Gerry P. Hemming

[Owen Parsons]

I stopped taking Gerry seriously after he posted that Garrison had placed David Ferrie under house arrest, seemingly to provide aid and comfort to Lynne Foster, who likes to claim that David Ferrie was in Garrison's "custody" (the implication being that Garrison had Ferrie whacked). Needless to say, this is contrary to all the other available information.

Edited December 6, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[William Plumlee]

GPH was never CIA or MI. He "shadows" information for personal gratification. He sponges up information and speculation and throws it out in disjointed fragments as facts and adds to that over time.

The real CIA file on GPH is they in "no way" wanted anything to do with him or "his boys".., even some of the Cubans who are now dead and gone wanted nothing to do with him, but he now quotes them as buddies in arms. He has never been a CIA operative or a MI covert operative in spite of what he claims. His disinformation is of his own making. He does not work within the protocol of the jargon of CIA. He thinks he knows how operations come together and who and why they were formed. This is his fantasy. He drops names in tight circles and picks up jargon then uses it to influence others with his knowledge It works on the ill informed who want to know workings of the covert world.

To say he is CIA is a dis service to the CIA and our government.

People want to believe what they want to believe and GPH is there to provide the color they so much desire. A real operative works in the shadows and lives in a world of cut outs and no man lands. Its his job to protect the operation at all cost as it is being played out. Liver Lips like GPH who see others, who know what he really is, as "Snitches" could never keep the secrets because he wants everyone to see him as a big operative and planner that clears all operations and tells the CIA Director how to play the game.

Covert Ops is a very small world a dangerous world of which the likes of GPH could never have survived. Do what you like with the GPH's material. I have wasted to much time on this whatever person.

Edited December 6, 2005 by William Plumlee

[Ron Ecker]

Gerry claims that he and his paramilitary cohorts were drafted to provide security for JFK at Miami International Airport, a claim that I find preposterous on its face. In rebuttal to my suggestion that this was a nose-stretcher, Gerry further claimed that there is photographic and film evidence of their presence there on that occasion. . . . I, for one, would love to see that film and photo evidence showing Hemming and crew were press-ganged into providing JFK with additional security during such a 'hotspot' visit. . . . If Hemming and crew were at the MIA for that security task, who would have shoe-horned them into that position? Who had the credibility with the Secret Service to vouch for a bunch of gun-happy irregulars? And, if they showed up unarmed [and, hence, all but useless] as Gerry has claimed, what was their purpose? If not to provide security, perhaps it was to keep a watchful eye open for chinks and deficiencies in the SS playbook that could be exploited only days later.

Robert,

I too would love to see the photographic evidence of the presence of Hemming and crew at the Miami airport. I'm wondering, though, why you dismiss without mentioning Hemming's own explanation of why they were asked to be there. By "explanation" I mean what Hemming implied in his HSCA deposition. (Remember that he told this particular story under oath.) He stated that he and his men were very wary during that period of time of being set up. Hemming said that he let it be known to the authorities who invited them that they would be at the airport unarmed. To me the obvious implication is that they went unarmed to foil any set up, as it would be kind of dumb for the government to set up unarmed men as assassins.

Hemming can correct me (and I am sure that he will) if I have misinterpreted his interpretation of this episode. But I don't think the idea of Hemming and his men being asked to be at the airport is "preposterous on its face" if the intent was to make at least one of them a patsy in the assassination of JFK in Miami.

Ron

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='William Plumlee' date='Dec 6 2005, 01:43 AM' post='47486']

GPH was never CIA or MI. He "shadows" information for personal gratification. He sponges up information and speculation and throws it out in disjointed fragments as facts and adds to that over time.

The real CIA file on GPH is they in "no way" wanted anything to do with him or "his boys".., even some of the Cubans who are now dead and gone wanted nothing to do with him, but he now quotes them as buddies in arms. He has never been a CIA operative or a MI covert operative in spite of what he claims. His disinformation is of his own making. He does not work within the protocol of the jargon of CIA. He thinks he knows how operations come together and who and why they were formed. This is his fantasy. He drops names in tight circles and picks up jargon then uses it to influence others with his knowledge It works on the ill informed who want to know workings of the covert world.

