New Book!

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, once again I'm just going to have to leave you to your opinions and certainties....and to some pretty broad generalizations such as the FBI literally engaging in armed combat with a large body of Minutemen who were not directly involved in the assassination.. Obviously we can't shift you back to the reality of how the FBI would actually have operated in any legal action against the Minutemen, regardless of what actually happened in its real world dealings with their leaders, ultra right Klan leaders, and the militant and armed groups in southern California. I suggest you read Bill Turner's work on the fBI and ultra right in Southern Cal in that period for a reality check on what happened when the FBI did occasionally confront and take those leaders into custody.

I've posted, as I usually do, for lurkers that might be following the thread...which has once again strayed from a review of the book...so I've said all I need to at this point.

[William O'Neil]

It is my understanding that the FBI is not a prosecutorial body. That would have to come from the Justice Dept. and the AG. The FBI’s job was to investigate and gather information.

Bill

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, having just published two books studying the sixty year history of both covert and military confrontations with the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation I can assure you I'm not ignoring the Soviets and in 1963 they were most definitely an elephant in any room in 63 - in fact their strategic weakness was so great their leadership had made a hugely risky play to add at least a minimal level of balance by secretly deploying missiles to Cuba a year earlier...and they were still jockeying internally from that embarrassment. It would be several years before they moved back into a position of at least parity. They had no leverage to stick their nose in American affairs in 63 and after Cuba their nose was actually pretty well busted at that point in time.

And yes, I can equate the FBI's response in Mississippi burning to the potential arrest of a dozen or so ultra right Kennedy conspirators....because that is history, and documented in many instances when the FBI moved to arrest and take right wing leaders into custody. You might want to take a look at when that actually happened to Minutemen leaders only a few years later....not much sign of any armed resistance there. I don't underestimate any right wing support, especially in the south and in Texas - I was living there in 1963 and saw a good deal of it in person. My brother was at Little Rock, in the Army, he followed orders there and enforced the law just as did the other soldiers, many from the south. Many of the US marshals and FBI officers at the U of Mississippi were from the south, they may not have liked it but they did their duty and enforced the law. Stu and I interviewed a number of them for our research on AGOG...you might try asking their opinion or any Bureau officers opinion about the ability of the FBI to confront and arrest ultra right leaders as necessary.

With respect to radical rightists: there are many examples where the FBI arrested Minutemen for various crimes without incident.

In November 1966, 19 Minutemen were arrested in New York state for conspiring to commit arson with firebombs against several pacifist and left-wing summer camps.

In August 1967, a group of Minutemen was arrested in New York for plotting to murder Marxist historian, Herbert Aptheker. 250,000 rounds of ammunition, an anti-tank weapon, 45 rifles, 7 shotguns, 3 hand grenades, 18 sticks of dynamite, and other weapons were also confiscated -- without incident.

In 1964 and again in 1966 and 1968, Minuteman founder and leader Robert DePugh was arrested for violations of the National Firearms Act or for conspiracy to rob banks (in Washington state). In September 1991, DePugh was arrested and convicted on morals charges involving pornographic pictures of girls 10-13 years of age. In none of these incidents did Minutemen rise up in revolt to protect their leader.

The FBI had no problem arresting white supremacists in 1983 who plotted to overthrow the government and establish a white nation in the Pacific Northwest. That resulted in another sedition trial (in Fort Smith AR) against 14 defendants -- all of whom had multiple connections to groups such as Aryan Nations, KKK, Minutemen, and Covenant, Sword, Arm of the Lord.

The FBI also pursued or arrested Robert J. Mathews and his gang (The Order) and Gordon Kahl (Posse Comitatus) and William Potter Gale (Committee of the States) and numerous other radical right figures.

In addition, even going back to the so-called Mass Sedition trials during the 1940's, the FBI has never been reluctant to scoop up dozens of extreme rightists.

Lastly--As an aside -- there are some reputable studies which establish that during the 1960's, our estimates regarding the operational number of the Soviet Union's ballistic missiles was vastly exaggerated. In fact, some intelligence analysts believe that the USSR may have had only about 10-15 reliable nuclear missiles.

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, that is a good point in regard to the Soviets military capabilities....and I explore it in great detail in Surprise Attack. The Soviets had to totally regroup on their ICBM's because of a bad initial decision on fuels and above ground launcer deployment plus all their nuke subs were back in port with massive reactor problems. They did have an IRBM advantage which could have played havoc in Western Europe....anyway, long story but the situation had been so bad at the time of the missile crisis that they pulled a mars probe off its booster and prepared it for military use just because they had so very few operational ICBM's.

