Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

Gerald Blaine The Kennedy Detail Clint Hill book- JFK Requested Bodyguards to Back Off

Recommended Posts

I watched Doug Weldon's Minnesota conference presentation on YouTube, and it is odd, as Doug points out in one of the later installments, that Clint Hill seems to be the only agent on the Queen Mary running boards wearing a bulletproof vest.

From the discussion earlier in this thread, Hill seems also to have been the only agent who rode the limo's rear step on Main Street.

Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo "during the shooting."

Why only Hill in these events?

For that matter - why only Hill not looking around in Altgens 6? (Ignore red arrow.) Who's looking at Kennedy in this photo, and why?

David I believe this is the crop of the photo, Doug Weldon refers to, if not he will correct, for now...b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I challenge Blaine to take a lie detector test regarding the morning-of-JFK's-funeral "meeting" that never occured (and, no: former agent Joe Paolella, now a lie-detector test administrator, can NOT perform the test LOL!). Blaine, nor any of his collegues, mentioned nothing of the kind...and Blaine wants you to think they are all liars---they were all LYING to me, telling FALSE tales to pacify me (I was the ONLY one calling and writing, as many have UNLISTED NUMBERS and I obtained the info. from a friendly former agent I became friendly with [yes, to get the info I wanted--oh, well: truth hurts; damn proud of it, too]). LIARS have no credibility...so they were all lying to me, Blaine?

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE NON AGENTS? AND I TRICKED YOU BECAUSE I KNEW (IN 2007) YOU WERE WORKING ON A BOOK: I PURPOSELY OMITED THE FACT THAT FRANK YEAGER, **YOUR PARTNER ON THE TAMPA ADVANCE***, NOT ONLY TOLD ME THAT HE KNEW OF NO ORDER DIRECTLY FROM JFK, BUT THAT KENNY O'DONNELL MIGHT HAVE BEEN TO BLAME [which, by the way, Powers contradicted and Helen O'Donnell, Kenny's surviving daughter who has access to his many, many audio tapes and diaries confirms, told me is FALSE!]...uh oh!!! Yikes---caught ya! You may have to do a rewrite on that half-a-million-dollar-and-counting profitable book when it comes out in paperback: "err, uhh, Kenny O'Donnell was also at the meeting" LOL

;)thanks Vince... we most are very aware who have been making up stories for nearly 50 years, and they still are very poor at such, as you have shown, you caught them again...take care..best b:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Doug Weldon's Minnesota conference presentation on YouTube, and it is odd, as Doug points out in one of the later installments, that Clint Hill seems to be the only agent on the Queen Mary running boards wearing a bulletproof vest.

From the discussion earlier in this thread, Hill seems also to have been the only agent who rode the limo's rear step on Main Street.

Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo "during the shooting."

Why only Hill in these events?

For that matter - why only Hill not looking around in Altgens 6? (Ignore red arrow.) Who's looking at Kennedy in this photo, and why?

David:

John Ready,not Hill, was the agent who was called back.

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Doug Weldon's Minnesota conference presentation on YouTube, and it is odd, as Doug points out in one of the later installments, that Clint Hill seems to be the only agent on the Queen Mary running boards wearing a bulletproof vest.

From the discussion earlier in this thread, Hill seems also to have been the only agent who rode the limo's rear step on Main Street.

Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo "during the shooting."

Why only Hill in these events?

For that matter - why only Hill not looking around in Altgens 6? (Ignore red arrow.) Who's looking at Kennedy in this photo, and why?

David:

John Ready,not Hill, was the agent who was called back.

Doug Weldon

I know - sorry if that was poorly worded. I ought to have written: "Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo 'during the shooting.' In the Nix film, it seems as if Hill is almost at the rear bumper when JFK's head flies back. Why was he allowed off the Queen Mary?"

Why do you think Hill is wearing a bulletproof vest? Can we spot it on him during other motorcades?

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Doug Weldon's Minnesota conference presentation on YouTube, and it is odd, as Doug points out in one of the later installments, that Clint Hill seems to be the only agent on the Queen Mary running boards wearing a bulletproof vest.

From the discussion earlier in this thread, Hill seems also to have been the only agent who rode the limo's rear step on Main Street.

Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo "during the shooting."

Why only Hill in these events?

For that matter - why only Hill not looking around in Altgens 6? (Ignore red arrow.) Who's looking at Kennedy in this photo, and why?

David:

John Ready,not Hill, was the agent who was called back.

Doug Weldon

I know - sorry if that was poorly worded. I ought to have written: "Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo 'during the shooting.' In the Nix film, it seems as if Hill is almost at the rear bumper when JFK's head flies back. Why was he allowed off the Queen Mary?"

