the 1963 Secret Service

[Charles Black]

Tom Purvis

Excellent post regarding, Custer's "true" history and performance.

Custers "last" charge with the benefit of "no reconaissance" was not his "first"! He on several ocassions during the War Between the States, had both divided his command and charged "blindly" into enemy positions. He was said to have been blessed with what came to be called "Custer's Luck". I feel that it was only this "luck" that had prevented his annihilation some near 15 years prior. He had the habit of of making battlefield decisions that were absolutely opposed to tactics that had been formed over 3000 years prior, and that are still followed today !

Didn't mean to depart the Secret Service, but it, in my opinion, does relate directly !

Charles Black

[Charles Black]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Armstrong_Custer

Last time that I checked, JFK was made a "Hero" due to PT 109, when in fact, as the Commander of the boat, he most probably should have been court martialed.

Now, in addition to some mythological giant conspiracy to assassinate JFK on the part of the US Government, we now have a somewhat similiar claim as regards to Custer and his demise.

I have no real knowledge of General Custer and his career. However, considering that Tom Purvis seems to be smitten with his own long-winded posts that are often incomprehensible, and Charles Drago seems to a be reasonable, well-informed researcher that I respect, I think I'll just assume Charles is right on this one. As for your comment about JFK and Pt 109, you're just echoing the anti-Kennedy party line. JFK was a more legitimate war hero than any politician of the twentieth century. Even if you blame him for causing his boat to be torpedoed, no one can deny his incredible bravery afterwards. Tugging an injured man by holding the string from his life jacket in his mouth, as he swam for miles, was a fantastic act of heroism. JFK unquestionably SAVED that man's life. How many people can say that?

Hello Don

If you are going to elaborate on what you "think" is military history....you should first study it.

PT 109 was "Not Torpedoed"....it was rammed and cut in half by a Japanese destroyer ! This was the ONLY such incident in U.S. Naval history of a U.S. warship being rammed and sunk !

If any of you have had experience being in open water on a quiet night, and realize at what distance a fast moving destroyer can be heard approaching under such conditions.....you might also question how this could have possibly happened...there was no gunfire..only the noise made by an approaching flotilla of Japanese warships !

Were I Captain of PT 109, I don't feel that I would have received a "medal" ! I would have expected "court martial", or a severe reprimand at the very least ! His subsequent "heroism" in attempting to save the remainder of his crew, is, I don't feel, "Above and Beyond the Call of Duty", of any military officer !

Charles Black

Edited June 18, 2007 by Charles Black

[Charles Drago]

Our Custer dalliance seems to be elucidating any number of hidden -- and not so hidden -- agendas.

My MONARCH mentors would be proud.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Armstrong_Custer

Last time that I checked, JFK was made a "Hero" due to PT 109, when in fact, as the Commander of the boat, he most probably should have been court martialed.

Now, in addition to some mythological giant conspiracy to assassinate JFK on the part of the US Government, we now have a somewhat similiar claim as regards to Custer and his demise.

I have no real knowledge of General Custer and his career. However, considering that Tom Purvis seems to be smitten with his own long-winded posts that are often incomprehensible, and Charles Drago seems to a be reasonable, well-informed researcher that I respect, I think I'll just assume Charles is right on this one. As for your comment about JFK and Pt 109, you're just echoing the anti-Kennedy party line. JFK was a more legitimate war hero than any politician of the twentieth century. Even if you blame him for causing his boat to be torpedoed, no one can deny his incredible bravery afterwards. Tugging an injured man by holding the string from his life jacket in his mouth, as he swam for miles, was a fantastic act of heroism. JFK unquestionably SAVED that man's life. How many people can say that?

However, considering that Tom Purvis seems to be smitten with his own long-winded posts that are often incomprehensible,

1. As a general rule, those who have some true knowledge of "FACTUAL" history, can wade through the typo/spelling areas and still understand what is being said.

