JFK conspiracy... yes or no?

[tomndebb]

@jakesteele

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022&q=President%20Press%20JFK&hl=en
There’s one thing that has always stuck in my craw about the assassination. This video here shows the agents who rode on bumpers at the back of the President’s limo and were the first line of defense for an assassination attempt. They are the ones that are the most important because their job is to throw their bodies over the President and act as human shields as in the attempt to assassination of Regan. It shows the two agents being ordered to stand down and leave the President’s side. You can see the look of astounded amazement on their faces and their body language.

I have an uncle, now deceased, who was a Secret Service agent who had guarded President Truman. He was a staunch, conservative who believed in the party line. He believed that it was the lone gunman. But when he saw this video clip he immediately called bullshit and said that that is not supposed to ever happen; leave the President vulnerbale to attack. He said that that would never ever happen under ordinary circumstances. He then thought for the rest of his life that the assassination was some kind of inside job.

Odd things are, by definition odd.

Now, consider the following:
JFK Motorcade San Diego 1963 JFK in San Diego, same car, no riders on back.
JFK INAUGURAL MOTORCADE - Film & Video Stock JFK inauguration, (using older Cadillac), with no outriders.
http://revoltnow.wetpaint.com/photo/4591962/JFK+Motorcade,+1961 1961 motorcade, (with Caddy?) and no outriders.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/0c/Photo_jfkl-01_0130-AR-7956-1B.jpg June,1963 mortorcade, using Continental, with no outriders.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8f/Photo_jfkl-01_0131-AR-7956-2.jpg Same motorcade, still no outriders.

One can also find photos of the bumper steps being used, of course, but it seems that they were hardly abandoned specifically for the Dallas motorcade.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Bryan_Ekers

What bugs me more is the ocacsional claim that Oswald couldn’t have shot Kennedy with any accuracy because Kennedy was President of the freakin’ UNITED STATES and therefore Oswald would have been too nervous.

:dubious: I beg to differ,
[English Bob] If you were to try to assassination a king, sir, the… how shall I say it? The aura of royalty would cause you to miss. But, the president … I mean, why not shoot the president? [/English Bob]

CMC fnord!

[CurtC]

@jakesteele

Thanks, I’ll try to be diligent about that.

Well, like that (post #259). It looks like your only words in that whole post were “You gave it a good try.”

I think the words that were in italics were your words, but they’re placed inside a quote box like you’re quoting someone else’s words.

[jakesteele]

@tomndebb

Odd things are, by definition odd.

Now, consider the following:
JFK Motorcade San Diego 1963 JFK in San Diego, same car, no riders on back.
JFK INAUGURAL MOTORCADE - Film & Video Stock JFK inauguration, (using older Cadillac), with no outriders.
http://revoltnow.wetpaint.com/photo/4591962/JFK+Motorcade,+1961 1961 motorcade, (with Caddy?) and no outriders.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/0c/Photo_jfkl-01_0130-AR-7956-1B.jpg June,1963 mortorcade, using Continental, with no outriders.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8f/Photo_jfkl-01_0131-AR-7956-2.jpg Same motorcade, still no outriders.

One can also find photos of the bumper steps being used, of course, but it seems that they were hardly abandoned specifically for the Dallas motorcade.

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html

THE RYBKA TAPE – An important discovery was made by this correspondent during review of video of the Dallas trip shot by the ABC television affiliate in that city. During the start of the fatal motorcade at Love Field, Secret Service agent Henry J. Rybka begins to jog alongside the presidential limousine. He is immediately called back by his shift leader and commander of the follow-up car detail, Emory P. Roberts.

Rybka’s dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language: He throws up his arms several times before, during and after the follow-up car passes him. He was not being allowed to do his job – and it was not JFK who was ordering the stand-down.

Despite the discovery by this correspondent of three reports to the contrary (two by Roberts) written on November 22, 1963, this newly discovered photographic evidence confirms that frustrated and vocal-in-his-objections Rybka did not enter the follow-up car and was left behind at the airport.

