CLINT HILL- the real story

The Kennedy Detail repeats the legend that Clint Hill came within a split second of saving JFK and taking the fatal bullet. But he’s not even in the Moorman photo (taken at the moment of the fatal head shot) and in the Muchmore film he’s only climbing down from the follow up car after the head shot. Also, in the Altgens photo (which was taken after the second shot), Hill is still on the running board and staring at JFK but not running towards him.


An online commentator wrote: Clint Hill, Jackie’s personal agent, has said many times that President Kennedy DID order the agents off the back of his limo because he felt like their presence there made him less accessible to people.”

My response:

Clint Hill also said he never heard it personally from the president himself- he heard it from Floyd Boring who, by the way, adamantly denied to me (twice on tape, once in a letter) that JFK ever ordered the agents to get off his limo–!

Boring is joined by dozens of his colleagues.

Hill came clean –slipped up?—in 2010 for his sixth floor museum oral history: “he can tell you what he wants but that doesn’t mean you have to do it. What we always used to do was agree with the president then do what we felt was best anyway.” It’s on video and Gerald Blaine, who also adamantly denied that JFK ever ordered or asked or interfered, was right beside him!

That story is bullshit by the substance of the remark. It is technically true VIA Boring’ s comment to Hill BUT, not only did Boring say what he said above, he told the ARRB in 1996 that JFK wasn’t issuing an order but merely demonstrating his kindness in not wishing to have the agents strain themselves by being there when the crowds were sparse…yet they were on the back of the car for most of the 28 mile Tampa trip of 11/18/63 and, to add further insult to injury, Hill briefly rode on the rear of the limo 4 times on Main Street in Dallas—oops!!!!!! I thought JFK ordered you guys off!! CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

He was also one of the agents who drank and stayed out late the night before. Hill is still legally married, yet he is with his much younger co-author…for her part: $$$$$

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill does NOT believe in the Warren Commission’s single bullet theory:

Clint Hill and EIGHT other agents drank in the hours before the assassination!

I am in her book and the VANITY FAIR article it is based on

see also

Here is her book I am in (great JFK chapter- nails Blaine, Hill, and McCubbin for who and what they really are. They should all be ashamed of themselves!)

The VANITY FAIR article I am in that is based on the book:

As agent John Norris explained in Bill Sloan’s book J.F.K.: Breaking the Silence and in an interview for Vincent Michael Palamara’s book Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy: “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.” [although Hill was one of the drinkers who went on to profit from the death of JFK]

