Did the limo slow down or speed up on the Z-film?

[Chris Newton]

Per Military SOP the correct action when ambushed in a moving convoy is to accelerate out of the ambush area. This is true today in Iraq just as it was in 1963. Depending on the circumstances, the ambushed party can then re-group and counter attack, hold and wait for reinforcements or retreat.

SS Agents should, at the very least, show as much common sense as any Army PFC driving a jeep. I don't know any good excuse for slowing down to a stop or near stop. I find it hard to believe there isn't an SOP for when a presidential limo is attacked. Greer was either incompetent or complicit.

[Al Carrier]

Per Military SOP the correct action when ambushed in a moving convoy is to accelerate out of the ambush area. This is true today in Iraq just as it was in 1963. Depending on the circumstances, the ambushed party can then re-group and counter attack, hold and wait for reinforcements or retreat.

SS Agents should, at the very least, show as much common sense as any Army PFC driving a jeep. I don't know any good excuse for slowing down to a stop or near stop. I find it hard to believe there isn't an SOP for when a presidential limo is attacked. Greer was either incompetent or complicit.

Chris,

Let's be fair to Greer first of all. When was the last time prior to Dallas '63 when their was a realistic attempt on a President? Was the DPD or the USSS prepared for a sniper assault on the President given the conditions of the motorcade that day? Can you understand how Greer would have hesitated when shots rang out from multiple origins and how he could have feared driving into an ambush? Can you appreciate how Greer would have slowed the limo subconsiously when he looked over his shoulder to see what was going on in the passenger compartment?

The limo did not stop. Where many reported that it did was those farther back in the motorcade. With the limo slowing, the cars behind would have to react to the reduction in speed and the farther back the slower the reaction and those would have come to a stop as they reacted to the slowing and stopping in front of them.

Al

[Bill Miller]

Greer's job was simple: Hit the gas if anything bad starts happening. Instead he hit the brake and slowed the limo suddenly, according to Nobel phyics guy Alvarez among others. As a consequence of Greer's action, we see what we see in Zapruder frame 313.

In the old West - the Indians would attack with their backs to the sun because it made them harder to see to the enemy. At the time of the shooting, Greer had the limo pointed right into the direction of the sun and people on the underpass were probably little more than silhouettes against the high Dallas sky as viewed through his windshield. Once Greer was aware that shots had been fired because by Z255/Altgens #6 he appears unaware to danger at that time ... he had just a few brief seconds to pinpoint where the danger was coming from. Altgens #6 shows several people in that area unaware of shots being fired by that time. Charles Brehm is clapping and Ralph Yarborough is still smiling.

Had the shooter of been on the overpass, Greer would have only made the President more vunerable by continuing west without an agent over the passengers, so giving Clint Hill a chance to catch up and mount the limo was the best move Greer could have made under the circumstances IMO.

Bill

[Len Colby]

Per Military SOP the correct action when ambushed in a moving convoy is to accelerate out of the ambush area. This is true today in Iraq just as it was in 1963. Depending on the circumstances, the ambushed party can then re-group and counter attack, hold and wait for reinforcements or retreat.

SS Agents should, at the very least, show as much common sense as any Army PFC driving a jeep. I don't know any good excuse for slowing down to a stop or near stop. I find it hard to believe there isn't an SOP for when a presidential limo is attacked. Greer was either incompetent or complicit.

Chris,

Let's be fair to Greer first of all. When was the last time prior to Dallas '63 when their was a realistic attempt on a President? Was the DPD or the USSS prepared for a sniper assault on the President given the conditions of the motorcade that day? Can you understand how Greer would have hesitated when shots rang out from multiple origins and how he could have feared driving into an ambush? Can you appreciate how Greer would have slowed the limo subconsiously when he looked over his shoulder to see what was going on in the passenger compartment?

The limo did not stop. Where many reported that it did was those farther back in the motorcade. With the limo slowing, the cars behind would have to react to the reduction in speed and the farther back the slower the reaction and those would have come to a stop as they reacted to the slowing and stopping in front of them.

Al

In answer to Al's question the last assassination attempt was against Truman when some Puerto Rican nationalists stormed the grounds of Blair House (where he was staying IIRC the White House was being renovated) shooting but were quickly subdued.