2. Those who either have no knowledge of historical fact, or else are incapable of researching same, generally have a tendency to stick their foot into their mouth when they demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

3. Anyone who has taken the time to research PT Boat operations in WWII, as well as their various and specific missions, knows pretty well exactly how JFK's PT Boat got rammed.

A. They were sitting in the water with only one engine running.

B. Their mission was primarily one of surveillance and report back activities.

C. As with many an "ambush" in WWII as well as Korea & Vietnam, people like to sleep.

D. Usually, one-man is rotated to "Stay Awake" and alert if the enemy approaches.

In that regards, did the US Navy allow the enlistment of personnel who were totally deaf and could not hear the approach of an enemy ship to the extent that the fastest naval vessel in the US Military, and one which troops often water-skied behind, sat and allowed itself to be run over by an extremely slow moving Japanese ship.

E. Just perhaps the following may help:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26407660.htm

Even to this date, the US Military continues to "cover" for the stupid mistakes which are made.

Those who have been around the block a few times, long ago recognized that in most such instances, the only debate is whether to award a medal and call it a heroic action, or whether to courts martial those responsible.

An Ambassador's son's, seldom get the latter.

Your lack of understanding of military history, to include George Armstrong Custer and the PT 109 incident, appears to be exceeded only by your lack of knowledge in the assassination of JFK.

and Charles Drago seems to a be reasonable, well-informed researcher that I respect

And in that regards, I am reminded of a statement which was once made in regards to the JFK Assassination.

"I might have believed you if you had not made me mad"

Therefore, I am to assume that I am a complete xxxx since I do not coddle some of the lack of knowledge which is frequently posted here, in regards to any subject matter.

And for the record: I am of the opinion that JFK represented our first true "Thinking" President in the modern age.

Were it not for his understanding of the world and the fact that we as a nation must learn to co-exist with other forms of governments, then who knows exactly what direction this nation would have taken.

Had he been so ignorant of many things, as were some others, then we would have most likely become the primary instrument of utilization of small tactical nuclear weapons each and every time that some little conflict began.

As this was what he was often advised to do.

In addition, we entered the Nuclear Age with little to prevent what many often see in the TV/Movie theaters in regards to the unauthorized release of a nuclear weapon by some radical element of the military (ours or theirs).

And, were it not for JFK's efforts in co-working with the other nuclear capability countries to develope and implement the PAL system for the nukes, there can be little doubt that many of us would not be sitting around here wearing out our fingerprints on these keyboards and/or jacking our jaws.

So, be my guest and continue to demonstrate the continued lack of knowledge on various subject matters.

Personally, I enjoy observing the human species make a fool of themselves.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Armstrong_Custer

Last time that I checked, JFK was made a "Hero" due to PT 109, when in fact, as the Commander of the boat, he most probably should have been court martialed.

Now, in addition to some mythological giant conspiracy to assassinate JFK on the part of the US Government, we now have a somewhat similiar claim as regards to Custer and his demise.

I have no real knowledge of General Custer and his career. However, considering that Tom Purvis seems to be smitten with his own long-winded posts that are often incomprehensible, and Charles Drago seems to a be reasonable, well-informed researcher that I respect, I think I'll just assume Charles is right on this one. As for your comment about JFK and Pt 109, you're just echoing the anti-Kennedy party line. JFK was a more legitimate war hero than any politician of the twentieth century. Even if you blame him for causing his boat to be torpedoed, no one can deny his incredible bravery afterwards. Tugging an injured man by holding the string from his life jacket in his mouth, as he swam for miles, was a fantastic act of heroism. JFK unquestionably SAVED that man's life. How many people can say that?

However, considering that Tom Purvis seems to be smitten with his own long-winded posts that are often incomprehensible,

1. As a general rule, those who have some true knowledge of "FACTUAL" history, can wade through the typo/spelling areas and still understand what is being said.

