Al Carrier

Tosh, I wonder if you could take a look at the attached photos and tell me who the Anglo is. I am sure you know Jesus, the Latino, but I never knew the identity of the anglo. These photos were taken in the fall of '81 in Puerta Limon on the day we met. The anglo appeared about the same time you did so I assume you know who he is. Al

Three that pop immediately to mind are: 1) How did Oswald stage-manage all of this? 2) Could there possibly have been a conspiracy? 3) Can Al Carrier really "defend" this all away? Stay tuned ...! Somehow I suspect it will all get much more interesting .... Duke and all, What you must understand is that the Presidential vehicle is responsible for the pace of the motorcade. The lead car sets the speed by distancing itself consistently from the presidential vehicle. If the pace through DP was too slow, which obvisously it was, then it is the not the fault of the lead car which housed Chief Curry and Sheriff Decker, but the driver of the limo and the lead agent, Agents Greer and Kellerman, respectfully. I am not saying that they were the groundwork for the assassination and they would have been fools to be considering the shots from various angles from rifles into the limo which would have subjected them to being hit. It was the planning of the exposure of the motorcade that allowed the assassination to happen. It is obvious. Why was there insufficient numbers of DPD throughout Dealey Plaza? Because once they made their turn onto Elm, the crowds were significantly minimal and closed off, so the need for ground security was mininal if not all together not needed. The concern for the ground security planning was intersection blockage and crowd control. Once they passed Houston, they had kept the majority of the crowd off and would not need on ground security. Do not look at this in hindisight, but instead consider what they feared after the Stevenson incident and the history of incidents that plagued these type of visits. Again, I ask for specific issues of concerns and I will address them from the standpoint of '63. Al

