JFK and the Ku Klux Klan

[Terri Williams]

Paul, You were right. I had called the FBI about Junior's murder in the 70's and, I was told yesterday that they did actually investigate. They said that Junior's family did not want to pursue charges against the three men who killed Junior. I guess they are still afraid of retaliation.

I wasn't aware that if a murder had been committed, that the family had to press charges. I thought that in the case of murder, charges were automatically pressed. I guess if your family doesn't want justice, then murderers get off the hook. how come charges aren't automatically pressed and why would the victim's family have to do it? I don't get that.

I am willing to testify.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Paul Trejo]

Where are the sworn accounts that match the eyewitness claims of Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming that you are referring to?

What is the basis of your claim that I prefer to ignore their testimony?

Your implication that you are an honest researcher and I and other members of this Forum are not is offensive. Don't get me wrong, coming from you I don't care.

Just don't complain about not getting the respect you think you deserve.

Paul, your explanation of what you consider to be hard proof is exactly what I expected. It's illustrative of why your posts are getting the responses they deserve.

And finally, your last paragraph is a perfect example (and you've provided many) why it is fruitless to debate you at length. Simply put, you continually put forth statements

that have no basis in fact. Me and my kind? Guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it?

Paul, I've been a member of this Forum for seven years. Show me where I've ever claimed or guessed that CIA did it.

You won't be able to do it.

Michael, I never said that Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming supplied sworn accounts. You misread me.

Further, I never implied that you were dishonest. You misread me.

Further, I couldn't care two cents whether you respect what I say or not.

Further, I never talk about "hard proof". Again, you misread me.

Further, I never claimed that you, personally, claimed that the the CIA did it. You misread me.

Your bias against me just wastes a lot of time, Michael.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

Where are the sworn accounts that match the eyewitness claims of Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming that you are referring to?

What is the basis of your claim that I prefer to ignore their testimony?

Your implication that you are an honest researcher and I and other members of this Forum are not is offensive. Don't get me wrong, coming from you I don't care.

Just don't complain about not getting the respect you think you deserve.

Paul, your explanation of what you consider to be hard proof is exactly what I expected. It's illustrative of why your posts are getting the responses they deserve.

And finally, your last paragraph is a perfect example (and you've provided many) why it is fruitless to debate you at length. Simply put, you continually put forth statements

that have no basis in fact. Me and my kind? Guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it?

Paul, I've been a member of this Forum for seven years. Show me where I've ever claimed or guessed that CIA did it.

You won't be able to do it.

Michael, I never said that Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming supplied sworn accounts. You misread me.

Further, I never implied that you were dishonest. You misread me.

Further, I couldn't care two cents whether you respect what I say or not.

Further, I never talk about "hard proof". Again, you misread me.

Further, I never claimed that you, personally, claimed that the the CIA did it. You misread me.

Your bias against me just wastes a lot of time, Michael.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

Where are the sworn accounts that match the eyewitness claims of Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming that you are referring to?

Michael, I never said that Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming supplied sworn accounts. You misread me.

Paul, it is you that need to read more carefully. Would you like me to spell it out for you?

I have no personal bias against you. It is your methodology that i find reprehensible.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

........and so just because Harry Dean and Gerry Patrick Hemming were not called upon to offer their sworn testimony to the WC, that does not mean that their eye-witness accounts are off the table. When those accounts match the accounts of the sworn testimony we possess, then they can be proposed as confirmative evidence.

Where are the sworn accounts (testimony) that match the eyewitness claims of Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming that you are referring to?

[Michael Hogan]

Further, I never implied that you were dishonest. You misread me.

You wrote:

"Just because you prefer to ignore the sworn testimony of George de Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald and Loran Hall, does not make their testimony any less valid.

It is part of the body of truth upon which honest researchers will build."

(Bold added)

[Michael Hogan]

Further, I never talk about "hard proof". Again, you misread me.

You wrote:

"Terri, although perhaps most JFK readers believe the CIA was involved -- I am among the minority who demand to see hard proof before I come to a conclusion."

(Bold added)

[Michael Hogan]

Further, I never claimed that you, personally, claimed that the the CIA did it. You misread me.

Your bias against me just wastes a lot of time, Michael.

,

You wrote:

"Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches...."