The last attempt prior to that had some eire similarities to what happenend in DP. President-elect FDR was traveling in convertable in a motorcade in a Southern city (in this case Miami). Joining him in the car were his wife the mayor of Chicago) and his wife. But in this case the local politician* died and the president survivied. The shooter was a marginally employeed anti-Capitalist LN (just like LHO supposedly was).

I don't know if the limo driver speed up, slowed down or stopped.

To Chris I would sat the any Army PFC jeep driver who had been shot at before would have been better prepared than Greer. Training is one thing but the real thing is something else. I don't think that anyone who has not been in a similar situation has much right criticizing Greer.

Len

[Chris Newton]

Al,

All your points are legitamate and I realize that there are circumstances in every ambush that make each a unique experience. I'm sure that if we had to test the reactions of ten different drivers we'd get ten different sets of circumstances - but if they were all well trained - we'd have many similar results. I don't know why I should be "fair" to Mr. Greer, regardless of wether he hesitated or slowed down or stopped or something else - he didn't react in the manner that would have resulted in the best outcome - immediate acceleration out of the crossfire and possibly a wounded President rather than a dead one.

To Bill -

It matters not the direction that the fire comes from. Front, rear, side - the SOP is to still accelerate out of the ambush area. If that means attacking an enemy to your front - so be it. Let me examine this for one second for our non-military minded members. One classic ambush is an "L" shape with the long part of the "L" parallel to the road and the base of the "L" crossing the road (like crossing the T - for you navy guys). This brings maximum firepower on the enemy. The reason it's an "L" is so the attackers aren't shooting each other (as they would be on both sides of the road, path, whatever). The response (for the enemy in a convoy) is to use their mobility to escape the fire zone. Stopping and dismounting and/or stopping and turning around while in the fire zone are both recipes for disaster - both of these choices leave you at the greatest risk for the greatest period of time.

To Len,

Even an Army PFC on his very first convoy in an area where he could reasonably expect to be shot at has a responsibility to know what his reaction will be - when training takes over in these circumstances the reactions are automatic and this allows the "green" PFC to become an experienced one. The OPORD for the convoy would normally state exactly what the actions are in response to an ambush and they would be discussed down the chain of command. To suggest that the USSS "wings it" and doesn't consider all the angles or becomes complacent when there hasn't been an attempt in years is more than a little naive.

Am I saying that Greer or any other SS Agent should have expected to get shot at? Maybe. That's why they are there, isn't it? Shouldn't every parade, meeting, speech be treated as the "real thing"? I'm sure that Al would concur - every time the President steps out of the Whitehouse, it's "showtime".

Also, are you suggesting that because I haven't driven a Limo in a parade in a major US city that got attacked by snipers that I can't critize the driver? That would suggest a pretty exclusive club authorized to submit a critique.

Chris

Chris

[Len Colby]

Chris,

Again to be fair to Greer for how many seconds did he act improperly? For how much of that time did he know they really were being shot at? Wouldn’t it be fair to grant him a few seconds for over coming his disbelief? Do you know what the Secret Service's SOP was at the time?

I think there are two big differences between a SSA driving a presidential limo and a PFC driving in a combat zone.

1) Expectation and preparedness – A PFC would of course expect to come under fire every time (or at least many/most times) he went for a drive in a combat zone. The last time a President had come under fire was 30 years earlier. The PFC would have no reason to doubt that he was indeed coming under fire. The PFC and his fellow soldiers probably would be armed with more than pistols and would be able to shoot back at their attackers if indeed they were shooting from the front.

2) Training – Maybe this is just a myth I picked up from war movies and books but my understanding is that soldiers esp. those sent into combat are conditioned through repeat drilling to act pretty much automatically, I don’t think SSA’s were drilled to act so automatically.

Would so harshly criticize a grunt who hesitated for a few seconds the first time he came under fire? What if this happened in an area not considered a combat zone where he wouldn’t be expecting to come under fire?

Expecting you to have been the driver of the POTUS’s limo when it came under fire is of course unreasonable, but have you ever been under fire? If so how did you react the first time?

You didn’t ask an earlier question, if you were in Greer’s place how certain are you that you would have responded any better?

