Doug Weldon
-
Posts
326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Doug Weldon
-
-
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...???
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...
Bernice:
The 6th Floor is not $5 a person. Adults are charged $13.50, seniors and children 6-18 $12.50 and the large groups of children 5 and under are free. I am certain that parking is extra.
Doug Weldon
-
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.
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
-
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:
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
-
Bill:
Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct?
My best,
Doug Weldon
Hello Doug,
There is no doubt in my mind that the so-called nebula in the Altgens #6 hole claim is made up of the black woman's hand which is holding a rolled up newspaper. I have studied this extensively and I am 100% certain of my conclusion.
Now about the White House Garage photos .... What was said above is accurate. I took a hi-resolution scan of a good print of Altgens #7 and cropped out the damage seen on the windshield. I reversed it and tested it against the chip in the glass in the White House garage photos ... namely the best close up that was taken.
One of the things that jumped out at me is that Altgens #7 shows a large amount of frost around the defect in the windshield. This frost appearance is caused by the many fine cracks in the glass that are being illuminated by direct sunlight hitting them. I think we all know what I am talking about here. I couldn't even guess at all the fine cracks that make up the frosty appearance seen in Altgen's #7.
The White House Garage photo that I concentrated on was the good clear close up of the chip. The windshield surrounding the border of that chip appears pristine ... no fine cracks are discernible at all. I personally do not see how this can be dismissed. The defect in the glass in the White House garage photo is in the right location, but if my memory is correct .... the large cracks extending outward did not match between Altgens #7 and the White House garage photos in my opinion for what that's worth. However, until proven otherwise, the frosting of the glass in Altgens #7 that I have mentioned tells me the two windshields in question are not the same.
Bill Miller
Bill:
Thanks for confirming your position. As you are aware I disagree about Altgen's 6 but I understand people are seeing many things, a hand, a dress, a purse, a hole, etc. If you watch my presentation I did in Minnesota (as can be seen on you-tube) you can see that there were several versions of that area of the photo. I believe you noted that one newspaper had distorted the photograph. My question would be WHY? As to Altgen's 7 and the WH Garage photo which was allegedly made that night during the FBI exam my questions would be the standard ones: Who? When? Where? Why? As you know , one of the agents (Taylor, Jr.) who rode in the vehicle from the AFB to the White House Garage sat in the passenger seat during the drive to the WH Garage and could see the windshield the whole time and later in his report said there was a small hole in the windshield from which it appeared that bullet fragments had been removed. I am not going to rehash the whole discussion but I believe your observation here is extremely interesting, especially with the standard four questions I ask above. Your observations alone have to cause you to ponder this carefully. I hope you don't mind if I use your observations in my writing, with, of course providing credit to you for your personal observation.
My sincere thanks,
Doug Weldon
-
Thanks. I didn't realize there was such a great divide on Armstrong. I think he hit a rich vein, though.
Marty
I am sure that if you stick around here long enough, there will be THREE OSWALDS, or maybe four. Why stop at two?
[Edit: I was present when John Armstrong first presented his "two Oswald" theory in Fredonia, and I have never heard a more sloppy presentation. John Armstrong is a nice man, but he wouldn't know what EVIDENCE is if it jumped up and bit him in the butt!
John is not comfortable with public speaking. Please read the book and then form any opinion you wish.
Doug Weldon
-
Personally Bill, I think Zappy and Sitzman were on the pedestal, I think Zappy shot film, I think that was used with the "other" film to create what we know today as the Z-film
I just get tired of my fellow alterationists being made fun of and called out on the Zappy/Sitzman issue in regards to being clearly seen in any film or photos during the assassination.
Dean, your fellow alteration supporters are getting what they deserve in my view. For instance, I had one of them going on years ago about there was no clear image of Sitzman being in the Plaza and yet the woman turns and faces Zapruder's camera just prior to the assassination. That footage is taken at the colonnade with Sitzman talking to her friends - the Hester's. Then there is the interview of Sitzman at the pedestal ,,, pictures of Sitzman near the TSBD ... all showing her in the same clothes as seen on the woman at the pedestal. So why does another poorly researched alteration claim have to be made from all of this ... the answer may be what I just said 'poorly researched'.
As far as the Zapruder film being mixed with the alleged 'other film' .... that is impossible and here is why ...........................
It has been said that the other film is amazingly sharp ... the Zapruder film is not. The other film would have to be taken from another location than Zapruder's, this means it would be impossible to combine frames from the two films for they would not match when it came to the line of sight ... it would make Zapruder appear to have changed filming locations and that just didn't happen.
The other film could not have been shot from the doorway of the shelter or from within the windows on the walls because not only would Sitzman and Zapruder be in the shot (which no one has claimed so far) but the Bezner and Willis photos show a good view of the interior of that shelter and no one can be seen anywhere.
Bill
Bill:
You never responded to this: I do want to be accurate as to your position. Many thanks,
Doug Weldon
Bill Miller, on 25 March 2010 - 08:42 PM, said:
Josiah Thompson, on Feb 16 2010, 01:05 AM, said:
First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5?
Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo?
Josiah Thompson
I cannot believe that some still think they see a hole in the windshield in Altgens 6, but if all they have is the less than sharp image Jack posted, then I can understand the mistake.
In the full Betzner photo there was a black woman holding what looks to be a rolled up newspaper in her hand as she is waving at the President passing by. JFK had not yet been hit when Betzner took his photo. As the car rolled passed and as the woman lowered her newspaper - Altgens took his photo at a time that at least two shots appear to have been fired. A good quality Altgens 6 photo shows no hole/nebula, but rather the black woman's hand holding onto the newspaper she had with her.
When Altgens took his 7th photo, the windshield was obviously damaged by that point. If one does a hi-res scan of that damage and reverses the image so to be compared to the White House Garage photo of the windshield, then in my view they cannot be the same windshield. The damage in Altgens 7 shows a good size frosted area of glass that the sunlight is illuminating. That frosted appearance can be from nothing else than the many cracks in the glass from a projectile hitting it. The White House Garage photos show only a small chip in the glass and no multitude of cracks that would pick up sunlight as what happened in Altgens 7.
Somewhere between this forum and Lancer's there should be images that were created showing what I have just said to be true.
Bill Miller
Bill:
Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct?
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Greg goes into ultra violent mode whenever Armstrong is brought up.
Please explain one Frank Kudlaty.
If one reads the WR,pgs 678-80, one will see that the official story--which Greg Parker supports along with Len Colby--is that after his mom pulled him out of the New York scene, Oswald sent to school at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. He then attended tenth grade at Warren Easton High School also in New Orleans.
This is where Kudlaty comes in. Along with several others. Including Robert Oswald. See,if you read the summary of Oswald's education in the WR he goes from Ridglea West Elementary to New York to Beauregard. THere is no mention of any junior high school or high school in Fort Worth. Which makes Kudlaty an utterly fascinating witness. Let me explain why.
In 1959, Robert Oswald mentioned to a reporter that his brother Lee attended Stripling JH in Fort Worth. (Star Telegram, 10/29/59) Three years later, in 1962, Robert Oswald said the same thing. (ibid, 6/8/62) Could he really be mistaken twice?
Nope. Because Kudlaty backs him up in spades. On the morning after the assassination, assistant principal Frank Kudlaty was phoned by his boss, Principal Lucas. He was to meet two FBI agents at Stripling. He did and began to look up Oswald's file before the FBI agents got there. Sure enough, Lee was there for one semester. Then the two agents got there and asked him for the file. He turned it over. (Armstrong Harvey and Lee, pgs. 98-99)
Now before Colby uses his usual "trash the guy's reputation" slam, let us note: Kudlaty went on to become the superintendent of schools in Waco. Then in 1979, the State Department picked a list of 25 outstanding education managers to go to China to observe their system. Kudlaty was one of them.
Armstrong later located three students from the school who recalled Oswald.
Kudlaty is so credible that when the Texas Monthly did its hatchet job on Armstrong--similar to what Greg and Colby to here--even they had to admit that they could not lay a hand on Kudlaty. In fact, these witnesses were so credible that the editor--like Ben Bradlee with David Leigh-- took the original writer off the story. He then rewrote it himself. The problem was he knew Kudlaty so he couldn't question his veracity. The guy was just too much of a paragon.
As per Greg's categorical statement of there being no question that the Marguerite we all know is beyond doubt Oswald's real mom, please take a look at the photo of her taken right after her wedding to Ekdahl, Then look at any of the pictures taken in the sixties.
People do not shrink five inches in 15 years unless stricken with polio or TB. Which she was not.
It is incredible to me the number of people who trash Armstrong's book without ever reading it through.
Jim:
I am reading "Harvey and Lee' now for the second time. There is no possible way that any intelligent and reasonable person could have read the book thoroughly and then trash it. People are not comparing Oswald and Marguerite at diffent times in their life but at the same time. Even as John was writing the book and talking with me there was some evidence that John was more impressed with than I. However, in its totality, I cannot fathom how thouroughly John followed and put the evidence together. It is amazing research. The only small criticism I had was that Armstrong had located John Pic (now deceased) and left a message that he would like to talk with him. Not getting a reply John let it go. I would have been at Pic's door.However, it is part of Armstrong's personality to act as he did. Simply an incredible book.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Subject: Secret Service Confusion
Date: 11/15/2010 11:05:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
-------------------------------
[Gary,]
So, you're saying that BOTH [Don] Lawton and [Henry] Rybka must have peeled off just after the motorcade started rolling, correct?
Rybka said he was at "the rear" of JFK's car when he was moving with it:
"I [proceeded] to the follow-up car 679-X and stationed myself at the right front fender of 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motorcade began to move, I moved along with it, until the motorcade picked up speed." -- Henry Rybka [CE2554]
I'm now wondering who the agent is on the LEFT side of the cars in this still image from the WFAA tape (arrow points to him). I'm wondering if this could be Rybka on the LEFT side of the cars. Perhaps he switched from the RIGHT FENDER of 679X to the LEFT side when the cars began to move. I suppose that's possible:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IApq-eiEhUY&p=85B38BE28D527F4A
DVP
================================================
Subject: RE: Secret Service Confusion
Date: 11/16/2010 3:46:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
-------------------------------
Dave,
A Dillard photo a few seconds before departure shows an agent behind the right front fender of 679-X, another agent, apparently Rybka, at the bumper on the back end of 100-X, and a third agent wearing a darker suit standing even with JFK. All three men have their left hand on the car they are next to but, unfortunately, their faces cannot be seen.
Since the source isn’t in the book, I asked writer Lisa McCubbin how the Lawton identification was confirmed and here is what she wrote: Confirmed by Clint Hill, Paul Landis, and Don Lawton.
The logical explanation is that Rybka was farther behind 100-X and just barely out of camera range before and shortly after the motorcade departed. Rybka’s report stating he “moved along with” the motorcade makes sense if he had dropped behind 679-X when that car appeared on camera, thus putting himself impossible to see at that moment.
Gary Mack
================================================
Thank you, Gary, as always.
Gary Mack has now convinced me that "Shrugging Man" is, indeed, SS agent Donald Lawton and not Henry Rybka.
I was convinced when Gary mentioned the existence of a Tom Dillard photograph which depicts THREE Secret Service men in just about the same location on the right side of the cars (probably Lawton standing right next to JFK on the right side of SS-100-X, and probably Rybka BEHIND Lawton, and then yet another unknown agent behind the person who is probably Rybka).
Gary Mack's explanation now makes perfect sense (thanks to his mentioning that Dillard picture).
Once again--thank you, Mr. Mack, for your valuable input (even regarding such an extremely unimportant matter such as this one concerning the exact identity of a Secret Service agent who was merely doing his job at Love Field as JFK's motorcade departed for downtown Dallas).
However, the information about the "shrugging" SS agent being Lawton instead of Rybka is important in one way:
It should forever silence the conspiracists who like to talk about how the security for JFK's motorcade was being "stripped away" at Love Field.
Why should it silence them with respect to the shrugging agent?
Because, as far as I am aware (via Emory Roberts' assignment sheets), Donald Lawton was never assigned to be a part of the team of agents in the follow-up car (SS-679-X).
Lawton's assignment was "to remain at the airport to effect security for the President's departure" (a direct quote from Lawton's 11/30/63 report, CE2554.
The conspiracy theorists have always been able to argue that Emory Roberts had initially penciled in Henry Rybka's name to be one of the SS agents assigned to sit in the follow-up car during the Dallas parade. But no such argument can be made regarding Don Lawton, because Lawton knew what his assignment that day was going to be--to stay at Love Field and help out with security at the airport.
Therefore, we can know with 100% certainty that if Lawton is the "shrugging" agent who looks confused and bewildered just as JFK's motorcade is departing Love Field (and I now think that Lawton definitely is that Secret Service agent), then his actions cannot possibly have anything to do with any kind of "security stripping" at the airport.
The conspiracy believers can, of course, continue to use their previous "stripping" argument when it comes to Rybka specifically, but not with Lawton.
Chalk it up as just one more conspiracy myth knocked down--and it took almost 47 years to do it.
