Larry Hancock

No insult but this is just one of many oldies that deserves to be buried - photos and eye witnesses speak against it conclusively.  The author of the book presenting it lost a legal action over it.  A more recent TV program involved individuals who were thoroughly briefed on the problems by my friend Stu Wexler and essentially responded that they didn't care, it made a great show and they had a contract to produce it so too bad. 

Actually the element of the book speaking to fragmentation and X ray patterns was worth considering, its just too bad it had to be partnered with a truly bogus shooting scenario.

Rydbert was adamant that he was not allowed to view any of the autopsy materials - a total violation of standard protocol in doing medical illustrations - and was forced to do his work based on very general remarks from the Doctors.  He was suspicious of the whole process from the beginning and when we had him speak at a Lancer conference he was outspoken in his opinion of the credibility of the illustrations.

I vaguely recall the claim and my recollection is was based in a purported document which was supposed to be a letter from Ruth to the Navy - however nobody established the providence of the letter or came forth with an actual source for the document (as I remember) and after much dialog the whole thing faded away.

You find FALs,  deniable non-American Army weapons, in use with anti-Castro Cuban exiles for a variety of missions including TILT.    Check out the "new" images (well they were new when I put them up) I have on my document pages for SWHT.  

http://www.larry-hancock.com/documents/index.html

Ben,  first off to your question, I've seen no sign that the Secret Service contacted the CIA in regard to Dallas - most likely because the public threats and even the warnings for Dallas were all about the ultra right, not about the Cuban exile community as they were in Miami and to some extent Tampa. 

We can see the ultra right focus In regard to the preparations for Dallas if we look at several important points of context - first,  there were warnings about the right wing and a history of violent protest in Dallas from that quarter.  So special precautions were taken - almost entirely around the speech at the trade center where the most trouble was anticipated.  Special interviews and even photo recognition books were prepared with the help of the press and people who had observed the earlier violent protests.  The goal was to be preemptive at stopping the wrong people from getting into the Trade Center and to act against protests there - and arrests were being made even as the motorcade was on the way. Even the DPD officer in charge of security for Dallas was at the Trade Center, not participating in the motorcade.

I talked at some length with a former Dallas intelligence reserve officer activated for the day and he said that plain clothes officers were assigned to monitor several known "radicals", but Cubans were just not on the radar.  Right wingers,  civil rights protesters, etc were - protection was against known threats. 

The trip to Texas was also one of the biggest protective tasks the SS had faced, with multiple stops, cities, appearances etc all in a short space of time and all following a really hectic travel schedule on the conservation tour and then to the multiple stops in Florida - which is why the advance preparation in Dallas ended up being done by Lawson, as his first actual field experience in taking the lead.  I urge anyone seriously interested in this to read his extensive report on the preparations - which he did feel were extensive, rightly or wrongly.  

Certainly there was negligence in the preparations, but I would also offer that it involved negligence in the whole PRS system which was simply not built to translate threats from one location to another.  They seemed to totally lack he concept of mobile threats or of threats from groups - there is no sign they even translated the documented NSRP threat from San Antonio to Dallas. But then we don't really know all of what they did or didn't do because of the destruction of trip files early on in the ARRB inquiry.

I see extensive negligence (or more accurately inertia, with practices being driven strictly by past attacks on presidents), but I would also say it was on a systemic level not just in regard to Dallas. We can see that in the fact that Lawson appears not to have been briefed on either the IED or sniper threats which we know about now in Miami. 

I would also suggest that the "conspiracy" may well have had the opportunity to take a good look at the standard CIA security preparations for motorcades and car travel (as in Florida) and factored that into their plan - given both your and my suspicions about CIA asset involvement and the history of plans to attack Castro in Cuba in an ambush while he traveled by car, I'd say some of our persons of interest would have taken that as their best option.

The FBI only investigated the lead in terms of Souetre - simply because they had been requested to by the French due to concerns abut De Gaulle's planned trip to Mexico.  As far as I know they had no specific lead about Mertz.  Of course they found that the restaurant employee who had visited his friend in Forth Worth had indeed left the Dallas/Fort Worth area at that time (not Souetre) so a European had left (not expelled per se but I suspect he was on a visa so their might have been a time frame in play) for Mexico City.   

As you say, the FBI inquiry doesn't write off lots of other possibilities, simply because their investigation was very focused on what the French had asked them to check.