One more question, while his slow down certainly helped the shooter(s) how much of a chance is there that if he had driven away any faster that JFK would have survived?

Len

Al,

All your points are legitamate and I realize that there are circumstances in every ambush that make each a unique experience. I'm sure that if we had to test the reactions of ten different drivers we'd get ten different sets of circumstances - but if they were all well trained - we'd have many similar results. I don't know why I should be "fair" to Mr. Greer, regardless of wether he hesitated or slowed down or stopped or something else - he didn't react in the manner that would have resulted in the best outcome - immediate acceleration out of the crossfire and possibly a wounded President rather than a dead one.

To Bill -

It matters not the direction that the fire comes from. Front, rear, side - the SOP is to still accelerate out of the ambush area. If that means attacking an enemy to your front - so be it. Let me examine this for one second for our non-military minded members. One classic ambush is an "L" shape with the long part of the "L" parallel to the road and the base of the "L" crossing the road (like crossing the T - for you navy guys). This brings maximum firepower on the enemy. The reason it's an "L" is so the attackers aren't shooting each other (as they would be on both sides of the road, path, whatever). The response (for the enemy in a convoy) is to use their mobility to escape the fire zone. Stopping and dismounting and/or stopping and turning around while in the fire zone are both recipes for disaster - both of these choices leave you at the greatest risk for the greatest period of time.

To Len,

Even an Army PFC on his very first convoy in an area where he could reasonably expect to be shot at has a responsibility to know what his reaction will be - when training takes over in these circumstances the reactions are automatic and this allows the "green" PFC to become an experienced one. The OPORD for the convoy would normally state exactly what the actions are in response to an ambush and they would be discussed down the chain of command. To suggest that the USSS "wings it" and doesn't consider all the angles or becomes complacent when there hasn't been an attempt in years is more than a little naive.

Am I saying that Greer or any other SS Agent should have expected to get shot at? Maybe. That's why they are there, isn't it? Shouldn't every parade, meeting, speech be treated as the "real thing"? I'm sure that Al would concur - every time the President steps out of the Whitehouse, it's "showtime".

Also, are you suggesting that because I haven't driven a Limo in a parade in a major US city that got attacked by snipers that I can't critize the driver? That would suggest a pretty exclusive club authorized to submit a critique.

Chris

Chris

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Per Military SOP the correct action when ambushed in a moving convoy is to accelerate out of the ambush area. This is true today in Iraq just as it was in 1963. Depending on the circumstances, the ambushed party can then re-group and counter attack, hold and wait for reinforcements or retreat.

SS Agents should, at the very least, show as much common sense as any Army PFC driving a jeep. I don't know any good excuse for slowing down to a stop or near stop. I find it hard to believe there isn't an SOP for when a presidential limo is attacked. Greer was either incompetent or complicit.

Chris,

Let's be fair to Greer first of all. When was the last time prior to Dallas '63 when their was a realistic attempt on a President? Was the DPD or the USSS prepared for a sniper assault on the President given the conditions of the motorcade that day? Can you understand how Greer would have hesitated when shots rang out from multiple origins and how he could have feared driving into an ambush? Can you appreciate how Greer would have slowed the limo subconsiously when he looked over his shoulder to see what was going on in the passenger compartment?

The limo did not stop. Where many reported that it did was those farther back in the motorcade. With the limo slowing, the cars behind would have to react to the reduction in speed and the farther back the slower the reaction and those would have come to a stop as they reacted to the slowing and stopping in front of them.

Al

In answer to Al's question the last assassination attempt was against Truman when some Puerto Rican nationalists stormed the grounds of Blair House (where he was staying IIRC the White House was being renovated) shooting but were quickly subdued.

The last attempt prior to that had some eire similarities to what happenend in DP. President-elect FDR was traveling in convertable in a motorcade in a Southern city (in this case Miami). Joining him in the car were his wife the mayor of Chicago) and his wife. But in this case the local politician* died and the president survivied. The shooter was a marginally employeed anti-Capitalist LN (just like LHO supposedly was).

I don't know if the limo driver speed up, slowed down or stopped.

To Chris I would sat the any Army PFC jeep driver who had been shot at before would have been better prepared than Greer. Training is one thing but the real thing is something else. I don't think that anyone who has not been in a similar situation has much right criticizing Greer.

