What happened to this place?

[John Crites]

"The Secret Service was not involved. ( anyway)"

If someone really believes that there was a conspiracy but are in denial ( or are too politically correct ) to firmly say they facilitated the killing then you will be here another 50 years!

Wasn't that the conclusion to the HSCA?

C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Notice how 1, 2 & 5 do not add: "but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved"

THIS the HSCA did know...

I realize this has been posted numerous times, but it's all I need to know about the HSCA'S true intentions

"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds

In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts."

[Peter McGuire]

"An investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 concluded that "the Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties.

The HSCA specifically noted:

That President Kennedy had not received adequate protection in Dallas.

That the Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated, or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President's trip to Dallas.

That the Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper.

No actions were taken by the agent in the right front seat of the Presidential limousine Roy Kellerman to cover the President with his body, although it would have been consistent with Secret Service procedure for him to have done so. The primary function of the agent was to remain at all times in close proximity to the President in the event of such emergencies."

As I am trying to hammer home - I do not care which government entity or any particular private researcher wrote. ( since he or she would be discredited by those covering this up )

Close proximity does not mean looking back at an injured POTUS. Close proximity meant leaping back to help the president as he was trained to do.

What Kellerman and the rest of the Service did is NOT IN DISPUTE!

In or opinion -Is it expected behavior or not? That is the question.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Peter McGuire

[David Andrews]

Kellerman can be seen in Zapruder sitting still after a bullet enters the limo and passes his left ear. I strongly suspect that in Altgens 6, Kellerman is eyeballing a bullet hole or bullet damage in the windshield. Kellerman, in effect, risked his life to not protect Kennedy, when the opposite was demanded of him, and when he might have been killed in his seat anyway.

Quoting the HSCA's 1979 finding,

"No actions were taken by the agent in the right front seat of the Presidential limousine [Roy Kellerman] to cover the President with his body, although it would have been consistent with Secret Service procedure for him to have done so. The primary function of the agent was to remain at all times in close proximity to the President in the event of such emergencies."

The man could have at least stood up.

Looking at Zapruder again, even if Kellerman didn't see Connally hit when he looked back, he has Connally in his line of vision and can see that Connally is staring back at Kennedy. And that, or the shot passing by Kellerman's head. is reason enough to tell Greer to "Punch it!" Seconds were wasted. What the hell did Kellerman think was going on back there?

Edited January 19, 2014 by David Andrews

[Vince Palamara]

_{Not to toot my own horn (Lord knows I NEVER do that LOL), but check this out:}

_{http://www.amazon.com/Survivors-Guilt-Service-Failure-President/dp/1937584607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373914997&sr=8-1&keywords=vince+Palamara}

_{SEE ALSO:}

_{http://vincepalamara.com/2014/01/11/why-you-should-never-assume-too-much-about-jfks-protection-from-a-still-photo/}

_{http://vincepalamara.com/2014/01/08/the-legend-of-clint-hill/}

Edited January 18, 2014 by Vince Palamara

[Peter McGuire]

Greer's training sure kicked in at Parkland Hospital, where he allegedly hit someone with the butt of a gun and threatened to kill anyone who got in his way of removing Kennedy's body.

Nonsense! These guys knew what they were doing! Don't let the year and the black and white photos allow you to think otherwise.

Charles DeGaulle escaped numerous assassination attempts in the 1950's - one by his car speeding away; others by quick action of his armed bodyguards.

Kennedy in fact died that day from assassins bullets-when are some people going to realize that these kinds of things ( and there are hundreds ) are not just coincidence?

"In August 1962 DE Gaulle's CHAUFFEUR was able to accelerated out of the skid and drive to safety."

Well let me tell you something; William GREER was a United States of America Secret Service Agent in 1963, a year

after this De Gaulle attempt.

NOT a chauffeur!

Lets play just suppose. Just suppose Greer had no training and was a simple chauffeur. History shows even chauffeurs have enough sense to get out of there!

