on the JBC back wound dimensions, or his implication in a footnote that Cheramie did not predict the assassination. But don't whine that Posner should make your case *for* you. >How long will it take before we see that Posner is >no better than Groden or Prouty or Garrison or Donahue? Who did Posner hypnotize, or inject with sodium pentathol? [You've blown it now. Garrison has zero credibility. Mentioning Posner and Garrison in the same breath is a joke. Here I thought you were a serious buff like Paul and Bruce, but they would never make such a statement.] -- Brian Holtz Article 5339 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed Date: 28 Sep 1993 07:25:09 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <1.4988.1101.0NB2B99D@execnet.com> <1993Sep28.141015.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1993Sep28.140000.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >> .... Pretend that Posner included the following sentence >> in his sole paragraph about the jiggles: "The Z189 jiggle corresponds >> to nothing in the Z film indicating a shot." If he had done this, >> would you then not have called him "irresponsible"? [...] > >A simple acknowledgement that he didn't find anything else on the >film would at least mean that he had been objective and thorough! So one sentence, confirming the null hypothesis, is the difference between "irresponsible journalism" and being "objective and thorough". Let this be a lesson, kiddies... ;-) >If you rely on Alvarez, then then the three shots effected Z at 180, >290 and 313 Really? I wonder why Posner has four jiggles, only two of which correspond to these. In article <1993Sep28.141015.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >BTW, my understanding of the Z film is that it was not until Z170 that >LHO became unsighted by the tree. No, he was unsighted from Z166 to Z210. -- Brian Holtz Article 5340 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: A Challenge to Posner - Jiggle Analysis Date: 28 Sep 1993 08:11:01 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 123 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: >>Pretend that Posner included the following sentence >>in his sole paragraph about the jiggles: "The Z189 jiggle corresponds >>to nothing in the Z film indicating a shot." If he had done this, >>would you then not have called him "irresponsible"? > >Probably not. Thank you. >I wonder how it is that >the jiggle effects either precede or coincide with the impacts. I wonder too. Does Alvarez not address this at all? I don't think it's necessarily Posner's job to critique and improve on every peer-reviewed scientific paper that he cites. >And nobody else (as far as I know) has ever published that jiggle >analysis is corroborating evidence. I think the HSCA did. >I do not know what the HSCA did with this information. Had they >considered it corroborating evidence of *four* shots I think they did. >> What, is Posner not >>allowed to report on Alvarez's work if he doesn't do all the related >>research that Mark Singer thinks Alvarez should have done? > >Posner is allowed to write and publish whatever he wants. And I >am allowed to read it and criticize it however I see fit. I wasn't talking about the First Amendment. I was talking about whether it's "irresponsible" to cite peer-reviewed physics papers without doing all the related research that Mark Singer thinks should be done. >>You have a >>curious notion of what constitutes "irresponsible journalism". > >I would venture a guess that you have made similar, if not harsher, >indictments of some aspects of conspiracy books. So if a case can be made that one conspiracy book is "irresponsible journalism", that gives you carte blanche to say the same thing about the anti-conspiracy book of your choice? Listen, we're not going on an indictment-quota system here. If I call something irresponsible, it's because I can back up the charge. >>Would you care to speculate as to how many fruitless analyses Posner >>conducted wile writing the book? > >Gladly. Zero. If he had performed any analyses on aspects that >would support the possibility of a conspiracy and found them to >be fruitless, he would certainly have reported it. How do you know? He didn't talk about the umbrella man. He didn't talk about JFK's driver as a gunman. He didn't talk about on-film evidence for a shot corresponding to the Z190 jiggle. You could fill a whole separate book with fruitless analyses of conspiracy possibilities. Ask Marrs. ;-) >Zero. I win that one. Sorry, extra innings. >I cannot find any way to consider 0, 3.5 and 8.4 seconds to fall >within any definition of ["bunched"]. One pair are closer together than the other. >I think it is extremely important for authors to use appropriate >methods and measures, and to be thorough and precise in their use of >language. Those in favor (AYE): _______ . Opposed (NAY): _______. I think it is extremely important, that for all X, if an author finds no evidence for X he should say so, no matter how many trees have to suffer to lengthen his book. (AYE): _______. (NAY): _______. >>The most obvious reading of your original article was that Posner was >>"irresponsible" because he applies some "absolutely indicative" >>IF-jiggle-THEN-shot rule for his 3 shots, and then conveniently >>ignores the rule for the other jiggle. I said that such a charge >>is a lie. You now say this isn't what you meant. Fine. [...] > >It's a book, Brian. It's not the Bible. It's not the Holy Grail. >It's not the Tablets handed down from the mountaintop. It's a >book. Nice non sequitor. (You're preaching to an atheist, by the way.) >It has some good parts. Some very good parts. It also has >some inaccuracies and deficiencies. Did I ever say it didn't? Can we please skip the truisms? >If I have implied something like "blatant falsehood" (as opposed >to inferred), then I apologize. I do think it is possible for >authors on both sides of this topic to succumb to that, but I >have no evidence that Posner did so. No, no, I said that *you* implied a statement that was blatantly false. (See above.) I didn't say that you said *Posner* did so. >I believe the inclusion >of jiggle analysis in his work without further research to >establish its value was a deficiency. If you want a list of other books and papers that Posner didn't rewrite, consult his bibliography. ;-) Apparently Posner is riddled with "deficiencies"... >What I do have evidence of is some rather reckless use of language, >and I do think it is intentional. Oh? How does it compare to your ellipsis-ing of Posner's reference to *two pages* of argument, so that you can say Posner makes a one-sentence leap from jiggle to shot? -- Brian Holtz Article 5349 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed Date: 28 Sep 1993 16:54:33 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 13 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1.5144.1101.0NB2F53A@execnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1.5144.1101.0NB2F53A@execnet.com> tony.tortorelli@execnet.com (Tony Tortorelli) writes: > Why did you choose to *ignore* the second question: > > 2. It seems to be a simple matter for these events to be > recreated (...physically, of course. No need for computer > analysis) so why has this not been done? I did not answer it because I do not know the answer. In a recent article I proposed that this test be done. -- Brian Holtz Article 5350 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Case Closed: Three Tramps Date: 28 Sep 1993 17:25:30 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: >A comparison of the Fontaine tramps to >the photos just does not appear credible. Says you. They seemed quite credible to me. >Certainly, Posner did not bother to contact Alan Weberman and >Michael Canfield, whose work was instrumental in identifying >the tramps in 1975. Posner claims that following the airing >of this report that "... the conspiracy press suddenly and >quietly abandoned the issue", which is untrue. Weberman and >Canfield jumped on the story and have expanded on it in the >reprinting of their book, "Coup D'Etat in America", which >arrived on the bookshelves last year. Let's see. Weberman and Canfield have an *entire book* devoted to showing that the tramps are the key to a "Coup D'Etat in America". Their theory falls apart when the tramps are found, but they decide to cash in on the crash by reprinting their book. Gee, what are the odds that they would NOT re-issue a book based on the tramps when the tramps get found? Somehow I don't think that W. and C. count as a representative sample of the conspiracy press on the tramp issue. Whaddya wanna bet that the *rest* of the conspiracy press has abandoned the issue, since they lack both the evidence and financial interest to keep it alive? >(Note: Doyle, the >tramp recently itnerviewed, refused to provide Weberman and >Canfield with any old photos for comparison purposes. How often do homeless tramps sit down for photo sessions? Did it occur to you that perhaps he doesn't *have* any photos from back then? >When did his story first get written down? > 1992. Bzzzt. Is the guy's name not Harold Doyle? Is Harold Doyle not the name written down in Nov. 1963 on the police report? (cf. Beverly Oliver, whose name did not get associated with the Babushka Lady until 1970.) >Was he "found" by a lone-assassin researcher? > Yes. Ah, so "A Current Affair" is a tool of the Warrenites, and was hoping that the Harold Doyle they found was an ex-tramp instead of, say, a CIA agent. Yep, I can see how "A Current Affair" would have *hated* to make a splash like *that*... > And Gedney refused to be interviewed despite being offerred > a substantial sum for his story. Perhaps his embarassment over having once been a homeless tramp outweighs his greed (or sense of duty to history). >Does he have a history of personal instability or substance abuse? > Yes. Imagine that! A bum with a history of personal instability or substance abuse! >But in debunking them, has he used responsible >journalism or just more rhetoric and hyperbole? "Rhetoric and hyperbole"? I defy you to tell us which of Posner's twelve sentences on the three tramps counts as "rhetoric and hyperbole". Go ahead. Make my day. (Posner's remark about "the conspiracy press" only counts if you can find a conspiracist without a book contract *based on* the tramps not being tramps.) >He used an ever-increasing enthusiasm for a theory, >eventually calling it "almost certain" without providing any >documentation or test results, but rather only speculation. I already explain this "increase" to you. You ignored it. Again: there is often a difference between the probability of an abstract class of events and the probability that an instance of that class occurred in a particular situation. Feel free to continue ignoring this, and continue spouting about Posner's "ever-increasing enthusiasm"... -- Brian Holtz Article 6340 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: ANIMATION OF ASSASSINATION Date: 15 Nov 1993 21:36:09 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <1993Nov14.201858.26958@ncsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Yesterday's New York Times said that a company was coming out with a multimedia CD product on the assassination, complete with a digitized Zapruder film and line-of-fire views along the major hypothesized bullet paths. I forget the name of the company, but I remember they are based in Redmond Wash. -- home of a far more sinister conspiracy than the one that supposedly killed JFK. -- Brian Holtz Article 6382 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Marina movie Date: 17 Nov 1993 07:08:26 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <009759AE.FE154F20@vms.csd.mu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes: >Seems like one could only complain about the spin >put on this or that item. Well, the movie re-affirmed Marina's claim that she took the Hunter Of Fascists photos. The Conspiratti have always said that this and other damning testimony from Marina was the result of government pressure. But with the end of the Cold War, and Marina being publicly pro-conspiracy and cooperating with NBC (and previously, Jack Anderson), surely she is no longer afraid. Nevertheless, I have not heard that she has recanted anything: the photos, the Walker shooting, Lee's proposed hijacking, etc. >One comment: I'm puzzled by the reluctance of filmmakers to portray Ruth >Paine with her real name. Stone also used a pseudonym for