Len

I don't think that anyone who has not been in a similar situation has much right criticizing Greer.

Yes but! One must recall that the world is full of "armchair warriors" as well as "armchair quarterbacks"!

Until one has actually been shot at, they can speculate all day, till hell freezes over, how they would react. It remains as speculation!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Chris,

Again to be fair to Greer for how many seconds did he act improperly? For how much of that time did he know they really were being shot at? Wouldn’t it be fair to grant him a few seconds for over coming his disbelief? Do you know what the Secret Service's SOP was at the time?

I think there are two big differences between a SSA driving a presidential limo and a PFC driving in a combat zone.

1) Expectation and preparedness – A PFC would of course expect to come under fire every time (or at least many/most times) he went for a drive in a combat zone. The last time a President had come under fire was 30 years earlier. The PFC would have no reason to doubt that he was indeed coming under fire. The PFC and his fellow soldiers probably would be armed with more than pistols and would be able to shoot back at their attackers if indeed they were shooting from the front.

2) Training – Maybe this is just a myth I picked up from war movies and books but my understanding is that soldiers esp. those sent into combat are conditioned through repeat drilling to act pretty much automatically, I don’t think SSA’s were drilled to act so automatically.

Would so harshly criticize a grunt who hesitated for a few seconds the first time he came under fire? What if this happened in an area not considered a combat zone where he wouldn’t be expecting to come under fire?

Expecting you to have been the driver of the POTUS’s limo when it came under fire is of course unreasonable, but have you ever been under fire? If so how did you react the first time?

You didn’t ask an earlier question, if you were in Greer’s place how certain are you that you would have responded any better?

One more question, while his slow down certainly helped the shooter(s) how much of a chance is there that if he had driven away any faster that JFK would have survived?

Len

Al,

All your points are legitamate and I realize that there are circumstances in every ambush that make each a unique experience. I'm sure that if we had to test the reactions of ten different drivers we'd get ten different sets of circumstances - but if they were all well trained - we'd have many similar results. I don't know why I should be "fair" to Mr. Greer, regardless of wether he hesitated or slowed down or stopped or something else - he didn't react in the manner that would have resulted in the best outcome - immediate acceleration out of the crossfire and possibly a wounded President rather than a dead one.

To Bill -

It matters not the direction that the fire comes from. Front, rear, side - the SOP is to still accelerate out of the ambush area. If that means attacking an enemy to your front - so be it. Let me examine this for one second for our non-military minded members. One classic ambush is an "L" shape with the long part of the "L" parallel to the road and the base of the "L" crossing the road (like crossing the T - for you navy guys). This brings maximum firepower on the enemy. The reason it's an "L" is so the attackers aren't shooting each other (as they would be on both sides of the road, path, whatever). The response (for the enemy in a convoy) is to use their mobility to escape the fire zone. Stopping and dismounting and/or stopping and turning around while in the fire zone are both recipes for disaster - both of these choices leave you at the greatest risk for the greatest period of time.

To Len,

Even an Army PFC on his very first convoy in an area where he could reasonably expect to be shot at has a responsibility to know what his reaction will be - when training takes over in these circumstances the reactions are automatic and this allows the "green" PFC to become an experienced one. The OPORD for the convoy would normally state exactly what the actions are in response to an ambush and they would be discussed down the chain of command. To suggest that the USSS "wings it" and doesn't consider all the angles or becomes complacent when there hasn't been an attempt in years is more than a little naive.

Am I saying that Greer or any other SS Agent should have expected to get shot at? Maybe. That's why they are there, isn't it? Shouldn't every parade, meeting, speech be treated as the "real thing"? I'm sure that Al would concur - every time the President steps out of the Whitehouse, it's "showtime".

Also, are you suggesting that because I haven't driven a Limo in a parade in a major US city that got attacked by snipers that I can't critize the driver? That would suggest a pretty exclusive club authorized to submit a critique.

Chris

Chris

Maybe this is just a myth I picked up from war movies and books but my understanding is that soldiers esp. those sent into combat are conditioned through repeat drilling to act pretty much automatically, I don’t think SSA’s were drilled to act so automatically

Actually, in may ways it was found that some of this training was in fact "counter productive".

