Richard J. Smith
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Richard J. Smith
-
-
I will also point out that it is rude to say SHE needs to submit to a polygraph. Why? As I asked before- would you believe her would you just say that they are only 75% accurate and therefore inadmissable in court? Would youd ecide that tehrefore, the polygraph was a moot point? BEsides, I really believe that Marina doesn't know anything. She's striving for information just like you are. She even went so far as to support and cooperate with a group of high school students in the mid 90's to try to get files. I think that with Marina- every one is barking up the wrong tree.
-Carrie
Rude to suggest Marina take a polygraph? I'm not suggesting she was involved or "knows something". Did she take the backyard photos as she said, or were they faked as nearly every single CT thinks? Did she see Lee carry the rifle out under a raincoat as she said? Some CTs think Lee never ordered the rifle, and never possessed it. Did Lee tell Marina he took that shot at Walker? Most CTs don't think he did. Lee told Marina he buried the rifle. Did he really tell her that? Most CTs think that's absurd.
Marina was the closest person in the world to Lee Harvey Oswald, and it is not barking up the wrong tree to verify if what she said was true. She saw things in their everyday life that have been disputed for years.
Do you believe the backyard photos were faked? If you do, then Marina lied about taking them, for whatever reason, pure and simple. Personally I think she did take them, and if she did, then they're not fakes, and every CT who believes they're fake is wrong. Inquiring minds want to know.
Regarding the polygraph, from Advanced Research Inc:
"While the polygraph technique is not infallible, research clearly indicates that when administered by a competent examiner, the polygraph test is one of the most accurate means available to determine truth and deception. Most available statistics report the accuracy as 87% - 95%, which does not include inconclusive test results. Most examiners do not consider an "inconclusive" result as erroneous. Inconclusive results are frequently the result of subdued physiological responses caused by fatigue, lack of sleep or the presence of drugs (legal or otherwise) in the system."
http://www.advsearch.com/lie.htm
I would believe anything Marina said if she passed a polygraph test.
RJS
-
Tim-
I hate to point this out, but IF these people haven't told the truth by now, do you really think that your Super Interogator could get them too? If he/she did, do you really think you could prove it? Or that you would believe it? I have serious doubts that after all of these years that I would believe the truth if I was shown he evidence.
-C
Hi Carrie,
I'm very much interested in the statement you made in your bio, specifically that you are personal friends with Marina. In your post above, you mention "if people haven't told the truth by now...". What's your take on Marina? As you know, so many researchers think she feared for her life, was pressured into making statements, etc, yet she has essentially maintained her story over the years, specifically about the Walker shooting, the backyard photos, seeing LHO cleaning the Mannlicher Carcano, taking it out under a raincoat to practice with, etc, etc. She wrote the ARRB when they wanted her permission to get LHO's tax records released, told them that she wanted certain FBI records released, but wouldn't give them what they wanted unless she got what she wanted. Stalemate.
IMO she needs to submit to a polygraph to clear up some very important misconceptions. To coin a phrase, what does she know and when did she know it?
RJS
-
I would produce photos from Dealey Plaza purporting to show "lookalikes" and ask if it was them, ie Hunt, Duran, DeTorres. I keep having the feeling that when Hunt dies, more info will come out.
I think that should read when "Bernardo de Torres dies".
True enough John, but Hunt was an official employee of a US government agency. Those types would be protected more so than anyone else. If info on Hunt came out, the government could use plausible deniability, and say he acted on his own without repercussions from a still alive Hunt.
RJS
PS: actually the first question I would ask Mr DeTorres would be "would you please not point that pistol at my head?"
-
Just curious as to what everyone would be curious about.
Hi Nic,
Long time...
First I'm surprised that so many people chose to ask questions of the dead when you asked for living witnesses. Anywho...
There's a slew of LIVING people I would like to question, starting with E Howard Hunt. Not that he would answer, and I would assume he would probably have a CIA lawyer with him(as he did with the Plausible Denial case).
I would produce photos from Dealey Plaza purporting to show "lookalikes" and ask if it was them, ie Hunt, Duran, DeTorres. I keep having the feeling that when Hunt dies, more info will come out.
