Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Wagner

Members
  • Content Count

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Greg Wagner

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,280 profile views
  1. Greg Wagner

    Springfield, IL Incident on Oct 19, 1962

    Hi Steve. Thanks for linking the original thread. Somehow I missed that when I searched.
  2. This is the first I've heard of this incident. Perhaps it was just two idiots fooling around with a scope, as the article claims. It would be interesting to dig up the Secret Service report and see who these two guys were. Jim DiEugenio, you may want to pass this on to Paul Bleau. https://goo.gl/75gXSu By Stephen F. Knott November 23 The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, shattered the American psyche. This traumatic event has been repeatedly revisited and commemorated, but little attention has been paid to how close Kennedy came to being killed slightly more than a year before his death in Dallas. Had the president been assassinated at this time, it probably would have led to a catastrophic war between the United States and the Soviet Union that would have totally changed the face of history. While paying a visit to the tomb of Abraham Lincoln, in Springfield, Ill., at the height of the Cuban missile crisis on Oct. 19, 1962, a gunman had Kennedy in his telescopic sight as he was riding in a slow-moving open limousine. The scenario was eerily similar to what occurred in Dallas the following year, but for whatever reason, the Springfield gunman held his fire, sparing the nation and the world a potential assassination. Kennedy was in Springfield to campaign for Democrats running for House and Senate seats in the 1962 midterm elections. Before delivering a public speech at the Illinois State Fairgrounds, the president paid a private visit to Lincoln’s tomb. On his way to the tomb, an “employee of the Illinois Department of Public Safety” noticed two men along the president’s motorcade route with a rifle. According to the Secret Service report, the alert public safety official “saw a rifle barrel with telescopic sight protruding from a second-story window. The local police took into custody and delivered to Special Agents of the Secret Service” two men who were brothers-in-law. The Secret Service noted that “a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle and a full box of .22 long rifle ammunition was seized.” The men admitted “pointing the gun out the window on the parade route. However, they claimed that they had merely been testing the power of the telescopic sight to determine if it would be worthwhile to remove it in order to get a better look at the President when the motorcade returned. As there was no evidence to the contrary, and neither man had any previous record, prosecution was declined.” These two men had a loaded rifle pointed at the president during his motorcade route, but decided not to pull the trigger. Secret Service stepped in to apprehend the men before the president’s limousine passed the men for a second time. For a brief moment, however, the president’s life hung in the balance based on the decision of a 20-year-old not to pull the trigger. There is no evidence to suggest a connection between these two men and the Soviet Union. But at the time, any violence waged against Kennedy probably would have set off war. After all, this near miss in Springfield occurred three days after Kennedy was informed by the Central Intelligence Agency that the Soviet Union was constructing nuclear missile sites in Cuba. The Kennedy administration had been denying rumors of any such construction for months, and the president was shaken by such a bold and deceptive move by the Kremlin. What followed was the famous “13 days” of secret deliberations on the part of Kennedy and a small circle of advisers known as the “ExComm,” (Executive Committee of the National Security Council), and equally secretive exchanges with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev conducted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy and a KGB operative. These exchanges helped avert a war, one that would have had catastrophic results. In fact, the most critical period of the Cuban missile crisis turned out to be the 72 hours after Kennedy’s near-assassination in Illinois. It was the international crisis, not the gunman, that made Kennedy cut short his campaign trip to Illinois to return to Washington and deliberate on a response to the Cuban missile crisis. The president feared that the crisis could spiral into a nuclear conflict, the “final failure,” as he put it, and resisted the advice of those urging a preemptive strike on the missile sites. In the end, Kennedy rejected entreaties to bomb or invade Cuba. If Kennedy had been killed or wounded in Springfield, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and a core of advisers already leaning toward some type of airstrike or invasion of Cuba probably would have approved such an attack. An assassination attempt on a U.S. president amid an “eyeball to eyeball” confrontation with the Soviet Union would have led many officials to suspect Kremlin involvement. The Soviets had already been caught lying over the missiles in Cuba, and any Soviet denials regarding the attempted assassination of Kennedy would have been seen in the same light. Kennedy’s removal from this decision-making process, either because of death or a serious gunshot wound, would have altered the course of history. An enraged public and a core group of advisers predisposed to think the worst of Soviet intentions would have exerted enormous pressure upon Johnson to respond with force. Generations of scholars and practitioners learned much about conflict resolution from studying Kennedy’s management of the Cuban missile crisis. Sadly, as the events of Nov. 22, 1963, revealed, nothing was learned by government security officials in the aftermath of the near miss on the road to Lincoln’s tomb. Had they grasped the red flags from the close call, such as the risk of open limousines and the need to protect against shootings, they might have saved Americans from the searing trauma ahead.
  3. Greg Wagner