Joe, I don't know that it was SOP  and would appreciate seeing your source on it.  The military was available on demand but normally requested as needed by the SS - for example military personnel were used on a one or more of JFK's "conservation" tour appearances that fall which were at relatively remote locations with no major urban police or law enforcement resource available. 

In addition military personnel were used for security on all military base or facility visits - normally military police.  As I recall the large operations file on the 112th the ARRB collected even discusses that and it should be required reading for this dialog in any event because it talks about what the MIG mission and roles were.

It was the Secret Service's call....Vince probably knows but I don't recollect a military presence in either Miami or Tampa that  fall, where there were major SS concerns (they called on the CIA for advance work in Miami). 

Its also worth noting that a Secret Service call for uniformed military would be different than a practice of using plain clothes military intelligence personnel since that would involve separate channels.

I think the following information needs to be added to this discussion - its from respected researcher Larry Haapanen who is not a member of the forum at this point but shared it with me today....the following is from his message:

" A few years ago, as I pursued my practice of looking at reminiscences of 11/22/63 that have periodically appeared in newspapers and so forth) I ran across the follow from an interview with with one Jeff Wentworth from the San Antonio Express, 11/17/2013"

 "Judge Jeff Wentworth: I was living in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and saw President and Mrs. Kennedy riding in their open-air
 motorcade from Love Field to the parade route in downtown Dallas only minutes before Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed the President. As a US Army officer at the time, my active duty military assignment was as a special agent/ counterintelligence officer at Region II HQs of the 112th Intelligence Corps Group based in Dallas. When my local Army commanding officer had earlier learned
 of the President's planned trip to Dallas, both he and the local commanding officer of our sister US Air Force contingent notified the Secret Service of the availability of approximately 40 active duty military personnel -- all of us federally trained in VIP
 protection -- to help with our Commander-in-Chief's security. 

The Secret Service declined the offer because, they said, the Secret Service and Dallas Police Department had everything under
 control."

Jeff Wentworth served in the Texas House of Representatives from from 1988 to 1993. He then went on to serve in the Texas Senate from 1997 to 2013, and following that he was appointed a Justice of the Peace in Bexar County  1988.

Personally I find that quite reasonable, especially given that advance Secret Service lead Lawson prepared an extensive report on his security preparations and that involved the DPD calling up police reserves and its own intelligence unit reserves (one of whom I interviewed on his duties that day yeas ago). Even offers from the Sheriff's office were refused as Lawson thought he had done an extensive job (it was his first advance) and the DPD support was sufficient.  

A routine rejection of the offer would would certainly explain complaints at headquarters after the fact - which appear to have been widespread.  I found one individual who related her husband (a civilian contractor) had heard complaints in the base mess hall.  It would also explain why someone made a complaint call to Fletcher Prouty.

Of course it does not map to a sensational last minute "stand down", and is also totally out of line with Jones's statements (which I don't trust) of personnel being officially deployed.  Of course having both a stand down and a deployment (that the local 112th was unaware of for that matter) is certainly inconsistent.

All in all the remarks from Wentworth seem reasonable and consistent to me; as for Jones, a lot is wrong with his story and with his appearance which suppressed a very important area of investigation.

Paul, specifically in regard to your question on Col Jones,  I don't know that military intelligence as a body did anything to obscure the truth - to have an opinion on that I would have to know the specific backstory about who called/supplied Jones as a witness. 

Its important to note that the real thrust of his appearance before the committee was in regard to questions about the mystery of unknown individuals in the plaza and behind the fence who showed government identification - a question which had a good deal of interest and was obviously an important one.  In that regard Jones' statements that those individuals could very well have been 112th officers in plain clothes and on assignment effectively served to close down that line of inquiry. 

Whatever his motives might have been, or the motives of whoever invited him as a witness, his statements seem to have aborted further investigation of that question and that appears pretty suspicious to me given the information the ARRB later collected.

FBI and Reed slides...from original post here by Joe Backes  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=111185#relPageId=84&search=Stuart_Reed

Since Jim refers to me in his article, I will comment that anyone seriously interested in questions regarding the 112th  and its activities in regard to Dallas should go to the effort of obtaining all the material collected by the ARRB in regard to the unit, including interviews with its members in Dallas as to their activities, and the interviews with other personnel at the unit's headquarters.   Combine that with a read of the full ARRB interview with Prouty (which he voluntarily offered).  