Why do you think Hill is wearing a bulletproof vest? Can we spot it on him during other motorcades?

David:

I cannot say definitively that Hill was wearing a vest. A friend, who is a DEA agent, and who teaches at Quantico, pointed it out to me. I asked my friend who was a SS agent under Ford what he thought. He would not commit as to whether it was a vest or not. I then asked him how unusual it was for an agent to be wearing a vest in the 1960's or 1970's and his response was that it would be highly unusual. Bernice posted the correct picture and people can judge for themselves but as I have thought about it through the years there remains no doubt in my mind that agents were compromised. Though many researchers are critical and people degrade "The Dark Side of Camelot" I believe it is a very valuable book. Some suspect Sy Hersh as being CIA but I would note that he is the one who came forward with the Cheney Death Squads a couple of years ago. Whether or not Hill had a vest on or not he is not high on my list of being suspicious as being one of the agents who were compromised. I simply cannot point to any evidence that would suggest that he was.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Edited by Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "Ivy-League charlatans" mean in reference to the Secret Service, anyway?

I haven't scrutinized their CVs, but the descriptions of the period Secret Service by Abraham Bolden and Vince Palamara seem to rule out a propensity of Ivy League hires.

"Ivy-League charlatan" sounds like the sort of insult a Kennedy opponent might sling at JFK. Frequently, lies told about a person involve an instance of Freudian "projection," or ascribing feelings one has about one's enemy to the slandered person himself.

P.S. Bernice, thanks for the photo of Clint Hill in bulletproof vest in Dallas. It is the one Doug Weldon uses in his presentation. You can see from the hang of the other agents' suits in Altgens 6 that they're unvested.

Doug - thanks for responding. It that's not a vest, Hill ran into a Woolworth's and boosted some gun magazines somewhere along the route.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duke, How is it possible that the head of the Secret Service "has no axe to grind?" Expecially when his agency is under fire?

The Official Mythology is that JFK is responsible for his own death.

Damn it, man, read what I wrote!

I said that "in this context the author has no axe to grind or points to prove about the Kennedy assassination," the "context" being (I thought I'd explained this, no?) reportage on the Whitewater/Lewinsky mess and the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the "author" being Ken Gormley, writing about those series of events, and not Lew Merletti writing about the USSS in 1963.

If anyone wants to think that Gormley really just wanted to get in a zinger about JFK's assassination in five pages out of a 700+ page book disguised as something else, I suppose they're welcome to do that. To me, given the lengthy and detailed subject matter of the book (The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr, New York: Crown Books/Random House, 2010, 1st printing), this came almost from left field.

Save the exasperation for when it's called for. I know what the official mythology is; my question is "what's the deal behind Hill's cooperation in all this?"

The question is for Vince.

While the book was published this year, it describes events that took place more than a decade ago. The question of subpoenaing PPDs' testimony about protectees' (or the protectee's) conversations heard or overheard in connection with their duties was but a microcosm of the overall investigation and proceedings; it was by no means the focus of the book, but very nearly an "aside" to the primary topic, tho' clearly at or near the top of USSS's - and Merletti's - concerns at the time.

None of the "callouts" that I bolded were direct quotes of Hill's, and may well be "details" provided by Merletti or others of Gormley's interviewees, or even USSS documents pertaining to this action. Still, the question remains why or whether Hill, those many years ago, would have come forth after so many years of "seclusion" in support of an initiative to prevent USSS agents' testimony from being subpoenaed based on a premise that Hill knew to be false - i.e., that JFK did not order his detail away from the limousine - no matter how lofty the actual, ultimate goal.

Hill was, after all, on PPD and in Dallas, and would have been made privy to any such "order" of JFK's, even if JFK didn't actually make it. After all, we do not expect that POTUS holds a "roll call" meeting before the start of each day to brief his guard on what to expect each day or to outline his current directives; if someone else wanted JFK to be left out in the open, all that would be necessary would be to claim that JFK made such a demand through whatever intermediaries a president uses to relay his wishes to his charges.

The point is, when these discussions were taking place during the Clinton administration, did Clint Hill believe that JFK had issued such an edict? Was he co-opted to say as much "for the good of the Service?" Or was this merely the "spin" put on it by Merletti for Gormley's sake, even despite it being such a small part of the story? Or did Merletti believe that to be the case himself, and if so, why? Has the lie been so often told that it is now the official position of the USSS, not only for public consumption, but as a part of its overall outlook, or an effort to arrive at the maxim that "even the boss can't tell us to back off?"

And, I suppose, there must be the question whether JFK did issue such an edict, that went against all of PDD's instincts but which they obeyed nevertheless and in retrospect wish either or both that they hadn't obeyed or that JFK hadn't issued? That is, is it simply "denial" on their part, that the boss did, in fact, tell them what to do that was inimical to their instincts and training, and like good soldiers, they obeyed despite their instincts and training, much to their ultimate chagrin?