her. Privacy? But >she appeared in person and testified extensively in the mock trial on HBO >or whatever it was. As far as I can tell, Mrs. Paine is simply showing good taste. She cooperated with the mock trial and with Frontline, but apparently balked at Oliver Stone and the made-for-TV movie. Speaking of Frontline, they certainly hit paydirt with a Civil Air Patrol photo showing both Ferrie and Oswald.... -- Brian Holtz Article 6598 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Russell/Anniversary Date: 23 Nov 1993 02:53:32 GMT Organization: Sun Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article jimh@gagme.chi.il.us (Jim M. Hargrove) writes: >In his wallet was a U.S. military issue California driver's >license and a mimeographed newsletter addressed to Richard Case Nagell from >something called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC). El Paso newspaper >stories for the next several days would describe more of Nagell's strange >possessions. This is ambiguous. Are you saying that the newspaper (or even police report) mentioned the FPCC newsletter *before* Nov. 22? >Years later, in the 1990s, Jim Bundren [said] >"I was sitting next to Nagell at one of his preliminary hearings," the former >cop told the TV Guide writer. I don't remember the exact date, but I know it >was before the Kennedy assassination. [...] >"Nagell just smiled and said, `Well, I'm glad you caught me. I really don't >want to be in Dallas.' > >"I said, `What do you mean by that?' > >"`You'll see soon enough,' he said." Pretty conVENient that Bundren didn't manage to get this into the public record until the 1990s. Is there a shred of evidence that he reported this story to anybody AT THE TIME? >"I talked to an FBI agent here about it," patrolman Bundren >told the TV Guide writer, "but a lot of this was just QT--`Not at liberty to >discuss it.' I was just a young cop, there was nothing I could do. Gee, yet another person who claimed to have talked to the FBI, but managed not to get their story into the public or governmental record. >Nagell is alive today, he says, because he has placed >incriminating documents, including photographs of himself standing next to >Lee Harvey Oswald, in a number of European financial institutions, with >instructions how to handle the documents upon his death. Gosh, can't argue with that. I guess the conspiracy industry can close up shop and go home. Nagell's got the answers, and he'll tell all in due course. -- Brian Holtz Article 23300 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: _Pictures Of The Pain_ Date: 13 Jan 1995 07:08:20 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 61 Message-ID: <3f58t4$ka0@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: My book is finally done, my girlfriend dumped me, and it's too wet to play tennis, so it's time to see what's new in alt.conspiracy.jfk since I last checked in (around the 30th anniversary). The State of The Newsgroup does not seem very good. Although a few of the old hands are still around, the signal to noise ratio is way down, and even Iron John is stooping to return insults far more than he ever did back in the good ole days. Sigh. I visited Dealey Plaza for the first time in late December. The place seemed very ... average. A few tourists were milling around, and a homeless guy was trying to get some sleep on top of the triple underpass. Walking around, I formed two major impressions, one expected and one not. I always wanted to see a view of Elm traffic from the position of Tague's cheek. As expected, there seemed no way for a fragment from the head shot to arc over the windshield and yet still have enough velocity to break any skin or mark any concrete. (Other than what may be Tague's mere surmise, what reason is there anyway to believe that the curb became marked as a result of the shooting? My brother asked me that, and I had no answer.) What I didn't expect was how non-private it seemed back behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll. I enjoy conspiracy theorizing as much as the next guy, but the Grassy Knoll has lost its charm. It's bad enough that the Z film and wounds rule out a GK hit (barring Liftonesque hallucinations). I can even forgive the GK offering lousy shots of the motorcade, since the conspiratti always complain that Oswald passed on a better Houston shot. But standing behind the fence with my imaginary rifle, I feel eyes on me from both Zapruder's pergola and the cops and railroad workers on the underpass. I feel the urge for a stage whisper: "Marilyn, don't stare. Abe, don't point that thing at me." Sorry, it didn't happen from here, folks. Stick to Dal-Tex, or the sewer or even the umbrella. But lose the GK. The Sixth Floor was disappointing. The displays were not very interesting, except I don't think I'd heard that Oswald's clipboard was found with not a single order filled. The gift shop was a near total bust. They have essentially no conspiracy literature there (and upstairs they merely have a life-size photo of shelves full of the extant conspiracy books). The saving grace was _Pictures of the Pain_, a self-published study of the assassination photography. Unfortunately, Trask confines himself to the photographs taken in Dallas on the weekend of the assassination, and thus does not discuss the allegedly faked photos: the autopsy, the Walker photo, and the Hunter of Fascists. But I nevertheless highly recommend Trask's book. Posner robbed me of most of my patience for conspiracy theories, so it was nice to find an assassination book I could stay awake through. POTP epitomizes exactly what I find so captivating about the assassination. Those few minutes in Dealey Plaza, those intersecting mythical and petty lives, that Z313 turning point in American history, have been studied and dissected in unparalleled, fractal detail, and yet the evidence and the history are ambiguous enough that each observer interprets them differently. Nov. 22, 1963 is finally more about myth and poetry than about history, which is probably why serious historians steer clear of it. -- Brian Holtz Article 23303 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 13 Jan 1995 07:24:17 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 63 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f59r1$kf9@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net>, Dave Kent wrote: >a "Lone Nutter" - (one who's only >position on the whole question of what transpired back in 1963 - is >"Lee Harvey Oswald, and Lee Harvey Oswald Only" murdered President >Kennedy) can never - AND I MEAN NEVER - agree with any point that >does not fit the LHOLN theory. > >Not only can they not agree, they cannot even allow it to be even >considered in the realm of possiblity. For a "Lone Nutter" to allow >that any point, any detail that does not fit the LHOLN theory is >acually possible - well I guess there goes that theory out the >window. You've been talking to the wrong lone nutters. I once wrote to a buff on this newsgroup: >What would happen if you said, "yeah, one possible explanation is >a second shooter?" Would the world end? OF COURSE a second shooter is a POSSIBLE explanation. Hell, the Prouty/Garrison/Stone "Secret Team" fantasy is a POSSIBLE explanation for the whole assassination. The problem is, these "possibilities" are very small. Your questions disturb me. Would *your* "world end" if you admitted the logical possibility that Oswald acted alone? I never got an answer. To another buff, I posted: > are you afraid of the possibility of LHO being innocent or > not being the only shooter? Not at all. I don't deny the romantic appeal of Oswald as anti-hero, nor that of the young knight Kennedy being cut down by the most powerful of forces before he could Change The World. I don't deny that it doesn't feel good to think of Kennedy's death as senseless. > Can your mind be changed, Brian? Of course. I'd like to hear from the unknown bystander who walked up the grassy knoll steps as soon as Kennedy's head exploded, and hear what he saw up there. I'd like to hear from even *one* person who was in on the conspiracy (even after the fact) and can give us a falsifiable account of it. I'd like somebody to find the Babushka Lady's film in their basement, or the "lost" Similas photo that allegedly showed a rifle and two men in a sixth-floor window. I'd like Officer Tilson to find the piece of paper on which he wrote the license number of a car the left the scene of the shooting after its Ruby-resembling driver came from the grassy knoll and tossed something in the back seat. (Photos of the area show no such car, however.) I'd like it, but I doubt it's going to happen. > I do not perceive a vast difference between your stance and theirs. > You're both so sure you know absolutely what happened on Nov. 22,63. Wrong. I'm not absolutely sure what happened, and willing to say so. They're not sure what happened, either -- after all, that's their religion. The problem is, their religion calls for them to *be* absolutely sure they know what *didn't* happen: Oswald acting alone. -- Brian Holtz Article 23354 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 13 Jan 1995 21:31:47 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 69 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f6rg3$nk@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3f59r1$kf9@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com X-ORIGINAL-NEWSGROUPS: alt.conspiracy.jfk Cc: In article , Keith Preston wrote: >If you had a conversation with Bill Newman for over 6 hours, like a friend >of mine did, and ask him if he was sure several times that the shot came >from right above him, as he is, then you know that it was more than one >shooter. So that's all it takes? One Dealey Plaza earwitness who is convinced he can tell that "the shot" (which shot? all of them?) came from above, behind and to his right instead of above behind and to his left? And it doesn't bother you that there are other equally convinced earwitnesses with directly contradictory testimony? Earwitness testimony -- e.g. number of shots, spacing of shots, relative loudness of shots -- is tenuous at best, and earwitness testimony about shot origin is the most tenuous of this class. If the story of one earnest earwitness lets you "know that it was more than one shooter", I would say you were predisposed to this "knowledge". >Example" LHOLN'ers always trot out the boys in the fifth floor >and the shots above...I have no problem with that, SOMEONE must have been >shooting from the sixth floor, I agree on that....I don't know if it was >blanks or bullets but I'll accept that. > >So why can't they accept the GK shooter when Newman took his family down >from the last shot and said so less that two hours later Newman merely heard gunshots, and tells us what direction he thinks they were fired from. The fifth floor TSBD earwitnesses heard not only shots but also a bolt action being worked and shell casings hitting the floor. No amount of echoes or earwitness confusion can turn gunshots into bolt actions and bouncing shell casings. These two pieces of evidence are simply not comparable, and it tells us a lot about your standards of evidence that you would consider them equally needful of a posited gunman to explain them. >This is the problem with LHOLN...you can't let any variation by or the >house of cards falls..... "Variation", like in the number of shooters? Yes, the lone gunman hypothesis is peculiarly vulnerable to variations in the number of shooters. What a silly hypothesis it must be, then. >If I had to come up with something, I easily could, but we don't >just want a theory, WE WANT THE *TRUTH*. This is what I meant when I wrote: They're not sure what happened, either -- after all, that's their religion. The problem is, their religion calls for them to *be* absolutely sure they know what *didn't* happen: Oswald acting alone. You know very well that the ironclad, unquestionable, undoubtable "truth" can never be had in this case, because if the "truth" showed up you could still call it part of the cover-up. Uncertainty is the religion of the conspiracy believers -- they claim to want the "truth" but take it on faith that the truth cannot be known. I hereby challenge the alt.conspiracy.jfk conspiracy believers: how would you recognize the "truth" in this case if it were to appear? Would it necessarily involve confession -- i.e. revelation -- by the conspirators? What evidence, if any, would convince you that LHO was a lone gunman? I would like to see answers to these three questions from some conspiracy believers, but I doubt that I will. -- Brian Holtz Article 23441 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 14 Jan 1995 05:03:37 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 27 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f7lv9$5sh@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3f59r1$kf9@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3f6pjk$1kp3@tequesta.gate.