[jakesteele]

@CurtC

Well, like that (post #259). It looks like your only words in that whole post were “You gave it a good try.”

I think the words that were in italics were your words, but they’re placed inside a quote box like you’re quoting someone else’s words.

The words in italics were mine, yes.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

No, that’s what you would call an Argument from Mockery.

Sure, if I was missing the point as completely as you insist on doing. I’m not mocking your uncle’s statement, nor your reporting of it. What I perceive, however, is that instead of advancing an actual argument about what happened to JFK with reasoning and logic and evidence, the thread was instead sliding toward something akin to:

A: Statement.
B: Comment about some aspect of A’s statement.
A: I didn’t say that aspect.
B: I didn’t say you said that aspect.
A: Well, I didn’t say you said I said that aspect…

… and so forth. The content of the original statement, and direct questions about it, are ignored during round after round of sideshow arguments over who said what. As far as I can tell, the gist is that even if your uncle is indeed a highly qualified former Service agent, it is not clear in the film what exactly is happening and we have no reason, barring additional evidence, to assume that the supervising agent deliberately exposed JFK to risk. Quite to the contrary, we have statements that even if your (and your uncle’s) assumptions about the actions in the film are correct, they don’t represent a gross violation of protocol because the protocol of the situation wasn’t firmly set.

Further, even if the supervising agent acted in a manner that endangered JFK, it’s quite the leap to assume he must have been in on some kind of conspiracy to do so (or, more generously, simply and unknowingly acting on orders of his superiors, who were in on the conspiracy), which I’ve assumed you’ve been implying all along.

Please answer simply: do you believe one or more of the Service agents on duty in Dallas that day were involved in a plot to kill the President, and if so, which ones?

[CurtC]

@jakesteele

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html

Well that article paints everything in a mysterious and sinister light. The page I linked to earlier explains much of this, including the selection of which of two motorcade routes to use (the other proposed one would have had Kennedy speaking at Fair Park instead of the Trade Mart, so the route would have gone down Main St in the other direction, from West to East, to end up at Fair Park which is East of downtown. This decision was highly political). It also describes decisions about how many motorcycle escorts there were to be and where they would be placed. It’s here: McAdams's Kennedy Assassination Home Page Index

That article you posted, and you selected quotes from it, that indicate there is some new material about the waving off of Secret Service agents at the airport discovered by the author, but it’s the same video we’ve been discussing for three pages now.

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

Sure, if I was missing the point as completely as you insist on doing. I’m not mocking your uncle’s statement, nor your reporting of it. What I perceive, however, is that instead of advancing an actual argument about what happened to JFK with reasoning and logic and evidence, the thread was instead sliding toward something akin to:

A: Statement.
B: Comment about some aspect of A’s statement.
A: I didn’t say that aspect.
B: I didn’t say you said that aspect.
A: Well, I didn’t say you said I said that aspect…

… and so forth. The content of the original statement, and direct questions about it, are ignored during round after round of sideshow arguments over who said what. As far as I can tell, the gist is that even if your uncle is indeed a highly qualified former Service agent, it is not clear in the film what exactly is happening and we have no reason, barring additional evidence, to assume that the supervising agent deliberately exposed JFK to risk. Quite to the contrary, we have statements that even if your (and your uncle’s) assumptions about the actions in the film are correct, they don’t represent a gross violation of protocol because the protocol of the situation wasn’t firmly set.

Further, even if the supervising agent acted in a manner that endangered JFK, it’s quite the leap to assume he must have been in on some kind of conspiracy to do so (or, more generously, simply and unknowingly acting on orders of his superiors, who were in on the conspiracy), which I’ve assumed you’ve been implying all along.

Please answer simply: do you believe one or more of the Service agents on duty in Dallas that day were involved in a plot to kill the President, and if so, which ones?

I think the unambiguous body language from the recalled agent is suspicious. It is clear that he was puzzled by the order.

