Richard J. Smith

Hi Ron, Thanks for the link to that web site. It's a good one. The whole Pakse Base Man thing came about after I did a photo montage for Larry Hancock's book which was related to David Morales being the Base Chief at Pakse in 1966. That photo was one of those used. The resemblance to the man on the lightpole in Dealey Plaza was noticed and what ifs were asked. I do not believe Pakse Base Man and Lightpole Man are one in the same. I also have my doubts that David Morales is Lightpole Man. FWIW. James <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron and James, 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. He was not a Raven FAC. The Ravens I was in contact with dropped me like a hot potato when I pressed them for info. There were indeed CIA reps at Long Tieng, as at other bases in Laos. I attempted to contact the photographer(Chaophakhao Red), who is currently living in the States. He would not speak to me. I am absolutely convinced PBM (or LTM) is the man on the lamppost at Main and Houston, and FWIW, anyone can tell that Lamppost Man is not Morales. Not even close. RJS

Hi Nic, I can relate a personal experience, albeit a minor one, about paranoia in this case. I emailed my brother a series of photos and explanations about certain parties I believe were involved, some of whom are still alive. He didn't respond. The next time I saw him, he said "don't email me that kind of stuff again". He was serious. Some members of my family think I'll be paid a visit by men in black someday. There are those still alive today who strike fear into into others who even consider talking. It would be nice to ask Antonio Veciana and Alfredo Duran, and to have answered truthfully, who they still fear after all these years. I am sometimes reluctant to post certain names on forums(one in particular), and not for fear of lawsuits. Bernardo De Torres Now I've done it. RJS

I have to agree with a response that Richard Smith posted only briefly before it turned up missing for some odd reason ... and it said words to the effect that 'posting those ridiculous Apollo observations is a waste of forum space, especially one that deals with the assassination of JFK.' John Simkin also invited me here as well if I am not mistaken and I am sure he wouldn't want me running up photographic space by posting images of Bigfoot and UFO's which happen to be subjects outside of the JFK assassination that I have an interest in. Bill Miller <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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

As an aside, the aircraft carrier Forrestal was named after him. It was the Forrestal that Senator John McCain called home as a US Navy aviator, and was also the site of the deck fire in July 1967 in which 134 were killed. The Forrestal is currently a museum in Baltimore's harbor. RJS

I found it very hard to believe it was possible or likely that even you had achieved the massive new allocation I had set for you only yesterday. Am I to take it from your last announcement that you have no interest in managing your uploads as I have requested? I am afraid I will be unable to give you any further space once this has gone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Andy, I assume others are still having the same problem, because no one is posting photos. I have been unable to post any photos for weeks, and I have no posts on this particular forum containing photos. The only photos I have on this entire site are the ones in my Rear Head Wound seminar. If I have to delete those, it essentially renders the seminar useless. I guess if I have to delete those photos to post something of great importance I will, but when members request photos I may have(such as the JFK wedding photos John requested), they may be out of luck(and allocated space). RJS

Denis, Although Roger Craig was an actual participant in the circumstances surrounding the assassination, he also made claims that have never been proven, made many misstatements, and changed his story more times than I change my socks. RJS

Pamela, What Reitzes does is repeat Judyth's own statements. He doesn't need to muddy anything. http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...mesg_id=1&page= Judyth has had an open forum, and leaves of her own choice because she is subjected to hard questions. There aren't "personal attacks". She put herself in this position, and has to answer why she has made so many conflicting statements.