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I had not noticed this before -- and I assume it might be of interest to readers here.

The pdf document whose link I copy below is a list prepared by the Assassination Records Review Board. The list identifies all documents released and withheld or postponed in part and also specifies the date when withheld or postponed documents would become available.

The 3-digit numerical document codes reveal the originating agency, i.e.

104 = CIA documents (My understanding is that there were approximately 1140 CIA documents being withheld).

124 = FBI documents

154 - Secret Service documents

179 = NARA documents

180 = House Select Committee on Assassination documents

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1996-10-18/pdf/96-26742.pdf

Now...does everyone recall my continuous debate with Paul Trejo concerning FBI documents?

Paul has always told us that there must be some vast treasure trove of FBI documents (classified "Top Secret") which he (and everyone else) would see in 2017 AND, according to Paul, those FBI documents would be very likely to corroborate Harry Dean's story.

Well, I invite everyone to double-check my count (on the ARRB list) -- but the ARRB itemized listing, shows that only 4 FBI documents remain to be released in 2017. FOUR!

P.S.: I am also prepared to bet that those four FBI documents contain information obtained from the CIA (including their informants) and/or from foreign government intelligence agencies and that info was then incorporated into FBI memos and reports -- but the original source asked that their data not be released...particularly if their sources might be revealed.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

So, getting back to Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, Chapter 3, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Nazis, Caufield now turns to David Ferrie.

Almost all of us know about David Ferrie -- if not from the writings of Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw in 1968, then we know about Ferrie from Oliver Stone's 1991 movie, JFK, where Joe Pesci played the David Ferrie character. We all know that David Ferrie was a defrocked Catholic priest -- defrocked because he was gay -- who also wanted to be a leader of Cuban Exile freedom fighters against Fidel Castro. Ferrie was a former youth Cadet leader in the late 1950's, and we have photographs of David Ferrie and a very young Lee Harvey Oswald.

Ferrie's right wing politics are very familiar to all of us -- however, how many of us have imagined that David Ferrie was actually a Nazi? But that is just what Jeff Caufield's new book is going to claim.

Caufield begins with David Ferrie's suicide note of 1967, written to his old friend, Al Beauboef. One of the cryptic phrases in that suicide note was this: "Flying Baragona in the Beech." While "Beech" refers to a type of airplane, "Baragona" was a person, another acquaintance of Ferrie and Beauboef -- and a Nazi.

Jim Garrison also obtained a letter from David Ferrie to Mr. Baragona. Here's what Jeff Caufield says about that letter:

In the letter, Ferrie shared his dream of the re-unification of Germany and living in a world where all the currency was Deutschmarks...The letter described a 'Neo-Nazi plot to enslave America in the name of anti-Communism,' and a 'Neo-Nazi plot gargantuan in scope.' The Ferrie letter spoke of the need to kill all of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 86)

Now, I think it's granted by almost every reader of this FORUM that Lee Harvey Oswald had a close, personal relationship with David Ferrie in 1963, at the very least inside New Orleans and at 544 Camp Street.

This new perspective on David Ferrie -- that he was really a Nazi -- has the potential to change our perspective regarding Lee Harvey Oswald.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 1, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Same mistake over and over Paul. When we can see proof that Oswald was known to any of the nazis he mentions in his address book or knew personally on some level (not sure I would call LHO and Ferrie close and personal) then I'll believe that he was actually one of them. This so called (by you) secret life of Oswald's, one that his wife, brother, mother, Texas friends and acquaintances knew nothing about, can only be proven with actual evidence, not hearsay, not conjecture. There are, as you know, other possible explanations for the entries in his address book, the FPCC stamp on his literature, the street altercation and subsequent radio appearance. It's not as if there are only two choices - genuine Marxist or extreme right winger. Seriously...

[Paul Brancato]

Mae Brussell would have had a field day with Caulfield's book and research. But I doubt she would have so easily lumped Oswald in with the nazi nest of vipers. If Oswald was one of them, why would they hang him out to dry?

[Paul Trejo]

Same mistake over and over Paul. When we can see proof that Oswald was known to any of the nazis he mentions in his address book or knew personally on some level (not sure I would call LHO and Ferrie close and personal) then I'll believe that he was actually one of them. This so called (by you) secret life of Oswald's, one that his wife, brother, mother, Texas friends and acquaintances knew nothing about, can only be proven with actual evidence, not hearsay, not conjecture. There are, as you know, other possible explanations for the entries in his address book, the FPCC stamp on his literature, the street altercation and subsequent radio appearance. It's not as if there are only two choices - genuine Marxist or extreme right winger. Seriously...

