Len Colby Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 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! What proof do you have of a single shooter? Was it LHO? If not who and where were they shooting from? For many the stongest proof of a conspiracy is evidence of multiple shooters. If you believe there was only one shooter what makes you so sure there was a conspiracy? Was the WC's cover-up part of the conspiracy? I'm curious because your theory seems very different from any other I've seen. I thaught about starting a new thread "Tom Purvis' assassination theory" but didn't want to put you on the spot. Maybe instead of replying to me here you could start the new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 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! What proof do you have of a single shooter? Was it LHO? If not who and where were they shooting from? For many the stongest proof of a conspiracy is evidence of multiple shooters. If you believe there was only one shooter what makes you so sure there was a conspiracy? Was the WC's cover-up part of the conspiracy? I'm curious because your theory seems very different from any other I've seen. I thaught about starting a new thread "Tom Purvis' assassination theory" but didn't want to put you on the spot. Maybe instead of replying to me here you could start the new thread. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thaught about starting a new thread "Tom Purvis' assassination theory" but didn't want to put you on the spot. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rest assured that I am a "big boy" and since I willingly placed myself, all alone out on this limb, then I also have no problem sitting out here by myself. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What proof do you have of a single shooter? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence! Not to mention quite a few eyewitness testimonies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Was it LHO? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To a relatively high degree of certainty! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you believe there was only one shooter what makes you so sure there was a conspiracy? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LHO, his background, his associations, and his actions which ultimately culminated in the assassination. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Hi everyone I agree that Greer's best option was to accelerate out of the area, and that slowing or stopping would endanger the President more. However, I don't know exactly when the slowing took place, but could it have been when Jackie climbed on the trunk of the Lincoln? If that was the case, couldn't that explain why Greer hesitated? That is, if Greer suddenly accelerated at that point, it could have thrown Jackie off the back of the limo and made it harder for the Secret Service man to climb on board. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Greer did not see Jackie. He did not see JFK. He did not see anything except Connally start to fall. Greer heard what he thought were two backfires, glanced back at Connally and took off simultaneously with the third shot. Read his statement and testimony. Then watch the Zapruder film. If you think he was lying, then why try to defend him? My personal view is, to hell with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Greer did not see Jackie. He did not see JFK. He did not see anything except Connally start to fall. Greer heard what he thought were two backfires, glanced back at Connally and took off simultaneously with the third shot. Read his statement and testimony. Then watch the Zapruder film. If you think he was lying, then why try to defend him? My personal view is, to hell with him. Hi Ron If this comment was directed at me, I am not trying to defend Greer. I am merely trying to get at the truth of what happened... as most of us here are. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) Chris, My comment was directed at everyone who is proposing excuses for Greer. Al says Greer was concerned about shots from multiple origins, someone said Greer may have slowed down so Clint Hill could get on board, you say he may have slowed down so Jackie wouldn't fall off. Greer would say that's all baloney, he didn't hear multiple-origin shots, he didn't see Hill, he didn't see Jackie, and he didn't slow down. The only thing we do know for certain, based on his own words and the Z film, is that Greer was a bald-faced xxxx. So I'm sorry, but I get mad talking about him. Ron Edited February 13, 2006 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Chris,My comment was directed at everyone who is proposing excuses for Greer. Al says Greer was concerned about shots from multiple origins, someone said Greer may have slowed down so Clint Hill could get on board, you say he may have slowed down so Jackie wouldn't fall off. Greer would say that's all baloney, he didn't hear multiple-origin shots, he didn't see Hill, he didn't see Jackie, and he didn't slow down. The only thing we do know for certain, based on his own words and the Z film, is that Greer was a bald-faced xxxx. So I'm sorry, but I get mad talking about him. Ron He is not above scrutiny. (IMO) Just a couple of things on driver habits and defensive driving. Basically about habits, particularly those of a detail driver. rear view mirror and continual scanning. Does it make sense that a driver in his case to process multiple rapid input. Part of which in this case being