2. Those who either have no knowledge of historical fact, or else are incapable of researching same, generally have a tendency to stick their foot into their mouth when they demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

3. Anyone who has taken the time to research PT Boat operations in WWII, as well as their various and specific missions, knows pretty well exactly how JFK's PT Boat got rammed.

A. They were sitting in the water with only one engine running.

B. Their mission was primarily one of surveillance and report back activities.

C. As with many an "ambush" in WWII as well as Korea & Vietnam, people like to sleep.

D. Usually, one-man is rotated to "Stay Awake" and alert if the enemy approaches.

In that regards, did the US Navy allow the enlistment of personnel who were totally deaf and could not hear the approach of an enemy ship to the extent that the fastest naval vessel in the US Military, and one which troops often water-skied behind, sat and allowed itself to be run over by an extremely slow moving Japanese ship.

E. Just perhaps the following may help:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26407660.htm

Even to this date, the US Military continues to "cover" for the stupid mistakes which are made.

Those who have been around the block a few times, long ago recognized that in most such instances, the only debate is whether to award a medal and call it a heroic action, or whether to courts martial those responsible.

An Ambassador's son's, seldom get the latter.

Your lack of understanding of military history, to include George Armstrong Custer and the PT 109 incident, appears to be exceeded only by your lack of knowledge in the assassination of JFK.

and Charles Drago seems to a be reasonable, well-informed researcher that I respect

And in that regards, I am reminded of a statement which was once made in regards to the JFK Assassination.

"I might have believed you if you had not made me mad"

Therefore, I am to assume that I am a complete xxxx since I do not coddle some of the lack of knowledge which is frequently posted here, in regards to any subject matter.

And for the record: I am of the opinion that JFK represented our first true "Thinking" President in the modern age.

Were it not for his understanding of the world and the fact that we as a nation must learn to co-exist with other forms of governments, then who knows exactly what direction this nation would have taken.

Had he been so ignorant of many things, as were some others, then we would have most likely become the primary instrument of utilization of small tactical nuclear weapons each and every time that some little conflict began.

As this was what he was often advised to do.

In addition, we entered the Nuclear Age with little to prevent what many often see in the TV/Movie theaters in regards to the unauthorized release of a nuclear weapon by some radical element of the military (ours or theirs).

And, were it not for JFK's efforts in co-working with the other nuclear capability countries to develope and implement the PAL system for the nukes, there can be little doubt that many of us would not be sitting around here wearing out our fingerprints on these keyboards and/or jacking our jaws.

So, be my guest and continue to demonstrate the continued lack of knowledge on various subject matters.

Personally, I enjoy observing the human species make a fool of themselves.

Bump to head of class

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom Purvis

Excellent post regarding, Custer's "true" history and performance.

Custers "last" charge with the benefit of "no reconaissance" was not his "first"! He on several ocassions during the War Between the States, had both divided his command and charged "blindly" into enemy positions. He was said to have been blessed with what came to be called "Custer's Luck". I feel that it was only this "luck" that had prevented his annihilation some near 15 years prior. He had the habit of of making battlefield decisions that were absolutely opposed to tactics that had been formed over 3000 years prior, and that are still followed today !

Didn't mean to depart the Secret Service, but it, in my opinion, does relate directly !

Charles Black

And although we frequently are in total disagreement on many subject matters, the factual research demonstrates even a worse comparison.

General George Armstrong Custer was fully informed by his Indian Scouts that he was approaching a large contingent of the Sioux (etc;) Indian Tribe.

Nevertheless, Custer, for all practical purposes, totally ignored these warnings and all principals of military tactics, and in his customary style, charged ahead.

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

JFK; the US Secret Service; the FBI, and virtually everyone else knew that, as stated by JFK "'We're heading into nut country today'".

http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerjfkpremonition.shtml

"He handed it to Jackie saying, 'We're heading into nut country today'. O'Donnell took the paper to a window and reread it

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

Therein lies the negligence of the US Secret Service, as well as every other security service associated with the visit of JFK to Dallas, Tx.