The continual usage of "blanks" in the training scenario, not unlike Pavlov's dog, conditioned the person that nothing happened other than "bang" "You're Dead".

In this regard, many persons would even resort to physical violence in order to prevent capture, even when they had been "SHOT" by the opposing force.

In real world scenario, a few of us were exposed to training in which the old "pump" BB guns were utilized.

This was done just prior to assignment to Vietnam, and the old BB gun left absolutely no doubt as to whether one had or had not been struck.

It, for damn sure, made one learn to duck and find cover fast.

Had more persons been subjected to this "real life" training, there is little doubt that many of those who continued to stand, and thereafter took live rounds in Vietnam, may have recognized the importance of a first round "duck for cover" if still capable.

No doubt, there would also have been a lot of mother's and anti-violence type groups who would have protested us having shot their "baby" boy with a BB gun. Even if it were in attempt to further save his behind.

[Ron Ecker]

Greer lied both in his SS statement and his WC testimony, which does not help his case to begin with. But if we are to determine where he thought shots were coming from, and how that might have affected his behavior, then we have to take his lies at face value. And according to his lies, there was no one on the overpass except "there may have been a police officer," and the only shot direction he mentions is what he first thought were two motorcycle backfires behind them. He glanced back after the second "backfire" and saw Connally start to fall (Greer "didn't see anything of the President"), and that's when Greer "tramped on the accelerator," and heard a third shot just as he was speeding them out of there. Nor did he ever slow down, he testified that his estimated speed was between 12 and 15 mph throughout the time that the shots occurred. He was not aware of any bullet striking any portion of the car, and he was totally unaware of any crack in the windshield in front of his face all the way from DP to Parkland, he only saw the crack the next day.

So based on Greer's own statement and testimony, it cannot be said that he feared driving into an ambush when, in Al's words, he heard shots ring out from multiple origins. Greer heard no such multi-origin shots, and expressed no particular fear, he said he immediately accelerated when he realized "something was wrong." Nor did he slow to allow Clint Hill time to get aboard, as Bill suggests, because he says nothing about Clint Hill, he couldn't even see the President, he just thought something was wrong and immediately took off. Greer would therefore categorically deny everything that has been said here in defense of him. And it all leads me to believe that Greer was a man not worth trying to defend.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Chris,

Again to be fair to Greer for how many seconds did he act improperly? For how much of that time did he know they really were being shot at? Wouldn’t it be fair to grant him a few seconds for over coming his disbelief? Do you know what the Secret Service's SOP was at the time?

I think there are two big differences between a SSA driving a presidential limo and a PFC driving in a combat zone.

1) Expectation and preparedness – A PFC would of course expect to come under fire every time (or at least many/most times) he went for a drive in a combat zone. The last time a President had come under fire was 30 years earlier. The PFC would have no reason to doubt that he was indeed coming under fire. The PFC and his fellow soldiers probably would be armed with more than pistols and would be able to shoot back at their attackers if indeed they were shooting from the front.

2) Training – Maybe this is just a myth I picked up from war movies and books but my understanding is that soldiers esp. those sent into combat are conditioned through repeat drilling to act pretty much automatically, I don’t think SSA’s were drilled to act so automatically.

Would so harshly criticize a grunt who hesitated for a few seconds the first time he came under fire? What if this happened in an area not considered a combat zone where he wouldn’t be expecting to come under fire?

Expecting you to have been the driver of the POTUS’s limo when it came under fire is of course unreasonable, but have you ever been under fire? If so how did you react the first time?

You didn’t ask an earlier question, if you were in Greer’s place how certain are you that you would have responded any better?

One more question, while his slow down certainly helped the shooter(s) how much of a chance is there that if he had driven away any faster that JFK would have survived?

Len

Al,

All your points are legitamate and I realize that there are circumstances in every ambush that make each a unique experience. I'm sure that if we had to test the reactions of ten different drivers we'd get ten different sets of circumstances - but if they were all well trained - we'd have many similar results. I don't know why I should be "fair" to Mr. Greer, regardless of wether he hesitated or slowed down or stopped or something else - he didn't react in the manner that would have resulted in the best outcome - immediate acceleration out of the crossfire and possibly a wounded President rather than a dead one.

