Jump to content
The Education Forum

What happened in Dallas


Duke Lane

Recommended Posts

Tim,

Again you are looking at it in hindsight and puting history into perspective with real time of November of '63. Did any of the previous USSS protection details consider such a hit? If you look at them they did not or they would not have utilized an open limo. Kennedy referred to a nut with a rifle, not a professional military hit team. To this day, if professionals are called in and deployed at lets say an airfield or at a speaking engagement arrival, the chance of succeeding in a hit is pretty high.

Al

Why is it so difficult to engage in "debate" with someone who was so eager to do so over my "spouting long enough?" :lol:

RE (from two previous posts): "It was the planning of the exposure of the motorcade that allowed the assassination to happen. It is obvious. ... Do not look at this in hindsight, but instead consider what they feared after the Stevenson incident and the history of incidents that plagued these type of visits. ... You are all looking at this after-the-fact .... Even with [the use of the flying wedge with the motorcycle escort in Tampa], the elevation of the shooters would not have been effected [sic] by the motorcycle escorts if they would have been present as they were in Tampa and Berlin. The sharp turn from Houston to Elm was covered as far as normal security was considered as there were ample uniformed officers in the vicinity and the follow-up USSS car was in close proximity to challenge any ground attacks. ... Dealey Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63. If they were, then the route would have been changed ... There were no inconsistencies in DP from the previous security on the motorcade route. ... Once the limo entered DP, they could have added twenty more motorcycles and an additional fifty officers on the ground, the hit would still have went off if that was what they wanted. Trust me, it was not that difficult under the circumstances. The most difficult part was fleeing the scene undetected."

I always worry when someone says "trust me!"

A "history" of incidents that "plagued" visits of this "type?" Could you expand on that beyond the Adlai Stevenson visit? Was there a similar occurence when, for example, Kennedy came to Dallas to visit House Speaker Sam Rayburn at Baylor Hospital? What other incidents do you mean? One would think that if there was indeed such a "history," everyone including both DPD and USSS would be on heightened, not diminished alert. Violence "plagued" the visits of dignitaries, so everyone "feared" spitballs and rotten tomatoes? More on this "plague," please.

At the very least, USSS was fully aware of the Miami and Chicago deals and could have easily led DPD to "beef it up a little" without telling them the specifics. Advance men Lawson and Grant were part of the White House Detail, not field agents: it might be understandable, in light of past "communications failures" (as Al so quaintly put it), that maybe Dallas SAIC Sorrels wasn't appraised of the other cities' problems, but to suggest that WHD had "no idea" (and didn't want to "alarm" their "primary ground security" with that information!) sounds pretty implausible. You will also recall that Lawson was fairly high up on the USSS food chain and in the "need to know" bracket.

USSS also participated in briefings with DPD officials, including on the night of November 21 at DPD HQ. Presumably, security arrangements were discussed and, if found lacking, either Lawson and/or Grant spoke up about it or they didn't. If they did call any laxities to DPD's attention, then DPD apparently ignored it; if they didn't, then there is either a larger problem involving USSS, or collusion between the two.

According both to the Lunday/Lawrence report and the testimonies of both Lawrence and Chief Curry, DPD had planned on putting more solo motorcycles around the limousine, but were told by Lawson and Grant that Kennedy "didn't want" such tight security, and that they, themselves, felt that just four motorcycles - two at the front and two at the rear, both outboard of the front and rear wheels, leaving the passenger compartment fully exposed - was "adequate." As has been pointed out already, what "Kennedy wanted" didn't hold sway in Fort Worth earlier in the day, i.e., after USSS told DPD what wasn't going to happen.

As far as "normal security" in DP and any "inconsistencies from previous security" elsewhere on the motorcade route, Al you're just plain flat-out wrong. I covered this in my original post: at every single intersection coming down Main, there was one man on foot and one man mounted (solo or 3-wheel motorcycle). The officers in DP were only on foot; the only motorcycles were in the escort, and they only supplemented previous duty stations, they did not take the place of it. From Elm & Houston onward to the Trade Mart, "security" was only on top of bridges and catwalks, and could not react to - much less prevent - anything going on at ground level.

That an "additional fifty officers on the ground" wouldn't have made any difference is highly debatable. Would the additional manpower have been able to more adequately cover the parking lot and other areas of the plaza? One would certainly think they could have! Throughout the rest of the parade route, part of the consideration was officers' ability to respond to any threats, real or perceived; once the motorcade entered DP, that consideration seems to have vanished since, as I and others have already pointed out, officers on foot and on top of bridges were effectively hamstrung in their ability to respond to anything at ground level. Likewise, so few of them (two, one not even facing DP) could hardly have covered as much ground as there is above the roadway.

As to what the security considerations were in 1963 ("Dealey Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63"), how would you know? I sincerely doubt that was part of any of your training ("okay, now that we've told you how to deal with the USSS during a presidential visit, let's now cover what we were looking for in 1963 and 1948 and 1980, too"). As others have pointed out, sniper attacks were not uncommon at that time (DeGaulle, et al.); you're saying that PRS dismissed the possibility and didn't do anything to counter them? (Maybe they happened only in Europe ... like conspiracies only happen in "banana republics!") That the route wasn't changed is far from "proof" of this theory of yours.

Even so, this sounds more like an excuse than a reality. In fact, this whole business of everybody doing their best but, gee whiz, their best just wasn't good enough and who should have expected it to be (I mean, who could've known? Who might've expected? There was nothing anybody could have done. Nobody could realistically have expected them to have stopped it. It was a done deal, it was going to happen no matter what) sounds much more like a batch of excuses than any kind of "defense." You've effectively moved your position from "USSS relies heavily on local LE for security" to "USSS needs traffic cops when in town."