(Did presidents think of the White House and the presidency as much a "prison" as they do today, or is it the result of an over-eager PPD hell-bent on a mission of "never again?")

That all of this was related innocently - that is, without a specific intent to make JFK responsible for his own death, or to further a public agenda exonerating PPD from responsibility; it wasn't an "assassination book" or even vaguely related - is suggested by other italicized callouts from Death, which I also emphasized and which are direct Hill quotes, to wit:

"It was a bloody mess," he recalled decades later, his voice cracking. "I mean - the president's head, the third shot hit him in the head just above the right ear, kind of. Took out a piece of his skull about the size of my palm and scooped out a whole mass of brain matter. ...." [emphases added]

Was there anyone else besides Jackie in that car who was so close as to be able to dispassionately examine and evaluate JFK's wounds (and in truth, would Jackie have really been able to), and do so in such a manner that is so contrary to the WC's conclusions (and still garner no apparent attention)?

So what should be made of this out-of-the-blue discussion by and about Clint Hill and JFK's supposed "directive?" What's the real deal: other agents' denials or Hill's apparent corroboration? If he's lying, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject: Secret Service Confusion

Date: 11/15/2010 11:05:51 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Gary Mack

-------------------------------

[Gary,]

So, you're saying that BOTH [Don] Lawton and [Henry] Rybka must have peeled off just after the motorcade started rolling, correct?

Rybka said he was at "the rear" of JFK's car when he was moving with it:

"I [proceeded] to the follow-up car 679-X and stationed myself at the right front fender of 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motorcade began to move, I moved along with it, until the motorcade picked up speed." -- Henry Rybka [CE2554]

I'm now wondering who the agent is on the LEFT side of the cars in this still image from the WFAA tape (arrow points to him). I'm wondering if this could be Rybka on the LEFT side of the cars. Perhaps he switched from the RIGHT FENDER of 679X to the LEFT side when the cars began to move. I suppose that's possible:

SS.jpg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IApq-eiEhUY&p=85B38BE28D527F4A

DVP

================================================

Subject: RE: Secret Service Confusion

Date: 11/16/2010 3:46:54 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-------------------------------

Dave,

A Dillard photo a few seconds before departure shows an agent behind the right front fender of 679-X, another agent, apparently Rybka, at the bumper on the back end of 100-X, and a third agent wearing a darker suit standing even with JFK. All three men have their left hand on the car they are next to but, unfortunately, their faces cannot be seen.

Since the source isn’t in the book, I asked writer Lisa McCubbin how the Lawton identification was confirmed and here is what she wrote: Confirmed by Clint Hill, Paul Landis, and Don Lawton.

The logical explanation is that Rybka was farther behind 100-X and just barely out of camera range before and shortly after the motorcade departed. Rybka’s report stating he “moved along with” the motorcade makes sense if he had dropped behind 679-X when that car appeared on camera, thus putting himself impossible to see at that moment.

Gary Mack

================================================

Thank you, Gary, as always.

Gary Mack has now convinced me that "Shrugging Man" is, indeed, SS agent Donald Lawton and not Henry Rybka.

I was convinced when Gary mentioned the existence of a Tom Dillard photograph which depicts THREE Secret Service men in just about the same location on the right side of the cars (probably Lawton standing right next to JFK on the right side of SS-100-X, and probably Rybka BEHIND Lawton, and then yet another unknown agent behind the person who is probably Rybka).

Gary Mack's explanation now makes perfect sense (thanks to his mentioning that Dillard picture).

Once again--thank you, Mr. Mack, for your valuable input (even regarding such an extremely unimportant matter such as this one concerning the exact identity of a Secret Service agent who was merely doing his job at Love Field as JFK's motorcade departed for downtown Dallas).

However, the information about the "shrugging" SS agent being Lawton instead of Rybka is important in one way:

It should forever silence the conspiracists who like to talk about how the security for JFK's motorcade was being "stripped away" at Love Field.

Why should it silence them with respect to the shrugging agent?

Because, as far as I am aware (via Emory Roberts' assignment sheets), Donald Lawton was never assigned to be a part of the team of agents in the follow-up car (SS-679-X).

Lawton's assignment was "to remain at the airport to effect security for the President's departure" (a direct quote from Lawton's 11/30/63 report, CE2554.

The conspiracy theorists have always been able to argue that Emory Roberts had initially penciled in Henry Rybka's name to be one of the SS agents assigned to sit in the follow-up car during the Dallas parade. But no such argument can be made regarding Don Lawton, because Lawton knew what his assignment that day was going to be--to stay at Love Field and help out with security at the airport.