(Bold added)

[Paul Trejo]

Further, I never claimed that you, personally, claimed that the the CIA did it. You misread me.

Your bias against me just wastes a lot of time, Michael.

,

You wrote:

"Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches...."

(Bold added)

Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches...."

(Bold added)

Do you ever have anything positive to say, Michael, or will it be all negative forevermore?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, You were right. I had called the FBI about Junior's murder in the 70's and, I was told yesterday that they did actually investigate. They said that Junior's family did not want to pursue charges against the three men who killed Junior. I guess they are still afraid of retaliation.

I wasn't aware that if a murder had been committed, that the family had to press charges. I thought that in the case of murder, charges were automatically pressed. I guess if your family doesn't want justice, then murderers get off the hook. how come charges aren't automatically pressed and why would the victim's family have to do it? I don't get that.

I am willing to testify.

Terri, I'm glad that at least this bit of your quandry was cleared up with the FBI.

When I first advised you to contact the Washington FBI, I assumed at that time that you were going to speak only about the case of your friend, Junior. Yet it appears that you started with case about JFK. In that case, since it was 50 years ago, I'm not surprised that somebody who would answer the phone at the FBI today would be unfamiliar with the JFK case, except the official FBI conclusions (the Warren Commission) which the FBI still maintains today. In other words, they truly believe the case is closed -- and that only UFO-believers call up with fresh evidence about JFK.

I'm not surprised to learn this about FBI clerks. At least, as you said, he didn't laugh at you (although he did hang up on you). I believe this is still the official CIA position as well -- that "there is sufficient evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed JFK." They are unwilling to talk further about it, and unwilling to re-open the case.

Even if thousands of JFK researchers demand to re-open the case, the FBI and the CIA will simply dismiss us all as UFO-believers. It's just not something they are willing to talk about.

And yet, it sounds as though you called the FBI a second time, and inquired about the lynching case involving your friend, Junior. I'm very glad that you did that.

As you report today, the FBI did look into the case, and did seek witnesses among his family -- and they were terrified to testify. This comes as little surprise. I believe that most normal people who lived in a county in which the KKK played a dominant role in the city councils, in City Hall, in the police department, in the Court house, on the Judge's bench, in the schools, in the banks and among the employers of the county -- most people in that situation would also be afraid to complain to the FBI about a lynching case.

I applaud that you're willing to testify, Terri. But by tradition at least two witnesses are needed to make any case.

Still, I'm glad that you now recognize that the FBI is not necessarily in partnership with the KKK. That, at least, is one positive step forward.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

Paul, I am not sure I am ready to believe that the FBI and CIA were not involved. I can't see how they can righteously close the case on the evidence submitted to the Warren Commission. Smacks of cover up and anyone who covers up a crime, like with the Boston bomber's friends, is guilty of a crime, a felony. So it seems that the FBI are guilty of covering up, by not following up and pursuing the truth. How can anyone trust felons like that?

If the CIA weren't involved, how come there were not any Secret Service men en route? 'Waiting at the end of the line' is not only lame, but an obvious set-up to those trained in protection and security. I believe some rouge, and temporary, agents were along the way. Who set that up?

I mean how can any of us accept the Warren Commission's findings or the agencies that do? Is there anyone on this thread who believes the Warren Commission was a complete job well done? If so, that is so laughable. So why would the FBI and the CIA willingly make laughing stocks of themselves all these years, unless it was to hide their involvement? Their logic just stinks to high heavens. Even looks like an obvious felony to many, 'Obstruction of justice' to say the least.

Not wanting to start a Civil War? They were afraid of the Black Panthers back then. What happened when MLK Jr was killed? No Civil War. And Kent State? No civil War. After the Jackson State protest? No Civil War. The Freedom Riders? No Civil War. JFK? No Civil War. RFK? No Civil War.

Could it be that the Vietnam War was started to give all those Minutemen somewhere else to direct their anger and exercise their patriotism?

Your logic about stopping a Civil War does not make sense to me. I will consider it, however. Perhaps the cover up was for that reason, but it is still a felony nonetheless and it was committed by the FBI and the CIA. They closed the case based on the evidence presented to the Warren Commission. So, may I please suggest you consider the FBI and CIA were involved?

[Michael Hogan]

Do you ever have anything positive to say, Michael, or will it be all negative forevermore?

It's up to you Paul.