As to the reason, at this point in time it is unknowable what the reason was he was recalled for. It could have been for a sinister purpose, it could be from nothing more than a foot soldier not being privy as to why his superiors gave the order who had a good, valid reason for doing so.

If, and that’s a qualified ‘if’, any SS personnel were involved in a plot it would be only the guys at the top who could give stand down orders like that. Greer, I believe.

Any prudent investigation would look into that vid the same as anything else that might have bearing on the case and find out exactly what the order was and why it was given. I don’t know if the WC addressed that issue specifically or not, I was unable to find it.

I am not trying to be evasive with you, but on matters as controversial as this I lean toward the agnostic viewpoint which tends to take into account the gray, uncertain and ambiguous areas that inevitably occur. I have seen very convincing theories on both sides of the fence that require me to sift, sort, contrast and compare, oft times to no avail.

[FinnAgain]

@jakesteele

I am not trying to be evasive with you, but on matters as controversial as this I lean toward the agnostic viewpoint which tends to take into account the gray, uncertain and ambiguous areas that inevitably occur. I have seen very convincing theories on both sides of the fence that require me to sift, sort, contrast and compare, oft times to no avail.

Teach The Controversy, right?

[Jackmannii]

@jakesteele

…on matters as controversial as this I lean toward the agnostic viewpoint which tends to take into account the gray, uncertain and ambiguous areas that inevitably occur.

I and plenty of other people are agnostics (in reference to religious faith), but that doesn’t mean that our response to every report of a miracle or supernatural occurrence is “It could happen.”

From what I’ve seen in this thread, your status is far more akin to a Believer than to an agnostic.

[jakesteele]

@CurtC

Well that article paints everything in a mysterious and sinister light. The page I linked to earlier explains much of this, including the selection of which of two motorcade routes to use (the other proposed one would have had Kennedy speaking at Fair Park instead of the Trade Mart, so the route would have gone down Main St in the other direction, from West to East, to end up at Fair Park which is East of downtown. This decision was highly political). It also describes decisions about how many motorcycle escorts there were to be and where they would be placed. It’s here: McAdams's Kennedy Assassination Home Page Index

That article you posted, and you selected quotes from it, that indicate there is some new material about the waving off of Secret Service agents at the airport discovered by the author, but it’s the same video we’ve been discussing for three pages now.

I notice that a lot of the posts keep referring to “the motorcade”. That is not what this thread is about. All of those type posts are straw men.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Please stop misusing the phrase “straw man”. Ray Bolger is spinning in his grave.
The point of CurtC’s “motorcade” observation, as far as I can tell, is that a lot of decisions were being made about where to go, how to get there, what to do, etc. and if one is determiend to believe in a conspiracy, it’s easy to cherry-pick any of those decisions and try to cast them in a sinister light.

An agent is being told not to ride on the back of the limo? CONSPIRACY!
The motorcade slowed down to take the turn? CONSPIRACY!
The bubble-top wasn’t in place? CONSPIRACY!

And so forth.

[jakesteele]

@Jackmannii

I and plenty of other people are agnostics (in reference to religious faith), but that doesn’t mean that our response to every report of a miracle or supernatural occurrence is “It could happen.”

From what I’ve seen in this thread, your status is far more akin to a Believer than to an agnostic.

Why can’t somebody have doubts. I’ve noticed that CSIOPtics are as extreme and polarized as what they call a “True Believer”. They are True-Non Believers. They will always come down on the side of believing the Official Story no matter what. Just as a CTer will always percieve things like JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, 911, etc. as conspiracies, True-Non Believers will never, ever see a conspiracy anywhere. Both are hardwired psychologically toward one extreme or the other. I’ts almost like they are each other’s evil twin and were separated at birth.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I rather doubt they were born that way, but after years of listening to wild speculation from people who have little or no sense of reason, I can certainly imagine becoming jaded to the point where conspiracy theories are viewed as false by default.