(Incidentally, as an aside, I think that the use of the term "third-stringers" is improper at best: that Kellerman was the third in charge does not make him lesser player, merely outranked by (just) two people. This also put him "above" scores of others. Being third in charge doesn't make you "third-rate," you're still pretty damned good! This isn't a sports team, folks! You cannot always have "the boss" being in charge as that would tend to exhaust him (or her) and never give subordinates - who would at some point presumably become "the boss" - any experience. That the HMFIC's weren't "in charge" that weekend is only significant because of what happened.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lt. Carrier KNOWS of what he speaks. He is NOT defending the USSS, DPD, DCSO, MI, US Army CIC, or the YMCA; nor anybody else who has been blatantly accused of complicity in the JFK "Hit" !!

Actually, Gerry, that is exactly what he purports to be doing! See the quote of his post to me at the beginning of this thread:

I will ... respond in defense of the the Dallas PD from security prior to and during the assassination, the aftermath of the assassination and scene security, and the execution of Oswald.

Too many "self-styled" researchers/investigators?? are nothing more than filthy rumor-mongers; who have absolutely NO regard for the personal reputations or integrity of ANY alleged "suspects?" nor their families !!

... That said, I would NOT be shocked to find that: There indeed were one or more persons, who, previously having been "highly placed" in government circles, opted (or was coerced) into giving an assist to the those shooters who participated in the "MULTIPLE" assassination schemes during that November of 1963.

(Ahem!) Should we be mindful of their reputations and integrity as well?

Anyone who is de minimus conversant with tradecraft -- would have immediately noticed the "professional" skills exhibited with the selection of Dealey Plaza, the TSBD, and its environs. The same professional criteria is obvious with the selection of Oswald "safe-houses" in the Dallas suburds. It is quite obvious that this was done "for" LHO, and NOT by Oswald.

Red Flags went up over 40+ years ago, when experts perused the very obvious "signatures" left by the Intel operator(s) selections: The necessities of a rear entrance or a side alley; a nearby park or semi-forested area; a nearby library (needed for "dead-drops"); that the front of the house is situated with an intersection which precludes "spotter vehicles" from any casual/routine parking for stake-outs; etc., and etc. !!

As Lt. Carrier so "politely" attempts to tutor: NO assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary. What is necessary for targeting by a "skilled" rifleman? -- his "personal" plan.

... Uppermost in the planning of "non-Kamikaze" assassins is: The 'E & E" Plan. "Escape and Evasion" seems to be a critical factor in one's surviving long enough to collect one's rewards.

... Will somebody please grow some brains, and get off of the current disinformation campaign, every skilled in this research recognizes it as a continuation of the very same scheme -- which began even LONG before JFK's arrival in Texas.

Chairs,

GPH

Just for curiosity, how would you rate the effectiveness of killing a cop being part of an E&E plan? While I agree that "no assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary," that hardly precludes its happening ... and being welcomed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim and Al,

You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.

It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip.

How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day?

Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

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

Mark:

You no doubt missed the Secret Service "Report" [uSSS/PR Post-Incident Analysis -1964] wherein the driving instructors ["Executive/Security/Protective-Research" Offensive/Defensive Course of Instruction] at MCB Quantico, VA (now at Glynco, GA) stated:

ALL "Executive Protection" drivers were taught to drive with both hands in a specific position, and place their left foot "lightly" on the brake pedal; while simultaneously using their right foot to control the pressure on the accelerator pedal.

During the subsequent series of intense testing, it was found that when a driver "turned" (or "shifted") his body [in order to observe something to the rear, and over his RIGHT shoulder]; this caused an automatic reflex straightening and stiffening of the LEFT leg; which immediately applied a positive pressure on the brake pedal.

The more the "turning/shifting" of the upper torso by the driver, was the resultant and corrresponding increase in the brake pedal pressure. During every test, with ALL vehicles and drivers tested; it was observed that: This amount of brake pedal pressure either "Slowed" the vehicle dramatically and/or brought the vehicle to a sudden, and unanticipated "STOP" !!

Fortunately, one of our UK researchers made a copy of said report before it was pulled from the N.A.R.A. box, and "re-classified" !!

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim and Al, You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.
I believe that the subhead on this topic is, "Was "security" adequate or not?"

With regard to staying on point, I consider the status of SOP for the SS at that time to be relevant. As Al has pointed out, many changes have been made as a result of Dallas, but that's the result of hindsight. I question how our own military could have been developing assassination capablities for which our own protective services weren't correspondingly preparing.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some remarkable and important deviations from standard procedures particular to that day. I find the film of Rybka being left at the airport very disturbing, and the last-minute rearrangement of the motorcade line-up, as seen by the misnumbered labels on the vehicles, is also more than worthy of note.

But this is a discussional forum, not a graduate seminar, and sometimes communications meander around a topic more loosely than might be preferred by a proctor. I consider the issue of SS preparedness for the kind of hit being developed by the military to be germaine to whether or not security was adequate.

T.C.

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim and Al,

You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.

It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip.

How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day?

Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

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

Mark:

You no doubt missed the Secret Service "Report" [uSSS/PR Post-Incident Analysis -1964] wherein the driving instructors ["Executive/Security/Protective-Research" Offensive/Defensive Course of Instruction] at MCB Quantico, VA (now at Glynco, GA) stated:

ALL "Executive Protection" drivers were taught to drive with both hands in a specific position, and place their left foot "lightly" on the brake pedal; while simultaneously using their right foot to control the pressure on the accelerator pedal.