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3f6pjk$1kp3@tequesta.gate.net>, Michael Kelly wrote: >Just answer me one question. Ok, but I'd still like to see a conspiracy believer with the courage to answer these three questions: 1. How would you recognize the "truth" in this case if it were to appear? 2. Would it necessarily involve confession -- i.e. revelation -- by the conspirators? 3. What evidence, if any, would convince you that LHO was a lone gunman? >How did Oswald get LBJ to lock up the evidence? Precisely what evidence are you talking about? Are you simply fretting over the sealed files of the Warren Commission? If so, in what criminal investigation have raw FBI field reports and the like _not_ been sealed? And now that most have the files have been unsealed, doesn't the absence of a smoking conspiracy gun in the files suggest that they were indeed sealed as a matter of routine? -- Brian Holtz Article 23458 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Can You Identify??? Date: 14 Jan 1995 05:26:19 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3f7n9r$643@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f68oo$t62@news.pacifier.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3f68oo$t62@news.pacifier.com>, Glenn Cressy wrote: >I have a copy of the Bill Moyers program "Investigative Reports" on the >Kennedy Assassination. In it there is a movie or video of the motorcade >as it is coming out of the reverse side of the triple underpass. > >Can anyone identify the individual who took this footage? Jack Daniel took color 8mm film from the north side of the Elm ramp onto the Stemmons Freeway. >I also especially need to know if there are any still photos taken from >this area and where I can get copies of them. Still footage or photos of >the above mentioned film footage would be especially helpful. One frame of the Daniel film was included in the HSCA report. In _Pictures of the Pain_ Trask does not reproduce any frames of the Daniel film, and makes it sound like Daniel closely protects his copyright. Trask does reproduce 5 still photos of the limo on the way to hospital, including two by Mel McIntire taken with the TSBD in the background. -- Brian Holtz Article 23462 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: _Pictures Of The Pain_ Date: 14 Jan 1995 05:39:47 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 22 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f7o33$664@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f58t4$ka0@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3f7k5q$bdh@nova.umd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3f7k5q$bdh@nova.umd.edu>, Eric Chomko wrote: >I miss the point. Was Tague hit or not and by what? James Tague felt a sting on his cheek during the shooting and moments later someone pointed out a small trickle of blood on his cheek, said trickle being visible in a Dealey Plaza photograph taken at the time. A "fresh" mark was found on the curb where Tague was standing, and it was thought to have been caused by the same event that cut his cheek. The "Tague strike", as it came to be known, led to the need for the single bullet theory, since one of the shots was now busy wounding Tague. >An intereseting view of Dealey Plaza, if not anti-climatic. Will you ever >go back? Next time I'm in Austin I'll probably go back. I got there after the daily 1:00 "tour" leaves the Plaza. Next time, I want to be sure to retrace Oswald's route to the theater, and see the place where Oswald was shot (which at the time I hadn't fully realized is adjacent to Dealey Plaza). -- Brian Holtz Article 23519 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 15 Jan 1995 01:13:20 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 126 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f9srg$fov@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3f6pjk$1kp3@tequesta.gate.net> <3f7lv9$5sh@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3f7qpu$1dq1@tequesta.gate.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3f7qpu$1dq1@tequesta.gate.net>, Michael Kelly wrote: >: 1. How would you recognize the "truth" in this case if it were to >: appear? > >I recognize lots of truths. Which ones do you have in mind? How would you recognize a true explanation of who shot JFK and why? >: 2. Would it necessarily involve confession -- i.e. revelation -- by >: the conspirators? > >No, I don't think so. An autopsy could indicate wounds inflicted >from more than one direction Do you really think such an autopsy is forthcoming? Let me put it another way: what evidence are you waiting for, that would finally let you say "now we know who shot JFK and why"? Or does some religion of uncertainty protect you from ever having trouble yourself with an explanation of the case? >: 3. What evidence, if any, would convince you that LHO was >: a lone gunman? > >Kennedy's brain would be helpful. Bobby disposed of it. How would that help show LHO was a lone gunman? >Some proof that LHO was any >gunman, alone or otherwise wouldn't hurt. Let's see. Oswald was seen bringing a large package into the TSBD. Oswald was unaccounted for during the shooting. Oswald's rifle, with Oswald's fingerprints, was found on the 6th floor. Oswald's fingerprints were found at the sniper's nest. Howard Brennan saw Oswald shooting from the sniper's nest. Shell casings from Oswald's type of rifle were found at the sniper's nest, and a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle was found in the limo. Oswald fled the scene and shot a cop soon thereafter. Yeah, it would be nice if there were evidence of LHO as a gunman... > Tough to do though >'cause I find people like Dr. Crenshaw quite credible, and I >heard him with my own ears describe the wounds he saw when Gee, I wonder if you have ever listened to an anti-conspiracy witness with your "own ears"? Gee, I wonder if hearing a particular piece of testimony with your "own ears" leads you to give that testimony undue weight compared to other testimony? >Kennedy was in front of him. I don't see how LHO could do >an entry wound to the front of the throat, and that's what >Crenshaw saw. The Parkland doctors saw a small wound that could have been either an entrance or exit wound, and since they didn't know about the back wound, some of them assumed initially that the throat wound was an entrance wound. However Jenkins, having the most experience with gunshot wounds of the Parkland doctors, was convinced at the time that it was an exit wound. >So why don't you believe him? Because his testimony conflicts with more credible testimony from the other Parkland doctors. Why don't _you_ believe _them_? Also, his testimony conflicts with the rest of the evidence. Where was this shot fired from, the front seat? If the back wound is an exit wound, why didn't this shot damage the seat cushion? If the back wound is not an exit wound, why didn't these two bullets show up on the X-rays? If they were removed by The Conspiracy, when did they do so, and how did they know the Secret Service would take the body away from local authorities? If the Secret Service was penetrated by The Conspiracy, why didn't they just make JFK die of natural causes (a la Ferrie) in the privacy of the White House? If Oswald was to be the patsy, how could The Conspiracy risk shooting holes in JFK from more than one direction? >Why does he want to lie about it? Crenshaw can be wrong without lying. But a strategic lie or two wouldn't exactly hurt sales of Crenshaw's _JFK: A Conspiracy Of Silence_. >: >How did Oswald get LBJ to lock up the evidence? > >: Precisely what evidence are you talking about? Are you simply > >Like, if it's locked up and I can't look at it, then? >I mean is that supposed to be a trick question? No. You said "the evidence". "The" is a definite article; refer to a grammar of English if you don't know what that means. You could have asked "How did Oswald get Marina to lock up the evidence?", but you didn't. Presumably you have a reason to think that LBJ locked up _some_ evidence, and presumably you have a rough idea what that evidence is. For example, you could have in mind FBI field reports and private tax returns of various witnesses. Or you could have in mind a film of Ruby revealing the conspiracy and a non-6.5mm bullet removed from JFK's back. Do you see the difference between these two sorts of locked-up evidence? >Is this like the files that are "routinely destroyed?" Yes. >Is Kennedy's brain missing as a matter of routine? No. Bobby disposed of it. >Does a nightclub owner shooting the prime suspect in >the police station with no shortage of cops standin' >around strike you as routine? No. > Just another lone nut? Is there some version of the Pauli Exclusion Principle that says no two lone nuts can occupy the same city on the same weekend? -- Brian Holtz Article 23552 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 15 Jan 1995 07:01:57 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 118 Message-ID: <3fah95$inc@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3f7qpu$1dq1@tequesta.gate.net> <3f9srg$fov@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >Brian Holtz (holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote: > >: No. Bobby disposed of it. > >Gosh, Brian - if you want people to take you seriously (and not jump to >that killfile button) you'd better get your facts straight. > >Here's the scoop on the brainB bobby did NOT get rid of it. That is an >outright lie. Gee, threats of killfiles and accusations of lying, all in Lisa's first posting addressed to me. My my, alt.conspiracy.jfk has become a lot tougher neighborhood since it got created back in March of 92... :-) >lines of all time here, "read again until comprehension occurs." :) Fine, read the definition of "lie" until comprehension occurs. ;-) If you're accusing me of saying something I believe to be false, I dare you to back up your accusation. I daresay you know very little about my beliefs in this regard, and so you are hardly in a position to say I've lied. (Maybe you just meant that I unwittingly repeated an outright lie.) >From netcom.com!lpease Sun Nov 27 17:30:03 1994 >Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk >Message-ID: > >In the back of [Cyril Wecht's] CAUSE OF DEATH there is a meticulous >chronology of just where the brain went when. > >Dec. 6. Burkley picks up and signs a receipt for all the autopsy >materials, including the brain, which he says the family wants to inter >with the body. Burkley then personally transfers everything to a locked >Secret Service file cabinet at the White House. This material supposedly >remains in this location, under Burkley's authority, until its transfer >to the National Archives in 1965. > >1965 >Apr. 22. Senator Robert F. Kennedy writes to Burkley, authorizing him to >release all autopsy materials to JFK's former personal secretary, Evelyn >Lincoln, who is now working with his effects at the National Archives. > >Apr. 26. After meeting to take an inventory of all the material, Burkley, >Bouck, Secret Service inspector Thomas J. Kelley, and two other agents >hand-deliver a locked chest and a two-page inventory to Lincoln, "for >purposes of secure storage and pursuant to an arrangement with RFK under >which material may not be opened without his consent." No key is >included. Listed uner #9 on the inventory are the following items: >... >- A 7-by-8-inch stainless steel container containing "gross material" >... >A few days later. RFK calls Lincoln to tell her that his secretary, >Angela Novello, will be coming to move the footlocker that day. Novello >arrives with Herman Kahn, assistant archivist for presidential libraries. >Lincoln gives them the trunk and tow keys. [...] > >1966 >Oct. 31. [Burke] Marshall formally transfers the locked footlocker to the >GSA [General Services Administration, to which the executors of JFK's >estate had made a 'deed of gift'.] Just prior to this transfer, Assistant >to the Deputy Archivist Trudy H. Peterson later tells investigators, the >footlocker was brought