Richard J. Smith

Al, "Has Marina ever mentioned seeing cleaning supplies or ammunition for the rifle she claimed her husband practiced dry firing?" Marina's HSCA deposition: Q. Apart from the time Lee went ot go target shooting that you have told us about, what other times do you remember seeing the rifle? A. Well, like in New Orleans he would be sitting and cleaning and polishing the silly thing. Q. And when you saw cleaning, what was he doing to the rifle? A. Oh, he was putting rags around and putting oil or something on it. Q. Did he do that in Dallas as well? A. He might have, but I do not remember it not to give you the detailed description of it. So, according to Marina, she saw him cleaning the rifle, or at least oiling it. I've also wondered where the ammo came from, but I've never seriously questioned whether he bought the rifle or actually had it in his possession. I think he did. I also question that the rifle, after it was found, would be immediately traceable to Lee. It was purchased by "A. Hidell". Who would have known who Hidell was if Lee hadn't been captured as he was? BTW, how many rounds does the MC clip hold? RJS

Tim, According to an architechtural engineer interviewed on a recent episode of " Frontiers of Construction " aired on the Dicovery Channel, the toppling effect , under the circumstances, given the design characteristics of large buildings like the Trade tower, is itself, a physical impossibility. The jet fuel that wasn't dissipated in the giant fireball immediately post impact, spilled onto floors immediately above and below the area of impact, igniting fires that burned sufficiently hot to weaken the structure components of the building. Some of that fuel also ran down elevator shafts which caused fires and a similar structural comprimise on lower floors. The program showed a computer animation of the theorized effect that theses fires had on the building, onto which the actual footage of impact and aftermath were superimposed. The reason that the building came straight down was gravity. Once the structural components on or near the point of impact were sufficiently weakened, the weight of the upper floors caused a gravity induced pancaking effect to take place. The tremendous, and overwhelming weight of the upper portion of the building caused the irresistable force of gravity, to act on the structure and it's components in a vertical vector. In order to achieve a toppling effect, some other force greater than the force exerted by the weight of the upper floors would have had to have acted in a different direction. The structural components simply couldn't bear the weight from above, and crumpled in a chain reaction in the direction of the force. To expect the building to fall in any other way would require an active imagination and a total disregard for simple physics. So far as I know, the laws of physics aren't under any immediate threat by conspiracy, or otherwise ie.) unless oneis also willing to accept ideas like the SBT... Ian <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ian, I agree with your position. As far as you other guys, my God, you need to take a break from the conspiracy business. Controlled explosions took down the two towers? It was a US government operation? Someone blew the dust off Operation Northwoods and put it into effect? There are some pretty simple answers to the oblivious attitudes in the government prior to 9/11. The Clinton administration warned the Bush camp during the transition period after Bush was elected. They were briefed about terrorism and bin Laden. The Bush league chose to ignore it, choosing instead to play the "bring me the head of Saddam Hussein" game. Ian is correct in the assessment of how those towers fell. I despise Bush, Chaney, and their cohorts. But to say they would allow the deaths of 3000 people(it could have been over 10,000) is ludicrous at best. I suppose the next thing said will be that former New York City police commissioner Bernie Kerik withdrew himself from consideration as Homeland Security Secretary because he found out that 9/11 was a government plot. Two airliners and complete ignorance on the part of the Bush administration brought down those towers. Do you actually think that if Bush, Cheney and gang were plotting the demise of Iraq, and anticipating raking in billions in profit for certain US companies, they would want a major interruption like 9/11? I consider myself to be rather open minded, but I also buy into Occam's razor. All things considered, the simplest explanation is probably correct. I don't believe a world wide conspiracy that involved thousands killed JFK, just as I don't believe the Larouche puppet at Lancer who claimed the British monarchy was behind it, no matter how much "evidence" he spewed. And to get into someone's face for not reading a particular book, give me a break. Sorry, I don't find Pam Ray's take on world events as "interesting", and if Jim "Lyndon Larouche Jr" Harwood was to write a book I wouldn't run out and buy it. On second thought, maybe I do have a closed mind when it comes to over the edge speculation, fringe opinions and untenable positions. RJS

True story: When I was 17, a friend of mine dropped out of high school and joined the Navy. He wasn't the brightest guy, in fact he didn't know Kansas from Canada. But after a few weeks in basic training, he sure knew the Great Lakes Naval Training Station was in Illinois, not Wisconsin, which was about 15 miles up the Lake Michigan coast. The devil is in the details.