To say he is CIA is a dis service to the CIA and our government.

People want to believe what they want to believe and GPH is there to provide the color they so much desire. A real operative works in the shadows and lives in a world of cut outs and no man lands. Its his job to protect the operation at all cost as it is being played out. Liver Lips like GPH who see others, who know what he really is, as "Snitches" could never keep the secrets because he wants everyone to see him as a big operative and planner that clears all operations and tells the CIA Director how to play the game.

Covert Ops is a very small world a dangerous world of which the likes of GPH could never have survived. Do what you like with the GPH's material. I have wasted to much time on this whatever person.

While this has been a fascinating thread, Gerry strikes me about as credible as any other wanna be.

Gerry: Earlier I was going to start a thread asking that you post your STORY, in a mannar similar to what Tosh did last year, on this very forum. Your dangling of little tidbits demonstrates an ability to read...but you do not ever provide any documentation. Yet you have the audacity to say on this forum that Tosh has posted fake docs. For God's sake man, Tosh can be looked up. He has posted a ton of government docs. On himself. See him pissing in his pants that some military brat from 1963 is gonna come and get him?? Please.

YOur name calling is not at all entertaining, just shows how utterly defensive you actually are. Either you have something of value to add, in the history of this case, or you are exactly what RObert, Tosh and Al say of you: a friggen wanna be with nothing better to do than suggest that someone ( a man no less) may want a date with you?? Grow up, and post your damn story, with something to back it up.

(Ya, you sure tripped up Garrison didn't you, little big man? How utterly patriotic. Someone autta give you a medal.)

Dawn

ps OWEN: Love the pic!!! Brains AND curls, how utterly charming. Can I adopt you

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Gerry claims that he and his paramilitary cohorts were drafted to provide security for JFK at Miami International Airport, a claim that I find preposterous on its face. In rebuttal to my suggestion that this was a nose-stretcher, Gerry further claimed that there is photographic and film evidence of their presence there on that occasion. . . . I, for one, would love to see that film and photo evidence showing Hemming and crew were press-ganged into providing JFK with additional security during such a 'hotspot' visit. . . . If Hemming and crew were at the MIA for that security task, who would have shoe-horned them into that position? Who had the credibility with the Secret Service to vouch for a bunch of gun-happy irregulars? And, if they showed up unarmed [and, hence, all but useless] as Gerry has claimed, what was their purpose? If not to provide security, perhaps it was to keep a watchful eye open for chinks and deficiencies in the SS playbook that could be exploited only days later.

Robert,

I too would love to see the photographic evidence of the presence of Hemming and crew at the Miami airport. I'm wondering, though, why you dismiss without mentioning Hemming's own explanation of why they were asked to be there.

When the RCMP wishes to protect our Prime Minister, they don't phone up well-armed local beerguzzlers and ask for assistance. Likewise, I would find it positively boggling to discover that Secret Service would draft for security purposes a group of known trigger-happy yahoos, with police blotters attesting to their instability. If SS did this, then by showing up unarmed, Hemming's crew neutralized whatever value it might have provided.

By "explanation" I mean what Hemming implied in his HSCA deposition. (Remember that he told this particular story under oath.) He stated that he and his men were very wary during that period of time of being set up. Hemming said that he let it be known to the authorities who invited them that they would be at the airport unarmed. To me the obvious implication is that they went unarmed to foil any set up, as it would be kind of dumb for the government to set up unarmed men as assassins.

More holes than Swiss cheese. If Gerry was really worried about being implicated in an attempt on the President's life, he and his crew wouldn't have shown up at all. It's awful hard to pin blame for a crime upon someone who was demonstrably elsewhere at the time. Moreover, this suggests that Gerry had reason to suspect a plot would unfold on that date. Are we to assume that Gerry knew something about a planned assassination, yet didn't report it beforehand, or disclose details later? Even more problematic for Gerry's story, it presumes that whomever insinutated Gerry and his crew onto the tarmac there knew such an attempt would transpire in order to have Gerry on-site as "patsy."