I would also like to find out if anyone from the Gawler embalming team is still alive and and if they would be willing to be interviewed. The questions would be obvious about the patching of the rear head wound and plastic cover as described by Thomas Robinson, and whether photos were taken during reconstruction.
-
Was Jack Kennedy's sharing a woman with a leader in the Mafia an impeachable offense?
In my opinion, no. Clinton went through impeachment proceedings because he lied under oath about his sexcapades, not because of his infidelities.
RJS
-
Just yesterday, I met up with an old friend from my days when I worked in radio. Knowing of my interest in all things pertaining to the JFK assassination, he gave me an MP3 disc containing almost 8 hours of real-time broadcast from Dallas radio station KLIF on November 22, 1963. It begins at approximately 11:30 am, as a KLIF reporter broadcasts JFK's arrival at Love Field.
Mark,
Please check the broadcast and see if there was a live report from Love Field at approximately 2:15CST. A fellow researcher has previously indicated that he heard a radio broadcast from Love involving the arrival of a black hearse on the front starboard side of AF1. As we know, the hearse that left Parkland was white, and JFK's casket was loaded on the rear port side.
Thanks
RJS
-
I have heard it said that no rifles used in 63 would have generated smoke,
can anyone rebut this?
john
John,
In 1970 at Kent State University, a student shot film of the shooting of students by National Guardsmen. The film was taken from across the street, out the window of a dorm room. You can plainly see clouds of smoke from the Guards' position as they fired on the crowd. I was doubtful myself that the cloud of smoke on the Grassy Knoll could be generated by a rifle shot until I saw the Kent State film.
RJS
-
Hello all,
after following the post by Tim Gratz about GPH's allegations of a dal tex spotter it keeps nagging me that to have cuban exiles as shooters would consist of a completely different kind of coup than if it had been carried out by a team of military snipers. the cubans would suggest obviously that they were disgruntled with the BOP and the whole cuban affair, whereas a military team would be infinitely better trained (in my unqualified opinion) and would have had the professional backup to perform an operation of this kind, it is far more likely to me that a military team would have been used if the assassination was monetarily driven say perhaps by texas oilmen.
To have it carried out by the cubans would seem to me to be on a much lower level that was capable of such an act as well as covering it up, to me it wasnt a single issue that had kennedy killed which is what the cuban theory would suggest...just for the chance of another invasion.
thoughts?
john
John,
I am a proponent of the "exiles did it" theory, but IMO they were the boots on the ground in DP. They had a major portion of the CIA behind them, so it wasn't just an exile operation. I have a problem with highly trained military snipers in that if there were 4, 5, 6 shots or more as many believe, these guys should have lost their stripes. An expert marksman team with military training would have done the job with a minimum number of shots. I don't believe they would have been bouncing shots off the pavement, off curbstones, and into the grass. IMO the coverup effectively covered the ass of the CIA. I also believe the lookalikes in DP weren't lookalikes. They were the real deal, and nearly every one had involvement in anti-Castro Cuban operations.
RJS
-
I learned a lesson the hard way one time when I thought I saw something in my version of the Weigman film ( and posted extensively on it ) that didn't exist in a better copy . Thankfully, Gary Mack took the time to set me straight - I've tried to be careful since then, ever mindful that I'm not working with original ( first generation, etc ) source material. Bill Miller has also been a great resource, both in terms of material and advice. He insists on using the best resources available and uses all available photographic sources to recheck the work eg.) If the image exists in one source then see if it also exists in another, then compare. It also helps to remain objective.
I'm not talking down to anyone here, just offering some advice from a guy who's had his photographic interpreting head kicked in ( figuratively, of course ) publicly several times - and, I still have bumps to prove it ...
Ian
I know exactly how you feel. Interesting though that someone would trash Bill Miller as someone who "sees things", yet posted a "rifle" scene without checking other views of the same building, or " clearly sees" a camera held by Marilyn Sitzman posted in Duncan's blotchy mess from Moorman.
IMO you are absolutely correct about Bill. He is a great resource, always willing to help, and is not afraid to butt heads with those who push nonsense and whose photographic interpretation skills are suspect.
