Henry Rybka

[Mark Wilson]

Hello....Secret Service Agent Henry Rybka's role or non-role on 11/22/63,in my opinion, is one of the most mysterious pieces to the puzzle in the assassination of JFK.All the evidence involving Rybka,which is very little, that i've seen has come through the priceless research of Vince Palamara.Rybka seems to have disappeared into a vacuum minutes before JFK was killed.....For those not familiar with Rybka,he was a SS agent protecting the right back of the Presidential limo on 11/22/63 when the motorcade was leaving Love Field moments before JFK was killed,Rybka along with Clint Hill, who was protecting the back left of the limo and assigned to Jackie were ordered by Emory Roberts to fall back.Hill took the order in stride and fell back to the follow up Secret Service car with little or no unusual reaction but Rybka on the other hand, was somewhat defiant to this order by raising his arms in disgust as if to say "what the heck is going on here??".Rybka stayed at the air field and was apparently left out of some of the follow up reports as if he wasnt even part of the protection detail......Now connecting the dots as best we know it.......i believe Hill and Rybka were assigned to Jackie and JFK respectively and without these strange fall back orders, moments before the assassination, both of the agents wouldve been on the back of the limo at the time of the assassination......If Rybka was in place on Elm St. he couldve made a difference or not.....the plotters couldve just shot the agents first and then went after JFK,obviously more difficult than killing an unprotected JFK,but under the scenerio that unfolded,at least 6 seconds in which shots occurred probably more,if the 1st shot didnt get the agent(s) they would likely have been able to get both JFK and Jackie down,covered and out of harm's way.....i would consider the Rybka ordeal a smoking gun in the case.i'd be interested in other members take on all of this.

mark

[Ron Ecker]

Rybka wrote a report about what he did at Love Field after he was left there. I had a copy of it but lost it, or else simply read it, some time ago and have been unable to find the report again.

It was interesting because as I recall he said he was eating when word suddenly came to get Air Force Two ready for something. I don't remember other details.

[Brendan Slattery]

"This is different angles of [the Kennedy motorcade] leaving Love

Field," Palamara said, as the video rolled. Using a red "laser light"

pointer, he identified various agents, and supplied narration:

"This is John Ready ... Paul Landis ... here they are, leaving

Love Field ... Henry Rybka --- thinking that he's going to be doing

what he just did the last few stops --- this is when Emory Roberts

rises in his seat in the followup car ... and we see some hand

gestures ... basically tells [Rybka] to cease and desist from his

actions. Paul Landis is even making room for him on the followup car!

And this is when you'll see Henry Rybka ... I think a picture says a

thousand words, well this is about as close as you can get here ---"

I’ve seen the grainy b&w vid on the Lancer site, and at first

glance it does look somewhat incriminating—esp when combined with

Palamara’s intentionally sinister narration at the Lancer conference.

What Palamara omits is that Clint Hill too can be seen jogging behind

the limousine, on Jackie Kennedy’s side. When Emory Roberts barks out

his instructions, Hill doesn’t throw up his hands like Rybka. Instead,

he dutifully returns to the front of the Queen Mary. Rybka does not.

In fact, Rybka looks like the most confounded man on the planet. But

how can this be? A Secret Service agent’s post is not decided at the

last minute or on a whim. Rybka HAD to know where he was to be

stationed that day, be it on the limo bumper, the Queen Mary, or Love

Field. Since every minute of a presidential motorcade is planned with

extraordinary forbearance, confusion is not an option, and nor is it

likely. Agents don’t just pile into the Queen Mary or stand on the

running boards at random. There is no free-lancing. Palamara’s right

when he observes that a "picture says a thousand words," but who says

they should be his words? Couldn’t this have been Rybka’s screwup?

Since SS agents rarely planted themselves on the bumpers when crowds

were light, why would Rybka have been on the bumper departing Love

Field? Crowds were sparse on the initial departure, with two

motorcycles flanking the president’s right. Roosting on the bumper

under those conditions, and by 1963 standards, would have been deemed

an overreaction.

