Richard J. Smith

Like Francesca I am still waiting for it to be delivered. It is one of the problems of being a JFK researcher and living in the UK. I am therefore surprised that not more US members have not entered into a discussion with Larry on the book thread. I suspect that most members only look at the JFK section and miss out on the good information that appears in other sections like, history books, history debates, political debates, political conspiracies, RFK, MLK and civil rights, etc. I just got mine Saturday, and just started reading it. I had the previous edition, which was outstanding. No alternative theories for me. This is it. John, you're correct in assuming we are missing the forum's other sections. I didn't know Larry had a thread going elsewhere. RJS

Hi Ter, And Ashton earlier in this thread referred to the 30+ eyewitness statements and testimony to the rear of head wound as "anecdotal"(Webster's ANECDOTAL = "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"). Doctors, nurses, and autopsy techs are "unscientific observers"? And Clint Hill's statement "The right rear portion of his head was missing"? Guess Clint was mistaken huh? Actually quite amazing that so many in this thread have their own speculative shooting positions without utilizing any ballistic or medical information whatsoever. If you believe there was a large rear of head wound, and it's pretty tough to dismiss, then a head shot from the rear is virtually impossible. Pick a card...any card. RJS

Hi Thom, Yes, the names on the internet petition on line will be included, their comments will not. BK Bill, Some of the names will need to be removed as well, such as "Fox Mulder". I think there are a few others. RJS

What eliminates it from reasonable consideration is the account of nearly 30 witnesses to a large wound of exit in the rear of the head, and not one witness who saw a large wound of exit in the right front. Jim Sibert interviewed by William Law in The Eye of History: Law: Can you give me some information on the head wound? Sibert: Oh, it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...now those two(Boswell and Humes) stayed there till about 5:30 in the morning as I recall. That was their admission--that they stayed and helped the morticians. In other words, they must have taken some other pictures too, because they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that. ...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done... Sibert: The thing that I remember was this massive head wound. I mean, we're talking about something that was 3 1/2 inches long and about that size(see photo below) The hair was matted, but there was no question--and I'll tell you the statement I made to Frank. We were both standing there looking into this massive hole in the head. I said "Frank, think of all the top secret material that has gone through that brain. And now look at it". I remember saying that to Frank. The photo Sibert referred to is the infamous rear of head autopsy photo. Sibert showing the size of the wound in the back of the head. He was within a foot of JFK's head:

Ashton Ashton, How does a head shot fired from behind in the County Courts building relate to the large wound of exit in the right rear of the head? RJS Hi Richard. I wouldn't assay even to attempt to account for every wound, real or imagined, that has been claimed and counterclaimed and reclaimed and exclaimed about in and around the so-called "medical evidence." The one wound I personally consider to be a very high relative certainty is a large chunk of skull blown out of the right front of JFK's head. The Parkland doctors didn't see a large chunk of skull blown out of the right front of JFK's head. Neither did the Bethesda witnesses. Around 30 witnesses from Parkland and Bethesda, including Gawler mortician Thomas Robinson, however, did see a large rear of head wound. Also note that Saundra Spencer, who developed autopsy photos at the NPC, saw a photo which included the rear head wound. I believe the wound to which you refer is the "flap" seen in the Z film, which Jackie held in place during the ride to Parkland. It was not seen as a "large blown out chunk", since it was still attached and pushed back into place. Head wound witnesses and their statements/testimony: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2349 RJS

Here's one Frank: http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/images/ click on NID2003.mht