As long as you choose to continue to misrepresent what I wrote and subsequently decline to own what you wrote, you can expect a negative reaction from me.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I am not sure I am ready to believe that the FBI and CIA were not involved. I can't see how they can righteously close the case on the evidence submitted to the Warren Commission. Smacks of cover up and anyone who covers up a crime, like with the Boston bomber's friends, is guilty of a crime, a felony. So it seems that the FBI are guilty of covering up, by not following up and pursuing the truth. How can anyone trust felons like that?

If the CIA weren't involved, how come there were not any Secret Service men en route? 'Waiting at the end of the line' is not only lame, but an obvious set-up to those trained in protection and security. I believe some rouge, and temporary, agents were along the way. Who set that up?

I mean how can any of us accept the Warren Commission's findings or the agencies that do? Is there anyone on this thread who believes the Warren Commission was a complete job well done? If so, that is so laughable. So why would the FBI and the CIA willingly make laughing stocks of themselves all these years, unless it was to hide their involvement? Their logic just stinks to high heavens. Even looks like an obvious felony to many, 'Obstruction of justice' to say the least.

Not wanting to start a Civil War? They were afraid of the Black Panthers back then. What happened when MLK Jr was killed? No Civil War. And Kent State? No civil War. After the Jackson State protest? No Civil War. The Freedom Riders? No Civil War. JFK? No Civil War. RFK? No Civil War.

Could it be that the Vietnam War was started to give all those Minutemen somewhere else to direct their anger and exercise their patriotism?

Your logic about stopping a Civil War does not make sense to me. I will consider it, however. Perhaps the cover up was for that reason, but it is still a felony nonetheless and it was committed by the FBI and the CIA. They closed the case based on the evidence presented to the Warren Commission. So, may I please suggest you consider the FBI and CIA were involved?

Terri, I started reading JFK conspiracy books back in 1991 after I saw Oliver Stone's movie, JFK. I'd seen people selling books about the JFK conspiracy at airports before that, and I always thought they were UFO-believers and kooks like that.

But after seeing JFK, I took another look, and I found a ton of books already written. Perhaps the most influential ones were those written by Jim Garrison and Mark Lane, but also by Harold Weisberg, Ed Epstein, Robert Groden, Jim Marrs, Fletcher Prouty, Gaeton Fonzi, Peter Dale Scott, John Davis and so on.

Jim Garrison led the field, IMHO, when he boldly announced that the CIA was the top authority in the JFK conspiracy. Mark Lane tended to agree. Most did. A few diverged, like John Davis, who believed that the Mafia did it.

It was all exciting -- but there were contradictions in their theories. Final proof was lacking. So the books just kept coming out.

Only in very recent times has anybody devoted a lot of energy to the theory that right-wing fanatical civilians in the USA (including the KKK) did it. Why didn't this topic capture the imagination of Jim Garrison, Mark Lane or Oliver Stone? It is a rare theory -- but it has a lot of weight as far as I can see -- more weight than most other theories.

Can I consider that the FBI and the CIA were involved? Actually, Terri, for most of the past 20 years that's exactly what I did consider. Yet the details did not come clear -- and some conspiracy theorists flew way out in outer space. (Some of your critics should be ashamed to tell their own theories about the JFK assassination.)

After 50 years of theories about the JFK killing, most of which included the CIA and the FBI, the case was never satisfactorily solved.

Jim Garrison was wrong, IMHO, when he said words to the effect that, "this is just another murder, and we should prosecute it just like any other murder."

That's incorrect. This is not like the Boston bombing. This is the murder of a President -- the head of State -- it was a profoundly political act. It was meant to change the course of American politics forever.

In the same way, the killing of Abraham Lincoln was intended to change the course of American politics forever -- but it failed. The USA just plodded on as usual, according to the US Constitution. And when JFK was killed, the USA just plodded on as usual, according to the US Constitution.

Covering up the killers of JFK is not the same as covering up criminals in other crimes. Those criminals only matter to their friends and family, and to the friends and family of their victims. The killers of JFK, however, would matter to hundreds of millions of people.

As for the Secret Service men, Terri, we have a documented list that 300 of them were at the Trade Mart center where the JFK luncheon was scheduled to be held. When Harry Dean tells his version of the JFK plot (which I believe is authentic) he was told that JFK would be killed at the Trade Mart -- and that is what he told the FBI.