_______________________________ Nic, I think Judyth got tired of being burned by people she thought she could trust. No matter how she answered a question she was screwed by those who were out to get her, and there are so many. WHY? If she is so unimportant, why bother or ask her... Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nic is absolutely right. She viewed the evidence and objectively came to a conclusion as many of us do. I think Judyth is tired of having her proofless story questioned. The info posted by those like Reitzes is legitimate, doesn't matter who he is. He serves a purpose by disspelling the more ludicrous scenarios, such as Ms Baker's. And Bob Vernon has nothing to do with it. Does it enhance Judyth's story to criticize him or Reitzes or anyone else for that matter? Is it really the opinion of an attorney that if so many people disbelieve someone's story, it makes them more believable? Her story is full of holes. She has made statements then retracted them, presented some "facts" then changed them due to bad eyesight, and most importantly has presented zero evidence. You, as an attorney, certainly should know what evidence is all about. As for people "out to get her", haven't you ever cross examined a witness? Ever caught them changing their stories, gone for the "kill" to expose them, then sat back in your chair with a feeling of accomplishment because you caught them manipulating the truth? Would you not use your abilities to the fullest to prove a witness is giving false testimony, or would you say "no questions for this witness your honor" because you deemed the witness "unimportant"? In your summation to the jury, would you point out the witness presented their own scenario that contained no proof? How did the jury vote after you exposed false or misleading testimony, or testimony that contained no actual evidence? Would you, as an attorney, let your personal feelings convince you to ignore the actual evidence? Not likely, so why do it here? RJS PS: I have no agenda other than the truth, no matter how many emails you get to the contrary.

Antti, Lee Oswald's tax returns are not classified. The release of documents under the JFK Act does not include tax records. Tax returns are confidential and can only be released by authorization from the subject party or in this case, his widow. Marina did sign a waiver releasing Lee's tax returns. http://www.jfklancer.com/LHOtax.html RJS

IMO, Gordon Novel is the spitting image of Umbrella Man. I would post a photo comparison, but I'm having a problem uploading photos due to "error, exceeding the limit set...". I've reduced the photo size until they were almost non existent, and still can't upload them. John, I've emailed you to ask what the attachment limit is. RJS

Paul, First of all, several of the significant players are still alive. Secondly, I won't give a speech about truth, justice and the American way(well, maybe justice). What bothers me the most is that several agencies of the United States government and its employees were either involved, had prior knowledge of the event, or knew what happened after the fact, and did or said nothing. For me there is nothing spiritual about it. The President was murdered as a result of a conspiracy, for political reasons, whatever they may be. Everyone has their own opinion as to why, and I have mine, but the basic fact of the matter is that there are conspirators running around free, the US government knows it, and in many cases, has protected them and covered up their deed for 41 years. It's about time the lies stop, and those responsible are identified and dealt with. RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fact that people are so relentless in their attacks only adds to the credibility of the story. This type of statement is ridiculous. It couldn't be further from the truth. Nearly everyone disagrees vociferously with the Files story. Does it give his story more credibility? We as researchers relentlessly attack the official story of the assassination of JFK. Does it give more credibility to the "Oswald did it alone" theory? Is the official story true and do we have an "agenda"? Is there convincing evidence that Ms Baker is everything she claims to be? No. Does it give her more credibility that so many people don't believe her story, and an LN like Dave Reitzes has found many many conflicting statements that can't be explained away? No. Because so many dissent doesn't always make it more credible. RJS

"It seems that you and I are about the only ones who recognize how important Duran may be. I honestly believe that he may eventually speak regarding the assassination." James, I recall reading an interview(or article) about Duran, and I got the distinct impression he knew plenty, and felt somewhat remorseful. I agree he is probably the only person alive who was involved on the periphery and will eventually speak. Duran's explanation of the feeling of the exile groups at the time, and the meaning of "dialogueros" was bonechilling, and was the final straw that convinced me of exile involvement. What may help loosen Duran's lips is that he is now considered a "dialogado" after his 2001 visit to Havana during the 40th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs. Duran is very active in overturning the US embargo of Cuba. Contrary to what some others may think, I believe Duran was an observer in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. He was an active member of Brigade 2506 and a past president of its veterans association. http://www.watsoninstitute.org/Cuba/photoe...onference7.html RJS

See Jeff Morley's article "What Jane Roman Said". There is absolute proof the CIA had something going on with LHO right up until 6 weeks prior to the assassination. CIA HQ even lied to their own Mexico City office, saying they had known nothing about Oswald since just after he returned from the Soviet Union. They also obviously withheld information from the Warren Commission and the HSCA. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/fram...RomanSaid_1.htm RJS

