The disappearance of the photographers' vehicle

[Jim DiEugenio]

Daniel:

There is nothing curious about it.

Horne used Brown, he used the Boyajian report and he implied some kind of Russian KGB report.

In my review of Kaleidoscope I discussed all three. At length.

Now, if you are going to say that you take an unsigned--BY ANYONE--report, seriously as evidence, then fine. Be my guest. ANd that such a report was made by people who picked up JFK's coffin. And they did not think it important to sign it. Fine.

If you also say, well see, that coffin does not have to be transported by limo. Hey, I will get around that little traffic problem by saying it was a helicopter, then fine. Be my guest. Again.

I can't take this stuff seriously Daniel. Which is why I did not reply. I stand by what I said. Horne oversold this thing. And he did it in the most inflated terms. Now if you want to try and pump it back up, with whatever excuse you can think of, then go ahead. Just don't expect me to join in the follies.

BTW, you said you were going to order my book. Is there any one thing in there, you found interesting? I mean in 400 pages?

I mean, Allen Dulles trying to get Truman to retract his editorial, and then lying to him about JFK denying those CIA and Vietnam stories by Arthur Krock, I mean that was a little interesting wasn't it? I mean, just a little bit......maybe Dan?

After all, this is the guy leading the WC cover up at the same time he is deceiving Truman. And trying to tell the former president that JFK's murder had nothing to do with Vietnam.

When, in fact, nobody had said that yet!


If Vince Bugliosi had not gone off the deep end about this case, he would call that "consciousness of guilt".

I mean you did notice that didn't you Dan? :mad:

[Gordon Gray]

If the planners of the assassination didn't take into account possible SS protection, then it was poorly planned. Given the evidence of careful planning in other aspects, that's hard to believe. It seems from reading Palamara, that Boring, Roberts, and Greer are prime suspects for involvement. It needed only to be Boring really, who was in charge of the motorcade security measures. He was in a position to order the changes in the motorcade route, the sequence of vehicles, the pull back of the motorcycle escort, and removing the agents from the back of the limo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that he had a prior relationship with Allen Dulles? Everyone else in the detail could have been unknowing, following orders, and guilty of incompetence, lax training, hangovers, and confusion. Roberts behavior that day, however, and his subsequent disingenuous testimony, is highly suspicious, and makes it difficult to believe he had no prior knowledge as an accomplice to Boring. Greer's failure to acknowledge the stop, and other aspects of the assassination that are clearly obvious from other sources, such as the presence of people on the overpass, the fact that he looked back twice, is suspicious, and the fact that if he had followed protocol the president's wounds would not likely have been mortal, make him suspicious, but this could also be explained by denial, given his incompetence and ultimate responsibility.

[Don Jeffries]

Jim,

We can never hope to unearth evidence beyond a reasonable doubt against any particular Secret Service agent or official, at this point. It's nearly fifty years after the crime, most potential suspects have died or have powerful vested interests in keeping the official story alive, and it's naive to think "proof" that demonstrates culpability on the part of anyone is lurking in some still classified file.

But logic tells us that everything involved with JFK's "security" that day was contrary to standard procedure. Sure, DVP can unearth a photo here or there from other motorcades that demonstrates a violation or two, but no one can refute the fact that every agent on the follow up car stood motionless for six seconds, after JFK had been struck by gunfire, and the driver of the limousine slowed down or stopped, and turned around twice to watch JFK, without speeding out of harm's way. These agents are primed for just this kind of rare event, and they failed to even attempt to traverse the short distance from the follow up car to the limo, which they could have done easily.

We all strongly suspect certain groups or individuals of having prior knowledge of the assassination, but this is a very difficult thing to prove. JFK's Secret Service detail, on the other hand, clearly and obviously didn't do their job that day, and that is something that warrants investigation and should arouse the suspicions of every researcher. The fact that these agents weren't even criticized, let alone questioned in an adversarial way as they should have been, is very telling. Those who planned and carried out the assassination of JFK have a strong motive to steer scrutiny away from the Secret Service.