David:
Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging. Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film. Do you know what Rybka and Lawton looked like? Well, if Gary said it was so I guess there is no reason to have a forum or to try to determine the truth behind the assassination. I guess we can all pick up our toys and go home. Among many things Gary has told me is that what was labeled as a recording room at the Dallas Police Department in 1963 was not for recordings at all but it was actually a file room. That's logical. Why would anyone call a "file room" a file room? How silly. How does Gary know it was not a recording room? It is because he was in that room a few years ago. I guess that once a room is used for something it can never be used for any other purpose even forty plus years later. It is like Gary saying on one of his programs that a shot from the south knoll area could not have hit Kennedy because the shot would have to go through the windshield. REALLY? I am sure that Gary was never aware that anyone suggested that. Gary has also said that if Oswald was recorded in 1963 it could not have been used UNLESS BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorney AGREED IT COULD BE USED in court. Of course if the statements by Oswald were exculpatory the prosecutor would want the recording to come in and if it was inculpatory a good defense attorney would let the recording be admitted in order to hang his client. I tried to list all of the circumstances that both attorneys would have let such a recording come in to a trial. The one instance I could think of was if Oswald had simply said the sky was blue that day. Whoops! That would be irrelevsnt. There would not be any circumstances so why would anyone in Texas ever make a recording in 1963?Anything mopre meaningful than that which is irrelevant? NO. I have practiced law for over 32 years and have both prosecuted and defended cases. Gary's version of the law would have been unique in that it never has been such in any state ever, even Texas, except as Gary contends, for Oswald's case in 1963. Texas must have been part of a parallel universe that year. Then again, David, as you suggested, what does one expect of the Secret Service, that they would use themselves as human shields to protect the President. How ridiculous. WAIT, they are supposed to do that. David, I sincerely give you a lot more credit than that for your positions and for myself, I am not certain whether it was Rybka or Lawton shrugging at Love Field. However, I am going to need more evidence than Gary Mack being told by someone if it was so. My first question to Lisa, the author, is HOW did they confirm it was Lawton? Did they see the film? I would want to see a picture of Rybka or Lawton. It would be embarassing if a few posts from now if you then became absolutely convinced it was Rybka. Wow. I would not box myself in on such limited evidence. I admire your confidence.
Doug Weldon
I shouild acknowledge Bernice Moore for finding the recording room. There was a larger room labeled as for "records." That certainly cannot be for files. It is too logical. Well, it is getting late here in Michigan and I am heading to the kitchen to get some sleep.
Doug Weldon
-
Subject: Secret Service Confusion
Date: 11/15/2010 11:05:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
-------------------------------
[Gary,]
So, you're saying that BOTH [Don] Lawton and [Henry] Rybka must have peeled off just after the motorcade started rolling, correct?
Rybka said he was at "the rear" of JFK's car when he was moving with it:
"I [proceeded] to the follow-up car 679-X and stationed myself at the right front fender of 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motorcade began to move, I moved along with it, until the motorcade picked up speed." -- Henry Rybka [CE2554]
I'm now wondering who the agent is on the LEFT side of the cars in this still image from the WFAA tape (arrow points to him). I'm wondering if this could be Rybka on the LEFT side of the cars. Perhaps he switched from the RIGHT FENDER of 679X to the LEFT side when the cars began to move. I suppose that's possible:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IApq-eiEhUY&p=85B38BE28D527F4A
DVP
================================================
Subject: RE: Secret Service Confusion
Date: 11/16/2010 3:46:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
-------------------------------
Dave,
A Dillard photo a few seconds before departure shows an agent behind the right front fender of 679-X, another agent, apparently Rybka, at the bumper on the back end of 100-X, and a third agent wearing a darker suit standing even with JFK. All three men have their left hand on the car they are next to but, unfortunately, their faces cannot be seen.
Since the source isn’t in the book, I asked writer Lisa McCubbin how the Lawton identification was confirmed and here is what she wrote: Confirmed by Clint Hill, Paul Landis, and Don Lawton.
The logical explanation is that Rybka was farther behind 100-X and just barely out of camera range before and shortly after the motorcade departed. Rybka’s report stating he “moved along with” the motorcade makes sense if he had dropped behind 679-X when that car appeared on camera, thus putting himself impossible to see at that moment.
Gary Mack
================================================
Thank you, Gary, as always.
Gary Mack has now convinced me that "Shrugging Man" is, indeed, SS agent Donald Lawton and not Henry Rybka.
I was convinced when Gary mentioned the existence of a Tom Dillard photograph which depicts THREE Secret Service men in just about the same location on the right side of the cars (probably Lawton standing right next to JFK on the right side of SS-100-X, and probably Rybka BEHIND Lawton, and then yet another unknown agent behind the person who is probably Rybka).
Gary Mack's explanation now makes perfect sense (thanks to his mentioning that Dillard picture).
Once again--thank you, Mr. Mack, for your valuable input (even regarding such an extremely unimportant matter such as this one concerning the exact identity of a Secret Service agent who was merely doing his job at Love Field as JFK's motorcade departed for downtown Dallas).
However, the information about the "shrugging" SS agent being Lawton instead of Rybka is important in one way:
It should forever silence the conspiracists who like to talk about how the security for JFK's motorcade was being "stripped away" at Love Field.
Why should it silence them with respect to the shrugging agent?
Because, as far as I am aware (via Emory Roberts' assignment sheets), Donald Lawton was never assigned to be a part of the team of agents in the follow-up car (SS-679-X).
Lawton's assignment was "to remain at the airport to effect security for the President's departure" (a direct quote from Lawton's 11/30/63 report, CE2554.
The conspiracy theorists have always been able to argue that Emory Roberts had initially penciled in Henry Rybka's name to be one of the SS agents assigned to sit in the follow-up car during the Dallas parade. But no such argument can be made regarding Don Lawton, because Lawton knew what his assignment that day was going to be--to stay at Love Field and help out with security at the airport.
Therefore, we can know with 100% certainty that if Lawton is the "shrugging" agent who looks confused and bewildered just as JFK's motorcade is departing Love Field (and I now think that Lawton definitely is that Secret Service agent), then his actions cannot possibly have anything to do with any kind of "security stripping" at the airport.
The conspiracy believers can, of course, continue to use their previous "stripping" argument when it comes to Rybka specifically, but not with Lawton.
Chalk it up as just one more conspiracy myth knocked down--and it took almost 47 years to do it.
David:
Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging. Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film. Do you know what Rybka and Lawton looked like? Well, if Gary said it was so I guess there is no reason to have a forum or to try to determine the truth behind the assassination. I guess we can all pick up our toys and go home. Among many things Gary has told me is that what was labeled as a recording room at the Dallas Police Department in 1963 was not for recordings at all but it was actually a file room. That's logical. Why would anyone call a "file room" a file room? How silly. How does Gary know it was not a recording room? It is because he was in that room a few years ago. I guess that once a room is used for something it can never be used for any other purpose even forty plus years later. It is like Gary saying on one of his programs that a shot from the south knoll area could not have hit Kennedy because the shot would have to go through the windshield. REALLY? I am sure that Gary was never aware that anyone suggested that. Gary has also said that if Oswald was recorded in 1963 it could not have been used UNLESS BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorney AGREED IT COULD BE USED in court. Of course if the statements by Oswald were exculpatory the prosecutor would want the recording to come in and if it was inculpatory a good defense attorney would let the recording be admitted in order to hang his client. I tried to list all of the circumstances that both attorneys would have let such a recording come in to a trial. The one instance I could think of was if Oswald had simply said the sky was blue that day. Whoops! That would be irrelevsnt. There would not be any circumstances so why would anyone in Texas ever make a recording in 1963?Anything mopre meaningful than that which is irrelevant? NO. I have practiced law for over 32 years and have both prosecuted and defended cases. Gary's version of the law would have been unique in that it never has been such in any state ever, even Texas, except as Gary contends, for Oswald's case in 1963. Texas must have been part of a parallel universe that year. Then again, David, as you suggested, what does one expect of the Secret Service, that they would use themselves as human shields to protect the President. How ridiculous. WAIT, they are supposed to do that. David, I sincerely give you a lot more credit than that for your positions and for myself, I am not certain whether it was Rybka or Lawton shrugging at Love Field. However, I am going to need more evidence than Gary Mack being told by someone if it was so. My first question to Lisa, the author, is HOW did they confirm it was Lawton? Did they see the film? I would want to see a picture of Rybka or Lawton. It would be embarassing if a few posts from now if you then became absolutely convinced it was Rybka. Wow. I would not box myself in on such limited evidence. I admire your confidence.
Doug Weldon
-
I watched Doug Weldon's Minnesota conference presentation on YouTube, and it is odd, as Doug points out in one of the later installments, that Clint Hill seems to be the only agent on the Queen Mary running boards wearing a bulletproof vest.
From the discussion earlier in this thread, Hill seems also to have been the only agent who rode the limo's rear step on Main Street.
Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo "during the shooting."
Why only Hill in these events?
For that matter - why only Hill not looking around in Altgens 6? (Ignore red arrow.) Who's looking at Kennedy in this photo, and why?
David:
John Ready,not Hill, was the agent who was called back.
Doug Weldon
I know - sorry if that was poorly worded. I ought to have written: "Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo 'during the shooting.' In the Nix film, it seems as if Hill is almost at the rear bumper when JFK's head flies back. Why was he allowed off the Queen Mary?"
Why do you think Hill is wearing a bulletproof vest? Can we spot it on him during other motorcades?
David:
I cannot say definitively that Hill was wearing a vest. A friend, who is a DEA agent, and who teaches at Quantico, pointed it out to me. I asked my friend who was a SS agent under Ford what he thought. He would not commit as to whether it was a vest or not. I then asked him how unusual it was for an agent to be wearing a vest in the 1960's or 1970's and his response was that it would be highly unusual. Bernice posted the correct picture and people can judge for themselves but as I have thought about it through the years there remains no doubt in my mind that agents were compromised. Though many researchers are critical and people degrade "The Dark Side of Camelot" I believe it is a very valuable book. Some suspect Sy Hersh as being CIA but I would note that he is the one who came forward with the Cheney Death Squads a couple of years ago. Whether or not Hill had a vest on or not he is not high on my list of being suspicious as being one of the agents who were compromised. I simply cannot point to any evidence that would suggest that he was.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
I watched Doug Weldon's Minnesota conference presentation on YouTube, and it is odd, as Doug points out in one of the later installments, that Clint Hill seems to be the only agent on the Queen Mary running boards wearing a bulletproof vest.
From the discussion earlier in this thread, Hill seems also to have been the only agent who rode the limo's rear step on Main Street.
Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo "during the shooting."
Why only Hill in these events?
For that matter - why only Hill not looking around in Altgens 6? (Ignore red arrow.) Who's looking at Kennedy in this photo, and why?
David:
John Ready,not Hill, was the agent who was called back.
Doug Weldon
-
former Chief U.E. Baughman, who had served under JFK from Election Night 1960 until Sept. 1961, had written in his 1962 book “Secret Service Chief”: "Now the Chief of the Secret Service is legally empowered to countermand a decision made by anybody in this country if it might endanger the life or limb of the Chief Executive. This means I could veto a decision of the President himself if I decided it would be dangerous not to. The President of course knew this fact." Indeed, an AP story from 11/15/63 stated: “The (Secret) Service can overrule even the President where his personal security is involved.“To the point, when Baughman was asked by U.S. News & World report on 12/23/63 about the Service’s protective efforts in Dallas, he said: “I can’t understand why Mrs. Kennedy had to climb over the back of the car, as she did, to get help…[this matter] should be resolved.” Apparently, Baughman was puzzled by the lack of agents on or near the rear of the limousine.
I wish to join in the chorus of those who thank Vince Palamara for his work on this case over very many years. Vince dedicated the best years of his young life to shedding light on a most important question: Why did the Secret Service allow the assassination of JFK to happen?
I first heard Vince speak about the Secret Service at the Third Decade conference in Fredonia, in the great state of New York, in the Summer of 1991. I predicted then that Vince's work would be a major factor in solving this case, and I repeat that prediction now, almost 20 years later. Of course Justice cannot now be done, in the strict sense of imprisoning the real perpetrators, but it is never too late for the Truth.
At that Fredonia conference everyone was excited about press reports that Oliver Stone was making a major movie about the assassination. Looking back now I say it is a great pity that Stone tried to glorify a self-aggrandizing exploiter like Garrison, instead of waiting a few years to make a movie about Vince.
Vince has his faults, I imagine, as do we all, but in my opinion he is a truly great American and a real credit to his Alma Mater, Duquesne University. If this country had not been fxxxed up so badly by the JFK assassination, Vince's book would have been carefully edited and published by a major publishing house, and Vince would already be a household name and an international celebrity. Indeed, if Duquesne University itself had not been fxxxed up by the assassination, Vince would have been the keynote speaker at their 2003 conference. Instead, the keynote speakers were Cyril Wecht, repeating for the umpteenth time that the magic bullet is bullwax, and Wecht's good friend Arlen Specter, repeating for the umpteenth time that the magic bullet is fact. Meanwhile, Vince Palamara sat silenced in the audience.
Vince tried to become a speaker at the 2003 conference but his proposal was rejected by Wecht. I believe the reason he was given was that it was not a scientific presentation. Vince has made tremendous contributions to the understanding of the assassination. His book should have been published by a major publisher.
Doug Weldon
-
Bill,
I never did receive an answer to my question about the detail in the flag logo. Not from you nor anyone else.
Once again, I'm waiting for anyone to supply a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's 6, which possesses the same detail in the limo flag, which the San Francisco Chronicle printed on 11-23-63.