As has been previously posted, and shown, SS Agents frequently rode on the bumper, etc; of the Presidential Limo. Yet, in Dallas, TX, which was fully recognized as being "nut country", along with rumors of an attempted assassination attempt, the US Secret Service bowed to the desires of JFK and did not force him to comply with this basic security measure.

The purpose of the Presidential Protection Branch of the US Secret Service is to protect the President of the US. NOT to be his friend, drinking buddy, girlfriend escort; etc;.

Due to the circumstances associated with the Dallas, TX visit, not unlike George Armstrong Custer, the US Secret Service was fully aware of what the conditions were of the area which they were entering into.

Yet, they nevertheless allowed the "wishes"/desire of JFK to demonstrate his lack of fear and common sense, to over-ride some of the most basic requirements in the performance of their jobs.

In this regards, not unlike General Custer, their actions represent complete Gross Negligence!

The US Secret Service should have exercised the absolute "Maximum Effort" at Presidential Security during ALL of the Texas trip.

In that regards, the Chief of the Presidential Protection Detail was, and can be considered as being incompetent.

Therefore, the US Secret Service Agents should have been given absolute and Direct Orders by their superior that they would conform to ALL security requirements under those conditions which represented "anticipated threat".

And, unless JFK gave absolute and direct orders for each and every SS Agent to get off the Presidential Limo, then this vehicle should have had at minimum, 4 SS Agents riding on it at all times.

JFK, not unlike Custer, ignored the factual warnings of the potential threat.

JFK, not unlike Custer, allowed his security elements to be everywhere except where it could provide protection.

JFK, not unlike Custer, died as a result of his own actions, coupled with the lack of actions of others.

So, there is far more in comparison between the Custer episode and the JFK assassination, then the initial surface examination demonstrates.

And herein lies the true negligence of the Presidential Protection Detail of the US Secret Service.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

JFK, not unlike Custer, ignored the factual warnings of the potential threat.

JFK, not unlike Custer, allowed his security elements to be everywhere except where it could provide protection.

JFK, not unlike Custer, died as a result of his own actions, coupled with the lack of actions of others.

So, there is far more in comparison between the Custer episode and the JFK assassination, then the initial surface examination demonstrates.

The greatest comparison I can elicit form the above is that both these Americans were ostensibly killed by Americans, Native or otherwise because people didn't understand or didn't want to understand what they stood for. It's a shame really that at the heart of both deaths was the same lack of tolerances.

[Charles Drago]

So it was suicide!

Inquiring minds want to know!

Mr. Purvis writes, "JFK, not unlike Custer, allowed his security elements to be everywhere except where it could provide protection. JFK, not unlike Custer, died as a result of his own actions, coupled with the lack of actions of others."

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Long ago I vowed never again to dignify such ill-intended absurdity with a response. Yet here I am ...

No more.

Charles

[Guest Gary Loughran]

So it was suicide!

Inquiring minds want to know!

Mr. Purvis writes, "JFK, not unlike Custer, allowed his security elements to be everywhere except where it could provide protection. JFK, not unlike Custer, died as a result of his own actions, coupled with the lack of actions of others."

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Long ago I vowed never again to dignify such ill-intended absurdity with a response. Yet here I am ...

No more.

Charles

Heh. I had essentially written the same thing originally but replaced it because I think the answer that will be received is yes it was (political) suicide of sorts.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

JFK, not unlike Custer, ignored the factual warnings of the potential threat.

JFK, not unlike Custer, allowed his security elements to be everywhere except where it could provide protection.

JFK, not unlike Custer, died as a result of his own actions, coupled with the lack of actions of others.

So, there is far more in comparison between the Custer episode and the JFK assassination, then the initial surface examination demonstrates.