Well -- you're overstating your case, Paul B.

For example, you suggest that Robert Oswald "knew nothing about" Lee Oswald's Neo-Nazi political beliefs, and yet this could just as easily have been a part of Robert Oswald's make-up as well.

I would point out here that modern racists are not as courageous as the racists in the 1850's or in the 1930's. Today's racists hide their true feelings at all costs. Either they will outright lie about them -- and claim that they are truly democratic -- or they will hide their racism under some subterfuge, e.g. like Communism, following the example of Congressman John Rousselot of my hometown in East Los Angeles, California.

Congressman John Rousselot hid his racism under the banner of "Anticommunism." Civil Rights for Black Americans was really a Communist Plot, he would say, and "good Negroes" would never demand their Civil Rights. Here's one of his speeches on YouTube:

[]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoC2lNw113k]

That's a coward's way of denying Civil Rights to Black Americans -- lying and dishonest -- passive aggressive -- covert hostility -- a smile-in-your-face-with-a- knife-for-your-back. You know, the standard John Birch Society attitude: "We are True Patriots, not like that Communist, JFK."

In fact, let's look closer at LHO's brother, Robert Oswald. Jeff Caufield (p. 87)reports that Robert Oswald handed over his diary to the FBI on 19 February 1964, who opened it to find, written in Robert's own handwriting, a few paragraphs from Thomas Jefferson's autobiography. Sounds patriotic, right? Until we read the contents:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than these people (Negroes) are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. I do not judge with willful and ill-intentioned error, but honest error must be arrested, where its toleration leads to public ruin. (Robert Oswald's diary, 1964)

We must remember the social context of these words in 1826, on the one hand, and in 1964, on the other hand. Way back in 1826, the institution of Legal Slavery still had 37 more years of support ahead in the USA. In 1964, on the other hand, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren had outlawed public school segregation since 1954.

The roll-out of the Brown Decision had already resulted since 1954 had already resulted in two applications of Federal Troops; first in 1957 at Little Rock Arkansas (and General Walker was there) and secondly in 1962 at Ole Miss University (and General Walker was there).

The Civil Rights movement was really picking up steam in 1964. MLK's "I have a dream" speech was already famous starting in August 1963 -- only four months before JFK was murdered in Dealey Plaza.

Yet here is Robert Oswald -- trying to quote Thomas Jefferson in a way to apply his racially ambiguous words from 1826 to the Civil Rights era of 1964. We must therefore ask -- was Robert Oswald being totally honest with us in his portrait of his brother, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Same mistake over and over Paul. When we can see proof that Oswald was known to any of the nazis he mentions in his address book or knew personally on some level (not sure I would call LHO and Ferrie close and personal) then I'll believe that he was actually one of them. This so called (by you) secret life of Oswald's, one that his wife, brother, mother, Texas friends and acquaintances knew nothing about, can only be proven with actual evidence, not hearsay, not conjecture. There are, as you know, other possible explanations for the entries in his address book, the FPCC stamp on his literature, the street altercation and subsequent radio appearance. It's not as if there are only two choices - genuine Marxist or extreme right winger. Seriously...

Well -- you're overstating your case, Paul B.

For example, you suggest that Robert Oswald "knew nothing about" Lee Oswald's Neo-Nazi political beliefs, and yet this could just as easily have been a part of Robert Oswald's make-up as well.

I would point out here that modern racists are not as courageous as the racists in the 1850's or in the 1930's. Today's racists hide their true feelings at all costs. Either they will outright lie about them -- and claim that they are truly democratic -- or they will hide their racism under some subterfuge, e.g. like Communism, following the example of Congressman John Rousselot of my hometown in East Los Angeles, California.

Congressman John Rousselot hid his racism under the banner of "Anticommunism." Civil Rights for Black Americans was really a Communist Plot, he would say, and "good Negroes" would never demand their Civil Rights. Here's one of his speeches on YouTube:

[]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoC2lNw113k]

That's a coward's way of denying Civil Rights to Black Americans -- lying and dishonest -- passive aggressive -- covert hostility -- a smile-in-your-face-with-a- knife-for-your-back. You know, the standard John Birch Society attitude: "We are True Patriots, not like that Communist, JFK."

In fact, let's look closer at LHO's brother, Robert Oswald. Jeff Caufield (p. 87)reports that Robert Oswald handed over his diary to the FBI on 19 February 1964, who opened it to find, written in Robert's own handwriting, a few paragraphs from Thomas Jefferson's autobiography. Sounds patriotic, right? Until we read the contents:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than these people (Negroes) are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. I do not judge with willful and ill-intentioned error, but honest error must be arrested, where its toleration leads to public ruin. (Robert Oswald's diary, 1964)

We must remember the social context of these words in 1826, on the one hand, and in 1964, on the other hand. Way back in 1826, the institution of Legal Slavery still had 37 more years of support ahead in the USA. In 1964, on the other hand, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren had outlawed public school segregation since 1954.

