Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

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

Recommended Posts

Davey Boy;

I have tried to impress on you that, for very good reasons, Gary Mack has a credibility problem. For good reason, as I have demonstrated above. (Plus, there is another evidentiary scandal brewing around Gary which I am not free to comment on right now. But its pretty bad.) So using him is like quoting say Dale Myers. (Which BTW, you do.)

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

Yes that Dillard is or was around, i had two which i thought closely fit, but smaller and was not sure which one was the correct photo,but have no idea where they came from now but more than likely at one time from rich's site...

here fwtaw are both.the smaller first is the one dave is referring to....b

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The smaller first is the one Dave is referring to.

No, Bernice, actually it isn't the one that I linked to earlier. Yours is a different picture entirely, but it was obviously taken from the same vantage point and the same camera (Dillard's).

Here's the higher-quality Dillard photo that Gary Mack provided me a link for:

http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1994.003.0009.0003

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The smaller first is the one Dave is referring to.

No, Bernice, actually it isn't the one that I linked to earlier. Yours is a different picture entirely, but it was obviously taken from the same vantage point and the same camera (Dillard's).

Here's the higher-quality Dillard photo that Gary Mack provided me a link for:

http://www.jfk.org/g...4.003.0009.0003

thanks for the link, both show different positions...b ps dave what really is the use of Gary's link if we cannot capture a copy of the photo he has posted on his site, to compare, so much for not sharing, there it goes again...thanks for trying.. b

Edited by Bernice Moore

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

Be sure to use the Expand View slider bar to zoom in on the three agents….you can even see the Secret Service lapel button on Lawton!

Gary

David:

I am puzzled. This picture does not seem to show anything to me. Do you have pictures of Lawton and Rybka from 1963? The man shrugging seems to be the youngest man there. I do not know if it was Lawton or Rybka but Gary's "logic" is not convincing. I think if we had pictures it could easily be resolved . Obviously, Blaine must have thought this was an important point to refute though most people reading the book will have no idea why any time was spent on this. The book uses made-up conversations which obviously could not have been recalled., i.e. analogous to" my wife asked me what I wanted for dinner. I said ribs and she replied why don't you try the chicken." Do you think all or even any of the numerous quoted conversations in the book were real? How did they get the telephone conversations of the wives about mundane things if the agents weren't there? It also gives the impression that all of the Kennedy detail was fine with Kennedy. See the documentary "Dangerous World' in which four of Kennedy's detail spoke up against Kennedy and seemed to be disgusted that he was engaging in immoral activity, drug use, amphetimines from Dr Jacobsen etc. at a time when critical decisions were having to be made for the country. They appeared very upset that they had to be a part of it. After the documentary aired I was informed that a hush or silence order was placed on the Secret service current and past not to speak about Kennedy. Interestingly, not one of these four agents were named in this current book. Peter Jennings, who narrated the show "Dangerous World", implied that there were other agents who could have come forward. Allegedly, when agents were assigned to Kennedy they were warned that they might see some very unexpected things. Remember, these agents were very conservative, anticommunist, and very proud to have achieved their status. I do see, whether rightly or wrongly, that agents could have been compromised if they believed it was their patriotic duty not to allow the presidency to deteriorate in what indeed was a dangerous world in 1963. Again, the Rybka-Lawton controversy can easily be resolved.Oddly, there are no pictures of Rybka in the book and only a very tiny picture of Lawton in Tampa and I am not sure which one of two people he is. The man in the deep crouch is obviously not the man shrugging at Love Field. Since they wanted to resolve the controversy why did they not show a still of Lawton shrugging at Love Field. The book simply whitewashes many things,i.e. "It was a common misconception that the president's limousine was bulletproof. In fact, the car had been DESIGNED MOSTLY FOR POLITICAL SHOW AND EXPOSURE. THE SECRET SERVICE WORKING AGENTS HAD VERY LITTLE INPUT INTO THE CAR"S FEATURES (emphasis added.)p 79 Nothing could be further from the truth. Though not bulletproof it was highly designed with bullet and even being bomb resistent. I do not believe that a bullet could have pierced the body of the limousine though the glass was not bullet-proof. The limo took many months to design and the secret service was the MAJOR player in its design. I spent many hours talking and communicating with the late Willard Hess who modified the limo. They tried to anticipate every circumstance that the President might confront. The Secret Service was practically always there in Cinncinati, Ohio, where the Hess and Eisenhardt Company was located and even the most minor modifications were done onlywith the approval of the Secret Service. It was a coordinated effort with the Secret Service, the Ford Motor Company, and Hess and Eisenhardt. There are still things about that vehicle which are classified Top Secret and those involved had to take an oath not to reveal them. Once again, the mainstream media is focusing tremendous attention on this book. I saw Mike Barnacle on MSNBC rave about the book and Barnacle expressed his disgust over those who have written conspiracy books and made fortunes! Can you name one author alleging a conspiracy who has made a fortune? Obviously, it is a totally different story with Posner and Buglious and these people writing this book will do okay. This is so similar to a number of years ago when the lead story on television was "Humes breaks his silence. Three shots from the rear..." The same thing is happening here as the news proclaims "The Secret Service breaks its silence as to what really happened to Kennedy in Dallas." I have been informed there is going to be a television show Monday about it. Oh Boy. What about the agents who broke their silence on the ABC documentary "Dangerous World" in the 1990's? Oddly, I did not see one newscast about the Secret Service breaking their silence then. Again, simply provide pictures of Lawton and Rybka and there is no controversy.