Hemming can correct me (and I am sure that he will) if I have misinterpreted his interpretation of this episode. But I don't think the idea of Hemming and his men being asked to be at the airport is "preposterous on its face" if the intent was to make at least one of them a patsy in the assassination of JFK in Miami.

Ron

No doubt, Gerry would rather have us think him a "patsy" than a conspirator. I doubt that he was either, but loves the self-aggrandizement that either assumption affords him.

[John Simkin]

Gerry, you seem to be spending a lot of time criticizing Tosh Plumlee recently. Would it not be better to answer some of the claims made by Joan Mellen about you? Until you do address these issues it seems to me that your reputation as a reliable witness will remain in doubt.

[Dawn Meredith]

Gerry, you seem to be spending a lot of time criticizing Tosh Plumlee recently. Would it not be better to answer some of the claims made by Joan Mellen about you? Until you do address these issues it seems to me that your reputation as a reliable witness will remain in doubt.

Gerry:

Joan Mellen quotes you as having said Richard Helms gave the order to kill JFK. DId you say this?

Is this your belief?

"Tables"

Dawn

[Ron Ecker]

I would find it positively boggling to discover that Secret Service would draft for security purposes a group of known trigger-happy yahoos, with police blotters attesting to their instability. If SS did this, then by showing up unarmed, Hemming's crew neutralized whatever value it might have provided.

To continue to play devil's advocate: the reason Hemming was given by military intelligence (who he testified as making the request for his presence, as I recall) was that Hemming and his "trigger-happy yahoos" might be able to recognize any would-be Cuban assassin in the crowd who might be unknown to MI or SS.

If Gerry was really worried about being implicated in an attempt on the President's life, he and his crew wouldn't have shown up at all.

He could have felt it his patriotic duty to be there as requested to look for any potential Cuban gunmen, while neutralizing the possibility that it was a setup by going unarmed.

But I don't want to speak for Hemming. He now has enough in this thread to reply to. On the question of how much to believe when Hemming speaks, I often find what he doesn't say more interesting than what he says. For example, when I asked him if he knew where Cucu Arce was on 11/22/63, and posted the photos of the Arce lookalike in front of the TSBD, along with Mr. Slick from No Name Key, Hemming didn't reply. To me that is interesting non-information. Of course it's possible that he missed the post or hasn't yet had time to reply. Vamos a veer, ojala!

[Thomas Graves]

To continue to play devil's advocate: the reason Hemming was given by military intelligence (who he testified as making the request for his presence, as I recall) was that Hemming and his "trigger-happy yahoos" might be able to recognize any would-be Cuban assassin in the crowd who might be unknown to MI or SS.

He could have felt it his patriotic duty to be there as requested to look for any potential Cuban gunmen, while neutralizing the possibility that it was a setup by going unarmed.

But I don't want to speak for Hemming. He now has enough in this thread to reply to. On the question of how much to believe when Hemming speaks, I often find what he doesn't say more interesting than what he says. For example, when I asked him if he knew where Cucu Arce was on 11/22/63, and posted the photos of the Arce lookalike in front of the TSBD, along with Mr. Slick from No Name Key, Hemming didn't reply. To me that is interesting non-information. Of course it's possible that he missed the post or hasn't yet had time to reply. Vamos a veer, ojala!

_______________________________________

Yo tambien, Senior. Yo tambien.

FWIW, Tomas

_______________________________________

Edited December 7, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Gerry Hemming]

I would find it positively boggling to discover that Secret Service would draft for security purposes a group of known trigger-happy yahoos, with police blotters attesting to their instability. If SS did this, then by showing up unarmed, Hemming's crew neutralized whatever value it might have provided.

To continue to play devil's advocate: the reason Hemming was given by military intelligence (who he testified as making the request for his presence, as I recall) was that Hemming and his "trigger-happy yahoos" might be able to recognize any would-be Cuban assassin in the crowd who might be unknown to MI or SS.

If Gerry was really worried about being implicated in an attempt on the President's life, he and his crew wouldn't have shown up at all.

He could have felt it his patriotic duty to be there as requested to look for any potential Cuban gunmen, while neutralizing the possibility that it was a setup by going unarmed.