The greatest comparison I can elicit form the above is that both these Americans were ostensibly killed by Americans, Native or otherwise because people didn't understand or didn't want to understand what they stood for. It's a shame really that at the heart of both deaths was the same lack of tolerances.

http://www.lbha.org/Research/renorep.htm

is too recent for me not to ask the good people of this country whether a policy that sets opposing parties in the field, armed, clothed, and equipped by one and the same Government should not be abolished

[Thomas H. Purvis]

So it was suicide!

Inquiring minds want to know!

Mr. Purvis writes, "JFK, not unlike Custer, allowed his security elements to be everywhere except where it could provide protection. JFK, not unlike Custer, died as a result of his own actions, coupled with the lack of actions of others."

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Long ago I vowed never again to dignify such ill-intended absurdity with a response. Yet here I am ...

No more.

Charles

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

JFK was shot THREE times by a bolt action rifle while riding in a slow moving motorcade.

In event no one bothered to inform you of the fact, he was killed!

And in event no one bothered to inform you, only Clint Hill, who was assigned to protect Jackie Kennedy even offered any indication of response to the threat.

In event this constitutes "full protection", I would certainly hate to observe what minimal protection constituted.

The issue has absolultely nothing to do with whether or not JFK exercised his right to minimal protection. It has to do with the responsibility of the US Secret Service to place the protection of the President above ALL other considerations.

Remind me now, exactly how many SS Agents were riding on the Presidential Limo at the time of the assassination?

My memory tends to indicate that there was absolutely none of them there, not to inclulde even the minimal safety of the "bubble top".

Exactly how much has this topic been discussed in the past, to include those who have posted photographs of SS Agents being where they were supposed to be on the Presidential Limo in other areas/during other motorcades.

The US Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail is not there to cater to the desires of the President of the US. It is completely irrelevant what the President "wants" in the way of personal security.

The responsibility of the SS is to take whatever means and/or actions are necessary in order to protect the President.

This was not done.

And thus, they placed themselves into the same position as many others in that either the gross negligence of their actions could be revealed or else they (their command structure) could "go along" with the lie which the WC was attempting to (& did a damn good job of) passing off to the American Public.

Exactly how good would their reputation have been had it been revealed that in fact none of them reacted to even save JFK while even a second shot struck him in the head (third shot fired) from a bolt action rifle.

And, although slightly less than 10 seconds of recorded assassination/shooting time is still little time to react, there should have been reaction after the first shot, and in the approximately 5.8 to 5.9 seconds delay between the first and the second shot to the head of JFK at Z313, someone should have reacted, and in fact the life of JFK could have been saved had someone done so.

Whereas: No one reacted in any manner (other than JBC who knew what was happening) and thus some 5.8 seconds after having been shot in the upper back by what would be a non-factal wound, the US Secret Service allowed (due to non-reactive response) the head of JFK to be blown off at Z-313.

This is their "crime" if you will, and due to this, their "command" was easily blackmailed into cooperation with the WC or else have it revealed that the US Secret Service basically ignored security protocol's and also were totally non-reactive while the President of the US was shot in the head. TWICE!

[Charles Drago]

Read slowly for comprehension:

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Relax. Read the sentence again.

There. Clearer?

CD

Edited June 18, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; there was. The preceding Monday, the President was on a trip in Tampa, Fla., and he requested that the agents not ride on either of those two steps.

Mr. SPECTER. And to whom did the President make that request?

Mr. HILL. Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring.

Mr. SPECTER. Was Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring the individual in charge of that trip to Florida?

Mr. HILL. He was riding in the Presidential automobile on that trip in Florida, and I presume that he was. I was not along.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, on that occasion would he have been in a position comparable to that occupied by Special Agent Kellerman on this trip to Texas?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; the same position.

Mr. SPECTER. And Special Agent Boring informed you of that instruction by President Kennedy?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. SPECTER. Did he make it a point to inform other special agents of that same instruction?

Mr. HILL. I believe that he did, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. And, as a result of what President Kennedy said to him, did he instruct you to observe that Presidential admonition?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. How, if at all, did that instruction of President Kennedy affect your action and--your action in safeguarding him on this trip to Dallas?