Doug Weldon

Edited by Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you use any alias there [Amazon]? Period. Do you mind answering that without a rap session?

I already did. You apparently can't read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the link. Both show different positions. .... Dave, what really is the use of Gary's link if we cannot capture a copy of the photo he has posted on his site, to compare. So much for not sharing. There it goes again. Thanks for trying.

Gary asked that I only post a link to the picture (via the Sixth Floor Museum page).

But what is there to gripe about, Bernice? I provided a perfectly good link to the Dillard picture via a 6FM link. And the Museum's "zoom/slider" feature is very useful too. I like the way the Museum's site has displayed its photos and films. Very classy.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Weldon,

The whole Rybka/Lawton issue is, indeed (as I think you have already agreed), totally unimportant and irrelevant.

Because regardless of WHO the shrugging SS agent is, it couldn't be more obvious that the agent would not have been running alongside the car during the whole motorcade anyway; nor would he have been perched on the back bumper for the whole trip either (even though people like Palamara like to argue that the agents should ALWAYS have been perched there for every motorcade, which just did not happen--including every pre-Nov. 22 motorcade, which is something that all CTers avoid like Red Death).

But, as I said before, the COMBINATION of the things Gary Mack was told by Lisa McCubbin...plus the Dillard picture showing multiple agents on the right side of the cars just seconds before it left Love Field...make a good case, IMO, for the FRONT agent of the three in the Dillard picture being Don Lawton, as he himself apparently has recently confirmed; while the MIDDLE of the three SS agents in the picture is very likely Hank Rybka.

http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1994.003.0009.0003

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I too don't think it that significant an issue, it should be determined exactly who the guy was.

Vince has a good photo of Hank Rybka at his blog. Is there a similar mug shot of Don Lawton?

You have to scroll down a bit to find it.

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/

I've tried to isolate it here.

http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/us-secret-service-agent-hank-rybka/

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I too don't think it that significant an issue, it should be determined exactly who the guy was.

And when/if the agent is confirmed to be Donald Lawton, does this mean we can finally put to rest the notion that the shrugging agent was shrugging because he was completely bewildered and miffed at being "left behind" at Love Field?

Via such a confirmation of the agent being Lawton, obviously such talk would have to be jettisoned by the YouTubers (and others) who like to create videos using the WFAA-TV videotape footage showing Shrugging Man, because I don't think it's possible for even the silliest CTer to pretend that Lawton was supposed to be a part of the Secret Service crew in the Queen Mary follow-up car on November 22. His assignment was to remain at Love Field, as he himself said on 11/30/63 [see CE2554, pictured below].

