Greg Wagner

Tim- I read over my last post, and perhaps that was a little to harshly worded. I'm not trying to tear you (or your theory, even though I don't subscribe to it) down. My opinions are what they are. And like most here, they are based on the facts (disputed as some of them may be) as they exist today, an extensive reading of history, some personal knowledge, and much supposition. I just wanted to make that clear, since your last post seemed tinged with a hint of condescension, and my response did likewise. By the way, regardless of the degree to which you have studied history, I assume the names Judas and Brutus ring a bell with you somewhere. No? Perhaps that was the very last thought Kennedy had as he found himself in the middle of an ambush: Et tu, Bruti (Clarence)? If you have a minute sometime, would you be kind enough to give me your take (being our resident "Castro did it" expert) on my questions in the "Cuba Today" thread? I'm not trying to be a smart alek there, but those are questions that I think are very relevant to your theory and that I frankly don't understand. I'm not "challenging" you to explain it or asking you to "prove" anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion (God, did I just type that?!?).

Tim- I've actually read several (Salinger's With Kennedy, Dallek's An Unfinished Life, and Mahoney's Sons & Brothers, to name a few). And I am certain that as a result of your extensive research, you no doubt are familiar with the fact that Dillon was appointed to his position in large part based on the recommendation of Philip Graham who, it is believed, was involved with the CIA and Project Mockingbird. I however, have no such suspicions about Bob Dylan. And Tim, if your concern is the withdrawal of "unsupported charges", then I anxiously await your next post! In which you will of course, follow your own advice.

Welcome Lee! I look forward to your insight. Cheers... Greg

Tim- Good points and I'm glad you raise them. I have responded to this on the "French Connection" thread.

Tim- I am particularly interested in your take on the above. Heck, George W didn't even include them in his "Axis of Evil." One would think that if Castro had actually been behind the assassination as you suggest, the U.S. government now with no discernable deterrent, would most certainly have something to say about that. After all, wqe are talking about some glorified banna Republic blowing our president's head off for all the world to see, are we not? Certainly we've invaded sovereign nations before, killing at will, effecting "regime change" (that's a hilarious term!), setting up more acceptable governments- all for much less than murdering our commander in chief. Yet, we don't bat an eyelash at The Big Cigar? Help me out here, Tim (or anyone). Why are we not vacationing on the shores of Cuba, eyeballing topless beauties on white sand beaches while drinking way too much rum and buying cheap trinkets and tee shirts at the shops near half a dozen docked luxury cruise liners overflowing with tourists wanting to gamble and spend money? I find it hard to believe that our government would just say, "Listen, let's just forgive and forget." Am I just missing something obvious here? It's just not making sense to me. Anybody?

Hi Tim, Hi Al- If I understand correctly, Tim's position is that the Secret Service COULD NOT have been complicit because they simply would not have went along with it due things like their sworn oath, ethics, morality, legality, etc. I would suggest that CD Dillon was the initiator of the Secret Service's part in the plot. And as the Secretary of the Treasury, he most certainly would have been in a position to select a couple of key individuals within the command structure that would be loyal to him. I would further suggest that he had the same discussion with these individuals that were had with him, convincing him of the legitimacy of the coup: John Kennedy's incapacity based on his relations with Romesch and Campbell, his daily injections consisting of a mixture of several compounds, his alleged LSD usage, and his "softness" on communism. Admittedly, these conversations are speculation on my part (so fire away), but I find it to be a most plausible scenario. Much like your speculation regarding the content (and perhaps more importantly, intent) of the conversations between men like Cubela, Castro, Fitzgerald, Daniel, etc.). You can speculate based on suggestive materials and your own intuition, but you were no more present for those discussions than I was for any discussion between Dillon and his men. The men under them were simply following orders as they were trained to do (move, don't move, get off of the limo, cut the motorcycles down to 2 and move them back on the procession, etc.). A couple key men in the command structure to give the appropriate orders. Perhaps even saying that they were at the request of the president (stay away, we want to be visible and close to the people, etc). However, given Kennedy's reluctance to make the Dallas trip (Kennedy & Johnson by Evelyn Lincoln), that seems unlikely that such instructions would have actually originated with Kennedy. So, I agree with you that there simply could not have been this massive conspiracy within the SS, involving dozens of agents. Absolutely, that never could have happened. All it took were a precious one or two in key positions. If I understand correctly, Al's position is that the Secret Service WOULD NOT have been involved because their cooperation was simply not necessary. That does make sense to me. If we are talking about serious people here (and I think we all agree that we are), highly trained professional assassins operating in a coordinated fashion within the framework of a well-laid plan, it seems to me that they could have executed Kennedy without stripping him of his protection. Plausible indeed. However, if I am right in suggesting that this was a coup initiated at the highest levels of the U.S. government, then it would stand to reason that Dillon would have been approached to assist. While his men’s (the Secret Service) assistance may not have been a REQUIREMENT, it certainly is common sense that any reduction in Kennedy’s protection would increase their chances of success. And if they were going to conspire to commit murder and treason (though I have no doubt that they viewed themselves as patriots), once the bullets started flying, the HAD to succeed. Why take the risk when Dillon’s cooperation would help ensure the success of the plot? And given Dillon’s background (Dillon, Read, & Co.) of helping finance Aryanized German industrialists, I would surmise that he probably viewed many of Kennedy’s policies with skepticism, making him all the more susceptible to the incapacity argument with which he was convinced. Thank you both your thoughts. You both raise excellent points and I particularly appreciate the technical expertise Al brings to these discussions.

