the 1963 Secret Service

[Charles Drago]

Hearsay testimony before a USG commission that lied, altered witness statements, and ultimately endorsed what its members knew to be fabricated "evidence" and ultimately false conclusions cannot trump Vincent Palamara's research.

Read "Survivor's Guilt," and pay special attention to Palamara's assessment of Boring.

Your embrace of this classic argument from false authority (the Warren Commission) is all too typical of the underpinnings of your "I know something you don't know" blather.

What a treat you would have been on the battlefield: "I know the enemy's location, plans of attack, even what they ate for breakfast ... but you figure that out for yourself, you pitiful, undernourished-by-fact, not-worth-saving fools."

Dismissed.

In every sense of the word.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hearsay testimony before a USG commission that lied, altered witness statements, and ultimately endorsed what its members knew to be fabricated "evidence" and ultimately false conclusions cannot trump Vincent Palamara's research.

Read "Survivor's Guilt," and pay special attention to Palamara's assessment of Boring.

Your embrace of this classic argument from false authority (the Warren Commission) is all too typical of the underpinnings of your "I know something you don't know" blather.

What a treat you would have been on the battlefield: "I know the enemy's location, plans of attack, even what they ate for breakfast ... but you figure that out for yourself, you pitiful, undernourished-by-fact, not-worth-saving fools."

Dismissed.

In every sense of the word.

Far to difficult for you to COMPREHEND, was it?

Hopefully you will now cease to "dignify" any responses with the complete lack of historical research and factual evidence which you have to date demonstrated in regards to "Custer's Last Stand" as well as the assassination of JFK.

My progressively diminishing cerebral capacity can no long withstand the continued assault of such complete ignorance of historical fact.

Hearsay testimony before a USG commission that lied, altered witness statements, and ultimately endorsed what its members knew to be fabricated "evidence" and ultimately false conclusions cannot trump Vincent Palamara's research.

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

It merely means that one:

A. Has not taken the time to examine and understand the evidence.

B. One is habitually "sloppy" in his factual research.

3. One does not have the ability to understand the evidence even if found and/or presented.

Most reasonable adults, with whom I am familiar, at least would not run and hide behind someone else's unsupported theories in order to protect their own personal self image and avoid demonstrating clearly their own complete lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter.

But then again, there are quite obviously those here who think that you actually did your homework and that you carry some credentials as some form of "great researcher".

Just perhaps there is now a "taint" beginning to appear in that armor, or should I say "paint job" which you have given yourself.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hearsay testimony before a USG commission that lied, altered witness statements, and ultimately endorsed what its members knew to be fabricated "evidence" and ultimately false conclusions cannot trump Vincent Palamara's research.

Read "Survivor's Guilt," and pay special attention to Palamara's assessment of Boring.

Your embrace of this classic argument from false authority (the Warren Commission) is all too typical of the underpinnings of your "I know something you don't know" blather.

What a treat you would have been on the battlefield: "I know the enemy's location, plans of attack, even what they ate for breakfast ... but you figure that out for yourself, you pitiful, undernourished-by-fact, not-worth-saving fools."

Dismissed.

In every sense of the word.

Far to difficult for you to COMPREHEND, was it?

Hopefully you will now cease to "dignify" any responses with the complete lack of historical research and factual evidence which you have to date demonstrated in regards to "Custer's Last Stand" as well as the assassination of JFK.

My progressively diminishing cerebral capacity can no long withstand the continued assault of such complete ignorance of historical fact.

Hearsay testimony before a USG commission that lied, altered witness statements, and ultimately endorsed what its members knew to be fabricated "evidence" and ultimately false conclusions cannot trump Vincent Palamara's research.

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

It merely means that one:

A. Has not taken the time to examine and understand the evidence.

B. One is habitually "sloppy" in his factual research.

3. One does not have the ability to understand the evidence even if found and/or presented.

Most reasonable adults, with whom I am familiar, at least would not run and hide behind someone else's unsupported theories in order to protect their own personal self image and avoid demonstrating clearly their own complete lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter.

But then again, there are quite obviously those here who think that you actually did your homework and that you carry some credentials as some form of "great researcher".