It's not a difficult request if other versions previously supplied are even close to the original.
chris
Maybe you had received an answer to your question, but didn't catch it. You can post your image again or link it because I am not interested in wasting lots of time with it. I do know that it was not uncommon for newspapers to airbrush photos so to sharpen them up where ever possible. I would have to see your images again, feel free to post a link to them or repost them again.
Bill
Bill,
The detail in the flag between the red arrows.
As I asked previously, if someone has a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's with this detail, I'm all ears.
It does not exist in any of the best copies that have been submitted so far.
chris
Chris:
If you watch my presentation in Minnesota (on you-tube) you will see that there were several versions of Altgen's 6.
Doug Weldon
-
The "all windows closed" junk is nonsense too. Just look at how many times THAT (supposed) rule was broken during JFK's administration--on every motorcade I've ever seen in pictures -- including that Hawaii picture, plus Ireland, plus Florida, etc.
That's just one more example of the Dallas parade being no different whatsoever from other motorcades.
And the "press buses were in the back" is another silly one, particularly when we know that a network TV cameraman (Dave Wiegman) DID film the scene of the murder before Kennedy's car even cleared the Underpass. SS-100-X is even visible in Wiegman's film! And Mal Couch filmed the scene too. So it's not like there were no cameras rolling on Elm Street. There were.
Bottom Line -- Even with tighter SS security on Elm Street, nobody could have prevented Lee Harvey Oswald from shooting JFK -- unless Clint Hill and John Ready had decided to become a human shield and hover over Kennedy's body during those eight seconds in Dealey.
David:
Why did the SS feel it was necessary to destroy their records on th motorcades just prior to Dallas? The press bus was moved to the back for the Dallas motorcade. It is not simply a question of filming. It is a question of witnessing. Nobody is suggesting that anyone tried to prevent any photos or filming in Dealey Plaza. The buildings were to be checked and there was to be no non law enforcement people on the overpass. Actually, it IS EXACTLY THE DUTY of Secret Service Agents to be HUMAN SHIELDS. Ready was called back as he started to move to the limo after the first shots. Please see my chapter in MIDP how the third person was removed from the front seat and the reason that was given. I believe this created the opportunity for a shot to be fired through the front of the windshield from the south knoll area to hit Kennedy in the front. You are entrenched in your position and I am not going to pretend that any amount of evidence I present is going to persuade you any differently. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. BTW, I also agree that Four Days in November is a great film. Also, if you know my background, you will know that I did not seek nor did I want to find the evidence that I did. I simply cannot ignore it or call so many witnesses mistaken or lying. I wanted to resist the conclusions I was forced to reach. Unless you have sat down with and/or discussed the case with many of the witnesses you cannot understand what happened in Dallas in the same way. History is the myth that people choose to believe. Believe as you will.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Palamara calls what happened in Dallas—the altering of the motorcycle formation and cutting it in half, and the removal of agents from standing on the rear of the car—“security stripping”. This clearly resulted in the assassins having a much better opportunity to hit their target than if the proper procedures had been followed. No surprise, Bugliosi apparently did not think any of this was important in discussing Secret Service complicity in the assassination.
The whole Secret Service topic is total nonsense, mainly because we know (and can prove) that the security for President Kennedy's motorcade on November 22nd, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, was absolutely no different in any substantial way from other pre-11/22/63 motorcades that Mr. Kennedy rode in during his 1,037 days as the 35th U.S. Chief Executive.
Vince Palamara is constantly making a huge deal out of the fact that the SS agents did not continuously ride on the back bumpers of JFK's limousine in Dallas (and particularly, of course, in Dealey Plaza).
But the SS configuration in Dealey Plaza was no different than many other pre-Nov. 22 parades, as these photos amply demonstrate (and JFK is even STANDING UP in these first two examples--making himself an even bigger target in the limousine--and there's no SS agents riding the back bumpers at all; so much for the crap about the Dallas motorcade being completely different than other JFK caravans):
Two more "No Agents On The Bumper" examples:
And I can dig up about half-a-dozen other examples of photos showing NO AGENTS AT ALL riding the bumper of JFK's car while Kennedy was riding in his open limousine.
So, does Vince Palamara think that the plot was so sophisticated and elaborate so as to have the SS agents avoiding JFK's bumper in many PRE-Nov. 22 motorcades, just to make it SEEM like the security was no different at all in Dallas? Obviously, nobody can believe such a nonsensical thing.
Therefore, the "Secret Service Was To Blame" argument goes absolutely nowhere, and proves nothing, just like all other speculative theories introduced by hundreds of conspiracy promoters worldwide since 1963.
And, btw, the agent with the flailing arms at Love Field has got to be Henry Rybka, and not Donald Lawton.
How can we know?
Because of CE2554 and Rybka's OWN SIGNED STATEMENT regarding what he did at Love Field on 11/22/63. He specifically stated that it was HE (not Lawton or any other agent) who was positioned to the right-rear of JFK's limo just as the cars started to roll. So Palamara got that one right, and Gerald Blaine must be incorrect:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0409a.htm
And there is, of course, no reason under the sun for the U.S. Secret Service (or anyone else) to want to fake Rybka's signed report that appears above in Warren Commission volume 25.
If some conspiracy theorist can come up with a good reason for someone to want to switch around the names of the agents (Rybka and Lawton) on those official Secret Service reports, I'd sure like to hear it. Because it makes no sense to want to fake such peripheral documents and start fiddling with the names of the agents on those reports.
Therefore, logically, Henry Rybka is the shrugging agent seen here:
David:
There were many differences in protocol by the Secret Service in Dallas. In MIDP I even name the person from the Protective SWervices Division who was responsible for seeing that storm drains were sealed and windows closed in Dallas. One of the key differences was placing the press bus way back of the motorcade. As you can see in your top picture the press bus is very close to Kennedy's limo. Also note a third person in the front seat. Blaine's book emphasizes that it was Lawton, not Rybka, shrugging. In doing so he is able to innocently explain Rybka's puzzlement while, in fact, there appears to be much more to it. John Tunheim said that the Secret Service was the least cooperative of any agency the AARB dealt with. They continued to destroy records as they were being ordered to turn them over to the AARB. The records of the previous motorcades in the weeks before the assassination were supposedly destroyed. After the publication of "The Dark Side of Camelot" agents and former agents were given a hush order. To suggest that all of the SS agents were enamored with Kennedy is simply an effort to create a whitewash. I have friends who have been or who were part of the SS, FBI, and DEA. I have interviewed many of the officers in the motorcade in Dallas. They either maintain silence or are very critical of the security in Dallas.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, if there is more than one "other film" those who claim they saw "it" may have, in fact, all seen the same film or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.
However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.
Hello Greg,
I think we can agree that JFK was shot and killed only once as he rode down Elm Street, thus any film showing that one event as it happened would be the true film. My point is that multiple names were on a list once as if there was strength in numbers when talking about all the people who allegedly had seen the Zapruder film in its alleged totality. Any variances would then mean that not everyone can be talking about seeing the real deal and must be mistaken as to what film they actually saw so many years ago. For instance if one witness said the limo stopped for half of a second while another said it stopped on their film for 4 to 5 seconds, then one or both must not be the true event or the actual film of the assassination. The same can be said about such a film showing JFK shot up as the car turned onto Elm Street while another so-called 'other film' witness says that the shooting didn't start until the President was further west on Elm Street and having already completed the turn from Houston Street. I think it important that we keep it straight and not lump the different versions together as testimonial to everyone seeing the same film.
Bill
This is perhaps the first time I've agreed with you about anything.
However, I disagree with the way you have characterized the statements of the "other film's" witnesses. To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer.
Again, there is remarkable consistency from the the witnesses I find most credible claiming to have seen another film: the limo took a wide turn onto Elm Street ( I am most suspicious of the Z film because of this because I don't believe Zapruder ever said he stopped filming) and that the limo STOPPED. It is interesting that "The Kennedy Detail" indicates that the film was constantly used as a training film. It would be so interesting to know what was being shown. I have a friend who was a SS agent under Ford who knew many of the Kennedy agents but he is reluctant to say anything. I also believe that the SS agents and former agents were ordered not to talk after the publication of "The Dark Side of Camelot." I have to agree with Monk that whatever people saw it is impossible to say if anyone saw an unedited version.
Doug Weldon
-
Kathy:
He was on Houston. He will be in my book.
Best,
Doug Weldon
I hope you have researched his field of view and angle to the limo so to have tested his perception of the event. Some folks saw the parade stop for a few seconds and possibly felt the limo did as well. Others looking at a limo heading away from them and slowing to a near stop may look to be stopped for a brief moment. White House reporter Merriman Smith said that from his angle to the President's car that while the follow-up cars in the parade did come to a halt for a few seconds .... the President's car only faltered. So what I am saying is that a witness can be truthful in saying what they believe they saw, I only advise being thorough in considering whether what they saw was real or not.
Bill
Bill:
Again, your reply is legitimate and your points are, of course, well taken. You are very thorough and reasonable and I respect that. I have not researched exactly where he was when he "saw" the limo stop.. I did not solicit the comment but he offered it. He was looking at the limo. Obviously the Z film shows nothing like a stop. He sounded very puzzled why it did not. I believe his comment (I will need to listen to it again) was to the effect "I could swear that it stopped." When evidence is corroborative and cumulative it carries more weight. Yes, a witness can be mistaken. However, it becomes noteworthy if sixty witnesses describe the same thing. Dealey Plaza, can be an enigma as to sounds and echoes. I have seen nothing in Dealey Plaza that lends itself to creating optical illusions. When the limo turned onto Elm two officers saw the ground and dust come up in the plaza across from the depository, convincing them that it was from a shot. They shared this with WC investigators and both were told they could not have seen that. The one officer diagrammed for me exactly where it hit.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Bill:
I am not aware that there were "lots" of folks who saw another film. The ones who have claimed to see it have been remarkably consistent. What variations are you making reference to? The Zapruder film does not show any "near stop" so what is it that you believe that these people saw? The witness (police officer) who relayed his account to me was and is well respected. Good luck.
Doug Weldon
DellaRosa's site years ago had a list of people who claimed to have seen the 'other film'. I pointed out that some of those witnesses were saying they saw things that were not part of other peoples description. For instance, one person had said that the 'other film' he saw had shown the President and Connally being shot as the car was making the turn onto Elm Street .... other accounting's didn't mention this. So rightfully so, I responded that there seems to be various versions of this so-called 'other film'. That if this so-called 'other film' had actually been witnessed by 'x' number of people, then each version should show the same sequences of events unfolding. That any difference in their descriptions implies that some of the witnesses are merely jumping on the 'I saw the other film' wagon and didn't see it or they all were telling the truth, but merely describing different films.
Bill
Bill:
Fair enough and thank you for the reply. I am not familiar with that list of people (how many?). The consistent factors that stand out from those whom I am aware saw another film are that they saw the limo taking a very wide turn on Elm Street(almost hitting the curb by the depository) and that the limo stopped. It does not surprise me that there would be those who would jump on the wagon. Again, thanks.
Doug Weldon
-
Bob, Bob, Bob---do you even bother to READ my many articles and free online book? I talk at length (obsessive length) about these 5 reports you are claiming I am avoiding; geez (I have also made several VIDEOS regarding these same reports..if you even bothered to check them out, that is). Also, a minor point: quit calling me Vincent LOL
First of all, here is my FREE online book, available for the whole world to see since 2006 (AND available before that since 1993 in softcover):
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html
See Chapter One
Now, here is my lengthy article about the 5 reports (written months later, the substance of which have been refuted by films, photos, and many former agents and White House aides...to a total stranger on the phone and in writing):
CE 1025, the 5 Secret Service reports submitted by Chief James J. Rowley on 4/22/64 (exactly 5 months to the day after the assassination) to the Warren Commission's General Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, ONLY because Rankin asked via a letter dated 4/3/64, were supposed to specifically address, quote, "expressions by President Kennedy regarding the placement of Secret Service agents on or near his car during the motorcade," obviously meaning THE fateful motorcade in Dallas on 11/22/63 when JFK was assassinated. However, not one of the five reports even addresses the DALLAS motorcade; only the Tampa, FL motorcade of 11/18/63 (and a few earlier motorcades) are addressed. Out of roughly 36 agents of the White House Detail (the number slightly fluctuates if you include "the brass"), Rowley chose to obtain written statements from just five: SAIC Gerald Behn (not in Dallas or Tampa; on leave during this time), ASAIC Floyd Boring (not in Dallas; in Tampa), ATSAIC Emory Roberts (in Tampa and Dallas), SA John Ready (not in Tampa but in Dallas), and Clint Hill (like Ready, not in Tampa but in Dallas). Why Roy Kellerman, the agent nominally in charge of the Texas trip, nor Winston Lawson, the lead advance agent, nor even the other 5 agents in the follow up car in Dallas (McIntyre, Kinney, Landis, Bennett, and Hickey), were not asked their thoughts on the matter raises suspicion (all the other agents on the Dallas trip, and prior trips, for that matter, could have participated). Importantly, NO MENTION is made of JFK's staff (Ken O'Donnell, Dave Powers, Larry O'Brien) being involved in this issue in any way whatsoever---the same goes for the Warren Report (and accompanying testimony of the JFK agents they spoke to---Kellerman, Hill, & Greer), Jim Bishop's book, and William Manchester's tome. With that said, a look at each report is warranted.
