15-08-2012, 02:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 15-08-2012, 02:37 PM by Charles Drago.)
The notion of a security strip related to some sort of "test" or provocation simultaneously and independently originated with George Michael Evica and yours truly at a time prior to our initial meeting. Later, we discussed the possibility in depth.
It was George Michael who broached the subject with Palamara.
It is well established that standard security was stripped from the motorcade by order of Secret Service officials -- and NOT by JFK -- thus rendering the motorcade, in the words of the HSCA, "uniquely insecure."
Peter Dale Scott writes:
"Another army reserve officer in Dealey Plaza may have been Winston Lawson,
the White House Secret Service agent responsible for the choice of the Kennedy
motorcade route (4 WH 318). Lawson's first three reports of what happened on
and before November 22 raise considerable questions about his performance.
For example he reported that motorcycles were used on "the right and left flanks
of the President's car" (17 WH 605; cf. 17 WH 624, 18 WH 741) although photographs
show that they accompanied at the rear (21 WH 768770). Numerous
later reports from the Dallas police agreed that at Lawson's own instructions the
proposed side escorts were redeployed to the rear of the car (7 WH 581,
3 WH 244, 18 WH 809, 21 WH 571). This change, ostensibly for the sake of security,
would appear to leave the President more open to a possible crossfire."
HSCA concluded:
"The Secret Service's alteration of the original Dallas Police Department motorcycle deployment
plan prevented the use of maximum possible security precautions … Surprisingly, the
security measure used in the prior motorcades during the same Texas visit shows that the
deployment of motorcycles in Dallas by the Secret Service may have been uniquely insecure
… The Secret Service knew more than a day before November 22 that the President did not
want motorcycles riding alongside or parallel to the Presidential vehicle …. "
As far as JFK's security preferences as described in the final sentence above are concerned, Vince Palamara writes,
"One would have to wonder if that last sentence was pure sarcasm, as at least 6 motorcycles
surrounded JFK's limousine (including one or two directly beside him) on June 29, 1962 in Mexico City,
March 23, 1963 in Chicago,on the European tour of JuneJuly 1963 (encompassing Germany, Italy,
England, and Ireland), the November 18, 1963 Florida trip,and, most importantly, in San
Antonio on November 21, 1963, Houston on November 21, 1963, and Fort Worth on the morning
of November 22, 1963. Indeed, the USSS Final Survey Report dated November 30, 1963 for the
Houston Trip of November 21, 1963 states: 'On all motorcade movements, six motorcycles
flanked the Presidential limousine … in the downtown area of Houston, in addition to the six
motorcycles flanking the Presidential limousine, 24 motorcycles flanked the President's
limousine near the sidewalk (12 on each side).' As HSCA attorney Belford Lawson noted:
'If JFK's views of motorcycle deployment were well known, then why did it take six days for the SS
to convey them to the DPD?'"
(for Palamara's full essay, see http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n...pter06.pdf )
Since JFK did not interfere with security provisions for what turned out to be his final presidential motorcade, and given that that parade was made "uniquely insecure" on the orders of Secret Service agent Winston Lawson, we are left with the unavoidable question:
Why would ranking Secret Service agents strip security from the motorcade?
What later would become the shared Evica/Drago hypothesis describes a two-tiered conspiracy structure accounting for the security strip. In order to enlist the cooperation of non-conspiratorial, mid-level Secret Service personnel, true conspirators within the SS concocted the need for a test of their agency's effectiveness in non-laboratory circumstances, if you will.
Hence the stand-down order when "gunfire" erupted in the plaza -- "gunfire" that was anticipated as part of the security strip.
Given the reasonable expectation that Dallas would represent an environment hostile to JFK, how could Secret Service conspirators hope to convince their honorable colleagues that Dealey Plaza was not too dangerous a choice for the security stripping exercise?
My own hypothesis: The faux Chicago plot had been designed to mimic the Dallas operation AND to be thwarted -- thus reassuring non-conspiratorial Secret Service officials that the danger had passed and the coast was clear for the test.
But why test in the first place? How might conspirators have answered that question when posed by honest agents?
To create the false scenario that a Castro agent had ATTEMPTED to kill JFK, and thus provide a casus belli for another invasion of Cuba.
Finally: How, after the "test" turned into a real assassination, could the silence of non-conspiratorial Secret Service agents aware of the "test" scenario be secured?
