Henry Rybka

[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.

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

Chuck, I can only conclude that you have nothing of value to contribute to the Rybka issue. Instead, you want to make this all about me. Newsflash: JFK's murder was solved 42 years ago. By stubbornly resisting reason, common sense, and an avalanche of facts, you and your ilk have turned Nov 22 into a colossal waste of time. Had Oswald been a Bircher, you would have lost all interest in "conspiracies" and so-called "coverups" because it would have fit well with Dallas being the "city of hate." But LHO was a big lefty, so when the crime didn't fit your mental template, you MADE it fit by throwing a bunch of disparate groups together (CIA, Big Oil, Walker, the Hunts, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Secret Service, anti-Castro brigade, etc). Gen. Walker and the Birchers are interesting figures, but they had squat to do with 11-22-63. Stop chasing shadows on the Knoll and get a life. Please.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Newsflash: JFK's murder was solved 42 years ago. By stubbornly resisting reason, common sense, and an avalanche of facts, you and your ilk have turned Nov 22 into a colossal waste of time. a life. Please.

If you really believe this is true, Mr. Slattery, could you kindly explain why you are wasting your time (and ours) on this forum?

[Brendan Slattery]

Newsflash: JFK's murder was solved 42 years ago. By stubbornly resisting reason, common sense, and an avalanche of facts, you and your ilk have turned Nov 22 into a colossal waste of time. a life. Please.

If you really believe this is true, Mr. Slattery, could you kindly explain why you are wasting your time (and ours) on this forum?

To help you. I'm staging a mass intervention.

[Michael Hogan]

If you ran into a foul-mouthed, belligerent, ignorant drunk at your local bar or pub and after a few minutes it became clear that any efforts on your part to reason with him or debate with him were fruitless and would only serve to induce him to become nastier and nastier.....and it was also apparent that the drunk actually enjoyed seeing you get irritated at his behavior....... at what point would you dispense with the conversation, walk away, and let him puke all over himself?

Just a rhetorical, metaphorical question.

[Lee Forman]

The Rybka incident can still be found on David Wolper's Four Days in November [VHS only]. I may seek to have someone tranfer it into a digital format. Does anyone have the ability to host it on a server if I was to get the transfer?

- lee

Edited - got the title wrong.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Lee Forman

[Lee Forman]

The Rybka incident can still be found on David Wolper's Four Days in November [VHS only]. I may seek to have someone tranfer it into a digital format. Does anyone have the ability to host it on a server if I was to get the transfer?

- lee

Edited - got the title wrong.

Watched it again - Rybka is initially running alongside of the Lincoln as it begins to leave Love Field, protecting Kennedy as per his assignment. It's when he turns to join his place in the Queen Mary where he becomes confused.

- lee

[Mark Knight]

Newsflash: JFK's murder was solved 42 years ago.

Well, Mr. Slattery finally reveals WHY he's here...to save the lost, I suppose he'd call it. Still curious who his client(s) is(are) that directed him to work his public-relations magic here.

And I still recommend those Dale Carnegie books. Interesting to find someone working in public relations who has trouble having good "relations" with the "public." Promoting hostility in a witness may elicit the testimony you want, but promoting hostility in a jury is hardly an effective way to obtain a verdict in your favor.

The Rybka incident is NOT the "Rosetta Stone" of the assassination; but neither is the WC Report...although it might contain bits and pieces of information, separate from the conclusions, that may eventually lead to the truth.

[My guess is that the truth leads thru Montreal; just the mention of Montreal, Robert Emmett Johnson, and Mannlicher-Carcano in the same sentence apparently has silenced Hemming...he won't even tell me that I'm full of xxxx on the subject, in his inimitable yet endearing way.]

The Rybka absence from the motorcade after Love Field was NOT an insurmountable obstacle; Roberts simply assigns another agent to take Rybka's place while the motorcade is proceeding, and that's that. "Hey, you...you move up to the right front." The primary SS job is the protection of the President, right? So you don't just leave him unprotected, simply because ONE of your agents got left behind; instead, you adjust. And I think Roberts was intelligent enough to figure this out BEFORE the motorcade arrived in Dealy Plaza.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Brendan Slattery]

The Rybka incident can still be found on David Wolper's Four Days in November [VHS only]. I may seek to have someone tranfer it into a digital format. Does anyone have the ability to host it on a server if I was to get the transfer?