SAIC Behn's two-page report, dated 4/16/64 (the fourth report submitted to Rowley, and on blank paper, to boot; not official treasury Department stationary), first mentions the Mexico trip of 1962 and the trip to Berlin in 1963---both trips involved agents on and near the rear of the limo, as the film/ photo record exhaustively proves, so whatever JFK allegedly said on the matter, one way or the other, is moot. As for the other trips he mentions on page two of his report (Seattle, Phoenix, Bonham, TX, and "other stops" [no specifics]), two points must be made. These all occured in November of 1961, a whopping two years before the assassination! So, if there was not a standing order for the agents to stay off the car by order of JFK (which the film/ photo record, just by viewing the aforementioned Mexico and Berlin trips, proves), these alleged statements by JFK are not really germane to a trip two years after the (alleged) fact, to put it mildly. The second point is a recent discovery: the Bonham, TX stop was for the funeral of former Speaker Sam Rayburn and it involved a HARDTOP car without handholds for the agents to begin with: JFK was well protected, so mentioning this trip isn't germane, either. Keep in mind a valuable point in looking at all these reports: this was before the internet and before many of these films and photos were somewhat accessible to the lay person. Back in 1964, it was very easy to believe the pronouncements of official government employees, especially with JFK dead and not able to defend himself by stating HIS real views on the matter.
Quite surprisingly, when I asked Behn about this on 9/27/92, he told me: "I don't remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn't want anybody on the back of his car." Behn further stated: “I think if you watch the newsreel pictures you’ll find agents on there from time to time.” Since Behn's report is "signed" by a stamp-pad signature, one wonders if he actually even wrote this. If he did, his statements to myself (a total stranger on the phone [now a You Tube video]) tell me that, late in life, he told me the REAL story, NOT the one he was force-fed to state for the record to his boss to collectively cover the ass of the Secret Service, as the agency was rightfully worried about their future.
Behn ended his report by stating: "As late as November 18, of last year [1963], he [JFK] told ASAIC Boring the same thing. He [boring or JFK?] gave me no reason for this." With this in mind, we will take an even more detailed look at Boring's report, as well as the major ramifications of his report via the effect it had on several major books and so forth.
ASAIC Boring's one-page report, dated 4/8/64 (the very first report submitted to Rowley and, once again, on blank paper), deals mainly with the Tampa, FL trip of 11/18/63, while also mentioning the Italy trip of 7/2/63. Boring claims in this report that JFK told him to have the agents remove themselves from the rear of the limousine. However, films/ photos exhaustively prove that the agents rode on or near the rear of the car either the entire motorcade, or, at the very least, the vast majority of the trek, in Tampa, so, once again, whatever JFK allegedly said to Boring is moot. What's more, as the author discovered via research at the JFK Library, films and photos depict agents on and near the rear of the limo in Italy, as well! Regarding the Tampa trip, the author wrote to former Florida Congressman Samuel Melville Gibbons. Gibbons response in full, dated 1/15/04: “I rode with Kennedy every time he rode. I heard no such order. As I remember it the agents rode on the rear bumper all the way. Kennedy was very happy during his visit to Tampa. Sam Gibbons.” Furthermore, an amazing document was released in the 1990’s concerning, among many other related topics, the issue of the agents’ presence (or lack thereof) on the limousine. This is a 28-page “Sensitive”memorandum from Belford Lawson, the attorney in charge of the Secret Service area for the HSCA, addressed to Gary Cornwell & Ken Klein dated 5/31/77 and revised 8/15/77. Apparently, Attorney Lawson was suspicious of Mr. Boring, for he wrote on the final page of this lengthy memorandum: “Subject: Florida Motorcades in November 1963…Was Floyd Boring, the Senior SS Agent on the White House detail, lying to SS Agent Hill when he told Hill that JFK had said in Tampa…that he wanted no agents riding upright on the rear bumper step of the JFK limousine? Did JFK actually say this? Did Boring know when he told this to Hill that Hill would be riding outboard on the JFK follow-up car in Dallas on November 22, 1963? Did Boring say this to Ready or Roberts? [Lawson’s emphasis]” On page 27 of the same memo, Lawson wrote: “Why did only one Agent, Hill, run forward to the JFK limousine?”
As or even more surprising than the shocking comments by Behn, Floyd Boring told the author, in reference to JFK's alleged "desires" mentioned by Jim Bishop, Manchester (“quoting” Boring), and himself in his own report: "He actually - No, I told them...He didn't tell them anything...He just - I looked at the back and I seen these fellahs were hanging on the limousine - I told them to return to the car...[JFK] was a very easy-going guy...he didn't interfere with our actions at all" (emphasis added)! The author reiterated the point - Mr. Boring was still adamant that JFK never issued any orders to the agents; he even refuted Manchester's book. Floyd Boring (and quite a few of his colleagues) categorically denied to the author what William Manchester reports in his acclaimed massive best-seller “The Death of a President”: "Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around [indicating the frequency of the event], and in Tampa on November 18 [1963], just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark. (Emphasis added)." (In his "defense", Manchester also wrote: “It was a good idea, for example, to have agents perched on the broad trunk of the Presidential Lincoln when crowds threatened to grow disorderly. The trouble was that they were always there [emphasis added].”)
Incredibly, Boring told this author: "I never told him that." As for the merit of the quote itself, as previously mentioned, Boring said: "No, no, no-that's not true,” thus contradicting his own report in the process. Incredibly, BORING WAS NOT EVEN INTERVIEWED FOR MANCHESTER’S BOOK! We may never know Mr. Manchester's source for this curious statement: he told the author on 8/23/93 that "all that material is under seal and won't be released in my lifetime" and denied the author access to his notes (Manchester has since passed away). Interestingly, Manchester did interview the late Emory Roberts, Manchester’s probable and---as we shall see---very questionable “source.” [Of the 21 agents/ officials interviewed by Manchester, only Roberts, Greer, Kinney, and Blaine were on the Florida trip. Blaine was the advance agent for Tampa (riding in the lead car), Greer drove JFK’s car, Kinney drove the follow-up car, and Roberts was the commander of the follow-up car. That said, in the author’s opinion, Roberts is still the main suspect of the four as being Manchester’s dubious source for this quote: after all, he was asked to write a report about JFK’s so-called desires, citing Boring as the source for the order via radio transmission. The others---Greer, Kinney, & Blaine---were not asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had access to this report while writing his book). Also, unlike the other three, Roberts was interviewed twice and, while Greer never went on record with his feelings about the matter, one way or the other, Kinney adamantly denied the veracity of Manchester’s information, while Blaine denied the substance of the information, although he DID mention the “Ivy league charlatan” remark coming from a secondary source. Finally, of the 21 agents interviewed by Manchester, Blaine is the only agent---save two headquarters Inspectors (see next footnote)---whose interview comments are not to be found in the text or index. Since, in addition to Blaine, three other agents---Lawton, Meredith & Newman---also mentioned the remark as hearsay, in some fashion or another, it is more than likely that Manchester seized upon the remark and greatly exaggerated its significance…AND attributed it to Boring, while his actual source was likely Roberts (and/ or Blaine). Again, since Boring wasn’t interviewed, the comment had to come second-hand from another agent, who, in turn, received the remark second-hand from Boring. Ultimately, the question is: did Boring really give out this order on instructions from JFK?]
Needless to say, Manchester left his mark on this issue. [interestingly, Manchester, having interviewed 21 different agents/ officials for his book [pages 660-669], chose to include interviews with Secret Service Inspectors Burrill Peterson and Jack Warner. What’s the problem? Well, these men, not even associated with the Texas trip in any way, were interviewed more than any of the other agents: four times each (Peterson: 10/9/64, 11/17/64, 11/18/64, 2/5/65; Warner: 6/2/64, 11/18/64, 2/5/65, 5/12/65)! Only Emory Roberts, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two interviews apiece, while all the other agents/ officials garnered just one interview each. And, more importantly, unlike all the other 19 agents, save one, Gerald Blaine (a Texas trip WHD agent), these two Inspectors are not even mentioned in the actual text or the index; their comments are “invisible” to the reader. It appears, then, that Manchester’s book was truly a sanitized, “official” book, more so than we thought before (as most everyone knows, the book was written with Jackie Kennedy’s approval: it was her idea, in fact [page ix]. Manchester even had early, exclusive access to the Warren Commission itself: “At the outset of my inquiry the late Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed me an ex officio member of his commission…and provided me with an office in Washington’s VFW building, where the commission met and where copies of reports and depositions were made available to me [page xix]). Inspector Peterson figured prominently in the post-assassination press dealings (or lack thereof)---as Agent Sorrels testified: “…I don't think at any time you will see that there is any statement made by the newspapers or television that we said anything because Mr. Kelley, the Inspector, told me ‘Any information that is given out will have to come from Inspector Peterson in Washington.’"[7 H 359] Peterson became an Assistant Director for Investigations in 1968 [“20 Years in the Secret Service” by Rufus Youngblood (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973), page 220], while Inspector Warner would go on to become Director of Public Affairs (a position he held until the 1990’s), acting as a buffer to critical press questions during the assassination attempts on President Ford and other related matters [“The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency” (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003) by Philip Melanson with Peter Stevens, pages 101, 201, 224, 237]. Warner would also later become a consultant to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In The Line of Fire.”]
Jim Bishop, in his own massive best-selling book entitled "The Day Kennedy was Shot, "does nothing more than repeat the written record of the Warren Commission and the previously mentioned five reports, taken at face value. Again, Mr. Boring was not interviewed for the book. With Mr. Bishop dead, this is where the matter rests with his account. That said, Jim Bishop did sum up the situation best: "No one wanted to weigh the possibilities that, if a Secret Service man had been on the left rear bumper going down Elm Street, it would have been difficult to hit President Kennedy (emphasis added).” Bishop also noted: "The Secret Service men were not pleased because they were in a "hot" city and would have preferred to have two men ride the bumper of the President's car with two motorcycle policemen between him [JFK] and the crowds on the sidewalks."
Still, thanks to the Secret Service reports above (and, in large measure, to Agent Boring himself), three massive best-sellers still in print or in libraries ---the Warren Report The Warren Report , Manchester‘s “The Death of a President“, and Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was Shot”--- have created the myth that JFK was difficult to protect and had ordered the agents off his car and the like, a dangerous myth that endures to this day in classrooms and in the media, thus doing great damage to the true historical record.
Remember, Boring is admitting it came from him, and not JFK! With regard to exactly who makes the decision regarding the agents’ proximity to the President, Agent Jerry Parr told Larry King: “I would say it was the agent in charge who makes that decision.” When asked, point blank, if JFK had ever ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine, including in Tampa on 11/18/63, Boring told the author again : "Well that's not true. That's not true. He was a very nice man; he never interfered with us at all." In a letter received by the author on, of all dates, 11/22/97, Boring confirmed what he had previously told the author on two previous occasions (9/22/93 and 3/4/94, respectively) when he wrote: "President Kennedy was a very congenial man knowing most agents by their first name. He was very cooperative with the Secret Service, and well liked and admired by all of us (emphasis added)." Not only does Boring NOT mention anything about JFK’s alleged “desires” to restrict security during his two lengthy oral histories, the agent stated: “…of all the administrations I worked with, the president and the people surrounding the president were very gracious and were very cooperative. As a matter of fact, you can’t do this type of security work without cooperation of the people surrounding the president…[emphasis added]” Indeed, Chief James J. Rowley told the JFK Library in 1976: "...you could talk to them [JFK’s staff]...It made for a very happy relationship."
ATSAIC (Shift Leader) Emory Roberts one-page report (dated 4/10/64, the second one submitted to Rowley and finally on Treasury Department letterhead) deals exclusively with the Tampa FL trip of 11/18/63 and states nothing other than confirmation that he heard ASAIC Boring tell him, via radio, to get the agents off the back of JFK's car; nothing about the President's alleged wishes or anything else. From an evidentiary standpoint, moot and useless. Roberts was a "good soldier": he ordered an agent back from JFK's limo at Love Field (as this author discovered back in 1991 and had popularized for the first time back in 1995 and, again, in 2003 on The History Channel, long before this clip became something of an internet sensation), recalled an agent during the shooting and, as Sam Kinney told me, ordered the men on the follow-up car not to move! So, needless to say, like Boring, I am suspicious of Mr. Roberts (deceased 1973).
Special Agent John (Jack) Ready's one-page report (dated 4/11/64, the third one submitted to Rowley and, like Roberts, also on Treasury Department letterhead) deals exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip. However, Mr. Ready was not on this specific trip: Mr. Boring was, once again, his source for JFK's alleged request. Ready would not respond to written inquiries from the author. The author phoned Mr. Ready on 6/13/05 and asked him if it was true that Boring said this, based on JFK’s request. After confirming he wasn’t on the Tampa trip, Ready stated: “Not on the phone [will I answer you]. I don’t know you from Adam. Can you see my point?”
Special Agent Clint Hill's one-page report (strangely undated and, presumably, the last one submitted to Rowley) deals with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip and Boring second-hand because, like Ready, Mr. Hill was not on this trip, either. Mr. Hill lives incommunicado in Virginia and will not grant private interviews. That said, the author was the first private researcher to get through to Mr. Hill (more on this in a moment). Interestingly, Mr. Hill’s brother-in-law is none other than fellow former agent David B. Grant, a former advance agent who worked on the planning of the Florida and Texas trips with none other than Mr. Boring.