It was a total surprise to Harry that JFK was killed in Dealey Plaza. (But it was not a surprise to Harry that Lee Harvey Oswald was named as the patsy.)

Anyway -- the CIA knows a lot -- but they aren't gods. They don't know everything. And they can't predict the future. It was the CIA that made a total mess of the Bay of Pigs. That is proof positive that they don't know everything.

If there were some traitors inside the CIA or the Secret Service -- perhaps secret members of the KKK or the Birchers or the Minutemen -- they were acting against the rules of the CIA and Secret Service. Membership in those non-patriotic groups was off-limits to government personnel.

It is not impossible that some rogue agents betrayed this country for their right-wing politics -- but I don't want to make that horrible charge without some material evidence in my hands. It's a major deal for me. These are real people, too.

Again -- I believe that Earl Warren knew that the Warren Commission conclusions were bogus, despite the tonnage of legal work that went into them. It is embarrasing, but orders are orders. When loyal Americans get military orders from high authority -- we are willing to lay our very lives on the line that very day for those orders. That's how it's always been.

Well, an order from the Supreme Court is accepted much the same way by lower-level government workers. This high authority, Earl Warren, said that this must be our conclusion, and nobody can see the Lee Harvey Oswald CIA 201 file for 75 years after the JFK killing. Most government workers, from the FBI on down, simply accept those as orders. Warren told us why: National Security. So, it's a quasi-military order.

As for Civil War -- this was not about the Black Panthers or even about the KKK itself. The killing of the President of the USA would have started a Civil War between much larger groups than the Black Panthes or the KKK (who only amounted to a few hundred thousand people).

Instead, the killing of JFK pitted the far-right in the USA -- millions of people -- against the center and left in the USA -- millions of people. The far-right in the USA grew several times larger than it was under Eisenhower, mainly because of Cuba, and partly because of the Civil Rights movement.

During the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962, the far-right, led by ex-General Edwin Walker on campus, spoke not only about race integration of public schools, but also about Cuba in all the speeches of that day. Millions of Americans followed the far-right in those days. Who were the Birchers? They were doctors, lawyers, dentists, professors, retired military men, and countless "little old ladies in tennis shoes."

A few Birchers supported George Wallace for President, but most Birchers supported Barry Goldwater for President. It was mainstream.

If, then, the far-right (including the KKK) was found to be guilty of killling the President of the USA, then there would have been far greater riots than anything we saw at Ole Miss. The center-left would have attacked the far-right and a Civil War of millions might have been the result.

If that was the case, then the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. They would write newspaper articles, magazine articles, and might even send spies and subversives from Moscow to take part.

When the first USSR spy would be caught, the extreme-right would have gone ballistic, and accused the center-right of Treason, and would have called for World War Three on the spot -- and Barry Goldwater might have pushed his way to the White House -- and pressed the nuclear button. This was all in the realm of possibility in 1963-1964.

By the way, Terri, I like your speculation that the Vietnam war might have been promoted as an outlet for the far-right. It's interesting.

Finally, if, as I believe, the JFK murder cover-up was intended to avoid a Civil War in the USA, it worked like a charm. Also, it wasn't a felony -- it was a Presidential mandate. A President has the power to stay an execution if he wants, or even to pardon a felony. A President (along with Congress) has the power to declare war in which countless thousands or millions of people might be killed. The power of life and death is a legal power above the power of a given felony.

Now, I think we must admit, at the very least, that the FBI and CIA were involved in the JFK murder cover-up, through their support of the Warren Commision conclusions.

However, the FBI and CIA had rules against membership in the far-right -- so if the far-right killed JFK (as I believe) then the official FBI and CIA did not kill JFK. If this is correct, then those who killed JFK and those who covered-up the killing were two very separate groups of people, with two very separate goals.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 8, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

Terri, I started reading JFK conspiracy books back in 1991 after I saw Oliver Stone's movie, JFK. I'd seen people selling books about the JFK conspiracy at airports before that, and I always thought they were UFO-believers and kooks like that.

But after seeing JFK, I took another look, and I found a ton of books already written. Perhaps the most influential ones were those written by Jim Garrison and Mark Lane, but also by Harold Weisberg, Ed Epstein, Robert Groden, Jim Marrs, Fletcher Prouty, Gaeton Fonzi, Peter Dale Scott, John Davis and so on.