Some of that material is available online, I published dozens and dozens of pages of it on CD many years ago to try to get it into broader circulation after I had gotten it the hard way from NARA.

I would suggest that you also consider the internal ARRB memoranda (which were/are available) discussing their interview with Fletcher Prouty after the fact as well as their interviews and related documents pertaining to Jones' own testimony and the internal contradictions that occur with it (including his communications with the DPD on November 22).  

In other words, do the work, get the full suite of related documents relating to the 112th and draw your own conclusions. 

For reference, you can also find the my thoughts on the 112th MIG and its activities related to Dallas at the following link:

https://gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/mysteries-of-the-112.pdf

Given that he is breaking balloons inside an arena I'm not sure that is not something more like an old starter pistol type of ammunition - as you can imagine no military, paramilitary personnel much less a sniper class shooter is going to want to give away their firing position with that much smoke.  Not that some weapons don't smoke but generally its not something you see in even in hunting or target shooting with either pistol or rifle - at least I certainly have not.  Smell it, yes if there is enough shooting going on, see clouds of smoke, no.

Wow, Michael I don't know what those guys are using but I've been shooting for 50 plus years and have never seen that sort of visible smoke produced by any standard weapon and cartridges - I have an old twenty two which is mechanically loose and generates a lot of powder when you fire it but not visible smoke.  Talk about giving away your position...

Another forum member thought he recalled Currey stating something about a "railroad torpedo" and he was correct.   The following is part of his 1964 statement:

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/Curry.htm

Yes, Mike, the smoke was excessive for a weapon and from that position the wind would have carried it right down Elm street where gunpower type smoke was noted by several witnesses.  Something like a squib used in railroad work for signaling would have done the trick and left little to no evidence.

There is also the possibility that an actual "squib" or firecracker device was set off behind the fence line on the knoll, generating the excess smoke that can be seen in that area and was reported by the railroad workers on the overpass and others.  The device would have served to divert crowd attention to the fence line and away from actual shooting positions - which did happen.  A relatively safe way to do a diversion with low risk.

I really don't know how to answer you Paul,  those posts detail the FBI investigation in response to the French request, their follow up with French intelligence and French intelligence inquiry into the whole matter including the confusion with the letter and card exchange with Souete's former acquaintance in Texas - no visit was made - just mail - as well as the detailed backtracking of the misinformation about the French restaurant employee who did travel to Texas, Mexico and Canada and then back to France. The FBI located the Texas man who had invited that Frenchman to visit him in the US and look for work and who himself verified his identify and his travel to the Fort Worth area and on to Mexico. After French intelligence interviewed the Frenchman themselves (he had already returned to France) they were satisfied that the whole thing (which had originated in a news story in a small French newspaper) was a mistake and as you can see their concern about DeGaulle's travel to Mexico was no longer an issue.  The links in my blog posts to the various documents  make that story quite clear, to me at least.  If you don't find it so you can call me to discuss it further 580-347-3213.  Or perhaps you can state more specifically why you don't find the FBI and French intelligence conclusions to be reasonable in regard to the fact that a Frenchman did travel to  the Dallas area, on to Mexico, and back through Canada to France - but that he was specifically identified, described his own travel, contacts and movements in detail and was not Souerte.

Paul,  I've posted (here) the links to my Wordpress blog research on Souetre several times and the citations/documents I refer to are linked inside those blog posts - are you saying you have not read those?   Not sure I'm following you.  In any event here are the links to my blog posts:

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/jean-souetre/

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/12/mystery-solved/

Paul, if you back though the links in my post  you will find that the French actually tracked down and interviewed he restaurant employee who had been in Texas, Mexico and Canada and who was associated with the original small French newspaper speculation that led to French intelligence contacting the FBI in the first place.   With that and the information from the FBI they had the full story that the only connection to Texas for Souetre was the Christmas cards and letters and that involved correspondence only - although it had confused the investigation for a time. At that point French intelligence merely advised the FBI, thanks them for their help and that was it as far as I can tell.   Of course I'm doing this post from memory but that is my recollection.  As to why one would believe the FBI, well first off they did do a detailed investigation with several agents and took the French request seriously, that is clear and we have a pretty solid point by point detailing of the inquiry, not just some superficial memo written without spending time on it.   As to the French,  they had instigated the inquiry over concern about Souetre being in the US but most particularly in Mexico - with DeGaulle's planned spring 1964 trip in mind.  And that trip did proceed as planned:  https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/20/archives/de-gaulle-ends-hls-mexican-visit-speeches-brief-as-he-starts-back.html