Agent Hill's report was the most honest of the five: "I...never personally was requested by President John F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy had made such requests. I do not know from whom I received this information...No written instructions regarding this were ever distributed...(I) received this information after the Presidents return to Washington, D. C. This would have been between November 19,1963 and November 21, 1963 [note the time frame!]. I do not know specifically who advised me of this request by the President (emphasis added)."
Mr. Hill's undated report was presumably written in April 1964, as the other four reports were written at that time. Why Mr. Hill could not "remember" the specific name of the agent who gave him JFK's alleged desires is very troubling - he revealed it on 3/9/64, presumably before his report was written, in his (obviously pre-rehearsed) testimony under oath to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer with the Warren Commission:
:
Specter: "Did you have any other occasion en route from Love Field to downtown Dallas to leave the follow-up car and mount that portion of the President's car [rear portion of limousine]?"
Hill: "I did the same thing approximately four times."
Specter: "What are the standard regulations and practices, if any, governing such an action on your part?"
Hill: "It is left to the agent's discretion more or less to move to that particular position when he feels that there is a danger to the President: to place himself as close to the President or the First Lady as my case was, as possible, which I did."
Specter: "Are those practices specified in any written documents of the Secret Service?"
Hill: "No, they are not."
Specter: "Now, had there been any instruction or comment about your
performance of that type of a duty with respect to anything President
Kennedy himself had said in the period immediately preceding the trip to
Texas?"
Hill: "Yes, sir; there was. The preceding Monday, the President was on a trip to Tampa, Florida, and he requested that the agents not ride on either of those two steps."
Specter: "And to whom did the President make that request?"
Hill: "Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring."
Specter: "Was Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring the individual in charge of that trip to Florida?"
Hill: "He was riding in the Presidential automobile on that trip in Florida, and I presume that he was. I was not along."
Specter: "Well, on that occasion would he have been in a position comparable to that occupied by Special Agent Kellerman on this trip to Texas?"
Hill: "Yes sir; the same position."
Specter: "And Special Agent Boring informed you of that instruction by President Kennedy?"
Hill: "Yes sir, he did."
Specter: "Did he make it a point to inform other special agents of that same instruction?"
Hill: "I believe that he did, sir."
Specter: "And, as a result of what President Kennedy said to him, did he instruct you to observe that Presidential admonition?"
Hill: "Yes, sir."
Specter: "How, if at all, did that instruction of President Kennedy affect your action and - your action in safeguarding him on this trip to Dallas?"
Hill: "We did not ride on the rear portions of the automobile. I did on those four occasions because the motorcycles had to drop back and there was no protection on the left-hand side of the car." (Emphasis added)
On 9/18/96, by request of the author, the ARRB’s Doug Horne interviewed Mr. Boring regarding this matter. Horne wrote: "Mr. Boring was asked to read pages 136-137 of Clint Hill's Warren Commission testimony, in which Clint Hill recounted that Floyd Boring had told him just days prior to the assassination that during the President's Tampa trip on Monday, 11/18/63, JFK had requested that agents not ride on the rear steps of the limousine, and that Boring had also so informed other agents of the White House detail, and that as a result, agents in Dallas (except Clint Hill, on brief occasions) did not ride on the rear steps of the limousine. MR BORING AFFIRMED THAT HE DID MAKE THESE STATEMENTS TO CLINT HILL, BUT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT RELAYING A POLICY CHANGE, BUT RATHER SIMPLY TELLING AN ANECDOTE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S KINDNESS AND CONSIDERATION IN TAMPA IN NOT WANTING AGENTS TO HAVE TO RIDE ON THE REAR OF THE LINCOLN LIMOUSINE WHEN IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO BECAUSE OF A LACK OF CROWDS ALONG THE STREET (Emphasis added).”
The author finds this admission startling, especially because the one agent who decided to ride on the rear of the limousine in Dallas anyway---and on at least 4 different occasions--- was none other than CLINT HILL himself.
This also does not address what the agents were to do when the crowds were heavier, or even what exactly constituted a "crowd", as AGENTS DID RIDE ON THE REAR STEPS OF THE LIMOUSINE IN TAMPA ON NOVEMBER 18, 1963 ANYWAY (agents Donald J. Lawton, Andrew E. Berger, & Charles T. Zboril, to be exact)!
Furthermore, as noted above, both Clint Hill's written report and his testimony sure convey a more strict approach than one stemming from an alleged kind anecdote. In fact, as mentioned above, Hill twice stated in his report that he DID NOT RECALL who the agent was who told him, and the other agents, not to ride on the rear of the limousine, yet named him under oath to Counsel Specter: Floyd Boring.
So of the five Secret Service reports, four have as their primary source for JFK's alleged request Agent Boring, including one by Boring himself, while the remaining report, written by Mr. Behn, mentions the same 11/18/63 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do (again, Boring’s report was the first one written, then came one each from Roberts, Ready, Behn, and Hill, respectively). Both Behn and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at different times, independent of each other, to the author. In addition, agents did ride on the rear of the limousine on 7/2/63 and 11/18/63 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests, as the film and photo record proves.
Needless to say, with Boring joining Behn in refuting the substance of their reports, the official Secret Service ‘explanation’ falls like a house of cards.Behn’s, Boring’s, and Hill’s reports are not even on any Secret Service or Treasury Dept. stationary, just blank sheets of paper. In fact, as noted above, Hill’s report is undated, a bizarre error to make in an official government report written by request of the head of the Secret Service.All are supposedly evidence of JFK expressing his desire to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in Tampa, Florida on 11/18/63.
Importantly, no mention is made of any alleged orders via President Kennedy’s staff.
And, again, THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT JFK SAID OR "REQUESTED" ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, THE CRITICAL DAY IN QUESTION!
POST SCRIPT ONE:
The “one-two” punch was provided in the late 1990’s by both former Carter & Reagan SAIC Jerry Parr’s comments to Larry King on CNN dated 7/14/98, as well as, controversially, then-current Clinton Secret Service Director Lewis C. Merletti. For his part, Parr, a major consultant to the “In The Line of Fire” movie, told Larry King: “The critical factor [in Dallas]…was the fact that he ordered the two agents off the car…which made him very vulnerable to Lee Oswald’s attack.” Regarding Merletti, “The Washington Post” reported on 5/14/98: “During private meetings, sources said, Merletti told officials from [Kenneth] Starr's office [investigating the President Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky matter] and the Treasury and Justice departments that trust and proximity to a president are crucial to protecting him [in fact, Clint Hill and Jerry Parr where 2 of the nine living former SAIC’s of the WHD who signed a petition to try to block Kenneth Starr from interviewing Secret Service officials. The other 7 were unnamed in the article. (“Washington Post”, 6/16/98)]...the service ran through the history of assassination attempts, showing instances where they succeeded or failed, possibly depending on how close agents were to an intended victim. Sources said they produced rare photographs of John F. Kennedy's fateful 1963 motorcade through Dallas, where agents were not standing on running boards on the back of his exposed automobile when shots rang out because the president several days before had ordered them not to…Merletti indicated to the court that the assassination in a moving limousine of President John F. Kennedy "might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car's running boards (emphasis added).” To drive the point home even further, here is an excerpt from Director Merletti’s testimony, as reported in “The Washington Post” from 5/20/98: "I have attached, as Exhibit A to this Declaration, photographs of President John F. Kennedy's visit to Tampa, Florida on November 18, 1963. We use these photographs, and the ones attached as Exhibit B, in our training exercises. Exhibit A demonstrates the lengths to which protective personnel have been forced to go to try to maintain proximity to the President. In the photographs contained in Exhibit A, agents are kneeling on the running board of the Presidential limousine, while the vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed [note: a contradiction---according to prior official agency mythology, the agents shouldn’t even be there at all!]. I can attest that this requires extraordinary physical exertion. Nevertheless, they performed this duty in an attempt to maintain close physical proximity to the President. Exhibit B, by contrast, scarcely needs any introduction. It is a series of photographs of the Presidential limousine, taken just four days later, on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. As can be seen, at the instruction of the President, Secret Service agents had been ordered off of the limousine's running boards. An analysis of the ensuing assassination (including the trajectory of the bullets which struck the President) indicates that it might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car's running boards. In other words, had they been able to maintain close proximity to the President during the motorcade, the assassination of John F. Kennedy might have been averted. Exhibit C contains a series of photographs taken during the actual assassination that demonstrate how critical and tragic the absence of proximity to the protectee can be (emphasis added).”
POST SCRIPT TWO:
J. Frank Yeager, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)---In a letter to the author dated 12/29/03, Yeager wrote: “I did not think that President Kennedy was particularly “difficult” to protect. In fact, I thought that his personality made it easier than some because he was easy to get along with…” With regard to the author’s question, “Did President Kennedy ever order the agents off the rear of his limousine,” Yeager responded: “I know of no “order” directly from President Kennedy. I think that after we got back from Tampa, Florida where I did the advance for the President, a few days before Dallas…[it was] requested that the Secret Service agents not ride the rear running board of the Presidential car during parades involving political events so that the president would not be screened by an agent. I don’t know what form or detail that this request was made to the Secret Service… I also do not know who actually made the final decision, but we did not have agents on the rear of the President’s car in Dallas [emphasis added].” Like Hill’s report mentioned above, please note the timing.
Gerald S. Blaine, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)---Blaine told the author on 2/7/04 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.
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 11/22/63. Surprisingly, Blaine, the WHD advance agent for the Tampa trip of 11/18/63, 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 wonders if Blaine was a source (or perhaps the source) for Manchester’s exaggerated ‘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 6/10/05, 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 hesitation.” 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.
Donald J. Lawton, WHD; rode on rear of limousine 3/23/63 (Chicago) & 11/18/63 (Tampa); relegated to airport duty 11/22/63---When the author told Lawton on 11/15/95 what fellow agent Kinney said, namely, that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine, he said: "It's the way Sam said, yes" (Meaning, he agrees with Kinney, it happened the way Kinney said). Asked to explain how he dismounted the rear of the limousine in Tampa, Lawton said: " I didn't hear the President say it, no. The word was relayed to us---I forget who told us now---you know, 'come back to the follow-up car. '“ This would have been Boring, by radio, to Roberts, then finally to the agents---Lawton, Zboril, and Berger---on the limousine. According to Lawton, JFK was "very personable...very warm".Asked about the tragedy in Dallas, Lawton said, "Everyone felt bad. It was our job to protect the President. You still have regrets, remorse. Who knows, if they had left guys on the back of the car...you can hindsight yourself to death (emphasis added).” Paradoxically, when I asked Lawton if JFK really made the statement to Boring mentioned above, Lawton said: “The President told him [boring], I think he said 'get the college kids off the back of the car.'” (See Blaine, Meredith & Newman, above and below.) That said, in a letter to the author dated, ironically, 11/22/97, Lawton wrote: "Since I am currently employed by the Secret Service I do not believe it appropriate that I comment on former or current protectees of the Service. If you spoke with Bob Lilley as you stated then you can take whatever information he passed on to you as gospel [see Lilley’s comments, below].”
Robert E. Lilley, WHD agent with JFK from election night until Oct. 1963: transferred to Boston Office - When the author told this former agent what Mr. Behn said in September 1992, that Kennedy never said a thing about having the agents removed from the limousine (thus repudiating his own report), Lilley responded: "Oh, I'm sure he [JFK] didn't [order agents off his car, agreeing with Behn]. He was very cooperative with us once he became President. He was extremely cooperative. Basically, 'whatever you guys want is the way it will be'." In interviews and correspondence on four separate occasions, Lilley reiterated this view. Lilley also refuted the Bishop and Manchester accounts, adding that, as an example, on a trip with JFK in Caracas, Venezuela, he and "Roy Kellerman rode on the back of the limousine all the way to the Presidential palace" at speeds reaching "50 miles per hour." Furthermore, Lilley did the advance work for JFK’s trip to Naples, Italy in the summer of 1963: again, agents rode on the rear of the limousine.
Aide David F. Powers (rode in the follow-up car on 11/22/63) & Jacqueline Kennedy (rode with President Kennedy in the limousine)- In a personal letter to the author dated 9/10/93, Mr. Powers wrote: "Unless they were ‘running’ along beside the limo, the Secret Service rode in a car behind the President, so, no, they never had to be told to "get off" the limousine" (emphasis added). This comment rivals Behn’s shocking statements to the author due to the source: President Kennedy’s longtime friend and aide and a man who was on countless trips with the President. For the record, Agent Bob Lilley endorsed Mr. Powers view: "Dave would give you factual answers." In addition, the ARRB’s Tom Samoluk told the author that, during the course of an interview he conducted with Powers in 1996, the former JFK aide and friend agreed with the author’s take on the Secret Service!
For her part, Jackie “played the events over and over in her mind…She did not want to accept Jack’s death as a freak accident, for that meant his life could have been spared---if only the driver in the front seat of the presidential limousine [Agent William R. Greer] had reacted more quickly and stepped on the gas…if only the Secret Service had stationed agents on the rear bumper…[emphasis added]” (“Just Jackie: Her Private Years” by Edward Klein (Ballantine Books, 1999), pages 58-59 & 374: based off an interview Klein had with Kitty Carlisle Hart re: Hart’s conversation with Jackie)
Winston G. Lawson, WHD (lead) advance agent for the Dallas trip (rode in the lead car on 11/22/63): In a stunning letter to the author dated 1/12/04, Lawson wrote: “I do not know of any standing orders for the agents to stay off the back of the car. After all, foot holds and handholds were built into that particular vehicle. I am sure it would have been on a “case by case” basis depending on event, intelligence, threats, etc. Jerry Behn as Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail…would have been privy to that type of info more than I [see above]. However, it never came to my attention as such. I am certain agents were on the back on certain occasions [emphasis added].” The agent should be certain of that last understatement---he rode on the back of the limousine on the 7/2/63 Italy trip. Coming from one of the chief architects of security planning in Dallas, this is very important, to say the least.