But I don't want to speak for Hemming. He now has enough in this thread to reply to. On the question of how much to believe when Hemming speaks, I often find what he doesn't say more interesting than what he says. For example, when I asked him if he knew where Cucu Arce was on 11/22/63, and posted the photos of the Arce lookalike in front of the TSBD, along with Mr. Slick from No Name Key, Hemming didn't reply. To me that is interesting non-information. Of course it's possible that he missed the post or hasn't yet had time to reply. Vamos a veer, ojala!

-----------------------------------

Ron:

While I don't expect that "Real Researchers" might be expected to xxxxx through the "Tons" of garbage scribblings -- long been available, in tabloid-style/throw-away "pamphlets and on the Internet. However, I am not about to spend days [NOT just hours] of my time responding to "juvenile chat-room-groupie" allegations.

As I have more than once reminded James [here and in private e-mails]; the "very" question "...where was "Fulano" or "Mengano" on November 22, 1963?! -- is not just a personal insult, but is indeed a NOT so veiled accusation !! And more importantly, a direct accusation of having participated in the capital crime of murder, and/or, or of being a material witness thereto.

"....What I DON'T SAY is more interesting ??" Who the hell is "Mr. Slick from No Name Key ??" I must have missed that one. Are you, like phony Augustinovich, now claiming to have been with us on the Key?

And having MORE THAN ONCE INDICATED THAT: I have long since grown weary of this "faces in Dealey Plaza" BULLxxxx, which some persist in !!

I am referring to: "This-Guilt-by-Association-with-Look-a-Like-Fuzzy-Photos-of-Suspects?-in-DP"!!

Am I to believe that this is -- "THE ALL" of that which might remain in this "Don Quijote-Like" quest in this otherwise serious matter ??

Once again, what "sayeth" that "Mr. Norton", who had been allegedly identified by some moron from a self-styled "line-up" squad ?? This was in responce to a telephonic inquiry as to: His "presence" and/or "look-a-like" GUILT reference LHO ??!! [paraphrased quote] "...What kind of wing-nut whacko calls up and insinuates that..not only do I look like a presidential assassin...but goes even further...by inquiring IF I was there during the murder..?!!

And just what is this "...enough to reply to on this thread.." crap -- I am not posting responses or statements on this forum in the manner of a criminal "defendant" undergoing cross examination at trial !!

I came onboard at the repeated invitations of John Simkin, and I agreed only after several weeks of perusing the past postings, just as I had done with "Lancer", "Murder-Solved", etc., etc., and more ad nauseum. In my first posting, I thanked ALL for the privileged invite. I had first read the rules of behavior, and other protocols, very closely.

A short time later, and after several polite responses from members, I was suddenly reminded of my many past experiences with the "scandal-tabloid-style" scribblers of recent past !! Once again, mere bookreaders were jostling for a position to attack and argue against anything that I wrote. Some apparently had only recently joined this forum for that very purpose.

My family, friends, and associates are repeatedly raising the question of: "...Who exactly are these characters...who ARGUE with someone...a person, who might...from personal experience...give even clarification !! And moreover, clarify some of the fantasy-land scribblings continously excreted by weirdo conspiracy nuts !! And especially, those whackos who have sought to derail ALL serious inquiry into the JFK murder..??!!

And they wonder why, tha: Few widely respected reporters and authors, have eschewed the "opportunity" to post online ?? Much less to even associate themselves with a any crowd -- and especially one that bickers and nags amongst themselves over silly-xxxx inconsequencial matters ??!! Moreover, a few have opted NOT to post anything at all. That is, beyond one or two short paragraphs in response to the serious researcher members.

My reference to "PATRIOTS" has always been a slur !! Whenever, I have used this slur, it has mostly been directed at right-wing zealots, and especially those who never contributed anything whatsoever.

No, we didn't go to MIA on the afternoon of November 18th, 1963 out of "PATRIOTISM", a word we used as a slur against the John Birchers and Batistiano loudmouths. We had been requested to "BOLO" ["Be-On-the-Look-Out"] for suspected assassins -- whom, we had previously been closely associated with.

This request came from Federal Agents/Officers, and whom we presumed were simply following orders. Orders issued by their superiors.