Therefore, whatever the reason was for Lawton's shrugging and arm-flailing at Love Field, it could not possibly be looked upon as "security stripping" as far as Agent Lawton is concerned.

WC_Vol25_0408b.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you are applying signifiance to it. Okay. What was really signficant then?

No, you are right, the Security Stripping came when they neglected to cover the open windows on the motorcade route, especially after the FBI reports on Mileter and the earlier event of two boys with a rifle in a window at Fort Worth.

This had to be the "Security Stripping" of the PRS - Protective Research Section and their failure to identify any threats to the president whatsoever in Dallas.

According to Vince's work on the Tampa, Florida advance work, the assignments for overpasses and open windows in buildings was given to the US Army Reserves unit, that was also active in Dallas, in the lead car of the motorcade and at Dealey Plaza, but was apparently ordered to Stand Down.

That's wwhere the "Security Stripping" came in.

And did anybody figure out what JFK meant, if he in fact did call the SS agents "Ivy League Charlaitains"?

BK

While I too don't think it that significant an issue, it should be determined exactly who the guy was.

And when/if the agent is confirmed to be Donald Lawton, does this mean we can finally put to rest the notion that the shrugging agent was shrugging because he was completely bewildered and miffed at being "left behind" at Love Field?

Via such a confirmation of the agent being Lawton, obviously such talk would have to be jettisoned by the YouTubers (and others) who like to create videos using the WFAA-TV videotape footage showing Shrugging Man, because I don't think it's possible for even the silliest CTer to pretend that Lawton was supposed to be a part of the Secret Service crew in the Queen Mary follow-up car on November 22. His assignment was to remain at Love Field, as he himself said on 11/30/63 [see CE2554, pictured below].

Therefore, whatever the reason was for Lawton's shrugging and arm-flailing at Love Field, it could not possibly be looked upon as "security stripping" as far as Agent Lawton is concerned.

WC_Vol25_0408b.gif

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you are applying signifiance to it. Okay. What was really signficant then?

No, you are right, the Security Stripping came when they neglected to cover the open windows on the motorcade route, especially after the FBI reports on Mileter and the earlier event of two boys with a rifle in a window at Fort Worth.

This had to be the "Security Stripping" of the PRS - Protective Research Section and their failure to identify any threats to the president whatsoever in Dallas.

According to Vince's work on the Tampa, Florida advance work, the assignments for overpasses and open windows in buildings was given to the US Army Reserves unit, that was also active in Dallas, in the lead car of the motorcade and at Dealey Plaza, but was apparently ordered to Stand Down.

That's wwhere the "Security Stripping" came in.

And did anybody figure out what JFK meant, if he in fact did call the SS agents "Ivy League Charlaitains"?

BK

While I too don't think it that significant an issue, it should be determined exactly who the guy was.

And when/if the agent is confirmed to be Donald Lawton, does this mean we can finally put to rest the notion that the shrugging agent was shrugging because he was completely bewildered and miffed at being "left behind" at Love Field?

Via such a confirmation of the agent being Lawton, obviously such talk would have to be jettisoned by the YouTubers (and others) who like to create videos using the WFAA-TV videotape footage showing Shrugging Man, because I don't think it's possible for even the silliest CTer to pretend that Lawton was supposed to be a part of the Secret Service crew in the Queen Mary follow-up car on November 22. His assignment was to remain at Love Field, as he himself said on 11/30/63 [see CE2554, pictured below].

Therefore, whatever the reason was for Lawton's shrugging and arm-flailing at Love Field, it could not possibly be looked upon as "security stripping" as far as Agent Lawton is concerned.

http://palamaravince.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-preliminary-thoughts-on-blaines.html

''Gerald S. Blaine, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop): Blaine told the author on February 7, 2004 that President Kennedy was “very cooperative. He didn’t interfere with our actions. President Kennedy was very likeable—he never had a harsh word for anyone. He never interfered with our actions.” [Emphasis added.] When the author asked Blaine how often the agents rode on the back of JFK’s limousine, the former agent said it was a “fairly common” occurrence that depended on the crowd and the speed of the cars. In fact, just as one example, Blaine rode on the rear of JFK’s limousine in Germany in June 1963, along with fellow Texas trip veterans Paul A. Burns and Samuel E. Sulliman.69 Blaine added, in specific reference to the agents on the follow-up car in Dallas: “You have to remember, they were fairly young agents,” seeming to imply that their youth was a disadvantage, or perhaps this was seen as an excuse for their poor performance on November 22, 1963.70 Surprisingly, Blaine, the WHD advance agent for the Tampa trip of November 18, 1963, said that JFK did make the comment “I don’t need Ivy League charlatans back there,” but emphasized this was a “low-key remark” said “kiddingly” and demonstrating Kennedy’s “Irish sense of humor”. However, according to the “official” story, President Kennedy allegedly made these remarks only to Boring while traveling in the presidential limousine in Tampa: Blaine was nowhere near the vehicle at the time, so Boring had to be his source for this story! In addition to Emory Roberts, one now won-ders if Blaine was a source (or perhaps the source) for Manchester’s exagger-ated “quote” attributed to Boring, as Agent Blaine was also interviewed by Manchester (see above). Blaine would not respond to a follow-up letter on this subject.

However, when the author phoned Blaine on June 10, 2005, the former agent said the remark “Ivy League charlatans” came “from the guys … I can’t remember who [said it] … I can’t remember [emphasis added].” Thus, Blaine confirms that he did not hear the remark from JFK. (When asked if agents rode on the rear of the limousine on the Italy trip in 1963, Blaine said forcefully: “Oh yeah, oh yeah.” It turns out he was one of the agents.) Blaine also added that the lack of agents on the rear of the car “had no impact”, adding: “Well, maybe a hesita-tion.” That is all it took. The former agent also said: “Don’t be too hard on Emory Roberts. He was a double, even a triple checker. He probably took Jack Ready’s life into consideration.” If only he would have taken Jack Kennedy’s life with the same degree of concern.

69 Looking Back and Seeing The Future: The United States Secret Service 1865–1990 by the AFAUSSS (Dallas: Taylor Publishing Company, 1991), p. 79.

70 Fellow agent Darwin Horn wrote: “Most of the men riding the follow-up car were newer agents who had joined the detail after I left.” [Dar’s Story: Memoirs of a Secret Service Agent by Darwin Horn (Santa Barbara, CA: Haagen Printing, 2002), p. 114.]''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you are applying signifiance to it. Okay. What was really signficant then?

No, you are right, the Security Stripping came when they neglected to cover the open windows on the motorcade route, especially after the FBI reports on Mileter and the earlier event of two boys with a rifle in a window at Fort Worth.

This had to be the "Security Stripping" of the PRS - Protective Research Section and their failure to identify any threats to the president whatsoever in Dallas.

According to Vince's work on the Tampa, Florida advance work, the assignments for overpasses and open windows in buildings was given to the US Army Reserves unit, that was also active in Dallas, in the lead car of the motorcade and at Dealey Plaza, but was apparently ordered to Stand Down.

That's wwhere the "Security Stripping" came in.

And did anybody figure out what JFK meant, if he in fact did call the SS agents "Ivy League Charlaitains"?

BK

While I too don't think it that significant an issue, it should be determined exactly who the guy was.

And when/if the agent is confirmed to be Donald Lawton, does this mean we can finally put to rest the notion that the shrugging agent was shrugging because he was completely bewildered and miffed at being "left behind" at Love Field?