Please do not insult , what is self evident or at least likely behavior as to what people would do in this situation by empathizing with them.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Peter McGuire

[Chris Newton]

FWIW: In the event of an ambush, while in a vehicle, SOP is to accelerate out of it (or through it as the case may be) in the direction you are traveling. I haven't read anywhere that lolly-gaging around in the kill zone was a preferable technique.

Swerving and zig zagging erratically while under fire is certainly one technique as well. Google "sagger drill".

[Mark Knight]

According to Wikipedia, the Secret Service has two jobs: (1) "Financial crimes," which includes prevention and investigation of counterfeiting... and (2) protection of the President.

I'm willing to concede that there were no major incidents of counterfeiting reported in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

So the Secret Service didn't TOTALLY fail in their mission that day.

[Dawn Meredith]

Whered everbody go? where's Wim Dankbar? where's Charles Robert Dunn? where's Jim diEuegenio? where's Tim Gratz? where's Tosh Plumey? did everbvody leave after the 50yth?

Wim left years ago...RCD left when JIm DIEugenio was banned. Gratz left years ago a did Tosh.

Dawn

[John Crites]

Thank you Dawn,

I joined in November, and Jim DiEungenio was long gone by that time,

would you or any body like to address why he was banned?

Thanks in advance.

[Peter McGuire]

Well put Chris. My 16 year old grandson would have known to get the hell out there!

Anyone, at this point, who does not see that protective services were directed not to do their job on 22 November, 1963 are either ( as was first written by another member on this forum ) cognitively impaired or complicit in the cover up.

It is as simple as that and this is why there is little direct response to the Greer/Kellerman behavior.

Now is the time to proceed without apology that there was indeed a conspiracy and it is a simple matter to figure out WHY.

Who cares anymore as to the how. It happened. Get over it if you are in denial. Go away if you are part of the cover up.

[Gene Kelly]

We are still at the point where we must discuss with members whether there was a conspiracy or not

and we have to address WCR apologists who attempt to defend and rationalize the actions and evidence offered of the military, SS, CIA, and FBI

as opposed to taking that next step and putting the assasination into the context it belongs - that this was NOT some isolated event in a timeline that ENDS with his death...

the assassination is just one event in a string that goes back to the mid 1800's... if not farther.

Jim et al are busy writing and informing those that search the truth about this conspiracy as opposed to arguing about it here.

When page after page is needed to address members claiming the evidence from Bethesda is not only authentic but entirely indicative of what occurred in DALLAS

one has to scratch one's head and wonder WTF is going on in our community.

When there are those that can still talk about shots from the 6th floor and not have the time or desire to understand what the FBI did with CE884 and WCD298

Vince - it would like you having to convince people of the "back of the limo" BS put forth by the SS over and over and over again... and then a concluding post stating, "well the SS wasn't involved anyway"

At some point these undeniable facts need to be understood as such... we need to stop arguing over whether the world is flat or not...

and continue our efforts to uncover who and why THEY keep telling us the world is flat with all sincerity and seriousness..

my .02

David:

I agree with your assessment of regarding continued engagement of knowledgeable folks like DiEugenio and Dunn. It's like we keep shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic ... endless debates about what's now obvious become stale and uninteresting. There's no sense in it. I enjoy professional and courteous debate; but I cringe when threads degenerate into name-calling, insult and taunt. I've never liked type-casting (democrat vs. republican, liberal vs. conservative, LN vs. CT). The world's not that simple, and to paint it in those terms is to ignore the in-between or shades of coloring. I think that this is what drives folks away from the Forum. Prominent authors also come and go (e.g. Joan Mellen) but the discourteous discourse drives them away.