In his new book, Clint Hill describes his visit to the Bethesda morgue to view President Kennedy’s body: “…Then gently rolling the president over to one side, he pointed out a wound in the upper back , at the neckline quite small.This he said corresponded to the exit wound at the throat.” In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Clint Hill testified as follows: “Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound? Mr. HILL. “Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.” Clint moved the entrance wound on the back UP six inches in his new book. That’s where the Warren Commission wanted it to be, because if it really WAS six inches lower, the bullet couldn’t possibly have exited from Kennedy’s neck (that would make “the single bullet theory” even more preposterous). Memories nearer to the event are always more accurate than memories 50 years later! Did Clint need to lie to get a chance to promote his book? Sure looks like it. In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 4:31:43 AM PDT Douglas says: Historical truth matters, my friend, and is more important than Clint’s “feelings” about Jackie Kennedy. If Clint Hill had not ventured to alter history in his accounts of President Kennedy’s wounds, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But Clint Hill chose to write this book, and he is responsible for its contents. He cannot blame the statements in his book on his ghost writer/co-author, either. He is responsible for the book’s contents, and for the way he described the assassination in the recent MSNBC interview about—that’s right—this book. No one forced Clint to do the interview with Chris Matthews—and that interview was about THIS BOOK, and about what the wounds he described IN THIS BOOK mean. We’re dealing with American history here, man, not just someone’s cream puff feelings about a former First Lady. Consider what has just happened: Clint Hill has described for years (ever since 1963 and 1964) what could ONLY have been an exit wound in the BACK of President Kennedy’s head—and yet in his interview with Chris Matthews, he said it had to be an entry wound, fired from above and behind. Nonsense. Entry wounds are small, and exit wounds are large, like the damage Clint Hill described to JFK’s head in his book. It gets even worse. As described in the comment above yours, Clint Hill actually changed his story about the back wound in his new book, “Mrs. Kennedy and Me.” When he was before the Warren commission and under oath in 1964, he described the back wound as “about six inches below the neckline.” I repeat, he said this under oath. That description concurs with the descriptions given by the two FBI agents who were at the autopsy (at their 1997 ARRB depositions, when they too were under oath), and is also consistent with the holes in JFK’s shirt and suit coat. BUT IN HIS NEW BOOK—which we are discussing here—Clint Hill moved the back wound SIX INCHES HIGHER, so that he now describes it as “at the neckline.” The reason why he did this is rather obvious, and was stated by Mr. Hill himself (see the quote above): he was attempting, in his book, to bolster the moribund single bullet theory of Arlen Specter. He did not do this in his sworn testimony in 1964, so he was obviously instructed to amend that error in his new book. If Clint Hill only wanted us to read about his “feelings for Jackie Kennedy,” that is all he should have written about. When he chose to write about JFK’s wounds, he became responsible for what he wrote and must now accept the consequences for what he has written. Historical truth matters—it matters a great deal—and historical distortions, redactions, and falsehoods cannot be tolerated whenever they are perpetrated. No one gets a pass on history and truth, my friend—especially not Clint Hill, who was one of the Secret Service agents who was up late drinking alcohol the night before the assassination, in violation of Secret Service regulations. Clint Hill is not a sacred cow, and is not immune from criticism when he changes his testimony about the back wound on the President, or when he attempts to re-describe an exit wound in the skull as an entrance wound, on national television. Actions have consequences—let Clint Hill learn that if he wishes to become an author, and write about subjects he says he never intended to write about. This country’s history—its true history—is more important than Clint Hill’s feelings. In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 10:14:56 AM PDT MadameX says: Mr. Horne says– “I knew what game Clint Hill was playing when he described JFK’s head wound in “The Kennedy Detail” and in “Mrs. Kennedy and Me”—the game was: I will describe exactly what I saw and will not lie about it, but neither will I openly challenge the Warren Commission’s or the HSCA’s “government line” that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy all on his own” I’ve always felt Clint Hill wants the American public to know the truth and drops hints here and there so we will know the truth. Yet for some reason he will not contradict the Warren Commission Report that reads like an official company motto of what we are to believe. I was confused from the beginning at Oswald’s reactions on national TV. He seemed angry, belligerent and afraid saying he was a patsy. If he wanted notoriety for assassinating the president, it looks like he would have admitted he had fired the shots. Anyway, it’s good that 80% of Americans don’t believe the official story. It means we’re in touch with our common sense in spite of what the media tells us. Hill contradicts his own Warren Commission testimony, May 5, 2012 By Steven Kossor – See all my reviewsThis review is from: Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir (Hardcover) In his new book, Mrs. Kennedy and Me, Clint Hill describes his visit to the Bethesda morgue to view President Kennedy’s body: “…Then gently rolling the president over to one side, he pointed out a wound in the upper back, at the neckline quite small.” In his testimony before the Warren Commission in 1964, Clint Hill testified as follows: Representative BOGGS. “Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?” Mr. HILL. “Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.” Clint moved the entrance wound on the back UP six inches in his new book. That’s where the Warren Commission wanted it to be, because if it really WAS six inches lower, the bullet couldn’t possibly have exited from Kennedy’s neck (that would make “the single bullet theory” even more preposterous). Memories nearer to the event are always more accurate than memories 50 years later! Did Clint need to lie to get a chance to promote his book? Sure looks like it. Initial post: May 6, 2012 4:50:00 AM PDT Douglas says: Thank you for pointing this out, Mr. Kossor. In his new book, Clint Hill attempts to change a crucial element of his 1964 sworn testimony before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter. You have caught him red-handed. Good work. Hill’s 1964 sworn testimony about a back wound six inches below the neckline was consistent with the clothing holes in JFK’s shirt and suit coat, and as it turns out, was also consistent with the sworn testimony of FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill before the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997. (These two FBI agents were at JFK’s autopsy for three full hours, from 8 to 11 PM on 11/22/63. They testified before the ARRB in 1997, and during their depositions, both men expressed the opinion that because JFK’s back wound was so low, Specter’s single bullet theory was impossible.) This attempt by Clint Hill to overturn his sworn testimony in 1964, and his decision on May 4th to re-describe an obvious exit wound in the President’s skull as an entry wound on national television, are unacceptable. They tarnish, in a very serious way, what otherwise might have been a very enjoyable memoir.