And from Paul O'Connor in the same book: O’Connor: When we started an autopsy, the first thing we always did…was to weigh and measure the body. We’d check for any scars, contusions, any abnormalities, and so on. But in this case, we didn’t turn the body over to look at the back while we were doing that. Finally we turned the body over, and there was a bullet wound—an entrance wound—in his back, on the right side of his spinal column. To emphasize where it was in proximity to the rest of his body: if you bend your neck down and feel back, you feel a lump and that’s the seventh cervical vertebra. This bullet wound was about 3 inches down and an inch or two to the right of the seventh cervical vertebra. I remember there was a big gush of surprise that nobody actually thought about turning him over right away, you know after we had done our initial investigation of the president’s body. Dr Humes took his finger and poked it in the hole---the bullet wound hole, the entrance wound hole---and said it didn’t go anywhere. There was a very big argument, a lot of consternation, that he shouldn’t have stuck his finger in the hole. Law: What difference would it make? O’Connor: Well, when you take your finger and stick it into a bullet wound, you avulse the wound. Law: You think that happened when he stuck his finger in the back? O’Connor: Yes Law: It could have create a false track: O’Connor: Well, not necessarily a false track as much as a false impression of the entrance of the missile that went into his back. Law: Who was arguing” O’Connor: Dr Finck strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He(Finck) took a sound, which is a probe, a metal malleable, non rigid probe. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far. I’d say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn’t go in any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostals muscles---the muscles between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles, didn’t touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity and stopped. So we didn’t know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That’s what happened at the time. We traced the bullet path down and found that it didn’t traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other side of the body. Law: You can be reasonably sure of that? O’Connor: Absolutely Law: And these doctors knew that? O’Connor: Absolutely Law: While it happened? O’Connor: Absolutely. And another thing we found out while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet is what we call in the military a “short shot”. It didn’t have the power to push the projectile clear through the body. If it had…it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum. O’Connor: We were told(in the report of the Warren Commission) that he was shot in the back and it came out his throat. That didn’t jibe with what we saw, and when I say we, I’m talking about Dr. Boswell and myself. When shown the photo of the back by Law: O’Connor: That’s a very accurate portrayal of the entrance wound to his back, which as you know, is quite a ways down from his neck. At the angle he was shot…the laws of physics will not let a bullet strike there and go up and go out his throat…I helped roll him over…one of these arms might have been mine, because I was at the head of the body and helped roll him over. It wasn’t rolled over until quite a ways into the autopsy, and that’s when they discovered the bullet wound. O’Connor: Now I had this drawing made at the University of Florida showing the back wound and this is exactly what happened. The bullet struck him in the back, it passed through the outer layer of muscle and through the inner layer of muscle between the vertebrae. These are intercostals muscles and they connect the spinal column together. This bullet came in, arched downward, and bulged against the pleural cavity, which is the protective cavity around both lungs. It did not penetrate that lung area. It just bruised it real badly. I had it highlighted showing there was bruising on the right lung. The back if the right lung was bruised, but wasn’t torn. It was bruised badly enough to hemorrhage in the tissues, but not enough to tear the lung or the cavity. I find it hard to believe that anyone these days, with the amount of information out there, would STILL believe in the SBT. RJS

Ashton Ashton, How does a head shot fired from behind in the County Courts building relate to the large wound of exit in the right rear of the head? RJS

_______________________________________ Richard, Excellent work! I think your ??? = "in". So it might read ".... the individual in Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug.... " FWIW, Thomas _______________________________________ Thanks Thomas, I believe you're correct. I just didn't want to put in a word I couldn't clearly see. RJS

John, As you probably know, I also received this moniker from a "researcher of some repute" some time ago. It was said I was writing posts from a cubicle at Langley to disrupt forums and keep people from knowing what they claimed was the truth. Some of my fellow members at Lancer were asked by that person to vouch for me. That person then proceeded to "check me out", and actually posted personal information about me that he had discovered. When you vociferously disagree with some pet theories, you run the risk of being called nearly anything. As you said, it makes no sense. I am one of the most vocal supporters I know of the case against the CIA, as you are. If I was CIA, I'd be agreeing with some of the more outlandish theories out there, trying to deflect attention away from the Company(of course then some moron might see that as a PSYOP, and cite it as "proof"!). You have done a great service with your forum and your research. Keep up the fine work. RJS

I agree with several of your participants, with exceptions as noted: 1. Gonzalez and Martinez, perhaps Bernard Barker, behind the fence 2. No Dal Tex shooter 3. Gordon Novel as Umbrella Man 4. Head shot shooter from South Knoll, more than likely a military Team 5 Special Ops trained sniper oft used by the CIA 5. I don't believe it's Hemming near the corner of Main/Houston. 6. If you are referring to the "Lamppost Man" at Main and Houston as Morales, I disagree. No comparison to Morales IMO. "LPM" was IMO a CIA case officer pictured here in Long Tieng Laos circa 1970. As James indicated, some of these guys are virtually interchangeable. Let us not forget Howard Hunt, IMO walking across Elm St minutes after the shooting. South Knoll shooter presentation by Sherry Gutierrez: http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/images/ click on NID2003.mht