And as the next image flickered on the screen in slow motion, the

Lancer audience rumbled in astonishment --- the words "Wow!" and

"Jesus!" leap out from my tape recorder. For as Henry Rybka is seen

being summoned from his usual position back to the followup car, he

issues a confused palms-up gesture that seems to say, "What gives?"

Rybka was left behind at Love Field.

No shock that the lemmings in the audience would eat this up, but was

the bumper really his "usual position"? This flunks a common sense

test. Clint Hill testified that agents only left the Queen Mary when

crowds were especially dense, or if the motorcycle escorts had

temporarily left either side of the limo vulnerable. Neither criterion

was met at Love Field. And Rybka was "left behind"? Talk about loaded

language. Again, that implies malice of forethought, but no proof is

ever supplied. Roberts and Rybka are dead, so reckless speculation

fills in the holes. Even Palamara concedes that other agents quickly

made room for Rybka, who declined to jump on board. That’s supposed to be

Roberts’ fault? Isn’t it possible that Rybka was acting like a spoiled

child? Isn’t it possible that HE forgot his exact assignment that day?

"And the most amazing thing of all," Palamara continued, "is the

fact that there is not one report, not two reports, but three reports

after the fact, placing Rybka in the followup car! But he wasn't

there! Again --- either they assumed he did hop into the car, or there

was a coverup. Take your pick..."

Well gee, Roberts and company had to know that the WC had photographic

and testimonial evidence of everyone in the follow-up car, so to

intentionally and falsely add Rybka’s name to multiple reports doesn’t

seem too bright. The lie would be too easy to uncover. Was there

reason for Roberts to worry about Rybka in the first place? Not that I

can see. To the best of my knowledge, Rybka was never interviewed by

the WC, and never publicly accused Roberts of being complicit in the

President’s murder. Considering that Rybka was usually stationed on

the Queen Mary, I’d venture that the reports simply reflected that

familiarity.

Palamara’s lament has everything to do with hindsight. "If only Rybka

had been allowed to do his job that day, history would have turned out

different." Baloney. It's presentism at its most noxious. If Vince can

produce a SS duty roster for Nov 22 which states that Rybka was to man

the right rear bumper of the limo--or the running boards of the QM--I’ll back off.

The clock is ticking, Vince.

[Mark Knight]

Still wondering who the client is whose interests Mr. Slattery is representing on the forum here. Mr. Slattery seems to have an agenda, one particularly skewed toward stifling discussion, IMHO...choosing to assault the reader with a verbal broadaxe rather than attempting to persuade the reader. If he was sincere in his beliefs, I would tend to think that persuasion would be his tactic; instead, he apparently prefers the "hachet-man" approach.

I meant it when I recommended on another thread that Mr. Slattery read the works of Dale Carnegie...providing he could put the lessons into practice, and providing the facts are on his side, his posts might actually sway some participants to his point of view.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Brendan Slattery]

Still wondering who the client is whose interests Mr. Slattery is representing on the forum here. Mr. Slattery seems to have an agenda, one particularly skewed toward stifling discussion, IMHO...choosing to assault the reader with a verbal broadaxe rather than attempting to persuade the reader. If he was sincere in his beliefs, I would tend to think that persuasion would be his tactic; instead, he apparently prefers the "hachet-man" approach.

I meant it when I recommended on another thread that Mr. Slattery read the works of Dale Carnegie...providing he could put the lessons into practice, and providing the facts are on his side, his posts might actually sway some participants to his point of view.

Oh dear. My very own personal stalker has returned. He sits back, waits for me to post, then pounces. Quite a life you got there, Mark. Guess it beats playing Scrabble at the 4-H Center.

Wilson posted about Rybka, and I calmly and methodically responded. Exactly how is that "stifling" discussion? By merely disagreeing? If so, are you mentally ill? Whose interests are you representing, Mark? Aging nerds who live with their parents? The mystery widens ...

[Pat Speer]

Brendan, how did you come to know so much about the SS aspect of the assassination? I've heard that Palamara's book has upset many former agents. Have you read it? Do they have reason to be upset?