Al, EDIT: Apologies for taking so long on my response: we had a "weather incident" here, and there is nothing worse than ice on the roads of Dallas than Texans on the roads in Dallas! The rest of this post is in the original: As you well know, few if any people here (or even involved in the assassination debate in general!) perhaps other than yourself have the experience of being involved in Presidential protection. Not even every cop in our major cities has that distinction. By that measure, almost nobody has the "right" to judge what happened in Dallas or draw any conclusions from what they've learned because they haven't been involved in Presidential protection details from any angle. By extension, the only people who really do have such a right are people who've not only done it but, more specifically, who did it in 1963. What's the line about "having a battle of wits with an unarmed man?" I won't go so far as to suggest either of us are witless, but it does seem that you're attempting to define the only people with "wits" as those who've "been there, done that" (whatever "that" may be), and that nobody else can have an informed opinion because ... well, because they're not informed! Sort of puts any "debate" automatically on unequal footing, doesn't it? Appeal to authority: you've got it, nobody else does, you win by default. Your argument seems to be that everybody did everything perfectly and by the book, but Kennedy got killed anyway, and, well, "there was little anyone could have done to prevent a successful attempt on the life of the president." Leaving aside the impossibility of "preventing" something that's already "successful," it's not as if that wasn't anyone's job or anything to damned sure try! Sheesh, whassamatta me? The only error anyone made was in not stopping traffic, that's all, just a minor little thing that. That and a handful of people who should've been shooed off the bridge were all that stood between "where it became [an] ingenious ... escape" rather than just pure, dumb luck. Otherwise, everybody gets a gold star? As to staffing along the parade route, I'm working largely from memory and limited notes (and a map) for the time being. I've got another 35-page report somewhere around here that I couldn't seem to lay my hands on, and a bunch of other stuff to boot. It is probably far less than what you have, but it should at least be sufficient to form the basis of a discussion. You said that "(i)n a moving motorcade, the Secret Service does not have agents on the ground and rely [sic] on local LE to provide security." The WC agreed with you on the fact that there were no USSS personnel on the ground in Dallas. That means that the assignments DPD - and DPD alone - made were all the ground security in place since, according to the WC (and the agencies in question), no other federal agency (or military) personnel were along the parade route. As to locals, most of the DCSD deputies that were downtown were hanging out at the corner of Main and Houston watching the parade. Pages 618 through 623, inclusive, of FBI "JFK Exhibit F-679" (part of CD-1, as I recall) are the assignments of officers for "President J.F. Kennedy's Dallas Visit and Parade." It is dated November 21, 1963, and are the plans submitted to "Mr. J.E. Curry, Chief of Police" for "policing the parade, and other traffic and security assignments" submitted by Deputy Chief R.H. Lunday, who was listed as "in charge of detail." His assistant in charge was Capt P.W. Lawrence. Presumably, this report was pro forma to Curry, the details having already been worked out between Lunday, Lawrence, Win Lawson, Forrest Sorrels and David Grant (and Floyd Boring back in DC?). Not to say that it necessarily means anything, but I have always found it interesting that this report covers only the trip TO the Trade Mart, and that there isn't one for the trip BACK from the Trade Mart. Is this typical? The report covers six pages, detailing where everyone will be and who they are. It is complete with Asst Chief Lunday's signature at the end of the sixth page. It seems odd that someone would provide such detail and then make none about the second half of the trip, or put it in a separate report. Stranger things have happened, though. Maybe Curry didn't need to worry about the trip back simply because he wouldn't be a part of it (tho' it of course turned out that he was). The manpower used to handle these assignments," report says, "will come from the Traffic Division and available Police Reserves" (emphasis added). A total of 159 officers and reservists were assigned some sort of function in connection with the parade. Eighteen rode in the parade, including five solo motorcycles in the lead, four each assigned to the left and right sides of the car (two at each front and two at each rear), and two more following behind; three officers rode in the advance unit, 2 blocks ahead of the first (police) car in the main motorcade. Nineteen were assigned to "motor pool" duties at the Trade Mart, and six more were assigned to "traffic and security" at the same location beginning at 7:00 a.m. Five more worked a "no-parking detail" along the parade route, also starting at 7:00 a.m. Of the remaining 111 officers, there are four sergeants and one lieutenant supervising "Parade Route Traffic and Security Assignments," and 14 reservists working "crowd control" along the route. The rest were stationed at or around various intersections along the route. There were two possible routes from Love Field to the Trade Mart: one that went across Mockingbird to Harry Hines Blvd, Hines to Industrial to Inwood and thence to the Trade Mart (designated route "2" which avoided downtown altogether), and the one that was taken (route "1"). According to the recollections of one of the solo motorcycle cops (I can't find the link or remember his name, but I believe it's on Ken Rahn's site), none of the officers knew which route would be taken until they had left Love Field and taken the first turn. That seems a little abrupt to me since the first group of security would have to already be in place as soon as they took whichever turn they were going to make. Offhand, I don't know (or remember) who made the final decision on the route or when. The area of coverage for each sergeant along the "1" route was as follows (with the route marked in red on the map, with each of the last points of transfer of responsibility marked as X1 thru X4): Love Field to Turtle Creek (W.A. Simpson) Turtle Creek & Cedar Springs to Harwood (B.F. Rodgers) Main-Harwood to Field (W.C. Campbell) Main & Field to Houston & Elm (D.V. Harkness) If one is to believe that it means what exactly what the report says, Kennedy's security technically ended at Elm and Houston. As the parade moved into downtown and onto Main Street, there were two officers assigned to each corner along Main at Harwood, St. Paul, Ervay, Stone, Akard, Field, Murphy, Griffin, Poydras, Lamar, Austin, Market and Record. In most cases, one of the two officers had either a solo motorcycle or three-wheeler until they reached Record Street, one block east of Houston. The map should be clear enough to show that this is at every intersection along Main. These are all direct intersections, surrounded on all four sides by tall buildings, the only means of open passage being along Main or the intersecting street. Beginning at Main & Houston, there were three officers at that corner (Fox, Lewis and Denham, along with DCSD not on official duty); three officers at Elm & Houston (Barnett, Smith and Smith); and two officers atop the RR bridge (Foster and White), for a total of eight officers assigned the plaza. (I am presuming that they are all sworn officers as opposed to reservists; I looked it up once, but just don't recall, so I'll give it the benefit of doubt.) One Reservist (H.A. Inmon - sp?) was assigned between Main-Houston and Elm for crowd control. After Elm & Houston, assignments were (notes in parentheses are verbatim on the report): Elm & RR Overpass (both officers atop RR overpass - one man on East side & one man on West side) - Foster and White Stemmons Freeway Serv. Rd. (atop overpass) - J.E. Murphy (three-wheeler) [something unreadable] RR Overpass across Stemmons Freeway (just North of Elm Street - one man on South catwalk & other man on Nortyh catwalk) - L.A. Lomax and E.V. Brown [something unreadable] Overpass at Industrial (3 Wheeler atop overpass on East side) - C.E. Shankles (three-wheeler) Stemmons Service Road & Industrial - J.R. Mackay (3W), R.J. Kosan, W.E. Wilson From the time that the motorcade made its approach onto Stemmons Freeway (I-35E) northbound to the Trade Mart, there was no on-the-ground security other than the escort motorcycles and lead car until they reached the Trade Mart. This is presumably because they'd be moving at 60+ mph and would be hard targets to hit. The Trade Mart is just about right off the freeway, and several officers were assigned to keep that area secure with an additional 19 officers assigned to the "motor pool" at that location to assist as necessary. Traffic was stopped along the northbound side of Stemmons prior to the entrance ramp, so the highway was more or less clear ahead of the motorcade from the Elm entrance to the TM (photos show otherwise, tho' the traffic wasn't moving). The officers assigned to stop traffic on Stemmons are not specified. "Security" along the highway was limited to two mounted officers (3-wheelers), one atop the service road overpass and the other atop the overpass on the east side at Stemmons and Industrial, and 2 officers on foot atop the south and north (pedestrian) catwalks just north of Elm. All any of them could have done was watched "a successful attempt on the life of the president" since none of them could have done a damned thing to make an attempt unsuccessful! In truth, they weren't "security," they were nothing more than by-standers. I said earlier that security "technically" ended at Elm and Houston, but it also effectively ended there since, from that point forward, every single officer without exception was "atop" a bridge or catwalk. None could respond to or prevent any incident occuring beneath the bridges, including the Triple Underpass, and everyone at ground level (e.g., the six officers at the east end of the plaza, on Houston at Main and at Elm) was already behind the action when the shooting started. Notice, too, that the shooting started as soon as the security ended. Who could have known? Should anything have happened along that stretch of Elm St after the turn from Houston (as it did), the last two cops on the route were hamstrung: they were 20 feet above the roadway, and a longer distance off the bridge and down the hill to get to street level, with a six-foot high, hundred-foot long fence in the way. Moreover, one of them was on the west side - the far side - of the bridge, separated from Dealey Plaza by more than four railroad tracks and facing away from it. There was only one set of eyes focused on Dealey Plaza, and no feet on its ground. Al, you also noted that "local LE is and was required to man anything that the motorcade passes under or over, and DPD did that" ... at least, as minimally as could have been done. Offhand, I don't know the length of the Triple Underpass, but it is long enough and dark enough with enough pillars along the walkways that I wouldn't recommend anyone walk through there unarmed, even in daylight! Would an area like this qualify as one of those "points of concern along a motorcade route" that you said local LE is expected to provide as part of the "majority" of their security? To say that DPD "manned" this bridge is like a mechanic who checked your lug nuts and says he's "performed an inspection" of your car. Two miles later, the rear end falls off, he shrugs and says "well, that wasn't what I'd inspected," but there's no doubt that he performed "an inspection." Did that "inspection" do the job and let you know what to expect? Of course not, but you tell me you're going to defend it as an adequate performance of DPD's expected responsibilities? What could either man atop the bridge have done should something have happened beneath it? How could they have effectively monitored anyone walking underneath the bridge - much less caught up to them - when the bridge is 10 lanes wide (three lanes each at Elm and Commerce, plus two in each direction at Main)? It is long enough from east to west that two men stationed atop of it directly across from each other would have to yell quite loudly to even get the other's attention, much less advise him to make sure (!?) that whoever went beneath the bridge came out the other side ... and then, what if they didn't come out? What could they do about investigating where they'd gone? Along the Main St and Houston St portions of the parade, there were two men stationed at or near each intersection, one mounted (either solo or 3-wheeler). You can picture the open area of any four-lane downtown thoroughfare intersecting with two-lane sidestreets: if as many as six or more officers (not counting those in the motorcade), half mounted, can converge on any one spot in a very brief span of time, why leave an expanse as large as Dealey Plaza with security only at one end (and who would naturally relax their vigilance once the motorcade - or the VIP cars at a minimum - went by them), with ALL of them on foot only? Of the eight officers in DP, six were assigned to the eastern end, and the two atop the bridge essentially ineffective except as "lookouts" for trouble in the plaza (which they couldn't have responded to anyway ... and they weren't even equipped with handhelds to alert anyone else either!) and for clearing the top of the bridge (only). Plus, one of them was assigned to look the other way on the west side of the bridge, away from the approach of the motorcade. So JFK was effectively abandoned by DPD as soon as he took the turn onto Elm, and the only thing anyone could do - the only thing they actually were able to do - was watch when trouble came down. DPD was no longer "security," they were merely spectators. You also called the motorcade route "an ideal killing zone throughout for a sniper" (my emphasis), and cited the "terrain afforded thoughout" as if DP and the downtown streets were even similar in their challenges. DP, as quite distinct from the rest of the parade route, not only had many more vantage (read: firing) points, but it likewise had more escape routes. It had more streets converging into it and spreading out from it than any other intersection previously encountered, and had two levels - above and below the bridge - to guard. Because of the curves in the road, it also offered arguably the only place along the downtown parade route that someone could have fired from a window without having to lean out of it - becoming much more conspicuous - to aim and fire at "the target." And for this, DPD provided officers on foot only, with most of them at the trailing end of the parade, and the rest (one officer) hardly in a position to respond to anything, much less prevent it! Such was DPD "security" planning ... and it was planned. It is debatable whether the intention was to have provided NO security at DP as they did, but that doesn't change the fact of what was. Despite the "Keystone Kops" image they obtained as a result of the events of this one weekend, DPD was NOT incompetent or ill-trained. If someone with as little training and experience as I have (some military LE, but not enough - and too long ago - that I would consider myself a "real cop") can recognize some of the obstacles of Dealey Plaza, it is absolutely inconceivable that officers - and ranking officers to boot! - with years of experience, trained to look for such obstacles, trained to prevent crimes, not merely react to them, and trained and expected to protect the life of the President of the United States who was visiting the city so very visibly and so close on the heels of the Adlai Stevenson debacle, could not properly evaluate and recognize DP as a "point of concern" on which to focus and plan adequate security for, in the heart of the very city they patrol every day! No, that was really more than anyone should expect. But hey, in life there are no absolutes, least of all when it comes to what you can conceive and believe in this case! Let's move on. The shots have been fired, the motorcade's sped out of the plaza, people are running up the knoll, and Officer Joe Smith (who was stationed at Elm & Houston with two other officers, also on foot) encounters someone he thinks suspicous and halts him, drawing on him. The man displays SS creds which Smith is satisfied with, and afterwards testifies how stupid he felt for drawing down on a fed (he was still fooled six months later!). You said that "in a moving motorcade [which this was], the Secret Service does not have agents on the ground." In this case, the WC (and HSCA) agreed with you, having been advised by USSS that there were, in fact, none of its agents on the ground in DP. Every other federal agency, military and civilian, said the same thing. We also know that no police were assigned there either. "Who was this man" might be an important question, but a more important question is: "how did he know he could be there?" Let's think about this a moment. The average person on the streets doesn't know PRS procedure. USSS doesn't talk about their means and methods, not even what they did 40 years ago or not (they won't even confirm or deny the manhole or 120° turn stuff!). Everyone knows the President travels with a lot of security (by most people's standards, anyway), so why would anyone suspect that the Secret Service would NOT be on the ground in Dealey Plaza that day? How did he know that a real SS agent (who could call his bluff and cause all sorts of trouble) wasn't within earshot as he identified himself as one of them? Moreover, we've got to assume that these DPD guys got some sort of briefing about what to expect as far as DPD's security arrangements vis-a-vis the President's own, if only to ensure that they didn't interfere with PRS duties. I think most people would expect that they'd been briefed how to recognize an agent or where to find one. How, in other words, does this guy with the fake creds know the cop's NOT going to know he's not SS ... AND that nobody who would know the difference was going to be there? It seems a pretty risky thing to do otherwise. Who knew where security would and - more importantly - wouldn't be? The arrangements had only been finalized within the past day, and even if it had been a week earlier, where would the information have circulated, who would know the details? Certainly Lunday and Lawrence, who put it together; Chief Curry to whom the report was made; Lawson and Sorrels as the "seniors" for USSS; the PRS team(?) and DPD officers taking part in the "visit and parade." Who else? DCSD wasn't involved in security, and didn't participate at all in the parade except for Sheriff Decker in the lead car. The FBI doesn't provide security (at least, Hoover's didn't!), so they wouldn't have a need to know. Who else would? Published parade route or not, this kind of information isn't the kind that gets put in the newspaper. Clearly that information had limited circulation, and if someone was able to take advantage of it in such as way as to "ingeniously pull [the assassination] off and escape" and use "Secret Service" credentials to aid in effecting that escape ... that information could only have come from a limited number of sources. Frankly, in my wildest dreams, I cannot imagine a Secret Service agent plotting to take the life of someone he's sworn to protect (the book Mortal Error notwithstanding). Could it happen? I suppose so, but I'd suspect it has a likelihood somewhere close to that of a gnat's breath provoking an elephant stampede. We have to postulate one of only a few things about this incident: first, that it didn't happen. That the patrolman, in his haste and confusion (isn't it easy to attribute these things to DPD?), was not told by anyone that they were SS (or any other federal agency), was not presented with credentials of any kind (maybe just the guy's license?), did not really encounter anybody who even looked the part, and despite his tesimony to the contrary, was not embarrassed about drawing on a fed. He would not, after all, be the first JFK witness who was "mistaken." Second, that it was pure happenstance. This guy was just playing an adult version of "cops 'n' robbers," thinking it would be real cool to look like he was protecting the president, slinking around in the shadows and feeling like a real James Bond. Being behind the fence at such a crucial time was all part of the play-acting, and gee, he was so really into it that he'd convinced a cop who'd drawn a gun on him that he was really one of the President's men! Guy's probably still chuckling about it today. Third, that he was there for a reason - to distract police from other activities or other locations ("that's okay guys, I've already looked in that trunk!") - and either knew or was somehow confident that his scam wouldn't be detected, that some guy ten feet away when he was challenged by someone wouldn't say "hey, he's not one of us!" That kind of confidence is born of certainty, which is based on good information. It had to have come from somewhere. (All of this also means he wasn't a Dallas cop because someone - even if not Smith - might have recognized him.) Or fourth, that he was winging it. He and his compadres were in town to kill the President of the United States, just crossing their fingers and hoping they'd would get away with it ... and it was pure, dumb luck that they did! That's usually how things like this are planned, right? Let's look at the immediate aftermath: an "all downtown units" call goes out, "signal 19." Do you know how many patrol units alone responded to that call and where they were from? Here's some help: The officers from districts #31 and 32 were assigned to Parkland in case anything went wrong (it did, so they never left there - shown as light red on the map below); The districts immediately surrounding #106 (DP patrol area - dark red on the map) and responding to the "all downtown units" call were #41, 42, 52, 54, 71, 73, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119 (these are medium red on the map); Also responding to the call from outlying areas were districts #21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 49, 51, 53, 55, 61, 62, 93, 94, 95, 96, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 87, 102 and 108 (yellow on the map); Assigned to remain in their districts were #45, 46, 47, 48, 56, 57, 58, 59, 65, 67, 68, 85 and 86 (turquoise); Assigned to patrol a different district was #78 (dark blue), "at large" in districts #91, 92, 93 and 94 (the officer assigned to those districts was at lunch). There is no mention of #33, 34, 63, 64, 66, 69, 72, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 97, 98, 108 or 109 anywhere on the record (that I've found). It might be useful to see where these districts were situated (the map should be fairly readable when downloaded and zoomed; I have a much larger copy to send if you want it by email): click the link to see the fast-load version or high-res version. This is what police coverage around town looked like after the signal 19: click the link to see the fast-load version or high-res version. (The dark blue patrol zones, by the way, are the only ones that DPD felt needed extra coverage, which they assigned to one man. I guess presidential assassins only flee to the southeast; is that your experience, too?) In addition, there were several patrol sergeants and lieutenants who had responded and aren't accounted for by this map, plus headquarters personnel and others not associated with Traffic or the Reserves (the two divisions, remember, that were assigned duties relating to the parade), many if not most of the officers assigned to security along the parade route, many of whom had walked to the scene (as had a small handful from HQ), and don't forget Homicide, ID and Crime Scene folks, too. Now there is a whole batch of officers contributing to scene search and security, heckuva deal! Most were probably there within 10-15 minutes, helped out where they could; some performed some actions on their own initiative, others were assigned to crowd and traffic control (and not doing such a great job, you say). Then about half an hour later, a citizen calls in "officer down," and DP all but empties out of cops. I made a list of the officers who responded to the signal 19 in Oak Cliff (or at least those who called in on the radio at some point, made a report about it, testified about being there, or were referred to by other officers in their reports or testimonies; many left without informing anyone, and some so testified), but can't find it right now, so suffice it to say for now that most of the "yellow" officers, some of the "turquoise" ones and a lot of others who'd been elsewhere downtown and had responded to the first signal 19 were next heard from in Oak Cliff. Well, that too was fortuitous to those who "ingenious(ly) pulled it off and escaped" and suddenly, the only people who might've eventually caught them have left the crime scene and gone somewhere else. Scene security - as much as it was ever "secure" in the first place - had just taken a massive hit if not been crippled. If there was a chance to get away undetected, this was as good as it was going to get. Pure, dumb luck again? "Site security?" Check out the "Willis 15" thread for some photos taken shortly after the downtown shooting and tell me it looks "secure!" This is something you call "defensible?" Yet you apologize for DPD by saying that their (only?) "major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident," passing off "allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass" (which is a straw man because no shots came from atop the bridge) as "poor judgement or miscommunication," saying they were "stretched very thin" so apparently couldn't do any better than they did? You can attribute these criticisms to "20/10 hindsight," but I'm not paid to anticipate these things and keep anyone alive. Those who were did a remarkable job of it ... but unfortunately, those "remarks" aren't particularly laudatory! No, the ingenuity is not in having pulled it off and escaped, the real ingenuity is having people cover for them ("I've seen no evidence in 42 years that suggests anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald ...") and make excuses for 40 years as to why nobody could've caught 'em (and probably shouldn't have been expected to be able to anyway), and how, in the case of JFK's security, "the operation was a success even tho' the patient died" (and that despite at least two official findings to the effect that security was at least deficient if not downright laughable). As to who it was that "pulled it off and escaped?" Who cares? As long as it's nobody's "fault" that they got away, all is well in Wonderland ... and ya ain't gonna hear Oswald complaining about it. As to the "execution" of Oswald, you do have a way with words!! For now, all I'll say is that the entire deal that went down was political, ordered by the City Manager and the Mayor at the behest of the Citizens Council (who held tremendous sway over the council and mayor, and who would later regret their decision because of the end result's effect on business!), overriding anything the cops may have preferred. How much political appointee Chief Jesse Curry argued with them is not a matter of record, but it's certain he didn't tell the city fathers to go to hell. It makes one wonder how much they'd looked to their political bosses for guidance in determining how much security to provide to POTUS, doesn't it? Even while not willing to point fingers yet, I still find it interesting that USSS - or someone apparently well-connected to it - has at least gotten past the "Oswald did it alone" claptrap, and recognizes, at least, that the "ingenuity" was in pulling it off and getting away with it. It still doesn't answer the question of who pulled it off, but at least it's a step in the right direction! Finally, you pointed out how "ridiculous" the concept of USSS watching each and every window along any route is (despite various CTs suggesting that this was SOP), especially through a downtown area. I think the concept of welding all the manhole covers shut falls in the same category, but I don't know because PRS will not discuss the methods by which they protect the president, then or now. While the 120° turn prohibition likewise sounds reasonable on the surface, I don't know if that was really the case or if it's just some crap someone made up or expounded as fact simply because it seemed reasonable: would Lawson have objected to the Main-Houston-Elm turns if he'd actually driven over them and seen the last one up close and personal and not been overruled by his superiors? Thanks for the feedback! Okay Duke, Here Goes, I will address this somewhat generic but in simplistic terms so that all can follow and not get too specific as to compromise present day security procedures that could compromise the safety of current dignitaries. I have attended the USSS School for LE on dignitary protection and have taken part in upwards of 30-40 details involving Presidents, Vice-Presidents, their spouses, cabinet members and presidential and vice presidential candidates over the past twenty-two years. I have been a grunt in motorcade route security, airport detail security, site arrival and site staging security, and motorcade security where I have been a scout and lead car driver. I have been in-charge of airport security, site security and motorcade security. What has evolved in the past forty plus years since the JFK Assassination is that the role of the secret service has shrunk into a tighter perimeter of security of the protected party than from past practices. I will not explain this as it could compromise what the current practice is. I will use my experience and training to explain my perspectives on Dallas. My training focused on past practices dating back to well pre-Kennedy, to date. The USSS is responsible for planning for the safety of the President and any other dignitary on a visit outside the confines of the White House. Their focus is on overall protection from start to finish, but their hands-on activity is restricted to within the motorcade and when the president is stationary and on the ground. In other words, at point of arrival and deaprture (airport(s)), speaking engagements, and overnight stays. The dignitary is at most risk when stationary and there is downtime. When the dignitary is moving in the motorcade, the USSS relies a great deal on local law enforcement and whoever else they call in to provide additional security. Local Law enforcement provide in motorcade security such as scout and lead cars/motorcycles to clear the area ahead, intersection security to clear intersections and provide safe passage and a clear route without vehicular traffic to slow the progress of the motorcade. And crowd control along the routes where there is an expectation of heavy crowds and confined spaces. Also for turns and manuervers. They also provide vehicles within the motorcade to prevent vehicular traffic from overtaking the principle party of the motorcade. The majority of the security for local law enforcement is consistent with the greater numbers of USSS and white house security details in providing security on the ground when the protected party is stationary, such as the point of arrival/departure, engagements and overnight stays. In the case of a motorcade, the security relies on the mobility and ability to accelerate out of trouble. With this in mind, please direct your questions of concern specifically and I will address them. Al