Hi Tim- The foot soldiers did not need to know of the plot, but simply follow the orders of their superiors with regard to actions that day in Dallas. I never suggested that they were all "in on it". That would have eliminated the need for Emory Roberts to order Rybka off of the limo at Love Field and also for Roberts to order the agents in the follow-up car not too move during the shooting. But that is precisely why such orders were necessary and given. I agree with you that if the leadership would have attempted to tell the whole SS detail about the plot, it would have stopped right there. Too bad it didn't. But as you say, perhaps more appropo on another thread.

I learn something new everyday. Thanks JR!

Now you know that I don't believe in the "Castro did it" theory, but I'm curious about something. Let's assume for a minute that he did. And LBJ was spooked about the potential for nuclear war if that info got out to the public- so he orchestrated the cover-up. Fine. If it happened that way, then why all the secrecy still today? Are they now simply covering-up the fact that they covered it up? Surely no threat of a nuclear war as a result of this knowledge has existed for a long time. So, why not come clean and end all the mistrust and all the crap: "My fellow Americans, Castro did it and we just couldn't risk a nuclear war over it. So we buried it at the time. Sorry, but it was for the good of the Nation." Done deal. If Castro did it, then a nuclear exchange would have been a very possible result of our seeking retribution against Fidel at any time during the Cold War. But those days are long gone. So, my question is: Why would it be such a big darn secret in 2005? Cuba would still today provide economic (tourism mostly) benefit to many U.S. companies, so if Castro did it, why didn't his regime end 5 minutes after the Berlin Wall came down? I mean, the American government has not exactly shied away from war and conflict and from invading sovereign nations when it has (presumably) served our national interest. We've done it in the Caribbean, we've done it in SE Asia, we've done it in the Middle East. Heck Tim, you could probably spit on Fidel and hit him from your front porch down there in beautiful Key West- so why, after the threat of nuclear war had long since passed, did we not send the Marines to kick-in the door and execute the bastard who violently (can you murder gently?) murdered our president on the streets of an American city? Give the people of (Cuba) their freedom as George W Bush is so fond of saying! It's right on our doorstep. Heck, if there was a bridge, Tim could drive there on his lunch hour. So, what gives? If the guy murdered our president, and there has not been any real deterrent that I can think of in quite some time, why is Castro not in shackles and an orange jumpsuit picking up my empty beer bottles in the hot sun as I stroll along some beach in Cuba at a Marriott Resort Hotel ogling beautiful women with cinnamon tans wearing, as James would say, nothing but a thong and a smile? Or better yet, why isn't his head mounted on the wall in the Oval Office? Now please, don't misunderstand this as an attack on the "Castro did it" theory. Just because I don't believe in it, does not mean that I would start a thread simply to attack it, unless forced to do so in the context of defending myself or my thoughts. But when I consider this theory, this is one of the questions that I have. Without a doubt, there are members who know more about this theory than I do. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Emmett Hudson was a grounds keeper for the plaza. While anything is possible - the two men on the steps with Emmett may have just walked off into history as did the majority of people in and around Dealey Pplaza that day who were never heard of again. Unlike the dark complected man next to the umbrella man, which seemed to be on a radio soon after the shooting, the men on the steps didn't seem to be trying to communicate with anyone following the shooting. As for spotters ... with their backs to the knoll and the alleged assassins up over the hill and behind the fence - how could they have been spotting for anyone? It appears that Hat Man and Badge Man already had lookouts near them and one carrying a fake Secret Service badge. The man in red sat down with Hudson after the shooting. The man who ran off when the shooting began does not seem all that suspicious to me because of what he did. If associated with the assassins, then he would have drawn attention to himself and the assassins by running back into the RR yard during the shooting. This doesn't seem like a good move. He also would have known where to stand so not to be in the line of fire and if part of the pplot, then why would he have to run off when he could have just remained looking innocent and stayed put for a little while. So anyway, I just wanted to point out another view as to what may or may not have happened concerning the three men on the steps. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Bill. I really don't have an opinion one way or the other. I simply don't know enough to form one on this issue. No need to create any more controversies than we already have. But if anyone has a theory, fire away!