Via such a confirmation of the agent being Lawton, obviously such talk would have to be jettisoned by the YouTubers (and others) who like to create videos using the WFAA-TV videotape footage showing Shrugging Man, because I don't think it's possible for even the silliest CTer to pretend that Lawton was supposed to be a part of the Secret Service crew in the Queen Mary follow-up car on November 22. His assignment was to remain at Love Field, as he himself said on 11/30/63 [see CE2554, pictured below].

Therefore, whatever the reason was for Lawton's shrugging and arm-flailing at Love Field, it could not possibly be looked upon as "security stripping" as far as Agent Lawton is concerned.

http://palamaravince...on-blaines.html

''Gerald S. Blaine, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop): Blaine told the author on February 7, 2004 that President Kennedy was "very cooperative. He didn't interfere with our actions. President Kennedy was very likeable—he never had a harsh word for anyone. He never interfered with our actions." [Emphasis added.] When the author asked Blaine how often the agents rode on the back of JFK's limousine, the former agent said it was a "fairly common" occurrence that depended on the crowd and the speed of the cars. In fact, just as one example, Blaine rode on the rear of JFK's limousine in Germany in June 1963, along with fellow Texas trip veterans Paul A. Burns and Samuel E. Sulliman.69 Blaine added, in specific reference to the agents on the follow-up car in Dallas: "You have to remember, they were fairly young agents," seeming to imply that their youth was a disadvantage, or perhaps this was seen as an excuse for their poor performance on November 22, 1963.70 Surprisingly, Blaine, the WHD advance agent for the Tampa trip of November 18, 1963, said that JFK did make the comment "I don't need Ivy League charlatans back there," but emphasized this was a "low-key remark" said "kiddingly" and demonstrating Kennedy's "Irish sense of humor". However, according to the "official" story, President Kennedy allegedly made these remarks only to Boring while traveling in the presidential limousine in Tampa: Blaine was nowhere near the vehicle at the time, so Boring had to be his source for this story! In addition to Emory Roberts, one now won-ders if Blaine was a source (or perhaps the source) for Manchester's exagger-ated "quote" attributed to Boring, as Agent Blaine was also interviewed by Manchester (see above). Blaine would not respond to a follow-up letter on this subject.

However, when the author phoned Blaine on June 10, 2005, the former agent said the remark "Ivy League charlatans" came "from the guys … I can't remember who [said it] … I can't remember [emphasis added]." Thus, Blaine confirms that he did not hear the remark from JFK. (When asked if agents rode on the rear of the limousine on the Italy trip in 1963, Blaine said forcefully: "Oh yeah, oh yeah." It turns out he was one of the agents.) Blaine also added that the lack of agents on the rear of the car "had no impact", adding: "Well, maybe a hesita-tion." That is all it took. The former agent also said: "Don't be too hard on Emory Roberts. He was a double, even a triple checker. He probably took Jack Ready's life into consideration." If only he would have taken Jack Kennedy's life with the same degree of concern.

69 Looking Back and Seeing The Future: The United States Secret Service 1865–1990 by the AFAUSSS (Dallas: Taylor Publishing Company, 1991), p. 79.

70 Fellow agent Darwin Horn wrote: "Most of the men riding the follow-up car were newer agents who had joined the detail after I left." [Dar's Story: Memoirs of a Secret Service Agent by Darwin Horn (Santa Barbara, CA: Haagen Printing, 2002), p. 114.]''

So what did JFK mean when he called the Secret Service Agents in the White House Detail "Ivy League Charlatans"?

Was he depreciating their education in that they weren't Ivy League college graduates like him?

Or was he saying they were charlatans?

Or is that what Boring wanted the other agents to think?

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I too don't think it that significant an issue, it should be determined exactly who the guy was.

And when/if the agent is confirmed to be Donald Lawton, does this mean we can finally put to rest the notion that the shrugging agent was shrugging because he was completely bewildered and miffed at being "left behind" at Love Field?