to the archives, suggesting that Novello may have >previously removed it from the building rather than just moving it to >another part of the building. [...] > >Novello provides the key to open the footlocker. After it is opened, she >and Marshall leave. Various officials of the GSA and trhe Department of >Justice then inspect the contents, which they discover include only >inventory items 1 through 8 [...] > >1979 >Mar. 29. The HSCA releases its final report. In the section dealing with >the missing autopsy materials, the committee recounts its efforts to >locate them by contacting all of the above-mentioned individuals, as well >as several others. According to the report, Novello "had no recollection >of handling a footlocker, or possessing a key or keys to such a >footlocker, or of handling any of the autopsy materials." Marshall is >reported to have said that while he did not know what became of the >items, "it was his speculative opinion that Robert Kennedy obtained and >disposed of these materials himself, without informing anyone else" >because he was "concerned that these materials would be placed on public >display in future years in an institution such as the Smithsonian...." He >is also reported to have added that he is "certain that obtaining or >locating these materials is no longer possible." > >In the report's conclusion, the HSCA writes that, although it had "not >been able to uncover any direct evidence of the fate of the missing >materials, circumstantial evidence tends to show that Robert Kennedy >either destroyed these materials or otherwise rendered them inaccessible." It sounds like the HSCA got this right, as it so often did. RFK and/or Novello apparently disposed of the brain, and the loyal Novello stonewalled. >This opinion has never been officially corroborated by the FBI, the >Secret Service, the National Archives, Admiral Burkley, the Kennedy >family, or anyone else who would have firsthand knowledge of the items >whereabouts. Gee, did Cyril advise we play spooky organ music during the reading of this final paragraph? :-) The FBI presumably was never asked to investigate the missing brain, and so of course would have no "official" opinion. The Secret Service and National Archives would of course cover their bureaucratic asses by just recounting the paper trail, rather than engaging in speculation as to which Senator had the motive and opportunity to make the brain disappear. As for Burkley and the Kennedy family, don't hold your breath waiting for them to confirm speculation that Bobby did anything underhanded with this sensitive material. Wecht is not one of the more rabid conspiracy theorists, so perhaps he can be forgiven for that final paragraph. But you, Lisa, seem much more adept than Wecht at penetrating and second-guessing the motives of government agencies, so I would expect that you would not be quailed by this lame spectre of "no official corroboration". -- Brian Holtz Article 23558 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 15 Jan 1995 07:28:40 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 53 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3fair8$iuj@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3f7qpu$1dq1@tequesta.gate.net> <3f9srg$fov@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3f9ur6$b7t@anshar.shadow.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3f9ur6$b7t@anshar.shadow.net>, Michael Kelly quoted a lot of lines needlessly, avoided answering my questions, called my posting "tripe" and "bullshit", and then followed it up with a posting saying I've been added to his killfile. All of which tends to answer Dave Kent's question of why buffs never notice "nutters" having an open mind about the possibility of a conspiracy. Michael's article was pure meta-argument, and contained nothing of substance concerning the assassination. Those uninterested in alt.conspiracy.jfk mud-slinging can skip ahead to some more substantial posting (about, say, killfiles)... Michael wrote: >: How would you recognize a true explanation of who shot JFK and why? > >The question is so vague as to be meaningless. > >: another way: what evidence are you waiting for, that would finally let >: you say "now we know who shot JFK and why"? Or does some religion of >: uncertainty protect you from ever having trouble yourself with an >: explanation of the case? These questions were in effect a restatement of the one you found vague, but of course you quoted these questions and then declined to answer them. >: Bobby disposed of it. > >Somehow I just knew you were going to say that! > >You make assertions without basis. Footnotes available on request. :-) Given that you somehow knew I would claim that RFK disposed of it, can't we assume that you are at least familiar with the vaguest outlines of why I might make that claim? (Hint: this conclusion was reached by the HSCA. Heard of them?) Or are you some kind of conspiracy newbie shocked by this casual assertion out of left field against one of your sacred Kennedy demigods? :-) >: >'cause I find people like Dr. Crenshaw quite credible, and I >: >heard him with my own ears describe the wounds he saw when > >: Gee, I wonder if you have ever listened to an anti-conspiracy witness > >I notice you sidestep the issue. I sidestepped nothing. You in fact _quoted_ over twenty subsequent lines of my posting in which I explained why I do not believe Crenshaw. -- Brian Holtz Article 23599 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 15 Jan 1995 19:06:56 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 70 Message-ID: <3fbrog$p1c@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3fah95$inc@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: >: No. Bobby disposed of it. >: > >: >outright lie. > >: you're accusing me of saying something I believe to be false, I dare you > >A lie is an untruth. No, a lie is "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue" [Webster's Third]. >You told one. You're clearly wrong. (And in fact, you're treading dangerously close to committing a lie, since when you wrote this you had already been aprised of the actual meaning of the word "lie". But maybe you just had a mistaken belief that you understood English better than I. :-) >And the very nature of your defense of this bespeask too much similarity >to McAdams. If reasoned, open-minded discourse is the charge, I plead guilty. (This tactic on the part of you buffs is new since I left alt.conspiracy.jfk. I guess John must really have you folks on the run, since you rearely dare engage him on substance anymore, and instead attack him and his sources as being tools of the conspiracy.) >If you wantto get any respect around here - stick to the facts, or label >your suppositions as such. Like _you_ did when you just posted that the autopsy photos "are fakes", full stop? :-) Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time pre-labeling the assertions that I think you might disagree with. I was asked a simple question about Kennedy's missing brain, and I gave a succinct answer. If you want to discuss my basis for this answer, then do so (and you did), but don't complain about the lack of warning labels on assertions that might damage sensitive conspiracy psyches. >I don't attack people for having opinions. I >do attack when I see them present their ignorant opinion as truth. Thank you. I am often ignorant, but you will never catch me lying. I hope you can see the difference. If you see me assert something and you think I don't know all the facts of the matter, then please post those facts (as you did). But be more careful with the word "lie". >You didn't say "I thought Bobby lost the brain" you asserted it as fact. If it really pains you that much to read "Bobby disposed of it" instead of "I believe Bobby disposed of it", then here's what you should do instead of calling it a lie. Before reading any of my postings, do a global search and replace of ". " with ". I believe". >It is not. As the below shows. How so? As I said, it merely shows that RFK had the means, motive, and opportunity to dispose of the brain. Oliver Stone and Informant X could read between the lines of Wecht's appendix; why can't you? :-) In fact, when your lengthy article showed up here and opened with the word "lie", I thought "Oh shit, has this HSCA conclusion since been discredited (like, say, the acoustic evidence), and I haven't heard about it but should have?" But then I read your posting, and saw the brain disappeared precisely when Kennedyites like Burkley and Novello had access to it. -- Brian Holtz Article 23729 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 16 Jan 1995 18:45:43 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 56 Message-ID: <3feesn$8pn@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3fbrog$p1c@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >The acoustic evidence has not been discredited to all of us. The first >company did a bang up job showing that the tape recorded shots that, >wonder of wonders, exactly matched what we observed on the Z-film. Sorry, no. The acoustic evidence led the HSCA to imagine a GK miss at Z295 and to move the CE399 shot from Z223 to Z188-191. The Z-film does not support the idea of a shot at Z295, from the GK or elsewhere. >since, a govt-sponsored study was evoked to produce an opposite >conclusion rather adds strength to the original study, proving it so >damning that a great effort was undergone to attempt to disprove it Classic conspiracy doublethink. Anything the government ever said that supports a conspiracy is a mistake by The Conspiracy, and anything the government says contradicting a conspiracy must be part of The Conspiracy. Well, this attitude certainly must save you from lots of needless thinking... :-) >which they did not. They did disprove it. >you would see why I and perhaps others do not consider Burkley as being >on the side of the Kennedy's. He went to great lengths to help the >conspirators in the coverup. I could argue semantics as to whether that >makes Burkley a conspirator or not. But I could say quite clearly I don't >believe he had the Kennedy's best interests at heart. Why would JFK's personal physician, who helped conceal the secret of Kennedy's Addison's Disease, "help the conspirators in the coverup"? When did he start rendering this help? On Friday night he rushed the autopsy because he wanted to keep the Addison's Disease secret and because Jackie and Bobby were downstairs being kept up late on this awful day waiting to take the body. Or was he foiling the autopsy to "help the conspirators"? If so, when did the conspirators enlist his aid: before the shooting or after? If before, why didn't the conspirators use Burkley to make JFK die of natural causes at their leisure in the White House (instead of shooting at JFK from multiple directions in front of a dozen cameras)? If after, how could the conspirators count on Burkley doing their bidding instead of reacting with outrage and exposing them? (I predict that you won't dare answer these questions.) >As for the HSCA story - have you read it? It says, in effect, they can't >determine what happened to the brain. [...] >I'm just dying to hear what your "motive" is that Robert Kennedy "had" to >lose the brain. Have _you_ read the HSCA on this topic? Do they not say that Bobby probably wanted to keep his brother's brain from becoming some kind of lurid display? -- Brian Holtz Article 23731 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 16 Jan 1995 19:27:02 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 113 Message-ID: <3feha6$93v@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3f7qpu$1dq1@tequesta.gate.net> <3f9srg$fov@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Bruce Jonathan Schuck wrote: >>Oswald was seen bringing a large package into the TSBD. > >Oswald was seen with a package no longer than 27 inches. An broken down >MC is no shorter than 34.8 inches. 