Richard J. Smith

"When I asked if the CIA and Mossad worked together back in 1963, James Files mentioned to me there were Mossad people present in Dealey Plaza he recognized. He didn’t want to elaborate other than “they had their aerial pictures and Langley had theirs” because he wasn’t sure if that was still classified information. If you follow this trail you will end up in the past and current White House and the wars in the Middle East-in fact all the wars in SE Asia, South and Central America, Africa - basically all the wars. Yes the drugging and terrorizing of America is part of this safari but you will find the people you are looking for to solve this case. Hard line Israel played a major role in the 1980 October Surprise scandal with none other that George H.W. Bush as one of the big league players. This led to the Iran-Contra scandal, the Clintons in power...domestic and foreign state sponsored terrorism... When this area is touched upon a spiritual and Biblical thread is woven into the conspiracy. Throw in the false evangelical prophets supporting this genocide and you get the picture. Since most people are not familiar with Zionism vs. true Judaism, an important part of this complex puzzle remains a mystery, a riddle wrapped in an enigma." "What do people here think about this subject?" What do I think about your dissertation that Israel is responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened in the last 50 years? Israel was behind the assassination? In league with the mob and James Files? Iran Contra? Domestic and state sponsored terrorism?? At the risk of censure, you make me ill. You are a prime example of the lunatic fringe.

Allan, Outstanding as usual. As you know, many of us, including James, Ron and Tim, have had this discussion previously. I would only reinterate my research concerning the following: "A man in dark glasses, in another photograph taken by Mr. Altgens, resembles David Morales. He had mounted the base of a lamppost at the corner of Houston and Main, presumably to obtain a good view of Dealey Plaza as a whole." IMO, "Lamppost Man" was a CIA case officer, name unknown(I spent months trying to track him down). He is shown in a photo taken at a Raven base in Longtieng Laos around 1970, dubbed "Pakse Base Man". I don't think it is Morales on the lamppost. Closeup of Lamppost Man: Pakse Base Man: RJS

"Superb piece, Richard. It just staggers me that a plethora of medical personnel indicate ravening ruin to the back of the head and are photographed doing so, yet the official story still gets air-play. Thanks for the excellent read." Thanks James. The most critical of the comments IMO are that of Spencer and Sibert. Spencer developed the autopsy photos, and she vividly recalls the back of the head photos showed a large hole. Sibert indicated he saw the rear head wound "from an arm's length" away, after the photos had been taken. Sibert's ARRB deposition is fascinating to say the least. The "Min U Script" is fairly hard to read, but well worth the eye strain. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arr.../Sibert_01a.htm Richard

"I never heard of that. If he did, why is there no photograph with the bullet hole? A brace cannot be "folded up" to make that bullet wound higher, like they tried to pull with the jacket and shirt. It would also be an expanation why that backwound was so shallow, as I imagine the brace would work somewhat as a bullet proof vest." The brace did not extend up beyond the waist. There was also an Ace bandage wrapped around the brace and around the upper thighs. Mr. SPECTER - And what else was done for the President? Dr. PETERS - About the same time there was a question of whether he really had an adequate pulse, and so Dr. Ronald Jones and I pulled his pants down and noticed that he was wearing his brace which had received a lot of publicity in the lay press, and also that he had an elastic bandage wrapped around his pelvis at--in a sort of a figure eight fashion, so as to encompass both thighs and the lower trunk. Mr. SPECTER - What was the purpose of that bandage? Dr. PETERS - I presume that it was--my thoughts at the time were that he probably had been having pelvic pain and had put this on as an additional support to stabilize his lower pelvis. It seemed quite interesting to me that the President of the United States had on an ordinary $3 Ace bandage probably in an effort to stabilize his pelvis. I suppose he had been having some back pain and that was my thought at the time, but we removed this bandage in an effort to feel a femoral, pulse. We were never certain that we got a good pulse.

"Those peaceful overtures JFK made toward Castro you mention I believe are paramount to what happened in Dallas. When Vidal received the word via his network that an olive branch was to be extended, assassination plans began. IMO of course." James, As Alfredo Duran said, Kennedy became a "dialogueros" when the olive branch was extended to Castro. From that point, he was a marked man. It was the last straw in the 3 strike scenario. 1. Bay of Pigs, strike 1 2. Missile Crisis, strike 2 3. Backdoor diplomacy with Castro, strike 3, you're out RJS

