Article 5353 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.headlines,sci.energy Subject: Re: Keelynet File - TWOSUN.ASC Keywords: Do We Have A Double Sun? Message-ID: <17267@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 23 Jul 91 01:34:31 GMT References: <1991Jul17.234236.14278@bilver.uucp> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Followup-To: alt.conspiracy Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 9 Xref: exodus alt.conspiracy:5353 misc.headlines:16673 sci.energy:4973 Two suns? Sorry, but Kepler's laws guarantee that "our" sun would orbit around the solar system's center of mass more quickly than the earth does, and the other sun would be revealed in a matter of days. Also, one of the Voyagers has looked back on its way out of the solar system, and only one star shows up in its photos of the central solar system. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Dec 29 21:50:22 PST 1991 Article 8518 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 29 Dec 1991 02:11:14 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1991Dec28.202800.17838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:8518 rec.arts.movies:49321 In article <1991Dec28.202800.17838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson) writes: >key piece of information that I found most disturbing is the picture >of Oswald on the cover of Life magazine. This photograph is an obvious >fake that even this amateur photographer can deduce. Are you talking about the real photographs, or the ones Stone created for the movie? Stone had to make his own, of course, since he needed his Oswald actor to be in them to not draw attention away from the alleged fakery, but the ones he posed for the movie are at a _far_ higher resolution than the real McCoys, and I personally could only detect the alleged evidence of fakery in _Stone's_ pictures. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Dec 31 11:20:25 PST 1991 Article 8545 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 30 Dec 1991 06:09:50 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 166 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Oswald acted alone. He was a leftist kook and Cuba sympathizer who knew that if Kennedy were killed in the South it would be blamed on the Right. He took 3 shots from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. The first shot was a bad round that fell short of Kennedy's head, lodged shallow in his back, and worked its way out at Parkland to become CE 399, the "magic bullet". The second shot was fired in haste, and missed Kennedy completely, wounding Conally. Realizing that the limo was slowing instead of speeding away, Oswald took his time with his next shot, and sheared off the top right side of Kennedy's head. The bullet fragmented forward: one fragment exploded down and out through Kennedy's throat; one fragment cracked the limo's windshield; one fragment chipped the curb out ahead of the limo and nicked James Tague's cheek; two fragments were found on the floor of the limo, ahead of Kennedy. A jet of blood, brain, and bone thrown forward by the impact propelled Kennedy's head backwards toward Oswald. Ruby, who always carried a gun, acted alone, on impulse. I think the theory sketched above best fits the available physical evidence, but there are still some questions: 1. Could Oswald have gotten off a second (Conally) shot in the time available? The Warren Commission determined that it takes 2.3 seconds to get off two shots with Oswald's rifle, but Conally seems to be hit at most 1.7 seconds after Kennedy. No conspiracy buff ever seems to question this figure, and I find it to be very high. I've never worked the bolt of a Mannlicher-Carcano, but the bolt-action rifles I _have_ used need far less than 2.3 seconds to chamber another round and pull the trigger. Oswald had no reason to think the limo would slow down instead of speed up after the first shot was heard, and so he was frantic to get off a second shot before his quarry got away. 2. Did eyewitnesses see a rifleman fire from the grassy knoll? Lee Bowers told the WC he saw two men behind the fence there, and that a commotion or something caught his eye. Only later did he tell assassination researchers that the commotion might have been smoke or a flash or something. Bowers died in a 1966 car accident. Jean Hill told the WC she had the general impression that some of the shots came from the grassy knoll, based on the way they sounded. Only later did she start telling assassination researchers that she actually saw a puff of smoke come from a man firing from behind the fence there. Deaf mute Ed Hoffman says he saw a man run along the fence with a rifle, and then toss it to a man dressed as a railway worker, who then disassembled it, put it into a bag, and walk off. Hoffman now says that he tried to tell his story to authorities that day, but could not get anyone to understand him. In 1967 he was persuaded to go to the local FBI office and try again; the resulting FBI report says that he said he saw two men clutching something and running from the Depository. In 1977 he still didn't think the FBI had his story straight, and this time they said he told his current story of the men running from the fence with a rifle. I'm not sure how much stock we should put in these witnesses. All the eyewitnesses that said they saw a man with a gun behind the fence were only able to get this major detail into their dated accounts a _decade_ or more after the fact, usually after having been interviewed by "assassination researchers". Nor am I impressed by the many earwitnesses to a grassy knoll gunman. We are all familiar with the argument that there were plenty of tall buildings there to throw echoes. What nobody ever mentions is that all these witnesses were almost certainly looking directly at Kennedy when the right top of his head came off and his head was propelled back and to the left. My guess is that their eyes told their ears where the sound had come from. 3. Doesn't the Zapruder film show that the head shot came from the direction of the grassy knoll? It _seems_ to, according to all the assassination conspiracy authors. But the predominant motion of Kennedy's head is backwards (towards Oswald) rather than to the left (away from the grassy knoll). The most violent jets of blood, brain, and bone from Kennedy's head are directed forward, in line with a shot from the Depository, in line with the direction of travel of all known bullet fragments, and conserving the momentum of the Kennedy head-brain system. Finally, Kennedy's skull was left with a fist-sized hole in the right top, while the left was intact. A bullet fired from his right could not have created a fist-sized entry would and _no_ exit wound. (A shotgun blast could have, but no one heard a shotgun fired in Dealey Plaza. Shotguns sound completely different from rifles.) 3. Did Beverly Oliver (the "Babushka Lady") a) film the assassination from a vantage point that would have included the grassy knoll, b) have her film taken by the FBI, never to be heard of again, c) get introduced to Oswald by Ruby, and d) see David Ferrie frequent Ruby's club in late 1963? In photos of Dealey Plaza, it is said that a woman with a kerchief over her head can be seen filming Kennedy from the side of Elm Street opposite the grassy knoll. Located over a decade later by assassination researchers, Beverly Oliver answers "yes" to all the above questions. However, she 1) was at the time a 19-year-old employee at a strip club (next to Ruby's), 2) married a mafia figure who died in a gangland-style execution, and 3) is now born-again and married to an evangelist. Still, it would be interesting to know for sure what happened to the film recorded by the Babushka Lady. 4. Did Rose Cheramie (nee Melba Christine Marcades) have any basis for her on-the-record prediction of Kennedy's assassination? On Nov. 20 Cheramie was treated in Louisiana for abrasions she said she sustained from being thrown from a car. She said the men in the car looked like Italians and were on their way from Florida to Dallas to kill Kennedy. The doctor treating her said she said that she had worked for Jack Ruby, but in _Crossfire_ Jim Marrs does not explicitly say that the doctor said that the woman said this before Ruby became a household name on the 24th. The woman was found dead beside a Texas highway in 1965. As for _JFK_ the movie, it is so full of paranoid fantasy that one doesn't know where to begin to critique it. However, it does treat interestingly of three items of physical evidence. - Stone attempts to show that a lone Depository assassin could not have sighted through the foliage of a tree to get off a first shot early enough to give himself time to hit Conally with the second at the place on Elm where Conally in fact was hit. So why did Stone film the gunsight view of men in dark suits in a blue limousine behind green leaves in black and white!? - Stone attempts to present the evidence for doctoring of the backyard photos of Oswald posing with his Mannlicher-Carcano. He quite naturally could not use the real photos, since it would distract the audience to be presented with actual photos of Oswald when throughout the rest of the movie we are only shown the actor who played Oswald. But in re-creating the photos, Stone inserts the evidence of doctoring into a picture that he took with much greater resolution and clarity than the actual Oswald photos, completely hiding the possibility that the alleged doctoring is simply noise. - I was _astounded_ by Stone's contention that a New Zealand newspaper got Oswald's bio over a wire service _before_ Oswald's arrest. According to the _High Times_ article posted a few days ago, this contention was originally made by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 1964. The article says he checked the time of Oswald's arrest against the hour the paper had been printed and, with great horror, realized Oswald's biography had gone out on the international newswire before Oswald had been arrested by the Dallas police. Oswald was arrested at 2:00 pm, 90 minutes after Kennedy was shot, and the police did not know which of Oswald's IDs ("Oswald" and "Hidell") were authentic until 2:20 pm. If anyone can really show that Oswald's bio was on the wire before 2:00 pm Dallas time, that would be explosive evidence of some kind of conspiracy. I bet Prouty just has his time zones or printing times screwed up. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 1 10:22:00 PST 1992 Article 8607 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 1 Jan 1992 03:33:16 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 103 Message-ID: References: <4778@igor.Rational.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <4778@igor.Rational.COM> wab@worf.Rational.COM (Bill Baker) writes: >Sure, all the leftist kooks I know hang out with far >right sympathizers, white russians, etc. Uh huh. If it Oswald wasn't a believable candidate for being a lone assassin, then why did the alleged conspirators pick him? I thought the beauty of the Oswald-as-patsy theory is that he's the perfect patsy. >For your magic bullet theory to work a bullet fragment >from a high-velocity rifle round would have had to >go off on a perpendicular trajectory from the path >of the bullet (direction of trajectory wouldn't >matter) midway in its passage through JFK's brain, Who said anything about "midway"? The bullet comes on a downward trajectory and makes a glancing impact against curved bone; it's not surprising that one fragment might be deflected downwards. Not a single fragment was found opposite the grassy knoll, but at least two were found opposite the Depository, as were three separate fragment impacts (the neck wound, the windshield, and the curb/Tague). >travel down through his lower head and neck without >causing any noticeable damage (JFK didn't have any >significant bleeding from the nose or mouth), Why should there have been? The neck wound was only 3mm, and Kennedy's heart didn't have a whole lot of beats left with which to seep blood out through it. At Parkland, 3 hours after the shooting, Dr. Robert McClelland wrote an "admission note" that said they received Kennedy "comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea". The Parkland doctors described a 4- to 6-inch vertical channel of contusion, laceration, and hematoma stretching up and down the neck. >No one but no one contends that the last headshot >also caused the neck wound. No one, except the Parkland doctors, who were the only doctors to see the neck wound before the tracheotomy. >Besides, didn't Jackie say that she'd seen the neck wound prior to >the last head shot? No. She said she saw what we all saw, which is that after having been shot in the back Kennedy raised his fists to the level of his neck. >Can you cycle and aim a cheap rifle I can do it with my Dad's bolt-action rifle, while held in aiming position. Have you ever tried it with a Mannlicher-Carcano? >with a misaligned scope The scope could have been misaligned when Oswald dropped it. >At the time of the headshot, the grassy knoll was >about 35 degrees to the right of the direction of >travel of the limo. At most it was 45 degrees. It was at least 45 degrees, though not much more. In addition, Kennedy's head was turned a little to the left, maybe 20 degrees. >There are no forward jets of body >material. Then whose brain splattered all over the Connaly's like what they described as "birdshot"? And what magic fragment from the grassy knoll cracked the windshield? >Watch the Zapruder film: Kennedy's face >is quite clear throughout, and after the head shot >his face is still undamaged. The autopsy photos >also show no damage in front of the temples. So? I didn't say that the jets came from forward of the temple. I said they flew forward from right top rearish quadrant of a head that was turned a little to the left at the time. The Zapruder film _indeed_ shows no damage to the face, but it _also_ shows my forward jets of material. >It also requires a front entrance >wound, but it's possible that the bullet impacted at >JFK's right temple and blew out the skull from that >point backwards. Now you're getting the picture. The right top rear portion of Kennedy's head was sheared off by a glancing shot. That shot had to come roughly from somewhere near the plane defined by the perimeter of the hole left in th skull. Oswald was a lot closer to that plane than was the grassy knoll. >It's also possible that a rear shot could have >caused the same kind of combined entrance and exit >wound, but from Oswald's position such a shot would >have taken of the *left* rear of JFK's head, not the >right. An off-center hit from Oswald would have sheared off either the left front/top or right rear/top of the head, given its moderate leftward orientation at the time. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 1 10:22:33 PST 1992 Article 8608 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 1 Jan 1992 03:40:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1991Dec31.105227.1238@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1991Dec31.105227.1238@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >Ed "the mute" DID NOT see what you claimed. >He says that once the "uniformed" man behind the picket fence was done with >the rifle, he handed it to another man - who PUT IT IN A NEARBY UTILITY >BOX (like the ones that you find at street corners controlling lights). In _Crossfire_, Marrs says E said the man ducked behind a large railroad switch box -- one of two at the site -- and knelt down to disassemble the rigle and put it in a bag not unlike a railroad brakeman's tool bag. >The Uniformed man, then walked away quietly, while his assistand started >flashing i.d. to people who rushed the knoll (remember the fake secret >service man?). Marrs says nothing about Ed describing ID being flashed. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 4 11:08:22 PST 1992 Article 8655 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 2 Jan 1992 18:58:51 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan2.025955.19138@eecs.nwu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan2.025955.19138@eecs.nwu.edu> kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >>The first shot was a bad round that fell short of Kennedy's head, >>lodged shallow in his back, and worked its way out at Parkland to >>become CE 399, the "magic bullet". > >Please explain how this bullet managed to get onto Conally's gurney. It didn't. Darrel Tomlinson found it on a stretcher that was used to treat 2-year-old Ronald Fuller. The Warren Commission blatantly distorted Tomlinson's testimony to raise the possibility that Tomlinson in fact found it on an adjacent stretcher, which had been Conally's. One possibility is that a would-be souvenir-keeper got cold feet and left the bullet there. We do know that one hospital employee had the nerve to ask Jackie if he could keep her husband's undershirt. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 4 21:55:00 PST 1992 Article 8754 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo) Date: 4 Jan 1992 20:35:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <8058@inews.intel.com> <1991Dec27.220345.15369@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1991Dec27.231217.28057@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Jan2.205449.25511@dg-rtp.dg.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:8754 rec.arts.movies:49614 In article mg@elan (Michael Golan) writes: > Oswald connections to the CIA is random. Likelyhood? (50%) Not random. Oswald's delusions of grandeur caused him to seek out a semi-sensitive military job, just as they caused him to defect, to pose with his revolutionary's rifle, to take a potshot at Gen. Walker, and to kill Kennedy. > People who claimed to hear shots from place X really heard echos (50%) No, their eyes, being transfixed on Kennedy's head at the time, told them where the shot came from. Tell me, how many heard a grassy knoll shot and _didn't_ see the head shot? > The head moved back with a rear shot (50%) It's completely consistent with the physics of the Zapruder film and various experiments. I'd like to see experiments on cadavers that only use glancing shots like the one that hit Kennedy. > There where only 3 shots (one being a magic bullet) (50%) There's no physical evidence for any other number of shots, and there's no magic bullet. Kennedy's back wound and Connaly's back wound were caused by consecutive shots. > Oswald was able to shoot that accurately this fast (50%) The only quick shot that Oswald took missed his target completely. He had at least 4 seconds to line up the other two shots. > The Z film frames prints where honestly reversed (50%) Who knows? Who cares? That the Warren Commission is fucked in the head does not prove that there was a conspiracy. > The driver slowed down instead of speeding up becuase of panic etc (50%) When you're driving and something startling occurs, do you instinctively speed up or slow down? If Secret Service agents are as uniformly hair-trigger lead-footed as you would have us believe, shouldn't they be getting into accidents all the time? Your list omits the one thing that is the most suspicious to me: Rose Cheramie's prediction of the assassination. In _Crossfire_ it is left unclear whether she made the claim that she worked for Jack Ruby before or after Ruby became a household name. If she made it before, then that would be enough to convince me that the mob did it. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 4 22:00:21 PST 1992 Article 8753 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 4 Jan 1992 20:05:56 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1991Dec28.202800.17838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <12848@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12848@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes: >Warren Commission view. There are several of these faked Oswald >photos. In one, the technician has carelessly airbrushed out a piece >of the scope on the rifle. In another, Oswald's chin is cut off, so >the cleft no longer shows. When photo experts examined these photos, >they found that if they were put in registration, the backgrounds >matched perfectly. (The enlarging easel had to be tilted on one). >This indicates the camera was not hand held by Marina, as the >story was put out, but on a tripod. Also, the heads are all >identical, yet in one shot the body is farther from the camera. None of these effects are visible in the three photos Jim Marrs published in _Crossfire_. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 4 22:10:26 PST 1992 Article 8751 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 4 Jan 1992 19:55:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 137 Message-ID: References: <12849@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12849@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes: >In fact, he had no known >association with leftist people. Weren't there still leftists in the Soviet Union when he defected? It _was_ quite a few years before the rise of Gorbachev... >>The first shot was a bad round that fell short of >>Kennedy's head, lodged shallow in his back. [...] Oswald >>took his time with his next shot, and sheared off the top right side >>of Kennedy's head. > >Watch the Zapruder film again. Kennedy was clearly hit seconds before >the fatal head shot. That's what I said. >When hit, he raises his hands to his throat >and starts bending forward. He raises his fists to the _level_ of his throat. They never come even close to touching his throat. This is consistent with the throat wound being a fragment wound from the head shot. >The FBI had trained marksmen who tried to duplicate the shooting with >Oswald's rifle. To date, no one has ever been able to get the shots >off that quickly I can cycle and aim my Dad's bolt action rifle 10 times in 16 seconds. The Warren commission said that Oswald had 1.6 seconds to get off the (poorly-aimed) Conally shot. >and accurately, let alone improve on "Oswald's" score. Define "accurately". Were they required to hit Conally with the second shot, or merely miss Kennedy by only as much as the Conally shot missed Kennedy? >Oswald's rifle was so poor that before they could even try to test >fire it, they had to put shims under the telescope mounting, since it >was so far out of adjustment. Oswald probably dropped it on the scope when he slid it between two piles of boxes on the 6th floor. >More interesting to me is how many of the witnesses that ran up >the knoll (whether trying to get away or trying to apprehend the >assassins) were turned back by people in plain clothes with secret >service badges. Who were these men? Which witnesses said they saw secret service "badges"? Didn't some of these people just assume that the plain clothes officials they met were secret service? >> authors. But the predominant motion of Kennedy's head is backwards >> (towards Oswald) rather than to the left (away from the grassy > >To my eye, the motion is backwards and to the left (toward Jackie). That's what I said. The motion is backwards and to the left, but the backward motion predominates. >The piece of skull Jackie tries to catch goes back off the left side >of the trunk. Oswald was on the right of the car. Oswald was only slightly to the right of centerline; the angle between his line of sight and the piece of skull was probably only 20 degrees or so. That's well within one of the two plumes of matter that would be expected from an Oswald head shot. Again, recall that _all_ of the bullet fragments and bullet fragment effects from the head shot were found on the _opposite_ side of Kennedy from Oswald's position, and at greater than 90 degrees off of a trajectory from the grassy knoll. >> bullet fired from his right could not have created a fist-sized >> entry would and _no_ exit wound. > >Oswald was also on the right. Where is the exit wound if Oswald's >bullet did it? Same argument applies to both. No. A bullet fired from behind hitting him off-center above the ear would have just sheared off a portion of the head. Since the head wound is both an entrance and exit wound, the head shot had to come from somewhere near the plane defined by the perimeter of the skull wound. Oswald was much closer to that plane than was the grassy knoll. >(The throat wound >was not an exit wound from the head, it clearly happened earlier Says who? The senior secret service agent in Kennedy's car (Kellerman?) said he heard Kennedy exclaim "my God, I'm hit". He could not have said it with a hole in his esophagus. >and has the appearance of an entrance wound). The Parkland doctors were the ones who said this. They also said that it was only 3-5 mm in the _long_ diameter, and that it was probably a fragment wound from the head shot. Have you seen the photographs of the nick in Kennedy's tie in front of the neck wound? No intact bullet could have fit through that tiny hole. Also, the Parkland doctors described a 4-6 inch channel of hematoma and contusion extending up and down Kennedy's neck and associated with the neck wound. For that channel to have been caused by an entrance wound would require somebody firing from Kennedy's feet. >> interesting to know for sure what happened to the film recorded by >> the Babushka Lady. >> >ABC's entertainment tonight did show another home movie. It was a >copy and showed some movements behind the fence on the grassy knoll, >but the copy was so poor that one could not see the figures clearly >enough to know what they were. The FBI has refused to release the >original. Was this the Nix film or the fabled Babushka Lady film? The Nix film is of such poor resolution and quality that nothing definitive could be seen on it. I've never heard that the Babuska Lady film has surfaced. Also, recall that some people think that Moorman's photo "shows" a "badge man" with a smoking rifle behind the fence, which is clearly fantasy to anyone who has seen the photo. >You need to see the originals yourself. I saw them at an assassination >symposium two years ago here at the Univ. of Pittsburgh (I think >Jim Marr had them). Well, the versions that Jim Marrs put in _Crossfire_ were utterly unconvincing. In the text he qualifies the fakery conclusion with very strong terms -- something like "most" photo analysts think otherwise, but one thinks that the differences in the Oswald faces can be accounted for by a darkroom technique of changing the angle of the film. (The faces in the three photos are supposed to come from the same image. Never mind that the simplest explanation of the differences in the three faces is that it's the same face photographed three times, in the three original photos.) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 4 22:10:37 PST 1992 Article 8752 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 4 Jan 1992 19:59:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <4778@igor.Rational.COM> <12850@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12850@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes: >The Parkland doctors noted an "entrance wound" in the neck. They said the wound had clean edges _like_ an entrance wound. The also said that it was only 3-5 mm in the _long_ diameter. No intact bullet could have gotten through the nick in Kennedy's tie in front of the neck wound. >>The scope could have been misaligned when Oswald dropped it. >> >Dropped it? The rifle was found carefully concealed on the >other side of the 6th floor, not dropped at the window. The rifle was found between two stacks of boxes on the other side of the 6th floor. It had to be either dropped or slid into that slot. I doubt Oswald was taking his time with the rifle at that point. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 5 16:07:28 PST 1992 Article 8767 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 5 Jan 1992 06:34:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <12849@pitt.UUCP> <4JAN199216081242@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <4JAN199216081242@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: >>He raises his fists to the _level_ of his throat. They never come >>even close to touching his throat. This is consistent with the throat >>wound being a fragment wound from the head shot. > > Kennedy hands are, in fact, balled up into fists. Furthermore, > Kennedy's actions are identical to a type of reflex action > known to occur when the upper spinal column recieves a > physical shock, like that of a bullet impact or a compression > wave from a pssing bullet. Right. > Given this, it's difficult to imagine how a fragment from > a bullet striking JFK's head would cause this to happen. I didn't say it did. I am not assuming that Kennedy raised his fists in response to the neck wound, but rather in response to the back wound, and that the two wounds were caused by different shots. > (no one's be able to 'officially able' to get off the shots > in time, to use Groden's words) I think the "officially" part just means that neither the WC nor the HSCA could repeat Oswald's lucky miss that hit Conally, using a Mannlicher-Carcano. But Oswald wasn't trying to hit Conally. And the HSCA admitted that the rifle physically could have been fired in the 1.6 seconds alloted to the Conally shot. >>He could not have said it with a hole in his esophagus. > > Anyone could say "I'm hit" with a hole in the esophagus, > since the esophagus exists for digestion rather than > speech. I meant to say trachea. The trachea is in front, and the wound was extended during the tracheotomy. > Lattimer was consistently able to duplicate > the wounds seen in Kennedy's throat, and he also got > tie-knot nicks identical to the one seen in JFK's > tie. Did Lattimer fire on a downward trajectory? Did the entrance wound terminate abruptly after going in less than a finger's length? Did the exit wound appear inches _above_ the back entrance wound, with an upward track of contusion and hematoma extending from it? In short, does anyone still think the neck wound is an exit wound for the back wound? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 5 16:07:48 PST 1992 Article 8768 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 5 Jan 1992 06:40:07 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <12849@pitt.UUCP> <1992Jan4.234818.27863@risky.ecs.umass.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan4.234818.27863@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu writes: >>I can cycle and aim my Dad's bolt action rifle 10 times in 16 seconds. >>The Warren commission said that Oswald had 1.6 seconds to get off the >>(poorly-aimed) Conally shot. > > Did you do this on a moving target at a comparable distance >with some possible tree cover on the target? The limosine was moving less than 10 mph, and directly away from Oswald. The blue interior of the limo would have been easy to track through the green leaves of the tree, allowing Oswald to take his first shot as soon as Kennedy cleared the foliage. Note that when Stone tried to show that the tree obstructs Oswald's view, he filmed the view through the trees in *black and white*, making the limo virtually disappear in the jumble of shapes. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 6 13:10:09 PST 1992 Article 8793 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 6 Jan 1992 00:13:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan4.234818.27863@risky.ecs.umass.edu> <1992Jan5.080831.16807@risky.ecs.umass.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan5.080831.16807@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes: >>The limosine was moving less than 10 mph, and directly away from >>Oswald. > >Kennedy was hit while passing the book depository right? This makes >the target slightly more difficult to hit than one moving directly away. No. The shooting started when the car was about 100 feet past the turn from Houston onto Elm, by the Stemmons Freeway sign. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 6 13:10:19 PST 1992 Article 8796 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 6 Jan 1992 00:47:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <12849@pitt.UUCP> <4JAN199216081242@zeus.tamu.edu> <5JAN199213261994@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <5JAN199213261994@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: >>And the HSCA admitted that the rifle physically could have been fired >>in the 1.6 seconds alloted to the Conally shot. > > Last I checked, the HCSA figure of 1.6 seconds between > shots was taken from the long-discredited aboustic > analysis of the channel 1 dictaphone. I didn't know that. 1.6 seconds is also the amount of time on the Zapruder film between Kennedy disappearing behind the sign and Conally apparently getting hit. Out of curiosity: does anyone have the timings of the alleged four shots on the dictaphone? >>Did the entrance wound terminate abruptly after going in less than a finger's >>length? > > No, it didn't. Neither did the wound's in Kennedy's back. According to the three autopsy physicians, it did. > So > far as I have read, and I've done my homework here, bullet > tracks do not suddenly "end abruptly". Furthermore, even a > slow moving bullet from a pistol would have penetrated more > deeply than "less than a finger length. It was probably a 'short' round. Remember, Oswald had the most time to aim the first shot, yet it dropped significantly from the presumed target (Kennedy's head). Also, this would explain the near-pristine condition of CE 399, which I don't think any bullet has matched after being fired through a human chest. Or neck. > As Dr Michael Baden, > head of the HSCA forensics panel, Lattimer, and others > have pointed out, a series of small pockets of air can > be seen in the autopsy X-rays. These air pockets form > a line between the enterance wound and the exit Have these pictures been published? I hope that the air pockets are easier to see than, say, the 'badge man' rifleman in the Moorman photo, or the tampering in the three Oswald pose photos, or other hallucinations. >>Did the exit wound appear inches _above_ the back entrance wound, > > You, of course, are assuming that JFK was sitting ramrod > straight when he was hit How far forward would Kennedy have to be pitched to make up the 5 inches difference in altitude between the two wounds? And where did this bullet go? Are you defending the magic bullet theory, and its holding pattern between Kennedy and Conally while Conally finished his turn to the right and started turning to the left? > Two others, one done for the HSCA and one for the '88 > Nova program, have no problem with the locations of > the two wounds. I haven't seen the HSCA's. But Nova had Kennedy and Conally stick figures gyrating quite laughably. > Also, the base of JFK's neck is higher up on the neck than > it is for most people. This is attributed to Kennedy's > swimming --which builds up the trapezius muscle in the upper > back and shoulders, and to fatty deposits caused by the > cortisone treatments JFK was recieving for Addison's disease. The hole in the back of his shirt is 5 inches lower than the collar-level exit hole. Did his shirt receive cortesone injections, too? ;) By the way, I was struck by the offhand remark, deep inside one of the 1986 assassination newsletters recently posted here, that the Magic Bullet theory was successfully rehabilitated by the HSCA in the minds of some assassination buffs. Is this true? If so, what hard evidence changed their minds? Is your x-ray an instance of it? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 6 14:05:54 PST 1992 Article 8797 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Physics of JFK Assassination Date: 6 Jan 1992 01:11:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan5.171905.17312@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Zapruder film, conservation of angular momentum In article <1992Jan5.171905.17312@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >indicates that jets of brain matter could play an important role >in the physics of the problem. However, no such jets are >apparent in the Zapruder film. Which Zapruder film have you been watching? The film shows them. The Conallys (in front of Kennedy) reported being splattered with _some_body's brain like "birdshot". _All_ of the bullet fragments and fragment effects from the head shot occurred directly opposite Kennedy's head from the Depository: the cracked windshield, the two bullet fragments found on the limo floor ahead of Kennedy, the curb nick and Tague wound, and the Kennedy neck wound. Finally, the head wound is both an entrance _and_ exit wound, indicating a glancing hit that had to come from near the plane defined by the wound's perimeter. The grassy knoll is a lot further away from that plane than is the Depository. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 10:07:20 PST 1992 Article 8820 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 6 Jan 1992 21:10:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <12849@pitt.UUCP> <12879@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12879@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>I can cycle and aim my Dad's bolt action rifle 10 times in 16 seconds. >>The Warren commission said that Oswald had 1.6 seconds to get off the >>(poorly-aimed) Conally shot. > >And what can you hit in between your cycling the action? I wasn't firing the rifle. Also, Oswald didn't hit what he was aiming at when he cycled his rifle this quickly. >>Define "accurately". Were they required to hit Conally with the >>second shot, or merely miss Kennedy by only as much as the Conally >>shot missed Kennedy? >> >No they were required to hit a man sized target twice in 3 shots. >They couldn't. Did they give themselves a full four seconds on their last shot, like Oswald did, or did they divide the allotted time evenly and wind up missing with both? And why does author Lattimer say his 14-year-old son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting? >The fake agents >were actively intervening and turning people back. One of the cops >said he should have been suspicious since when one flashed his badge >he noticed the fingernails had dirt under them. I wonder whether credentials were just being flashed and people assumed they were Secret Service. I remember hearing a reporter say that he had dashed up the grassy knoll and with his crew cut could have been mistaken for a Secret Service agent. What did the Warren Commission have to say about these fake agents? Or did the stories of fake agents surface years later (like so much of the choicest testimony), after memories improved under the prompting of interviews by assassination "researchers"? >You mean his trachea. No one said the wound went through >the trachea It had to, or I don't think they could have used the wound to do a tracheotomy. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 10:07:33 PST 1992 Article 8825 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 6 Jan 1992 21:31:47 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <12849@pitt.UUCP> <4JAN199216081242@zeus.tamu.edu> <5JAN199222471545@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <5JAN199222471545@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: >>Out of curiosity: does anyone have the >>timings of the alleged four shots on the dictaphone? > > Why would it matter? The Barger and Weiss analyses have > been so obviously shown to have been wrong it > makes no sense. Well, the whole dictabelt business puzzles me. First of all, if the crosstalk problem is as devastating as it would seem to be, then why do people still bring it up? Was it discredited before or after the HSCA finished its work? Did the HSCA and their experts, once having been told about the crosstalk, say "oops, never mind"? I remember on Nova the HSCA experts came up with a 20-or-so-echo acoustic "fingerprint" of Dealy Plaza gunshots, and then found four of them on the dictabelt. Unless they munged the fingerprints to match their four candidate gunshots, doesn't the crosstalk rebuttal mean that there had to be four backfires/firecrackers/etc. in Dealy Plaza a minute or so after the shooting (or whenever the crosstalk indicates the recording took place)? > They never even attempted to dissect the bullet track, > or examine it in depth, so how would they know? Also, they weren't experienced autopists. But I think they _did_ probe the wound with a metal probe, right? How common is it that a bullet path can't even be followed by a metal probe? > The X-rays have been published, but I'm told that air pockets > tend to be fairly subtle affairs. Thinking about it, I can see > why. A practiced eye looking at the originals would see them. Like canals on Mars, or backward satanic messages in heavy metal songs? ;) I'd only be impressed if the x-rays were handed out of the blue to random forensic pathologist-types told to find a bullet track, and most or all of them pointed to the subtle air bubbles. >>Bullet theory was successfully rehabilitated by the HSCA in the minds > > The remark may well be true. After all, you don't need > more than one gunman to have a conspiracy. The HSCA, > after all, came the same conclusions that the Warren > Commission did, except for the addition of the second > gunman. Was the HSCA's conspiracy conclusion based solely on the discredited dictabelt? > I guess that a lot of people would stop worrying > so much about the magic bullet once the second gunman > entered the picture. Did they even attempt to explain the Zapruder film of Conally apparently being hit well after Kennedy was first hit? At any rate, whether or not the Magic Bullet theory is as true as you say it is, I think it doesn't make much difference as to whether Oswald acted alone. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv!sun!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 10:11:15 PST 1992 Article 8855 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv!sun!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Message-ID: Date: 6 Jan 92 21:10:23 GMT References: <12849@pitt.UUCP> <12879@pitt.UUCP> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 44 NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12879@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>I can cycle and aim my Dad's bolt action rifle 10 times in 16 seconds. >>The Warren commission said that Oswald had 1.6 seconds to get off the >>(poorly-aimed) Conally shot. > >And what can you hit in between your cycling the action? I wasn't firing the rifle. Also, Oswald didn't hit what he was aiming at when he cycled his rifle this quickly. >>Define "accurately". Were they required to hit Conally with the >>second shot, or merely miss Kennedy by only as much as the Conally >>shot missed Kennedy? >> >No they were required to hit a man sized target twice in 3 shots. >They couldn't. Did they give themselves a full four seconds on their last shot, like Oswald did, or did they divide the allotted time evenly and wind up missing with both? And why does author Lattimer say his 14-year-old son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting? >The fake agents >were actively intervening and turning people back. One of the cops >said he should have been suspicious since when one flashed his badge >he noticed the fingernails had dirt under them. I wonder whether credentials were just being flashed and people assumed they were Secret Service. I remember hearing a reporter say that he had dashed up the grassy knoll and with his crew cut could have been mistaken for a Secret Service agent. What did the Warren Commission have to say about these fake agents? Or did the stories of fake agents surface years later (like so much of the choicest testimony), after memories improved under the prompting of interviews by assassination "researchers"? >You mean his trachea. No one said the wound went through >the trachea It had to, or I don't think they could have used the wound to do a tracheotomy. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 10:23:27 PST 1992 Article 8826 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo) Date: 6 Jan 1992 21:50:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <12875@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12875@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>No, their eyes, being transfixed on Kennedy's head at the time, told >>them where the shot came from. Tell me, how many heard a grassy knoll >>shot and _didn't_ see the head shot? >> >There were some, including a soldier named Arnold, standing in front >of the knoll who hit the deck upon believing themselves between the >shooter and shootee. But Arnold is flat-out _wrong_ about the first shot being from the grassy knoll -- all the physical evidence about the shooting that Arnold reacted to (viz., the Kennedy and perhaps Conally wounds) indicates that that shooting was coming from nowhere near him. >The chance for physical evidence was destroyed. The most egregious >act was LBJ's ordering the complete refitting of the presidential >limo two days after the shooting. But not until after two bullet fragments had been found in it, and a cracked windshield and dented chrome had been duly examined. >A bullet was found in the >grass and turned over to the FBI, which subsequently disapppeared. I don't put much stock in this story. The newspaper photograph I've seen had a caption saying the people were looking at where a bullet hit the grass, and not that they were looking at a bullet. If it was an entire bullet that was allegedly found, how on earth did it come to be sitting "in the grass" instead of burrowed a few feet underground? (Was somebody throwing bullets at Kennedy from the grassy knoll? ;) Also, _when_ did this story enter the public record? I don't trust any story that assassination "researchers" manage to elicit years after the events in question. >A curbstone was shattered near the limo, "Shattered"? Have you _seen_ the picture of the nick in the curb? It is too slight to have been caused by an unimpeded rifle shot. No traces of bullet jacket were found there, but traces of lead (a la a fragment from a bullet core) were in fact found. Also, the nick is directly in line with a Kennedy head shot from the Depository sniper's nest. >but was patched the next >week with fresh cement. The curb was not examined until almost a _year_ later, at which time the mark was indeed (almost?) gone. Only in the early 80's did an analysis of the curb say that its appearance was _consistent_ with having been patched, but they weren't sure. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 10:24:01 PST 1992 Article 8827 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 6 Jan 1992 22:03:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <5JAN199217364073@zeus.tamu.edu> <1991Dec28.202800.17838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <12848@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan6.072134.27607@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes: >Oswald told the Dallas police that the photos were fakes. Wouldn't you, if the photos showed you holding the gun that killed the President? >Whether or not he actually did pose for them is a less important issue than >that the _significance_ of the photos on the surface -- to paint Oswald >as a militant leftist -- is a transparent sham. I love this kind of conspiracy-think. "The photos clearly show that Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide, so the only _possible_ explanation is that they are a transparent sham designed to make us _think_ Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide." -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv!sun!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 16:45:54 PST 1992 Article 8861 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv!sun!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Message-ID: Date: 6 Jan 92 22:03:00 GMT References: <5JAN199217364073@zeus.tamu.edu> <1991Dec28.202800.17838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <12848@pitt.UUCP> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan6.072134.27607@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes: >Oswald told the Dallas police that the photos were fakes. Wouldn't you, if the photos showed you holding the gun that killed the President? >Whether or not he actually did pose for them is a less important issue than >that the _significance_ of the photos on the surface -- to paint Oswald >as a militant leftist -- is a transparent sham. I love this kind of conspiracy-think. "The photos clearly show that Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide, so the only _possible_ explanation is that they are a transparent sham designed to make us _think_ Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide." -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 16:57:25 PST 1992 Article 8899 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 7 Jan 1992 18:55:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <5JAN199217364073@zeus.tamu.edu> <1991Dec28.202800.17838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <12848@ <1992Jan6.224805.929@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan6.224805.929@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes: >>>Whether or not he actually did pose for them is a less important issue than >>>that the _significance_ of the photos on the surface -- to paint Oswald >>>as a militant leftist -- is a transparent sham. >> >>I love this kind of conspiracy-think. "The photos clearly show that >>Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide, so the only >>_possible_ explanation is that they are a transparent sham designed to >>make us _think_ Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide." >> >Congratulations on a very nice job of selective editing, buddy. It was an >apt decision on your part not to include the remainder of my post: > >[Oswald holds both Trotskyite and anti-Trotskyite pamphlets in the photo.] >For someone conscious about >*ideological distinctions, as Oswald was supposed to have been, holding >*both _The Worker_ and _The Militant_ is somewhat odd -- not unlike posing >*with copies of _National Review_ and _The Nation_ to portray an ideological >*orientation toward U.S. politics." (p. 118) This amazing insight about the photo is worthless. Even a high school dropout like Oswald would see that the primary difference between NR and _The Nation_ is that one basically supports, and one basically opposes, the current American regime at any given time. By contrast, Oswald's two pamphlets have in common a call to revolution; are you going to tell us that Oswald would have opposed a communist revolution if it was of the wrong flavor? >I love this kind of cover-up think. "Conveniently omit any evidence that >doesn't fit your prior conclusion." "Cover-up" implies knowledge of what truth is being covered up. I love this kind of conspiracy-think. "Anybody who doesn't buy into the conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy and knows that the theory is true." One of my main problems with the conspiracy explanation is that it is too much like a religion. The Messiah JFK would have saved us all from Vietnam, racism, disillusionment, high cholesterol, etc., and so his death can only be made into a martyrdom if he was killed by the forces we consider to be Bad. I see so much rage from the conspiracy buffs over the death of their hero, and yet they make his killer out to be almost a _sympathetic figure_! I have already expressed some of _my_ lingering doubts about my Oswald-acting-alone theory, but I have _never_ heard a conspiracy theorist admit even the possibility that there was not a conspiracy. Which isn't surprising, because a conspiracy theory can easily deal with any possible evidence: if the evidence throws doubt on Oswald acting alone, it's evidence for a conspiracy. If the evidence shows that Oswald acted alone, it's evidence that was obviously planted by the conspirators. Example: Ruby sloppily is late for Oswald's appointed transfer? No problem! Just put a conspirator in the Dallas PD, have him delay the transfer, and have him signal Ruby when the transfer finally happens. It's ingenious, because it makes Ruby's act look like a spur-of-the-moment thing, so it's obviously part of the conspiracy. Yeah, that's the ticket. Unfalsifiable theories explain nothing. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 17:05:12 PST 1992 Article 8885 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 7 Jan 1992 18:17:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <4JAN199216081242@zeus.tamu.edu> <5JAN199222471545@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Jan7.091734.4383@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan7.091734.4383@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >Mitchell S. Todd posted that he had heard the bullets shot into the wrists >of cadavers were almost as good (in shape?) as the prestine (magic) bullet. >Bullet #399- found on Dallas Stretcher. > >Where did you hear that?? There is a vast diference. And consider that >the bullets that were fired into the cadavers and dead goats were only >shot into something ONCE. The prisitne bullet (supposedly) went through >Kennedy and Connaly (wrist included). Right. The theory is that the intervening neck and chest slowed the bullet to a speed at which it merely _splits_ the wrist bone on its way through. Have you seen x-rays of those cadaver wrists that had a rifle bullet shot directly into them? The wrist bones are completely _destroyed_, the bullet is completely mangled, and the cadaver would have lost the use of his wrist. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:53:42 PST 1992 Article 8924 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 00:46:10 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <3751@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3751@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >I don't think I'd say the photos were faked. It's too easy to check-- >Marina would have admitted taking them. I don't think she has to testify against her husband, does she? >If I was lying, I would have said >the photos were taken as a gag. Then again, I would not have been >manufacturing incriminating clues if I was going to shoot the president. When were the photos taken? I doubt that Oswald knew Kennedy's motorcade would be going past his building when the pictures were taken -- or even that Kennedy was going to visit Dallas. >< I love this kind of conspiracy-think. "The photos clearly show that >< Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide, so the only >< _possible_ explanation is that they are a transparent sham designed to >< make us _think_ Oswald was a militant leftist would-be tyrannicide." > >So why is he hanging out with militant anti-communists in New Orleans then? Define "hanging out". >>How many marines with security clearances and CIA experience convert to >"militant leftists"? He didn't "convert". He was an avowed leftist before and during his Marine service. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:53:56 PST 1992 Article 8926 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 00:52:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <12848@pitt.UUCP> <12895@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12895@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >That's a good point, and suggests that whoever staged the photos had >no idea of left-wing politics, but just went out and bought a couple >of newspapers that they thought would be associated with communists. >It's really too blatant, isn't it? Not only does the rifle have to >appear, but newspapers that confirm Oswald a true leftist rather than >the CIA he really was. Spelled it out for us completely. Listen to yourself! Did it ever occur to you that _Oswald_ is the poor sap in question with confused ideas about left-wing politics? What shred of evidence is there that Oswald ever shunned either Trotskyites or non-Trotskyites? Did not both of the pamphlets in the photo call for a violent revolution? >Another interesting point is that Marina said she was told if she >didn't admit to taking the pictures they would see that she was >sent back to Russia, and has since recanted what she told the Warren >Commission about that. And of course, Marina has no motive whatsoever to either clear the Oswald name, or nurture the conspiracy industry. Naaaah. She _must_ be telling the truth. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:54:08 PST 1992 Article 8927 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 00:57:39 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <4JAN199216335427@zeus.tamu.edu> <12877@pitt.UUCP> <5JAN199217485050@zeus.tamu.edu> <12894@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12894@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >The other question was, why was Oswald so anxious to make >incriminating photos of himself What evidence is there that the photos were taken after Oswald found out he'd have an opportunity to shoot Kennedy? >leave them sitting on a table in his house What is your source for this? >and then deny having shot Kennedy? Certainly a nut >might make the photos, but he also would then be proud of what >he had done. Does one have to accept a death penalty before one can be proud of what one has done? Remember, everyone assumed Kennedy was shot by right-wing nuts, until they heard about Oswald. (Did you see the man-in-the-street interviews during A&E's rebroadcast of the Nov. 22 CBS coverage?) I think Oswald's hope was to have the shooting blamed on the Right. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:54:22 PST 1992 Article 8928 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 01:02:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <3759@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3759@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >Well, if you prefer to believe that strip-joint operator and petty mobster >Ruby was willing to send himself to the electric chair to save Jackie from >testifying at Oswald's trial, then that's your prerogative. Show me the posting where I said any such thing. What we have is an unstable guy who always carries a gun, who hangs around the Dallas Police Headquarters a lot, and who flips out when the scumbag of the century is paraded a few feet in front of him. Why do you think that they have such intense security around accused Presidential assassins? Do you think they're only being protected from any co-conspirators they might have? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:56:15 PST 1992 Article 8930 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 8 Jan 1992 01:08:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <5JAN199213261994@zeus.tamu.edu> <12890@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: It's starting already. In article <12890@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>According to the three autopsy physicians, it did. >> >Unfortunately, the wound was not dissected. One physician put >his finger into the wound and encountered an obstruction (not metallic). >He was ordered not to proceed any further by one of the admirals present >at the autopsy. It starting already. Oliver Stone made that up. In his movie, one physician starts to probe the wound, and is told to stop. In reality, _three_ physicians took turns probing the wound, and I've heard of no evidence that they were specifically told to stop probing that wound. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:56:29 PST 1992 Article 8931 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 8 Jan 1992 01:18:09 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <12879@pitt.UUCP> <12892@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12892@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>I wasn't firing the rifle. Also, Oswald didn't hit what he was aiming >>at when he cycled his rifle this quickly. > >Then you admit Oswald didn't produce the fatal head shot? No. The 1.6-second shot was the _second_ shot, which I said hit Conally. Oswald had _4_ seconds to line up the head shot. And, if the Warren Commission was actually correct about the Magic Bullet, as Mitchell Todd says was confirmed by the HSCA, then Oswald doesn't even have to hit the limousine itself with the quick shot. (By the way, Mitchell, what did that second shot hit, if not Conally's back? A clean impact from a high-powered rifle should take out quite a chunck of street, but I've never heard that it did.) >>Did they give themselves a full four seconds on their last shot, like >>Oswald did, or did they divide the allotted time evenly and wind up >>missing with both? And why does author Lattimer say his 14-year-old >>son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting? >> >Supposedly they gave themselves the time the Warren Commission said occurred >between shots. I don't recall what that was. Suffice it to say that "official" reconstructions of the shooting have been about as competent as the rest of the "official" investigation of the assassination. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:56:39 PST 1992 Article 8932 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 8 Jan 1992 01:20:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <4JAN199216081242@zeus.tamu.edu> <5JAN199222471545@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Jan7.091734.4383@abode.ttank.com> <7JAN199213080046@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <7JAN199213080046@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: > As I've > mentioned before, whatever hit Connelly in the back was > travelling sideways. The bullet that hit the Texas governor > was tumbling, as it would had it hit something or (more > importantly) passed through someone's body. I don't remember you saying this. What is the evidence for this? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 7 22:57:09 PST 1992 Article 8934 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties Date: 8 Jan 1992 01:27:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <8058@inews.intel.com> <1991Dec27.220345.15369@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1991Dec27.231217.28057@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Jan2.205449.25511@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1992Jan3.194254.14510@stsci.edu> <8216 @inews.intel.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:8934 rec.arts.movies:49971 In article <8216@inews.intel.com> jreece@stravinsky.intel.com writes: >For example, there are discrepancies between the >Dallas physicians' descriptions of JFK's wounds and the Washington autopsy. >One explanation is that the conspiracy anticipated the need to alter >wounds and had one of its (improbably many) operatives in place to do so. >Or maybe it's just because the Dallas physicians weren't pathologists, were >in a hurry, and just a little freaked out by events to do a proper. As it turns out, that's what happened. Nova took the Parkland ER doctors to the National Archives to have a look at the color autopsy photos. After they looked at them, they confirmed that the wounds hadn't been altered, and that their initial hasty descriptions had been in error. Has anything been heard from Lifton ("_Best Evidence_") since his prime witnesses repudiated their story? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 13:42:56 PST 1992 Article 8949 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo) Date: 8 Jan 1992 06:53:57 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <694818015.6@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <694818015.6@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >Oswald tested negative for having fired a gun (nitrite tests) What is your source for this? I thought I remembered that one common complaint of the handling of the case was that no nitrate tests were conducted, but maybe I'm thinking of the gun not being tested for having been recently fired... >There seems to be far too much focus on things like the magic bullet >theory and from which direction the fatal shot came from. Only physical evidence, and the prompt recorded testimony of material witnesses, is immune to the fantasizing of the conspiracy theologians. >There's tons of blatant cover-up far from Dealey Plaza. Cover-up, or incompetence? When the two are indistinguishable, parsimony favors the simpler theory of innocent incompetence. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:24:36 PST 1992 Article 8995 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 8 Jan 1992 21:39:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <5JAN199213261994@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan8.052502.2641@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes: >>>Unfortunately, the wound was not dissected. One physician put >>>his finger into the wound and encountered an obstruction (not metallic). >>>He was ordered not to proceed any further by one of the admirals present >>>at the autopsy. >> >>It starting already. Oliver Stone made that up. In his movie, one >>physician starts to probe the wound, and is told to stop. In reality, >>_three_ physicians took turns probing the wound, and I've heard of no >>evidence that they were specifically told to stop probing that wound. >> >"[...] the doctors >had been prevented from dissecting the back wound -- the wound I [Lifton] >suspected was false -- by an unnamed army general. [...] >Humes said: 'There was no question but >we were being urged to expedited this examination as quickly as possible >... did it harass us and cause us difficulty, of course it did, how could >it not?' Humes implied the source of the pressure was Admiral Burkley, >[JFK's White House Medical Officer] but he was not critical ... " In other words, just as I said, the _probing_ of the wound was not prevented (and in fact, _three_ doctors probed the wound with their fingers). Rather, any _dissection_ was foregone on account of time pressure from JFK's doctor. Was _he_ in on it too? >Sibert and O'Neill's report also contained the phrase that there had been, >prior to the autopsy, "surgery to the head area, namely, in the top of >the skull" -- surgery that was assuredly not performed at Dallas and could >not have had any life-saving purpose. "Contained the phrase"? Don't be cute. "Surgery" is Sibert/O'Neill's word; I know of no indication that it was a quote from any of the autopsy doctors. Kennedy's head wound included a loose flap of scalp that may have appeared to these FBI guys to indicate surgery. At any rate, Nova showed the autopsy photos to the Parkland doctors, and they agreed that the wounds appeared the same as they saw them in Dallas. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:38:13 PST 1992 Article 8996 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 8 Jan 1992 21:52:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan1.191238.10346@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <12851@pitt.UUCP> <1992Jan5.011117.20277@bilver.uucp> <1992Jan08.094758.18339tim@netcom.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan08.094758.18339tim@netcom.COM> tim@netcom.COM (Tim Richardson) writes: >A very simple test can be made based on the question, "If one could show >that the CIA was involved in a cover-up which was PLANNED PRIOR to the >assassination, is this or is this not conclusive proof of a conspiracy?" Sure, _if_ you could show that. > Now since this picture was taken PRIOR to the killing of JFK, > and since it obviously is not the LHO we all saw in the custody > of the Dallas police... the only possible conclusion is that > the CIA was planning and working on the cover-up PRIOR to > the assassination. Baloney. The CIA routinely photographed visitors to that embassy. It became known that Oswald went to Mexico City and may have contacted the Soviet or Cuban embassies. After Kennedy is shot, the CIA went through its files, and found a embassy photo that it contended was relevent to the case. It was wrong. Where is the evidence of prior conspiracy? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:38:21 PST 1992 Article 8998 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 8 Jan 1992 22:10:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <12851@pitt.UUCP> <1992Jan5.011117.20277@bilver.uucp> <1992Jan08.094758.18339tim@netcom.COM> <12916@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12916@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >No, no, no. The CIA takes pictures of *everyone* entering the Cuban >and Soviet Embassies. The fact that the picture they provided is >not Oswald only proves that someone using Oswald's name entered >the embassy. Why? There is no evidence that the photographed man is the person who claimed to be Oswald. In fact, the Cuban official who dealt with the self-proclaimed Oswald, and the official's secretary, both say that the man in the photograph was not the man who called himself Oswald. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:39:01 PST 1992 Article 8999 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: 100 QUESTIONS ON JFK COUP!!!! Date: 8 Jan 1992 22:16:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <1299600017@igc.org> <1992Jan8.112221.10773@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan8.112221.10773@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >When Kennedy was shot, all the phone lines in Washington went down. >They were down for a while. What is your source for this? Also, did they go down before or after the news of shots fired at Kennedy was broadcast? (Can you say "congestion"?) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:39:16 PST 1992 Article 9000 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 22:22:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <3759@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <7JAN199219245438@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Jan8.113607.10961@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan8.113607.10961@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >What about all the MOB ties that Ruby had and were later confirmed by the >House Commitee of Assasinations. You gonna deny those too?? Are you going to tell us that it's somehow metaphysically impossible for someone with mob ties to carry out a shooting by himself? >What about the fact that Ruby told the WARREN COMMISION that he couldn't >talk freely in Dallas-- they ignored his plea to take him to Washington where >he could tell them more. You're surprised that Ruby was trying to stall, or change the venue of his trial, or cloud the issue of his guilt? What turnip truck did _you_ fall off? >What about the press conference where RUBY said: >RUBY: "The truth as to why I did what I did will never come out. > The American people will never know. > Those responsible will never alow it." > >REPROTER: "Are those people in positions of power?" > >RUBY: (pause to think) Yes! Why didn't Ruby just blurt out the names of those responsible, right there in front of the press and the cameras? Or could the conspirators have just wiped out a roomful of national media representatives at whim? Or were all those reporters in on the conspiracy? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:39:23 PST 1992 Article 9002 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 22:35:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan6.072134.27607@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <12895@pitt.UUCP> <12912@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12912@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >The bulk of the evidence is that Oswald's associates were right-wing, >not left wing. He had no friends who were left wing. Doesn't this >strike you as unusual? Let's see. Oswald, a high school dropout, moved in lower-middle-class white circles in the South in the late 50's and early 60's. And you're telling me that he had no left-wing friends? No, that doesn't strike me as unusual at all. >His best friends in Dallas were the DeMohrenschildts >who were white Russian emigres who had been CIA spies in Yugoslavia? The Oswalds met the DeMohrenschildts through Marina, not Lee. >Do you know any other leftists who didn't seek out other leftists, rather >than having all rightist friends? I've never met an antisocial high-school dropout from the 1950's American South before. >Also, if he was such a leftist, how did he get cleared to work for >a company in Dallas that made intelligence maps of Russia for the Army? That company didn't make maps. They typeset the labels that the Army put on maps. Security was very lax at the place; they even had a bank robber working there. (Source: _Reasonable Doubt_, by Hurt). -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:39:36 PST 1992 Article 9003 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 22:45:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 39 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <5JAN199217485050@zeus.tamu.edu> <12894@pitt.UUCP> <12913@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <12913@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Remember, everyone assumed Kennedy was shot by >>right-wing nuts, until they heard about Oswald. >>I think Oswald's hope was to have the shooting blamed >>on the Right. >I took my own straw poll the day after the assassination. The day after the assassination, everybody knew Kennedy had been shot by a leftist nut. >The reason people blamed the right >intially was that it made a lot of sense. Which is probably part of the reason Oswald did it. >It didn't (and still doesn't) >make sense for a leftist to have done it. Well, to use your words: looks like Oswald did a good enough job that both the majority of Americans -- _and_ the people most obsessed by JFK's killing -- think that Oswald was a patsy. Don't you feel silly, being outsmarted by a loser like Oswald? >But if you were elements of the right and did it and wanted to set >someone up as the patsy, I'm sure you'd like to set someone up as a >leftist. Looks like they did a good enough job that the powers that >be (Hoover and LBJ) were able to palm it off. More conspiracy-think. You can say that about _any_ triggerman, as long as he doesn't come right out and say "I was set up as a patsy by the Right." No, come to think of it, you could even say that about a rightist patsy, on the theory that the Right would never use someone so close to home as a patsy, and therefore a rightist patsy wouldn't be traced to them, making a rightist patsy a good choice. Gosh, isn't conspiracy-think fun? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:39:46 PST 1992 Article 9004 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 22:56:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <3766@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3766@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >If you buy into the ready-made "lone-nut" hypothesis, I suppose the existence >of the photos fits in. However, if you consider them along with all the >other evidence that suggests Oswald's guilt was being manufactured, they take >on a completely different significance. What "manufactured evidence"? Oswald took "curtain rods" to the depository that day. Oswald's gun was found in the depository. A gun from that bullet was found in the Parkland ER. No one saw Oswald from 12:15 to 12:32, 90 seconds after the shooting stopped. Which part of this was "manufactured"? >> >So why is he hanging out with militant anti-communists in New Orleans then? >> Define "hanging out". > >Being seen with "Being seen with" whom? By whom? How many years afterwards did these stories surface? Under the prompting of which assassination "researcher"? >and working out of the office of. There were lots of offices in that building; it was an obvious locatin for activists of any stripe. As for the story of Bannister's secretary, that Oswald had been seen there, how long did it take for her story to come out? Why did it take so long? >> He didn't "convert". He was an avowed leftist before and during his >> Marine service. > >His Marine Corps buddies never believed that he had undergone any conversion. >His superiors never bothered him about having leftist reading material. Because the marines know a walking joke when they see one. >He became fluent in Russian at a >government school while he was in the Marines. What is the source for this? Isn't this just speculation? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 17:39:54 PST 1992 Article 9005 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 8 Jan 1992 23:02:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <7JAN199219245438@zeus.tamu.edu> <3770@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3770@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >Why did Ruby drop a man holding a rifle off on Dealey Plaza two hours before >the assassination? The woman who says she saw this didn't manage to get this version of her story down on paper until many years later. I don't buy it. >What was Ruby doing at Parkland Hospital after the >President was brought there? He doesn't show up in any of the footage taken at Parkland, and only one or two witness thought they saw him there. >Why did Ruby call the Dallas Police on Saturday night to warn that >Oswald would be killed as he was being transferred to another >facility? Probably because he had no set "assignment" to kill Oswald, but rather it was a spur-of-the-moment thing. What kind of a conspiracy hit-man tells the police to increase security around his target? >Why did Ruby ask to be taken to Washington to testify >before the Warren Commission? If I were up for the murder of the President's assassin, you can bet I'd be teasing about hints of a deep, dark conspiracy, too. Why didn't Ruby just blurt out all he knew to anyone who would listen? Answer: there was nothing to know. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 8 18:57:21 PST 1992 Article 9007 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties Date: 8 Jan 1992 23:09:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan3.194254.14510@stsci.edu> <8216@inews.intel <26076@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26076@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >| ...Nova took the Parkland >|ER doctors to the National Archives to have a look at the color >|autopsy photos. After they looked at them, they confirmed that the >|wounds hadn't been altered, and that their initial hasty descriptions >|had been in error. > >That's absurd: there is no way they could know if the body had been >alterd or not. If they were told it was, they could have easily >have said, yes, that makes sense, since it does not match what I >reported earlier. Since they saw the photos and belived them to be >real, they said that they must have been mistaken. The photos were real. They showed to be perfectly intact portions of Kennedy's head that the Parkland doctors' initial hasty descriptions said were blown away. You can make a head wound bigger, but you can't move it from one place to another. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 15:57:59 PST 1992 Article 9025 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 9 Jan 1992 01:46:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <5JAN199217485050@zeus.tamu.edu> <12894@pitt.UUCP> <12913@pitt.UUCP> <68163@bbn.BBN.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <68163@bbn.BBN.COM> ingria@BBN.COM writes: > >I took my own straw poll the day after the assassination. > > The day after the assassination, everybody knew Kennedy had been shot > by a leftist nut. > >Your cavalier ``The day after the assassination, everybody knew >Kennedy had been shot by a leftist nut'' as if there were no questions >in anybody's mind is simply not true. You misunderstand. I was just pointing out that a straw poll about who was thought to be responsible for JFK's death could have vastly different results if it were conducted on Nov. 23 instead of the early afternoon of Nov. 22. My contention was that Oswald probably hoped that, if he didn't get caught, the assassination would be blamed on the Right. Stories of who was thought to blame _after_ Oswald was known to have been caught are obviously irrelevant to my contention. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 15:58:11 PST 1992 Article 9026 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 9 Jan 1992 02:03:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <3780@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3780@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< You're surprised that Ruby was trying to stall, or change the venue of >< his trial, or cloud the issue of his guilt? What turnip truck did >< _you_ fall off? > >That's a good one. You take Jack Ruby's lame excuse at face value and then >accuse Dusty of falling off a turnip truck. I _defy_ you to quote the posting in which I took Ruby's Jackie-O excuse at value. I have always said that his shooting of Oswald was probably a spur-of-the-moment thing that happened when the scumbag of the century was paraded in front of him while he was carrying a gun. >If you want to be objective, you have to agree that there is much suggestive >evidence for a conspiracy, but there is no knockout punch, for either the >conspiracy theorists or the people who believe that Oswald acted alone. I _am_ objective, and in my very first posting I listed the reasons I have for having doubts that Oswald acted alone: the grassy knoll witnesses, the Cheramie prediction, the motion of Kennedy's head, and the time frame for getting the shots off. (In the discussion since then, I have eased these particular doubts, but also added doubts caused by all the fake Secret Service agents in Dealy Plaza.) I have yet to hear a single conspiracy theologian tell us of _any_ doubts he has about whether there was a conspiracy. >There is no smoking gun for conspiracy, but neither is there conclusive >evidence that Oswald acted alone, or acted at all. Hallelujah! >There are, for example, >no eyewitnesses to the shooting from the TSBD that have come forward. Some witnesses have described a rifleman in the shooter's nest. A figure is clearly seen in the shooter's nest in some pictures. And men on the fifth floor heard gunshots above them and spent shells hitting the floor. No one _saw_ the shooting because everyone was looking at Kennedy. Oswald's window is in your background only if you are watching Kennedy with your head on Conally's lap. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 15:58:19 PST 1992 Article 9027 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 9 Jan 1992 02:37:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 52 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <3781@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3781@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >> >I took my own straw poll the day after the assassination. >> The day after the assassination, everybody knew Kennedy had been shot >> by a leftist nut. > >When you say everybody, please factor out the people who were mighty >suspicious of Oswald's ready-made qualities for the role of assassin. Think about the context. "Everybody knew" is shorthand for "everyone's gut reactions had been tarnished by their knowledge of the official conclusion that". I'll cut fewer corners in the future. >> >The reason people blamed the right >> >intially was that it made a lot of sense. >> Which is probably part of the reason Oswald did it. > >I wish you'd make up your mind. Yesterday Oswald was a loser. Today he's >a sharp tactician. A loser, but one who could not escape the common knowledge that Kennedy was running the risk of an unfriendly rightist reception in Texas. >I'm amused at your scorn for the >"people most obsessed by JFK's killing." Not scorn, and not for the people themselves. Rather, amused by the irony that the people who are most angry at JFK's killing go to so much effort to shift responsibility away from his probable killer. For example, didn't you see the rabid, all-caps posting recently by someone frothing that if he were President he would go after all the villains in the official agencies who have been part of the conspiracy? Why have we not once seen that kind of outrage directed against Oswald? >I guess that anyone who >agrees with you is perfectly normal and anyone who doesn't is "obsessed." I said nothing of the sort. I will say, however, that when people have as finely-tuned a motive-ometer as the average conspiracy "researcher", it's interesting that they never use it to inquire why people might keep the idea of a conspiracy alive long after many reasonable people have considered and rejected it. For example, anyone who deifies JFK (a la Stone or Marrs) instantly calls into question their own motives for trying to make more out of his death than it might have been. Also, it's not hard to see that conspiracy-chasing makes a better cottage industry than conspiracy-debunking -- who's going to spend a decade writing a book trying to show that there was no conspiracy? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 15:58:27 PST 1992 Article 9031 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 9 Jan 1992 02:47:57 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <7JAN199219245438@zeus.tamu.edu> <3770@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <3784@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Her [Mercer, I think] statement did not mention Jack Ruby In article <3784@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< The woman who says she saw this didn't manage to get this version of >< her story down on paper until many years later. I don't buy it. > >She gave a statement to the FBI the day of the assassination. Yes, but the statement had nothing to do with Jack Ruby. Only years later did she say that she picked out a photo of the man she would come to know as Jack Ruby, and that the FBI failed to mention this in its report. When given the choice between her memory conveniently changing years later to fit what an earnest assassination "researcher" wants to hear, and the FBI conspiring to assassinate the President, I don't have to think very hard. I won't be responding to your meta-comments posted below, since I've been accused via e-mail of hogging bandwidth. >As for your buying or not buying it, you wear your biases on your >sleeve, so I don't know who will buy you. >You grow lamer by the minute. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 16:27:02 PST 1992 Article 9024 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: 1) my theory; 2) remaining questions; 3) movie critique Date: 9 Jan 1992 01:38:03 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <12879@pitt.UUCP> <12892@pitt.UUCP> <8JAN199217442204@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <8JAN199217442204@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: > shot 1: misses entirely, possibly due to the canopy of > an intervening tree. This is the shot that is > supposed to hit the curb. Why did they have the first shot miss, instead of the second? Having the first shot miss takes a lot of time onto the span of time in which shooting was happening, because the two Kennedy hits are separated on the Zapruder film by at least -- what -- four seconds? I don't think witnesses heard the shooting last for that long. Did any eyewitness think that Kennedy didn't react to this first alleged miss? Also, the curb nick is a long way down the street; I don't see why Oswald would fire his first, best shot across Kennedy's bow. ;) And did they ever fire a Mannlicher-Carcano clean into pavement to get an idea of what kind of mark their miss should have left? The curb nick that I've seen pictures of doesn't look like much. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 17:45:23 PST 1992 Article 9049 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 9 Jan 1992 23:58:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <3783@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: secretary Robert's flip-flop; counsel Rankin's mis-statement. In article <3783@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< What "manufactured evidence"? > >The numerous incidences of someone using Oswald's name. Is there any evidence that any of these incidences were "manufactured" other than by people making them up afterwards? >The pro-Castro cover >Oswald developed while working for the anti-Castro forces. No, what's "manufactured" here is the idea that Oswald ever worked for anti-Castro forces. >< Oswald took "curtain rods" to the depository that day. > >One witness claims to have seen curtain rods. No one else could corroborate >it. The "one witness" was the guy who drove Oswald to work. If anyone would know, it would be him. >two of the policemen who saw the gun on the fifth floor said it >was a Mauser. Oswald's rifle looked like a Mauser. >< As for the story of Bannister's >< secretary, that Oswald had been seen there, how long did it take for >< her story to come out? Why did it take so long? > >Apparently, you >don't choose to believe it and since I have nothing to add on the subject, No, the only thing that is "apparent" is that you choose _to_ believe it, without regard for the details of her account. Well, I looked them up. It turns out she first told her story to an assasination "researcher" almost 15 years after the facts -- but not before initially denying to him that she knew anything about Oswald. >< >He became fluent in Russian at a >< >government school while he was in the Marines. >< What is the source for this? Isn't this just speculation? > >The Warren Commission knew that Oswald attended the Monterey School of the >Army but weren't sure what he studied. Wrong again. I looked this up, and it turns out that there is no official record of Oswald attending the school. Instead, there is only a transcript of a remark made by the WC General Counsel in executive session that his staff was trying "to find out what [Oswald] studied" there. So, we can either believe that the counsel misspoke and really meant to say "whether" instead of "what", or we can believe that the conspirators covered up the evidence of Oswald's attendance. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 17:45:32 PST 1992 Article 9051 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 10 Jan 1992 00:09:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <7JAN199219245438@zeus.tamu.edu> <3770@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Why Oswald never associated with other leftists In article gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes: >But I still find it incredible that those who investigated the assasination >were so un-interested in finding out what Ruby had to tell. What is your basis for this statement? They asked. He refused to answer. What should they have done, beat a confession out of him? >The clearest indication that he was a spy is to me that he did learn Russian. >during army service. As I pointed out in my last posting, there is no record of the government teaching Russian to Oswald. >Also -- the fact that Oswald was the sole member of his left-wing "Fair Play >for Cuba" comittee suggests that he even prior to the assasination was >considered a government operative Or that he was an anti-social loner. Oswald _never_ sought out personal contact with other leftists, probably because he knew they would dismiss him as a uneducated pseudo-intellectual leftist wannabe. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 17:45:45 PST 1992 Article 9052 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 10 Jan 1992 00:26:56 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <1936@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Hidell, CE 399 ballistics In article <1936@sousa.ltn.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: > `Oswald's gun? Oh, really? The weapon in question was never proven to have > belonged to LHO. One `Alex Hiddell' purchased Hidell (one 'd') was the name used to purchase the gun, and it was Oswald's favorite alias. He carried I.D. under the name of Alex Hidell when he was arrested. Oswald's handwriting was used to fill out the order form for the gun. > a 40" Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm > via mail order from Klein's in Chicago for $12 dollars and change. The weapon > alleged to have been found in the TSBD and now stored in the National Archives > is a 36" model...... I've never heard this before. What is your source? > Oh really? The bullet found on a gurney at Parkland that day could not be > matched up with test bullets fired from the Mannlicher according to the FBI > reports.... "The FBI made an absolute ballistics determination that a bullet slug found in a corridor at Parkland Hospital had been positively identified as having been fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano found in the Book Depository." _Reasonable Doubt_, by Henry Hurt, p. 88 > A police officer entered the TSBD and with the > manager (Truly) found Oswald on the second floor lunchroom, seemingly cool > as a cucumber, within 2 minutes of the assassination. How could this be? Oswald had a definite incentive to act cool as a cucumber. You see, he'd just shot this guy named John F. Kennedy. It was in all the papers... > Did Oswald fire 3 times, drop the weapon, and run down 4 flights of stairs > without breaking a sweat? I'm not aware that Oswald was tested for perspiration at the time. >>As for the story of Bannister's >>secretary, that Oswald had been seen there, how long did it take for >>her story to come out? Why did it take so long? > > Maybe, just maybe, she feared retribution? Or maybe, just maybe, her desire to mollify pesky assasination "researchers" played tricks with her memory. >>>He became fluent in Russian at a >>>government school while he was in the Marines. >> >>What is the source for this? Isn't this just speculation? > > After learning the Russian language, he was stationed at Atsugi AFB in > Japan, with a security clearance, monitoring U2 flights over the USSR. Oswald's job had nothing to do with speaking Russian. There is no record of the government ever teaching Oswald Russian. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 18:05:42 PST 1992 Article 9053 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK Killed By Corporate America? Date: 10 Jan 1992 00:31:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan5.161510.409@bvc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan5.161510.409@bvc.edu> chrisb@bvc.edu writes: >What are we afraid of? Apparently, of the idea that a monumental event can be caused by the most un-monumental of people: Lee Oswald. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 9 18:05:49 PST 1992 Article 9055 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: RFK assassination Date: 10 Jan 1992 00:42:31 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <694846842.4@blkcat.FidoNet> <92009.060352TDOPER32@ysub.ysu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <92009.060352TDOPER32@ysub.ysu.edu> TDOPER32@ysub.ysu.edu (Rich) writes: >He was shot in the head at close range. I'm sure he died before he got to the >hospital. No, he didn't die until the next day. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 10:44:27 PST 1992 Article 9059 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 10 Jan 1992 02:05:58 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <3790@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Mercer denies her own signature In article <3790@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< Yes, but the statement had nothing to do with Jack Ruby. Only years >< later did she say that she picked out a photo of the man she would >< come to know as Jack Ruby, and that the FBI failed to mention this in >< its report. > >In particular, you need to think hard about the FBI and how its dictator, >J. Edgar Hoover, staked out a position early that Oswald acted alone, and >that none of the army of yes-men that comprised the FBI was going to dare >find anything that would put the boss on the spot. Oh, I forgot. Anyone interviewed in the investigation can say anything any amount of time later, and the fact that his later story doesn't match what the FBI originally wrote down can be dismissed as an FBI coverup. Why did they even bother to keep a record of Mercer's interview? Why not just not ignore her, and then write her off as a kook when years later she claims to have been interviewed at all? I don't have a copy of _Crossfire_ to check in, but I think it's in that book that we are told that Mercer also now denies that the signature on her Nov. 22-23 statement is hers. If I remember this right, and Mercer is the woman who denies her own signature, then her story really isn't very credible. Could someone check for us? Of course, we all know that the FBI forged her signature. ;) In fact, it's equally obvious that I actually work for the Cover-Up Maintenance Desk of the FBI. ;) ;) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 13:00:00 PST 1992 Article 9139 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 18:49:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <3766@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <26125@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The FBI kept tabs on him after he came back. In article <26125@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >he came back, he was not even stopped by the FBI. He should have been >thrown in jail. Well, thank you, Mr. McCarthy. >There is absolutley no way to plausibly explain this >unless he was working for us. What law did he break? The FBI _did_ keep tabs on Oswald after he came back. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 13:00:11 PST 1992 Article 9141 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 19:23:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: <32441@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Oswald merely monitored take-offs and landings. In article <32441@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: >>Hidell (one 'd') was the name used to purchase the gun, and it was >>Oswald's favorite alias. > > According to whom?? He used that alias as the "secretary" of his chapter of the FPCC. >> He carried I.D. under the name of Alex >>Hidell when he was arrested. > >Or so the DPD would have you believe. The Alex Hidell ID alleged to >have been in Oswalds possession at arrest didn't exist until after >Ruby did his thing... Gong! There is zero evidence that the Hidell ID was planted. If you're _this_ determined to fantasize that Oswald was a patsy, then what possible evidence could dissuade you? >>"The FBI made an absolute ballistics determination that a bullet slug >>found in a corridor at Parkland Hospital had been positively >>identified as having been fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano found in the >>Book Depository." _Reasonable Doubt_, by Henry Hurt, p. 88 > > I hadn't read that before. PI Josiah Thompson and the NOVA special w/ > Cronkite (I believe) stated differently. (As well as High Treason, again) I think you're confusing ballistics and how CE 399 compared to other slugs said to have done the same kinds of damage. I've never heard it questioned that CE 399 came from the Mannlicher-Carcano. In fact, conspiracy-theologians like to say that it's _too_ convenient that such a traceable bullet showed up at Parkland. (Being a conspiracy theorist means never having to face a fact.) >>> Did Oswald fire 3 times, drop the weapon, and run down 4 flights of stairs >>> without breaking a sweat? >> >>I'm not aware that Oswald was tested for perspiration at the time. > > Give me a break! Take anyone, have them run down four flights of stairs > into a crowded room and if I were to walk in there within two minutes, I > myself, could pick the person out by perspiration, breathing, etc., The cop did not know (as you stipulate) that his quarry would be the heaviest breather in that lunchroom. Note that the cop, "brandishing his pistol, challenged" Oswald when he saw him on the second floor -- but the building superintendent vouched for Oswald, and then he and the cop continued rushing up the stairs. No doubt Oswald was trying to appear as calm as possible, and any agitation he might have shown could easily have been explained in the cop's mind by the fact that Oswald was being challenged by a pistol-brandishing police officer. >>Or maybe, just maybe, [Bannister's secretary's] desire to mollify >>pesky assasination "researchers" played tricks with her memory. > > And what would be her motive??? For one thing, assassination researchers are known to have compensated people like Oswald's mother for the interviews they gave. At any rate, I don't trust anyone who'd work for a vilent alcoholic like Bannister. > Just as there is no record he worked for the CIA I presume? The CIA did > have an employee file on him. Funny thing though, when it was finally "found" > it was empty. Absolutely false. The CIA had a "201" file on Oswald, which are routinely created when a person is thought to have potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance. And the file was _not_ empty; the HSCA examined its contents. > Granted, Oswalds' job had nothing to do with speaking Russian, but in > previous posts of yours, you have declared Oswald a `loser'. `Losers' don't > get security clearances in the Marines and then get sent to monitor covert > spy flights over the Soviet Union during a cold-war. Oswald's security clearance was merely "confidential", a clearance that is routine. Also, Oswald didn't monitor "spy flights over the Soviet Union"; he merely tracked planes as they took off and landed at his base, and some of those planes were U-2's. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 13:00:21 PST 1992 Article 9142 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 19:31:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <9JAN199212570514@zeus.tamu.edu> <3802@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Mauser witness Craig only told his "Mauser" story "later". In article <3802@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >Marrs says that three cops described the rifle as a Mauser, including >Deputy Roger Craig who saw the word "Mauser" imprinted on it. According to _Reasonable Doubt_, Craig's account is yet another example of a story that only came out "later". Why is it that the memory of witnesses around a conspiracy only _improves_ with time? Also, recall that "later" was also when Craig was having job and family troubles; he wound up being fired and divorced, and eventually killed himself. >In addition, Police Chief Curry said that no special precautions were >taken with the rifle after it was stored as evidence. Meaning no more precaution than for any _other_ evidence, right? Meaning it was under lock and key, right? Or was it sitting in Curry's car? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 13:00:33 PST 1992 Article 9143 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 19:58:17 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <3783@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <4823@igor.Rational.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: No curtain rods. A 28" lunch?! In article <4823@igor.Rational.COM> wab@worf.Rational.COM (Bill Baker) writes: >>The "one witness" was the guy who drove Oswald to work. If anyone >>would know, it would be him. > >No one who saw Oswald at the TSBD that day saw the >package. If you were smuggling a rifle into a building along the President's motorcade route the day of the motorcade, wouldn't you try to keep it out of the sight of your co-workers (who, unlike the driver, might have time to check out the package while you weren't around)? >One of the witnesses who saw the curtain rod package described Oswald >holding it in a way that would have been impossible if it had been >the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano. He probably was mistaken. On the one hand, we have Oswald taking "curtain rods" to work the morning of the assassination, Oswald's rifle being found at the TSBD, and no curtain rods anywhere. On the other hand, we have a witness who says he remembers the package being a little shorter than it would have been. What do _you_ conclude? That Oswald (as he contended) was carrying his _lunch_ in the at-least-28-inch bag? Come _on_! >The package found with the gun had no oil stains, despite the M-C >being well-oiled. In addition to Oswald's fingerprints, the bag also had fibers from a blanket Oswald may have used to wrap the gun. If the gun had in previous days been disassembled and wrapped in a blanket, then the blanket could have wiped most of the oil off the surfaces that the paper bag later touched. >The paper the package was made out of was TSBD that Oswald almost >certainly wouldn't have had access to. The paper came into use several days before the shooting, but all that is known is that Oswald hadn't taken any home with him the night before the shooting. It is not known what he took home the previous nights. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 16:28:20 PST 1992 Article 9147 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: What is the evidence against Oswald? Date: 11 Jan 1992 20:26:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 34 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <3781@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1992Jan9.031135.9119@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1992Jan9.140307.5584@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Klein's order coupon links. Source for mortuary pistol story? In article <1992Jan9.140307.5584@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >On point 1) The gun order was placed by "ALEK James HIDELL." (Oswald's Alias) In Oswald's handwriting. The mail-order coupon for the rifle was torn from a magazine in the waiting room of a garage adjacent to where Oswald worked. Oswald frequented that waiting room. His fingerprint was found on the magazine. > There is a problem in identifying, however, in identifying who > actaully took possesion of the rifle, because no record exists. > DESPITE postal regulations that form 1039 be kept ( it lists Nor is there videotape of Oswald going down to pick up the gun. I guess it wasn't his, then. ;) > A scene in "JFK" shows a guy putting the gun into a dead > Oswald's hand. This scene was based on testimony by workers at > the funeral home that saw a secret service man doing this and > taking Oswald's prints (with ink). This is an astonishing story. What is your source for the gun being put in dead Oswald's hand? (It _is_ true that the secret service came to get their own prints of Oswald.) > Also note that an FBI agent fired "three rounds with 'Oswald's' > rifle in rapid succession" and tested NEGATIVE on both his hands > and face afterward. Really? What is your source? If anything, this eases my mind on the topic of Oswald's cheek have a negative paraffin test. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 16:45:40 PST 1992 Article 9149 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 20:43:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <3766@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <26130@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26130@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >Oswald could have killed Kennedy. All right! That makes _two_ conspiracy theologians who have admitted the possibility of Oswald's sole responsibility. >But [points that I have rebutted before] >On the contrary, Oswald failed to shoot the President when he was comming down >the street, when shots would have been easier. He had the choice of Houston or Elm. The turn onto Houston was not as sharp as the 120-degree turn on to Elm, so the limo would be going faster on Houston. If he had started shooting while the limo was on Houston, the limo might have either continued straight on Houston or turned right (instead of left) onto Elm, and immediately escaped his sight. On Elm, there is nowhere to go after the shooting starts, except straight. >Now, take out the curtain rods, and Oswald is innocent. Yes, tell us -- what _do_ you do about the "curtain rods"? None were ever found, and Oswald wound up trying to tell the police he had his _lunch_ in that at-least-28-inch bag. Without Oswald waltzing in with the rifle slung over his back, it's hard to see how the case could be stronger that it was his rifle, and that he brought it to the TSBD. >I see. You believe the WC report that contains witness testimony that Oswald >had curtain rods, but not the monumental evidence of Oswald's ties to >Anti-Castro groups? "Monumental"? I've been reading up on his "ties to anti-Castro groups"? The only credible evidence I've heard of is the story of Oswald and Ferrie visiting Clinton, La. The rest is laughable. >Exactly. Across the street from the FBI, down a block from the CIA. I believe >Military intelligence had a building a block away as well. The building itself >was was the office of an ex-FBI man who was a militant right winger. And, I've since found out, on its ground floor was a restaurant that Oswald frequented, since it was less that a block from where Oswald worked. Scratch one anti-Castro association. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 16:45:51 PST 1992 Article 9150 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 20:55:33 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <7JAN199219245438@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Jan8.113607.10961@abode.ttank.com> <12936@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Who blurted out the conspirators' names, and then was killed? In article <12936@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>You're surprised that Ruby was trying to stall, or change the venue of >>his trial, or cloud the issue of his guilt? >> >Why not take him to Washington and find out? And when in Washington he says he needs to be in Fort Knox? >>Why didn't Ruby just blurt out the names of those responsible, right >>there in front of the press and the cameras? >Because the people who had blurted it out previously were dead by that >time. Blatantly false. Give me the name of someone who blurted out the names of the conspirators, and then was killed. >Because, as he told Warren, he was not safe in Dallas and would >be killed if he told what he knew. He had been given a death sentence for murder, _anyway_. Why didn't he at least tell his lawyers who the conspirators were, so that they could announce it if Ruby met an untimely end? Or did were his lawyers told that they, too, would ingeniously be caused to contract that infamous disease, The Kind Of Cancer That Keeps You From Spilling The Beans Even While You Are On Your Deathbed? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 16:45:59 PST 1992 Article 9151 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 20:58:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <1939@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1939@sousa.ltn.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: > Why is that? The land and groove striations on the test bullets didn't > even come close to matching the markings on CE399. This flatly contradicts everything I've ever read about CE399. Care to give us a cite to back up what you say? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 16:46:09 PST 1992 Article 9152 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 11 Jan 1992 21:00:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <695091616.4@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695091616.4@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > I don't have a copy of _Crossfire_ to check in, but I think [...] > >EXACTLY WHERE is your information coming from? _Reasonable Doubt_, by Henry Hurt, which I have access to now. I read _Crossfire_ and _Six Seconds In Dallas_ over Christmas vacation. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 16:46:22 PST 1992 Article 9153 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 11 Jan 1992 21:22:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <1936@sousa.ltn.dec.com> <3803@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3803@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >In this and other statements you have attempted to substitute one conspiracy >with another, insinuating that conspiracy theorists have cajoled, badgered >or pestered witnesses into changing their testimony to support the idea >of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. If this is your argument, what case >can you make for it? Well, the most famous example is Garrison's use of drugs and hypnosis on his star witness in the Clay Shaw trial. In the transcript of the session, it turns out that the _hypnotist_ is the one who first suggests that the people under discussion have gathered to assassinate someone. Conspiracy theorists always make a big deal of whether or not a court of law would have convicted Oswald. Can you imagine what a competent attorney could do with the rules of evidence to attack the credibility of these witnesses who decades later contradict their original testimony? Like I've said before, the stuff to pay attention to is the physical evidence and prompt, recorded testimony of the material witnesses. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 11 16:46:34 PST 1992 Article 9154 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo) Date: 11 Jan 1992 21:51:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: <8058@inews.intel.com> <1991Dec27.220345.15369@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1992Jan6.003338.14430@yang.earlham.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Nothing new here; toms just needed to be straightened out. Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:9154 rec.arts.movies:50379 In article <1992Jan6.003338.14430@yang.earlham.edu> toms@yang.earlham.edu writes: >> Not random. Oswald's delusions of grandeur caused him to seek out a >> semi-sensitive military job, just as they caused him to defect, to >> pose with his revolutionary's rifle, to take a potshot at Gen. Walker, >> and to kill Kennedy. > >The shots of Oswald posing with the rifle are proven fakes, Where have _you_ been? As Mitchel Todd established in a thread on this topic a week or so ago, not a single qualified photo analyst thinks they are fakes. >> There's no physical evidence for any other number of shots, and there's >no magic bullet. > > Uh... if there's no magic bullet, that proves that there was a >conspiracy. I've argued to the contrary. The only convincing responses to my arguments have been to make me think that perhaps the magic bullet theory is _correct_. >>> Oswald was able to shoot that accurately this fast (50%) >> >> The only quick shot that Oswald took missed his target completely. He >> had at least 4 seconds to line up the other two shots. > > You weren't listening. Three shots in 5.6 seconds, and it takes min. 2.3 >seconds to recycle the weapon. No, _you_ haven't been listening. I'd never worked a bolt action rifle before, but on only my second try I was able to cycle, aim, and pull the trigger 10 times in 16 seconds. Why do people treat the Warren Commission's number of 2.3 seconds as divine revelation? >Furthermore, LHO had almost no time to >line up the last, and fatal, shot, On the Zapruder film there is about _four_ seconds between Conally being hit and the head shot. because (even assuming he was doing the >shooting - and it has been totally disproven that he fired either a >Mannlicher rifle nor the revolver he was arrested with in the 3 days >before he was arrested) Nitrate tests on his hands were positive, and on his cheek were negative. Someone just posted that when an FBI agent fired the rifle, he too tested negative for cheeck nitrates. >the view was blocked by a tree. Are you kidding? The last shot was _well_ beyond the tree. The Warren commision only had trouble with the tree because they have a first-shot miss to account for. If (as I propose) Oswald tracks the blue limo through the green tree and fires into Kennedy's back just as he clears the edge of the tree, then the tree is not an issue. >The 2nd shot was >totally obscured. He took two quick shots, and one of them hit. Everybody knows that the tree is only an issue for the _first_ of however many shots Oswald fired. I defy you to find a citation supporting the idea that the tree was a problem for any subsequent shots. >> Cheramie's prediction of the assassination. In _Crossfire_ it is left >> unclear whether she made the claim that she worked for Jack Ruby >> before or after Ruby became a household name. If she made it before, >> then that would be enough to convince me that the mob did it. > > She made it before Dead wrong, again. I have since read the following in _Reasonable Doubt_, p. 412: "Miss Cheramie's story became much more elaborate following the events in Dallas -- involving associations with Ruby and Oswald -- but it is her pre-assassination statements that are significant." >The total failure of the military community to provide security >implicates the Pentagon beyond any reasonable doubt. What evidence do you have that it was standard practice for the military to provide security for domestic Presidential trips? Or even that the military _ever_ provided security for such trips? > Disclaimer: I have been awake for the last 4.5 days. It shows. ;) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 12 09:53:27 PST 1992 Article 9158 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 12 Jan 1992 00:46:03 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <3814@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3814@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< What law did he break? > >What law did anyone break who was persecuted for suspected links with >communism? How do you "persecute" a high-school dropout whose jobs were on the order of oiling machinery and packing book boxes? The government _did_ change his discharge status to dishonorable after he defected, and the FBI _did_ monitor him when he came back. In fact, he was so pissed off at the FBI monitoring that he threatened to blow up the Dallas FBI office. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 12 16:43:15 PST 1992 Article 9175 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 12 Jan 1992 18:00:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <695207385.3@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695207385.3@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >Tell me, do the FBI reports list Oswald's close personal >associations with other highly placed intelligence figures Not that I know of, but that't probably because he didn't _have_ any such associations. The only credible story I've come across is the one that has Oswald and Ferrie in Clinton, La. -- and Ferrie isn't exactly a "highly placed intelligence figure". Which figures do you have in mind? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 12 16:43:30 PST 1992 Article 9176 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 12 Jan 1992 18:10:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <695207385.4@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695207385.4@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >> Oswald's security clearance was merely "confidential", a clearance >> that is routine. Also, Oswald didn't monitor "spy flights over the >> Soviet Union"; he merely tracked planes as they took >> off and landed at his base, and some of those planes were U-2's. > >Yeah, right, he's been chosen to be relocated to work at an >overseas Lots of American military bases are overseas. >underground What is your source that Oswald's job was underground? >super-secret spy facility Super-secret spy flights _were_ being conducted from Atsugi, but I know of no evidence that Oswald knew anything sensitive about those flights. >and has only a CONFIDENTIAL clearance How much clearance does it take to say "flight 46, you're cleared for landing on runway 3"? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 13 12:44:51 PST 1992 Article 9197 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 13 Jan 1992 01:16:31 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <695235628.0@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Conally was sitting in front of Kennedy on Houston St. In article <695235628.0@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >If you're running TOWARDS me, and at much closer range When Oswald started shooting, the limo was as close to him as it would have been at the midpoint of Houston. >Plus, the car had to slow down to make the turn. >He did not shoot during the 120 degree turn, but after the >limo had turned the corner Right. You don't want to shoot when the target is turning; you want to shoot when it is coming directly toward you or going directly away. There wasn't much straightaway on Houston between the two turns. >and had been heading straight for the freeway. And yet, the car was still going quite slowly, wasn't it? >But coming up Houston, he'd be >shooting down into the limo -- nowhere for JFK to duck. Maybe Conally, who was sitting in front of Kennedy and was waving to the crowd, blocked a front shot. Or maybe Oswald sighted Kennedy on Houston, but his (or Jackie's) face in the scope made him lose his nerve. > > If he had started shooting while the limo was on > > Houston, the limo might have either continued straight > > on Houston or turned right (instead of left) onto Elm, and > > immediately escaped his sight. > >In what relative timeframe? That depends. I don't think Oswald was counting on the Secret Service driver to hit the _brakes_ (like he did) when Oswald opened fire. > > [...] and Oswald wound up trying to tell the police he had his > > _lunch_ in that at-least-28-inch bag. > >Go further than that -- tell us what happened, Mr. Holtz, >to the hours of Oswald interrogations in the hands of >the police? Are you saying that the police made up the lunch story? Why didn't they just say that Oswald _confessed_? >My experience is that it's often tape recorded How often did the DPD tape-record suspect interviews in the early sixties? >(especially in this case) Oh? How often did officials tape-record interviews with accused Presidential assassins in the early sixties? Come _on_ -- Oswald's case was earth-shakingly unique. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 13 13:13:07 PST 1992 Article 9198 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 13 Jan 1992 01:23:17 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <3803@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1992Jan12.180841.15455tim@netcom.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan12.180841.15455tim@netcom.COM> tim@netcom.COM (Tim Richardson) writes: >=the physical evidence and prompt, recorded testimony of the material >=witnesses. > >Oh, you must mean stuff like the PROMPT and RECORDED questioning of LHO Oswald wasn't a "material witness"; Oswald was a charged suspect. He would have a little motivation to give bogus testimony, would he not? >Or perhaps you mean the Dr. who performed the autopsy on JFK, he burned his >notes too???????? He said they had blood on them. Does anyone know how common it is for raw autopsy notes to be entered into evidence in murder cases? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 13 13:13:50 PST 1992 Article 9199 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK : NBC film and head shot Date: 13 Jan 1992 01:31:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: JFK head shot In article studier@ninja.life.uiuc.edu (Jim Studier) writes: > 2.) In High Treason a bone fragment from JFK's head was mentioned > that was found 25 feet behind the location of the JFK car at > the time of the head shot. What does this say about whether the > head shot came from the front? Not nearly as much as is said by the windshield that was cracked by a bullet fragment from the head shot. Take a watermelon. Shoot it with a rifle. You'll find watermelon shell everywhere, but bullet fragments are another story. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 13 20:09:13 PST 1992 Article 9247 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 13 Jan 1992 20:59:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <695278838.7@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Oswald designed and flew the U-2. In article <695278838.7@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > I know of no evidence that Oswald knew anything sensitive about those > > flights. > > >> and has only a CONFIDENTIAL clearance > > > How much clearance does it take to say "flight 46, > > you're cleared for landing on runway 3"? > >According to _Crossfire_, "Files detailing Oswald's >connection with the U-2 flights have been withheld from the >American public for years by the Warren Commission" Ah, well that clinches it. I obviously was wrong. Oswald was obviously a U-2 pilot himself. In fact, he designed the U-2. >Oswald went so far as to >state that he knew something that would be of "special >interest" to Soviet intelligence." And Oswald wouldn't aggrandize himself for no good reason, would he? Hah! The fact that Oswald wasn't stopped from defecting only tends to _confirm_ that he knew nothing. >Of course, six months >later, Gary Powers' U-2 was shot down There has been a lot of speculation about how Powers got shot down, and while I don't remember much about it, the most credible answer I heard was that Powers fell asleep and descended to within SAM range. >Gary Powers himself wrote a book called "Operation Overflight" >that stated that if Oswald that given information on U-2 >operational altitudes and radar techniques, Of course, there is zero evidence that Oswald knew anything about "U-2 operational altitudes and radar techniques" -- other than what U-2's did on takeoff and landing. >Powers stated on a radio show that he personally believed >that his U-2 had been brought down by a bomb placed on >board. Yes, Powers' flimsy excuse is one of the main reasons why I think he simply fell asleep at the stick. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 13 20:09:41 PST 1992 Article 9250 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 13 Jan 1992 21:13:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <12967@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Why didn't they silence Ruby before Earl Warren wised up? In article <12967@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>He refused to >>answer. What should they have done, beat a confession out of him? >> >Over and over again, Ruby told Earl Warren: I have more to tell you. >But I can't tell it here. I'm not safe. Take me to Washington. And when he got to Washington, he would have asked to be taken to Fort Knox. Sorry, but Earl Warren is a little smarter than that. Oh, and if Ruby was so afraid of losing his life, why did he make it so well-known that if only he were taken somewhere safer he would tell all? Why didn't the conspirators silence him while he was still in his oh-so-unsafe Texas jail cell, before Warren 'wised up' and took him to D.C.? >>As I pointed out in my last posting, there is no record of >>the government teaching Russian to Oswald. >> >Right. Oswald's Marine records were "routinely destroyed". Get your story straight. One conspiracy theologian just got through telling me that Oswald's Marines training record said that he was given a Russian proficiency test. Which is it? And, were the military language school's records' "destroyed" too, or just the ones that would have shown Oswald's attendance? What is your source for your claim? >It's very common for a high school dropout gets fluent in Russian from >reading a book or taking a correspondence course. Only a little more common than it is for Presidents getting assassinated. I guess JFK is alive and well. >>Or that he was an anti-social loner. Oswald _never_ sought out >>personal contact with other leftists, probably because he knew they >>would dismiss him as a uneducated pseudo-intellectual leftist wannabe. > >But he did seek out contact with right wing emigres and was accepted >by them. Strange. Names? Evidence? (The Oswalds met De Mohrenschildt through _Marina_. She was an emigre, you see. And there weren't too many _left_-wing emigres from behind the Iron Curtain. Get it?) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 13 20:42:25 PST 1992 Article 9252 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK : NBC film and head shot Date: 13 Jan 1992 21:17:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <3824@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Dealy Plaza photos irrefutably link the crack to the head shot. Keywords: JFK head shot In article <3824@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< Not nearly as much as is said by the windshield that was cracked by a >< bullet fragment from the head shot. > >Can this incriminating windshield be produced? Photographs of the limo at Parkland clearly show the crack. Photographs of the windshield taken right after Kennedy was hit in the back show no crack, but photos taken seconds later (after the head shot) show the crack. You can see the photos in _Crossfire_. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 08:20:50 PST 1992 Article 9280 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 14 Jan 1992 04:09:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <695278838.6@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695278838.6@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > Ferrie isn't exactly a "highly placed intelligence figure". Which > > figures do you have in mind? > >Let's start with George DeMohrenschildt, Indeed. In _Reasonable Doubt_ Hurt says that there is evidence that DeMohrenschildt "was formally associated" with intelligence services, but the only evidence he cites is the bare fact that DeMohrenschildt "met with the CIA" prior to some foreign travel. What kind of "highly placed intelligence figure" does that make him? Also, note that the Oswalds met the DeMohrenschildts through _Marina_, not Lee. >and Ruth & Michael Paine. I forget exactly what "intelligence" connection the Paines had, but I think they were even more tenuous than DeMohrenschildt's. Conspiracy theorist Hurt does not even mention them in his book. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 09:08:02 PST 1992 Article 9283 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 14 Jan 1992 04:26:50 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <12963@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I got my photos mixed up, but so did the CIA. In article <12963@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Why? There is no evidence that the photographed man is the person who >>claimed to be Oswald. This part of what I said is correct. >In fact, the Cuban official who dealt with the >>self-proclaimed Oswald, and the official's secretary, both say that >>the man in the photograph was not the man who called himself Oswald. > >No, what they said after being shown photos of Lee Harvey Oswald >(the man killed by Jack Ruby) that *he* wasn't the man who came to >their embassy in Mexico City. You're right; I got my photographs mixed up. But your previous contention >The fact that the picture they provided is not Oswald only proves >that someone using Oswald's name entered the embassy. is still wrong, because there is no evidence that the photographed man ever claimed to be Oswald. More importantly, Tim Richardson's original contention > the only possible conclusion is that > the CIA was planning and working on the cover-up PRIOR to > the assassination. is also still wrong. All that happened was that the CIA thought it had a picture of Oswald in Mexico City, but it was mistaken. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 09:21:29 PST 1992 Article 9285 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 14 Jan 1992 04:42:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan12.180841.15455tim@netcom.COM> <1992Jan13.195353.14772tim@netcom.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: suspect != bystander. Autopsy prompt _and_ recorded. In article <1992Jan13.195353.14772tim@netcom.COM> tim@netcom.COM (Tim Richardson) writes: >=>=the physical evidence and prompt, recorded testimony of the material >=>=witnesses. >=> >=>Oh, you must mean stuff like the PROMPT and RECORDED questioning of LHO >= >=Oswald wasn't a "material witness"; Oswald was a charged suspect. He >=would have a little motivation to give bogus testimony, would he not? > >Here you go again!!! LHO was ***NOT*** charged with killing JFK by the >Dallas Police during the time he was being questioned. He had been arrested >as a suspect in the killing of Officer Tippit. No, here _you_ go again. Show me where I specified who Oswald was charged with killing. All I said is that there's a very big difference in how we should treat the testimony of people charged with crimes, compared to the testimony of bystanders. Don't you agree? >=>Or perhaps you mean the Dr. who performed the autopsy on JFK, he burned his >=>notes too???????? Only his notes were destroyed. His official autopsy report _was_ "prompt and recorded". Also, he said that his notes did not conflict with his final report -- with the possible exception the notes may have included descriptions of the throat surgery that were not informed by the knowledge that the surgery obscured a wound. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 09:22:04 PST 1992 Article 9286 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK : NBC film and head shot Date: 14 Jan 1992 04:55:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <3824@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <3829@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: What would a front crack prove? Keywords: JFK head shot In article <3829@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >> Photographs of the limo at Parkland clearly show the crack. >> Photographs of the windshield taken right after Kennedy was hit in the >> back show no crack, but photos taken seconds later (after the head >> shot) show the crack. You can see the photos in _Crossfire_. > >Is that your long-winded way of saying that the windshield cannot be >produced? You see, you would have to examine the crack to know which >direction the projectile causing the crack came from. What would be the point? I'm sure the official records describe the crack as being on the inside, but I'm even _more_ sure that you'd say such records were faked. Even if there were a windshield in the National Archives, if it did not show what you wanted you would just say it was bogus -- like the bogus Oswald, the bogus rifle, the bogus CE 399, etc. Ain't religion easy on the mind? ;) Oh, and what would a crack on the front of the windshield show? That someone was firing poisoned BB's from the triple underpass? No, wait, I think it was the "Umbrella Man" who fired the paralysis dart. Oops, no, the Umbrella Man's job was to signal that the first shot didn't finish him, and that a bullet in the right occipital area was needed. (I'm not making this up; these theories are from _Crossfire_.) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 09:22:43 PST 1992 Article 9287 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane Date: 14 Jan 1992 05:03:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan13.232434.10471@zds.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Study up on your standards for libel. In article <1992Jan13.232434.10471@zds.com> gerry@zds.com (gerry) writes: >>a libel suit filed by E. Howard Hunt (of watergate fame) in response >>to an article by ex-cia guy Victor Marchetti which was published >>in the spotlight. The article stated that Hunt and the cia were >>involved in the jfk assassination. > >Any security state apologists care to take on his case against the CIA? Even >after a jury agreed with him? Hunt is a public figure. To show libel against a public figure, you not only have to show that the story is false, but that the defendant _knew_ it was false, _and_ that he published it anyway with reckless disregard or malice aforethought or something. Acquittal of libel against a public figure does _not_ necessarily mean the jury found the story to be true. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 09:23:45 PST 1992 Article 9289 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK conspiracy, some practical pros and cons Date: 14 Jan 1992 05:20:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <77519@muvms3.bitnet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: "they" is becoming a _singular_ third-person indefinite pronoun. In article <77519@muvms3.bitnet> rcbi27@muvms3.bitnet (DBRUM) writes: > In Stone's movie, "JFK", Texas governor Connally, seated in front >seat of presidential limo, is quoted as saying "My God--they're going to >kill us all!" when struck in thewrist by one of the assination bullets or >bullet fragments. Did he truely say this? He says he did. (I forget whether his wife agrees with him.) He says he said it because the rapidity of the shots gave him the impression of either an automatic weapon or multiple shooters. Also, note that "they" is becoming a _singular_ indefinite third-person pronoun in modern usage. E.g., find the error in this normal-sounding sentence: "Someone called your answering machine, but they must not have left a message." >By other >reports, Conally claims he didn't even realize he'd been shot at the time. Whose "reports"? Not Connally's. I think you're confused by the Warren Commission contention that Conally was hit earlier in the Zapruder film than he thinks. > If it was a big conspiracy, then Oswald's murder was essential to >it's success. In light of this, it seems a little curious that Ruby would >shoot "the patsy" only once. Especially in the lower abdomen. You have to get lucky and hit one of the major arteries down there, and then hope that your target has time to bleed to death. (I saw Connally say on TV that his doctors told him that if he had not been doubled up in the limo on the way to Parkland, he would have bled to death. I don't know much about trauma, but I get the impression that a passing surgeon with a scalpel and a few clamps could save a hell of a lot of thoracic gunshot victims from dying.) At any rate, I don't think any of this has any bearing on whether Ruby was part of a conspiracy. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 09:24:06 PST 1992 Article 9290 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK Killed By Corporate America? Date: 14 Jan 1992 05:29:56 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan5.161510.409@bvc.edu> <1992Jan13.235522.10735@zds.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: You keep chanting "CIA link", and I'll keep demanding evidence. In article <1992Jan13.235522.10735@zds.com> gerry@zds.com (gerry) writes: >>Apparently, [afraid] of the idea that a monumental event can be >>caused by the most un-monumental of people: Lee Oswald. > >This is clearly wrong. Exactly that is accepted WRT John Lennon's >assasination, nobody seems to be questioning that. Yeah, John Lennon's assassination was a _real_ turning point in history. Sorry, but I'm of the generation that thinks that Paul McCartney was just the lead singer of Wings. >even if he did the shooting on his own, he is clearly linked to that >most monumental organization, the CIA. "Clearly"? Nonsense. The CIA opened a file on him when he defected. Big deal. His wife's emigre friend was interviewed by the CIA. Big deal. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 14:58:15 PST 1992 Article 9324 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK book: "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane Date: 14 Jan 1992 05:03:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan13.232434.10471@zds.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Study up on your standards for libel. In article <1992Jan13.232434.10471@zds.com> gerry@zds.com (gerry) writes: >>a libel suit filed by E. Howard Hunt (of watergate fame) in response >>to an article by ex-cia guy Victor Marchetti which was published >>in the spotlight. The article stated that Hunt and the cia were >>involved in the jfk assassination. > >Any security state apologists care to take on his case against the CIA? Even >after a jury agreed with him? Hunt is a public figure. To show libel against a public figure, you not only have to show that the story is false, but that the defendant _knew_ it was false, _and_ that he published it anyway with reckless disregard or malice aforethought or something. Acquittal of libel against a public figure does _not_ necessarily mean the jury found the story to be true. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 15:10:47 PST 1992 Article 9328 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 14 Jan 1992 16:30:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <12JAN199218504303@zeus.tamu.edu> <3822@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <13JAN199216015500@rigel.tamu.edu> <1992Jan14.081712.28793@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The bolt was on the right side. In article <1992Jan14.081712.28793@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >Consider that even if we agree that the rifle and >the Oswald were both accurate shooters, why was the Manlicher-Carcano that >the authorities presented so screwed up? If the authorities were part of a conspiracy, why did they "present" such a screwed up rifle that would only be grist for the conspiracy theologians? Why not just plant evidence to link Oswald to the actual Mauser that did the shooting, and forget all about any Mannlicher-Carcano? Don't such questions trouble you in the slightest? >1) Government experts testified that the rifle required the placement of > three metal shims to make the rifle accurate with the sight. The rifle had a strap. If Oswald held it by the strap when he dropped it between two stacks of boxes, the sight could have gotten screwed up. >2) The rifle had been adapted for a left handed person... Lee Oswald was right > handed. "Adapted"? What do you mean? The pictures I've seen show the bolt on the right side. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 15:11:19 PST 1992 Article 9334 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 14 Jan 1992 17:33:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <7575@tamsun.tamu.edu> <1992Jan14.010818.11534tim@netcom.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: teaching != testing. Can you say "immersion"? In article <1992Jan14.010818.11534tim@netcom.COM> tim@netcom.COM (Tim Richardson) writes: >= Oswald certainly didn't become fluent in the Marines. >= His Russian test score averaged about 50%. >= >= source: Epstein, Legend. > >If there wasn't a "...record of the government teaching Russian to Oswald" >then how could Epstein claim that his test scores showed fluency of >about 50%??? Just because the Marines didn't _teach_ Oswald Russian doesn't mean they're not allowed to test him to see if they can use whatever Russian skills he might have had. Can you say "advanced placement test"? >Neither of which explain why Marina, when she met Oswald, thought he was >a native Russian though does it! _Not_ a "native Russian". She thought he was so fluent (but obviously accented) that he was from one the Baltic colonies (where Russian is not the native language, but where everyone had to learn Russian). Also, Oswald had been living in Russia for almost a year and half before he met Marina. Can you say "immersion training"? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 15:15:18 PST 1992 Article 9332 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo) Date: 14 Jan 1992 17:08:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <695235628.1@blkcat.FidoNet> <26378@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26378@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|To everyone: Does anyone take this Holtz guy seriously any more? > >Well, not really. I think his new information is worthwhile, but he does not >answer to the main points, and stick to the topic. Hah! What "main points"? What "topic"? I defy you to quote a posting in which this happened. >He discounts people's statements after the WC, but not the WC itself, >even though he calls the WC "imperfect". What I discount are a) people whose story changes a decade or more after it was first written down, and b) some of the Warren Commission's conclusions and oversights, caused by its motivation to put the assassination behind us. What I do _not_ discount is the raw testimony taken by the Warren Commission. For that testimony to have been faked would require a vast conspiracy of scores of government officials, a conspiracy that would have had to silence every official who refused to cooperate with it. >He believes the Bethesda doctors over Parkland, I believe the autopsy photos. After the Parkland doctors saw them, they retracted their differences with the Bethesda doctors. (I'm almost certain you know this; the fact that you nevertheless repeat it seriously lowers your credibility.) >witnesses who say they heard a shot from SBDT and not those who heard >something from the grassy knoll The eyes can suggest to the ears where a sound is coming from. I've asked for the name of a single witness who heard the latter but _weren't_ watching Kennedy's head as it was propelled back and to the left. You have supplied no such name. >experts who claim the magic bullet came from the M-C, and not those >that say it didn't Blatant falsehood. Name a single expert who says the ballistics don't match. >test results that show Oswald had fired a shot and not >those tests that say Oswald could not have fired a shot. Blatant falsehood. There was only one "test" that I know of, and it was simply inconclusive: it showed nitrates on his hands, but not his cheeck. >He looks at witnesses who committ "suicide" and discounts their >testinomy, it does not matter if they were shortly to come before a >court or interview. Except for DeMohrenschildt, the few cases like this were I think all mafia informants. (I'll let you figure out why mafia informants tend to die right before testifying.) Think about it. If you knew enough to put the conspirators away, and they threatening you over it, why would you wait for them to silence you, without making damn sure every wire service hears your story? >He admits that >Oswald defected, but asks what crime Oswald comitted. I asked what law defecting violates, and was met with deafening silence. I pointed out that the FBI monitored Oswald intrusively enough to make him threaten the agent doing the monitoring. Feel free to continue missing the point. >He admits Oswald had >a security clearence, and watched U2 flights over the USSR Absolute falsehood. Oswald "watched U2 flights over" _Atsugi Air Base_. He watched planes take off and land. That's it. > In the Capitol, the phones go dead, I've yet to hear a reference to back up this myth. Were _no_ phone calls possible, or were the lines just swamped? Why would the conspirators give themselves away by doing something that Oswald could not _possibly_ have done? >the National Guard is told to stand down Reference? More importantly, do you have any evidence that it was standard procedure to have _any_ part of the military participate in presidential security? >and Kennedy's head is supposed to rock back due to a "nervous" >reaction. No, I've only hypothesized that it was due to a forward jet of blood, brain, and bone. There may have been a nervous reaction; I don't know as much neurology as I do physics. What I do know is that no one has explained how a grassy knoll shot can cause a fist-sized entrance wound with no exit wound. Or how a grassy knoll shot can cause bullet fragments to spray more than 90 degrees off-trajectory -- but perfectly in line with the TSBD sniper's nest. > The least you can say after looking at all these things is that there >is something strange going on. No, I can also say that I've presented _all_ of the above rebuttals before, and you've chosen to ignore them and just keep chanting. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 15:24:27 PST 1992 Article 9333 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 14 Jan 1992 17:21:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <12963@pitt.UUCP> <1992Jan14.080825.11207tim@netcom.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan14.080825.11207tim@netcom.COM> tim@netcom.COM (Tim Richardson) writes: >=All that happened was that the CIA thought >=it had a picture of Oswald in Mexico City, but it was mistaken. > >If the CIA used Oswald's name in conjunction with an attempt to establish >that he (Oswald) was somehow linked to either the Cubans or the Russians, He _was_ "linked" to them, in the sense that he pestered them for a visa in Mexico City. What, did the CIA hypnotize him to get him to go to Mexico City? >then they are guilty of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. Otherwise how >could they have known, in advance of the assassination, that LHO was >going to be involved? Is there any evidence at all that the CIA associated the bogus photo with Oswald _before_ the assassination? No. What happened was that Oswald visited the Mexico City embassy, and that fact was in the CIA's file on Oswald. When Oswald was arrested, some CIA bozo went looking through their pictures of white guys entering that embassy, and came up with the wrong picture. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 21:19:50 PST 1992 Article 9356 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 14 Jan 1992 23:09:09 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <3766@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <26125@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <12980@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: "confidential", not "top secret" In article <12980@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >He had a top secret clearance in the Marines, and appeared at the embassy >to renounce his citizenship. His clearance level was _not_ "top secret". It was "confidential", which is pretty routine, from what I understand. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 14 21:21:18 PST 1992 Article 9358 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK Autopsy Date: 14 Jan 1992 23:37:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan14.172944.7417@inel.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan14.172944.7417@inel.gov> cak@INEL.GOV (Clarence Calkins) writes: > Does anyone know what type of bullet was found? (There was a bullet found >on the gurney that JFK was on; It was found on a stretcher _next to_ the stretcher that _Connally_ was on. >In this scenario, Oswald shooting from behind JFK would have created >a large exit hole in the front of JFK's head. Or someone shooting from >the grassy knoll would have created a large hole in the back. Have you seen the autopsy photos of the head wound? There is no separate entrance wound. It looks to me like a bullet just came in on a glancing trajectory, sheared off a chunk of head, and immediately exited through basically the same hole. > If the bullet was a soft-point, game round, it should have expanded >and given up its velocity to create lethal damage. It *may not* have had >enough energy to exit the skull (Kennedy family being a little more hard >headed than the rest of us,) and the compressive forces may have been >expelled out the entrance hole. I'd be shocked if an orthogonal impact on a skull by any kind of of rifle bullet could cause such a rebounding entrance wound, and no exit wound. >would not have been found just inside the wound where it could be felt >by the doctor's probing finger, it should be deep inside the skull leaving >a path of shattered bone and tissue in it's wake. Wrong wound. The finger-probed wound was the wound in Kennedy's back. The doctors didn't feel any object at the end of the hole; they just felt (what they thought was) the end of the hole. > And on a related note; When Ruby shot Oswald, he poked the gun in his >belly and pulled the trigger. I think the barrel of the gun was actually two or three feet from Oswald's belly. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 13:41:17 PST 1992 Article 9386 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 15 Jan 1992 05:18:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <3838@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3838@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< Is there any evidence at all that the CIA associated the bogus photo >< with Oswald _before_ the assassination? No. What happened was that >< Oswald visited the Mexico City embassy, and that fact was in the CIA's >< file on Oswald. When Oswald was arrested, some CIA bozo went looking >< through their pictures of white guys entering that embassy, and came >< up with the wrong picture. > >What's your evidence for this? Well, I don't know for sure how it first became known after Oswald's arrest that he'd visited the Mexico City embassies; _Reasonable Doubt_ says that the CIA in fact _didn't_ know that Oswald had been there. At any rate, the visit became known, and as far as anybody knows, that's what prompted the CIA to look through its embassy surveillance photos. I don't know for sure that it was a "bozo" who did the looking, but he sure did a bozo job of it. The main thing is that a) there is no evidence that the CIA fabricated any Oswald-in-Mexico-City evidence _before_ the assassination, and b) there is no evidence that the bogus Oswald photo wasn't just a case of the CIA screwing up. Heck, the official name on Oswald's CIA file was "Lee Henry Oswald". -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 13:41:40 PST 1992 Article 9387 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: KENNEDY AUTOPSY Date: 15 Jan 1992 05:39:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan14.214704.26027@talon.ucs.orst.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan14.214704.26027@talon.ucs.orst.edu> rubenj@bionette.cgrb.orst.edu (John Ruben) writes: >reality is that recently published post-mortem photos of J JFK's face >reveal no obvious wounds/deficits. Right. In fact, I pretty sure that photos of JFK's "death stare" have been public for years and years -- certainly since 1980's _Best Evidence_. >"Official" (HSCA) JFK autopsy >skull x-rays (lateral and frontal views) clearly indicate a massive >deficit of bone in the rgt. forehead/orbittal region. "Massive deficit of bone"? Where did you see these x-rays? I think I remember reading that x-rays showed that a fragment sligtly fractured (and remained embedded in) a bone in one of the eye orbits, but that it didn't penetrate the skin. (Could someone check on this, in either _Crossfire_ or _Six Seconds In Dallas_?) This couldn't be the same "massive deficit of bone" that you're talking about, could it? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 13:42:51 PST 1992 Article 9389 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK conspiracy, some practical pros and cons Date: 15 Jan 1992 06:09:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <695437217.2@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695437217.2@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >As to how he got down to the basement of >the police station LATE to commit this premeditated murder, a >"witness", Napolean J. Daniels, stated that Ruby got there via a >ramp entrance. This anti-conspiracy witness account was of course >recited over and again, and is best known. > >The cop on duty of the ramp entrance was Roy Vaughn. He stated that >it was NOT true, and that Ruby definitely did NOT come in that way. > >Vaughn's suit resulted in several police making affidavits that >Assistant Chief of Police Charles Batchelor brought Ruby in on the >elevator. Hmm, it sounds to me like the DPD knew it screwed up, and decided to let Vaughn take the rap. But the fact is that security was extremely lax at police headquarters all weekend, and that Ruby was in and out of the building all weekend. He was well-known at police headquarters. HSCA Chief Counsel Blakey summed it up nicely: "The only firm conclusion we could come to is that Ruby ... and the ... officers who questioned him probably did not tell the truth about how Ruby got into the basement. Our conclusions about Ruby's entry into the basement were inconsistent with a conspiracy that called for Ruby to kill Oswald at the specific time he did, but they did not reduce the likelihood of a plot that called for Ruby to kill Oswald whenever he could get to him." (Now that I've read up on Ruby's actions that weekend, it's clear that he was obsessed with Oswald and was stalking him. Earlier I said that Ruby killed him on impulse, but that is probably wrong.) >And get this: Batchelor was in charge of security precautions for >both the motorcade of November 22 and the transfer of Oswald on >November 24. And, despite "failure" both times, he was later >promoted to Chief. There wasn't much he could have done to keep Kennedy from getting killed. And failing to protect scumbag Oswald is not exactly something to ruin a Southern cop's record. >OK, now where's Brian's brain on this one? ;) ;) ;) I'm all over it, like white on rice. Is my cape on straight? :) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 13:43:12 PST 1992 Article 9390 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties Date: 15 Jan 1992 06:14:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan3.194254.14510@stsci.edu> <8216@inews.intel <26076@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1992Jan15.025626.23243@kpc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan15.025626.23243@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes: >|> >|autopsy photos. After they looked at them, they confirmed that the >|> >|wounds hadn't been altered, and that their initial hasty descriptions >|> >|had been in error. >|> > >|> >That's absurd: there is no way they could know if the body had been >|> >alterd or not. >|> >|> The photos were real. They showed to be perfectly intact portions of >|> Kennedy's head that the Parkland doctors' initial hasty descriptions >|> said were blown away. > >Actually, the photos showed someone holding Kennedy's scalp over his >skull, showing the entrance wound clearer, but making it appear that >the head was not blown away. The Nova episode showed the pictures, and >in a few, you can see some fingers holding the piece of scalp in place. > >From what I remember ( I haven't seen the Nova Episode for a few years), >the one of the Parkland doctors described the discrepancy as such. Yes, your description sums up what I wanted to say perfectly. Thanks. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 20:14:48 PST 1992 Article 9431 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 15 Jan 1992 22:53:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan12.180841.15455tim@netcom.COM> <13002@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13002@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >It is highly irregular for such materials to be destroyed even in >cases which are totally routine and not suspicious. Having "blood on >them" is not considered any excuse for burning them. Patient autopsy >records are normally kept essentially in perpetuity on microfilm, even >after the paper records are destroyed to save space. Clearly, these >records were destroyed purposefully to avoid later scrutiny. Sorry, but I don't see that it follows. Everybody says Humes was a lousy autopist; wouldn't that explain such a mistake? How many autopsies for criminal cases _had_ Humes done, anyway? We already know that he'd done few (if any) autopsies involving bullet wounds. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 20:25:52 PST 1992 Article 9430 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo) Date: 15 Jan 1992 22:44:28 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 229 Message-ID: References: <695235628.1@blkcat.FidoNet> <26378@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26456@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Not much new here, except David reveals his fact phobia. In article <26456@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||Well, not really. I think his new information is worthwhile, but he does not >||answer to the main points, and stick to the topic. >| >|Hah! What "main points"? What "topic"? I defy you to quote a >|posting in which this happened. > >It happens in every post. For example, in this one. Read on. Sorry, but you didn't point this out at all. Finish these sentences: "You did not answer my point that ..." and "You did not stick to the topic of ....". >|What I discount are a) people whose story changes a decade or more >|after it was first written down, > >First, why 10 years? I said "a decade or more". The idea is that I don't think it's very common for people to have a better memory of an event n years after it occurs, as compared to a few days or weeks after it occurs. I also think this effect increases with n; there's nothing magic about n=10. >Second, you should expect that these things take time. Oh, I quite agree that it takes time to find people who are willing to change their story. That's one reason why very few conspiracy books came out in 1964. >| and b) some of the Warren >|Commission's conclusions and oversights, caused by its motivation to >|put the assassination behind us. > >Here we are, investigating the death of the president of the United States, >you think that a motivation to "put the assassination behing us" is >not absurd? Hardly. In case you hadn't noticed, I think the evidence supports the thrust of their conclusions. As for the rest of the evidence, do you really expect such a commission to _accentuate_ the confounding evidence, or even to play it perfectly straight, with a historian's detachment? Don't be naive. >| What I do _not_ discount is the raw >|testimony taken by the Warren Commission. > >It is the one-sided selection of evidence that is suspect. Sigh. What evidence wasn't selected? >||He believes the Bethesda doctors over Parkland, >| >|I believe the autopsy photos. After the Parkland doctors saw them, >|they retracted their differences with the Bethesda doctors. > >All this proves is that the doctors do not believe that the body was alterd. "All this proves" is that the much-touted 'contradictions' between the two sets of doctors have turned out not to exist. If the doctors agree, what difference does it make which ones I believe more? >|The eyes can suggest to the ears where a sound is coming from. >|I've asked for the name of a single witness who heard the latter but >|_weren't_ watching Kennedy's head as it was propelled back and to the >|left. You have supplied no such name. > >Witnesses all around kennedy thought the gunshots were fired from the >knoll. This makes no sense. Which word didn't you understand? All I'm asking for is a name. It should be the name of an earwitness who heard shots from the grassy knoll, but was not watching Kennedy's head. Put up or shut up. >||experts who claim the magic bullet came from the M-C, and not those >||that say it didn't >| >|Blatant falsehood. Name a single expert who says the ballistics don't >|match. > >Please read this node. Huh? You still haven't given me a name. Not that I thought you would... >|There was only one "test" that I know of, and it |was simply >|inconclusive: it showed nitrates on his hands, but not his cheeck. > >The implication is that he would have had been tested positive if he >fired the weapon. Says who? Another poster said that an FBI agent recreating the shooting also tested negative on the cheek. Neither you nor that poster have cited your source, so I have to suspend belief until more data are available. >|Except for DeMohrenschildt, the few cases like this were I think all >|mafia informants. (I'll let you figure out why mafia informants tend >|to die right before testifying.) > >Who cares what you think they are, Only people interested in a rational explanation of the evidence. Which excludes you. >the point is that you discount the testimony, on absurd grounds. Oh. So now my pointing out that mafia informants tend to die constitutes "absurd grounds" for explaining their deaths? Wow. >Probably no one knows enough to singly put them away, although many >witnesses have died that seemed to have been keys to the puzzle. Names. I want names. Sleazy people tend to die sleazy deaths. >many people have spoken up and no one has beleived them, A _sure_ sign of a conspiracy! >||He admits that >||Oswald defected, but asks what crime Oswald comitted. >| >|I asked what law defecting violates, and was met with deafening >|silence. > >That is because it is obvious that defecting, if it occurs is precisely >breaking "the law". Some call it treason. Defecting is not against the law. Treason is giving away secrets, etc. There is no evidence that Oswald did any such thing. >|I pointed out that the FBI monitored Oswald intrusively >|enough to make him threaten the agent doing the monitoring. > >The FBI monitored him so well he was able to kill Tippett and Kennedy and run >around with Cuban exiles? Hardly. They checked up on Oswald from time to time; he was not under 24-hour guard. >The Russians now say that >they thought at the time Oswald worked for the CIA. The Russians would tell you that _I_ work for the CIA. (And you would believe them.) >||He admits Oswald had >||a security clearence, and watched U2 flights over the USSR >| >|Absolute falsehood. Oswald "watched U2 flights over" _Atsugi Air >|Base_. He watched planes take off and land. That's it. > >He was a radar operator, and with all likely hood watched them enter >USSR air space, and could have monitored their messages. It's ludicrous to suggest that the CIA used the standard miitary frequencies for radio contact with the U-2's. Oswald _may_ have seen U-2's come and go in the direction of China/N. Korea/Russia, but there is no reason to think he knew they entered Russian airspace. Air traffic control radars do not have anything close to that kind of range. >Another poster has claimed that he had a top secret >security clearance. And I made that poster look foolish when I pointed out that Oswald's clearance was _not_ "top secret", but rather "confidential", which is far easier to get. >|| In the Capitol, the phones go dead, >| >|I've yet to hear a reference to back up this myth. Were _no_ phone >|calls possible, or were the lines just swamped? Why would the >|conspirators give themselves away by doing something that Oswald could >|not _possibly_ have done? > >Go get your own references. But why don't we wait until you can invent another >story in case it happens to be true. Beautiful. Not only do you simply not care whether what you say can be backed up with references -- you say it _just in case_ it "happens to be true". >||the National Guard is told to stand down >| >|Reference? More importantly, do you have any evidence that it was >|standard procedure to have _any_ part of the military participate in >|presidential security? > >See above. And the standard proceedure was standard. The Vice-Presdient had >a similiar speech or whatever and the Guard was there. Reference? (Oh, sorry, I forgot that "fact" is a four-letter word to you.) >|No, I've only hypothesized that it was due to a forward jet of blood, brain, >|and bone. > >But these all moved *backward*, quite violently. Not "all". Then whose brain matter is that moving _forward_ from Kennedy's head on the Zapruder film? Whose brains did the Connallys (sitting _in front_ of Kennedy) say splattered them "like birdshot"? >| There may have been a nervous reaction; I don't know as >|much neurology as I do physics. What I do know is that no one has >|explained how a grassy knoll shot can cause a fist-sized entrance >|wound with no exit wound. > >THat can be explained two ways. 1) The body was alterd. Except the Parkland doctors now say that it _wasn't_ altered. >2) the entrance and >exit wounds were the same, i.e., it took a lagre part of the skull clean off. That's what I've been saying. But such a shot would have to come from somewhere near the plane defined by the perimeter of the skull opening, and Oswald was closer to that plane than was the grassy knoll. >| Or how a grassy knoll shot can cause bullet >|fragments to spray more than 90 degrees off-trajectory -- but >|perfectly in line with the TSBD sniper's nest. > >Many people believe there were shots from either TSBD or somewhere >behind. The funny thing is, _all_ the physical evidence can be explained with that one shooter. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 20:26:15 PST 1992 Article 9432 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Another JFK Question Date: 15 Jan 1992 23:02:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <695062184@macbeth.cs.duke.edu> <13001@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13001@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>The route was changed because it would have been >>more difficult getting onto the freeway from Main Street than from Elm (?) >>Street. My question is, how difficult would it be to shoot the President on >>*Main Street* from the TSBD? Unless Oswald had some way of knowing that the >>route had been changed, wouldn't he have been planning for a the President >>to be travelling down Main Street? Ah, this could help explain why Oswald didn't fire while Kennedy approached him on Houston. He would have been set up to shoot at a limo on Main, but was caught off-guard and had to adjust to shooting at a limo on a street parallel to main. >It certainly is suspicious, isn't it? The route was changed to include >a 120 degree turn (supposedly against SS regulations) Ok, what was the name of the Secret Service guy who made the change? He either can name the superior who ordered him to do it, or he was part of the conspiracy, right? Or -- what is more likely -- such a change just wasn't a big deal. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 20:27:06 PST 1992 Article 9433 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Oswald's CIA history Date: 15 Jan 1992 23:07:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <695120415.5@blkcat.FidoNet> <13003@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13003@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >Also, according to Oswald, the Nash Rambler that picked him up >outside the book depository right after the assassination >belonged to Mrs. Paine. Oswald said that he took a bus home. I think it's Deputy Craig who said he saw somebody who looks like Oswald get into such a station wagon. At some point during the interrogation the Paine's station wagon was described, and then Oswald said something like "Mrs. Paine was not involved". -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 15 20:27:26 PST 1992 Article 9434 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 15 Jan 1992 23:22:49 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <12936@pitt.UUCP> <13005@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13005@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>And when in Washington he says he needs to be in Fort Knox? > >Maybe, maybe not. Ruby's request sounded reasonable to me. Are you in the law enforcement profession? Such a transfer would have been a slap in the face of Texas authorities, under whose jurisdiction Ruby was being held for trial. Can you cite any other example of federal officials removing a witness from state/local custody for security purposes? Also, as a purely investigative body, I doubt that the Warren Commission even had the legal authority to override Texas's claim on Ruby. >you would have done the same thing: discourage Ruby from making >any statements that hurt the lone nut theory. Right. And we all know how Warren would repeatedly put a knee into Ruby's balls every time Ruby tried to rattle off his list of conspirators... >>Blatantly false. Give me the name of someone who blurted out the >>names of the conspirators, and then was killed. >> >Try the list of about 200 in Marrs book. Bzzt. As far as I know, precisely zero of them ever blurted out the name of any conspirators. Try again. >It was also >very suspicious how they seemed to die right before they were >scheduled to be interviewed or to testify, too. Besides DeMohrenschildt, did any such deaths _not_ happen to Mafia figures? >What makes you think Ruby knew all the names of the conspirators? >I think this is very unlikely. He may have been able to tell >you who gave him his orders, but not the men at the top. Fine. But for a conspiracy theory to work, Ruby had to know at least _one_ name. But he never gave any names (despite innumerable chances to), and he was never silenced (despite his numerous threats to sing as soon as he was outside the conspirators' reach). -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 16 16:53:00 PST 1992 Article 9459 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 16 Jan 1992 04:36:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <13JAN199216015500@rigel.tamu.edu> <1992Jan14.081712.28793@abode.ttank.com> <1992Jan15.215122.8219@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan15.215122.8219@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >>>1) Government experts testified that the rifle required the placement of >>> metal shims to make the rifle accurate with the sight. >> >>The rifle had a strap. If Oswald held it by the strap when he dropped >>it between two stacks of boxes, the sight could have gotten screwed up. > >WELL THEN... LET ME QUOTE FROM YOUR WARREN COMMISSION REPORT: > >[lengthy quote that merely repeats (1) above] > >You are asking me (and everyone else) to beleive that IT JUST SO HAPPENED that >when Oswald (SUPPOSEDLY) dropped the rifle between some boxes that the sight >got that screwed up! Hey, you read really well. >I never heard Oswald testify to dropping anything. He was too busy denying that he was even on the sixth floor at the time. Duh. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 16 16:53:09 PST 1992 Article 9460 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 16 Jan 1992 04:42:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <7575@tamsun.tamu.edu> <1992Jan14.010818.11534tim@netcom.COM> <1992Jan15.215538.8298@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan15.215538.8298@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >>Just because the Marines didn't _teach_ Oswald Russian doesn't mean >>they're not allowed to test him to see if they can use whatever >>Russian skills he might have had. Can you say "advanced placement >>test"? > >Sure! But why didn't they test all (or at least a large percentage) of >Marines for such "skills." They probably only tested those Marines who claimed proficiency. (I've only seen this testing story on the net, and not in any book. Does anyone know the source for this story?) >It is common knowledge that those enlisted men who were being taught and ^^^^^^ >tested Russian were being prepared for "special" intelligence missions. Bzzt. There is no evidence that the government taught Oswald Russian. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 16 21:59:58 PST 1992 Article 9461 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Database - Bush, the CIA, and JFK Date: 16 Jan 1992 04:57:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <695509212.1@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695509212.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >(It might be notable that the >person closest to Lee Harvey Oswald and assigned to take care of ^^^^^^^^ >the Oswalds' needs, was established CIA operative George ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >DeMornschildt. Evidence, please? >DeMohrenschildy had the following entry in his address >book: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum >Midland". Again: evidence? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 00:14:08 PST 1992 Article 9518 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 17 Jan 1992 01:06:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <13005@pitt.UUCP> <26506@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Ruby was on trial for killing one Lee Harvey Oswald. In article <26506@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|Such a transfer would have >|been a slap in the face of Texas authorities, under whose jurisdiction >|Ruby was being held for trial. Can you cite any other example of >|federal officials removing a witness from state/local custody for >|security purposes? > >Ruby was being held for trial? What trial? The trial for the murder of one Lee Harvey Oswald. (Ruby was found guilty and sentenced to death, but was awaiting a new trial when he died of cancer.) >What investigation. The WC >stopped Dallas from doing any investigating. It had incredible power. It had supboena power. It did not have the power to take Ruby away from Texas authorities. >|||Give me the name of someone who blurted out the >|||names of the conspirators, and then was killed. >||| >||Try the list of about 200 in Marrs book. >| >|Bzzt. As far as I know, precisely zero of them ever blurted out the >|name of any conspirators. Try again. > >who cares if they blurted out names or not? When I asked Gordon "why didn't Ruby just blurt out the names of those responsible, right there in front of the press and the cameras?", he replied "because the people who had blurted it out previously were dead by that time." If you can't follow a conversation, don't butt into it. >|Besides DeMohrenschildt, did any such deaths _not_ happen to Mafia >|figures? > >First of all, DeMohrenschildt was not being questioned for his Mafia >connections. And by the way, if you really think DM was a "Mafia" >figure, Re-read what I wrote. If you can't read English, don't post. >Is Ferrie a "Mafia" figure? Yes. He worked for Carlos Marcello. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 00:14:19 PST 1992 Article 9519 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 17 Jan 1992 01:09:27 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <9JAN199212570514@zeus.tamu.edu> <3802@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <12JAN199218273783@zeus.tamu.edu> <13020@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13020@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >(Mitchell S Todd) writes: >> >> It would have beem easier just to have brought the Mauser in >> as Oswald's rifle, or to have had the 'real' assassin use a >> Mannlicher-Carcano and not worry about having to switch. > >They had already gone to considerable trouble to link the Mannlicher to >Oswald (ordering it using his alias, or causing him to order it). Geez, get a clue, Gordon! If they had their choice of which rifle to link Oswald to, why not link him to the rifle with which the shooting was to be done? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 00:14:39 PST 1992 Article 9521 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 17 Jan 1992 01:21:27 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <3866@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3866@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >Brian, any objective reading of the JFK assassination evidence will reveal >a core of doubt that cannot easily be brushed aside Sigh. In my original posting last month I listed the reasons why I'm _not_ certain that Oswald acted alone. To recap for you, they are: * the fake "Secret Service" men in Dealy Plaza * the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen * the Oswald sightings with Ferrie in Clinton, La. * the Rosa Cheramie prediction of the assassination * the many "duplicate Oswald" sightings >What I'd like to know is why you are so >desperate to convince us that every circumstance of the case is normal and >straightforward. Not "every". Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists focus on circumstances that aren't all that puzzling to me. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 00:14:56 PST 1992 Article 9522 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 17 Jan 1992 01:36:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: <13005@pitt.UUCP> <13024@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13024@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Can you cite any other example of >>federal officials removing a witness from state/local custody for >>security purposes? >> >No, but I can cite a case of a homicide victim being removed illegally >from the state of Texas Do you really want me to explain to you the difference between a homicide victim and a homicide suspect? >>Also, as a purely investigative body, I doubt that the Warren >>Commission even had the legal authority to override Texas's claim on >>Ruby. >> >Would the Texas authorities refused if Warren asked? If LBJ asked? Who cares? There was no reason to think that Ruby wasn't safe. >>Right. And we all know how Warren would repeatedly put a knee into >>Ruby's balls every time Ruby tried to rattle off his list of >>conspirators... >> >Verbally, that is exactly what he did Pure bullshit. Ruby never even came close to giving a name, because he had no name to give. There is not a thing in the world Warren could have done if Ruby tried to say, "JFK's death was ordered by ...". But Ruby never said anything of the sort. All Ruby came close to doing was obstructing justice by demanding frivolous changes in venue. >>Bzzt. As far as I know, precisely zero of them ever blurted out the >>name of any conspirators. Try again. >> >Not true, several of them named names. Ok: who named what name? Isn't the case solved if we have such names? >>Besides DeMohrenschildt, did any such deaths _not_ happen to Mafia >>figures? >> >Check out Marrs list. There were several who were scheduled to testify >or talk to reporters. Starting very early with one of Ruby's dancers. >In her case it was a brutal murder Bzzt. Dancers in mob strip joints count as mafia figures. You've never heard of a hooker being brutally murdered? >>Fine. But for a conspiracy theory to work, Ruby had to know at least >>_one_ name. > >Likely so, but not necessarily. Ways can be found to pass orders >without names. What, did Ruby get an anonymous phone call? >I suspect Ruby knew some names. And he never gave us a single one. Funny thing. >I don't think >he knew for sure who was the top dog. We probably never will either. Of course not. If we _could_ know, that means that there would have to be a possible set of evidentiary circumstances that would satisfy the conspiracy theologians. But it's obvious that no evidence could ever satisfy them, so they will never "know". -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:12:05 PST 1992 Article 9540 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Database - Bush, the CIA, and JFK Date: 17 Jan 1992 06:32:57 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <695610023.1@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695610023.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > >>(It might be notable that the > >>person closest to Lee Harvey Oswald and assigned to take care of > > ^^^^^^^^ > >>the Oswalds' needs, was established CIA operative George > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>DeMornschildt. > > > Evidence, please? > >We can start with statements by none other than Jeanne >DeMohrenschildt right after her husband was killed by gunshot >(again, supposedly by suicide...) She said these things "right after" her husband's death? Hmmm. >She not only stated that her husband worked for U.S. >intelligence and had for a long time, but also stated that >his closest friend at the time of the JFK assassination was >J. Walter Moore, who was at the time Dallas' top CIA man >(BTW, Mrs. DeMohrenschildt stated that cuban refugees were used >to shoot Kennedy.) How did she know this? Did her husband supposedly tell her? Did her husband bother to mention who he got his orders from? >Parts of her statements were reported by newspapers, e.g., the Ft. >Worth Star-Telegram, May 11, 1978. Which parts? Were the parts I quoted above in the newspaper? >Of course, CIA memos now available, thanks to the Freedom of >Information Act suits, show that DeMohrenschildt had a relationship >with the agency dating back to OSS days. A memo by none other than >former CIA Director Richard Helms states that DeMohrenschildt provided >the CIA with "foreign intelligence which was promptly disseminated >to other federal agencies in 10 separate reports". The CIA interviews lots of business travelers. >It's also >known from routine documents that DeMohrenschildt travelled >representing companies that were known CIA fronts, and for stated >purposes that were sometimes ludicrous (e.g., for stamp collecting >when he wasn't a stamp collector). Now we're getting closer to real evidence. What documents? What companies? > He and his wife were even shot >at in Yugoslavia in 1957 by guards of none other than Marshal Tito. _That_ makes them CIA agents? Hah. >DeMohrenschildt was definitely a high member of the intelligence >community. Not only are there numerous peoples' accounts (which I've >mostly left unmentioned here, since Brian discounts it all), but >there is hard official documentation that's tough to argue against. It sure would be nice if you _cited_ some of this "hard official documentation". All you cited was an undated memo saying that DeMohrenschildt was interviewed by the CIA. How does that make him a "high member of the intelligence community"? In sum, you've given me little evidence that GdM was an "established CIA operative", and _no_ evidence that GdM was "assigned to take care of the Oswalds' needs". > >> DeMohrenschild had the following entry in his address > >> book: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum > >> Midland". > > > Again: evidence? > >Oh, give me a break, Brian. > >But you will be happy to know that I'm getting out of this conference I didn't mean to scare you away. All I wanted was a reference I could look up in a library. Or do we just have to take your word for everything? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:14:00 PST 1992 Article 9541 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties (Re: Speed of limo) Date: 17 Jan 1992 07:51:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 320 Message-ID: References: <26456@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26504@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26504@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|||What I discount are a) people whose story changes a decade or more >|||after it was first written down, > >you said *changes*? There's a whole lot of people who don't change their >testimony. The most damning stories are those that have changed: Mercer's seeing Ruby and Oswald in the grassy knoll truck, the deaf guy seeing a rifleman behind the grassy knoll fence. >|think this effect increases with n; there's nothing magic about n=10. > >Which is why you allow the Bethesda doctors to change *their* testimony. The Bethesda doctors changed their testimony after being shown _photos_ of the very thing that their testimony was about. If you have photos of Ruby and Oswald (or a rifleman) on the grassy knoll, then I'll put much more stock in grassy knoll witnesses changing their story. >It's new testimony. Then you don't, on the face of it, criticize >this? There is no reason to think that evidence uncoverd >after the fact is, on the face of it, bad evidence. Sure there is. If someone comes forward claiming to know something important, but they haven't told anyone about it over the years, you can't dismiss the possibility that they're making it up. >|Oh, I quite agree that it takes time to find people who are willing to >|change their story. That's one reason why very few conspiracy books >|came out in 1964. > >Given that there was a conspiracy, it would take time to find it. Are >you trying to ignore the point I'm not ignoring this point. I've said over and over that people who assume there was a conspiracy can use any possible evidence to butress their assumption. Watch: I just finished posting a list of the evidence that makes me have doubts about the lone-Oswald theory. Now, why don't you give us a list of the evidence that you consider hardest to explain with a conspiracy theory? (I bet David's list is empty.) >|In case you hadn't noticed, I think the evidence supports the >|thrust of their conclusions. As for the rest of the evidence, do you >|really expect such a commission to _accentuate_ the confounding >|evidence, or even to play it perfectly straight, with a historian's >|detachment? > >Firstly, I argue that the desire to put the assassination behind is not a sound >defense of a commission of some of the highest and most experienced >legislators in the land. I'm not exonerating the WC. I just want an answer to the question above. You won't give it, because you're chicken. >Lee Harvey Oswald is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Show me the posting where I said he was. >An objective analysis of the information would at >least support the conclusion that there is a mass of conflicting >testimony and enough circumstantial evidence to question even the most >carefully held conclusions. Yes, I've noticed how the conspiracy theorists have made it quite impossible for any one theory to explain everything that happened on Nov. 22. Does that make them stop and realize that a theory can be true and still not explain everything? Of course not! >I expect some the nations' greatest legislators to have done a better >job than a two-bit DA in New Orleans--now before you cut me off, let >me say this: believe what you want about Garrision, but he at least >started the investigation in the normal fashion: interview suspects, >look at the history, get testimony from various sources. Hah! Is it "normal" to drug and hypnotize your star witness (Russo)? >|"All this proves" is that the much-touted 'contradictions' between the >|two sets of doctors have turned out not to exist. If the doctors >|agree, what difference does it make which ones I believe more? > >It does not prove that, Ooh, what a persuasive argument! >and you will not comphrend another interpretation >so what more can I say? Ah, only people as smart as Mr. Wright can comprehend interpretations of the evidence that support a conspiracy. The rest of us will just have to accept Rev. Wright's revelation on faith. >|All I'm asking for is a name. It >|should be the name of an earwitness who heard shots from the grassy >|knoll, but was not watching Kennedy's head. Put up or shut up. > >Then what is your argument? How can a partial ring of people all point >toward a single direction when looking in different directions and yet >be biased as you say? What's so hard to understand here? People see something move east, and so they think the sound of the thing that hit it came from the west. >|||Blatant falsehood. Name a single expert who says the ballistics don't >|||match. >|| >||Please read this node. >| >|Huh? You still haven't given me a name. Not that I thought you would... > >I am not going to go through this node and find the post. You won't find it. You _will_ find the posting in which I quoted pro-conspiracy _Reasonable Doubt_ saying that the ballistics matched. >The fact that LHO passed the test >is just another drop in the bucket making him not guilty beyond a >reasonable doubt. He didn't "pass" the test. Nitrates were found on his hands. Nitrates were not found on his cheek. It is apparently common for a paraffin test not to find _any_ nitrates on a shooter. >LHO brought the curtain rods in, say 1 witness, but no one else. That one witness happened to be the only witness who was not in Oswald's power to keep from seeing the package. >His gun could not have stained the materials, The problem is that the gun _didn't_ stain the bag. But the gun had been wrapped in a blanket, which could have removed the external oil. >materials he did not have access to. Try: materials that he did not take home the night before. It is not known what he took home on the previous nights, and the materials were available for several days before the shooting. >He is a speed racer, not breaking into a >sweat while running down four flights of stairs. I know of no testimony about his "sweat" when seen by the cop. All we are told is that Oswald seemed calm, considering the fact that a pistol-brandishing cop challenged him before continuing to rush up the stairs. >He is excellent shot, >better than anything the FBI has, The shooting was been duplicated by private researchers. The HSCA admitted that the shooting was possible. (BTW, why didn't the conspirators just get the FBI to say that their experts were able to duplicate the shooting?) >goes into a theatre without >paying. Now why did a host of police arrive to arrest him? A cop had just been killed in the area. Do you know how cops feel about cop-killers? Take a wild guess. >Oswalds bizarre ties with the CIA, Ruby's ties with the CIA There is no evidence for either having CIA ties. >and even perhaps the Dallas police. "Perhaps"? Ruby _definitely_ had "ties" with the DPD. He was a well-known and frequent visitor to headquarters. >Sure a bullet *could* have come out looking like that. Yes; Mitchell's report that Connally's entrance wound was oblong is the clincher. >You can make up all sorts of unrealistic senarios >to explain anything. You should know! >In fact the HASC concluded that there was a good >possibility of conspiracy. Based primarily on the discredited dictabelt, no? >|Oh. So now my pointing out that mafia informants tend to die constitutes >|"absurd grounds" for explaining their deaths? Wow. > >The mafia was not on trial, and you have only the weakest of evidence >linking these people to the Mafia in the first place. _What_ "people"? Here's what happened. You guys said that lots of witnesses died mysteriously right before testifying. I asked for names. The only one I've gotten (besides DeMohrenschildt) was a stripper in a mob strip joint. >|Defecting is not against the law. Treason is giving away secrets, >|etc. There is no evidence that Oswald did any such thing. > >That is not credible. A person defects to USSR with a security clearence >and is not thought to have committed treason? There is no evidence that Oswald knew anything very sensitive, and there is no evidence that he told the Russians anything at all. You're telling us that Oswald would be found not guilty of murder, but guilty of treason? You're a joke. >|They checked up on Oswald from time to time; he was not under 24-hour >|guard. > >If they did check up on him, then why can't we get a better description of >his activities? We have exactly the kind of description that we'd expect from periodic checkups. >Why did one of the FBI people burn his notes after >interviewing Oswald? All that happened is that Oswald seems to have delivered a threatening note to the FBI office, and it was not kept. >Did they note that he orderd a weapon or two? They didn't search his house, or open his mail, or have ESP. >|The Russians would tell you that _I_ work for the CIA. (And you would >|believe them.) > >Why would the Russians tell me that? Why you not believe them? You think >the Russians would lie about this? I think that it's the job of the Russians to assume that every defector is a spy until they can determine otherwise. To do anything else would be irresponsible. >|It's ludicrous to suggest that the CIA used the standard miitary >|frequencies for radio contact with the U-2's. Oswald _may_ have seen >|U-2's come and go in the direction of China/N. Korea/Russia, but there >|is no reason to think he knew they entered Russian airspace. Air >|traffic control radars do not have anything close to that kind of >|range. > >I see. You were there. You were watching Oswald all the time, making sure >he was just a flunky. What garbage. (Is that the best you can do? You really make this easy for me.) I wasn't there. I just know that air traffic control radars in Japan cannot monitor aircraft over Russia. >|||| In the Capitol, the phones go dead, >||| >|||I've yet to hear a reference to back up this myth. Were _no_ phone >|||calls possible, or were the lines just swamped? Why would the >|||conspirators give themselves away by doing something that Oswald could >|||not _possibly_ have done? >|| >||Go get your own references. But why don't we wait until you can invent another >||story in case it happens to be true. By the way, Primetime Live tonight reported that it happens to be _false_. Sam Donaldson himself made a dozen calls between Capitol Hill and the White House during the supposed outage. It turns out that there were simply isolated temporary outages due to overload. >|Beautiful. Not only do you simply not care whether what you say can >|be backed up with references -- you say it _just in case_ it "happens to >|be true". > >Of course. Unlike yourself, I have an open mind: that is, I accept information >from various sources and I weigh them with various probablilites. Bullshit. You just finished telling us that once you hear something you don't care to remember the reference, and that you'll repeat anything as long as it is not impossible for it to be false. >You, on the other hand, accept only the information >that supports your case, Bullshit. Today I posted a list of the evidence that I think is most damaging to my theory. I'd _love_ to see a list of the evidence you think is hardest to explain with a conspiracy theory! >||But these all moved *backward*, quite violently. >| >|Not "all". > >Most. And certainly the large bone fragment, having the most mass, was >thrown on the rear of the car. _A_ large fragment, perhaps even one of the largest fragments found. But not nearly accounting for most of the mass dissociated from Kennedy's head. >Also, since the head is connected to the >neck, if anything the head would rotate around it. The brains and stuff >inside is very liquid, and it was doubtfull there was much for the >liquid to push up against, at least to get any kind of direction. Sorry, but I can't parse this sentence. What are you trying to say? >||THat can be explained two ways. 1) The body was alterd. >| >|Except the Parkland doctors now say that it _wasn't_ altered. > >Is is Bethesda or Parkland? Parkland. You know, the ones that I've been telling you over and over that they changed their testimony after seeing the autopsy photos? >|That's what I've been saying. But such a shot would have to come from >|somewhere near the plane defined by the perimeter of the skull >|opening, and Oswald was closer to that plane than was the grassy knoll. > >Not according to the Bethesda drawings. What drawings? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:14:22 PST 1992 Article 9542 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 17 Jan 1992 07:55:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <13002@pitt.UUCP> <26505@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26505@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||Clearly, these >||records were destroyed purposefully to avoid later scrutiny. >| >|Sorry, but I don't see that it follows. Everybody says Humes was a >|lousy autopist; wouldn't that explain such a mistake? > >How many times has Humes burned his notes? How many times has any >autopsy doctor done this? Even if it both numbers are zero, why is it "clear" that the purpose of burning them was "to avoid later scrutiny"? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:17:16 PST 1992 Article 9543 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:06:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <26504@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <3867@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3867@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >Anyone who is in doubt as to the government's inclinations with respect to >suspected communists should look into the Rosenberg case. Ethel Rosenberg >was put to death in the electric chair on the flimsiest of evidence. I think there was solid evidence that at least one of the Rosenbergs passed atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets. (I also recall the the "secrets" were nothing new to the Soviet scientists.) >To suggest that government law enforcement >agencies left Oswald alone on legal grounds is questionable, at the very >least. Come on! There was just zero evidence that Oswald passed any secrets. It's not like he had an academic or hollywood career that they could blacklist him out of. He packed books into boxes for a pittance. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:28:25 PST 1992 Article 9545 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:13:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <13005@pitt.UUCP> <1992Jan16.174946.7292tim@netcom.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan16.174946.7292tim@netcom.COM> tim@netcom.COM (Tim Richardson) writes: >=Can you cite any other example of >=federal officials removing a witness from state/local custody for >=security purposes? > >A body is a witness, and JFK's body was removed from Texas jurisdiction, >against the law. I meant "suspect", not "witness". At any rate, JFK's body was _not_ removed for security purposes. They just didn't want Jackie to have to stay in Texas. >As far as "removing a witness form state/local custody for security purposes?" >goes, how the federal witness protection program? That program relocates witnesses _after_ they've testified. And it is _never_ used to relocate _suspects_ who are being held for trial. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:28:35 PST 1992 Article 9546 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:24:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan15.215122.8219@abode.ttank.com> <26560@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26560@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||||1) Government experts testified that the rifle required the placement of >|||| metal shims to make the rifle accurate with the sight. >||| >|||The rifle had a strap. If Oswald held it by the strap when he dropped >|||it between two stacks of boxes, the sight could have gotten screwed up. > >||I never heard Oswald testify to dropping anything. >| >|He was too busy denying that he was even on the sixth floor at the >|time. Duh. > >Duh? Listen. If there was the slightest outside chance that Oswald could >have bent the sights out of shape by dropping the rifle, why didn't >the commssion make that claim, investigate, and determine the >likelihood? Defending the Warren Commission, are we? (I don't know that the Commission _didn't_ make that claim. Can anybody check? Not that David cares about references...) And note that one can pretty easily learn to compensate for a constant error in a sight. >Instead you leave out the essential part of the poster's point: that >the FBI took the shims from the rifle. I do not remember exactly the >incident since you deleted it, as par normal. Bzzzt. I _did_ excerpt that part, and _you_ excerpted my excerpt, and I've left it in _again_ as the first line of my posting. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:28:45 PST 1992 Article 9547 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Another JFK Question Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:27:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <32599@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <32599@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > According to newspapers, the parade route was straight down Main St. If > Oswald was just some `lone-nut' assassin, how did he know the route had > been changed (unpublished) to go right on Houston onto Elm? He most likely > would have found somewhere along Main St. to make the hit, no? Have you seen a map of Dealey Plaza? Main is only 60 feet from Elm at the point on Elm at which the fatal shot occurred. In fact, Oswald's ignorance of the Houston/Elm deviation goes a long way to explaining why Oswald didn't shoot when the limo was on Houston. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:29:12 PST 1992 Article 9548 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:32:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <694846842.3@blkcat.FidoNet> <1992Jan14.235934.770@sequent.com> <1992Jan17.020239.16603@sequent.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan17.020239.16603@sequent.com> cliffw@sequent.com writes: >When JFK was shot- no one was arrested at the scence, >the hitman was unknown and unseen by most witnesses, >the actual details of the shooting (forensic, balistics) >unknown.. >..yet less than 90 minutes later, with very little outside >help the Dallas PD has all the perpetrators under arrest >and most of the physical evidence in hand... >Sound likely?? Consider: a rifle was found in the TSBD. Only one TBSD employee was missing -- Oswald. Across town, a suspicious character had ducked into a theater not far from where a cop had just been killed. The character was nabbed, and he turned out to be the missing Oswald. Sound likely? You bet. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:37:31 PST 1992 Article 9549 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK : NBC film and head shot Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:39:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <3824@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <13026@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: JFK head shot In article <13026@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Photographs of the limo at Parkland clearly show the crack. >>Photographs of the windshield taken right after Kennedy was hit in the >>back show no crack, but photos taken seconds later (after the head >>shot) show the crack. You can see the photos in _Crossfire_. > >Proves nothing about the head shot fragments causing the crack. It >could have come from fragments flying from the bullets that hit >elsewhere. Yes, we cannot prove the negative that the crack did not come from some other bullet fired at the same time which left no other damage besides the crack. But the crack is explained beautifully by a fragment coming from the one definite impact in that time frame, fired from the one definite sniper's nest. But don't let that stop you from introducing exciting new complicating explanations for the crack, to spice up my boring little simple hypothesis. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:37:51 PST 1992 Article 9550 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:46:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <12963@pitt.UUCP> <13029@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13029@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>All that happened was that the CIA thought >>it had a picture of Oswald in Mexico City, but it was mistaken. > >That's for sure. But why did they think this fellow was Oswald? I don't know; maybe he was the only short-haired, receding-hairlined white guy they had a picture of visiting during the right time frame. Don't ask me to defend the competence of government employees; _I'm_ not the one who assumes the CIA is magic. >And who was the fellow who came to the embassy claiming to be >Oswald? And why would someone else claim to be Oswald? We don't know for sure that it wasn't Oswald. It is strange that the two embassy employees say their guy didn't look like Oswald, but I'd be surprised if everyone who ever saw Oswald could later match him with pictures of him. >But it may make sense if someone >was trying to establish leftist credentials for him (or nut credentials). Then Oswald would have to have been cooperating with this plan, because there is uncontestable evidence of him doing a good job of this himself. If you have the real Oswald, why use a fake many inches shorter, who is certain to be remembered as different from Oswald? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:38:42 PST 1992 Article 9551 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Oswald's CIA history Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:50:45 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <13032@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13032@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Oswald said that he took a bus home. I think it's Deputy Craig who >>said he saw somebody who looks like Oswald get into such a station >>wagon. At some point during the interrogation the Paine's station >>wagon was described, and then Oswald said something like "Mrs. Paine >>was not involved". > >In that case, it seems like he would have said: "there wasn't any >station wagon, I took the bus, like I told you. Instead, he >said "that station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. She is not involved." >Funny thing to say, isn't it? No. I tried to make it clear that when the station wagon was mentioned in front of Oswald, I don't think it was in the context of Craig's story about Oswald leaving the TBSD in it. I might be wrong. That would be very interesting if it _was_ in the same context. This might be covered in _Crossfire_; can anybody check? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 16:38:57 PST 1992 Article 9552 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Primetime Live: JFK head separate entrance wound? Date: 17 Jan 1992 08:57:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 13 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord So what's the deal? Is that hole-looking thing in the back of JFK's head a legitimate entrance wound? (You know, the one in the famous artist's rendition of the autopsy photo showing a surgeon-gloved hand holding the flap of scalp in place.) The top HSCA forensics guy pointed to it on TV tonight and said that it is without doubt an entrance wound. But I thought I read somewhere that was really just a clot of blood, and not a hole at all. Does anyone have any info on this? If it really is an entrance wound, then you can close the book on a grassy knoll shooter -- but not on a conspiracy using Oswald as the sole triggerman. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 21:27:04 PST 1992 Article 9583 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK, probabilties Date: 18 Jan 1992 00:20:50 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <3885@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3885@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes: >< >Anyone who is in doubt as to the government's inclinations with respect to >< >suspected communists should look into the Rosenberg case. Ethel Rosenberg >< >was put to death in the electric chair on the flimsiest of evidence. > >< I think there was solid evidence that at least one of the Rosenbergs >< passed atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets. > >Yes, and his name was not Ethel. It was Julius. He was put to death, too. So what was the name of the Oswald spouse against whom there was solid evidence of treason? Face it, the analogy of Ethel Rosenberg is faulty. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 21:27:17 PST 1992 Article 9584 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations Date: 18 Jan 1992 00:26:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <32182@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> < <1992Jan14.204929.27103@dg-rtp.dg.com>> < > NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM rec.arts.movies:50896 alt.conspiracy:9584 In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Where does that leave the bullet that hit the curb resulting >in a minor wound -- concrete or bullet fragment -- to the >man standing under the overpass. Did it appear magically? What hit the curb was a bullet fragment from the head shot. >Three shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD , 1 misses and >hits the curb , 2 hit Connally and Kennedy. One shot , >the fatal head shot , from a lower floor of the building >next to the TSBD , fired from a silenced rifle. Why not add that the gunman was wearing a ski mask and black ninja robes? ;) Seriously, isn't this a lot to add to a theory just to explain a bullet fragment hitting a curb? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 22:10:48 PST 1992 Article 9585 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 18 Jan 1992 00:38:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan17.020239.16603@sequent.com> <1992Jan17.161248.23864@sequent.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan17.161248.23864@sequent.com> cliffw@sequent.com writes: >>Consider: a rifle was found in the TSBD. Only one TBSD employee was >>missing -- Oswald. > The roll call at the TSBD was not completed until *after* >Oswald was in custody- strike one.. I didn't say it was completed before. But you're right -- word reached headquarters that they should pick up a TBSD employee named Oswald, and somebody noticed that they already had an Oswald in custody. >That's the stuff i'm talking about - the Dallas PD grabs a guy >for an un-related crime that was committed 1.5 miles away from >the JFK hit and surprize, surprize, he's the President's killer! What, is it metaphysically impossible for a presidential assassin to be stupid/nervous enough to shoot a cop that approaches him after he's made his getaway? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 17 22:11:00 PST 1992 Article 9586 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: GOV>CONNELLY ON LARRY KING ON JFK Date: 18 Jan 1992 00:47:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan17.170831.2961@ac.dal.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan17.170831.2961@ac.dal.ca> andromed@ac.dal.ca writes: > Mrs. Connelly saw JFK > grab his throat on the first shot, If this is what she really said, it's an example of how stress can screw with your memory. Kennedy never grabbed his throat; he raised his fists in front of himself to the _level_ of his throat. (BTW, Jackie doesn't even remember crawling back on the trunk of the limo.) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 18 19:22:03 PST 1992 Article 9600 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 18 Jan 1992 05:27:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <695639740.13@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <695639740.13@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >Then you look at the cryptic note handwritten by Lee Harvey Oswald, >dated November 8, 1963, that states: [...] > >A copy of the note came from Mexico City. Yes. It was conveniently and anonymously mailed to an assassination "researcher" in 1975. The HSCA's handwriting experts said they "were unable to come to any firm conclusion" as to whether the note was written by Oswald. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 18 19:24:58 PST 1992 Article 9602 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations Date: 18 Jan 1992 06:10:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 69 Message-ID: References: <32182@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> < <1992Jan14.204929.27103@dg-rtp.dg.com> <>> < <>> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The missing 3rd shot puts the "magic" in the Magic Bullet Theory Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM rec.arts.movies:50915 alt.conspiracy:9602 In article schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>What hit the curb was a bullet fragment from the head shot. > >How did it get way over there, The curb mark was perfectly in line with the TBSD sniper's nest and Kennedy's head at the time of the head shot. >and why was the curbstone replaced/refinished? It was "replaced" when the FBI cut out that section to study. At the time they did this, the mark that had been visible 8 or 9 months earlier was no longer apparent. An analysis of the spot said that the spot was "consistent with" a patch, but that they weren't sure. That the mark went away is indeed disturbing. >And why does the Warren Commission admit it was a separate shot -- >forcing them to come up with the magic bullet theory? The Warren Commission never concluded that the missing shot hit the curb by Tague. The Magic Bullet theory was prompted by timing concerns about the shooting, and the nature of the wounds. >If it was the head shot that hit the curb, you don't >need the magic bullet. That was my original thinking. But Mitchell has done a good job of making me doubt this, with his story that Connally's back wound was oblong. (Mitchell, has anyone noted that the sideways-squashed nature of CE 399 might be evidence that it traveled through some tissue sideways instead of completely straight?) Also, Primetime Live last night displayed an interesting photo that dramatically showed how much higher Kennedy was sitting than Connally. >Except! Connally insists there was no magic bullet. >He insists that Kennedy was hit by 2 shots and he was >hit by a separate one. It's not a given that a person will always immediately know it when they have been shot. >Thats three. That still leaves bullet number 4 to hit the curb. Not if the curb was hit by a fragment from the head shot. The FBI said that the curb mark seemed too slight to have been caused by a clean impact from an unimpeded rifle shot. >I believe the trajectory from a head shot to the curb >is just as unbelievable as the 'magic' bullet trajectory. Another fragment going in almost the same direction put a crack in the limo's windshield. >Since nobody from the WC tried to pass of the curb shot >as a fragment from the head shot , why are you? I'm not sure _how_ the WC explained the curb mark. I _do_ know that the WC went so far as to conclude that the missed shot could have been the first, second, _or_ third. (To say that the third shot missed is outrageous; no witness I know of says that the head shot was not the last shot. And I think most witnesses agree Kennedy reacted to the first shot.) Indeed, given Mitchell's account of the Connally wound and the Lattimer tests, the thing that I find most problematic about the Magic Bullet theory is that it makes one of the shots vanish into thin air. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 18 19:59:50 PST 1992 Article 9603 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 18 Jan 1992 06:15:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <13002@pitt.UUCP> <26505@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <68349@bbn.BBN.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <68349@bbn.BBN.COM> ingria@BBN.COM writes: >How do we know the notes were burned? Did Humes say this? Yes. >If so, what explanation did he give? He said he did not want the public to see the bloodstains on them. It's more likely that he didn't want to be grilled over inconsistencies between the notes and the final report, because when the notes were taken it was not known that there was a neck wound. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 18 20:00:01 PST 1992 Article 9604 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 18 Jan 1992 06:27:14 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <26505@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26659@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Jackie chose Bethesda. What does Lifton say about this? In article <26659@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >The point was made, which you convienently erase, that burning the notes, >contrary to your claim, was an abnormal and negligent event. I concede this. Thanks for educating me. >When the President of the United States gets >an Autopsy, you better believe there the staff and doctors are highly >qualified. That is the whole point about Bethesda, and about a President >having the medical care that is first rate among the country. Bethesda is indeed a top-notch facility, but I thought I read somewhere that Walter Reed would for some reason have been the default choice. Jackie chose Bethesda instead. Does anyone know how Lifton deals with the fact that _Jackie_ chose the hospital at which many of the alleged shenanigans with the body took place? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 18 20:02:44 PST 1992 Article 9605 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Detour onto Houston/Elm Date: 18 Jan 1992 06:45:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan18.024203.5293@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Either way, Oswald couldn't pass up this golden opportunity. Keywords: questions In article <1992Jan18.024203.5293@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >Could LHO have known as early as Thursday morning that JFK would >be coming down Elm Street right past the TSBD where he worked? >If JFK had actually gone straight down Main Street, he would have >presented a much poorer target for someone shooting from the >TSBD Not too much poorer. At its closest point to the sniper's nest, Main St. isn't really any farther from the nest than is the spot on Elm at which Kennedy's head was hit. >--trees and a concrete pagola would have blocked the view >from the sixth floor until the limo was well past the Houston >street intersection, The tree-'n'-pergola would have only blocked the view for moment, since the limo would have been travelling orthogonally to Oswald's line of sight. >presumably accelerating as it approached and >went through the Triple Underpass. The section of Elm that the limo was on when the shooting started is almost as straight as Main is, and yet the limo wasn't accelerating very much at all from the hairpin turn. Elm is indeed a better shot than Main, but either way, Oswald knew it would be a long time before another President drove through a plaza over which his workplace had such a commanding view. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 18 20:03:13 PST 1992 Article 9607 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 18 Jan 1992 07:07:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <26560@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26661@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Did you check this in the WR? No. They gave back the shims. So? In article <26661@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||have bent the sights out of shape by dropping the rifle, why didn't >||the commssion make that claim [...]? >| >|Defending the Warren Commission, are we? (I don't know that the >|Commission _didn't_ make that claim. Can anybody check? Not that >|David cares about references...) > >Of course the WC did not make such a preposterous claim. Oh? Did you check in the Warren Report? If so, how _did_ the WC explain the screwed-up sights? If not, well, thanks for the hot air. >|And note that one can pretty easily learn to compensate for a constant >|error in a sight. > >Unless you are an FBI highly trained expert, I suppose? Instead of doing so much supposing, maybe you should find out for us whether and how the WC explained the off-center sight. >||Instead you leave out the essential part of the poster's point: that >||the FBI took the shims from the rifle. I do not remember exactly the >||incident since you deleted it, as par normal. >| >|Bzzzt. I _did_ excerpt that part, and _you_ excerpted my excerpt, and >|I've left it in _again_ as the first line of my posting. > >What are you talking about? It is not there, was not there, and conviently >ignored. Hey, you're right! Stop the presses! :) Apparently, you're referring to this sentence from Dusty's posting: >Moments later, it was stated that the shims that were placed on the rifle (for >the tests) had been removed by the FBI and given to the Warre Commision. Hmm. So after the FBI finished its tests with the modified rifle, it undid the modifications and gave all the materials it used to the WC. So? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:15:21 PST 1992 Article 9654 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: GOV>CONNELLY ON LARRY KING ON JFK Date: 19 Jan 1992 03:25:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan17.170831.2961@ac.dal.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>Kennedy never grabbed his throat; he raised >>his fists in front of himself to the _level_ of his throat. >Nellie Connally was about 2 - 3 feet from JFK when he >was hit in the throat. I think I'll believe her version >instead of yours. By the way , how close were you? I was about 2 - 3 feet from my TV screen when the Zapruder film clearly showed that Nellie was wrong. Kennedy never even touched his throat. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:23:32 PST 1992 Article 9656 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations Date: 19 Jan 1992 03:36:09 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <32182@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> < <1992Jan14.204929.27103@dg-rtp.dg.com>> < > <1992Jan18.173455.3045@osf.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM rec.arts.movies:50972 alt.conspiracy:9656 In article <1992Jan18.173455.3045@osf.org> ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes: > Also, you'd have to believe that the bullet found by Connally's stretcher > at the hospital was planted by someone. Actually, it was found on a stretcher _next_ to Connally's. This stretcher had been used to treat a little boy. Either the guy who found it got his stretchers mixed up, or it was planted by a conspirator, or perhaps a would-be souvenir-hunter got cold feet and secreted it there. Any other ideas? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:23:42 PST 1992 Article 9657 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations Date: 19 Jan 1992 03:38:29 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <32182@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> < <1992Jan14.204929.27103@dg-rtp.dg.com> <>> < <>> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:9657 rec.arts.movies:50973 In article schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >Wrong! Nellie Connally turned and saw the President clutch >his hands at his throat wound. You and Nellie apparently need to see the Zapruder film. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:23:56 PST 1992 Article 9659 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations Date: 19 Jan 1992 03:43:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <32182@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> < <1992Jan14.204929.27103@dg-rtp.dg.com> <>> < <>> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:9659 rec.arts.movies:50974 In article <1992Jan18.174235.3225@osf.org> ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes: > Also, the only time Gov. Connally's wounds were lined up with JFK and the > 6th floor of the TSBD building was right at the time of the shot which > hit JFK in the back and exited through his throat. To have Connally > suffer the 6 wounds he did at a different time would have been impossible. Are you sure? Wasn't it his right wrist and left thigh that were wounded? When Kennedy was already reacting to his back wound, Connally was turned to his right, and I think his right wrist didn't go to his left thigh until he next started turning to his left. This is the first time I've heard of Connally's body position being used to fix when he got hit; it's an excellent idea. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:37:49 PST 1992 Article 9662 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 19 Jan 1992 04:16:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <26661@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26695@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26695@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|Oh? Did you check in the Warren Report? If so, how _did_ the WC >|explain the screwed-up sights? > >fact that the WC had every incentive to provide either some evidence or >reasonable explanation, makes the whole idea very non credible. Waitaminnit. You're saying that because I don't know how the WC explained the screwed-up sight, my theory that it might have been dropped is therefore "non credible"? Sorry, but proof-by-Brian's- ignorance-of-the-Warren-Report is not very persuasive. >This was your story to make up, the least you can do is try to give >some evidence for it. I did. I noted that the rifle had a strap, and that it was found between two stacks of boxes. An easy way to get it in there would have been to swing it in by the strap. >|Hmm. So after the FBI finished its tests with the modified rifle, it >|undid the modifications and gave all the materials it used to the WC. >|So? > >So, the point is that nothing was done about it. They didn't say, "hey, >this rifle couldn't hit the broad side of the barn, It was 3x or 4x sight, and the range was only 50 to 70 yards. Furthermore, it's possible to compensate for a misaligned sight if one has experience with the sight. >and we can't even have our experts duplicate the results if we tamper >with the evidence. "Tamper"? They just re-aligned the sight to compensate for any experience Oswald's might have had with the sight being misaligned. As for duplication, I thought the feat they couldn't duplicate was the three-shot three-hit performance, which the Magic Bullety theory obviated. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:38:04 PST 1992 Article 9664 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Primetime Live: JFK head separate entrance wound? Date: 19 Jan 1992 04:50:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan18.083023.631@abode.ttank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan18.083023.631@abode.ttank.com> dusty@abode.ttank.com (Dusty Garza) writes: >wound- or a blot clot or whatever, when there are actual autopsy photographs >that show the entire back side of the head blown off (an opening as wide as >a small fist or a large egg). You have to have a very small head for the "entire back side of" your head to be only "as wide as a small fist or a large egg". ;) No, the opening you describe is above and behind his right ear. >I thought they proved those drawings were faked? No, I don't think the entrance wound/blood clot drawing has ever been questioned. However, some people have been confused because in the photo/drawing, a gloved hand is holding a flap of scalp in place, making the wound look smaller than it is. It looks to me like the entrance wound/blood clot is right at the "hinge" of the scalp flap, exactly where you would expect an entrance wound from the TBSD to be. If it really is a hole in the skull, as the HSCA forensics expert said on Primetime Live, then a grassy knoll shooter can be ruled out. (Unless you want to posit a simultaneous impact, as some authors have. But then why stop at just one? Why not have gunmen shooting into _all_ of the wounds made by Oswald, to make sure Oswald doesn't screw up? ;) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:38:26 PST 1992 Article 9665 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Lee Harvey Oswald and "A. J. Hidell" Date: 19 Jan 1992 05:04:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 47 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.004405.25262@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: If the gun order was forged, why use "Hidell" instead of "Oswald"? Keywords: Fake IDs In article <1992Jan19.004405.25262@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >This rifle had been ordered from >Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago under the name "A. J. Hidell", and >delivered to a Dallas post office box kept in this name. The >Commission through handwriting analysis was able to determine that LHO >had actually filled out the paperwork associated with the purchase and >receipt of the rifle. However, I'm not all that sure that handwriting >analysis is a valid science. Had the case gone to trial, I suspect >that an equally-qualified bunch of handwriting analysis experts What is the basis for your suspicions? Stop and think. If the paperwork was not filled out by Oswald, but rather by someone trying to make it look like Oswald filled it out, why would they not use Oswald's name? This is a perfect example of conspiracy-think. >However, there was no initial mention of an "A. J. >Hidell" by the arresting officers. The police radio indicated that >they had a "Lee Harvey Oswald" in custody immediately after the Texas >Theatre arrest, which must indicate that they looked through his >wallet for identification. If an "A. J. Hidell" card had actually >been there, the police would not have been sure just who they had. Maybe they realized that authentic Selective Service cards do not have photographs on them. >Was LHO ever questioned about this card? At headquarters, when questioned as to which name was his, he said "You're the cop; you figure it out." Of course, if the conspirators can plant the fake ID, they can rig the record of what Oswald said. (Conspiracy-think means never having to say "Oh, I guess I'm wrong.") >Has anyone ever looked into the possibility that there was >an ACTUAL "A. J. Hidell"? Undoubtedly. There is no question that Oswald had used the Hidell alias before. For one thing, when he registered his chapter of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, he listed Hidell as the secretary. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:38:36 PST 1992 Article 9666 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo Date: 19 Jan 1992 05:11:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.005445.25453@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Bolt handles move when the bolt moves. Keywords: rifle, discrepancies In article <1992Jan19.005445.25453@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >"Oswald" in the photo has a bolt handle which reaches all the way down >to the base of the trigger housing, whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano >currently in the National Archives has a bolt handle which is much >higher. Huh? You are aware that rifle bolt handles _move_, don't you? That's what they're for. In the National Archives photo I've seen, the bolt is fully retracted and is fully rotated up. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:38:56 PST 1992 Article 9667 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: James Tague and the Fourth Bullet Date: 19 Jan 1992 05:27:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 62 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.010028.25667@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: fourth bullet, fragments, limo, winshield In article <1992Jan19.010028.25667@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >Sure enough, he had been struck by a spray of debris >from a bullet which had hit a cement curb on Main Street near the Or from a bullet fragment, as you more carefully pointed out later in your article. >in May of 1964 Mr. Tague >went back out to Dealey Plaza and found out that the bullet mark was >gone. Apparently, someone had made attempts to "repair" it, and only >a very faint mark could still be seen. What I've read is that in the early eighties an analysis of the curb said its appearance was "consistent" with someone patching it, but they weren't sure. >the FBI removed >the curious piece of curb and took it to Washington for analysis. The >FBI reported in August 1964 that antimony and lead metal smears could >be detected on the curb, but that no copper was found. In addition, >the mark was so slight that the FBI concluded that it could not have >been caused by a whole bullet, but only by a small fragment. Was this based on the mark as it appeared on the curb in the lab, or based on the mark as it appeared in the day-after photograph, or both? >So where did this bullet or bullet fragment come from? A reasonable >place to start looking might be the fatal head shot. Indeed; they are perfectly aligned. >However, in >order to reach the curb on Main Street near the Triple Underpass, such >a fragment would have had to pass through the windshield of the limo. >Windshield pits and cracks I didn't know there were any more other than the major crack. >were photographed while the limo was parked at the hospital, Also, the windshield is plainly uncracked in a photo taken after the Connally wounding but _before_ the head shot. >and it is possible that a bullet fragment could have >penetrated through the windshield and reached the curb on Main Street >still with sufficient energy to kick up enough spray to wound Mr. Tague. Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Since (as far as I know) not much of the mass of the head shot bullet was ever accounted for, a significant fragment going through the windshield might be the answer. >However, it seems that the limo was sent immediately back to the >factory for "cleaning" and "repair". I wonder if anyone ever was able >to get a close look at the windshield? Good question. It would be interesting to know what that kind of windshield looks like when even the slightest of fragments penetrates it completely. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 12:39:11 PST 1992 Article 9668 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Mellons, the Head Shake, and # of guns (was Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net) Date: 19 Jan 1992 05:37:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan17.004506.22502@news.nd.edu> <10117@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1992Jan17.211806.6687@midway.uchicago.edu> <26693@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The near-pristine bullet did not hit Kennedy's head. Keywords: JFK,QuickTime,Zapruder,Macintosh,Film,Movie,Kennedy In article <1992Jan17.211806.6687@midway.uchicago.edu> xdab@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >|I heard of a series of articles done in the 1960s by Prof. Louis >|Alveraz (sp) in which he presented experimental data that indicated Yes; there were a lot of postings about this around Christmastime; one thread is still sputtering on, apparently over what constitutes walking speed. ;) I think it's fair to say that Kennedy's head moving backwards is certainly possible, though probably not extremely likely. I don't feel like rehashing it. In article <26693@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >I think also that the X-rays indicated massive fracturing, where as there >was supposed to be only 1 single copper bullett. Also, the amount of mass >of various bullet fragments indicate that the pristine bullet must be >40% less massive than brand new, which is doubtfull considering the >remarkable shape it is in. What "pristine bullet"? The only near-pristine bullet is CE 399, the "Magic Bullet" which hit Kennedy in the back. No significant part of the head shot bullet was ever recovered. Indeed, I'd be surprised if the fragments from Kennedy's head autopsy and head x-rays could be estimated to add up to 40% of a bullet. Do you recall where you got the number? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 17:51:24 PST 1992 Article 9678 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: GOV>CONNELLY ON LARRY KING ON JFK Date: 19 Jan 1992 20:23:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <26699@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: No chance. Didn't happen. Look at the film. In article <26699@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >You are obscuring the point. Kennedy raises his clenched fists to his >throat, he might actually be grabbing part of it, No chance. Didn't happen. Look at the film. >IF you saw someone make those motions quickly, you might think that they >were grabbing their throat. That's my point! We have Nellie's memories, and we have a film of what happened. Where they conflict, Nellie is wrong. Got it? >In fact, Kennedy may have been grabbing his >throat, since the print is rather blurred at this point. No chance. Didn't happen. Look at the film. >He was certainly responding to a bullet passing >through his throat. Or into his back. Say, Mitchell, do Magic Bullet theorists have an explanation for how the bullet got itselfed turned sideways so quickly between Kennedy and Connally, considering that it must have left Kennedy's neck straight to leave such a small hole? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 18:20:23 PST 1992 Article 9680 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.) Date: 19 Jan 1992 20:34:32 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan18.080724.19252@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <26697@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26697@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >Actually wasn't there a Lee Oswald who did work for the CIA, at least >they admitted as much. This has never been mentioned in any assassination book _I've_ read. Reference? >When that cover didn't wash, it was clear that >the CIA admitted that Oswald was in fact with the CIA. Total bullshit. I don't even need to ask for a reference here, because you could never produce it if you tried. (Not that you _ever_ try to produce references for your claims....) The CIA naturally had a 201 file opened on Lee Harvey Oswald, since as a defector he was of potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance. But Lee Harvey Oswald never worked for the CIA. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 18:20:33 PST 1992 Article 9681 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Date: 19 Jan 1992 20:37:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <17JAN199211043348@zeus.tamu.edu> <3886@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <18JAN199213403180@zeus.tamu.edu> <26698@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26698@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >You can't >go from TSBD to the back of Kennedy, into Connelly, all with the positions >they were in from the film(s). At the moment of impact, they were behind a sign. The HSCA apparently found that the alignment was far more probable than WC critics had been assuming. >Also, a picture of the TSBD inbetween the >first and second shots shows no one at the window LHO was in. Sigh. I've never heard of any such picture. Is there any point to me asking where you saw it? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 19 18:20:43 PST 1992 Article 9682 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Mellons, the Head Shake, and # of guns (was Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net) Date: 19 Jan 1992 20:44:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan17.004506.22502@news.nd.edu> <10117@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1992Jan17.211806.6687@midway.uchicago.edu> <26693@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <19JAN199212073600@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: JFK,QuickTime,Zapruder,Macintosh,Film,Movie,Kennedy In article <19JAN199212073600@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: > Did JFK move to the left or to the right? Everybody keeps > on saying 'left', but you say right. He meant right, from the point of view of somebody looking at Kennedy from the front of the limo. >>6.) Even if all above, the head moved back up and to the right, whereas the >>shooter was shooting up and to the left, looking at kennedy straight on. > > Which shooter was shooting 'up and to the left'? David meant shooting _from_ up and to the left, from the point of view of somebody looking at Kennedy from the front of the limo. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 20 14:24:07 PST 1992 Article 9693 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Remarkable Windshield Date: 20 Jan 1992 02:21:09 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 59 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.202946.12766@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The SS agents at Parkland had obviously already read the WR! Keywords: I wish I had one of these on MY car! In article <1992Jan19.202946.12766@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >When they >mentioned this hole to the Secret Service, the Secret Service officers >on the scene at Parkland went out of their way to dismiss the hole as >having been caused only by a fragment, not a whole bullet. Ooh, their going "out of their way" sounds so sinister! Hmm. So within minutes of the shooting, these Secret Service agents are supposed to already know how many spent shells would be found in the TBSD (3), how many bullets would be credited with causing all the wounds (2), that the missed shot was going to be determined to be one of the first two shots, and that the windshield was not damaged until the third shot? >However, damage to the INSIDE surface of the windshield immediately >causes a problem, since if a projectile does not strike with enough >force actually to penetrate the glass, a chip will be knocked out of >the surface OPPOSITE to the one which was struck by the projectile. Hah. I've shot enough coke bottles with a pellet rifle to know this isn't true. >From where would a front impact on the windshield have been fired? There were lots of witnesses on top of the underpass, and none of them saw a gunman amongst them. >All of these discrepancies may indicate that the limo windshield was >switched when it became clear that it provided evidence embarrassing >to the single-assassin theory. First, the original windshield with >the large hole was replaced with one containing only a crack when it >was discovered that a fourth bullet was incompatible with LHO being >the lone assassin. Then, when it was found that the cracked >windshield argued for a bullet or bullet fragment coming in from the >FRONT, a second substitution was made which provided evidence for a >bullet fragment striking the windshield from the rear, as required for >a shot coming from the TSBD. I can definitely believe that your source is Lifton. Any time two people describe something differently (e.g., the Parkland vs. Bethesda doctors), Lifton has conspirators sneaking in and changing the evidence. No witness's memory or descriptions are ever faulty in Mr. Lifton's world. It must have been a rude shock to him when his Parkland doctors retracted their contradictory descriptions after seeing the autopsy photos. >Even if the limo windshield is still available, it may be worthless as >credible evidence, given the possiblity of evidence tampering and >substitution. Absolutely. In conspiracy-think, all evidence indicating Oswald acted alone is automatically considered to have been planted by the conspirators. Several times I've asked conspiracy theorists on this newsgroup to tell us what evidence they find hardest to explain with a conspiracy theory, and they never answer. A conspiracy theory can explain any and all evidence, which means it's unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 20 14:24:15 PST 1992 Article 9694 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo Date: 20 Jan 1992 02:30:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.005445.25453@cbnewsd.att.com> <19JAN199214354362@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Jan19.220505.14208@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: What flavor of communist revolution would Oswald have opposed? None. Keywords: rifle, discrepancies In article <1992Jan19.220505.14208@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >But in other copies, I can see the "Worker" and the "Militant" titles >clearly legible. Odd that LHO should pick such widely divergent >publications. Almost as if someone were to hold up copies of both the >*Nation* and the *National Review*. "Widely divergent"? For any given Administration, one of the Nation and NR will support it, and one will oppose it. But both the Worker and the Militant call for a revolutionary uprising by the masses. When one is striking one's militant revolutionary pose, why is it odd that one would hold militant revolutionary literature? Is there a flavor of communist revolution that Oswald would have opposed? Of course not. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 20 14:26:23 PST 1992 Article 9698 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Lee Harvey Oswald and "A. J. Hidell" Date: 20 Jan 1992 03:12:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 93 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.004405.25262@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Jan19.210801.13357@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: conspiracy theory: inflate in case of emergency Keywords: Fake IDs In article <1992Jan19.210801.13357@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >case actually gone to trial, I'm willing to bet that LHO's lawyers could >have come up with handwriting experts who would testify that that was NOT >his handwriting on the rifle paperwork. Maybe so. Then I guess that the HSCA's handwriting experts were part of the conspiracy? (Conspiracy theories need to come with a label: "inflate in case of emergency".) >> why would they not use Oswald's name? > >Why would anyone intending to assassinate >the President be dumb enough to sign his real name to incriminating >documents linking him to the rifle which committed the crime? Oswald bought the rifle months before it was known that Kennedy would be visiting Dallas. >Had such documents with LHO's signature been found, suspicions as to >their genuiness might be aroused. Surely a Presidential assassin >could't have been that dumb! Ah, so the more convincing the evidence is that Oswald in fact bought the gun, the surer sign it is of a well-done conspiracy? I love this kind of conspiracy-think. >> >The police radio indicated that >> >they had a "Lee Harvey Oswald" in custody immediately after the Texas >> >Theatre arrest, which must indicate that they looked through his >> >wallet for identification. "Must"? Why? What if Oswald told them his name? >> At headquarters, when questioned as to which name was his, he >> said "You're the cop; you figure it out." > >If, as you say, the police were not fooled by the fake ID, why then >were they uncertain as to his identity when he was at headquarters? Maybe he told them his name when arrested, and only at headquarters did they look in his wallet. Or maybe only at headquarters did they get around to investigating the significance of an ID the arresting officers recognized to be fake. What is your source for his name going out over the radio when he was arrested? Does the source say how they learned his name? >> There is no question that Oswald had used the Hidell alias before. >> For one thing, when he registered his chapter of the Fair Play For >> Cuba Committee, he listed Hidell as the secretary. > >I had always pictured "A. J. Hidell" as a phantom co-worker of LHO's >when he was working with his bogus "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" in >New Orleans. I don't recall LHO ever using "A. J. Hidell" as an alias >in those days. Of course not, if you "picture" every use of "Hidell" as an authentic use by a "phantom co-worker" (of whom there is zero record of ever having existed). >"A. J. Hidell" is listed as the secretary of the FPCC >chapter in New Orleans on the flyers. If so, that's more evidence that Oswald used the alias. Why else would Oswald pass out the name of someone who never existed? >Oddly enough, the address listed for the FPCC is 544 Camp Street, >where all sorts of rather strange characters gathered, all of which >were linked to the far right rather than the far left. Not so odd. 544 Camp St. was less than a block from where Oswald worked, and he frequented a coffee shop on the first floor. He probably thought he could pick up mail there. >LHO's left-leaning activity seemed to be largely for >show and to gather attention; Sure. The fact that he committed no right-leaning activity is a sure sign that he was a rightist carefully posing as a leftist. Right. >most of his friends and associates seemed >to be on the right end of the political spectrum. Who? DeMohrenschildt, who was introduced to him by Marina, and who as a Russian emigre would be naturally rightist? Sorry, but Oswald didn't associate with many people, and he never seemed to choose his associations on the basis of politics. Besides, what self-respecting leftist would want to associate with a high-school-dropout Marine from the deep South with delusions of grandeur? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Jan 20 14:27:21 PST 1992 Article 9700 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Detour onto Houston/Elm Date: 20 Jan 1992 03:32:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 50 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan18.024203.5293@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Jan19.214142.13839@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Can you really see Oswald turning down a shot on Main? Keywords: questions In article <1992Jan19.214142.13839@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >Moreover, LHO would not >have had a chance to see JFK coming before he popped into view on Main, >and would have had to waste valuable seconds getting his rifle sight >lined up before he could get off his first shot. Naah. He would be sighted in on the area of Main where the limo would come clear of the tree-'n'-pergola. In a similar situation on Elm, he got off a hit into Kennedy's back immediately after Kennedy cleared the intervening tree. >By the time that LHO got lined up, JFK's limo might well already be >safely under the Triple Underpass. Hardly. It would have had to cover _twice_ the distance on Elm that it covered while Oswald got off _three_ shots. >In addition, JFK would be traveling transverse to LHO's >line of sight all the way down Main Street, a much more difficult shot >that a target coming directly toward him or directly away. Can you really see Oswald saying to himself, "Gosh, I'd _like_ to shoot a President, but this one will be driving _across_ my view underneath a window where I work. I think I'll wait until a President's motorcade takes him down Elm, so he'll be driving directly away from me."? Get real. >Why did the limo come >to a near halt when the shots were fired? As I've said before, if Secret Service drivers reacted to being startled by hitting the gas instead of the brakes, there's no way they could get car insurance. :) >Now, I'm not suggesting that >the driver was a part of the conspiracy, but it is rather odd how poorly >these Secret Service people performed on that day. Well, they hadn't lost a President in many decades. You can't judge them by the standards that have been created in response to JFK's death, in which the stern, trench-coated, earphoned agents forever hovering at the President's side have become a cliche. The new standards paid off in the attempt on Reagan, in which a guy unloaded a pistol at only a few yards' range, and only hit Reagan with a ricochet. One agent threw himself in front of the gun, and another tackled Reagan to safety before he even knew what was going on. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 21 19:33:08 PST 1992 Article 9736 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 21 Jan 1992 06:31:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 82 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan17.161248.23864@sequent.com> <26737@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The evidence that Oswald killed Tippit is quite solid. In article <26737@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >According to the Holtz rules of evidence, that often rules out witness >testimony, Oswald should not be guilty of Tippet's murder. Well, gee, let's see, which of the nine witnesses (two who saw Oswald shoot Tippit, and seven who saw Oswald running from the scene) waited a decade or more before changing their recorded testimony? >Also, there were two witnesses who said that >two people shot Tippet, and that one was heavier than Oswald. You mean Acquilla Clemmons? She simply said that there were two men beside the police car, but that only one had a gun. > Numer two, there were some casings found that were from Oswald's >handgun, but these do not match the bullits found in Tippits body. In fact, >there were two types of bullits found: winchester and Colt, if my memory >recalls the other kind. The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons. The problem is that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in Tippit's body. This is very strange, but not the sort of obvious slip-up that competent conspirators would commit. > The circumstantial evidence points against Oswald, who is unlikey >to have ran from his house all the way to the murder. Less than mile in about 12 minutes? Not too unlikely for someone trying to put distance between himself and the residence of a Presidential assassin. > Also, what was Tippet doing with Oswald anyway? And what was he doing >in the area? The police radio log shows that he was ordered to go there. However, even though the recording supports it, that log entry was not discovered until seven months later. The dispatcher sticks by his story that he gave Tippit the order that day. >Oswald's description was ambiguous. "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, 5'10", 165 lbs." is pretty accurate. And Oswald would have been walking at a pretty good clip to get there, making him even more conspicuous. >Nor did Tippet try to arrest Oswald, but greeted >him in a friendly manner. Says who? >I think both were spotted in Ruby's nightclub at a table. Hurt, who plays every conspiracy theory to the hilt and won't let himself be tied to just one, can only bring himself to say: "Just as tantalizing is the report that Oswald and Tippit were seen together on at least one earlier occassion, but no known reports of such an association can be established." >Oswald had no motive to kill Tippet. Come on. He pulled his gun on a whole theater-ful of cops, and I think he even pulled the trigger, but it misfired. I think Oswald was planning to go out in a hail of gunfire, but his equipment failed him. It's hard to see how Oswald _couldn't_ have killed Tippit, unless he was cooperating with a scheme to make it look like he did. The only gap in our knowledge of his whereabouts after the assassination is precisely the amount of time it would have taken him to hurry toward the site of the Tippit killing. The spent cartridges found there could only have been fired by the gun Oswald was caught with minutes later. He was seen at the scene by nine people. By the way, now that you've forced me to read up on Oswald's movements after leaving the TBSD, I now know that those movements are much more well-documented than I'd suspected. This makes Deputy Craig's story of Oswald getting into a Nash Rambler outside the TBSD much less believable. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 21 21:04:28 PST 1992 Article 9737 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.) Date: 21 Jan 1992 06:34:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan18.080724.19252@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <26697@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26740@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26740@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||Actually wasn't there a Lee Oswald who did work for the CIA, at least >||they admitted as much. >| >|Reference? > >See Saga of a Spy, or Spy Saga, or something like that. I'll have to go look for this. It's not impossible for more than guy to have the last name of Oswald. Is this the same place I can look up the CIA admitting that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for them, or did you conveniently forget my request for that reference? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 21 21:11:07 PST 1992 Article 9738 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 21 Jan 1992 06:50:07 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan15.215122.8219@abode.ttank.com> <1992Jan20.215725.21746@cherokee.uswest.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: How do shims help adjust a scope? In article <1992Jan20.215725.21746@cherokee.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak #3000 x2110 ) writes: >> = (Brian Holtz) writes: >>> = (Dusty Garza) writes: > >>>You are asking me (and everyone else) to beleive that IT JUST SO HAPPENED... > >>Hey, you read really well. > >>>I never heard Oswald testify to dropping anything. > >>He was too busy denying that he was even on the sixth floor at the >>time. Duh. >But, Brian...being a flippant smartass and ignoring the point of >Dusty's post, that IRON SHIMS had to be put on the sight to even >test-fire it, is counterproductive. I didn't ignore his point. I said that Oswald could have screwed up the sight by dropping it. He responded by simply repeating my assertion in incredulous ALL CAPITALS. What else could I do except compliment him on his reading (and typing) skills? :) Then he said that Oswald never testified to dropping the rifle, when he knew DAMN WELL that Oswald denied ever even seeing the rifle before. Such feigned ignorance well deserves a good "duh". As for the shims themselves, does any know exactly how they helped adjust the scope? I thought scopes could be adjust just by turning two screws. In particular, does anybody know if the true aim point was merely off from the crosshairs, but nevertheless inside the scope's view? >Your constant overt and implied ridicule of people not satisfied with >the Warren Commission report reminds me of those that equate >*every*thing the ACLU does with being UnAmerican. Maybe you should >realize that neither you, *nor* the "conspiracy crowd", is >omniscient. I try to be patient, but I get tired of people saying something is true either when they have no reference for the claim, or when looking for a reference would show it to be false. I also get tired of a conspiracy priesthood for which no fact can be considered to make a conspiracy less likely. I've listed many times the evidence that most makes me doubt the lone-Oswald theory, and I've many times asked the conspiracy proponents to tell us what evidence _they_ have the hardest time reconciling, but I only get silence. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 21 21:11:25 PST 1992 Article 9739 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 21 Jan 1992 07:09:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <26695@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26783@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Did shooting experiments test--or necessitate?--the Magic Bullet Thry? In article <26783@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|the rifle had a strap, and that it was found >|between two stacks of boxes. An easy way to get it in there would >|have been to swing it in by the strap. > >Actually, the rifle was found under two 50 pound boxes. In _Best Evidence_, Hurt says it was "stashed behind some boxes". >So, it is possible that the sight was damaged. Or was it? What can >damage a sight, and what damage could cause the sight to alter in >such a manner? Good questions; I don't know. I'd like to know: why were "shims" needed? Didn't the scope have the usual adjustment screws? What sort of forces does it take to screw up such a scope in the way that Oswald's was screwed up? Was the true aim point even within the area visible through the scope, so that Oswald could have learned to compensate? >|It was 3x or 4x sight, and the range was only 50 to 70 yards. > >The point we are dealing here is why they didn't investigate the fact that >the gun needed sights. Huh? The gun _had_ a scope, but the scope was imperfectly aligned. As to _how_ imperfectly, neither you nor I seem to know. >There was already ample evidence to imply that >Oswald could not have made the shots in the given amount of time. Can anyone explain this for me? (Mitchell? Are you watching?) I thought the timing problem was taken care of by the Magic Bullet theory. That is, if Connally merely had a delayed reaction to a Kennedy hit, and the first shot missed altogether, then the Zapruder film gives Oswald 4 seconds or more to line up the head shot, and an indeterminate amount of time to line up the back shot. >Actually, even with the Magic bullet theory, you need fantastic shots. Not _too_ fantastic. Obviously, _some_body was able to hit JFK from behind with at least one rifle bullet. >It was tried once for the WC, once for CBS, and once for the HSCA, >all tests failed. Lattimer's tests succeeded. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 21 21:50:11 PST 1992 Article 9740 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK" QuickTime Footage on the Net (Please Stop This) Date: 21 Jan 1992 07:15:28 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan13.224118.10687@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992Jan17.004506.22502@news.nd.edu> <1992Jan17.175049.6186@waikato.ac.nz> <1273@newave.UUCP> <1992Jan20.233754.28803@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Military gave Oswald neither Top Secret clearance nor Russian lessons. In article <1992Jan20.233754.28803@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) writes: >As I said previously, >I have seen many people shot in the head. Two years as a Marine sniper in >Beirut gave me that unfortunate experience. I never saw anyone go in the >opposite direction of the shot. They always flew back with the round and were >almost always lifted off their feet in the process. What kind of rounds did you guys use? Soft or jacketed? >If he had a TS clearance due to his work at a "radar site" he would >have lost it very quickly after having gone around making >pro-communist statements. Why didn't he? Because he never had one in the first place. He had a "confidential" clearance, which is pretty routine. >Why did he go to Russian language school? There's no evidence that he did. Apparently the military _tested_ him to see if it could use whatever Russian skills he had, but there is no record of the military ever teaching him Russian. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 21 21:51:43 PST 1992 Article 9741 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Where's the body? Date: 21 Jan 1992 07:17:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan21.000801.1776@sco.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: cremated dashboard French shooter team TV news pics In article <1992Jan21.000801.1776@sco.COM> hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson) writes: >And in one of these JFK books, there is a picture of the dashboard >of the car with a clear mark of what looks like a bullet impact? >Which bullet would that one be? None, if you're talking about the dent in the chrome windshield frame. That dent occurred a few weeks earlier. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Jan 21 21:51:55 PST 1992 Article 9742 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher) Date: 21 Jan 1992 07:31:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <9916@male.EBay.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Even Sun employees aren't perfect. ;) In article <9916@male.EBay.Sun.COM> merlyn@asgarrd.EBay.Sun.COM writes: >Assuming he was ever one of the assassins. There is a picture >showing him standing by that gate structure on the knoll when the >first bullet struck JFK. So if LHO is standing there at the first >bullet then he would have to go up the street into the book >depository and let himself be seen there (as he was in the lunchroom) >and then leave. No such picture exists. What are you guys smoking over there in Milpitas? :) >1. If JFK wasn't wearing a back brace, maybe he would have survived >because he would have been able to lie down in the seat and possibly >avoid the other hits. This may have been why the back wound didn't >penetrate deeper. I don't think JFK was wearing a back brace. And I'm certain I would have read about it if the bullet went through anything but his coat and shirt before hitting his back. >Back to JFK. The Zapruder film was bootlegged as soon as it was >brought to Time photo labs. When it was transferred from 8mm to 35mm >several frames turned up missing. It is generally believed that 10 >frames are missing. No, no, no, this myth was cleared up by _at least_ 1967 (_Six Seconds In Dallas_). There are no missing frames. >The report on it submitted to the WC was that Kennedy went forward >instead of backward. Hoover said that reversal in the material was >due to a printing error. Yes, they reversed the labels on two drawn reproductions of Zapruder frames in the Warren Report. I think this is unrelated to the "missing frames" myth. >The film does show Kennedy's right hand palm out moving up to his >throat and his left starting to clutch at the base of his throat then >both hands become clenched and raise up and the elbows go up. No. Neither hand ever touches his throat throughout the entire film. Look again. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 20:16:50 PST 1992 Article 9781 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 22 Jan 1992 05:24:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <13024@pitt.UUCP> <13078@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13078@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>There was no reason to think that Ruby wasn't safe. >> >Yes but Ruby said he thought so and that he couldn't talk there. >If Warren really wanted to get Ruby to talk (he didn't) he should >have tried to make Ruby feel safe. The question was Ruby's perception, >not whether or not it was true. And you, Mr. Motive Distruster Extraordinaire, can't figure out why Ruby would have a motive to disrupt and mislead the inquiry? Ooookay. >>Ok: who named what name? Isn't the case solved if we have such names? >> >No, the case isn't solved, because the people named denied involvement >(e.g. Clay Shaw) or were plainly innocent (e.g. Clay Shaw)? BTW, what is the name of someone who died after naming Shaw? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 20:17:27 PST 1992 Article 9782 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 22 Jan 1992 05:50:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <26783@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26847@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: No weapon was found either on Jim Braden or in the Dal-Tex bldg. In article <26847@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|I'd like to know: why were "shims" needed? Didn't the scope have >|the usual adjustment screws? What sort of forces does it take to >|screw up such a scope in the way that Oswald's was screwed up? Was >|the true aim point even within the area visible through the scope, >|so that Oswald could have learned to compensate? > >I think this train of thought doesn't really lead anywhere. Hah! You mean you don't care to know whether Oswald's sight could have been screwed up by the way he stashed it? Yer really dedicated to truth, there, Mr. Wright. >You can still >question the fact that neither the FBI nor the WC brought this up. I don't know that they didn't. I don't have a copy of the Warren Report. I don't know how they explained the screwed up sight. >how do you hold a hat with a smashed wrist? For two seconds? Put a hat in your hand, hold still, and I'll show you. :) >|Not _too_ fantastic. Obviously, _some_body was able to hit JFK from >|behind with at least one rifle bullet. > >I think there were two people in the TSBD, or one person in another building. An extra guy in the TSBD doesn't make for a more accurate shot, and every other building was either further away or presented a transverse target at equivalent range. >They arrested someone who went in and said he used the phone, on the *third* >floor. Then they just released him. Yes. Jim Braden. He was in town on oil business. I know of no weapons found either on him or in the Dal-Tex building that he had been in. >|Lattimer's tests succeeded. > >Lattimer? I thought he tested the backward movement of melons or something. >In any case, all three tests failed. Mitchell says Lattimer's son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting. Again: could somebody tell us authoritatively whether what failed were tests that _tested_ the Magic Bullet theory, or tests that _necessitated_ it? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 20:28:38 PST 1992 Article 9777 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 22 Jan 1992 03:55:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <26737@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13082@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13082@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Come on. He pulled his gun on a whole theater-ful of cops, and I think >>he even pulled the trigger, but it misfired. I think Oswald was >>planning to go out in a hail of gunfire, but his equipment failed him. >> >Not so. In _Best Evidence_ Hurt says there was a "scuffle, during which Oswald pulled his pistol". >He didn't try to fire and repeatedly called out "I am not >resisting arrest." When my copy of _Crossfire_ comes in I'll check on the misfire story. I think Oswald only called out that he wasn't resisting arrest after he was disarmed. >>He was seen at the scene by nine people. >> >Only one of which stuck by the story that it was Oswald. Says who? For example, you described Warren Reynolds: >Another was assaulted and suffered severe head injuries. Well, Reynolds said that he was "of the opinion" that the man he saw was Oswald, and his opinion didn't change after being shot in the head. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 20:28:53 PST 1992 Article 9779 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 22 Jan 1992 05:04:10 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 145 Message-ID: References: <26737@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26843@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The cartridges/bullets could not match Oswald's pistol better. In article <26843@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||Also, there were two witnesses who said that >||two people shot Tippet, and that one was heavier than Oswald. >| >|You mean Acquilla Clemmons? She simply said that there were two men >|beside the police car, but that only one had a gun. > >No. Acquilla Clemmons says she saw one man who shot Tippet, the other just >stood around. Exactly what I said! Only one man shot Tippet. >|The empty cartridges found at the scene were definitely fired from >|Oswald's pistol: two Winchesters and two Remingtons. The problem is >|that one Remington bullet and three Winchester bullets were found in >|Tippit's body. > >So where did the other Winchester bullet come from? And what happend to the >other Remington? In order for the story to work, you have to have more than >4 shots, which goes against the witness testimony. I don't think witnesses are very good at remembering how many shots they heard, especially when it's as many as four or five. >If you throw out the witness >testimony, and the bullets are not matched to the gun, then all you have is >the fact that the murder and Oswald bought similiar bullets. No -- the empty catridges at the scene were fired from the pistol found on Oswald thirty minutes later. Oswald was arrested six blocks away. His whereabouts during the murder are unknown -- except for the fact that he had to have been passing through the area. >(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found >on the ground. If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it? >Thirdly, Kurtz says that the bullets were not matched to the shells, and >gives as a reference p WC report, pgs. 165-169 > >He quotes an FBI agent who examined the bullets and concluded that it >was not possible to verify if the bullets were fired from Oswald's gun. Right. Oswald's gun had a modification to allow it to fire slightly-wider bullets, with the result that regular bullets sort of bounce around in the barrel and thus don't receive consistent markings from the barrel. >|Less than mile in about 12 minutes? Not too unlikely for someone >|trying to put distance between himself and the residence of a >|Presidential assassin. > >He did not run, according to the WC, and further, where was he going? I don't know that he'd have had to run to cover the distance in 12 minutes. I don't know where he was going. He wound up in a nearby theater. >|The police radio log shows that he was ordered to go there. > >But why was he orderd there? The log only lists who was ordered to go where; it doesn't say why. >|"White male, approximately thirty, slender build, 5'10", 165 lbs." is >|pretty accurate. And Oswald would have been walking at a pretty good >|clip to get there, making him even more conspicuous. > >That matches thousands of people in Dallas that day. How many of those thousands happened to be seen by a cop while they were hurrying down a residential sidewalk? Still, the match was unsurprising enough for Tippit to be casual in his dealings with Oswald: first talking to him through the passenger window, then casually approaching him around the front of his squad car. >|"Just as >|tantalizing is the report that Oswald and Tippit were seen together on >|at least one earlier occassion, but no known reports of such an >|association can be established." > >By estabilshed he means more than witness testimony. Or, more than _one_ witness. I think the Oswald/Tippit story is just the fantasy of one nightclub denizen. >Tippet casually walked >up and engaged in friendly conversation. Which is what you'd expect from a cop casually making sure that, no, of course you weren't in Dealey Plaza a half hour ago, ok, just show me some ID, I'll take your name, keep an eye out for somebody nervous matching your description, see ya later. Oswald could not afford to let such a conversation get underway. >|... The spent cartridges found there could only have been fired by >|the gun Oswald was caught with minutes later. > >Why do you say that? Hurt says it is "indisputable". The firing pin and cylinder of a pistol uniquely mark a cartridge when it is fired. >| He was seen at the scene by nine people. > >" of the nine witnesses, only one actually saw the shooting. " Hmm. Hurt says "at least two witnesses claimed in some fashion that they watched Oswald shoot Tippit." Forgive the rest for only looking up after the shooting stopped. >The one >who did see the shooting could not pick Oswald out of a line up, untill >lead on by the prosecuting attorney. He had to ask 4 times, No. She picked Oswald out of the line-up. Later, in front of the Warren Commission, she was asked repeateldy if she "recognized" anybody in the line-up, and her responses sound to me like she might have thought she was being asked whether anyone in the line-up was an acquaintance of hers: "I didn't know anybody". Seconds later, she affirmed "Number two is the one I picked." >Kurtz goes on to say that the nine witnesses >had conflicting stories. In any significant way? I'd be surprised if nine people described something the same way. >Another witness, Domingo Benavides, siad that it was not Oswald too. Hurt says he "could not identify Oswald as the gunman". Do you want me to explain the difference? >Another who identified Oswald from a photograph did so after originally >saying he didn't --changing his story after getting shot in the head. Before, he had said that he was "of the opinion" that the fleeing gunman was Oswald, though he could not "definitely identify" him. After the shooting, he was more sure. So his story got stronger, but it did not flip-flop. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 20:35:01 PST 1992 Article 9780 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? (was Re: JFK, Charles Cabell, Bay of Pigs, etc.) Date: 22 Jan 1992 05:11:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan18.080724.19252@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <26697@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13084@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13084@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>The CIA naturally had >>a 201 file opened on Lee Harvey Oswald, since as a defector he was of >>potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance. But Lee >>Harvey Oswald never worked for the CIA. > >Isn't a 201 file a personnel file, and not an investigative subject file? >I think that is another very suspicious revelation. The fact that Oswald >had a 201 file means he was on the payroll. No! Geez, you're unsure enough to ask which kind of file it is, and then you baldly assert he was on the payroll? Come on! A 201 file is "opened when a person is considered to be of potential intelligence or counter-intelligence significance." _Best Evidence_, p. 246. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 20:36:12 PST 1992 Article 9783 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher) Date: 22 Jan 1992 06:25:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: <9926@male.EBay.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <9926@male.EBay.Sun.COM> merlyn@asgarrd.EBay.Sun.COM writes: >|>Assuming he was ever one of the assassins. There is a picture >|>showing him standing by that gate structure on the knoll when the >|>first bullet struck JFK. > >>No such picture exists. > >Actually such a picture does exist. I have a copy of the magazine it >was printed in. Argosy Magazine in the July 1975 issue has it on its >front cover and with the article 'Killing the Kennedys: The Case for >Conspiracy' by F. Peter Model. I think it may have been taken by >Orville Nix who was filming on the other side of the street. Fax me a copy, willya? I've seen clips from the Nix film, and only its low resolution of such background figures across the street could ever let you hallucinate that one of them is Oswald. Remember, there was also a photo of "Oswald" standing on the steps of the TSBD during the shooting, but turned out to be Billy somebody, who worked in the TSBD and was of the same build as Oswald. Your "Oswald" is undoubtedly another such case. In fact, the only person along Elm St. that I've ever heard of as still being unidentified is they guy next to the "Umbrella Man". (The Umbrella Man was found by the HSCA; he was clean.) In fact, they've been so thorough that in one picture, what was always thought to have been a low mound of dirt was actually a G.I. who had managed to flatten after the very first shot, and who shipped out to Alaska a day or two later without giving his name to anyone official. >Maybe it was an Oswald look alike planted there for some reason that >only the conspirators know. Aw, come on. Don't you feel a little silly making statements like this? You folks talk about The Conspirators like they go around in capes with a big "C" on their chest. Is there anything The Conspirators couldn't do? Is there any evidence that you're not sure could have been within the awesome power of The Conspirators to fabricate? > "And now, the crucial shots strike Kennedy on the skull. Kennedy, his > body held rigid by his back brace He may have been wearing a back brace, but it must have been for the lower back. I've seen photos of all the things that JFK was wearing that had holes shot into them, and a back brace wasn't among them. >--is hurled violently back and sidewards against Jacqueline >with such force that it literally lifts him out of his seat. >The impact knocks him back at 100.3 m.p.h." This number has already been shown to be bogus. At such a speed, Kennedy's head would move many feet between Zapruder frames. It doesn't. >>No, no, no, this myth was cleared up by _at least_ 1967 (_Six Seconds >>In Dallas_). There are no missing frames. > >What is (_Six Seconds In Dallas_)? [A book.] According to Robert Groden, a >free-lance optic spealist, there is a splice mark after frame Z207. >Objects in the next frame jump a bit due to the missing frames. "A bit"? Ten frames is over half a second! There _are_ strange splice marks in some prints of the film, but there are no missing frames. >>No. Neither hand ever touches his throat throughout the entire film. >>Look again. > >I am not saying he actually touched his throat. What he seems to be >doing is making a clutching action towards his throat, then his hands >suddenly clench and arms raise. That's your interpretation; it doesn't seem that way to me. At any rate, it doesn't matter much, since after checking it out I've realized that the Magic Bullet theory is true after all, and that there was in fact a hole in Kennedy's neck at the time that he raised his fists and elbows. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 21:01:12 PST 1992 Article 9784 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Remarkable Windshield Date: 22 Jan 1992 06:31:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.202946.12766@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Jan21.153145.15260@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: I wish I had one of these on MY car! In article <1992Jan21.153145.15260@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) writes: >> No witness's memory or descriptions are ever faulty in Mr. >>Lifton's world. It must have been a rude shock to him when his >>Parkland doctors retracted their contradictory descriptions after >>seeing the autopsy photos. > > I would be interested in specific references (eg congressional hearings?) >on this. In the mid-to-late-80's (maybe 87, the 25th anniversary) Walter Cronkite narrated a Nova episode that got permission to show the autopsy photos to the Parkland doctors. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Jan 22 21:01:40 PST 1992 Article 9785 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Tell the Truth! Date: 22 Jan 1992 07:02:31 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <13029@pitt.UUCP> <13083@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Toward a resignation from the (easy) job of assassination truth cop. In article <13083@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >Incidentally, David Atlee Phillips, who was CIA station chief in Mexico >City at the time admitted on tape that it was unlikely the Oswald ever >visited Mexico City. Yet another Warren Commission critical fact >bites the dust! Bullshit. Did Phillips give any reason why we should agree with him, or do you just agree with any ol' CIA opinion that happens to support your fantasies? How did Phillips explain Oswald being seen travelling to Mexico? How did Phillips explain Oswald's signature on a Mexico City hotel registration form? How did Phillips explain the Cuban embassy official say that someone identifying himself as Oswald visited three separate times? How did Phillips explain the letter Oswald is known to have sent to the Soviet embassy in Washington saying that he had been unsuccesful in getting a visa while in Mexico City? Such seizing on minor points that almost without exception turn out to be easily explained, while ignoring the weight of the vast majority of the evidence, is getting tiresome. Every time you conspiracy types have pointed me to an area that I'd previously downplayed (out of my ignorance, and the area's remoteness from the material evidence) -- Oswald's right-wing associations, Oswald's CIA connections, the Tippitt killing, etc. -- it's turned out that all the suspicious evidence that I'd always heard about turns out to be flimsy or non-existent. It turns out that even the much-maligned Magic Bullet theory is supported by the weight of the evidence, despite the fact that I set out in my first posting to prove the Magic Bullet theory wrong. I think I'll be wrapping up my policing of you conspiracy theorists soon, since it's been so easy to do, and since it's been a while since you guys have steered us to any interesting conspiracy evidence. >>If you have the real Oswald, why use a fake many inches >>shorter, who is certain to be remembered as different from Oswald? > >There is no way to know this. Oswald may not have been infinitely >cooperative. There may have been parts of the plan that never >came off that are unclear now. We can't answer all these questions >unless someone with great knowledge of the plot reveals the answers. Careful! Don't hurt yourself. The kind of cognitive dissonance evidenced in a paragraph like that can be career-ending. :) Seriously, that paragraph sounds exactly like a religious explanation of why faith is necessary when reason fails and revelation has been withheld. If you don't mind, I think I'll use it as an example in my upcoming summary of why conspiracy theories are simply not rational in the face of the totality of the evidence. >What is clear is that the CIA ordered the arrest of Cuban embassy >employee Ms. Duran (a Mexican) and she was coerced into saying Oswald >had come to the embassy. She later told of this coercion. She was coerced into saying that the guy claiming to be Oswald looked nothing like the guy who was shot by Jack Ruby? As a taxpayer, I demand that my taxes buy me more competent conspirators than _that_. (BTW, do you have a reference for your claim that she was coerced?) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 13:01:43 PST 1992 Article 9828 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 23 Jan 1992 04:28:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <13078@pitt.UUCP> <1992Jan22.081053.20788tim@netcom.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan22.081053.20788tim@netcom.COM> tim@netcom.COM (Tim Richardson) writes: >=what is the name of someone who died after naming Shaw? > >Try David Ferrie. I don't think so. To whom did Ferrie allegedly denounce Shaw? Try again. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 13:21:00 PST 1992 Article 9829 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 23 Jan 1992 04:34:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <2003@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <2003@sousa.ltn.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: > This part always bothered me. If Oswald was carrying a 6 shot revolver, > why were there 4 spent cartridges on the ground. Semi-auto pistols eject > the cartridge, revolvers don't. The witnesses saw Oswald eject the cartridges and reload as he left the scene. The cartridges found were revolver cartridges. > Why could the spent cartridges found have only been fired from Oswalds gun? I think it's because the cylinder and firing pin leave distinctive marks on the cartridge. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 13:38:41 PST 1992 Article 9830 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher) Date: 23 Jan 1992 04:56:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <9926@male.EBay.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: If no Magic Bullet, where did the other bullet end up? In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>realized that the Magic Bullet theory is true after all, and that >>there was in fact a hole in Kennedy's neck at the time that he raised >>his fists and elbows. > >Which means it was the first shot that Nellie and John Connally >reacted to. Non sequitor. >Since you now agree the first shot exitted Kennedy's throat , I never said the first shot exited Kennedy's throat; I said _a_ shot exited Kennedy's throat. I think it's more likely that it was the second shot. >it must then be true that Connally was hit by the second shot , >because it doesn't take 2-3 seconds for a bullet to travel >the space from Kennedy to Connally. You're assuming that Connally reacted as soon as the bullet struck him. Bad assumption. >That means the third shot heard was the head shot. The last shot was undoubtedly the head shot. I know of no witnesses who heard more shots after the gruesome head shot. >Why does the Warren Commission insist one of the bullets >missed? The answer is to account for the shot that hit >the curb. Completely wrong. The WC insisted one bullet missed because a) it did not think the Zapruder film allows enough time for two separate shots to hit Kennedy and Connally, b) the Kennedy and Connally wounds can really only be explained if the same bullet caused them, and c) only one bullet was found, even though the non-JFK-head-wounds should not have destroyed any of the bullet(s) that caused them. If the Magic Bullet theory is false, where did the other non-head-shot bullet disappear to? >Where did that fourth bullet come from? There was no fourth bullet. The curb nick was too slight and too copper-free to have been caused by an pristine impact by a rifle bullet. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 13:42:01 PST 1992 Article 9833 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations Date: 23 Jan 1992 05:25:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <32759@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <32759@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > From looking at overhead photos of the area it appeared to me that > the angle from the TSBD to the limo to the curb was not in any way > a straight line. If the mark was caused by a bullet fragment, then > I would have to admit after deflecting off of whatever it hit, it > could possibly have reached that section of curb. It looks to me like a fragment would only have to make a 15-degree right turn to reach the curb nick. Kennedy was hit in the right side of the head. > I agree, but Oswalds alleged `first' shot was the one the Warren > Commission claims missed, no? They never committed themselves on the issue, but it's most likely that it was the first shot that missed. > Isn't this shot the one they also claim hit the curb? No! The FBI told the WC that the mark was too slight to have been caused by an unimpeded rifle shot. >>the absence of copper precluded `the >>possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made >>by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such >>as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher.'" > > Which could also mean it came from a regular, everyday lead bullet. Or from the lead core of the copper-jacketed bullets Oswald was using that day. There is no evidence of non-jacketed bullets being fired in Dealey Plaza that day. >>"the damage to the curbing would have been much more >>extensive if a rifle bullet had struck the curbing without >>first having struck some other object." > > I agree. But the damage may have been caused by a regular lead tipped bullet >from either a rifle or handgun or the angle at which it hit the curb was >just slight enough to make the bullet ricochet. Res non multiplicandum est. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 13:47:26 PST 1992 Article 9834 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - Back wound Questions Date: 23 Jan 1992 05:35:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >As I understand it , the throat wound was a small hole , This can be explained by the skin around the exit wound being supported against tearing by the collar and tie. >As I also understand it , Connally's back wound was oblong , >as if the bullet was tumbling. > >How was it explained that the throat wound was not caused by >a tumbling round and Connally's back wound was? There is only >2-3 feet between them. Somebody posted the mathematics of this a few days ago, and it seemed reasonable. I would also note that perhaps tumbling is more likely to set in during media transitions (e.g., neck -> air). >How was it explained that a bullet fired from 6th floor >of the TSBD , travelling down , entered the Presidents back, >changed directions to go up and out of the throat , This was one of my biggest problems with the Magic Bullet theory, until I used two mirrors to look at myself sideways. The bottom of the neck's front is definitely lower than the bottom of the neck's back. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 21:29:15 PST 1992 Article 9861 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 23 Jan 1992 21:36:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <32813@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <32813@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > Definitely fired from Oswalds pistol? How did you come to this conclusion? > I read that they could not match the casings or the bullets recovered from > Tippits body to Oswalds revolver.... Read again. _No_ bullets could be matched to Oswald's revolver because it the barrel had widened, causing each bullet to rattle down the barrel and receive unique markings. However, even conspiracy author Hurt conceded that it is "indisputable" that the cartridges were fired from Oswald's pistol. > Empty cartridges found on the scene. Tell me, why would there have been > empty cartridges found on the scene? Because several witnesses saw Oswald reload, tossing the spent cartridges. He knew that he'd be facing more police before the day was over. > Did Oswald > fire four shots into Tippit, remove the four empty cartridges, leaving two > live rounds, Hey, you're arithmetic is real good. Of _course_ he would keep the two live rounds. >and toss them on the ground to leave some evidence for the DPD? No. He tossed them as he was leaving the scene. I imagine that he was more worried about staying alive for the next hour or so than he was about trial evidence. Note that he didn't shoot at any of the witnesses standing around who saw him kill Tippitt and run away. >>>(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found >>>on the ground. >> >>If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the >>pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it? > > Say what you will, but there is no proof..... Well, gosh, you're right, there's no continuous videotape of the cartridges from the time they were picked up to the time they were given to the Warren Commission. Darn. Unfortunately for your silly argument, there's _also_ no proof that the cartridges were planted. But don't let that bother you; I know it's pure reflex for a conspiracy theorist to suppose that inconvenient evidence was planted. >>>|... The spent cartridges found there could only have been fired by >>>|the gun Oswald was caught with minutes later. >>> >>>Why do you say that? >> >>Hurt says it is "indisputable". The firing pin and cylinder of a >>pistol uniquely mark a cartridge when it is fired. > > A semi-auto pistol that ejects its' empty cartridges, yes. A revolver leaves >no marks on the casing and only one small round dent from the firing pin on the >primer..... Oh, are you a ballistics expert, now? You better re-check your conspiracy bible, Reverend. The accepted gospel among the conspiracy theologians is that the cartridges were so indisputably fired from Oswald's pistol that they theorize that the DPD fired them later and simply claimed that they were found at the scene. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 21:30:05 PST 1992 Article 9860 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 23 Jan 1992 21:21:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <26847@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26998@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26998@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >No, I meant that the train of thought you were/are developing is worthless. >The sights could have been messed up or not, we don't know, we will never >know, and it is unimportant. Well, even though I lean toward the idea that Oswald did the shooting with that rifle, I disagree that it's unimportant. If we had answers to the questions I asked, we would know for sure whether it was possible for Oswald to have done the shooting with that rifle. >How do you hold a had with a smashed wrist? For how long? A minute, or for a second and a half during which you're not even aware you've been shot? If the latter, it's simple: how many (if any) of the tendons in his wrist that keep his fingers curled were severed? >|An extra guy in the TSBD doesn't make for a more accurate shot, and >|every other building was either further away or presented a transverse >|target at equivalent range. > >It was fantastic. Two shooters shooting would have a greater chance for the >hit, especially if they were sing better rifles. Well, gee, since Kennedy was indeed hit, I guess it's obvious that a highly-advanced CIA prototype laser sighting system was employed. Case closed. And just where did the extra shooter and his rifle disappear to? There was a cop at the bottom of the TSBD stairs almost before anyone had time to get down from the sixth floor; you conspiracy theorists even say that Oswald would have had trouble getting to where he was seen on the _second_ floor. >|Yes. Jim Braden. He was in town on oil business. I know of no weapons >|found either on him or in the Dal-Tex building that he had been in. > >He was not on oil business. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He had a rap sheet, but he was indeed in town to talk to oilman Hunt. >|Mitchell says Lattimer's son was able to duplicate Oswald's shooting. > >I doubt this, and wonder why we should believe Lattimer's son over the >three other tests conducted by people who had no incentive to produce >negative results? The other tests were conducted by people unfamiliar with using a Mannlicher-Carcano. And I think the other tests were conducted to test the Separate Bullets 1.6 Seconds Apart Theory. The resulting Magic Bullet Theory leaves the shooter with at least four seconds to line up his two hits. Four seconds with a 4x-scoped, rested rifle and a target at 50-70 yards moving slowly and directly away is just not a very hard shot. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 21:31:01 PST 1992 Article 9862 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: On Oswald and M.L. King, Jr. and other things...(from Joseph F. Baugher) Date: 23 Jan 1992 21:42:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <2007@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <2007@sousa.ltn.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: > The G.I.s name is Gordon Arnold. This is the same man who stated that the > reason he hit the deck was because a bullet came whizzing past his head > from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. Yes. The problem is, there's no physical evidence of any of the early shooting coming from anywhere but behind the limousine. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 21:32:05 PST 1992 Article 9863 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Stone's _JFK_ promotes absurd accusations Date: 23 Jan 1992 21:48:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <32817@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <32817@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: >>> Isn't this shot the one they also claim hit the curb? >> >>No! The FBI told the WC that the mark was too slight to have been >>caused by an unimpeded rifle shot. > > I see. The Warren Commission must have been mistaken........ No, no, no. You are simply wrong that the Warren Commission ever claimed that an unimpeded rifle shot hit the curb. If you think you're right, why not quote the Warren Report for us? > Let's see. Copper is much harder than lead, yet the copper jacketing > shatters and sprays all over the place after hitting JFK in the head but > a chunk of lead from that bullet remains large enough Size has nothing to do with; it's kinetic energy. I guarantee you that you cannot throw even a whole bullet through a windshield. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 23 21:32:55 PST 1992 Article 9866 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Oswald a CIA employee? Date: 23 Jan 1992 22:03:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <26697@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13084@pitt.UUCP> <26967@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26967@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >First of all, his employer in California is quoted as saying that all his >employees had secret, not confedential clearences. What employer? A few days ago you screwed up and called Oswald's clearance "top secret"; it's plain that ignorant people frequently make mistakes about distinctions among clearance levels. >Second, he was able to gather important evidence about the U2 spy plane, >despite Holtz's claim he was just a low level employee. He would be able >to provide information about the hight of the U2, What evidence do you have that U2's flew at their top-secret operational height when they were in range of Oswald's air traffic radar? None. Zero. Zip. Nadda. >how it landed and took off, what it looked like, It rolled down the runway. It had glider-like wings. At the ranges and speeds that Russian radar watched the U-2 operate, it already could surmise these things. >He could get related information on supplies and spare parts for it. >In fact, the plane was stored in the same building as the supplies of >the Radar tower were in. Source? > At his job in California, he knew secret codes, communications >frequencies, and assorted things that would be very valuble to the >Soviets. He knew nothing that wasn't changed periodically anyway. All they had to do was change them again when he left. >he walks into the American embassay and says to th consulate >that he is going to give the USSR military secrets. Whatever these are, >and he certainly must have *some* with even a confidential clearence, >he should be tried for treason. Sorry, Judge Wright, but saying you're going to commit a crime for which there is no evidence that it was actually committed, is not a crime in and of itself. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 24 20:06:16 PST 1992 Article 9883 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 24 Jan 1992 05:29:47 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <26843@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <26995@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <26995@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||(Also, there was no proof that the shells brought in were the shells found >||on the ground. >| >|If you're going to say this, why not just say that the DPD planted the >|pistol on Oswald, and forged his purchase of it? > >Only one shell was found. Then, weeks later, the Dallas police suddenly >discover 3 more. _Reasonable Doubt_ says on p. 155 that all the cartridges were turned over to the FBI by the DPD within *six days* of the killing. >This makes no sense. If Tippit did not have any evidence that Oswald was >the Killer, then why would Oswald shoot Tippit? I _told_ you: >|Which is what you'd expect from a cop casually making sure that, no, >|of course you weren't in Dealey Plaza a half hour ago, ok, just show >|me some ID, I'll take your name, keep an eye out for somebody nervous >|matching your description, see ya later. Oswald could not afford to >|let such a conversation get underway. > >He could easily afford it. Hardly. For all he knew, the name of the missing TSBD employee had already gone out over the radio. >||Another witness, Domingo Benavides, siad that it was not Oswald too. >| >|Hurt says he "could not identify Oswald as the gunman". Do you want >|me to explain the difference? > >If you assume reasonable doubt is assessing the evidence against Oswald, then >there should be no difference. Pure bullshit. Someone saying "it was not Oswald" would help exonerate Oswald, but someone saying he "could not identify Oswald as the gunman" would neither help nor hurt Oswald's case. >|Before, he had said that he was "of the opinion" that the fleeing >|gunman was Oswald, though he could not "definitely identify" him. >|After the shooting, he was more sure. So his story got stronger, but >|it did not flip-flop. > >What a nit picker. He changed his story. Do you care about the truth, or don't you? His story did not go unaltered, but it's flatly misleading to say that he changed the basic thrust of his story: that the fleeing gunman was Oswald. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Jan 24 20:08:05 PST 1992 Article 9884 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 24 Jan 1992 06:58:49 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 73 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I've defended MY theory, and it explains a lot. What's YOURS? I've been semi-interested in the JFK assassination for quite a while, and I'd always thought that there was as good a chance of a conspiracy as there was that Oswald acted alone. Before the last few weeks, I had always concentrated on the physical evidence and material witnesses, partly because I knew that the most important question was whether Oswald did all the shooting, and partly because I didn't want to have to read up on the endless circumstantial evidence surrounding Oswald and Ruby. After watching "JFK", reading _Crossfire_ and re-reading _Six Seconds In Dallas_, I posted my theory that Oswald did all the shooting, but that the Magic Bullet theory was wrong and that separate bullets caused the two back wounds. Mitchell convinced me that the Magic Bullet theory had in fact been found to be correct by Lattimer and the HSCA, because of the experiments, the time vs. alignment analysis of the wounds, the nature of Connally's back wound, the unreasonable shallowness of the JFK back wound, the disappearance of the unmagical second bullet, etc. Then the conspiracy theorists (you know who you are ;) started challenging me to explain Oswald's military career, defection to Russia, alleged CIA connections, etc. At first I thought I would just write it all off as circumstantial evidence, but after checking I found that the "evidence" ranged from flimsy to non-existent. Recently the theorists have tried to challenge Oswald's guilt in the Tippitt murder, and I was similarly surprised to find the evidence against Oswald to be so complete and convincing. But my biggest problem with the conspiracy theorists is _not_ how they blatantly distort, misrepresent, select, and -- here on the net, at least -- fabricate the evidence. No, my problem is that they fail to advance a coherent theory of their own that explains even a fraction of the evidence that is explained by the Warren Commission's theory. Instead, they simply propogate a cult of conspiracy, in which no scintilla of evidence is ever troubling to them, because the unnamed conspirators are able to do anything to the evidence that the conspiracy theorists need them to do. That sort of thinking is unfalsifiable, and so the only thing it can be called is a religion. The conspiracy "theorists" have had their turn trying to find weaknesses -- of which there _are_ a few -- in the theory that Oswald acted alone. I here and now challenge the conspiracy "theorists" to actually give us a _theory_, so we can see if it stands up as well as the Warren Commission's. Tell us: how many shots were fired, by whom, from where? Who killed officer Tippitt? Who was in a position to order Ruby to kill Oswald? What government officials were in on the conspiracy before Nov. 22 (as opposed to just being in on a cover-up)? Who was in a position to stand down the military, alter the motorcade route, get Oswald a job overlooking the not-yet-planned route, etc.? What if anything was done to Kennedy's body en route to Bethesda, and why? Did Johnson or any of the Warren Commissioners know who really had Kennedy killed? Was the HSCA in on the cover-up? Was the media in on the cover-up? In short: prove to us that you have a theory, and not just a creed. In the meantime, I'm going to stop correcting all the facile criticisms of the Warren Report every time the conspiracy theorists repeat them. Instead, I'm going to try to confine myself to only commenting on new material. The two most important questions that I haven't seen authoritatively answered here are: - What did the HSCA say about the entrance wound/blood clot in the back of Kennedy's head in that famous drawing of the autopsy photo? The HSCA's top forensics guy said on "Primetime Live" that the photo definitely shows an entrance wound. If he's right, that leaves nothing for a grassy knoll gunman to do. - Did the government's shooting experiments necessitate, or simply test the validity of, the Magic Bullet theory? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 09:34:30 PST 1992 Article 9923 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Magic Bullet vs. 2 disappearing bullets: put up or shut up. Date: 25 Jan 1992 04:34:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <2007@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: What is YOUR explanation of the two entrance wounds? In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>The problem is, there's no physical evidence of any of the early >>shooting coming from anywhere but behind the limousine. > >Except that the throat wound could have been an entrance wound >since the physical evidence does not rule this out. Yes it does. If the neck wound is an entrance wound, then two bullets should have been found inside Kennedy's chest and neck. No such bullets were found. I here and now defy all you conspiracy theologians to tell us where you think the two bullets disappeared to if the Magic Bullet theory is false. Is conspiracy your theory, or your creed? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 12:08:08 PST 1992 Article 9930 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet vs. 2 disappearing bullets: put up or shut up. Date: 25 Jan 1992 18:12:27 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 115 Message-ID: References: <2007@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: faith: rejecting a theory when no other theory is even POSSIBLE In article strat@cis.ksu.edu (Steve W Davis) writes: >>If the neck wound is an entrance wound, then two bullets >>should have been found inside Kennedy's chest and neck. No such >>bullets were found. > >I really don't think the neck wound is the issue here. The issue is, >and should be, the angle of impact, entry, and exit of all bullets >under the sbt. The sbt makes enough wild claims that I am willing to >rule it out and look for ANY better explanation. Sorry, Reverend, but your entire article contains NO explanation. If you were interested in truth, instead of your conspiracy religion, you would try to give us an explanation. >Unfortunately, no one has net decided on > >a) the number of bullets fired >b) the number of gunmen >c) the positions of these gunmen There is ZERO physical evidence that the answers to these questions are anything but a) 3, b) 1, and c) the TSBD sniper's nest. However, these facts are irrelevent to the issue of how bullets can enter Kennedy's body and disappear without leaving an exit wound. Even if you can't "decide" to face the listed facts, you should still be able to tell us how two entire bullets can vanish inside a human body >So, we're faced with believing something which CANNOT be true (Warran >commission) The single bullet theory explains essentially all the physical evidence about the non-head wounds that occurred. If you post another article against the single bullet theory, I DARE you to do a better job of explaining: - How can two bullets enter Kennedy's neck/chest and disappear? - How can a rifle bullet (or even a pistol bullet) only penetrate two inches into a man's back? - How can an unimpeded rifle bullet cause on OBLONG first entrance wound (in Connally's back)? - How can Connally's wounds have been caused by a shot occurring at any other time than the half-second or so around Kennedy's back wound (since that was the only time Connally was properly aligned to receive the wounds he did)? Of course, I have enough experience with you conspiracy theologians to know that you won't even TRY to answer these questions. And why SHOULD you? After all, it's much more fun to fantasize that the Conspirators are quaking with your every criticism of the Warren Report, than it is to actually try to EXPLAIN what happened in Dealy Plaza! >or coming up with ideas on what might be true. What a joke. You offered NO such "ideas". Instead, you left us to conclude that it's more likely that two bullets can vanish than that two men can be hit by the same bullet. >If, as is suggested above, the neck wound is an entry wound, logic >dictates that a bullet would be found inside the body. I am willing >to rule this out if > >a) there is an xray of the upper body, neck, and head of Kennedy > which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no bullets > in the body. There is. >b) there was a complete dissection of the entrance wound in Kennedy's > back. There wasn't, but it doesn't matter. Dissections help trace bullet TRACKS, but they aren't required in order to tell whether a bullet is PRESENT. Or are you going to suggest that Kennedy was hit with two non-ferric bullets? >>I here and now defy all you conspiracy theologians to tell us where >>you think the two bullets disappeared to if the Magic Bullet theory is >>false. > >Why should we have to? After all, all I am really interested in is getting >the few remaining people who consider the Warran report to be anything other >than pure fiction to wake up Thank you, Reverend, you just proved my case. You're not interested in determining what theory best explains the evidence. You're only interested in chanting your mantra that the Warren Report is "pure fiction". >I do not, and cannot, prove anything on my own. I'm not asking you to "prove" ANYTHING. I just want to know what alternative theory is even POSSIBLE if a single bullet did not transit Kennedy's body and cause both wounds. Or do you make it a habit of dismissing an explanation even when you cannot imagine ANY other possible explanation? >I have yet to see ANY evidence that the so-called magic bullet could >have made the wounds it did. You're not paying attention. Mitchell has described over and over the Lattimer experiments which duplicated the Kennedy and Connally wounds. Another poster exhaustively described how Connally's body was only properly aligned to receive the wounds he did during a split-second in which Kennedy was hit. >> Is conspiracy your theory, or your creed? > >Neither. Sorry, Rev. Davis, but you're going to have to prove that to us. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 12:19:59 PST 1992 Article 9931 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: OSWALD's Change of Nationality Date: 25 Jan 1992 18:25:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan24.120657.7546@hemlock.cray.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan24.120657.7546@hemlock.cray.com> ali@palm05.cray.com (Ali Sadjadi) writes: >How does someone who renounced his American citizenship, and is being >labeled as a communist, and goes and lives in Soviet Union for couple >of years, gets his American citizenship back in 48 hours, plus brings >a Russian woman back to the U.S. ??? Can you say "re-defector"? Can you say "potential propaganda gold mine"? (Unfortunately, Oswald was just as much of a loser here as he had been in Russia, so they quite understandably never tried to use him as a Capitalism Poster Boy.) >Does this guy ever gets questioned by FBI OR CIA ? >Does anybody keeps tabs on this guy? Sure they would have! Bzzzt. They did. FBI Agent James P. Hosty Jr. checked up on Oswald only three weeks before the assassination. In fact, Oswald was so annoyed with the FBI's behavior that he apparently went to the FBI office and left a threat for Hosty. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 17:02:13 PST 1992 Article 9937 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet vs. 2 disappearing bullets: put up or shut up. Date: 25 Jan 1992 20:30:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <2007@sousa.ltn.dec.com> <1992Jan25.190459.26021@ux1.cso.ui uc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Does the limited dissection relate to Addison's Disease PR? In article <1992Jan25.190459.26021@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> krust@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Kelly Rust) writes: >But don't bullets sometime end up lodged within people? Yes. But they are always opaque to x-rays. >And what >possible reason could there be for the wound not being dissected? Kennedy's handlers were more concerned about his image than solving his murder. One possible motive for limiting the dissection was Addison's Disease. Wasn't Kennedy rumoured to have it? Had he denied it during the campaign, making it something that his handlers wanted to keep quiet? What would be the autopsy symptoms of the disease? >Is this documented or just folklore? It's documented. >> - How can Connally's wounds have been caused by a shot occurring at >> any other time than the half-second or so around Kennedy's back >> wound (since that was the only time Connally was properly aligned >> to receive the wounds he did)? > >don't you think the facts are hazy enough that Connally's alignment >wrt his wounds doesn't belong on a _must be proved_ list? Not at all. A Connally alignment analysis seems to be an obvious and crucial test to determine when he was struck, but I've never read a conspiracy author who even _mentioned_ such an analysis. I'm eager to get another good look at the crucial Zapruder frames, to see if they corroborate the single bullet theory as thoroughly as would seem from the recent posting detailing the analysis. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 19:43:39 PST 1992 Article 9940 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet vs. 2 disappearing bullets: put up or shut up. Date: 26 Jan 1992 02:27:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 213 Message-ID: References: <2007@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Don't like the evidence? Waiting for tomorrow's? Tomorrow never comes In article strat@cis.ksu.edu (Steve W Davis) writes: >all I have to do is realize that the Warran >Commission report is fiction to put me closer to the truth. "Realize"? You mean like in a flash, on the road to Damascus? Well, sure. But if you want to _convince_ anybody that the Warren Report is fiction, you have to show them that some other explanation is even possible. If your audience is rational, they will be convinced only to the extent that your alternative explanation is plausible. >It is my judgment that the explanations and the truth will not come out >until ALL the evidence as been heard. Why don't you just come right out and say it: "the truth" will _never_ "come out" for you, because you will always claim that there is more evidence that has not been heard. Conspiracy-think means never having any particular "truth" to defend. >>The single bullet theory explains essentially all the physical >>evidence about the non-head wounds that occurred. > >I have examined the sbt, and I have examined the drawings, >and I have read some articles, and I have read two books so far. What >you say as an adequate explanation, I say is bunk. Gosh, what a ringing rebuttal to all the evidence that has been presented here supporting the single bullet theory! >Most of the American >public agrees with me on this one. "Most of the American public" knows nothing about the case except that some noisy people have publicized some fun-to-believe conspiracy theories. If your argument rests on the fact that "most of the America public" agrees with you, then you must be out of ammo. >So, it is really you who needs to do a better job of explaining, >because most Americans would call you a liar to your face. Oh? Why don't you try to find a _single_ "lie" in all the postings I've made over the last month? Or don't you think that "most Americans" are as good as spotting lies as they are at spotting conspiracies? >> - How can an unimpeded rifle bullet cause on OBLONG first entrance >> wound (in Connally's back)? > >If it was impeded, as you suggest, then how do you explain the condition >of the bullet found on Connally's stretcher? It was impeded, but not by bone. Lattimer's tests produced similar bullets. >How can Connally's wounds have been caused by "a" (one) shot? Particularly >after a considerable amount of damage to Kennedy? You don't think a rifle bullet can go through two chests and a wrist? Lattimer showed it can. At any rate, where did the extra bullets that you posit vanish to? >No "anti-conspiracy theologians", as your impudent cant would describe >people such as yourself, have been able to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT >that one person, acting on his own, assasinated the President. And no wonder. Proof beyond reasonable doubt can only be established in adversarial proceedings, with both sides having subpeona power. If your point is that Oswald was never tried, well, gee, thanks for the earth-shaking revelation... >If Oswald >had survived to stand trial, he COULD NOT have been convicted. Says who? His gun did the shooting. No witness can place him anywhere outside the sniper's nest during the shooting. He was seen taking a rifle-sized package to work that morning. >Everyone who disbelievs the Warren Commission findings is in search of the >truth. You ask why? No, I don't. To me, truth is an end in and of itself. To you, apparently, truth is something else. >Ron Reagan, a son of another President who was shot >at, said "Until we find out who killed the president, and why, we do not >live in a true democracy." That is good enough reason for me. Bzzzt. Fallacy of appeal to authority. (As if being a shot-at President's son makes one an authority on what constitutes "true democracy". But then again, you've already cited "most of the American people", so what should we expect?...) >> After all, it's much more fun to fantasize that the >>Conspirators are quaking with your every criticism of the Warren >>Report, than it is to actually try to EXPLAIN what happened in Dealy >>Plaza! > >But all you can do to explain what happened is to re-use the same old tripe >and nonsense that others have been using for decades. Then why is it so hard for you conspiracy theorists to rebut it? >I'm telling you here that most American citizens believe that >arguments such as yours are so empty and vague What a joke. As if "most American citizens" have ever been exposed to even a _fraction_ of the evidence I've recounted to support the Warren Report. >that they are willing >to accept ANYTHING other than your personal brand of truth. "ANYTHING"? Such as flimsy conspiracy fantasies? >> Instead, you left us to >>conclude that it's more likely that two bullets can vanish than that >>two men can be hit by the same bullet. > >I never made mention of the number of bullets that were fired. I only said >that there was not a consensus on the number of bullets fired. Get your OWN >facts straight. You can't even read from a simple USENET posting without >making mistakes. Hah. I ask you to explain two _wounds_ in Kennedy's neck and chest, and you start babbling about "the number of bullets that were fired". And then you criticize _my_ reading skills. [Honestly, folks, I did not invent strat@cis.ksu.edu just to make me look good.] >>>b) there was a complete dissection of the entrance wound in Kennedy's >>> back. > >>There wasn't, but it doesn't matter. > >Oh, it doesn't matter? You mean that it doesn't matter that a dissection >of the back wound would have PROVEN your case once and for all? To people of your ilk it would have proven _nothing_. Later in your posting you tell us that the Conspirators secretly removed the two bullets your theory leaves in Kennedy's body. What's to stop the Conspirators from faking a bullet track while they're at it? Or faking the autopsy report? >Since there is no bullet track from the back wound to the neck wound, Bzzzt. Since there was no dissection in that area, we don't _know_ that a dissection wouldn't have revealed one. We _do_ know that the wounds line up, and that HSCA experts have identified in an x-ray a line of air pockets along the presumed bullet track. >If the body was tampered with, the bullet in his back could have been >removed. Notice, that I do not state this as fact, or even as an explanation. Heaven forbid! So, what you're saying is that the only physical way your two bullets could have left his body -- viz., by "tampering" -- is so ludicrous that you don't even have the guts to propose it "as an explanation." That tells us a lot about the way you think. >I am just saying that there IS the possibility that someone removed the >bullet from his back. So what? Is there anyone who says it is IMpossible? Note, also, that "there IS the possibility" that Kennedy was killed by a small CIA bomb planted in his brain. Etc., etc. If you make no distinctions among the infinitely many things that are not impossible, then you should be reading the National Enquirer. I promise you that they don't print stories about the logically IMpossible. E.g., "Elvis Reveals 1+1==3!", "Housewife Solves Halting Problem!", etc. >We may never know the truth in this matter. _You_ may never know the truth in this matter, because you are ready to say that any evidence that you don't like must have been "tampered with". >There is not enough evidence to convict Oswald >of the murder. There IS, but don't worry: since adversarial proceedings with subpeona power will never be conducted in this case, you can safely keep on chanting this. Keep your tambourine well-oiled. >There is a considerable amount of evidence which suggests >to us that Oswald was NOT the lone assassin. Care to cite any for us? >I will not-- and cannot since I am not a forensic pathologist-- >determine whether the Magic Bullet theory is an accurate description of >what happened. Does it take a "forensic pathologist" to figure out that a bullet that enters the body without leaving must remain in the body? >However, I am convinced that the theory SOUNDS untrue, that >it does not LOOK possible on paper, I see. The HSCA and Nova line up Kennedy and Connally for you, but you'd rather believe that Conspirators are firing bullets into Kennedy and taking them back out, to their heart's content. Oooookay. >you are only interested in chanting >your mantra that the Warren Report is the gospel truth. Liar. I've never read the entire Warren Report, so don't expect me to endorse the truth of every word. What I _do_ endorse is the proposition that the Warren Commission's theory explains the evidence far better than any competing theory ever has. However, I must concede that the Warren Commission's theory does not adequately explain the evidence that you dream exists but has been kept hidden from us. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 20:58:28 PST 1992 Article 9947 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Brian Holtz, you're no Paul Hagar. Date: 26 Jan 1992 03:43:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 108 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Lists of my mistakes and my doubts. Where are the conspirologists'? In article wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt) writes: >>I here and now defy all you conspiracy theologians to tell us where >>you think the two bullets disappeared to if the Magic Bullet >>theory is false. > >The problem with ultimatums such as these [...] >is that the challenger has invested too much money >and/or manhood for one to expect them to ever judge themselves honestly >in public or to concede victory. Oh, come ON. I'm just asking where two little lumps of metal vanished to. I'm not challenging anybody to prove that socialism works, or that ESP exists, etc. How can anyone say that the only two neck/chest bullet wounds are unrelated without having some idea of what happened to the bullets that caused them? >Everything Brian has written makes him seem bent on "winning" rather >than finding the truth (except that he exudes that >the-truth-will-prevail air, but that's just part of a winning >smugness.) [...] About the only thing that keeps the ball rolling is >the almost total lack of intellectually honest [conspiracy-theory] >critics. Sorry, but I really _am_ more interested in finding out the truth than in winning the argument. (I don't make the same guarantee about my behavior on talk.politics.theory et al. ;) I consistently cite my sources. I very often tentatively advance a datum that I remember from a book I no longer have access to, and I ask netters with such access to check my memory for me. I admit it when I am shown to be wrong: * I originally proposed that consecutive Oswald shots caused the Kennedy and Connally back wounds. Although I still think that Oswald could have gotten off another shot in time for Connally's delayed reaction, I was convinced that I was wrong by people posting evidence such as the Connally alignment, the unreasonable shallowness of a rifle shot in Kennedy's back, the collar-support explanation for the neck wound's size, the oblong Connally back wound, the air-bubble track on the JFK x-ray, and the missing Magic Pair Of Bullets. * I originally proposed that Ruby shot Oswald on impulse. It turns out that Ruby stalked Oswald for much of that weekend. * At one point I implied that 544 Camp Street was a natural place for Oswald to set up an office for the FPCC. As it turns out, I don't think Oswald ever rented an office there. Instead, he frequented the ground-floor coffee shop at that address, and probably thought he could get FPCC mail there. * I had to "bzzzt" myself after _twice_ failing to accurately read a question from David Wright about the metal shims used on Oswald's scope. Most importantly, I freely admit that there are a few pieces of evidence that the Warren Commission's theory does not explain. I've listed them several times, and they are things like: * the fake "Secret Service" men in Dealy Plaza * the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen * the Oswald sightings with Ferrie in Clinton, La. * the Rosa Cheramie prediction of the assassination * the "duplicate Oswald" sightings * the missing Winchester cartridge at the scene of Tippitt's killing Just as many times I've challenged the conspiracy theorists to tell us what pieces of evidence they think is hardest for a conspiracy theory to explain. Their continuing silence tells all: their conspiracy theories explain everything, because their theories inflate when brought into contact with inconvenient evidence. They admit that their theories cannot be tested, and that the "truth" can never be known. >He may even speak >the truth, but he _mixes_ it with intimidation and classic propoganda >think. The way he continually tries to _shame_ or his opponents into >silence betrays the security of his convictions. Indeed, there are a number of things I try to intimidate and shame people into not doing: * confusing true statements with statements that might not be false * dispensing "facts" that they cannot back up with references * dispensing "facts" that cannot possibly be backed up with references because they are actually mere speculation * invoking Conspirator tampering to explain anti-conspiracy evidence, while citing pro-conspiracy evidence without regard for why the Conspirators didn't tamper with it >He deters or wears >away those who might be honestly disputatious Oh? Did I deter or wear away Mitchell on the single bullet theory? Did I deter or wear away Joseph Baugher [sic?], who consistently posts interesting, reference-filled -- and well-formatted :) -- articles that tend to highlight the problems in the Warren Report? I don't think so, and I hope I don't deter or wear away _you_. If anything, _I've_ been worn away trying to correct all the faulty criticisms of the Warren Report, and from now on I'm going to try to limit myself to a) rebutting _new_ criticisms, b) extracting a consistent conspiracy theory, and c) participating in interesting meta-discussions such as this one. By the way, who is Paul Hagar? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 20:59:16 PST 1992 Article 9948 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Rifle in the Photo Date: 26 Jan 1992 04:12:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.005445.25453@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Jan25.225634.15869@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: rifle, discrepancies In article <1992Jan25.225634.15869@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >It seems that the Soviets suspected from the start that LHO was a fake-- >an intelligence agent posing as a defector. It would be irresponsible of them to assume otherwise. But it's not OUR job to keep Marxism-Leninism safe from capitalism, so why should WE share their assumption? >The Soviet authorities who interviewed him concluded that he had only >a shallow, superficial knowledge of Marxist theory, and was confused >or misinformed about many key points. If you've never met a confused or misinformed Marxist, you've led a pretty sheltered life. >For a true, dedicated Marxist revolutionary, political >correctness and ideologicaly conformity are VERY important. No >self-respecting Trotskyite reader of the *Militant* would ever be caught >dead reading the Moscow-line *Worker*. What evidence is there that Oswald was a Trotskyite? What evidence is there that Oswald had a sophisticated-enough grasp of Marxian schisms to see _any_ brand of Marxist as an enemy? You *just said* that the Soviets found him "confused or misinformed", so he was either a confused/misinformed Marxist or a confused/misinformed spy. Either way, his confusion and misinformedness perfectly explains the pamphlets in the photo. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Jan 25 21:00:35 PST 1992 Article 9950 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Detour onto Houston/Elm Date: 26 Jan 1992 04:22:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan18.024203.5293@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Jan25.231308.16103@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: For the last time: the WC did NOT say the missed shot hit the curb Keywords: questions In article <1992Jan25.231308.16103@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >According to the Warren Commission's report, LHO's first shot actually >missed the car entirely, hitting only a curb. Sigh. People keep saying this, and I keep correcting it. One of my biggest problems with the WC is that it refused to specify what happened to the missed shot. However, the WC did _not_ conclude that the Tague curb nick was caused by a direct impact from the missed shot, and in fact they cited the FBI's opinion that the mark was too slight to have been caused by an unimpeded rifle shot. (I would LOVE it if there were some good reason for the WC to say that the missed shot caused that mark, because that would explain where the missed shot went.) >I would have gotten a much better shot if I had selected a >different perch--perhaps on one of those pergolas which flank Main >rather than sitting up in that TSBD window. There's no way Oswald could have gotten a rifle down there without getting caught. Even if he'd tried to whip out his pistol down there, it would have been too easy for the crowd to stop him. In fact, that exact tactic has failed in presidential assassinations two or three times since the JFK killing. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 26 10:22:02 PST 1992 Article 9954 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Lee Harvey Oswald and "A. J. Hidell" Date: 26 Jan 1992 04:59:07 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 60 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan19.004405.25262@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Jan25.233437.16321@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Oswald was a leftist who clumsily tried to provoke rightists. Keywords: Fake IDs In article <1992Jan25.233437.16321@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >There are lots of reports of LHO having been seen in the company of >anti-Castro Cuban exiles. The famous Sylvia Odio testimony, for example, >describes a "Leon Oswald" showing up in the company of a bunch of Cuban >exiles. "Oswald" boasted effusively about his Marine Corps background >being useful in helping him to train people in modern weapons techniques, >for the violent overthrow of the Castro regime. Oswald had done that sort of thing before. In New Orleans he clumsily approached prominent anti-Castro Cuban Carlos Bringuier, trying to enlist himself in the anti-Castro cause. A few days later he was blatantly passing out pro-Castro literature on a nearby street and thus provoked a scuffle with Bringuier. He managed to parlay his arrest into two radio interviews and an interview with an FBI agent. If Oswald was a rightist posing as a leftist, instead of vice-versa, why did he make the clumsy and inevitably-publicly-known approach to Bringuier? >LHO had been seen with lots of people who were associated with political >movements on the right end of the spectrum. Some examples that come >to mind are David Ferrie, The only remotely credible story of this association is the bizarre sightings in Clinton, La. They are indeed puzzling. >Guy Banister, As far as I know, this story is based solely on Banister's secretary and her flip-flopping story told fifteen years after the fact. >George DeMohrenschildt, Marina introduced the two. Russian exiles are naturally rightist. >Ernesto Rodriguez, Who's he? >Carlos Bringuer, This is the guy that Oswald clumsily provoked, to get himself publicity. >and Antonio Veciana, The HSCA didn't believe this sleazeball's story, and neither do I. >I maintain that LHO's left-wing politics were bogus, existing merely for >show. As the Bringuier episode suggests, I think the reverse is the case. Oswald clumsily and futilely tried to penetrate the anti-Castro community, and later shot Kennedy after realizing (correctly) that JFK's anonymous shooting in Texas would be blamed on the militant right. But Oswald was no better at pulling off an anonymous presidential hit as he was at disrupting the anti-Castro community (or at knocking off rightist Gen. Walker). -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 26 11:15:01 PST 1992 Article 9967 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Mysterious Back Wound--Where Did the Bullet Go? Date: 26 Jan 1992 18:40:28 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 41 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jan25.224727.15733@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: What happened to the _other_ bullet in the Magic Vanishing Pair? Keywords: Osborne, bullet, disappearance In article <1992Jan25.224727.15733@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >According to Osborne, during the preparatory work for the JFK >autopsy, a reasonably clean, intact bullet fell out of the clothing >that was wrapped around JFK's body and rolled out onto the autopsy >table. He picked it up and turned it over to the FBI. Hurt doesn't even mention this in _Reasonable Doubt_. I guess I'm going to have to go dig up some more assassination books. >Captain John Stover, the commanding >officer of the U. S. Naval Medical School, did confirm that there was, >indeed, a whole bullet present that night at Bethesda. However, he >mentioned that he had always assumed that it was the one reported to >have been found at Parkland Well, does anyone know where that bullet officially was during the autopsy? >None of the other doctors present at the autopsy seem to remember any >bullet being found at any time during the autopsy. That's strange. >There does exist a receipt from the FBI for a "missile >recovered during the examination of the body", but there is the >possibility that this receipt refers to the bullet that was picked up >from the stretcher in Dallas and not the one found at Bethesda. I had never heard that theory. I think I read somewhere that one of the autopists got this receipt when he turned over a large bullet fragment. >Comments? Even if we believe Osborne, this only accounts for _one_ of the Magic Pair Of Vanishing Bullets. So what happened to the bullet that caused the _other_ wound in Kennedy's upper thorax? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 26 12:58:35 PST 1992 Article 9969 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Grassy Knoll theory bites the dust Date: 26 Jan 1992 18:51:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 15 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord I was re-reading material about the autopsy to try to check up on Joseph's story of Osborne finding an intact bullet, and guess what? Although all the conspiracy books I've read gloss over it, it turns out that the autopsy definitely DID reveal an entrance wound in the back of Kennedy's head. Yet in all the theorizing about a grassy knoll gunman, the conspiracy authors never even tried to explain what kind of bullet can leave an entrance wound almost the size of a fist and an exit wound the size of a bullet cross section! This is conclusive evidence that all the hits were fired from behind. If there WAS anyone firing from the grassy knoll, he must have been a much poorer marksman than Oswald. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 26 12:58:46 PST 1992 Article 9970 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 26 Jan 1992 19:12:47 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan26.030254.1937@jpradley.jpr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The "reasonable doubt" standard is a red herring In article <1992Jan26.030254.1937@jpradley.jpr.com> billm@jpradley.jpr.com (Bill Moss) writes: >>I knew that the most important question was >>whether Oswald did all the shooting > >I wonder why you feel that this is the most important question here: Mostly because if Oswald _didn't_ do all the shooting, a conspiracy is hard to rule out. ;) (I say "hard to rule out" because certain contributers to this newsgroup are only interested in what's not impossible, and it's not impossible that two lone gunmen fired at Kennedy at the same time.) >In the Watergate scandal did it really matter whether or not G. Gordon Liddy >was alone when he broke into the Watergate Complex (Yes, I know he wasn't)??? Yes, but in Watergate, the conspirators were on tape. >Even if Oswald acted alone, WHY he acted is THE question as far as I'm >concerned. A TV producer in the Mississippi town where I went to college was a reporter in New Orleans in the early 1960's. He interviewed Oswald when Oswald got himself arrested for scuffling with an anti-Castro Cuban to whom Oswald had clumsily tried to pass himself off as having similar sentiments. This TV producer thought that Oswald realized the assassination wold be blamed on the Right if he could do it without getting caught. This theory makes the most sense to me. >The attacker need only assert >that "we don't know the truth", But if he does so without even suggesting a possible alternative truth, he looks silly. And if his possible alternative truth is a sillier one than the Warren Commission's, well.... ;) >while the Warren Commission advocate must >show NOT ONLY what the truth is, but do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Says who? I don't know about you, but I only want to know what theory best explains all the evidence. I don't particularly care that the explanation is so absolutely compelling that the judicial system could use it to override some particular person's presumption of innocence -- ESPECIALLY if that person is dead. Anyone who holds an explanation to the reasonable-doubt standard is NOT interested in explaining ANYTHING, because they know damn well that their conspiracy theories can never DREAM of meeting such a standard. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Jan 26 12:58:55 PST 1992 Article 9971 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - Who did it and why? Date: 26 Jan 1992 19:15:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <1992Jan26.092358.2889@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jan26.092358.2889@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes: >but I wonder if the time hasn't come >for those of us who are convinced that a conspiracy occurred to get >down to the IMHO really interesting questions. Who should be on the >list of suspects as members of the conspiracy. How do the various >theories as to members and motives put forward by those such as >Garrison, Lane, Prouty, and others compare and contrast. Which >theories are complimentary and which are in conflict? Hear, hear! -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 30 20:31:50 PST 1992 Article 9998 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: He knew it all (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 27 Jan 1992 06:20:49 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <696489063.5@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <696489063.5@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >> BTW, what is the name of someone who died after naming Shaw? > >Ferrie, the key man in Garrison's trial, died of a brain >hemmorhage shortly after contacts with Jim Garrison ... with >an unsigned suicide note. Bzzzt. What evidence is there that Ferrie thought Shaw was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Jan 30 20:49:48 PST 1992 Article 9999 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll theory bites the dust Date: 27 Jan 1992 06:56:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <27249@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: An endless supply of gunmen with which to populate Dealey Plaza. In article <27245@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|Not at all. A Connally alignment analysis seems to be an obvious and >|crucial test to determine when he was struck, but I've never read a >|conspiracy author who even _mentioned_ such an analysis. > >That is incorrect. You have read Six Seconds in Dallas, which makes a good >case of what happend. I don't remember _Six Seconds_ doing an *alignment* analysis. I thought he concentrated on just the timing of Connally's reactions. >|I'm eager to >|get another good look at the crucial Zapruder frames, [...] > >See Six Seconds. Mmmm. Maybee you *haven't* read this yet, [...] No, you're right, I _have_ read it, but I don't own a copy. Also, it only gives black and white drawings of the original color frames. Does anyone know of a better place to find (possibly color) prints of the most important Zapruder frames? In article <27249@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|the autopsy definitely DID reveal an entrance wound in the >|back of Kennedy's head. > >Of course. Although some people such as Lifton think that it was put there. Hey -- I bet the conspirators put it there when they drilled to remove the grassy knoll bullet (which left no exit wound). >On the contrary, most people think that there was a shot to the head from the >rear and the front. Then where is the exit wound of the shot that came from the right front? >That is what most witness and phyiscal evidence points to. No. Precisely ZERO of the *physical* evidence points to a grassy knoll shot, with the possible exception of naive interpretations of the Kennedy's head motion. The problem with a grassy knoll shot is that it has Kennedy's head reacting so violently to a bullet that left no exit wound and yet was never found. (Wait -- don't tell me -- I know -- it was removed by the conspirators, along with the other two bullets left inside Kennedy's thorax. It's clear that the conspirators were into recycling lead. ;) Now, let me juxtapose a line from your previous article: >Also, most other conspiracy people just say that another >shooter got Connally from another position. >Two policemen and a secret service men run in *the same direction >* toward the grassy knoll. You conspiracy types seem to have an endless supply of gunmen with which to populate Dealey Plaza. The grassy knoll, the Dal-Tex building, the driver's seat of Kennedy's limo, underneath a manhole cover (cf. Jim Garrison), etc. In fact, in a panel discussion on CSPAN the other night, a conspiracy theorist casually assured us that there were more gunmen along Stemmons Freeway in case the Dealey Plaza Turkey Shoot came up empty! (BTW, Col. Fletcher Prouty was alive and well on the panel, so reports of his death are premature.) >Much of the time, policemen's testimony is enough >to put people away for decades. Give me the name of somebody who has been "put away for decades" on the testimony of a cop who stormed a fence and found no one behind it. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:06:27 PST 1992 Article 10359 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 1 Feb 1992 06:16:18 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 62 Message-ID: References: <2022@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Face it. You're wrong. In article <2022@sousa.ltn.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: >>Of _course_ he would keep the two live rounds. > > No one would do what Oswald was alleged to > have done to Tippit, remove 4 spent cartridges, leaving 2 live rounds, and > drop them leaving the scene. When a revolver needs to be reloaded, all 6 will > be ejected. Quote me the posting where I said that the two live rounds never left the cylinder. > You're trying to convince me that he saved the two live rounds? No, YOU are trying to convince ME that with four spent cartridges and two live bullets in his hand, Oswald would throw all six items away. > You're also trying to tell me he would throw the four spent > cartridges and reload while leaving the scene? No, I guess you're right, he would probably just saunter off and be ready to face the next set of cops with only two live rounds in his gun. After all, 40 minutes earlier he'd demonstrated that he could hit two people with the same bullet, so he probably thought they'd send four cops after him, and he could take them out with just two bullets. Yeah, he probably liked jingling those extra live bullets in his pockets so much that he wouldn't bother to put them in a useless place like, say, the revolver chambers holding those precious spent cartridges. > I never said the cartridges were planted, Mr. Holtz. What I did say is >that there is absolutely no way cartridges from a revolver would have >any physical characteristics that would enable someone to prove that these >spent cartridges were fired and/or chambered in any particular revolver >unless there was some deformity of the firing pin, in which case, had there >been such a deformity, it would have been mentioned as proof that those >shells were in fact from Oswalds revolver in the Warren and/or HSCA report >and no such thing was mentioned. Yes it was. Or at least, pro-conspiracy books _Crossfire_ and _Reasonable Doubt_ say it was, and do not even question the association between the cartridges and Oswald's revolver. The latter book says on p. 152: It is indisputable that the four cartridge cases said to have been pitched at the murder scene by the fleeing gunman were fired from the revolver found on Oswald at the time of his arrest some thirty minutes later. For the paragraph of this quote, Hurt cites WC vol. 3 pp. 466, 475-76, and HSCA vol. 7, pp. 357, 376. > Twenty plus years of working with and/or shooting all types of guns..... > > Maybe not an expert, but damn more knowledgeable than yourself obviously... More knowledgeable than the Warren Commission, the House Subcommittee on Assassinations, and all the conspiracy authors I've ever read? Face it. You're wrong. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:07:07 PST 1992 Article 10361 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 1 Feb 1992 06:57:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 91 Message-ID: References: <2022@sousa.ltn.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: No authority denies that the cartridges were fired from LHO's gun. In article strat@cis.ksu.edu (Steve W Davis) writes: >This is nothing that one has to be a balistics expert to realize. A six- >shot revolver carries six shots, all of which are used (in almost all >circumstances) before the weapon is reloaded. Yes. In fact, every time I've used a pistol, I've never removed empty cartridges from it except when all six cartridges had been used (or when I was unloading it to put it away). However, I've never had to worry about carrying a half-empty revolver into a potential showdown with cops looking for a cop-killer. Have you? >I find it VERY difficult to >believe that Oswald would shoot somebody four times in the middle of a >residential neighborhood (with witnesses), Well, no less than nine people saw him as the gunman. >then open his gun (in the middle >of a street), and remove four spent cartridges The descriptions I've read indicate that Oswald wasn't merely standing around while reloading: "The gunman started back toward Patton Avenue, ejecting the empty cartridge cases before reloading with fresh bullets." [_Reasonable Doubt_ quoting the Warren Commission] >(something which people don't >do after firing four rounds) Are you an expert on how/whether people usually reload after shooting a cop? >and dump them on the ground (which is something >people don't do if they don't want to get caught), I know of no fingerprints found on the cartridges, and your friend Mr. Busta has convinced himself that cartridges can't be traced to the pistol they were fired from. So why is dumping them a better idea than keeping the incriminating evidence on one's person? >and then leave with two >unspent cartridges in the firing chamber. Quote me the posting in which I said the two unspent cartridges never left the cylinder. It's far more likely that Oswald ejected all six, dropped the four empties, and then started reloading. >No one has put forth established proof that Oswald's gun killed anyone. On the contrary. No authority denies that the cartridges found at the scene were fired by Oswald's gun. And no authority denies that Oswald's pistol was of a kind that does not leave consistent ballistics markings on the bullets it fires, which explains why the bullets in Tippitt's body could not be conclusively linked to Oswald's pistol. >In fact, the evidence indicates that he probably never fired a weapon of any >kind on that day. Hardly. His hands tested positive for nitrates, but his cheek tested negative. >There is more than reasonable doubt in this subject, and if Oswald >had gone on trial for killing the police officer, he could not have >been convicted. >[...] >But there's no PROOF, son. Not enough to convict anyone. Well, thank you, Papa Prosecutor, but I'm not interested in convictions. I'm interested in explanations. By contrast, you seem only to be interested in red-herring standards of truth so high that you never have to form an opinion as to exactly what happened on Nov. 22. I'll close with some juicy examples of how you react when someone makes you face a theory that explains the evidence better than any other theory probably ever will: >I believe this entire thread is just another example of BRIAN HOLTZ's strong- >arm tactics. Here is a subject that he knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT, yet >he still thinks he can bully people into silence by using adverse persuasion >tactics. I not only applaud Paul's statement "Get a clue", I echo his >sentements exactly. >Yet another example of Brian Holtz >trying to cover up the truth. What amazes me is that he is actually able >to persuade people to believe his nonesense. >So, to put it in terms that Brian Holtz, an ignorant slut, can understand: -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:07:33 PST 1992 Article 10354 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Brian Holtz, you're no Paul Hagar. Date: 1 Feb 1992 04:34:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <696502905.2@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Name a promptly-on-the-record eyewitness to a grassy knoll gunman. In article <696502905.2@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > Sorry, but I really _am_ more interested in finding out the truth than > > in winning the argument. (I don't make the same guarantee about my > > behavior on talk.politics.theory et al. ;) > >So you are two different kinds of person? No. It's just that political theory and the Nov. 22 crime are two different kinds of things to have beliefs about. >> I consistently cite my sources. > >No you don't. Anyone who's been here very long knows your >track record. Indeed they do. Which is why I won't even bother to challenge you to cite an instance of me declining to back up a claim with a reference. >> I very often tentatively advance a datum that I >> remember from a book I no longer have access to, and I >> ask netters with such access to check my memory for me. > >You try to manipulate others to spend THEIR time doing >all the running around for you. What "running"? I specifically restricted my request to netters with _access_ to the book in question. I don't know about _you_, but it only takes _me_ thirty seconds or so to pick up a book and look something up in the index. > > * the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >You need to correct yourself again on this one. How so? Name an eyewitness who before the Warren Report was issued got himself on the record saying he saw a gunman at the grassy knoll. > > Just as many times I've challenged the conspiracy theorists to tell us > > what pieces of evidence they think is hardest for a conspiracy theory > > to explain. > >This is your main contribution. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists have ignored my challenge every time I make it. > > Their continuing silence tells all: their conspiracy > > theories explain everything, because their theories > > inflate when brought into contact with inconvenient evidence. They > > admit that their theories cannot be tested, and that the "truth" > > can never be known. > >You stand corrected again. Which of my excerpted statements needs "correcting"? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:07:44 PST 1992 Article 10355 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll theory bites the dust Date: 1 Feb 1992 04:38:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <27249@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <92027.093620WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <92027.093620WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >you are still evading the question a bout the way that JFK's head >goes when the shot blows it away. It moves back a nd to the left. Yes. Precisely in the opposite direction in which a shot going from the entrance wound to the exit wound would (and did) eject a jet of blood, brain, and bone. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:08:08 PST 1992 Article 10356 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll theory bites the dust Date: 1 Feb 1992 05:22:27 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 112 Message-ID: References: <27249@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: No entrance wound lines up with the grassy knoll. In article strat@cis.ksu.edu (Steve W Davis) writes: >>>|the autopsy definitely DID reveal an entrance wound in the >>>|back of Kennedy's head. > >The wound on the back of the head WAS an exit wound. The massive exit wound was in the right rear top of the head. The bullet-sized entrance wound was in the back of the head. >There is an argument that the entrance wound was not visable until >the body had been moved from Dallas. What is the basis for such an argument? >>Then where is the exit wound of the shot that came from the right front? > >Most of the skull in that region is shattered. Bits went flying for up to >twenty-five feet. Your exit wound would be scattered among the spectators. You still don't get it, do you? Even if you casually throw away the small entrance wound at the back of the head, you are left with a single massive wound on the right rear top of the head. How does a bullet fired from the grassy knoll (about 60 degrees to the right of Kennedy's nose) cause a nearly fist-sized entrance wound on the right rear top of the head, but not blow out the _back_ of the head? >>Precisely ZERO of the *physical* evidence points to a grassy >>knoll shot, with the possible exception of naive interpretations of >>the Kennedy's head motion. > >Oh please, read some Newtonian physics and get back to me on the issue of >his head motion. Why don't _you_ read the only physics paper ever published on the Kennedy head shot? >If I wanted to assasinate Kennedy, and I was going to do it in Dealy plaza, >I would have followed a course of action as was basically outlined in >Stone's movie. But if you wanted to assassinate Kennedy, and you worked in the TSBD, you would have done it like Oswald did it. >Police officers and secret service agents thought >the shots were fired from the front. Witnesses believed that they heard >shots from the front. Different witnesses heard different things. The important thing is that none of the entrance wounds created that day could have been caused by a shot from the grassy knoll. They don't even come close. >At least one SUSPECT was placed in the grassy knoll >at the time of the shooting. Who? >Dallass physicians concluded that the head >shot originated from the front. Which physicians? >What more do you need? There is more than >reasonable doubt here. I'm not interested in "reasonable doubt". I'm not interested in whether Oswald would have been convicted of Kennedy's killing. What I'm interested in is knowing what theory best explains Kennedy's killing. >> The problem with a grassy knoll shot is >>that it has Kennedy's head reacting so violently to a bullet that left >>no exit wound and yet was never found. > >The skull was shattared. Shoot a head-sized pumkin, watch it splatter all >over the countryside, and then show me an exit wound. Build a pumpkin out of bone, wrap it tightly in muscle and scalp, and I'll show you exactly where the entrance and exit wounds are. >>You conspiracy types seem to have an endless supply of gunmen with >>which to populate Dealey Plaza. The grassy knoll, the Dal-Tex >>building, > >Those are where *I* would have placed shooters if I was going to commit the >crime. Oswald didn't have the easy access you seem to think you would have had to both those locations and the extra "shooters" to fill them with. >> In fact, in a panel discussion on >>CSPAN the other night, a conspiracy theorist casually assured us that >>there were more gunmen along Stemmons Freeway in case the Dealey Plaza >>Turkey Shoot came up empty! > >Who cares? Only morons [...] bother to call into CSPAN. I said "panel discussion". The conspiracy theorist I mentioned was one of the _panelists_. Thanks for assuring me that he was a moron. >>Give me the name of somebody who has been "put away for decades" on >>the testimony of a cop who stormed a fence and found no one behind it. > >He found LOTS of people, many of him wound up dead before the conspiracy >trial. Name one. The only dead witness from behind the fence that I know of is railroad switchman Lee Bowers, who was _not_ found behind the fence by cops rushing it. (Bowers was up in his railroad switching tower.) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:08:34 PST 1992 Article 10357 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll theory bites the dust Date: 1 Feb 1992 05:45:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <27249@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <27348@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The only witnesses to a gun in operation point to the TSBD. In article <27348@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|Then where is the exit wound of the shot that came from the right front? > >It is as the Parkland Doctors said it was, out the back. The autopsy photos show the back of the head to have only a single, small wound. The massive wound is on the right rear top. >|No. Precisely ZERO of the *physical* evidence points to a grassy >|knoll shot > >There were massive footprints in the area, It was a muddy parking lot. What do you expect? >several people were arrested, None had a gun. >and there were the fake Secret Service agents telling people to move away >from the area. That's indeed odd, but it's not physical evidence of a grassy knoll shot. >There are metal fragments and other evidence indicating that >the front head shot was caused by a dum dum bullet, Says who? Even FMJ rounds can fragment when fired into a skull. >and there are >pieces of heavy brain parts ejected in the opposite direction of the Knoll. Just as much matter was ejected opposite the TSBD -- along with at least two bullet fragments. >And of course, the head goes up and to the left, which is exactly where you >think it would go if hit from the knoll area. Or if a bullet from the TSBD had ejected a jet of matter forward and to the right -- exactly the path through the entrance and exit wounds on Kennedy's head. >As for the witness testimony, i am glad you didn't even try to refute it. Actually, the only witnesses who that weekend reported seeing a gunman, or hearing a gun being operated (as opposed to merely thinking that gunshots came from a certain direction), all indicated the TSBD sniper's nest. >||Much of the time, policemen's testimony is enough >||to put people away for decades. >| >|Give me the name of somebody who has been "put away for decades" on >|the testimony of a cop who stormed a fence and found no one behind it. > >Are you serious? The point I was making is that usually a policeman's >testimony is enough to put people away. Sure, WHEN the policeman actually sees SOMEONE DO SOMETHING. But a policeman hopping off his motorcycle and running to a fence with no one behind it is not enough evidence to put ANYONE away for ANY amount of time. >Now, it is discounted because >it doesn't fit a cover-up investigation. Get a clue! It's "discounted" because no one was FOUND behind the fence! Here's a hint: tell us the name of someone who SHOULD have been "put away for decades" on the basis of that cop running toward the grassy knoll. If your next posting doesn't give us such a name, we can only conclude that there is nothing unusual about his testimony NOT putting anyone away on this occasion. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:08:52 PST 1992 Article 10358 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll theory bites the dust Date: 1 Feb 1992 05:53:10 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <32952@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Where did the other bullet go? In article <32952@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com (Cougar) writes: >>I was re-reading material about the autopsy to try to check up on >>Joseph's story of Osborne finding an intact bullet [...] > > They did find a bullet, didn't they. That pretty much blows away the >`single-bullet' fantasy..... Check your math. Not only is Osborne's story unsubstantiated, but even if true it only identifies _one_ of the two bullets that had to be inside Kennedy's upper thorax for the single-bullet theory to be false. Where did the other bullet go? >>Although all the conspiracy books I've read gloss over it, it turns >>out that the autopsy definitely DID reveal an entrance wound in the >>back of Kennedy's head. > > I see..... and where are the autopsy photos showing this? There are none. Sure there are. _Reasonable Doubt_ reproduces a "drawing of the actual autopsy photograph of the head wound". The HSCA chief forensics expert pointed to the entrance wound in this drawing on "Nightline" just last week. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:10:31 PST 1992 Article 10362 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Head shot fragment destinations (was Re: Stone's _JFK_ ...) Date: 1 Feb 1992 07:07:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <32901@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <32901@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: >>No, no, no. You are simply wrong that the Warren Commission ever >>claimed that an unimpeded rifle shot hit the curb. If you think >>you're right, why not quote the Warren Report for us? > > I refuse to do your legwork for you. I read just that. Don't believe me? >Look into it yourself..... You don't believe me; why should I believe you? Maybe my standards are higher than yours, but I don't claim that a source says something unless I can back it up. >>> Let's see. Copper is much harder than lead, yet the copper jacketing >>> shatters and sprays all over the place after hitting JFK in the head but >>> a chunk of lead from that bullet remains large enough >> >>Size has nothing to do with; it's kinetic energy. I guarantee you >>that you cannot throw even a whole bullet through a windshield. > > What the hell are you talking about? Your last statement doesn't even > begin to address my premise.... Sure it does. Is not your premise that since the hard copper shattered, the soft lead could not remain in a "large enough" chunk to put a hole in a windshield? What I said was that just about any size fragment of lead could put a hole in a windshield, if the fragment is moving fast enough. By the same token, even a whole bullet isn't big enough to go through a windshield if it's only moving at throwing speeds. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:10:44 PST 1992 Article 10363 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Missing/Questionable Evidence Date: 1 Feb 1992 07:15:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Jan27.165842.26392@cs.cornell.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I'm not sure Ms. Oliver gave any film to the FBI. In article <1992Jan27.165842.26392@cs.cornell.edu> csuley@cs.cornell.edu (Christopher Suley) writes: >1. Where is the film taken by Beverly Oliver ( the Babushka Lady )? > This film would show Kennedy's limo with the 'grassy knoll' in > the background. It was taken from her by someone who has been > identified in _High_Treason_ as an FBI agent. > At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy zealot, why was this > film taken away? It's not a given that the film was taken by the FBI in the first place. The FBI denies that it was, and Ms. Oliver at the time was a 19-year-old employee at a striptease club. What were the circumstances under which she identified the man who supposedly took the film? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:11:27 PST 1992 Article 10364 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Receipt of missile from James Humes Date: 1 Feb 1992 07:23:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <33029@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Who says it's more than a bullet fragment? In article <33029@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > From: Francis X. O'Neill, Jr., Agent FBI > James X. Sibert, Agent FBI > > To: Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer U.S. Naval Medical School, > National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. > > 1. We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missle (sic) recovered by > Commander James J. Humes, USN on this date. > > (signatures of both FBI agents above) > > The mis-spelling of missile is in the original. Oh well, so much for > the `single-bullet' fantasy..... To my knowledge, none of the three parties say the "missile" was anything more than a bullet fragment. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:11:39 PST 1992 Article 10365 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Was Bush in on it? Date: 1 Feb 1992 07:43:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <13178@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13178@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >Some interesting revelations from Lane's "Plausible Denial" > >On the day following the assassination, J Edgar Hoover sent a memo >noting that Mr. George Bush of the CIA was briefed in Dallas on the >assassination. [...] The CIA responded that it was a George Winston >Bush, not George Herbert Walker Bush, that Hoover's memo referred to. >Lane located George Winston Bush. At the time of the assassination, >George W. Bush was a 22 year-old GS-5 clerk with the CIA. You left out the most important datum: where was George Winston Bush on Nov. 22-23? In Dallas, or not? >Other interesting bits: George DeMohrenschildt (if you'll recall, >Oswald's white RUssian friend, and probably CIA handler) had George >Bush's address and phone number in his little black book. Does Lane give a source for this claim? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:14:38 PST 1992 Article 10369 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 1 Feb 1992 08:17:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <13196@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I did NOT ask for a "complete scenario"! In article <13196@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>No, my problem is that they fail to >>advance a coherent theory of their own that explains even a fraction >>of the evidence that is explained by the Warren Commission's theory. >> >>Tell us: how many shots were fired, by whom, >>from where? Who killed officer Tippitt? Who was in a position to >>order Ruby to kill Oswald? What government officials were in on the >>conspiracy before Nov. 22 (as opposed to just being in on a cover-up)? > >it is absurd to say "either give me the complete scenario or >believe the Warren Commission". I can't give you the complete >scenario. Did I ask for a "complete scenario"? No. I just want a coherent theory that explains anywhere near as much of the evidence as the Warren Commission's does. Can't you answer even a _single_ one of the questions excerpted above? Not even one? Come on! >Maybe if we had access to all the FBI and CIA files, >and the relevant stuff hasn't been destroyed, we would be able >to reconstruct what really happened. Maybe if there is someone >high up enough still living they could tell us if they would. >But it is likely we will never find out the whole story. Not "likely"? Listen to yourself! You're waiting for the government or a conspirator to confess, and until they do you'll refuse to believe anything. Your attitude can only be described as religious faith. You're waiting for divine Revelation from your omnipotent, omniscient God (the Conspirators), and at no point will you ever admit that it's not going to happen. >But your attitude that no one has a right to doubt the WC unless they >can give you a complete scenario is one of the most stupid things >I've ever heard. The stupidity you hear is not coming from MY direction. I NEVER said I wanted a "complete scenario". I merely want one that takes some fraction of the evidence explained by the Warren Commission, and says: "this part of the evidence is probably true and here's how I explain it, while that part of the evidence is probably a conspiracy fabrication and here's why I think so". Why is that so hard to do? Why? Why? Why? >We know enough to know the WC was a whitewash. Bullshit. >We know that the FBI and the CIA have lied and covered up to >protect the official view. The FBI and the CIA have done no more lying in this case than they do in _any_ case. >I want to know, and would like the whole case to be reopened and >*all* documents unclassified. Tell us, Gordon: under what circumstances would you be willing to say "well, it looks like all the the documents have been declassified; let's go through them and get to the bottom of this"? Or is it true that you would _never_ say that, because your religion forbids it? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 11:15:52 PST 1992 Article 10371 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - Umbrella man Date: 1 Feb 1992 08:39:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 62 Message-ID: References: <696834046.1@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Was the conspiracy's bullet budget low? In article <696834046.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >An umbrella is one of the most >accurate covert weapons at the range of Kennedy, if not >THE most accurate of covert weapons. Well, if such a weapon was used in Dealey Plaza, it wasn't very accurate. That is, there is ZERO physical evidence that Kennedy was struck by anything from the umbrella. >(Notably, a Russian defector was shot in London by a >Soviet umbrella gun in the 1970's, and he barely survived >the poison in the dart, Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that he was _poked_ by the _tip_ of an umbrella, lodging a tiny poison-filled ball in him. Also, I think he was an emigre from one of the Warsaw Pact satellites, and not from Russia. >the dark-complected man is holding something that looks >like a walkie talkie to his mouth, with what seems to be >an antenna jutting out from behind his head. This is in >a photo taken by Jim Towner. In what book can I see this photo? _Crossfire_ mentions it but does not reproduce it. I hope this is easier to see than the "Badge Man", the Oswald photo fakery, the shooting done by the driver, etc., etc. >appeared before the HSCA, he told a story that did not fit >the Zapruder film or the other photos that included him -- >what he did, what he did and did not see, and where he went >thereafter. So he couldn't exactly remember what happened during those few seconds -- so what? The HSCA still believed him, did they not? The HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy, so why would they believe the umbrella guy? >When asked why he pumped the umbrella, he said >he did it to heckle President Kennedy. Yes. He said somebody had told him that this was a sign of disrespect. >I should add some other interpretations. Some people >believe that "umbrella man" was signalling someone about the >position of Kennedy (a guy in the sewer, What a joke. Even David Wright said we shouldn't waste bandwidth on this nonsense. > or elsewhere, or whether to keep shooting in case the shots from >behind were unsuccessful What, was the conspiracy's bullet budget low? Give me a break; even a high school drop-out like Oswald knows that you keep shooting at a target until he receives an obviously mortal wound. That's why Oswald didn't stop shooting until Kennedy's head exploded in his scope, and that's why Oswald bent down and pumped one last slug into Tippitt's head. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 1 14:22:07 PST 1992 Article 10382 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Part II, CIA Agent Testifies on Her Role in the Kennedy Assassination Date: 1 Feb 1992 19:34:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Jan27.185712.6448@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: That's it? Keywords: CIA operative reveals her involvement in the Kennedy assassination In article <1992Jan27.185712.6448@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes: >The following excerpts from the book, PLAUSIBLE DENIAL by Mark Lane >[...] >The following is the sworn testimony of Marita Lorenz, the ex-lover of Fidel >Castro whom the CIA had convinced was in mortal danger (along with her child) >from the wrath of Castro. She later worked with E. Howard Hunt and Frank >Sturgis in Operation 40, which was a CIA attempt to discredit and possibly >assassinate Castro. >[...] >Q: Where did you see the person you identified as Jack Ruby? > >A: After Eduardo left, a fellow came to the door and it was Jack Ruby, > about an hour later, forty-five minutes to an hour later. > >Q: When you say Eduardo, who are you referring to? > >A: E. Howard Hunt. That's it? The whole of the evidence that Hunt was part of a conspiracy was this one woman claiming over a decade later that Hunt took guns to Dallas that were allegedly later picked up by Jack Ruby? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 2 09:06:00 PST 1992 Article 10387 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 1 Feb 1992 22:23:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <32816@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <13195@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Did Sgt. Hill explicitly say he saw automatic ejector marks? In article <13195@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >The first officer on the scene who found the cartridges noted the >automatic ejector marks on them. Where did you read this? I thought the reason Sgt. Hill thought the gunman had an automatic was because he didn't realize that the gunman had explicitly removed the empties from his revolver. >He marked them with his initials for evidence. No, he told Officer Poe to mark them. >Later, the cartridges produced by the police did >not have the initials At different times, Poe has wavered in his certainty that he marked the cartridges. But he still thinks the cartridges are the ones that he saw at the scene. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 2 09:06:10 PST 1992 Article 10388 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK Date: 1 Feb 1992 22:37:31 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes: > 2. O'Donnell claims that the bubble top for the limo was not > bullet proof and that it was meant to be used if there was rain. > Is this true and was rain forcasted for Dallas that day? The bubble top was not bulletproof. It had been raining in Dallas, and the midday sunshine was a surprise. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 2 15:46:44 PST 1992 Article 10400 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Fingering of Oswald as the Assassin Date: 2 Feb 1992 17:39:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 50 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb2.052426.24256@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The Oak Cliff library raid could be why Tippitt was in the area. Keywords: JFK, assassination, Dallas police, questions In article <1992Feb2.052426.24256@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >However, it took the police about 40 minutes before they found the >"sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Not surprising, since only the rifle cartridges on the floor indicated whence the shots were fired. >A couple of them >show evidence of boxes behind the window being moved around, >indicating that SOMEONE was still up there several minutes after the >assassination. Sigh. Book title and page number, please. Is the "evidence" in these photos any clearer than the the "evidence" of the Badge Man rifleman, or the fakery in the backyard Oswald photos, or the driver shooting Kennedy, or Kennedy grabbing his throat, etc.? >There seems to me to be a pattern here. Someone seems to have been >wandering around Dealy Plaza, deliberately spreading "disinformation" >to the police in order to deflect attention away from the true >assassins and focus it on Lee Harvey Oswald. Hardly. Of all the "disinformation" you say was being spread, all but one were stories that I know correspond precisely with what nameable witnesses would later say they saw. (The only exception is the physical description of Oswald; I don't know if any witnesses were in a position of being able to give it that early.) Is there any evidence that the police weren't getting their information from the very bystanders who would later report the same information in their eyewitness testimony? >However, there is some evidence that the DPD was out looking for LHO >BEFORE this "roll call" [...] >Shortly after 1:00 PM, Dallas policemen stormed the Oak >Cliff branch of the Dallas Public Library. Unable to locate who they >were looking for, they quickly left. LHO was a frequent visitor to >that library. THAT'S your "evidence" that the police were looking for Oswald? Pretty flimsy. But more importantly, what happened to the conspiracy theorists' idea that there were no other police in Oak Cliff at the time, and that there was no reason for Tippitt to be there? What is the source for the report of the library raid? If anything, the revelation of legitimate police business occuring in Oak Cliff "shortly after 1:00" tends to _confirm_ Oswald's guilt in Tippitt's murder. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 2 15:47:35 PST 1992 Article 10401 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 2 Feb 1992 17:56:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 48 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb2.050139.23520@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: What exactly is Victoria Adams' story? Keywords: JFK assassination, LHO, TSBD, timing problems In article <1992Feb2.050139.23520@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >The WC estimated that this encounter with LHO on the second floor of >the TSBD took place approximately 75 to 90 seconds after the shots >[...]could he have moved the boxes >in his sniper's nest out of the way (there are a couple of photograps >of the TSBD window taken 15 and 30 seconds after the assassination, >indicating that some box movement DID take place) The photographs I've seen of this are extremely unconvincing. >ran all the way over to the other side of the warehouse, stashed the >rifle under some heavy boxes, I've heard both "behind" and "under". What's the deal here? If "under", was any of the gun sticking out from underneath? >then ran all the way downstairs to the second floor lunch >room, purchased a Coke, and drank a few swigs What is the evidence that the Coke had been purchased or drank from AFTER the shooting? Remember, Oswald had been eating his lunch there before the shooting. He could have just walked in and picked up the Coke he left there. >Baker did not report that LHO was out of breath, as would >be expected for such a rapid run. If MY life depended on not appearing to be out of breath for a few seconds, you can bet I'd be able to pull it off. >Nor did LHO appear to be unduly >startled, certainly not any more than would ordinarily be expected if >a cop came up to you and shoved a gun in your stomach. Same story. Judging whether someone seems to be Presidential-assassin- facing-cop startled versus innocent-bystander-facing-gun startled isn't really a science. >Victoria Adams, a TSBD employee, was on the stairs at the time of >LHO's supposed downstairs dash and reported that she didn't hear >anyone running downstairs. What is her exact story? Was she just standing in the stairwell the whole time? On what floor was she standing? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 5 09:44:46 PST 1992 Article 10529 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 5 Feb 1992 06:37:50 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Mr. Busta's in too deep to admit he's wrong. In article <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > Do yourself, and everyone else in this forum a favor. Pick the gun expert > of your choice. An EXPERT. And ask him if a REVOLVER, not a semi-auto pistol > leaves ANY identifiable marks on the cartridge that would attribute the spent > shell to the revolver in which it was fired. Not a SINGLE "gun expert" is on record as doubting the conclusion that the cartridges were fired by Oswald's revolver. Not a SINGLE assassination author, pro-conspiracy or otherwise, is on record as doubting this conclusion. Instead, all we have is YOU saying you've fired pistols for twenty years, and so therefore without exception everyone who has investigated this conclusion is wrong, and you're right. Well, I'm not interested in showing up every backwoods armchair ballistics expert who disagrees with me. No, I'm only interested in evaluating and explaining the evidence and the TRULY expert testimony about it. I'm simply not interested in you telling us how many times you've fired a gun. Save it for rec.guns. In article <33145@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > shot a cop. In his getaway, he ejects all six, throws the 4 spent casings > after weeding through the lot for the two live rounds "Weeding"? If you think it's some big task to separate two live rounds from four empty casings, then you and all the blind or uncoordinated people in the world will just have remain mystified by Oswald's amazing feat. >>YOU are trying to convince ME that with four spent cartridges and >>two live bullets in his hand, Oswald would throw all six items away. > > You're damn straight he would....... Indicted by his own words. Case closed. >>No, I guess you're right, he would probably just saunter off and be >>ready to face the next set of cops with only two live rounds in his >>gun. > > No, I don't believe he would. He would have ejected all six, stuck them in > his pocket, throw them down a drain sewer, somebody's trash can, anything > but leave them at the scene Why? According to the only gun expert in the world (you), it's impossible to trace spent cartridges to the revolver they were fired from. Or do REAL gun experts know something that you and Oswald don't? >....and reload when he had a chance to, someplace > where he could hide and take a break from the escape..... So in addition to being unable to trivially separate live rounds from empty cartridges, you're also telling us that you can't walk and reload a revolver at the same time? > I be interested in knowing how they came to this conclusion because a > revolver does not mark the shell casings in any way that would make them > attributable to any particular weapon. That is FACT Mr. Holtz, ask ANY > gun expert...... I'm more interested in knowing what goes on in your mind when you juxtapose the two ideas that a) every gun expert that the WC and the conspiracy authors could find says the cartridges were fired from Oswald's revolver, and b) "ANY gun expert" knows it is a "FACT" that revolvers don't mark shell casings in any way that could make them attributable to any particular weapon. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 5 17:48:24 PST 1992 Article 10547 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify Date: 5 Feb 1992 18:13:41 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 93 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb5.130253.9289@engage.pko.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Give us a name. In article <1992Feb5.130253.9289@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: >>Not a SINGLE "gun expert" is on record as doubting the conclusion that >>the cartridges were fired by Oswald's revolver. Not a SINGLE >>assassination author, pro-conspiracy or otherwise, is on record as >>doubting this conclusion. > > Wrong. I've questioned a few gun experts and have read a few authors > who do question just that. What "gun experts"? What are their names? Are they professional *ballistics* experts? What authors? > Everyone who has investigated this conclusion is not wrong. Not everyone > who has investigated this casing business agrees..... I've asked you over and over for the name of an expert that *doesn't* agree. If you know such a name, why not give it to us? >>"Weeding"? If you think it's some big task to separate two live >>rounds from four empty casings, then you and all the blind or >>uncoordinated people in the world will just have remain mystified by >>Oswald's amazing feat. > > That's right, `weeding'. When he allegedly just shot a cop, I find it > rather difficult to believe he would save two live rounds from the bunch > and toss the empties while making his getaway. Toss them all or wait `til > a relatively safe place to stop, hide and reload. I notice you (understandably) *still* can't force yourself to say that picking out the two live rounds was any difficult kind of task. Instead, you keep chanting about how one needs to "stop" to reload a revolver, and how a quiet residential street is somehow not a "safe" place to reload while hurrying through. >>According to the only gun expert in the world (you), it's >>impossible to trace spent cartridges to the revolver they were fired >>from. Or do REAL gun experts know something that you and Oswald don't? > > Mr. Holtz, I'm beginning to believe I'm attempting to deal with a > `double-digit' IQ here. You don't toss the casings because 1, there > may be fingerprints on them that are traceable to the shooter, No such prints were found. Funny how the thing you worry about did nothing to implicate Oswald, while the thing you say can't happen turned out to indisputably tie Oswald's gun to the murder. > 2, Oswald had a .38 special and with .38 special cartridges found > that would be circumstantial evidence of his guilt, Oh yeah, knowing it was a .38 would have sent them on a beeline straight for Oswald's door. (And *I* have a "double digit I.Q."?) > and 3, you just don't go around > committing murder and leaving a trail of evidence that may lead to > your door if there was in fact some sort of unique defect which would > pin the casings to your revolver. Get a clue: if Oswald could have got away, they never would have *had* his revolver to do any tests with. No, Oswald's biggest problem at the time was the prospect of facing angry cops with only two live rounds in his revolver. His second biggest problem was the nine people who saw him as the gunman at the scene of the shooting. Fingerprints and microscopic hammer defects were the least of his worries. > Of course you can walk and reload. But we're talking about someone > who allegedly just shot a cop Ah, so only people who have just shot cops are unable to walk and reload. >and was in the process of alluding capture.... Nobody on that street was stupid enough to be trying to "capture" Oswald. > how DID they come to the conclusion that the shells did come > from Oswalds' revolver? You don't seem to be able to answer this either > other that to say `experts said they matched'. No, I go further, and say that I know of no expert who doubts they matched. Then you come along saying that in twenty years of revolver-firing you've never noticed any unique markings, and you expect me to work up a Ballistics 101 course for you. Sorry, but I'm not interested in educating you. I'm interested in evaluating and explaining the evidence and the truly expert testimony on it. If you have some new evidence, or an actual ballistics expert who says that every other investigator of this is wrong, then I'll pay attention. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 5 17:51:22 PST 1992 Article 10523 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Brian Holtz, you're no Paul Hagar. Date: 5 Feb 1992 05:00:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <697208588.4@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Bzzzt. Try again. Who said at the time that he "saw a gunman"? In article <697208588.4@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > Name an eyewitness who before the Warren Report was issued got > > himself on the record saying he saw a gunman at the grassy knoll. > >The most clear cut was Sam M. >Holland. The Warren Commission Report itself mentions >part of his testimony that he heard gunfire and saw >"a puff of smoke" from the fence. Bzzzt. Did he saw he "saw a gunman"? No. >And, of course, there are all those pictures of people >running towards the point on the fence where many people >say they heard shots and/or saw a puff of smoke. Bzzzt. Did any of them say he "saw a gunman"? No. >This isn't stuff that came up only later. Give us a break. Give YOU a break? I asked you a simple question about whether anyone said at the time that they "saw a gunman", and you typed in over a dozen lines while COMPLETELY FAILING to name any such person. What a joke. >>>> Just as many times I've challenged the conspiracy theorists to tell us >>>> what pieces of evidence they think is hardest for a conspiracy theory >>>> to explain. > > >> This is your main contribution. > > > Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists have ignored > > my challenge every time I make it. > >Obviously, you have your blinders on heavy duty. Then why don't _you_ take them off for me, by telling us of even a _single_ piece of evidence that you find it hard for a conspiracy theory to explain? Better yet, quote the posting in which you already did so, and _really_ make me look like a fool. (Of course, you can't.) >But you seem to be after the masses and image. Well, truth _does_ have a certain mass appeal, and truthfulness is usually good for the image. That's not my fault. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 5 17:51:49 PST 1992 Article 10525 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll theory really strongly bites the dust :) Date: 5 Feb 1992 05:09:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <697208588.5@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I was wrong. In article <697208588.5@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > Actually, the only witnesses who that weekend reported seeing a > > gunman, or hearing a gun being operated (as opposed to merely thinking > > that gunshots came from a certain direction), all indicated the TSBD > > sniper's nest. > >Bzzt. [...] saw smoke at the fence after hearing the shot. Touche. I forgot about that. I'm not sure how much stock to put in such reports, since modern ammunition hardly ever makes gunsmoke. >BTW, what do you mean by "hearing a gun being operated (as >opposed to merely thinking that gunshots came from a certain >direction)? I'm referring specificially to the fifth floor TSBD employees who heard shell casings striking the floor above them. > > Sure, WHEN the policeman actually sees SOMEONE DO SOMETHING. But a > > policeman hopping off his motorcycle and running to a fence with no > > one behind it is not enough evidence to put ANYONE away for ANY amount > > of time. > >What about the railroad worker report of the guy running >back and handing something of the general shape of a gun off >to another person? What was his name? I've only heard of the deaf guy who more than a decade later started telling such a story. >There's a clear frame of the presidential limousine just >entering the Triple Underpass, and a puff of smoke is >clearly visible hanging in front of trees on the knoll >exactly where Holland and ther other railroad workers >claimed to have seen it. Where can I get a look at the picture? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 5 18:04:33 PST 1992 Article 10527 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 5 Feb 1992 05:46:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <13196@pitt.UUCP> <13277@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Tomorrow never comes. In article <13277@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Did I ask for a "complete scenario"? No. I just want a coherent >>theory that explains anywhere near as much of the evidence as the >>Warren Commission's does. >> >Several authors have proposed scenarios like what you are asking for. >I don't that sort of thing to be that useful. Of course not. It would make you face up to the comparative explanatory power of the Warren Report. >I'm sure you've read >Scheim's book. He gives a good scenario that the Mafia did it. I haven't read his book. How many bullets, fired from where, does he say caused the Kennedy and Connally wounds? >>>Maybe if we had access to all the FBI and CIA files, >>>and the relevant stuff hasn't been destroyed, [...] >> >>You're waiting for the government >>or a conspirator to confess, and until they do you'll refuse to >>believe anything. [...] >>You're waiting for divine Revelation from your omnipotent, >>omniscient God (the Conspirators), and at no point will you ever admit >>that it's not going to happen. >> >You are crazy, and can't read, to boot. I said "it is likely we will never >find out the whole story" and you say "at no point will you ever admit >that it's not going to happen". Clearly I just did admit it. Before you start tossing around charges of craziness and illiteracy, you should try to figure out the difference between "believing something" and "find[ing] out the whole story". I did NOT ask you to admit we'll never "find out the whole story". I DID ask you to admit that you will ALWAYS refuse to believe ANYTHING because you refuse to believe ANYTHING until you have something you can never have: "access to all the FBI and CIA files", including any destroyed ones. Like I said, you will refuse to believe ANYTHING until your Conspiracy bogeyman comes out from under the bed tomorrow and confesses. Well, tomorrow never comes. >>"this part of the evidence is probably true and here's how I explain >>it, while that part of the evidence is probably a conspiracy >>fabrication and here's why I think so". Why is that so hard to do? >> >Where have you been the past two weeks? What have I been doing >all this time if not saying what part of the evidence I don't >accept? That's not the same thing. I don't just want to hear what evidence you think my theory doesn't explain. I want you to take a chunk of the evidence and consistently tell us how the events produced (or the conspiracy fabricated) that evidence. >>Tell us, Gordon: under what circumstances would you be willing to say >>"well, it looks like all the the documents have been declassified; >>let's go through them and get to the bottom of this"? Or is it true >>that you would _never_ say that, because your religion forbids it? > >Don't be a dope! How can I tell you that in advance? Look, I'm asking you to describe ANY METAPHYSICALLY POSSIBLE set of circumstances under which you would be willing to say the above. Why? Because the only possible such circumstances would amount to a Second Coming of the Conspirators, and reveal your religious faith for what it is. You see, I'm trying to get you to realize your current excuse for not believing ANTHING -- namely, that all possible evidence isn't yet in -- will be valid ETERNALLY. So I can't help but be tempted to conclude that you don't WANT to believe anything. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 5 18:04:45 PST 1992 Article 10528 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 5 Feb 1992 06:00:56 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <33151@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <33151@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > Who's the religious zealot here, Mr. Holtz? Your Gods are obviously the > Warren Commision, whose report you have not even read from what I can tell > of your posts. Correct. Well, I do remember flipping through a few times in the high school library. Which proves a point: I don't treat the Warren Report as any sort of revealed truth, and I don't treat the Warren Commissioners as some kind of divinely inspired seers. I simply evaluate the evidence that their (and others') research produced. In fact, until this winter I thought a conspiracy equally likely as not, and until Christmastime I had thought the single bullet theory to be preposterous. >>>We know that the FBI and the CIA have lied and covered up to >>>protect the official view. >> >>The FBI and the CIA have done no more lying in this case than they do >>in _any_ case. > > And by law, they are not to lie in any case. Oh, and so you, having been *shocked* by the FBI and CIA *actually lying*, can only conclude that they must have been covering up a conspiracy? I'm curious -- how do you know when to take a Paranoia Pill, and when to take a Naivete Pill? Or are they just fast-acting? :) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 6 09:38:34 PST 1992 Article 10562 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 6 Feb 1992 01:52:05 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb5.131439.9493@engage.pko.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb5.131439.9493@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: > But why lie in this case if they have nothing to hide? What would be > their motive to lie if they weren't somehow involved or trying to > cover something up? Ok, I'll bite. What "lies" do you have in mind? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 6 09:39:00 PST 1992 Article 10564 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 6 Feb 1992 02:27:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 65 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Feb5.045920.11236@cbnewse.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: List #5 of the evidence my theory doesn't explain. Where's your list? In article <1992Feb5.045920.11236@cbnewse.cb.att.com> mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson) writes: >>Did I ask for a "complete scenario"? No. I just want a coherent >>theory that explains anywhere near as much of the evidence as the >>Warren Commission's does. > >What difference does it make. Someone, and many have, could post >evidence after evidence and you casually discount it as untrue seemingly >without thought. No. What has been happening here is that people are posting "evidence after evidence" that they think *contradicts* the Warren Commission's theory. I see NOBODY posting any evidence in support of an ALTERNATIVE theory (conspiracy or otherwise). This latter kind of posting is what I *want* to see, but which never seems to happen. >You, like the Warren Commission, discount any evidence that doesn't >support the theory you have subscribed to. You must be new to this newsgroup. At least four times I have listed the evidence that I think is NOT explained by the Warren Commission's theory: * the fake "Secret Service" men in Dealy Plaza * the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen * the Oswald sightings with Ferrie in Clinton, La. * the Rosa Cheramie prediction of the assassination * the "duplicate Oswald" sightings * the missing Winchester cartridge at the scene of Tippitt's killing * reports of an intact bullet being found at the Kennedy autopsy Many more times I have asked any conspiracy theorist to tell us a SINGLE piece of evidence that he thinks isn't explained by HIS theory. Not a single conspiracy theorist has risen to this challenge. Why? I submit it's because their conspiracy seems to be not a theory, but a creed. >>"this part of the evidence is probably true and here's how I explain >>it, while that part of the evidence is probably a conspiracy >>fabrication and here's why I think so". > >I feel like I have a better idea of what went on and that my theory >satisfies your above request. There is no need for me to post it >since, obviously, I know what the reaction I'll get. If I wanted to be coy, I would just say that I'll give any theory of yours the same reception that is being given to the theory *I* defend. But since no such theory seems to be forthcoming, and since it's been quite a while since there have been any novel arguments raised against the lone-Oswald theory, I probably soon will no longer be following this newsgroup closely enough to give your theory *any* kind of reception. >if those documents show that more than one gunman was shooting at JFK >that November day in 1963, I expect certain people will be feasting >on crow. Not me. I really think that the bulk of the evidence I've heard of favors the lone-Oswald theory, and I don't feel responsible for explaining evidence that I have no reason to believe exists. No one would be happier than I for a Conspiracy to be revealed once and for all; I just want to know what happened, one way or the other. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 6 09:39:30 PST 1992 Article 10563 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll theory really strongly bites the dust :) Date: 6 Feb 1992 02:03:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <697338010.1@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I trust *you*, but not *Marrs*. In article <697338010.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > Actually, the only witnesses who that weekend reported seeing a > > gunman [...] all indicated the TSBD sniper's nest. > > [...] > >But get this: Dallas policeman Joe M. Smith, who was on >Elm, stated that a hysterical woman ran up to him crying: >"They are shooting the President from behind the bushes!" Did she say she *saw* anyone behind the bushes? Did Officer Smith get her name? > >> What about the railroad worker report of the guy running > >> back and handing something of the general shape of a gun off > >> to another person? > > > What was his name? I've only heard of the deaf guy > > who more than a decade later started telling such a story. > >I stand corrected in that it was the deaf guy who actually >saw teh gun, and you stand corrected in the "more than a >decade later" phrase. He reported it, but his report was >dismissed because they already had the suspect -- Lee Harvey >Oswald, you know. Hold on, I'm confused. Are you saying that some person *other than* the deaf guy reported *at the time* that he had seen somebody run behind the fence and hand something off to somebody else? I've never heard of such a witness. > >> There's a clear frame of the presidential limousine just > >> entering the Triple Underpass, and a puff of smoke is > >> clearly visible hanging in front of trees on the knoll > >> exactly where Holland and ther other railroad workers > >> claimed to have seen it. > > > Where can I get a look at the picture? > >Check the END reference I gave you -- not a middleman but >the END reference. However, Jim Maars' book _Crossfire_ >might help you out. You mean you haven't seen it? If it's only Marrs' word that the smoke is "clearly visible", and not yours, then I don't put too much stock in it. Marrs has a proven track record of imagining things in photographs. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 6 09:39:58 PST 1992 Article 10565 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 6 Feb 1992 02:45:09 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 50 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb5.175539.15347@engage.pko.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Mr. Busta doesn't care about the truth. In article <1992Feb5.175539.15347@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: >>>(there are a couple of photograps >>>of the TSBD window taken 15 and 30 seconds after the assassination, >>>indicating that some box movement DID take place) >> >>The photographs I've seen of this are extremely unconvincing. > > Doesn't surprise me. Anything that fails to fit your preconceived notions > you find `extremely unconvincing'. I invite our audience to look at the pictures for themselves. > 60-90 seconds wouldn't have been enough > time to get there, would it? He couldn't have gotten there that quick if > he was running let alone walking.... Anyone in Oswald's physical condition can easily get down 4 (== 6 - 2) flights of stairs in under 30 seconds. >>Judging whether someone seems to be Presidential-assassin- >>facing-cop startled versus innocent-bystander-facing-gun startled >>isn't really a science. > > Neither is your above statement saying you could hold your breath normal I do it all the time. For example, in tennis when I don't want my opponent to know I'm winded, I breathe normally while we're towelling off during the time we change ends of the court. >keep from sweating after running down four flights of stairs Show me where officer Baker gave any testimony about the amount of perspiration that was evident on Oswald. >>What is her exact story? Was she just standing in the stairwell the >>whole time? On what floor was she standing? > > Why bother, you wouldn't believe it if it were true..... Typical conspiracy theologian response. If she was on the *first* floor landing, or if she had merely transited one flight of stairs and then left the stairwell, that would easily explain her missing Oswald. But if, say, she were sitting on the stairs between the second and sixth floors, eating her lunch or something, that would be a completely different matter. That you don't care about a difference such as this tells us a lot about what your agenda is here. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 6 09:53:06 PST 1992 Article 10570 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll gunman - Prado vs. Holtz Date: 6 Feb 1992 03:29:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 129 Message-ID: References: <697338010.0@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Six more Bzzzt's for Mark. A new record! In article <697338010.0@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > >>> Name an eyewitness who before the Warren Report was issued got > >>> himself on the record saying he saw a gunman at the grassy knoll. > > >> [All the people who heard gunfire from the fence and > >> saw the puff of smoke, not to mention the pictures with > >> flashes and smoke] > > > Bzzzt. Did he saw he "saw a gunman"? No. > >You Bzzzted into the fan again, Brian. Hardly. The simple *fact* is that precisely ZERO of the people you mentioned got himself on the record before the Warren Report was issued saying he saw a gunman at the grassy knoll. >1. Jean Hill also said she saw smoke AND MOVEMENT behind > the fence corner at the moment of the shot. Bzzzt. "Movement" is not a "gunman", even when it's in all caps. Also, I think this is part of Hill's story that did not get into the record when her statement was taken that weekend. She now denies that the signature on the affidavit of that weekend is hers. >2. Take Lee Bowers, who was stationed in the tower behind > the fence. He observed two men wearing uniforms at the > fence on the side of the parking lot, which he describes > in a filmed interview. [...] "At the time of the shooting, in the > vicinity of where the two men I have described were, > there was a flash of light ..." Bzzzt. Bowers only added this to his story *after* testifying before the Warren Commission. I think all he told the WC is that a "commotion" caught his attention. >3. People who ran up the slope towards the place where they > heard gunfire from amongst the trees & shrubs say they > were TURNED BACK by badge-wielding "Secret Service" and > "police". Bzzzt. I already know there were reports of bogus Secret Service men, and for weeks I've included this item in my list of hard-to-explain pieces of evidence. Unfortunately for you, a bogus Secret Service man does not count as a "gunman". >4. Gordon Arnold [...] heard gunfire from > behind the picket fence (and ducked and stayed ducked). Bzzzt. Hearing gunfire does not constitute seeing a gunman. >5. There's the controversial blow-up (albeit blurry) photo > of "Badge Man". I think I've seen this photo, and I don't remember it being all that convincing. Do you know of any book that prints it? At any rate, this isn't the name of someone who says they saw a gunman, so you get another "Bzzzt". :) >6. Ed Hoffman of Dallas has been a deaf mute all his life, but > he reported (and it's on the record) that he was standing > with the Stemmons Freeway crowd. He has communicated > that he saw smoke, saw a man running west along the back > side of the fence wearing a dark suir, tie, and an > overcoat. The man was carrying a rifle in his hands Bzzzt. A rifleman running behind the grassy knoll fence only became part of Hoffman's testimony years later. The testimony that was written down at the time of the Warren investigation instead mentioned somebody running from behind the TSBD, or something like that. >BTW, Brian, according to your standards for "evidence", >tell us who SAW a gunMAN in the TSBD? Nobody. Zero. Zip. Oh, wait, I think at least one person saw somebody in Oswald's window, but I don't remember him saying that the somebody had a gun. At any rate, remember, this thread was started when I said I was troubled by "the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen", in my ever-popular list of evidence that troubles me. You know, a list like the one I keep asking you conspiracy types for, and you all keep refusing: > > Then why don't _you_ [...] tell > > us of even a _single_ piece of evidence that you find it hard for a > > conspiracy theory to explain? > >I'd let others judge for themselves. Indeed. And what do you think they'll conclude when they realize that because your "theory" has a pat explanation for EVERYthing, it in fact explains NOthing? >In Newsweek, December 23, 1991, [...] police artist Lois Gibson [...] >identifies all [...] of the three "tramps" taken from the train >boxcar [...] and gives rap sheets on each. Interesting. How did she find out who they are? >Brian Holtz takes the opposing position of many other >far-right-wing extremists: The Warren Commission is >essentially an accurate and authoritative report, and >that there's no additional credible information >warranting further official investigation Quote me the posting in which I said there should be no further investigation, official or otherwise. I would LOVE to see this officially investigated some more. >-- it can all be easily and simply explained away You're either a liar, or have a very lousy memory. Our exchanges under this Subject: line *began* when you started questioning item two in a list that I posted in article : Most importantly, I freely admit that there are a few pieces of evidence that the Warren Commission's theory does not explain. I've listed them several times, and they are things like: * the fake "Secret Service" men in Dealy Plaza * the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen * the Oswald sightings with Ferrie in Clinton, La. * the Rosa Cheramie prediction of the assassination * the "duplicate Oswald" sightings * the missing Winchester cartridge at the scene of Tippitt's killing -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 12:55:36 PST 1992 Article 10644 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - 48 Hours - Back Wound Well Below Shoulder Date: 7 Feb 1992 07:49:10 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <28048@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28048@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >the third bullet found at TSBD could not have been >fired from Oswald's rifle. No bullets were found at the TSBD (except for the unfired round in the chamber of Oswald's rifle). Three empty cartridges were found, however, and one is known to now have a slight pinch in it near the open rim where the bullet was seated. I don't see why this pinch couldn't have happened when the cartridge was ejected. >They talk about Ruth Paine, but don't mention her ties to the CIA. What _were_ her "CIA ties"? I can find no mention of such ties in neither _Crossfire_, _Reasonable Doubt_, _Legend_, nor even _Plausible Denial_. >They talk to the US Consulate, but don't tie Oswald's ability to get >a new passport directly with his admission that he was going to give >secrets to the USSR. What "new passport"? They showed U.S. Consul Richard Snyder saying that Oswald threatened to tell the Soviets what he knew from his Marine service. >They "traced" Oswalds' >escape, but they did not say that the taxi driver witness was not credible. Why wasn't he? >or did they make clear that the witness who at first identified >Oswald could not have seen him, Says who? Marrs says that footage shows Brennan not looking up at the sniper's nest during the shooting, but Brennan says he only looked up in time to see the last shot being fired. More importantly, he had been observing the man in the window for several minutes. >and therefore could not have been responsible >for calling his description to the police. All the evidence points to Brennan being the source for the initial description. Note that the both Brennan's description and the radio report it inspired made Oswald an inch taller and 30-40 lbs. heavier than he really was. >but there witnesses who worked there testified >that accounted almost entirely for Oswald's presence. Bunk. Oswald was unaccounted for between 12:15 and 12:32. As was made clear by the guy who posted excerpts from the Warren Report, Victoria Adams came down the stairs *after* Oswald had already hurried down. >Nor did they discuss >the impossibility of moving the boxes around, running down the flight of >stairs, and then appear calm as an officer approaches him. According to the Warren Report, Secret Service agent John Howlett repeated Oswald's actions "at normal walking pace", and needed only 78 seconds. He immediately repeated the test and needed only 74 seconds. After both tests, he was still "not short winded". >|the back wound was drawn well below the shoulder, >|and to the right of the spine. > >Indeed. There is a great deal of evidence that a bullet hole was >there. It was *not* reveled in the Autopsy drawings or photos. Sure it was. Hurt reproduces it in _Reasonable Doubt_. >The bullet fragments found in the car could not travel past >the windshield. Yet Holtz and Mitchell want us to believe that a >fragment was able to graze Tague and chip the concrete a hundred yard >(or feet?) away. It was about two hundred feet from the JFK at the time of the head shot. I've heard conflicting stories about whether the crack in the windshield actually included a hole (allowing a fragment through). However, the Warren Report says that Tague was inclined to think that his ricochet was from the second shot. While I think it's clear that the second shot was the one that missed, I'm not sure that Tague's curb mark could have been caused by an unimpeded rifle shot. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 12:57:07 PST 1992 Article 10624 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll gunman - Prado vs. Holtz Date: 7 Feb 1992 05:13:14 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <697338010.0@blkcat.FidoNet> <1992Feb6.053943.18171@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb6.053943.18171@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> krust@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Kelly Rust) writes: >>the (very late-in-coming) eyewitnesses to grassy knoll gunmen > >Brian, do you think the late-in-coming witnesses are lieing? I doubt that they are lying. People can convince themselves of the most preposterous things. >Also regarding Tippit's murder, Oswald's landlady has said that >a police car stopped and honked in front of the house during the >few minutes he was there getting his revolver. How does this fit >into a lone-nut theory? I don't know. It's strange. However, Mrs. Roberts says that the car drove off before Oswald left the house, and that the last she saw of Oswald he was standing at a bus stop down the street. It's hard to see how the car could have been connected to Oswald. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 13:00:21 PST 1992 Article 10626 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 7 Feb 1992 05:41:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <13277@pitt.UUCP> <13302@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I'm no prosecuter; I'm a historian. In article <13302@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >But why this concern that I or anyone else become a believer? I'm not proselytizing. I'm simply interested in finding out the best explanation of the existing evidence. By contrast, you're only interested in finding excuses for not trying to explain ANYthing. >If you and the WC make an absurd assertion, >one that can be shown to be inconsistent, Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. >you seem to think that if someone else can't provide a better >assertion, out of the blue, everyone should buy yours. I'd be happy if someone else could even tell me what other explanation is *possible*. (E.g., how two bullets can enter Kennedy's upper chest and then disappear from the record. How Connally's back would can be so oblong without it having been caused by a bullet that already passed through Kennedy. etc.) >That's not how it works. You are the one that has to prove >your case. I and others have been doing a pretty good job of that, I think. At least we *have* a "case"! >Suppose Joe is found murdered. Bill was arrested, but there wasn't >sufficient evidence to prove he did it. Now Brian Holtz, the prosecutor, >tells the jury "unless you can tell me who really killed Joe, I insist >that you convict Bill, because there is some evidence against him." No. Suppose President Joe is found murdered. Bill was arrested, but was killed before he could be tried. Now three decades later Brian Holtz, the historian, tells posterity "unless you can tell me who really killed Joe, I insist that the history books say that Bill probably killed Joe, because there is a great deal of evidence against him." >>Look, I'm asking you to describe ANY METAPHYSICALLY POSSIBLE set of >>circumstances under which you would be willing to say the above. Why? > >I find that after examining that evidence, I am not convinced. >[...] But it certainly >is metaphysically possible that there is still some undiscovered evidence >bearing on the matter. Learn to read. I didn't ask you how it would be possible for you to agree with the Warren Commission. I asked you how it would be possible for you to say that it is almost certain that no new evidence is forthcoming, and that therefore it's time to burst your cozy bubble in which you refuse to defend *any* explanation. >>conclude that you don't WANT to believe anything. > >I don't particularly *want* to believe anything. Indeed. In particular, you *want* to believe NOthing, and you are unable to describe any circumstances in which you would defend *any* particular theory. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 13:00:35 PST 1992 Article 10628 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 7 Feb 1992 05:49:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <27888@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Feb6.032113.22922@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Feb6.060839.20770@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6537@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The only wound in the back of the head is an entrance wound. In article <6537@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >2. The large exit hole is in the back of JFK's head. His dark hair turns > to pink pulp, whilst his face remains clearly visible and apparently > intact. The autopsy photos show that the back of his head is no less intact, *except* for the small entrance wound. As is shown by the autopsy photos *and* the Zapruder film, the exit wound is above and a little behind the right ear. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 13:02:55 PST 1992 Article 10630 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 7 Feb 1992 06:11:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <92037.185136WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <92037.185136WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >For Connally to be hit by the same bullet is almost impossible. >After watching the Z film, I noticed thaat when JFK reaches for his >throat, Connally is star ting to turn toward him. How could he have >been hit by that bullet if he was t urning to his right at that time. What are you talking about? We're not *saying* Connally was hit during any time that you can see him on the Z film. >Also, if Connally was hit by the same bullet as JFK, wouldn't there have >been particles of JFK's skin and blood just inside of the suit of Connally Connally's suit was cleaned before it was received for scientific examination. >I saw a show in A&E where he said >that he believed that he was hit by the same bullet as JFK. No, Connally has never said he was hit by the same bullet as JFK. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 13:08:12 PST 1992 Article 10632 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Warren Commission Absenteeism Date: 7 Feb 1992 06:16:18 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <92037.190330WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <92037.190330WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >the WC, that most of the members were NOT present during the >questioning of Key witnesses. How can they write a report when they >were never there. It wasn't a term paper. Reports issued over the name of politicians are basically always written by staffers. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 13:13:51 PST 1992 Article 10646 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: "48 Hours" revelations Date: 7 Feb 1992 08:24:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 56 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord 1. "48 Hours" conclusively demonstrated that the only type of shooting performance that is ruled out by the shooting experiments is the feat of hitting Kennedy and Connally with separate shots with so little time between them. The single-bullet theory allows for a shooting performance that was eminently repeatable. 