Therefore, we can know with 100% certainty that if Lawton is the "shrugging" agent who looks confused and bewildered just as JFK's motorcade is departing Love Field (and I now think that Lawton definitely is that Secret Service agent), then his actions cannot possibly have anything to do with any kind of "security stripping" at the airport.

The conspiracy believers can, of course, continue to use their previous "stripping" argument when it comes to Rybka specifically, but not with Lawton.

Chalk it up as just one more conspiracy myth knocked down--and it took almost 47 years to do it.

RybkaLoveField11-22-63.jpg

David:

Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging. Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film. Do you know what Rybka and Lawton looked like? Well, if Gary said it was so I guess there is no reason to have a forum or to try to determine the truth behind the assassination. I guess we can all pick up our toys and go home. Among many things Gary has told me is that what was labeled as a recording room at the Dallas Police Department in 1963 was not for recordings at all but it was actually a file room. That's logical. Why would anyone call a "file room" a file room? How silly. How does Gary know it was not a recording room? It is because he was in that room a few years ago. I guess that once a room is used for something it can never be used for any other purpose even forty plus years later. It is like Gary saying on one of his programs that a shot from the south knoll area could not have hit Kennedy because the shot would have to go through the windshield. REALLY? I am sure that Gary was never aware that anyone suggested that. Gary has also said that if Oswald was recorded in 1963 it could not have been used UNLESS BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorney AGREED IT COULD BE USED in court. Of course if the statements by Oswald were exculpatory the prosecutor would want the recording to come in and if it was inculpatory a good defense attorney would let the recording be admitted in order to hang his client. I tried to list all of the circumstances that both attorneys would have let such a recording come in to a trial. The one instance I could think of was if Oswald had simply said the sky was blue that day. Whoops! That would be irrelevsnt. There would not be any circumstances so why would anyone in Texas ever make a recording in 1963?Anything mopre meaningful than that which is irrelevant? NO. I have practiced law for over 32 years and have both prosecuted and defended cases. Gary's version of the law would have been unique in that it never has been such in any state ever, even Texas, except as Gary contends, for Oswald's case in 1963. Texas must have been part of a parallel universe that year. Then again, David, as you suggested, what does one expect of the Secret Service, that they would use themselves as human shields to protect the President. How ridiculous. WAIT, they are supposed to do that. David, I sincerely give you a lot more credit than that for your positions and for myself, I am not certain whether it was Rybka or Lawton shrugging at Love Field. However, I am going to need more evidence than Gary Mack being told by someone if it was so. My first question to Lisa, the author, is HOW did they confirm it was Lawton? Did they see the film? I would want to see a picture of Rybka or Lawton. It would be embarassing if a few posts from now if you then became absolutely convinced it was Rybka. Wow. I would not box myself in on such limited evidence. I admire your confidence.

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject: Secret Service Confusion

Date: 11/15/2010 11:05:51 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Gary Mack

-------------------------------

[Gary,]

So, you're saying that BOTH [Don] Lawton and [Henry] Rybka must have peeled off just after the motorcade started rolling, correct?

Rybka said he was at "the rear" of JFK's car when he was moving with it:

"I [proceeded] to the follow-up car 679-X and stationed myself at the right front fender of 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motorcade began to move, I moved along with it, until the motorcade picked up speed." -- Henry Rybka [CE2554]

I'm now wondering who the agent is on the LEFT side of the cars in this still image from the WFAA tape (arrow points to him). I'm wondering if this could be Rybka on the LEFT side of the cars. Perhaps he switched from the RIGHT FENDER of 679X to the LEFT side when the cars began to move. I suppose that's possible:

SS.jpg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IApq-eiEhUY&p=85B38BE28D527F4A

DVP

================================================

Subject: RE: Secret Service Confusion

Date: 11/16/2010 3:46:54 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-------------------------------

Dave,

A Dillard photo a few seconds before departure shows an agent behind the right front fender of 679-X, another agent, apparently Rybka, at the bumper on the back end of 100-X, and a third agent wearing a darker suit standing even with JFK. All three men have their left hand on the car they are next to but, unfortunately, their faces cannot be seen.

Since the source isn’t in the book, I asked writer Lisa McCubbin how the Lawton identification was confirmed and here is what she wrote: Confirmed by Clint Hill, Paul Landis, and Don Lawton.

The logical explanation is that Rybka was farther behind 100-X and just barely out of camera range before and shortly after the motorcade departed. Rybka’s report stating he “moved along with” the motorcade makes sense if he had dropped behind 679-X when that car appeared on camera, thus putting himself impossible to see at that moment.

Gary Mack

================================================

Thank you, Gary, as always.

