Talk:Clint Hill (Secret Service)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hill's "failure"

Re this edit: Hill was in the car behind the presidential limo, and simply did not have time to climb on to it before the fatal shot was fired. There was no "unexplained delay" because the motorcade was traveling at around 11 mph and Hill had to run at full speed to reach the limo in the time allowed. Nor had the presidential limo "slowed or stopped", a common myth peddled by conspiracy theorists. The limo slows very slightly before the fatal head shot, because the driver William Greer looks backwards to see what is happening in the rear of the car. It was over three seconds after the President had been shot in the head and killed that Hill managed to reach the rear bumper of the car. Hill blamed himself afterwards, but no-one else did and he won a medal for bravery for his actions. Other Secret Service agents were caught unawares during the incident and might have done more. Hill realized that something was wrong after the President began clutching his throat and ran towards the limo immediately. Unless Hill had been on the rear bumper of the presidential limo at the time, he could not have done much if anything to prevent the assassination. Strictly speaking, Hill's duty on the day was to protect Mrs Kennedy, and his actions may well have saved her from death or serious injury.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: You wrote: "Nor had the presidential limo "slowed or stopped", a common myth peddled by conspiracy theorists. The limo slows very slightly before the fatal head shot, because the driver William Greer looks backwards to see what is happening in the rear of the car." Which is it, are you saying the limo slowed, or not? Would you care to postulate on why he turned and looked back TWICE during the shooting rather than simply looking in the rear view mirror, as a professional driver should?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:C4A4:8DD5:BCC9:2E51 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: The Warren Commission found that the President's security for the trip to Dallas was broadly the same as on his trip to Tampa four days earlier. However, in this photo there appear to be two Secret Service agents crouching down on the rear footplates and watching the crowd on the left. Even so, the President is standing up and would make an all too easy target for a sniper in a tall building. People often forget that Clint Hill was assigned to protect Mrs Kennedy, not the President. The Warren Commission reported that the President had expressed a dislike for having the agents on the limo, which is why Hill crouched down on the rear footplate. Hill has said that even if he had been on the footplate in Dealey Plaza, he might have jumped off as it approached the underpass. The idea that Hill can be directly blamed for failing to prevent the President's death is not supported by the Zapruder film or the Warren Commission and runs into WP:BLP issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: This Entry and Talk really sounds like subjective, self-serving commentary that is not in accordance with Wikipedia standards - and only pours more fuel on the conspiracy fire. There exists abundant attribution of opinion based on statements and events related to survivors who could have been somehow complicit themselves in a manner that places undue weight on their side of the story. ("History is written (and rewritten) by the winners.") Should Clint Hill receiving a medal from the Treasury Secretary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iwaAWNm5hY) - who was by then part of the LBJ regime that inherited the presidency via the assasination - be considered basis for evaluation of his actions in failing to react in time as "heroic"? (Other Agents have inferred that a motorcycle backfire was their reason not to react instantly as trained - but with all of the motorcycle escorts from the past, were they not trained and experienced enough to differentiate, or at least not take it for granted?) How can we disagree with the fact that Hill and the Secret Service detail in Dallas that day failed to save President Kennedy's life? The obvious fact remains that he WAS a Secret Service Agent sworn to protect the president AND his family (Was Hill's normal procedure to actually provide protection at the exclusion of the president? I doubt it.) and that he, along with ALL of the other Secret Service agents present during the assassination did not protect the president's life through the techniques they were trained and sworn in to uphold. Namely, accelerating out of danger (Greer), covering the president's body with their own as a shield from bullets (Kellerman), as well as a litany of other failures that have been documented. The Zapruder Film itself shows Kellerman looking in the back seat after President Kennedy and Governor Connally have been shot and then calmly turning around to face forward (when he