2. "48 Hours" showed 5 bullet fragments that it said were from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head. Three were tiny specks, one looked like a mangled core, and the other looked like the base of a bullet. WC Counsel David Belin said on the show that "we have two portions of that bullet that are large enough, complete enough to be identifiable. [...] We find, yes, that bullet came from that rifle, from the School Book Depository building." Not surprisingly, I've never heard any conspiracy author mention this. Does anyone know where exactly those two large fragments were found? Were they taken from Kennedy's head, or were they the two fragments found in the limousine? How did they link them to Oswald's rifle? I can believe that the bullet base would have land-and-groove striations on it, but I don't see how they could trace the mangled core. (I bought a copy of the A.P.'s version of the Warren Report today, so I'll see if they cover this.) 3. "48 Hours" showed the Zapruder film several times. It confirmed that ALL of the visible material from Kennedy's head is ejected FORWARD instead of backward. It also clearly shows that the massive head wound is above and only a little behind the right ear. A bullet passing through this wound from the grassy knoll would make it a (fist sized!) entrance wound, and yet there is no exit wound in the back of the head. (In the back of the head there is only a small entrance wound, about the size of a bullet cross-section.) 4. I was saddened to see that Dan Rather didn't mention his own role in the case. Back when the public wasn't allowed to see the Zapruder film, he viewed it and reported that the head moves "violently forward" (or words to that effect). While the most violent movements on the film *are* the forward movements of parts of Kennedy's head, it's obvious that the head itself is propelled backwards. Rather should have owned up to his mistake. It's been a good week. First "48 Hours" airs almost all of the Zapruder film at normal speed, and then today I was able to score a bunch of books: Crossfire, Legend: LHO, Plausible Denial, On The Trail Of The Assassins, The Death Of A President, and: an A.P. copy of the Warren Report! I've only lately had access to Hurt's Reasonable Doubt, and its incredibly complete index has spoiled me; these new books have terrible indices, and of course the Warren Report comes with no index at all. Also, my A.P. copy omits all the photos that I thought were in the Warren Report; shades of a conspiracy, perhaps? :) Instead, A.P. puts in a few pages of worthless photos. It was nice that "48 Hours" showed basically the whole Zapruder film, _and_ at normal speed, but in that particular airing of it the crucial head shot almost disappears off the bottom of my TV screen. Sigh. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 15:02:27 PST 1992 Article 10679 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 7 Feb 1992 21:09:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <92037.185136WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <28127@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28127@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|Connally's suit was cleaned before it was received for scientific >|examination. > >How *convienent*! Are you saying that the cleaning was consciously done as part of a conspiracy? >Well, why was there no JFK or Connelly cloth on the bullet? I've heard of bullet being left on cloth, but never cloth left on bullet. >Why was there no Kennedy remains in Connelly's body? How do you know there weren't? How would they have checked? Remember, too, that Connally was splattered with parts of Kennedy's head like "birdshot". -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 15:02:40 PST 1992 Article 10683 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Warren Commission Absenteeism Date: 7 Feb 1992 21:14:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <92037.190330WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <28128@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28128@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|It wasn't a term paper. Reports issued over the name of politicians >|are basically always written by staffers. > >Nor was it a Courtroom with a jury I don't know how many times I have to ask this: are you interested in explaining Kennedy's death, or in whether Oswald could have been convicted in a court of law? It takes less brains than what Kennedy was left with to figure out that these are two very different things. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 15:04:24 PST 1992 Article 10685 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 7 Feb 1992 21:47:45 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 81 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb7.171751.13072@engage.pko.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The WC did not try LHO for the crime of murder under Texas statute. In article <1992Feb7.171751.13072@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: >>> 60-90 seconds wouldn't have been enough >>> time to get there, would it? He couldn't have gotten there that quick if >>> he was running let alone walking.... >> >>Anyone in Oswald's physical condition can easily get down 4 (== 6 - 2) >>flights of stairs in under 30 seconds. > > I don't know about under 30 seconds but even if it could be done in under >30 seconds, which I doubt, I now have a copy of the Warren report, and it says that a Secret Service agent was *twice* able to do all the things Oswald did from the shooting until being seen 90 seconds or more later, "at normal walking pace", and both times he only needed 78 seconds or less. >the noise of his shoes on the stairs would >have been noticed by someone. Some people who were working on the fifth >floor said they heard sounds of what they later came to believe was the >shell casings hitting the floor above them but they wouldn't hear a man >running down floor flights of stairs? He didn't need to run. The men were right below Oswald, and I believe the floor of the 6th floor was just wooden planks. I think the stairwell was separated from the men by a door and quite some distance. >If Oswald could run down 4 flights of stairs as you say he could, you >are now telling me he wouldn't even break a little sweat? I am telling you that Oswald probably just *walked* down the stairs. I am telling you that a Secret Service agent did what Oswald did *twice in a row* without even getting short winded. I am telling you that officer Baker said nothing about Oswald perspiring. >>>>What is her exact story? Was she just standing in the stairwell the >>>>whole time? On what floor was she standing? >>> >>> Why bother, you wouldn't believe it if it were true..... >> >>That you don't care about a difference >>such as this tells us a lot about what your agenda is here. > > I do care, personally. I never said I didn't. It's just that it gets >rather tiresome putting evidence in front of you [...] Hah. Now that I have a copy of the Warren Report, it's obvious that the conspiracy authors ignore the solid evidence showing that Ms. Adams went down the stairs a minute or two *after* Oswald had. >Oswald is considered innocent until proven guilty. The Warren >Commission and its' backers say Oswald is guilty [...] I DEFY you to quote the Warren Report saying Oswald is "guilty". The Warren Commission did not try Oswald for any crime. The Warren Commission did not set out to settle the question "Was LHO legally guilty of the crime of murder in the state of Texas for killing JFK?". No! The Warren Commission set out to answer the question "Who killed JFK?". Only an utter moron would think that the former question is more important than the latter. >until the Warren Commission and its backers can feed me and other >conspiracy theorists enough hard proof that Oswald is guilty *beyond >a reasonable doubt*, I have to state that he is NOT GUILTY. Who said he was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of the crime of murder? I only say that the evidence seems to show that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. Whether Oswald was guilty of some degree of murder under relevant Texas statutes is a truly unanswerable question, since by definition legal guilt can only be determined under the appropriate adversarial judicial proceedings. You are more concerned with defending Oswald against some non-existent posthumous criminal prosecution than you are with figuring out who killed Kennedy. Why? Are you infatuated with Oswald? Do you see him as some kind of sympathetic anti-hero? Or is your concern merely a convenient excuse for you to fantasize about conspiracies instead of getting your hands dirty trying to figure out what actually happened? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 7 21:50:54 PST 1992 Article 10690 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll gunman - Prado vs. Holtz Date: 8 Feb 1992 00:47:09 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <697453287.6@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I'd like to hear your -- or any -- theory; defense of my tactics. In article <697453287.6@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > your "theory" has a pat explanation > > for EVERYthing, it in fact explains NOthing > >What theory of mine are you talking about?? I have not put >forth "a theory" to date, Brian. You think there was a conspiracy, don't you? But I'll liberalize my request: what evidence do you think is hardest for _any_ conspiracy theory to explain? >If you want to know my theory, then ask. I *have* asked for alternative theories, over and over. My most recent request was in article : I NEVER said I wanted a "complete scenario". I merely want one that takes some fraction of the evidence explained by the Warren Commission, and says: "this part of the evidence is probably true and here's how I explain it, while that part of the evidence is probably a conspiracy fabrication and here's why I think so". Why is that so hard to do? So, Mark, what's your theory? >your professional debate tactics that seem to be aimed more at >convincing the less expert readers of your point of view, That may be the most important effect of what I do, but I'm more interested learning what the best explanation of the evidence is, and seeing if that explanation can withstand criticism. >discrediting others, I pride myself on not returning ad-hominem attacks, since they're nothing more than an admission by the attacker that she cannot answer her target's argument. As an example, I received a nasty one-line insult today via e-mail from a frequent poster to this group. I'm not sure exactly why he did it, but it clearly can't be because he thought my arguments were easy to refute. >BENT on Bzzzt-ing most EVERY pro-conspiracy point raised by others in >this newsgroup Can I help it if most pro-conspiracy points are so easy to Bzzzt? ;) However, I do periodically post my list of evidence that I can't explain, and it grows when every once in a while somebody raises an issue that I don't know how to resolve. >than adding new information to this discussion. I admit I'm not combing the record looking for data that hasn't been posted. I'm operating under the assumption that the most telling evidence against the Warren Report is the evidence that is most often brought up by the pro-conspiracy writers. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:01:49 PST 1992 Article 10710 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Ruth Paine (was Re: JFK - 48 Hours ...) Date: 8 Feb 1992 04:21:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <697510950.12@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I still don't see any "CIA ties" In article <697510950.12@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > What _were_ [Ruth Paine's] "CIA ties"? > >Look at who got him the job at the Texas Book Depository on October 14, >1963 -- Ruth Paine. She obtained the interview and got him the job. She >came from a family of CIA-related people. Such as? (This is the *only* place in your article you mention the CIA.) >Then, husband Michael Paine did highly classified work, officially >with defense-contractor Bell Helicopter (big Vietnam War >beneficiary). Tens of thousands of people were doing classified work for defense contractors. Does that give any of their wives "CIA ties"? >Classified as Secret on >grounds of national security are: > >The Paines' IRS Income Tax forms >Warren Commission document[s] Are any WC documents classified as secret on grounds *other* than "national security"? That is, there any reason to think that these documents weren't simply raw investigative materials withheld on privacy grounds? >Ruth Paine was introduced to the Oswalds in 1963 by George >DeMohrenschildt, Oswald's closest friend and caretaker for a long time. _Legend_ says that a geologist friend of GDM's, named Volkmar Schmidt, was the one who introduced Oswald to the Paines. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:02:15 PST 1992 Article 10711 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 8 Feb 1992 04:54:45 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <27888@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Feb6.032113.22922@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Feb6.060839.20770@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6537@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The TSBD lines up quite nicely. In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >As I posted in another reply , the TSBD 6th floor is above and >behind and to the right of the back of JFK's head. At the time of the head shot, Oswald was only 15 degrees above Kennedy, and even *less* to the right. >A bullet >entering the back of his head should exit down and to the >left of the entrance wound. Instead , we have a bullet leaving >up ( or level if Kennedy was bending over ) and to the RIGHT. Kennedy's head was looking down at least 45 degrees. His head was also turned a little to the left -- not much, but enough that from Oswald's perspective he was facing a little *left* of straight-ahead. So it's only natural that the bullet exited from the *right* side of Kennedy's head. Note also that only parts of the bullet blew out the right side of his head; other fragments wound up causing damage behind his right eye. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:02:31 PST 1992 Article 10712 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 8 Feb 1992 05:08:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <697496412.7@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: It exited above the ear, blowing out the head from there back. In article <697496412.7@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > As is shown by the autopsy photos *and* the Zapruder film, > > the exit wound is above and a little behind the right ear. > >There are autopsy photos that contradict each other and show >all kinds of contradictory things. What autopsy photos are you referring to? >I have photos here from the Parkland hospital (see _High >Treason_ and other books) This is the one that Stone showed in "JFK", right? The one with JFK on his back on a table, taken from behind the head of the table? >that show JFK's face intact What is this ongoing fascination with JFK's face? Who ever said that JFK had a bullet wound in the face? >but the back right side of his head gaping open and brain tissue >hanging out. Right. The bullet entered the back of his head, and the biggest pieces of it exited above his right ear, with the result that a lot of the head from the exit point back toward the entrance wound was blown out. >(_High Treason_ contrasts them to "forged" autopsy >photos showing a small hole in JFK's head.) What reason is there to think that the pictures of the small entrace wound in the back of the head were "forged"? >a piece of JFK's skull goes back onto the back of the car, >and Jackie reaches back, picks it up, and starts to put >JFK's skull back together. Inputs, anyone? Pieces of JFK's head went everywhere. Most went forward rather than backward, though. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:02:47 PST 1992 Article 10719 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 8 Feb 1992 06:33:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <27888@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Feb6.032113.22922@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Feb6.060839.20770@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6537@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <1992Feb7.021204.27049@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6555 <1992Feb8.025738.6283@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb8.025738.6283@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> krust@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Kelly Rust) writes: >Has Jackie stated she was going for a piece >of skull or is this interpretation? I don't think Jackie even remembers climbing out on the trunk, period. >the "people in the front seat of the limousine" were not struck >with any debris. Doesn't Connally state the opposite? He was not in the front seat. He was in a jump seat, between the front and rear seats. However, I do know that some bullet fragments were found in the front seat. >Finally, am I missing something on this 100fps head movement? No. The figure is completely bogus, and no one defends it, as far as I know. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:11:07 PST 1992 Article 10714 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "48 Hours" revelations Date: 8 Feb 1992 05:32:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Are you refering to the so-called recreation of the shooting >where CBS left out the tree! Kennedy emerged from behind the foliage at Z210. It was almost a full second later, at Z225, that JFK emerges from behind the sign already in distress. Oswald could have easily tracked the blue limousine through the green foliage, and then zeroed and fired when Kennedy came into full view. >How many practice shots did these shooters get? They didn't say. Of course, you realize that if it can physically be done _with_ practice, it can physically be done _without_ practice. WC critics have been trying to tell us that the shooting was physically impossible. >Where was the clock proving it was done in 5.6 seconds? The one full sequence they showed took only 141 TV frames, which is 4.7 (141/30) seconds. >Where was the close-up of the target proving it was done? Hold on. All this time (e.g., David Wright, in article <26783@darkstar.ucsc.edu>) I've been hearing that the CBS experiment *failed* to reproduce the shooting. Now you're changing the story to be that CBS simply lied when they said they *succeeded* in reproducing the shooting? Puh-leeez. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:11:37 PST 1992 Article 10716 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Tippit in Oak Cliff (was Re: Grassy Knoll gunman...) Date: 8 Feb 1992 05:51:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb6.053943.18171@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <28126@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28126@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >All police cars had been accounted for. And the number of the Car had similiar >digits to Tippits. What is your source for these two statements? >For some reason, Tippit was sent out into a residential area. The WR says "Tippit patroled district No. 78 in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas during the daylight hours." The radio transcript shows that Tippit was ordered to "be at large for any emergency that comes in". >Nor did the police at the time knew where Oswald lived. Nor, of >course, did they have any reason to believe Oswald could or should >have been a suspect. If there _was_ a police car honking twice outside the boarding house, why should we suppose it had anything to do with Oswald? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:11:50 PST 1992 Article 10717 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Film Critic Who Quit Over "JFK" Review (was Re: ... Was Fired ...) Date: 8 Feb 1992 06:01:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <4068@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1992Feb6.030634.22389@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Feb7.204325@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU> <1992Feb8.032558.6505@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Declining to amplify your voice is not the same as silencing it. In article <1992Feb8.032558.6505@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes: >>(David Condon) writes: >> >>This is not censorship. This is called editing. > >The principle is exactly the same. Someone in authority suppressed >the speech of another person. No. Someone who privately owned a forum simply declined to allow an employee to use that forum as the employee saw fit. >If you were to point a gun at my head, and threaten to blow my brains >out if I were to cry for help, you have _effectively_ censored me. Yes. Unfortunately for your argument, the movie reviewer was still perfectly free to say anything she wanted -- she just couldn't say it in the _Washington Post_. The fact that we know about her story *at all* is evidence that no one pointed a gun at her head. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 11:12:04 PST 1992 Article 10718 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - 48 Hours - Back Wound Well Below Shoulder Date: 8 Feb 1992 06:27:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <28048@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >"Mrs. R. E. Arnold, in a handwritten statement for the FBI, >stated that she saw Oswald on the first floor at about 12:25 P.M., >which is five minutes before the gunshots and over ten minutes >after an armed figure was seen on the upper floors by outside >witnesses. When the FBI typed her original statement, the >time changed to 12:15" -- DeLloyd J Guth > The Assassination of John F. Kennedy Hmm. Marrs says that in 1978, Arnold gave the 12:15 time to the _Dallas Morning News_ in an effort to *correct* the FBI account of her testimony. What, did she change her story *again*? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 14:46:20 PST 1992 Article 10745 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Fingering of Oswald as the Assassin Date: 8 Feb 1992 19:42:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 47 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb2.052426.24256@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Feb8.065317.10061@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: "several minutes" becomes "30 seconds"; H. Brennan gave the descrip. Keywords: JFK, assassination, Dallas police, questions In article <1992Feb8.065317.10061@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >(Brian Holtz) writes: >> (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >> >A couple of them show evidence of boxes behind the window being >> >moved around, indicating that SOMEONE was still up there several >> >minutes after the assassination. > >*High Treason* between pages 146 and 147. In the first photo, >the sun can be seen shining on at least four or five boxes piled close to >the window. In the second photo, only the corner of one box can be seen. >The caption doesn't say in which order the photos were taken, but I assume >that the top photo was taken first, the bottom photo second. According to >the caption, the two photos were taken approximately 15 and 30 seconds after >the assassination, respectively. Hold on. If "30 seconds" can become "several minutes" for you, how can we believe your account that the photos "show evidence" of the boxes being moved at all? Were the two photos taken from the same location? If not, the "evidence" could be due to differences in perspective. >It is entitled *Who Didn't Kill JFK*. It goes into great detail >about the incriminating photos, presenting a lot of fairly good >evidence to indicate that these photos are in fact forgeries. Well, according to Mitchell S. Todd, no qualified photo expert is known to believe that they are forgeries, and even Marrs admits that the photo experts of the HSCA could find no evidence of fakery. >Unfortunately, in the confusion of the moment, the DPD did not get the >names of any of the witnesses who gave them this "information", so the >identity of these witnesses remains a mystery. Fortunately, it's not. I now have a copy of the Warren Report, and it reveals that the description came from Howard Brennan. Brennan says he gave the description to a policeman only minutes after the shooting, and two other witness confirm that Brennan did so. >Now, I suspect that in all probability the raid on the Oak Cliff library >had absolutely no connection with the murder of either JFK or Officer >Tippit. I wholeheartedly agree. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 14:46:33 PST 1992 Article 10746 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: NOVA Program on the JFK Assassination Date: 8 Feb 1992 19:51:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb8.073043.10543@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Look at the pictures. Keywords: picture worth 1000 words In article <1992Feb8.073043.10543@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >They each said that the photos showed a gaping wound to the rear of >the head. One of the doctors placed his hand on the back of his head >to show where the gaping wound was located. You and Lifton should spend less time dissecting people's purely verbal descriptions, and more time looking at actual photographs. "JFK" shows a gruesome photograph that shows perfectly where the massive head wound was: above and slightly behind the right ear. Further, the Zapruder film *clearly* shows that this is where the wound was. Didn't you videotape "48 Hour" when it aired the Zapruder film? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 14:46:44 PST 1992 Article 10747 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll gunman - Prado vs. Holtz Date: 8 Feb 1992 21:39:33 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <697539619.1@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The definitive analysis. In article <697539619.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >I remember reading >somewhere that a bullet or a significant piece of one was found in >Kennedy's head, but I don't have that information at hand. Many fragments were in Kennedy's head. I think most were tiny and left in; a few not-so-tiny ones were removed. >Where did they find the bullet fragments that were displayed? The WR says that those fragments were found in the front seat. >And with all that damage to the bullet, don't you think that >it imparted appreciable momentum to Kennedy? Bullet mangling has to do with *energy*, not momentum. The fact that the two large bullet chunks were found in the front seat means that they imparted *less* momentum to Kennedy's head than if they had been imbedded in it. > > that ALL of the visible material from Kennedy's head is ejected > > FORWARD instead of backward. > >Actually, much of it looks like it's going straight up. By "forward instead of backward", I mean that all of the visible material moves into the half of the universe that was forward of JFK's ear, and none of it moves into the half of the universe behind his ear. But it's true that the two most violent jets of material go mostly up and a little forward. However, the more I look at my videotape of the Z film, the less it looks like Kennedy is purely rebounding from a force like a bullet impact or a jet of material. Between impact (Z313) and the next frame (Z314), the head moves *forward* a little, but the torso seems to have been driven down and back somewhat, and the projecting right elbow seems to have already started moving up. (This *forward* head movement is why Josiah Tompson says in _Six Seconds_ that JFK was initially struck from behind.) Only in Z315-318 do we see the famous backward head movement, accompanied by the climbing right elbow. (Note that the appearance of this motion is exaggerated by the camera jerking down and to the right during Z318.) In Z319 Kennedy starts to slump to his left, and his elbow starts to drop. It's hard to draw *any* solid conclusions from all this. It looks to me like the governing movement is the torso being driven down and back between Z313 and Z314. This would cause the elbow to rise like it does, and might explain why the head initially moved forward and then was snapped backwards by the lurching torso. Also, consider that Kennedy's head was looking down at about 45 degrees, with his chin nearly on his chest. There isn't much more room for the head to move forward from this position. If you put your head in this position and then strike it from the back (ouch!), you'll notice that it can only move forward a little bit before it tends to snap back. By contrast, if you strike your head from the front or the right while in this position, you'll notice that there is lots of room for the head to roll way back or way to the left. However, Kennedy's head hardly seems to roll any more than it might from simply rebounding from the forward snap. So after studying the Z film, I think the Kennedy's movements during the head shot are too complex to be accounted for by a single force vector impinging on him, whether that vector is caused by an impacting bullet *or* an escaping jet of body material. It looks to me like his head was driven forward and then rebounded while his torso was driven (more probably by his back muscles than by the nevertheless properly-aligned upward jets) down and back. >Also consider: Parts of Kennedy's head blew out backwards. Parts of his head went *every*where. >the face is clearly intact, including continuous >forehead and eyebrows -- not even close to the official report. Get a clue: the official report never said that there was surface damage to the face. It said that there was internal damage *behind* the right eye. >However, in these two photos, the BACK right is blown out starting >at the SIDE above and behind the ear. Next to these two pictures, >the authors show the official autopsy photo of the head with >small "entrance wound". Right -- and isn't this the photo with the hand holding a flap of scalp *over* the back part of the exit wound? And doesn't the Parkland photo show that same flap of scalp hanging loosely from the exit wound? >information posted here by myself and others STRONGLY >SUPPORTS the theory of an additional gunman at the Grassy >Knoll. The fatal head shot apparently came from there. Sorry, but there's really no chance of that being true. We have an entrance wound in the back of the head, and an exit wound where bullet fragments exited above the ear and blew out much of the skull from that point on back toward the entrance wound. We have photographs showing exactly this. In fact, on the Z film the famous rear flap of the exit wound seems to remain closed, with the result that on the Z film the exit wound appears square in the middle of the right side of Kennedy's head. And yet you would have that exit wound being produced by somebody firing from 45 degrees to Kennedy's *right front*? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 14:47:54 PST 1992 Article 10749 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - 48 Hours - Back Wound Well Below Shoulder Date: 8 Feb 1992 22:14:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <28048@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <28131@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28131@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|.. I don't see why this pinch >|couldn't have happened when the cartridge was ejected. > >The ejection also leaves a mark which is not found on the other cartridges. Ejecting a cartridge doesn't work the same way every time. Sometimes it jams, and sometimes it doesn't. And sometimes maybe it comes close to jamming but only pinches the cartridge. >||They talk to the US Consulate, but don't tie Oswald's ability to get >||a new passport directly with his admission that he was going to give >||secrets to the USSR. >| >|What "new passport"? They showed U.S. Consul Richard Snyder saying >|that Oswald threatened to tell the Soviets what he knew from his >|Marine service. > >The passport he got to travel back to the Soviet Union. What are you talking about? I thought Oswald only went to the Soviet Union one time. >||They "traced" Oswalds' >||escape, but they did not say that the taxi driver witness was not credible. >| >|Why wasn't he? > >Read, no, Re-read Hurt, or Kurtz, or just about anyone. It is not in Thompson. You're saying that you remember that the taxi driver was not credible, but you have no clue as to *why* he wasn't credible? Given your track record in this newsgroup, I'm not inclined to take your word for anything. Nor am I inclined to do your research for you. >It would be nearly impossible to identify Oswald, Brennan *didn't* identify Oswald. He merely gave a description of Oswald -- a description that was off by one inch and 35 pounds. >just look at some of the >photos of the window. The sun shines directly in, reflecting off the windows, >and only a small part of the area is visible. The window was open. Brennan saw him through the open part of the window. >Other witnesses described "a >dark complection man" in the window. There had been a black man on the sixth floor eating his lunch only ten minutes before the shooting, and he joined two other black men in the 5th-floor windows directly below Oswald's. >Also, you must remember that Oswald is >not simply standing next to the window. He is hurridly pushing around boxes to >make up his nest. It is highly unlikely for anyone to identify him. Nobody *identified* him; they just *described* him. Brennan saw him off and on for several minutes before the shooting. Other witnesses saw him right before the shooting staring down at the killing ground on Elm, while everyone else was looking toward Main and Houston waiting for the President. >||that accounted almost entirely for Oswald's presence. >| >|Bunk. Oswald was unaccounted for between 12:15 and 12:32. [...] >|Victoria Adams came down the stairs *after* Oswald [...] > >That is incorrect, but if you want, you will have to wait for me to re-read >my source for this I'll be waiting. >|According to the Warren Report, Secret Service agent John Howlett >|repeated Oswald's actions "at normal walking pace", and needed only 78 >|seconds. He immediately repeated the test and needed only 74 seconds. >|After both tests, he was still "not short winded". > >The agent did not hide the gun, but left it on the floor. So did Oswald. The rifle was found "between two rows of boxes in the northwest corner near the staircase on the sixth floor. No one touched the weapon or othewise disturbed the scene until Capt. Fritz and Lt. Day arrived and the weapon was photographed as it lay on the floor." [Warren Report] So where did you get your story that the rifle was physically "under" a stack of heavy boxes? In the re-enactment, the agent "carried the rifle from the SE corner of the 6th floor along the ease aisle to the the NE corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was acutally found after the shooting." >||[the back wound] was *not* reveled in the Autopsy drawings or photos. >| >|Sure it was. Hurt reproduces it in _Reasonable Doubt_. > >Mmmm. There are *two*, or more sources of information from the autopsy which >lead to different results. The drawings of the body show a hole 6 inches down, >as does the shirt. The other drawings, from Humes' memory, show a hole in >the neck, which we now know is wrong. The Warren Commission *did* produce some hokey drawings that put the back wound higher than it was. But *no* drawing or photo of the back omits the back wound *entirely*. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 8 16:59:51 PST 1992 Article 10751 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 8 Feb 1992 22:46:27 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <9202060833.AA17431@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Feb8.183118.19176@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: It all adds up. In article <1992Feb8.051024.7864@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >he had to carefully wipe his rifle free of all fingerprints. None >were found ON the weapon [...] it is reasonable to assume that he >must have taken the time to remove all his fingerprints from his >rifle before he stashed it and ran downstairs. Fingerprints can be wiped off with bare hands. He had to carry the rifle to the opposite corner of the sixth floor; he would have had plenty of time while carrying it to wipe off the prints. Also, note that not all of the rifle was suitable for taking prints. For instance, the stock was too rough to lift prints from, which is why they picked it up on the 6th floor by the stock. >then run downstairs, purchase a Coke, and start to drink it. He bought the coke *after* the encounter with officer Baker. In article <1992Feb8.183118.19176@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >During the reenactment, both Truly and Baker had to recall what they >had done on that day several months earlier, and there is the >possibility that either one of these men could have forgotten >important details. Forgetting details would only make the reenactment go *faster*, wouldn't it? Also, there was no crowd to work through during the reenactment. BTW, does this comment mean you are similarly skeptical of people who *years* later started recalling details about seeing a grassy knoll gunman? >One possibility was that LHO was lurking inside his cage of boxes >and could not be seen. After the shooting, LHO would have to move these >boxes out of the way so that he could get out of his cage. If so, you can bet that he would do the minimum amount of box-moving required for him to get out, right? >[the agent] just stuck the rifle between boxes and did not attempt to >move boxes so that it could be hidden more effectively. Wouldn't Oswald have prepared the hiding spot when he prepared the sniper's nest? >I've heard some other posters to this group claim that boxes were >found sitting on TOP of the concealed weapon. I've only heard this from David Wright. He can't seem to remember where *he* heard it. The Warren Report says otherwise. >if Victoria Adams is accurate in her estimation of the time that she >was on the stairs, then how could she have seen Billy Lovelady when >he was supposedly watching the motorcade? That's the point: she *isn't* accurate in her estimation of the time. Shelley and Lovelady didn't re-enter the rear of the building until several minutes after Baker rushed inside, and she says she met them (and they say they saw her) when she reached the bottom of the stairs. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 11:26:36 PST 1992 Article 10778 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 9 Feb 1992 17:59:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <697597225.0@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: Learn some physics. In article <697597225.0@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >Of course, the bullet alleged >to have hit Kennedy in the head is all bent up and fragmented, so it >imparted considerable momentum to the head in and of itself, Learn some physics. Damage to the bullet has nothing to do with momentum, and everything to do with energy. Consider: even if the bullet completely fragmented into *separate molecules*, if all the molecules continued traveling in the bullet's original direction with the bullet's original speed, then the bullet would have imparted *no* momentum to Kennedy's head. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 11:26:48 PST 1992 Article 10779 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 9 Feb 1992 18:07:14 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <697597225.4@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <697597225.4@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > I don't think Jackie even remembers climbing out on the trunk, > > period. > >She also doesn't remember the piece of skull clutched in her hand at >Parkland, [...] I've never said that Jackie *wasn't* going after a piece of skull. > > some bullet fragments were found in the front seat. > >Were they analyzed and found with Kennedy or Connally tissue? I'm not aware that *any* blood or body tissue whatsoever were found on *any* of the bullets or bullet fragments that were found outside people's bodies. Tissue just doesn't adhere to metal all that well. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 11:27:00 PST 1992 Article 10781 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 9 Feb 1992 18:28:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <28215@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: Look at the Z312!!! In article <28215@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|At the time of the head shot, Oswald was only 15 degrees above >|Kennedy, and even *less* to the right. > >Now, from Z312, Kennedy has his head tilted forward, and every slightly >looking to his right. Not at all. He's definitely facing somewhat to the left of straight-ahead. Look at Z312. We can see a little of Kennedy's back and the back of his head, and yet we can see the front of his seat-back. Also, the line of the top of the back seat goes to the right, instead of straight up as it would if Zupruder were even with the limo instead of slightly ahead of it still. >one wonders how Jackie could not have been grazed as she was bent over >and looking into the presidents' face. You're crazed. Jackie's head is at least one or two *feet* to Kennedy's *left*. The bullet came out tangent to his *right* temple. >|Kennedy's head was looking down at least 45 degrees. > >How do you know this? It does not look like 45 degrees to me in Z312. Look at the top of his head. It's angled down at far *more* than 45 degrees, but that's because the top of the head naturally slopes down a little. Look at the back of his head. It's angled forward at *almost* 45 degrees, but that's because the back of the head naturally slopes backward a little instead of coming straight up from the back of the head. Look at his face. He's looking straight at his knees. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 11:27:10 PST 1992 Article 10782 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 9 Feb 1992 18:36:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <697597225.3@blkcat.FidoNet> <28219@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: The head shot was highly tangential. In article <28219@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >| | As is shown by the autopsy photos *and* the Zapruder film, >| | the exit wound is above and a little behind the right ear. > >Mmm...there is no way an entrance wound such as described in the autopsy >photos of the supposed back entrance hole (such as in Lifton's Best Evidence) >can cause an exit hole just a few inches away to Kennedy's *right*. Easy! If the bullet goes through the entrance wound quite tangentially, staying near the surface of the head and exiting above the ear, it would naturally blow out almost all the scalp that it burrowed under as it neared the exit point. >Mark Prado writes: >|The ones that show JFK's head still intact on the right back side, >|and a small entrance wound in the lower middle of the head. > >I think you are confusing things. The photo of the back of the head >that shows the entrance wound has the other wound *coverd* up by >Kennedy's scalp. Thank you, David. I keep saying this, but people under Lifton's spell seem to think that mangled scalps are static, crystalline things, and that wounds must have been altered when photographs of them differ slightly from casual verbal descriptions of them. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 11:27:24 PST 1992 Article 10783 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 9 Feb 1992 18:49:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <27888@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Feb6.032113.22922@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Feb6.060839.20770@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6537@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>At the time of the head shot, Oswald was only 15 degrees above >>Kennedy, and even *less* to the right. > >15 degrees to the right is about right if you look at maps >and photographs. Look at the overhead plan of Dealey Plaza in _Reasonable Doubt_. By my measurements, the sniper's nest is 7 degrees to the right of the limousine. >>His head was >>also turned a little to the left -- not much, but enough that from >>Oswald's perspective he was facing a little *left* of straight-ahead. > >Kennedy would have to have been looking at Jackie for a shot >from the right rear to exit from the right side of his head. True. However, the shot that hit him came from his *left* rear. >He wasn't. All pictures show him looking almost straight ahead >in relation to the car. No. Look at Z312. The limousine is still not even with Zapruder yet (e.g., we can see the face of Kennedy's seat-back), and yet we can see a little of Kennedy's back and a little of the back of his head. He was facing left-of-center. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 11:45:17 PST 1992 Article 10785 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Ruth Paine (was Re: JFK - 48 Hours ...) Date: 9 Feb 1992 19:02:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <697597225.2@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: To say she had "CIA ties" is ludicrous. In article <697597225.2@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >If so, they would be "confidential" at best. As you know, "Secret" >is a pretty high level of clearance, and "Classified" implies defense. Sigh. Let me ask you *again*: is there *any* evidence that the WC used a multi-tiered system of secrecy classification? Is there *any* evidence that the WC didn't just say "national security" for *every* document it did not want to release? >It's known that many of Ruth Paine's relatives were contractors of >the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is a >division of the U.S. Department of State. Sure, the USAID has been used for CIA fronts, but the majority of its operations are legitimate. Are you saying that you can't even connect *any* of the relatives to a *single* known front operation? >From what you've told us so far, it is absolutely ludicrous to say that the Paines had "CIA ties". >We may never know the details until the sealed Warren Commission >documents are released AND DECLASSIFIED. Give me a break. When the documents are released and reveal only, say, unsubstantiated gossip about the Paines reported in raw FBI reports, you would just say that the incriminating CIA-ties documents were destroyed. "We may never know" is just a code phrase meaning "I'll never have to give up my paranoid fantasies". > > _Legend_ says that a geologist friend of GDM's, named Volkmar > > Schmidt, was the one who introduced Oswald to the Paines. > >Yes, there are lots of legends, including a specific social function >in February of 1963 in which GDM introduced the Oswalds to the Paines. The introduction I mentioned indeed happened at GDM's party. But the Paines were friends of Schmidt, and it was Schmidt's idea to introduce them. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 11:45:27 PST 1992 Article 10786 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Ruth Paine (was Re: JFK - 48 Hours ...) Date: 9 Feb 1992 19:14:03 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <697510950.12@blkcat.FidoNet> <28214@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: Lie #1 disproven, David now falls back to lie #2. In article <28214@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >In any case, DeMohrenschildt has worked for the CIA, which is shown in >many books. This is just beautiful. *You* were the one who started this thread by saying that Ruth Paine had "CIA ties". Now that we know you have *zero* evidence for such "ties", you fall back to the canard that GDM "was indeed CIA". But as I established in an earlier thread, the only credible evidence you have for this claim is that GDM was interviewed by the CIA about his travels abroad, as were *many* such travelers. >Just recently, there was a program saying that unreleased files >from the HSCA investigation found that DeMohrenschildt was indeed CIA. What was the program? How did the researcher get the files? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 16:04:00 PST 1992 Article 10787 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - 48 Hours - Back Wound Well Below Shoulder Date: 9 Feb 1992 19:42:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <28131@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <28218@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <28218@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|You're saying that you remember that the taxi driver was not credible, >|but you have no clue as to *why* he wasn't credible? > >You already said you read these authors, do you just read what you want to >hear and ignore the rest? I've never read Kurtz. I've never said I've read Kurtz. And Hurt doesn't mention the taxi driver at all. >And failed to point him out of a line up 3 times. You say there was no >identification, a description broad enough to cover many men, yet narrow >enough to get Tippit to stop him in the middle of the street. All Tippit did was stop and talk to him through the passenger window. He was just being thorough. He obviously didn't think that Oswald definitely was the assassin, because he was very casual about the whole thing and wound up getting killed. >|Other witnesses >|saw him right before the shooting staring down at the killing ground >|on Elm, while everyone else was looking toward Main and Houston >|waiting for the President. > >Who cares what other witnesses did, since they did not, apparently, contact >the police. Get a clue! You had said that Oswald was moving around too much for Brennan to get a good look at him through the window. So I produced evidence showing that near the end Oswald was holding very still. >|||Bunk. Oswald was unaccounted for between 12:15 and 12:32. [...] > >Not according to another poster, who quoted a book that put some one at 11:25. And I refuted that poster, by pointing out that when Carolyn Arnold corrected her testimony for a newspaper in 1978, she told the newspaper *12:15*. At any rate, that posting came *after* you made your claim that Oswald was accounted for for almost the entire time. Do you just post claims hoping that some other poster will make up evidence to substantiate them? >In any case, you should probably agree that the 48 hours peice was >junk. The only had 60 minutes. If selectivity of evidence makes something junk, then every conspiracy book I've seen is utter trash. >|So where did you get your story that the >|rifle was physically "under" a stack of heavy boxes? > >From a picture that shows it was *behind* two 50 pound boxes Where can I see the picture? Does it look like the boxes had to be moved after the rifle was put there? And just how does "behind" become "under"? With distortions like this, you make it very hard to take anything you say seriously. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 16:04:14 PST 1992 Article 10788 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - 48 Hours - Back Wound Well Below Shoulder Date: 9 Feb 1992 19:44:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <28048@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>>"Mrs. R. E. Arnold, in a handwritten statement for the FBI, >>>stated that she saw Oswald on the first floor at about 12:25 P.M., >>>[...] When the FBI typed her original statement, the >>>time changed to 12:15" > >>Hmm. Marrs says that in 1978, Arnold gave the 12:15 time to the >>_Dallas Morning News_ in an effort to *correct* the FBI account of her >>testimony. What, did she change her story *again*? > >Same story all the way Brian. It just changes when the FBI writes >it down! Get a clue, man! Marrs says that the FBI did not record the 12:15 time *at all*, and that 12:15 was *the* time Ms. Arnold gave when she corrected the FBI! Can't you read? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 16:04:26 PST 1992 Article 10789 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Tippit in Oak Cliff (was Re: Grassy Knoll gunman...) Date: 9 Feb 1992 19:54:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <28126@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <28216@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: I guess Tippit killed *himself*. In article <28216@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >||All police cars had been accounted for. And the number of the Car >||had similiar digits to Tippits. >| >|What is your source for these two statements? > >The source, I believe, if from Kurtz's reporting of the witness--what's her >name--at the boarding house. Hurt says that she only said that the digits she saw were not the ones of the cops she knew. Why would Hurt leave out such a juicy tidibit? Also, what was your source for the *first* statement? Not the boarding house lady, I hope! >|The WR says "Tippit patroled district No. 78 in the Oak Cliff section >|of Dallas during the daylight hours." The radio transcript shows that >|Tippit was ordered to "be at large for any emergency that comes in". > >We have had exactly the same arguement before. There is still no reason for >Tippit to be there---since everyone else was taken off their normal shifts. Can't you read? I just told you why Tippit was there, and why he was not taken off his normal shift. >Why was it there? Why did it honk twice and leave? Why did it have Tippit's >number (probably) on it? Why didn't the policeman who did come forth and >say that is where he was and what he did? If the old lady actually did see a police car, it was probably Tippit's. I can't explain why he was honking. Neither can you. Does that mean that nobody killed Tippit? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 18:29:36 PST 1992 Article 10793 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "48 Hours" revelations Date: 10 Feb 1992 00:05:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>Oswald could have easily tracked the blue limousine >>through the green foliage, and then zeroed and fired when Kennedy came >>into full view. > >If it was easy, then why didn't they try it? I don't think the city of Dallas would have appreciated their tree being taken away by CBS for use in an experiment. >>They didn't say. Of course, you realize that if it can physically be >>done _with_ practice, it can physically be done _without_ practice. >>WC critics have been trying to tell us that the shooting was >>physically impossible. > >Answer my objection to the test. Not other peoples. I did. I said "they didn't say". Of course, you realize that Oswald had *months* to get used to his Mannlicher-Carcano, while I doubt that any of CBS's testers had ever fired one before the day of the experiment. >He used a rifle that was crap. The experimenters used Mannlicher-Carcano's, also. >The test proved NOTHING! The test proves that the shooting was physically possible. The test *does* disprove critic's claims that the shooting was not physically possible. Note that no test has reproduced the shooting attributed by conspiracy theorists to their 'other gunmen', *much less* reproduce it under your high standards. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 9 18:29:52 PST 1992 Article 10795 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 10 Feb 1992 00:36:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <697597225.3@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: Find an intact-head photo with no hand in it, or shut up. In article <697597225.3@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >The ones that show JFK's head still intact on the right back side, >and a small entrance wound in the lower middle of the head. Look real hard at that photo. See the hand holding Kennedy's scalp over the back part of the exit wound? > > What is this ongoing fascination with JFK's face? Who ever said > > that JFK had a bullet wound in the face? > >Some official autopsy shots have a large part of the right FRONT >blown out as exit wound. But it's quite intact in this photo. "autopsy shots"? What "autopsy shots"? I know of no drawings -- much less *photographs* -- showing an exit wound on Kennedy's face or forhead. > > The bullet entered the back of his head, and the biggest > > pieces of it exited above his right ear, with the result that a > > lot of the head from the exit point back toward the entrance wound > > was blown out. > >The back right quadrant is blown out. None of the front is gone. I didn't say it was, even though I'm not sure that the massive exit wound does not reach as far forward as, say, a point directly above the front edge of the ear. The Z film shows a red splotch there, but I think that's just the front scalp flap having been folded all the way forward over JFK's temple. >That is inconsistent with a large exit wound by the shock wave >theory (as well as other official autopsy claims). How so? The bullet exits tangentially above the ear, and blows out much of the head from there back, where it was approaching the surface. >Notably, you did not quote or ask me about the Parkland doctors' >conflicting reports with the Bethesda reports. I put much more stock in *photographs* of the wounds than in any doctor's *verbal description*. We have photos from both Parkland and Bethesda (right?), so who needs the doctors? >Because according to the Parkland photos, there was either no >head left where they say there was a small entrance hole, or else >it's extremely close to the huge gaping hole that does not show >up in other pictures (which have the back right ridiculously >intact. How many times do you have to be told about the hand in the photo? Either find me a photo with the back right "ridiculously intact" but with *no hand* holding the exit wound closed, or shut up. As far as I can tell from the autopsy report, the entrance wound *was* quite close to the back margin of the exit wound. > > Pieces of JFK's head went everywhere. Most went forward rather > > than backward, though. > >References? Look at Z313. Nothing visible is moving backward. Everything is moving forward in some way. >If it's the birdshot blood and brains, well, that >went backwards, too, as I quoted -- hitting the policemen behind, >and the skull on the trunk reported by the Secret Serviceman who >hopped onto the Presidential limo. That's why I said pieces "went everywhere". In fact, the "birdshot" line is how Connally described getting splattered with pieces of JFK's head. Connally was in *front* of Kennedy. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 18:25:44 PST 1992 Article 10809 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 10 Feb 1992 02:48:58 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <28215@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >JFK would have to have been looking at Jackie for a bullet >to enter what you claim is the entrance wound and leave above >his right ear. He *was* looking a little to the left, and Jackie was at his left. The entrance wound is an inch to the right of center (if I read the autopsy medicalese correctly), and most of the bullet escaped above the ear. Note that some fragments penetrated all the way to just behind his right eye. Not all fragments directly follow the path of the original bullet. >If he was looking slightly to his left, he >was still looking straight away from the TSBD because of the >angle of the limo! Not at all. The sniper's nest is 7 degrees to the limo's right, but JFK is looking *more* than seven degrees to his left. >If he's looking at his knees, he's not looking to his left far >enough Look, we're talking the vertical now, not the horizontal. When I say he's looking at his knees in this context, I mean that the plane G, that goes through his two eyes and is parallel to the top of his head, intersects his knees. If this is too hard for you to understand, just pretend I said he's looking at the left side of his left knee. >to allow a bullet going down and to the left Down and *slightly* to the left, to the tune of 7 degrees. >to hit him in the back of the head and come out behing his right ear. *Above* his right ear. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 18:25:53 PST 1992 Article 10810 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 10 Feb 1992 02:56:50 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <27888@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Feb6.032113.22922@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Feb6.060839.20770@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6537@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>Look at the overhead plan of Dealey Plaza in _Reasonable Doubt_. By >>my measurements, the sniper's nest is 7 degrees to the right of the >>limousine. > >Right. And if you add in the angle of the limo, which was pointing >about 5-10 degrees to the right in relation to the 6th floor of the >TSBD , I was *talking* about the angle of the limo! The limo was parallel to the street at that point, and a line parallel to the street at that point going back from the center of the street misses the sniper's nest by 7 degrees (when viewed from above). Now that I think about it, Kennedy was in the right side of the center lane, so the angle would be minutely less. >>He was facing left-of-center. > >Nowhere near enough to allow a bullet from the 6th floor of the >TSBD to exit from above his right ear! Sorry, but that's where some of the bullet went. Other parts were left right behind his right eye. Are you going to say that a separate shot was fired for every different track of a bullet fragment through his head?! -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 18:31:09 PST 1992 Article 10807 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Tippit witnesses (was Re: LBJ quote on JFK - a reference to verify) Date: 10 Feb 1992 02:30:41 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 182 Message-ID: References: <697208588.1@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk Summary: *10* partial truths from Mark, and *5* witnesses untouched. In article <697208588.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >>> (Steve W Davis) writes: >>> >>> I find it VERY difficult to believe that Oswald would shoot >>> somebody four times in the middle of a residential neighborhood >>> (with witnesses), then open his gun (in the middle of a street), >>> and remove four spent cartridges >> >> Well, no less than nine people saw him as the gunman. > >Let's look at how Brian Holtz misleads people with partial >truths -- he knows so much yet says so little... Come off it. Steve said he found it difficult to believe Oswald would shoot somebody in front of so many witnesses. *Aside* from the fact that so *many* of the witnesses fingered Oswald, Steve still has to face the fact that *somebody* shot Tippit in front of as many as *nine* witnesses. That was the main point I was trying to bring out. But let's go through your article, and count the *blatant* partial truths therein. >"The chief witness for the Warren Commission was Helen >Markham ... Markham claimed to have talked for some time >with the dying Tippit, yet medical authorities said he was >killed instantly. Bobby Kennedy was shot in the head, but I saw his lips moving on the film of him lying on the ground. Jim Brady was shot *through* the head and talks every day. Kennedy had his head blown apart, and yet apparently was still breathing when he reached Parkland. Real life isn't like hollywood. The presence of lead under the skin does not cause all body functions to immediately cease. >She said she saw Tippit's killer talk with the policeman through his >patrol car's right-hand window, although pictures taken at the scene >show that window as shut. The Warren Report says there was also a vent window. Marrs conveniently doesn't mention this, and fails to print any pictures taken at the scene. [Partial truth #1] >"She was in hysterics at the time and even left her shoes >on top of Tippit's car. Later, in her testimony before the >Warren Commission, Markham stated six times she did not >recognize anyone in the police lineup that evening [without >prompting for a "number two man]" She positively identified Oswald at the lineup, and reaffirmed it in her testimony. If you read the transcript, you'll see that she was confused and initially thought she was being asked whether she had been acquainted with Oswald. [Partial truth #2] >One witness, William Whaley, told the Warren Commission of >the police lineup using "young teenagers" that was used to >identify Oswald: "... you could have picked [Oswald] out >without identifying him by just listening to him [...] Bzzzt. Whaley wasn't a witness to the Tippit slaying; he was the cabbie who drove Oswald home. [Partial truth #3] At any rate, "Whaley believes that Oswald's conduct did not aid him in his identification 'because I knew he was the right one as soon as I saw him'." [Partial truth #4] >Cabdriver Scroggins, who was at the scene of the shooting, >admitted seeing Oswald's photo in a morning paper prior to >viewing the police lineup. So do you think he was lying when he said that Oswald was the man he saw? >He also said that he did not actually witness the shooting and that >he ducked so that his view of the fleeing killer was obstructed. After the shooting Oswald walked directly *toward* Scoggins, and Scoggins ducked behind his cab as Oswald passed within *12 feet* of him. [Partial truth #5] >Further, he said that an "FBI or Secret Service" agent showed him >several pictures which he narrowed down to two, and chose the wrong >picture (not Oswald). Yes, but this was after he had identified Oswald in the lineup. The picture was no doubt an old picture of Oswald, as opposed to one taken the same weekend that Scoggins saw him. >Other "witnesses", including Domingo Benavides - the person >closest to the killing - were never asked to view a lineup That's because Benavides told police he did not think he could identify the man who fired the shots. >nor were they able to identify Oswals as the killer. Benavides said that Oswald bore a resemblance to the man he saw shoot Tippit. [Partial truth #6] Given Benavides' lack of a good look at the gunman, that's the best you can expect. I noticed while reading about Benavides that he was the one who told the cops where Oswald tossed his empty cartridges: into some bushes. So much for all the breathless incredulity we've had to endure over Oswald's leaving the cartridges where they could be trivially found! Two of the cartirdiges were found by Benavides, and one each by the two women into whose yard Oswald had dropped them. So I don't find it hard to believe that a fifth cartridge escaped being found. Also, Marrs quotes an ambulance driver who said a bullet fell out onto the parking lot when Tippit was unloaded from the ambulance. The Warren Commission was not told of his story, which explains where the fifth bullet ended up. >Acquilla Clemons was a witness, and on film stated that the >killer was "kind of a short guy ... kind of heavy." She >also has stated that she was threatened into silence by a >man with a gun. Yet, the Warren Commission states: "The >only woman among the witnesses to the slaying of Tippit >known to the Commission is Helen Markham." That's what Marrs cryptically says, but reading between the lines it sounds like Clemmons did not come out with her story until assassination "researchers" dug her up. [Unless you can show that the WC knew of Ms. Clemmons, this has to count as Partial Truth #7.] >Notably, Markham reportedly also initially said that >Tippit's killer claim was short and stocky with bushy hair. Maybe it's just because I'm 6'2", but I'd call Oswald short, and definitely slight. The Warren Report says the transcript has her calling the hair "a little bit bushy", but it says "the transcript establishes that she was referring to the uncombed state of his hair, a description fully suppported by a photograph of Oswald taken at the time of his arrest." Marrs completely ignores both the qualification and the explanation. Still, we'll lump these together as Partial Truth #8. Also, the "initially" that you echo from Marrs is a lie. Within minutes of the shooting she described the gunman as 5'8", and only later did she call him "short" in that interview. [Partial truth #9] >"Another witness was Warren Reynolds, who chased Tippit's >killer. He, too, failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's >killer until after he was shot in the head two months later. >After recovering, Reynolds identified Oswald to the Warren >Commission. Before being shot, he had said that he was "of the opinion" that the fleeing gunman was Oswald, though he could not "definitely identify" him. [Partial truth #10] >Well, folks, there's Brian Holtz's kind of witnesses. Well, folks, there's Mark Prado's kind of non-"partial" truth. In fairness, I think all but one of these partial truths are due to you trusting Marrs not to mislead you. He's the slimiest of the authors I've read on the JFK assassination. >I've yet to find ONE good witness of Oswald shooting >Tippit, but I've seen alot to the contrary. Check your math. The Warren Commission found 12 people who saw the gunman. Nine positively identified Oswald, two said Oswald resembled the gunman, and the other said he was too far away to make an identification. In your article you tried to indict only four of these witnesses (and did a lousy job of it, if I do say so myself ;). The Warren Report gives the stories of these people, and it all adds up. It's funny: when I first started looking at the Tippit slaying, the conspiracy theorists had me convinced that it was even more doubtful that Oswald killed Tippit than that Oswald killed JFK. But after checking up on each of the criticisms of the Tippit conclusion, and finding out all the evidence that the conspiracy theorists ignore, I now conclude that it's a virtual certainty that Oswald killed Tippit. I've seen this pattern over and over in the JFK case. It's easy to get sucked into the conspiracy theorists' world of half-truths, speculation, ignored evidence, and just plain lies. And it's very tedious to actually do the legwork that reveals how flimsy the case for a conspiracy actually is. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 18:31:24 PST 1992 Article 10811 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - 48 Hours - Back Wound Well Below Shoulder Date: 10 Feb 1992 03:02:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <28131@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <28218@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>And I refuted that poster, by pointing out that when Carolyn Arnold >>corrected her testimony for a newspaper in 1978, she told the >>newspaper *12:15*. > >I posted my source. Which source did you use? Jim Marrs, _Crossfire_. >>Do you just post claims hoping that some other poster will make up >>evidence to substantiate them? > >I didn't make it up Brian. I posted the name of the book and >the author. Quit accusing me of making it up! Sorry. Either Marrs made up his story, or your author made up *his* story, or Ms. Arnold changed her story *twice*. The only consistent thing about this is that every time I hear a new version of this story, the time moves closer to the time of the shooting, which is highly convenient for conspiracy theorists. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 18:31:33 PST 1992 Article 10812 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - 48 Hours - Back Wound Well Below Shoulder Date: 10 Feb 1992 03:06:56 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <28048@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>>>>"Mrs. R. E. Arnold, in a handwritten statement for the FBI, >>>>>stated that she saw Oswald on the first floor at about 12:25 P.M., >>>>>[...] When the FBI typed her original statement, the >>>>>time changed to 12:15" >>> >>>>Hmm. Marrs says that in 1978, Arnold gave the 12:15 time to the >>>>_Dallas Morning News_ in an effort to *correct* the FBI account of her >>>>testimony. What, did she change her story *again*? >>> >>>Same story all the way Brian. It just changes when the FBI writes >>>it down! > >>Get a clue, man! Marrs says that the FBI did not record the 12:15 >>time *at all*, and that 12:15 was *the* time Ms. Arnold gave when she >>corrected the FBI! Can't you read? > >I wasn't reading Marrs Brian. I was reading Guth. > >Can't you read? YOU can't read. You even excerpted the article in which I said that Marrs gives version of Arnold's story that is contradictory to your author's version. I NEVER said you were citing Marrs. Note also that Marrs cites the newspaper article quoting Arnold. How can we check up on Guth's "handwritten statement"? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 18:33:24 PST 1992 Article 10813 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Ruth Paine (was Re: JFK - 48 Hours ...) Date: 10 Feb 1992 03:16:17 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <28214@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <28253@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <28253@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|This is just beautiful. *You* were the one who started this thread >|by saying that Ruth Paine had "CIA ties". Now that we know you have >|*zero* evidence for such "ties", you fall back to the canard that GDM >|"was indeed CIA". > >The Paines and DeMohrenschildt were close friends. This has already gone into >by Mark and the others. This is even *more* beautiful. That they were friends does *nothing* to prove that Ruth Paine had "CIA ties" or that GDM "was indeed CIA". > But as I established in an earlier thread, the only >|credible evidence you have for this claim is that GDM was interviewed >|by the CIA about his travels abroad, as were *many* such travelers. > >Credible because you chose only to believe that evidence. Have you read >Spy Saga? Have you read Plausibel Denial? No. I trust your keen intellect to figure out what's the most convincing evidence, and to cite it for us. Or are you saying that the evidence is convincing and yet completely forgettable at the same time? Or is it that reading those books is a holistic spiritual experience which is not amenable to summation? >||from the HSCA investigation found that DeMohrenschildt was indeed CIA. >| >|What was the program? How did the researcher get the files? > >The program was Inside Edition, and the files were visible on screen. Don't you mean, "pieces of paper were visible on screen"? If I have to trust "Inside Edition" to realize that GDM "was indeed CIA", then I don't think I'm going to realize it. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 18:35:36 PST 1992 Article 10814 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Tippit in Oak Cliff (was Re: Grassy Knoll gunman...) Date: 10 Feb 1992 03:35:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <28216@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <28254@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <28254@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|||The WR says "Tippit patroled district No. 78 in the Oak Cliff section >|||of Dallas during the daylight hours." The radio transcript shows that >|||Tippit was ordered to "be at large for any emergency that comes in". > >people were in the outlying areas were not taken off their >shift. However, according to Meagher, Tippit was, for some unknown reason. Huh? The WR makes it sound like Tippit was *not* "taken off his shift", whatever that means. >Now, what was that emergency? No one knows. "Be at large for *any* emergency that comes in". There was no specific emergency. >It means that the witness testimony linking Tippit and Oswald is strong, and >that they had some sort of relationship. That's just toooo much of a stretch. *One* old biddy claims to see a police car honk twice on the street in front of a *boarding house*, and if true then that cop probably was Tippit, and so *therefore* Tippit and Oswald "had some sort of relationship"? Thanks, but no thanks. >That explains why Tippit went to >Oswald's house: a number no one--not even his wife--knew. It wasn't "Oswald's house"; it was a *boarding house*. Nobody "went to" the house; they probably were just driving by. Also, the old lady says there were *two* cops in the car, yet only 15 minutes later Tippit was driving alone. If all the police cars *truly* can be accounted for, as you say, then the simplest explanation is that the old lady was just plain wrong. >It also explains why Tippit approached Oswald in a friendly >manner--which was not protocol when eyeing a suspect. Maybe Oswald was far enough from a perfect match for the description that Tippit barely thought there was a chance that Oswald was the assassin. >Another policeman in fact called in for support when >apphrending another subject that matched Oswald's description. Hey! In article <26737@darkstar.ucsc.edu> you suggested that Oswald's description was too ambiguous for anybody on the street to be questioned. *Now* you tell us that there were *other* cases of people being approached because they matched the description. Try to keep your story straight. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:28:19 PST 1992 Article 10880 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 11 Feb 1992 03:32:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <92037.185136WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <92041.095402WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <92041.095402WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill) writes: >>>I saw a show in A&E where he said >>>that he believed that he was hit by the same bullet as JFK. >> >>No, Connally has never said he was hit by the same bullet as JFK. > > Are calling me a liar. No, I didn't say that you said something you knew was false. (Nor am I saying you lied when you claimed I called you a liar. ;) > I know what I saw and it is the only time that > I have ever seen it. Well, it's just that Connally's steadfastness in rejecting the single-bullet theory has become legendary in assassination circles. I think that if Connally had ever wavered on it, I would have heard about it. Wait. Come to think of it, if Connally had wavered on it, that would have hurt the conspiracy theories and supported the Warren Report, so maybe it's not so mysterious that I haven't heard about it, given the fact that it's mainly the conspiracy theorists who do all the writing on this topic. > That whole Paul Hager thing was right. Nobody *yet* has told me just who the heck "Paul Hager" *is*! I can't avoid being like X unless I know who X is. ;) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:28:29 PST 1992 Article 10875 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Ruth Paine (was Re: JFK - 48 Hours ...) Date: 11 Feb 1992 02:36:51 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <697770314.5@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <697770314.5@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >I've already mentioned a well known CIA >front company that GDM worked for, Did you? I missed that. What was it? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:28:43 PST 1992 Article 10876 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Tippit in Oak Cliff (was Re: Grassy Knoll gunman...) Date: 11 Feb 1992 02:44:16 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <28126@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13355@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13355@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >Right. Police cars stop in front of people's houses and honk a couple >of times and then drive away all the time, don't they? About as often as Presidents get assassinated. About as often as exhaustive interviews are taken from every single person who might have encountered one of a handful of people as they moved through a major American city. >Especially when a few minutes later, the cop is going to >be killed and the guy who's house he honked in front of accused of >doing it. It was a boarding house, in a residential area. Don't try to make it sound like the police car was said to have pulled up to a mailbox with"Lee Harvey Oswald" written on it. >And this is what you call the >best explanation of what really happened? I've already said I have no satisfactory explanation for this story. My best guess is that the old lady got her story wrong. I don't suppose you'd care to tell us _your_ explanation of this incident? I didn't think so. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:29:01 PST 1992 Article 10877 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: CIA/FBI lies (was Re: JFK ...) Date: 11 Feb 1992 02:57:02 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <33279@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <33279@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: >>Ok, I'll bite. What "lies" do you have in mind? > > I was asking you. I was asking Gordon. He wrote: We know that the FBI and the CIA have lied and covered up to protect the official view. > So the question still stands. Why would they (CIA/FBI) lie if they have > nothing to hide? I don't know that they *did* do any lying. I'm still waiting to hear from Gordon. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:29:17 PST 1992 Article 10878 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Is conspiracy a theory, or a creed? Put up or shut up. Date: 11 Feb 1992 03:04:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <13302@pitt.UUCP> <13350@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: What fraction of "most people" have even SEEN the Warren Report? In article <13350@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>I and others have been doing a pretty good job of that, I think. At >>least we *have* a "case"! >> >Most people here and around the world and the USA don't agree that >you and the WC have done a good job. Truth by popularity contest. I love it. Tell me, what fraction of "most people here and around the world and the USA" have ever even SEEN a copy of the Warren Report? Have *you* ever even seen a copy? >>Learn to read. I didn't ask you how it would be possible for you to >>agree with the Warren Commission. I asked you how it would be >>possible for you to say that it is almost certain that no new evidence >>is forthcoming, and that therefore it's time to burst your cozy bubble > >You learn to read! I never said it is almost certain that no new >evidence is forthcoming. Wow, you just can't understand the sentences I type, can you? I'll do this in steps, so your mind can follow along. Let P be the proposition that "it is almost certain that no new evidence is forthcoming" and that therefore it is time to decide what explanation we should live with while we nevertheless diligently hold out our near-futile hope that more evidence will surface. Got it? Good. Now, I asked you "how it would be possible for you to say" P. I did *NOT* say that you SAID P. Understand? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:29:28 PST 1992 Article 10879 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Warren Commission Absenteeism Date: 11 Feb 1992 03:25:31 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <92037.190330WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <92041.093515WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <92041.093515WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu (bill) writes: > Besides YOU never talk about the people on the Commission that did not a > agree with the final published report. I didn't know there *were* any. What were their names? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:29:42 PST 1992 Article 10882 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: "48 Hours" (was Re: A&E's The Men who killed Kennedy series.) Date: 11 Feb 1992 03:39:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <697453287.13@blkcat.FidoNet> <13352@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I thought they made Helms look pretty bad. In article <13352@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >But what a sweetheart job with >Richard Helms: "Did the CIA have anything to do with the assassination?" >Helms: "Of course not, only people with the mind of a child would believe >that." Wow, you really don't like CBS, do you? I thought Helms came off absolutely terribly, and that they did a good job of making him look stupid. He seemed flustered when it was suggested that the CIA might have had Kennedy killed, and he finally stammered out his "mind of a child" remark. If I were a conspiracy believer, Helms' performance would have only strengthened my convictions. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:29:55 PST 1992 Article 10883 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 11 Feb 1992 03:43:39 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb10.170443.1@cc.helsinki.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb10.170443.1@cc.helsinki.fi> leisti@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes: >What is X's identity? Col. Fletcher Prouty. >America was so adored in those days. How naive you people must have been! We still had blatant racial discrimination, and our intelligence services (and even our military) regularly overthrew popular governments in favor of murderous tyrants. Now that we've cleaned up our act, everybody hates us, but I guess they're just trying to make up for all those years that they were fooled. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 10 21:30:10 PST 1992 Article 10884 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Incontrovertible evidence of a second gunman Date: 11 Feb 1992 03:56:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <697770314.4@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <697770314.4@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >I must admit with a bit of humor, though, that I chuckled the most >when I read Holtz's own account of himself deceptively playing like >he was not out of breath when near his tennis foe when changing >courts. The first thing to come to mind was "Are we having fun yet?" Hey, ya gotta do whatever it takes, right? But it turns out that getting my wind back is a better strategy than psyching out my foe, so now I pant like a dog. :) >I hope that we are not just playing to "win" I'm not; I alread "lost". Remember, my first posting here said that the single bullet theory was incorrect, and that Ruby shot Oswald on impulse. Boy, was I wrong! >Brian is officially in engineering at Sun, "Officially"? Hey, everybody knows Sun is just a front for the CIA. ;) >so maybe he's been exposed to >a good bit of scientific objectivity. Naaa, I'm in SunSoft, and there's nothing scientific about software. We keep all the scientists in the hardware dungeons. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Feb 11 10:15:41 PST 1992 Article 10888 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 11 Feb 1992 07:07:06 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 117 Message-ID: References: <27888@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <33155@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Feb6.032113.22922@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Feb6.060839.20770@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <6537@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: A unified response to David, Bruce, and Mark. In article <28247@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|||Kennedy's head was looking down at least 45 degrees. >|| >||How do you know this? It does not look like 45 degrees to me in Z312. >| >|[7 lines of detailed description of JFK's head in Z312.] > >I already know that what you see in photos is not the same as most people. Did >you get that 45 degree number from the same place that you said was wrong >about the back wound? No. I got the 45 degree number by looking at Z312 and seeing all the things that you excerpted (but ignored) from my article. In article <28251@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >WR has Kenedy's bent down at a steeper angle. Yes, they draw his head as bent almost 60 degrees, when it really was only bent about 45 degrees. It also has the bullet exiting from the *middle* of the exit wound, when it most likely exited near the front edge of the exit wound. >Now, according to the Hurt Book, raise the wound 4 inches. Hurt's 4 inches is fantasy. Look at the photo of the entrance wound. If you lower it the four inches that Hurt says the WC drawing lowered it, it would be at the *hairline* on the back of the neck. But the silly WC drawing has the entrance wound at least *two* inches above the hairline. You already admit that that silly drawing has Kennedy's head bent too far over. If you unbend his head to only 45 degrees and raise the entrance wound two inches, the two errors cancel each other out, and the two wounds line up again. Also, note that mark Prado has been arguing that the traced photograph Hurt argues from is a forgery. Why would any conspiracy theorist argue that the picture is a forgery if the wound it reveals lines up as poorly as you say? Answer: it lines up just fine. In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>The limo was parallel to >>the street at that point, and a line parallel to the street at that >>point going back from the center of the street misses the sniper's >>nest by 7 degrees (when viewed from above). > >Maybe your map ignores the fact that Elm is an S curve? Hardly. Hurt's map is perfectly to scale. It shows where each sign, tree, statue, and lampost was. It shows where each painted lane-divider line is on Elm Street. It shows where Oswald's window is on the wall of the TSBD. It is drawn from a perspective of straight above Dealey Plaza. How good is *your* map? >At the time of the fatal head shot the limo was curving to the right >at least 15 degrees. The map I have of Dealey Plaze corresponds >exactly to 15 degrees at the time of the head shot. How do you measure that? I repeated my measurements. On my map it's 57mm back along the line of the limousine (assuming the limo is parallel to the street at the time of the head shot), and 8mm over (at a right angle from the line of the limo) to Oswald's window. The arcsin of 8/57 is 8.06 degrees. >Get a new map Brian. One that shows the S curve. Get a protracter. One that measures angles better than your eyeball. :) >If the bullet entered the one inch to the right of centre in the >back of JFK's head , and it was fired from the TSBD 6th floor >it should have come out in the middle of his face It almost did. The bullet fragmented massively when it hit the back of his skull, and one trail of fragments stops only right behind his right eye [cf. autopsy report of x-rays]. Other fragments burst out of his head above his ear. You seem to think Oswald was using tungsten/depleted-uranium armor-piercing rounds. He wasn't. In article <697770314.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > Not at all. He's definitely facing somewhat to the left of > > straight-ahead. Look at Z312. > >This is true. A bit to the left. Thank you. Bruce, are you listening? ;) > >>> Kennedy's head was looking down at least 45 degrees. > > >> How do you know this? It does not look like 45 degrees to me in Z312. > > > Look at the top of his head. It's angled down at far *more* > > than 45 degrees > >Woah!! It looks like about 30 degrees to me, but >clearly NOT "far *more* than 45 degrees". Look again, at the flat part of the top of his head. It's clearly far more than 45 degrees. 60 degrees is about right; I bet you're accidentally measuring from the vertical, instead of the horizontal. >Why greater than 45 degrees? Is this what is needed in order to >make a LHO fatal shot plausible from those angles? You deleted the context. I went on to say that the top of the head naturally slopes down, and so the top of the head being down 60 degrees lends support for my estimation that the head in general is looking down about 45 degrees. Like David said, if the head is pointing down much more than that, the bullet would have exited higher than it did. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Feb 11 10:15:55 PST 1992 Article 10889 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.physics Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 11 Feb 1992 07:15:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <697770314.0@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Bullet mangling is about kinetic energy, not momentum. Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:10889 sci.physics:17430 In article <697770314.0@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > > Learn some physics. Damage to the bullet has nothing to do with > > momentum, and everything to do with energy. Consider: even if the > > bullet completely fragmented into *separate molecules*, if all the > > molecules continued traveling in the bullet's original direction with > > the bullet's original speed, then the bullet would have imparted *no* > > momentum to Kennedy's head. > >"Learn some physics?" YOU are the one that needs to do THAT! > >[Eleven lines about Mark's physics degree.] Maybe we ought to check the accreditation of the institution that granted you your degree. Did they teach you that the proper way to deal with a thought experiment is to ignore it and instead recite your resume? :) >Second, let's talk common sense, Brian, for the readers of this >newsgroup, instead of hiding behind UNNECESSARY and esoteric jargon. By all means, avoid discussing actual physics if you know that the physics isn't on your side. :) >Since the main >VARIABLE in this case is velocity, then the velocity must >have changed, and hence so did the momentum of the bullet. If you're a physics major, then you should know that kinetic energy varies with the *square* of velocity, while momentum varies *linearly* with velocity. If you're a physics major, then you should know that this means a projectile can give up a *lot* of its kinetic energy without losing much of its momentum. >whip out your materials science handbook. [...] If the bullet were >pristine, then I'd say that there could possibly have been only a >little bit of the kinetic energy and momentum transferred to the >target as teh projectile passed THRU the target. [...] (BTW, I was a >mechanical engineering student thru my junior year before changing my >major to physics. Ahh, that explains a lot. ;) Put away your "materials science handbook", and get out your Physics 101 text. I already told you that even if the bullet fragments into *separate molecules*, it loses *zero* momentum if those molecules leave the scene with the same velocity as the bullet entered. Similarly, if the bullet lodges *completely intact* in the head, then even though *no* energy has been used to deform the bullet, *ALL* of its momentum gets transferred to the head. I'm cross-posting this to sci.physics, and I invite its learned denizens to correct me if I'm wrong here. So yes, the bullet probably transferred most of its momentum to the head. But NO, once we know that the bullet did in fact hit the head, then the condition of the fragments tells us *nothing more* about how much momentum was transferred. But where they ended up (and how fast they got there) *can* tell us what happened to some of the momentum. And what happened is that at least 65.6 (out of 160) grains' worth of the bullet ended up in the front seat after cracking the windshield. And more of the bullet possibly went over the windshield to crack the concrete curb down by James Tague. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Feb 11 10:20:25 PST 1992 Article 10887 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: Oswald's voice on tape? Date: 11 Feb 1992 05:38:28 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <10FEB199222513229@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM soc.history:9558 alt.conspiracy:10887 rec.arts.movies:53047 In article <10FEB199222513229@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes: >An article in Sunday's New York Times mentions in passing >that a tape of Lee Harvey Oswald's voice exists, part of a >"taped radio debate." This is a new one on me. In New Orleans in August 1963, Oswald clumsily approached prominent anti-Castro activist Carlos Bringuier trying to join the cause. He was brushed off, but four days later he started passing out *pro*-Castro literature on a nearby street. Bringuier naturally heard about it and confronted Oswald. A scuffle broke out, and both were arrested. Oswald parlayed the publicity into a radio interview and debate or two. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Feb 11 22:49:44 PST 1992 Article 10934 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 11 Feb 1992 18:54:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb11.141515.7388@engage.pko.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb11.141515.7388@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: >>We still had blatant racial >>discrimination, and our intelligence services (and even our military) >>regularly overthrew popular governments in favor of murderous tyrants. >>Now that we've cleaned up our act, > > Who's being naive now? Desegregation. The Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action. Numeric goals and timetables. Haiti. The Phillipines. Kuwait. Iraq. Chile. Namibia. Panama. Grenada. El Salvador. Cambodia. Afghanistan. The entire Warsaw Pact. All of these are places where we have taken diplomatic or military action recently in support of popular sovereignty. Sadly, we have only lately come around on this front (cf. early-80's Nicaragua, thru-mid-80's El Salvador, pre-invasion Noriega, early-80's Guatemala, late 70's Cambodia and Angola, etc., etc.). -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Feb 11 22:50:08 PST 1992 Article 10935 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 11 Feb 1992 19:14:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 76 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <33314@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: I checked, and I was right about the 6th floor. In article <33314@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: >>I now have a copy of the Warren report, and it says that a Secret >>Service agent was *twice* able to do all the things Oswald did from >>the shooting until being seen 90 seconds or more later, "at normal >>walking pace", and both times he only needed 78 seconds or less. > > That's nice. Now that you have a copy of your bible, everything you read > within just has to be true, right? Are you saying the two times of 74 and 78 seconds are lies? Or are you just blowing smoke because the truth is a little too inconvenient for you? > Did the SS agent who performed this > test take the time to re-arrange the boxes at the window, I still haven't seen evidence that *Oswald* "took the time to re-arrange" those boxes. If anything, he would have just shoved aside any boxes that had hid him from view and prevented him from getting out of his nest. Why would Oswald take time out of his getaway to "arrange" boxes, but leave the three cartridges sitting right there in plain sight? > wipe the M-C > of prints, walk to the other side of the floor to stash the weapon Can't you walk and wipe down a rifle at the same time? I can. Again: why would Oswald sit there leisurely, perhaps whistling as he wiped down his rifle, and only *then* start walking to stairs at the opposite corner of the room? >>He didn't need to run. The men were right below Oswald, and I believe >>the floor of the 6th floor was just wooden planks. I think the >>stairwell was separated from the men by a door and quite some distance. > > `I believe...', `I think...' that's good solid evidence...... > Anyone else tries that is this forum and you begin shooting from the hip... No, *I* would check out the claims. *You* would just spout sarcastic remarks without contributing one iota of substance. Well, I *did* check my memory, and I was right. The floor of the sixth floor *was* just wooden planks, the stairwell *was* enclosed by a door, and the stairwell *was* as in the far opposite corner. You look pretty stupid right about now. >>You are more concerned with defending Oswald against some non-existent >>posthumous criminal prosecution than you are with figuring out who >>killed Kennedy. Why? [...] is your concern merely a >>convenient excuse for you to fantasize about conspiracies instead of >>getting your hands dirty trying to figure out what actually happened? > > Funny, I was getting my `hands dirty' in this, as you say, when you > were still in diapers..... Oh? Then let's see your hand: how many shots caused the wounds? From where? Which shots caused which wounds? Who shot Tippit? > On the basis of reading a couple of books, you have Oswald guilty of > assassinating JFK. Wonderful. Amazing. You *delete* the paragraph in which I say that neither I *nor* the Warren Commission ever *could* or *did* find Oswald "guilty" of anything, and come right back with the lie that I "have Oswald guilty" of murder. Brush up on your English, and then try answering this paragraph one more time: Who said he was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of the crime of murder? I only say that the evidence seems to show that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. Whether Oswald was guilty of some degree of murder under relevant Texas statutes is a truly unanswerable question, since by definition legal guilt can only be determined under the appropriate adversarial judicial proceedings. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:39:38 PST 1992 Article 10937 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": why was Tippit killed? Date: 11 Feb 1992 19:25:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb11.140407.1@cc.helsinki.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: The conspiracy theorists won't answer your question. In article <1992Feb11.140407.1@cc.helsinki.fi> leisti@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes: >1) Conspiracy theory advocates: What was the reason Tippit was killed? I think Tippit was just going to casually make sure that, no, of course you weren't in Dealey Plaza a half hour ago, ok, just show me some ID, I'll take your name, keep an eye out for somebody nervous matching your description, see ya later. Oswald could not afford to let such a conversation get underway. Incidentally, the cab driver that Oswald walked within twelve feet of after the shooting said he heard Oswald mutter either "poor dumb cop" or "poor damn cop". >2) Conspiracy theory opponents: What was Oswald's reason for killing > Tippit? Don't *assume* that Oswald killed Tippit. You should've asked "Why was Tippit killed?" However, I doubt any conspiracy theorist is willing to answer the latter question. At least, they don't answer such questions when *I* ask them. >And who was this Tippit guy anyway? He was a good cop. He was married, and he was having an affair with a woman who was at the time estranged from her husband. The woman lived in the Oak Cliff area. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:45:53 PST 1992 Article 10986 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 12 Feb 1992 06:48:57 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <92037.185136WAS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <10FEB199213122894@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >I saw the Z film on the Seattle ABC affiliate last night. >They showed the film without sounds and then showed it again >with the tape from the open mike in Dealey Plaza. Well, there's your problem. The "gunshots" recorded from that mike were shown to have been recorded a minute or two *after* the shooting. If you watched a copy of the Z film while those "gunshots" were being played, your ears tricked your eyes into seeing things that weren't there. It's sort of like when they play records backwards and bias you by putting the hidden "message" on the screen. >I wish I had a working VCR because it was a great copy. There's your other problem. Watch: >JFK is hit while behind the street sign. Connally >is hit after the limo passes Zapruder , No. Connally is in obvious distress 2-3 seconds before the the limo is perpendicular to Zapruder. >and then less than a >second later JFK receives the fatal head wound. No. Like Mitchell said, Connally is in obvious distress by Z235, but the head shot is at Z313, 4.25 seconds later. The limo is perpendicular to Zapruder only a few frames later, c. Z324. >The shots that hit Connally and JFK's head come so close together >that they can not be from the same gun. No, they're at least 4.25 seconds apart. The problem is that Connally and JFK's *back* were hit within 1.6 seconds of each other. In fact, I think they were hit at the same time. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:49:05 PST 1992 Article 10977 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: OSWALD's Change of Nationality Date: 12 Feb 1992 05:14:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <3FEB199213545773@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu> <1992Feb10.170532.8035@sco.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Defector ... NOT ! In article <1992Feb10.170532.8035@sco.COM> hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson) writes: >(James J. Lippard) writes: > >You're right, and that's why I'd like to see some other evidence. >I'm confused by the different claims. If Oswald's defection was accepted >by the U.S. Gov., did he reapply for citizenship when he returned? His renunciation of his U.S. citizenship in Moscow was not accepted by consular officials, because it was a weekend. Oswald was told to come back on a business day, but he never did. So he was technically still a U.S. citizen, which is why he said on the radio that he was at all times under the "protection" of the United States. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:51:48 PST 1992 Article 10979 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 12 Feb 1992 05:24:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <697770314.0@blkcat.FidoNet> <1992Feb11.213644.5278@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Try it. In article <1992Feb11.213644.5278@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>So yes, the bullet probably transferred most of its momentum to the >>head. > >Most? Then why didn't the head go down and to the left I already said that in the first frame after impact JFK's head *has* gone forward and down, and that I think it was already near the limit of how far his chin could go toward his chest, causing his head to rebound back. Try it. Look down at your left knee, and push hard on the back of your head. You can barely make it go down any further. >>And what happened is that at least 65.6 (out of 160) grains' worth of >>the bullet ended up in the front seat after cracking the windshield. > >Do we really know that? The FBI rushed to refurbish the limo so >quickly that nobody really knows anything about what was found >in the limo. Refurbishing the limo has nothing to do with picking up bullet fragments off the seat. When you see a bullet fragment on the seat, you don't leave it there for posterity. You pick it up and take it to the lab. Try to resist the urge to automatically question every bit of evidence that you find inconvenient. Or if you do, at least tell us on what basis (besides inconvenience) you choose to presume that the given evidence is a lie. >>And more of the bullet possibly went over the windshield to crack >>the concrete curb down by James Tague. > >Improbable. The bullet would have had to travel in an arc Probably. I don't know for sure. Kennedy was sitting relatively high, and the windshield (the whole limo, in fact) doesn't look very tall. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:51:57 PST 1992 Article 10980 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 12 Feb 1992 05:40:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb11.215843.5757@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb11.215843.5757@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >I traced the map. I took the the direction of the limo at the time >of the head shot. Where do you put the limo at the time of the head shot? It was at the north end of the lane-divider lines whose south ends are even with the steps leading down from where Zapruder was. >>one trail of fragments stops only right behind his right eye > >The right eye isn't the centre of his face. If the wound above >his ear is the exit wound, we can assume it was caused by the largest >fragment of the bullet. It couldn't have entered the back of JFK's >head, turned right and up, and then ended up in the front seat of the >car could it? Nobody has a good model of how a bullet fragments when it slams into a skull. How do _you_ account for such divergent fragment trails as the two we're talking about (right eye vs. above the ear)? Also, note that the bullet entered from slightly to Kennedy's left, and hit an inch to the right of center, where the head starts to slope around. So the bullet would tend to deflect outward. >> Other fragments burst out > >If the main body of the bullet exitted above the right ear, then >it wasn't a fragment was it? The two front-seat fragments only account for 40% of the bullet's weight. They were fragments. >If the bullets fragmented so much going through the brain, explain >how the magic bullet came to be so intact. Simple. The head shot bullet hit bone. The magic bullet passed through one human chest and entered another before it ever hit a bone. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:52:04 PST 1992 Article 10981 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 12 Feb 1992 05:48:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <697856725.6@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <697856725.6@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >But I'd also settle for a VCR tape of it. You didn't tape 48 Hours? That constitutes criminal dereliction of your alt.conspiracy duties. ;) >Do the flaps on the side of Kennedy's head cover the part of the >hole towards the front? Yes, assuming the back flap is there. It isn't apparent as far as I can tell, and to someone who hasn't seen any hospital photos it looks like the head wound is *evenly* distributed directly above the right ear. But I think it mostly looks this way because the gruesome red interior of the forward flap is prominently displayed with the flap in its folded-forward position. >Was it the BACK of Kennedy's head that >had the bone blown off? Where did the piece on the back of the >car and the one in Jackie's hand come from? I can't tell; it doesn't even show up on my videotape of 48 Hours' airing of the film. But I know it's there, because I remember seeing on TV better runs of the film that show the piece. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:52:12 PST 1992 Article 10983 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.physics Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 12 Feb 1992 06:10:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <697856725.7@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: A bullet has fixed momentum; fragments can only carry momentum *away* Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM alt.conspiracy:10983 sci.physics:17484 In article <697856725.7@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >Since Oswald's bullets must have been pretty tough for one to >have remained pristine in passing thru Kennedy, passing oblong into >Connally, shattering his fifth rib, and shattering his wrist, >assuming the official version. Hence, for one of the same kind to >have fragmented in its interaction with Kennedy's would have meant >a considerable amount of energy transfer and hence momentum transfer. Here's where I think you're deliberately trying to mislead people who know less physics than you and I do. You and I both know damn well that we should simply assume that *all* of the bullet's momentum was transferred to the head unless we find out otherwise, and that that amount of momentum is a well-known, *finite* amount. Then, when we find out that at least 40% of the bullet's mass was found *forward* of Kennedy's head and that it got there with enough velocity to crack a windshield, what do *you* do? You go on and on about how the mangled nature of bullets would have taken *so* much energy, which could only have been available if the bullet had *so* much momentum. Well, get a fucking clue: we *already know* exactly the *maximum* amount of momentum the bullet could possibly have given the head, no matter *how* mangled the bullet wound up. So when we find a big chunk of the bullet's mass continuing to move quite rapidly out of the head, that's a clue that *some* of that maximum amount of momentum got carried away instead of being applied to the head. Instead, with your talk of "materials handbooks" you try to stir up visions in people's heads of how Herculean is the task of mangling the bullet, and how mind-boggling is the amount of energy required for the feat, and how that implies some unspeakably huge amount of momentum the bullet must have possessed. Well, it doesn't wash. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 12 18:59:17 PST 1992 Article 10987 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 12 Feb 1992 07:41:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 109 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <9202060833.AA17431@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Feb12.044542.9055@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb12.044542.9055@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >Were there any hints of fingerprints on the weapon, even >unidentifiable ones? I don't know. >> He bought the coke *after* the encounter with officer Baker. > >I haven't heard this anywhere. It's in the Warren Report, and I presume it's the story that Baker stands by. Building manager Truly, who was with Baker, also says that Oswald's hands were empty. Interestingly, Baker says that Oswald was walking away from the door when Baker went through it and first saw him. >A handwritten FBI report from Baker quoted him as saying that LHO had >a Coke in his hands during the encounter. However, the reference to >the Coke was crossed out in the report. Marrs also cryptically says that Truly's testimony only came later, when Truly testified before the WC. If the authorities were going to get Baker and Truly to fiddle with the truth, why not just have them say they saw Oswald stepping off the stairs? >> Forgetting details would only make the reenactment go *faster*, >> wouldn't it? Also, there was no crowd to work through during the >> reenactment. > >Perhaps, but this argument would also apply equally to the Secret >Service agent playing the role of "Oswald" during the reenactment. Not the "crowd" argument. If you have the names of any of the people who were in a "crowd" on the sixth floor or in the stairwell, I'd *love* to hear their stories! ;) >In addition, these two men could have "remembered" doing things on that >day that they didn't actually do. False positives among Nov. 22 memories? You mean like remembering fake Secret Service agents, or honking police cars? (I noticed you ignored a version of this question in my article.) Unlikely. False positives are much less likely than plain ol' forgetting. But I'll ask this again: >> BTW, does this comment mean you are similarly skeptical of people who >> *years* later started recalling details about seeing a grassy knoll >> gunman? >LHO's "cage" would have to have been sufficiently elaborate to have >completely hidden him from Bonnie Ray Williams, who spent a few minutes >on the sixth floor just minutes before the assassination. I can't find any reference to where on the 6th floor Williams' lunch was found. With the sniper's nest being in the southeast corner of the bulding, an L-shaped set of boxes could have shielded him from essentially all of the 6th floor and still left room for him to walk out. I wish I had a photo of the sniper's nest as it was found. >> Wouldn't Oswald have prepared the hiding spot when he prepared the >> sniper's nest? > >If he did, he would have to have done so while Bonnie Ray Williams was >sitting up there on the same floor, eating his lunch. Says who? Williams was up there for three minutes eating his lunch, but Oswald had been working on the 6th floor much of the morning. >the presence of Williams on the >sixth floor minutes before the assassination certainly doesn't leave LHO >very much time to prepare his "sniper's nest". He could have set up both a sniper's nest wall of boxes and the boxes to hide the rifle *any* time that morning without arousing suspicion. His *job* was to move boxes. The only thing he had to do right before the assassination was assemble the rifle. >Perhaps the sniper's nest didn't get created until AFTER the >assassination. Maybe the movement of all those boxes spotted in the >after-assassination photos was a reflection of this. Come up for air. What kind of idiotic conspirator waves a rifle out a window during the shooting of a President, and then spends the next precious minute moving boxes around? Any box-moving *after* the shooting, that involves more than shoving them aside to get away, would be insane. >Is there any photo in the WC report which shows the configuration of >the boxes BEFORE the rifle was found among them? The Warren Report says that the rifle was found between two rows of boxes, and that no one disturbed the scene before it was photographed. >There was a great deal of confusion that day. Could she be referring to >a LATER encounter with Lovelady on the back stairs? It would seem rather >odd that she would be off by several minutes in her estimate of when >she started to walk downstairs. I trust more her memory of the sequence of events and the faces associated with them than I trust her estimates of the exact number of minutes that passed during the episode. >Is Victoria Adams still available? I don't know. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 13 21:48:03 PST 1992 Article 11059 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 13 Feb 1992 06:36:31 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <697928741.2@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <697928741.2@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >Or the building across the street where a sabot was later found on the >roof. Marrs' photo caption just says that in the "1970s" on that roof was found a *cartridge* "indicating" the use of a sabot. Marrs' index is so lousy, I can't find where he discusses this in the text, if at all. I don't put much stock in physical evidence that takes more than a decade to get found. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 13 21:51:06 PST 1992 Article 11050 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 13 Feb 1992 03:24:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <697928741.3@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <697928741.3@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >I'm not 100% convinced that the 40% slug isn't from the Kennedy >back/throat shot, and that Connally was hit by a different shot. How does a bullet come out JFK's throat and not hit Connally? How do those fragments get into the front seat if they weren't from the head shot? > > we *already know* exactly > > the *maximum* amount of momentum the bullet could possibly have given > > the head, no matter *how* mangled the bullet wound up. > >Clue: There are millions of experiences of people getting blown >backwards even when the bullet manages to find its way out the >other end of the victim's body. For a physicist, you sure don't seem to like to discuss physics. Do you *deny* that we *already know* exactly the *maximum* amount of momentum the bullet could possibly have given the head, no matter *how* mangled the bullet wound up? Do you *deny* that bullet fragments continuing past the head would carry away *some* small part of that known, fixed, maximum amount of momentum? But feel free to continue to ignore my physics questions, and recite anecdotes about bullets causing people to get "blown" around, even though Andy Freeman just posted proof that bullets don't have the momentum to do so. > > Instead, with your talk of "materials handbooks" you try to stir > > up visions in people's heads of how Herculean is the task of > > mangling the bullet, and how mind-boggling is the amount of energy > > required for the feat, and how that implies some unspeakably huge > > amount of momentum the bullet must have possessed. Well, it > > doesn't wash. > >I didn't expect it to wash with you. I've seen enough of >Brian's brain to know that. But don't speak for others. >You might say that it doesn't wash TO YOU. Sigh. One more time: do you *deny* that no matter *how* mangled the bullet ends up, it *cannot* increase the known, fixed, maximum amount of momentum that the bullet originally had? >as if you are speaking for the objective participants, then maybe we >should find out and take a poll of who thinks what. Not that history >can be determined by a poll (e.g., creation vs. evolution), but at >least it might change your style a bit. You mean: at least it might give *you* more excuses to avoid discussing physics. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 13 21:51:28 PST 1992 Article 11062 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 13 Feb 1992 07:29:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb11.215843.5757@sfu.ca> <1992Feb12.224218.7839@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb12.224218.7839@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>It was at the north end of the lane-divider lines whose south ends >>are even with the steps leading down from where Zapruder was. > >I put the limo past Zapruder when the head shot occurred. The Life >Magazine Photo I have puts it in the same spot. *Where* "past Zapruder"? BTW, the spot I gave above (based on a bullseye in a Marrs photo) is a little off. From measurements in the WR, it looks like the head shot location is just past the *south* ends of the *next* set of lane-divider lines up the street (i.e., toward Oswald). This makes my 8 degree figure a little high, but probably not by more than a degree. Anyway, you said you have a map like the one I'm using, so see if your measurements agree. Two more things, one which supports my case, and another which may hurt it. 1. The film on "48 Hours" of a limo driving to the spot I mentioned above confirms that at that spot the limo is only barely angling to the right from the sniper's nest perspective. 2. We both agree that the head shot was past Zapruder's position, and yet the seatback of JFK's seat at Z312 angles to the right, meaning the limo isn't quite yet perpendicular to Zapruder. Only around Z324 is it perpendicular. This means either that the limo was a little left of parallel-to-the-street at the time (which would increase the angle in dispute), or that the limo was a little further up the street toward Oswald than we think (which would decrease the angle in dispute). >>the bullet entered from slightly to Kennedy's left, and hit an >>inch to the right of center, where the head starts to slope around. >>So the bullet would tend to deflect outward. > >If the deflection occurred , and it occurred as the bullet >ahit the skull it would not be the clean entrance wound Clean, but not straight in. The autopsy report has the wound as 6mm x 15mm and notes a "beveling of the margins of the bone". The autopsy photo shows that the long axis of the wound is angled roughly toward the exit wound. >Are you saying there were two separate exit wounds? Or did both >fragments exit from the same wound? Yes. I don't think you're acknowledging the fact that the forces that blew out the exit wound and shattered the bullet would not have sent every single fragment traveling along exactly the same trajectory as the bullet originally had. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 13 22:02:44 PST 1992 Article 11051 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CIA/FBI lies (was Re: JFK ...) Date: 13 Feb 1992 03:34:29 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <33279@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <13386@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Learn to count the >'s. In article <13386@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>I was asking Gordon. He wrote: >> >> We know that the FBI and the CIA have lied and covered up to >> protect the official view. >> >>> So the question still stands. Why would they (CIA/FBI) lie if they have >>> nothing to hide? >> >Why do you think I should be able to give a definite answer to all of your >questions? I don't know why they would lie if they had nothing to hide. Learn to count the >'s. You are answering *Paul's* question, not mine. I still want to know: exactly how do you "know that the FBI and the CIA have lied and covered up"? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 13 22:30:31 PST 1992 Article 11058 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Ruth Paine (was Re: JFK - 48 Hours ...) Date: 13 Feb 1992 06:27:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <697856725.5@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <697856725.5@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >International Cooperation Administration. > >He represented them for a year in Yugoslavia. (That's also where >he was shot at by Marshall Tito's guards -- as he sailed real >close to the residence collecting data such as photos Interesting! What's the source for these three items (working for ICA, ICA as CIA front, and GDM taking photos)? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 13 22:30:43 PST 1992 Article 11060 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Fingering of Oswald as the Assassin Date: 13 Feb 1992 06:56:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 36 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb2.052426.24256@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Feb12.051953.9925@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: JFK, assassination, Dallas police, questions In article <1992Feb12.051953.9925@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >> >It is entitled *Who Didn't Kill JFK*. [...] >Why don't you try looking at the film first? I'll put it down on my list of things to look up at Stanford's library. >Is Jack White not a qualified photo expert? Mitchell? (I didn't save the article you posted devastating the charges of fakery in the backyard photos.) >a man walked up to the TSBD "command post" and mentioned that >he saw a man leaving the TSBD with a rifle in his hand (a caliber of 30.06 >was mentioned, although I don't see how he could have seen this). It was >this description that was broadcast. Source? >During the assassination, he saw this man taking aim with a rifle. >He went over and told a policeman what he had seen. However, Brennan >was unable to pick LHO out of a lineup later that evening. Of course! Brennan only saw enough to give the description he gave. No one's saying Brennan ID'd Oswald. >the films taken during the assassination show that he was not >looking upward at the time. Brennan says he saw the man off and on for a few minutes before the shooting. He says that he only looked up to see the last shot be fired. Does the film show him not looking up during the entire latter part of the shooting? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 20:02:32 PST 1992 Article 11103 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 14 Feb 1992 05:47:59 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <10FEB199213122894@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Feb12.224936.7942@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb12.224936.7942@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>No. Connally is in obvious distress 2-3 seconds before the the limo is >>perpendicular to Zapruder. > >No way! You don't see the pain in his face until well after the >throat shot to JFK. I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. Try to get access to a videotape of the film, or to some published frames. Connally thinks he was hit c. Z231-234. He could not have been hit after about Z237 because his wounds no longer line up. In Z239ff his cheeks puff out and his mouth forms an "O". Z239 is anywhere from 0.8 to 1.9 seconds after Kennedy was first hit. The limo is not perpendicular in the film until c. Z324, which is 4.7 seconds after the last moment at which Connally could have been hit. >Watch the film without preconceptions. Quit misrepresenting >what you see to make it fit the idiotic magic bullet theory. Nothing I've said here pushes the magic bullet theory. All I've said is that Connally was not hit more that 1.6 seconds after JFK was, and noone familiar with the evidence thinks otherwise. For reasons *other* than the raw facts I've given here, I happen to believe that Connally was in fact hit while he was behind the sign, by the same bullet that hit Kennedy, but that's a separate discussion. >Watch the film! I love it. You see the film *once* on TV recently, while *I've* got a videotape of it and a high-quality VCR to watch it on, frame by frame. And *you* tell *me* to watch the film. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 20:06:19 PST 1992 Article 11104 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 14 Feb 1992 05:57:41 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <697597225.4@blkcat.FidoNet> <179912@pyramid.pyramid.com> <28508@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28508@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >The leftward movement of the head can only be explained by a shot >from Kenndy's front right How do you explain that in the first frame (Z314) after the impact (Z313) the head has moved *forward*, before rebounding back in subsequent frames? How do you explain that other conspiracy theorists have the head shot coming from the Dal-Tex building, which is practically on the *other* side of the head from the grassy knoll? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 20:06:40 PST 1992 Article 11105 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 14 Feb 1992 06:03:28 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb11.213644.5278@sfu.ca> <28513@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28513@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|it was already near the limit >|of how far his chin could go toward his chest, causing his head to >|rebound back. Try it. Look down at your left knee, and push hard on >|the back of your head. You can barely make it go down any further. > >Well, I have finally had enough. Translation: you tried my little experiment, and realized I'm right. >First it was the neuro-spasm. I never said this. >Then it was Alverez's flow-jet theory, then it was Lattimer's mellons. These are the same theory, David. I believed it until I had a videotape of the Z film that I could step through frame-by-frame. >if you are looking at your feet, and get shot in the head, your head >will indeed go forward, since the neck is connected to the back. Huh? Why would the head go forward if it were hit from the right front? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 20:08:38 PST 1992 Article 11107 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - Tague shot from Dal-Tex Building Date: 14 Feb 1992 06:31:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb13.050135.13159@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: JFK, assassination, Tague, Dal-Tex In article <1992Feb13.050135.13159@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >If that shot was fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, then >the shooter was off to the right by as much as 20 feet. >That would be real bad shooting. I think the curb mark was caused by a fragment, not an unimpeded impact. If the fragment came from the head shot, it deflected 20 feet to the right while traveling 180 feet, which is a deflection of only 6 degrees to the right. This is consistent with the wounds already indicating a slight deflection to the right by the bullet as it came slightly from JFK's left and hit just to the right of center. The WR suggests this possibility, but it's not really known whether the windshield was in the way or not. >by having the bullet hit the surface of Elm Street first. >They have a tendency to hug the surface. Interesting idea. I remember some witness said he "saw" a bullet strike the street. It'd be nice to know if there are any suspicious marks on Elm street. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 20:08:51 PST 1992 Article 11108 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": why was Tippit killed? Date: 14 Feb 1992 06:45:32 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb11.140407.1@cc.helsinki.fi> <28486@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28486@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >1) Police officers do not do this casually. There is protocol for this and it >was followed in another case in another section of Dallas that day. Where? Was it much closer to the site of the assassination? Was the the suspect acting more suspiciously than Oswald was? >It is routine proceedure to call for backup, and to maintain control. Are you saying that a cop cannot ask somebody a question without calling for backup? Are you saying that there are no degrees of suspiciousness? Are you saying that there are only two kinds of pedestrians: those who aren't worth questioning, and those who need to be surrounded by a S.W.A.T. team before they're approached? >I have already answerd this question. Tippit was probably involved with the >conspiracy in some way. He was seen in a nightclub with Oswald and Ruby, so >there is some indication that the two might have known each other. This explains almost *nothing* about why Tippit was killed, but it *does* explain your standards for what constitutes an explanation. Is this the best you can do? "Tippit was probably involved with the conspiracy in some way". Oh, gee, well that clears up *that* mystery! Oh, and the story of Oswald and Tippit being seen together is so flimsy that the only conspiracy author who I know even mentions it says that it cannot be substantiated. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 20:12:21 PST 1992 Article 11110 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 14 Feb 1992 07:30:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 81 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <9202060833.AA17431@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Feb12.044542.9055@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: How Oswald could have gotten away with it. In article zoso@milton.u.washington.edu (David Patrick Brockington) writes: >I believe that there is also testimony in the Warren Commission Hearings >that indicates that LHO did indeed have the coke in his hand at the >time of encounter. What testimony? Only Baker and Truly saw Oswald right then, and the WC story is that Oswald bought the coke right afterwards. >various accounts of LHO actually having possession >of the coke at the time of the sighting (original news accounts, Who did the accounts quote? Only Baker and Truly were there, right? >Oswald's own description of the event to DPD Captain Will Fritz which >included the elusive can o' coke [WCR 600]. Oswald had something of an interest in establishing that he was there the whole time. ;) In fact, the movie "Ruby and Oswald" has Oswald saying in his Fritz interview at different times that he ate on the first *and* second floors. Is this what the record of the interview shows? (The movie seemed to stick religiously to the record, to the point that nobody even ever engages in small talk.) >If anyone did indeed "fiddle" with the truth, removing a can of coke is >a ton more acceptable than moving the entire encounter. I wouldn't have them "move the entire encounter". I would just have them say that they saw Oswald stepping from the stairwell to the lunchroom. I don't think there were any other witnesses who could have contradicted this story. So why didn't they say *this*, instead of lying about the coke? It makes no sense. >As far as I am aware, the story of a crowd isn't well grounded. Of course, >I have yet to read the entire 26 volumes of the Hearings. You have all 26 volumes? Lucky stiff! ;) Whether there was a crowd should be discernable in, say, the famous Billy Lovelady photo. >Nope. Williams was, according to his own testimony in the WCR, up there >eating lunch a minimum of five, and as long as twelve minutes. Assuming that >Williams "returned" [WCR 250] to the sixth floor at noon as he said in his >testimony, he could have been on said floor as late as 12:12. Interesting. The conspiracy authors uniformly try to stretch it out to 12:20. >There were several people who visited the sixth floor in the thirty >minutes preceeding the assassination, and one did indeed see Oswald >in the SE corner, according to Warren Commission testimony. Really? Who were the witnesses? >>What kind of idiotic conspirator waves a rifle out a >>window during the shooting of a President, and then spends the next >>precious minute moving boxes around? > >One who was a patsy, playing out his assigned task in a bigger plot. >Fact? Probably not. Possible? Yes. No. Remember, the whole idea of the box-moving argument is to show that the gunman remained on the 6th floor too long to get downstairs in time for the encounter with Baker. >Anyone who would have been stupid enough to shoot the President from >as highly visible location very well could earn the badge of "idiot." Give Oswald a little credit. If he had only had a better plan for hiding the rifle, and hadn't left the TSBD and wound up shooting a cop, he very likely could have pulled it off. However, he could have been tripped up by his dual mistakes of letting his coworker see him carry a long package to work, and using a rifle that other people (e.g., his wife) knew he owned. Still, if he could dispose of the rifle, and convince Marina to say he'd gotten rid of it long before Nov. 22, there's no way he could have been convicted. (Did anybody besides Marina know he owned a rifle?) Oh, he also would have needed to not leave so many fingerprints on the sniper's nest boxes, and he would have had to dispose of the rifle bag, too. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 21:17:57 PST 1992 Article 11189 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CIA/FBI lies (was Re: JFK ...) Date: 15 Feb 1992 04:55:16 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <698078663.3@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <698078663.3@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: >1. Do you doubt that CIA personnel have routinely lied before > Congressional committees, in order to protect their kind? No. What I doubt is that any of their kind needed protecting for killing a President. >2. What is the seriousness of this, as regards public integrity? I don't understand the question. >3. What do you think of the adage "the end justifies the means"? It stinks. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 14 21:23:10 PST 1992 Article 11187 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 15 Feb 1992 04:49:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <698065826.6@blkcat.FidoNet> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <698065826.6@blkcat.FidoNet> Mark.Prado@f10.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mark Prado) writes: > >> blatant racial discrimination [...] > >> regularly overthrew popular governments in favor of murderous tyrants. > >> Now that we've cleaned up our act > >Who is "we"? America's government. Our elected representatives. >What about Iran-Contra and the October Surprise? Neither constitutes blatant racial discrimination nor installing murderous tyrants. Those are the acts I said we cleaned up. >What about the allegations of CIA drug running and S&L money >laundering? I think all drugs should be legalized. The government didn't do any money laundering, as far as I know. >How have "we" cleaned up our act? I *said*: no more blatant governmental racial discrimination, and no more replacing popular regimes with murderous tyrants. Despite all your righteous indignation, these two kinds of misdeeds hurt more people more badly than do Iran-Contra, S&L, Oct. surprise, and CIA drug-running put together. >Do you really think the U.S. can take much credit for the downfall >of the Soviet empire, or was it internal collapse? This isn't something I want to discuss on alt.conspiracy, so all I'll say is: Gorbachev gets the credit for the collapse, but Reagan gets the credit for showing them that not collapsing was an untenable course. Do you think Gorbachev could have convinced the hard-liners that communism was losing during Carter's years of defense cuts, stagflation, hostage crises, Atlantic alliance disarray, Cuban adventurism, etc.? >While we certainly deterred them from military enterprises, I don't >think it was our intelligence services that brought them into their >current status. I never said it was. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 10:41:04 PST 1992 Article 11216 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 16 Feb 1992 02:09:11 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <179912@pyramid.pyramid.com> <28508@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1992Feb15.020700.9142@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb15.020700.9142@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>(David Wright) writes: >> >>How do you explain that [...] the head has moved *forward* >>How do you explain that other conspiracy theorists >>have the head shot coming from the Dal-Tex building > >I'm glad you agree the Dal-Tex is a better place for the fatal >head shot. It's far more plausible than the grassy knoll. >But that doesn't preclude a shot from the Grassy Knoll. It only precludes a *hit* from the grassy knoll: there are no wounds for a grassy knoll bullet to go through. There is no simple head recoil for a grassy knoll bullet to cause. There is an *opposite* twisting of the head from what a grassy knoll bullet would cause. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 10:47:56 PST 1992 Article 11215 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: NOVA Program on the JFK Assassination Date: 16 Feb 1992 02:02:39 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 54 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb8.073043.10543@cbnewsd.att.com> <10FEB199212590843@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Feb14.011601.14488@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Head Wounds, Parkland doctors, National Archives In article <1992Feb14.011601.14488@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) responds to Mitchell: >You mention that the doctors "deferred to the autopsy photos". I thought >that the whole purpose for them being at the National Archives in the first >place was to confirm or deny that the autopsy photos showed what they >remembered seeing in Dallas. If the photos did agree with what they >saw in Dallas, then the wound must have been on the back of the head, >not the side. If the photos did NOT agree with what they saw in Dallas, >then Lifton may be right in his hypothesis of wound alteration. Either >way we have a problem here. Sigh. You and Lifton seem mentally incapable of entertaining the hypothesis that the initial Parkland descriptions were simply the jumbled recollections of doctors who were *not* conducting an autopsy, who were frantically trying to keep the obviously doomed Kennedy breathing, and who admit that Kennedy was on his *back* at all times. Instead, for you and Lifton, the (contradictory!) Parkland descriptions are Revealed Truth, and any mere *photographs* that show something different are obviously evidence of tampering. By the way, given that photographs show Kennedy's face and the back of his head to be intact, exactly how do you propose that the conspirators pulled off the magical reconstructive surgery that restored them? When and where was it done? >Incidentally, none of the doctors remembered seeing any small hole in the >back of JFK's head in the National Archive photos. What makes you say this? Were they or were they not shown the photo that was the basis for the famous entrance-wound drawing with the two hands and ruler in it? Weren't they concentrating on photos of the *exit* wound? >So the famous drawing >and/or photo of the back of JFK's head which shows a small hole in the >cowlick area is rather curious. Is it genuine or is it a forgery? The top HSCA forensics guy does not doubt that it's genuine. Didn't they have access to the actual photo, thus putting them in a position to know? >red splotch on JFK's head comes out from a point near his upper right >forehead, just above his right eye. What you're seeing is the gory inside surface of a scalp flap that has folded forward from the exit wound to cover his temple. >there is that x-ray photo of JFK's skull which show the right eye >missing, almost as if the whole right side of his face were blown away. How many times does Mitchell have to dispose of *this* myth? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 10:48:21 PST 1992 Article 11217 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 16 Feb 1992 02:57:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb12.224936.7942@sfu.ca> <1992Feb15.020435.9030@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb15.020435.9030@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>Connally thinks he was hit c. Z231-234. He could not have been hit >>after about Z237 because his wounds no longer line up. > >At about 239 Connally Thanks for completely ignoring Connally's testimony that he was hit c. Z231-234. >reaches with his left hand to the door on his >right side. He pulls himself around to look back towards JFK. >Try it yourself. My right elbow naturally rests on the back >of the chair. My right wrist naturally ends up below my right >nipple. Yes, but the *inside* of your wrist ends up facing your chest. The bullet passed through Connally's wrist from the *back* to the front. >Connally is in this position til about the mid 280's >when he starts to sink down into his wife's lap. >This is an excellent position to receive the wounds that are >described in WR v.20 pp 32-36. Aside from the fact that the wrist is backwards, when he is turned so far to the right his left thigh is *nowhere near* the bullet path through his chest. Also, you need to have a shooter to the *left* of the limo, in the southeast part of Dealey Plaza. The nearest buildings are twice as far away in that direction. Finally, for much of the time you describe, the bullet would have had to pass through either Jackie or Nellie. >>In Z239ff his cheeks puff out and his mouth forms an "O". Z239 is >>anywhere from 0.8 to 1.9 seconds after Kennedy was first hit. The >>limo is not perpendicular in the film until c. Z324, > >The limo is [...] Thanks for completely ignoring my point that Connally's cheeks puff and his mouth forms an "O". >>[head shot] is 4.7 seconds after >>the last moment at which Connally could have been hit. > >One of the witness's in the WR describes the shot pattern as >bang , several second pause, bang,bang. The witnesses were I think pretty evenly split on whether it was the first two or last two shots that were closer together. Thompson has a table of this data in _Six Seconds In Dallas_. >With the wounds he had, he couldn't have pulled himself around >to the right at 239 if he was hit before 221 when the limo >emerged from behind the sign. Turning to one's right and then slumping backwards are not exactly amazing feats. >>while *I've* got a videotape of it and a high-quality VCR to watch >>it on, frame by frame. And *you* tell *me* to watch the film. > >Maybe you are missing something? No, you are missing two things: 1) Access to moving footage of the Z film. 2) Familiarity with the basic facts of the case that are disputed by *no* serious researcher, such as Connally being hit sometime between Z205 and Z239. And maybe a third: the intellectual honesty to admit it when an innovative idea produced from a fresh perspective turns out in fact to be wrong. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 12:26:51 PST 1992 Article 11221 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK - Tague shot from Dal-Tex Building Date: 16 Feb 1992 03:14:05 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb13.050135.13159@sfu.ca> <1992Feb15.023739.300@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: JFK, assassination, Tague, Dal-Tex In article <1992Feb15.023739.300@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>I remember some witness said he "saw" a bullet >>strike the street. > >I'd like to read up on the witness who 'saw' the street impact. >Do you remember where you read it? _Crossfire_, p.14: On hearing the first burst of firing, Sheriff Decker glanced back and thought he saw a bullet bouncing off the street pavement. Another Dallas motorcycle officer, Starvis Ellis, in 1978 told the HSCA that as he rode alongside the car in which Decker was riding, he too saw a bullet hit the pavement. Neither Decker nor Ellis were ever questioned about this by the WC. Decker's car was the one ahead of Kennedy's. Marrs doesn't explain how Decker and Ellis could see the same impact if Decker had "glanced back". Nor does he pin down for us exactly where they say the bullet(s) hit. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 12:27:25 PST 1992 Article 11222 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 16 Feb 1992 03:32:45 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 30 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Feb7.171751.13072@engage.pko.dec.com> <1992Feb7.184041.6412@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Feb12.154343.7302@terminator.cc.umich.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb12.154343.7302@terminator.cc.umich.edu> joe@bach.cd.med.umich.edu (Joe Gillon) writes: >Curious that, too. LHO hides the gun but leaves the casings right on the >spot. But, hey, the guy's crazy right? Not necessarily. The casings alone could not have led anyone to Oswald. However, they did reveal the location of the sniper's nest, which had Oswald's fingerprints everywhere. They also revealed what floor the gun was most likely to be stashed on. So yes, if he had tossed the casings out the window before he left, and if he had hid the rifle better, he could very well have gotten away with it. He would still have had to keep Marina (and the Paines?) quiet about the rifle, and he would of course have had to not kill Tippit. With neither a murder weapon nor a dead cop, they may very well have tried Oswald on circumstantial evidence alone, but they wouldn't have convicted him. >And, oh yeah, isn't there some woman who claims that several minutes after >the shooting she saw from a nearby building a man standing at the sniper's >window looking down into the street? I've never heard this. >If this is true, what the hell was he >looking at exactly, who the hell was he, and why didn't Bakker find him? Baker went initially to the seventh floor, and thence to the roof. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 16:21:53 PST 1992 Article 11251 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Magic Bullet Theory: Head Shot Movement Date: 16 Feb 1992 18:10:52 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb15.020700.9142@sfu.ca> <1992Feb16.035511.12964@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb16.035511.12964@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >Actually, I like the grassy knoll better for the throat wound. >The autopsy drawings have the back wound lower than the throat >wound. A downward shot from the grassy knoll, exitting the back. That doesn't work at all. A bullet going through those two wounds had to either hit, or be fired by, Connally. >But we didn't see which way JFK moved when he was hit in the >throat. A bullet that passes all the way through JFK does not impart very much momentum. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 16:23:02 PST 1992 Article 11252 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 16 Feb 1992 19:45:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 130 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb15.020435.9030@sfu.ca> <1992Feb16.174200.17922@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb16.174200.17922@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>Thanks for completely ignoring Connally's testimony that he was hit >>c. Z231-234. > >Your welcome. You always ignore his testimony that he was hit >by a separate bullet, so I thought I would return the favor. I do not trust Connally's ability to see bullets fly. Nor do I trust Connally's ability to remember during those traumatic seconds the exact sequence of gunshots and bullet impacts. But I _do_ trust Connally's ability to remember what he was doing when he first became consciously aware of having been shot. >>Yes, but the *inside* of your wrist ends up facing your chest. The >>bullet passed through Connally's wrist from the *back* to the front. > >Did it? v.20 p.36 Gregory Exhibit #5 has a sketch of Connally's >location at the time of the wounding. It shows the bullet passing >through the inside of his wrist and out the back. >The previous page , v.20 pp32, has an autopsy diagram with 'Enter' >typed beside the inside of the wrist. It has been crossed out and >a handwritten label of 'EXIT' has replaced it. It seems there >is some confusion as to which is the entrance/exit wound on the >wrist. I only have the Warren Report. It says Dr. Gregory concluded that the back of the wrist was the entrance wound because a) "thread and cloth had been carried into the wound to the region of the bone", b) "the location in the Governor's wrist, as revealed by X-ray, of small fragments of metal shed by the missile upon striking the firm surface of the bone", and c) "different amounts of air in the tissues of the wrist". >>>Connally is in this position til about the mid 280's [...] >> >>Aside from the fact that the wrist is backwards, when he is turned so >>far to the right his left thigh is *nowhere near* the bullet path >>through his chest. > >Thats wrong. The above described drawing in the WR proposes the >position I described to explain all the wounds. >Remember, if this shot was fired from the TSBD, Now I *know* you're insane. Look at Connally's chest in any frame after Z240. He is turned almost all the way to the right, and is *sideways* to the TSBD. We can't tell from the Z film exactly when his legs realign with his turned torso, but it wouldn't have been until his back was almost *completely* turned to Nellie. Are you saying Nellie shot him? ;) >The fragment would only have to be deflected the tiniest amount >to end up in his left thigh. "Fragment"? What ended up in his left thigh was almost certainly CE399, which was a nearly pristine bullet. You told me in the head-shot discussion that mangled fragments can't have deflected from the original bullet path if those fragments are large enough. Now you tell me that a complete, nearly-pristine bullet *can* be deflected? >> Also, you need to have a shooter to the *left* of >>the limo, in the southeast part of Dealey Plaza. > >He was hit at the far right of his back, >by a bullet travelling down and to the left. Yes, but the bullet came out near his right nipple. Look at the position of those two wounds after Z240. If you wait for his legs to align themselves with his turn, and for Jackie to be out of the way, I think you could actually make a case for the wounds being aligned for a bullet coming from between Jackie and Nellie -- *if* you erase the evidence for the bullet passing through the wrist from back to front. Debating whether Connally was struck at a time that no knowledgeable researcher says he was is a pretty pointless exercise. I'm taking it as a sign that all the sane critiques of the WR have been thoroughly discredited. ;) >Most people >don't sit in a car with their right wrist on their left thigh. Look at Z229-231. His hat, in his right hand, pops up from the left side of his lap. It was there. >>Thanks for completely ignoring my point that Connally's cheeks puff >>and his mouth forms an "O" [in Z239ff]. > >As I said in another post, he yelled 'My god, they're going to kill >us all' at some point. Maybe this was it. If it *was*, then it proves that Connally was hit before Z239. Connally says he only made that exclamation after he'd been hit, thinking he'd been mortally wounded. >>No, you are missing two things: 1) Access to moving footage of the Z >>film. 2) Familiarity with the basic facts of the case that are >>disputed by *no* serious researcher, such as Connally being hit >>sometime between Z205 and Z239. And maybe a third: the intellectual >>honesty to admit it when an innovative idea produced from a fresh >>perspective turns out in fact to be wrong. > >1) I've seen it You've seen it three times. Since I taped it off of "48 Hours", I've probably seen it a hundred times. I thus have access to every Z frame taken during the shooting. Do you? My frames are in color. Are yours? I can run my frames forwards, backwards, in slow motion, and single-step them back and forth. Can you? >2) All serious researchers agree with you, right? Hardly. What I'm saying is that not a single journalist, conspiracy author, or government investigation has doubted that Connally was hit before Z239. If you had even a passing familiarity with the history of this case, you'd have known exactly what I meant. >3) Try admitting you are wrong for a change. I'm not wrong very often, but when I am, I admit it. By my count I've been wrong four times in this newsgroup, and I've publicly listed those occasions. > You can't even remember that the WR exhibits place the entrance > wound on Connally's wrist on the inside. I've never seen those exhibits. My brain-damaged A.P. copy of the WR only includes the original text. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Feb 16 16:24:21 PST 1992 Article 11253 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Encounter in the Lunchroom Date: 16 Feb 1992 20:15:16 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 66 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <9202060833.AA17431@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Feb16.155706.23301@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Joseph, please try to edit out more of the article you're responding to. In article <1992Feb16.155706.23301@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >Many of these people who had seen evidence for the presence of gunmen firing >from the Grassy Knoll did come forward, but their testimony was ignored by >the Warren Commission because it did not fit in with their preconceived >hypothesis of a lone assassin. No, they *say* their testimony was ignored. The Grassy Knoll witnesses had an amazing group inability to get the "true" version of their stories into the public record until many years later, with the 'assistance' of assassination "researchers". >In other cases, witnesses were intimidated >into silence until many years afterward. You mean, they *say* they were intimidated. >People who saw things that were >inconvenient for the LHO as single assassin theory tended to end up dead. Connally? Hoffman? Hill? Moorman? Adams? Clemmons? Of all the people who have given really explosive testimony, who besides Bowers is dead? (Bowers died in a car accident, BTW.) If you ask me, the conspirators have done an incredibly incompetent job of eliminating the witnesses with the most disturbing stories. >If I had been there and had seen another assassin firing from behind that >fence on the Grassy Knoll, I too would have probably kept my mouth shut >and not told anyone, lest my name end up on that "List of Mysterious Deaths" >in Jim Marrs' book. Bowers' death was not mysterious, and I can't think of any other grassy knoll witnesses who have died. >I can just see his supervisor now: "Lee, why are you piling all >those boxes over there near the window?" LHO responds "Gee, Boss. I just >gotta have them over there so I can get a clear shot at the President >when he comes by, heh, heh." Seriously, I would think that LHO's coworkers >on the sixth floor would have noticed him if he had attempted to assemble >a "sniper's nest" while they were working there. Why would Oswald do it while anybody else was around? Are you saying he was never alone that morning? >> Any box-moving *after* the shooting, that involves more than >> shoving them aside to get away, would be insane. > >I agree. However, the photos DO show that there was a movement of boxes >up to a half-minute after the assassination. I'll believe that when I see the photos. >> I trust more her memory of the sequence of events and the faces >> associated with them than I trust her estimates of the exact number of >> minutes that passed during the episode. > >Why do you trust one of these estimates over the other? Because one is an estimate, and one isn't. Do you dispute that it's easier to remember a sequence of events than it is to accurately estimate how much time that sequence took? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 17 16:03:43 PST 1992 Article 11317 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 17 Feb 1992 23:08:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 102 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb16.174200.17922@sfu.ca> <1992Feb17.000445.20785@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb17.000445.20785@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>>>Thanks for completely ignoring Connally's testimony that he was hit >>>>c. Z231-234. >> >>I do not trust Connally's ability to see bullets fly. Nor do I trust >>Connally's ability to remember during those traumatic seconds the exact >>sequence of gunshots and bullet impacts. But I _do_ trust Connally's >>ability to remember what he was doing when he first became consciously >>aware of having been shot. > >He has always testified that he was looking back and to the right >when he was shot. He is very consistent on this. Again, you've utterly failed to attempt to explain why Connally says he was hit c. Z231-234. Ignoring his testimony won't make it go away. As for "looking back and to the right", you are just plain wrong. Connally has always said he was facing forward, in the middle of turning from his right to his left, when he first realized he'd been hit. On "48 Hours" he says: I turned thinking that the shot had come from back over my right shoulder, and I turned to look in that direction. And I was in the process of turning to the left to look in the back seat, and I had no more than straightened up, and I felt a blow, as if someone had just hit me in the back with a doubled-up fist. The Warren Report says: the Governor started to look back over his left shoulder, but he never completed the turn because he felt something strike him in the back. You can't seem to get any aspect of the Connally wounding right. >Dr. Gregory's diagrams in the 'Exhibits' section of the WR >contradict his testimony. Dr. Gregorys diagrams all suggest >Connally was turned to the right and looking back when shot. On what date did Dr. Gregory compose his diagram? Dr. Gregory hadn't seen the Zapruder film. The Warren Report says: In his testimony before the Commission, [JBC] repositioned himself as he recalled his position on the jump seat, with his right palm on his left thigh, and said: [...] I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my right hand on my left leg, that it hit my wrist, went out the center of the wrist, the underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have happened that way at all. The Governor's posture explained how a single missile through his body would cause all his wounds. His doctors at Parkland Hospital had recreated his position, also, but they placed his right arm somewhat higher than his left thigh although in the same alinement [sic]. >>Look at Connally's chest in any frame after Z240. He is turned >>almost all the way to the right, and is *sideways* to the TSBD. > >The bullet did not enter his back. It entered almost under the right >armpit, and exitted under the right nipple. If you are sideways to me, and I shoot you out your right nipple, I have to shoot you in the arm. Connally's position after Z245 completely rules out a shot from the TSBD. This is so screamingly obvious from the film that I consider it to be dispositive, and I simply invite any doubters to take a look a the film. >I'm just describing the evidence in the WR itself. If you think >THEY are insane, I'm sure many people will agree with you. You're describing diagrams drawn by people who hadn't seen the Zapruder film. The "WR itself" says the diagrams are *wrong*, as I noted above. >>>Most people >>>don't sit in a car with their right wrist on their left thigh. >> >>Look at Z229-231. His hat, in his right hand, pops up from the left >>side of his lap. It was there. > >In 232 I can see the hat and the right hand. The right hand is on >the RIGHT side, not the left. Did I say anything about 232? No. Just track the hat back through to Z225. In Z225-228 it pops up from the right side of his lap to around his left nipple, and then from Z228-231 he moves it across his chest to the right. Also, note that Connally himself put his right hand on his left thigh when re recreated his position for the Warren Commission. >I remember him syaing that he said it before. Sucking chest >wounds make it hard to talk. He said it after. Here, let me shoot you in the chest, and I'll bet you screech like a banshee. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 17 16:35:15 PST 1992 Article 11314 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK Security Date: 17 Feb 1992 22:11:22 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 7 Message-ID: References: <6788@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <6788@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >clear breaches of security protocol. Such as? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 17 16:35:23 PST 1992 Article 11315 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Conally, Z frames 230-250 Date: 17 Feb 1992 22:12:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <15FEB199213415270@summa.tamu.edu> <1992Feb16.033332.12743@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: A question for Bruce David Schuck In article <1992Feb16.033332.12743@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: > Yelling "My god, they're going to kill us all!". > >He claims to have yelled it before he was shot. Source? I've always read that he yelled it *after* he was shot. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 17 20:01:07 PST 1992 Article 11318 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK: Connaly and the shotting. Date: 17 Feb 1992 23:27:00 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb15.020435.9030@sfu.ca> <28731@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28731@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|(Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >| >|Thanks for completely ignoring Connally's testimony that he was hit >|c. Z231-234. > >I thought we were ignoring testimony altogether. No. We simply put less stock in testimony that takes a decade or more to get on the record. And we put less stock in testimony about things that the witness cannot know, like Connally's opinion about which bullet hit him. >His testimony regarding when in a split second >he got it is hardly relevent. No. I think Connally is an expert on when he first became aware of having been shot, and on picking that moment out on the film. The moment he picks (Z231-4) is almost a second after Mitchell, the WC, and I think he was hit, but it is a split-second *before* you and Thompsen think he was hit (Z239), and several seconds before Bruce thinks he was hit (Z260-80?). I guess you guys think Connally reacted to a premonition of being shot. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Feb 17 20:23:05 PST 1992 Article 11320 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: TSBD: the ESCAPE!! Date: 17 Feb 1992 23:53:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <28733@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <28733@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >Brenan had said that "the rifle was slowly drawn from the window" OK, add 2 seconds to the WC estimate of Oswald's time. >Oswald has to reload the chamber after the last shot Add one more second. >He has to either jump over a box or sqeeze through his man-made >sniper's nest. Do we know for a fact that Oswald was walled in? If so, then I don't want to hear any more about how Oswald couldn't have been up there when Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch. At any rate, jumping/squeezing only adds one more second. >He must move two 50 pound boxes to hide his gun. There is no evidence that the boxes had to be moved to hide the gun. Add zero seconds. >He also throws his shells on the floor. Huh? They got ejected automatically when he cycled the bolt action. Add zero seconds. > The HSCA determined from photographic evidence that someone also >moved the boxed on the 6th floor *after* the shots were fired. I don't believe you. Quote us where the HSCA made this determination. >The HSCA concluded that the evidence indicated that the sniper's nest was >made *after* the shots were fired. I don't believe this, either. Cite a HSCA document. > Already, we have run out of time, Baker is talking to Oswald "Out of time"? You only convincingly added four seconds to the time. Try again. > Now, according to the WR it takes 10 minutes to assemble and load the >rifle. Huh? My copy of the WR says *6* minutes. (Ch. 4, Sec. "The rifle in the building", subsec. "The missing rifle".) >I don't think somone of Oswald's IQ would >only leave himself 2 minutes in which to aim and fire the rifle. Oswald may have assembled the rifle ahead of time and hid it near the sniper's nest. Remember, even after a search of the building had been started, the rifle was not found in its hiding place until 52 minutes after the shooting. It's pretty easy to hide a rifle in a warehouse, especially if you know where the people who work there aren't likely to look. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 21 19:03:55 PST 1992 Article 11327 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: JFK Security Date: 18 Feb 1992 03:46:28 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <6788@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <6836@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <6836@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >there were no secret servicemen (no security at all) >on the ground in the grassy knoll area. There were only 28 Secret Service men participating in the Dallas visit. It's ludicrous to suggest there should have been a SS agent on the grassy knoll. There were 600 local officials deployed, but that still only left three cops to handle Dealey Plaza. Along a presidential motorcade, it just isn't feasible to cordon off or patrol every location that offers a shot to somebody with a scoped rifle. Security apparently was quite good at Love Field and the Trade Mart, and nowadays they make presidents ride in closed, armored limousines. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 21 19:22:29 PST 1992 Article 11328 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: NOVA Program on the JFK Assassination Date: 18 Feb 1992 03:58:33 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 38 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <10FEB199212590843@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Feb14.011601.14488@cbnewsd.att.com> <1992Feb17.235629.2408@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Head Wounds, Parkland doctors, National Archives In article <1992Feb17.235629.2408@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: >>Sigh. You [Joseph Baugher] and Lifton seem mentally incapable of >>entertaining the hypothesis that the initial Parkland descriptions >>were simply the jumbled recollections of doctors who were *not* >>conducting an autopsy, who were frantically trying to keep the >>obviously doomed Kennedy breathing, and who admit that Kennedy was >>on his *back* at all times. Instead, for you and Lifton, the >>(contradictory!) Parkland descriptions are Revealed Truth, and any >>mere *photographs* that show something different are obviously >>evidence of tampering. Funny how you excerpt all of the above while utterly failing to respond to it. >>By the way, given that photographs show Kennedy's face and the back of >>his head to be intact, exactly how do you propose that the >>conspirators pulled off the magical reconstructive surgery that >>restored them? When and where was it done? > >[...]Notice he uses 'right rear side' , not 'right side'. Right rear top is what I've always said. You conspiracy theorists always try to say the *back* of the head was blown out, along with the right eye and right forehead. Never mind that none of the photographs or x-rays support such fantasies. >Maybe the 'magical reconstruction surgery' used the part of >the skull found in the back seat by Clint Hill. We're really off the deep end, now. I suppose then that the autopsy doctors were in on the reconstructive surgery? Did they perform it? And don't you think the Parkland doctors would have detected such surgery in the autopsy photos that Nova showed them? Oh, and who was the plastic surgeon who did the miracle job on JFK's forehead and eye? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!newstop!sun!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 21 20:06:18 PST 1992 Article 11364 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!newstop!sun!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Conally, Z frames 230-250 Keywords: A question for Bruce David Schuck Message-ID: Date: 17 Feb 92 22:12:48 GMT References: <15FEB199213415270@summa.tamu.edu> <1992Feb16.033332.12743@sfu.ca> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb16.033332.12743@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes: > Yelling "My god, they're going to kill us all!". > >He claims to have yelled it before he was shot. Source? I've always read that he yelled it *after* he was shot. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 21 20:49:25 PST 1992 Article 11573 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 22 Feb 1992 04:15:31 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb10.170443.1@cc.helsinki.fi> <1992Feb20.095457.21222@mack.uit.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb20.095457.21222@mack.uit.no> nilsb@stud.cs.uit.no (Nils Helge Brobakk) writes: >|> How naive you people must have been! We still had blatant racial > ^^^ >|> discrimination, and our intelligence services (and even our military) >|> regularly overthrew popular governments in favor of murderous tyrants. > ^^^^^^^^^ > >-And when did you supposedly stop doing this? Re: discrimination, I'm talking about the government, not private citizens. The federal government stopped practicing blatant racial discrimination around the late 60's, and in the following decade gradually forced the states to stop blatantly discriminating, too. Re: overthrowing popular governments in favor of murderous tyrants, I can't think of any since Allende in 1973. Can you? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Feb 26 21:06:16 PST 1992 Article 11728 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 26 Feb 1992 18:41:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb10.170443.1@cc.helsinki.fi> <1992Feb20.095457.21222@mack.uit.no> <1992Feb26.151947.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb26.151947.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >> Re: overthrowing popular governments in favor of murderous tyrants, I >> can't think of any since Allende in 1973. Can you? > >How about Whitlam (1975), (although I don't think Fraser was a murderer). Who is Fraser, and in what country was he a "murderous tyrant"? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Thu Feb 27 20:08:56 PST 1992 Article 11752 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 27 Feb 1992 05:06:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) says to Bruce Schuck: > the extrusion was sheared off when the bullet > hit Connally's radius. Where do you think all those > fragments came from? The neutron activation expert Vincent Guinn said on A&E's "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" that the Connally wrist fragments came from CE399. I hadn't heard that before; all the conspiracy authors manage to not mention it. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 28 11:10:02 PST 1992 Article 11794 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 28 Feb 1992 05:38:58 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article zoso@milton.u.washington.edu (David Patrick Brockington) writes: >>The neutron activation expert Vincent Guinn said on A&E's "Trial >>Of Lee Harvey Oswald" that the Connally wrist fragments came from >>CE399. I hadn't heard that before; all the conspiracy authors manage >>to not mention it. > >So you have not read all the conspiracy authors, right? David Lifton, in >_Best Evidence_, does indeed cover the subject of Mr. Guinn. Pages 556 >through 558, to be precise. I haven't been able to get a copy of _Best Evidence_. >the fragments that Guinn measured did not equal the weight of the supposedly >same fragments when they were measured by the FBI in 1964. Guinn was given various sets of fragments. Which one(s) are you talking about? How big was the discrepency? Are you saying that the conspirators waited until *after* 1964 before futzing with the evidence? >Guinn told Lifton, in their taped interview of 9/8/78, that there >were some examples worthy of suspicion in the samples, like the fact >that when Guinn received the evidence box marked Q-15, which was the >box that contained the samples taken off the inside of the >windshield, the box was empty. I didn't know they had saved any samples from the windshield. This, of course, has nothing to do with CE 399. >Guinn said that he had to assume that the fragments that he was measuring >were the authentic fragments for the purpose of his tests. Spare us the cryptic innuendos. All you're really saying is that no single person performed the autopsy, slept with the fragments under his pillow for years, and then performed the neutron activation analysis. Whoopee. >If Guinn attempted to publish these results in a scientific journal, >he would be laughed out of town. On what basis? That he doesn't sleep in the National Archives vault? In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >He said they came from the same 'batch' as CE399. Correct. >I assumed he meant that they were made out of the same mix >of materials. > >I wonder how many were made that day. Good question. A better question is, given that neutron activation analysis had not been invented yet in 1963, how did the conspirators have the foresight to make sure that the supposedly 'planted' CE 399 came from the same melt as the bullets they used for the assassination? And you yourself have explained the head snap by saying that different kinds of ammunition were used by the different shooters. So how did they know which kind of ammunition to plant on/near Connally's stretcher? How did they know for sure so soon after the shooting exactly which gunman had accidentally hit Connally? Or did they somehow manufacture all the various kinds of bullets to be used out of the same melt, perhaps at a super-secret CIA facility, which perhaps also contained the very same (years-ahead-of-its-time) neutron activation machine whose existence made them realize they needed to take all these elaborate precautions? Ain't conspiracy-think fun? :) >He also said he didn't take them out of Connally personally. > >They came to him in little bottles from the archives. > >He can't prove whether they were in Connally. By your standards, then, no bullet fragments are ever admissible as evidence in a criminal case. I guess being a conspiracy theorist means never having to realize it when you look like you're desperately grasping for anything you can show to be less than apodictically certain. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 28 14:13:44 PST 1992 Article 11790 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 28 Feb 1992 04:40:05 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb26.151947.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <18275911@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <18275911@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> tneff@haleiki.nyc.ny.us (Tom Neff) writes: >>In article <1992Feb26.151947.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> > ^^ >> >>Who is Fraser, and in what country was he a "murderous tyrant"? > >Gee I dunno Brian, what country could it be??? I surmised that he was talking about Australia, and an Australian prime minister. By repeating my question I was trying to point out that his example is irrelevant to my contention. Judging by the sarcasm dripping sophomorically from your article, I guess that subtlety is beyond you; from now on I'll stick to my usual "Bzzzt" retort, so as not to leave you in the dark. >[by the way, since the poster said he didn't think Fraser was a murderer, >asking him why Fraser was a murderous tyrant seems a bit pointless...] Hardly. I said that the US hadn't deposed any popular regime in favor of murderous tyrants since 1973. This guy from down under said >How about Whitlam (1975), (although I don't think Fraser was a murderer). He might as well have said "how about Carter (1980), (although I don't think Reagan was a murderer)." It would have been just as poor a counter-example as the one he *did* give. So I'll ask one more time: what popular regimes have we overthrown in favor of murderous tyrants since 1973? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 28 14:13:53 PST 1992 Article 11792 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 28 Feb 1992 04:43:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb10.170443.1@cc.helsinki.fi> <1992Feb20.095457.21222@mack.uit.no> <1992Feb26.151947.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <1992Feb27.174520.1@cc.newc astle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Feb27.174520.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >>>How about Whitlam (1975), (although I don't think Fraser was a murderer). >> >> Who is Fraser, and in what country was he a "murderous tyrant"? > >Australia, of course. (Check the email address). America installed a "murderous tyrant" (or *any* kind of tyrant) in Australia in the mid-70's? (Check your history books.) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 28 14:14:06 PST 1992 Article 11793 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Thinking... Date: 28 Feb 1992 04:54:42 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb26.001417.27225@acsu.buffalo.edu> <13597@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13597@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >Bush was in Texas at the time and his address and phone number (1963 address) >were found in Agent DeMohrenschildt's address book after his >killing. DeMohrenschildt committed suicide. He was not a CIA "Agent". He was in the oil business, as was Bush. I'm tired of continually correcting these blatant Big Lie tactics. It's time for me to put together a FAQ; watch for it. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Fri Feb 28 14:18:08 PST 1992 Article 11813 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 28 Feb 1992 19:34:29 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 56 Message-ID: References: <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >They used the same box of ammo they bought for the Mannlicher Carcano >they planted in the TSBD. The neutron activation analysis showed that the head shot fragments and the Connally fragments came from different bullets (== different melts). Whether they used the "same box of ammo" or not, they still wound up putting fragments into the car and its occupants that came from different melts. That means that they had to pick CE 399 from the same melt as the Connally wrist fragments, and that any other bullets they used had to come from the same melt as the MC-fired head shot fragments. How do you propose they pulled this off? >How did they know no other bullet would be found that wouldn't >match the MC on the 6th floor? That's not what I *asked*. >Simple, they used explosive >bullets to ensure nothing but fragments would be found. Get the following clue: fragments are all that is *needed* to do neutron activation analysis. The fragments from Connally's wrist matched CE 399, and all the other fragments were consistent with coming from the single head-shot bullet. So, one more time: how did they know that no fragments from their "explosive bullets" would be found? Are you telling us they custom-manufactured all the explosive Dealey Plaza ammunition from the same melts as the (separate!) head-shot and Connally bullets, anticipating an investigative technique (neutron activation analysis) that hadn't even been invented yet? To coin a phrase: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. >There would be no fragments big >enough to match the MC on the 6th floor. That's not the *problem*. The conspirators' *problem* is making sure that all the explosive-bullet fragments look like either the head-shot bullet or CE 399 when subjected to neutron activation analysis. I don't know how I can make this any simpler for you... >I like to think my explanations are a >lot more PROBABLE than the garbage that came out of the WC. Yeah, right. Explosive bullets, custom ammunition manufactured in anticipation on not-yet-invented investigative techniques, etc. >Which by the way are the same initials as Water Closet, a >euphamism for toilet. Very fitting. Potty mouth. Well, I guess that bit of tightly-reasoned rhetoric has swung all the net.third.graders over to your side... -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 29 10:21:02 PST 1992 Article 11832 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 29 Feb 1992 06:00:10 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 88 Message-ID: References: <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>Whether they used the "same box of ammo" or not, they still >>wound up putting fragments into the car and its occupants that came >>from different melts. [...] > >Bullets are made in batches. Your inability to understand simple English never fails to impress. Reread the following as many times as you need to: The neutron activation analysis showed that the Connally fragments came from the same melt (or "batch") as CE 399, but that the head shot fragments came from a SEPARATE melt (or "batch"). That means they were firing bullets from at least two different batches. So how did they pick CE 399's batch -- and not the OTHER batch -- to pull a bullet from and plant on Connally's stretcher? >CE399 in the hospital. This is the only bullet that can be >matched by ballistics to the MC. Bzzzt. The two large bullet fragments found in the limosine were ballistically matched to the MC. >According to the witness on NOVA, CE399 was found on a stretcher >parked behind the one Connally was on. I think it's more likely that it was on Ronald Fuller's stretcher than on Connally's, but it's not certain. >>Get the following clue: fragments are all that is *needed* to do >>neutron activation analysis. The fragments from Connally's wrist >>matched CE 399, and all the other fragments were consistent with >>coming from the single head-shot bullet. [...] > >If the bullets came from the same box or case as CE399, they would >match it in the neutron test. They don't make bullets one at a time. But as I've said half a dozen times, the neutron test was able to DISTINGUISH between CE399/Connally-wrist-fragments and all-the-other-fragments. That means when the conspirators "picked" CE399 to plant, they had to CHOOSE between it matching all the other fragments, OR matching the three minute fragments that just HAPPEN to a) have ended up where the WC said CE399 ended up, and b) match the missing weight of CE399. How did the conspirators know 30 minutes after the shooting precisely which fragments ended up in which body, and how much mass needed to be missing from the bullet they needed to plant? >>That's not the *problem*. The conspirators' *problem* is making sure >>that all the explosive-bullet fragments look like either the head-shot ^^^^^^ >>bullet or CE 399 when subjected to neutron activation analysis. I ^^ >>don't know how I can make this any simpler for you... > >I understand the problem. It's obvious you don't. This is hilarious. Let me caution our readers not to hold Bruce's (probably innocent) misreading of my argument against him. I think after this article he will grok that the NA tests revealed that the tested materials came from TWO SEPARATE bullets/bullet-batches, and then we will be able to get on with discussing the significance of this data. >The only bullet that was definitely fired from the MC is CE399. >The Neutron test only proves some of the other fragments came >from the same batch of bullets as CE399. Read my lips: what the NA test proves is that the Connally wrist fragments came from a bullet from CE399's batch, AND that all the other fragments came from a bullet NOT from CE399's batch. So, one more time: how did the conspirators know WHICH of the TWO batches to pull CE399 from, so that it WOULD match the wrist fragments, and WOULD NOT match the other fragments? >no bullets that hit JC or JFK can be proven to >have been fired from the MC found on the 6th floor of the TSBD >because they fragmented too much for ballistic tests. Bzzzt. The two front seat fragments (44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively) were ballistically matched to the MC. Furthermore, under neutron activation these two fragments matched fragments removed from Kennedy's head. Even conspiracy author Hurt admits the NA tests "represented the first link ever made between the Oswald rifle and a bullet fragment taken from a victim's body". -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 29 10:21:49 PST 1992 Article 11833 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 29 Feb 1992 06:34:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 80 Message-ID: References: <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article zoso@milton.u.washington.edu (David Patrick Brockington) writes: >>>the fragments that Guinn measured did not equal the weight of the >>>supposedly same fragments when they were measured by the FBI in >>>1964. >> >>Guinn was given various sets of fragments. Which one(s) are you >>talking about? How big was the discrepency? > >As to the discrepency, the actual measurement is not in Lifton's book, >but the source of the testimony is 1 HAC 562, to which I do not have >access to at this moment. So Lifton says there was a discrepency, but doesn't say how much it was? Does he at least say which fragments he is talking about? Right now we're discussing the Connally wrist fragments. >>>If Guinn attempted to publish these results in a scientific journal, >>>he would be laughed out of town. > >>On what basis? That he doesn't sleep in the National Archives vault? > >In short, yes. A scientist absolutely *must* account for the origins of >whatever samples he or she may use in a study, run, or experiment. Oh? Tell us, how many scientific papers have been rejected because the principal investigators did not sleep in the lab? >>By your standards, then, no bullet fragments are ever admissible as >>evidence in a criminal case. > >Bullets, as is the case with *any* evidence, >are inadmissible in any case unless a clear chain-of-possession of the >evidence in question can be established. What's the point? Consiracy theorists will just point to the people in the chain of evidence and say they're part of the conspiracy. >As per the continual mocking of those who choose to question the official >findings of the WC: I guess you haven't been following this newsgroup for very long. I set out in this newgroup to prove the Magic Bullet theory wrong. I mock arguments, not people. When I'm at the limit of my patience, I sometimes mock people's *inability* to read what I write, or to explain any of the evidence that they say *I* fail to explain. I've been called some names, including some nasty names via e-mail, but I've never sunk to the level of the name-callers. Ad hominem arguments are just another way of saying "I'm not only probably wrong, but too emotional to realize it, and too stupid to prove it either way to myself or anybody else." >I would rather have a population that views those >in power with a critical eye than one who consumes and digests everything >explained by the government. Now who's mocking who, here? >The case of JFK contains too much evidence, both circumstancial >and tangible, to simply accept what the good fathers in government have >explained. Which is why I dug around, and made them prove to me that they were right. Are you going to contend that "the good fathers in government" can never be right? >Blindly follow others like sheep, or think for yourself. Good advice. It's funny how the conspiracy theorists don't ever train their hyper-sensitive hidden-or-unconscious-motive detectors on their own kind, and analyze all the reasons why believing in a conspiracy is a fun/tantalizing/maverick/macho-minded/oh-so-worldly thing to do. Of course, I consider such questioning of motives to be only one step up from ad hominem attacks, and I only did it here because you seemed to question *my* motives. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Feb 29 13:21:23 PST 1992 Article 11842 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 29 Feb 1992 19:03:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >1) They could have filmed the shooting to determine which shots hit what > or even had observers which were able to tell. Right. They were able to develop and analyze the film within an hour of the shooting, and able to predict that a not-yet-invented technique would be applied to the bullet they needed to plant, but you guys still claim that they couldn't find the right stretcher to plant the bullet on, and that the bullet they planted was ridiculously pristine! Sure. >2) The 399 found on the stretcher would not have to be the same 399 > submitted for tests. Beautiful. Every time a piece of evidence becomes too inconvenint for you, it automatically becomes planted. CE399 is found on/near the stretcher predicted by the single bullet theory, so it must have been planted. Then CE399 turns out out to have inconvenient chemical composition, so this replacement bullet must have *itself* been replaced for the neutron activation tests. Sure. Thank you for exposing the ludicrousness of conspiracy-think. >3) The fragments may also have been switched or planted. Of course! In fact, it's obvious that Kennedy and Connally were shot by high-velocity pieces of ice, and that every single fragment was planted later, at the conspirator's convenience. >All the other stuff, the tests and what not, were under the >manipultive control of the alleged conspirators. Gee, you sound so sure. Is this because you have any *evidence* for manipulation, or is it just because the tests inconveniently refute your axiom that there was a conspiracy? >Don't you think the CIA or FBI would have been able to anticipate any >tests which would be run and could have actually planned to have >sophisticated evindence which would indict Oswald as the loan nut. No, I don't think that the CIA/FBI would have known that neutron activation analysis would be invented, and that in the late 1970's it would be applied to the material evidence of the case. Are you saying that the conspirators can predict scientific advances, but they can't predict that -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Mar 1 10:11:15 PST 1992 Article 11847 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 29 Feb 1992 23:02:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 145 Message-ID: References: <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article zoso@milton.u.washington.edu (David Patrick Brockington) writes: >>So Lifton says there was a discrepency, but doesn't say how much it >>was? Does he at least say which fragments he is talking about? Right >>now we're discussing the Connally wrist fragments. > >Lifton states that Guinn testified that there was a discrepency. >I am taking Lifton at his word on this issue, for the most part because >of the "conspiracy" authors that I have read, this one is by far the >best documented of the bunch. Well, I'm still looking for a copy of Lifton, but all I ever hear repeated from his argument is a disengenuous fixation on fallible (and often later self-corrected) recollections, coupled with a facile dismissal of all the hard photographic and x-ray evidence. >One the issue regarding which fragments are in question, I believe that >both the Kennedy brain fragments and the Connally wrist fragments >are at issue. Well, it's nice to hear that you "believe" this, but until I hear for sure exactly where there is a discrepency, and by how much, I will suspend belief. >>Oh? Tell us, how many scientific papers have been rejected because >>the principal investigators did not sleep in the lab? > >I am not entirely sure that you understand exactly what I am getting at. I understand perfectly what you are getting at. You are asking us to prove a negative -- that the fragments weren't tampered with. *I* am not entirely sure that you understand that proving a negative is impossible. >to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this >bullet actually did indeed travel the alleged route, the origins of >Guinn's samples would need to be documented. They *are* documented; you simply choose not to believe the documentation. The samples were delivered by National Archives officials, who vouch for their authenticity. You are completely free to count these officials among the conspirators if that's what it takes to keep believing in a conspiracy. >If the samples need to be >locked up when no one is in the lab, then that is what it takes. What good does *that* do? Locks can be picked. Night watchmen can be bribed. The official custodians of the samples can simply swap them at their convenience. How can you "prove" nothing like this happened? YOU CAN'T. Don't you get it? >All Guinn proved in his tests was that the samples that he studied >were consistent with the batch that 399 was a part of. It was not Guinn's job to prove that the samples were authentic. That's the job of the National Archives. The National Archives folks say that the samples were authentic. If you have any hard, specific evidence that they weren't, I'd love to hear it. But all you've given are the dubious and vague conclusions of an author (Lifton) with a track record of running with any mis-statement that happens to reach his attention. >>What's the point? Consiracy theorists will just point to the >>people in the chain of evidence and say they're part of the conspiracy. > >Nice pat answer. Unfortunately, the point is that in a court of law, >the absence of a chain-of-possession renders the evidence irrelevant. Nice non-answer. Isn't it true that in the case of the wrist fragments we're talking about, there *is* a chain of possession, but you simply CHOOOSE to question it? >Don't fool yourself. Plenty of your statements, while ostensibly mocking >one's "arguments," do a fine job of belittling the individual behind the >argument. If a particular person routinely posts *only* arguments that are easy to belittle, then I can't help it if that person has been made little in the eyes of our readers. There are pro-conspiracy posters here (such as Joseph Baugher) who I don't think have ever made themselves look silly, and then there are others (they know who they are) who make themselves look bad with nearly every article they write. I have no control over such matters. >But I cring on a daily basis when I see the failure of the >American People to think for themselves. So do I. But I don't let it color my evaluation of evidence, even when that evidence is presented by the government. >The vast majority of those who >defend the WCR do so out of reverence for the government, and not as >a result of their own thinking. Unfortunately, the vast majority of >those who disbelieve the WCR do so out of a knee-jerk reaction to not trust >government, and also not because of their own analysis. Both, either, or neither of these two statements may be true, but do you think it really makes a difference in this forum, given the obvious expertise in the case that many of us have developed? >according to the Holt Handbook on writing in the >English language, an argument ad hominem "attack(s) a person rather than an >issue." But, it goes on to state that "occasionally you should question >a person's character..." going on to point out that issues like past >dishonesty or conflict of interests (read: motive) may make a position or >someone's testimony less than credible. 1. It's "Holtz", not "Holt". 2. Don't you dare put quotation marks around things I never said. I never wrote the words "occasionally you should question a person's character...". In my "book", double-quotes are for things that you are copying from another source, whereas single- or 'scare' quotes are reserved for use/mention distinctions or to otherwise set something off. 3. I think it's essential to examine the motives of someone who offers *testimony*, or who conducts an investigation or writes a book, but it's usually a red herring to question the motives of someone who is merely arguing a different position than you are. >This is precisely why I have a hard time accepting the assertions of >most of the conspiracy authors. For the most part, they have spent the >better part of their lives advancing a particular theory, yet the works >outlining these theories are not exactly what one would call "documented." >On the flip side, I also question the statements coming out of huge >bureaucracies. Survival is job one at an institution such as this. Well, I am neither a professional author nor a bureaucrat, and so I deeply resent your questioning my motives -- especially when you throw around words like "sheep", "reverence for government", and "good fathers in government". >I do not ascribe to any particular theory, A fact which I think is interesting in itself. Conspiracy theorists love to point out contradictory evidence, but they never tie themselves down to saying which of the conflicting pieces of evidence is most likely to be true. And when they find evidence that argues against a particular conclusion, they ignore the fact that every other possible conclusion has *far* more evidence against it. All I can conclude from these two practices is that conspiracy theorists are not motivated by explaining what actually happened. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Mar 1 17:03:01 PST 1992 Article 11862 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Thinking... Date: 1 Mar 1992 18:55:49 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <13597@pitt.UUCP> <78060645@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <78060645@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> tneff@haleiki.nyc.ny.us (Tom Neff) writes: >how in the world >would one KNOW that DeMorenschildt really committed suicide, with >sufficient certainty to flat-out declare that someone who thinks >otherwise has got to be wrong? At best, one could say that there's no >proof it _was_ murder, which leaves the question up to private belief, Oh, so newspapers should never say that anyone ever committed suicide? They should just say, for instance, that X ws found dead, with a single gunshot to the temple fired by the pistol found in his hand, and with a suicide note next to him in his own handwriting, and so far there is "no proof that it was murder", and this reporter invites readers to form their own "private beliefs". Riiiiiight. Look: DeMorenschildt suffered a nervous breakdown. The night he finished a manuscript about Oswald, he tried to kill himself by overdose. He was committed to Parkland hospital, and subjected to electric shock therapy. He started making ludicrous claims, such as being with Oswald on Nov. 22 -- when he was actually in Haiti. A few months later, gripped by paranoia, he fled to Europe and then to Florida. A visitor showed him a document indicating he might be sent back for further shock treatment, and a few hours later he was dead of a shotgun blast to the head. A letter that reads like a suicide note was found after his death. Now, do you still think we should refer to his death as a "killing" instead of a "suicide"? >Furthermore, although "agent" is a word with a specific technical meaning >which might not apply here, Indeed! Note, too, that Gordon said "Agent", using it as a title. Unless Gordon knows something he's not telling us, he had to have been lying. >you can't simply dismiss out of hand an allegation of someone's >involvement with the blanket disclaimer, "but he's a businessman!" That he was a businessman isn't the sum total of the evidence that he didn't work for the CIA. The main thing is that there is no evidence that he *did* work for the CIA, and in fact the CIA recommended against it when the government wanted to contract him as a geologist. (Interestingly enough, I am now doing some CIA work here at Sun.) >>It's time for me to put together a FAQ; watch for it. > >Fine, but it should contain two things: a crossposting to >alt.conspiracy.jfk, Yup; unfortunately, it hasn't shown up here yet. >as long as it doesn't [...] imply it's the >one true and only FAQ on the issue. Naturally. BTW, the "CIA" work I'm doing is for Sun's CASE Interoperability Alliance. >;^) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Mar 1 17:03:22 PST 1992 Article 11863 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter and the JFK Assassination Date: 1 Mar 1992 19:06:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar1.054551.1782@cbnewsd.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: speech cutoff, conspiracy In article <1992Mar1.054551.1782@cbnewsd.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >the claim that President Jimmy Carter had attempted to talk about the >JFK assassination on national television, but was instantly cut off. >There was no sound for nearly half an hour, and viewers saw a >President Carter sitting there looking like a fool. Great! So all we have to do is just figure which engineer threw the switch, torture him, and we'll know who the conspirators are! And I guess Carter deduced from this episode that, on pain of death, he dare not use any of his thousands of subsequent public speaking engagements to bring this up. And I suppose that the conspirators are 100% confident that Carter, who has already once came within a hair of revealing the whole thing, will not be tempted to try it again, and so can be left alive. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Mar 1 17:03:44 PST 1992 Article 11864 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 1 Mar 1992 19:22:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >In the late 70's when the FBI/CIA learned that the neutron activation >analysis was coming, they could have taken steps to manipulate the >results. You seem to be asking that we accept these investigations by >the alleged conspirators at face value. No. I simply ask that you show us a shred of evidence that the conspirators have infiltrated the National Archives, the HSCA, the FBI, the DPD, the WC, etc., etc. >Sure, I am going to question and doubt any evidence where it was >possible for the alleged conspirators to manipulate it. I'm not too interested in what is merely "possible". For example, for all *you* know, everyone on the planet except for you is in on a plan to make you think what we want you to think about the assassination. For all *you* know, this "JFK" guy is just an actor that we hired to star in all the material we're using to trick you. > Let me ask you: did you believe our president when >he told us that he knew nothing about the Iran-Contra scandal? Since there's no evidence that he *did* know anything about it, I *still* believe him. Of course, the probability that Reagan knew anything about Iran-Contra is far higher than the probability that JFK conspirators were still able to manipulate National Archives materials 15 years after JFK was killed. I love how the conspiracy-thinkers try to have it both ways: 'Look at all the conspiracies that have come out; you were tricked *then*, so you must be being tricked *now*.' 'Why has no other conspiracy of this magnitude and scope ever come out? Because they were CONSPIRACIES!'. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Mon Mar 2 08:55:33 PST 1992 Article 11873 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: CE399 pulverizes 10 cm of rib (NOVA) Date: 2 Mar 1992 01:19:46 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <26FEB199219021867@zeus.tamu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Oops. Keywords: CE399, NOVA In article zoso@milton.u.washington.edu (David Patrick Brockington) writes: >>>according to the Holt Handbook on writing in the >>>English language, > >>1. It's "Holtz", not "Holt". > >_The Holt Handbook_. Ah. The underscores help a lot. >Do you feel silly yet? Yes. However, I contend that there was a conspiracy to set me up here. ;) Several times here recently some of my more-flustered opponents have given me left-handed compliments for being something of a master rhetorician, and so I took your remark as being in the same vein. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Mar 3 14:36:53 PST 1992 Article 11936 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 3 Mar 1992 17:48:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb26.151947.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <18275911@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> <1992Mar2.170501.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Mar3.135330.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: >> But what popular regimes have the U.S. overthrown at all since 1973? >> How did the U.S. overthrow Fraser? > >Brian, in 1975 tha Labor party led by E.Gough Whitlam in Australia were put >under enormous strain over a "financial crisis". Having been elected in 1972 >the government had a majority in the House of Representatives, but not in the >Senate. Was the CIA responsible for Labor losing its Senate majority? >Scandal after scandal appeared regarding security, >sex, finance, money flow, etc... [...] Eventually the CIA was >named as financing the "coup" and creating the scandals. What was the evidence? Is the CIA really this magical, that it can take a few dollars and discombobulate a supposedly functional Western democracy? >Connections [...] were raised, [...] and the links [...] became well >known. You don't sound very sure of your evidence. >It was later established that >the CIA had played a part in the advice to the Governor General and pressure on >him to dismiss the elected government. How was this established? >but does the removal of popular govts. not continue to date? Up here in the northern hemisphere, our calendars read "1992". ;) You're talking about a 1975 case in which the evidence seems a little marginal. Are you sure that Whitlam wouldn't have lost anyway? And didn't Fraser get re-elected? Was the CIA behind that, too? >What about the Phillipines and Marcos? I think that was around 1972, right? If anything, the Phillipines is an example *for* my thesis, since we actively helped Aquino replace Marcos, and actively defended Aquino against coups. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Mar 3 14:37:06 PST 1992 Article 11938 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: If Anyone Knows Jim Garrison's Address, ..... Date: 3 Mar 1992 18:00:47 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Mar3.164555.3259@engage.pko.dec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Summary: Bring him on. Keywords: slander,libel,defamation of character,etc.. In article <1992Mar3.164555.3259@engage.pko.dec.com> busta@vicki.enet.dec.com writes: >>Just send him some marked money; he's used to accepting it. >>Tell him Marcello sent you. > > Sure. That's why they promoted him from prosecutor to Judge. He got his "promotion" from Louisiana voters. Louisiana voters will vote for *anybody*. > Ever heard of slander or libel or defamation of character? Word gets back >to Mr. Garrison of your above statement, [...] Bring him on. In his book, he himself mentions that the marked money was found in his house, and his only defense is that the main prosecution informant was pressured by the government and perjured himself. So how do pressure and perjury make marked money materialize inside Garrison's home? Sure, Garrison was acquitted because of prosecution incompetence, but so was Clay Shaw. Are you going to start equating acquittal with innocence? -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Mar 3 20:51:54 PST 1992 Article 11963 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Thinking... Date: 4 Mar 1992 04:32:32 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <13597@pitt.UUCP> <13668@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13668@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >DeMohrenschildt was most definitely an OSS agent Oh? _Legend: The Secret World Of LHO_ says (p. 180) that GDM tried to join the OSS, but was turned down because of his suspected ties to Nazi and Polish intelligence. >and was spying on Tito in Yugoslavia. Oh? Before the U.S. government sent him to Yugoslavia to do geological work, the CIA gave him an disapproving security check, and he was denied access to classified material. (p. 182) He tried to approach Tito's private island by boat and was fired on. >He was also a Russian emigre. Well, you got that part right. >Maybe he blew his own head off with a shotgun, maybe not. >There is no way to prove it one way or another from the evidence we >have, since his suicide/murder was unwitnessed. Not many suicides are witnessed. I guess hardly anybody commits suicide, then. >It is suspicious >that his death occurred on the day he was to be interviewed by >House investigators about his connections to Oswald, is it not? Look: DeMorenschildt suffered a nervous breakdown. The night he finished a manuscript about Oswald, he tried to kill himself by overdose. He was committed to Parkland hospital, and subjected to electric shock therapy. He started making ludicrous claims, such as being with Oswald on Nov. 22 -- when he was actually in Haiti. A few months later, gripped by paranoia, he fled to Europe and then to Florida. A visitor showed him a document indicating he might be sent back for further shock treatment, and a few hours later he was dead of a shotgun blast to the head. A letter that reads like a suicide note was found after his death. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Tue Mar 3 21:03:04 PST 1992 Article 11966 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: If Anyone Knows Jim Garrison's Address, ..... Date: 4 Mar 1992 04:59:16 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <699656415.F00004@blkcat.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <699656415.F00004@blkcat.UUCP> Mark.Prado@f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Mark Prado) writes: > >> Just send him some marked money; he's used to accepting it. > >> Tell him Marcello sent you. > >We've already discussed the >attempted setup of Jim Garrison and the fact that the >government's chief witness blew the case by admitting that >the U.S. government had set up Garrison thru him ... > >Yet Holtz neglects to respond to those particular messages, >keeps on his blinders and repeats the above allegations ... So Garrison got off on a technicality -- so what? In an afterword in his own book, it's revealed that Garrison's voice was on incriminating tape recordings, and that marked money was seized in his home. The rebuttal? The "chief accuser in the pinball trial, Pershing Gervais, publically admitted that he had been pressured and rewarded to perjure himself against Garrison." Please tell us how perjury can make Garrison's voice show up on a tape recording, and make marked money show up in his home. > > Ever heard of slander or libel or defamation of character? > >He PRACTICES it. I'd be very interested in you giving what you think is the most blatant example of me libelling or defaming anybody. I *dare* you. Go ahead. Make my day. :) >Meanwhile, our government is more than broke, and the far >right with all its laundered S&L's have condemned the U.S. >economy's future ... What do S&L's and the "far right" have to do with each other? >And Brian Holtz & his far-right zealot associates live the >good life on the back of the American economy ... I don't have any "far-right zealot associates". I live the good life because I occasionally take time out from my public service activity here on alt.conspiracy to build products for SunSoft. ;) -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Mar 4 12:50:27 PST 1992 Article 11967 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Robert Morrow on the JFK murder Date: 4 Mar 1992 05:02:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 62 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar2.040854.29254@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Mar2.040854.29254@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mkennedy@isis.cs.du.edu (Max Kennedy) writes: >Pieratt: > In the early fall of 1963, Morrow says the CIA told him to buy four > Italian made riffles. > >Morrow: > I hand delivered them, to, uh, Ferry, and kept the fourth one, > which I have here. Not here, it's in a safe. Zounds! He actually has a Mannlicher-Carcano?! He *must* be telling the truth! >(Scene switches to safe) Too bad Morrow didn't take his story to Geraldo Rivera... > I should tell you, though, that first, he did pass a lie detector > test on virtually all of these questions. Lie detector tests are worthless. >Morrow: > First shot went from the grassy knoll through his throat. It was > done with a 7.35 managen rifle. Sorry, but this doesn't work. First, the path of the bullet back through Kennedy's neck was slightly left-to-right. A throat shot from the grassy knoll would be decidedly right-to-left. Second, at the time of the throat shot Kennedy is obscured by the road sign and/or the pergola wall for most grassy knoll positions. Does Morrow put the gunman behind the pergola wall or behind the stockade fence? > The second shot came from the rear, depository. > The third shot, from the depository, or it could have been the > records building, but I'm pretty sure it was the depository. > And the fourth shot came from the grassy knoll, which took off the > top of his head. Not possible, by the Zapruder film alone: The head snaps *forward* for a split second. No exit wound is visible on the back of the head. And on the side of the head, where a small entrance wound would be expected, we instead see a massive, gory exit wound. > Roger White was the one who fired the shots. >From the grassy knoll *and* the TSBD? > He was associated with the police department in, uh, Dallas. What, uh, does "associated" mean? If he was a Dallas police officer, then we should be able to figure out where he was at the time of the shooting. >These two books have been written by Morrow. Gosh, startling revelations from a guy with books out on this very subject! You mean, like the lawyer guy who recently said that he was the courier for a mob suggestion to kill Kennedy?... -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Wed Mar 4 12:51:31 PST 1992 Article 11969 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Neutron Activation Analysis Date: 4 Mar 1992 05:41:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Neutron,Hoover In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >Several people over the past few weeks have said that >Neutron Activation Analysis was invented well after the >assassination of JFK. I was one such person. I had assumed that no such test was reported because it hadn't been invented yet. It turns out that such tests *were* done, but the equipment wasn't sensitive enough to produce conclusive results. The equipment used 15 years later for the HSCA's NA tests was more advanced. It would be interesting to know if the early 60's NA technology was sensitive enough to *ever* be able to tell when fragments came from different lots. >The memo also brings into question the assertion that the >throat wound was caused by a bullet passing below the top >of the collar. It is much more likely that the hole was >caused by the medical staff when they cut off JFK's shirt >and tie. 1. I doubt bullets reliably leave metallic traces on every piece of cloth they penetrate. 2. The hole in the shirt wouldn't be of use in getting the shirt off, and I don't think it's close to where the shirt was cut for those purposes. 3. The nick is in the knot of the tie, but the tie was cut off over to the wearer's left. 4. Most dispositively, just put the photo of the neck gash in _Best Evidence_ next to any picture of JFK in a buttoned collar. There's no way that gash is above the collar. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Mar 7 14:08:01 PST 1992 Article 12032 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Neutron Activation Analysis Date: 6 Mar 1992 05:54:24 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Neutron,Hoover In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >>It turns out that such tests >>*were* done, but the equipment wasn't sensitive enough to produce >>conclusive results. > >Do you have any proof of that? The FBI said their tests were inconclusive. Exactly what kind of "proof" are you looking for? >> The equipment used 15 years later for the HSCA's >>NA tests was more advanced. > >Do you have any proof of that? Conspiracy author Hurt (_Reasonable Doubt_) says it was, and I have no reason to doubt this claim. >>1. I doubt bullets reliably leave metallic traces on every piece of >> cloth they penetrate. > >Do you have any proof of that? Aren't I kind of an expert on the issue of whether or not I doubt something? >>3. The nick is in the knot of the tie, but the tie was cut off over to >> the wearer's left. > >The picture of the tie in the WR shows the cut beside the knot. The tie was cut to the wearer's left of the knot, but the nick looks like it's in the middle-right of the knot. >>4. Most dispositively, just put the photo of the neck gash in >> _Best Evidence_ next to any picture of JFK in a buttoned collar. >> There's no way that gash is above the collar. > >Theres no proof it was below the collar. You're right. There's only compelling evidence obvious to the naked eye. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sat Mar 7 14:09:05 PST 1992 Article 12033 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: If Anyone Knows Jim Garrison's Address, ..... Date: 6 Mar 1992 06:13:47 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <699656415.F00004@blkcat.UUCP> <13718@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13718@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>example of me libelling or defaming anybody. I *dare* you. > >Well, this may not be the most blatant example, but just yesterday >I read a posting by you that said I was lying when I said deMohrenschildt >was a CIA agent. Not wrong, *lying*. I said Unless Gordon knows something he's not telling us, he had to have been lying. I said this because I've refuted all of the flimsy GDM-as-CIA-agent evidence that has been posted in the last two months, and I know you've seen me do it. I remember that at one point somebody (I think it was Mark Prado) almost had me convinced that GDM was CIA because he worked for a CIA front in Yugoslavia. I asked him what evidence he had that the organization was a CIA front, but he never responded. I've since gotten a copy of _Legend_, and only recently have mentioned that it reveals that the CIA actually *opposed* GDM's hiring for this job, and that it denied him access to classified material. So if as a result of my delayed refutation you got the mistaken impression that GDM was CIA, *then* I might have been wrong about you lying. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Mar 8 15:38:39 PST 1992 Article 12081 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: "JFK": who's "X"? Date: 7 Mar 1992 22:49:38 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <1992Feb26.151947.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <18275911@haleiki.NYC.NY.US> <1992Mar2.170501.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <3683@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500cws@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Christopher Wade Skinner) writes: >When Brian talks post 1973, note here he carefully says 'popular' >governments, [...] Yes. I make no apologies for us deposing people like Austin, Noriega, Marcos, Duvalier, whoever-Saddam-appointed-governor-of-annexed-Kuwait, etc. >Certainly, if one considers the Sandinista revolution to be popular, >I suspect that the CIA feels its done a good job getting Chammoro in. The Sandinista revolution was indeed popular, but Chammoro was elected fair and square. The Contras were a flop, and I wouldn't credit Chammoro's election to the CIA at all. >Look at our attitude towards Aristide-were're giving the military all >the time and tacit support they need to make sure that Aristide comes >back to a gutted government. Hardly. We've been leaning heavily on the military government in Haiti, complete with Baker making veiled threats of invasion. The problem is that Aristide isn't exactly the clean-cut sort of character that we like to see benefit from the New World Order. >Angola, and the involvement there, The Cuban-backed ruling tribal faction was unpopular in the region controlled by the rebels we supported. Last I heard, the two sides are reconciling. >Grenada, and the invasion, are, >while not direct violations of a popular sovereignty, You can say that again! Hudson Austin deposed the popular Bishop regime and imprisoned his cabinet; when a crowd gathered to protest, many were killed. The Grenadans welcomed the overthrow of Austin. >hardly laudable legacies for our children. Au contraire. What can be more laudable than America working for the principle of popular sovereignty in Afghanistan, Grenada, Chile, Namibia, South Africa, The Philippines, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, the Soviet Union, etc.? We don't build empires; we break them up. We don't enslave those who attack us; we liberate and rehabilitate them. For a major power to behave this way is simply unprecedented in all of recorded human history. -- Brian Holtz From exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz Sun Mar 8 15:38:54 PST 1992 Article 12082 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz >From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Neutron Activation Analysis Date: 7 Mar 1992 23:21:44 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Neutron,Hoover In article Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes: >So you don't have any proof. Do *you* have any "proof" that bullets *do* reliably leave metallic traces on every piece of cloth they penetrate? >>The tie was cut to the wearer's left of the knot, but the nick looks >>like it's in the middle-right of the knot. > >Are you saying the bullet impacted above the knot of the tie? No. From what I understand, the bullet came out just to the (wearer's) right side of the knot, nicking it in the middle as it went. >>>>4. Most dispositively, just put the photo of the neck gash in >>>> _Best Evidence_ next to any picture of JFK in a buttoned collar. >>>> There's no way that gash is above the collar. > >Thats the same reasoning I use with the Zapruder film. To the naked >eye it is obvious Connally is fine when he emerged from behind the >road sign. Perhaps, but to everybody's eyes except yours, as early as Z238 Connally is either being shot or reacting to being shot. Just look at the juxtaposition of Z237 and Z238 in _High Treason_. (I think _Six Seconds_ does the same thing.) You are the only single-bullet-theory critic I know of who does not say Connally's back wound occurred precisely at Z238. At any rate, what you're talking about is the problem of *judging* by Connally's *expression* and *movements* on a poor-quality film exactly when an unseen bullet must have hit him. *I'm* talking about the problem of looking a plainly visible neck gash on a crystal-clear autopsy photograph. -- Brian Holtz Article 12391 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 19 Mar 1992 02:16:20 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar17.210408.15610@cbnews.cb.att.com> <13889@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13889@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >he did champion the civil rights causes that later got put into law >under Johnson. He used federal troops to confront Southern governors >over segregation. Yes, but I don't know that Kennedy even *tried* to pass the comprehensive reforms that LBJ enacted. Anyone who calls Kennedy a "radical reformer" and Johnson a conservative in the same breath is simply shockingly ignorant of basic recent history. >The looney right has not died out, although it has lost a lot of >strength in numbers. Look at the skinheads and the Aryan Nation >creeps, and all the holocaust deniers we see here. Yes, but it used to be that these cretins populated institutions like the House Un-American Activities Committee. Now they're just amusing cranks that fill up empty slots on Donahue. >Neither is >the new Right at all the modern heir to Kennedy's philosophy. >The philosophy of the new right is not close at all to JFK's. Containment. Tax cuts. No radical new social programs. Where's the difference? >JFK was a social liberal who believed in more government regulation >and more programs run by Washington. It is true that it wasn't >until LBJ muscled these programs through congress that they became >oppressive, but JFK advocated them. Does anybody know if JFK ever sent anything like a Voting Rights Act bill to Congress, or a Food Stamps bill, etc., etc.? Why is it that so many of Kennedy's leftist credentials only show up in his private intentions, as related years later by boosters such as Mansfield and Schlesinger? -- Brian Holtz Article 12394 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Part I, CIA Incriminates Itself By Assassinating JFK Conspiracy Theory Date: 19 Mar 1992 03:11:49 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Distribution: na Message-ID: References: <1992Mar18.224543.9823@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: CIA launches worldwide campaign to shake pursuers from its trail In article <1992Mar18.224543.9823@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes: > Herein are excerpts from a compilation of documents published > under the Freedom of Information Act in the book: > > "Documents", by Christy Macy and Susan Kaplan, > [...] >the C.I.A. decided to launch a >WORLDWIDE campaign to discredit the Commission's critics. The >following document, suggesting ways of effectively stifling >accusations of official cover-up and Government conspiracy once >and for all, was sent to C.I.A. stations throughout the world. > >Innuendo of such seriousness >affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole >reputation of the American Government. Exactly. Nothing sinister so far. >The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and >discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists Gosh! You mean the CIA conspired to come out with the truth whereever it encountered falsehood? -- Brian Holtz Article 12506 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Disappearing Witnesses: what does "justice" mean w.r.t. assassination? Date: 21 Mar 1992 23:24:30 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <13889@pitt.UUCP> <13914@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13914@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>Anyone who calls Kennedy a >>"radical reformer" and Johnson a conservative in the same breath is >>simply shockingly ignorant of basic recent history. >> >I never said any such thing. Dave Ratcliffe posted an article saying that the message of JFK's killing is that "radical reformers" get killed. I said JFK wasn't a radical reformer, and you jumped in talking about JFK "champion[ing] [...] causes" and "us[ing] federal troops". I'm glad to hear you agree with me that JFK's killing could not have been a message meant for radical reformers. >Kennedy's social programs weren't considered radical, they were >right in line with those of Roosevelt and Truman, which are >anathema to the New Right. Name me a New Right politician that wants to repeal Social Security, or Medicare, or any other major New Deal social program. The New Right may not like such programs as much as you think JFK did, but the point is that neither JFK nor the powerful New Rightist Reagan either repealed or enhanced those social programs. Their records are as far as I know identical on this score, and I dare you to prove me wrong. >Tax cutting wasn't a big Kennedy item. I don't recall any tax cuts. Reagan and Jack Kemp modeled the early-80's tax cut on Kennedy's tax cut of the early 60's. Look it up. >He also was anti-business, >as the steel industry found out when he attacked them. Again, you're telling us about Kennedy's ATTITUDES, when I want to hear about the LAWS that he either wrote or repealed. Sure, he bluffed the steel industry into revoking a price increase; big deal. The point is that the laws and regulations on business did not change appreciably while Kennedy was in office. >He was very pro-labor. Reagan would tell you the same thing, and the Teamsters endorsed Reagan in 1980. Now tell us, what pro-labor REFORMS did Kennedy make that Reagan would disapprove of? >All of these things distinguish him from the right. That's very wonderful, except you have listed precisely ZERO implemented policies (or lack thereof) that the New Right would disagree with. By contrast, I've listed Kennedy's tax cuts, his containment policies, the absence of new social programs, etc. How much more New Right can you get? -- Brian Holtz Article 12507 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Part I, CIA Incriminates Itself By Assassinating JFK Conspiracy Date: 21 Mar 1992 23:26:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes: >>Gosh! You mean the CIA conspired to come out with the truth whereever >>it encountered falsehood? > >Brian, the "free marketplace of ideas" can get along just fine >without a government subsidy. The marketplace of ideas can only be harmed when those who see falsehood don't correct it when they can. -- Brian Holtz Article 12509 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Part I, CIA Incriminates Itself By Assassinating JFK Conspiracy Theory Date: 21 Mar 1992 23:34:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <1992Mar21.095936.26678@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Mar21.095936.26678@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes: >But they SNEAKED. They went >slinking around to their "elite contacts" [...] >and gave those contacts the CIA line I have no problem with the CIA giving out truth, either publicly or privately. No one can be harmed by the transmission of truth. >for those contacts >to repeat as though they had figured it out themselves. This was hinted at in the second excerpt, which was posted after my response, and which said that the information should be given to CIA "assets". It is definitely wrong for those "assets" to say they figured something out if in fact they didn't, and it is definitely wrong for those "assets" not to treat information from the CIA like information from any other source. It's wrong for the CIA to try to use people like this, but it's wronger for people to let themselves be so used. -- Brian Holtz Article 14994 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Jackie Kennedy's Investigation. Date: 21 Jun 1992 18:32:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun17.014520.24931@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <182178@pyramid.pyramid.com> <37211@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37211@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >(Paul Collacchi) writes: > >| Derek, an "independent" investigation never took place. The formation >| of the Warren Commission served to eliminate that. Some allege that >| it was done that way be design. >Indeed. It was Earl Warren who said it. In a closed door session he >briefed the commission members to go after Oswald and ignore other >trails since it might lead to the USSR. Hoover did the same. These >facts were obtained by the freedom of information act. See Mark >Lane's Plausible Denial or Groden's High Treason, or Marr's >Crossfire. Uh, would you care to give us some page numbers and quotes? The latter two books mention nothing of the sort on the pages indexed under Earl Warren... -- Brian Holtz Article 15018 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Jack Ruby Date: 22 Jun 1992 16:27:48 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun12.055644.10840@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <15289@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <15289@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >(Brian Holtz) writes: >> >>He gave lots of vague hints about what he could say if only he were >>taken somewhere "safe", like Washington, D.C. > >It wasn't exactly vague. Oh? Then tell us: what did he say he planned to talk about if he reached safe harbor? >He said he would not talk in Dallas. >He told Earl Warren that if he would get him out of Dallas >and to Washington DC, he would talk. Warren didn't want to >hear that, You mean, Warren wasn't naive enough to fall for Ruby's little ploys. >and refused. Later, Ruby said that the public >would never find out what his motives were, and they had lost >their chance. And of course, Ruby had *no* incentive whatsoever to create uncertainty and doubt over the events of the fatal weekend. After all, he merely faced electrocution if another jury couldn't find any reasonable doubts in his case... -- Brian Holtz Article 15019 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Jack Ruby Date: 22 Jun 1992 16:34:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun12.055644.10840@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <37277@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37277@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|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. > >I am sure Ruby thought that someone in Dallas represented a threat, and that >they could get to him if word leaked out through the Warren Commission. What do you mean, "leaked out"? He said *on camera* that he was ready and willing to sing as soon as they moved him. Why wasn't he silenced then and there? Why were the conspirators taking such a big gamble? >I think the plan was to make him ill, and Craig implies that the >Dallas Police were allowing it to happen by denying him medical care. Yes, the DPD were very remiss in denying Ruby his weekly anti-cancer pill... >It was Earl Warren who had something to explain by not sending him to a safe >place. No way. Can you name a single defendant in a non-federal crime who was ever taken into protective federal custody for fear that the local authorities could not protect him? -- Brian Holtz Article 15031 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: my JFK theory - small mob hit conspiracy / multiple cover-ups by non-killers Date: 23 Jun 1992 06:22:43 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun16.173654.4981@cmcl2.nyu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun16.173654.4981@cmcl2.nyu.edu> galanter@nyu.edu (Philip Galanter) writes: >here is my personal theory...although others may agree >and in fact if there is a more formal version of this theory somewhere I >would be interested in reading it. > >Without going into details, which can ultimately mire _any_ current JFK >theory, Wrong. The Warren Commission's theory holds up just fine. By contrast, you don't even *attempt* to answer the most basic questions: How many gunmen were there? How many shots were fired? How many shots hit anybody? Where was each hit fired from? What happened to the bullets that were hits? Who killed Tippit, and why? Only the Warren Commission offers a theory that can answer these questions in a way that is consistent with the physical evidence. >Oswald, a marginal personality, was involved in a small conspiracy to >kill JFK. This plot was mostly mob inspired, with perhaps a few fourth >rate CIA hanger's on and cuban freedom fighters left over from the >anti-Castro plots, and perhaps a Dallas cop or two. Oswald didn't realize >he was the patsy until around the time JFK was shot, and was later also >killed by a mob hit. > >The conspiracy had little to do directly with intelligence agencies, but >multiple cover-ups, many independent of each other [...] In other words, your "theory" is to lump all the theories together, and tone them collectively down to a size that doesn't make you feel silly? -- Brian Holtz Article 15032 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: my JFK theory - small mob hit conspiracy / multiple cover-ups by Date: 23 Jun 1992 07:13:19 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun16.173654.4981@cmcl2.nyu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article mbevan@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Mark Bevan) writes: >There is evidence that Oswald knew about the plot to kill Kennedy in >advance, but evidence Oswald tried to contact the FBI about the >assassination (A telex went out to every FBI office in the U.S. >three days before the hit) Huh? Are you talking about the story of New Orleans FBI clerk William Walter, who popped up in 1975 to claim that Oswald was an informant, and that a telex was sent out on Nov. 17 warning of a threat from a "militant revolutionary group"? There is no documentation or credible testimony to back up either claim. In fact, conspiracy author Hurt relates that neither he nor the HSCA found Walter believable, especially considering that Walter's prime corroborating witness says she recalls nothing about such a telex. >1: Could the Mob change the Parade route before the assassination? Apparently, the route was changed because it's much harder (if not impossible) to get onto the Stemmons freeway from Main than from Elm. >2; Could the Mob make the Warren Commision miss blatant errors >in investigation of the events? Such as? >3: Could the Mob make the Army in the Dallas area stand down the day >of the assassination? Conspiracy authors like to parrot this assertion of Prouty's, but nobody ever bothers to document it. Nor do they bother to give evidence that it was standard procedure to have local Army intelligence personnel assist in security measures. >4: Could the Mob make the national media go to sleep? The national media didn't go to sleep. >5: could the Mob change the position of the Media car in the parade >(its usual place is the second car, it was around 13th) JFK was in the second car. The media were in cars 11 through 13. But JFK's assassination was nevertheless filmed and photographed by dozens of people. If the conspirators controlled Kennedy's protection so thoroughly, why did they chose to shoot him in broad daylight in front of so many cameras? >Lyndon Johnson was in the third car (He ducked .... before the shots >were fired) Johnson was in the fourth car. There is no evidence that he ducked "before the shots were fired". -- Brian Holtz Article 15033 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: The Zapruder film -- complete version in movie "JFK"(?). Date: 23 Jun 1992 07:26:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <1823@tsdiag.ocpt.ccur.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Keywords: Kennedy assassination Zapruder film JFK movie In article <1823@tsdiag.ocpt.ccur.com> gillespi@ocpt.ccur.com (Laura Gillespie) writes: >been told by people who are into the JFK conspiracy full-time that the >full Zapruder film was finally released, just for the movie "JFK" Not true. It's been "out" since the 70's. >The frames I specifically refer >to are those where President Kennedy's head is blown open and his brains >fly out (back, and to the left). I know for a fact I never saw that in >the Zapruder film shown in the 70's on TV No, those frames have been known about since at least 1966, and according to every conspiracy author were finally shown in color on TV by ABC's Geraldo Rivera in 1975 on "Good Night, America". >-- ergo, those might be the >same frames everyone is referring to. No, the damaged frames are unremarkable ones, during which Kennedy is obscured by the Stemmons freeway sign. >After all, those frames prove >pretty conclusively that the bullet had to come from in front of the >President (and to his right), not from behind him. In fact, those frames show that Kennedy's head went slightly *forward* in the first frame after impact, forcing many conspiracy authors to agree with the Warren Commission that at that instant Kennedy was struck, at minimum, by a bullet from the rear. -- Brian Holtz Article 15034 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Arrest at the Texas Theatre Date: 23 Jun 1992 07:32:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <708926439.F00001@blkcat.UUCP> <92173.014648U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <92173.014648U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes: >Second, the response to LHO sneaking into the theatre is put into perspective >if you read (either in some critics books or in the 26 volumes) about the >other activity of the Dallas police to other reported shady suspects in the >same area. Remember, the report was not simply of somebody sneaking into a theater without paying. It was a report of a guy who, a few blocks from the Tippit slaying, ducked into a doorway when a police car went by, and *then* took refuge in a theater halfway through the movie. >Most of them were investigated by one or two cops or detectives. >There was a call from a library and one from a gas station. Maybe more, >it's been a while since I read the reports. Were any of the "shady suspects" anywhere near as close in time and space to the Tippit slaying as Oswald was? -- Brian Holtz Article 15074 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Ford Date: 24 Jun 1992 05:59:15 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 34 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Jun11.071735.13107@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <182090@pyramid.pyramid.com> <37323@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <37323@darkstar.ucsc.edu> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes: >|What shred of evidence do you have for this? > >The fact is that the WR covered up the investigation of the assassination. >It lied, cheated, misinformed, refused to look at witness testimony to the >case, coveredup Ruby's connection to organized crime, etc... Again: what shred of evidence do you have for this? >|Do you deny that there was a prima facie case for Oswald's guilt? > >These people are supposedly intelligent, with a battery of lawyers. Not only >should they have presumed Oswald was innocent, It was not a trial. It was an effort to figure out who killed JFK. If you think the proper way to start such an effort was to have presumed Oswald innocent, you are an utter moron. >they should have investigated >leads that Oswald himself, if guilty, was part of a conspiracy. They did. They couldn't find any. >|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. > >Hoover said that Oswald was guilty, and that the object of the WR was >to prove it. I dare you to quote Hoover saying that. Go ahead. Make my day. -- Brian Holtz Article 15103 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: In Re: Ford Date: 25 Jun 1992 06:05:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 68 Distribution: usa Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Rob Prior writes: >] 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; > >Yes... He was well set up, wasn't he. So if he were, say, filmed shooting Kennedy, then can I suppose that you'd say he was "*really* well set up"? >] he was seen bringing a long package into work that morning; > >Which was later shown to be a curtain rod. Bzzt. Oswald owned no such curtain rods. He had told his coworker that he was going to Irving "to get some curtain rods" to "put in an apartment". But Oswald's apartment already had curtain rods, and the only curtain rods at Ruth Paine's Irving house were hers. Oswald never mentioned curtain rods to anybody except coworker Frazier, who drove him to Irving and back (with the "curtain rods"). Oswald didn't even stick to the curtain rods story, telling the police that the big bag Frazier saw him bring to work contained his lunch. >] he was seen killing a policeman 40 minutes later. > >Tippet? Half a dozen witnesses watched as two men gunned down officer Tippet. Bzzzt. Nine witnesses said Oswald was the gunman. The only witness I know of who talks about two men is Acquilla Clemmons. 1. No conspiracy author I know of specifies when Clemmons came forward with her story. She apparently was not known to the Warren Commission. 2. None of the conspiracy authors I've read ever clearly states that she says there were two men *in addition to* Tippit. Hurt writes that "from her vantage point, across the street and about six houses from the murder scene, she watched watched *two* men -- one with a gun -- beside Tippit's car at the time of the shooting." Recall that Tippit was outside his car -- and thus "beside" it -- at the time of the shooting. Similarly, Marrs just vaguely says she "claimed two men were involved in the Tippit shooting but said she was threatened into silence by a man with a gun". >The two men then ran from the scene, To my knowledge, not even Clemmons has ever been quoted as saying that two men ran from the scene. >one of them tossing a handful of shells into the air. No witness I know of says the cartridges were tossed "into the air". They say the cartridges were tossed into some bushes. >] >|> >As Mark Lane puts it, he has no more interest in attempting to prove >] >|> >conspiracy than attempting to prove the earth is flat. > >No, all you've 'demonstrated' is that Mark Lane will profit by writing about a >possible conspiracy. ML himself has no more interest in proving a conspiracy. Get real. If ML (or anybody else) disproves a conspiracy, then the JFK-conspiracy-book-writing industry dries up. He has an interest in keeping that industry alive. -- Brian Holtz Article 15105 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Jack Ruby Date: 25 Jun 1992 06:19:47 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <15331@pitt.UUCP> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <15331@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes: >>>>He gave lots of vague hints about what he could say >> [...] >He said he would talk. Explain his motives, who else was involved. That's vague. Why couldn't he say how many people were involved, or when the planning started, etc? Why couldn't he give a single statement that could be verified without leading us any closer to the conspirators Ruby claimed to fear? In fact, why couldn't he just tell the whole story, since it was public knowledge that he was willing to do so? Are you trying to tell us that the conspirators were more interesting in punishing him *after* the fact than they were in silencing him in the first place? That's absurd. >Why else couldn't he talk in Dallas, if he wasn't going to >incriminate anyone else? Because he had nothing else to say, of course. >>And of course, Ruby had *no* incentive whatsoever to create >>uncertainty and doubt over the events of the fatal weekend. > >That is irrevelvant. You mean it's "irrelevant" that Ruby's empty promises of talking can be easily explained by Ruby's incentive for creating uncertainty and doubt? Gee, that attitude must save you a lot of wear and tear on your brain... >Ruby was so key that every effort should >have been made to get him to talk. If he didn't say anything, >he could have been sent back. And if when he gets there he says that he doesn't trust the federal officers assigned to protect him, and so still cannot talk -- what then? How far would you be willing to take this charade? >But clearly Warren didn't >want to do that and also didn't want him to talk. Gosh, I didn't know you were a mind-reader... >He really came right out and told Ruby he'd better keep his mouth >shut by what he said to him in that interview. Nonsense. I defy you to quote Warren to this effect. Go ahead. Make my day. -- Brian Holtz Article 15106 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph Date: 25 Jun 1992 06:24:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun24.155222.365@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun24.155222.365@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes: > There was a brief but interesting article in the Dallas Morning News >about two or three months ago in a Sunday edition, as best I can recall, >that said that the photographer's pads, etc., used to dummy Oswald's famous >photograph holding the rifle above his head had been found in some files >recently released by the Dallas police department. It would be interesting if such an article had in fact been published. But I tend to think I would have heard about it if it had been; there have been many treatments of the JFK case on TV in the last few months, and none of the ones I saw mentioned anything about this. Can any netters in Dallas check up on this? -- Brian Holtz Article 15299 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Exploding Watermelons and JFK Date: 29 Jun 1992 21:32:33 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun17.104037.6481@prl.dec.com> <15295@pitt.UUCP> <1992Jun25.015813.1131@gagme.chi.il.us> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun25.015813.1131@gagme.chi.il.us> anton@gagme.chi.il.us (Andrzej Borowiec) writes: >The shells were also neatly laid on the floor. Where should they have been, on the roof? Two came to rest against the wall; one came to rest against a box. >Wasn't also one of the shells bent the way it couldn't have possibly >been fired I can imagine the ejector mechanism denting the cartridge that way. >from the gun with the scope misaligned so bdly that they had to add >shims under it in order for the tests to succed at all? The scope may have become misaligned when it was deposited in its hiding place. Now tell us: if you're framing Oswald, why do pick a cartridge that "couldn't possibly have been fired", arrange it "neatly" (whatever that means) on the floor with two others, and then stash a gun with a misaligned scope? Why? -- Brian Holtz Article 15300 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Proof Of Conspiracy: Investigation interfered with Date: 29 Jun 1992 21:40:51 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <1992Jun26.065650.19775@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Jun26.065650.19775@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes: >In a post here Brian Holtz makes the point that the witnesses with >the most damaging testimony in the JFK case were those who were not >killed. I don't see how this assertion is provable, even in principle. >By definition witnesses who were killed to prevent their testifying >did not testify, and the content of their potential testimony is >unknowable. For all we know, [...] "For all we know", the first person named in you newspaper's obituaries today was THE witness with the most damaging potential testimony, who was silenced when the conspirators learned he was about to go public. But is that *really* "all we know"? No. We know that none of the murdered witnesses was in a position to have seen another gunman, or to have been with Oswald during the shooting, etc. etc. -- Brian Holtz Article 15301 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 29 Jun 1992 21:45:34 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <13034@mindlink.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <13034@mindlink.bc.ca> Rob_Prior@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Prior) writes: >] The throat wound is an exit wound from the second shot, which hit JFK >] from behind. > >Actually, according to the coroner permforming the autopsy the throat >wound is in fact an entrance wound. Nope. From the autopsy: "the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds [...] the projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased". -- Brian Holtz Article 15475 of alt.conspiracy: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@tooltalk.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: jfk's throat wound Date: 3 Jul 1992 22:12:18 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 19 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <13074@mindlink.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: tooltalk In article <13074@mindlink.bc.ca> Rob_Prior@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Prior) writes: >] >Actually, according to the coroner permforming the autopsy the throat >] >wound is in fact an entrance wound. >] >] Nope. From the autopsy: "the deceased died as a result of two >] perforating gunshot wounds [...] the projectiles were fired from a >] point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased". > >"died as a result of" yes. But JFK _was_ in the _front_ of the neck by a >bullet that evidently turned out to be non-life threatening. Sorry, Rob, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm holding a copy of the autopsy report in my hand, and it says nothing about shots from the front. Ask any conspiracy nut, and they'll tell you that the autopsy was staged for the express *purspose* of concluding that all shots came from the rear. -- Brian Holtz