Discrediting Secret Service complicity in the elimination of JFK…

[Paul Rigby]

...the most complex cover-up known to man was instituted to protect the SS and its designated hit man.

Yup, that's it: At the end of the blood-red brick road lies nothing more than a bodyguard with a handgun. It really is that simple. Exactly as it was in the case of RFK, when a corpulent racist in a cheap uniform destroyed a very different American future.

Now, the Romantics among us might lament the absence of a rather more prepossessing figure - I don't know, let's say, a Hapsburg nobleman, of long connection with AWD, armed no doubt with a cape, an eye-patch, perhaps a volume or two of Rilke, and, not forgetting, a state-of-the-art, Pentagon-approved laser death ray, well-suited for firing from storm drains - but we must deal with what is, not cheap pulp fiction.

And the cheap pulp fiction, in this instance, is that whole motley, unsubstantiated fantasy - a distinctively male one, at that - of co-ordinated teams of "mechanics," watchers, signal men, smoke-machine operators etc. This is comic-opera stuff: The professionals keep the core of their business uncomplicated and effective.

Which brings me to the very point I made to you at the outset: Are there researchers who insist upon a solution that reflects their own personalities? You've proved the intelligence of that question in spades.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Yes, CD got my point, but I think you failed to get it. While the executions were public the real shooters, the real means, the real magic tricks were done with deception and misdirection.

Ok, Pete, let's take that final sentence and interrogate it.

What does it mean? What are these "real magic tricks...done with deception and misdirection"? Isn't that just a rather fancy way of saying there was some elementary misdirection ie distractions shots? Supplemented, say, by some planted witnesses and some fake films? Is there not a real danger in using terminology which renders this an occult event, beyond the powers of mere human comprehension and description? We are, after all, dealing with the actions of men, not demons.

Almost everyone in DP was looking at JFKs limo.

Not according to the Z-fake...

RFK was shot in the kitchen where it was crowded and confused and few had their attention on him.

Isn't that a bit of a cheat? Everyone looks at the target when it suits, but doesn't when it doesn't? And isn't it true that things only became "confused" when the shooting began?

While it is not impossible to imagine a scenario of the driver doing it, I find NO evidence this happened and it being the most dangerous of possible plans.

Ok, let's have a look at that last sentence: Why is it most dangerous of possible plans? An assassin who controls the speed of his intended victim, as a driver-assassin does, is no small advantage. Shooting from within the car avoids a number of major potential pitfalls, from interposed pedestrians and motorcylists, to detection by accident. It also fixes the range of shot, and confines the target's movements. These are huge, practical advantages over any external shooter hypothesis.

By the way there is a book that posits a shot from the trunk, with the assassin in it....but both are IMO diversions from the real tricks that day.

I remember it, and bloody awful rubbish it was, too.

Paul

[Charles Drago]

...the most complex cover-up known to man was instituted to protect the SS and its designated hit man.

Yup, that's it: At the end of the blood-red brick road lies nothing more than a bodyguard with a handgun. It really is that simple. Exactly as it was in the case of RFK, when a corpulent racist in a cheap uniform destroyed a very different American future.

Now, the Romantics among us might lament the absence of a rather more prepossessing figure - I don't know, let's say, a Hapsburg nobleman, of long connection with AWD, armed no doubt with a cape, an eye-patch, perhaps a volume or two of Rilke, and, not forgetting, a state-of-the-art, Pentagon-approved laser death ray, well-suited for firing from storm drains - but we must deal with what is, not cheap pulp fiction.

And the cheap pulp fiction, in this instance, is that whole motley, unsubstantiated fantasy - a distinctively male one, at that - of co-ordinated teams of "mechanics," watchers, signal men, smoke-machine operators etc. This is comic-opera stuff: The professionals keep the core of their business uncomplicated and effective.

Which brings me to the very point I made to you at the outset: Are there researchers who insist upon a solution that reflects their own personalities? You've proved the intelligence of that question in spades.

Paul

A pre-Galilean view of the universe.

If you're serious, and we use this post as a litmus test for the rest of your work, then you rank down there with the "we just can't accept that a nobody killed a somebody" crowd.

The "comic-opera" [sic] in fact is precedented and, to seasoned, perceptive, courageous observers, recognizable as the only viable method for attaining the short- and long-term goals of the assassination's sponsors.

No wonder, then, that you can't see it.

If you're playing a game, then to hell with you.

