10-09-2009, 05:16 AM
Re: Palamara AND BEHN'S 'version' of "Changed Parade Route"From: "Vincent M. and Jessica K. Palamara" Date: 1998/05/06Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk--------------------------------------------------------------------------John McAdams wrote:> On 5 May 1998 07:55:41 -0500, "Vincent M. and Jessica K. Palamara"> wrote:>> >> >John McAdams wrote:> >> >> On 2 May 1998 17:54:29 -0500, "Vincent M. and Jessica K. Palamara"> >> wrote:> >>>> >> >>> >> >> Vince, the passage you are citing doesn't seem to mean what you're> >> >> interpreting it to mean.> >> >> >> >You are entitled to your opinion ("seem" is the operative word you used).> >>> >> OK, here is the page you cited. Let's let everybody form their own> >> "opinion" as to whether it says anything about "the motorcade route> >> was to have proceeded straight down Main Street."> >> >FINE: SEE BELOW FOR MY COMMENTS (WITHIN THE TEXT):> >> >>> >>> >> ----------------------------------------------------> >>> >> VII. THE RESIDUAL ROLE OF THE SECRET SERVICE IN MOTORCADE> >> PLANNING> >>> >> (A) THE MAIN STREET-HOUSTON-ELM TURN> >>> >> (60) As the Dallas SAIC, Forrest Sorrels told the Warren> >> Commission, he selected the Main-Houston-Elm turn through Dealey Plaza> >> because it was the "most direct" route to the Trade Mart. (189) Sor-> >>> >> 522> >>> >> rels' questioning by Warren Commission staff counsel Samuel M.> >> Stern, however, prevented a total picture of motorcade route logistics> >> from emerging.> >> >[IMPORTANT POINT TO KEEP IN MIND]> >> >> Stern asked Sorrels why the expressway was proached> >> from the Elm Street ramp instead of from Main Street just beyond the> >> triple overpass at the westen boundary of Dealey Plaza. Sorrels> >> explained that the size and cumbersomeness of the motorcade, along> >> with the presence of a raised divider separating the Elm Street lane> >> from the Elm Street lane at the foot of the ramp up to the expressway,> >> deterred him from trying to route the motorcade under and through the> >> overpass on Main Street. Such a route would have assigned the drivers> >> in the motorcade the almost impossible task of making a reverse S-turn> >> in order to cross over the raised divider to get from the Main Street> >> lane into the Elm Street lane. (190)> >> >[THIS ISN'T "IT" YET, BUT READ THIS NEXT LINE CAREFULLY:]> >> >> However, this> >> question-and-answer process failed to make clear that the Trade Mart> >> was accessible from beyond the triple overpass in such a way that it> >> was not necessary to enter the Elm Street ramp to the expressway. The> >> motorcade could have progressed westward through Dealey Plaza on Main> >> Street, passed under the overpass, and then proceeded on Industrial> >> Boulevard to the Trade Mart. (191)> >> >[SOUNDS GOOD, HUH? UH OH: HERE COMES THE SOLE DPD SOURCE TO "SHOOT" THIS IDEA> >DOWN (DARN!):]> >> >> (61) George L. Lumpkin, assistant police chief in Dallas in> >> 1963, was consulted by the Secret Service about the motorcade aspect> >> of security planning. (192) Lumpkin explained that the alternate> >> route> >> >[ONLY ONE OF AT LEAST TWO...AND, WHO SAID IT WASN'T ALSO *THE* ROUTE, AT LEAST> >ORIGINALLY?]> >>> I don't see Lumpkin saying anything about any change in the motorcade> route.OF COURSE NOT---THAT WAS NEVER MY POINT, NOR ANYONE ELSES! THE POINT IS,JUST AS YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT THE SAIC OF THE WHD'S HSCA TESTIMONY/ WORDABOUT THERE BEING A CHANGE IN THE MOTORCADE ROUTE (GERALD A. "JERRY"BEHN), THEN I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE THIS SOLE DPD OFFICER'S "WORD" ABOUTINDUSTRIAL BLVD.