Hi Thomas, The description given does indeed fit our Mexico City mystery man. As to the hand written notes, it is difficult to say but is that 'Helms' I see there? Mmm. James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a clearer copy of this memo, with handwritten note in the margin, as close as I can see says: "As I recall, this description was of the individual (???) Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug. Not Oswald." Then: "WRONG!" Affidavit by Helms dated August 7, 1964 to the WC: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...1_Helms_aff.pdf RJS

The radio program Coast to Coast did a fairly extensive show last night. Unfortunately, they spent 2 hours interviewing 90 year old Paul Groody(LHO's mortician). He still claims it wasn't LHO's head that was exhumed. He also contradicted some of the things he said in his TMWKK interview. I saw nothing on the national or local newscasts or their websites. What a freakin shame. RJS

And there's this picture of, probably, him in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, '63. http://www.jfkresearch.com/eaglesham/page5.jpg So there are pictures placing (probably) him at both Kennedy murder scenes... That is definitely NOT Morales on the lampost at the corner of Main and Houston. RJS

All I have to do to mend my ways, is to have someone explain logically to me, not how they know that I and the others are wrong, but how they know for certain that he/she is correct when claiming that the Zapruder film is unquestionably the genuine article, the 'real deal' so to speak. I have already posted that question in an earlier thread. Last time I looked there had been well over 100 visits, but not one person had replied. Hopefully that will not be the case on this occasion. I really and truly want to understand how one can arrive at such a conclusion. You've indicated that no one responded previously, and hope someone will respond this time. BM has responded above(as he has previously). I agree with his assessment. Please explain without wild speculation to our satisfaction how the Z film could have been altered under those circumstances. RJS

Allan Eaglesham's Dark Corners re Pitzer: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/

Ron, Here's your answer. This documentary is over an hour long, but well worth it. And it's not about missiles hitting the Pentagon or controlled explosions at the WTC. This is really good stuff. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=55...press+for+truth RJS

I would think that Hillary Clinton would be the next imminent threat over the horizon! Now there's a fair and balanced remark. She has taken her lumps from the poorly informed and the right, but the election last week certainly showed what the majority thinks of the Bush policies(not to mention the scandals, including that of the religious right's two faced POS posterboy Ted Haggard). I'm a resident of upstate NY, and I contacted many senators 2 years ago regarding unemployment issues nationwide. Senator Clinton is the only one of either party that even responded. She has ALWAYS responded to issues in NY. When she first ran for the Senate, it seemed few NY citizens outside of NYC supported her publicly. And she won by a landslide, even in the more conservative upstate areas. What's that tell you? People were afraid to support her publicly because they thought it was fun to bash her as you did. But when people went to the polls privately, she got 65% of the vote. Get used to her. She'll make a great president. RJS

Tosh, I have believed in the South Knoll shooter for quite some time, and felt somewhat exonerated when I first saw Sherry G's analysis. And you're right, in that when the topic comes up, it invariably leads back to the North Knoll. Frankly, there are as many potentials in the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll parking lot as there are of the North Knoll area photos. For anyone who has been or will be in Dealey Plaza, or has seen some recent photos taken from the south end of the railroad overpass facing the TSBD, you'll see something you generally don't see from other angles. Stand in Elm St near the head shot X facing west and look straight ahead. You'll be facing the west end of the South Knoll, and not down Elm towards the Stemmons entrance. I would suggest the forum's resident photo experts take a look at the background of Cancellare with the same zeal as they have of Moorman, Betzner, Willis, the Z film, etc. I have some photos, but unfortunately can't post here due to limited attachment space. RJS

Alan, Actually the hole was an "avulsion", seen here in Z337. Since Zapruder took his film from the side, you would have a tough time seeing the back of the head. Shanet, If your proof of Z film alteration is the film doesn't show a rear of head hole, you're on shaky ground. RJS

Pat, This DVD is outstanding: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2003/jfk// "Shortly after the shooting they were taken to KRLD televison..." WFAA, interviewed by Jay Watson. RJS