    Danny Arce testimony

    Danny Garcia Arce began working for the TSBD "about September 6, 1963." Bonnie Ray Williams began working there on September 8, 1963. Interesting. Has anyone been able to find out how long Garcia worked there AFTER the assassination?
  4. Greg Wagner

    Tony Sforza

    Tony Sforza
  5. By my count, we have 9 witnesses who claim they saw a bullet hole in windshield: Frank Cormier, St Louis Dispatch Richard Dudman, St Louis Dispatch Stavis Ellis, DPD HR Freeman, DPD Dr Evalea Glanges Bill Greer, SS (told to Nick Prencipe, US Parks Police) Joe Paolella, SS Charles Taylor, Jr, SS George Whitaker, Ford
  6. Greg Wagner

    Where is the exit?

    Good question, Jim. I am far from a ballistics expert and the following is just my speculation, so take it for what it's worth. I believe the throat entry was likely a head shot that got diverted and fragmented as a result of passing through the windshield or the Stemmons sign. The fragment, having less mass than an intact bullet and reduced velocity due to the windshield or Stemmons sign impact, did not have the energy to traverse all the way through the neck. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t one of the guys who prepared Kennedy’s body for burial state that Kennedy’s cheek had small perforations that had to be sealed so the embalming fluid wouldn’t leak out? Perhaps those perforations were caused by smaller fragments from that same bullet. As this Secret Service report documents, there were bullet fragments found all over the interior of the limo. SS Report 11-22-63 Limo Inspection.pdf
  7. Greg Wagner

    I agree with Trump

    What it buys the establishment, neocon crowd is a bit of thinly veiled legitimacy for their unending campaign of killing people and gaining control of resources. Bringing NATO countries into their military attacks and occupations, in consequential or token form, allows the U.S. to present less like Darth Vader blowing up Alderaan and instead talk about taking such action as part of an international coalition of nations blah, blah, blah.... That's what we're paying for when we foot the bill for NATO - the illusion of credibility.
  8. Greg Wagner

    I agree with Trump

    Hi Steve. I agree. And it makes sense to me. The rivalries that emerged and the alliances that were formed after WWII have defined the world order for our entire lives. And just think about the massive capital investment, political structures and cultural impact of all that. It's no wonder the establishment is freaking out over Trump attempting to build a constructive relationship with Putin. Most of these people have spent their entire lives investing in those old structures. It's difficult for people to wrap their minds around a world that isn't defined by the traditional players carrying out the same old good guy and bad guy roles. One of the things I despise about Trump is he seems to be the very definition of a narcissistic, selfish capitalist with little or no regard for other people beyond what they can do for him. Oddly enough, I think it is those same traits that allow him to evaluate things without being encumbered by the dusty old chains of the past. He seems to have no qualms about taking a hard, cold, cost-benefit approach to things, jettisoning whatever doesn't produce value, and moving on. Talk about a double-edged sword. Now, if would only decide that it's time to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds...
  9. Greg Wagner