THE JFK REAR HEAD WOUND: THE WITNESSES John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was assassinated in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963. This is one of the few facts surrounding the case that is mutually agreed upon. Nearly every other piece of information involving the assassination has been discussed, debated, and speculated on by conspiracy theorists and lone gunman theorists alike. One of the most debated is the presence of a gunman positioned toward the front of the presidential limousine, either on the infamous Grassy Knoll to the right front of the limo, or the South Knoll to the left front of the motorcade as it traveled down Elm Street toward the triple underpass. There is photographic evidence of this second gunman, albeit limited, including smoke on the Grassy Knoll, film evidence of the President’s reaction to the head shot as shown in the Zapruder film, and eyewitness statements of a gunshot from the right front. Although the photographic and eyewitness evidence in Dealey Plaza has been debated for years, there is an abundance of evidence largely ignored or forgotten by the general public and amateur researchers. This involves medical and photographic evidence, as well as eyewitness testimony and statements pertaining to a large wound in the rear of the President’s head. In this seminar, we will concentrate on the aftermath of this frontal shot, and evidence of its cover-up. Use of the term “cover-up” is not used lightly in view of the fact that many pieces of medical evidence were not released until 1992, 29 years after the tragic event in Dallas, by the Assassination Records Review Board(ARRB). The evidence includes documentation made by eyewitnesses to this rear head wound, who testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations(HSCA) in the late 1970’s. It was nearly 20 years before this information supplied to the HSCA was released, and much of it is spectacular in nature. It was well noted by hard core researchers, but was unknown to the public, and ignored by the media. The result of the frontal head shot was documented by many eyewitnesses, particularly those at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where the President was treated and died, and the Bethesda Naval Hospital outside Washington DC, where the autopsy of the President was performed. The statements of the back of the head witnesses and their associated documents leaves no doubt there was, in fact, a large wound of exit in the rear of the President’s head that is not shown in photographs taken during the autopsy at Bethesda. This discrepancy between the autopsy photos and the many eyewitnesses clearly indicates a cover-up of the greatest magnitude took place, and continues to this day. The autopsy photos of the rear of President Kennedy’s head cannot be representative of what was actually seen as depicted by witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda, so one can only conclude the autopsy photos have been altered to conform to the lone assassin theory. Note that the statements, testimony, and photographs herein are graphic in nature, describing and depicting a severe gunshot wound to the head. DEALEY PLAZA Due to the speed with which the assassination occurred in Dealey Plaza, eyewitnesses to the rear head wound are few. However, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, whose assignment was that of affording protection to Mrs. Kennedy, saw close up and first hand the President’s wound after arrival at Parkland Hospital. SSA Hill, the agent shown in the Zapruder film rushing from the Secret Service car to the presidential limo in the midst of the shooting, covered the President and First Lady after jumping into the rear seat, and remained there through the approximate four minute drive to Parkland. Hill testified at the Warren Commission hearings, and was questioned by Commission Counsel Arlen Specter: Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital? Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. The Zapruder and Nix Films Upon close examination, the film taken by Abraham Zapruder does in fact show evidence of a frontal gunshot to the head. In particular, a blowup of Zapruder frame 337 depicts an avulsion at the rear of President Kennedy’s head. Since the film was taken from the side and not the rear, an obvious hole cannot be seen. However, one can obviously see the outward expansion of the skull to the rear, indicative of a projectile traveling from front to rear. Note the look of horror on Mrs. Kennedy at she looks directly at the rear of the President’s head. The same avulsion can be seen from the opposite side of Elm Street in the Orville Nix film: Phillip Willis: “It took the back of his head off” Marilyn Willis: “A red halo…Matter was coming out the back of his head” Parkland Hospital The accounts of the witnesses to the rear head wound at Parkland Hospital are impossible to ignore. A minimum of fifteen doctors and nurses saw and described the rear head wound as a large gaping wound of exit. Nurse Diana Bowron Parkland Hospital Nurse Diana Bowron rushed to the presidential limo to help get the President out of the car and onto a gurney. She was one of the first of the medical personnel to reach the President. Bowron appeared before the Warren Commission and was questioned by Arlen Specter: Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what? Miss BOWRON - The back of his head. Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition? Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know. Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Nurse Bowron was also questioned during the HSCA hearings: BOWRON. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. Q. So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone? BOWRON. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. Q. We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right? BOWRON. Yeah. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. Bowron was among the nurses who, after JFK’s death, washed the body and prepared it for the casket. It was at that time she got her best view of the body. In a letter to researcher Harrison Livingstone January 24, 1993, Bowron described what happened: “When the president expired everyone left the room apart from Miss Hinchcliffe, a male orderly and myself. We tidied the room and changed the linen on the gurney and washed the body as best we could. Miss Hinchcliffe and the orderly left the room, but I was told to remain with the body until the casket arrived. I was told that I had to stay because I had been one of the people who had taken the body from the car. I remained in the room while the widow paid her respects. After she had left I was asked, by a man I assumed was Secret Service, to collect all pieces of skull and brain I could find and place them in a plastic bag which he gave me. This I did and returned the bag to him (there were only a few fragments of bone that had stuck to the dressings and towels that we had used to pack the hole in the back of the head). I remained in the room until the people from the funeral home arrived. After we had placed the body in the casket and it had been closed I was allowed to leave. During the time I was with the body only the widow and the priest came into the room, any dealings I had with the Secret Service were done in the doorway; no one else entered the room and no photographs were taken. Apart from 2-3 mins, when I left the trauma room to collect blood from the Blood Bank, I was with the body from the car until it was placed in the casket. Being new to the establishment, I was assigned to Minor Medicine and Surgery, which was across the hall from the Triage desk and the major sections of the Emergency room. It being very quiet, there were only two or three patients waiting for the results of tests, I was talking with the Triage nurse when the call went up for gurneys. I grabbed a gurney in the hall and together with an orderly ran to the entrance. I saw that the person in the back of the car was injured so I climbed in to render what assistance I could until such time as we could move him to a trolley, then to the trauma room (others were assisting the Governor in the front seat). I saw that there was a massive amount of blood on the back seat and in order to find the cause I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat, I could feel no pulse at the jugular and having seen the extent of the injury to the back of the head I assumed that he was dead. (not my job, only a Doctor can certify death) When we got the President to the Trauma room, word had reached the Trauma team and they were ready with IVs etc. I worked with the team, assisting where needed for about 10 mins (time is difficult to judge in those circumstances), when I was told to go to the Blood Bank. I was away 2-3 mins and on my return I continued to assist where needed until the President was declared dead. Miss Margaret Hinchcliffe and an African-American orderly and I prepared the body for the coffin. I observed no strange activity of any kind and saw no bullets. As explained above, I thought after examination in the car that he was dead. There was no damage to the front of his face, only the gaping wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. When we prepared the body for the coffin we washed the face and closed the eyes; there was no damage to the face, there was no flap of scalp on the right, neither was there a laceration pointing toward the right eyebrow from the scalp. When we were preparing the body for the coffin we rolled it over in order to remove the bloodstained sheet from underneath and to wipe away the blood from the back of the body. I saw another entry wound in the upper back (the other entry wound being in the front of the throat). I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car; when we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about 5ins in diameter, there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone, there was however some hair hanging down from the top of the head which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist inside. When we prepared the body I washed as much blood as I could from the hair; while doing this I did not see any other wound either in the temples or in other parts of the head. When the body was placed in the coffin the wound at the back of the head was packed with gauze squares and wrapped in small white sheet, there was no terrycloth or other type of towel used.” Nurse Pat Hutton “Several people helped put the President on the cart, and we then proceeded to the Major Surgery section of the Emergency Room to Trauma Room #1. Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive. As soon as we reached the room, a doctor placed an endotracheal tube, and prepared for a tracheostomy. Within a few minutes, there were numerous doctors in the room starting I.V.'s, placing chest tubes and anesthesia with O2. A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.” Dr Malcolm Perry Mr. SPECTER - Will you continue, then, Dr. Perry, as to what you observed of his condition? Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. Dr Robert McClelland Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound? Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. Mr. SPECTER - What were your initial impressions? Dr. McCLELLAND - The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head. However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets, which we later found out apparently had been fired, than by just one then, on which basis we were originally taking to explain it. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head? Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound. Mr. SPECTER - You saw a large opening which you have already described? Dr. McCLELLAND - I saw the large opening which I have described. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any other wound on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe a small gunshot wound below the large opening on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Dr Marion Jenkins Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you now describe the wound which you observed in the head? Dr. JENKINS - Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all of these other activities were under way. I was busy connecting up an apparatus to respire for the patient, exerting manual pressure on the breathing bag or anesthesia apparatus, trying to feel for a pulse in the neck, and then reaching up and feeling for one in the temporal area, seeing about connecting the cardioscope or directing its being connected, and then turned attention to the wound in the head. Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay. Dr Ronald Jones Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound? Dr. JONES - There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. Dr Paul Peters Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound? Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput? Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any holes below the occiput, say, in this area below here? Dr. PETERS - No, I did not and at the time and the moments immediately following the injury, we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit, and I'm just giving you my honest impressions at the time. Dr Kemp Clark Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there? Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly. My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation. I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. Clark on the 2:30 press conference: Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference? Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound. Mr. SPECTER - Which wound did you refer to at this time? Dr. CLARK - The wound in the head. Mr. SPECTER - Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"? Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time? Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on. Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe at this time in somewhat greater detail the consequences of a tangential wound as contrasted with another type of a striking? Dr. CLARK - Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile--- Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that I interrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing the concept of tangential and other types of striking. Go ahead, Doctor. Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow. Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding. Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring back to the press conference, did you define a tangential wound at that time? Dr. CLARK - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - And what else did you state at the press conference at 2:30 on November 22? Dr. CLARK - I stated that the President had lost considerable blood, that one of the contributing causes of death was this massive blood loss, that I was unable to state how many wounds the President had sustained or from what angle they could have come. I finally remember stating that the President's wound was obviously a massive one and was insurvivable. Nurse Audrey Bell Interview by Jeremy Gunn and Douglas Horne of the ARRB 3/20/97(MD184): In the ER, Bell asked Dr Malcolm Perry where the wound was. "Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital..." Nurse Doris Nelson She was an ER Supervisor in 1963, later became the nursing supervisor of Parkland Hospital. She assisted in treating the President and helped in the preparation of the body for the casket. In the revised addition of High Treason, Harrison Livingstone writes “Nurse Nelson drew a picture of the head wound, mostly in the parietal area, but well towards the rear of the head(parietal/occipital). Her drawing conflicts strongly with the official autopsy photograph. When she saw the picture, she said immediately “It’s not true. There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out" Nurse Margaret Hinchcliffe Margaret Hinchcliffe was a nurse who helped wheel JFK from the limousine into the ER, and later helped prepare the body for the casket. She told reporters in 1981 that the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat. According to Jim Bishop, after the President’s death, Hinchcliffe was ordered to clean the body along with Diana Bowron: “ The body was sponged carefully, the legs and arms still pliant. The cart drapes on the right hand side were heavy with brain matter. This was cleaned up and the edges of the massive wound in the head were wiped. The brown hair was slicked back. The body was lifted off the carriage and white sheets were placed underneath. Enough loose material was allowed to hang off the left side so that when the President was placed in the box, the head and neck wounds would not soil the white satin interior.” Dr. Charles Crenshaw: “ The wound was the size of a baseball” Dr. Kenneth Salyer: “This wound extended into the parietal area” Dr. Charles Carrico: “There was a large, quite large, defect about here” Aubrey Rike: employee of Oneal Funeral Home, who delivered the casket to Parkland said: “You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head” Bethesda Naval Hospital Dennis David In November 1963, Dennis was an E6 Petty Officer, and an editor of training manuals for hospital corpsmen at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. On the night of November 22, 1963, he was Chief of the Day for the Medical School. While he did not attend the autopsy of the President, he was present in the office of Lt Comdr William Bruce Pitzer days later as Pitzer viewed films and photos taken at the autopsy: “I saw b&w and color photos, and a few feet of the 16mm film that I looked at with Bill. Like Jim Siebert, I saw a wound approximately 3 x 5 inches involving the parietal and occipital areas of the president's head.” November 2004, JFK Lancer forum. Paul O’Connor: “There was an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain” Floyd Riebe: “ …a big gaping hole in the back of the head” Frank O’Neill: one of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy, along with James Sibert. “…a massive wound in the right rear” Jerrol Custer: “ From the top of the head, almost to the base of the skull, you could see where that part was gone” Saundra Spencer Spencer was a Petty Officer and Photographer’s Mate at the Naval Photographic Center. She developed JFK autopsy photos. Spencer is perhaps the most important witness regarding the autopsy photos. Her deposition was taken June 1997 by the ARRB: Q: Did you see any photographs that focused principally on the head of President Kennedy? A: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. Q: Could you describe what you mean by the "wound at the back of the head"? A: It appeared to be a hole, inch, two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here. Q: You pointed to the back of your head. When you point back there, let's suppose that you were lying down on a pillow, where would the hole in the back of the head be in relationship to the part of the head that would be on the pillow if the body is lying flat? A: The top part of the head. Q: When you say the "top of the head," now, is that the part that would be covered by a hat that would be covering the top of the head? A: Just about where the rim would hit. Q: Are you acquainted with the term "external occipital protuberance"? A: No, I am not. Q: What I would like to do is to give you a document or a drawing, and ask you, if you would, on this document, make a mark of approximately where the wound was that you noticed. MR. GUNN: We will mark this Exhibit No.148.[Exhibit No. MD 148 was marked for identification.] THE WITNESS: Probably about in there. Q: And you have put some hash marks in there and then drawn a circle around that, and the part that you have drawn, the circle that you have drawn on the diagram is labeled as being as part of the occipital bone, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Did you see any biological tissue, such as brain matter, extruding from the hole that you saw in the back of the head? A: No. Q: Was the scalp disturbed or can you describe that more than just the hole? A: It was just a ragged hole. Q: And it was visible through the scalp, is that correct? A: Yes. Thomas Robinson Mr Robinson was a mortician employed by the Gawler Funeral home, and was part of the team that performed the embalming and cosmetic work on the President in the early morning of November 23, 1963 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He described a three inch circular ragged wound in the rear of the President’s head. The morticians closed this hole with a piece of heavy duty rubber. His HSCA interview in 1977 by HSCA staffer Andy Purdy was never released until 1992 by the ARRB(marked MD63). Excerpts from that interview: Purdy: Could you tell me how large the opening had been…? Robinson: …I would say about the size of a small orange Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape? Robinson: Three(inches) Purdy: And the shape? Robinson: Circular Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or ragged? Robinson: Ragged Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located? Robinson: Directly behind the back of his head Purdy: Approximately between the ears or higher up? Robinson: I would say pretty much between them. Purdy: Were you the one responsible for closing those wounds in the head? Robinson: We all worked on it…They brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head… Purdy: You had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber? Robinson: It had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber. James Sibert Sibert was an FBI agent from the Baltimore office assigned to stay with the Prseident’s body from Andrews AFB through the autopsy. His 1997 ARRB deposition is critical: Q: Could you give the best description of the wounds to the head? A: Well, there was a massive wound…right back in this part of the head Q: You’re touching the cowlick area of the head? A: Yes Q: And the size would be? A: It was difficult to see, because the hair was so matted…it was so bloodsoaked…it was difficult to see any distinct outline of where these bones had been literally blown out of the skull Q: At the time you observed those wounds, the photographs had already been taken? A: Yes Q: Were you able to tell whether any part of the scalp was actually missing? A: Well, there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn’t intact, the bones weren’t in place Q: So both scalp and bone were missing at the back part of the head? A: Well, there was tissue of course, but there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing Sketches released by the ARRB in 1992 that were kept secret since the HSCA hearings in 1978, showing the approximate location of wound in rear of head. Top: Bell, Robinson. Bottom: Sibert, Spencer. Note in 1997 James Sibert increased the size of the hole he originally sketched in 1978. The official autopsy photos of the back of the head show no wound as described by nearly thirty witnesses. Where is the gaping hole, three or more inches in diameter, ragged edged, “the size of a baseball” or “of a small orange”? Saundra Spencer developed autopsy photos of the rear of the head showing a ragged hole. James Sibert, an FBI agent who was an arm’s length away, saw a large bloody cavity AFTER the photos had been taken. The obvious conclusion one can reach is that these photos have been altered as part of a cover-up, to further enhance the single assassin theory, and to discredit any possibility of a frontal gunshot that resulted in a massive wound of exit in the rear of the President’s head. This is proof positive of a conspiracy to assassinate the President in Dealey Plaza, and of the US Government’s role in the continuance of a cover-up. The testimony of these witnesses has been ignored or dismissed by the Warren Commission and the HSCA, by media outlets large and small, and is generally unknown by the citizens in the United States and around the world. References The Killing of a President, Robert Groden, author(photos and quotes) Best Evidence, David Lifton, author (Dennis David bio) High Treason, revised addition, Harrison Livingstone, author(Diana Bowron information) Warren Commission http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm House Select Committee on Assassinations http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...ls/contents.htm Assassination Records Review Board http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...et/contents.htm Audrey Bell statement: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md184_0001a.htm JFK Lancer http://jfklancer.com/ The Zapruder Film Orville Nix film capture courtesy Bill Miller