As you pointed out in the Tippit and Prayer Man threads, we need to think and talk in terms of two Oswalds, to better understand what's happening... anyone who still has doubts about the Oswald enigma is simply uninformed or not interested. But once you accept the existence of a double (and impersonators/imposters), events take on a clearer meaning, and it opens one up to fresh inquiry and more meaningful dialogue. The Secret Service was compromised that day, as were the DPD ... to not see that is to not look closely enough. Witnesses were intimidated and eliminated, as was evidence... perhaps folks don't want to belive that can happen in a case like this. The autopsy, the many "investigations" (FBI, Warren, Garrison, HSCA, even perhaps AARB) and the media were tightly monitored and controlled... it smacks of X-Files but unfortunately it's true. Files and testimony remain sealed and protected, even 50 years after the fact. It's as if the truth is just too painful to confront or to know. When I talk to friends about what I know and believe, they look at me as though I have two heads. And while I'm confident in my knowledge, I do belive that - for many - this is all just too much to fathom or take in. In the JFK case, life is stranger than fiction.

If there's one thing I've learned as a student of this assassination story, it's that almost any area that you dig into appears tainted and flawed... each and every one of them. When you finally arrive at a basic set of credible facts about the ballistics/guns, Tippit, the wounds/autopsy/doctors, Oswald/Ruby, witnesses, Warren testimony, et al... its typically a shocking mess of inconsistency. Everything (and everybody) becomes a literal dead-end. That in itself is very telling.

Gene

[Vince Palamara]

Well said.

(hey--where IS DVP these days?)

It was very disheartening how the media, more so than any other anniversary I can remember, REALLY tried to wrap things up this past November. That said, there were also repurcussions on the other side of the argument: due to the horrible box office results of "Parkland", it appears Gerald Blaine's blame-the-victim movie is shelved, An insider told me today , quote, "that movie is as dead as Kennedy is." It seems that Hollywood might be thinking twice, if not thrice, at even thinking of making an assassination-related movie now. In that respect, warts and all, "JFK" will always be the best and most successful one ever...case closed (!)

P.S. Nothing online about the so-called DiCaprio/ DeNiro "Legacy of Secrecy" movie, either

Edited January 22, 2014 by Vince Palamara

[John Simkin]

Well said.

(hey--where IS DVP these days?)

It was very disheartening how the media, more so than any other anniversary I can remember, REALLY tried to wrap things up this past November. That said, there were also repurcussions on the other side of the argument: due to the horrible box office results of "Parkland", it appears Gerald Blaine's blame-the-victim movie is shelved, An insider told me today , quote, "that movie is as dead as Kennedy is." It seems that Hollywood might be thinking twice, if not thrice, at even thinking of making an assassination-related movie now. In that respect, warts and all, "JFK" will always be the best and most successful one ever...case closed (!)

P.S. Nothing online about the so-called DiCaprio/ DeNiro "Legacy of Secrecy" movie, either

Do you know what the most visited web page on my site during November, 2013? It was not my pages on John F. Kennedy or Lee Harvey Oswald but the one on George Hickey.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm

The reason for this is that the media either gave publicity to the "lone-gunman" theory or ridiculous ideas that George Hickey was the killer. The media and Google create the framework of the debate. Until this is changed we have little chance of explaining the truth to a mass audience.

[Vince Palamara]

My one blog from last year where I mentioned Hickey received the most views by far. i also received a ton of amateur messages/ e-mails about Hickey; yep

[David Von Pein]

hey--where IS DVP these days?

Here, there, and everywhere, Vince.

I'm spending a lot of time recently transferring many of my older articles and forum posts to my own JFK Archives site/blog (so they'll be safe and won't get "lost" or deleted).

And there are still theories to be debunked about Oswald's Carcano too. Like this one.

It seems that a lot of conspiracists just love to micro-analyze the photos and films. And whenever something doesn't look just right to them, like with the Alyea example above, they automatically think it means "conspiracy" or "fakery" or "planted evidence". But as you can see above--it doesn't mean any such thing.

Is there a medical term for such a CT condition? "JFK Photo Paranoia" perhaps?

Edited January 23, 2014 by David Von Pein