Gary Mack has now convinced me that "Shrugging Man" is, indeed, SS agent Donald Lawton and not Henry Rybka.

I was convinced when Gary mentioned the existence of a Tom Dillard photograph which depicts THREE Secret Service men in just about the same location on the right side of the cars (probably Lawton standing right next to JFK on the right side of SS-100-X, and probably Rybka BEHIND Lawton, and then yet another unknown agent behind the person who is probably Rybka).

Gary Mack's explanation now makes perfect sense (thanks to his mentioning that Dillard picture).

Once again--thank you, Mr. Mack, for your valuable input (even regarding such an extremely unimportant matter such as this one concerning the exact identity of a Secret Service agent who was merely doing his job at Love Field as JFK's motorcade departed for downtown Dallas).

However, the information about the "shrugging" SS agent being Lawton instead of Rybka is important in one way:

It should forever silence the conspiracists who like to talk about how the security for JFK's motorcade was being "stripped away" at Love Field.

Why should it silence them with respect to the shrugging agent?

Because, as far as I am aware (via Emory Roberts' assignment sheets), Donald Lawton was never assigned to be a part of the team of agents in the follow-up car (SS-679-X).

Lawton's assignment was "to remain at the airport to effect security for the President's departure" (a direct quote from Lawton's 11/30/63 report, CE2554.

The conspiracy theorists have always been able to argue that Emory Roberts had initially penciled in Henry Rybka's name to be one of the SS agents assigned to sit in the follow-up car during the Dallas parade. But no such argument can be made regarding Don Lawton, because Lawton knew what his assignment that day was going to be--to stay at Love Field and help out with security at the airport.

Therefore, we can know with 100% certainty that if Lawton is the "shrugging" agent who looks confused and bewildered just as JFK's motorcade is departing Love Field (and I now think that Lawton definitely is that Secret Service agent), then his actions cannot possibly have anything to do with any kind of "security stripping" at the airport.

The conspiracy believers can, of course, continue to use their previous "stripping" argument when it comes to Rybka specifically, but not with Lawton.

Chalk it up as just one more conspiracy myth knocked down--and it took almost 47 years to do it.

RybkaLoveField11-22-63.jpg

David:

Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging. Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film. Do you know what Rybka and Lawton looked like? Well, if Gary said it was so I guess there is no reason to have a forum or to try to determine the truth behind the assassination. I guess we can all pick up our toys and go home. Among many things Gary has told me is that what was labeled as a recording room at the Dallas Police Department in 1963 was not for recordings at all but it was actually a file room. That's logical. Why would anyone call a "file room" a file room? How silly. How does Gary know it was not a recording room? It is because he was in that room a few years ago. I guess that once a room is used for something it can never be used for any other purpose even forty plus years later. It is like Gary saying on one of his programs that a shot from the south knoll area could not have hit Kennedy because the shot would have to go through the windshield. REALLY? I am sure that Gary was never aware that anyone suggested that. Gary has also said that if Oswald was recorded in 1963 it could not have been used UNLESS BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorney AGREED IT COULD BE USED in court. Of course if the statements by Oswald were exculpatory the prosecutor would want the recording to come in and if it was inculpatory a good defense attorney would let the recording be admitted in order to hang his client. I tried to list all of the circumstances that both attorneys would have let such a recording come in to a trial. The one instance I could think of was if Oswald had simply said the sky was blue that day. Whoops! That would be irrelevsnt. There would not be any circumstances so why would anyone in Texas ever make a recording in 1963?Anything mopre meaningful than that which is irrelevant? NO. I have practiced law for over 32 years and have both prosecuted and defended cases. Gary's version of the law would have been unique in that it never has been such in any state ever, even Texas, except as Gary contends, for Oswald's case in 1963. Texas must have been part of a parallel universe that year. Then again, David, as you suggested, what does one expect of the Secret Service, that they would use themselves as human shields to protect the President. How ridiculous. WAIT, they are supposed to do that. David, I sincerely give you a lot more credit than that for your positions and for myself, I am not certain whether it was Rybka or Lawton shrugging at Love Field. However, I am going to need more evidence than Gary Mack being told by someone if it was so. My first question to Lisa, the author, is HOW did they confirm it was Lawton? Did they see the film? I would want to see a picture of Rybka or Lawton. It would be embarassing if a few posts from now if you then became absolutely convinced it was Rybka. Wow. I would not box myself in on such limited evidence. I admire your confidence.

Doug Weldon

I shouild acknowledge Bernice Moore for finding the recording room. There was a larger room labeled as for "records." That certainly cannot be for files. It is too logical. Well, it is getting late here in Michigan and I am heading to the kitchen to get some sleep.

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging.