"This is a forty-year old mystery where nobody has come forward (aside from the prison profit Files) to give direct insight. Wonder why that is?" Al, You KNOW how difficult it is for me to agree with Wim on anything!! But on this topic of the exiles and some mob participation at least, we may just be on the same page. As I said, you and I have debated this often. I think I can effectively and briefly answer the question you posed above. Regarding the mob(specifically the Mafia), they have a code of silence called "omerta". When they are "made", they take a vow to remain true to the cause and remain silent, under penalty of death. There were very few who talked back then(Joe Valachi is the only one I remember), and anyone who they even thought would talk was whacked. I have no doubt of limited involvement by Roselli and Martino, and Sam Momo. It's outlined very nicely by Larry Hancock in Someone Would Have Talked. Regarding the Cubans, I recall from The Last Investigation Gaeton Fonzi bringing Antonio Veciana to the retired spooks affair to confront David Phillips(the purpose of which was to confirm Phillips as Maurice Bishop). Veciana agreed to do it, then suffered a case of memory loss when they actually confronted Phillips. He has remained silent ever since. The Cubans have a code of silence much the same as omerta. They just aren't going to talk. What you will get is a slew of anti Castro rhetoric. Those involved who DO talk, like Gerry Hemming, always stop short of providing the full story. You know my position. IMO, the exiles were the boots on the ground, and the DP photos allegedly of Duran, Vidal Santiago, Robertson, DeTorres, Lewis, and others is much more than just coincidence. RJS