Jim Garrison led the field, IMHO, when he boldly announced that the CIA was the top authority in the JFK conspiracy. Mark Lane tended to agree. Most did. A few diverged, like John Davis, who believed that the Mafia did it.

It was all exciting -- but there were contradictions in their theories. Final proof was lacking. So the books just kept coming out.

Only in very recent times has anybody devoted a lot of energy to the theory that right-wing fanatical civilians in the USA (including the KKK) did it. Why didn't this topic capture the imagination of Jim Garrison, Mark Lane or Oliver Stone? It is a rare theory -- but it has a lot of weight as far as I can see -- more weight than most other theories.

Can I consider that the FBI and the CIA were involved? Actually, Terri, for most of the past 20 years that's exactly what I did consider. Yet the details did not come clear -- and some conspiracy theorists flew way out in outer space. (Some of your critics should be ashamed to tell their own theories about the JFK assassination.)

After 50 years of theories about the JFK killing, most of which included the CIA and the FBI, the case was never satisfactorily solved.

Jim Garrison was wrong, IMHO, when he said words to the effect that, "this is just another murder, and we should prosecute it just like any other murder."

That's incorrect. This is not like the Boston bombing. This is the murder of a President -- the head of State -- it was a profoundly political act. It was meant to change the course of American politics forever.

In the same way, the killing of Abraham Lincoln was intended to change the course of American politics forever -- but it failed. The USA just plodded on as usual, according to the US Constitution. And when JFK was killed, the USA just plodded on as usual, according to the US Constitution.

Covering up the killers of JFK is not the same as covering up criminals in other crimes. Those criminals only matter to their friends and family, and to the friends and family of their victims. The killers of JFK, however, would matter to hundreds of millions of people.

As for the Secret Service men, Terri, we have a documented list that 300 of them were at the Trade Mart center where the JFK luncheon was scheduled to be held. When Harry Dean tells his version of the JFK plot (which I believe is authentic) he was told that JFK would be killed at the Trade Mart -- and that is what he told the FBI.

It was a total surprise to Harry that JFK was killed in Dealey Plaza. (But it was not a surprise to Harry that Lee Harvey Oswald was named as the patsy.)

Anyway -- the CIA knows a lot -- but they aren't gods. They don't know everything. And they can't predict the future. It was the CIA that made a total mess of the Bay of Pigs. That is proof positive that they don't know everything.

If there were some traitors inside the CIA or the Secret Service -- perhaps secret members of the KKK or the Birchers or the Minutemen -- they were acting against the rules of the CIA and Secret Service. Membership in those non-patriotic groups was off-limits to government personnel.

It is not impossible that some rogue agents betrayed this country for their right-wing politics -- but I don't want to make that horrible charge without some material evidence in my hands. It's a major deal for me. These are real people, too.

Again -- I believe that Earl Warren knew that the Warren Commission conclusions were bogus, despite the tonnage of legal work that went into them. It is embarrasing, but orders are orders. When loyal Americans get military orders from high authority -- we are willing to lay our very lives on the line that very day for those orders. That's how it's always been.

Well, an order from the Supreme Court is accepted much the same way by lower-level government workers. This high authority, Earl Warren, said that this must be our conclusion, and nobody can see the Lee Harvey Oswald CIA 201 file for 75 years after the JFK killing. Most government workers, from the FBI on down, simply accept those as orders. Warren told us why: National Security. So, it's a quasi-military order.

As for Civil War -- this was not about the Black Panthers or even about the KKK itself. The killing of the President of the USA would have started a Civil War between much larger groups than the Black Panthes or the KKK (who only amounted to a few hundred thousand people).

Instead, the killing of JFK pitted the far-right in the USA -- millions of people -- against the center and left in the USA -- millions of people. The far-right in the USA grew several times larger than it was under Eisenhower, mainly because of Cuba, and partly because of the Civil Rights movement.

During the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962, the far-right, led by ex-General Edwin Walker on campus, spoke not only about race integration of public schools, but also about Cuba in all the speeches of that day. Millions of Americans followed the far-right in those days. Who were the Birchers? They were doctors, lawyers, dentists, professors, retired military men, and countless "little old ladies in tennis shoes."