As for this:

"Are there researchers who insist upon a solution that reflects their own personalities? You've proved the intelligence of that question in spades."

Not even a royal flush -- which is what your entire hypothesis so richly deserves -- could detect, let alone prove, any intelligence in anything you've written on this thread.

This "analysis" is akin to the aforementioned "nobody killing somebody" nonsense -- at least as you would utilize it to dismiss all evidence contradicting your no-evidence hypothesis. And the words "insist" and "evidence" are the all-important considerations here.

From the git-go I have "insisted" upon nothing but consideration of "evidence." Throughout my personal journey through this case, I have embraced numerous preliminary positions only to reject them in the face of compelling counter-arguments. As previously stated, this often has taken place publicly.

Would that you could summon the intellectual courage to do the same.

As a general evaluation tool applicable to just about all human endeavor, however, you're on to something.

Your embarrassing defense of this indefensible position tells us much about the maturity and perception and character you bring to your work.

I've tried to encourage and even praise your willingness to stand alone to fight the good fight. I've taken myself to task -- privately and on this public thread -- for being less than considerate and polite to you.

But it does no good.

My hope -- if not my expectation -- is that your own journey through these dark places we frequent will continue, and that you will mature and otherwise grow more thoughtful and dignified in the process.

[Dawn Meredith]

I have to agree with CD. This is one of the many [all too many] purposefully invented blind alleys for some of us to get lost in - and seed conflicting theories. No credible evidence exists that this ever happened - only a few glints of smoke and mirrors - all phony

.

Pete, Pete...this won't do. Witnesses with no conceivable ulterior motive described, and, in some instances, sought to interest the WC in, shots from within the presidential limo. They did so, in some cases, long after the official orthodoxy had been, after a faltering start, set in stone. Not a single official followed up with the questions that should have issued. None of this testimony was invented; nor was any pattern imposed by those who found it. It's there.

Jackie and the Connellys would have known, people in the plaza would have known...

They did, Peter, they did. Among them were some of the closest eyewitnesses.




Particularly after the Secret Service washed the presidential limo out...



But which acoustic evidence and which wound patterns? The majority view among the Parkland doctors was, for the head wound, a left temple entrance/right rear exit - exactly as one would expect from a hand gun fired from the driver's seat!

Besides, you just don't run a covert op with the main event in plain sight anyway.

The assassination of RFK? MLK? Malcolm X? In fact, Pete, the contrary is true. Moreover, the American tradition is close range assassination by hand-gun. There is no precedent within that tradition for assassination by rifle from distance.

This has been put to sleep so many times, but it keeps walking around....I suggest this one be laid to rest once and for all. On this one, I think there is no there there. This is a planted story - as are so many others.

At the heart of John Fitzgerald Kennedy's murder was a brute simplicity: I urge you to think again!

There are REAL attempts to hide SS complicity in the JFK Assassassination and I'd agree with most who think some [perhaps not all there that day] had some hand - witting or unwitting - in the non-protection of the President. That said, I can't find any evidence that Greer shot JFK nor even had a gun in his hand. Greer may well have been guilty as hell for slowing the car and other things that day...maybe even not moving on until the 'job was done' by those in the sewer/GN and other places - but shooting JFK....I vote no....sorry. Paul, I like you and like your general take on the fate of the Panet in the bloody hands of the worst humans, but on this we have to agree to disagree. I believe this is a psyop to divert. There have been many many others...in fact we have now postively identified about 40 of the 4 gunmen!

I have been overly busy with work so have not read this entire thread, but at this point I am casting my opinion and vote with CD and Peter. I have viewed the Greer- did -it as a psyop for a long time, and this case is filled with them. It's probably the main reason I don't go near the Z alteration argument. We just don't need it to PROVE conspiracy. We need to remain focussed on the big picture: that our invisible government took out our elected president and now forty five years later are still getting away with it.
A fellow I met on face book who I believe has now posted here came up with a great idea: points upon all can agree. (Joseph Green is his name). His article is also posted at Jim DiEugenio's site and I have not looked at it since first reading it some weeks back, but I remember the idea of (a) k.i.s.s. and (b)FINDING points upon which to agree. The conspirators knew well in advance that there would be divisions and arguments and they stacked the deck by adding their own to our mix. If we are ever to get anywhere we must see throught the many traps and find a place upon which to unite. Bickering over nonsense has kept us where we are, now nearly forty five years later. And by nonsence I mean small points like grassy knoll vs. some other place in front, coat bunching vs. fraud by Gerald Ford, the list is endless. This is not trivial pursuit. This is quest to right the historical record and if ever possible find some right in such terrible wrongs.
Dawn

[Jan Klimkowski]

From the git-go I have "insisted" upon nothing but consideration of "evidence." Throughout my personal journey through this case, I have embraced numerous preliminary positions only to reject them in the face of compelling counter-arguments. As previously stated, this often has taken place publicly.