Clint Hill Crosses the Line on National TV, Equating the Exit Wound He Saw in Dallas with an Entry Wound, May 5, 2012 By Douglas (Falls Church, VA, United States) – See all my reviews (REAL NAME) This review is from: Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir (Hardcover) SHAME ON BOTH OF YOU, CLINT HILL AND CHRIS MATTHEWS May 4th, 20:45 By Douglas P. Horne, author of “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board” I watched a very sorry display on Chris Matthews’ MSNBC show “Hardball” tonight: Chris Matthews conducted a short, stage-managed, cream-puff interview with retired Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, and the game was rigged “from the get-go.” That was obvious. But it was also completely unacceptable, and forever tarnishes the reputations of both of these men. The occasion was a brief discussion of Clint Hill’s short new memoir, “Mrs. Kennedy and Me.” I picked the book up in the store about three weeks ago and read the three or so pages that everyone naturally turns to: Clint Hill’s description of what happened during the shots in Dallas, on Elm Street, on November 22, 1963, when he ran from the left running board of the Queen Mary (the Secret Service follow-up car that day), to President Kennedy’s limousine, only to arrive at, and mount the limousine, after all of the shots had been fired. I was particularly interested to see whether Clint Hill’s description of President Kennedy’s head wound had changed from what he wrote in 1963, or from what he testified to in 1964 while under oath before the Warren Commission, or from the words attributed to him in the recent book “The Kennedy Detail.” The words hadn’t changed. In his new memoir, Clint Hill (again) described a large, gaping wound in the right rear of President Kennedy’s head, and made explicitly clear that a large amount of debris had been blown to the rear after the fatal shot, and that Jacqueline Kennedy had emerged from her seat to retrieve a part of President Kennedy’s skull that had gone to the rear, and lay on the trunk lid, after the fatal shot. He described all of that again today on television with Chris Matthews. Anyone familiar with his 1963 written report, and with his 1964 sworn testimony, also knows that in this 1964 testimony before Assistant Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter, he said that a large portion of the rear of President Kennedy’s head was lying in the back seat of the car, and that the trunk lid was covered with bloody water and brain issue. All of this—the biological debris from her husband’s head retrieved by Jacqueline Kennedy from the trunk lid; the large, gaping wound in the right rear of the head of the 35th President of the United States; and the blood and brain tissue sprayed over the trunk lid—all of this, of course, speaks graphically and plainly of a fatal shot from the front, or right front (not a fatal shot from the rear, where the Book Depository was). Clint Hill knows it, and Chris Matthews knows it. But they pretended otherwise, presumably for all the “low information voters” in the TV audience. The problem for these two guys is, there aren’t that many low information (i.e., uneducated or stupid) voters watching this show. The show has a very highly educated audience. So what they did was not only grossly dishonest—it was blatantly offensive, as well as just plain dumb. Now, anyone who has read about the JFK assassination knows that every doctor who treated JFK at the the side of his gurney in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital, in Dallas, described the same head wound that Clint Hill did in 1963 and 1964: a wound that could only have been an EXIT WOUND, which meant that the fatal shot had to come from the front, or right front, not from behind. Not one doctor at Parkland who wrote a treatment report the day of the assassination mentioned anything in those reports but a wound in the right rear of the skull. (And no one mentioned any damage to the top of his head or the right side of his head above the ear.) If you don’t believe me, read the treatment reports (they were published in the Warren Report, after all). The wound described by these Parkland treating physicians and nurses that day was an avulsed wound (exploded outward from within), and the right rear of JFK’s head was devoid of scalp and skull, in an exploded area about the size of a baseball. The head wound observed at Parkland Hospital during the 40 minutes that President Kennedy was treated (that duration was given by Dr. Clark in a press conference that day) had none of the characteristics of an entry wound whatsoever. It had all of the classic characteristics of an exit wound. A large amount of cerebral brain tissue was missing—blown out—and part of the badly damaged cerebellum, the part of the brain very low in the rear of the skull, was extruding from the head wound onto the treatment cart, as the Parkland physicians treated President Kennedy and tried to save his life. Even Chris Matthews knows that bullets make small holes when entering the body, and large holes when exiting the body. (Especially head wounds.) And yet Chris Matthews asked Clint Hill today if he had come to any conclusions about the shooting, and Clint Hill, obviously prepared for the question, said, “Sure: one shooter, three shots, from behind,” or words almost identical to that. Now, Clint Hill knows that cannot be true. He always has. In fact, he knows it is such utter bull, and so contrary to the wound he has described since 1963, that he didn’t say that in his new book—he merely described the wound he observed (an obvious exit wound), without commenting on where the shots came from or who did the shooting. I knew what game Clint Hill was playing when he described JFK’s head wound in “The Kennedy Detail” and in “Mrs. Kennedy and Me”—the game was: I will describe exactly what I saw and will not lie about it, but neither will I openly challenge the Warren Commission’s or the HSCA’s “government line” that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy all on his own. The rules of the game Clint Hill was obviously engaging in when these two books were published were, “I will tell the truth about what I saw, but I will not comment on what it means.” In playing by those unwritten rules, Hill managed to sit on the fence, and tell the truth about the head wound, and at the same time avoided directly refuting the Warren Commission and HSCA conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK from the Texas School Book Depository, firing from above and behind. But today Clint Hill crossed the line, and said JFK was killed by a Communist sympathizer, Lee Harvey Oswald, firing all the shots from behind. Shame on you, Clint Hill. You crossed a line today that you did not cross in either of the two recent books that quote you. What you did was unforgivable. And then Chris Matthews (who served in the Peace Corps, not in the military), gave us all his best benefit as a “firearms expert” by saying that when he stood on Elm Street in Dallas in the 1990s (“when I was down there with CBS,” he said), he had concluded that killing JFK from the TSBD was “an easy shot.” Gee, thank you, Chris, for this profound wisdom based on all your years as a trained marksman in the Peace Corps. Of course, Chris Matthews never mentioned today that the scope on the rifle was a cheap piece