Mr. HILL. We did not ride on the rear portions of the automobile. I did on those four occasions because the motorcycles had to drop back and there was no protection on the left-hand side of the car.

Try your reading comprehension on that Charles!

[Don Jeffries]

Charles/Tom,

I don't believe JFK was negligent in the PT 109 incident, but even if he was, that would hardly have been the first time a young military man made a reckless or irresponsible decision. Ever hear of "friendly fire?" My point was that no one can deny what happened afterwards. JFK tugged another human being, with his TEETH, for miles in the water, and SAVED the man's life. Do you deny that? How much more heroic can you get than that? Can you imagine, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton or either Bush doing something like that? Has any American politician ever done anything more personally heroic?

Tom, it's laughable to hear your pretentious lectures about others not having knowledge of the subject matter at hand. It's mind-boggling to me that there is anyone on this forum that takes you seriously. You believe in the single-bullet theory. That alone disqualifies you from any serious discussion of the JFK assassination. You also have a convoluted theory that, while the Warren Commission and the FBI were right about Oswald firing all three shots from the TSBD, they also engaged in a massive coverup. Throw into this perplexing mix the fact that you think the Zapruder film was altered and you have...well, nothing comprehensible. I've asked you before to succinctly and logically explain how the official story that Oswald was a lone assassin could be correct, yet the investigation be a coverup, but you have refrained from doing so. In a few simple paragraphs, please enlighten us about the truth, as it is known to you.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Charles/Tom,

I don't believe JFK was negligent in the PT 109 incident, but even if he was, that would hardly have been the first time a young military man made a reckless or irresponsible decision. Ever hear of "friendly fire?" My point was that no one can deny what happened afterwards. JFK tugged another human being, with his TEETH, for miles in the water, and SAVED the man's life. Do you deny that? How much more heroic can you get than that? Can you imagine, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton or either Bush doing something like that? Has any American politician ever done anything more personally heroic?

Tom, it's laughable to hear your pretentious lectures about others not having knowledge of the subject matter at hand. It's mind-boggling to me that there is anyone on this forum that takes you seriously. You believe in the single-bullet theory. That alone disqualifies you from any serious discussion of the JFK assassination. You also have a convoluted theory that, while the Warren Commission and the FBI were right about Oswald firing all three shots from the TSBD, they also engaged in a massive coverup. Throw into this perplexing mix the fact that you think the Zapruder film was altered and you have...well, nothing comprehensible. I've asked you before to succinctly and logically explain how the official story that Oswald was a lone assassin could be correct, yet the investigation be a coverup, but you have refrained from doing so. In a few simple paragraphs, please enlighten us about the truth, as it is known to you.

I don't believe JFK was negligent in the PT 109 incident, but even if he was, that would hardly have been the first time a young military man made a reckless or irresponsible decision. Ever hear of "friendly fire?" My point was that no one can deny what happened afterwards. JFK tugged another human being, with his TEETH, for miles in the water, and SAVED the man's life. Do you deny that? How much more heroic can you get than that? Can you imagine, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton or either Bush doing something like that? Has any American politician ever done anything more personally heroic?

JFK's actions thereafter were certainly worthy of all of the praise which he has been given.

However, I have the book PT 109, and rest assured that old man Joe Kennedy insured that much was misrepresented.

In fact, just in case you are not aware of the simple fact about the great demand for this book and it's high sales reputation.

Literally cases of this book were found in the basement of Joe Kennedy's home.

In order to "up" the figures and make the book a best seller, he had purchased thousands of he book himself in order to make the book become this best seller.

Lastly:

You believe in the single-bullet theory. That alone disqualifies you from any serious discussion of the JFK assassination.

Just perhaps you should go back and review the facts a tad! Methinks that you have me confused with someone else or else you got onto the wrong train at some point.