Just perhaps there is now a "taint" beginning to appear in that armor, or should I say "paint job" which you have given yourself.

Should have also added:

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.

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Purvis writes, "Most reasonable adults, with whom I am familiar, at least would not run and hide behind someone else's unsupported theories in order to protect their own personal self image and avoid demonstrating clearly their own complete lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter."

How refreshing to witness Mr. Purvis's confrontation with his own intellectual failings.

Sir, since it now appears that your reliance upon what you accurately term the Warren Commission's "unsupported theories" is coming to an end in a burst of self-awareness, and in light of your courageous admission that your research and knowledge of the subject matter at hand to date has been lacking, I raise my cybervoice to welcome you to the land of the rational.

Yes, this is a strange new world for you. But hang in there, and soon you will be both illuminated and warmed by the light of reason.

Charles

Edited June 19, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Purvis writes, "Most reasonable adults, with whom I am familiar, at least would not run and hide behind someone else's unsupported theories in order to protect their own personal self image and avoid demonstrating clearly their own complete lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter."

How refreshing to witness Mr. Purvis's confrontation with his own intellectual failings.

Sir, since it now appears that your reliance upon what you accurately term the Warren Commission's "unsupported theories" is coming to an end in a burst of self-awareness, and in light of your courageous admission that your research and knowledge of the subject matter at hand to date has been lacking, I raise my cybervoice to welcome you to the land of the rational.

Yes, this is a strange new world for you. But hang in there, and soon you will be both illuminated and warmed by the light of reason.

Charles

Mr. Purvis writes, "Most reasonable adults, with whom I am familiar, at least would not run and hide behind someone else's unsupported theories in order to protect their own personal self image and avoid demonstrating clearly their own complete lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter."

How refreshing to witness Mr. Purvis's confrontation with his own intellectual failings.

Sir, since it now appears that your reliance upon what you accurately term the Warren Commission's "unsupported theories" is coming to an end in a burst of self-awareness, and in light of your courageous admission that your research and knowledge of the subject matter at hand to date has been lacking, I raise my cybervoice to welcome you to the land of the rational.

Yes, this is a strange new world for you. But hang in there, and soon you will be both illuminated and warmed by the light of reason.

Charles

Just perhaps you should run for political office Charles.

You appear to do exceptionally well at speaking in circles as well as avoidance of the facts.

Might I ask if you are being paid to continue to throw mud into the eyes of those, which it would appear are now progressively becoming opened?????

And, you are of course correct! One does not "dignify" a response by responding with additional demonstrations of ignorance of the factual evidence.

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

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

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

===

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!

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

One can thus assume that you have, as with many other endeavors, failed to "dignify" anything!

Anyone else here who thinks that Clint Hill was merely another "xxxx" and "tool" of the WC??????

Perhaps Clint had an excellent "Crystal Ball" and knew that his testimony would ultimately be critical in discrediting the research ability of one "Charles Drago".

And just perhaps you (Charles) should back up and begin with the considerably less difficult comprehension problems.

Such as "See Spot Run"!

[Bernice Moore]

The Policy of “No Agents” on the President’s Limousine

Information from Vince Palamara’s “Survivor’s Guilt” 2005

The Evolution of the Myth.

The Warren Commission was curious apparently, along with members

of the media and the public, why there were no agents protecting

the President Kennedy during the Dallas motorcade on 11/22/63. by

being posted on the back of the Limo on either side. Or why no

agents were not walking or running along side of the car.?(1).

Agents had performed these duties since the days of FDR. In

response, and only because they demanded an answer, Secret

Service Chief James J.Rowley had agents , Jerry Behn, Floyd

Boring, Emory Roberts, John Ready, and Clint Hill write their

reports in relation to their experiences with JFK on the matter

of security,(why Roy Kellerman, the agent in charge of the Dallas

trip , and the other Texas agents weren’t asked, is not known.)

Most interesting is that nothing is mentioned specifically by the

WC about 11/22/63..as requested by them. On first glance all five

reports support the notion that the President did not want agents

on or near the rear of the limo. However that is at first glance.

Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of White House detail (WHD)

Gerald. A “Jerry” Behn, not on the Texas trip, stated

unequivocally in his report 4/16/64 that JFK “told me that he did

not want agents riding on the back of his car.” This came from

the man who was the leader of the WH detail, “the man who was the

direct pipeline to the President, this alleged presidential edit

seems to be an authoritative and conclusive fact.

However, during the course of three separate interviews with

Vince Palamara, Mr.Behn let out a most unexpected bombshell: “I

don’t remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn’t want anybody on

the back of his car”. He went on to further add” that newsreel

footage from that period will bear him out on this point.” One of

many examples being the June 63 trip to Berlin (and many others

from 61 to 63). “I think if you watch the newsreel pictures

you’ll find agents on there from time to time.” Behn said.

Brehn’s reputation was and is impeccable. Agent Maurice

G.Martineau told Palamara on 9/21/93.. “No one that I can think

of would have been better positioned to give you the information

than Jerry Behn…( he was ) as well informed as anyone I can think

of that you could contact”. Behn garnered the utmost respect from

his colleagues that the author spoke with”.

Mr.Behn however ended his report by stating..” As late as Nov.

18(63)… he (JFK) told ASAIC Boring the same thing (or so Boring

claimed). Assistant Special Agent Boring was also not on the

Dallas trip, he had dealt primarily with the 11/18/63 Tampa,

Florida trip in his report ( dated 4/8/64) while also he

mentioned the 7/2/63 Italy trip, alleging that President Kennedy

made this request for both stops. Boring made the Florida trip in

place of Mr.Behn.

That said, in yet another contradiction that caught the author

off guard Boring exclaimed: “No, no that’s not true..(JFK) was a

very easy going guy…he didn’t interfere with our actions at all”,

thus also contradicting his report.

Assistant To the Special Agent in Charge (ATSAIC) Emory P.Roberts

(on the Florida and Texas trips) the commander of the SS follow

up car …the late Mr. Roberts (he died in the 60’s) deals

exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip in his report (

dated 4/10/64): Boring was Roberts sole source, via radio

transmission from the limousine ahead of his follow-up vehicle,

for JFK’s alleged request.

Special Agent (SA) John David “Jack” Ready (on the Texas trip)

..Ready’s very brief report (dated 4/11/64) dealt exclusively

with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip. However, Ready was not on

that specific Florida trip. Boring was, once again, his source

for JFK’s alleged request .Ready would not respond to written

inquiries from the author. The author phoned Mr. Ready on 6/13/05

and asked him if it was true that Boring said this, based on

JFK’s request. After confirming he wasn’t on the Tampa trip,

Ready stated : “Not on the phone (will I answer you ).I don’t

know you from Adam. Can you see my point ?”.

SA Clinton J,”Clint” Hill (on the Texas trip) …Hill also deals

with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip and Borings second-hand in

his (strangely undated) report: Mr. Hill was not on the Florida

trip either. Mr. Hill’s brother is former agent David B. Grant, a

former advance agent who worked on the planning of the Florida

and Texas trips with none other than Mr.Boring.

So of the five SS reports, four have as their primary source for

JFK’s alleged request Agent Floyd Boring, including one by Boring

himself, while the remaining report, written by Mr.Behn, mentions

the same 11/18/63 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do.Both Behn

and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at

different times, independent of each other, to the author. In

addition, agents DID ride on the rear of the limousine on 7/2/63

and 11/18/63 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests,

as the film and photo record proves.(2).Needless to say, with

Boring joining Behn in refuting the substance of their reports ,

the official SS ‘ explanation’ falls like a house of cards.

Brehn’s, Boring’s, and Hill’s reports are not even on any SS or

Treasury Dept. stationary, just blank sheets of paper. Also

Hill’s report is undated, an unusual error to make in any

official government that has been requested by the head of the

Secret Service.

Yet, all are supposed to be evidence of JFK expressing his desire

to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in

Tampa, Florida..? Importantly ,no mention is made of any alleged

orders via President’s Staff. And, again, there is nothing about

what JFK said or “requested” on Nov.22/63.The critical day in

question.