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security." On 11/22/63, DPD was "the men on the ground," the "tactical squad" if you will. There were many more doings that they had sole control over, and looking closely at some of those will tell a lot about how some of the "tactical" aspects of the murder(s) were accomplished. Think "Tippit killing" here, too, and "the Oswald in the basement trick." I do not fault the DPD on the assassination although the issues of allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass was poor judgement or miscommunication, regardless, it should not have happened. The DPD were stretched very thin.... DPD major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident. It should have been shut down and it would not have been difficult to do as it was already shut down to vehiclular traffic and with the DCSO manpower standing around a block away, they could have sealed it off from pedestrians going in and preventing wits from going out. If only the simple measures raised by Al Carrier had been taken, many of the questions with which we still wrestle would be long-ago answered. What if we had the identification of the men who appeared to assemble at Houston and Main Streets? I do have some difficulty with reports of policemen confronting self-proclaimed Secret Service agents and not being a bit more tenacious about examining the identifications. Imagine the historical difference if just one Secret Service imposter had been caught up in the kind of quickly established cordon described by Al. ... Further to my last(?) response, who knew enough that USSS agents were not in the Plaza to be so supremely confident in impersonating one? Did cops actually expect there to be (i.e., were they briefed as to their anticipated presence)? In the heat of the moment, and given the urgency of the situation, chances are most cops are not going to "grill" others who at least appear to be cops, especially federal. Had the situation been different - i.e., the guy with USSS creds actually was USSS - and a local detained him such that killers were allowed to escape, we'd probably be vilifying that poor, stupid cop who kept the USSS agent from doing his job! I'm certain the USSS has been berating themselves with "if only ..." scenarios for 42 years. I think it was probably only a matter of time before many of the cops in the plaza, with little else to do, would have started searching vehicles, trying to open trunks (boots), etc., and I'd say it's pretty much a certainty that nobody would have been driving out of the parking lots without having their vehicles searched. But fortuitously (which is distinct from "fortunately!"), a cop got killed and those who felt their duties in the plaza weren't critical (most of them) went chasing the cop killer. That is how anyone hiding in the parking lot got away: as soon as the cops took off, so did the assassins. That is also why JD Tippit died: if the cops had stuck around long enough to actually find someone in a trunk with a rifle, people higher on the food chain would've been twisting in the wind. As to a list of license plates, I suspect this would have gone the way of the list of people present in the Texas Theater. Okay Duke, you've spouted long enough! What do you base your opinion on? What experience do you have to judge the DPD in an arena such as motorcade security? Please fill us in and then do your homework on what went down along the motorcade route and how it was staffed before your respond. I will give you that and then respond in defense of the the Dallas PD from security prior to and during the assassination, the aftermath of the assassination and scene security, and the execution of Oswald. I have done my homework and have been involved in Presidential protection details from about every angle. I will be happy to debate you on this. Al