had been trained to vault onto the president's body immediately). For this reason alone, ASAIC Kellerman (assigned to protect JFK that day) should have been investigated (along with Greer). However, it was the Secret Service itself who collected and controlled much of the evidence of the crime, and therefore controlled much of the information that might have implicated any of its agents, rogue or otherwise. (Another issue worthy of lengthly discussion in itself.) On page 529 of its report, the HSCA found the president's Secret Service protection on 11/22/63 to be "uniquely insecure" [1]. Vince Palamara has conducted interviews with Secret Service personnel who have further supported these findings. The concept that certain members of the Secret Service (Hill et al) and their biographers are the best source themselves for the correct interpretation of how and why President John F. Kennedy was assassinated (JFK stripped his own protection for Dallas) is unacceptable due to an obvious conflict of interest. Those to blame (Yes, blame - Clint Hill blamed himself: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfks-secret-service-agent-i-still-feel-a-sense-of-failure/) should not be considered as a reliable source of information, free of conflict of interest. To wit, if ANY of the Secret Service were involved in ANY way in a conspiracy to murder, or help facilitate the murder of, President John F. Kennedy, should this protective service's bureaucracy reasonably be trusted to make those facts public, when such an admission would obviously have meant the destruction of the agency and the careers of those in positions of leadership? (And now a matter of the loss of national prestige.) Two additional details that I find interesting, the FBI report on their interview with Greer recording his physical description: (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hxYSiVRh5Qc/UB1U9QF7jcI/AAAAAAAAJZg/TH7Oe1QJKN4/s1600/untitled.JPG) and, The United States Secret Service destroyed its records on the assassination when it became known the ARRB was going to request them: (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3611#relPageId=170). So, while there appear to be clear examples in the official record of potential Secret Service obstruction of justice (washing the limo, seizing the president's body - just look for yourself for these and more...), how can any member of the detail on 11/22/63 (or any other member or biographer, etc.) be trusted as an impartial source to exonerate themselves and suggest that President Kennedy himself is the reason for such lax protection? The American press maintains LHO was the lone assassin, a theory that is becoming more difficult to accept with each passing year. (Now Hill says he believes it, simply for the fact that he "was there".) Mr. Hill, you were there, and in your first statement (generally the more accurate of witnesses statements to those who understand basic principles of criminal investigation) you stated you heard "the sound of a revolver fired into a hard object" (JFK's skull perhaps?). Now, we have not heard from anyone that LHO fired a revolver from the 6th Floor. So, on the day of the assassination, did you have any opinion on who could have fired a revolver (or any handgun) at the president and hit him in the skull? In conclusion, common sense would tell us that in one of the most hostile cities where JFK could have been driven in an open car, the Secret Service should not have abandoned ANY of its security procedures, as appears to be the case in multitude. Also, should those to blame for a failure of such magnitude (the failure to prevent the successful assassination of an American president on a pre-planned trip to an American city) should be considered impartial, objective, or even reliable sources explaining the events of such failure? Also, it has become more apparent in recent decades that the CIA had a number of assets involved in intelligence and counterintelligence operations in the US media, and elsewhere - is it possible that Angleton and Dulles had assets within Treasury and the Secret Service during this period? Finally, I want to be clear that I do not view Clint Hill as a conspirator, or guilty of any misconduct, etc. I believe he is a hero, but more from what I perceive as having to endure a lifetime of internal suffering as a victim haunted by some dark, world-altering truth. Like a POW, Mr. Hill is a prisoner of a psychological war that began on 11/22/63 and continues through this day. I presume Mr. Hill will continue to be haunted by this secret until his death - despite his public commentary to the contrary - because it's one of the most terrible secrets in history and the diabolical nature of it makes it self-sealing. We cannot blame Mr. Hill as an individual, as we cannot blame our soldiers who have returned alive from Vietnam, especially if he was following direct orders on that fateful day President John F. Kennedy was murdered and US history was stolen from us.