of crap that was misaligned; that the rifle found in the Depository was an unreliable piece of junk; or that it had a defective firing pin which the FBI had to replace before even test firing it. And Chris Matthews never discussed the last marksmanship test score noted in Oswald’s USMC Service Record before being discharged from the Marine Corps, which was only one point above failure. (Oswald received average marksmanship scores in boot camp, achieving the middle of three shooter designations, but obviously received a “pass” in 1959—when he most likely failed his test that year. It is obvious to me that after his skills had atrophied through disuse, he was given the official score that was only one point above failure, as a gift. As fellow Marine Nelson Delgado explained to Mark Lane in 1966 (in the film “Rush to Judgment”), Oswald was such a poor shot he was always getting flagged with “Maggie’s Drawers” at the El Toro shooting range; his poor marksmanship was a standing joke in his own unit.) Chris Matthews will not discuss evidence, because he knows he will lose the argument—he only wants to discuss the politically correct conclusions endorsed by the National Security State. Chris Matthews has much to be ashamed of here. He used to be the principal aide to Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill. It was Tip O’Neill who published in his own memoir, “Man of the House,” on page 211 (paperback edition, St. Martin’s Press, 1987), that the two aides closest to President Kennedy on a personal basis—Kenneth O’Donnell, and Dave Powers—told him at dinner in 1968, five years after JFK’s assassination, that at least two shots came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll, to the right front of the limousine. O’Donnell also told Tip O’Neill at that dinner meeting that he had lied to the Warren Commission about the origin of the shots, at the request of the FBI. Surely Chris, you cannot pretend to be unfamiliar with this recollection of Tip O’Neill’s??? If he did not tell you himself over a beer one night, surely you read it in his memoirs? Don’t tell me you have not read the memoirs of your former boss, Chris…that won’t fly. Clint Hill crossed the line tonight from telling just part of the truth, to telling a lie that I am sure he does not believe in, and that cannot be true. And he knows it. Historical truth matters, and the deliberate distortions of historical truth engaged in by Clint Hill and Chris Matthews yesterday on national TV are harming this country. Severely harming it. America will remain a nation of adolescents if it continues to treat the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations as “taboo subjects” that cannot be spoken about truthfully. Propaganda should never replace truth. Apparently that is what the mainstream TV and print news media would like to see happen next year on the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. Chris Matthews, an otherwise intelligent person, repeatedly promotes the falsehood of the Lone Assassin Myth as if it were certified fact, when it cannot be true. And he knows he is promoting a Big Lie. Is this the price for keeping your job with the Mainstream Corporate Media, Chris? Or do you really believe that by lying about JFK’s assassination, and pretending there was NOT a coup in this country in 1963, that you are somehow “protecting America’s institutions?” I hope not, because there is nothing more corrosive to a democracy than lies perpetuated by big media and the government. How do you sleep with yourself at night, Chris? How do you look at yourself in the mirror when you shave every day? This is the last night I will ever watch Chris Matthews or “Hardball” again. I am boycotting that show, and any show he appears on, as long as he remains alive on this mortal coil, for Chris Matthews has proven himself—once again—to be a man without honor whenever he discusses the assassination of the man he professes to be his greatest hero, Jack Kennedy. The Intelligence Community (read: CIA) has a stranglehold on the national TV media and the national print media, when it comes to the JFK assassination. You are not allowed to speak about it anymore, unless you support the Warren Commission, or unless you disparage JFK’s character and misrepresent the historical record of his presidency. The major executives of these outlets and their producers are in the government’s pocket, when it comes to the taboo subject of the Kennedy assassination. The truth gets out on local and regional radio stations, and the government has not quite yet figured out how to shut down free speech on the internet, but Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s Information Czar, would like to—he said so in a prestigious law school paper just about 4 years ago. Google his name, and you can read the outrageous paper, yourself. Sunstein actually advocated fining people on the internet who engage in “conspiracy” speech that he defines as irresponsible (including about JFK’s death), and also advocated infiltrating such groups, and combating their messages, with government-sponsored third party surrogates. And this man was appointed America’s Information Chief by President Obama. Unsettling, isn’t it? The response to this stranglehold on the mainstream media by the American people (80% of whom have consistently concluded over the decades that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, and that there was a massive coverup) should be to openly and vociferously protest the Big Lie whenever it is trotted out as it was tonight, and to aggressively boycott those shows that promote the Big Lie. President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy that involved many in the National Security Establishment at the time, as well as former members of the National Security Establishment; and a massive medical coverup was implemented immediately after his death in an attempt to hide all evidence that he was shot from the front (as well as from behind). That coverup has now failed. If you are not familiar with how it was carried out, you can read my five volume book, “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.” The ten depositions taken by the ARRB General Counsel and me, of JFK autopsy witnesses, in 1996 and 1997, undeniably prove that a medical coverup occurred. Anyone not afraid of the truth, and of evaluating facts and what they really mean, should read my book. It will take you to a place where you are less secure, less proud, and less confident about your own country, but if you are someone who believes that truth can be cleansing, and have a powerful, positive, and redemptive force, than my book may just be the perfect antidote to the propaganda about the JFK assassination that will rule the mainstream media airwaves and the national print media between now and the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. Meanwhile, boycott MSNBC’s “Hardball.” If you truly believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy and that the U.S. government covered it up, then turn off the tube every time Chris Matthews’ face appears on the air. Chris used to only talk like this every November 22nd, on the anniversary of JFK’s assassination; now he is going out of his way to do it as often as possible. Make MSNBC pay a price for promoting the Big Lie in America. We all deserve better journalism than that. END