To Bill -

It matters not the direction that the fire comes from. Front, rear, side - the SOP is to still accelerate out of the ambush area. If that means attacking an enemy to your front - so be it. Let me examine this for one second for our non-military minded members. One classic ambush is an "L" shape with the long part of the "L" parallel to the road and the base of the "L" crossing the road (like crossing the T - for you navy guys). This brings maximum firepower on the enemy. The reason it's an "L" is so the attackers aren't shooting each other (as they would be on both sides of the road, path, whatever). The response (for the enemy in a convoy) is to use their mobility to escape the fire zone. Stopping and dismounting and/or stopping and turning around while in the fire zone are both recipes for disaster - both of these choices leave you at the greatest risk for the greatest period of time.

To Len,

Even an Army PFC on his very first convoy in an area where he could reasonably expect to be shot at has a responsibility to know what his reaction will be - when training takes over in these circumstances the reactions are automatic and this allows the "green" PFC to become an experienced one. The OPORD for the convoy would normally state exactly what the actions are in response to an ambush and they would be discussed down the chain of command. To suggest that the USSS "wings it" and doesn't consider all the angles or becomes complacent when there hasn't been an attempt in years is more than a little naive.

Am I saying that Greer or any other SS Agent should have expected to get shot at? Maybe. That's why they are there, isn't it? Shouldn't every parade, meeting, speech be treated as the "real thing"? I'm sure that Al would concur - every time the President steps out of the Whitehouse, it's "showtime".

Also, are you suggesting that because I haven't driven a Limo in a parade in a major US city that got attacked by snipers that I can't critize the driver? That would suggest a pretty exclusive club authorized to submit a critique.

Chris

Chris

The PFC and his fellow soldiers probably would be armed with more than pistols and would be able to shoot back at their attackers if indeed they were shooting from the front.

And in that regard, you appear to understand more than do many of the self-proclaimed "Experts" who attempt to utilize this as some excuse/reason to discredit the TSDB single/lone assassin.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Although many may know the answer to this question, only the "RUNNING MAN" can provide the factual evidence.

Tom

[Len Colby]

Ron to justly accuse someone of lying you have to show that their intention was to decieve i.e. that he knew that what he was saying was false. Do you have any evidence that he KNOWINGLY made false statements?

As Al pointed out he had the sun is his eyes so seeing the overpass clearly might not have been easy. As for the crack in the windshield IIRC it was small. You also have to take into account the situation he was in. Have you ever been in a situation 1/100 as stressful? If so are you sure your recall of that situation is 100% accurate?

This is an example of why I think you jump to conclusions.

Len

Greer lied both in his SS statement and his WC testimony, which does not help his case to begin with. But if we are to determine where he thought shots were coming from, and how that might have affected his behavior, then we have to take his lies at face value. And according to his lies, there was no one on the overpass except "there may have been a police officer," and the only shot direction he mentions is what he first thought were two motorcycle backfires behind them. He glanced back after the second "backfire" and saw Connally start to fall (Greer "didn't see anything of the President"), and that's when Greer "tramped on the accelerator," and heard a third shot just as he was speeding them out of there. Nor did he ever slow down, he testified that his estimated speed was between 12 and 15 mph throughout the time that the shots occurred. He was not aware of any bullet striking any portion of the car, and he was totally unaware of any crack in the windshield in front of his face all the way from DP to Parkland, he only saw the crack the next day.

So based on Greer's own statement and testimony, it cannot be said that he feared driving into an ambush when, in Al's words, he heard shots ring out from multiple origins. Greer heard no such multi-origin shots, and expressed no particular fear, he said he immediately accelerated when he realized "something was wrong." Nor did he slow to allow Clint Hill time to get aboard, as Bill suggests, because he says nothing about Clint Hill, he couldn't even see the President, he just thought something was wrong and immediately took off. Greer would therefore categorically deny everything that has been said here in defense of him. And it all leads me to believe that Greer was a man not worth trying to defend.

====================================================================

And in that regard, you appear to understand more than do many of the self-proclaimed "Experts" who attempt to utilize this as some excuse/reason to discredit the TSDB single/lone assassin.