2606:6000:F55D:200:FD82:158:EBE:3F5A (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this runs into problems with WP:FRINGE. Conspiracy theorists have said many times that JFK's Secret Service detail was somehow complicit in his death, but this was rejected by the Warren Commission and has WP:REDFLAG issues. With the benefit of hindsight, it was more good luck than anything else that President Kennedy was not assassinated during the trip to Tampa four days earlier. The security procedures at the time hadn't given enough thought to the obvious risk posed by a sniper in a tall building. On the question of whether the limo had "slowed or stopped", it slows very slightly after the second shot but comes nowhere near stopping. Greer is looking round at this point, seemingly thinking "WTF is going on here?", while Roy Kellerman is even more detached and was criticized by the 1979 House Select Committee for his lack of action. This is a biography of Clint Hill and it isn't the place to look at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories in any detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your contradictory statements - the limo slowed during the shooting, which you can agree made JFK an easier target? What is your source for Secret Service security procedures from 1963? You yourself can make individual excuses for the actions and inactions of all of the Agents, but a Secret Service conspiracy theory exists and persists, due to what is now known in detail, thanks to declassified documents, independent American investigative journalism (and critical thinking and common sense). Also note, The House Select Committee on Assassinations stated that there was a probable conspiracy in JFK's assassination. Clint Hill is the last survivor of the limo occupants where President John F Kennedy was assassinated - the crime scene - and is currently publicly endorsing the "Warren Commission's" findings that LHO was the lone assassin. As of 2017, polls indicate only 33% of Americans believe this (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/), and thus, Mr. Hill's crediblity is associated with this minority view. Insofar as citing investigation of the Secret Service procedures or any reduction in presidential protection, Allen Dulles was the CIA's liaison to the Warren Commission (Which was actually "The President's Commission") - do you not see this as a conflict of interest undermining the credibility of the findings in regards to the CIA having assets in the Treasury Department or Secret Service? The main question posed is should this article be utilized to attribute JFK's death to his own purported influence over the Secret Service via WP:WEIGHT and through the biography of a surviving agent who failed to protect him? As we hear in these recent writings pertaining to Hill that JFK was the one responsible for his own death, why should we give them any weight at all, when the self-serving nature is so apparent? How can conspiracy be considered [[WP:FRINGE]} if a large majority of Americans believe that President John F. Kennedy was the victim of one?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:FD82:158:EBE:3F5A (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The main reason why JFK was an easy target was because Elm Street was an almost perfect straight line relative to the window where Oswald was situated. This was what Hill was getting at when he said "it was a very easy job to accomplish because of the way everything was laid out". Again, this article isn't the place to look at conspiracy theories suggesting that the Secret Service was involved, per WP:TOPIC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And who laid everything out? Who was responsible for the President's protection? Let me ask you a direct question, do you think the Secret Service bears any blame for the death of President Kennedy - or could have done anything during the purported six seconds the shots were fired? Do you agree they failed to protect him in Dallas? If a Secret Service conspiracy is off topic, how can a Secret Service theory not be considered off topic per WP:TOPIC as well? The implications of such a theory contained within this article are that JFK reduced his own security, and therefore made it easy for Lee Harvey Oswald to kill him. Do you think that JFK also gave instructions that Secret Service Agents were not to come to his aid while he was being shot, but rather to be ordered to remain in or on (or return to) their follow up car, to slow his limousine during a shooting and turn back to watch him get shot - twice - or to turn forward and sit still during the shooting, instead of leaping onto his body to protect him? Do you think JFK wanted Agents assigned to protect him on a trip to Texas out drinking late the night before the assassination? Were all of these statistically improbable coincidences during the shooting also a result of JFK's orders? And if so, should we believe the Secret Service (or Johnson's Commission with the CIA's Allen Dulles on board) if they were the source of this theory? I think the theory that JFK reduced his own security and thereby assisted Oswald in his own assassination is a LIE that a majority of Americans will reject. Do you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:FD82:158:EBE:3F5A (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The job of a Wikipedia article is to reflect what reliable secondary sources have said, and to reflect controversies with due weight. Since you have asked, it's worth pointing out that when Lee Harvey Oswald heard about, applied for and got the job at the Book Depository in October 1963, he did not know that the presidential motorcade would be passing the building little over a month later. The standard theory is that Oswald did not know about the motorcade until he read about it in the newspapers a few days before the shooting. Of course it is possible that there was a conspiracy which led to Oswald knowing about the motorcade route well in advance, but the evidence does not support this. And yes, the President's security in Dallas was poor, but Kennedy had ridden in an open car motorcade in the SS-100-X limo many times before, possibly lulling both the Secret Service agents and the President himself into a false sense of security.