About vincepalamara

Vincent Palamara was born in Pittsburgh and graduated from Duquesne University with a degree in Sociology. Although not even born when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Vince brings fresh eyes to an old case. In fact, Vince would go on to study the largely overlooked actions - and inactions - of the United States Secret Service in unprecedented detail, as well as achieving a world's record in the process, having interviewed and corresponded with over 80 former agents (the House Select Committee on Assassinations had the old record of 46 with a 6 million dollar budget and subpoena power from Congress), not to mention many surviving family members, White House aides, and even quite a few Parkland and Bethesda medical witnesses for a corresponding project. The result was Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect President Kennedy. Vince is also the author of the books JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda, The Not-So-Secret Service, Who's Who in the Secret Service, and Honest Answers about the Murder of President John F. Kennedy: A New Look at the JFK Assassination. All told, Vince has been favorably mentioned in over 140 JFK and Secret Service related books to date (including two whole chapters in Murder in Dealey Plaza, The Secret Service: The Hidden History Of An Enigmatic Agency by Philip Melanson, and the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board, among many others), often at length, in the bibliographies, and in the Secret Service - and even medical evidence - areas of these works. Vince has appeared on the History Channel's THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY (VHS and DVD), C-SPAN, Newsmax TV, A COUP IN CAMELOT (DVD/BLU RAY), KING KILL '63, THE MAN BEHIND THE SUIT (DVD), National Geographic's JFK: THE FINAL HOURS (including on DVD), PCN, BPTV, local cable access television, YouTube, radio, newspapers, print journals, at national conferences, and all over the internet. Also, Vince's original research materials, or copies of said materials, are stored in the National Archives (by request under Deed Of Gift by the ARRB), the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Harvard University, the Assassination Archives and Research Center, and the Dallas Public Library. Vince Palamara has become known (as he was dubbed by the History Channel in 2003) "the Secret Service expert." As former JFK Secret Service agent Joe Paolella proclaimed: "You seem to know a lot about the Secret Service, maybe even more than I do!" Agent Dan Emmett calls Vince a Secret Service expert in his new book.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s