- lee

Edited - got the title wrong.

Watched it again - Rybka is initially running alongside of the Lincoln as it begins to leave Love Field, protecting Kennedy as per his assignment. It's when he turns to join his place in the Queen Mary where he becomes confused.

- lee

He was supposed to protect Kennedy at Love Field and that's it. Agents are always left behind to tend to AF1. The real "crime" was two civilians like Powers and O'Donnell taking up precious space in the QM. They had no business being there.

[Nick Bartetzko]

If you ran into a foul-mouthed, belligerent, ignorant drunk at your local bar or pub and after a few minutes it became clear that any efforts on your part to reason with him or debate with him were fruitless and would only serve to induce him to become nastier and nastier.....and it was also apparent that the drunk actually enjoyed seeing you get irritated at his behavior....... at what point would you dispense with the conversation, walk away, and let him puke all over himself?

Just a rhetorical, metaphorical question.

Thanks for the great post. I was thinking similar rhetorical, metaphorical thoughts.

Regards, Nick

[Ron Ecker]

It's when he turns to join his place in the Queen Mary where he becomes confused.

I watched the animated gif again and I think you're right. He turns and sees that his place has been taken on the running board. Another agent is trying to move into the back seat to make room for him, but his foot is still on the running board, the car is moving, and Rybka decides to stay where he is.

It was probably a space problem created by Power and O'Donnell having climbed into the car.

[Pat Speer]

He was supposed to protect Kennedy at Love Field and that's it. Agents are always left behind to tend to AF1. The real "crime" was two civilians like Powers and O'Donnell taking up precious space in the QM. They had no business being there.

Mr. Slattery, I welcome your input, as long as it's input. You could very well be right about Rybka. But why make such hostile comments about Powers and O'Donnell? Is this reflective of your over-all hostility to the mythical "Camelot" still mourned by so many? It really makes me wonder when people denigrate the Kennedy Administration and those who venerate its legacy, and then hold up the rockin' eighties of the Reagan Administration as the good old days. You're not one of those, are you?

You say the case was solved 42 years ago. Do you mean this in general terms, as in Oswald did it, or do you literally mean that there has been no progress in our understanding of this event since the time of the Warren Commission? If so, I've created a presentation on the medical evidence, with the link below, which PROVES you wrong. The Warren Commission, and Warren in particular, were willfully ignorant about the medical evidence. They also ignored a number of extre mely important issues, including the clean-up of the limousine by the Secret Service at Parkland. Do you honestly believe this was all just a coincidence? Doesn't it seem more likely that Warren, a former prosecutor, knew he could convict Oswald in the public eye as long as he didn't dig too deep, and that this prevented him from digging too deep?

Edited June 8, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Brendan Slattery]

Mr. Slattery, I welcome your input, as long as it's input. You could very well be right about Rybka. But why make such hostile comments about Powers and O'Donnell? Is this reflective of your over-all hostility to the mythical "Camelot" still mourned by so many?

Because their unnecessary presence in the car compromised the President's safety. The QM should have been staffed by security personnel only. That's hardly a radical opinion. Nothing against the men personally, but if you've ever read Seymour Hersh's "Camelot" or "Power and Grace," you'd know that Dave Powers was a first-class scumbag whose sole job was to get JFK laid.

It really makes me wonder when people denigrate the Kennedy Administration and those who venerate its legacy, and then hold up the rockin' eighties of the Reagan Administration as the good old days. You're not one of those, are you?

Not alive to remember JFK; too young to vote for Reagan. Why the query? Was the Kennedy Admin some paragon of virtue or something? Do you really believe our innocence was "lost," or that Vietnam never would have happened?

You say the case was solved 42 years ago. Do you mean this in general terms, as in Oswald did it, or do you literally mean that there has been no progress in our understanding of this event since the time of the Warren Commission?

Oswald did it and there's been great progess in cementing that original conclusion.

If so, I've created a presentation on the medical evidence, with the link below, which PROVES you wrong. The Warren Commission, and Warren in particular, were willfully ignorant about the medical evidence.

Wrong. You've got nothing. "Wishing" for something doesn't make it so. Panel after panel of independent experts have verified the authenticity of the photos and x-rays. On your side is Robert "OJ" Groden and Jack "Photogrammetry" White. LOL.