RJS
-
Good Day.... When I went to the C.I.A.'s electronic FOIA reading room located for everyone here....
http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp
.... and within the "documents search" box entered "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
.... it resulted in (only) one (1) document "hit," entitled "DECEPTION RESEARCH PROGRAM NO.9: BIBLIOGRAPHY"
.... When I opened that document and read it, it is a 1980 report done by the C.I.A.'s "Deception Research Program Staff" of the "Office of Research and Development" of the C.I.A.
.... The document is, basically, only a bibliography of books, etc. that discuss the art of deception (be sure to read the how the C.I.A. defines "deception" near the report start).
.... Want to learn how the C.I.A.ers thought/think when it comes to the art of deception?, (after all, given its mission, it IS a part of the agency's overall, required job skills) then here is a report listing 230+ pages (at 7 to 8 references per page, there are some 1750+ references listed) --with OSWALD's name possibly listed somewhere within the references (I did not view each page; just every 5 pages)
Don Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
ROCCA: Let me go back and open a little parenthesis about this. What I regard now, in the light of what you said, is probably a too narrow view of what SIG was interested in.
They were also concerned with Americans as a security threat in a community-wide sense, and they dealt with FBI cases, with the Office of Security cases, and with other cases on the same level, as they dealt with our own, basically….It would be with respect to where and what had happened to DDP materials with respect to a defection in any of these places.
GOLDSMITH: Again, though, Oswald had nothing to do with the DDP at this time, at least apparently.
ROCCA: I’m not saying that. You said it.
- RAYMOND G. ROCCA, C.I.A. Counterintelligence Research and Analysis Officer under ANGLETON, during his HSCA deposition, p. 218
So much for those who believe the CIA was not involved.
-
Does anybody know what happened to this film or negatives?
LONG LOST KENNEDY FILM FOUND, COULD THERE BE MORE?
(THE RUNDOWN, VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2: JUNE 10, 1996)
The day began at the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth. It ended in front of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. Friday. November 22, 1963.
On a political trip to Texas, John Kennedy had visited San Antonio and Houston. In the morning, he looked out from his Fort Worth hotel and saw a crowd gathering outside in the rain. The public response to his visit was better than he had expected, and he was somewhat enthusiastic. The political situation was critical. He had barely won Texas, and thus the presidency, in 1960. Now, one poll had his popularity in the state down to 50%, two-thirds of what it had been a year earlier. He faced intense conservative hostility. The president spoke to the crowd. He and Mrs. Kennedy flew to Dallas, and entered an open car in a motorcade that was supposed to take him to a luncheon speech.
More than thirty years after the most traumatic criminal event in modern American history, video has been discovered that further documents the events of that day.
Discovery stimulates emotions
The film was shot for KTVT-TV. The station is now a CBS affiliate. In 1963, it was an independent with two newscasts. The film's discovery has been dramatic and emotional for people at the station. "For those of us who are old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination, it was more than fascinating. It took us back, once again, to November 22, 1963," says Jim Holland, News Director of KTVT.
"You got an emotional jolt from seeing footage that had never been seen before, and remembering where you were and what happened that day. It was an emotional experience for some people here." --- Jim Holland, News Director, KTVT-TV
Film had been hidden for 33 years
The silent, 16 mm film apparently had been rescued from the trash at the television station in 1963, and kept hidden for more than 30 years. One copy was almost destroyed when a house burned.
The 45 minutes of footage surfaced when a former news photographer's daughter and wife donated it to the National Archives. It had been held by the family of Eli Sturges. This was a copy of footage that had also been kept by the family members of another channel 11 photographer, Roy Cooper, Jr. They are deciding what to do with that original.
Sturges' daughter told the Dallas Morning News that her father and his best friend, Cooper, closed the curtains tight and screened the film at their home.
"I can remember my dad splicing pieces of film together at the kitchen table ... They wanted to get rich, but, they also hoped other people could learn from it." --- Janet Veazey, Photographer's daughter
The men made the duplicate for Sturges as a backup. It was a tense time. The President had been assassinated. Many people thought there was a conspiracy and others involved. "When Roy came to us, he was terrified. He didn't want anybody to know about it," Mrs. Sturges told the paper.
