Richard J. Smith

John,

You should have Mr. Fonzi and Mr. Blakey join the Forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Both have refused. Under the terms of the CIA documents they signed they cannot fully explain what they know about the assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have they specifically refused because of a purported CIA document they signed? Has Mr Fonzi corroborated that he signed a non-disclosure agreement? I would like to see further evidence that everyone involved with the HSCA had to sign an agreement forced upon them by the CIA.

RJS

Am I not right to be concerned, or do all of you believe everything written in each of the "conspiracy theory" threads is based upon solid and incontestable research? Couldn't some of it fairly be characterized as "weird"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike,

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. With regard to the JFK assassination, this has led all of us to be lumped together as "weird" or worse. One would think after reading some of this "research", the JFK conspiracy involved thousands of people in every area of American society.

There was a conspiracy in this case, and the evidence is out there. But when faked moon landings and controlled explosions at the WTC on 9/11 enter the discussion by overly paranoid individuals, and some intelligent others jump on the bandwagon and praise their "research", I take a step back, shake my head, and try to convince myself that I am not weird, or worse.

RJS

IMO, a great dialogue (trialouge?) going on here about the wounds.

Informative and interesting.  Thanks!

Is there anyone who believes in a conspiracy who thinks the single bullet scenario is remotely possible?  I mean, is there even a five per cent chance it could have happened that way?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

I used to think the only way the SBT would be remotely possible is if there was an unobstructed shot from the 2nd floor Dal Tex building. After getting into the lung bruise and the anatomy drawings, I just don't see how a bullet fired from either the TSBD 6th floor or the Dal Tex 2nd, could enter the back, bruise the lung and exit the throat. And it's mighty odd that if there was an autopsy photo of the lung, it is missing.

Here's the transcript of the LBJ/RamseyClark telecon I mentioned previously:

Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson

Re: Autopsy Photos

Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon

Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation

Background: Ramsey Clark was U.S. Attorney General between 1967 and 1969 under president Lyndon Johnson, an administration that escalated the war in Vietnam, and that pursued FBI investigations of civil rights activists under the Counter Intelligence Program. Now Ramsey Clark is a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy and domestic human rights practices, and claims that "the greatest human rights violator in the world is my own government."

-Begin-

RC: Ah, we had three pathologists that performed the autopsy on evening of November 22nd come in. We had to bring Finck from Viet Nam. There were only 8 of us, including the three pathologists.

They went into archives last night. (1)The staff worked till midnight on the autopsy photos and X-rays. They all three seemed to have a chip on their shoulder. I think they'll go along with our that they shouldn't talk.

LBJ: They shouldn't what?

RC: They shouldn't talk to anybody. But they are quite defensive of the criticism of them. They feel their professional reputations are at stake and what not. They say, "We haven't got it tied down as an affidavit yet." I hope they have it by Monday. They'll be working on it today or tomorrow here. They may have it done before then. But, they're so technical, so reticent about finding things that they're hard to work with.

They say the autopsy photos conclusively confirm their judgment as to the bullet entered the back of the skull --- and it's not perfectly conclusive as to the one in the lower neck. It's very clear to them that they, there's nothing in the autopsy photos that contradicts anything that they said.

Now, we've run into one problem last night that we didn't know of. That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission (2)that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung. The other two doctors don't recall if such a photo was made. They do recall discussing the desired ability of making such a photo. But there is no such photo in these exhibits.

It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part. We're seeing to run that down. The only other witness that would have any judgment at all would be the corpsman, naval corpsman, that took the photos. We have to talk to him. We're not too sure, until we see what the doctors conclude.

That's desirable. We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo we don't have.

LBJ: Wasn't delivered to you.

RC: Not delivered. That's very clear. Another part that is a concern that's not tied down either --- that's Dr. Burkley's part. You remember I talked to him on November 8th down at the Ranch after I talked with you about it. Hadn't discussed it since. He gets very emotional on the subject. His eyes start watering. He says that he knew where the autopsy photos were all the time. They were in his possession. Now, this is not --- He's not entirely clear on the matter. The possession will become an issue in a significant way and it had not been until, in our judgment, till last night because of the missing photo now. I say "missing photo." There's a contradiction of whether there was this photo.