[Guest John Gillespie]

"Roberts and Rybka are dead, so reckless speculation

fills in the holes."

______________________________________

Right on. Lots of that goes on here, as I am sure you've already noticed, Brendan. Let's revisit this latest spark from Mr. Wilson:

"If Rybka was in place on Elm St. he couldve made a difference or not.....the plotters couldve just shot the agents first and then went after JFK,obviously more difficult than killing an unprotected JFK,but under the scenerio that unfolded,at least 6 seconds in which shots occurred probably more,if the 1st shot didnt get the agent(s) they would likely have been able to get both JFK and Jackie down,covered and out of harm's way.....i would consider the Rybka ordeal a smoking gun in the case (my emphasis). i'd (sic) be interested in other members take on all of this."

Ok, you asked for it, Mark. Once one hurdles the fractured syntax, sloppy grammar and the really precious collection of ellipses one is left - from the distilled colossus - with something Jean Paul Sartre referred to as nothingness.

"the plotters couldve just shot the agents first and then went after JFK." Or, they could've headed them off at the pass! Yeah, that's it.

My favorite excerpt: "...he couldve (sic) made a difference or not..."

In the absence of any, like, evidence, such as the report to which Ron referred, one can and evidently will speculate all day, eh? Smoking gun my ass!

Hey, Marky The K, 'Dungeons And Dragons' becoming a bore?

JG

Edited June 7, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Guest Stephen Turner]

We have to except that not everything that happened on that day was part of a conspiracy, some things just happened, this is a case in point. Pure speculation is poor ground for evidence gathering.

[Mark Knight]

Personally, I find nothing sinister in Rybka's actions that day. Neither do I propose that, had Rybka been with his SS compadres in Dealy Plaza that day, he might have "saved the day." I doubt that anyone could have prevented what happened there, from ANY position within the motorcade. As Mr. Turner pointed out, "some things just happened...", without any conspiratorial connotations.

My comments have more to do with Mr. Slattery's tendancy to drive brads with a sledgehammer when constructing his arguments...which in turn leads me to question his motivations. As I previously suggested, simple persuasive arguments would be a bit less of a turn-off...and I still recommend the Carnegie books to Mr. Slattery. I choose to refrain from responding in kind to Mr. Slattery's personal attacks.

But don't flatter yourself with the "personal stalker" thoughts, Mr. Slattery...you're not THAT important in this life, and I shan't miss you when you and the other disciples of Posner finally go.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Mark Wilson]

We have to except that not everything that happened on that day was part of a conspiracy, some things just happened, this is a case in point. Pure speculation is poor ground for evidence gathering.

i'll give you some evidence,if the secret service had done their job that day,11/22/63 would be a footnote in history as the day of a foiled assassination attempt.....Palamara's work speaks for itself,i'm a huge fan.... you discount the uncovered Chicago and Miami plots against JFK, in the previous weeks prior to Dallas, as if they never happened and imply that Dallas was a routine trip in regards to security....

[Brendan Slattery]

Brendan, how did you come to know so much about the SS aspect of the assassination? I've heard that Palamara's book has upset many former agents. Have you read it? Do they have reason to be upset?

I probably know as much about the SS as the average person here. I'm certainly no SS "groupie" like Vince, nor have I read his manuscript. I'm aware that Clint Hill is displeased with it, as is Tony Marsh, who was quoted in some way without his permission. The buzz is that Vince attributes sinister motives to the SS on that awful day, not just incompetence. If so, that's a slander that should not stand.

[Guest John Gillespie]

Ugh. More intellectual airs from pretentious intellectual poseurs. Latin with ad hominem and spelling and grammar-usage attacks. Jesus. It's becoming another IMDb forum.........

_______________

Thanks for the instructive reference to IMDb. Now we can consider the source.

You're up past your bedtime.

[Chuck Robbins]

Still wondering who the client is whose interests Mr. Slattery is representing on the forum here. Mr. Slattery seems to have an agenda, one particularly skewed toward stifling discussion, IMHO...choosing to assault the reader with a verbal broadaxe rather than attempting to persuade the reader. If he was sincere in his beliefs, I would tend to think that persuasion would be his tactic; instead, he apparently prefers the "hachet-man" approach.