>>> >> , continuing straight on Main through and beyond Dealey Plaza and> >> thereby reaching the Trade Mart on Industrial Boulevard, was rejected> >> because the neighborhood surrounding Industrial Boulevard was "filled> >> with winos and broken pavement." (193)> >> >[JFK RODE IN MORTORCADES IN OTHER LESS-THAN-IDEAL AREAS, SUCH AS IN A PART OF> >TAMPA, A PART OF CHICAGO, AND A PART OF NY]> >>> I don't see how that changes the fact that the City Fathers in Dallas> would not want to show him the seedy part of town. Had there been no> Stemmons Freeway, they might well have been forced to go down> Industrial.THERE WAS A PRECEDENT FOR THIS. AND, IN ADDITION, THERE WERE ANTI-JFKSIGNS ALONG THE ROUTE, THE PINT BEING THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO "SHIELD"PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM ALL SORTS OF IMPROPER AND "SEEDY" THINGS. INADDITION, I DOUBT IF JFK WOULD HAVE REALLY NOTICED OR CARED (ESP. AT THEFAST CLIP THEY WERE GOING BEFORE ELM STREET) ABOUT INDUSTRIAL BLVD.'SSO-CALLED "SEEDY" CONDITIONS: HE DIDN'T SEEM TO MIND THEM IN OTHERCITIES...>>> >> Additionally, Lumpkin stated> >> that Kennedy wanted exposure and that there would have been no crowds> >> cn Industrial Boulevard. (194)> >> >WHAT?!?! ANYWHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO BE, SO WOULD THE PEOPLE-'NUFF SAID.> >>> Huh? The big Dallas crowds were on Main Street, where a lot of people> worked during the day. Even in Dealey Plaza the crowds were thinning> out.MAINLY BECAUSE OUR FRIENDS IN THE DPD DIDN'T WANT SPECTATORS IN THE CENTEROF DEALEY PLAZA...> There would have been even fewer people on Industrial. Makes> more sense to get directly to the Trade Mart.AGAIN, WHEREVER AND WHATEVER ROUTE THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TAKEN, THEPEOPLE WOULD HAVE WENT AND SAW HIM ACCORDINGLY...EVEN THE "SEEDY" PEOPLE!>>> >>> >> >HERE IT IS, AT LEAST AS FAR AS *THIS* SOURCE IS CONCERNED:> >> >> (62) Advance Agent Lawson informed committee investigators> >> that he had nothing to do with the selection of the Main-Houston-Elm> >> turn before November 14, since only Main Street, not Dealey Plaza, had> >> been selected for the motorcade at that time.> >> >"SINCE ONLY MAIN STREET, NOT DEALEY PLAZA, HAD BEEN SLECTED FOR THE MOTORCADE AT> >THAT TIME"!IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING NEWSPAPERS SUPPORT LAWSON'S CLAIM:>> Vince, this is not the same as saying that a route down Main to> Industrial had been chosen. He seems"SEEMS"...> to be saying that it had been> decided that the motorcade would go down Main through the center of> town. That's perfectly consistent with turning on Houston, or not> turning on Houston.>> >1. CE 1361 - undated Dallas paper: Main street only;>> I can't read this from my CD. The resolution is too poor. What> exactly does it say?22 H 613---IT MENTIONS MAIN STREET ONLY: NO MENTION OF HOUSTON OR ELM.>>> >2. CE 1364 - Dallas Morning News 11/20/63: Main street only;>> You're correct it doesn't mention Houston and Elm, BUT IT DOESN'T> MENTION INDUSTRIAL EITHER. It just doesn't tell people about the> route after the motorcade leaves the downtown. Yet you seem to be> citing it as though it mentions Industrial.NO, AS WITH THE ABOVE TWO EXAMPLES ("SINCE ONLY MAIN STREET..."; CE 1361)>>> And Vince, you missed a couple.NO I DID NOT: THEY ARE DULY NOTED IN MY BOOK. I AM WELL AWARE OF THESEACCOUNTS. IN ANOTHER POST, I INCLUDED EVERY ACCOUNT TO DEMONSTRATE THENEWSPAPER CONFUSION AND (DELIBERATE?)OBFUSCATION OF THE ROUTE. PLEASE SEEDAVE PERRY'S ARTICLE IN THE LATEST "JFK/DPQ" JOURNAL---WHILE WE BOTH AGREETHERE WAS NO *LAST MINUTE* CHANGE IN THE MOTORCADE ROUTE, HE DULY NOTESTHE "ERRORS" IN THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS; IN FACT, IN AN E-MAIL MESSAGE, HESAID HE DOES NOT DIPUTE MY TAKE ON THE ROUTE CHANGE, JUST THAT THE JAMESFILES/ GARRISON STORY OF A *LAST MINUTE* CHANGE IS FALSE(WHICH, AS I SAID,I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH HIM)> Check out the following, both from> Nov. 19, 1963.