They also ignored a number of extre mely important issues, including the clean-up of the limousine by the Secret Service at Parkland.

So what? What the hell is sinister about mopping up blood and brain matter? For all they knew that car would have to be used to ferry people back to Love Field. You're right: nobody had the presence of mind to treat the car as a crime scene, but light mopping doesn't erase the Zap film, eyewitnesses, ballistics, forensics, and autopsy pix--all of which point to one person and one location.

Doesn't it seem more likely that Warren, a former prosecutor, knew he could convict Oswald in the public eye as long as he didn't dig too deep, and that this prevented him from digging too deep?

Well gee, your kind has been digging deeper for far longer. Result? Zilch. Posner was right: case closed.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Slattery, I welcome your input, as long as it's input. You could very well be right about Rybka. But why make such hostile comments about Powers and O'Donnell? Is this reflective of your over-all hostility to the mythical "Camelot" still mourned by so many?

Because their unnecessary presence in the car compromised the President's safety. The QM should have been staffed by security personnel only. That's hardly a radical opinion. Nothing against the men personally, but if you've ever read Seymour Hersh's "Camelot" or "Power and Grace," you'd know that Dave Powers was a first-class scumbag whose sole job was to get JFK laid.

It really makes me wonder when people denigrate the Kennedy Administration and those who venerate its legacy, and then hold up the rockin' eighties of the Reagan Administration as the good old days. You're not one of those, are you?

Not alive to remember JFK; too young to vote for Reagan. Why the query? Was the Kennedy Admin some paragon of virtue or something? Do you really believe our innocence was "lost," or that Vietnam never would have happened?

You say the case was solved 42 years ago. Do you mean this in general terms, as in Oswald did it, or do you literally mean that there has been no progress in our understanding of this event since the time of the Warren Commission?

Oswald did it and there's been great progess in cementing that original conclusion.

If so, I've created a presentation on the medical evidence, with the link below, which PROVES you wrong. The Warren Commission, and Warren in particular, were willfully ignorant about the medical evidence.

Wrong. You've got nothing. "Wishing" for something doesn't make it so. Panel after panel of independent experts have verified the authenticity of the photos and x-rays. On your side is Robert "OJ" Groden and Jack "Photogrammetry" White. LOL.

They also ignored a number of extre mely important issues, including the clean-up of the limousine by the Secret Service at Parkland.

So what? What the hell is sinister about mopping up blood and brain matter? For all they knew that car would have to be used to ferry people back to Love Field. You're right: nobody had the presence of mind to treat the car as a crime scene, but light mopping doesn't erase the Zap film, eyewitnesses, ballistics, forensics, and autopsy pix--all of which point to one person and one location.

Doesn't it seem more likely that Warren, a former prosecutor, knew he could convict Oswald in the public eye as long as he didn't dig too deep, and that this prevented him from digging too deep?

Well gee, your kind has been digging deeper for far longer. Result? Zilch. Posner was right: case closed.

Ouch. Whenever I start to admire your spunk, you have to say something really really dumb. Posner was a jerk who could have written a great book exposing the many flaws of the CT community, but instead cut corners and told outright lies to try and prove Oswald's sole guilt. He's also a coward, as he refuses to engage in meaningful debate about his claims.

Your rejection of my work without reading it is also insulting. Here I spend two years of my life working on something so that people like you can have informed opinions, and you choose to insult me because I disagree with Posner and Hersh and others who have made great bank insisting that John F. Kennedy was killed for no reason, and should not be mourned even if he was killed for a reason. Your putdown of Powers because he helped his buddy get laid is also interesting...WHAT ARE BUDDIES FOR, IF NOT TO HELP YOU GET LAID? I suspect you're showing your true colors here, Brendan. If so, not only are you a witch-burner, you're a Puritan.

And, by the way, Mr. Slattery, my presentation is built on the thesis that the autopsy evidence is UNALTERED, and LEGITIMATE, and that it still proves more than one-shooter was involved. Your speculation that I'm an alterationist is incredibly off-target.

[Ron Ecker]

What is the IMDb forum? Since we're way off subject anyway. (From Love Field to Posner. Good title for a book?)

[Mark Stapleton]

If lone nut Oswald killed JFK, then what was the reason for LBJ locking up the records for 75 years? There's no security issue here.

Why did Ruby kill Oswald? Because idolised Jack and Jackie of course. Ho Ho Ho.