Above from page 4-5.

Notes: p.210

(1) Vol.18 WC: p.803-809 “From now on , this designation, the

standard one used in the literature, will be adopted as follows:

However, the hydraulic side steps which swung out were rarely

used because of their narrowness and their potential lethal

capability to unknowing spectators on a motorcade route : “The

Death of a President,” p.36 ( All references to Manchester’s book

are from the 1988 Perennial Library edition) “Presidential

Limousines” video by Rick Boudreau .1996. When Kennedy’s

specially-designed Lincoln Continental limousine was delivered to

the White House in June 61, detachable rear grab handles were

included ( Press statement ,Ford Motor Co. June 61).In early 62

,grab handles were permanently added to the rear of the car. It

should also be noted that President Eisenhower’s limousine (and

even one of the two 56 Cadillac convertible follow up cars) was

also, out of necessity, used from time to time. (2) Regarding

Italy: See also “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” by O’Donnell, Kenneth

P., David F .Powers, and Joseph McCarthy, (Boston: Little Brown &

Co. 1972) page 433 (Note: All references to this book are from

the Pocket Book paperback edition published in 73).

The Myth…

Floyd Boring and quite a few of his SS colleagues denied to Vince

Palamara what William Manchester reports in the best seller “The

Death of a President”: “Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards

roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa

Nov.18/63 just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent

Floyd Boring to ‘keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of

the car’ Boring wasn’t offended .There had been no animosity in

the remark”.(3)

But incredibly Boring told Palamara that “I never told him that”.

As for the merit of the quote itself, Boring said “No, no—that’s

not true”. Thus contradicting his own report in the process.

Incredibly, Boring was not even interviewed for Manchester’s

book! We may never know the source for this information as

Manchester told the author on 8/23/93 that “ all the material is

under seal and won’t be released in my lifetime”, and denied the

author access to his notes. Manchester has since passed away. (4)

Interestingly Manchester did interview the late Emory Roberts,

his probable but also very questionable source.(5) As a result

Manchester left his mark on the issue.(6) In Jim Bishop’s “The

Day Kennedy Was Shot”, he simply repeats the written record of

the WC and the previously mentioned five reports all taken at

face value. Mr. Boring was not interviewed for the book. Mr.

Bishop,also now dead, his information rests with him. But he did

sum up the situation the best. “ No one wanted to weigh the

possibilities that, if a Secret Service man had been on the left

rear bumper going down Elm Street, it would have been difficult

to hit President Kennedy” he also noted “The Secret Service men

were not pleased because they were in a “ hot” city and would

have preferred to have two men ride the bumper of the President’s

car with two motorcycle policemen between him ( JFK) and the

crowds on the sidewalks”. Thanks to the SS reports above ( and,

in large part to Agent Boring himself ) three massive best

sellers still in print ..The Warren Report…Manchester’s “The

Death of a President”….and Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was

Shot”…have created the myth that JFK was difficult to protect and

had ordered the agents off his car..and like a ,dangerous myth

that endures to this day in classrooms and in the media , thus

doing great damage to the true historical record. The Secret

Service Myth..Blames the Victim.

Clint Hill: “I never personally was requested by President John

F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential

automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the

administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret

Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy

had made such requests.”

“This would have been between Nov. 19/63 and Nov 21/63 “.He could

not recall at the time what specific agent had given him JFK’s

alleged desires….note the dates.

But during his WC testimony, he revealed it on 3/9/64 under oath

to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer for the WC.

Specter: “Now had there been any instruction or comment about

your performance of that type of duty (moving to the rear part of

the limo) With respect to anything President Kennedy himself had

said in the period immediately preceding the trip to Texas ?”

Hill” “Yes Sir, there was. The preceding Monday, the President

was on a trip to Tampa. Florida and he requested that agents not

ride on either of those two steps”.

Specter: “ And to whom did the President make that request?”

Hill: “Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring”.

Boring was also in charge of planning the Texas trip for the

Secret Service..