John: Just a note from memory: I too, was under Clines operations at one time and met with Wilson in Denver many times in the early eighties. I worked UC OPs MX for a brief time and was associated with KIKI and Shaggy. Susan Baldwin and Hector Gomez(?) two DEA agents and investigators of the time reported in a classified Secret memo on a ranch in MX that belong to Quintero. As a side bar it is interesting because it referes to the "CIA Thing" of weapons for the Contra. Wheaton knows about this. Its interesting reading.. http://www.toshplumlee.info/pdf/DEAfiles.pdf In the early eigties, the northern front through association with Adolfo Calero was not going well so Fernandez utilized Chi Chi to work through Enrique and supply a route of passage for American Military Personnel through the southern front to go operational and do the deeds. It was very effective for a short time and relied on Hull to provide a staging ground beyond his narcotics trafficing operation. This was the groundwork for FRANg33. This was how it became so bloody in '81. Jack and Jill Didn't Come Home. Very few are left to tell the story and even fewer are willing. Al

Keep up the good work. Remember " Birds of a feather flock together". I too, worked with Tom Clines in the sixties and again in the eightes. Its documented. Also read Peter Brewton's and Leslie Cockbrun's books about Lijas MX , Santa Elena, and the drug routes into the USA, also check with Gene Wheaton... he is a good man... firm.. but professional. Tosh (I'm sure you have looked into Deadly Secrets by Hinckle and Wm. Turner) Tosh, Great to see you posting! You are one who can add a great deal to this issue by linking these individuals from the 20 year span that I can only speculate on. I believe we are walking on some very nasty ground here that can produce results if the researchers dig hard enough. Al

By todays standards, that threat would have been passed on to the advance team of the SS in Dallas who would have coordinated an effort with the Dallas Office of the SS and then communicated it with the DPD. However, we are basing this on the communication channels of today, not of '63. A similar thought is why was the Chicago threat of Nov 1, 1963 not passed onto Tampa? This was a loophole in communications that seemed to be consistent of that era, or was stalled in DC during that time. We may never know for sure. Al

What many are confusing is official retirement from the CIA and covert actions afterwards. An example being Tom Clines and Edwin Wilson being present at an SOA class on Counterinsurgency in the late summer/early fall of '81. Wilson being the presenter for a large portion and utilizing the actual manual on Assassinations and Torture in Central America and Clines assisting him in the classroom. Clines supposedly being retired from service and Wilson supposedly being on the run from Federal Indictment for selling explosives to Lybia. My source on this, Me. Also be wary of believing that Hand was retired from SF. Ask Jack McConnell about his activities in El Salvador in '81. This is very dangerous ground we are treading on here when we start to link the names of Clines, Wilson, Hand, Secord, Conein and Chi Chi to activities of the '80's. Does this link back to the Kennedy assassination of 18 years prior, it would make an interesting jump off point for researchers. These were very dangerous times that dealt with very dangerous people who many are still around. Al

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security." On 11/22/63, DPD was "the men on the ground," the "tactical squad" if you will. There were many more doings that they had sole control over, and looking closely at some of those will tell a lot about how some of the "tactical" aspects of the murder(s) were accomplished. Think "Tippit killing" here, too, and "the Oswald in the basement trick." Ruby's comments should be paid attention to because he did have a clue, tho' he probably couldn't have named many names, and then not very high up on the food chain. Duke, I do not fault the DPD on the assassination although the issues of allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass was poor judgement or miscommunication, regardless, it should not have happened. The DPD were stretched very thin as the motorcade route was long and tedius as it covered a long route of slow movement with an open limo. Dallas was not the first time this occurred, but it was an ideal killing zone throughout the motorcade for a sniper. Because of the availability of the target with the terrain afforded throughout, there was little anyone could have done to prevent a successful attempt on the life of the president. Where it became ingenious was the ability to pull it off and escape. DPD major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident. It should have been shut down and it would not have been difficult to do as it was already shut down to vehiclular traffic and with the DCSO manpower standing around a block away, they could have sealed it off from pedestrians going in and preventing wits from going out. Al