By naming just a few of those who attended the MI briefing [and under oath at the time]; I am now in the position of being the guy who has "fingered" [and impugned guilt] to these public servants !! And most of whom have otherwise given years of dedicated service to their country. Just how twisted ARE some of these so-called researchers ??

How many times, over the last 40+ years, have these persons been the subject of gratuitous slurs ?! And that is exactly what their family members are asking today, and in more than just a few cases -- they are surviving family members.

I have presented myself here on this forum to answer a few brief questions which, might help "serious" researchers, authors, et al. "connect-some-of-the-dots" -- NOT to tell my life story. And surely NOT to respond to bald lies and accusations made by the most obvious of TROLLS.

Even before "Watergate" provided the "Loony-Tunes" scribblers with more names of "The-Usual-Suspects";

more than one scribbler was busy impugning "characters". And the subjects of said attacks ?? The rare personage that I had identified being interested in our activities. Folks who had NEVER given a Dime or Dollar in support of ANYTHING !!

Just how stupid might these allegations become ?! Did I ever state that Helms did this, or did that ??

I have never associated Helms with anything about JFK, That is: Other than his assisting in the "Nat'l Security" coverup. I never met Helms, never talked with him on the telephone, nor scribbled any "love-notes" !!

After having experienced Weberman's bullxxxx since 1977, and Joan Mellen' since 1999; I am sure as hell not going to respond to any of their scribbled allegations, that is: Until I have had the necessary time to review same.

And moreover, I will attempt to ascertain whether this might well be some editor and/or publisher screw-ups. But, I am afraid that this might well be the most likely of cases. And that is: A "Malicious" Libel by just one more of the "Groupie-Zealots" -- and one with a twisted personal agenda. At the end of that focus, I will be instructing my attorneys that: either we have a "Cause-of-Action" -- or we DON'T !!

Later,

GPH

______________________-

[Ron Ecker]

As I have more than once reminded James [here and in private e-mails]; the "very" question "...where was "Fulano" or "Mengano" on November 22, 1963?! -- is not just a personal insult, but is indeed a NOT so veiled accusation !! And more importantly, a direct accusation of having participated in the capital crime of murder, and/or, or of being a material witness thereto.

Asking you if you knew where Cucu Arce was on 11/22 was intended neither as insult nor accusation. You knew Arce, you have discussed him on this forum, so when a man photographed in front of the TSBD looks just like Arce, who else to ask about his whereabouts except you, the only person around here who knew him (as far as I know) and who might conceivably know where he was. (You have stated where various Interpen fellows were on 11/22, so it seems inconsistent to take exception to being asked about one.) You could say he was playing dominos at so-and-so's Miami apartment on 11/22, or you could say you don't know. If you know he was in Dallas, then of course it's understandable that you would not want to say so. But it was not my intent to accuse you of having such knowledge. I was just trying to solicit what knowledge you do have. I would like to eliminate Dealey Plaza lookalikes where possible by determining by whatever means where the actual people were.

Who the hell is "Mr. Slick from No Name Key ??" I must have missed that one.

Mr. Slick, shown here in closeup on the left, is standing right behind the Arce lookalike in one of the photos. The resemblance to the No Name Key person on the right is why I said "Mr. Slick from No Name Key." Of course I don't actually know that they are the same person, but I hate coincidences, such as a No Name Key lookalike standing right at the back of an Arce lookalike in front of the TSBD.

And having MORE THAN ONCE INDICATED THAT: I have long since grown weary of this "faces in Dealey Plaza" BULLxxxx, which some persist in !!

So be it. I and many others consider it a valuable pursuit, as I believe that photographic evidence has been established as invaluable in courts of law and elsewhere since the invention of photography.

Ron

[Tim Carroll]

I would like to eliminate Dealey Plaza lookalikes where possible by determining by whatever means where the actual people were.... I and many others consider it a valuable pursuit, as I believe that photographic evidence has been established as invaluable in courts of law and elsewhere since the invention of photography.

Of the look-alikes in photos of Dealey Plaza that day, which could be eliminated on Gerry Hemming's say-so? Thus far we know that he doesn't find a personally recognizable photo of anyone there....

T.C.