>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmntue.gif>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dthtue.gif>> They are consistent and accurate.YEAH, WITH THE ROUTE THEY DROVE ON 11/22/63; THAT'S NOT THE POINT.>>> >3. CE 1375 - Dallas Morning News 11/8/63: Governor Connolly - luncheon cite> >"uncertain" because the Secret Service "had not cleared the matter". Connolly> >later stated that he was never informed about the exact route of 11/22/63!(NY> >Herald Tribune 11/29/63);>> What's the point here, Vince? I thought you were supposed to be> proving that there was an earlier motorcade route, and it was somehow> *changed* to the route that the motorcade in fact took.>> I don't see what the above has to do with this.THIS WAS TO DEMONSTRATE THE SS'S INVOLVEMENT IN THESE MATTERS, AS WELL ASCONNALLY'S BEING OUT-OF-THE-LOOP REGARDING THE ROUTE.>>> >4. Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63 - Industrial Boulevard to the Trade Mart> >(Alternate route of Main to Industrial to Trade Mart)!>> Vince, you need to post a source for this. Indeed, it would be> helpful if you would post the actual passage, so that all of us can> decide how to interpret it.>> I know the source is the TIMES HERALD, but this apparently is a "late> edition" that didn't get microfilmed.FINAL EDITION, P. 19>>> >5. CE 1365 - Dallas Morning News 11/22/63: Main Street only: Map without Elm> >Street turn (Warren Commission deleted).>> And on 11/21/63, the TIMES HERALD printed a map *with* the turn.>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dthmap.gif>> VINCE, WHAT IS THE POINT OF ALL THIS? All this happened *after* you> admit the route was set to include a turn on Houston and Elm.AGAIN, THIS JUST ADDS TO THE NEWSPAPER CONFUSION/ OBFUSCATION AND THEELEMENT OF PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY THAT THESE CONFLICTING ACCOUNTSOFFERED---JUST PICK THE ACCOUNT THAT FITS YOUR IDEAS! THERE IS NO SUCHOBFUSCATION IN ANY PREVIOUS TRIP I HAVE SEEN: IF THE ROUTE IS PUBLICIZEDAT ALL, IT IS STRAIGHT-FORWARD WITH NO CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS/DETAILS...THIS IS THE POINT (AMONG OTHERS...)>>> >> >> >> He did not specify the> >> exact date on which the turn was selected nor did he identify the> >> person selecting the turn.(195)> >> >HOW CONVENIENT! REMEMBER, DAVID GRANT JOINED LAWSON ON 11/18/63 FROM THE FLORIDA> >TRIPO BUT HE WAS WORKING WITH LAWSON---AND SORRELS ---SINCE 11/13/63 [17 H 601]> >>> And how does this prove an earlier motorcade route?THIS ADDS ANOTHER ELEMENT INTO THE EQUATION---WHY DIDN'T THE WC OR THE HSCA INTERVIEWHIM? WHY, INDEED...>>> >> Sorrels stated that he and Lawson did> >> drive the entire route together, but did not specify when this> >> occurred. (196)> >> >HOW CONVENIENT!> >>> And how does this prove an earlier motorcade route?THIS JUST ADDS TO THE IMPRECISE. "I-DO-NOT-RECALL" MENTALITY OF ALOT OF THETESTIMONY---WAS IT DELIBERATE?>>> >> (63) Sorrels' Warren Commission exhibit No. 4 suggested that> >> both men drove the entire route on November 18. (197) It is not> >> certain that both men knew about the turn earlier than this date.> >> >CAN YOU SAY "CONFUSING"? [INTENTIONAL?]