As some have suggested, the agents could have been told there was going to be a simulated assassination. That would be the only thing that might innocently explain their actions. Afterwards, they would have realized how huge the conspiracy was, and being good company men knew not to talk, keeping their salaries and benefits.

[Daniel Gallup]

Daniel:

There is nothing curious about it.

Horne used Brown, he used the Boyajian report and he implied some kind of Russian KGB report.

In my review of Kaleidoscope I discussed all three. At length.

Now, if you are going to say that you take an unsigned--BY ANYONE--report, seriously as evidence, then fine. Be my guest. ANd that such a report was made by people who picked up JFK's coffin. And they did not think it important to sign it. Fine.

If you also say, well see, that coffin does not have to be transported by limo. Hey, I will get around that little traffic problem by saying it was a helicopter, then fine. Be my guest. Again.

I can't take this stuff seriously Daniel. Which is why I did not reply. I stand by what I said. Horne oversold this thing. And he did it in the most inflated terms. Now if you want to try and pump it back up, with whatever excuse you can think of, then go ahead. Just don't expect me to join in the follies.

BTW, you said you were going to order my book. Is there any one thing in there, you found interesting? I mean in 400 pages?

I mean, Allen Dulles trying to get Truman to retract his editorial, and then lying to him about JFK denying those CIA and Vietnam stories by Arthur Krock, I mean that was a little interesting wasn't it? I mean, just a little bit......maybe Dan?

After all, this is the guy leading the WC cover up at the same time he is deceiving Truman. And trying to tell the former president that JFK's murder had nothing to do with Vietnam.

When, in fact, nobody had said that yet!


If Vince Bugliosi had not gone off the deep end about this case, he would call that "consciousness of guilt".

I mean you did notice that didn't you Dan? :mad:

FWIW, I have your book and am reading it. I think it a worthy read and I congratulate you for the effort. It is no small thing to write a book, and this reads well and I suspect will be a valuable resource for years to come. But back to the Boyajian report. In the customer reviews of Kaleidoscope, it was pointed out that onion-skin copies were not signed-- that this was standard military protocol. The fact that Boyajian stood by the report despite his poor memory of the events should suffice to put the report as an accurate accounting of the entrance of a shipping casket to the back of the morgue some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket appears at the front. As the purpose of Boyajian and his team was to provide security for the arrival of the President's casket, and since the early arrival of the shipping casket is the only documented arrival of any casket, it becomes incumbent on you to explain why Kennedy's body was not in the casket -- that is -- why Boyajian failed in his duties, or, at the very least, offers a report irrelevant to the purpose for which he was commissioned. It will not do to say the body arrived too early; for 1. Dennis David is told by Boswell that it is indeed Kennedy in the shipping casket; 2. The close proximity in time between Dennis David's account and Boyajian strongly suggests they are describing the same event. Further, there is the tie-in with personnel who witnessed the opening of the shipping casket inside the morgue with Kennedy inside, esp Paul O'Connor and Floyd Riebe. The question as to how the body got to the morgue that early is part of the larger puzzle as to how his body ended up in a shipping casket in the first place, and why there was a need to change coffins. The undeniable fact is that Kennedy's body was removed from a cheap shipping casket that night in the Bethesda morgue. What machinations led to this should be of the utmost importance for any JFK research. Said another way, why were there 2 distinct entries of the Dallas coffin -- one at 7:17 or thereabouts, and the casket team's entrance around 8:00? Why the need for such measures, especially with the FBI being kept out of the morgue proper? Dennis David's account gives the only reasonable answer: the FBI could not know they were carrying in an empty coffin, as the body was already in the morgue. To believe otherwise, one has to grant that Boswell was lying to Dennis David about Kennedy being in the shipping casket, and O'Connor with Riebe lying about removing Kennedy from a shipping casket. So why would Boswell lie to Dennis David? And why would O'Connor lie to the HSCA, and Riebe to Lifton? Seen in light of testimony regarding a shipping casket that night, your protestations about the Boyajian report seem based on wishful thinking.