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-read what I have said above. I didn't ask about LHO's job search. Can you answer any of my questions? Do you think JFK felt secure when he was shot in the throat? Do you think Greer and Kellerman felt secure as they watched the President grabbing his throat? There were six seconds for multiple Secret Service Agents - professional bodyguards in good physical condition - within 20 yards of the president. Count - 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 - that's a lot of time to leap onto the president from 20 yards away, yet not a single agent did. All Greer had to do was floor the accelerator, but he ignored Kellerman and looked in the back seat a second time until after JFK received the fatal head shot (according to Kellerman's testimony recorded in the volumes of the President's Commission AKA "Warren Report", and seen in the Zapruder film of the assassination. Interestingly, Greer's testimony was that he did not see the president, although the Zapruder film clearly shows him looking back - twice - why did he lie? Was this lie a clue that he was a conspirator?) Could the CIA have had sufficient assets inside the US to carry out a domestic assassination plot on the grounds of national security - a secret election? Place this question in the context of the state of affairs in the US government and consider the warning published in The New York Times on October 2, 1963: (http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html) Did the CIA remove JFK through its assets within the Treasury Department, specifically members of JFK's security detail who controlled him at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:FD82:158:EBE:3F5A (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Again we're wandering off topic, but Greer had no space to hit the accelerator pedal. He was hemmed in by the lead car with Forrest Sorrels and seems to have been taken by surprise anyway. Neither Greer nor Kellerman reacted promptly enough, but that is outside the scope of this article. Hill doesn't seem to have realized that something was wrong until the President began clutching his throat, and the various films make clear that he didn't have enough time to reach the limo before the President was assassinated. There is a good article in Vanity Fair here, which quotes Vincent Palamara saying "Except for George Hickey and Clint Hill, [many of the others] just basically sat there with their thumbs up their butts while the president was gunned down in front of them."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Newcomb, Adams, Lifton, Palamara, Robertson, and Horne all lay out a strong argument for a Secret Service plot. Have you read any of their research and accompanying cited sources? And before you assert WP:FRINGE, let me point out to you that you should research exactly who these individuals are - a best selling author on the subject, an AARB staffer, an individual who corresponded with multiple Secret Service agents in the JFK detail, etc... Palamara suspects much of his work on "Survivor's Guilt" to be the reason Blaine and Hill have been so active on the book tours, and why the insinuation contained within this article that JFK was responsible for his own death has been woven into their narrative. I think Hill was finally ordered to run to the limo only because Jackie was on the trunk and would have rolled off onto the street as Greer finally floored the accelerator. In an interview conducted by AARB staffer Doug Horne, one of the photo analysts who processed the Zapruder film for the Secret Service and CIA claims that in the version of the film he saw, Hill struck and or violently pushed Mrs. Kennedy back into the car, but was perplexed as to why that information is missing from the extant Zapruder film we see today. David Lifton has recorded interviews of three witnesses independently claiming Mrs. Kennedy tried to get out of the car while on the Stemmons Freeway. I'm sorry, but I agree with the majority of my fellow Americans - I don't believe LHO killed JFK (or JFK killed JFK) and I don't believe we have the whole story from Clint Hill. I do believe the Secret Service could have saved JFK on 11/22/63, particularly if Greer and Kellerman did not come to work that day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:FD82:158:EBE:3F5A (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, most of this is beyond the scope of this article per WP:TOPIC. There is a big difference between saying that the President's security arrangements in Dallas were poor by today's standards - which they were - and asserting that this was somehow the result of a conspiracy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and I don't find you very convincing due to your lack of citing any sources (I would hate to have your job(s).) Reading the article, I disagree - the article content clearly serves to blame JFK for his death. Furthermore there is a well-documented difference between JFK's security arrangements on 11/22/63 and his prior trips, as well as the trips of prior presidents, as evidenced in the record, which may have been a result of a conspiracy. Surely you have seen many photographs of prior motorcades, read reports from the various government agencies, and read the testimony and statements of Secret Service Agents and witnesses? Or have you not really researched this topic? You are in a minority if you believe LHO acted alone and you appear to be supporting the assertion that JFK