On 8/11/2013 8:04 PM, Vince Palamara wrote:
> (you guys must have missed this from the other newsgroup- I rarely post anything any more because people just want to argue and argue ad naseum, not to mention the personal attacks and so forth...but here you go:)
>
> With my book about to be released in a few short weeks, I thought it was now time to clear up a common misconception (easily understandable to the layman) about security for JFK's motorcades PRE-Dallas. First off, everyone needs to view the security with 1963 glasses, so to speak- of course, you CANNOT use modern security techniques and apply them to Dallas or, for that matter, any motorcade circa 1961-1963; even after that time period, to a point.
>
> That said, I have never said agents were always on/ near the rear of the limo (although it was more common than one would be led to believe by viewing a still photo or two from any given motorcade)- JFK was NOT in the equation whether they were there or not; that is the bottom line. But that is not the point here.
>
Misleading. JFK did not issue any order about the SS agents riding on
the back bumper until the Tampa trip. Seems you never watched The
Kennedy Detail. Here is what Jerry Blaine said:
00:35:37 THE PRESIDENT ARRIVED atMacDill air force base in tampa,
and he helicoptered out to lopez stadium, and he gave
his speech there.
00:35:48 Then we started a motorcade.
00:35:50 The problem was we had 28 miles of motorcade.
00:35:56 I said, "those guys are gonna be worn out, "so I think I'm
gonna have them
"ride on the back end of the president's car,
"because we just don't have the manpower " all of a
sudden,
I hear over the radio, the president wants the ivy
league charlatans to fall
back to the follow-up car, and he politely told everybody,
"we're starting the campaign now, " he said,
"I couldn't get elected dog catcher "
we all of a sudden understood,
but it left a firm command to stay off the back of the
car.
> I proudly and enthusiastically posted that San Diego video (and many others) on my blogs (plural), as well as elsewhere, for they demonstrate what WAS a common security practice before Dallas:
>
> 1) Military and/ or police lining the streets and facing the crowd (and often being IN the crowd itself), not (just) the procession. This was mainly but not exclusively a manpower issue, as the agency simply did not have the agents or resources to man streets and so forth back then.
>
> The OTHER security practice that was common BEFORE Dallas that would, out of necessity, rarely, if ever, appear in photographs or films:
>
> 2) agents and/ or police and/ or military manned building rooftops until the procession passed.
>
> Besides ***contemporary records*** of this occuring in Nashville in May 1963, Tampa in November 1963, and San Antonio, also in November 1963, among other stops, Chief Inspector of the Secret Service Michael Torina, who wrote the Secret Service manual and to whom I spoke to, confirmed this practice as being standard during this time. My book, revised and expanded, will go a long way to clearing up the myths and misconceptions propagated by people like Gerald Blaine, a buck private who only served a brief time in the Service and who wrote his book as a direct reaction to my letter to his best friend Clint Hill.
>
> So we can stop the "gotcha" game of finding a photo without real overt protection and saying "what gives?" AND blaming JFK for the security problems in Dallas. I trust people like Torina and his colleagues in the brass far more than any author (Manchester) or former agent with an obvious agenda(Blaine). Security was both overt (bubbletop, partial or full; agents on/ near the rear of the limo, good motorcycle formation, etc) AND covert (PRS threat monitoring, buildings being checked and manned, military and police lining the street, being in the crowd itself, etc).
The Bubbletop was not for security. It was not bullet proof. It was only
plexiglass. It was only for weather. Another good security measure is to
cancel the motorcade, which they had done a couple of times before.
Connally recommended against the motorcade because he was worried about
Kennedy's safety. They could just use a helicopter as they had done a
couple of times before. But Kennedy was running for reelection and wanted
to be seen by the public.
>
> I do understand- it is easy for lay people who haven't spoken to actual former agents and who base their judgement on a photograph or segment of film to "see" what they want to see or think is "there" (or what is viewable to the naked eye is all that IS "there"). Again, security was both overt and covert.
>
It is easy for you to twist their words to make everything look sinister.
> Lastly, we can retire the "blame O'Donnell"/ staff myth along with the "blame the victim"/ JFK routine. In addition to statements made by Dave Powers and Helen O'Donnell to myself (in Helen's case, based on both her memory AND her father's extensive AUDIO tapes [there ya go, Tony- audio tapes for ya: what you always dreamed of LOL], I had the pleasure of viewing the William Manchester materials at Wesleyan University NOT sealed until the year 2067 (no joke)...O'Donnell makes no mention whatsoever about JFK restricting security. In fact, there is NOTHING in the papers suggesting otherwise; Helen is correct. In addition, Floyd Boring was not interviewed for Manchester's book and denounced what was attributed to him; Sam Kinney, Rufus Youngblood, and others did the same [Blaine is now claiming that neither Boring or ***himself*** was interviewed...and his transcript has mysteriously disappeared...hmmmm...].
>
The order came directly from the President himself.
> Keep in mind, the Secret Service was facing the worst crisis in their history (to date, it still is): they were justifiably worried that they would either lose their protective functions or, worse yet, Hoover would take over and the Secret Service would become defunct (Congressional hearings, public scorn, loss of jobs, pensions, reputations- all were at stake). There was a need to "CYA" and lie- blaming the dead president suited their ends quite nicely (and what could HE say? He was DEAD, thanks to them). It sounded plausible (he had a "rendezvous with death", remember [meantime, WE ALL DO- what exaggerated nonsense]) and who would question such a 'verdict', especially circa 1964. By the time we reached the 1970's, along with tales of JFK's reckless private behavior, his alleged reckless security concerns were joined hand in glove: the myth was set in stone...until 1992, quite by accident, when I looked into this matter.
>
JFK said himself that very morning that if some nut wanted to shoot him
from an office building there was nothing anyone could do about it, so
why worry.