I meant it when I recommended on another thread that Mr. Slattery read the works of Dale Carnegie...providing he could put the lessons into practice, and providing the facts are on his side, his posts might actually sway some participants to his point of view.

Oh dear. My very own personal stalker has returned. He sits back, waits for me to post, then pounces. Quite a life you got there, Mark. Guess it beats playing Scrabble at the 4-H Center.

Wilson posted about Rybka, and I calmly and methodically responded. Exactly how is that "stifling" discussion? By merely disagreeing? If so, are you mentally ill? Whose interests are you representing, Mark? Aging nerds who live with their parents? The mystery widens ...

Geez, your pathetic slanderings of Mark do nothing to lessen the truth of what he says about you.

There have always been a few individuals on these forums whose purposes are clear.

They disrupt the discussion of issues, they demean those who question their motives, and last, but not least, they insist upon taking part in a process which has, as it's goal, something that is obviously at odds with their own.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I don't like problems. 'Nuff said?

Chuck

[Brendan Slattery]

Geez, your pathetic slanderings of Mark do nothing to lessen the truth of what he says about you.

I'm the slanderer? As opposed to the valentines he sends my way time and again?

There have always been a few individuals on these forums whose purposes are clear.

I guess your "purpose" is to shill for a thin-skinned buddy.

They disrupt the discussion of issues, they demean those who question their motives, and last, but not least, they insist upon taking part in a process which has, as it's goal, something that is obviously at odds with their own.

Clue me in: exactly how did I "disrupt" the discussion? By responding? By doing some homework on Rybka and his duties that day? For having the audacity to disagree with the hateful premise? What is it about a dialogue that terrifies you so? FYI, some motives (9-11 an inside job; US never landed on the moon; Holocaust denials) deserve to be demeaned.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

NO, censorious a-holes like yourself are a far bigger threat to civilization.

I don't like problems. 'Nuff said?

And I don't like blowhards who profess to value dissent and free speech, yet brutally suppress it whenever possible. My rights trump your eggshell-thin ego. Get lost.

[Chuck Robbins]

Geez, your pathetic slanderings of Mark do nothing to lessen the truth of what he says about you.

I'm the slanderer? As opposed to the valentines he sends my way time and again?

There have always been a few individuals on these forums whose purposes are clear.

I guess your "purpose" is to shill for a thin-skinned buddy.

They disrupt the discussion of issues, they demean those who question their motives, and last, but not least, they insist upon taking part in a process which has, as it's goal, something that is obviously at odds with their own.

Clue me in: exactly how did I "disrupt" the discussion? By responding? By doing some homework on Rybka and his duties that day? For having the audacity to disagree with the hateful premise? What is it about a dialogue that terrifies you so? FYI, some motives (9-11 an inside job; US never landed on the moon; Holocaust denials) deserve to be demeaned.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

NO, censorious a-holes like yourself are a far bigger threat to civilization.

I don't like problems. 'Nuff said?

And I don't like blowhards who profess to value dissent and free speech, yet brutally suppress it whenever possible. My rights trump your eggshell-thin ego. Get lost.

I rest my case.

My chastising of you does not mean I am sticking up for Mark. Although I appreciate his efforts here, we are not "buddies".

Ego? You impose your frailties upon me? Please, ego is what you are all about. The ALL-KNOWING Slattery tells us all we have to know. To believe otherwise is to be a cretin, correct?

Demeaning remarks, name-calling and full-on propaganda propagation are not what I would regard as the best use of the "free-speech" you profess to value so much.

Your dogged determination to spread your version of events, pretending that they are far superior to those as described by Palamara, is nothing short of ludicrous.

When you muster the courage to free yourself from the childish manner in which you present your "opinions", read that "personal attacks", you might actually be of some use someday.

Until then, in my opinion, you are just another one of the mindless, lock-stepping sheep, that have helped the cover-up of the JFK murder to continue for far too long.

Please, if you must continue to spread your manure, save me a bagfull? My garden needs fertilizing.

Chuck