From p: 6, 7, 8. ***********************************************

Notes p.210

(3) Manchester p.37-38 .He also wrote “It was a good idea, for

example, to have agents perched on the broad trunk of the

Presidential Lincoln when crowds threatened to grow disorderly.

The trouble was they were always there.” (4)Author Walt Brown

mentions Palamara’s controversial contact with Manchester in his

book “Treachery In Dallas”. 95. P.338. (5) Manchester p.667 Of

the 21 agents /officials interviewed by Manchester, only Roberts,

Greer, Kinney and Blaine were on the Florida trip. Blaine was the

advance agent for Tampa,( riding in the lead car), Greer drove

JFK’s car, Kinney drove the follow-up car, and Roberts was the

commander of the follow-up car. Roberts is Palamara’s main

suspect of the four being Manchester’s dubious source for this

quote.: he was asked to write a report about JFK’s so-called

desires, citing Boring as the source for the order via radio

transmission. The others Greer, Kinney and Blaine ..were not

asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had

access to this report while writing his book.

Also unlike the

others, Roberts was interviewed twice and while Greer never went

on record with his feelings about the matter ,one way or the

other, Kinney denied the veracity of Manchester’s information ,

while Blaine denied the substance of the information, although

he DID mention the ‘Ivy League charlatan’ remark coming from a

second source .Finally, of the 21 agents interviewed by

Manchester .Blaine is the only agent ---save two headquarters

Inspectors ( see next note)---whose interview comments are not to

be found in the text or index. In addition two other agents

Lawton & Newman mention the remark as hearsay, it is likely that

Manchester seized upon the remark and greatly exaggerated its

significance ..AND attributed it to Boring, while his actual

source was probably Roberts (and or Blaine). Again since Boring

was not interviewed the comment had to come second hand from some

other agent, who in turn received the remark second hand from

Boring. In the end the question is: Did Boring really give out

these orders on instructions from JFK.? (6) Interestingly

Manchester having interviewed 21 different agents/ officials for

his book (p.600-669), chose to include interviews with SS

Inspectors Burrill Peterson and Jack Warner...What’s the problem?

These men who were not even associated with the Texas trip in any

way, were interviewed more than any other agents, 4 times each

(Peterson 10/9/64..11/7/64..11/18/64..2/5/65. Warner

6/2/64..11/18/64..2/5/65..5/12/65. Only Emory Roberts, Clint

Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two each. While all

other agents/officials had one.

More importantly, unlike all

other 19 agents, save one Gerald Blaine (a Texas trip WHD agent).

These two Inspectors are not even mentioned in the actual text or

index? Their comments are invisible to the reader. It appears

that Manchester’s book was an officially sanitized book more so

than we thought (as most everyone knows the book was written with

Jackie Kennedy’s approval, it was her idea. Manchester had early

access to the WC itself. Warren appointed him an ex-officio

member of the Commission. He approved an office for him in

Washington’s VFW building. Where the commission met, and where

copies of reports and depositions were made available to him.(p:

XIX) Inspector Peterson was prominent in the post-assassination

press dealings. Sorrels testified “I don’t think at any time you

will see that there is any statement made by the newspapers or

television that we said anything because Mr.Kelley ,the Inspector

,told me “Any information that is given out will have to come

from Inspector Peterson in Washington”.(7H359). Burrill Peterson

became an Assistant Director for Investigations in 1968.(20 Years

in the Secret Service “ by Rufus Youngblood. 1973 p: 220. Jack

Warner went on to become Director of Public Affairs till in the

90s Acting as a buffer to critical press questions during

assassination attempts on President Ford and other related

matters.(The Secret Service :The Hidden History of an Enigmatic

Agency 2003:Phillip Melanson and Peter Stevens: p

101,201,224,237. Jack Warner would also later become a consultant

to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In The Line of Fire” .Which

dramatized the life of Clint Hill.

Hills testimony:

Clinton J.Hill WC Testimony

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

His original report.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm

B.....

[Charles Drago]

Bernice,

Thanks so much for the time and effort it took to transcribe such lengthy, critically important passages from Palamara's published research.