W - Where did you serve? JF – I was in the army, 82nd Airborne. I took my basic at Fort Leavenworth, Missouri... Fort Leavenworth is in Kansas. That's like a Marine saying he took his basic training at Camp Lejeune Virginia. http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/ RJS

Out of all the witnesses, she is the key witness. If anyone could turn the case around, in the sense of giving new testimony towards proving Lee innocent, it's Marina. Like many fellow researchers, I bet she was not entirely honest when she testified. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Marina could, IMO, open the biggest scab the US has ever seen by filing a wrongful death lawsuit against the DPD. I'm sure there are attorneys out there that would jump at the chance to represent her, and do it for free. So why wouldn't she? Although she has changed her opinion as to Lee's guilt, Marina has steadfastly stuck to two main points that have driven assassination researchers crazy for years. 1. The Walker incident 2. The backyard photos Marina has never wavered that Lee had a rifle, and practiced with it. Her testimony to the WC and HSCA was nearly identical concerning the Walker shooting attempt and the backyard photos. She also indicated to the HSCA she was never told by anyone what to say to the WC. HSCA deposition: Q. Do you recall testifying before the Warren Commission? A. Yes; I do. Q. Did anyone ever tell you what you should testify to them? A. No. Q. Did anyone ever suggest to you in any way how you should testify, or what you should say to the Warren Commission? A. No. Q. to your knowledge, as you sit here today, is there anything which you testified to before the Warren Commission which you now believe to be incorrect? A. No; I never read my own testimony but whatever I said was the truth. Q. I will show you those two photographs which are marked JFK exhibit No. 1 and exhibit No. 2, do you recognize those two photographs? A. I sure do. I have seen them many times. Q. What are they? A. That is the pictures that I took. Q. What do you recall as far as the circumstances leaking up to you taking these pictures and when you actually took them and what happened? A. I do believe it was a weekend and he asked me to take a picture of him and I refused because I don't know how to take pictures. That is the only pictures I ever took in my whole life. So we argued over it and I thought the pose, or whatever he was wearing was just horrible, but he insisted that I just click, just push the button and I believe I did it twice and that was it. I do not know whether he developed them, at home or somewhere else, I have no idea. Q. What is he wearing in those photographs and what is he holding? A. What was a surprise for me was for him to hold his rifle and a pamphlet, some kind of newspaper. It puzzled me, it was a ridiculous way to pose for a picture. Q. Does he also have a pistol in his arm? A. I don't see that, it looks like it-yes, I see now. Q. And you recall testifying about these same two photographs when you testified to the Warren Commission? A. Yes; I remember them asking if I ever took the pictures and I had completely forgotten because it was only once in my life and I didn't know who to take pictures. Yes, when they showed me that, yes, I did take the pictures. Q. The camera you took them on, was that Lee Harvey Oswald's camera? A. I believe so. Q. Was it the same one he had in Russia or a different one, do you know? A. I don't know, but I do believe it could be the same. Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures? A. He just told me which button to push and I did. Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture? A. Yes. Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture? A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to. Q. How many pictures did you take? A. I think I took two. Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye? A. Yes; that is what I recall. Q. What did you do next? A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again. Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture? A. Yes. Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture? A. He changed his pose. Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that? A. He did that. Q. So you took the picture and handed the camera to him? A. Yes. Q. What did he do? A. He said, "Once again," and I did it again. Q. So he have you back the camera? A. For the second time; yes. Q. Did he put the rifle down? A. You see, that is the way I remember it. Q. Did he put the rifle down on the ground between-- A. I don't remember. I was so annoyed with all this procedure so the sooner I could get through, the better, so I don't recollect. Q. But you do remember taking the picture? A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right. Q. What did you say? A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong. Q. I am not interested in what people speculated. A. There is nobody to blame for it but me. Q. When you took the first picture and you gave him the camera, did you walk over to him and give him the camera or did he walk over to you? A. I don't remember. Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time? A. Yes. Q. When was the first time when you were living in Dallas that you saw that Lee owned a rifle? A. I really don't remember the day or month. Q. No the day or month but what was the first occasion? What were the circumstances when you saw it? A. I don't remember. What is the first time you remember seeing the rifle currently? A. I believe it was in Dallas but I would not be sure. I would not swear it it. Believe me, I tried to remember my best recollection. Q. I am just asking now that you do remember, what was the circumstance? was it in a closet? Was he holding it? What was the first time you currently remember seeing the rifle, any rifle? A. Well, the things flash in my memory right now of him going out after dard wearing a raincoat and he told me that he was going to practice in some shooting range. I don't mean that was the first time as I see it flashing right now. Q. It may not be the first time but you remember one incident when he was in the raincoat? A. Yes. Q. And you saw the rifle at that time? A. I am not saying that is the first time. Q. But you saw it at that time? A. And down in New Orleans he was sitting in the dark on the porch. Q. The time you saw him in the raincoat, was that before you moved to New Orleans or after? A. I believe it was in Dallas because it was quite hot outside. I mean it was very silly for somebody to put a raincoat over your body in such hot weather. Q. I was not going to rain that day? A. No. Q Did you see the rifle or did you ask him, "Why are you wearing a raincoat?" A. I probably did but I do not remember the conversation. Q. Did you ask him where he was going to go practicing?f A. Well, he said that you can take a bus and go somewhere but I don't know where. Q. Did you see the rifle itself at that time? A. I don't remember if it had any cover to it. I don't remember. Q. It was at night after-- A. I was after dark. Q. After dark. A. It was very dark but whatever time, it started getting kind of in between. Q. Did you ask him how he could go target shooting in the dark? A. It never occurred to me. I have to explain, I never had any interesting rifles. Q. You said you didn't like guns. A. No; but I never took Lee seriously with this thing. I thought a boy playing awith a big toy and that it would be just temporary. I never realized how serious it was at the time. Q. When was the first time that you say that Lee possessed a gun as opposed to a rifle? A. I honestly don't remember. Q. What is the first time you remember seeing the gun? A. Just a minute. Could that be when he asked me to take the picture of him and he was wearing this gun or golding the rifle? Q. He had a gun in that picture. A. Yes; and it was ridiculous to take a picture. I was puzzling me why anybody would want to take a picture dressed like that with all the equipment. Q. Did you ask him? A. Yes. We had a fuss and a fight over it. Q. About the gun and the rifle? A. Yes. Q. What did he say? A. The picture was taken and it was ridiculous. Q. Did you ask him though about the gun and the rifle and tell him that you didn't like the guns? He knew that. A. He knew that. Q. What was his reaction? A. That it was none of my business. Q. Apart from the time Lee went ot go target shooting that you have told us about, what other times do you remember seeing the rifle? A. Well, like in New Orleans he would be sitting and cleaning and polishing the silly thing. Q. And when you saw cleaning, what was he doing to the rifle? A. Oh, he was putting rags around and putting oil or something on it. Q. Did he do that in Dallas as well? A. He might have, but I do not remember it not to give you the detailed description of it. Q. When was the first time that Lee told you he had used the rifle apart from the target practice? A. I think the General Walker incident. Q. Could you relate the details of that incident to us now? A. Well, I really cannot describe the details but the would be quite accurate in the testimony that I gave at the Warren Commission and if you refresh my memory I might be able to tell you. Q. What happened the days before the Walder incident; did Lee act unusual at all? A. Well he would be sitting--he made a little kind of not an office, a little closet that he has a chair there and maybe a desk-not a desk, improvisation of a desk, and he would be writing something down and he told me to to bother him so he was quite secretive about it. Q. And that was a few days before? A. A few days, a few weeks. I do not remember exactly the time. Q. Was Lee restless a few days before the incident? Was he calm? Did he sleep well? A. I don't recall his mood. Q. Did Lee ever talk in his sleep? A. Not that I remember. Q. Again in the book "Marina and Lee" you said that a few days prior to the Walker incident you recollect that he was talking in his sleep. A. that could be true. Q. Do you remember, would he talk in English or would he talk in Russian. A. I don't remember the incident right now. Q. Did Lee go to work the day that he told you he shot at General Walker? A. I don't remember the incident right now. Q. Did Lee go to work the day that he told you he shot at General Walker? A. I don't remember that either. What day of the week was it? Q. It was a Wednesday. A. Was it Wednesday? Well, I am sorry. I simply do not remember. Q. How did Lee first tell you about the shooting of General Walker? A. Well, he was gone most of the night and came home very late and turned the radio on. Q. How did you feel that evening when he did not come home? A. He did not come home for a long time and I do believe that I found a note addressed to me what to do in case something happened to him and I was petrified and didn't know what to do. Q. When did you find the note? A. After he went out. Q. Was it unusual for him to be out late? A. No; since he was leaving the house sometimes for this practicing that he supposedly was going to. Q. So you were not surprised that he was out that evening? A. Well, I was surprised that he came home that late. Q. Were you worried where he was? A. Of course I was. Q. Did you contact anybody? A. No; I didn't. Q. What did he say when he returned? A. Well, he turned the radio on and he was very pale and he was listening to the news, changing from station to station. I asked him what it was all about and he said that he tried to shoot General Walker. I told him how dare you take somebody's life and you should not do things like that, I mean you have no right to do it. He said, see, if somebody shot Hitler at the right time you will do justice to