That's correct, I was absolutely certain it was Henry Rybka at that time. And that was based on Rybka's SS report in CE2554, wherein he describes performing the exact movements that we see "shrugging man" performing at Love Field just as the motorcade begins to roll.

Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film.

I am now convinced it is Lawton, that is correct.

But my switch is not just based on the fact that Blaine and McCubbin have said it is Lawton. The clincher for me (in conjunction with Blaine's and McCubbin's statements) is a Tom Dillard photo that Gary Mack told me about, which is a photo taken just prior to the motorcade commencing which depicts THREE agents in virtually the same position, one behind the other, on the right side of SS-100-X and Queen Mary.

And the MIDDLE of those three SS agents would have been in just exactly the position that Rybka said he was in--i.e., between 100-X and the SS car to stop people from going between the cars.

It makes sense, therefore, that Rybka was the MIDDLE of the three agents, and Lawton was the agent in front--next to JFK's door.

I have no ironclad PROOF that Mr. Shrugger is Lawton. But Gary Mack makes a good case for it being Lawton--and, as I said, the Dillard picture that Gary says he has seen seals the deal on that for me.

Or do you perhaps think Gary Mack is lying about that Dillard photo? Do you think he just made it up?

I'll try to find the picture in question online somewhere. I don't think I've ever seen it before, and even Robin "JFK Photos For Any Occasion" Unger doesn't have it in his collection at Duncan MacRae's site.

Maybe Gary Mack can e-mail me a copy and I can post it here. I'd love to see it.

Is that possible Gary?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging.

That's correct, I was absolutely certain it was Henry Rybka at that time. And that was based on Rybka's SS report in CE2554, wherein he describes performing the exact movements that we see "shrugging man" performing at Love Field just as the motorcade begins to roll.

Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film.

I am now convinced it is Lawton, that is correct.

But my switch is not just based on the fact that Blaine and McCubbin have said it is Lawton. The clincher for me (in conjunction with Blaine's and McCubbin's statements) is a Tom Dillard photo that Gary Mack told me about, which is a photo taken just prior to the motorcade commencing which depicts THREE agents in virtually the same position, one behind the other, on the right side of SS-100-X and Queen Mary.

And the MIDDLE of those three SS agents would have been in just exactly the position that Rybka said he was in--i.e., between 100-X and the SS car to stop people from going between the cars.

It makes sense, therefore, that Rybka was the MIDDLE of the three agents, and Lawton was the agent in front--next to JFK's door.

I have no ironclad PROOF that Mr. Shrugger is Lawton. But Gary Mack makes a good case for it being Lawton--and, as I said, the Dillard picture that Gary says he has seen seals the deal on that for me.

Or do you perhaps think Gary Mack is lying about that Dillard photo? Do you think he just made it up?

I'll try to find the picture in question online somewhere. I don't think I've ever seen it before, and even Robin "JFK Photos For Any Occasion" Unger doesn't have it in his collection at Duncan MacRae's site.

Maybe Gary Mack can e-mail me a copy and I can post it here. I'd love to see it.

Is that possible Gary?

And Gary,

While we have you on the line, would it be possible, when you have former Agents Blaine and Hill at the Sixth Floor on the 20th, to ask them about their rejection of the Single-Bullet-Theory, Agent Hill about the "fist sized hole int he back of the head" of JFK, which indicates an exit wound, and finally if Agent Blaine really has the Advance Reports that the Secret Service said it destroyed after they were requested by the ARRB?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject: Secret Service Confusion

Date: 11/15/2010 11:05:51 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Gary Mack

-------------------------------

[Gary,]

So, you're saying that BOTH [Don] Lawton and [Henry] Rybka must have peeled off just after the motorcade started rolling, correct?

Rybka said he was at "the rear" of JFK's car when he was moving with it:

"I [proceeded] to the follow-up car 679-X and stationed myself at the right front fender of 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motorcade began to move, I moved along with it, until the motorcade picked up speed." -- Henry Rybka [CE2554]

I'm now wondering who the agent is on the LEFT side of the cars in this still image from the WFAA tape (arrow points to him). I'm wondering if this could be Rybka on the LEFT side of the cars. Perhaps he switched from the RIGHT FENDER of 679X to the LEFT side when the cars began to move. I suppose that's possible:

SS.jpg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IApq-eiEhUY&p=85B38BE28D527F4A

DVP

================================================

Subject: RE: Secret Service Confusion

Date: 11/16/2010 3:46:54 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-------------------------------

Dave,

A Dillard photo a few seconds before departure shows an agent behind the right front fender of 679-X, another agent, apparently Rybka, at the bumper on the back end of 100-X, and a third agent wearing a darker suit standing even with JFK. All three men have their left hand on the car they are next to but, unfortunately, their faces cannot be seen.