"When in Rome do as the Romans do. As the old saying goes. Rules are rules. Maybe, if we see your photo we can know who we are addressing I think is what Mr. Simkin is asking. It is to cut down on those kinds of personal attacks on each other, on the very points you are addressing." Currently, the photo isn't a rule, it's a suggestion. And I don't think a photo will stop overly aggressive or abusive behavior. Nor will it stop someone from making absurd posts. If people want to post their photo, great. If they don't, that's OK too. I just don't think it should be a requirement. More than likely, I'll end up putting up a pic. That way you'll be able to see what your nemesis looks like. You can blow it up and throw darts at it.

"Aren't you describing a military covert operation? I have no doubt that a hit planned and carried out by the military would go down exactly as you say. But there is plenty of evidence that this was not a military operation in Dallas. The military's direct role in all this could be basically confined to cleaning up afterwards with a sham autopsy back in Washington. There is evidence that the ambush in Dallas may have been carried out by anti-Castro Cuban exiles, managed by CIA operatives, and there was some sloppy shooting involved. There is also photographic evidence that some operatives connected to the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans were there to see it, if they weren't directly involved, from a street corner, as ill advised as it may seem. They wanted to be there and have suffered no consequences for it, nor did they expect any, because they knew the government would protect them and they had nothing to fear. There is little doubt in my mind that the black man seen with a rifle in a TSBD window was a Cuban shooter (probably Herminio Diaz Garcia), not a sniper from any branch of the military. There is little doubt in my mind that the black man on the sidewalk who held up a fist or hand as the limo went by was a Cuban and not a military man, and if not simply a signaler may have been a potential walk-up shooter. It made sense to use Cubans in this killing if the intent was to blame Cubans (that is, Castro) for it, for an invasion of Cuba. Any Cuban shooter, if killed or captured (and eliminated a la Oswald) was a potential patsy who could be tied to Castro as a double agent or whatever. In sum, I think the shooting differed from a military operation such as you describe because it was not a military operation. It was carried out by some fearless Cubans and arrogant rogue federal agents who took all the risks, with the military and powers that be having to step in and cover up in a rather haphazard fashion when Oswald got taken alive and a lone nut scenario was put into effect." Ron, I agree 100% with your assessment. It's one of the very few things that Al and I don't agree on, and we've had many spirited discussions on this subject previously. I also recall a post of yours from another forum concerning the likelihood of the "familiar faces" in Dealey Plaza. The odds are astronomical that so many "assets" would have identical twins in DP that day. RJS

"And my parents' wishes are that I stay, as long as no photos, phone number, etc., are requested. And if they are requested, I am to hold out as long as possible until that option is no longer necessary, according to them." Gibson, you and your parents are absolutely correct. Next thing you know, because of some argument on an on line forum, we'll be asked to publicly provide our address and phone number. I'm glad that John did address other situations in the new forum rules. I for one, came under attack from a "researcher" for being CIA and a "disinfo specialist" because I don't believe and completely disproved the James Files story. This "researcher" demanded I supply personal information about myself so he could be assured I was who I said I was. He demanded of other researchers that they post information that they knew me for who I was. Several of my associates(including Bill Miller, Al Carrier, and Allan Eaglesham) did just that. A year later, he is STILL making accusations that I am John Stockwell, simply because I don't buy his untenable position. Ms Meredith asked in another thread that the bickering stop about what went on at another forum a year ago. True to a certain extent, but IMO she should direct her attention to the one who initiated the attacks, as my response was that the Files scenario was totally thrashed at Lancer by solid research, which generated another personal attack. I agree with John in that researchers take their opinions seriously. Some think of their opinions as fact. When they are confronted with information that makes their position less tenable, they respond with personal attacks instead of evidence. I don't feel the need to post my picture to prove who I am. People will think what they want. Rest assured I will NEVER post my most personal information so that some crackpot can harrass me at home because I don't accept their opinion as fact. As an aside to this discussion, 2 members have been booted from JFK Lancer for their incredibly ridiculous postings and 2 others have been suspended for their continuous personal attacks on each other. This is part of the most recent: RJS: Regarding the legal issues between the two of you, take it to court and off the forum. As for the constant barrage of "xxxx xxxx" regarding actual issues in the assassination, state your case and let us determine if it's viable or not. If you're questioned by forum members as to inconsistent statements... answer them clearly and concisely. It's difficult to compare 3 page long statements from several different posts in several different threads. And when we ask questions, don't attack us personally(unless of course we say get coded messages from people on TV and suggest we should hire Kreskin). You only make yourself look worse and do nothing for your case. Response: "Look forward to it all you want RJS or whatever your name is. I still think you are really JRS (John R. Stockwell) but you might not be. You could be just another dummy with a computer. That’s fairly common in forums and newsgroups." RJS: Can't deal with facts, so you resort to personal attacks and innuendo. 1. I've never met nor communicated with John Stockwell. You can think whatever you want. You know very well who I am, you had me checked out didn't you?? You posted information on me and where I live on this forum(Lancer) a year ago after 6 months of accusing me of being CIA and/or Stockwell during the Files debate because you couldn't deal with the real facts. You've also seen my bio at The Education Forum. You are the 2nd poorest excuse for a researcher I know of, right above XXXXX XXXXXXX. Al hit the nail on the head with his post about you at John's forum, which I reposted in a thread here. 2. I am no dummy. I simply don't believe your so called "evidence". So 99.999% of the JFK researchers in the world must be dummies also, since they don't believe your Files...crap either. I could care less about your legal problems with XXX XXXXXX. A judge or jury needs to decide this debacle, not me or the others on this or any other forum. Regarding the legal issues between the two of you, take it to court and off the forum. As for the constant barrage of "xxxx xxxx" regarding actual issues in the assassination, state your case and let us determine if it's viable or not. If you're questioned by forum members as to inconsistent statements made by Tosh, Marvin, or each other for that matter, answer them clearly and concisely. It's difficult to compare 3 page long statements from several different posts in several different threads. And when we ask questions, don't attack us personally(unless of course we say get coded messages from people on TV and suggest we should hire Kreskin). You only make yourself look worse and do nothing for your case. I sincerely hope you run off to John's forum and post the crap you've posted here. Be prepared XXXXXXXX, you'll get the full assault in return. I'm drooling over getting the Files info restored from the forum crash. You looked like such a fool. I'd be happy to do it all over again." Simply awful on my part wasn't it? But occasionally necessary to respond to condescending, untrue statements that never should have been made in the first place. RJS Note: names X'd out by me, not the forum administrators

"One thing I have trouble with, if George H.W. Bush was CIA in 1963 (which I have no reason to doubt), is that he was working undercover, his oil company being a front, and he was running for Congress the following year. I question whether Hoover would knowingly identify a CIA undercover agent by name in a memo, even to another (rival) intelligence agency. It's possible, but seems inappropriate to this outsider." Ron, One has to consider the difference between being an employee of the CIA and an asset. IMO, it is indeed possible that GHWB can say he never "worked for" the CIA until he was appointed DCI. Let's remember that the CIA has assets by the thousands, controlled by a handful of case officers. A case officer is an actual employee, an asset is not. An asset can provide support, funds, weapons, information, etc, and be involved in clandestine operations, but is not officially employed by the agency. As an example, Howard Hunt was employed by the agency, Frank Sturgis was not. David Phillips was, Tosh Plumlee was not(I'm sure Tosh can confirm this, as he was an asset, not an employee). GHWB had the connections, the money, the power, but to say he was actually employed by the agency is speculative at best. I'm sure if you were able to peer into the personal files of the CIA, you wouldn't find the name George HW Bush as an employee of the agency prior to November 1975, when he was appointed DCI by Gerald Ford. This is not a coverup or a subversion by the CIA, it's simply because he wasn't officially employed by the CIA. And that's exactly why they do it that way. Plausible deniability. http://www.texas-on-line.com/graphic/georgebush.htm RJS

"I think you are having some difficulty in English words. Go to the dictonary and look up a word and see what it's meaning is to help you know what to use. Thesaurus also gives some aid to maybe what you need. Hope this helps you out." I can't believe you of all people telling someone they need to improve their English, grammar, or spelling. I seem to recall many people giving you the same advice. I see you haven't taken it.

"By the way, I am trying to persuade Gerry Hemming to join the forum." Good luck John. I'm sure Hemming knows more about the operational aspects of the assassination than anyone else still alive. He'll never tell the truth. If he does show up on a public forum, it would be my guess he would be quickly eliminated by his former associates. RJS

"Wrong the question was asked to Tosh not you." If you give an inaccurate response on a public forum, you should expect an answer from any member. If you don't want a group discussion, you should use email or private message through the forum. "But, into pays off isn't done by Vernon he doesn't have that kind of means to do that." When did Tosh mention in his story anything about "payoffs"? " And YES THERE ARE PAY OFF'S in this to this day." I'm sure there are, but what does it have to do with what Tosh posted? "The sad part is they go to the wrong people" Payoffs go to the wrong people? Who should payoffs go to? Are there "right people" to pay off? "...and I am not referring to Wim here. Then again I am not sure where he is on this yet. What side?" I'm sure Wim is still trying to figure out what you're talking about, just like everyone else.

"OK Richard, go to the FBI and police departments and tell them that you know more than them in how to conduct solving some crimes." If I went to my local police dept or to the FBI(except maybe Fox Mulder), or told Al Carrier, Ian Griggs, Ian Kerr, Mike Perez, or any other police official that posts on JFK forums to seek out a fortune teller, or to use a "certified" psychic like Kreskin to solve a case, they'd lock ME up. I love The X Files, but you should realize that it IS fictional.

"If Debra did answer me again on Lancer I never got the chance to read it." Debra didn't answer you again in your psychic thread, she deleted it because it was absurd. Your membership at Lancer has also been deleted due to your absurd posts "IF all goes well in a few weeks I hope I will have my own website. I will post my own rules on it and I think they are right. If a person does hackle another they will be off. Simple as that. I do hope it will go well. At least they don't have to run further and deeper and hide more because of it. I hope and also encourage people to speak up and out. Rudness will not be acceptable either. I want people to laugh and enjoy what they look up find or learn and not be ashamed to ever have to talk openly and freely." Great idea. Then you can say all the absurd things you want without wasting space here or at Lancer. "John Simkins is good and very respectful and I like how he does things. This forum is great." For once, we agree "I do have some information. I know it is going to take a lot ot post up letters parts of letters and some things I saw along the way. Such as Tosh and Files. Tosh states he doesn't know James Files. Files states he does know him and issues like this. I do believe both at the same time. Files may have had a code name and or this is part of the system of cover up." You continually post that you have documents that prove what you say, but you never post them. How do you expect anyone to believe you? If you have documents from or about James Files, you should supply copies to both sides(WD and BV). How do you think it sounds when you say Files said he knows Tosh, and Tosh said publicly on this forum he never had anything to do with Files or knew him, but you say you believe them both? You CAN'T believe them both. It would also appear that since you have letters from Files, you are afraid to publicize them for fear that someone will find out there are many conflicting statements to what he has said previously. BV denied it, but that's what he's looking for. And I can't necessarily blame him for trying. Wim has spent so much money on the Files story, do you believe if he found contradictory evidence of Files alleged involvement he would say so? I don't. I don't necessarily think Wim is deliberately perpetrating a fraud, I think he really believes Files. You on the other hand, don't know what you have. You read documents and misconstrue what they say. You're probably sitting on a slew of stuff from Files that you either misinterpreted, or don't understand what they REALLY say. So you keep it to yourself because you don't want to inadvertently harm Files' case, while at the same time, indicate you have "proof". I told you over a year ago I suspected some people were trying to keep you quiet because you were harming Files' story. Then some months later, you received an email from one of them telling you to stop helping, that you were making Files look bad. You've probably gotten more emails of the same type recently. "Now as far as people who are gifted YES THEY EXIST. I have encounted two of them in my life. THE FBI and some police stations do use and need them. TO find missing persons mostly. Sometimes it does work, they can give enough of sense of discriptions of what the road or enviroment looks like to help aid them in finding a person usually they are dead by that time." We don't need psychics, fortunetellers, or hypnotists. Personal experience I have had enough to know. Maybe Richard someone felt a bit intimadated when I named this is about all that I can sense from it. Also it isn't hard to sense that either." No one was intimidated when you said on Lancer we should consult a "certified" psychic like Kreskin. Everyone was pissed that you just continued to post junk like that. Which is why your membership at Lancer was terminated.

"I tried to figure out who you are talking about. I think I can. Of course, there is the really big shark, that is up high in the oval office. It won't stop until it dies off. Goes from one to the next just sort of passes it along and will work harder on this part more than most know. On the average of a scale one to ten, how far off would you say that I am?" Wrong again Nancy. It seems rather obvious the shark is Bob Vernon.

"I offered an idea one that the police department and FBI alike have used when they can't crack a case. Debra did post something up under that offer and said just to read and view information. What does everyone want to hide. Name a physic and see how far they can pick up on it. If one of them is FOR REAL THAT IS. It could open up a door. " That's not exactly what Debra said, but since your thread at Lancer about hiring a "certified" psychic like Kreskin was deleted, it's a moot point. BTW, I hope you read the email you got from Debra. If you haven't, you should ASAP. Your psychic post at Lancer was your last. "I know I had mentioned the fact of Joe Banana being Files ex father in law to one that would know becaue his grandfather was in New York Mafia and he was with them since he was very small his remark to me on this was NO WAY. In a shout." You still refer to Files being married to Joe Bonnano's daughter as "fact", even though you say someone you know had a grandfather in the Mafia, and he said NO WAY. If you have a letter from Files saying this, please post it. "As I said in the first time I wrote this by the way Files worded it. Everyone especaially Richard took it for it is. So I said it more definant well this is what and how I understood it to be. Later Files had said it again. So from the second time that he stated that to me is where I then thought it to be more the situation." I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. What do you mean that I "took it for it is"? You said Files told you more than once he used to be married to Joe Bonnano's daughter. How did Files state this? In a letter? Did you speak to him? "Back to the other about a teller and maybe finding a good one. My real question is this What is it that you are also afraid of? They may state that Files is a hoax or that he is telling the truth and has to bend it more because of government agreements that he so many times told me about?" Finding a good "teller"? As in fortuneteller? Psychics and hypnotists? And you call yourself a "researcher"? RJS

"So what you are saying is that you are posting issues as FACTS and then retracting them when YOU are satisfied that they are no longer FACTS. Great piece of investigative work! I womder why your credibility as a researcher is in question. You challenge me with persons off the internet when you have no factual basis for their background and do not have the background to comprehend what they are stating, but chose their word against mine because they support your claim. You call for others to provide facts to show Files is lying when you cannot provide anything supportive to show he is remotely telling the truth about anything. Is that how they build a case in your country? Lancer allows the likes of a Nazi hunter like Harwood and profiteers like Vernon to attack without substance researchers, and now you coming here to do the same. You and Harwood accuse me of only respecting those who look up to me. Do we see a pattern here for simply poor research on the part of the attacker?" Al, Most excellent post. Wim's claims of "evidence" are so poor and his demeaning style should make everyone stand up and raise pertinent questions. When he can't prove his "evidence" he resorts to personal attacks. It also intrigues me when Wim states the more people that disagree with him, the more he thinks something fishy is going on, like it proves something. There must be something to the Files story if there are so many disbelievers. This is the most ridiculous statement anyone could possibly make. While I currently have some time to remind those of the Lancer debate from a year ago in which we thoroughly thrashed the Files story, I don't have the time now to go through the whole thing again. It took 6 months of solid research. I have more pressing personal matters to deal with, as well as finish my paper for the online seminar. I'm not a zillionaire like Wim, I have to work for a living. If the archives are restored at Lancer, I'll be more than happy to post the Files debate here, and there's a pretty good chance of that. If those that are interested right now in whether the Files story is true or not, they need to check out the evidence for themselves. I'm sure they'll find the same inconsistencies and non-evidence that we did. RJS

"But you don't surprise me anymore, RJS, I know your modus operandi is to create false impressions aboout Files and others. " I don't need to create false impressions about Files. You do enough of that on your own. As I said before, you and your "evidence" were thoroughly thrashed on Lancer, and everyone there knows it. Since I no longer have the information in my files from the debate at Lancer, as I said previously, I'm waiting for restoration of the lost material due to the server crash. When Dave Weaver(Lancer administrator and computer genius) uploads it, I'd be more than happy to supply the information or links to it here. I'm also very pleased with Tosh's posts of late, which indicate to me that Tosh thinks you have deliberately manipulated his information to fit the Files story. You use his name repeatedly to confirm Files' story, yet Tosh himself has now stated that there is no connection between his story and that of Files'. By the way, last time I visited jfkmurdersolved, I didn't see the Lois Gibson drawings she made from the statements of Malcolm Summers. You do remember that part of the debate don't you? Part of your "evidence" was that Mr Summers saw a man you contend was Files carrying an odd looking weapon(the Remington XP 100) in Dealey Plaza AFTER the shooting. The Gibson drawings were deceptively used to convince people that Summers was decribing Files. Unfortunate for you(and the Files story), Files indicated he put the XP 100 back into its case after firing the fatal headshot. Certainly couldn't have been Files that Summers saw carrying a weapon if Files himself said he put it back into the case. I seem to recall at the time you said you would remove the drawings, but they stayed on your site for quite some time. You also indicated at the time that even though it was your site(have just purchased it from BV), you hadn't had time to check all the information on the site, and blamed it on BV. Right about now, I'm sure you're having another bout of selective memory loss. RJS

RJS: By the way, I'm sure you read the statement made here that Files was at one time married to Joe Bonnano's daughter. Care to give us your quick take on that? WD: Yeah, it's total bullxxxx Only asking you to confirm something someone claims came directly from Files, and on apparently numerous occasions. There is a method to the madness. There are only 2 ways to look at this. Files did tell her that, or she, as so often happens, misstated, misunderstood, and misrepresented what was said. Perhaps if Ms Eldreth has this information in a letter she got from Files, she can post just that pertinent part. She is, as you know, a vociferous Files believer. I'd almost bet that after you read that, you fired off an email and told her again to stop helping Files, because she's making his case look bad. RJS

"I am working diligently to produce the declaration to be posted for the seminar this coming November 22nd. At that time I will be available to answer any forum members' questions as to the truthfulness of my statements and declaration, with as much detail and precision as I am able to provide. I look forward to the opportunity to clarify these matters in an orderly manner during the seminar on this forum. I welcome any and all questions from sincere researchers and students. " Tosh, Most excellent statement. If you missed it, this is what I said to Wim in part of an earlier post: "I would, however, like to see Tosh post a complete up to date account of November 22, 1963, including any facts he has pertaining to Files, Roselli, etc. I don't think Tosh can place Files anywhere near Dallas on 11/22/63." I'm anxiously awaiting your piece on the seminar. Your story needs to be told from the horse's mouth, not from someone out to make you a part of THEIR story, and not altered by editing and such. That said, and with what you have said here now, are you in agreement with the interviews, statements, and other information pertaining to you as posted at jfkmurdersolved.com? You are being represented as a witness(as such) in the Files story. In your opinion, have you been represented fairly in the Files saga? Thanks, Richard

I have been an active JFK assassination researcher since the 70's and an interested party since childhood. The past several years, I have been actively researching the Cuban exile/CIA connection to the assassination, as well as the JFK autopsy. Born and raised in Central New York, I'm a manufacturing supervisor, a former manufacturing production manager and process engineer, and attended the New York State School of Industrial Labor Relations at Cornell, as well as classes in World Class Manufacturing at Syracuse University. I am a former president of a United Steelworkers of America local union, a student of history, and I've had a keen interest in historical events such as The US Civil War, World War II, the US Space Program, and many aspects of American politics.

"Have you already posted your biographical information?" I will when you post yours. "Why are you ignoring my earlier questions in this thread?" Because I'm sick to death of the Files' fraud. I spent enough time on it. You and Files were thoroughly debunked a year ago. Al was right. You split from Lancer because no one bought the bogus Files story. Do you recall posting a thread there some time after the thrashing, then when no one responded, you asked why? Since you've probably invested over a million bucks into it, I can't say as I blame you for continuing to press the issue, even if there is no actual proof. "Can you give us your quick take on:" "Chauncey Holt": IMO he wasn't one of the tramps as you suggest. If I find the threads at Lancer, I'll post a link. "Judyth Baker": complete and total BS. Has more holes in her story than Files does. "Tosh Plumlee": Tosh is very interesting. He knows a great deal, but has made many conflicting statements over the years. I don't think the CIA would have sent an abort team to Dallas. I'm very interested in Tosh's info on Central America, cocaine smuggling, and the death of Kiki Camerena. I would, however, like to see Tosh post a complete up to date account of November 22, 1963, including any facts he has pertaining to Files, Roselli, etc. I don't think Tosh can place Files anywhere near Dallas on 11/22/63. By the way, I'm sure you read the statement made here that Files was at one time married to Joe Bonnano's daughter. Care to give us your quick take on that? RJS

Al, It's great to see you here. For those that don't know, Al and I spent the better part of 6 months debating Wim on the Files issue at Lancer. Wim seems to have selective memory loss regarding that debate, and now wants to start all over again here. I'm waiting for the information that was lost at Lancer due to a major server crash a few months ago. The administrator has indicated that all or most of the lost info is recoverable, so I'm hoping to post links to the multitude of threads involving that debate. Right now, those threads are missing from the Lancer archives(at least I couldn't find them). As I said in a previous post, when Wim couldn't prove his point about Files' complicity in the assassination, he resorted to personal attacks on Al and myself. If I recall, out of all the people associated with Lancer and its forum, only 4 bought Wim's story, and they were Files backers from the start anyway(NE, PR, DM, and at the time of the debate, BV). Al, IMO(and those of your friends at Lancer), your expertise in ballistics, firearms, and law enforcement issues is second to none. While we have disagreed on some issues, you're a top shelf expert in your field, and a pretty darn good researcher to boot. I'm sure the people here at this forum will appreciate your expertise, as I have for several years. Richard