humanity so since I don't know anything about the man I should not talk about it. Q. Did you know who General Walder was? A. He told me he was a Fascist. That is all I know. Q. Had you heard the name before? A. No. Q. Did Lee ever mention to you a man named Scotty? A. No. Q. Did Lee ever-- A. Just a minute. I heard this name before and I don't know if it came from Lee or somebody that he could be working with. I think it is a little but confusing. Scotty could be a dog. I am sorry. Q. Did he ever mention a man who spoke with a Scottish accent? A. Oh, you mean with a Scottish accent? No; never. Q. Did he ever mention a man who lived with General Walker? A. No; I thought the man lived alone after what I read later on. Q. When Lee came back that night was he disheveled? A. What's disheveled? Q. Was he dirty? Were his clothes still neat? A. Well, honestly I only remember that he was very pale and that is all I recall. Q. When do you recall him leaving the house that day prior to his shooting at General Walker? A. I don't recall if he came from work and then left or whether he left after work. I don't remember. Q. Was he dressed in the same clothes that you saw him previously when he returned? A. I just don't remember. Q. Did he have the rifle with him when he came back? A. No; I think he said he left it hidden somewhere and I do believe the next day at night he went and got it. That is what I remember right now. That is the testimony I am giving you, what I remember. Q. That is what we want, your present recollection. Did he tell you he had shot at him with a rifle or did he mention that he had used a gun? A. Well, I think it was a rifle. Q. Did he tell you where he hid the rifle or the gun? A. I think he might have mentioned that it was in the shrubs somewhere. Q. Did you discuss with him whether it would be found and the police would be looking for him? A. It was such an unpleasant and terrifying incident that I was just trembling all day long. I was looking through the windows; I was expecting police coming any second. Q. Did you suggest to Lee that he go back and get the gun or rifle or did he do it by himself? A. I think he did it by himself. Q. What did he do with the gun or the rifle when he went back and got it? A. Kept it in the house. Q. Did you see it again? A. Well, I never made a point of going and checking the rifle every day to see whether is was there or not. Q. Where in the house would he keep it? A. In the closet. Q. On a shelf or was it on the floor? A. I don't remember. Q. Was it wrapped in anything? A. It could be just kind of stanking in the corner. Q. Proppoed up in the corner of the closet? A. It could be. Q. Was it covered? Was it wrapped in anything? A. I don't remember. Q. Was the closet crowded? Did it have many things in it? A. Usually his personal belongings, his clothes, his books, whatever, and he told me to stay out of it; that is his own private thing. Q. This was his closet? A. Yes. Q. If you opened the closet, was it easy to get the rifle or did you have to move a lot of things aside before you got it? A. I never did it. Q. If you opened the closet door, would you see the rifle immediately? A. I don't remember. Q. The photographs you took of Lee with the rifle and the pistol, do you know where Lee developed those photos? A. Well, didn't he work for some time with photography? Q. You don't know where he developed the films? A. No. Q. Did he have any photographic supplies around the house? A. It is so hard to dig through your memory that long back. He might have; I don't know. Q. When you saw the rifle that he had, was that the same rifle he had in Russia? A. I don't remember. How can you transport a gun from one country to another when you have to go through the inspection on the border? Q. So you don't think he brought the gun with him? A. I don't see how it logically or possibly could happen. Oh, you mean the same gun. Well, he bought the rifle right here. Q. He bought it here? A. Yes. Q. How did he buy the rifle here? A. Well, I learned later afterward that he ordered through some mail. Q. At that time did you know that he had ordered a rifle? A. Well, since I had seen the rifle I knew he purchased it. How he purchased it I do not know. Q. The first time you saw it did you ask him, "Where did you get the rifle?" A. No; but I was very upset that he spent money on such an unnecessary, stupid thing then we barely could survive on what he was making. Q. Did you ask him how much it cost? A. No. Q. Where did Lee keep his gun? The rifle was in the closet. A. Well, it never was on display on the wall but everybody can see it. It was always hidden somewhere back in the closet. We did not live in one place very long; we moved from apartment to the apartment. Q. In the apartment where the rifle was kept in the closet, was the gun also kept there or was it dept somewhere else? A. I assume it was together. Q. Did you see it in that closet? A. Well, see, my recollection about-do you recall the gun? Q. Yes. A. The pictures I took showed two. Q. It showed a rifle and a gun. A. Yes. Q. the question I have is just where did he keep the gun if the rifle was in the closet? A. I honestly do not know. Q. When you were living with Lee at this time, did he ever take the gun out to go target shooting with that as well as the rifle? A. I recall only the rifle because it was quite bulky and he had to hide it under his raincoat but I do not recall the gun at all. Q. When he brought the rifle back after he had hid it in the bushes from General Walker's house, what did he carry it in? He didn't just carry the rifle over his shoulder. A. No; he didn't, but I told you that he was wearing this raincoat. How does one reconcile her statements? Perhaps that why she decided "she has given up because she tried all she could". PS: The Oprah interview: http://www.jfkresearch.com/marina/marina.htm