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

How many of these agents were on duty in Dallas that day? Did any of them testify about their suspicions?

I mean, finding Americans who believe there was a conspiracy but have no evidence isn’t really all that hard.

So you’re saying that the only way that A SS guy would know that there was a conspiracy was to be there. Why is that?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

So you’re saying that the only way that A SS guy would know that there was a conspiracy was to be there. Why is that?

See, that’s a strawman. It’s an extrapolation of my statement in which my observation leads to an absurd situation that you then challenge.

As I understand it (and, as always, I’m prepared to be corrected if mistaken), the agents you were referring to were like your uncle in that they were looking at the event after the fact and reacting to things they thought looked suspicious. That’s all well and good, but lots of Americans have done the same, and it has a basic flaw - it involves cherry-picking details that support your suspicions and ignoring details that don’t.

If any of these agents were on duty in Dallas at the time, then their direct eyewitness details will carry more weight. Hence I asked “How many of these agents were on duty in Dallas that day? [If any of them were, did they] testify about their suspicions?” (altered for clarity)

The website you linked to names six agents, but doesn’t have any detail about what, if anything, they personally witnessed. The author of the website could easily be operating from selection bias - he focuses on the six agents he communicated with who suspect a conspiracy and ignores a possibly much greater number of agents who told him there wasn’t one or who didn’t bother to respond to his inquiries.

It is certainly possible for a Service agent to have evidence of a conspiracy even if he wasn’t in Dallas that day. Did an agent ever step forward and testify, for example, along the lines of:

Agent: Senator, on November 12th, I was at a meeting with my supervisor finalizing the motorcade route. I expressed misgivings about Elm Street and he said, and this is as direct a quote as I can recall, “No, it’s fine, it’ll give Lee a good line of sight, er, ah, never mind.” I thought it strange at the time and made a note of it. Three days later I was recalled to Washington to consult on an ongoing counterfeiting case and when I’d heard over the radio that the President had been shot, my thoughts immediately went to my question about Elm Street and I commented to a colleague. It was only later that I found out that this is where the fatal shooting had actually occurred.

[jakesteele]

@Jackmannii

I and plenty of other people are agnostics (in reference to religious faith), but that doesn’t mean that our response to every report of a miracle or supernatural occurrence is “It could happen.”

From what I’ve seen in this thread, your status is far more akin to a Believer than to an agnostic.

Apparently, in your world, everything has to be black and white/all-or-nothing. You seem to have no middle ground. You must eliminate doubt, uncertainty, gray and ambiguity no matter what it takes. You will always blindly accept the Official Story as a way of achieving your type of cognitive closure.

Going psychic on you. You are about to say something to this effect: “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know, I’m the first to want to know the truth."

[Bryan_Ekers]

Is there a more plausible sequence of events than “the Official Story” ? By all means, lay it on us.

[Jackmannii]

@jakesteele

Apparently, in your world, everything has to be black and white/all-or-nothing. You seem to have no middle ground. You must eliminate doubt, uncertainty, gray and ambiguity no matter what it takes. You will always blindly accept the Official Story as a way of achieving your type of cognitive closure.

Nope. I am willing to accept a certain amount of ambiguity as an inevitable part of the human condition - especially when all the doubts and questions (as noted earlier) have been hashed, rehashed, ground up, pureed, swallowed by the credulous, recycled, fed to new generations of believers, digested and excreted until they are a soggy mash with a few particles of grit, enough to sustain only the hardiest of believers.

Going psychic on you. You are about to say something to this effect: “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know, I’m the first to want to know the truth."

Don’t give up that day job for a career on the Psychic Hotline.

[Algorithm]

@jakesteele

Apparently, in your world, everything has to be black and white/all-or-nothing. You seem to have no middle ground. You must eliminate doubt, uncertainty, gray and ambiguity no matter what it takes. You will always blindly accept the Official Story as a way of achieving your type of cognitive closure.

Stop. You’re making things up again.