right from the first shot. He doesn't need to turn to know what was going on. As far as mc backfire goes, he;'d been hearing that all along. It's back ground noise. Rifle fire is surely in the realm of 'the party effect' where in a crowded noisy room, someone in a low voice saying your name on the other side of the room is heard. Taking all his input he CHOOSE to act as he did. Did he override what should have been a natural habit? When turning to look back or to the side, there is no reason to think he is not trained to maintain a separate control over where his feet are and what they are doing. It's called defensive driving with habits instilled. Was he a trained driver or was he just handed the keys that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) There could hardly be a more important witness than Greer. He was driving the damn car. He was one of the people at ground zero when it happened. So go read his WC testimony, and what do you find about what happened in Dealey Plaza? It is 100 percent garbage. It has to be read to be (not) believed. It is totally worthless, except for what it (together with the Z film) tells us about William Greer. Edited February 13, 2006 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Greer would therefore categorically deny everything that has been said here in defense of him.... Ron's post reminds me of something Vince Palamara once told me... 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.... I went back and checked Manchester's "Death of a President." On page 455 Manchester reports that, on Saturday morning (Nov. 23, 1963): Quote on: Bill Greer was taking President Kennedy's Dallas clothing to Protective Research for a scientific check. Quote off. We next hear of JFK's clothing on page 515, where Manchester reports a peculiar incident that took place on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, sometime between 9 am and 11 am: Quote on: The clothing President Kennedy had been wearing in Dallas had been stored in Bill Greer's locker in the White House garage. Another agent told Muggsy (John O' Leary, Special Assistant to JFK) that 'Jackie wants a medal or something for the casket, and its in there.' Unfortunately Greer had the only locker key, and he was in his home off Maryland route 50. Muggsy raced out there, picked him up, and delivered the key to Dr. Burkley at the mansion. Quote off. Manchester does not name the agent who told O'Leary about the whereabouts of JFK's clothing, nor does he say on whose instructions, if anyone's, Greer was acting. His source notes indicate that he interviewed O'Leary and Greer once each, while he interviewed Burkley 5 times between October 1964 and November 1966. I could not find anything in DOP on the disposition of JFK's clothing (or the medal they supposedly contained) after Burkley got the key to Greer's locker. Does anyone have further information on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Chris, My comment was directed at everyone who is proposing excuses for Greer. Al says Greer was concerned about shots from multiple origins, someone said Greer may have slowed down so Clint Hill could get on board, you say he may have slowed down so Jackie wouldn't fall off. Greer would say that's all baloney, he didn't hear multiple-origin shots, he didn't see Hill, he didn't see Jackie, and he didn't slow down. The only thing we do know for certain, based on his own words and the Z film, is that Greer was a bald-faced xxxx. So I'm sorry, but I get mad talking about him. Ron He is not above scrutiny. (IMO) Just a couple of things on driver habits and defensive driving. Basically about habits, particularly those of a detail driver. rear view mirror and continual scanning. Does it make sense that a driver in his case to process multiple rapid input. Part of which in this case being right from the first shot. He doesn't need to turn to know what was going on. As far as mc backfire goes, he;'d been hearing that all along. It's back ground noise. Rifle fire is surely in the realm of 'the party effect' where in a crowded noisy room, someone in a low voice saying your name on the other side of the room is heard. Taking all his input he CHOOSE to act as he did. Did he override what should have been a natural habit? When turning to look back or to the side, there is no reason to think he is not trained to maintain a separate control over where his feet are and what they are doing. It's called defensive driving with habits instilled. Was he a trained driver or was he just handed the keys that day? Prior to entering Dealy Plaza, along the motorcade route, there had been several instances of firecrackers having been thrown/set off. This is a matter of reported history. Think "Pavlov's dog" and pre-conditioned lack of response/reflex! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 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! I am neither. I'm an "armchair" ex-NCO. I served in Armor from 1982-1986. Main Battle Tanks were not used during the conflicts that we participated in during those years. Subsequently, I was in the Infantry in Florida's National Guard (we did not participate in Desert Shield or Desert Storm though I had been ordered to be prepared as my primary MOS was still 19K at that time). Two of my old Armor units served with distinction during the Gulf War - both 99.9 % green - there were only two remaining Vietnam Vets at the unit level that I can think of (One was CSM Tadina who Tom may know of). The US Army at that time was much different from the one that fought in Vietnam. We were all volunteers, considered ourselves professionals, had extremely high morale and were very well trained. The results are shown in the Armor actions of Desert Storm. Look up the Battle of 73 easting for example - this was a "first engagement". Ironically, I did not come under any fire until I participated in civil defense actions in the National Guard during the Overtown riots in Miami. I was very concerned for the satety of my squad. We had been issued combat shotguns with a full load of blanks. One of the primary jobs of any NCO is training his men. So maybe I'm being a little harsh on SA Greer - maybe those responsible for his training are responsible for his actions, if he wasn't. Was there any discipline of anyone in the SS as a result of the assassination (other than for the late night drinking)? To Len - I have no idea how I would react given my lack of training as a SSA. I wish I had a better answer that but I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 There could hardly be a more important witness than Greer. He was driving the damn car. He was one of the people at ground zero when it happened. So go read his WC testimony, and what do you find about what happened in Dealey Plaza? It is 100 percent garbage. It has to be read to be (not) believed. It is totally worthless, except for what it (together with the Z film) tells us about William Greer. Ron be a little more specific, give examples of Greer saying something untrue that we can be reasonably sure he knew it was untrue. Even if he did, like Clinton, commit perjury, it does not necessarily follow that he was complicit or incompetent. I asked you before if you were sure you would have done better if you were in his shoes but you didn't answer. One more question, do think he was complicit or "merely" incompetent? Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 random notes from the WC Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II pg. 116 Mr. Specter: "How far ahead of you was that police car as you turned off of main street onto Houston?" Mr Greer: "I usually allow 4 or 5 car lengths, if possible, between the car and myself, in case there is any reason to speed up quick. ...." note: Greer mentions his training several times on this page. Page 125 details how he got JFK's clothing. Page 130 Representative Boggs: "Did you speed up after you heard the first shot?" Mr Greer: "After I heard the second. The first one didn't sink in to me...." Page 131 is interesting in that the two FBI Agents in the autopsy room with Greer filed a report at odds with Greer's testimony. Specter back to questioning him at this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 give examples of Greer saying something untrue that we can be reasonably sure he knew it was untrue. I already have. He testified that there was no one on the underpass. He said he looked to make sure when they entered the plaza. When specifically asked about it, he said there "might have been" a police officer up there. He said that upon hearing two "backfires" he glanced back once, seeing only Connally start to fall, and then he hit the accelerator. Greer was either full of crap, or the Z film was altered to make him look like he was. I asked you before if you were sure you would have done better if you were in his shoes but you didn't answer. I don't know what I would have done, but I wouldn't have lied about it afterward, unless I was told to lie to save my children from being killed. I have trouble lying even when I'm not under oath. I guess it's just the way I was raised. One more question, do think he was complicit or "merely" incompetent? He was complicit, incompetent, or just didn't know what to do, take your pick. I have no idea. I know that he lied like a champ about whatever he was. It also now appears that he stashed away JFK's clothes, which should have been sent to the autopsy. I respect this guy more all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 One more question, do think he was complicit or "merely" incompetent? He was complicit, incompetent, or just didn't know what to do, take your pick. I have no idea. I know that he lied like a champ about whatever he was. It also now appears that he stashed away JFK's clothes, which should have been sent to the autopsy. I respect this guy more all the time. Vincent Palamara wrote an article about Greer a few years ago. It may still be on the web, but in any case I'm sure he deals with it in his new book on the Secret Service called "Survivor's Guilt." Greer was one of the very few SSA men that Vince did not get to interview, but he did speak to Greer's son on the telephone. Bear in mind that Bill Greer was born and raised in Northern Ireland, where the ethnic Irish and ethnic British communities have been polarized for centuries along religious lines, the native Irish being Catholic and the descendants of British colonists being Protestant, mostly Presbyterian. When Palamara asked Greer's son how his father had felt about JFK, young Greer hestitated for a while and tried to dodge the question. Palamara persisted, and eventually young Greer offered this explanation: "Well, you know, we are Presbyterians" (quoting from memory). I have no desire to cast aspersions on anyone's religion, and I believe the religious divide in Northern Ireland merely cloaks the ethnic and colonial divide, but this answer from Greer's son seems to suggest that Bill Greer was not, to say the least, a big fan of America's only Catholic President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now