Uh-huh. And did the reassigned agents ever testify to that effect? Is there any evidence other than your uncle’s interpretation?
OK, granted. So what?
Does this have anything to do with JFK’s assassination, or not? Because, as far as I can tell, you **are **alleging something -
What kind of skullduggery do you believe this is evidence of?
Well, I am fairly staunch, and conservative (at least relative to the rest of the SDMB), and I apply the same standard to the government of 1963 that I do to anyone else. If you are going to allege that something sinister is going on, please provide the evidence that leads to think that this is so.
I am not ruling out the idea that the government might be up to no good. After all, if I am as staunch as all that, I merely need to reflect on the fact that Democrats controlled all three branches of the federal government in 1963. So if excessive partisanship is the motive, I am more likely to conclude that the (Democratically controlled) government was up to no good.
But I would still like to see some kind of evidence. And frankly, what somebody on the Internet claims his step-uncle told him is not very strong evidence. Especially not claims that the only thing that kept the Secret Service silent about a conspiracy to kill the President is threats against their families.
I need a little bit - hell, a lot - more than that.
Regards,
Shodan
jakesteele, I’ve looked at that video several times now. There’s seven guys getting into that Cadillac, which is a big car, but does not appear to be a limo. The only person who reacts to the loading of the cars is the one that does not get a seat in that car. I imagine he thought he was getting left behind.
As to your relative (or anyone) thinking that not riding on the back of the president’s limo is strange: Cars in 1963 were much faster than they were ten years before. I think you’d be crazy to ride on those things at anything faster than a crawl. The soft, lope-y suspension of the Lincoln would throw them off, esp. out on the back of that long trunk. From footage of Johnson’s inauguration, I see they were used when the car was at a crawl. Footage of Eisenhower’s inauguration shows agents walking behind the car. At Kennedy’s inauguration they are riding on the doors of a separate car. So, riding on the running boards of the car was done, but it was not the rule.
As to “who is my uncle?” see first post I made down past the half way mark.
As to “inferences made…” You got two choices:
-
Take me at my word and answer the question: What is you take on my uncle’s take on the situation?
-
Choose to believe that I am making that up, at which point there is no reason for either of us to respond to each other. We can put each other on our ignore list; your choice.
He is. It’s just a way to write it easier and quicker. Kind of like JFK, WTC, CT, LMAO, etc.
Can’t remember the question you asked, I too busy responding to multiple posts.
As far as, “What do you think about the statement my uncle made?” Logic would dictate that is be given consideration because it pertains directly to the assassination.
I notice that you and others like to ask questions and demand an answer, but then the shoe is on the other foot you seem to try to duck and avoid.
It gets down to two things:
-
If you think I am lying, then in your mind, the matter has been put to rest and it would not be logical to respond to a lier.
-
If you believe me, then it is something that is factored into the assassination and needs to be given due deliberation. After you have deliberated then you will arrive at a conclusion: It has merit of some kind to some degree, or it has no merit at all and can be thrown out.
No disrespect to your uncle, but this whole line of argument is ridiculous.
If I say that my Dad saw the video and he says that it proves that the cameraman was in on it, that means nothing. Nobody here knows my Dad and there is no proof of his expertise on anything. There would be zero reason to even mention it.
Plus, you don’t say what your uncle said about the video except that “something” is up because of the mannerisms of the agent. So what exactly is wrong here? How can your uncle, or anyone else even know what is going on in that video?
Surely you understand that it is not a valid debate point to say that a family member said something.
OK, here’s what you wrote originally.
Yes, the SS agent looks a bit confused and perplexed, but it’s not clear why. The narrator of the video claims to know why, your uncle claims to know why, but without more information it’s pretty hard to know if this is something serious or just an agent having a bad day. Can you show the guidelines that the Secret Service had in place that day that would indicate that this was a serious breach of procedure? Without that, it’s not clear what to make of this information. Can you show that at that time Presidential motorcades always had agents on the bumpers without exception?
The agents didn’t testify to what your uncle claimed happened. And they can’t have been in on the conspiracy, because then they wouldn’t have been “astounded and amazed”. So clearly the only option is that they were somehow *prevented *from talking:
LOL. This hypothetical plan of yours just gets stupider and stupider. You actually want us to believe that the plan involved ordering Secret Service agents to lag behind Kennedy, then threatening them into silence? Why? Oswald didn’t *need *to have the agents out of the way to make a clear shot, and adding this twist in increases the probability of the plot being foiled or exposed by several orders of magnitude. All it takes is for ONE agent to be brave enough to talk and the whole scheme falls apart. (And, I’ll point out, these are men whose *job *is to throw themselves in front of bullets. I can think of few groups *less *likely to respond to intimidation than Secret Service agents.)
Clearly Kennedy was killed by a vast conspiracy of very, very stupid masterminds.
I’ve only used one question mark in this thread, rhetorically. My participation was only to try and relate how obnoxious it was that you kept knocking down straw men.
I don’t care what your uncle said. Second-hand, twice-anonymous, non-verifiable opinions related by an online persona on a message board don’t hold much weight with me.
You can see very clearly the agents being given stand down orders and their indications of puzzlement and bewiilderment. Those are the guys that run along side the prez to act as human shields. I think you have a confirmaiton bias going on.
We can see them being told something and one of them shrugging. Did any of them later clarify what was happening?
***Not following that logic at all. My uncle was shocked at the breach of protocols because the two that were ordered to stand down are critical to security that in the event of gunshots they will throw themselves. Watch the Regan vid.