Adam and Shanet, What you are confusing here is a breakdown in communications and acceptable practice from 1963 to present. The Tampa threat was not passed on to Dallas no more than the Chicago threat was passed on to Tampa. This is not conspiratorial, but simply a lack of communications that was not an issue prior to the Kennedy assassination as it is so blatent aftarwards. Presently, the USSS sends an agent in advance that is in a primary intelligence role to communicate with the local USSS and LE as to previous threats and to present a watch list. Local LE also provide a list of subversives to add to the watch list. The watch list contains names of those who are a possible threat to the president or whatever visiting dignitary that requires USSS protection. Persons on that list are isolated by local LE, State LE or Federal LE. They are isolated by means of monitoring where they go and if they go into a region where the protected party is to be, they are detained. This is a tricky issue as it deals with constitutional issues on illegal seizure without cause. As far as the issue of watching open windows and overpasses; The secret service maintains security within the motorcade and at points of arrival, departure and destination. Even at these points, they rely heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security. In a moving motorcade, the Secret Service does not have agents on the ground and rely on local LE to provide security. The majority of this security is to block off traffic and to focus on points of concern along the motorcade route. To say that all open windows along a motorcade route are to be monitored is rediculous, considered Dallas alone and how many buildings were along the motorcade route. As far as the overpass, local LE is and was required to man anything that the motorcade passes under or over and the Dallas PD did that. The problem was the officers who were assigned interpretation on who was allowed atop. They utilized supervisors from the railroad to identify workers and allowed them atop. When they should not have allowed anyone on the overpass. This is not conspiratorial, simple poor judgement and poor communications. I will comment further if needed. Al

Looking at this and other posts it seems the technology for reasonably accurate silenced guns (could this terminator be classified as some kind of Pistol?) was not lacking in 63. Up to 300 feet in this instance. I assume the accuracy starts to decrease before 100 meters? _____________________________ John, Where many seem to misunderstand in the DP Shooting of JFK is that they see the shot as being fairly simple due to range from origin to target. What most fail to understand, as they cannot put themselves in the shooters place, is that the shot(s) were at a higher level of difficulty due to the fact that it was on a moving target that varied in angle, speed and elevation. If you put the latter into perspective with close range, it becomes even more difficult on shot origins such as the north knoll when the angle is extreme, or the TSBD when the elevation factor becomes a hurdle for even accomplished shooters. Then we are dealing with factors in this thread that deal with shot origin concealment such as suppressors and subsonic ammunition. A suppressor will conceal the shot of a rifle or pistol caliber projectile quite well with a closed chamber weapon such as a bolt action rifle or revolver handgun. If the projectile is above the range of 900fps, it does nothing to suppress the shockwave of the bullet in flight. Then we have to deal with subsonic ammunition. When viewing the head wound, subsonic ammunition is not acceptable for this incident, as the impact shows a much higher velocity projectile upon impact and through the wound channel. To believe shooters would compromise their accuracy rate to shoot something in the range of less than 900fps at the president, is rediculous. Even utilization of suppressors for what is would be worth would compromise the flight trajectory of the bullet as it does slow it down. The shooter would have to train with the suppressor in order to make his shot of point of aim to point of impact. With the moving target and varying speeds and elevation, a shot off by a few inches could produce failure. To be realistic about how such a triangulation of fire was covered up, it is much more realistic to believe that the shooters fired in concert by keying off the original shot origin (TSBD), which would be difficult for even experienced ear witnesses to pick out the follow-up shots. I have referred to this time and again here and on Lancer as a "Canyon Shoot" procedure that was and is trained by the military, dating back now some sixty-plus years. It deals with the follow-up shots being keyed by a startle reaction from the other shooters. It gives away the original position and covers the others, leaving the primary positions unexposed and confusion as to the number of shots. Al

GPH and John, Very interesting thread. There are isues when utilizing a supressor and subsonic ammunition in a rifle that will give the shot origin a realistic invisible existence but will also make the POA v. POI a near rediculous plan of action. Due to the compromised trajectory at even this close of range, it would take considerable practice and adjustments to the optics settings as well as the human factor on the moving target. I will comment further on this later. GPH, I found it interesting that you have mentioned Sandoval-Alarcon in your thread. Am I misreading it when I assume you know my affiliation with his group some twenty-plus years ago? The last person on a forum who made the connection (Tosh on Lancer) stopped posting immediately thereafter. If I would have had the maturity I have now then, I would have eliminated the barbarian and his group then instead of providing a safety net for them from 2-400m back in '81. Maybe I am misreading your post. If not, provide the op-designation I was given then and I will know where we stand. Al ------------------------- Lt. Al C. I gotta dig through my boxes to make sure that what your now referring to has NARA/FOIA-PA stamps thereon, and with the proper dates & initials. You were at the jump-street position for "Operation Alliance" -- but there are other S.G.G. numbers to peruse. A retired BATF guy who stays in infrequent contact [HQ-Level] and wanted to do a book on my Ops vs: the "New Purple Gang", with specific reference to Mario's use of Frankie Viserto for silenced weapons. And moreover, for the outsourceing of "death squad" tasks to the end-purchasers of the Guatemala "Double-U-O-Globe / China White" which we had shut-down during 1975. The assassination of Figueres, the Costa Rican Congress et al. carried the 1971 names of "OP /Coyote"; "Op / Cactus"; and "Op/ Bambu" !! Viserto did the deed that "O.J." was aquitted of -- and that specific slasher M.O. was his specialty !! [That and "BTK"] More later, GPH ____________________ GPH, This was a FRAN/FRANg Ops and the docs have not been, and likely never will be released. This dealt with Op-Cortez during the latter half of '81. Al

------------------------------ John: Lt. Carrier should be the guy that translates the technical stuff into layman's terms. However, I think that he stated that he was going to be very busy at work during the near term, and thus unavailable. As I said before, I never had the patience to get into the "gunsmithing & engineering" side of shooting; I just kept my weapons in shape, and made sure that all necessary prepping was done in order that I hit what I was "aiming at" !! During official shooting match competitions [both rifle and pistol], as opposed to "basic" or annual requalification -- there are mobile trailers & tents where one finds an assigned Master Gunsmith or two. These folks do repairs and minor modifications on our issued weapons. However, most, when on duty or during their free time, spend an ernormous amount of time designing, engineering, and radically modifying weapons. Many of these folks have gone commercial, and you can find their unique and very advanced firearms products in all hunting, fishing, adventure and shooting publications. Especially in the case of Marine recruits, their first experience at seemingly getting "shot at' is when working the "Butts". These are the pits where guys and gals raise and lower the large wooden framed target holders. They stand and look up awaiting the appearance of a hole in their target. It sometimes takes 15 minutes of slow fire [500 yards range] before the "Butt" troops learn that the sonic crack belongs to their target, and not the one on either side. Before that, a Sergeant running the Butts and manning a field telephone will be heard screaming "...pull the goddamn target on # 12, etc. !!" Lo and befold, the recruit notices a little hole in the large paper target, inserts a 5 inch disc with a wooden peg through its center -- into the hole. The "Boot" now runs the target back up, and if the now marked hole is inside the target perimeter, raises a green disc on a long pole and centers it over the marking disc. That way, a shooter, even without a spotter scope can see whether he/she got a 5V or 5 "bullseye" or lesser scored shot -- which is then noted in the shooter's log book. [The first page of the log book gives the initial "Zero" of the weapon, that is: when it was first fired while "sighting-in"; but sometimes the "zero" (measured in clicks of elevation and windage at 300 yards) will change as the "cheek weld", eye distance, etc. factors change over time, even with the same weapon during the same week. Sometimes the loss of body fat or dehydration will cause the shooter to inadvertently change his firing "lock" or stance.] As you move from 500 yards down to the 300 yard line, etc. -- sometimes the "zero" is a click or two off, and mostly due to the fact that at 500 yards you were "off-hand" standing. At 300 yards you will fire kneeling and sitting, and this oftentimes causes a minor change in "Zero". Back to the butts: Very quickly the recruit learns to identify a close sonic crack and thus knows that a round has passed through or near his/her target. Therefore [and to avoid a boot in the ass by the kindly Sgt.] the target frame is quickly hauled down, disced, and flagged. The next shot means that you will have available a paper patch and a bowl with brush, containing a foul smelling [and tasting] glue which is "boiled" from cow's hooves, without removing cowxxxx turds from same. You pull the disc, punch it into the new hole [if there is one] and "mosty-riky-tik" -- slap the glue and patch over the first hole. Should the shooter be so unlucky as to miss the inside of the target, or the frame completely -- the butt-person raises aloft a long pole adorned with a bright red flag, which is gleefully wave to-and-fro in the most insulting fashion and seemingly screams: "...You missed...you stupid son-of-a-bitch..!!" The red flag is called "Maggie's Drawers", and the shame-faced shooter is required to enter a "0"/MD in his log book -- that is: just as soon as the Drill Instructor has finished beating him about the head and shoulders. A rifle scope is "bore-sighted". With a bolt action weapon, you pull the bolt out of the frame completely -- peer through the bore at your "zeroing" target, then shift your eyes to the scope and adjust same to the center of the target. A cheapo sight requires shimming, and this requires a gunsmith or talented range-master. With semi-auto rifle, you must use a "bore-scope", which is inserted into the chamber/magazine area and then used to center the bore on the target. Then the scope is adjusted. Silencers/suppressors: Using low velocity ammunition in a pistol, rifle or sub-machine gun [bullet velocity less than mach-1] means that the only sound heard is the clacking of the bolt, and small sounds made by the extraction, ejection, and re-feeding of subsequent rounds. Dampening can be accomplished, such that: from 10 feet away; not a sound is heard !! For instance, the Ingram M-10 came in 2 calibres, a subsonic .45 auto, and a supersonic 9 mm. In the field ["Burbs or Bush"] we carried coded magazines of sub-sonic and sonic 9 mm; and the choice was made depending upon how close the targeted person was, or proximity of bystanders or other security threats. A silenced high-powered rifle is NOT intended to be silent, but instead the tube causes any targets or bystanders, etc. to believe that the weapon is being fired from from a position at least 45 degrees off from actual site -- so everybody looks in the wrong direction !! Anecdotes: While demonstrating a totally silenced .22 cal. rifle, and while my partner stood at least 50 feet away firing without a suppressed weapon -- I, slightly to the rear, of a group of El Salvador Colonels; shot past them into the head of a pig -- and when the bodyguards panicked at the blood and brain splatter, they looked to my partner, but were confused totally in that he had his back to the pig. Yet its head continued to disintegrate. They only wised up when I said: "Ahem...Mis Coroneles...notice the smoke from my silencer and the shell casings at my feet...truly it was I who destroyed the pig...!! Thereupon a Colonel and one bodyguard xxxx their pants, and we moved away from the stench "most riky-tik" !! With Prez-General Somoza's half-brother ["Papa Chepe"] it was a similar demonstation. Only this time I had an M-11 (.380 cal.) inside our special attache-case model. Whilst Anselmito blazed away sans silencer in front of them, I emptied a full magazine out through the name-tag "gun-port" !! A minute later I pointed out that somebody must have noticed that a sand bag [45 degrees off] had been jumping around and disintegrating, and suddenly they were now curious as to what caused that. I placed the now open attache-case on the ground, and they slack-jawed gawked at the escaping smoke and the load of hulls inside the case. The bodyguards were fired on the spot, and jailed !! With Mario Sandoval Alarcon it was near the Everglades just short of Krome Ave., near a small lake. Anselmito and "Rolandito" Masferrer fired M-10s [.45 cal.] "across-their-bows", as they marveled at the fact that they were only hearing the buzzing sounds of Bees or deer flies !! At least 4 Secret Service Agents later claimed to have heard the Buzzing of bees in Dealey Plaza that tragic day !! While setting up the DalTex hide-site for Oliver Stone, I got into a loud argument with both Dale Dye and Stanley White, specifically about the fact that when considering the presence of people on the fire escape and adjacent windows -- IF any shot was fired, a silenced weapon had to be used !! Capt. Dale Dye, USMC (Ret.) and Detective Sgt. Stanley White (L.A. County Sheriff's Dept.) loudly insisted that I was wrong and that nobody used silencers in 1963 -- and besides, they don't work on rifles !! Stone listened as I explained that: OK, when short on silencers, a pro-operator will build a cardboard box, line it with empty egg cartons as inside sound proofing. and the muffling will give at least 75% silence and 45 degrees of diversion. [The box is designed to fold flat, and be carried under the arm] As we continued arguing, and while leaving the 2nd floor, Oliver said: "...While nothing is carved in stone yet, we have to insure that Garrison was aware of this between 1966-1967...or forget about it...!!" So much for Hollywood !! GPH _______________________ GPH and John, Very interesting thread. There are isues when utilizing a supressor and subsonic ammunition in a rifle that will give the shot origin a realistic invisible existence but will also make the POA v. POI a near rediculous plan of action. Due to the compromised trajectory at even this close of range, it would take considerable practice and adjustments to the optics settings as well as the human factor on the moving target. I will comment further on this later. GPH, I found it interesting that you have mentioned Sandoval-Alarcon in your thread. Am I misreading it when I assume you know my affiliation with his group some twenty-plus years ago? The last person on a forum who made the connection (Tosh on Lancer) stopped posting immediately thereafter. If I would have had the maturity I have now then, I would have eliminated the barbarian and his group then instead of providing a safety net for them from 2-400m back in '81. Maybe I am misreading your post. If not, provide the op-designation I was given then and I will know where we stand. Al

To John Simkin, Do you not see what I have been talking about with GPH in the above thread? Can you imagine what young persons interested in carrying out the assassination research must see in this history wanna-be's post here? How they must be scratching their heads and wondering what they are doing here? Don't we owe it to the young researchers to shield them from America's version of a James Bond fantasy freak like GPH. If he was so important and had so many contacts, what is he still doing around and why would he be here. Certainly not to teach us anything through his minds own criptic babble. To be offensive, one has to be realistic. GPH is simply obnoxious taking space and chasing away those who chose to learn. For those who follow him and hang on his dribble, they are only clouded by God only knows what he is saying. Reality is often frightening. Fiction of GPH is becoming laughable. Do you know where to find me too Gerry. I am all a quiver!!! Al

Aside from all the BS that is associated with Files, it is frightening to see that anyone believes in this hard-up loser in need of attention. I am shocked that I am supporting the likes of GPH, as everyone knows my opinion on him, but he has done his research here. Away from all of the Files History (chuckle), I have shown how he is a joke from the word go on his storytelling on how it went down in DP. I have posted on Lancer numerous times on how the XP-100 was not designed for what Files claimed to have done with it. Utilizing a bipod or stand out to 100m, it is extremely accurate with the right optics. I own one and know what the hell I am talking about. To believe one could pan a shot on a moving target at this angle and achieve this accuracy is laughable. To believe one could follow their shot through the optics of impact at under thirty yards is histerical. The man is a loser from the word go and in need of attention. He has found a following in the likes of Wim and other uninformed individuals of even lesser knowlege who believe everything they hear on the Files issue. Let the man rot in the joint and move on! Al

James, Siragusa used the cover of Philip Monet when operating in Central Europe through the Corsican Heroin trade. I believe the files on Ricardo Rossi also is parallel to Siragusa, but it cannot be proven from what I have seen. I have had an interest in Siragusa for some time, but connecting the dots are very difficult, until he was established above board in the late sixties. Al