During the subsequent series of intense testing, it was found that when a driver "turned" (or "shifted") his body [in order to observe something to the rear, and over his RIGHT shoulder]; this caused an automatic reflex straightening and stiffening of the LEFT leg; which immediately applied a positive pressure on the brake pedal.

The more the "turning/shifting" of the upper torso by the driver, was the resultant and corrresponding increase in the brake pedal pressure. During every test, with ALL vehicles and drivers tested; it was observed that: This amount of brake pedal pressure either "Slowed" the vehicle dramatically and/or brought the vehicle to a sudden, and unanticipated "STOP" !!

Fortunately, one of our UK researchers made a copy of said report before it was pulled from the N.A.R.A. box, and "re-classified" !!

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Gerry,

What does the manual say the driver should do when faced with a volley of shots from an unknown source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim and Al,

You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.

It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip.

How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day?

Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

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

Mark:

You no doubt missed the Secret Service "Report" [uSSS/PR Post-Incident Analysis -1964] wherein the driving instructors ["Executive/Security/Protective-Research" Offensive/Defensive Course of Instruction] at MCB Quantico, VA (now at Glynco, GA) stated:

ALL "Executive Protection" drivers were taught to drive with both hands in a specific position, and place their left foot "lightly" on the brake pedal; while simultaneously using their right foot to control the pressure on the accelerator pedal.

During the subsequent series of intense testing, it was found that when a driver "turned" (or "shifted") his body [in order to observe something to the rear, and over his RIGHT shoulder]; this caused an automatic reflex straightening and stiffening of the LEFT leg; which immediately applied a positive pressure on the brake pedal.

The more the "turning/shifting" of the upper torso by the driver, was the resultant and corrresponding increase in the brake pedal pressure. During every test, with ALL vehicles and drivers tested; it was observed that: This amount of brake pedal pressure either "Slowed" the vehicle dramatically and/or brought the vehicle to a sudden, and unanticipated "STOP" !!

Fortunately, one of our UK researchers made a copy of said report before it was pulled from the N.A.R.A. box, and "re-classified" !!

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Gerry,

What does the manual say the driver should do when faced with a volley of shots from an unknown source?

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

The S.O.P. during "1963" (and thoroughly revised since) was that:

[1] All vehicle-borne agents would insure that the "Executive(s)" would be immediately rushed out of the "Threat-Zone", and thereupon they would be tasked to run interference for the "Primary", guaranteeing his arrival at a pre-designated "Rally-Point". [said Rally-point would be a safe distance from the "event" or the "threat" -- and usually was a pre-secured series of buildings along the route of travel.];

[2] NO vehicle-borne agents were permitted to return fire, or engage in a fire-fight, nor dismount from the vehicles to apprehend suspects, or even "actual shooters";

[3] NO vehicle borne agents were permitted to fire upon an actual shooter, that is: until said shooter (after firing) had already gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)", and there existed no other recourse;

[4] Since ALL crowd control police officers are instructed to always face away from a motorcade, the only time the order would be given to "take-out" a uniformed shooter (actual or police imposter), would again be: Only if the shooter gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)"; and,

[5] Since 1963 (and the passage of the 25th Amendment) the Vice-President is taken to a separate and secure "Rally- Point" -- as are the President "Pro Tem" of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House; wherever they might be located at the time of the attack !!

When we were involved in private agency "Executive Protection" (and the rare Diplomat protection) we were always armed with suppressed/silenced weapons. Moreover, when we trained foreign nation protective agents, we began our course of instruction thus:

[A] If the "good guys" are making (unsilenced) loud noises by discharging their weapons in defense, then it is usually very difficult to target the "bad guy's" shooting positions;

The "Customer(s)" (and their accompanying children and/or families) tend to get upset if the "good guys" are blasting off rounds right next to their ears -- and sometimes this causes folks to panic, and run away from the safety of either vehiles -- or pre-designated shelters; and,

[C] Absent hostile bullets impacting near the "Customer(s), there have been instances where the "Executive(s)" remained ignorant of having been involved in a fire-fight -- and actually complained about their being pushed and shoved to those very points of safety or the vehicles !!

Chairs,

GPH

___________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim and Al,

You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.

It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip.

How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day?

Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

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

Mark:

You no doubt missed the Secret Service "Report" [uSSS/PR Post-Incident Analysis -1964] wherein the driving instructors ["Executive/Security/Protective-Research" Offensive/Defensive Course of Instruction] at MCB Quantico, VA (now at Glynco, GA) stated:

ALL "Executive Protection" drivers were taught to drive with both hands in a specific position, and place their left foot "lightly" on the brake pedal; while simultaneously using their right foot to control the pressure on the accelerator pedal.

During the subsequent series of intense testing, it was found that when a driver "turned" (or "shifted") his body [in order to observe something to the rear, and over his RIGHT shoulder]; this caused an automatic reflex straightening and stiffening of the LEFT leg; which immediately applied a positive pressure on the brake pedal.

The more the "turning/shifting" of the upper torso by the driver, was the resultant and corrresponding increase in the brake pedal pressure. During every test, with ALL vehicles and drivers tested; it was observed that: This amount of brake pedal pressure either "Slowed" the vehicle dramatically and/or brought the vehicle to a sudden, and unanticipated "STOP" !!

Fortunately, one of our UK researchers made a copy of said report before it was pulled from the N.A.R.A. box, and "re-classified" !!