"I would not let the likes of Richard get under your skin. He is the true one that should be ignored. I wish I had stuck to that golden rule a long time ago I would have been better off. Yes, Richard does have a great deal of knowledge ALL FROM BOOKS ONLY mind you. Just don't answer him, unless it has something to do with the real subject you are into." John, I could respond to this moronic attack in kind, but have decided not to do so. Terry Mauro left the forum because of this junk. Ms Eldreth was booted from another forum for ridiculous, self indulging and derogatory posts and it has continued here. It would not surprise me to find that she was the one who sent Dawn the email misrepresenting my previous post. There is no one else on these forums who misunderstands, misstates, and misrepresents as she does. Considering the source, I feel no need to defend my research or my abilities as a researcher. RJS

"Geez, this is getting pretty damn weird. I do not know quite how to take your post mr. Smith. My life is an open book. I have nothing to hide. My bio is 100% accurrate. You are welcome to check me out. I made the posts I did as an honest effort to stop the friggen infighting. Period. I have had many researcher friends over these many decades and I have seen such an abundance of infighting that it just drives me nuts. So I joined this forum about 5 weeks ago and I asked that it be limited to serious research. Call me an idiot. My husband told me I just "don't understand how forum are, how poeple just flame each other". No I do not. I have kept away from forums. Ok Richard, I am really agent 69. I have a second comperter hooked up with the company crowd, I just pretend to be an attorney, when really, I was in Cuba last week and behind the scenes Castro and I orcharasted the election to insure Bush would stay in power. Please....if I have made one mistatke here it is that I have let all this become too personal. I feel like I know the people here when in fact I do not. I care deeply about the murder of jfk and I believe it was an assassination from the highest levels of this government. So I foolishly got into a forum as I am sick and tired of all the people I know not giving two xxxxs and having zero knowledge about this case. I have talked to judges, other lawyers, district arttorneys... you just get the blank stare and the subject gets changed. THEY DON"t WANT TO KNOW. So I came onto a forum to find like minded people. If someone wants references on me as to who I am, PM me and I can provide same. BUT I will not give out my friends' private email and or phone numbers to be harrassed by people with an agenda. I have been truthfull at all times on this forum. I have one agenda: solving this murder and stopping the infighting between people who say they want the same thing. If some of you out there have a differnet agenda then you know who and what you truly are. I am not God. Bu there is a GOd and He knows the truth. We mortals are just trying to piece together the pictures of this horrible puzzle, to untalgle the forces behind the theft of our government on 11/22/63." Dawn, Please read my previous post again. When I explained the CIA moniker, you said "there's enough of those here" or words to that effect. I then explained truthfully exactly what happened to me, and used a hypethetical situation as if it had happened between you and me so you would see how ludicrous it was. I DID NOT indicate YOU were not as you seem. It happened to ME exactly the way I described. But you did get rather upset at the pretense. You now understand what it feels like. I am also at a loss as to who would email you and completely screw up the intent of my post. That person either has a complete lack of understanding and has comprehension difficulties, or is deliberately trying to fuel a fire and has "an agenda". Look closely at who sent you that email. Therein lies a problem. Richard

Dawn, "And Richard Smith, I encourage honest debate, just did not want to see what looked like boring infighting. Felt it could be done in an email. This is indended to be a serious forum, so the personal attacks re. alteration of the Z film were getting to be too much. We can all read the book and decide for ourselves. " Not sure how Z film alteration fits here, but I don't recall making any personal attacks regarding Mr Fetzer or his book here or anywhere else. I have however, made comments that questioned the veracity of the "evidence" presented regarding Z film alteration. Attacking someone's work is not the same as attacking them personally. As far as reading the book and determining its merit, unless you have an expert explain it, you couldn't decide for yourself by reading it, nor could I. Once it was explained by experts, and after reading the horrible responses by supporters of the alteration theory, I was absolutely convinced the Z film is authentic, and took the side of the anti-alterationists in the debate that was held at Lancer. "And whether or not you believe the FIles story, this too can be dealt with in an adult manner. As to being accused of being "CIA" or a disinformationist, well you must admit in this case there have been more than a few of those." With all due respect, it was dealt with in an adult manner from my point of view. It wasn't me who initiated the personal attacks. To be branded CIA in the research community is like the kiss of death. It was unprofessional, spiteful, childish, and intended to divert attention from the discussion at hand. Let me engage in a hypethetical situation Dawn. I write my opinion on an aspect of the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 on this forum(or any other). I claim that I have all kinds of facts to back up my statements. You spend 6 months looking into it, and post your findings. You essentially blow my case out of the water. My response to your investigation is that you are nothing more than a CIA plant. I go on to say I don't think you are really Dawn Meredith, and don't believe you when you say you are originally from Nova Scotia and lived in Boston. Furthermore, I tell you I think you're sitting behind a desk at Langley looking for ways to discredit my "true" story. On top of all that, I ask other forum members if they have ever met you, and to vouch for who you say you are. I repeatedly ask you to publicly post personal information about yourself to prove to me who you really are. When you refuse to publicly post personal information, I have YOU investigated, and post your personal information on that public forum, including your age and current sleepy little hometown. I don't think that would go over too well with you, or anyone else for that matter. Would you, under those circumstances, simply say, "oh well, there have been more than a few of those" on the forums? I think not. Richard