Cold clean bore The first shot from a rifle that has been cleaned, and not fired recently may go to a different point of impact, for the same point of aim than a rifle that has been fired recently. This first shot is referred to as a shot from a cold, clean, bore. Fouling Shot A shot fired in a clean rifle barrel to put the barrel into the normal slightly dirty state from which it is fired. Often, a rifle will shoot to a different point of aim with this shot as compared to the subsequent shots. Minute Of Angle Also called MOA. A unit of angle that is equal to one1/60 of one degree. Used to adjust sight angles to aim a firearm. At 100 yards one MOA is equal to very nearly 1 inch. Typical telescopic sights used for competition have adjustments (clicks) in one quarter MOA increments. In most situations a rifle must be able to shoot one minute of angle or less sized groups to be considered highly accurate.(Slang usage: "minute of pop can", "minute of deer", "minute of barn", or some other type of target. This implies a level of accuracy necessary to hit that particular target under "normal" conditions. It can be an approving comment as in "It's good enough for minute of deer." Or derogatory, as in "That gun can't shoot minute of barn.") Trajectory The path which a bullet takes from the muzzle of the barrel to it's initial point of rest. A bullet in flight does not fly straight to its target. In fact, the bullet begins dropping under the influence of gravity as soon as it leaves the barrel. To compensate for this, the firearm's sights are aligned to point the barrel upward and perhaps to one side or the other to compensate for the wind. This causes the bullet to arc upward relative to the line of sight within the sighting system, then downward under the influence of gravity to its point of impact. The sights are adjusted in elevation and windage to change it's angle with the barrel to make the bullet point of impact coincide with the point of aim. Windage The setting on the sights used to accommodate the wind or adjust for horizontal errors in the alignment of the sights with the bore of the firearm. Fouling Shot is interesting.)[/color] John, A "cold bore" shot will generally strike from 1-3" off center in the 11 o'clock position in comparison to the following shots which will be direct. This variation will depend on the bullet weight, velocity and barrel twist. A Remington 700 chambered for .308 firing a 168gr bullet will generally strike 11 o'clock of point of aim at 2" out, from a 100 yard shot. What GPH is speaking of with the black eye and knocked out teeth of chambered while on-target is what I have been referring to for some time here and on Lancer with the MC. The long bolt and short stock does not allow the shooter to maintain a cheek weld while cycling the bolt. Would respond further, but am doing shotgun maint. for my department the latter part of this week and my hands are cramping and back and neck is killing me. Hope to get a chance this weekend to comment further as there are many issues concerning the MC, the 6th floor and the shot sequence/impacts that make it a rediculous theory. Al

John, Mark has explained this as well as anyone can. My hat is off to him on not only his understanding of this, but his ability to explain it in layman's terms. Most rifles are factory sighted by bore sighting at 100 yds, which Mark is explaining on barrel tilt that makes the factory adjustment of rise and fall in elevation through initial trajectory gain and loss. Optical sights are sighting generally at 200 meters (if available) in a caliber consistent with the MC. This sighting is done with a level elevation target. In the feat of the supposed Oswald shot, he would have to take into account the formula of lack of gravitational pull from the optical sighting. If this was not figured into the shot, the bullet strike would be in the range of +12". The shooter would also have to be versed in leading and compensating a moving target at the speed of the limo at this range which would put it in the range of a +2 minute of angle and nearly as much in negative elevation. Al

I admire your patience, Mark. But this has been going on for decades, and despite dangling the promising prospect of substantive information time and again, Hemming has been, and remains, all heat and no light. If one were to add up all the pertinent disclosures made to date, it wouldn't fill a gnat's jockstrap. Instead, diversionary waltzes down blind alleys and dead ends are Gerry's specialty. There are many broad-stroke statements about persons whom we suspect or presume to have been key players, but requests for anything approaching proof for those statements are simply rebuffed as being stupid. After all, "real" big time operators like Gerry won't or can't tell us the truth because we little folk just can't handle the truth. Yadda yadda yadda. Which, of course, raises the question of why Gerry continues to xxxxx through the JFK waters. [Weberman, Stone, Russo, Mellen, Gratz, et al] If he can't or won't disclose anything of any merit [and what he does disclose is ... um.... to be charitable, questionable at best], why doesn't he just spend his golden years playing Dominos with other faded SoF sycophants? Instead, he continues to intrigue the gullible and yank our collective chain. We are a spectator sport to this old man. By all means, hold out hope that Gerry may actually reveal something of significance. But if an when that happens, dollars to donuts, it'll be unintentional. Amen Robert! My only personal vendetta with Gerry is that he spouts off his importance but has never provided anything that would support this. Many have given their lives and even worse, their perspective on life by having to live with their actions through covert ops they were walked into and have remained silent. Then we have a blowhard from south Florida who associated himself with a like group of SOF pretenders who thought they were big xxxx and have nothing to support it. Just because they appeared in history in the same timeframe and somewhat region does not make them important or of value. It is time we all see this and call Hemming on the carpet to provide what he thinks he knows or was exposed to. He has lived off his own self-proclaimed legend long enough. There are those who take offense to his self proclaimed importance. Again Gerry, what in the hell have you done? Call me all the names you want, but you are the one who is spouting and are being called on the carpet. Answer or go away into your fantasy history. Al

Pat, It has nothing to do with his attacks on me as I brought them on when I called him like I saw him, a legend in his own mind. And what would you like me to debate him on. He has never proven his credibility. He cannot provide one ounce of proof of his level of operation that he likes to sell himself off as being then. What exactly did he do other than run around with a bunch of other wanna-be's that the government wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole? If he could provide some substance to his importance of the time that would make it realistic that he would have knowledge of matters of such importance, I would gladly address them. But as it stands, I would be shadow boxing with his own legend that he has created. Nobody took him seriously then, in the aftermath and I see no reason to take him seriously now. I will ignore him if that is what the majority of the forum wants. Apparently Nancy thinks so. Do you and others agree. This is not a personal issue with this man. I am simply calling him as he is. Al

Tim, So you consider a possible "patsy" as being an important link to the truth? Now I can see how you can view a blowhard like Hemming as one who holds the secrets to the truth. I keep asking the same question and get no response. What exactly did Hemming accomplish in his escapades of the late 50's and early '60's. If he was so valuable as to have known about the truth of the JFK assassination or had any valuable insight into it, then he must have had some successes in his so-called covert operations. I am glad I am not holding my breath to hear what they were! I have recently received an e-mail from Nancy asking me to back off as she feels Hemming may eventually start telling us what he knows. Need I say more. If you all are waiting for Hemming to give the research community a breakthru in this case, then we have really hit a low in assassination research. Maybe Col. Ollie can also tell you all what a sincere patriot he was twenty years later...

The main reason is because I believe in freedom of speech. It is true that Gerry gets a bit aggressive at times, but I can take that. I also think that Gerry has some knowledge about the events surrounding the assassination. He is unlikely to tell us the full story. However, he does give out interesting information sometimes, especially when he is angry. The third reason is that my main objective was to get as many people as possible to get involved in the debate on the JFK assassination. My main complaint about other JFK Forums is that they tend to restrict membership to those who share the views of the moderator. I think we are more likely to get to the truth by having an open discussion with people who have a wide variety of different views on the subject. That is why I refuse to ban Tim Gratz from the Forum. I have also encouraged those like Gerald Posner, David Perry, John McAdams, Kenneth Rahn, Joe Trento, to join the Forum. So far they have been unwilling to join in our debates. However, I think it would be very educational if they did join our discussions. John, I respect your support of freedom of speech, but in the case of Hemming, he is spouting hatred and disrespect to everyone beyond his small world. He had provided nothing in the 40 plus years since the assassination and it is sad that those believe he has. To believe Hemming with his loud-mouthed look-at-me persona would be trusted to have any information pertinent to the JFK Assassination is rediculous. Look at his background and who he was surrounded with. What did they accomplish. They were a joke in the clandestine world. He was a soldier-of-fortune and they are a dime a dozen. They are as reliable as a 20 year old microwave oven. Just because he name pops up periodically during that period of history does not make him important or on the inside. No more than Lee Oswald was. If he was worth his weight in water in the case of the JFK Assassination, would he still be around? His story of providing protection at the Airport in Miami is comical. They were so hard up that they had to rely on this guy? I could go on and on and challenging the likes of Hemming could fill a book. This is a classic example of why I have went from being so active in the research community to simply popping in from time to time. So many researchers cannot judge what is valuabel and pertinant and what is a challenge without merit. I am tired of defending my research against those who cannot comprehend what I doing and they are being supported by their like. Hemming is a tired old man who wanted to be important in the early 60's and couldn't. He now is trying to re-write his own history and make himself important. Note his testimony and how seriously it was taken. So much was already widely known and the links he tried to make subtley were rediculous. Al