LBJ: Ah uh. Well, they weren't actually in his possession, were they?

RC: He said that they were actually in his possession. And that he received them and had them in a safe in E.O.B. (Executive Office Building) In a vault sort of thing in E.O.B. He later released them to Mrs. Lincoln. Probably hidden them. (garbled) Which I think I know, prepared by Bobby Kennedy. I think Dr. Burkley knew what he had in every instance. He knew every minute.

He, ah, I tell you the real problem is when you start talking with him about it what he said is it's just outrageous that anybody would want those photos. The personal property of the dead president's family. "Horrible" when he talked about it, thinks about it. "People shouldn't do that." When you try to explain that's a real problem, why, he --- "It just won't do at all."

His inventory (3) coincides with what we had. Inventory that we got ---material was delivered to us by Kennedy representative Burke Marshall (4). So that would indicate that between his letter and what we received November 1, everything is there. Or if there were another photo, on the 4th (garbled) then Mrs. Lincoln.

LBJ: Ok. I...

RC: I don't really think he had actual possession. I think he had something, he had constructive possession part of the time. We have evidence the material was given to him before this. At the Archives longer than this. Nobody at Archives knew it was there. Mrs. Lincoln had some storage space including some security vaults because she was working over there on the President's papers and all Presidential Library. Course people had the keys, 'course things filed up. (garbled)

LBJ: (sighing) Ok. I'll talk to you later. (abruptly hanging up)

Richard: I concur 100% with this post and thank you for posting it.  I assume it is ok to disagree with the administrator, or point out his/our contrdictions in posting.  ANd point out each other's flaws in thinking, it makes us think more critically if done constructively as your post has just done.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Dawn. While it may be OK to disagree with the administrator, John's response "of course you are wrong" was rather telling. Perhaps I should have tempered my response with "in my opinion...".

Richard

.

You are of course wrong to suggest that this was all Joe’s doing. He purchased votes during 1960 from money donated from his own business contacts. Some of this money came via the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. See the following for an explanation of the role that the CIA played in JFK election:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3021

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong of course? Can you be so positive? I noticed you didn't cite sources as to the CIA's connection to the 1960 election. Seems to me that the CIA would have wanted, indeed expected, Richard Nixon to be President.

RJS

Posting these for Richard. :]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Nic. These drawings should make things a bit clearer. How could that bullet traveling downward, enter the back where it did, pass close enough to the upper right lobe of the lung to leave a 5cm bruise and sub-pleura bleeding, then exit the throat just below the Adam's Apple? For whoever buys that, I have a few bridges to sell them.

RJS

RJS:

An alternative which IMO makes a good argument is if one was to consider the frontal throat wound an entry wound (as Parkland Dr's initially speculated), and the back wound about 5 inches lower (on the right side) an exit wound, it would give us an indication of the path of the missile. This path would also strike the right upper lobe of the lung, right?

I believe, the path of the bullet would also support the theory of a railway overpass or south knoll shooter, and the hole in the windshield.

The above relates directly to what has been discussed on this Forum previously, in several threads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Antti,

The problem with your theory is that there was no traceable bullet path through the body, front to back or back to front. There is a back wound, with a lung contusion, and there is a throat wound with damage in the surrounding neck muscles. There was no path between them. Either way, it presents a problem for us. If we as CTs say there's no way the bullet entering the back could have exited the throat because there was no bullet path found, we have the same problem with the reverse. It was said by the WC that the bullet passed between layers of muscle, which caused no damage. I find that an unrealistic view, as I think many others do, but that darn throat wound is and always has been extremely hard to reconcile. To be truthful Antti, I just don't know. Just for the sake of argument though, I would say if the throat wound was an entrance, and the back wound the exit, a shot from the South Knoll probably lines up better than a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Also, just for the sake of argument, if the back wound was an entrance and the throat wound the exit, a shot fired from the 2nd floor of the Dal Tex building also lines up better than a shot fired from the TSBD's 6th floor, if it were unobstructed. All that said, the back wound apparently had a downward angle. Quite the dilemma isn't it?

RJS

Paul,

It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've asked questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With every post you make, I adore you more and more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Nic. I do, however, need to correct something I said in my post. There was steam coming out of my ears when I wrote it, so I wasn't as clear headed as I should have been.

"Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat"

The bullet wouldn't have DROPPED 4 inches. Considering the downward angle, and the lung bruise, the bullet would have to have RISEN about 4 inches to exit the throat where it did. The back wound and the lung bruise align pretty well.

From the autopsy report:

"There is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme

apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances

the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal

involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are

intact overlying these areas of trauma."

So what does this mean? There was a bruise and discoloration under the lining of the upper right lung lobe. The lining(pleura) was not perforated. You can get an idea of contusion and ecchymosis after you whack yourself on the fingernail with a hammer(don't try this at home kids). It bruises, and blood seeps under the nail causing discoloration.

In my opinion based on the back wound location and the bruised lung, the bullet entered JFK's back and acted like a hammer striking the fingernail. Either that bullet continued on into the chest cavity passing close enough to the lung to bruise it, or it was a relatively low power hit, and entirely possible that the bullet did indeed get pressed out of the wound during cardio resusitation. I would also like to note that an autopsy photo was taken of the right upper lobe of the lung, and it is missing(ref telecon between Ramsey Clark and LBJ. If anyone would like to read this, I'll find it and post it).

So how in the world(unless you truly have a magic bullet) did this bullet enter the back, bruise the lung, rise at least 4 inches and exit the throat. The answer? It couldn't have.

RJS

I'm sure every one of us would be interested in your theory re who killed JFk, or do you have knowledge (even second-hand) so it is more than a theory?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dare say that most people will be very careful when addressing Mr Hemming, as in what might be construed as beating around the bush so to speak. Happened already in the first few posts. Mr Hemming's name has come up in nearly every informed conversation regarding Dallas. I don't have any doubt the participants were compartmentalized, so certain groups were not aware of what the others were doing or what their assignments were, but at the risk of sounding blunt, my question would be "what was your part in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or what did you know, and when did you know it? Not that it would be answered, but I don't think there's any question that Mr Hemming had/has first hand knowledge. If he was not directly involved, many of his former associates surely were. Another question would relate to the Miami to Dallas "caravan". Mr Hemming said in an interview in Marita Lorenz's documentary on her return to Cuba that the trip did take place, but he didn't go. Sturgis, Marita and the others(according to Marita, Lee Oswald) made the trip and carried weapons, allegedly used in the assassination. What are the details surrounding the trip, who was there, and how would Marita have confused Oswald. Was there an Ozzie lookalike?

Isn't it about time the truth was known?

Come on everyone, let's shuck down to the cob:

Why would a conspiracy, any conspiracy, "The Conspiracy," produce so much fake evidence that so obviously reveals itself?  Phony x-rays, phony autopsy photos, phony Oswalds, phony guns, phony witnesses---please.

What is going on?  Why this avalanche of non-sensical opinion, distorted fact, and outright BS to elevate the Kennedy assassination into such a fantasy?  Has there been a 40-year mass hypnosis?

I'd really like to know.

Faithfully yours,

Paul Troglia

PS: While this message sounds like a blow-off, I do respect your opinions, as convoluted as they may seem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've ask questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread.

RJS

I had posted up the Reily Coffee company copies of time cards.

This seemed to open up more than I hoped for.

Bob Vernon contacted Mr. Reily III and got some statements from him dealing with those time cards.

Well, I found a lie to the actual report that Reily Co. did in 1963.  What they had stated then is that LHO was there at work on time every day and left on time.

Well, to what Bob Vernon was told from Mr. Reily is that he was fired because of him never being there and always out. 

Now, there is a conflict of reports from Reily Coffee Company itself.

I had waited to see if anyone else had picked this up and so far no one has.

This is one that does back Judyth Baker.

It also backs what Jim Garrison had found many years ago that he was always at a certain place all the time just BEFORE phamlets were handed out.

What does this mean to me? 

Well, Judyth may be telling the truth on this point but also she covered for him is what she said and former agent Monaghan knew of this as well.

This in NO WAY PROVES that Oswald is innocent in fact if anything it is part of a proof that shows a great deal of involvement.  Even for Judyth Baker herself and Lee H. Oswald and also former Agent Monaghan.

It proves a plot and that LHO was very much into it. 