was assassinated because he reduced his own protection, which is currently (an obvious self-serving myth to me and others) central to this article. In actuality JFK was assassinated because of the Secret Services' failure to react appropriately DURING the assassination, this is demonstrated in the record, including in films of the assassination. In the Zapruder film, agents Greer and Kellerman are among those closest to the president with a duty to act who did not until AFTER the assassination. The inaction of Greer and Kellerman are clues to a probable conspiracy (originally asserted by Newcomb and Adams after they interviewed a great many witnesses to the assassination) where these men may have been assets of the CIA (or other unaccountable power) and who maintained uninterrupted custody of JFK's body and clothing long after the assassination, another curious fact that shows a conflict of interest and implies that they may have been trying to cover up conspiratorial actions. I'm curious about an account from an eyewitness at Parkland who claims Hill had his gun out and was behaving nervously, along with another account from an orderly aboard AF1 who claimed Hill told him Greer had his gun drawn and pointed at him as he entered the limo. Have you seen anything on these? That's part of the problem with peddling any myth via Hill as a credible witness. To wit, if Hill is credible, isn't his original statement claiming to the effect that JFK was shot with a pistol credible? I am sorry, but Johnson's commission, lone nutters, et al answer to the effect of "because we say so" is just not substantial to dissuade those in the majority who believe there was a conspiracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:393B:299B:E2C9:765 (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, even if there was a conspiracy, it would be more on topic at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories rather than here. It is hard to find any mainstream source that criticizes Hill's actions during the incident. There are also two sides to every argument, and the Vanity Fair article argues that there were significant failings in the security in Dallas without attributing them to a conspiracy. What I'm looking for here is a source that criticizes Hill, not Greer, Kellerman etc whose actions have been criticized on numerous occasions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But assassination theory and conjecture you agree with should remain? What do you make of Hill’s 60 Minutes statements? (https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/1975-secret-service-agent-9/)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:6A (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is primarily a biography of Clint Hill. It isn't the place to be sidetracked by lengthy debates about conspiracies and whether the security was good enough. Hill blamed himself for the President's death, but unless he had been on the running board of the limo at the time, or had reacted after the first shot, he could not have done much to save the President's life. Unlike some people, he did at least see that something was seriously wrong after the second shot and attempted to get on to the limo as quickly as possible. Hill told the Warren Commission that the President had asked the agents not to be on the running boards.[2] This testimony also makes clear that Hill did not realize that anything was wrong until the second shot was fired.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears you are engaging in debate. I just don't think we should accept without question the testimony of any Secret Service agent who lost the president on 11/22/63 who claims the president in effect told them not to protect him. Suspiciously, Hill appears to be the only agent to react, and not quickly enough to save the president’s life - and you are aware of reports by agents that they were ORDERED not to move during the assassination? The Secret Service (President's Commission, et al) attributing stripped security protection to JFK is self-serving, yet does not explain their dereliction of duty DURING the assassination. Does that make sense? Furthermore, I'm not speaking of "conspiracy theory" per se - that's how you are characterizing it. What I am bringing to your attention are the facts of the assassination as presented to us by the investigative commissions / bodies that are part of the official record of the US Government. The fact that Hill twice stated he heard the sound of a handgun fired into a hard object, that eyewitnesses reported shots fired from inside the limo, and that the doctors at Parkland reported the wound as attributable to a "high caliber handgun fired at close range" - these are witness statements in the record - their earliest statements. Do these facts support a "theory" that one of the Secret Service agents shot JFK with a handgun? I suppose so, and that would imply conspiracy. Regardless, these are what I would call assassination facts and I find it strange that you would label these facts as "conspiracy theory". There are a number of assassination theories - such as the theory that JFK is somehow responsible for his own assassination, when really it's the failure of HIll and his fellow agents to act appropriately DURING the assassination that cost the president his life. Does this make sense? I mean, you seem to be an apologist for the Secret Service. Is there any written document attributable to JFK or any of his staff - or is this all just hearsay? Through their failure to protect the president, world history was altered forever - that's a pretty serious consequence, right? I don't think I have heard any good excuses - they were out drinking, they didn't like the president's social behavior, they were ordered off the limo by JFK, they thought they heard a motorcycle backfire, etc. How could they ALL fail simultaneously - these were trained professionals who's only job was to observe for signs of an assassination attempt, recognize it, and prevent it, correct? Yet, despite such a massive failure, agents were commended, awarded, promoted, and now are profiting from writing books about the experience. Clint Hill was part of the Secret Service detail that failed to protect President John F. Kennedy in any way during the assassination, which resulted in the death of the president. Mr. Hill was trained and sworn to protect the life of the president, but on 11/22/63 he only prevented Mrs. Kennedy from falling out of the limo - that's about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:f55d:200:38ea:b24b:865b:97eb (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:TOPIC says "While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic." As I've said, criticism that is not specifically about Hill's actions on the day is not really suited to this article and would be more on topic at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Even if the President's security in Dallas was poor - which it probably was - it doesn't necessarily mean that it was the result of a conspiracy. Most sources agree that Hill did his best in the circumstances and the Vanity Fair article does not single out Hill for criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You keep refuting conspiracy, defending Hill, and the article does appear to serve the purpose of blaming JFK for his own death - and you are debating these points. Greer, Kellerman, Hill and the other agents in the follow up car, all did not protect JFK and he was successfully assassinated due to their multiple, simultaneous failures. None were disciplined after the assassination - but rather awarded or promoted. The Chief himself received the highest honor from President Johnson. These are irrefutable facts and relevant to Mr. Hill's biographical information - that he was part of the Secret Service detail who failed to save JFK's life but were later awarded as heroes by LBJ or other senior officials. I think the Secret Service should have been thoroughly investigated by an independent panel NOT appointed by LBJ, due to obvious conflict of interest - this is what actually raises the question of conspiracy, you see - the facts of the assassination themselves. Agents seen being recalled from the sides of the limo as the motorcade departed Love Field, building widows open all along the route, the 90 degree turn onto Elm Street, the motorcycle escorts falling back during the shooting. SA Greer turning and looking at JFK (slowing) the limo twice (and then lying about it), ASAIC Kellerman - who was specifically assigned to protect the president's life that day - turning calmly back around after seeing JFK was hit, agents being ordered to remain in or on the follow up car (or recalled to the follow up car after reacting) - POOR is not a sufficient word to describe it - this many lapses point to COMPROMISED security, and Mr. Hill was part of this detail and present and a witness to all of these events. The residual testimony of eyewitnesses to the effect that JFK was shot with a revolver from inside the limo, with Mr. Hill being one of those eyewitnesses is relevant also. The majority of Americans believe their was a conspiracy. The HSCA found that there was a conspiracy. Should we sanitize these assassination facts pertaining to Mr. Hill's most notable assignment and failure in his life if we are trying to tell the whole story? At a minimum it balances out suspicious assertions based upon hearsay coming from the protective service who failed that JFK ordered them not to do their jobs, thereby insinuating that he was to blame for his own death. Does that make sense - balance the articles assertion with more facts from the assassination pertaining to more than just whether or not agents were on the limo during the shooting when other factors Mr. Hill was a party to contributed to the death of President Kennedy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:DC68:EE1F:FDD5:689E (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The theory that Kennedy was shot by a revolver from inside the limo is about as serious as the theory that Elvis Presley and Amelia Earhart faked the Apollo moon landings. It doesn't stop some people from believing it however. While I agree that the poor performance of the Secret Service in Dallas was largely swept under the carpet, it would require exceptional evidence to suggest that this was the result of a conspiracy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have not seen a single US Government document that contains corroborating testimony indicating that Presley and Earhart had anything to do with the Apollo mission(s). (Not a single Google result for related searches either.) On the more serious subject of the Secret Service's role in the success of the Kennedy assassination, Clint Hill's statements immediately following the assassination included a statement to the effect that the shot that killed JFK sounded like it came from a revolver, eyewitnesses on the scene corroborated this in their statements by telling investigators and or LBJ's commissioners that shots came from within the car, and doctors treating JFK at parkland told LBJ's commissioners that the wound they saw was attributable to a high velocity handgun fired at close range. This IS ALL a part of the official record, if you look at it. (Incredibly, it's actually is all there - have you looked at it?) When all of this is taken into consideration, and you watch Greer in the Zapruder film (and read his statements contradicting his actions in the film), and you look at all of the other agent's behaviors recorded on film and in the the official record, and you consider Greer and Kellerman's actions AFTER the assassination, and then the commendation and promotion of various agents, it is a rather insidious pattern. I also