> >>> And how does this prove an earlier motorcade route?SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT>>> >>> >>> >> (B) THE PROTECTIVE RESEARCH SECTION> >>> >> (64) In making a determination as to whether the advance> >> agents for the Texas trip, as well as local field agents, were duly> >> informed of any potential problems that might occur, a thorough review> >> of the function of the Secret Service Protective Research Section was> >> conducted. The Protective Research Service (PRS) was meant to function> >> both as repository of information about threats to the security of> >> Secret Service protectees and as a provider of such information to> >> agents in all types of assignments. It acquired and made available> >> information received from its own agents and from other sources. (198)> >>> >> (65) In 1963, information acquired from any source external> >> to the> >>> >> 523> >>> >> -----------------------------------------------------> >>> >> Perhaps you would be kind enough to underline the text that you> >> interpret as meaning that "the motorcade route was to have proceeded> >> straight down Main Street."> >>> >> >See also "High Treason", pp. 130-132; "Deep Politics and the Death of> >> >JFK", pp. 272-278; "The Warren Omission" by Walt Brown, p. 282.> >>> >> Vince, these are secondary sources, and dubious ones at that. Surely> >> you know about the *primary* sources that supposedly support your> >> contention that the parade route was "changed."> >> >THE SPECIAL AGENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE DETAIL, GERALD A. BEHN, TOLD ME ON 9/27/92> >THAT THE ROUTE WAS CHANGED IN DALLAS---THE HSCA EVEN ASKED HIM WHY (NOT IF) THE> >ROUTE WAS INDEED CHANGED IN *EXECUTIVE SESSION* (THESE RECORDS ARE STILL NOT> >RELEASED)!BEHN, TO ME ON 9/27/92, RE: THE HSCA: "ISN'T THAT THE ONE THAT STOKES> >WAS ON? WELL, THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE ROUTE WAS CHANGED---I KNOW IT WAS> >CHANGED, BUT WHY---I'VE FORGOTTEN COMPLETELY; I DON'T KNOW"> >>> OK, you have one witness who says the route was changed. And he said> this (maybeHE DID!> --you only have a 1992 version of his testimony) in the> late 70s. He's "forgotten completely" and he "doesn't know."HE'S "FORGOTTEN COMPLETELY" AND "DOESN'T KNOW" THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE,NOT THE CHANGE ITSELF: THE HSCA ASKED HIM WHY---NOT IF---IT WAS CHANGED,AND HE SAID IT WAS!!!> And you> have chosen to believe him in preference to all the witnesses who told> the WC and the HSCA about "the motorcade route" and made it clear that> no route was set before the one that turned on Houston and Elm.>> Why?AMONG OTHER REASONS (THE CONFLICTING NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS AMONG THEM), THESAIC OF THE WHD---WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING STAGES---CARRIED MOREAUTHORITY THAN ALL OF THOSE UNDER HIM WHO TESTIFIED; DNC ADVANCE MAN JERRYBRUNO EVEN SAID THIS TO THE HSCA!>>> >>> >>> >> >MOST> >> >IMPORTANTLY, SEE 4 H 328 (SS AGENT WIN LAWSON'S TESTIMONY):"MR. MCCLOY: I> >> >DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANT TO--I HAVE GOT TO LEAVE.ARE YOU GOING TO ASK> >> >WHY THEY DIDN'T GO DOWN MAIN STREET? [!!!]> >> >> >> >MR. STERN: YES.> >> >> >> >MR MCCLOY: TAKE CARE OF THAT. THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE YESTERDAY---YOU ARE> >> >GOING TO COVER THAT? (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)" [!!!]> >> >> >> >We're still waiting!> >> >> >>> >> I'm happy to inform you that your waiting is over!> >>> >> >YES, BUT WHAT WAS SAID "OFF THE RECORD" AT *THAT* TIME? WE WILL NEVER KNOW....> >>> The question was answered *on* the record.>> And how does any of this show the existence of an earlier motorcade> route that was "changed?">THIS JUST ADDS ANOTHER ELEMENT INTO THE BIG PICTURE: WHY GO OFF THE RECORDAT ALL REGARDING THIS MATTER? WHO'S TO SAY THAT THE LATER TESTIMONY WASWHAT WAS COVERED OFF THE RECORD?> >> The following is from 4H332-333:> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------> >>> >> Mr. LAWSON. I imagine it was a little faster at this time,> >> sir, because the downtown section where it was quite heavily populated> >> with people watching the motorcade, we had been out of that for a> >> while before we got to the Houston Street turn. So we were probably> >> back up to perhaps 12 or 15 miles an hour by then.