Had Judyth Baker knowledge been out many years ago she would have been questioned by the FBI on this very point. 

She also may have been arrasted on it as well.

Still could be on it to this day, I might add.

Also if this fact came out a long time ago it is also highly questionable about Reily Coffee Company in itself it told a falsehood on the report. 

Thanks to Bob Vernon we now know for sure that Reily Coffee Co. did in fact lie on a report many years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one else has picked up on this because you're confusing Reily with Standard. There is no conflict in the Reily statements. They didn't, in fact, lie.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p..._id=23632&page=

John,

Just a few comments and opinions.

First, I'm not a photoanalyst, but Sturgis could never (IMHO) have been one of the tramps. He has a distinctive, fleshy nose which in no way resembles the nose of the Latin-appearing tramp. He may have been the communications person in this group.

The oldest tramp may well have been Hunt. Although Hunt was born in 1919, making him only 44 in 1963, and although the oldest tramp appears to be 20 years older, he still looks like Hunt to me. Even the height correponds correctly, even perfectly.

The tallest, youngest tramp appears to be Harrelson, a known Mafia/CIA contract agent, specifically a shooter.

Regarding the Bay of Pigs, I believe that it was designed to fail. If you can believe the government let Pearl Harbor happen or let 9-11 happen, surely the sacrifice of so many Cuban lives would be believable. The reason? The CIA/military/Cuban/Castro/Oswald revenge scenario becomes the most obvious answer to the assassination. Are the people who really killed Kennedy so clever that they could have plotted something like this, so far in advance? For this would suggest that plans for the assassination were on the drawing board the minute Kennedy won the 1960 election. Nixon, the true conspirator's puppet, was supposed to win that election. Find out who controlled Nixon, and you find out who really ordered the death of JFK.

Anyway, my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

I might also add that George Bush probably was not an "employee" of the CIA prior to his being appointed director. He was an asset, and not necessarily actually employed by the Agency. Apparently there was another George Bush who was actually employed by the CIA, but references made concerning "Mr George Bush of the CIA" regarding anti-Castro operations or Oswald associated items were more than likely referring to the former president. I also note that the purported FBI document tying Jack Ruby to Nixon is more than likely a fake. In the document, if you look at the letterhead, the FBI's address in Washington includes a zip code. At the time the document was supposedly written, zip codes were not yet in use. I would post it, but my allotted attachment space was used up by my on line seminar, and I don't want to delete photos from that to create space. If you'd like a copy, please email me.

RJS

Would JFK have been re-elected if he hadn't been shot? Probably not. Would he have been made into an icon like he has been? Definitely not. Was he a genuine specimen of a picture-perfect human being? No. Excluding the possibility of ( and the true end result of ) murder, would he have lived through a second term? Possibly, we can't really say for sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nic,

IMO there is no question JFK would have been re-elected in '64. He would have thrashed Goldwater as bad as LBJ did. I also think it's why JFK was hesitant about civil rights. He didn't want to turn the South against him in '64. Once re-elected, I think civil rights would have been his main focus. I seriously think a Kennedy dynasty was in the making. Bobby would have followed his brother, and more than likely, Teddy would have followed Bobby.

RJS

I believe that there is a danger that JFK researchers might be too influenced by the JFK Camelot myth.  That the assassination robbed them of a great president. This is a view often held by the left of the Democratic Party. Some might argue that it does not matter if researchers want to believe the JFK Camelot myth. However, I think it does. The reason being that if we can accurately reconstruct JFK’s actions and beliefs, we can get some idea why he was assassinated.

This of course relates to the issue about whether he knew of the plot to assassinate Castro. Therefore, this is my analysis of JFK’s political career.

If we look at JFK’s career it reflects a fairly conservative view of the world. There is nothing in his career to suggest he was anything but a traditional Cold War warrior. He believed in the Domino Theory and was willing to support right-wing military dictators in order in order to prevent the spread of left-wing ideas or policies.

Domestically he was also very conservative. He showed no interest in the civil rights issue. Nor did he advocate any policies that would redistribute wealth in America.