He also participated in several open car motorcades and very public appearances while in Mexico: 

Given that this same topic comes up over and over and over again in threads here I'm just going to post some of my own commentary on it for reference...take a look at the material I cite in the blog posts and make your own decision - and in addition to posting this here previously it has been shareed with many of those who have researched and written on Souetre:

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/jean-souetre/

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/12/mystery-solved/

Micah,  MFF volunteers have worked scanning documents at NARA for some years now - however a great number of the MFF documents were actually scanned out of the ARRC collections...tens of thousands of pages, actually more like hundreds of thousands.  Not all are even loaded into MFF yet. Normally much easier and quicker to work there.  However NARA is still quite cooperative, Rex was there last week hand scanning a few documents....you do have to have your own scanner and follow their rules....which include not removing staples.  That is a pain with corner stapled documents but last week he began running into side stapled documents and that is a major obstacle.

David,  in reply, no I was not aware of the tape.  I've done a good bit of work on the three stationary cars I mentioned which were indeed on a spur in the rail yard and which were taken away within weeks or months as far as I could tell from  photos....the steam pipe to them remained in place for many years as did the spur line.  That is the same line which went under the cement railing on the overpass where the office who climbed over that burned his hand.  That movement of those cars was not really unusual since they were used in construction work which normally did not occur during the winter' which is probably why they were on that siding at the time..

I will say that I noticed that  in certain films, with a view towards the rail yard from the plaza, can be mistaken for a train - they are on the further-est track to the east so they show up first in views - but I never spent any time on the other areas you mentioned so have nothing to contribute.  It was most striking to me that some of the first officers into the yard climbed onto the cars to survey the rail yard itself but as far as I could tell never entered or searched the cars themselves.

I've did do a good bit of work on Bowers, his report of a man in a hopper car and what he said about train movements though the yard at the time of the assassination, the traffic hold, his reports to police, the timing of the hold on traffic and the first train which he released to go out across the bridge afterwards.  I've viewed various films in conjunction with that but that's been too long ago for me to make any worthwhile remarks just based on memory.

Sorry, nothing more to add from me...  

It should be noted that police did run aboard (meaning on the car platforms and onto the roofs) a series of three train cars which were stationary and used as temporary offices for railroad staff...when used locally they could be connected to a gas pipe extension which ran under the concrete bridge and across the train yard on pole supports (I traced the pipeline and climbed over it a number of times years ago).  When required for field use the cars would be detached and pulled out to remote locations where construction or other railroad work was in progress.  At the time of the assassination they were stationary and you can actually see a policeman climbing aboard  and standing on the roof of one of the cars on that siding.  I was never able to find any record that police asked for help unlocking them (they were passenger cars) or that they were searched.  Those cars were still there in the days following the assassination, not sure any of the local researchers who did look into them at times ever discovered when they did leave the area.

Jim, a very interesting comment on the Secret Service, do you have a reference or citation for their conclusion she had written it; I had never seen that they returned it and offered that opinion to anyone...like say the WC, the FBI etc. 

I would offer what I think is probably the most current research on the overall Cuba Project and the events at the Bay of Pigs as presented in my recently published book In Denial.  It offers a largely contrarian view of much of what has been written on the subject in both in the popular history and within the JFK research community....as well as what came to be believed within the Cuban exile community and for that matter by CIA field personnel.  

Given the amount of research I put into it including the discovery of a series of alternative plans that did not come to fruition for a variety of reasons, I've been frustrated by the lack of discussion its generated as well as its failure to even nudge the needle on how what was essentially two full years of effort against Cuba, not just three days at the Bay of Pigs which is how its often viewed.

 https://www.amazon.com/Denial-Secret-Wars-Strikes-Tanks/dp/1734139331/ref=sr_1_2?crid=27ODXKOVOM4RE&keywords=in+denial&qid=1650570416&s=books&sprefix=in+denial%2Cstripbooks%2C238&sr=1-2