This is the only meaningful litmus test of research.

It is one of the philosophical justifications of the Deep Politics Forum.

Research must be ongoing, open, and willing to consider, examine, investigate, new information.

That new information may be disinformation.

Or it may lead to a new or partially different analysis.

And the abandonment, or amendment, of previous hypotheses.

[Mark Stapleton]

So an SS agent with 20 odd years of experience (but dubious competence) suddenly decides to jump the fence and signs up for a scheme where he will play the role of both driver AND assassin. That's a lot of pressure for poor old Bill.

Why did he do it? To prevent the SS coming under the jurisdiction of the AG rather than Treasury--and to prevent budget cuts to the SS.

Like Charles, I admire those who think outside the box but it's a bit too much for me.

Fun thread, though.

[Ed Jewett]

Being a Johnny-come-lately in both the large subject of JFK's assassination and this thread, I don't post here to posit a POV on specific actions or interpretations about that day or moment. But perhaps there ought to be a new thread (or two), because I can't help think of the parallels over time that might also involve the Secret Service and other politicos and others involved in the black arts, black ops, and deep politics. Here is where we could insert the old Roman phrase about guarding the guardians.

Some examples come quickly to mind:

A reference by Baker in "Family of Secrets" to a tie to the Dallas Civil Defense entity and the activation of what today we would call an EOC, an emergency operating center, which -- it can and has been argued -- can be used surreptitiously as a tool for a black op running simultaneously with or inside of a benign activity;

the obvious connections and similarities on 9/11 with the Secret Service operating a communications system under the direction of Cheney that allowed situational awareness and -- it has been argued -- the insertion of misdirecting data into the real-time operational world;

the fact that the Secret Service's own command center was activated at around 7:30 AM on the morning of 9/11/01 (noted in a National Geographic documentary on the Secret Service);

a video of the Secret Service agent standing down from the back bumper of the Presidential limousine as it slowed to take a corner and, throwing his hands up in question three times and looking up over his shoulder as if looking at the source of the order to do so from a "handler" in a window high above the route (that's from my memory and impression -- the video may still be available)(and then there is always the question of veracity and validity of that video "evidence");

the fact that, in both New Orleans and Dallas, the "trail" of the story ran underneath the windows of the offices of key Federal agencies;

the presence, existence (and role?) of the Federal offices inside WTC7.


There's a great line in Baker's "Family of Secrets" about the dangers to a state's own integrity from the state's own secret operations/intelligence entity.

[Charles Drago]

Ed,

What you're on to, I think, is a most important realization regarding attacks on ostensibly well-protected targets -- human and otherwise.

The common denominator you've noticed: security stripping.

Protection was compromised -- if not stripped entirely -- from the following targets of interest: JFK, MLK, Rabin, Diana, 9-11 targets (WTC, Pentagon continental US).

RFK's "security" was minimal and wholly ineffective so as to render the stripping exercise unnecessary. So too with Malcolm X.

Understand that the vast majority of security personnel in all of these cases were NOT complicit in the attacks. Key players in the protective organizations, however, surely were.

CD

[Charles Drago]

a video of the Secret Service agent standing down from the back bumper of the Presidential limousine as it slowed to take a corner and, throwing his hands up in question three times and looking up over his shoulder as if looking at the source of the order to do so from a "handler" in a window high above the route (that's from my memory and impression -- the video may still be available)(and then there is always the question of veracity and validity of that video "evidence").

You are conflating incidents here.

SS agent Henry Rybka is shown being ordered off the JFK death car while it is still on the Love Field tarmac. He "throws up his hands" in frustration, and is last seen poignantly watching his charge drive into eternity.

In Dealey Plaza, agents in the back-up car were ordered to remain in place as the volleys flew into the limousine.

[Ed Jewett]

Aha... well, that's why we have these forums... to learn stuff... to get clear on the detail... especially so we don't go repeating erroneous matter. Thanks.