Holy catfish! I just went to Corbis as you mentioned to look up the photo, and the murder occurred 10 years to the day prior to when I was born (October 25th). I'm sure I must have just seen a historical photo in some book. Freaky. Interesting history on the conference, Sam and Santo(s). Is it "Santo" or "Santos"? I've seen it written both ways in publications and on this board. Are they both correct?

Hi John- Thanks for the lesson on the Gunpowder Resisue issue. Very thorough and well expalined. Can you expand a little bit on the abort team issue? I too, tend to believe Tosh, but I'm somewhat unclear as to what he states took place with said team after they arrived in DP. Nothing? Being familiar with Tosh's assertions and SOP for operations such as this, do you feel like it's a possibility that they actually may have attempted to abort the assassination by firing at one or more of the gunmen, thus creating one or both of the pools of blood in question? I'm just speculating here. What are your thoughts on that scenario? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Greg, Some of the info your asking about is available on an earlier thread with Robert "Tosh" Plumlee's name in the thread. We had a pretty good Q&A with him a while back. Basically Tosh was the (co-)pilot on this flight and was only told where to fly with the folks on board (he was not part of the actual abort team, as I recall). Once in Dallas at Red Bird, after most passengers had left, Tosh and Sergio went to Dealy Plaza and got there right around 12:30 to see if they could be of help to the abort team, Sergio was on the inside, Tosh wasn't. It was Sergio's call to go waltz around the Plaza at that time. I don't know if Tosh was told of too many details of who was supposed to do exactly what and where and at what time. Other members could possibly add to this and correct me if I've misstated anything. The best source, right now is the Plumlee thread, as Tosh isn't posting for the moment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Antti- Thanks for the information. I went back and read many of Tosh's posts, but perhaps I need to do it again. I just don't recall him saying much about what the team did once in DP. I'll search his postings again.