This is not surprising. McCarthyism had taken its toll on American public opinion. People were scared to express left of centre political opinions in case they were denounced as communists or socialists. Adlai Stevenson had lost two presidential elections because he was seen as being too “left-wing”. It made sense for all Democratic candidates for the nomination to project an image that was to the right of Stevenson. Robert Kennedy was despatched into the Deep South to reassure leaders of the Democratic Party that JFK would not attempt to push through any civil rights legislation. He also was willing to make assurances that he would not advocate policies that favoured trade unions.

JFK was also willing to “buy” votes in the primaries. The most obvious example of this was in West Virginia but it also took place in other states. JFK also raised money by selling posts in his administration. He also bought votes in the presidential election, most notably in Illinois but it again took place in several states.

JFK’s supporters will no doubt argue that he had no choice in this as this was the way the American system worked. I have some sympathy with this argument, but it is important to acknowledge that such deals were done as it helps to explain his later behaviour.

In the first couple of years he acted the way you would expect any right-wing president would behave. The only surprise was that he did not give the necessary support for the invasion of Cuba. This raised issues about whether he could take the “tough” decisions. It did seem that he was unduly concerned with his “world image”. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that he was capable of standing up to the Soviets and he was able to recapture his image of the staunch Cold War warrior.

The issue of civil rights also gave JFK problems. For those wishing to fully understand this problem I would fully recommend reading the Robert Kennedy interviews that he gave as part of the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project (Robert Kennedy in his Own Words – 1988) and the autobiography of JFK’s Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Harris Wofford (Of Kennedy and Kings – 1980). JFK made some fine issues on this issue but was unable or unwilling to deliver the goods.

I don’t believe JFK was a great president. But I believe he had the potential to be the greatest president in American history. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to prove this.

The reason I saw he had the potential to be a great president was because he was very much like the other great president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were both intellectuals. They were both genuinely interested in new ideas. This enabled both men to surround themselves with bright people who were willing to challenge their views (only bright people have the confidence to do this).

JFK, like FDR, was also very wealthy. This meant he was not easily corrupted for financial reasons. I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man. By this stage in his career he genuinely believed in civil rights. He also realised that the American political system was corrupt to the core. His period in power had shown him how people like Johnson used the power of the Senate Committees to prevent progressive legislation from being passed. He knew how this power was used to protect things like the Oil Depreciation Allowance. JFK had also discovered the Cold War had the potential to destroy the planet.

I believe JFK had developed a strategy for dealing with all these problems. But first he had to be elected in 1964. As a result of his public success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his standing in the polls were high. Victory seemed certain. Only one thing could stop him. And it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

While I may agree that the vision of Camelot was and is blinding to some, I strongly disagree with many of your statements. It is true that during the campaign of 1960, JFK was a bigger hawk than Nixon. This changed immediately after the election. JFK talked the talk as politicians do to get elected. His reluctance to support the Bay of Pigs invasion less than 4 months after he took office, and his refusal to provide US military support was not the action of a typical cold warrior. His willingness to compromise with the Soviets really stuck the hawks in the administration and in the military. The decision to use a quarantine during the missile crisis was the least hawkish move he could have made, and did not stand well with the more rightist views of his advisors. In fact, Kruschev thought JFK was a pushover, and couldn't wait to meet with him to wipe the floor up with him. I also disagree with your civil rights comments. JFK not only had to play the political game, he was being unduly influenced by his father. Joe Sr was so afraid that JFK's stance on civil rights would doom his political career, his son listened enough to attempt to stall the efforts of Martin Luther King and others, simply to keep the peace. He changed significantly after seeing the water hoses and dogs in Birmingham Alabama. JFK didn't buy the votes in 1960, Joe Sr did. Generally speaking, Bobby was the one who convinced his brother to go against their father's wishes. If there was a boogeyman in the whole Camelot scenario, it was Joe Sr.

I am not going to say a lot here.

Just keep your eyes onto Philadelphia NEWS.

See something that you never seen before in your lives.

Leader of the Phila. Hell's Angels gang, turned in information about murders and doing it legally.

What an about face this is.

The Pagon's are walking in a calm way about it too and so are the Hell's Angels and this also is a never done before in history.

I have a feeling it is government involvements  of those murders.