These revelations and similar discoveries by Vince are what allow me to write (yet again) the following with conviction:

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

Reliance upon any evidence presented or conclusions drawn by the Warren Commission without multiple, independet corroborations from impeccable sources doesn't pass the laugh test.

Best,

Charles

[Michael Hogan]

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

It merely means that one:

A. Has not taken the time to examine and understand the evidence.

B. One is habitually "sloppy" in his factual research.

3. One does not have the ability to understand the evidence even if found and/or presented.

As sloppy as A, B, 3....I mean 1,2, C. It sounds as if Tom Purvis is describing his own theory. Cherry picking of testimony and evidence does no service to the truth.

Most reasonable adults, with whom I am familiar, at least would not run and hide behind someone else's unsupported theories in order to protect their own personal self image and avoid demonstrating clearly their own complete lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter.

Exactly why Tom Purvis' theory has gained no traction....here or anywhere. It is not, as he claims, because everyone is stupid and/or lazy.

Compare that to, say Vince Palamara (Thanks again Bernice) who exemplifies what a real researcher does and whom Tom Purvis dismisses with a single sentence. (See above)

Charles D, I sense your frustration. Tom Purvis' tactics of being demeaning, insulting, and sarcastic as a substitute for being aware of all the facts of Kennedy's murder fool no one. Well, almost no one.

If one had truly grasped the truth of the Kennedy murder, to the exclusion of the rest of the research community, they would not have to spend their time "swatting flies" as Tom Purvis continually does on this Forum.

The truth would speak for itself and stand on its own two legs.

[Charles Drago]

Thank you, Michael.

The frustration of which you write has dissipated. There are so many more productive, interesting exchanges to pursue.

Best,

Charles

[John Dolva]

"the hydraulic side steps which swung out were rarely used because of their narrowness and their potential lethal capability to unknowing spectators on a motorcade route"

OK, so there were indeed steps that folded down. The notion of them being 'lethal' is a bit odd as they were so narrow. Nevertheless they were there and accompanying them were despressions in the top moulding that were handholds. One could imagine a hung-over, sleep-deprived SS agent not particularly wanting to be on such a perch.

(AFAIK Clint Hill was technically assigned to Jackie's protection.) IMO there were only two real heroes that day in DP, JFK and Jackie.

Kennedy did make things difficult for the SS as he stopped to shake hands on route. The Queen Mary could have used the tactic that farther back SS did which was to open the doors to force spectators away from the route. They never did. Another consideration never/seldom? mentioned is that in entering DP the crowds thinned and as the Limo proceeded down Elm they were almost heading into the sun, hence Powers(?) squinting which some have taken as smiling.

Vince, it strikes me that the fatal shot(s) happened when there was least likelyhood of collateral damage, so one could say that the conditions changed quickly as the motorcade entered DP.

The flexibility of the SS changing tactics to suit could be an issue? Do you deal with this? They appear to have responded quickly a number of times while close pressed by the public pre DP.

___________________

Separate issue:

(I'm gonna regret this, as I also regard Charles' and Michael and many, if not most, and possibly all, with respect)

2 cents worth: An aside: Tom doesn't need or ask for defence.

Nevertheless,

Tom has never claimed the SBT as being the truth. He has stated he believes it likely that Oswald shot from the sixth floor snipers nest. He has also stated that Southern Militant Right Elite being behind the assassination (Tom, please correct me if I misstate your positions.). He has developed his own theory re shot sequences etc.

Tom is also an elderly southern gent, with significant connections in many fields. He has served in various capacities in official roles.

Tom is also an ornery old bastard. To my mind, he has earned the right to be so. At the same he time returns respect with respect.

I would be the one putting a flower in his Bayonetted Rifle Barrel at serious confrontations, yet that doesn't mean we can't communicate in a civilised way.

All up what you see is what you get. He hides far less than many. He hides some that shouldn't be hidden, but on the other hand there are cultural issues. Tom has to be able to move in his society with freedon from fear, as we all should.

Tom doesn't repond to some of the diffcult (to my mind anyway) questions. Ditto others.

Somtimes he's clearly (IMO) wrong sometimes clearly right (IMO). Ditto others.