As most of you know, or have surmised from my postings, I'm of the opinion that John Kennedy's murder was orchestrated by our government. I tend to align with Shanet Clark's version of events as posted in his seminar piece, with perhaps some subtle differences or gray areas (I can sense Tim shaking his head- stop that!) Now, of course I think I'm right. However, shocking as this may sound, I have been wrong from time to time on an issue here or there, throughout my life. And if you were to question people such as my boss, girlfriend, parents, sister and certain friends, you'd soon begin to realize that the list of people who can corroborate this is long and distinguished. Still though, I submit that my stance on this case is not one of those issues. But, oh how I wish it was. It gives me no pleasure to accuse my government. I love my country. And at the risk of sounding like an ethnocentric American jerk, I think it's the greatest place in the world to live. When, in my view, the evidence and suggestive nature of so many of the circumstances surrounding 11/22/1963 forced me to conclude that my own government murdered President Kennedy, has lied to me about it ever since, and has most probably killed patriotic Americans who have known too much or gotten too close to the truth, I lost a lot more than a few nights' sleep over it. I now question, since I believe that our democratic system and my voice in representative government was silenced that day, of what has this nation been built upon since 1963? How can I trust that my leaders are democratically elected? How can I trust that I really do have a voice? How do I trust a president Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush, when the lies and cover-up continue to this day? How can I have faith in my senator when he won't respond to my queries about this event? How can I ever buy the "national security" excuse when the government uses it to withhold so much information that we should have access to? How can I trust that the Patriot Act, which gives federal government agencies so much latitude to look into the affairs of law abiding private citizens, will be employed ethically? Upon this realization and with these questions banging against the inside of my skull, I lost way more than just a few nights' sleep. I lost the ability to believe that we are as free a people as we'd like to believe and that our democratic system of self-government gives me a voice. I lost the ability to have faith in the integrity of our system. I lost the view that my government was there to protect me, and I was forced to trade that view in for one that makes me fear it. So, no matter what you believe about the tragic events of November 1963, know that it offers no pride or pleasure to believe as I, and many like me, do. In fact, it breaks my heart. I would never be more happy than to wake up one day and find out that the unequivocal truth had been proven and that Tim Gratz, or Gerald Posner (don’t misconstrue- I’m certainly not lumping Tim in with that dolt, Posner) were right all along. I would never be so happy to be wrong. I would welcome that day with open arms. I would humbly and joyously accept the error of my ways and acquiesce to those who had been right all along. But to my great and enduring sadness, I just don't believe it.

Hi John- Thanks for the lesson on the Gunpowder Resisue issue. Very thorough and well expalined. Can you expand a little bit on the abort team issue? I too, tend to believe Tosh, but I'm somewhat unclear as to what he states took place with said team after they arrived in DP. Nothing? Being familiar with Tosh's assertions and SOP for operations such as this, do you feel like it's a possibility that they actually may have attempted to abort the assassination by firing at one or more of the gunmen, thus creating one or both of the pools of blood in question? I'm just speculating here. What are your thoughts on that scenario?

Was that the photo of the body on the floor wrapped in bloody sheets? I remember seeing that as a little kid. I remember being scared to get my haircut after that. My aunt lived in Key West. I was there once as a youngster, but don't remember much. Other than that "Southernmost Point" place and some cool snorkeling. I'm out. I'll try and check in tomorrow or soon. Get some sleep yourself! Later Tim

Question for the panel of experts on this topic: What motivation would Phillips have to lie, seemingly incriminating the Agency? Based on the photos the CIA was trying to pass off as Oswald, seems more likely that he was never really in Mexdico City. Source: Plausible Denial, 82 With regard to LHO in Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips publicly stated, during a debate with Mark Lane at USC in 1977: "...but I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all there was no proof of that. Second, there is no proof that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet embassy." Lane also states that Colby was "livid" with Phillips that night at the post debate dinner.