Via such a confirmation of the agent being Lawton, obviously such talk would have to be jettisoned by the YouTubers (and others) who like to create videos using the WFAA-TV videotape footage showing Shrugging Man, because I don't think it's possible for even the silliest CTer to pretend that Lawton was supposed to be a part of the Secret Service crew in the Queen Mary follow-up car on November 22. His assignment was to remain at Love Field, as he himself said on 11/30/63 [see CE2554, pictured below].

Therefore, whatever the reason was for Lawton's shrugging and arm-flailing at Love Field, it could not possibly be looked upon as "security stripping" as far as Agent Lawton is concerned.

WC_Vol25_0408b.gif

David:

I agree with everything you wrote here. If it is Lawton, and it could be, then I don't believe it is an issue. If it is Rybka, I agree that it may be more significant, but it also may not be. Nobody here knows why he was flailing his arms. My question would be why did the authors find it necessary to make an effort to deny it was Rybka. I hope you agree, though it may be much ado about nothing, that it would be useful to identify who it was.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

JR Carroll to David Von Pein, 12 August 2010:

"Hello David. You may feel like an outlaw here, but IMO you are closer to the truth than most of the members. You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernice Moore']Thanks for the link. Both show different positions. .... Dave, what really is the use of Gary's link if we cannot capture a copy of the photo he has posted on his site, to compare. So much for not sharing. There it goes again. Thanks for trying.

quote David; Gary asked that I only post a link to the picture (via the Sixth Floor Museum page).

But what is there to gripe about, Bernice? I provided a perfectly good link to the Dillard picture via a 6FM link. And the Museum's "zoom/slider" feature is very useful too. I like the way the Museum's site has displayed its photos and films. Very classy.

:blink:b; hallo david you cannot download it..the photo;..duh...

Thanks for the link. Both show different positions. .... Dave, what really is the use of Gary's link if we cannot capture a copy of the photo he has posted on his site, to compare. So much for not sharing. There it goes again. Thanks for trying.

Gary asked that I only post a link to the picture (via the Sixth Floor Museum page).

antti having trouble again posting replies on this thread fyi..

and with quote tags...thanks...

yes,David it is a very classy set up,and should be the money is there to do so, but as mentioned, if you cannot download even you, so that one can compare and study photos side by side to each other, then of what aid in the research is there, none.you must study and compare.....for instance Robin and some others have very good photo sites, that they have assembled, their photos are free some of which they have paid for many they have received and or copied from the posts on the web, which you have also taken advantage of, but with no charge,do you charge for any copies made from your site, no, i do not think so not that i have seen or is that about to come, seeing you agree with the tsbdm. others such as with Rich's site for years as well as Lancer and this E.F that are posted,do so for free, or is this the coming thing, in your opinion, as you appear to be supporting such,or do i step one hallowed toes here, :blink: i do not, nor do others charge they post if they have such on the web for all, or if asked, for free, so why does the tsbd museum charge if you want a copy..they post on their site,on the web, when all they must do is enable their program so they can be copied....

i think i have read where they get over 325,ooo visitors a year, take say just $5.00 a head,for an even figure, that is a tremendous amount of income, :blink:if that is not more than enough to run the busness with a healthy profit left over, then someone is highly lacking in economic skills, and then there is also plus the profit made on everything they sell so why the price on every copy of photo that is wanted or needed for research from the tsbd...that is posted on the web...??? :unsure: that's is the complaint, not a gripe a ruddy very old complaint, trouble is with the so called tsbd museum it has become all about money and control..which only breeds more greed...for more, more , more, are you now going to start charging for yours,?or for any information you or one can supply like docs . news paper clipingss, gifs, video clips etc..?? i doubt it very much, and such, i'm not and i do not see any others doing so...but greed breeds more greed, more,control, more .avarice..and that is what i see within the TSBD MUSEUM, and there have been no improvements when it comes to such, unless one kisses butt or grovels then perhaps one may receive such copies free, hmmmmmm well it's a thought.and it has happened...but do not try to do so if you have a different opinion and not agree with gary or the standard tsbds pro the w/c is right stand......imo...:ice

Edited by Bernice Moore

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...