IMO Tom approaches many issues in a far more methodical scientific way than many. This is far harder to do and to seriously discuss than speculations.

Apart from all that, genealogy is a difficult, time consuming, study where Tom is probably the only solid resource that this forum has.

By all means argue. We're all human. But, at the same time at least try to give the respect one wishes for oneself, not based on limiting, conceited, thinking and alliances. Then (IMO) progress can be truly be made.

Possibly part of the problem for some is that Tom seems to drive his agenda with little regard for others and naturally comes across as somehow attempting to control. The solution is simple, have ones own agenda and stick to that. Then clashes need not divert into animosity. Falling for the 'being drawn into others agendas' and endlessly arguing the matters that are unresolvable at any moment in time just is a waste of time.

Edited June 20, 2007 by John Dolva

[Ron Ecker]

I've learned one thing from this thread that I certainly didn't know before. Clint Hill and David Grant (who attended a crucial meeting with DPD the night before the motorcade) were brothers.

[John Dolva]

I've learned one thing from this thread that I certainly didn't know before. Clint Hill and David Grant (who attended a crucial meeting with DPD the night before the motorcade) were brothers.

Interesting. So presumably Fritz and Curry were at this meeting? Any idea if Harry Holmes was as well?

Edited June 20, 2007 by John Dolva

[Charles Drago]

For John Dolva,

I take small satisfaction from the language and tone I've utilized in my exchanges with Mr. Purvis. I know nothing of his background beyond what I glean from his photograph, but I surely would not be surprised to learn of his personal courage and professional accomplishment.

Don't read this as an apology, but rather as an acknowledgment of the passions that are frequently stirred by debate on the JFK assassination. I'm privileged to be able to correspond with members of this forum, and I'm grateful to John for providing access.

As I've expressed here and elsewhere, we are at war with the murderers of John Kennedy. Sometimes, war ain't pretty.

Mr. Purvis does not hesitate to write his mind, so to say, and I doubt he would expect anything less honest and direct from his correspondents. That being said, I for one shall make a renewed effort to eschew sarcasm in favor of collegial discourse.

Except, of course, when nothing but sarcasm is called for ...

Regards,

Charles

[Bernice Moore]

Bernice,

Thanks so much for the time and effort it took to transcribe such lengthy, critically important passages from Palamara's published research.

These revelations and similar discoveries by Vince are what allow me to write (yet again) the following with conviction:

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

Reliance upon any evidence presented or conclusions drawn by the Warren Commission without multiple, independet corroborations from impeccable sources doesn't pass the laugh test.

Best,

Charles

*****************

Your welcome Charles, Mike..

Though I did not do this recently, I have been following and posting on the SS for quite some time

around....

Vince's SS work is self explanatory I do believe...I have found no research better by far..on this

particular subject...he has it covered ..

Carry on fellas...

B....

[Ron Ecker]

I've learned one thing from this thread that I certainly didn't know before. Clint Hill and David Grant (who attended a crucial meeting with DPD the night before the motorcade) were brothers.

Interesting. So presumably Fritz and Curry were at this meeting? Any idea if Harry Holmes was as well?

Curry was there but apparently not Fritz or Holmes.

Another significant decision in addition to the stripping of motorcycles was made at this meeting. It was DPD's intent to have Fritz and armed homicide detectives in a car immediately behind JFK's limo. This was standard procedure in motorcades with dignitaries in Dallas. But the Secret Service did not allow this. They said the SS would be behind the limo. Fritz and his detectives were put at the tail end of the motorcade.

Curry testified, "Captain Fritz told me later, he said, 'I believe that had we been there we might possibly have got that man before he got out of that building or we would have maybe had the opportunity of firing at him while he was still firing' because they were equipped, would have been equipped with high-powered rifles and machineguns, submachine guns."

Imagine the havoc that this carload of armed detectives could have created for the assassins in their shooting and escape plans. While the SS was of course obliged to stay with the president and thus proceed out of Dealey Plaza, these men with their rifles and machineguns could have started piling out of their car at the first shot.

The SS did the killers a big favor by eliminating from the immediate vicinity of JFK's limo this carload of detectives armed to the teeth.