27 inches was Buell Frazier's estimate. According to Posner, Frazier later admitted the package could have been longer than he originally thought: "I only glanced at it ... hardly paid any attention to it. He had the package parallel to his body, and it's true it could have extended beyond his body and I wouldn't have noticed it." Although Oswald told Frazier that curtain rods for his apartment were in the package, Oswald's apartment already had curtain rods, and no curtain rods were found at the TSBD. The 38" package found at the TSBD had fibers from the blanket in which Oswald kept his rifle, and Frazier said the 38" package looked like the one Oswald carried that morning. Doesn't all this evidence about the package bother you even a _little_? The 8-inch estimate discrepency is a slim straw to grasp in the face of this evidence. What do you suppose _was_ in the package? (Note to readers: buffs rarely answer questions like this, so don't expect Bruce to.) >>Oswald was unaccounted for during the shooting. > >Carolyn Arnold who saw him at 12.25 in the lunchroom. The version that Arnold eventually told Anthony Summers conflicts with both her own original story and those of the women who were with her. More importantly, Oswald's own alibi of eating lunch with James Jarman collapsed when Jarman denied seeing Oswald during his lunch break. Do you claim that The Conspiracy got to Jarman? If not, why did Oswald lie? >>Oswald's rifle, with Oswald's fingerprints, was found on the 6th floor. > >Oswalds fingerprints were found on the rifle after it was returned by the >FBI lab. There were no prints of evidenciary value on the rifle when >sent to the FBI. Because the DPD had already lifted the prints when the FBI demanded the rifle. Oswald's prints were also identified in a photo of the rifle taken on the 6th floor. >On the other hand, prints of someone not working at the TSBD were also found >on the boxes in the snipers nest. This is news to me. What is your source? >>Howard Brennan saw Oswald shooting from the sniper's nest. > >Brennan was over 120 feet away. He did not ID Oswald at the lineup staged >for his benefit. Brennan declined to pick Oswald out of the lineup on the night of the assassination because he did not want to be the only witness to finger the triggerman. His fears are independently corroborated, since within minutes of the shooting he gave a description of Oswald to a cop and then started avoiding having his picture taken. He told the WC "I could have positively identified the man." >>Shell casings from Oswald'stype of rifle were found at the sniper's nest > >And Lt. Day testified that he did not mark the shells at the scene So? Did The Conspiracy plant the wrong kind of casing on the 6th floor, and only later substituted the right kind? Such cutesy chain-of-evidence arguments might be useful in getting Oswald off on a technicality in a court of law, but they do nothing to change the verdict of the court of history. >>and a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle was found in the limo. > >CE399 was found on a stretcher in the hospital. I'm talking about the large fragment from the head shot, which was found in the limo and which was matched to Oswald's rifle. >>Oswald fled the scene > >Naahh. He left the TSBD as did other employees. He even tried to give >up his cab to an old lady. He wasn't fleeing. He was out of the TSBD within minutes, before the building was sealed off. How many other TSBD employees left the building after the shooting but before the building was sealed off? >>and shot a cop soon thereafter. > >The shells found at the scene, and marked by the officer that found him, >were not the shells subsequently entered into evidence. An officer not being able to find his marks does not necessarily imply the shells were different. At any rate, this is angels-on-pinheads compared to the more than half-dozen eyewitnesses who identified Oswald as the gunman. >In addition, a .38 handgun, of government issue was found near the scene >of the assassination. > >The government withheld this info for 31 years. Can you give me some more details here? >>Yeah, it would be nice if there were evidence of LHO as a gunman... > >It would be..... ...and is. -- Brian Holtz Article 23867 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Was the University of Michigan Spook U? Date: 17 Jan 1995 21:24:32 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 32 Message-ID: <3fhcig$o2k@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3ffimi$e3l@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >From Covert Action Quarterly, Fall, 1991 - from an issue devoted in its >entirety to the CIA and Academia.... > >university conference on Islam. The contract Safran signed with the CIA >required that he conceal the source of his funding and submit his book to >the Agency for censorship." > >I've no doubt Posner was under a simliar agreement. Now this is astonishing. You're telling us that The Conspiracy is dumb enough to sign a contract comissioning a book to help the coverup? Don't you think the orders for issuing such a contract could be traced back to The Conspiracy? Why would The Conspiracy provide such a paper trail pointing to them? Why would they trust everyone in the CIA chain of command for this contract not to leak it to the press? Or is the conspiracy just common knowledge at the CIA -- something that new hires are told about when they are issued their CIA coffee mug and t-shirt? By the way, I got my Master's at the University of Michigan. And Sun's subsidiary Sun Federal Inc. is a large government subcontractor. Some of our bigger customers are the US intelligence agencies, and in particular the Pacific Fleet's intelligence arm is practically run on our workstations. As you know, Oswald served in the Marines (i.e. Navy) in the Pacific. I myself worked on a "CIA" project, where the official story was that "CIA" stood for CASE Interoperability Alliance. So can I be considered beyond doubt to be a paid disinformationist like Posner? Can I? Please? Can I? :-) -- Brian Holtz Article 23868 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: If they'll lie, why don't they deny Date: 17 Jan 1995 22:32:31 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 85 Message-ID: <3fhghv$9lc@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3fgg9r$2835@tequesta.gate.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3fgg9r$2835@tequesta.gate.net>, Michael Kelly wrote: >IOW, part of the purpose of these cats bein' here is precisely >to LET EVERYONE KNOW THE GOVERNMENT IS WATCHING THEM!! Geez, I hate it when somebody misses an inter-agency meeting. We pay McAdams to intimidate the buffs, and we pay Kelly to make the buffs look foolish, and then Kelly accidentally blows John's cover. >[Vince Salandria said] >Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the >means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? Yes, this is a question I've asked many a buff, without getting an answer. >They chose not >to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and >did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover >story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the >slightest scrutiny. Thus The Conspiracy exercised its vast influence over the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Warren Commission, Dallas Police Department, Bethesda Naval Hospital, House Select Committee On Assassinations, the national press corps, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and others, just to set in place a "cover story [that] was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny". I see. And why did they do this? The answer: >The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message >clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, >nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.' To send the message "we are in control"? Why send the message? As my list of influence shows, The Conspiracy _already_ was in control. Why would The Conspiracy want to engage in public relations work to polish up its we-are-in-control image? >Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. >People see government today as unresponsive to >their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence >establishment have increased tremendously. The defense budget has been shrinking for several years even in nominal pre-inflation dollars. And the CIA is in a charter crisis trying to justify its continued existence. Time for another assassination to reinforce "the message", eh? >No doubt we are dealing now with an international >conspiracy. We must face that fact--and not waste any more time >microanalyzing the evidence. Well, the buffs have spent many years practicing ignoring the vast majority of the evidence, so ignoring the rest of it should not be much of a stretch... :-) >"To commit the perfect crime, you don't have to be intelligent, > just in charge of the investigation that follows." Lee Harvey Oswald knew he couldn't pull off the perfect crime -- i.e., kill the leader of the corrupt capitalist West and not be caught. He took off his wedding ring and armed himself with a pistol and a pocketful of extra ammo, ready to die under the guns of a bourgeois culture that had underappreciated him but now would never again ignore him. How could poor, dyslexic Lee know that the self-styled radical left, who had shunned him in life, would embrace him in death for the very act of striking down their belatedly-adopted savior/martyr? Would Lee have appreciated the colossal irony of Judas being beatified by the church he wanted so dearly to join? A Freudian might say that the conspiracy wing of the radical left, recognizing one of their own in Lee, are by pardoning him subconsciously repaying him for giving them a seed from which to grow something to rebel against. At any rate, by being held blameless in the eyes of aren't-we-anti-establishmentarian history, Lee Harvey Oswald indeed committed the perfect crime. -- Brian Holtz Article 23882 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 18 Jan 1995 01:46:24 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 127 Message-ID: <3fhrtg$rnr@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3feesn$8pn@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: >The acoustic evidence has not been discredited to all of us. The first >: >company did a bang up job showing that the tape recorded shots that, >: >wonder of wonders, exactly matched what we observed on the Z-film. > >: Sorry, no. The acoustic evidence led the HSCA to imagine a GK miss at >: Z295 and to move the CE399 shot from Z223 to Z188-191. The Z-film >: does not support the idea of a shot at Z295, from the GK or elsewhere. > >The GK shot on the tape and the shot at z190 (approx) match the zfilm as >I see it. What in the Z film supports a GK miss at Z295, or any kind of shot at Z190? >: Why would JFK's personal physician, who helped conceal the secret of >: Kennedy's Addison's Disease, "help the conspirators in the coverup"? > >Money? Threats to his life? Knowing which side his bread was buttered on? >Reading the writing on the wall? > >Why speculate. Translated: "why bother to explore the potentially ludicrous implications of my contentions?" >he arranged the body transfer AGAINST Jackie's wishes What is your source for this? >Btw - what did he tell Jackie, in explanation for why the body had to be >taken out of Dallas? :) Do you know? I do - but please, you first. I don't even know that Jackie's disposition was such that anyone felt they _had_ to explain to her why the body should be taken to Washington. I guess I'll have to look this up for myself when I get home, since moving this discussion forward substantively seems not to be your goal... :-) >: When did he start rendering this help? > >After the doctors saw the head and throat wounds. As soon as he could >find a judge to help with the legal issue. So a Conspirator was _at Parkland_ and _told Burkley_ that the body had to go to Washington? This is a major break in the case! Now all we have to do is go through the list of people known or photographed to have been at Parkland. You realize, of course, that this makes no sense. How could the conspiracy count on this guy not jumping in front of a live network feed and yelling "conspiracy!"