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Gerry,

What does the manual say the driver should do when faced with a volley of shots from an unknown source?

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

The S.O.P. during "1963" (and thoroughly revised since) was that:

[1] All vehicle-borne agents would insure that the "Executive(s)" would be immediately rushed out of the "Threat-Zone", and thereupon they would be tasked to run interference for the "Primary", guaranteeing his arrival at a pre-designated "Rally-Point". [said Rally-point would be a safe distance from the "event" or the "threat" -- and usually was a pre-secured series of buildings along the route of travel.];

[2] NO vehicle-borne agents were permitted to return fire, or engage in a fire-fight, nor dismount from the vehicles to apprehend suspects, or even "actual shooters";

[3] NO vehicle borne agents were permitted to fire upon an actual shooter, that is: until said shooter (after firing) had already gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)", and there existed no other recourse;

[4] Since ALL crowd control police officers are instructed to always face away from a motorcade, the only time the order would be given to "take-out" a uniformed shooter (actual or police imposter), would again be: Only if the shooter gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)"; and,

[5] Since 1963 (and the passage of the 25th Amendment) the Vice-President is taken to a separate and secure "Rally- Point" -- as are the President "Pro Tem" of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House; wherever they might be located at the time of the attack !!

When we were involved in private agency "Executive Protection" (and the rare Diplomat protection) we were always armed with suppressed/silenced weapons. Moreover, when we trained foreign nation protective agents, we began our course of instruction thus:

[A] If the "good guys" are making (unsilenced) loud noises by discharging their weapons in defense, then it is usually very difficult to target the "bad guy's" shooting positions;

The "Customer(s)" (and their accompanying children and/or families) tend to get upset if the "good guys" are blasting off rounds right next to their ears -- and sometimes this causes folks to panic, and run away from the safety of either vehiles -- or pre-designated shelters; and,

[C] Absent hostile bullets impacting near the "Customer(s), there have been instances where the "Executive(s)" remained ignorant of having been involved in a fire-fight -- and actually complained about their being pushed and shoved to those very points of safety or the vehicles !!

Chairs,

GPH

___________________________

Gerry,

Thanks for that. It seems that Bill Greer didn't follow the manual's instructions too well. The Executives(s) weren't immediately rushed out of the threat zone. The key word being "immediately". Roy Kellerman ordered him to do this but he delayed--only for a second or two--but that was all it took.

This doesn't necessarily mean he was part of any conspiracy--whether or not he could have prevented JFK from recieving the head shot is a matter for conjecture--but his performance was poor. That's a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

The use of the term second and third stringers might be somewhat derogatory, but it is the best way to describe the fact that the "A" team wasn't on the ground that day. I feel very sorry for the late Roy Kellerman. It seems he was dropped by others into a most unfortunate situation over which he had little control. To his credit, he told the WC that a "flurry of shots" were endured by the Presidential limo, rather than only three shots being claimed by those rigidly following the script.

Do you know anything of Tom Shipman, the USSS limo driver who died, reportedly of a heart attack, on October 14, 1963 while on protection duty at Camp David, Maryland? Nothing overtly suspicious about that. However, Palamara stated that while researching more information about this, he discovered that the Secret Service had destroyed the Presidential survey reports and travel logs pertaining to this matter in January 1995, at the same time as the ARRB was drafting a request for additional information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

The use of the term second and third stringers might be somewhat derogatory, but it is the best way to describe the fact that the "A" team wasn't on the ground that day. I feel very sorry for the late Roy Kellerman. It seems he was dropped by others into a most unfortunate situation over which he had little control. To his credit, he told the WC that a "flurry of shots" were endured by the Presidential limo, rather than only three shots being claimed by those rigidly following the script.

Do you know anything of Tom Shipman, the USSS limo driver who died, reportedly of a heart attack, on October 14, 1963 while on protection duty at Camp David, Maryland? Nothing overtly suspicious about that. However, Palamara stated that while researching more information about this, he discovered that the Secret Service had destroyed the Presidential survey reports and travel logs pertaining to this matter in January 1995, at the same time as the ARRB was drafting a request for additional information.

See page 149 of the ARRB Final Report: In January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy's trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them." The report continues on to say that USSS explained their rationale for this destruction both in writing and by oral briefing to the Board. I haven't seen this, so can't comment on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dealy Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63.

I thought that a military-type sniper hit was on most people's minds in November 1963. There were the OAS plots against deGaulle (Day of the Jackal scenario), and Kennedy himself had described precisely this type of assassination that very morning in Forth Worth.

T.C.

Tim,

Again you are looking at it in hindsight and puting history into perspective with real time of November of '63. Did any of the previous USSS protection details consider such a hit? If you look at them they did not or they would not have utilized an open limo. Kennedy referred to a nut with a rifle, not a professional military hit team. To this day, if professionals are called in and deployed at lets say an airfield or at a speaking engagement arrival, the chance of succeeding in a hit is pretty high.

Al

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

Lt. Carrier KNOWS of what he speaks. He is NOT defending the USSS, DPD, DCSO, MI, US Army CIC, or the YMCA; nor anybody else who has been blatantly accused of complicity in the JFK "Hit" !!

The current campaign to have the Barrett .50 calibre "Long-Range Sniper Rifle" included in new rule-making

proceedings by the BATF component of the Dept. of Homeland Security speaks volumes.

[see: "The Federal Administrative Procedures Act" - annotated Rulemaking Cases, Administrative Law Reports & the C.F.R. - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html (Code of Federal Regulations)]

The first Hollywood film that showed the unique effectiveness of the "Barrett" was: "Navy Seals", and starred Charlie Sheen, Biehn, et al. !! "60-Minutes" and some other programs have hysterically focused their "sights" against this weapon; as have some Democrat politicians and "Gun Control" activists.