"There are researchers persuring the Grand Jury issue tho. Will find out who. As it's slipped my mind." Bill Kelly in New Jersey. He was to give an update on his progress at NID but couldn't make it. RJS

James, I agree with John's list, as well as yours. Duran is critical, and may be one who would eventually tell what he knows(albeit on his deathbed). Most however, will not talk, and a few, well, as you said, safety first. I would love to talk to Marita Lorenz. I would especially love to see Marina Oswald Porter take a polygraph, then file a wrongful death lawsuit against the DPD. If anyone can open the can of worms, she can. And I would like to see Hemming finally come clean about what he knows instead of playing the games he plays. I also have a few more names to try for identification of Pakse Base Man, who I think was the guy on the lightpole at Houston and Main. RJS

Ron, I wholeheartedly agree, and the way you phrased it was superb. Most CT's know about the large wound in the rear of the head yet seldom use this as evidence of conspiracy. I can point to the 3 or 4 responses to my seminar on the rear head wound, or the limited response to Pat Speer's seminar. The way I look at it, you have to prove conspiracy first beyond a shadow of a doubt (well beyond "reasonable doubt") before you can tackle the "who done it". One of the things I enjoy most is presenting medical evidence that is overwhelming, then sitting back and listening to LN's stumble through an explanation. It typically is "the witnesses were mistaken" and "Boswell was mistaken when he placed the back wound where he did on the autopsy face sheet, then was mistaken again when he revised it in 1977. My second great interest is the CIA/Cuban exile connection to the assassination. As most are aware on the forums I visit, I feel 100% sure that the exiles were the boots on the ground in Dealey Plaza. I believe it is well beyond coincidence that CIA and exile types showed up in photos to watch the "show". RJS

There is one thing that stands out in his answer to Debra: "But to make it more substantive [read: couldn't be bashed by fly-bys], it needs document support. I have that too, a package of information to wrap around it. "

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...3946371051&rd=1 Only $240,000 starting bid, Buy it Now...$1,050,000

W - Where did you serve? JF – I was in the army, 82nd Airborne. I took my basic at Fort Leavenworth, Missouri... RJS: Fort Leavenworth is in Kansas. That's like a Marine saying he took his basic training at Camp Lejeune Virginia. WD: Yes, and on the other side of the river is Missouri. Big deal for a school dropout. Wim, Perhaps you should do some research on what Files tells you before you post this junk for everyone to see. Some people actually do follow up with real research. "We did no basic training here at Fort Leavenworth (Kansas); you may be thinking of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Janet Wray Public Information Officer Fort Leavenworth KS So now let's hear that Files made a mistake and meant to say Fort Leonard Wood instead of Fort Leavenworth. Busted again. RJS