A few Birchers supported George Wallace for President, but most Birchers supported Barry Goldwater for President. It was mainstream.

If, then, the far-right (including the KKK) was found to be guilty of killling the President of the USA, then there would have been far greater riots than anything we saw at Ole Miss. The center-left would have attacked the far-right and a Civil War of millions might have been the result.

If that was the case, then the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. They would write newspaper articles, magazine articles, and might even send spies and subversives from Moscow to take part.

When the first USSR spy would be caught, the extreme-right would have gone ballistic, and accused the center-right of Treason, and would have called for World War Three on the spot -- and Barry Goldwater might have pushed his way to the White House -- and pressed the nuclear button. This was all in the realm of possibility in 1963-1964.

By the way, Terri, I like your speculation that the Vietnam war might have been promoted as an outlet for the far-right. It's interesting.

Finally, if, as I believe, the JFK murder cover-up was intended to avoid a Civil War in the USA, it worked like a charm. Also, it wasn't a felony -- it was a Presidential mandate. A President has the power to stay an execution if he wants. A President (along with Congress) has the power to declare war in which countless thousands or millions of people might be killed. The power of life and death is a legal power above the power of a given felony.

Now, I think we must admit, at the very least, that the FBI and CIA were involved in the JFK murder cover-up, through their support of the Warren Commision conclusions.

However, the FBI and CIA had rules against membership in the far-right -- so if the far-right killed JFK (as I believe) then the official FBI and CIA did not kill JFK.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, You have done your research, that much is clear. But to back the CIA and FBI, who failed miserably in this case, claiming they did their best, is more theory than truth. If they felt it was true that the president would be killed at the Trade Mart in Dallas, it makes no sense that they would have left him unattended anywhere in Dallas. Leaving him unprotected along the route is highly suspicious to me and not at all convincing that they were doing their jobs; clearly they were NOT doing a very good job at all. If the CIA and FBI were there in Dallas to protect the president, then why was he left SO unprotected? By design?

Like you said, this was no ordinary citizen, this was the president of the USA, the most powerful man on Earth. And they bungled his security so badly, even though they honestly believed someone would try to kill him, they left him unprotected. The CIA doesn't really make mistakes like that, unless on purpose. If they can bungle that so badly, they could also bungle on their job of keeping the KKK out of their ranks. After all the KKK and the CIA are highly secretive groups, good at hiding secrets.

What the CIA and FBI have done quite effectively, is to hide the truth of what happened to JFK. Of course they also hid what really happened in a host of other countries where they helped pull off coup d'etats, such as Chile and Indonesia. So why not at home. No, SOMEONE, or several someones, in the CIA and FBI had their hands in carrying out orders from their bosses, like Hoover who hated, most vehemently, JFK & RFK.

In Klan circles, it is common knowledge that Hoover was a Klansman, although, of course, there is no "proof". It was common knowledge among Klansmen that the president would be killed in Dallas, and although there is no solid proof as to who did it, that is what happened.

If you look at who was in the CIA and FBI back then, it was virtually an all white gang of right-wing men. They had heard the president would be killed at the Trade Mart, yet they left him unprotected in Dallas. That is very telling to me. They left him unprotected even though they "feared" his life was in danger. That point sticks out in my mind more than that they were preparing for an event at the Trade Mart.

I consider myself rather savvy when it comes to protection. I would have NEVER let the president travel through Dallas without his "bubble dome" for one thing and would have made sure he had protection ALL along the way to the Trade Mart and at every step he took in Dallas. AND I would have done that at the tender age of ten years old, if I had been in charge. (funny that a ten year old was more on top of things than the CIA or FBI)

So why didn't the CIA and FBI PROTECT the president? Their excuse of waiting at the Trade Mart stinks to high heavens. If they truly thought there would be an attempted attack on the president, why on Earth did they not INSIST he use his "bubble dome"? When the Klan kids told me that "They are gonna make sure he doesn't have his 'bubble dome'", I thought for sure 'they' would never let that happen, but 'they' did! I would never have allowed such a thing. In fact, I had written to warn the president to do just that, make sure he had his "bubble dome". Seems the president was just as gullible when it comes to the CIA & FBI as the American people.