I am a little confused by many things regarding Files but one thing sticks out in my mind above the others claims. If he was 21 in November of 63 when he claims to have shot the President how could he have been in Laos and Operation White Star in 59 and 60. My math tells me that he would have to have been 17 years old in 59 -60. I know some kids entry the military and lie about their age but to be in Laos in 59 he would have likely had to undergo some intense training beforehand and I am assuming this would take some time so he must have entered the service sometime in 58 to satisfy the timeline. He would have been 16 at the time and would have had to enlist with false credentials as it is my understanding that the USA did not draft 16 year olds. Am I off base on this? I am thinking this is so strange that I must have missed something in the reading I have been doing on Files but I am most curious to get peoples responses. If I am mistaken on this I would greatly appreciate someone letting me know." Brent, I don't think you are mistaken, and you are not off base. They are many things suspect in the Files tale. RJS

"Ouch! Please don't cancel my membership. I've always considered myself a worldly person, but I could have never dreamed what I have been put through. I will try to be careful and thoughtful. I'm grateful for the fellowship of this forum." Tim, so glad you reconsidered. I always thought you were "careful and thoughtful". But as JFK said, "when the going gets tough, the tough get going". Don't let this crapola bring you down. I'm behind you 100%. Richard

"I agree that Nancy's posts take some understanding." That's quite an understatement. "I am afraid I stopped reading her posts some time ago. I suggest others follow the same policy." Tough to ignore when statements of fiction are given as fact. Ignoring her didn't stop her at Lancer, which is why she was booted. Unfortunate that Terry left because of all this. Same type of thing happened at Lancer. By the time 2 were booted and 2 were apparently suspended, Lancer lost quite a few members. It became an unfortunate farce. "Bob Vernon has published Gibson's photograph on the JFK Research website. He is very much a male and looks much older than 14." If he did indeed post a photo of Gibson on the internet, it is the most despicable act one could do. I'm assuming Gibson won't be visiting the on line forums for a while. RJS

Pat, Simply outstanding. All too often, in our guessing game of shots, shooters, and speculation, we sometimes forget the real evidence that's present in the medical testimony, x rays, and photos pertaining to the autopsy. Thanks very much for this very informative presentation. Richard

"Is this the same Pamela Ray that thinks the new Los Angeles Police Dept training facility is a secrete prison that nobody knows about that is located off the 5 fwy in Sylmar California?" Yeah Ryan, one and the same. Also the same Pam Ray that advocated overthrow of the US government, invokes the name of God at will, kisses the butt of the slug Jimmy Files, spews anti-semetic rhetoric and the gospel according to Lyndon Larouche, probably has more weapons than you, me and Al put together, trashes cops, then flip flops and apologizes(gee, I'm sorry I offended you Al, my uncle was a cop) when someone gets in her face.

"A few years ago, a friend and I set of a fircracker on the southside of the tripple underpass.., about where we thought a shooter would have shot from. We watched the people who were standing around the kill zone and on the north knoll... They ALL first looked toward the north side of the underpass and some started walking that way. I found that interesting and then Dallas's fineist came and politely ask us to leave." Tosh, You've indicated many times you and Sergio were standing on the south knoll near the south end of the underpass during the shooting. You would have been within a stone's throw of the shooter if there was one in that position, yet you've said you heard a shot from the north knoll. The photos of the south knoll are few and of poor quality to say the least, but I don't recall seeing anyone there. You've indicated that you were sent to abort the assassination. A simple call to the Secret Service by whoever "sent" you would have aborted the motorcade. If Al's scenario is plausible, and I think it is, there is more to your story than meets the eye. Besides you and Sergio, was there a third person with you? RJS

"heading in torres direction may prove fruitful" John, you don't know how right you are. Just watch your back when you head in that direction. RJS

Steve, OUTSTANDING piece of work, but then again, I have come to expect nothing less from you. Very well done. Richard