find it hard to believe that so many of the agents who testified in the HSCA's study of the assassination could not remember the source of specific orders changing security protocols for the Dallas trip. Generally, heroes save the day. I would not say there is evidence of heroes among the Secret Service on Elm Street in Dallas on 11/22/63. They failed completely (a few may have been complicit) and the net result was a successful assassination. They were honored with awards and received promotions. On top of all of this, some of their biographies actually insinuate or endorse that JFK was responsible for his own death. Should we believe them? Do you believe them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F55D:200:1443:B1C8:91DB:5CB5 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In this 2010 interview (https://www.c-span.org/video/?296484-1/qa-gerald-blaine-clint-hill), Blaine explains that the president's limo did not stop and "everybody slowed down the Zapruder film frame by frame and created a myth that it stopped" (Just who is he talking about when he says "everybody"?). However, Blaine's comments here contradict multiple eyewitnesses to the assassination who claimed the limo came to a complete stop (Bob Clark, Roy Truly, Bobby W. Hargis, Bill Newman, Jean Hill, Hugh Betzner - Walter Cronkite reported that the limo stopped during a broadcast 22 minutes after the assassination). This is a critical point in terms of establishing Mr. Hill and Mr. Blaine's credibility on the entire subject. See also: (https://www.sott.net/article/269016-Gerald-Blaine-and-the-Kennedy-Detail-Was-the-Secret-Service-Stood-Down-in-Dallas).

Again we're wandering off topic and saying things that we've already said. Unless the Zapruder film is a fake, the limo slows down after the second shot but does not stop. All of this is more on topic elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Hill, Blaine, the rest of the 1963 detail - all very much on topic. Unfortunately eyewitnesses who were there don't agree with the contemporary interpretation. In other words, by responding to critics, Hill and Blaine (and McCubbin) are igniting the debate because their self-serving statements don't comport with the record. (Anyone with moderate critical thinking skills and a moderate understanding of the record can see that, during the C-Span interview linked above, Blaine and Hill are really on an awkward damage control mission due to independent research that calls the Secret Service to account for the death of JFK.) Let's face it (for the 10th time), for some debatable reason, the Secret Service stripped JFK's protection on the day he was assassinated - that's an incredible coincidence, unbelievable to many, really. Now, on the Zapruder film - you are changing the subject to alteration. I won't take the bait on that or your word for it, and there are more independant witnesses including reporters and bystanders who reported what they saw - as told by Walter Cronkite: "The limo stopped." Now, why on earth should we dismiss all of these statements because the Secret Service who were at least negligent, and at worst compromised, tell us they are all not true. Before the Zapruder film was ever seen, Greer told us he did not look at the president, but the film shows he did, twice - he lied. So, why should we trust Greer when he says "No, we never stopped." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF6reI9kIGI) Perhaps he and other agents are lying on this topic as well? That's the problem for those who appear to be lying - they can't remember things that are incriminating, or they deny or claim the opposite of what's in the official record. It's a conundrum for those in the minority with these gentlemen, who want us to believe what they say simply because they say it. It's kindof an inherited paternal arrogance from Allen Dulles, who felt Americans would not read, and would be intellectually immobilized by statements from men who smoked pipes and lied professionally. Unfortunately, Allen Dulles could not foresee the effect the internet would have on the flow of information. Hence the cover up becomes more embarrassing and difficult to believe. On the one hand you have people saying what you should believe, on the other you have people pointing to what amounts to evidence in conspiracy saying - hey, here's evidence against what you are saying. That's why the noun "conspiracy" itself has been attacked in "mainstream" culture, to associate the word with the adjective "crazy". Let's not discuss opinion, let's discuss fact. Secret Service agents Greer, Kellerman, and Roberts' behavior DURING the assassination as recorded in the "official" record suggests that these agents were involved in some type of conspiracy. Greer and Kellerman's actions AFTER the assassination suggest that they were involved in some type of coverup. Hill and Blaine are still trying to "clear all of this up" nearly 55 years later - it's unfortunate - but as citizens, we must compare what they say we should believe, with what we know from the "thousand shards of evidence" of the event, and make up our own minds. As of this year 61% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK on 11/22/63 (compared to 33% who believe the "lone nutter theory"): (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/) - it's just peculiar that his protection would be "uniquely insecure" on that day and we are expected to believe the agents responsible for his protection when they tell us JFK wanted it that way on the day he died. Don't you agree? Lastly, if the majority of Americans believing there was a conspiracy is irrelevant, why perpetuate so much effort to dissuade them over the past 55 years? It's not that hard to understand - powerful people wanted to profit from the Vietnam war and JFK was in the way, so he was removed in a bloody coup on American soil. Let's just admit it and move forward.