From an FBI report on interviews of Marina Oswald in December 1963 (FBI File # 100-10,461, Commission Exhibit 1403): “MARINA did not see OSWALD either take the rifle with him from the house in New Orleans or bring it back with him to the house on any occasion. She never saw him clean it, nor did he ever hold it in her presence as best she can recall. “She cannot recall that he ever practiced firing the rifle in New Orleans or in Dallas. She does not think he did practice in New Orleans because as a rule he stayed home when he was not working. When he did go out, she did not see him take the rifle. “OSWALD did not have any ammunition for the rifle to her knowledge either in Dallas or New Orleans, and he did not speak of buying ammunition.” Now see her WC testimony on February 3, 1964: Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you recall your husband having any ammunition around the house at any time? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. And where do you remember his having it in the places you lived? Mrs. OSWALD. On Neely Street, in Dallas, and New Orleans. Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether that was rifle ammunition or rifle and pistol ammunition? Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was for the rifle. Perhaps he had some pistol ammunition there, but I would not know the difference. Mr. RANKIN. Did you observe how much ammunition he had at any time? Mrs. OSWALD. He had a box of about the size of this. Mr. RANKIN. Could you give us a little description of how you indicated the box? Was it 2 or 3 inches wide? Mrs. OSWALD. About the size here on the pad. Mr. RANKIN. About 3 inches wide and 6 inches long? Mrs. OSWALD. Probably. Thanks for posting this Ron. This never made any sense to me either, other than to prove her testimony was coerced. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A great post by Ron indeed. This once again leads one to suspect everything that ever came out of Marina. I just think it goes way beyond coercion. There's something else there. I received an email the other day from someone who had spoken to Marina a few years ago and had asked her about the backyard photos. She apparently said the photos weren't the same as the ones she took. So in that mini-interview, she took photos, but the ones released weren't the ones she took. Her odd response led the interviewer to suspect she knew she took photos of Lee Oswald, but it wasn't HER HUSBAND Lee Oswald(the "Harvey and Lee" thing?). Since I don't buy the 2 LHO theory, IMO the answer lies elsewhere. Whatever the case, Marina needs to come clean under oath, and submit to a polygraph. She's been all over the map. It's about time she stopped going in circles and told the truth. About Lee, about the rifle, Walker, the photos, the whole nine yards. Always seemed odd to me she won't. RJS

"According to your rationale, the entire science of building demolition can be rewritten to something far simpler: douse a tall building with jet fuel part way down from the top and set it ablaze. The four corners will melt uniformly, regardless of the random application of said jet fuel. The simple and inexplicably uniform melting of the corners will cause the top part of the building to demolish the entire building perfectly vertically, with no toppling effect." Let's be real Tim. That's not what happened. The design of the building, the crashed airliners, and the burning jet fuel were all contributing factors. The building fell exactly as would be anticipated under the circumstances. "Your concept of Occam's Razor re 9/11 is not unlike the SBT" The SBT was and is not the simplest explanation, all things considered, although the WC tried to make it so. IMO you cannot compare 9/11 to the SBT or the JFK assassination for that matter, with the possible exception of the moronic attempts at covering up by the Bush administration(and unfortunately, the American public's wearing of blinders). And not that there was an American conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center, but that the Bush's Iraq policy superceded the Clinton, CIA, and high ranking dissenter projections that terrorists such as bin Laden would attack us and were ignored. More can be tied to the assassination regarding current Bush policy against Cuba and for Cuban exiles than 9/11. RJS

Bob Groden is a genuine patriot, and a hero in the reseach field. That he has managed to maintain such a calm, generous and decent demeanor through all these years and with upstarts like myself is further tribute to his character. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unfortunate Bob had to get involved in that OJ civil trial mess. What a disaster.

Hi Al, This has always struck me as strange, If one practices as much as the WC tried to make us believe Oswald did, then something would have turned up , empty ammo cartons, cleaning rods, bore patches, cleaning solvents, oil , etc. Of all the years ive been shooting, I never seem to get rid of something after I clean up after a shoot, just last night I found my bushing wrench for my 1911 that I was looking for for 6 months lol, and a set of NM sights for one of my M1's . I had stored these in a box in the garage and for the life of me couldnt remember where I placed them. IMHO Oswald was told to order that rifle, nothing more, nothing less. It reminds me of how the gangbangers work over here, telling the little guy to "hold" this until I need it. As they dont want anything linking them to the gun while not in use. It just makes no sense if Oswald owned that rifle and shot it as much as the WC said he did, that there was not "extras" found........Makes no sense. And his revolver goes right along with this....... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ryan, You may have a point about the rifle. I don't think there's any question in my mind LHO ordered it and had it in his possession. It gets pretty foggy after that. For someone that's been around guns, a cleaning kit is an essential. For someone who's not, who knows? Know of any of those gangbangers who sit around the kitchen table smokin crack cleaning their pistol after going to Wal Mart to buy a cleaning kit? Al, One thing I forgot to ask in my answer to your post... Since you been involved in many criminal investigations, how often have you gone to a crime scene at a house where gunplay was involved, and not found a cleaning kit or a box of ammo? RJS