Arlen Spector is about to turn White if he hasn't done so all ready.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A Hell's Angel officer was shot and killed in a drive by. Police suspect the Pagans. Good story about the funeral in the Philly Inquirer. What does this remotely have to do with anything on this forum? Are you implying that Arlen Specter is somehow involved in Angels/Pagans turf wars, or he used the Angels as paid assassins? I said it once, I'll say it again. If Senator Specter gets wind of this stuff you post publicly about him, he's gonna sue the pants off you. His WC credibility is one thing, but to accuse him of complicity of murder and rape is quite another.

RJS

Then there was the Missile Crisis! That, I do recall was a quite scary time for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Dixie, talk about scared! I was 8 years old, and I vividly remember watching JFK's speech to the nation. That "offensive missiles in Cuba" and the "full retaliatory response" thing REALLY scared the bajesus out of me. After the speech, I remember actually going outside and looking up, hoping I didn't see missiles streaking across the night sky. That was stuff those 50's movies were made of, and it was REAL. I hadn't remembered that until you mentioned it. It was a pretty frightening time for a kid. I've got a knot in my stomach just thinking about it now!

Richard

Even though 98% of this forum ( if not more ) are liberal, I'd like to ask this.

How would YOU, personally, react, if a major political Republican figure was shot tomorrow? Putting aside your feelings, and putting aside your party of choice, how would YOU feel? I only ask because my grandmother remembers being in the living room of her house watching the television when Walter Cronkite announced the death of JFK, and she cried - she's voted straight Republican since her first ballot was cast, but she cried.

I, cannot imagine how I'd react. I get teary-eyed watching my recently-acquired "as-it-happened" CBS footage of the RFK assassination. I was one of millions who cried on 9/11.  I DEEPLY care about this country and what happens to it, and I find it extremely screwed up that a man who pushed civil rights & the space program, can't even have his own murder solved once and for all because the public cares more about who Jennifer Lopez marries this week. I think it's pathetic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nic,

I must add publicly(as I've done privately), that your postings are some of the most articulate, intelligent, profound, and interesting insights(yes even for a young'un) that I have come across. You deserve every kudos you've received here. Don't ever lose your zeal to learn more, it will be you or someone just like you(I don't know if there is anyone like you) that will break this thing one day.

As to your question, as a life long Democrat, I would be shocked, dismayed, and saddened if something dreadful of this nature were to happen today to anyone. As much as I dislike the Bush administration, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Violence of this nature has no place in politics(or anywhere else for that matter).

I've discussed the JFK assassination with my 80 year old mother, who is a life long Democrat, as was my father. She often tells me she was watching As the World Turns, standing in front of the TV and behind her ironing board, when Walter Cronkite broke the news. My father was at my uncle's, helping with some remodeling(I was in school, 5th grade I think). My mother called my father and he rushed home. By the time I got home from school, they were glued to the TV, along with my 2 older sisters. They were all crushed and crying, and I think I was more crushed seeing them. I was more mad after first hearing the announcement at school(I was only 9), and didn't know what to think. It all scared the crap out of me.

Richard

Here's the overlay from Richard comparing PBM to Morales and to Lamppost Man.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

Excellent, thank you. I think this comparison is pretty conclusive Lamppost Man wasn't Morales. But the case officer from Long Tieng(or PBM as we've labeled him) is a dead ringer. His close proximity to the James Lewis lookalike(the other guy on the lamppost), and the Conein lookalike at the corner of Houston and Main certainly makes for interesting conversation.

RJS

The man in question having been named Pakse Base Man was confirmed to me after 6 months of fairly intense research as being a CIA case officer. (Richard J. Smith)

Hi Richard,

You are right about PBM being a CIA case officer.

BTW, when you were checking all of this out, did you ever come across the name Don Stephens?

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James,

No, but I did come across another CIA case officer in Laos named George Henning. Still working on a contact.

RJS

The print they later found on the gun was put there after he was in the morgue.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please specify if this is opinion or if you have a reference for this. Thanks.

There is enough evidence to suggest that Lee ordered the rifle, received the rifle, and possessed the rifle. Marina has never wavered in her testimonies and statements that she saw the rifle, and while in New Orleans, saw Lee cleaning the rifle. Whether he fired the rifle on November 22 is another matter.