Still having problems with question 3. Is it true that your father was a friend of James Angleton? ----------------------- John: My late father was an Irishman born of a "Limey" father in Colombo, Sri Lanka [then called Ceylon]. He grew up hating the "English", and sometimes my rich uncles [maternal]. But it was those uncles who got him work as a Marine Deck Electrician" at CalShip, and later, work on the Pan-American Highway in Costa Rica. He busted his ass 18 hours a day to raise what became 10 kids. He was against my Cuba, etc. excursions, as he had hoped that upon leaving the Marines, I would sign up with the California Highway Patrol. He operated a radio/television repair shop in Alhambra, California -- constantly struggling to feed too many mouths. He died while I was on No Name Key. For many months afterward, I would call the TV shop telephone [long-distance, and very late at night] just to hear his voice on the answering machine. He wouldn't know an Angleton from a Watutsi, and never once ever showed any interest in anything save electronics, The Classics [large library], Chess [Master], and watching "wrassling" and "roller-derby" on the "Telly". "...Are we clear ?!", Gerry ______________________________ My question to John is, why do you put up with this dribble from this low-life wanna-be who has never produced anything of value in his entire life? He speaks of operations of similar wanna-be's who have succeeded in nothing more than he ever had. He makes indirect connections with those who are no longer around to challenge and then goes into poisenous attacks on minority groups and persecutes others of religous backgrounds. GPH, go burn a cross in your own back yard and leave the intellectuals to decide on issues of fact. I dealt with dereclicts of his type and the safe passage was to stay away from them as they were clinger-oners. He is nothing more than a pecker gnat to the truth of our history. We are doing nothing more than allowing him to feed on those who cannot comprehend that he is a worthless deposit of information. And now he is dissing you in such a bold manner. Why do you put up with this dork? Al

----------------------- Tim: That is twice now that the "snitch-rent-a-pig" has spelled it as "sematic" (sic). As for "checking-up" on Ms. Congeniality, he is just making a "limp-wristed" attempt at identifying who amongst his working colleagues and associates is badmouthing him, and if it is somebody lower on the food chain, she would love to impose a chastisement. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to be found with this snitch, other than attendance at a few wing-nut forums during November pasts. As for the "derelicts" remarks, they are straight out of news accounts which were generated by Justin Gleichauf ["00" Domestic Contacts/Overt MIA/CIA] and he was later disciplined by Angleton for his use of journalistic cover assets, that included Dom Bonafede of the Miami Herald [AM/CARBON-4]. JJA later reminded us of the standard order for the InterPen elements [his titled groups modeled after his mentor in the Haganah days, Orde Wingate]; "...keep a low profile...no River Kwai plantations or traceable funding...and keep putting dye in the water for counter/Intel purposes..." The then Broward County Sheriff was then, and is today, a CIA asset [it didn't stop with Nick Navarro, Felix's hometown buddy of Piragua fame & "Cops-TV"]; and the "vagrancy statute" was widely used to harass targets, even it was overturned by the US Supreme Court in the Jacksonville case. It stopped after large judgements were issued [via 18 US Code Section 1983, et seq.] and the taxpayers quickly tired of this primarily anti-Negro tool. Before that, even if you had 4 $100 bills in your pocket on Miami Beach, you could be busted for "vagrancy". "Derelicts", sure...we inherited some from the post-BOP Op-40 Sturgis group, but they were soon driven off by the mosquitos and diet of rye bread [Adolph's Bakery on Flagler Street]. The Micosukee Indians who gave us Everglades support loved that "day-old" rye bread, so we dropped a few bags every trip along the Tamiami Trail out to 40 Mile Bend. "Derelicts??" One ex-77th SF Group veteran retired from 25 years in the Middle-East during the '90s, two others are now with Homeland Security, others have been recalled to active duty and are serving here at Bragg, or in the OIF/OEF AOR. [others are deceased or after years in Fidel's Gulags, have slipped into obscurity] I identified Bernie de Torres even after both Gene Propper & Gaeton Fonzi [held to NDAs they signed] used code-words when referring to him. [see "Labyrinth" ("TB") & "Carlos" (The Last Investigation) for reference] One of our guys was dispatched to Dealey Plaza that week by Colonel Arturo Espaillat, who was then based in Montreal. A month later, he recounted said "mission" to me after too many beers, and was furious at having been used once again by Robert Emmett Johnson, the "Raul" of the MLK, Jr. matter. "Correcto" sister !! I am not about to name some of the guys or gals that are still breathing, and it is based on the treatment delivered so far by the likes of the "sematic" (sic) Kazakh Jews like Weberman, Dankbaar, et al.; and most assuredly not to be used as fodder by snitch rent-a-pigs from Iowa. "Self-proclaimed??" Faggot Hoover fingered us for the WC Report, and Weberman continues to carry out his "assignment" from the moles in the Intel & LE Community !! During the rare interviews post 1967, I answered only those questions posed, and limited same to what could be safely disclosed at the time. No "volunteering" of interviews ever occurred, and some scribblers went away mad [like Dorschner of the MIA/Herald] and later attempted scrivener's retribution. When Freddie Forsythe came nosing around, he was dispatched to visit Espaillat in Montreal, and that sent him to Skorzeny in Lisbon -- and thereafter came "Jackal" the book & movie. So, all of the "sisters" should keep their panties dry, and try to abstain from this series of silly-girl postings on this very important forum !! As for Weberman "coaching??". Affirmative, and he did this with CIA/US Customs snitch Steve Sczukas, who was baby-sitting the whore during the time of Sturgis' fury with her. Sczukas is the same terrorist who attempted to "borrow" several Ingram M-10s (silenced/suppressed) from my Parabellum Corp. business partner, and these were to be used to initiate firefight slaughters at one of the 1972 National Conventions. He was particularly interested in our attache-case M-11 (.380 cal.) unit for said massacre. By the way, a similar weapon was on the scene in Dealey Plaza, but no details are available as to where, who, and if it was even utilized. [for the uninitiated, the Ingrams are now sold as "MAC-10s"] I have no evidence of exactly how much money Weberman handed to Lorenz [or Sczukas], but he hinted that this was the case. THAT'S ALL FOLKS !! GPH _______________________________ "What, Me worry" Alfred E. Neumann, 1953. _________________________________ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "snitch-rent-a-pig" has got to be the all-time classic line from an anti-establishment poster child for Soldier of Fortune Magazine yet to date. I spelled "Sematic" that way intentionally as it was you who posted it spelled that way some time ago. I expected others to pick up on it and expectantly did not foresee you seeing your own blunder. Just because one has a great deal of hatred and attacks others who challenges, does not make them important and educated. If that was the case, we would be still dealing with the third reich. You have went from being wanna-be of the sixties who would jump at any cause to inflict hatred and violence to an elder statesmen in the area of hatred who spouts vile who is trying to re-write history with your own name in it. You have fooled many, but all-in-all, you have not fooled enough. Congradulations on checking my background on your insider expertise. As expected, you have no clue. And just because you testified before Congress does not make you important. There are many derelicts in line in front and behind you who also testified and there testimony was as worthless. Again, what were your sucesses in your covert ops? Keep asking and keep waiting. Oh, thats right, you had none! Important man! I am proud of what I have done in the field of law enforcement since my military time. I will eventually retire knowing I made a difference in my community and it will overshadow what happened before. I am also proud of what I have done in my research. Can you say the same about your life? Snitch-rent-a-pig signing off from your posts, as you are not worth any more of my time.

Pat, First of all, let GPH explain what he found out about me when he "checked up on me". It should be quite interesting since I don't think he could find his backside with both hands. So this has nothing to do with my opinion of the man. He has produced nothing substancial in regards to the assassination and succeeded in nothing when he was operational. The latter shows his operational level as only important in his own mind and/or recall. It is amazing how clear he is on issues that can longer be checked and then silent on issues from the same period that could prove to be an adavancement on this period. GPH was a self-proclaimed important figure of the time and associated with others like him that wouldn't be considered for serious operational level status. A bunch of derelicts that were dangerous in their own minds. Tosh knows about me and if he knows enough, probably doesn't like me much. But If the latter is true, then he should at least respect my educated opinion considerably more than that of GPH. Tim, Do not pratronize me by making comparisons with LE officers and the likes of Hemming. I am not basing this on my background in LE and if you were an investigator, you would see what I was basing it on. I am of the minority in evaluating the value of GPH since most are willing to try and filter through his anti-sematic jibberish and find some sense into what he is saying. Most also see importance in his association with like derelicts who would not have been trusted by the government pass mail, let alone carry off intelligence backed operations. To believe they were so desperate as to trust these individuals as sad in my opinion. Al