Thanks for the kind words Tim. Although we obviously do not agree on some basic issues, I find your passion and ability to "do battle" quite formidable. But then, you are a Badger, are you not? Quite a town, Madison. Been there for a few Buckeye/Badger tilts and would expect nothing less from a Mad City boy! I have located several corroborating photos on the Corbis site myself in virtually no time (what a cool site that is!). Of course they won't upload. However, I will be happy to email them to anyone who requests them of me. Just send me an email and I'll send you the photos listed below. In closing (I really should be asleep by now, but you got me too fired-up with all your "you are wrong" posts!), I must mention that I did view the pics you found as well. And they appeared as you stated. But as I perhaps failed to post in a clear fashion above, I am not suggesting that there were never times when certain of the aforementioned protection devices were not employed. In fact there were circumstances in which their deployment would not have been practical at all. But that certainly was not the case in Dallas. The Corbis photos below clearly illustrate just as several Secret Service agents have explicitly stated to Mr. Palamara, in several other instances prior to 11/22/63, Kennedy was protected to a much greater degree than he was in Dallas. This includes the running boards and the motorcycles as I have described them. Finally, I believe it would be a mistake to consider only the "running board" issue and the "motorcycle" issue when deciding whether or not the Secret Service is guilty as I (and many others, including their own agents) have charged them. I am not here to convince anyone. Look at the evidence and highly suggestive material and decide for yourself. Like I said, I certainly could be wrong, but I don't think that I am in this particular instance. Please check out the photos below. If you'd like me to send you copies, just email me. Corbis IH038944 - JFK motorcade in Italy, clearly showing agents on the running boards on both sides of the presidential limo. It's the second car back in the photo. You'll also notice that, unlike Dallas, there is a Secret Service car out front with an agent standing up looking back. Corbis U1384904 - JFK motorcade in Berlin. No running boards here, but quite unnecessary when you look at the WALL of motorcycle escorts flanking the limo. There are also two agents on or in (hard to tell which) the rear of the limo with Kennedy- even with this WALL of motorcycle escorts flanking. Corbis U1385223 - JFK motorcade in Cork, Ireland. Motorcycles flanking each side of the limo (appears to be two on each side, which takes up most or all of the length of the limo). Note that they are not sitting back off of the rear of the car as they were instructed to do in Dallas. And we have agents standing all over the darned car: on the running boards on both sides and at least one at the rear platform (can't see the other one clearly). Again, do we see this type of security profile in a known hostile city (to JFK at that time) like Dallas? Uh... nope. Corbis U1385578 - Another shot of JFK's motorcade in Italy - Hard to tell, but looks like running boards are absent. However, crowds nowhere near the limo. And I count 19, yes 19, motorcycle escorts directly flanking both sides, in front of and in the rear of Kennedy's limo. That score again, Italy 19, Dallas 2. One thing to remember here: what we are talking about is Kennedy's security/protection profile during other motorcades as compared to Dallas. Based on the concern over the Dallas trip and the threats on Kennedy's life, the profile should have been much stronger than it was. In fact, we see that is was actually much weaker than the protection Kennedy received in the photos I've listed. Does this mean that there were never points in time or circumstances along a route that made such a profile impracticle? No. In fact I would suggest that that is precisely why the side steps/running boards were retractable. But DP was neither fast, congested nor friendly. And in my opinion, Kennedy was not protected at all. Just take a look at those photos in comparison to Dallas. To me, the differences are compelling. Are there any good photos showing what exactly (cars, motorcycles, etc.) was in front of GG 300 as it passed through DP? My impression has always been that Kennedy's was the first limo in the procession, and that there was not much in the way of security out front. Though I have not been able to locate a good photo that would reveal this. I eagerly await your next salvo. Well, maybe not “eagerly.”

It's summer here at the moment, Greg. For me that means drinking lots of beer and ogling the tanned beauties strolling around the Gold Coast wearing nothing but a thong and a smile. NICE! I agree. I believe there are complexities here that may never be fully understood. I have heard possibilities discussed like another hit team being positioned near the Trade Mart in case Dealey Plaza had to be aborted. If they were going to hit JFK in L. A. or Chicago, would the same shooters be employed? If Vaughn Marlowe was the designated patsy for Los Angeles, could multiple hit teams and other patsies been on call? Was a contingent of Corsicans ready to go at another location? Fascinating possibilities. Sure is fun trying though!

Particularly so in a country where we'd like to think our democracy had evolved beyond that.

I just mentioned it above: Vince Palamara. While you attempt to explain the other quite numerous ways in which the Secret Service failed to protect Kennedy on 11/22/63, I will attempt to further vet the running board issue. Keep in mind that they were retractable, and perhaps not in use for the entire length of each trip. Obviously speed would be a factor as would proximity of the spectators- narrower quarters and close crowds also posing problems for their use. But you raise a valid concern regarding these snapshots of particular moments in time when they were not employed. As I stated above, I'll revisit the running board topic. Believe me, I'm not beyond admitting if I'm wrong (although I don't think I am). I'll continue to research this issue and advise.