He said that something was ‘wrong’, ‘fishy’, ‘amiss’, take your pick.
I don’t think you and others get it. I said something about that vid stuck in my craw from viewing it and from what my uncle said. I have never said there was a debate about it. You and others have been straw manning what I’ve said over and over again.
Apparently, for you everything must be black or white/all-or-nothing. You seem to be uneasy with uncertainty, shades of gray and ambiguity.
I have made a statement, not an argument so please stop trying to make it one.
As I understand it (and I’m prepared to be corrected), shortly after Dealey Plaza, the motorcade was going to get on a highway. Were the agents supposed to stay on the back of the limo the entire way, or was the limo going to stop at some point to let them off?
Wait - I had seen that video before, and I just watched it again. I’m pretty sure the limo was leaving Love Field on its way to downtown. Are you suggesting that the Secret Service agents should have run alongside the limo that whole distance? It’s a good four or five miles from there to where the parade was supposed to start in downtown.
Oops, I need to correct my last post. I had always thought the parade started in downtown, but apparently the whole route was published, including the drive from Love Field to downtown (along Lemmon Ave).
It’s still true that it was quite a distance to expect Secret Service guys to run, and at quite a clip. They were allowing 45 minutes to go those 10 miles through downtown and back to the Trade Mart, which would be a four and a half minute mile, for ten miles, for guys in suits and leather-soled shoes.
Maybe the agent waving them off knew the big picture and was telling them to get in a car.
OK, I read about a page and a half of this, then skipped to the end.
I used to think there was more than likely a conspiracy. Having seen some documentaries in recent years, I am confident LHO alone shot him. There are reasonable explanations for most of the other stuff—like the so-called “magic bullet.” Connelly wasn’t sitting directly in front of him; it lines up.
IANAL but “conspiracy” seems like an almost meaningless term. If two or more collaborate, it’s a conspiracy. Conspiracy: someone in the know hands him a copy of the parade route. Also a conspiracy: the mob/CIA/Cuba bankroll him, get him an untraceable weapon, and generally move mountains for him. I don’t think it took a mastermind or intense planning or anything. Upthread, someone posted that 65 yards was hardly the impossible shot that some think. He got multiple tries. And he did a lousy job of getting away.
I suspect the reason for CTs is that the government is in the habit of covering up. In many cases, the individual motives are probably as simple as “Maybe I screwed up or maybe someone will make me the scapegoat. Either way, this could bite me in the ass and I’ll lose my job.” But also it’s a matter of covering up until the GOVERNMENT can figure out what happened, then continuing to cover their asses, burying information in the hope that people will stop asking.
The one thing that bothered me the first time I saw the Zapruder film, and I think it will always bother me, is why the chauffeur didn’t hit the gas when the shots started.
Yes, the agent “looss a bit confused and perplexed, but it’s not clear why.” is a fair assesment except for the part about ‘having a bad day’.
I don’t know what the guidelines were. But I do know what my uncle said about the procedures in Truman’s day were, especially after the attempt on his life.
Harry S. Truman
Main article: Truman assassination attempt
In 1950, two Puerto Rican pro-independence activists, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, attempted to kill Truman. A violent gun battle ensued between the assassins and the Secret Service, resulting in the death of White House Policeman Leslie Coffelt. One assassin died and the other was wounded; Truman was not harmed.who guarded prez’s life before Kennedy was elected.
To stay with the prez was SOP then, so logic would dictate that it would remain the same or be even tighter for future president’s.
Look, I know your job is to not ever beleive any kind of conspiracy and to try to refute everything that’s put in front of you, but somethimes CSIOPtics™ come up with what I call Forced Plausibles™ that can sometimes get stretched to the breaking point and beyond. Everything in life can’t always be mundane and plausible
It is part and parcel to the assassination. The Secret Service is critical to the situation. In essence, the buck stops with them. To deviate from standard protocol like that, leaving two less agents to guard, is perplexing.
I haven’t said it was evidence. I said my uncle said that something was greatly amiss, highly questionable, there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark. I think it is evidence of a potentional breach of protocol that should be given due deliberation just like everything else that was germane to the assassination.
I haven’t alleged anything. I posted a vid, related what my SS uncle said. I have said it is something would normally be looked into so as to cover all the bases.
As far as my uncle statement, there are two choices:
-
Think I am lying, in which case, case closed. Logic would dictate that You wouldn’t want to keep responding to a liar.
-
Take me at my word, and if you do, my uncle’s statement must be given some king of weight, especially coming from a highly qualified source.
His name is Paul B. Doster, U.S. Secret Service
[quote=“scabpicker, post:183, topic:503978”]
jakesteele,
What vid did you look at? No one’s talking about the trailing car. You can see plainly the two hand holds welded on the trunk portion of JFK’s limo. Right below that at the bumper level there are small running boards that the agents will sometimes jump up on and grab the rails for support. You can also clearly see the agents getting called back and running backward and displaying body language that is saying, WTF? What’s going on.
Look, I understand peoples’ need for cognitive closure. All people need answers for everything. Scary answers, uncertain answers, vague, ambiguous answers make us uncomfortable, some people more than others. In the extreme you have hard core fundamentalists, in this case you have the CTers and you, the True Believers in the Official Story. The problem arises when people warp, twist, distort and bend reality to achieve cognitive closure. You are doing what I call a Forced Plausible™. It’s like trying to stick a size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe.
Cognitive closure (psychology), a term describing the human desire to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally).