Robert Vinson "Providential Presence"

[Peter McGuire]

I did a search, but did not find a dedicated thread on Robert Vinson. Why, I do not know, as he makes the case for CIA involvement like no other.

"In a colossal CIA blunder, Robert Vinson's providential presence on the second Oswald's flight from Dallas has enabled us to see the planning for the Oak Cliff follow-up to the assassination."

JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE Washington and Dallas

On November 22, 1963, U. S. Air Force sergeant Robert G. Vinson of the North American Defense Command ( NORAD) saw the second Oswald escaping on the same C-54 cargo plane he was hitching a ride home on. Vinson also got off the plane at the same CIA base as Oswald's double did, a few minutes after him.

On November 23, 1993, Robert Vinson told the story of his flight from Dallas to news anchor Larry Hatteberg on Wichita's KAKE-TV Channel 10 News.

In 2003 James Johnston and journalist Jon Roe co-authored their book FLIGHT FROM DALLAS, describing Robert Vinson's experience in detail.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Peter McGuire

[Phil Nelson]

I did a search, but did not find a dedicated thread on Robert Vinson. Why, I do not know, as he makes the case for CIA involvement like no other.

"In a colossal CIA blunder, Robert Vinson's providential presence on the second Oswald's flight from Dallas has enabled us to see the planning for the Oak Cliff follow-up to the assassination."

JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE Washington and Dallas

On November 22, 1963, U. S. Air Force sergeant Robert G. Vinson of the North American Defense Command ( NORAD) saw the second Oswald escaping on the same C-54 cargo plane he was hitching a ride home on. Vinson also got off the plane at the same CIA base as Oswald's double did, a few minutes after him.

On November 23, 1993, Robert Vinson told the story of his flight from Dallas to news anchor Larry Hatteberg on Wichita's KAKE-TV Channel 10 News.

In 2003 James Johnston and journalist Jon Roe co-authored their book FLIGHT FROM DALLAS, describing Robert Vinson's experience in detail.

Peter,

I haven't seen that tape, or read his story in a couple of years, but my impression is that the reason Vinson's story is not the "slam dunk" that you believe it should be was due to three questions:

1. That he waited 30 years to tell it (I realize he explained the reason for that that and it makes a certain amount of sense, but nonetheless. . .)

2. That he had no supporting witnesses to the general story about the airplane ride; it would seem that someone back at Andrews could have helped, though it is understandable why no one at Groom Lake (Area 51) would come forward.

3. That a military version of what was a DC-6, four engine turboprop airliner landed somewhere on the shores of the Trinity River south of Dallas, in the mid-afternoon of November 22, 1963 and then took off again, evidently unnoticed by anyone on the ground.

And thus, Vinson's story is stuck, probably headed into the bottomless dustbin of JFK lore, never to be proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it was only one of many such stories, many of them possibly true, but all virtually unprovable.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Phil Nelson

[Peter McGuire]

And thus, Vinson's story is stuck, probably headed into the bottomless dustbin of JFK lore, never to be proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it was only one of many such stories, many of them possibly true, but all virtually unprovable.

Like so many aspects of this tragedy I also hate to say.

In the end, however, there are too many "unprovable" stories and coincidences for this fella, not to lean towards the quite possibly true side.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Peter McGuire

[William Kelly]

And thus, Vinson's story is stuck, probably headed into the bottomless dustbin of JFK lore, never to be proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it was only one of many such stories, many of them possibly true, but all virtually unprovable.

Like so many aspects of this tragedy I also hate to say.

In the end, however, there are too many "unprovable" stories and coincidences for this fella, not to lean towards the quite possibly true side.

Wait a minute.

The air links are the weak links in the covert action chain - as Eugene Hasenfrass showed when he was shot down in Nicaragua.

When you have air flights, you have air planes, with tail numbers, flight plans, pilots, ground crews, air ports with records of incoming and outgoing flights.

These are all well documented, military flights that only require someone with the ability to check them to find out the truth.

Congress has the investigative ability to do this, as does a grand jury, or the Military Inspector General.

Bill Kelly

jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com

[Peter McGuire]

And thus, Vinson's story is stuck, probably headed into the bottomless dustbin of JFK lore, never to be proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it was only one of many such stories, many of them possibly true, but all virtually unprovable.

Like so many aspects of this tragedy I also hate to say.

In the end, however, there are too many "unprovable" stories and coincidences for this fella, not to lean towards the quite possibly true side.

Wait a minute.

The air links are the weak links in the covert action chain - as Eugene Hasenfrass showed when he was shot down in Nicaragua.

When you have air flights, you have air planes, with tail numbers, flight plans, pilots, ground crews, air ports with records of incoming and outgoing flights.

These are all well documented, military flights that only require someone with the ability to check them to find out the truth.

Congress has the investigative ability to do this, as does a grand jury, or the Military Inspector General.

Bill Kelly

jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com

Good point Bill. I guess his story is not so "unprovable," after all.

I looked at the video, as an afterthought to reading JFK and the Unspeakable. "Flight from Dallas" is on the way.

These arguments are indeed,very weak;

1. That he waited 30 years to tell it (I realize he explained the reason for that that and it makes a certain amount of sense, but nonetheless. . .)

2. That he had no supporting witnesses to the general story about the airplane ride; it would seem that someone back at Andrews could have helped, though it is understandable why no one at Groom Lake (Area 51) would come forward.

3. That a military version of what was a DC-6, four engine turboprop airliner landed somewhere on the shores of the Trinity River south of Dallas, in the mid-afternoon of November 22, 1963 and then took off again, evidently unnoticed by anyone on the ground.

That he waited until he could tell his story is a testimony to his allegiance to his oath. This man is as credible as credible gets.

Soldiers at Roswell, or the flight crew on the plane are going to spill their guts? Someone would NOT have talked had their life depended on it, and they didn't.

Alright, a big plane flew in and out of a suburb of Dallas. Planes land and take off from airports. There were no markings. What was someone going to say? " A plane flew in and out of here today." Oh really? Which airline? I don't know.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Peter McGuire

[William Kelly]

And thus, Vinson's story is stuck, probably headed into the bottomless dustbin of JFK lore, never to be proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it was only one of many such stories, many of them possibly true, but all virtually unprovable.

Like so many aspects of this tragedy I also hate to say.

In the end, however, there are too many "unprovable" stories and coincidences for this fella, not to lean towards the quite possibly true side.

Wait a minute.

The air links are the weak links in the covert action chain - as Eugene Hasenfrass showed when he was shot down in Nicaragua.

When you have air flights, you have air planes, with tail numbers, flight plans, pilots, ground crews, air ports with records of incoming and outgoing flights.

These are all well documented, military flights that only require someone with the ability to check them to find out the truth.

Congress has the investigative ability to do this, as does a grand jury, or the Military Inspector General.

Bill Kelly

jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com

Good point Bill. I guess his story is not so "unprovable," after all.

I looked at the video, as an afterthought to reading JFK and the Unspeakable. "Flight from Dallas" is on the way.

These arguments are indeed,very weak;

1. That he waited 30 years to tell it (I realize he explained the reason for that that and it makes a certain amount of sense, but nonetheless. . .)

2. That he had no supporting witnesses to the general story about the airplane ride; it would seem that someone back at Andrews could have helped, though it is understandable why no one at Groom Lake (Area 51) would come forward.

3. That a military version of what was a DC-6, four engine turboprop airliner landed somewhere on the shores of the Trinity River south of Dallas, in the mid-afternoon of November 22, 1963 and then took off again, evidently unnoticed by anyone on the ground.

That he waited until he could tell his story is a testimony to his allegiance to his oath. This man is as credible as credible gets.

Soldiers at Roswell, or the flight crew on the plane are going to spill their guts? Someone would NOT have talked had their life depended on it, and they didn't.

Alright, a big plane flew in and out of a suburb of Dallas. Planes land and take off from airports. There were no markings. What was someone going to say? " A plane flew in and out of here today." Oh really? Which airline? I don't know.

I don't know if the story is correct, as the Trinity River landing is certainly suspect, but the guy's lawyer confirmed he was in the military and did use such modes of transport and the allegations aren't that sensational.

I think the plane took off from Andrews and was diverted from its original destination, so the Andrews logs could be checked.

If you look at the HSCA reports on the alleged USMC investigation of Oswald in Japan and California, which produced a short report that concludes he was incapable of committing the assassination on his own, the plane that took the investigators was identified, the pilot interviewed, others involved interviewed and the plane's paper's checked and everything checked out, except the report is no where in existence.

BK

[Michael Griffin]

YouTube has portions of attorney and author, James Johnston, interviewing Robert Vinson in 1996. It would be interesting to see what someone like Doug Weldon thinks, but to me his whole demeanor during the interview seems to be that of an honest, credible witness.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Edited April 4, 2011 by Michael Griffin

[Bernice Moore]

YouTube - Flight from Dallas Interview - Part I Robert Vinson.

[B. A. Copeland]

Vinson's story seems dynamite. I am also of the opinion that because his story also involves the old "Oswald double" many researchers seem to attempt to steer clear of it but in learning of this man and his story, he seems quite credible and therfore what we do with the data is entirely up to us (if the data is found to have no 'defeaters'). His reasoning behind the waiting or delay seems to relate to that of Gordon Arnold. You can't blame some of these people for being so cautious when we know people were eliminated due to their sensitive knowledge.

I do wonder if the ARRB has learned anything relating to Vinson's account. I think we'll definitely learn once we see any documentation that is either highly classified or missing altogether regarding or relating to Vinson's story.

Edited March 26, 2013 by B. A. Copeland

[Geno Munari]

One fact that maybe I possibly missed here, is that  Vinson was related as a nephew of former Supreme Court Justice  Fred Vinson.  Vinson was the 13th chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. He also served in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

[Larry Hancock]

OK, I'm going to do it again.....this has been discussed many times earlier here and in other venues.  I was there when Vinson's lawyer first presented his story at a Lancer conference - he showed up unannounced, asked for time and the only thing we could do was let him go on during the lunch break.  I listened, took copious notes, and tried to talk to him afterwards however he literally ran (well walked very quickly at least) out of the area, refusing to stay or take questions.  Over several  years I exchanged letters and made phone calls to him, trying to approach Vinson directly - which he never would allow.  I submitted a number of questions and issues which he also failed to address.  Ultimately when his book was published it asked readers to respond and I went back again with questions - and received no response. It should be noted that his lawyer has some pretty strong general conspiratorial views on his own, whether that influenced Vinson or not I can't say.

I researched Vinson's story in detail over some three years or more, as far as I could at least without more information than initially given in the video his lawyer showed or in the book - and there were some serious differences between the two.  Having been Air Force and traveled military air I knew there were some problems with his basic story but there were even larger issues including the fact that he clearly did not either recognize that the CIA and security contacts with him had to do with the fact that he was being vetted to work on the SR71 project, which he admittedly did do eventually.  What he makes out to be mysterious in that regard is really very much standard security practice for a joint AF/CIA project.

In terms of landing a four engine transport virtually in downtown Dallas, with nobody noticing or commenting on an afternoon when even the most minor anomalies were getting attention (like a single engine plane revving its engines at Red Bird, which produced multiple calls to newspapers) - that is extremely  unlikely.  Even more unlikely is any aircraft later landing at a SAC base at night, unchallenged - especially one of the few then housing both SAC bombers and Atlas ICBM's.

Take this for what its worth but I'm seeing a lot of these older stories resurfacing on the forum - yes they are mysterious and they are entertaining but don't think nobody ever looked into them...if they went nowhere there may be a good (non conspiratorial) reason. 

 

 

[Geno Munari]

Thank you for the info Larry.  I would be interested in reading your notes on the research.   

You wrote, "I researched Vinson's story in detail over some three years or more, as far as I could at least without more information than initially given in the video his lawyer showed or in the book - and there were some serious differences between the two."

Is the following  "serious differences" what you are referring to in the above statement, or is there other information?

" Having been Air Force and traveled military air I knew there were some problems with his basic story but there were even larger issues including the fact that he clearly did not either recognize that the CIA and security contacts with him had to do with the fact that he was being vetted to work on the SR71 project, which he admittedly did do eventually.  What he makes out to be mysterious in that regard is really very much standard security practice for a joint AF/CIA project."

 

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Geno Munari
hit return to quickly

[David Andrews]

Larry, please keep on "do[ing] it again."

With the JFK case witnesses, or "witnesses," as with people at the fringes of so many tragic, public events, human nature of one kind or another becomes the deciding factor in credibility.

[Larry Hancock]

Geno, honestly my notes and research on Vinson are far in the past and buried deeply.  Are they somewhere in file cabinets and stacks of appears in my garage, yes.  But I never wrote them up because I was never convinced it was worth it, like many of the others leads and sources I tossed after investigation.

As to the disconnects, I made (and still have in some notebook) copious notes of the interview that his lawyer showed at the Lancer conference.  It referred to people he had contacted by rank and name and included a particularly mysterious visit to a Congressman on an armed service committee who he claimed took a call while he was in his office and he overhead a discussion of warning JFK not to go to Dallas - yet another major coincidence.  Yet when his book came out I didn't see a discussion of what seemed to be a big deal in what I had seen in the video.  There were other more minor things but I did make up a list of them after book, sent them to his lawyer because Vinson asks for comment in the book - and could never get a response.  For someone to go that public and then write a book and refuse over a number of years to even discuss it or deal with contradictions and issues always makes me skeptical.

The issue of his SR-71 assignment is another story in itself but its well established that assignment to that project required special clearances and investigations from the military, the CIA and very possibly from the FBI.  I would have liked to discuss that with him but never got the chance..

 

 

[Geno Munari]

Thank you for the information.