Mr. Hill and Mr. Blaine, thank you for your service. I hope you were well compensated by our taxpayer dollars and it is good to see you are both enjoying success as authors. On the topic of JFK's assassination, you are unconvincing on some key points (For one, agent Don Lawton ordered to go to lunch instead of blocking Oswald's alleged shots at JFK seconds later) See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6jDM6sXhA Mr. Hill, do you remember why you originally said you heard a "handgun fired into a hard object" (JFK's skull)? Do you remember if a handgun was fired from within the limo as witnesses reported? Do you remember if you told a steward aboard AF1 that the limo driver had his gun out and pointed directly at you as you mounted the limo during the assassination? If you can't remember, I don't blame you. I would not want to remember either. It really looks like Greer and Kellerman were compromised elements of JFK's security - what do you think of their performance?

This is getting in WP:NOTAFORUM territory; my views aren't all that relevant. I'm well aware that it is a popular angle among conspiracy theorists to say that the Secret Service agents were told to stand down in Dallas so that the President could be assassinated more easily. The trouble is that neither the Warren Commission nor the 1979 House Select Committee accepted this, making it a classic WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG theory. The mainstream view expressed by the Vanity Fair article is that the President's security in Dallas had significant failings, but this was not the result of a conspiracy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

President Johnson’s Commission, The House Of Representatives Select Comittee, and Vanity Fair. Don’t forget Bobby and Edward Kennedy agreed publicly as well. This event has two faces - the obvious, self-serving, public LIE that a lone nut killed JFK, which only a minority of 33% of Americans believe today, and the obvious and clear TRUTH that JFK was assassinated because the Secret Service - who’s sole purpose was to protect his life - ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY FAILED TO REACT AS TRAINED OR DID THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THEIR TRAINIG DURING THE ASSASSINATION - ALL OF THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY - and they failed to protect the president's life. They then controlled the evidence and, in some cases, lied or contradicted themselves in their statements during investigation. For all of this, they were promoted, and honored with awards, and considered credible expert witnesses as they explain that, effectively, JFK caused his own death by instructing them not to protect him.

The 1979 House Select Committee report said "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President Kennedy did not receive adequate protection." I'm not "blaming Kennedy for causing his own death" and neither did the official reports. However, the President and the agents may have become too laid back about the dangers associated with an open car motorcade.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I always expect the government to exonerate itself, don't you? President Kennedy died because he and his agents were too laid back? JFK was the president - that was his job, NOT his own security. The president is busy with all matters regarding the security of THE ENTIRE WORLD. The president's security was the White House Secret Service Detail's job - THAT WAS THEIR ONLY JOB. JFK TRUSTED the Secret Service to do their job so he could do his job. And yet even though all these elite law enforcement protective service professionals shared the responsibility of only one job, they ALL simultaneously failed to protect the president from six seconds of gunfire. (How on earth could they all fail simultaneously?!) Worse, at least three, those who had the greatest responsibility on the scene, acted in highly counterintuitive ways during the assassination - ways that actually ENSURED his death. No big deal though, because the government and Vanity Fair, and you say so, right? Can you imagine - you're watching the Superbowl with six seconds left in the game and the team who is 3 points behind and just 5 yards from a touchdown snaps the ball, and all of their players just stand up and casually look around the stadium while the clock runs out? That's pretty much what happened with the Secret Service on 11/22/63 on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas. And we should believe anyone making excuses for this? Seriously?