Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown EXPLAINED


Recommended Posts

JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown EXPLAINED

A very important video---please let everyone know about this.

Video URL:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mCHGNvTvqU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Agent Henry Rybka? Nope. Agent Don Lawton? Yes. End result: who cares---the SUBSTANCE of the video still stands.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.html

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/

"On page 359 [of "The Kennedy Detail"], Gerald Blaine identifies the agent recalled at Love Field as SA Don Lawton, the OTHER agent (along with SA Henry Rybka) "ostensibly" left to secure Love Field for the President's departure, and takes this reviewer to task for his misidentification. In the interest of time, please see this reviewer's online videos wherein he fully explains himself, his rationale, and his belief that, regardless of WHO the agent is (and he is willing to concede that it was probably Lawton after all), the SUBSTANCE of what is being depicted in the videothe essenceremains the same. Suffice to say that many people were "fooled" by this footageformer JFK agent Larry Newman, the ARRB, The History Channel, Rybka's family, millions of YouTube viewers, countless authors and researchers, and even a December 2009 Discovery Channel Secret Service documentary "Secrets of the Secret Service"!"

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

[NOTE: Agent Don Lawton's report (25 H 786) was written EIGHT days after the assassination, not the seven I erroneously state on the video. Even though this is self-evident and minor, in the interest of accuracy, I apologize. Agent Rybka's undated report (25 H 787), unlike Agent Lawton's, was not written on Treasury Department stationary and was not approved by SAIC Gerald Behn)

Edited by Vince Palamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown EXPLAINED

A very important video---please let everyone know about this.

Video URL:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mCHGNvTvqU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Agent Henry Rybka? Nope. Agent Don Lawton? Yes. End result: who cares---the SUBSTANCE of the video still stands.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.html

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/

"On page 359 [of "The Kennedy Detail"], Gerald Blaine identifies the agent recalled at Love Field as SA Don Lawton, the OTHER agent (along with SA Henry Rybka) "ostensibly" left to secure Love Field for the President's departure, and takes this reviewer to task for his misidentification. In the interest of time, please see this reviewer's online videos wherein he fully explains himself, his rationale, and his belief that, regardless of WHO the agent is (and he is willing to concede that it was probably Lawton after all), the SUBSTANCE of what is being depicted in the video—the essence—remains the same. Suffice to say that many people were "fooled" by this footage—former JFK agent Larry Newman, the ARRB, The History Channel, Rybka's family, millions of YouTube viewers, countless authors and researchers, and even a December 2009 Discovery Channel Secret Service documentary "Secrets of the Secret Service"!"

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

[NOTE: Agent Don Lawton's report (25 H 786) was written EIGHT days after the assassination, not the seven I erroneously state on the video. Even though this is self-evident and minor, in the interest of accuracy, I apologize. Agent Rybka's undated report (25 H 787), unlike Agent Lawton's, was not written on Treasury Department stationary and was not approved by SAIC Gerald Behn)

Vince,

You're doing a fine job. And you are correct--it doesn't matter which agent it was who "waved away" the agent clearly intending to board the JFK limousine as it left Love Field.

The body language in that event speaks for itself; and I remember being quite amazed when I was first shown it back in 1985.

Moreover, in view of the numerous people and media institutions who believed it was Rybka (and not Lawton), and the massive amount of research you have done, and the unique data base you have created, no apology is required.

When what happened at Love Field, is joined with the non-reaction of the White House Detail in Dealey Plaza, and the plentiful evidence of a car stop (or a serious "car slowdown," for those who cannot accept the idea that the Z film was altered) in Dealey Plaza, this body of evidence speaks for itself.

Let me remind anyone reading this thread what Gen. Godfrey McHugh, JFK's Air Force aide, told me when we spoke (at length) in November, 1967. I had called him mainly to inquire about events at Bethesda, but then the conversation veered over to the arrival at Love Field. McHugh said that after Air Force One arrived, and when the motorcade was forming, he was specifically requested NOT to ride in the front seat of the JFK limo, as was often his practice. I pressed him as hard as I could as to exactly who made the request, and he would not name the person--but from other remarks he made, I infer that it was Kenneth O'Donnell, who (himself) was passing on a Secret Service request. For the record: I don't think O'Donnell acted in bad faith; I DO think he may have been used to pass on an instruction from some Secret Service person, who didn't want to be directly "exposed" by personally making such a request.

My point: The direct request to McHugh, not to ride in the limo, when joined with the filmed behavior of shift leader Roberts, "waving away" another agent who was trying to hop aboard, and whose presence was clearly not desired, speaks for itself.

One final point: I want to congratulate you on another "first": I think your observation that Rybka's report (25 H 787) is undated--I stress UNdated--and that it was not written on Treasury Department stationary, AND that it did not bear the counter-signature of SAIC Gerlad Behn--all of this may turn out to be significant as more information becomes available. (Perhaps you can do a review of ALL the reports and let us know just how many SS reports are NOT on official stationary, and/or do NOT bear Behn's counter-signature. Very interesting, and thanks for that rather sharp-eyed observation.

Back then (circa 1963-1964) there was no guarantee that this whole affair would not "blow" and that such matters (and as to the chain of responsibility, who was in charge, who was "covering up," etc.) might --at that time--have had some legal significance.

Again, many thanks for all your hard work.

DSL

6/2/11 4:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...