> >> Mr. McCLOY. But you would have had to slow up a bit coming> >> around the curve.> >> Mr. LAWSON. Yes, sir.> >> Mr. STERN. Mr. Lawson, can you tell us why you didn't plan the> >> motorcade so that it went straight down Main Street to turn right on> >> to the entrance to the freeway instead of taking this dogleg on> >> Houston and Elm?> >> Mr. DULLES. Jerry, will you take over.> >>> >> 332> >>> >> Page 333> >>> >> Representative FORD. Will you proceed please, Mr. Stern?> >> Mr. STERN. Yes.> >> Mr. LAWSON. You mean why we didn't come straight down Main> >> Street to the Stemmons Freeway?> >> Mr. STERN. Right.> >> Mr. LAWSON. Because it is my understanding there isn't any> >> entrance to the freeway on Main Street.> >> >?!?!?!?!?!---SEE HSCA QUOTE ABOVE, RIGHT AFTER I WRITE "READ THIS NEXT LINE> >CAREFULLY"...> >> >> Mr. STERN. But you don't yourself recall now or do you?> >> Mr. LAWSON. Yes, I was told that there wasn't any entrance> >> that way, and I myself once when I went to the Trade Mart, not knowing> >> that there was any entrance to it, went down Main Street, You must> >> enter the freeway going in the direction that We wanted to go from the> >> Elm Street extension.> >> Mr. STERN. When you went down Main Street you found that you> >> could not get on to the entrance to the Stemmons Freeway?> >> Mr. LAWSON. Going the direction on the freeway towards the> >> Trade Mart, that is correct.> >> Mr. STERN. Which is the direction the motorcade was to go?> >> Mr. LAWSON. Was to go; yes, sir.> >>> >> -----------------------------------------------------> >>> >> So, surprisingly, Stern got around to asking the exact question McCloy> >> wanted answered, and it was just a few pages further on in the> >> testimony. I found it with my high-tech CD ROM search.> >> >CLEVER, BUT I WAS REFERRING TO THIS PARTICULAR "OFF THE RECORD" CLIP. STILL, I> >WAS AWARE OF THIS ALREADY, AS I HAVE ALL OF THE SS TESTIMONY/ RELATED ITEMS FROM> >THE WC REPORT AND THE 26 VOLUMES IN A MASSIVELY-BOUND PHOTOCOPIED VOLUME OF MY> >OWN MAKING [MY COLLEGE LIBRARY HAS THE ORIGINAL, MINT CONDITION WC VOLUMES]! :-)> >>> Are you just *positing* that in the off the record testimony that he> explained about the "earlier route" that when down Industrial?>> If not, how do you think the discussion off the record is any sort of> evidence of a "changed motorcade route?"SEE MY PREVIOUS COMMENT ABOVE>>> >>> >>> >> But Vince, this really isn't relevant. The WC wanting to know why the> >> motorcade didn't go right down main is *not* any evidence that there> >> was ever another route. It's just wanting to know why this exact one> >> was chosen.> >> >I BELIEVE IT IS RELEVANT, BUT I CONCEDE IT IS NOT EVIDENCE, IN AND OF ITSELF, TO> >A CHANGE IN THE ROUTE.> >>> Yes. Agreed.>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> And Vince, where did you get this "violation of Secret Service> >> >> regulations" thing? My experience has been that they are extremely> >> >> tight-lipped about their procedures.> >> >> >> >This is based off their own SECRET SERVICE MANUAL/ regulations, as well as> >> >my interviews with several agents. There seems to be little or no dispute> >> >(until now) that there were violations of strict SS regulations, as> >> >several people before me have pointed out...and, more importantly, their> >> >own MANUAL bears this out.> >> >> >>> >> Good Vince. Please tell us how we can get a look at that manual. A> >> National Archives Document number would be good, or perhaps Jim> >> Lesar's operation has a copy that researchers can look at.