Roy Cooper retired before Holland arrived to become News Director. But, he stayed in touch with the newsroom. "He would come and visit me once a month, just to sit and chat. In all his visits and in all that time, he never once let on that he had this film in his possession," says Holland. It appears that Cooper was unable to do much with it. "He supposedly had sold two minutes of it several years ago to a lesser-known documentary company. I think that both Roy and Eli thought that some day the footage was going to be worth some money, and that's why they hung on to it," he explains.
The old black and white video is fascinating. Governor Connally stands up in the limousine and tips his hat as the Kennedys get in. A smiling, charismatic president moves casually, but, confidently in Fort Worth.
Among the highlights of the film:
· President and Mrs. Kennedy walking hand in hand. "That is an unusual shot, because people seldom saw them display affections publicly," Holland says.
· A shot of Jack Ruby in the background of the Lee Harvey Oswald "press conference," which definitively placed him there. "Ruby has said it was at that point when he decided to kill Oswald," says Holland.
· Lyndon Johnson walking out of Parkland Hospital after the president had died. "He was about to go to the airport to be sworn in as President of the United States," says Holland.
· Many crowd shots and aftermath shots.
Although these are outtakes, the film chronicles: the president's arrival in Fort Worth the evening before the assassination; a breakfast speech; a speech outside the hotel where the breakfast was held; the departure from Fort Worth; the arrival at Love Field; the motorcade, which a cameraman shot about a block from the assassination; and the pandemonium after the shooting. The photographer ran into the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll, where the initial search was concentrated to find the assassin or assassins.
One question in the minds of many broadcasters is: Who has the rights to it? "Technically, you could say that the station retains the rights to it, but we have decided to waive the rights, if the footage is released by the Archives. We're not in a position to want to block anyone's usage of it," says Holland.
I contacted KTVT TV about the film a few years ago, and never got a response.
RJS
-
The detectives are obviously not all local
and they carry the extra raincoats over their arms to
cover things they might happen to pick up..........
The closest out of town detectives were in Fort Worth over 30 minutes away. The Darnell film was taken about 10 minutes following the assassination and well before anyone could have come from Fort Worth. I might add that the Fort Worth detectives had no jurisdiction in Dallas.
Bill,
I can only assume Mr Clark is speculating that the "detectives" were agents of some sort, not necessarily policemen from another city such as Fort Worth. As you know, it is so easy to look at a photo and find ulterior motives, especially without corroboration. I believe your point is well taken, in that corroborative information is available and should be used. All too often, false conclusions are reached by not doing the comparison, or digging deeper into witness statements, interviews, testimony, etc. It seems there is an abundance of speculative opinion without corroborating fact these days. All one needs to do is voice an opinion and watch the bandwagon grow. Then again, maybe they were reverse MK/ULTRA'd.
RJS
-
Richard,
I know your opinion of Craig, and I don't share it. Yes, he did embellish things over the years, but IMHO on the day of the assassination, he was just about the only member of Dallas law enforcement who was trying to do a great job. Certainly, his initial report about seeing a man resembling Oswald running down the slope of the knoll to a Rambler station wagon was coroborated by at least two other witnesses. He's a lot more credible, in my book, than the best witnesss the Warren Commission ever produced. As for Tom Alyea, after all these years, I believe he still thinks Oswald did it. Sorry, but in my book, anyone with any knowledge of the assassination who believes the official fairy tale has zero credibility.
Don,
How's this for credibility regarding the Rambler plates:
Craig, WC testimony:
Mr. BELIN - Did it have a Texas license plate, or not?
Mr. CRAIG - It had the same color. I couldn't see the--uh--name with the numbers on it. I could just barely make them out. They were at an angle where I couldn't make the numbers of the--uh--any of the writing on it. But---uh---I'm sure it was a Texas plate.
Craig, Shaw trial testimony:
Q: Can you describe the station wagon in any great detail?
A: It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion and it had out-of-state plates on it and the reason I know this is they were not the same color as ours and I couldn't read them because of the angle of the car and the traffic movement.
"Yes, he did embellish things over the years..."