The roll-out of the Brown Decision had already resulted since 1954 had already resulted in two applications of Federal Troops; first in 1957 at Little Rock Arkansas (and General Walker was there) and secondly in 1962 at Ole Miss University (and General Walker was there).

The Civil Rights movement was really picking up steam in 1964. MLK's "I have a dream" speech was already famous starting in August 1963 -- only four months before JFK was murdered in Dealey Plaza.

Yet here is Robert Oswald -- trying to quote Thomas Jefferson in a way to apply his racially ambiguous words from 1826 to the Civil Rights era of 1964. We must therefore ask -- was Robert Oswald being totally honest with us in his portrait of his brother, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Rousselot was not a racist nor has anybody who actually knew him made such a claim. The problem here (yet again) is that Paul decides to describe as "racist" - anybody who ever was an opponent of specific civil rights legislation or anybody who became convinced that our civil rights movement was created by or dominated by Communists or Communist sympathizers. [but for his own crazy reasons, Paul excludes Edwin Walker].

IF Rousselot was a racist, the FBI would have discovered that during his FBI investigation -- as they routinely did during their investigations of other individuals who were being appointed to government positions---particularly White House positions.

Furthermore, IF Rousselot was actually a racist, he would have expressed those sentiments in some direct fashion (as did Walker). Significantly, liberal Democrats who served with Rousselot in the Congress never made such an accusation against Rousselot.

As we have seen repeatedly, Paul creates cartoon caricature villains to rail against. To Paul, anybody who does not share his personal beliefs becomes suspect in terms of their character, integrity, loyalty, and patriotism.

With respect to Paul's comment that: "Today's racists hide their true feelings at all costs." --- Obviously, Paul is totally ignorant about this subject so he just fabricates anything which he thinks advances his personal opinions. Anybody familiar with the persons who associated themselves with racist organizations in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, or during the past 20 years -- knows that racists did NOT "hide their true feelings". Quite the contrary -- they celebrated their bigotry as a form of superior knowledge.

I suggest that Paul do some reading into the history of people like:

David Duke, Thom Robb, Don Black, Byron de la Beckwith, Kevin Strom, Richard Kelly Hoskins, Glenn Miller, James Ellison, Tom Metzger, Richard G. Butler, David E. Lane, Louis Beam, William Potter Gale, Ben Klassen, Willis Carto, Louis Hollis, Medford Evans, William James Simmons, Bryant Bowles, Robert Shelton, Bill Hendrix, Eustace Mullins, Samuel Bowers, Asa Earl Carter, Robert E. Miles, Connie Lynch, John Kasper, Oren Potito, J.B. Stoner, Edward R. Fields, James R. Venable, Wally Butterworth, Wesley Swift, Ned Touchstone, Gerald L.K. Smith, John Crommelin, Schuyler Ferris, Kenneth L. Adams, Deavours Nix, Roy E. Frankhouser, Matt Koehl, James H. Madole, Revilo Oliver, Harry W. Pyle, Emory Burke, Conde McGinley, George P. Dietz, Karl R. Allen, James K. Warner, Peter Xavier.

The above partial list covers well-known racists who operated during some part of the period from the 1940's through the 1990's.

If Paul prefers to concentrate on our younger generation of racists who never "hide their true feelings" -- he might start by reading up on the activities of racist skinheads such as:

Gabriel Carafa, 25, Eric "The Butcher" Fairburn, 32, Joshua David Fiedler, 26, Brien James, 30, Randal Lee Krager, 32, Clark Martell, 44,

Kenneth Mieske, 41, James Lee Miller, 33, Richard Myers, 32, Jessica Nelson, 31.

If Paul prefers to focus soley upon contemporary racists who have been active only during the past 10-15 years -- I suggest that Paul review the annual surveys compiled by organizations like Southern Poverty Law Center or Anti-Defamation League.

Only Paul Trejo could possibly believe the absurdity that...

"...modern racists are not as courageous as the racists in the 1850's or in the 1930's. Today's racists hide their true feelings at all costs. Either they will outright lie about them -- and claim that they are truly democratic -- or they will hide their racism under some subterfuge..."