? >: On Friday night he rushed the >: autopsy because he wanted to keep the Addison's Disease secret > >source? Or just your own speculation? He'd been protecting that secret the whole time, so why would he stop? Weren't the autopists told by Burkley not to dissect the adrenal glands? >Tell me - did Jackie and Bobby know about JFK's Addison's disease? I don't know. I assume Bobby knew because he and JFK were so close. Jackie seemed so clueless that she might very well not have known. >: If so, when did the conspirators enlist his >: aid: before the shooting or after? > >If before, it was I believe without his knowledge. He was in place, >replacing the previous private doc, before the assassination. What's this? I had assumed Burkley had been JFK's personal physician of longstanding. If he was some last-minute replacement, then who would have been in position to order the switch? (I notice that you buffs never seem to follow up the obvious implications of your vague hints of impropriety, perhaps because you know the implications are usually absurd.) >: If after, how could the >: conspirators count on Burkley doing their bidding instead of reacting >: with outrage and exposing them? > >Let's see. A president lies dead before you, killed by shots from two >directions, while the people around you Who? Why is it that every time you identify an act that aided the conspiracy, you say that the actor was not actually in on the conspiracy and maybe not even consciously aiding the conspiracy, but rather was dutifully following orders from mysterious unnamed people. And when _those_ people are identified and seem to lack foreknowledge, you just make The Conspiracy recede one more step into the shadows. Can't you name a single person who you think had foreknowledge of the assassination? >tell you its critical to get the >body to Bethesda for an autopsy. He might have thought he was helping, AT >THAT POINT. I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that Burkley's moving the body to Bethesda might have been done innocently, i.e. without any firm belief on his part that sinister forces wanted the body moved? If so, then you are admitting that there were innocent motives for moving the body, and no Conspiracy is needed to explain the body being moved. Unless, of course, you have a shred of evidence that "people around [Burkley]" were "tell[ing] [him] its critical to get the body to Bethesda". Do you, or were you just speculating? >We all saw how the HSCA did not reach ANY definite conclusion. Not as definite as many other conclusions, but their surmise is the best explanation I've heard. Do you have a better one? >: Do they not say that Bobby >: probably wanted to keep his brother's brain from becoming some kind of >: lurid display? > >That is the spin they attempted, unsuccessfully, to put on the chain of >possession. It seemed successful to me. -- Brian Holtz Article 23951 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? - No, sigh. Date: 18 Jan 1995 08:46:14 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 244 Message-ID: <3fikgm$1t7@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3fhrtg$rnr@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: What in the Z film supports a GK miss at Z295 [...] > >I'm not interested in discussing the minutiae. I'm interested in >unraveling the conpsirators. Fine, because a) the minutiae are so anti-conspiracy that I find them boring these days, and b) I want to see somebody present a coherent conspiracy theory. >: >he arranged the body transfer AGAINST Jackie's wishes > >: What is your source for this? > >"I informed him again that it was essential that >we have him moved immediately as Mrs. Kennedy was going to stay exactly >where she was until such movement was effected." [Burkley, CE 1126] > >Jackie Kennedy did not, according to this, express a wish that the body >NOT be moved. Precisely. In other words, you have no source for your "wishes" of Jackie's that the body stay in Dallas. Thus, there is no support for the statement that Burkley "arranged the body transfer AGAINST Jackie's wishes". QED. >But she expressed, according to Burkley, that she was going >to stay with the body Understandable, for a distraught and devoted wife. >: I don't even know that Jackie's disposition was such that anyone felt >: they _had_ to explain to her why the body should be taken to >: Washington. I guess I'll have to look this up for myself when I get >: home, since moving this discussion forward substantively seems not to > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >: be your goal... :-) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >I don't need to defend my record here to you or anyone. My statements and >posts are clear testimony to the exact opposite. 1. Read the smiley again "until comprehension occurs". :-) 2. Note that you asked a question about a matter of record and then teased me "Do you know? I do - but please, you first." Is such coyness the hallmark of one interested in moving forward on substance? 3. Relax. We're not getting paid to do this, so it might as well be fun. >And I'm not quoting Jacke's deposition. I said "disposition", not "deposition". I.e., frame of mind. >Now note that they are on the plane already, winging their way to >Washington D.C., when Burkley says the following to Jackie: Note that taking the body back to D.C. was understandable. The Kennedy entourage of liberal northeasterners had ventured to the conservative southern city that had just jeered and spit on Adlai Stevenson. Kennedy was murdered there, and the Kennedy crowd were not about to let the local good ole' boys conduct a down-home autopsy while the distraught Queen Jackie cooled her heels away from her children. >And then, the damning sentence, which cleary showed that Jackie would >only have had one of two choices regardless of what she wanted: Lisa, do you _really_ think that Jackie was put out by having to choose among the major federally-controlled hospitals in the city where she lived? Me, I'm surprised that Burkley even bothered her with this sort of choice at that terrible time. >: >: When did he start rendering this help? >: > >: >After the doctors saw the head and throat wounds. > >: So a Conspirator was _at Parkland_ and _told Burkley_ [...] > >Your attitude here is that of the other spooks. What's the matter [...] I beg your pardon, Lisa. You said Burkley was consciously helping in the coverup, and so I want to know when you think he started doing so, because there are interesting implications no matter what your answer is. (The only implication from your non-answer is that you in fact aren't interested in getting to the bottom of the conspiracy.) >: You realize, of course, that this makes no sense. How could the >: conspiracy count on this guy not jumping in front of a live network >: feed and yelling "conspiracy!"? > >[Brian "make[s] no sense", is "totally ignorant of significant >aspects of the case", and "pretend[s] to know without a shadow of a >doubt that there could not have been any conspiracy".] Ok, so you don't want to honestly and open-mindedly explore the implications of when you think Burkley started helping the coverup. Fine. But at least forgive my "total ignoran[ce]" of some things -- I'm here to learn. (Aren't you? Maybe not.) And please do not attribute positions to me that aren't mine. I have never said that a conspiracy is beyond doubt, and I explicitly said a few days ago that I am not afraid of the possibility that LHO was innocent or was not the only shooter. >: >: On Friday night he rushed the >: >: autopsy because he wanted to keep the Addison's Disease secret >: > >: >source? Or just your own speculation? > >: He'd been protecting that secret the whole time, so why would he stop? >: Weren't the autopists told by Burkley not to dissect the adrenal >: glands? > >What is your source? Why haven't you answered? I answered: I gave you my speculation. What kind of "source" do you expect me to have for Burkley's motivation for helping deceive the American public about the health of their President? Do you think that Burkley would confess this to the WC? Does Burkley's silence on this regard make this topic taboo? If we aren't allowed to make a case for people's motives, then all the conspiracy theories are out of order. >I don't believe in discussing hypotheticals. So we will never hear you tell us, like Oliver Stone did, to look at who had the motive to kill JFK? That's too bad, since that is crucial to understanding a possible conspiracy. >: >Tell me - did Jackie and Bobby know about JFK's Addison's disease? > >: I don't know. I assume Bobby knew because he and JFK were so close. >: Jackie seemed so clueless that she might very well not have known. > >You assume, and Jackie seemed clueless. Do you think it's more likely that Bobby _didn't_ know? Do you think that Jackie was as on-the-ball and engaged as, say, Rosalyn Carter or Hillary Rodham Clinton? My judgement is that Jackie Kennedy was a woman who did not do much thinking for herself. (The jury on Lisa Pease is still out. ;-) >Sounds like your basic approach to this case. Not very promising. Is it your contention that, because no affidavits can be cited, nothing intelligent can be said in response to your question about Jackie's and Bobby's knowledge? >: >He was in place, >: >replacing the previous private doc, before the assassination. > >: What's this? I had assumed Burkley had been JFK's personal physician >: of longstanding. If he was some last-minute replacement, then who [...] > >Perhaps if you stop ASSUMING, and start investigating [...] As I said previously in that posting, I wrote that article at work, away from my library. As it turned out, my assumption was right, but I did not want to label it as fact unless I was sure. >I certainly wouldn't characterize it as long-standing. Burkley took over >in 1962, if this source is correct. I would say that 'since 1962' is long-standing, for the purposes of our discussion. It's a pretty slow-acting conspiracy that puts the President's doctor in place a year before killing the President. I, too, would like to know who got Burkley the job, especially if you think he helped in the cover-up. >I'm not content to sit idly by and watch our country go down the tubes >while getting my jollies taking pot shots at those who would save both >you and me. Lisa, do you really believe that your motives are more pure than mine? [I happen to believe for now that you are 1) sincere but 2) misguided and 3) exasperated.] If so, that explains a lot. >: >: If after, how could the conspirators count on Burkley [...] >: > >: >Let's see. A president lies dead before you, killed by shots from two >: >directions, while the people around you > >[Complaint about "typical spook non sequiter" "learn[ed] at the same school"] >You asked a question. Excuse me. I had thought you were looking for an >answer I still am. You said that "people around [Burkley]" told him "its critical to get the body to Bethesda". Is it so impolite for me to ask whom you meant by "people around [Burkley]"? These "people" were presumably conspirators, and so I'd like to know more about them. >instead of an opening to bring out the hackneyed "if you can't >prove who ELSE did it than the accused MUST be guilty crap." > >I wish all who espouse that philosophy end up in court with that the only >mandate for proving THEIR innocence. We're not in court, where we ask "did X do Z?". We're discussing history, where we ask "who is most likely to have done Z?" As an American citizen, I'm more interested in who killed JFK than in whether LHO was innocent. >: Can't you name a single person who you think had foreknowledge of the >: assassination? > >Sure. Helms. Angleton. Hoover. Rose Cheramie. Sergio Arcacha Smith. Emilio >Santana. Gary Underhill. David Ferrie. Clay Shaw. My conspiracy books don't mention Underhill and Santana. Cheramie is interesting, but I'd like to know if the story is built on anything other than Fruge's claims, and when Fruge first got on record with those claims. Ferrie and Shaw are mainly interesting due to the Clinton sightings (which themselves became less interesting when Posner revealed the many contradictions involved therein). There seems to be no credible evidence that the others knew JFK would be killed. >: >tell you its critical to get the >: >body to Bethesda for an autopsy. He might have thought he was helping, AT >: >THAT POINT. > >: I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying [...] > >How could you understand me when you chopped up the thought with a >totally irrelavent point? > >Forget it. I may soon decide to forget it, but I'd rather just have you tell me precisely when you think Burkley first became aware that there was a conspiracy and that he was helping to cover it up. I'm running out of ways to ask you this question, and so I'm beginning to think you don't want to answer it. >I'll discuss with those willing to hold an honest conversation. > >Let me know if you are ever up to one. I'm tempted to agree that the honesty has been pretty one-sided. :-) I'll start to think otherwise once you work up an interest in discussing Burkley's behavior. -- Brian Holtz Article 23952 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: SS man on the scene Date: 18 Jan 1995 09:26:43 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3fimsj$27c@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Patrick Pearse Gallagher wrote: >the situation is this: Patrolman Smith and Sergeant Harkness, 2 Dallas >cops, met up with at least 4 people who claim to be SS agents, and we >know that there were no SS agents who had any business in Dallas who >could have been these men. This is a big problem for me. Note that Oswald himself mistakenly said that reporter Robert MacNeil (whom he encountered on the TSBD steps) was a SS agent. Posner notes that there were ATF agents, IRS agents, an Army Intelligence agent, etc. in Dealey Plaza. It could be that the Dallas natives tended to label as SS any well-dressed yankee with an ID card. I recently read that there in fact _was_ a SS man briefly on the grassy knoll after the shooting. _Pictures of the Pain_ quotes NBC camereman Dave Wiegman watching a motorcycle cop run up the grassy knoll: "I figured he knows something's up there, so I ran up there. I found myself up there with Lem [Thomas "Lem" Johns, a SS agent originally in the VP's follow-up car who had jumped out of the vehicle at the sound of the shots] close by, a few feet away. [...] I saw nothing pu there. Lem was sort of looking around." [p. 373]. Wiegman filmed for at least 30 seconds after the head shot. His film is the jiggly continuous footage taken on the run in the aftermath of the shooting, and includes Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hester crouching near the Zapruder pergola. Wiegman: "When I came back down the hill Lem Johns didn't have a ride and I said, 'Come on, get in our car." Johns rode with in Camera Car 1 to Parkland. This could explain some Secret Service sightings on the grassy knoll. -- Brian Holtz Article 24125 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!glenbrook!holtz From: holtz@glenbrook.