[Tracy Riddle]

I think Chicago is more important. In that case, there was a plot, and the fact that it went unreported and covered up was directly related to the Dallas successful hit.

I am of the firm opinion that there was no plot in Chicago -- at least no plot designed to result in an assassination of JFK in that city.

It was all about protecting the Dallas operation.

As I've written elsewhere:

For an alternative to the conventional take on what happened in Chicago, see my The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis at

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums...sis&highlight=

Charles, your link is giving me a 404 error.

[Charles Drago]

I think Chicago is more important. In that case, there was a plot, and the fact that it went unreported and covered up was directly related to the Dallas successful hit.

I am of the firm opinion that there was no plot in Chicago -- at least no plot designed to result in an assassination of JFK in that city.

It was all about protecting the Dallas operation.

As I've written elsewhere:

For an alternative to the conventional take on what happened in Chicago, see my The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis at

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums...sis&highlight=

Charles, your link is giving me a 404 error.

Sorry about that, Tracy. I'll try again. Using the "Preview Post" option, the link below worked fine for me. Please keep me posted.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ht=chicago

[Keith Millea]

But back to the Boyajian report. In the customer reviews of Kaleidoscope, it was pointed out that onion-skin copies were not signed-- that this was standard military protocol.

FWIW:

I have my original US Army onion skin DD-214 form.It is signed,and it looks like a real signature and not copied.

[Gordon Gray]

For the record this is what David said Boswell told him:"I happen to run into Commander Boswell and he asked me something else and we were talking and I said, "Let me ask you, which casket was the body in?" He said, "You should know, you were there." That's not exactly an unequivocal statement that Kennedy's body was in the shipping casket. Better evidence that is was is Reed's testimony.

[Daniel Gallup]

For the record this is what David said Boswell told him:"I happen to run into Commander Boswell and he asked me something else and we were talking and I said, "Let me ask you, which casket was the body in?" He said, "You should know, you were there." That's not exactly an unequivocal statement that Kennedy's body was in the shipping casket. Better evidence that is was is Reed's testimony.

Thank you Gordon for the David quote. From where I sit, Boswell is telling Dennis David the body was indeed in the casket he carried in ("you were there") which would make no sense if Kennedy was not in the casket. Dennis David may have told others a slightly different version. From Best Evidence: "At my (Lifton's) request, David repeated his story. As he did, I noticed that he said the casket that actually held the body 'had come through the back gate...which was located over there by the Officers' Club.' He assured me that when this ambulance--this 'first' one--arrived, all the senior officers were present: 'Dr. Boswell, who was the Officer of the Day, and Dr. Humes, plus the chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery was there, and the Chief of the Army and the Chief of the Air Force Medical Departments were already there, at the morgue.' Dennis David repeated quite matter-of-factly that there were two caskets, that the second one was empty. 'I was told by the doctor that the body was in the first casket.' 'Oh, I see,' trying to be mellow.'Which doctor said that to you?' 'Dr. Boswell.' "Boswell said the body was in the first casket?' 'Yep.' 'In other words, Boswell knew there were two caskets?' 'Right.' 'He told you this then?' 'Well, he told me...that the body came in the casket, the one when I was down there, which was the one that came in the back gate.' " Best Evidence, pp 572-3.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Daniel:

You and I disagree on this. OK?

Where is the signed copy?

Are you saying it does not exist? Fine, we part company then.

Thanks for getting my book and saying "FWIW", and then disposing of it in three sentences, before putting it on your shelf. Best backhand since Jimmy Connors.

Now you can get back to the only thing that interests you. Because Dulles trying to get Truman to retract his editorial does not.