Edited October 15, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[William O'Neil]

There were radical anti- communists and there were radical anti- communists racists. They often co-mingled and sat at the same tables. However, that doesn’t mean they all shared the same particular philosophies across the board. Walker complained / explained to J. Evetts Haley, that Robert Morris was not quite like us on the segregation front. He also had to be convinced of the threat in their view, of the United Nations threat to world order. This is documented in a letter from Walker to Haley. These folks are not always monolithic, or in lock step with each other. Like any movement there are ego’s and differing opinions on some issues.

Yet, in the end they had an overriding mutual commitment to the anti- communist agenda! This is what brought them together in the first place. Compromises were made along the way, to facilitate those objectives. Even Hitler had his problems with contrary viewpoint’s among his loyalists.

Bill

[Ernie Lazar]

There were radical anti- communists and there were radical anti- communists racists. They often co-mingled and sat at the same tables. However, that doesn’t mean they all shared the same particular philosophies across the board. Walker complained / explained to J. Evetts Haley, that Robert Morris was not quite like us on the segregation front. He also had to be convinced of the threat in their view, of the United Nations threat to world order. This is documented in a letter from Walker to Haley. These folks are not always monolithic, or in lock step with each other. Like any movement there are ego’s and differing opinions on some issues.

Yet, in the end they had an overriding mutual commitment to the anti- communist agenda! This is what brought them together in the first place. Compromises were made along the way, to facilitate those objectives. Even Hitler had his problems with contrary viewpoint’s among his loyalists.

Bill

Although I agree with the general sentiments you express in your message, I must mention that Dr. Caufield does not seem to make such careful distinctions in his book.

One of the problems I see in Caufield's narrative is what I might describe as his "Six Degrees of Separation" analysis. Caufield constantly identifies names of people whom he claims were "close to" one another or "associated with" one another just because their names appeared on some letterhead or they might have attended some meeting. This is a VERY dangerous methodology.

For example: When Caufield discusses Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, he is described as "an ardent anti-semite". The footnote for this contention is based solely upon one source (the Bendersky book). I have never seen anything to establish such bigotry by Wedemeyer.

Even worse, Caufield goes to great lengths (such as on pages 174-175) to imply or state that Wedemeyer "secretly" belonged to an underground group of high-ranking military officers who were somehow involved with JFK's murder -- even if only as "accessories". The implication is that all these guys (Crommelin, del Valle, Watts, and Walker) were part of a monolithic extreme right group of military men.

However, perhaps Caufield is not aware that it was Wedemeyer who resigned from his position on the Editorial Advisory Committee for the Birch Society magazine (American Opinion) with a blast at Robert Welch!

Specifically:

Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer (Washington DC Evening Star, 4/11/61, pA5, “Wedemeyer Hits Welch’s Birch Story”):

“General Albert C. Wedemeyer has refused to join the John Birch Society and has accused its founder, Robert H.W. Welch Jr., of distorting the circumstances surrounding the death of the Society’s namesake, according to a North American Newspaper Alliance report.

As Mr. Welch tells the story, John Birch, a missionary turned Army intelligence officer, was killed by Chinese Communists 10 days after the end of World War II. He has described him as ‘the first casualty’ of the cold war and has charged the Pentagon with attempting to suppress the facts of the Birch case at the behest of hidden pro-Soviet forces.

‘That just isn’t true’ says Gen. Wedemeyer, who was the American commander in China at the time of Birch’s death. ‘I just can’t believe that the case was hushed up. I had sent a full report to Washington at the time. As I recall, I reported that the unfortunate episode had been provoked by Birch’s arrogant behavior toward a Communist patrol.’

“General Wedemeyer said Birch ‘was only one of a number of brave courageous Americans who were killed in one incident or another about the same time. Why Birch should have been singled out for special attention is beyond my comprehension.’ ”

AND

General Albert Wedemeyer (Newsweek, 12/4/61)

"I knew John Birch, as a captain in China, when I was out there during the war. Birch was one of a number of men who participated in operations in China, parachuted behind enemy lines. He provoked the attack on himself; he was arrogant. I warned Welch not to make a hero of Birch. That's why I quit as an adviser. I think Welch is a dedicated, fine American but he lacks good judgment."

Edited October 15, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[William O'Neil]

Actually Ernie, Jeff and I agree totally on this. If the book included all of our sources and citations, the book would have been back to 1,200+ pages again.I mentioned this example, as a means to show there was not a monolithic viewpoint among all Right Wingers. I don't believe Caufield states that at all.

Write a book, and deal with editors who insist on compromise and brevity.

Bill

[Chris Newton]

included all of our sources and citations, the book would have been back to 1,200+ pages again

Authors and Editors could provide this data online. This (links and citations) is, after all, what the WWW was initially utilized for.