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? - No, sigh. Date: 19 Jan 1995 21:54:36 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3fmn2s$nhj@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3fikgm$1t7@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: glenbrook.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: I have never said that a conspiracy is beyond doubt [...] > >You don't have to say it. >After a year, there's no way to hide the pattern. >You guys all show up with the same cheat sheet of "facts". >Excuse me and others if we tire of the same crap. So after reading a week of my calm, honest, and (I hope) reasoned postings, you're prepared to dispute my _own_ claim that Brian Holtz does not think a conspiracy is beyond doubt? On what basis do you dispute my claim of open-mindedness? And how open-minded do you think _you_ look when you bail out of a substantive discussion and start tossing around words like "crap"? I'm curious about this "pattern" you see in "[us] guys". In another posting today you called me a "spook". Is it really your honest opinion that I am some kind of disinformation tool of The Establishment? I've surmised by now that, while I consider a conspiracy to be a logical possibility, you are not willing to consider the possibility of a lone assassin. But I'm surprised to see that you _also_ apparently consider it impossible for someone to reach the lone-assassin conclusion through honest (if faulty) reasoning. Instead, you talk about "spooks" and "cheat sheets", as if anyone who claimed to believe in a lone assassin were necessarily insincere in that claim. I thought McAdams was just exaggerating in the heat of the moment when he wrote that you automatically label as an insincere disinformationist anyone who makes a case for a lone assassin. Now I'm not so sure, so I'll ask you point blank: do you know anyone who you think is sincere in his belief in a lone assassin explanation? -- Brian Holtz Article 24127 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!glenbrook!holtz From: holtz@glenbrook.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: FAQ's Date: 19 Jan 1995 22:17:14 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 28 Message-ID: <3fmoda$no9@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: glenbrook.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >There is no "official" FAQ for this newsgroup. We are solidly divided >amongst those who will consider there may have been/defintely was a >conspiracy and those who will not allow that anyone but Oswald alone was >involved. It is more accurate to say that we are divided between ["amongst" is for more than two groups ;-] those who do and do not accept the logical possibility that Oswald acted alone. > rude people here who will tell you you are stupid and crazy, > a 'loon', a 'buff' if you think/know there was a conspiracy. Anyone who calls you "stupid", "crazy", "loon", or "spook" is just using shorthand to say "I cannot make a persuasive case that you are wrong, so I will invent something bad to say about your mind or motive". However, I object to listing "buff" as one of these ad hominem terms. I consider myself a JFK assassination and conspiracy "buff": "one who is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about a particular subject" [American Heritage]. I don't mind being called a "nutter", since that is just a shorthand way to identify how I explain the assassination. In the past I have used "conspiratti" to identify those who do not believe Oswald acted alone. What do you folks want to be called? -- Brian Holtz Article 24238 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 20 Jan 1995 08:07:24 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3fnqvs$cs@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3feesn$8pn@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3fjhoq$3c6@seymour.sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3fjhoq$3c6@seymour.sfu.ca>, Bruce Schuck wrote: >pg 46 of the HSCA "Findings and Recommendations" > >vicinity of frame 200 of the Zapruder film. The President's right hand >freezes in the midst of a waving motion, followed by a rapid leftward >movement of his head. There is, therefore, photographic evidence of a >shot striking the President by this time." JBC moved his head like that c. Z169, and it wasn't due to a hit. When JFK emerges from behind the sign it appears that his elbows have only just started jerking upwards. This notion is reinforced by the JBC lapel flap. I wonder when the HSCA thought the CE399 shot occurred before the acoustic evidence sent them looking for something to call a bullet strike at Z190-Z207? -- Brian Holtz Article 24254 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 20 Jan 1995 09:24:38 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 194 Message-ID: <3fnvgm$13p@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3feha6$93v@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3fjl3p$3c6@seymour.sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article <3fjl3p$3c6@seymour.sfu.ca>, Bruce Schuck wrote: >Yes. He gave this estimate several ways. He estimated it by showing >FBI agents how it laid in his car, they measured the distance. It could >have been no more than 28 inches. What are the details here? Had it lain in some compartment with a maximum dimension of 28 inches? >>According to Posner, Frazier >>later admitted the package could have been longer [...] > >Thats out of context. A typical dishonest display by Posner. OK, what was the context? >His sister also estimated the length as 27 inches. >Michael Paine estimated the object wrapped in the blanket as being >about 27 inches as well. >Three witnesses. Three identical estimated of length. If all three are just guestimates without e.g. a compartment constraint like you hinted at, then I'm only a little bit bothered by this. People are not necessarily good at describing something that they didn't think was important when they saw it. When I was in the sixth grade, our teacher ran a little experiment on us. He had a guy walk unannounced in the classroom door (which was also the building's door) and through to the back room. A few minutes later we were surprised by being asked to describe the guy. We all agreed on the fact that he was an adult male in a shirt and long pants, but from there the descriptions tended to get off-base. >>Oswald told Frazier that curtain rods for his apartment were in the >>package, Oswald's apartment already had curtain rods, and no curtain >>rods were found at the TSBD. > >The FBI asked Truly to look for curtain rods *months* after the >assassination. The TSBD was scoured sufficiently to find the rifle, Oswald's clipboard, and somebody's lunch leavings. Don't you think the curtain rods are likely to have been found if they were there? Or did The Conspiracy find and dispose of the curtain rods? >>What do you suppose _was_ in the package? > >One of the rifles used to shoot at JFK. Not the MC. Why would The Conspiracy have Oswald bring in an undersized package? For that matter, why would they shoot at JFK with rifles _other_ than MCs? >And I see that the lone nut buff like Holtz is calling me a buff. >Name calling already Brian? Look up "buff". I'm a buff. It's not perjorative. >>The version that Arnold eventually told Anthony Summers conflicts with >>both her own original story and those of the women who were with her. > >Go ahead. Post some evidence for the above. Posner gives four cites in his notes. I can post the cites if you don't have a copy of _Case Closed_. >>More importantly, Oswald's own alibi of eating lunch with James Jarman >>collapsed when Jarman denied seeing Oswald during his lunch break. > >Oswald told the truth. >Several versions exist of what Oswald saw. In one he said he saw Jarman >and Norman walk together throught the lunch room. "Several versions exist"? Is this version the one Oswald came up with when Jarman denied seeing him? >Jarman and Norman did walk together out the front door and around the back >on their way to the elevator they took to the 5th floor. In other words, Oswald was not with Jarman during the shooting, and Oswald remains without an alibi. >>Because the DPD had already lifted the prints when the FBI demanded >>the rifle. > >But Day said the print was still there: > I could still see traces of the print under the barrel [...] It's no doubt easier to recognize traces of what one removed than to find what one does not know is there. Also, I wouldn't put it past Day to exaggerate the "traces" to make it look like them there federal boys weren't any better at finding prints than us good ole' boys. >>>On the other hand, prints of someone not working at the TSBD were also found >>>on the boxes in the snipers nest. >> >>This is news to me. What is your source? > >The FBI expert. Did they print (and match against) every TSBD employee, and also anybody else who might handle the boxes when they got delivered to the TSBD, and everybody who was at the crime scene? Was it just Oswald's bad luck that his prints were all over the upper surfaces of the sniper's nest boxes and the rifle-bag found there? >>Brennan [...] did not want to be the only witness to finger >>the triggerman. > >Thats an imaginative story. It's what Brennan said in WC III p. 128 [Posner]. >>So? Did The Conspiracy plant the wrong kind of casing on the 6th >>floor, and only later substituted the right kind? > >Thats one possiblity. Tell you what, you go think about it for a while, and then come up with the best "possibility" you can think of, and we'll see if your "possibility" doesn't make The Conspirators look as dumb as _this_ "possibility" does. >>found in the limo and which was matched to Oswald's rifle. > >Theres no seriological evidence the bullet fragments in the limo ever hit >a human being. Who guarantees that every fragment from a skull shot will still have the victim's blood on it by the time it is examined in a lab? If the fragment _did_ have blood on it, would you complain that the assassination was conveniently staged before the invention of DNA-matching? :-) >>>He wasn't fleeing. >> >>How many other TSBD employees left the building after the >>shooting but before the building was sealed off? > >Charles Givens is one. More bad luck for Lee. He JUST HAPPENED to be one of perhaps two employees who made themselves scarce immediately after the shooting... Why _shouldn't_ Oswald's quick departure be called "fleeing" if as you say he brought a (non-MC) rifle to work that morning? >>An officer not being able to find his marks does not necessarily imply >>the shells were different. > >It doesn't imply, it proves it. So