Anthony Sherman (WHD, 9/61-10/63)---Sherman wrote the author: “Yes, it is common knowledge, contrary to the denial of SAIC Behn [see above], that agents were advised not to ride on the rear of the limo during the Dallas motorcade. I suggest to further discuss this question you contact former Special Agent Tim McIntyre, [address deleted for privacy]. Retired SAIC McIntyre was riding the “follow up car” immediately behind the limo. I was not in Dallas, having been transferred to the Field in Oct. 1963. I was sent to Dallas immediately after the assassination and spent three months on the protective/ investigative team representing the Secret Service [Emphasis added].” See McIntyre’s comments, below. Ironically, Sherman added: “May I suggest that you get a copy of THE SECRET SERVICE: THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF AN ENIGMATIC AGENCY by Professor Phillip Melanson, PhD. This book is by far the best, most professional “study” of the USSS I have ever read. I believe it will give you other answers to your questions.” What Sherman apparently did not know or remember was that the author’s work was included in Melanson’s book!
Larry Newman, WHD (October 1961 to October 1963, then Washington Field Office)---In a friendly if somewhat contentious interview conducted on 2/7/04 (Newman had seen the author on “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” in November 2003 and thought I was some “20 year old kid” (actually, 36 at the time!). He also mentioned my letter he received and chose not to answer back in 1997), Newman told the author that there was “no policy” regarding the use of agents on the rear of Kennedy’s car, further adding that the question was “hard to answer: it depends on the crowd, the threat assessment, and so forth. There was not a consistent rule of thumb [emphasis added].” This comment will become important later. In addition, regarding the controversial “Ivy League Charlatan” remark first mentioned in Manchester’s book and noted by Lawton and Blaine (above), Newman said: “When Kennedy went to Florida [11/18/63], supposedly, I didn’t hear this directly, Kennedy said to Boring ‘Get the Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car [emphasis added].’” The former agent added that Manchester’s work, while with some merit, became “part of myth, part of truth.” This author couldn’t agree more. With regard to Boring, Newman said: “Boring will only tell you the company line. I’m no friend of Boring’s.” Actually, what Boring told the author went against the “company line” he espoused back in 1964. And, from the latter comment, Newman obviously has no love lost for his former boss on the WHD. The former agent said that both Behn and Boring were “extremely loyal to JFK,” adding: “Boring told you Kennedy didn’t want any agents on the car; then again, he’s been a proponent that JFK wasn’t a womanizer.” Both comments are true. Newman phoned the author unexpectedly on 2/12/04 to say that “there was not a directive, per se” from President Kennedy to remove the agents from their positions on the back of his limousine. The former agent seemed troubled by the author’s research into the matter. Newman did ridicule former Director Merletti’s testimony in 1998 (see above). Regarding Roberts’ order not to move and his conduct, in general, Newman said: “They were probably afraid to hit the street at that speed.” When told that the cars were actually traveling quite slowly, including the limousine’s decelerating speed from a meager 11.2 mph, he had nothing to say in response. When asked if Tim McIntyre may shed more light on the matter (knowing full well that he said as much to the author on 2/7/04), Newman now said he is “hiding out” and “probably, he wouldn’t talk to you anyway” (see McIntyre’s comments, below) Newman seemed concerned yet strangely helpful in conversation with the author. He reiterated that he has no good feelings for Boring (in contrast to his warm feelings for Kellerman) and that---describing himself--- said: “I’m not a good guy.” (!) Finally, Newman said: “You need to get inside the nuts and bolts.” That is what the author is attempting to do with his research and his book.
William “Tim” McIntyre, WHD (rode on the follow-up car on 11/22/63): The author contacted McIntyre on 6/13/05 (McIntyre had previously been contacted via mail in 2004, based on the strong recommendations of former agents’ Larry Newman and Tony Sherman, but did not respond back). Asked about the Tampa trip of 11/18/63, the former agent said: “I was there on the follow-up car.” Regarding the question of agents being on the back of the car, McIntyre said: “I believe so---Zboril was on the back,” which he was (He also mentioned Don Lawton and Emory Roberts as being on the trip, which they were). Regarding the matter at hand, McIntyre stated: “I can’t remember if they were told to be off the car.” So, in spite of these strong recommendations from his colleagues to ask him about this specific subject, McIntyre now allegedly “can’t remember”?
Arthur L. Godfrey, ATSAIC of WHD---The former agent told the author on 5/30/96, regarding the notion that JFK ordered the agents not to do certain things which included removing themselves from the rear of the limousine: "That's a bunch of baloney; that's not true. He never ordered us to do anything. He was a very nice man...cooperative.” Godfrey reiterated this on 6/7/96. Asked if whether Aide Ken O'Donnell did any similar ordering, Godfrey said emphatically: "He did not order anyone around." As just one example, Godfrey was on the Italy trip mentioned in Boring’s report above and agents frequently rode on the rear of the limousine- one of the agents was none other than Winston G. Lawson. In a letter dated 11/24/97, Godfrey stated the following: "All I can speak for is myself. When I was working [with] President Kennedy he never ask [ed] me to have my shift leave the limo when we [were] working it," thus confirming what he had also told the author telephonically on two prior occasions.
Samuel A. Kinney, WHD---The affable former agent told the author on 3/5/94, regarding the “official” notion of history that President Kennedy ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine and the like: "That is absolutely, positively false...no, no, no: he had nothing to do with that [ordering agents off the rear of the limousine]...No, never-the agents say, 'O.K., men, fall back on your posts'...President Kennedy was one of the easiest presidents to ever protect; Harry S. Truman was a jewel just like John F. Kennedy was...99% of the agents would agree...(JFK) was one of the best presidents ever to control-he trusted every one of us [Emphasis added]." In regard to the infamous quote from William Manchester, Kinney said, "That is false. I talked to William Manchester; he called me on the book...for the record of history that is false - Kennedy never ordered us to do anything. I am aware of what is being said but that is false"Finally, just to nail down this issue, the author asked Kinney if an exception was made on 11/22/63: "Not this particular time, no. Not in this case". Kinney also told the author that Ken O'Donnell did not interfere with the agents: "Nobody ordered anyone around.”
Secret Service Chiefs James J. Rowley and Urbanus E. “U.E.” Baughman---Rowley told the Warren Commission: "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do.” Apparently, Rowley thought the agents DID ride on the rear of the limousine throughout the motorcade, for he added: “…the men at some point came back to this [follow-up] car.” In fact, Rowley’s predecessor, former Chief U.E. Baughman, who had served under JFK from Election Night 1960 until Sept. 1961, had written in his 1962 book “Secret Service Chief”: "Now the Chief of the Secret Service is legally empowered to countermand a decision made by anybody in this country if it might endanger the life or limb of the Chief Executive. This means I could veto a decision of the President himself if I decided it would be dangerous not to. The President of course knew this fact." Indeed, an AP story from 11/15/63 stated: “The (Secret) Service can overrule even the President where his personal security is involved.“To the point, when Baughman was asked by U.S. News & World report on 12/23/63 about the Service’s protective efforts in Dallas, he said: “I can’t understand why Mrs. Kennedy had to climb over the back of the car, as she did, to get help…[this matter] should be resolved.” Apparently, Baughman was puzzled by the lack of agents on or near the rear of the limousine.
Cecil Stoughton, WH photographer---Stoughton wrote the author: "I did see a lot of the activity surrounding the various trips of the President, and in many cases I did see the agents in question riding on the rear of the President's car. In fact, I have ridden there a number of times myself during trips...I would jump on the step on the rear of the [Lincoln] Continental until the next stop. I have made photos while hanging on with one hand...in Tampa [11/18/63], for example. As for the [alleged] edict of not riding there by order of the President- I can't give you any proof of first hand knowledge." Stoughton went on to write: "I am bothered by your interest in these matters". In a later letter, Stoughton merely corroborated his prior written statements: "I would just jump on and off [the limo] quickly- no routine, and Jackie had no further remarks to me". It should be explained that, according to Stoughton's book, Jackie had told him to stay close to the limo in July 1963, and he did up to and including the Houston, TX trip of 11/21/63 (There are photos that Stoughton made from the follow-up car that day, as well). “Then, for some unknown reason, Stoughton was relegated to a position further away from JFK on 11/22/63 .
Charles T. Zboril, WHD, Lawton's partner on the rear of the limo in Tampa on 11/18/63 ---Former Agent Zboril curiously did not give the author a straight answer on this issue when interviewed on 11/15/95. Zboril said: "Well, Don Lawton and I are just sub-notes [sic] because somebody else testified on behalf of us about what happened in Tampa"- this was Clint Hill, testifying to Arlen Specter about why agents were not on the rear of the car during the assassination. When asked if it was true that JFK had ordered the agents off the limousine four days before Dallas, which the author already knew not to be true, Zboril got emotional: "Where did you read that? I...If-if you read it in the Warren Report, that's what happened...Do you want me commenting officially? I’m pretty sure it’s there [in the Warren Report]…I'm talking to someone I don't know. I’m talking to you as frank as I can...If you read it in there [the Warren Report], it happened…I gave you more than I would give someone else". The agent also added: “There is an old adage that we used in the Secret Service: ‘Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see,’” the identical sentiment used by Jean (and Jerry) Behn, above. Zboril then gave the author his home address and requested that the author send him anything on this matter, promising to respond back. He never did. Included in the package the author sent was a video of Agent Rybka being recalled at Love Field by Agent Roberts.
Press Secretary Pierre Salinger: JFK had a good relationship with the Secret Service and, more importantly, did NOT argue with their security measures. This was based on the author's correspondence with noted journalist Roger Peterson from 2/99 (from Peterson's very recent conversations with Salinger).
Samuel E. Sulliman, WHD (On Texas trip, in Dallas, at the Trade Mart): Sulliman told the author on 2/11/04 that agents were on the back of the limousine a lot; in fact, he remembered riding there on the trips to Ireland and Germany. When told of Art Godfrey’s comments on the matter (see above), the former agent agreed with his colleague. Regarding the notion that JFK ordered the agents off the car, Sulliman told the author twice: “I don’t think so.” Sulliman also said that JFK was “easy to get along with.” As for who exactly was responsible for the decision to remove the agents from the rear area of the limousine, Sulliman told the author: “I can’t tell you who made the decision.” The author took this to mean that he honestly did not know, rather than the notion that he was hiding the true answer.
Frank G. Stoner, PRS: During an interview conducted on 1/17/04, former agent Stoner, who served in the Secret Service from January 1945 until 1969, said that Manchester was “probably trying to sell books” when he suggested that Kennedy ordered the agents off the back of the limousine. In fact, the 84-year-old former agent laughed at the mere suggestion. Stoner also agreed with several of his colleagues that JFK was “very personable”: “He was an old Navy man. He understood security. He wouldn’t have ordered them off the car.”
Gerald W. “Jerry” O’Rourke, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop; on WHD from Eisenhower to LBJ/1964)---In a letter to the author dated 1/15/04, O’Rourke wrote: “Did President Kennedy order us (agents) off the steps of the limo? To my knowledge President Kennedy never ordered us to leave the limo. ” (Emphasis added) The agent added: “President Kennedy was easy to protect as he completely trusted the agents of the Secret Service. We always had to be entirely honest with him and up front so we did not lose his trust.”
Vincent P. Mroz, WHD (Truman, Eisenhower, and part-time with JFK, LBJ [9 months], and Nixon)---During an interview with the author conducted on 2/7/04, the former agent said that President Kennedy was “friendly, congenial---he was really easy to get along with…just like Truman.” When asked, point blank, if JFK had ever ordered the agents off the car, Mroz said forcefully: “No, no---that’s not true.” When asked a second time, the former agent responded with equal conviction: “He did not order anybody off the car.”
J. Walter Coughlin, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)--- The author e-mailed the former agent, asking him: “How often did agents ride on the rear of the limousine during JFK's time (and/ or walk, jog, or run nearby)? Coughlin responded: “In almost all parade situations that I was involved w [ith] we rode or walked the limo [Emphasis added].” Coughlin later wrote: “We often rode on the back of the car.” Also, the author, in the same message, asked Coughlin: “What was President Kennedy like? Was he easy to protect?” The former agent responded in the same reply: “Very funny and very friendly. Knew all the agents by first name.” (Regarding LBJ, Coughlin wrote: “Didn't like anyone and could be very surly. Hard to protect - did not like to take advice.”) Coughlin later wrote: “The rear steps [of the limousine] were very adaquete [sic] for safety.”Finally, to clarify this matter further, the author asked Coughlin: “So far, combing the literature, books, interviews, etc., I've found that Behn, Boring, Blaine, Mroz, Godfrey, Lawson, and Dave Powers said that President Kennedy did not order the agents off his limousine---do you think William Manchester and others took "poetic license" on this matter?” Coughlin responded: “Yes I do.”