And to stop a Civil War, please? No, the FBI and CIA would have done better to have exposed the KKK right then, not cover it up. It might have caused Americans to demand the FBI or some law enforcement agency, put a stop to the KKK, permanently, which would have eaten up their resources, but not a Civil War, please. It might have also exposed errant members of the CIA and FBI to have thoroughly investigated the death of a PRESIDENT.

No if you ask me, the only thing that makes any sense is that the CIA & FBI helped pull off yet another coup d'etat, just like they had done in so many other countries to date. AND they successfully lulled Americans to sleep over the whole affair. That cover up helped the KKK, not to their demise, but to become an even more powerful group, which they still are today. If covering up the truth about the death of JFK was meant to avert a Civil War, why put such a lengthy time on opening those files? It has been long enough.

No fear of a 'Civil War' now, so why keep the files hidden? Americans deserve better than that from the agencies their tax dollars fund so well. The president deserved better protection than THEY GAVE. The CIA & FBI need to be held accountable for their failures that lead to so much death. Those files should be made public now, while there ARE some witnesses still alive, not long after they are dead. Those files should be made public NOW, unless the CIA and FBI still have something to hide.

Plus, it is cleary against our laws to leave such evidence sealed up, obstruct the justice of America, by only a flimsy mandate from a long dead president, a mandate that made no sense at the time anyway? It clearly is unequal justice, which is not what this country claims it stands for. We are talking about the plain & simple murder of an American president, no ordinary person. Leaving those files sealed up over some nonsensical mandate from a suspicious president, is a felony, like it or not.

If the CIA & FBI's excuse for not fully investigating such an important crime, was to 'stop a Civil War', the crime was successfully covered up and so those who pulled it off got away with it. There just is no room for a "Job well Done" anywhere. Those who pulled off the coup d'etat, WON.

The KKK DID, in fact, supply marksmen to Dealey Plaza, and Albert Lee Lewis, a National Guard Reservist, an excellent marksman, is the one who got all the credit from the KKK. Was he put there by CIA or FBI? How was he able to even be there, if not for the CIA and FBI doing a crappy job of "security"? Had they hired him for "security"?

Yes, I believe the Vietnam war was timed to give the Minutemen another avenue to vent their steam while being "patriotic". That act alone averted a Civil War. Who knows what they might have done with all that pent up aggression.

Time to open those files, now. Obama can do it with a "presidential mandate". Will he? Or is he just another pawn? If a "presidential mandate" can allow for the cover up of a crime of such magnitude, it clearly undoes the constitution of the USA, making it worthless to uphold. And who was the president who made that mandate? Of which state had he been governor? The crime should never have been left at the findings of the Warren Commission, which has the same aroma as the 'Trade Mart Security Team'.

The whole Civil War scenario you describe is more fantasy than reality. If the FBI had been wanting to sabotage the KKK, to "infiltrate" and destroy them from within, they would have done more by exposing the truth about what happened to JFK, than by hiding it, to shine a spotlight on the KKK (not something they would have been comfortable with), EXPOSE them. It would have had people calling for the Albert Lee Lewis to stand trial, not call for Civil War. Junior Ransom might not have ever been killed in that case, because the men who killed him in August of 1964 would have not dared, should there have been so much attention on the slimy KKK, period, let alone over what they did to JFK.

AND what happened to MLK Jr & RFK might never have happened at all, IF there had been a proper investigation into what happened to JFK. Why wasn't a proper investigation done in a timely manner? Why were so many civilian witnesses killed after coming forward, IF the CIA and FBI were any good at their 'jobs'? So no, crappy work like that from those we all PAY WELL to protect, is whole heartedly inexcusable.

The CIA and FBI failed miserably to protect the president from attack (and black Americans from the KKK). They FAILED miserably to put a solid damper on the KKK, even with all their "infiltration". It all fits when you consider what they did, or didn't do, was by design.

You like proof. So do I. Time to open those files. NOW. There is no good reason anywhere in the universe to NOT open those files immediately, unless clearly to hide exactly who was involved in the death of JFK, MLK Jr and RFK. Kennedy King Kennedy, KKK.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Michael Clark]

This thread follows the story of a forum member who claims to have gone to school with the son of a  Dealy Plaza shooter.

Paul Trejo does a good job of keeping the door open and drawing-out that member for more information.

Im not saying I believe it, just saying it is interesting.

Cheers, 

Michael

Edited May 19, 2017 by Michael Clark