RJS

But jeez, now fake photos?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

Please read this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2349

RJS

My response was that White's statement was one of the most arrogant obnoxious posts I've read on any forum. I said he was on the moon, his poorly done DP work was crap anyway, and you blow him out of the water. I also said something like "aren't you the guy who found Badgeman?? What a letdown since then". Then I said many researchers, including me, were invited by John to join his forum. I concluded by saying he should poke a hole in his swelled head.

My post was deleted without notice.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems that I need to remind members of rule iv.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Richard’s comments about Jack White were unacceptable and was deleted. I do not go along with Jack’s theories about the Moon landings but he deserves to be treated with respect. If people make personal attacks on Jack or on any other forum member they will have their posts deleted.

It looks like Richard and Bill are testing the administrators. I look forward to seeing the administrators' reaction! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are of course right. This is not the first time Richard has done this. It has also been noticed that some members spend more time trying to upset other members than they do posting information about the assassination.

I wish people would spend more time on research than on making personal attacks on other members. One of the things that I find so disturbing is that threads like this get so many responses and page views whereas others that include important research are virtually ignored. Sometimes I get the impression that some people are more keen to take part in some sort of soap opera than they are in research.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Mr White's comments to Andy were uncalled for. If my post pointing out that Mr White said he was doing us a favor by being here was deleted, then his original post should have also been deleted. If I was out of line I apologize, but there should be no double standard. And I should mention that a serious critique of Mr White's photographic work is not a personal attack on him. That's what open debate is all about. His Dealey Plaza work is controversial in the research community at the least, and severely flawed to many.

Regarding your comment "This is not the first time Richard has done this", you may be confusing posts I've made with emails we've exchanged. I have been VERY careful in my postings with regard to certain people here. Once again, you have been selective in your warnings, allowing some pretty crazy postings to occur, particularly regarding heated topics such as the Judyth Baker situation. I may call attention to members who have no supportive evidence who repeatedly accuse others of "having an agenda". Do you get tired of these "agenda" comments because you disagree with someone? Is making an unsubstantiated charge against Arlen Specter of funding a rape assault worthy of deletion? I only ask for equal treatment.

RJS

Excellent stuff Richard,

The reason why I believe DCM and UM  are Felipe Vidal and Hargraves is these two worked ALOT together, these two were very close and trusted one another.

I havent heard of Felipe Vidal and Novel ever working on mission together, If they have I am all ears.IMHO If that is Felipe then the chances of the other being Hargraves is very high.

JMHO

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ryan,

Good to hear from you bud. Hope all is well on the left coast and you didn't experience any mudslides or flooding.

Good assesment on the Umbrella team. On paper, I would go with Hargraves as UM also, but I have a hard time getting by the comparative photos of UM and Novel. Novel is the spitting image of UM. If I recall from an interview with Hargraves, he said Vidal was indeed in DP that day. How else would he know except through personal experience and contact? We've just proven like everything else in this case, there is still doubt.

RJS

I thought D. Morales was one of the principals who was so deeply into the scheme

that he really needed an alibi, and so he stayed in Miami, while the spotters, radio, drivers, abort teams and sweep teams went in to Dallas and turned up on camera...

the McCord photo is very clear, as is the Rip Robertson frame...

I believe we have also I.D.'d the umbrella "sitting on the curb" team.

But was Morales is Dallas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet,

There are those who believe Morales was in Dallas, but based only on speculation and not much else. If I recall, someone here posted a document that indeed indicated Morales was in Miami at JM/WAVE. I've seen no proof he was in Dallas.

As for the lookalikes, there are several others, including James Lewis, who I think is the "other" guy on the lamppost at Main and Houston.

Regarding the "umbrella team", there is still some debate in our community. Orlando Bosch Avila or Filipe Vidal Santiago as Dark Complected Man, and Roy Hargraves or Gordon Novel as Umbrella Man. My vote is for Vidal and Novel.

RJS

Richard,

Thanks for the info. So was this CIA case officer at Pakse or Long Tieng? At which placed was the photo taken?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

The photo was taken at Long Tieng 1970. Whether our guy moved between bases is anyone's guess. There isn't just a "likeness" with Lamppost Man, they are identical. As Tim Carroll once noted, the smirk is a dead giveaway. I would post a photo overlay comparison, but unless I delete my Head Wound seminar photos, I can't. Not ready to do that yet.

RJS