One TV segment showed a politician standing near Pennsylvania and Constitution, and with the Capitol Building at his back, he expounded upon the reality that: A shooter could easily hit a target sited at either end or even the middle of said streets, and target that building or the White House !!

However, and whether it be a Barrett of 2005 -- or a "National Match" M-14 (NATO 7.62 mm) of 1963; there is absolutely NO defense against a "well-trained military sniper". The skills necessary for hide-site selection, angles of fire, lighting, windage, mirage, parallax, tracking, etc. are NOT those readily acquired by an amateur "Rifleman".

[Take note of exactly how many times a rifle has been used in ANY assassination (or attempt) in the history of the World ??!!]

The bald allegations and accusations of complicity by USSS or other law enforcement entities goes beyond the pale. That some "wing-nuts" have pointed the finger at Kellerman and Greer is scandalous, to say the least. That some "Puke" scribbled a worthless & gossipy "book?" -- about the accidental discharge of one SS agent's "M-16" (in a "tailback" vehicle); that having caused any of JFK's wounds is outrageous.

Too many "self-styled" researchers/investigators?? are nothing more than filthy rumor-mongers; who have absolutely NO regard for the personal reputations or integrity of ANY alleged "suspects?" nor their families !!

[ALL that is required is: That "NEW" names surface concurrent with one newly emerging event of note; such as -- "Watergate", or the "Soviet Agitprop Christic RICO lawsuit", etc., and etc. -- ad nauseum !!]

That said, I would NOT be shocked to find that: There indeed were one or more persons, who, previously having been "highly placed" in government circles, opted (or was coerced) into giving an assist to the those shooters who participated in the "MULTIPLE" assassination schemes during that November of 1963.

Anyone who is de minimus conversant with tradecraft -- would have immediately noticed the "professional" skills exhibited with the selection of Dealey Plaza, the TSBD, and its environs. The same professional criteria is obvious with the selection of Oswald "safe-houses in the Dallas suburds. It is quite obvious that this was done "for" LHO, and NOT by Oswald.

Red Flags went up over 40+ years ago, when experts perused the very obvious "signatures" left by the Intel operator(s) selections: The necessities of a rear entrance or a side alley; a nearby park or semi-forested area; a nearby library (needed for "dead-drops"); that the front of the house is situated with an intersection wich precludes "spotter vehicles" from any casual/routine parking for stake-outs; etc., and etc. !!

As Lt. Carrier so "politely" attempts to tutor: NO assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary. What is necessary for targeting by a "skilled" rifleman? -- his "personal" plan.

The "Sponsor" provides ALL that which is needed in order to place the target within a prescribed "killing zone" !!

Once the target enters ANY of the previously selected "MULTIPLE KILLING ZONES/WINDOWS" -- THAT TARGET IS DEAD MEAT !!

ENOUGH of this hundreds of "suspects?"bullxxxx disinformation spiel, ranting ever onward with all of this crap about "faces-in-the-crowd", "traitors-from-within" !! Oliver Stone hired us to "Plan" the assassination of an executive target, and we crawled all over EVERY building in the area; showing Stone and his crew exactly what goes into the kill zone-selection, hide-site(s) selection, and "E & E" Plan.

Uppermost in the planning of "non-Kamikaze" assassins is: The 'E & E" Plan. "Escape and Evasion" seems to be a critical factor in one's surviving long enough to collect one's rewards.

LHO didn't "bring a knife to a gunfight" -- he didn't bring anything at all !! Had he wanted to commit "suicide-by-cop", he wouldn't have left his snub-nose revolver at home. I have strong doubts that he ever possessed any weapon whatsoever. And rarest of the rare -- he risks self-defeating the singular opportunity at "15 Centuries-of-Fame"; by DENYING THE WHOLE GODDAMN THING ??!!

That he would even contemplate the use of an "EYETIE" throw-down & surrender rifle, or a worthless piece of xxxx "2 inch barreled" revolver, especially when for & $7 more, he could have purchased a semi-auto pistol -- and one very similar to the Colt .45 cal. pistol we Marines are ALL trained with at 'Boot Camp" !!

Once again, we have that most unique of alleged "fanatical assassins". One who fails to make the "head-on" shot [because the "sniper's nest" is a wet-dream]; then carries the still loaded rifle all the way across the "6th Floor??", taking TIME to hide it, runs down the stairway (and now unarmed), calmly exits the TSBD from the FRONT door, catches a bus, and then a taxi -- back to his "safe-house". He then allegedly takes a circuitous/deviated/detour (walking?) route from there to the site of later arrest -- a "THEATER" !!

Will somebody please grow some brains, and get off of the current disinformation campaign, every skilled in this research recognizes it as a continuation of the very same scheme -- which began even LONG before JFK's arrival in Texas.

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Mr. Patrick,

Although we are at odds at many issues of the sixties, you have nailed it down as well as it could be. You obviously know me and your respect to my posting is appreciated. I could not have worded it any better than you have.

My question to you is were you ever affiliated or have knowlege of the activities of AKA Bobby Leon'?

Also, in my posting to Tosh and the photos taken at the Americana Hotel at Puerto Limon in '81, do you know the identity of the anglo?

I will support your posting 100% that if the perps in the assault knows the agenda of the target, the likelihood of suceeding in eliminating the target is almost assured, and the escape of the assassins is equally assured. The target allows the ease of the success and escape. This is old school and no protective paln can diminish it's success.