Former Texas first lady Nellie Connally dies 05:04 PM CDT on Saturday, September 2, 2006 By KELLEY SHANNON / Associated Press AUSTIN – Nellie Connally, the widow of former Gov. John Connally and the last remaining survivor who was riding in President Kennedy's limousine when he was assassinated, has died, longtime family friend Julian Read said. She was 87. She died late Friday at Westminster Manor in Austin, where she had been living for about a year after moving from Houston, said Read, who had served as press secretary to Gov. Connally in the 1960s. "Total surprise," he said. "She has been extremely active and vital the past few days and weeks....It's a shock to all of us." Nellie Connally had said the most enduring image she had of that day in November 1963 in Dallas was of a mixture of blood and roses. Connally had said the most enduring image she had of that day in November 1963 in Dallas was of a mixture of blood and roses. "It's the image of yellow roses and red roses and blood all over the car... all over us," she said in a 2003 interview with The Associated Press. "I'll never forget it. ... It was so quick and so short, so potent." As the limousine carrying the Connallys and the Kennedys wound its way through the friendly crowd in downtown Dallas, Nellie Connally turned to President Kennedy, who was in a seat behind her, and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." Almost immediately, she heard the first of what she later concluded were three gunshots in quick succession. Connally slumped after the second shot, and, "I never looked back again. I was just trying to take care of him," she said. Anniversaries and inevitable media interviews followed the Connallys for decades to come. She was active in numerous fundraising organizations. In 1989, Richard Nixon, Barbara Walters and Donald Trump turned out for a gala to honor her and help raise money for diabetes research. "I've never known a woman with Nellie's courage, compassion and character," Walters said at the ceremony. "For all her ups and downs, I've never heard a self-pitying word from her." The "downs" that Walters spoke of were when the Connallys found themselves in financial difficulties. Private business ventures after 1980 were less successful than Connally's career as a politician and dealmaking Houston lawyer. An oil company in which he invested got into trouble, and $200 million worth of real estate projects went sour. He filed for reorganization of his personal finances under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code and for liquidation, under Chapter 7, of the Barnes/Connally Partnership, the Austin-based real estate venture that he founded with former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes. The auction paid only a fraction of the $93 million in debts Connally listed with the bankruptcy court in Austin. Nellie Connally celebrated her 80th birthday with fellow breast cancer survivors at a ceremony in the Nellie B. Connally Breast Center at Anderson hospital in Houston. It had been 10 years since overcoming breast cancer. She served on the M.D. Anderson Board of Visitors since 1984, and a fund in her name raised millions for research and patient programs. She is survived by her daughter, Sharon Connally Ammann of Marble Falls; and two sons, John B. Connally III of Houston and Mark Connally of Dallas. Funeral services are pending.

Ken Rahn is quiet as a mouse... Rahn's post at Lancer 8/27/06: Debra, I'm sorry to tell you that cheering won't make Rahn and Sturdivan go away. If you read the Randich-Grant article carefully, you will find that it is flawed from beginning to end, to the point that it probably should be withdrawn from the journal. Rather than being truly scentific, it represents a leap of faith that among other things ignores bullet data directly contrary to their assertions. I am preparing a full-length rebuttal to it now. I trust that you will keep an open mind when it appears and give it as much play as you have their article. Best regards, Ken Rahn

When I ask for SENSIBLE ANSWERS. I get back NONSENSE. If you cannot distinguish between a black woman and four white women, you have eye problems. If you cannot tell a topcoat from a jacket, or a sweater from a dress, see your eye doctor. Don't blame your visual impairment on me! (a typical tactic...blame the messenger when you don't understand the message) If those photos are "sinister" THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS IN TROUBLE. Jack You didn't get back nonsense, pal. You got back an answer. One that you didn't like or one that didn't genuflect before you but an answer nevertheless. You say the ethnicity of the woman changed. I say you're wrong. And there's nothing wrong with my eyes, they're perfectly fine. If you don't take my word for it, just poll the members -- how many people here think the woman changed from white to black? Then you can insult all of them as well. This is a typical tactic of people like you. Put forth an idea and when people comment on it, insult them and claim that they're merely provocateurs. You've been doing this for years. You see spies under the bed. They're not there. Really they're not. You suggest I go to an opthamologist? I think you need psychotherapy in all honesty. You have been living on the Paranoid Side for so long I don't think you can any longer tell the difference between a sinister plot and a simple photo difference. If you're not merely paranoid, I'd like to put forth a theory of my own. I think YOU may be the disinformation agent. The CIA could easily put someone like you out there to come up with so many crackpot theories that NOBODY in the doubting community has any credibility. I'm done with you. I was "done" with Mr White long ago. "If you cannot see that woman 5 has on a white cardigan, get your eyes checked." White cardigan?!?! Who needs their eyes checked? "If you don't take my word for it, just poll the members -- how many people here think the woman changed from white to black?" Not I. RJS