Hi Tim- From Vince Palamara directly. Who of course obtained that info from the agents themselves, along with some photographic evidence. Although I do not know which photos, I would imagine that they will appear in his book as corroboration. My error though, not his. And thanks for pointing it out. Vince used those cities as examples of similar circumstances where the above security measures (not just the running boards) were in place. He did mention that not 100% of those measures were in place on 100% of the trips. Simply that all of them were regularly deployed and standard depending on the circumstances. There were of course certain instances where the running boards, large number of motorcycles as flanking escorts, etc. were not practical given the circumstances. But most certainly, given the security concerns being expressed over the Dallas trip and the nature of the route, even if there was some valid reason for not using those side steps (which I have yet to hear), it makes no sense to drastically reduce the president's protection for that trip through DP. The running boards are simply one concern of at least 15.

Forgive my limited knowledge re: Files, and please set me straight if I'm off base here, but: If files was a mob guy, and his claim is that other mob guys (who he names specifically) were the mechanics in DP, then why is Files still rotting in jail not garnering ant attention from the mob or anyone else? I've always been under the impression that if you rat out the mob, especially if you are trapped in prison with nowhere to hide, you can expect to be shivved in about 4 seconds. And while there seems to have been so much supression of evidence and testimony in this case, along with outright disinformation and attacks on the credibility of those who speak up with potentially real knowledge of the case, Files really has drawn much fire from anyone except people like us who happen to not believe him. So, even if you accept the role of the mob at level (which I do not), how do you explain the fact that he can go public with the truth and suffer none of these ill effects? Of course, I could be wrong. I don't claim to be all knowing in this area (or any others, for that matter). Just my opinion. Feel free to fire away and correct me.

Wow. Good stuff guys. I did not realize that they were unidentified or controversial figures. I figured with their prominent positions, they would surely have been identified long ago. A team there to control access to the hot spots would make a lot of sense. Tom, what's behind your views on Kellerman? Gut feeling? Something you read somewhere? Just curious.

Hi James- What's happening over there on the other side of the world these days? Point taken. Even if the letter came out and contained legit info, the other side would undoubtedly launch a campaign to muddy the waters. And at the end of the day we'd all be debating it's authenticity, accuracy, credibility, true meaning, etc. I would be interested in talking to that attorney though. My take on the Corsican teams/mechanics is largely speculation. A theory that seems to make sense to me, but one that I haven't investigated beyond a cursory glance. Certainly could be another attempt in the long line of misdirection plays as you rightly suggest. But I'm going to it alive (in my twisted mind) on the back burner until I can take a closer look at the tactical piece. Not really my forte, but certainly essential to understanding what happened on 11/22/63.