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dealy Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63.

I thought that a military-type sniper hit was on most people's minds in November 1963. There were the OAS plots against deGaulle (Day of the Jackal scenario), and Kennedy himself had described precisely this type of assassination that very morning in Forth Worth.

T.C.

Tim,

Again you are looking at it in hindsight and puting history into perspective with real time of November of '63. Did any of the previous USSS protection details consider such a hit? If you look at them they did not or they would not have utilized an open limo. Kennedy referred to a nut with a rifle, not a professional military hit team. To this day, if professionals are called in and deployed at lets say an airfield or at a speaking engagement arrival, the chance of succeeding in a hit is pretty high.

Al

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

Lt. Carrier KNOWS of what he speaks. He is NOT defending the USSS, DPD, DCSO, MI, US Army CIC, or the YMCA; nor anybody else who has been blatantly accused of complicity in the JFK "Hit" !!

The current campaign to have the Barrett .50 calibre "Long-Range Sniper Rifle" included in new rule-making

proceedings by the BATF component of the Dept. of Homeland Security speaks volumes.

[see: "The Federal Administrative Procedures Act" - annotated Rulemaking Cases, Administrative Law Reports & the C.F.R. - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html (Code of Federal Regulations)]

The first Hollywood film that showed the unique effectiveness of the "Barrett" was: "Navy Seals", and starred Charlie Sheen, Biehn, et al. !! "60-Minutes" and some other programs have hysterically focused their "sights" against this weapon; as have some Democrat politicians and "Gun Control" activists.

One TV segment showed a politician standing near Pennsylvania and Constitution, and with the Capitol Building at his back, he expounded upon the reality that: A shooter could easily hit a target sited at either end or even the middle of said streets, and target that building or the White House !!

However, and whether it be a Barrett of 2005 -- or a "National Match" M-14 (NATO 7.62 mm) of 1963; there is absolutely NO defense against a "well-trained military sniper". The skills necessary for hide-site selection, angles of fire, lighting, windage, mirage, parallax, tracking, etc. are NOT those readily acquired by an amateur "Rifleman".

[Take note of exactly how many times a rifle has been used in ANY assassination (or attempt) in the history of the World ??!!]

The bald allegations and accusations of complicity by USSS or other law enforcement entities goes beyond the pale. That some "wing-nuts" have pointed the finger at Kellerman and Greer is scandalous, to say the least. That some "Puke" scribbled a worthless & gossipy "book?" -- about the accidental discharge of one SS agent's "M-16" (in a "tailback" vehicle); that having caused any of JFK's wounds is outrageous.

Too many "self-styled" researchers/investigators?? are nothing more than filthy rumor-mongers; who have absolutely NO regard for the personal reputations or integrity of ANY alleged "suspects?" nor their families !!

[ALL that is required is: That "NEW" names surface concurrent with one newly emerging event of note; such as -- "Watergate", or the "Soviet Agitprop Christic RICO lawsuit", etc., and etc. -- ad nauseum !!]

That said, I would NOT be shocked to find that: There indeed were one or more persons, who, previously having been "highly placed" in government circles, opted (or was coerced) into giving an assist to the those shooters who participated in the "MULTIPLE" assassination schemes during that November of 1963.

Anyone who is de minimus conversant with tradecraft -- would have immediately noticed the "professional" skills exhibited with the selection of Dealey Plaza, the TSBD, and its environs. The same professional criteria is obvious with the selection of Oswald "safe-houses in the Dallas suburds. It is quite obvious that this was done "for" LHO, and NOT by Oswald.

Red Flags went up over 40+ years ago, when experts perused the very obvious "signatures" left by the Intel operator(s) selections: The necessities of a rear entrance or a side alley; a nearby park or semi-forested area; a nearby library (needed for "dead-drops"); that the front of the house is situated with an intersection wich precludes "spotter vehicles" from any casual/routine parking for stake-outs; etc., and etc. !!

As Lt. Carrier so "politely" attempts to tutor: NO assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary. What is necessary for targeting by a "skilled" rifleman? -- his "personal" plan.

The "Sponsor" provides ALL that which is needed in order to place the target within a prescribed "killing zone" !!

Once the target enters ANY of the previously selected "MULTIPLE KILLING ZONES/WINDOWS" -- THAT TARGET IS DEAD MEAT !!

ENOUGH of this hundreds of "suspects?"bullxxxx disinformation spiel, ranting ever onward with all of this crap about "faces-in-the-crowd", "traitors-from-within" !! Oliver Stone hired us to "Plan" the assassination of an executive target, and we crawled all over EVERY building in the area; showing Stone and his crew exactly what goes into the kill zone-selection, hide-site(s) selection, and "E & E" Plan.

Uppermost in the planning of "non-Kamikaze" assassins is: The 'E & E" Plan. "Escape and Evasion" seems to be a critical factor in one's surviving long enough to collect one's rewards.

LHO didn't "bring a knife to a gunfight" -- he didn't bring anything at all !! Had he wanted to commit "suicide-by-cop", he wouldn't have left his snub-nose revolver at home. I have strong doubts that he ever possessed any weapon whatsoever. And rarest of the rare -- he risks self-defeating the singular opportunity at "15 Centuries-of-Fame"; by DENYING THE WHOLE GODDAMN THING ??!!

That he would even contemplate the use of an "EYETIE" throw-down & surrender rifle, or a worthless piece of xxxx "2 inch barreled" revolver, especially when for & $7 more, he could have purchased a semi-auto pistol -- and one very similar to the Colt .45 cal. pistol we Marines are ALL trained with at 'Boot Camp" !!