Reliable witnesses don't change or embellish their stories. And yes, Alyea does believe LHO did the shooting. But he has always been consistent with the descriptions of the 6th floor, including the sniper's nest and the shell casings.
Roger Craig's Los Angeles Free Press interview in March 1968:
Free Press: Did you handle that rifle?
Craig: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.
FP: A Mauser on the roof? Who found it?
Penn Jones: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence.
In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his book, Craig claims:
"Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. They did replace it — even if the replacement was made in a different country. (See Warren Report for Italian Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 Caliber). "
So the Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, had become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and seen the notation "7.65 Mauser." In the Free Press interview, he claimed to have handled the rifle. In other statements, he says he did not, but Weitzman did.
Shaw trial testimony:
Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you personally find the rifle?
A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it.
Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Approximately how far?
A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him.
Q: Do you recall the man who was there?
A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle.
Q: What do you mean an ID man?
A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department.
Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?
A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held it up by the strap and then took it away from there.
How about Craig's account of the Tippit shooting? If Tippit was shot substantially earlier than 1:15, it could not have been Lee Oswald who did it, since Oswald would not have had time to walk from his rooming house at 1026 North Beckley to the corner of 10th and Patton. In his book, Craig claims that Tippit had to have been shot before 1:06.
"At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m. A token force of uniformed officers was left to keep the sixth floor secure and Fritz, Day, Boone, Mooney, Weitzman and I left the building."
The rifle was in fact found about 1:22 p.m. (7H109). Yet Craig describes the officer announcing the death of Tippit after the discovery of the rifle.
But another problem is the fact that this "1:06 p.m." account seems to be a late addition to his story. The Free Press interview:
Craig: Tippit went to Oak Cliff, and subsequently was killed. Why he went to Oak Cliff I can't tell you; I can only make an observation. He was going to meet somebody.
Free Press: Do you know what time he was killed?
Craig: It was about 1:40 —
Penn Jones: No, I think it was a little before 1:15.
Craig: Was it?
Jones: Yes
Craig: Oh, that's right. The broadcast was put out shortly after 1:15 on Tippit's killer, and it had not been put out yet on Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy.
So Craig, rather than saying that he knew that Tippit had been killed before 1:06, estimates it was at 1:40 — and then accepts Penn Jones' correction that it was "a little before 1:15."
Pretty consistent witness. Take off the blinders, and look at all of Craig's statements, interviews, testimonies, and his book. We'd all sure like to believe him, but he is in no way a credible witness.
-
Seymour Weitzman played a key role more than once on November 22, 1963. Not only was he one of the two officers who found a rifle on the 6th floor (both of them signing sworn affidavits that it was a German Mauser), he encountered the aforementioned SS agent, and also found a piece of skull, which apparently belonged to JFK. I have always wondered why he wasn't interviewed in the years following the assassination. We do know that he had some kind of mental problems later, and was institutionalized. You can still access online (sorry, don't have the url) the HSCA report on him, as well as a long interview with a psychiatrist who treated him. According to these reports, Weitzman talked often about all the people who had died that had connections to the assassination, and definitely believed there was a conspiracy.
According to the best witness(IMO) on the 6th floor after the shooting, Weitzman wasn't even there. Tom Alyea of WFAA has always been critical of the DPD's handling of evidence that afternoon, but he was there when the rifle was found, and it was not a Mauser. IMO Weitzman's affidavit was made after he heard all the speculation that took place, ie, "looks like a Mauser". Many researchers have also accredited Weitzman with being a firearms expert, although he simply worked in a sporting goods store for awhile. He actually spent years in the ladies garment business, which was where his expertise was.
If the second officer is Roger Craig, he changed his story so often he cannot be considered a credible witness regarding the rifle. During an interview with the LA Free Press in 1968, Penn Jones(who was with Craig) had to keep correcting him because he made so many misstatements. And Craig was never close enough to the rifle(by his own admission) to read MAUSER stamped on the rifle.
I suggest if anyone is interested, do a search on Tom Alyea. A good starting point would be Allan Eaglesham's excellent site:
www.manuscriptservice.com
RJS
-
The Z film is a fabrication.
Jack
The Z film is authentic.