Thanks Tom, after getting unjustly slagged by the moderator of this forum it's nice to "hear" some kind words from a fellow member!

Are you saying you support the LNT?

Len

Edited February 13, 2006 by Len Colby

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Ron to justly accuse someone of lying you have to show that their intention was to decieve i.e. that he knew that what he was saying was false. Do you have any evidence that he KNOWINGLY made false statements?

As Al pointed out he had the sun is his eyes so seeing the overpass clearly might not have been easy. As for the crack in the windshield IIRC it was small. You also have to take into account the situation he was in. Have you ever been in a situation 1/100 as stressful? If so are you sure your recall of that situation is 100% accurate?

This is an example of why I think you jump to conclusions.

Len

Greer lied both in his SS statement and his WC testimony, which does not help his case to begin with. But if we are to determine where he thought shots were coming from, and how that might have affected his behavior, then we have to take his lies at face value. And according to his lies, there was no one on the overpass except "there may have been a police officer," and the only shot direction he mentions is what he first thought were two motorcycle backfires behind them. He glanced back after the second "backfire" and saw Connally start to fall (Greer "didn't see anything of the President"), and that's when Greer "tramped on the accelerator," and heard a third shot just as he was speeding them out of there. Nor did he ever slow down, he testified that his estimated speed was between 12 and 15 mph throughout the time that the shots occurred. He was not aware of any bullet striking any portion of the car, and he was totally unaware of any crack in the windshield in front of his face all the way from DP to Parkland, he only saw the crack the next day.

So based on Greer's own statement and testimony, it cannot be said that he feared driving into an ambush when, in Al's words, he heard shots ring out from multiple origins. Greer heard no such multi-origin shots, and expressed no particular fear, he said he immediately accelerated when he realized "something was wrong." Nor did he slow to allow Clint Hill time to get aboard, as Bill suggests, because he says nothing about Clint Hill, he couldn't even see the President, he just thought something was wrong and immediately took off. Greer would therefore categorically deny everything that has been said here in defense of him. And it all leads me to believe that Greer was a man not worth trying to defend.

====================================================================

And in that regard, you appear to understand more than do many of the self-proclaimed "Experts" who attempt to utilize this as some excuse/reason to discredit the TSDB single/lone assassin.

Thanks Tom, after getting unjustly slagged by the moderator of this forum it's nice to "hear" some kind words from a fellow member!

Are you saying you support the LNT?

Len

1. I, in no way "support" the LONE NUT Theory!

2. That there was only a single assassin, is a given fact !

3. That there was, in one form or another, a conspiracy to assassinate JFK is also relatively well established.

4. That the WC is an intentional lie and/or misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination, is also a relatively well established fact.

A single/lone assassin is not necessarily a "LONE NUT". Merely a LONE ASSASSIN!

A lie/misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination by the WC, provides no proof and/or indications of multiple assassins or government participation in the actual event.

It is merely an indicator, that for some reason, the WC and/or it's leaders, did not want to inform us of the facts and truth.

A "Political Entity", usually serves some political purpose!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Greer would therefore categorically deny everything that has been said here in defense of him. And it all leads me to believe that Greer was a man not worth trying to defend.

Ron's post reminds me of something Vince Palamara once told me and which I have not yet got round to checking (it is probably mentioned in Palamara's new book, availabe from Last Hurrah, which I still have not obtained).

According to Vince, William Manchester's book says that Greer took JFK's jacket (I'm not sure about the shirt) and kept it in his locker for a day or maybe several days after the autopsy. If memory serves me right (& I would not bet the ranch on that), Greer did not volunteer this information until he was asked (by the FBI? if he knew about the whereabouts of the jacket.

If this story is true (& if I've summarised it accurately) it seems strange to me. There is an ongoing controversy about the mismatch between the location of the hole in JFK's jacket and the hole in the JFK's back/neck, and this has led one author to theorize that the hole in the jacket was made by hand, presumably using an instrument that would leave traces of copper on the jacket hole.

I apologise for the vagueness of this post. I do not have access to Manchester's book at the moment. Does anyone on this forum recall this story in "Death of a President" ?

[Tim Gratz]

Raymond, I will check it and reply tonight if no one else has done so yet.

Best regards.