Once again, we have that most unique of alleged "fanatical assassins". One who fails to make the "head-on" shot [because the "sniper's nest" is a wet-dream]; then carries the still loaded rifle all the way across the "6th Floor??", taking TIME to hide it, runs down the stairway (and now unarmed), calmly exits the TSBD from the FRONT door, catches a bus, and then a taxi -- back to his "safe-house". He then allegedly takes a circuitous/deviated/detour (walking?) route from there to the site of later arrest -- a "THEATER" !!

Will somebody please grow some brains, and get off of the current disinformation campaign, every skilled in this research recognizes it as a continuation of the very same scheme -- which began even LONG before JFK's arrival in Texas.

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Mr. Patrick,

Although we are at odds at many issues of the sixties, you have nailed it down as well as it could be. You obviously know me and your respect to my posting is appreciated. I could not have worded it any better than you have.

My question to you is were you ever affiliated or have knowlege of the activities of AKA Bobby Leon'?

Also, in my posting to Tosh and the photos taken at the Americana Hotel at Puerto Limon in '81, do you know the identity of the anglo?

I will support your posting 100% that if the perps in the assault knows the agenda of the target, the likelihood of suceeding in eliminating the target is almost assured, and the escape of the assassins is equally assured. The target allows the ease of the success and escape. This is old school and no protective paln can diminish it's success.

Al

Al and Gerry,

Hate to intrude on this "love in", but seriously, isn't your explanation just a high falutin' crock?

Maybe I'm not sufficiently well versed in "protection speak" but my interpretation is that you feel that because "eliminating the target is almost assured" and "no protection plan can diminish it's success" then the serious deficiency in security in Dallas was irrelevant.

Ridiculous. It was carefully planned down to the smallest detail. The planners can't undertake such a high stakes gambit without a comprehensive plan. Presidential security was the first thing they would have discussed. The assassination wasn't a wild gamble undertaken without consideration of the Presidential security arrangements. Protection plans for the President had to be made "favorable" for the conspirators otherwise they wouldn't have risked it. A failed attempt would have increased the risk of exposure. Why? Because you've failed to get your man in the White House. You can't depend on enquiries being scuttled. It's a very uncertain outcome.

Security in Dallas was compromised. Face it. They weren't playing for pennies so why leave anything to chance? It's illogical.

The same argument could be used to explain away the DPD's performance in protecting Oswald. "We couldn't have protected him--he was going to die anyway". It's the same as saying, "tie him to a tree and we'll use him for target practise".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al and Gerry,

Hate to intrude on this "love in", but seriously, isn't your explanation just a high falutin' crock?

Maybe I'm not sufficiently well versed in "protection speak" but my interpretation is that you feel that because "eliminating the target is almost assured" and "no protection plan can diminish it's success" then the serious deficiency in security in Dallas was irrelevant.

Ridiculous. It was carefully planned down to the smallest detail. The planners can't undertake such a high stakes gambit without a comprehensive plan. Presidential security was the first thing they would have discussed. The assassination wasn't a wild gamble undertaken without consideration of the Presidential security arrangements. Protection plans for the President had to be made "favorable" for the conspirators otherwise they wouldn't have risked it. A failed attempt would have increased the risk of exposure. Why? Because you've failed to get your man in the White House. You can't depend on enquiries being scuttled. It's a very uncertain outcome.

Security in Dallas was compromised. Face it. They weren't playing for pennies so why leave anything to chance? It's illogical.

The same argument could be used to explain away the DPD's performance in protecting Oswald. "We couldn't have protected him--he was going to die anyway". It's the same as saying, "tie him to a tree and we'll use him for target practise".

Mark,

First of all, I find your "love in" comment offensive to say the least. You do not know me or Hemming and your rude behavior is uncalled for. I have earned my status through getting dirty and trying to educate and add to forum issues. This crap is one of the reasons I am hesitant to even post. I have been in law enforcement for almost 23 years and have worked more protective service details than you have likely read about. If I were to write a book on military operations of the early eighties, you would probably consider it fiction because you could not comprehend reality of what is going on in your own government.

If you would like to be civil and give me the respect of a stranger on the street, I will be happy to address your issues. Actually, I will bring you into reality that apparently from your posts you cannot conceive. Consider a slow moving open limo along a stretch of four to six deep onlookers with high buildings on each side and then say that the president was not at risk from the beginning. If you cannot fathom this, then I have nothing more to say to you. DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away, while still setting up the patsy.

If you think DPD was lax in security, get an in with a USSS Agent and ask him/her what kind of assistance they get on the average from local LE. The answer will scare you.

I have wasted enough time on this and still have not heard specific issues. Only generic and broad ramblings about the corrupt DPD and how they blew it. Get real and look at it from beginning to end. If that is possible.

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away, while still setting up the patsy.

__________________________________

I get it! If the Secret Service or local Law Enforcement (including Chief Curry, who turned the limo left at Houston and Main on the "practice run") had just realized that DP was such an "excellent killing zone" (not just because a former Marine who had "defected" to Russia was working in the same TSBD building that the open top limo would be passing by in a Reinhard Heydrich-type hairpin turn), and if the SS and the local LE had just realized that the layout and terrain and structures, etc in and around Dealy Plaza would make it so easy for an assassin or assassins to "walk away" after the hit, and that regardless of all of that, DP was just such a darn good killing zone because "it made the hit fairly easy," then maybe the local LE would have put more people on the ground in and around Dealy Plaza to prevent any such attempted hit, that is of course if they had realized that DP was such an excellent killing zone.