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/...x.html#contents
-
I guess it's easy to be scathing of his performance during the drama but armchair critics weren't there with bullets whizzing all around. I found it interesting that he had no special training for the task at hand.
James
I did some research some time ago on Greer's background. I'm pretty much convinced this poor guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In no way, shape or form was he involved in the conspiracy, or slowed the limo deliberately. The son of a farmer, he had never completed high school. He came to the US from Ireland in 1930. Prior to WWII, and after service in the US Navy during the war, Greer worked as a chauffeur. He was hired by the Secret Service in October 1944 in the uniformed division, working as a guard at the Bureau of Engraving. In 1950, he was assigned to the White House essentially as a go-fer, assigned to pick up food for the White House kitchen. He drove the SS follow up car, drove Presidents Truman and Eisenhower on occasion, and was Mrs Eisenhower's driver. When JFK was elected, Greer was assigned as his senior driver.
IMO, Greer was not your typical SSA. He had little education, little training, and was simply a driver. He was never assigned as a "protector" of anyone. During the shooting in Dealey Plaza, he reacted slowly, slowed the limo to look behind him, and had to be told by Kellerman to "get us out of here". In short, he was shocked, surprised, and he "choked". As I said, he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
RJS
-
I was already stopping after Mr. Dankbaar left, but now...well, this situation is far worse.
G
Gibson,
May I ask why you decided to stop posting here after "Mr. Dankbaar left"?
RJS
-
"It just shows how much power the Jews have in Canada! Welcome to Canada!"
This comment illustrates the sort of thing I feared when this can of worms was opened. I think the statement is racist and most regretable.Mike,
I couldn't agree more. I read the posts in this thread, and tried hard to stay out of it. I was afraid of what I might say, although others might defend my right to say it. When that comment came out, I thought to myself "I knew this would happen". The door was opened. Somehow I don't think Patrick Henry had this type of thing in mind when he spoke in defense of civil liberty. If any #&%$@! wants to investigate whether or not the Holocaust did in fact happen, let them start with the films and photos, eyewitness testimony at Nuremburg, and the Wannsee Protocol. Perhaps, as in A Clockwork Orange, they should be strapped to a chair, have their eyes forced open, and be made to watch Schindler's List, or better yet, the actual films taken at the camps. Just my opinion, since I have every right to voice it.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html
If there is to be a discussion on the Education Forum, it should be held in a place other than the JFK forum, so that people who have come here for the express purpose of exchanging information about JFK won't have to see it. This thread should be moved to that location.
RJS
-
I thought it might be a good idea to write about the greatest live concerts you have attended.
Over the years I have seen a large number of the great names in music perform live. The first great performance I saw was that of Roy Orbison. I had gone to see a new up and coming band called the Beatles (they were just about to have their first record, Love Me Do, released. The Beatles were at the bottom of the bill and were supporting Orbison, a singer who I did not know anything about. Orbison completely lacked charisma and was one of the few rock stars that you never wanted to be. He stood in the middle of the stage with his guitar and sang songs such as Only the Lonely, Running Scared, Love Hurts and Crying. It was magical. The quality of his voice was truly amazing. So was his ability to convey raw emotion. At that time I had never experienced a broken love affair. Orbison obviously had and was able to communicate that to his audience. It was like reading a great book. I was taken into a world I knew nothing about.
I never bought any of Orbison’s records. At the time I was a terrible snob who was only willing to buy music performed by black Americans. However, that night, I knew I was in the company of a great artist. He died a long time ago (1988). However, when they play his music on the radio, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up in recognition of that night I spent with him in Romford in the summer of 1962.
The other outstanding performance was by Don McLean. It was in London in 1973. A year after his great hit American Pie was released. In many ways McLean was very much like Orbison. He stood in the middle of the stage with his guitar and sang his own songs. Like Orbison, he actually sounded better live than he did on record. However, it was not the quality of his voice that mattered. It was his ability to create a sense of community. McLean was very much a political singer (I believe he still is). Songs such as Sister Fatima, The Grave, Bronco Bill’s Lament, The Pride Parade, The More You Pay and Oh My What a Shame were spellbinding. The nearest I can compare it to was listening to a great orator. It was the ability to use words to create an emotional and political response from the audience. I never had the good fortune to hear Martin Luther King make a live speech. I imagine it would have had a similar impact on me as that Don Mclean concert.