> >> >WELL, BESIDES THE EXCERPTS FROM THE SS MANUAL QUOTED IN THE WC VOLUMES ABOUT> >THE VIOLATIONS OF DRINKING WHILE IN TRAVEL STATUS [18 H 665] AND THE VARIOUS> >QUOTES FROM THE MANUAL AS DEPICTED IN PHIL MELANSON'S 1984 BOOK "THE POLITICS OF> >PROTECTION", THERE IS NOT A *FULL* SS MANUAL AVAILABLE "OVER THE COUNTER", SO TO> >SPEAK (NO RIFF NUMBERS OR AARC AVAILABILITY, UNFORTUNATELY). THESE VIOLATIONS> >CONCERNING THE MOTORCADE ROUTE (THE TURN AND THE SPEED), WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP BY> >AUTHORS SUCH AS JIM MARRS, ROBERT GRODEN, AND HARRY LIVINGSTONE (AMONG OTHERS)>> Vince, you are not citing the most reliable authors in the world.THAT'S YOUR OPINION; AND, ON THIS MATTER, THEY HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED.>>> Let me ask you something. If *you* don't have access to the primary> sources on this, if *you* can't put you hands on a document and say> "this is the regulation right here" just how do you think Groden or> Marrs or Livingstone can?NOONE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY, ALL THE DOCUMENTS, ESP.THE SS MANUAL! THE AGENTS I SPOKE TO COULD HAVE SHOT THIS WHOLE IDEA OF"VIOLATIONS" DOWN THE DRAIN---THEY DIDN'T: THE CONFIRMED THEM!!!>>> Why are you citing secondary sources, and particularly authors who> know less about this than you do?>> >YEARS BEFORE ME, WERE *CONFIRMED* AS BEING SS VIOLATIONS THROUGH MY INTERVIEWS> >WITH DNC ADVANCE MAN MARTY UNDERWOOD, JOHN NORRIS, ABE BOLDEN, AND SAM KINNEY,> >ALL OF WHOM, TO GREATER OR LESSER EXTENTS, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ROUTE WAS A>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> >SECURITY HAZARD THAT, AS KINNEY TOLD ME (THE LEAST HARSH OF THE FOUR), THEY>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> >"NEVER SHOULD" HAVE TAKEN JFK DOWN!> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>> Vince, you were supposed to be providing evidence that there was a> "violation of regulations." What they seem to have told you is that> -- especially with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight -- the turn was> dangerous. That's different.NOT HINDSIGHT---JUST CONFIRMATION OF SS VIOLATIONS. KEEP IN MIND, AS INTHE DRINKING INCIDENT (NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT), RULES ARE MEANT TO BEBROKEN, ESP. WHEN THEY SUIT THE "BREAKERS">>> >> Vince, you are not citing any sources about any *change.*> >>> >> You are citing sources that say the route was established that day.> >> That's only a "change" if there was an earlier different route.> >>> >> In citing these sources as showing a "change," you are *assuming* that> >> there was an earlier route. But that's what you are supposed to be> >> proving.> >> >SEE ABOVE, ESP. SAIC BEHN---IS HE LYING? REMEMBER, KNOWING YOUR FONDNESS FOR> >HSCA MATERIAL, IT WAS THE HSCA THAT ASKED BEHN IN *EXECUTIVE SESSION* WHY WAS> >THE ROUTE CHANGED IN DALLAS [HOW DID THEY KNOW THIS, LET ALONE TO ASK HIM?]!.> >>> Vince, you are citing his vague 1992 recollection of what the HSCA> asked him.NOT VAGUE AT ALL> If they really had evidence of any change, why isn't it in> their report, or at least in HSCA documents?>SO WHAT?!?! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS THAT TOTALLYCONTRADICT THE HSCA'S REPORT/ CONCLUSIONS AND WERE NOT MADE A PART OF THE"RECORD"?> This sounds a lot to me like your citing Groden, et al. above.WRONG> You> are positing that they knew something that you don't. But you have no> evidence that, *if* they really did ask Behn this, they had any> evidence that it happened. It's possible that some staffer bought> into the silly Joesten/Garrison version of the "changed parade route."POSSIBLY---BUT BEHN TOLD ME THE HSCA ASKED HIM WHY, AND HE SAID IT WAS...>>> Behn -- especially a 1992 interview where he tells you he's "forgotten> completely" and he "doesn't know" -- is a thin reed to use to> challenge the mass of WC and HSCA testimony on this.>> .JohnSEE ABOVE---NOT A "THIN REED" AT ALL.RESPECTFULLY,VINCE PALAMARA :-) B