To Greg: Hi Tim: Do you really think so many people would be asked to help kill the President and not one of them would object and report it? A small group at the very top, who believed JFK was a liability to the country, who believed he was "soft" on communism on the heels of the McCarthy era and at the height of the Cold War- a small group at the top that was vehemently opposed to his refusal to invade Cuba (3 times, by the way: missile crisis, refusal to engage elements of U.S. military at BOP, shutting down plans for the 2nd invasion), very displeased by his intent to withdraw from SE Asia, and equally unhappy with his signing of the test ban treaty with the USSR and his back channel communications with Khrushchev. And this is without even getting into more personal motivations by men like LBJ and Hoover. So, do I believe that they could work together to remove Kennedy as a matter (in their minds) of patriotism and national security (the standard right wing, fascist battle cry)? Absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind. Unquestionably yes. IMO, the issue of security stripping is ludicrous. I know Al Carrier, who has experience and training in this area, agrees with me. Security, or the lack thereof, was no different in Dallas than on any of Kennedy's other trips. You mention the lack of running boards on the presidential limousine. Is it your contention the limousine had running boards but they were removed before the Dallas trip? Of perhaps the engineers who designed the limousine deliberately left off running boards just in case someone wanted to kill the President. Respectfully Tim, you could not be more wrong. Kennedy certainly was stripped of his security that day in Dallas. After watching the Love Field/WFAA TV video where Emory Roberts CLEARLY orders Rybka off of the right rear of GG 300 as the motorcade gets underway (have you seen this piece of footage?), I was compelled to contact Vince Palamara. Vince is largely responsible for this footage coming to light and has done extensive primary research on the actions of the Secret Service on 11/22/63, particularly within the motorcade. His findings will be published later this year in a book titled Survivor's Guilt. While the Warren Commission interviewed 12 Secret Service agents, and the HSCA 44, Palamara has personally interviewed over 70 agents and former agents, including many who were present in that doomed motorcade. Quite frankly, the evidence proving complicity of the Secret Service command personnel is in first hand accounts of over 70 agents, some of them participants in the DP motorcade. So, with regard to the "EVIDENCE" (as you so emphatically put it), I'll hit the highlights for you (again, but with a few items I did not mention before, and with a few omitted that are available in my previous post): 1) The retractable running boards or "side steps" were in place and available that day, but they were not deployed or used. I agree, that fact in and of itself does not prove anything nefarious was afoot. Until you consider the fact that these running boards were deployed and utilized in similar circumstances on trips to Florida, Berlin, Ireland, Italy, El Paso and Hawaii. And none of these visits had the security problems or threat level that the Dallas trip did. 2) It was also STANDARD PROCEDURE for agents (Rybka and Hill, in this case) to be stationed on the rear platforms behind JFK and Mrs. Kennedy in such a motorcade. This occurred with regularity in this type of procession, with the exception of the Dallas trip. Clearly, when you see the shift leader, Emory Roberts, ordering Rybka (and probably Hill, although he is difficult to see in the video) OFF of the limo as it departs, and you witness Rybka's reaction to the order as the follow-up car drives by and leaves him standing on the tarmac at Love Field angry and perplexed (obvious when you watch the video), any reasonable person would find this compelling. Again recalling the classification of the Dallas trip by the Secret Service itself as high risk and potentially hostile. 3) The Secret Service made other last minute changes to the motorcade at Love Field, reducing the DPD motorcycles from 6 down to 2 and relegating them to positions behind the limo as opposed to in front of it. This opened up Kennedy to fields of fire from behind AND in front. Typically, GG 300 was flanked by 3 to 4 motorcycles on each side in such a procession. But, despite the high risk nature of the Dallas trip based on the higher than usual number of threats to Kennedy's life in the preceding weeks, the Secret Service acted to all but eliminate this element of the security profile. Now that my friend, is "ludicrous." 4) It was also standard in such a motorcade for Kennedy's personal physician and military aide (the man with the "football", who I believe was Godfrey McHugh) to be in (in McHugh's case) or very near (in the doctor’s case) GG 300. Not so in Dallas. Again, it was the SECRET SERVICE who placed them in the rear of the procession, along with others who were normally close to Kennedy in similar trips: the press, photographers, and camera men. Ordered to the rear of the motorcade by the Secret Service. For obvious reasons, no doubt. 5) Agent Sam Kinney, driver of the follow-up car stating that at the time of the shooting, Roberts ORDERED his men not to move. Clint Hill was the only agent to disobey. He stated that with better reaction to the first shot, he (or they) could have reached Kennedy in time to save him. That makes Roberts' orders not to move not only incriminating, but critical (if you believe Hill was correct in his assessment of their unencumbered reaction time). As I stated, these are only the highlights. It is the contention of Fetcher Prouty, Vince Palamara, and most of the over 70 Secret Service (active and former, I believe) agents interviewed by Palamara that, in addition to the accuracy of the above points, a total of no less than 15 Secret Service codes of protection, most of which were standard and employed in similar circumstances prior to Dallas, were violated by the Secret Service that day- and violated as the result of the ORDERS that they received from Emory Roberts