__________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand what Al and Gerry are saying, it's their point that, at ANY public appearance, NO chief executive is 100% safe from a DETERMINED assassin. And in Dealy Plaza, the key was that it was probably no LESS safe than at any other point in the motorcade; it just happened to be where the assassin(s) struck, and it was a successful assassination because the assassin(s) was/were able to escape.

Have I got that part straight?

A gunman in the window of ANY building along the motorcade route could've done what was done in DP; but in the more congested downtown area, escape and evasion of a shooter would've been more difficult, if I understand the arguments.

I'm beginning to agree that, in the planning stages, DP probably APPEARED to be safer than other places on the motorcade route BECAUSE there were fewer windows from which a shooter could strike, and BECAUSE the crowd was a bit less dense (no reference to intelligence intended).

So...did the DPD let their guard down in DP? Probably no more than anywhere else on the motorcade route. But because DP is where the assassination occurred, there will always be a lot of "could've-would've-should've" second-guessing going on.

And from what Al implies in his post, presidential security is probably a lot LESS secure than what we assume, even to this day...but it's the fact that we AREN'T privy to the info that a potential assassin might need, that assures the safety of the President...since we DON'T know where the weak points are, we the public naturally assume there AREN'T any...and these assumptions work in favor of those providing the security...because 100% security, 100% of the time, is in direct conflict with the term "public appearance."

Now, have I kinda/sorta got it, AL?

And, having lived thru the "Summer of Love," [1967, for the uninformed], I find the use of the term "love-in" in reference to Gerry and Al to be highly offensive as well, as I don't believe Al and Gerry have ever been together, in a park on a blanket, naked and stoned....egad, THAT's an offensive mental picture!!! [pass the mental floss, please...]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I have earned my status through getting dirty and trying to educate and add to forum issues. ...

... DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away, while still setting up the patsy.

If you think DPD was lax in security, get an in with a USSS Agent and ask him/her what kind of assistance they get on the average from local LE. The answer will scare you.

I have wasted enough time on this and still have not heard specific issues. Only generic and broad ramblings about the corrupt DPD and how they blew it. Get real and look at it from beginning to end. If that is possible.

Al

Let's do specifics, then:

1. You stated that "USSS relies heavily upon local LE for security," but you have downplayed "local LE's" responsibility for "security" as really being nothing more than crowd and traffic control. This is to explain why "local LE" presence was drastically reduced once the motorcade reached this "ideal kill zone" because crowd and traffic control -
vice
security - was no longer expected to be much of an issue. Which is it: "local LE" is "relie(d) upon heavily" for security, for mere traffic and crowd control (and
not
security), or really not much at all for anything except to keep USSS from playing traffic cop?

(Note Mayor Earle Cabell's statement that "all possible security precautions were taken between the Dallas Police and the Secret Service." This statement was echoed exactly by newscaster Bill Lord prior to the "abortive transfer" with respect to that operation: "all possible security precautions have been taken ... Extreme precautions have been taken." DPD themselves said in a statement that Kennedy was afforded "the most stringent security precautions in the city's history." None of these comments reflect "traffic and crowd control only.")

2. You cite the logistical impossibility of USSS watching each and every window along a parade route, especially through a downtown area with lots of tall buildings. It is likewise true that DPD was not told by USSS to watch windows either. You also noted that USSS, in a moving motorcade, depends upon the ability to accelerate out of a situation for security. Since they don't keep people on the ground, and if they don't
really
"rel(y) heavily on local LE for security," are you suggesting that this is the only means of actual security afforded a dignitary-protectee in a motorcade?

It seems to me that you first laid claim that local police acted as the "eyes and ears on the ground" (i.e., security), but when I pointed out that this "security" seems to have been lacking once Kennedy reached Dealey Plaza, you "defended" DPD by backpedaling and saying that really, they were only there for traffic and crowd control, not to provide any real security function, hence it's perfectly plausible why there were no longer any men on the ground (rather than atop bridges) or mounted officers capable of speeds greater than running (other than the motorcade escorts, who were told not to break formation "no matter what happens" ... meaning that they, too, were not intended to act as any kind of "security" either).

(The actual quote is: "Why was there insufficient numbers of DPD throughout Dealey Plaza? Because once they made their turn onto Elm, the crowds were significantly minimal and closed off, so the need for ground security was minimal if not altogether not needed.")

You stated that you "have been a grunt in motorcade route security, airport detail security, site arrival and site stating security, and motorcycle security where (you) have been a scout and lead car driver (and) been in charge of airport security and motorcade security," all of which belies your thesis that DPD was only to have provided crowd and traffic control ... or are you really saying that you've directed traffic and held back the crowd at all of these locations? Somehow I don't think so.

Your further statement that "DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away" suggests that nobody recognized this about the place (well, apparently somebody did ... just not on the "security" side of the equation!). Does this equate with the idea that DPD was for crowd control only, and that nobody did or was supposed to evaluate the route from that perspective?

You've also not explained your reference to "the history of incidents that plagued these type of visits" (in conjunction with the Adlai Stevenson problem). Can you expand on that?

I appreciate that you have earned your "status through getting dirty and trying to educate and add to forum issues," but you seem to be requiring that people ask the right questions first (and in the proper manner) before you can respond, and so far what responses you've made seem to be contradictory to your original assertions. You seem to "defend" DPD by saying that they really weren't supposed to do all the things that they seemingly should have and even claim to have done! Can you please clear up the muddle so we can all understand what it is you're really trying to say?

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

×
×
  • Create New...