[Pat Speer]

Gerry, I may be in the minority here but I believe MOST of what you say. The one thing that puzzles me, though, is that there seems to be a lack of continuity in what you say. While I'm not the Hemmingologist (thank god) of your pal Weberman, I seem to remember your stating, over the years, that this man and that man, most commonly former associates of yourself, were in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. You now appear to be extremely dismissive of the possibility that any of your former associates in the anti-Castro community could have been involved. You've stated that you feel a lot of people were sent there to murk up the waters, etc.

Well, isn't establishing who sent people to Dallas one way of establishing who ACTUALLY DID IT? Have you ever looked at the photos yourself to try and determine who was there? Have you followed this up by asking these men who sent them? If not, why not? You are probably in the best position of anyone on this forum to help solve this thing, and yet you appear disinterested in this key aspect of the case.

One possible explanation is that you know who was there, and don't want to stir things up. Another possible explanation is that you don't care. There must be a third explanation but right now it escapes me.

[Nick Bartetzko]

Researchers of the assassination are sometimes "wacko's". Really, what sane person would spend hundreds of hours (and dollars) to pour over documents, track down and interview witnesses and pertinent parties to this blight on American history. It is amazing how much info has come to light over the last 40+ years through the efforts of private parties. Seems the only reason some of these folks (like Sibert, O'Neill etc) talked is because they were pestered by private parties or the AARB that came into existence because Stone's movie ticked off a lot of people. Too bad the government never had the integrity to look for the truth and advise the American public. Somehow, I think we could have handled the truth. I much appreciate Messrs Hemming and Plumlee,amomg others, who contribute their time here to pass along information, whether it is openly or cryptically done. Please try not to let the "wacko's" get under your skin. BTW, I like the stuff about the "faces in Dealey Plaza". It was because of the HSCA's interest in same that Mr Capehart became quite paranoid and "fessed up" to his lady friend and then the Fresno cops looked into the matter. Too bad he had a fatal heart attack when they were about to pay him a visit in Pahrump, which is famous for other clandestine activities as well. I can understand not wanting to finger anybody in the MI briefing, but I wonder if they wouldn't want to voluntarily share their stories if approached.

[Gerry Hemming]

Gerry, I may be in the minority here but I believe MOST of what you say. The one thing that puzzles me, though, is that there seems to be a lack of continuity in what you say. While I'm not the Hemmingologist (thank god) of your pal Weberman, I seem to remember your stating, over the years, that this man and that man, most commonly former associates of yourself, were in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. You now appear to be extremely dismissive of the possibility that any of your former associates in the anti-Castro community could have been involved. You've stated that you feel a lot of people were sent there to murk up the waters, etc.

Well, isn't establishing who sent people to Dallas one way of establishing who ACTUALLY DID IT? Have you ever looked at the photos yourself to try and determine who was there? Have you followed this up by asking these men who sent them? If not, why not? You are probably in the best position of anyone on this forum to help solve this thing, and yet you appear disinterested in this key aspect of the case.

One possible explanation is that you know who was there, and don't want to stir things up. Another possible explanation is that you don't care. There must be a third explanation but right now it escapes me.

--------------------------------

Pat:

I repeatedly testified under oath [and submitted sworn statements] that ONLY two persons known to me were in, or near Dealey Plaza, that afternoon.

One was Loran "Skip" Hall, and the other remains in U.S. Government service today, and is thereby under the protection and jurisdiction of: "The Intelligence Identities Act of 1982".

["The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" provides for the extradition of both U.S. and foreign nationals who might be charged under said "Act"]

As has been repeated hundreds of times, over and again: "I went to Bill Baggs office [Miami News] at approximately 2:17 PM that day [Miami Time]. I then used his office telephone to call: The late petroleum geologist Lester Logue. Logue informed me that Hall had been by his office the previous afternoon, seeking cash --and that he had given him "the-brush-off !!

I then advised Logue that I suspected that Hall had my scoped Johnson 30-06 cal. rifle, and that should he come knocking at Logues door, later that day, that it might well be to murder Logue. I suggested to Logue that he shoot through his door, and aim to blow his goddamn head off !!

I thereafter made several other calls to Texas, California, Arizona, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. !!

Chairs,

GPH

___________________________