the officer's memory and mark-finding ability has control over time, space, and matter, such that if he makes a mistake then the universe re-arranges itself to be consistent with him? I see. >>compared to the more than half-dozen eyewitnesses who identified >>Oswald as the gunman. > >From photos they saw on TV? From seeing him at the scene of the Tippit shooting. >>>In addition, a .38 handgun, of government issue was found near the scene >>>of the assassination. > >>Can you give me some more details here? > >Robert Harris posted the following: > >This material was released under FOIA to the FBI by Bill Adams >the FOIA is still pending. >-------------- >DOC1 - START (FBI 62-109060-485) >-------------- OK, so Bruce says that Robert says that Bill was given this FOIA nugget. I will provisionally assume that this nugget really exists in the government files, and didn't just mysteriously surface in the conspiracy community like, say, the Oswald letter to "Mr. Hunt". >FOR THE INFORMATION OF BOSTON OFFICE ON THE MORNING OF NOVEMBER >TWENTYTHREE, LAST, A SNUB NOSE THIRTY EIGHT CALIBER SMITH AND >WESSON, SERIAL NUMBER EIGHT NINE THREE TWO SIX FIVE, WITH THE WORD >QUOTE ENGLAND UNQUOTE ON THE CYLINDER WAS FOUND AT >APPROXIAMTELY SEVEN THIRTY AM., IN A BROWN PAPER SACK IN THE >GENERAL AREA OF WHERE THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY TOOK >PLACE. Oh, near the JFK assassination, not the Tippit slaying. That makes this .38 somewhat less interesting. -- Brian Holtz Article 24588 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? - No, sigh. Date: 23 Jan 1995 06:43:31 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 71 Message-ID: <3fvj6j$bfs@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3fmn2s$nhj@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: Instead, you talk about "spooks" and "cheat sheets", as if anyone who >: claimed to believe in a lone assassin were necessarily insincere in >: that claim. > >One you learn that 2+2=4, there is no reason to remain "open minded" to >the possibility that 2+2 might equal 5. The funny thing about "2+2=4" is that no serious member of the peer-reviewed mathematics resarch community doubts this. A modern, rigorous academic discipline is characterized by the ability of peer-reviewed investigators to come to the same conclusions independently, and accrete a solid foundation that at any given time is widely affirmed. How do you explain that the conspiracy that seems so obvious to you eludes a convergence of opinion among professional journalists and historians? History departments around the globe are full of Marxists, post-structuralists, and lots of others who consider themselves to be quite anti-Establishment. Why hasn't some hotshot grad student tried to get on the tenure track by exposing the JFK coup d'etat in a peer-reviewed history journal? How is The Conspiracy able to suppress -- in multiple academic disciplines, around the globe -- a line of reasoning that seems so obvious to you? Doesn't this bother you just a *little*? I have had Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims all tell me they can prove to any rational person that their belief is correct. And yet, academic theologians cannot reach consensus that any of these proofs are valid. Doesn't it bother you that you sound a lot like these religious peddlers of so-called proofs? >I have >seen too much to be "open" to the possiblity of a lone nut. I would >literally have to unknow all I have learned. Have you invested _that_ much in the conspiracy that you cannot back off? Isn't The Truth a higher good than the dogmatic protection of what for all I know is the biggest intellectual investment of your life? >Some things are not in >dispute by any rational person, such as the fact that the bullet that >struck Connally could not have, according to his own doctors, struck >anything else first. Oh, was Connally treated in the emergency room by forensic pathologists specializing in ballistics? :-) Where can I read about the testimony of these doctors? Or should I even bother, since you have certified that no "rational person" can doubt a conspiracy after hearing it? Does "rational" mean "immune to the idea that a pro-conspiracy M.D. could be wrong, or that an anti-conspiracy M.D. could be right"? >If you continue to remain open minded in the face of the cold hard >facts, I will continue to conclude that you are indeed a spook, as no What, precisely do you mean by "spook"? Does one have to be insincere, or does mere irrationality count? >person in my reality has ever concluded no conspiracy once faced with >such an overwhelming array of evidence as has been presented in this >forum in any given month. It sounds like you need to broaden your "reality"... :-) Also, has it occurred to you that the reason few buffs are lone nutters is that studying up to full buffhood seems like a waste if you then conclude that Oswald acted alone? I for one found the case much less interesting once I realized that the evidence points to Oswald's lone guilt. -- Brian Holtz Article 24591 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? Date: 23 Jan 1995 07:21:30 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 67 Message-ID: <3fvldq$bu0@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3fjl3p$3c6@seymour.sfu.ca> <3fnvgm$13p@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: >>Brennan [...] did not want to be the only witness to finger >: >>the triggerman. > >And he didn't identify him, even when he was in the safety of the police >department at the lineup. You know very well that identifying the suspect in a murder case is not a one-night gig. Brennan would have had to testify in open court. >: >Theres no seriological evidence the bullet fragments in the limo ever hit >: >a human being. > >: Who guarantees that every fragment from a skull shot [...] > >Classic straw man. Notice Brian says "every fragment", when the problem >is that not ONE frament had the victims' blood. No straw man. I was merely asking how surprised we should be that there was no blood found on the fragment. If blood is often not found on such fragments, the objection to the fragment is uninteresting. If blood is almost always found on such fragments, and The Conspiracy planted this fragment in the blood-soaked limousine, why didn't they take two seconds to rub on the back seat? >: Why _shouldn't_ Oswald's quick departure be called "fleeing" if as you >: say he brought a (non-MC) rifle to work that morning? > >Why should it be called "fleeing" if he stops for a coke? Stopping for a coke indeed slightly mitigates the charge of flight, but Bruce's theory (that Oswald knowingly brought a rifle to work) majorly _aggravates_ the charge. Hmmm, a "coke defense" for Oswald, can a "twinkie defense" be far behind.... ;-) >: >>An officer not being able to find his marks does not necessarily imply >: >>the shells were different. > >But in your world the universe allows for such bizarre coincidences >because they are needed for the lone nut myth to survive. I would be more interested if 1) I knew whether it was in fact highly unusual for an officer to be unable to find his marks, and 2) you could tell me why The Conspiracy wouldn't just plant the right shells on the spot when they killed Tippit. >: >>compared to the more than half-dozen eyewitnesses who identified >: >>Oswald as the gunman. > >Please name the half-dozen specifically. I'd love to discuss them with you. Markham, Virginia and Barbara Davis, Scoggins, Benavides, Callaway, Guinyard, Reynolds, Smith, and Patterson. >Did you know that Markhams's son was in jail at the time she ID'd Oswald? So? >Did you know that her other son called the mother a liar? When? -- Brian Holtz Article 24735 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Do "Nutters" ever Change Their Stripes? - No, sigh. Date: 25 Jan 1995 22:13:16 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 55 Message-ID: <3g6ids$n97@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3f50fa$aqe@scratchy.mi.net> <3fvj6j$bfs@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: The funny thing about "2+2=4" is that no serious member of the >: peer-reviewed mathematics resarch community doubts this. A modern, >: rigorous academic discipline is characterized by the ability of >: peer-reviewed investigators to come to the same conclusions >: independently, and accrete a solid foundation that at any given time >: is widely affirmed. > >You missed the point entirely. Sorry your head was so big you couldn't >see above it. How about devoting more bandwidth to answering my questions, instead of deleting them and then posting this kind of insult? I did _not_ miss your point. Your point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that a conspiracy is as obvious as 2+2=4. My counterpoint is that if a conspiracy is so obvious, why doesn't everyone believe it? You apparently found this sort of question too uncomfortable to answer, so you deleted it. If you want to try again, here you go: How do you explain that the conspiracy that seems so obvious to you eludes a convergence of opinion among professional journalists and historians? History departments around the globe are full of Marxists, post-structuralists, and lots of others who consider themselves to be quite anti-Establishment. Why hasn't some hotshot grad student tried to get on the tenure track by exposing the JFK coup d'etat in a peer-reviewed history journal? How is The Conspiracy able to suppress -- in multiple academic disciplines, around the globe -- a line of reasoning that seems so obvious to you? Doesn't this bother you just a *little*? >The point was - some things ARE obvious, and no amount of obfuscation >will hide it. Why is it "obfuscation" for me to ask you about the logical implications of your belief that a conspiracy is as obvious as 2+2=4? >No one needs to be peer-reviewed to know that 2+2=4. I have to believe you're being disingenous when you compare "2+2=4" and "a conspiracy killed JFK". Again: why is one of these statements so much more widely believed in the relevant professional community than the other? Why do you seem so afraid to explain this discrepency? >unless you're still in kindergarten - which is the intellectual level of >what we are asked to swallow when we listen to the lone nutters. I see. And what "intellectual level" is it to talk about people being "still in kindergarten"? Methinks you doth protest too much. :-) -- Brian Holtz Article 24969 of alt.conspiracy.jfk: Path: engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Mark Lane loses lawsuit -- Posner Wins Again Date: 27 Jan 1995 21:22:28 GMT Organization: SunSoft::Tech Dev::Desktop Tech::Frameworks::ToolTalk Lines: 40 Message-ID: <3gbo6k$lvn@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord.eng.sun.com Cc: In article , Lisa Pease wrote: >: "Lane entered the public forum by embroiling himself in one of the >: most factious debates of our time," Lamberth wrote. "It is quite simply >: untenable that someone espousing Lane's view would take umbrage at the >: rather reserved assessment that he misled the American public." > >Look at how dishonest this judge is. Just read the last statement above. >The judge is saying that Lane misled the American public by ENTERING the >debate The judge's statement says no such thing. >: The judge said Posner's evaluation that Lane misled the public "cannot >: be objectively verified without resolving 30 years of controversy > >If it cannot be objectively verified whether Posner's accusation was >true, should he be allowed to malign one's reputation thus? >Talk about guilty until proven innocent. No. Freedom of speech means you can say X until somebody _proves_ that "not X" is true. Proving Lane has not "misled the American public" would imply proving a conspiracy and thus resolving those 30 years of controversy the judge talked about. You may not like it, but in the eyes of the law The Conspiracy is not a settled matter of fact, and so people on both sides can call their opponents wrong and misleading. It's called freedom. The same freedom that lets you malign the reputation of people like Allan Dulles. >Nor is there any proof he has miseld the public. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff (Lane) to show that the respondent (Posner) published an untruth. Lane cannot just file a lawsuit saying "Prove it." If that were allowed, someone like Allen Dulles could impose enormous court costs on someone like Lisa Pease with a simple prove-it lawsuit. -- Brian Holtz