Ah there are so many. 3 Pink Floyd concerts are my all time favorites, the Wish You Were Here tour in Hamilton Ontario in '75, the last show on the Animals tour in Montreal in '77, and the Delicate Sound of Thunder tour in the Carrier Dome in Syracuse in '87. Still have the ticket stubs.
Other notables include 4 Stevie Ray Vaughn shows, 3 Santana's (1 with a 16 year old Neil Schon in the band), and 2 BB King's. Notable misses: Hendrix in 1970 (I thought he would be back) and Led Zeppelin (2 canceled tours I had tickets for).
RJS
-
Al,
You certainly can't leave without posting that photo of Humberto Castillo-Leon for comparison to Lamppost Man. At least give me this...was I right?
Richard
Richard,
No, I won't leave you hanging here. The photo I have is a reproduction of a reproduction and is circa '74 from his inactive DD74 file, which is well behind the '63 LM and mid-60's PBM photos. It is poor quality and when scanning, it breaks down much farther.
I have original copies of his DD74 file which include the above photo and copies of his DD214 and DD206 tracking sheets, on the way. I will forward scans of them to you when I get them and you can decide for yourself. I am also trying to obtain the records of the investigation into his death in N.C., and will gladly forward that as well.
I have delayed my original posting on this and this follow up post in order to prevent the doors slamming in my face in trying to retrieve these docs. I have been assured that the DD74 file and forms are on their way so I can post on it now.
As you are well aware, I have been very critical of photo comparisons to persons in the plaza to suspects in the assassination. However, the comparisons of PBM and of Col. Conein are an exception to this, and after receiving the info on the DIA dispatches to Conein regarding Lopez and Team 5, I had to take it seriously. Now after making the connection with Leon and the photo comparisons, I have to admit I have been swayed and am taking this very seriously. As to your question of "was I right?", at this point, I would have to admit that it is looking like it.
To all of those who have e-mailed me and posted here with the kind words, I deeply appreciate what you have said and hope you understand that I am not exiting here as I did at Lancer. That is, I am not upset with this excellent forum as I was with the way Lancer turned on it's researchers. I have come to terms with the assassination recently and have also been restricted with opportunities to become involved in exchanges due to personal family crisis that have arisen. In the past four months, I have taken over the overnight shift on the department, which limits my exposure to the forum initially, then add to this the failing health of my parents and in-laws, I simply do not have the time to commit to this forum as I would prefer. The discoveries that I have recently made have engulfed my available time and also have drained me as many of the questionable issues of the assassination may be becoming quite clear.
I hope everyone understands and also realizes how much I respect and appreciate what all of you are doing. I will be popping in periodically to read the forum and hope to post periodically. Those who I have been in contact with I hope will still e-mail me with issues of concern which I will gladly accept and reply to in a timely manner.
Respectfully,
Al Carrier
polinst@mchsi.com
Al,
Thanks very much for the response. Although we weren't always on the same page, I have the greatest respect, and hope for the best with you and your's. I very much look forward to your info. Best of luck.
Richard
-
Thanks Richard.
And, according to the Dallas City Hall website, the Texas Theater still stands:http://www.dallascityhall.com/dallas/eng/h...as_theater.html
And, this news article talks about the restoration after a fire in '95:
http://wirelessreview.com/ar/marketing_fea...rrest_breathes/
Ah yes...http://www.texas-theatre.org/
The guy who was selling chunks of the theater on eBay must have got them from the renovation.
-
The last I heard, they were refurbishing the Texas Theater due to it's historical significance.
Nic,
I think they tore down the Texas Theater. Someone was selling chunks of it on eBay a few weeks ago.