Since the source isn't in the book, I asked writer Lisa McCubbin how the Lawton identification was confirmed and here is what she wrote: Confirmed by Clint Hill, Paul Landis, and Don Lawton.

The logical explanation is that Rybka was farther behind 100-X and just barely out of camera range before and shortly after the motorcade departed. Rybka's report stating he "moved along with" the motorcade makes sense if he had dropped behind 679-X when that car appeared on camera, thus putting himself impossible to see at that moment.

Gary Mack

================================================

Thank you, Gary, as always.

Gary Mack has now convinced me that "Shrugging Man" is, indeed, SS agent Donald Lawton and not Henry Rybka.

I was convinced when Gary mentioned the existence of a Tom Dillard photograph which depicts THREE Secret Service men in just about the same location on the right side of the cars (probably Lawton standing right next to JFK on the right side of SS-100-X, and probably Rybka BEHIND Lawton, and then yet another unknown agent behind the person who is probably Rybka).

Gary Mack's explanation now makes perfect sense (thanks to his mentioning that Dillard picture).

Once again--thank you, Mr. Mack, for your valuable input (even regarding such an extremely unimportant matter such as this one concerning the exact identity of a Secret Service agent who was merely doing his job at Love Field as JFK's motorcade departed for downtown Dallas).

However, the information about the "shrugging" SS agent being Lawton instead of Rybka is important in one way:

It should forever silence the conspiracists who like to talk about how the security for JFK's motorcade was being "stripped away" at Love Field.

Why should it silence them with respect to the shrugging agent?

Because, as far as I am aware (via Emory Roberts' assignment sheets), Donald Lawton was never assigned to be a part of the team of agents in the follow-up car (SS-679-X).

Lawton's assignment was "to remain at the airport to effect security for the President's departure" (a direct quote from Lawton's 11/30/63 report, CE2554.

The conspiracy theorists have always been able to argue that Emory Roberts had initially penciled in Henry Rybka's name to be one of the SS agents assigned to sit in the follow-up car during the Dallas parade. But no such argument can be made regarding Don Lawton, because Lawton knew what his assignment that day was going to be--to stay at Love Field and help out with security at the airport.

Therefore, we can know with 100% certainty that if Lawton is the "shrugging" agent who looks confused and bewildered just as JFK's motorcade is departing Love Field (and I now think that Lawton definitely is that Secret Service agent), then his actions cannot possibly have anything to do with any kind of "security stripping" at the airport.

The conspiracy believers can, of course, continue to use their previous "stripping" argument when it comes to Rybka specifically, but not with Lawton.

Chalk it up as just one more conspiracy myth knocked down--and it took almost 47 years to do it.

RybkaLoveField11-22-63.jpg

David:

Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging. Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film. Do you know what Rybka and Lawton looked like? Well, if Gary said it was so I guess there is no reason to have a forum or to try to determine the truth behind the assassination. I guess we can all pick up our toys and go home. Among many things Gary has told me is that what was labeled as a recording room at the Dallas Police Department in 1963 was not for recordings at all but it was actually a file room. That's logical. Why would anyone call a "file room" a file room? How silly. How does Gary know it was not a recording room? It is because he was in that room a few years ago. I guess that once a room is used for something it can never be used for any other purpose even forty plus years later. It is like Gary saying on one of his programs that a shot from the south knoll area could not have hit Kennedy because the shot would have to go through the windshield. REALLY? I am sure that Gary was never aware that anyone suggested that. Gary has also said that if Oswald was recorded in 1963 it could not have been used UNLESS BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorney AGREED IT COULD BE USED in court. Of course if the statements by Oswald were exculpatory the prosecutor would want the recording to come in and if it was inculpatory a good defense attorney would let the recording be admitted in order to hang his client. I tried to list all of the circumstances that both attorneys would have let such a recording come in to a trial. The one instance I could think of was if Oswald had simply said the sky was blue that day. Whoops! That would be irrelevsnt. There would not be any circumstances so why would anyone in Texas ever make a recording in 1963?Anything mopre meaningful than that which is irrelevant? NO. I have practiced law for over 32 years and have both prosecuted and defended cases. Gary's version of the law would have been unique in that it never has been such in any state ever, even Texas, except as Gary contends, for Oswald's case in 1963. Texas must have been part of a parallel universe that year. Then again, David, as you suggested, what does one expect of the Secret Service, that they would use themselves as human shields to protect the President. How ridiculous. WAIT, they are supposed to do that. David, I sincerely give you a lot more credit than that for your positions and for myself, I am not certain whether it was Rybka or Lawton shrugging at Love Field. However, I am going to need more evidence than Gary Mack being told by someone if it was so. My first question to Lisa, the author, is HOW did they confirm it was Lawton? Did they see the film? I would want to see a picture of Rybka or Lawton. It would be embarassing if a few posts from now if you then became absolutely convinced it was Rybka. Wow. I would not box myself in on such limited evidence. I admire your confidence.