Through a combination of threat to person (We're all accessories now.) and institution (If the "test" story gets out, the Secret Service will be broken into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds.)
It was George Michael who broached the subject with Palamara.
It is well established that standard security was stripped from the motorcade by order of Secret Service officials -- and NOT by JFK -- thus rendering the motorcade, in the words of the HSCA, "uniquely insecure."
Peter Dale Scott writes:
"Another army reserve officer in Dealey Plaza may have been Winston Lawson,
the White House Secret Service agent responsible for the choice of the Kennedy
motorcade route (4 WH 318). Lawson's first three reports of what happened on
and before November 22 raise considerable questions about his performance.
For example he reported that motorcycles were used on "the right and left flanks
of the President's car" (17 WH 605; cf. 17 WH 624, 18 WH 741) although photographs
show that they accompanied at the rear (21 WH 768770). Numerous
later reports from the Dallas police agreed that at Lawson's own instructions the
proposed side escorts were redeployed to the rear of the car (7 WH 581,
3 WH 244, 18 WH 809, 21 WH 571). This change, ostensibly for the sake of security,
would appear to leave the President more open to a possible crossfire."
HSCA concluded:
"The Secret Service's alteration of the original Dallas Police Department motorcycle deployment
plan prevented the use of maximum possible security precautions … Surprisingly, the
security measure used in the prior motorcades during the same Texas visit shows that the
deployment of motorcycles in Dallas by the Secret Service may have been uniquely insecure
… The Secret Service knew more than a day before November 22 that the President did not
want motorcycles riding alongside or parallel to the Presidential vehicle …. "
As far as JFK's security preferences as described in the final sentence above are concerned, Vince Palamara writes,
"One would have to wonder if that last sentence was pure sarcasm, as at least 6 motorcycles
surrounded JFK's limousine (including one or two directly beside him) on June 29, 1962 in Mexico City,
March 23, 1963 in Chicago,on the European tour of JuneJuly 1963 (encompassing Germany, Italy,
England, and Ireland), the November 18, 1963 Florida trip,and, most importantly, in San
Antonio on November 21, 1963, Houston on November 21, 1963, and Fort Worth on the morning
of November 22, 1963. Indeed, the USSS Final Survey Report dated November 30, 1963 for the
Houston Trip of November 21, 1963 states: 'On all motorcade movements, six motorcycles
flanked the Presidential limousine … in the downtown area of Houston, in addition to the six
motorcycles flanking the Presidential limousine, 24 motorcycles flanked the President's
limousine near the sidewalk (12 on each side).' As HSCA attorney Belford Lawson noted:
'If JFK's views of motorcycle deployment were well known, then why did it take six days for the SS
to convey them to the DPD?'"
(for Palamara's full essay, see http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n...pter06.pdf )
Since JFK did not interfere with security provisions for what turned out to be his final presidential motorcade, and given that that parade was made "uniquely insecure" on the orders of Secret Service agent Winston Lawson, we are left with the unavoidable question:
Why would ranking Secret Service agents strip security from the motorcade?
What later would become the shared Evica/Drago hypothesis describes a two-tiered conspiracy structure accounting for the security strip. In order to enlist the cooperation of non-conspiratorial, mid-level Secret Service personnel, true conspirators within the SS concocted the need for a test of their agency's effectiveness in non-laboratory circumstances, if you will.
Hence the stand-down order when "gunfire" erupted in the plaza -- "gunfire" that was anticipated as part of the security strip.
Given the reasonable expectation that Dallas would represent an environment hostile to JFK, how could Secret Service conspirators hope to convince their honorable colleagues that Dealey Plaza was not too dangerous a choice for the security stripping exercise?
My own hypothesis: The faux Chicago plot had been designed to mimic the Dallas operation AND to be thwarted -- thus reassuring non-conspiratorial Secret Service officials that the danger had passed and the coast was clear for the test.
But why test in the first place? How might conspirators have answered that question when posed by honest agents?
To create the false scenario that a Castro agent had ATTEMPTED to kill JFK, and thus provide a casus belli for another invasion of Cuba.
Finally: How, after the "test" turned into a real assassination, could the silence of non-conspiratorial Secret Service agents aware of the "test" scenario be secured?
Through a combination of threat to person (We're all accessories now.) and institution (If the "test" story gets out, the Secret Service will be broken into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds.)