John, "I suspect he was not wearing a back brace when he was murdered." The doctors and nurses at Parkland removed the back brace. He was definitely wearing it. Did you read Dr Peter's testimony I posted previously? "...his back problems were solved a few months before his death." JFK had degenerative spinal disease for 30 years, likely brought on by his continued use of steroid drugs to fight his many other ailments. The PT109 crash just exacerbated an already existing condition. It couldn't have been miraculously cured. Perhaps the exercises helped, but "solved" is an overstatement. He continued wearing the back brace in any case. RJS

"You're kidding, right? The preponderance of beautiful women delivering the news is not because of any correlation between good looks and journalistic acumen. Jane Pauley would exemplify a good-looking charmer. However, as an exception to the rule, CNN's Christiana Amanpour, combines looks, charm, and journalistic acumen. She could get anything she wanted out of me, yum! " Tim, Not kidding, although it is quite obvious the news networks, cable and broadcast, use "lookers" to their advantage. Using charm and beauty is one thing, but if Jane Pauley was to run up to a world leader, kiss him on the cheek and give him a big hug, she'd be fired in a second. I agree though, IMPLIED sex sells. I usually base my news watching on who's delivering it. Yes, pretty shallow of me. I watch Headline News weekend mornings just to watch Christie Paul, and even switch to Fox News to watch Juliet Huddy and Kieran Chetry. And I HATE Fox News. I watch CNN's American Morning weekdays because I've had a crush on Soledad O'Brien for years!! Remember when CNN hired Paula Zahn and actually used commercials saying they were the sexy news network? I've seriously considered writing an article about the ladies of the news and submitting it to Maxim Magazine. And yes, to you ladies out there, while you may think we're a lot of pigs, tell me truthfully you don't watch Anderson Cooper or Bill Hemmer because you think they're cute!! With tongue planted firmly in cheek, RJS

Nic, At the CNN link, there is another link to a story about Roy Cooper Jr's film. That film was also discussed during the Missing Files documentary, that particular section narrated by Richard Trask. RJS

"What do you think about the death of Lisa Howard? Is it possible that she had evidence that there was a link between her negotiations and the death of Kennedy? I think it could be significant that Howard emerged as an important player when she became the first journalist to secure an interview with Nikita Khrushchev. It is possible she was working as a KGB asset? She definitely is the sort of person the KGB would have liked to use. They knew that her film star looks would have caught the attention of JFK. This might also explain how she got the exclusive interview with Castro. Howard appears to have had left-wing views (see her article in the War and Peace Report)." John, Is it pure speculation that you would insinuate Lisa Howard was a KGB asset? Howard was a pioneer in broadcast journalism. How many female reporters and news anchors were there in the early 60's? After JFK's death, her attempts at contact with the LBJ White House were turned aside. Her tenaciousness led to her dismissal from ABC, and, according to her husband, she fell into severe depression. Your comment about Howard's "film star looks" is well taken though. Carlos Leshuga indicated in an interview that he spent time talking with her at a dinner party because "she was a pretty lady", and he liked talking to pretty ladies. More than likely, the same applied to Castro. She flirted with him, was brash and forward, and got what she wanted. She was more than just a pretty face. Wasn't her interview with Khrushchev a spur of the moment, on the spot thing? There were no previous arrangements. I recall she ran up to him, microphone in hand, gave him a kiss on the cheek, then thrust the mic into the Premier's face. Khrushchev was so surprised, so taken by this spunky lady, he stood there with that famous grin on his face, and melted into a brief interview. Could you imagine today's young female reporters using their good looks and charm to wiggle their way into an interview? We'd be shocked, and they would be fired. Lisa Howard used all of her assets, and I don't think she was used by anyone. I believe she considered herself part of a historic effort to bring peace to between the US and Cuba. After JFK's death, Johnson tossed her aside, and she was devastated. RJS

Nic and Mike, I recall seeing an interview with Powers, or someone close to him, saying he would never release his film. It eventually was released in 1996. You can view the film with Quicktime here: http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/21/kennedy.lost.film/ RJS

"This is just, astonishing, that any lone-nutter can possibly think every single one of these people is lying. What would they have to gain by lying? Are they just incorrect? Personally, I think it's suspicious that this group of every-day people can agree, and everyone in a position of power ( or in a position to lose power, depending on how you look at it ) say otherwise." Hi Nic, If you've read the comments(and I'm sure you have) by the resident lone nut at Lancer, it makes your statement above that much more profound. When confronted with absolutes, the LNs fall back on "they were mistaken". A few weeks ago when we were debating the SBT and the back wound, I posted the original autopsy face sheet, and Dr Boswell's 1977 HSCA modification to it. Boswell moved the back wound to the collar on the back of the neck. When I questioned our LN, he indicated Boswell made a mistake- again. This is the kind of stuff that just drives me nuts. In a court of law, a photograph may speak a thousands words, but it also must be corroborated by witnesses. Over 30 witnesses have indicated either directly or indirectly that the official autopsy photos showing the back of the head just aren't right. Even the person who developed the photos said there was a large hole in the back of the head in the photos she developed. So where did the hole go? More importantly, why can't we get anyone to listen? James Sibert to Francis O'Neill, as they stood less than an arm's length looking directly at the hole in the back of the President's head at the autopsy: "Frank, you realize the serious, confidential, secret, and all types of information that's gone through that brain? And now look". He deserves better. RJS