Darwin David Horn, Sr. (Secret Service, Los Angeles office; former WHD agent; served in the agency from 1951 to 1981): Horn wrote the author on 1/30/04: “You asked about Kennedy. I have worked him primarily in Los Angeles on several occasions …and never heard him tell the agents to get off of the car. It is possible. You will have to ask some of the other agents who worked him full time. [Art] Godfrey would have been perfect but he passed away some time ago [emphasis added].” See Godfrey’s comments, above. Horn later wrote the author: “Agents on the rear of JFK's car might have made a difference. They may have been hit instead of the President. That would have been all right with all of us. Agents normally would have been on the sides [of the car] (emphasis added).”
Maurice G. Martineau, SAIC of Chicago office: Martineau joined his colleagues in refuting the Manchester story that JFK ordered the agents off the rear of the car. Martineau said this to the author in two telephonic interviews on 9/21/93 and 6/7/96, respectively.
Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. - In reference to Kennedy's alleged "requests", Mr. Bolden told the author on numerous occasions in 1993-1996 that he "didn't hear anything about that...I never believed that Kennedy said that [ordering removal of agents]”. Bolden, an ardent critic of the agency’s lax protection since 1963, also wrote the author: “No-one could have killed our President without the shots of omission fired by the Secret Service. Observe the feet of [four] Secret Service agents glued to the running boards of the follow-up car as bullets [sic?] pierce the brain of our President!!!" (In addition to being a WHD agent on temporary assignment in 1961, as well as a Chicago Office agent afterwards, Bolden saw action on the 3/23/63 and (cancelled) 11/2/63 trips to Chicago)
DNC Advance man Martin E. “Marty” Underwood - He could not believe that Mr. Behn wrote in his report that JFK desired to have the agents off the car (later repudiated by Mr. Behn, of course), citing Clint Hill's actions on 11/22/63 as just one of "many times" that agents were posted on the back of the JFK limousine. During this 10/9/92 interview, Underwood confirmed to the author that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of the car.
Robert I. Bouck, SAIC of PRS: On 9/27/92, Bouck confirmed to the author that having agents on the back of the limousine depended on factors independent of any alleged Presidential "requests": “Many times there were agents on his car.” On 4/30/96, the ARRB’s Doug Horne questioned Bouck: “Did you ever hear the President personally say that he didn’t want agents to stand on the running boards on his car, or did you hear that from other agents?” Bouck: “I never heard the President say that personally. I heard that from other agents (emphasis added).” The former agent also told the ARRB that JFK was the “most congenial” of all the presidents he had observed (Bouck served from FDR to LBJ).
Rufus W. Youngblood, ASAIC of LBJ Detail: On 10/22/92, Youngblood confirmed to the author: "There was not a standing order" from JFK to restrict agents from the back of the limousine - the agents had "assigned posts and positions" on the back of the President's car. On 2/8/94, Youngblood added: "President Kennedy wasn't a hard ass...he never said anything like that [re: removing agents from limo and the like]. As a historian, he [Manchester] flunked the course---don't read Manchester." Youngblood knows of what he speaks: he was interviewed by Manchester on 11/17/64.
John F. Norris, Uniformed Division of the Secret Service: On 3/4/94, in an interview with the author, Norris also joined his colleagues in refuting the notion that JFK ordered the agents off the rear of the limo: “I would doubt that very much,” Norris said.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1:40 p.m., 11/29/63: "You see, there was no Secret Service man standing on the back of the car. Usually the presidential car in the past has had steps on the back, next to the bumpers, and there's usually been one [agent] on either side standing on these steps...[ellipsis in text]...Whether the President asked that that not be done, we don't know (emphasis added).” "So, as of 11/29/63, a week after the murder, the myth hadn’t been set in motion yet. From Hoover’s Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, & Mohr, November 29, 1963: “…there was no Secret Service Agent on the back of the car; that in the past they have added steps on the back of the car and usually had an agent on either side standing on the bumper; that I did not know why this was not done - that the President may have requested it…[emphasis added].” One now wonders if Hoover was the originator of the blame-the-President campaign and if he had any influence on Agent Boring who, by date, had written the first report about these matters to former FBI agent---and Hoover friend and colleague---Chief James Rowley.
Newsmen: ABC’s Ron Gardner, ABC’s Jim Haggerty (former Eisenhower Press Secretary), & UPI’s Robert J. Serling: Shortly after the assassination on 11/22/63 before a television audience of many millions of people, Gardner reported: “Secret Service agents normally walk directly beside the car. We can’t see any in these pictures (emphasis added).” Also on the very same day before an enormous television audience, Haggerty maintained that agents normally walked or jogged near the rear of the president’s car, adding that he had a hand in planning many motorcades (as did his successor, Pierre Salinger). For his part, Serling wrote on 11/23/63, based in part on “private conversations” with unnamed agents: “There are two absolute rules for motorcade protection: The agent running or riding at the President's shoulder must never leave that position unless relieved. The other is to turn out the manpower in all secret service cars the moment trouble arises and get secret service bodies around the President [emphasis added].” (In the same UPI story written by Serling from Washington entitled “Secret Service Men Wary of Motorcade”: “The United States Secret Service… has always feared a motorcade assassination attempt more than anything else. In private conversations and in books published by high officials after they left the service, agents admit that Chief Executives riding in open cars down crowded city streets are at their most vulnerable as the targets of assassination… For motorcades the secret service checks every manhole cover and sewer along the parade route for bombs or dynamite. Buildings frequently are checked, along with records of occupants to make sure there are no known President-haters on the premises… They are trained never to watch the President himself but the people and crowds around him. They are also sworn to throw themselves in front of their charge at the first indication of gunfire -- to take the bullets, if possible, meant for the Chief Executive… An agent is the only man in the world who can order a President of the United States around if the latter's safety is believed at stake… in certain situations an agent outranks even a President [emphasis added].”)
Lynn S. Meredith (WHD, “Kiddie Detail”/ Kennedy Children; served in the Secret Service from 1951 to 1983)---In yet another potential dissenting voice that is, like Agent Sherman (above) not what it seems to be, Meredith wrote to the author on 3/9/04: “…it is my very definite understanding that President Kennedy did, in fact, politely request that Secret Service agents not ride on platforms to the rear of his limousine shortly before he was assassinated. The President was campaigning in Tampa, Florida, on or about November 19, 1963 [actually, 11/18/63] (3 days before he was assassinated in Dallas on November22), when he requested that agents not ride on the rear of his vehicle because they tended to obstruct the view of the crowd and take attention away from him and others riding with him. He said something to the effect to senior agent Roy Kellerman [sic: allegedly to Floyd Boring; Kellerman was not even on this trip] at the time, “Do you suppose we could get those Ivy Leaguers off the back of my limo so the people can get a good look at us instead of you guys?” He was obviously inferring that the people along the motorcade route in Tampa were seeing the two agents on the rear of the limo and not concentrating on him and the First Lady [sic: also not on this trip] and the other dignitaries riding in the back seat. I must admit that I was not along on the trip and was back at the White House with Caroline and John, Jr., when this happened in Tampa, but I’m pretty sure this is accurate information, and was the main reason there were no agents on the back of the limousine in Dallas, Texas, at the time of the assassination. If the Secret Service could not respond to the President by saying it was absolutely necessary for two agents to be there, then his request had to be honored. And in Dallas, the Secret Service had no reliable information that Dallas was a dangerous place and we certainly did not know at the time that Lee Harvey Oswald existed. Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that neither Jerry Behn or Sam Kinney were on this trip [wrong re: Kinney---on the Florida and Texas trips]…I do believe if agents had been riding on the rear of the limo in Dallas that President Kennedy would not have been assassinated as they would have been in Oswald’s line of fire…To elaborate a little more on the assassination in Dallas, I have always believed that the following adverse situations all contributed to the unnecessary and unfortunate death of President Kennedy: (1) No Secret Service agents riding on the rear of the limousine…[Emphasis added]” In a follow-up letter to the author dated 5/22/05, Meredith wrote: “…I do not know first hand if President Kennedy ordered agents off the back end of his limousine…I have been under the impression through the years that he did just that politely in Tampa Bay (sic) ...they [the agents] took this as a polite order from the President not to take these upright positions on the back of the limousine…on November 22, 1963. So don’t take my word as the gospel truth on this matter.” Meredith continued: “If you really want to receive a very definite and accurate statement of fact about this, I strongly recommend that you try to contact former Agent Clint Hill…Here is Hill’s mailing address [deleted for privacy]…I don’t know how successful you would be in contacting Clint Hill…But I wish you “Good Luck” in this regard.”
On 6/2/05, the author mailed a lengthy, 22-page letter to former WHD agent Clinton J. Hill (Certified, Return Receipt Requested with a S.A.S.E. to boot) summarizing this entire chapter in great detail. On 6/13/05, after not receiving a reply, the author phoned Mr. Hill, who was quite apparently angry---he first pretended not to know about the lengthy letter he had to sign for (of which the author received his signed receipt): “About what?,” Hill exclaimed in response to the author’s inquiry. Then, forcefully, Hill added: “I’m just not interested in talking to you.”
Author Jim Bishop revealed the seemingly unknown fact that Floyd Boring was the number one agent involved in the Dallas trip back in the 1960's in his book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot": "...[LBJ] called Secret Service Chief James Rowley. ‘Rufe [Youngblood] did a brave thing today,’ he said. ‘He jumped on me and kept me down. I want you to do whatever you can, the best that can be done, for that boy." He hung up [this was 11/22/63]. It had not occurred to him that Rowley, too, was lonely. If there was any blame, any official laxness, it didn't matter that the planning of the Texas trip had been in the capable hands of Floyd Boring (Emphasis added).” And, to the JFK Library in the 1970's, Boring said: "Part of my job at the White House during the entire President Kennedy administration was to be in charge of the advance work. I used to assign people to do the advance work, and most of the overseas trips I did myself in conjunction with other people on the detail." To the Truman Library in the 1980's, Boring added: "I was on all the advance work out of there. I was assigned all the advance work, sort of an administrator... I was second in charge [behind Special Agent in Charge Jerry Behn]." Finally, fellow former agent Sam Kinney told this author, in regard to SAIC Gerald A. "Jerry" Behn's absence from the Texas trip, leaving ASAIC (#2) Floyd M. Boring to be the agent in charge of the Texas trip: "Here’s the story on that. We got, as agents, federal employees, thirty days a year annual leave. We lose it, because they can’t let us go…there was only " x " amount of agents back then in the whole wide world… they could not let us off …Jerry Behn had probably worked three years without any annual leave at all and this particular time, he could get some time off and he didn’t go to Dallas. Roy Kellerman was third in charge, so he took the thing (sic), which is, you know-he's qualified. Floyd Boring stayed home- he could get his time off and he could still handle what ever came about from his house; there was very little correspondence between [the agents in Dallas] because Win Lawson had the advance (emphasis added)." Back to the ARRB interview of Boring: "Boring independently recalled that he was the person who assigned Winston Lawson as the S.S. advance agent for the Dallas leg of the Texas trip, but could not recall why or how "Win" Lawson was given that assignment." Agent David Grant, who worked hand in glove with Boring on the controversial 11/18/63 Florida trip, assisted Lawson in the advance preparations in Dallas. Boring was also involved in the pre-11/22/63 checks of the Protective Research Section (PRS) files of any potential threats to JFK reported in Dallas which, incredibly, yielded nothing, a matter fellow ASAIC Roy Kellerman found unusual , as did fellow agent Abraham Bolden , as common sense would seem to dictate (interestingly, according to his Truman Library oral history, Boring worked for PRS back in the 1940’s!). Yet Boring had begun his ARRB interview exclaiming: "I didn't have anything to do with it, and I don't know anything," a similar sentiment he first gave to the author before probing further into the mystery. The author later asked Boring: “Were you involved in any of the planning of the Texas trip?” Then, the agent finally admitted: “Well, no, I sent-ah, yeah, I was involved in that, yeah”. And, if that weren’t enough, during researcher Dan Robertson’s interview of the lucid, 90 year old Boring in 2006, the former agent quite shockingly claimed that "He [JFK] was responsible for his own death." Indeed, Mr. Boring IS interesting, to say the least.
While it is certainly true that the agents were not always stationed on the rear of the limousine, President Kennedy was not in the equation regarding the circumstances for this (they DID often walk, jog, or run near the rear of the limousine, though). If the Secret Service would only have taken their rightful responsibility for not having agents positioned there (as was the usual practice), this would not really be an issue, only a "what if" situation. However, because they lied and blamed it on JFK's alleged "desires" and "requests", they blew their cover story for their "negligence." Furthermore, merely as a hypothetical inference, in the highly unlikely event, in light of all the previous evidence to the contrary, JFK DID in fact somehow or other tell the agents not to ride on the rear of the car a few times in the past, this was clearly the exception, NOT the rule from him; turning an isolated incident from 1961 into a rule to be followed on 11/22/63 simply isn’t credible. And, again---agents DID ride on the rear of the car during the Florida trip…but not on the very next trip to Texas which began a mere three days later, allegedly by “Presidential request” (a kind anecdote), courtesy of Agent Boring, who informed his men between 11/19 and 11/21/63.
If you don’t believe the “kind anecdote” story as told to the ARRB (as the author does not), then why did Mr. Boring take it upon himself to order the men not to take their usual positions on or near the rear of the Presidential limousine? Why did they blame it on JFK? Why didn't the agent physically present and nominally in charge of the trip (ASAIC Kellerman) mention JFK's desires even once during his very lengthy, two-session interview with the Warren Commission, not to mention his reports and his later HSCA and private researcher contacts? Why, indeed.