As for maps, try http://www.mapquest.com/main.adp
You can type in an address, get a map and directions from a starting point you choose. I use it all the time. I just tried 411 Elm St(the TSBD) as a starting point, and 231 W. Jefferson(Texas Theater) as a destination and got this:
1: Start out going SOUTHWEST on ELM ST toward N HOUSTON ST. 0.1 miles
2: ELM ST becomes COMMERCE ST. <0.1 miles
3: Merge onto I-35E S/US-77 S. 3.0 miles
4: Take EXIT 425B toward BECKLEY AVE/12TH ST. 0.1 miles
5: Stay STRAIGHT to go onto S RL THORNTON FWY. <0.1 miles
6: S RL THORNTON FWY becomes W 12TH ST. <0.1 miles
7: Turn RIGHT onto S ZANG BLVD/TX-354 LOOP N. 0.1 miles
8: Turn LEFT onto W JEFFERSON BLVD. <0.1 miles
9: End at 231 W Jefferson Blvd, Dallas, TX 75208-4510 US
You may also want to stop at the Sixth Floor Museum. I'm sure Gary would like to meet you, and would give you directions.
RJS
-
I have researched this case for years. What I have found, in addition to credible evidence of conspiracy, is a plethera of speculation, guesswork, personal diatribe, and an abnormal belief that there is a conspiracy under every rock and around every corner. There are misstatements, misrepresentations, and mistakes made by people who are(at least used to be) highly respected in the JFK research community. If you dare contest what they say, you are labeled as an agent, a disinformer, a "provocateur", or are flat out told "you are obviously wrong". We are to believe that because someone writes a book, or has a website, they have all the answers, and that a shadow government controls every single aspect of our lives.
... that's all I was trying to suggest. Some of it's really strange, and some of our students simply haven't had the training to spot the difference between genuine research and the other stuff. A couple of years ago, one of my 9th Graders was researching Hitler and the Holocaust and came up with David Irving's website. He just didn't know enough to challenge what he read. All I'm saying is that we need to do a better job helping them develop the skills they need to make intelligent distinctions. I'm certainly not saying that these "conspiracies" shouldn't be investigated, just that 14-year-olds don't have the knowledge base or sophistication to judge the results...
What is really needed is a collection of the facts suggesting a conspiracy, not all the hype and innuendo, no speculation or opinion. Unfortunate that many researchers see their opinions as fact. There are excellent dissertations on the medical evidence, the single bullet theory, the photographic evidence, CIA involvement, various testimonies, etc. From what I've seen of the 85% in the US who believe in a conspiracy, they also have no clue as to the facts, or have a distorted view of the facts. There are many on line seminars here that are outstanding, and there are others that stretch the imagination. I don't think the actual assasination was carried out by a far reaching conspiracy involving every imaginable cross section of American life. In my opinion it was rather small and clandestine operation. The coverup however, became rather involved in order to protect those agencies and assets in the government that took part.
I agree that most 14 year olds don't have the knowledge base to judge, but then again, neither do many adults.
RJS
-
James,
From what I have been able to dig up, Major Lopez of the Loation Operation of '63 was one Humberto (Bobby) Castillo-Leon. He was the son of a Truman and later Eisenhower State Departmental Official who attended and graduated under the original family name. He was killed in a bar brawl at Ft. Bragg in early '82. His photo and that of Pakse Base Man are identical IMO.
Team 5 appears to be our assassins, from what I have been able to discover.
I do not feel I can add any further to this forum and am now leaving it.
Hope this helps.
Al
Al,
You certainly can't leave without posting that photo of Humberto Castillo-Leon for comparison to Lamppost Man. At least give me this...was I right?
Richard
And, according to the Dallas City Hall website, the Texas Theater still stands:
The Back Wound
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Charlie,
I agree with your assessment. Mr Purvis refers to "logic" in his rambling, multi-post dissertation, but it contains none IMO. I also feel most of the respondants in this thread are being too polite, and perhaps they should say what they REALLY think as you did. Absolute pure speculation. JFK grabbing his lapels? Geez! Since this thread was so difficult to read(I also agree with Ron's post), I may have thought I read something that referred to JFK having a fractured vertebra, which caused the bullet to fragment. Where did this come from? And please, no more about the back wound being created by sinister forces(sorry Alan, there WAS a back wound).
So a shot from the TSBD struck a tree limb, but continued on it's original path, and struck JFK backwards(bullet base first), struck a vertebra, fractured, and a fragment came out the throat. And others find this well researched. Now I remember why I pretty much stay at the other forum.
RJS