    I agree with Trump

    The list of reasons why I don't like Trump is long, but I have to agree with Jim here. The decades old paradigms that define the United States' relationships with Russia and NATO are out of step and out of time with today's reality. We can debate whether there was a better path forward after WWII, but at least these geopolitical alignments made some kind of sense in 1945. I'm not sure what purpose they serve today. Challenging the status quo, critically examining why we do things the way we do, taking things apart, looking at them from different angles and assessing them honestly has a lot of value. Doing that, cutting through the crap (the massive, entrenched establishment bs) and driving the change you think is right takes a lot of balls. It's the kind of thing politicians generally run and hide from. I want to reiterate that I generally can't stand this man. And people can debate whether Trump is charting the correct course. But I have to give the guy credit for making an honest assessment of these two massive pillars of American foreign policy and saying, "Look, these just don't make sense anymore." The other piece to this is it used to be the right who would gin up all this righteous indignation and "patriotic" fervor when anyone would dare question any part of the national security establishment. This came up time and time again in discussing agencies like the CIA and FBI and their activities around the JFK case. And it was people on the left who seemed to understand these agencies' nefarious history and found the idea of their complicity in the Kennedy assassination quite plausible. In the age of Trump, the left and right - and their respective media outlets - have switched places. The left (Is there even a real "left" in this country anymore?) is falling all over itself to cuddle, stroke and otherwise uphold the righteous honor and unwavering integrity of the intelligence agencies, while the right is screaming that they're crooked. I think that proves just how powerful the emotional ties are that people have to their politics and world view. I have no idea to what degree Russia tried to influence the election. Frankly, I'd be shocked if they did not make an effort. Our Government does not allow us to know their activities around such things, but does anyone seriously believe the U.S. doesn't do the same damn thing - and probably very effectively - all the time? With regard to Russian efforts, it comes down to whether or not you trust what our intel people are saying (I couldn't even type that without laughing). Their long, bloody, provable history of obfuscation, disinformation, lies, coups, assassinations, false flag ops and resistance to oversight gives them ZERO credibility. Even if they are telling the truth in this instance, so what? It would only be because it suits their current agenda. They think we are stupid. They will go to any lengths to conceal their true nature. They have done horrible, cruel things to human beings for decades and signed OUR names to it. And they've forced us to pay for it (At least the stuff they aren't financing through drug deals). So, trust what the intel community is telling us? Are you kidding me?
  10. Greg Wagner

    Howard Brennan Re-evaluated

    Does anyone have Brennan's 11-23-63 and 12-18-63 FBI statements? I have been able to locate the attached, but both seem to end in the middle of a sentence. They seem to be missing page 2. Thanks!
  11. Greg Wagner

    Building rooftops: imagine Dealey Plaza...

    Micah... though not a definitive answer to your question, here's a related thread https://goo.gl/hVjXL4 I haven't been able to find much info on these two photos. The first image is from the December 1963 issue of POST https://goo.gl/FJ5hkN and the second one, taken from a higher floor, is one of a series taken from this location by Shel Hershorn https://goo.gl/yCgQtd What and who prompted these photos to be taken is certainly an interesting question.
  12. Greg Wagner

    Building rooftops: imagine Dealey Plaza...

    Hi Linda. I am a member of that FB group, but I must have missed your Powell info. Thanks for sharing. As I've researched various individuals connected to this case over many years, you keep popping up. You've done great work on some of these guys. Nice job.
  13. Greg Wagner

    Building rooftops: imagine Dealey Plaza...

    Good work, Vince. Thank you!
  14. Greg Wagner

    Building rooftops: imagine Dealey Plaza...

    Hi Michael. I agree that presidential security in 1963 compared to today is apples and oranges. The striking differences between Kennedy's protection in Dallas and that three days earlier in Tampa, however, are easily provable. I don't want to regurgitate all the points Vince has laid out here, on his website, on YouTube and in his published works about this, but I don't see what is speculative about it. It is day and night. Though I totally disagree with much of the Hartmann/Waldron book, even they got that part right.
×