Doug Weldon

I shouild acknowledge Bernice Moore for finding the recording room. There was a larger room labeled as for "records." That certainly cannot be for files. It is too logical. Well, it is getting late here in Michigan and I am heading to the kitchen to get some sleep.

Doug Weldon

Doug; David; Pleased it was the correct photo, out of so many, your very welcome...the taping room, catch was found on this site, i have mentioned the site in the past, he has a large collection of information, and is very active on the alts, by the name of Tomlin i believe, he has a fountain of information, so thanks to his research that became available...http://www.whokilledjfk.net/....

As David says quote ''Thank you, Gary, as always''.

it is nice to be nice and say thankyou always and appreciate any help, but imo it seems Gary is always quite anxious to help out any lnr that comes along very readily and merrily...now a days...:( in fact it would appear too much so....especially in any videos that he has been connected with in the past few years. ..B) .thanks ..imo...b

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a close scrutiny of a birds eye view with JFKs head correctly lined up will show that a shot from the GK (north) is a shot from the right and not from the front.

JFK's 'front' will, in fact. be quite elsewhere.

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to find the picture in question online somewhere. I don't think I've ever seen it before. .... Maybe Gary Mack can e-mail me a copy and I can post it here. I'd love to see it. Is that possible Gary?

Gary Mack has supplied a copy of the Tom Dillard photograph in question, and has also added the picture to the Sixth Floor Museum website. Thank you, Gary.

As it turns out, I had seen that Dillard photo previously. It's in Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History". It's printed, in a cropped format, on the next-to-last page of Vince's second of two photo sections in the book.

The photo is linked below, along with Gary's latest e-mail to me regarding this Rybka/Lawton subject:

Subject: RE: Gerald Blaine book...

Date: 11/17/2010 4:29:17 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

--------------------------

Dave,

The photo is now on the Museum’s website:

TOM DILLARD LOVE FIELD PHOTO

You can even see the Secret Service lapel button on Lawton!

Gary

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davey Boy;

I have tried to impress on you that, for very good reasons, Gary Mack has a credibility problem.

I know this might come as a major heart-stopping shock to you, Jimmy my boy, but I don't take anything you say very seriously. In fact, IMO, you are the type of conspiracy theorist to totally disregard with respect to the JFK assassination -- and that's because you're in the "Anybody But Oswald" club of fantasists. And no reasonable person can possibly take an "ABO" member seriously.

Plus, there is another evidentiary scandal brewing around Gary [Mack] which I am not free to comment on right now. But its [sic] pretty bad. So using him is like quoting, say, Dale Myers. (Which BTW, you do.)

Of course I often quote Gary Mack and Dale Myers. They are two of THE best researchers in the JFK world. So, yes, I'll quote them as much as I can. Dale's work on the SBT and the Tippit murder is unparalleled, in my view. Naturally, he's a rotten, corrupt xxxx in your mind. But, hey, he's GOT to be that way to you--because you actually have the 'nads to say (in public): "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." [DiEugenio quote; via Black Op Radio broadcast of January 14, 2010; discussed further at the link below.]

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-30.html

Anyone who can (with a straight face) utter those six words ("I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit") is not worth taking seriously for even two seconds.

Question for you though: Do you use an alias on amazon.com? Is so, if I guess it, would you admit it?

No, Jimmy, sorry to disappoint you, but I have never used an "alias" at Amazon.com--at any time.

The closest I've ever come to an alias is by using my initials ["DVP"] at the IMDB.com forum (and I have wanted to change that username to my full name, but they won't allow any changes of that nature after an account has been created), and I have used "David VP" instead of my full name in my early posts at acj and aaj.

Oh, yes, I have used an "aviation"-related alias at Airliners.net -- "LAX". But even in that instance, I put my full, real name in my profile:

http://Airliners.net/profile/lax

But at Amazon.com, I've always used my real name.

http://Amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1FDW1SPYKB354

So, no, I'm not S.V. Anderson--in case that's your next question. I've talked with Mr. Anderson on numerous occasions--Amazon included--and he's got his head screwed on straight regarding the JFK case. He's written some very good posts, too.

BTW, as a footnote to this "alias" topic -- Jim DiEugenio, in late 2008, was well on his way toward being convinced that I was, in fact, David Reitzes (thanks to Len Osanic's rumor, which was undoubtedly planted in his CTer mind by David G. Healy, who is the only person on the planet who ever thought such a thing prior to October of 2008).

RELATED LINK:

http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...