Marty Underwood told the author that Chief Rowley's best friend was Clint Hill. In keeping with Mr. Hill's honesty noted earlier, it appears that Mr. Rowley exhibited a little of it himself during his testimony to the Warren Commission when, as previously mentioned, he stated: "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do" (emphasis added).
Even President Truman agreed, stating: “the Secret Service was the only boss that the President of the United States really had.”
To summarize, the point is that this was a Secret Service decision, not a JFK desire as "official" history (Warren Commission/ Bishop/ Manchester/ Secret Service) has told us all. The Secret Service lied, using JFK as a scapegoat. To blame the deceased President after-the-fact is very suspicious, to say the least; why Mr. Boring took it upon himself to relay these orders between 11/19 and 11/21/63 (according to both Clint Hill and Frank Yeager) is an important issue, especially when considering the timing in relation to the start of the Texas trip: 11/21/63. If “the devil is in the details,” the author would also add that the timing is everything; the sequence of events is crucial. And, if it was necessary during the Watergate scandal to “follow the money,” the author chose in this case to follow the lies told by the Secret Service, find out who specifically told the lies, and why, as well as the incumbent results of these lies.If an agent (or agents) would have been positioned on or near the rear of the limousine or, at the very least, if John Ready, in particular, would have been permitted to run to his position on JFK's side of the limousine during the shooting, history would have been changed: the agent (or agents) may have blocked one or more shots or, at the very least, would have been able to cover JFK before the fatal head shot. As former agent Harry Neal wrote: “It is my personal belief that had they [secret Service] been permitted to stay on the presidential car, the body of one of the agents might have completely obscured the President from Oswald’s vision. In that event, either no shots would have been fired, or the agent might have been killed or wounded. But the President would not have been hit.” “An unnamed former JFK-era agent told author Philip Melanson in February 2002 that not having agents on the running boards of the limousine was a major factor in Kennedy’s death. Former Secret Service Chief Frank J. Wilson wrote: “Agents on running boards at Dallas might not have saved the President from the first bullet but might have saved him from the second one, which was fatal,” a view later shared by Reagan Agent Joseph Petro. Ironically, former JFK Secret Service Chief U.E. Baughman wrote in 1962: “... the Secret Service knows from experience that a car directly behind the President may save his life in certain emergencies…” In addition to the various still and motion pictures demonstrating the agents on or near the rear of the President’s car, the Honolulu, Hawaii trip in the summer of 1963 bears mute testimony to an important, often neglected facet of the protective mission: the agents also frequently RAN beside the car, even while the limousine was going at a fair clip. Agents walked, jogged, or ran beside the car, and were often on the rear of the limousine whether the car was traveling at a modest speed or even at a high rate of speed. If some look at this as "Monday morning quarterbacking", ask yourself this: Why did the Secret Service, in charge of the "defense", alter history's "official" verdict? Why, indeed.
ASAIC Floyd Boring’s favorite President was Harry S. Truman (actually, he was a favorite of Behn, Kinney, and a host of other JFK-era agents). Truman was famous for the saying “The buck stops here.” With regard to the assassination of President Kennedy and the protective measures used—and not used---on that fateful day, the buck stops with the Secret Service…and Boring, especially.
POST SCRIPT THREE---JFK'S STAFF? NOT.:
Ronald M. Pontius, WHD (on Texas trip, but not the Dallas stop): In reference to an e-mail inquiry from the author (“did JFK ever order the agents to not ride on the rear of his limousine? Author William Manchester claims he did, while Behn, Kinney, & Youngblood said he did not”), Pontius e-mailed the author back on 10/30/00 and wrote: “He did through his staff (emphasis added).” Presidential Aide (Chief of Staff/ Appointments Secretary) Kenneth P. O’Donnell does not mention anything with regard to telling the agents to remove themselves from the limousine (based on JFK’s alleged “desires”) during his lengthy Warren Commission testimony (nor to author William Manchester, nor even in his or his daughter’s books, for that matter); the same is true for the other two Presidential aides: Larry O’Brien and Dave Powers. In fact, as mentioned above, Powers refutes this whole idea. Again, JFK’s staff is not mentioned as a factor during any of the agent’s Warren Commission testimony, nor in the five reports submitted in April 1964. (7 H 440-457. Manchester, page 666 (O’Donnell was interviewed 5/4/64, 6/4/64, 8/6/64 & 11/23/64). O’Donnell passed away 9/9/77. For what it’s worth, neither Presidential Aide’s Larry O’Brien [7 H 457- 472] or Dave Powers [7 H 472-474] mentioned any JFK “desires”, either (also, see Powers, above). In addition, nothing of the sort is mentioned in “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” by O'Donnell, Kenneth P., David F. Powers, and Joseph McCarthy (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1972 [see especially page 20], nor in Kenny O’Donnell’s daughter’s book “A Common Good: The Friendship of Robert F. Kennedy and Kenneth P. O’Donnell (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1998), written by Helen O’Donnell, who wrote: “Much of the material in this book has been gathered from the private tapes of my father, Kenneth P. O’Donnell.” [Author’s Note]) In addition, former agent’s Godfrey and Kinney denounced the “staff/ O’Donnell” notion (see above). It is interesting to note that, like JFK, O’Donnell was not blamed for any security deficiencies and the like until only after his death (in 1977), when he was thus unable to refute any allegations as such.
Breaking news: Author Helen O'Donnell, the daughter of the late Ken O'Donnell, told me in October 2010, based on her memory AND her father's many audio tapes, that JFK did not order the agents off the car and neither did her father!
Vince Palamara
Vince:
The book has Donald Lawton being waved off at Love Field, not Henry Rybka. Which is correct? Many thanks.
Doug Weldon
-
In the overall scheme of things...
...even IF JVB was briefly acquainted with LHO
...even IF JVB briefly was acquainted with EVERY major player in the JFK case
...even IF JVB was a brilliant science student, and
...even IF a few of the events JVB describes happen to be true...
...IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN SOLVING THE CASE AND FINDING THE
PERPETRATORS. Nothing she says leads to Lyndon Johnson and his
New World Order cronies. Everything she says points to the long discredited
MAFIA DID IT theories of the 1970s, making her a disinformation agent of
sorts. It is a false trail for readers of romance fiction.
Jack
Jack:
The fact remains there is NO evidence;
... that Judyth was even briefly acquainted or ever met Oswald
... that Judyth was even briefly acquainted with ANY major player in the assassination
... though Judyth appears to have been a good high school student that she was a "brilliant" student who as a teenager was one of the top cancer researchers in the United States and the world.
... that any of the events that may have been true included Judyth being involved
Absent Judyth inserting herself Forrest Gump style into events, there is no serious corroboration for anything that would suggest her presence, she refuses to entertain any serious questioning by people such as myself and Greg Burnham, and any physical evidence that she has claimed to have, i.e., Oswald's writing on an Aristotle book, suddenly mysteriously "lost" or she refuses to allow such evidence to be examined by experts.
The tragedy is that such a con is not harmless. It makes a mockery of the assassination, the memory of Oswald, Marina, and his daughters. What may be most disturbing of all is that Judyth may have convinced herself this was true and as information is contradicted it is simple to omit accounts or conform to the best known facts. It is interesting historical fiction.
Doug Weldon
... that a
-
dUPED AGAIN
What is your point?
Many thanks,
Doug Weldon
-
Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Thank you for your response.
This makes this matter, as it relates to the fatal shot, unresolved.
The Kill Shot did not come from the right side, or the so called "Grassy Knoll" area or the fence.
No Badgeman, Files , nor does any testimony to that effect matter. The smoke seen in the area seems to have been a diversion, and actors were employed, just like the so called "Three Tramps."
This thing keeps getting worse and worse.
If that were possible.
Peter:
I hope that I was clear. Since this thread is about a shot through the windshield I was only confirming that the shot through the windshield could not have come from the right side. I am not dismissing the fatal shot or other shots coming from the right side.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
The following is worth repeating. It appears the intelligence agencies were playing disinfo games with regards to Judy Vary Baker a LONG time ago:
Fetzer: "I find the whole "impostor" aspect extremely interesting, since whoever set her up had gone to great lengths to create the impression that she was
Judyth Vary Baker by simulating her background and her interests, which not only implies detailed knowledge of the real Judyth but a non-trivial effort to convince others, perhaps especially Ed, that she was the real Judyth. I find this to be a striking indication that Judyth REALLY WAS THERE and that she REALLY KNEW LEE. I say that because it would appear to have been the purpose of this charade to misinform Ed about her knowledge of Lee."
I think that Judy Vary Baker is a key witness to TRUTH in the JFK assassination. That does NOT mean I believe everything she says. But I do believe she had an affair with and fell in love with LHO in the summer of 1963. And I do believe she was deep into off the books cancer research for the CIA, in their attempts to kill Castro.
Robert:
If you do not believe everything Judyth says, that must mean there are things that she says that you do not believe, therefore she is not telling the truth about some things she says. How do you discern what to believe and not to believe? Is it not suspicious to you that she has contradicted herself on so many points and that she has refused to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham or such things as that she claims to have LHO's writing on abook but refuses to have it analyzed? It goes on and on. I am curious. How do you differentiate between what she is telling the truth about and what she is lying about? Normally, if a person is lying about something it is sufficient grounds to discount their entire story. Do you agree?
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5?
Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo?
Josiah Thompson
I cannot believe that some still think they see a hole in the windshield in Altgens 6, but if all they have is the less than sharp image Jack posted, then I can understand the mistake.
In the full Betzner photo there was a black woman holding what looks to be a rolled up newspaper in her hand as she is waving at the President passing by. JFK had not yet been hit when Betzner took his photo. As the car rolled passed and as the woman lowered her newspaper - Altgens took his photo at a time that at least two shots appear to have been fired. A good quality Altgens 6 photo shows no hole/nebula, but rather the black woman's hand holding onto the newspaper she had with her.
When Altgens took his 7th photo, the windshield was obviously damaged by that point. If one does a hi-res scan of that damage and reverses the image so to be compared to the White House Garage photo of the windshield, then in my view they cannot be the same windshield. The damage in Altgens 7 shows a good size frosted area of glass that the sunlight is illuminating. That frosted appearance can be from nothing else than the many cracks in the glass from a projectile hitting it. The White House Garage photos show only a small chip in the glass and no multitude of cracks that would pick up sunlight as what happened in Altgens 7.
Somewhere between this forum and Lancer's there should be images that were created showing what I have just said to be true.
Bill Miller
Bill:
Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct?
My best,
Doug Weldon
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...
What a family!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Doug Weldon
Jack and Greg:
Jack, You make a very good point. I began to look at the issue of the hole in the windshield back in 1993 because of a fluke circumstance. A friend of mine who is both a physician and an attorney saw me one day with a book on the assassination. He told me that his father used to talk about something unusual about the Kennedy assassination shortly after it happened. He could not remember what it was. It took months to set up a meeting with his father and the dam seemed to break. It was a remarkable fluke. If I not just happened to have a book with me that day I would never even had any interest in pursuing this line of inquiry and investigation . Does it sound strange or unusual that the father of a friend of mine would have this incredible account? Yes, it does, but it is what happened. Was it unethical or did it taint things that I talked with my friends father? I don't think so because he, like Kudlaty, is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Many of the people I talked with are now deceased but a number of them still survive. I know that many of the people in Armstrong's book are still alive. My ultimate point is rather than just engage in an academic discussion why do these critics never contact these people. The people I talked with were very friendly and open. It was frustrating to me that "experts" on the assassination never talked with them. The coincidences in life are amazing. When I interviewed Dr. Evalea Glanges on the phone after writing her how could anyone have known that she would die at age 59 within a month of our talk. I can't explain how odd it is. If I had waited four weeks the opportunity would have been lost forever. I talked with Crenshaw and he was very open but did not live for a long time afterwards. (The focus of many of my questions to him had not been asked before and do not relate to the limo.) I, like, Armstrong, found out about people by reviewing the records and then contacting these people. Yes, I find it unusual and coincidental that Jack once knew Kudlaty but as I have found ,the unusual is not so uncommon as one would think. Jack did not give the lead to Armstrong. You asked my opinion and no, I don't believe any ethical issue is involved. As I have expressed before and even with John I am impressed with some evidence more than others, (I would have tried very hard to talk with John Pic) but the overall volume of evidence is overwhelming. John is very unique in that he had the resources to put life on hold and literally contact people worldwide. It is unbelieveable how thorough he was. One cannot imagine the travel and time and expense that John incurred. As Jack states, Kudlaty's involvement was done well before John ever became interested in the matter.The teachers referred people to Kudlaty. Do you believe that Kudlaty had this story stashed away so that in the unlikely event that during his lifetime someone would contact him about it? The lead was provided by Robert Oswald, not Jack. I will admit that John actually phoned some of these people when I was on the phone line and people did not know that I was listening. There was nothing contrived at all. Everyone has the right to analyze evidence and accept or reject whatever they want. However, to earn that right with Armstrongs's work, one has to read the book and then, if they desire. go ahead, contact some of the witnesses. Call Kudlaty. I believe he is still alive. If Kudlaty bothers someone so much then disregard him. If people have problems with any of the witnesses I discovered I tell them to do the same. It will not affect anything. Armstrong's work is an amazing account and whatever one believes after reading it one cannot escape the conclusion that something very unusual and complex was going on.
Best,
Doug Weldon