James, Very well said. I completely agree with the points you made, especially: "Hopefully John Costella will agree to debate these issues and other issues regarding the Zapruder film. I believe it might well be helpful to members to see why people like me believe the film is authentic as well as allowing members to see why people like John believe the film is a fabricated document." Interesting also that at the time of the Great Zapruder Film Debate that you mentioned, Jim Fetzer had indicated that he wasn't responsible for what went into his book, claiming he was just the "editor", and didn't edit content. RJS

"Has anyone seen the topic today on the History Channel? Great information! Certainly did give me a lot to take a good look at. Without all of the documents it is going to be hard for anyone to truely solve JFK mystery of crime. I haven't seen this documentary before. Don't even know if it was on last year. To what I have been stating from NARA those facts were there, but more. Seems like it is the CIA holding up on them and they did confirm what I had been saying all alone. On just how many possible missing documents is a little over a million documents. They know about them all but not willing to let them go into public eye. I was also interested in the film that the Secret Serviceman on several cars behind the limo of JFK was filming the whole thing. He has now passed away and his name is Dave Powers. He wrote that the film is still not to be released ever to the public even after his death. Does this tell us something or what? Conspiracy. At the top of it. Yet, Dave Powers was close to JFK. Also, another one to do a lot of filming on the sixth floor of Book Depostory Building was Tom Alley. (not sure of the spelling of his last name). He got a lot of film including the finding of the gun that Lee H. Oswald was to have found. Never have I heard of any of this before. The list goes on and on. Of other films still not totally seen by the public. Some may never get shown. Papers well they showed what did come out and also that the Warren Commission had never seen much of the documents that the CIA still has and kept under lock. So, that also puts the Warren Commission totally wrong in even it's findings of which is also my own feelings about the Warren Commission. Anyone have a copy of this film please let me know. The topic is Lost files of JFK. Now, what they are saying is anyone that is from Texas or was at the Plaza on the day of 11/22/63 and brings forth pictures and or films of that day maybe a big break through to get facts out about JFK assassination that the CIA won't budge to get out. This also was stated in the film." The program was called The JFK Assassination: Missing Files, and it was on last year. I taped it. It is outstanding. You have a few things mixed up however. - Dave Powers was not Secret Service, he was JFK's personal friend and Assistant to the President. - You also imply once again that there are documents "missing" from NARA. They aren't missing, they were never there in the first place because they were never released. - Tom "Alley" is Tom Alyea, who was a film photographer for one of the Dallas TV stations at the time. Nearly every TV documentary on the assassination has Alyea's film included. Do a Google search for Tom Alyea, there's tons of stuff out there. I'm very surprised that you previously knew nothing about Alyea and his famous film footage. Here's a still taken from Alyea's film showing Lt Carl Day and the MC.

Depends on what you mean by "operatives". There are assets, and there are actual employees of the CIA. If you're referring to CIA employees, I think Tim posted comparison photos of James McCord. McCord and David Atlee Phillips were very well acquainted. I saw a document somewhere that I couldn't copy, but I did write it down and typed as a Word doc. SECRET FOR THE RECORD 1 Feb.1961 FROM: Kammer SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXX (blacked out) #188074 1. On this date Subject's case was coordinated with Mr. McCord of SRS in connection with Subject's operational use within the US by WH/4/Propaganda. The implications of a CI operation within the States by this agency and the possibility Subject might come to the attention of the FBI through association with Court Wood were discussed. 2. Mr. McCord expressed the opinion that it is not necessary to advise the FBI of the operation at this time. However, he wishes to review the case in a month. The file of Subject, along with that of the WH man who is supervising the operation(David Atlee Phillips #40695) will be (sus)pended for the attention of Mr. McCord on 1 March 1961. This doc was in reference to the CIA infiltrating the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. When the FBI got wind of it, Phillips pulled the plug. The CIA is not to conduct Counter Intelligence operations in the USA. The FBI then started their own covert operation, which may have later utilized Lee Oswald. LHO was still in the Soviet Union at the time of this memo The memo is reproduced exactly as written, including Phillips' name. Lucien Conein is also one of the DP lookalikes. As far as CIA assets, including those of the Cuban exile community, there were many. RJS