on up. While some of the accountability is harder to pin on any certain agent or set of orders, many were violated on the explicit orders of Floyd Boring and his direct report, Emory Roberts. I'm not an attorney (although law school may be on the horizon once the MBA is complete), but I would suggest that a judge would consider the statements of Fletcher Prouty (given his experience and background) and over 70 Secret Service agents to be particularly relevant testimony. Furthermore, based on the subject matter, I would submit that said testimony would be considered by the court to be that of “experts” and would consider their statements as evidence. It is not clear who you think LHO was. I suspect he was working for US intelligence in some capacity, which, as I have suggested in other threads, demonstrates why the CIA did not kill JFK. Had the CIA wanted to, it could have found a true left-wing patsy with no connection to U.S. intelligence. I believe that LHO was probably a low-level Intelligence asset, but certainly not a trusted agent. He was being set-up as the patsy since shortly after the Dallas trip was announced (April, I think). While it's true that LHO certainly was not their only option as a patsy, he was a better option specifically BECAUSE he was under their control- they could manipulate the "official legend" more easily as the plan evolved. Oswald seems to me to have been a wanna-be, a personality type easily exploited. He probably thought that he was "an agent", but they were simply using him. I don't think he ever fired a shot at Kennedy. Admittedly, this is just my opinion. LHO is quite the enigma. Given the available evidence, it would be foolish and arrogant for anyone, myself included, to profess that they have him all figured out. Re the Cuba peace initiative, since JFK and RFK were trying to kill Castro through Cubela, that was onbiously a farce--and Castro knew it. Why do you think he scheduled his meeting with Daniel for the very moment he knew his agents would be killing Kennedy? I suppose it was just a phenomenal coincidence. And why do you think Lisa Howard, the ABC reporter so significant in the peace initiatives, turned so violently against RFK that she helped form "Democrats for Keating" in 1964 when she had previously been a Kennedy supporter? Because she had discovered that the peace initiatives were a farce. I'll just say that I do not believe there is conclusive evidence either way, but in my mind, it is much more plausible that Castro knew JFK (since he had thrice refused to invade Cuba) was his best shot at survival. If Khrushchev realized that the real danger from the Americans lay with the right wing cold warriors in the Pentagon and CIA (and he did, source: RFK's Thirteen Days) and not from JFK (hence the back channel communications- neither man trusted the hard liners in their own gov't), then it's reasonable to assume that Castro did also. Castro's best hope was with JFK who was trying to kill him? What kind of reasoning is this? You know, do you not, that LBJ ordered all assassination attempts against Castro terminated. Only because the CIA's attempts to paint LHO (their patsy) as a communist with ties to Cuba (New Orleans, the Mexico City lie) worked all too well. Johnson (see Holland’s The Kennedy Assassination Tapes) believed that if LHO were tied to Cuba in the public’s perception, it could lead to nuclear war. Real or perceived, that was LBJ's belief and it's what he stated in taped conversations. Thus the Katzenbach memo and Johnson's Warren Commission. Johnson's IMMEDIATE reversal of Kennedy's withdrawal policy on Vietnam was probably, at least in part, a way to placate the right wing Pentagon/CIA/MICC types in 1963 who were the initiators of Kennedy's removal, and their hunger for war against communism and the financial profits to be won as a result. And re Trafficante, he was making far more money from being a drug distributor in the US than he had made with the Havana casinos. Perhaps. I'll defer to you on that one. But something about Castro shutting him down, kicking him out, seizing his casinos and booty, and costing him millions (even if he was making more in other ventures) tells me that old Santos would not be inclined to do him any favors. Certainly not one of this magnitude. So far all you and the other people who suggest an "internal coup" do is offer speculation with no evidence of any nature. There is substantial evidence demonstrating Trafficante's involvement in the assassination, including a remark he made caught on a FBI wiretap, and his death-bed admission to his attorney. Plus, of course, his ties to Ruby. Trafficante was linked to Cubela and Cubela was linked to Castro. I would submit the above evidence. I would recommend Palamara's book when it comes out- research does not get any more primary. And what I mention here is only a small portion of the statements he has collected. And if you have not viewed the video to which I referred, please do. I have a copy, but I'm having a heck of a time trying to get it copied into a format that I can email or post. I'm efforting that. I did manage to create a few stills of the Rybka scene which I tried to attach. Although I seem to have room for them (5 jpeg stills), it's only allowing me to post one. While the film is much more compelling, I was hoping to post this series of shots to give some idea for those who have not seen the footage. I'll keep trying. Certainly Tim, you are right about the scarcity of hard evidence, but I think that cuts across all of the various theories in this case. I do however think that the issue of evidence is more problematic for purveyors of theories such as yours. Sorry, just my opinion. I don't doubt the involvement of the mob, but at a low, operational level, i.e. transportation, maybe handling payments, and of course, whacking Oswald. If you have any EVIDENCE that anyone in the US government plotted the death of JFK (other than the non-issue of "security stripping") now would be an opportune time to post it. And you be sure and let me know when Fidel confesses to you and offers up the box of missing links. You'll forgive me if I don't spend my nights waiting by the phone.