Paul Trejo Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) ...This is the same Bill Kelly who accepted as absolute literal truth every syllable that came out of Harry Dean's mouth and every jot and tittle that Harry ever wrote. Bill posted the "redacted short version" of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover and, naturally, Bill accepted Harry's assurances that the FBI had forged or edited that document in some manner. Significantly, Paul Trejo bought that same argument and went even further to explain the alleged psychiatric reasons which motivated FBI employees who supposedly had nothing better to do than convert a sentence case original letter into an ALL CAPS piece of correspondence.As already discussed numerous times -- Paul Trejo's standards for good "evidence" and compelling "logic" are very simple and uni-dimensional --- namely -- ANYTHING which Paul thinks can be used to support his already formed beliefs is something he considers to be accurate, truthful and factual -- no matter whom or what is the source and no matter how illogical or fact-challenged. Well, Ernie, I know Bill Kelly's work fairly well, and I can say with certainty that he never "accepted as absolute literal truth every syllable that came out of Harry Dean's mouth and every jot and tittle that Harry Dean ever wrote." If Bill was unkind to you, then you have repaid him in full. Yet Bill's question to David was not so arcane -- we STILL don't know what your agenda is, Ernie. All we know is that you seem to hold the world's record for the most FBI documents requested and purchased. To what end? You share them, and that's nice. But where's your own Hypothesis? Bill Kelly wasn't being unkind to you, IMHO, but was simply expressing his frustration with your usual exaggeration, bias and authoritarian demeanor. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited March 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm Stuart L. Reed took a second photograph of McWatters' bus a few minutes later while the bus was stalled in traffic close to the TSBD. This was very near the time two police officers boarded the bus with pistols drawn, looking for the assassin of President Kennedy. Reed then took a photo of the 6th floor window of the TSBD, and one hour later he took several photos of HARVEY Oswald as he was being escorted from the Texas Theater in handcuffs. Stuart Reed took all of these photos, which sequentially followed Oswald's movements, within 1 1/2 hours. Reed dropped his film off at a photo lab in Dallas, and then hurried to New Orleans to catch a boat to the Canal Zone. Prior to boarding the boat, Reed signed an authorization that allowed the FBI to pick up his developed photo slides in Dallas. The FBI told the WC that a government executive (Reed), answering to the military, took the photos. This seemed to satisfy the WC, and Reed dropped out of sight without ever seeing his photos. Reed's photo of McWater's bus as it approached the School Book Depository.]]]] >>>>> SEE ABOVE LINK FOR PHOTOS << Reed's second photo of McWater's bus shows it stalled in traffic near the TSBD. ]]]] ########################################################################### THREAD http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16712 Guest_Tom Scully_* Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:27 PM Consider that it is likely that the FBI took custody of Stuart Reed's printed photos from the Dallas developing lab while Reed was on a boat sailing to Panama. We have only the FBI's version of what photos were taken by Reed and developed by the lab.Any exculpatory photos beneficial to the accused, Oswald, could be disappeared without Reed or anyone else noticing. Any photos deemed too coincidental, especially considering that Stuart Reed is presented as the photographer of a timely shot of the sixth floor window, two shots of the bus that Oswald "made his escape" in, and of his arrest at the Texas Theater, could also have been disappeared if their existence was determined to be even more unbelievable than the photos which were attributed by the FBI to Stuart Reed.Was Reed, in November, 1963, a civilian executive of a U.S. Army controlled, "civilian" agency? Quote http://www.google.com/search?q=%22stuart+l+reed%22+panama&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivo&filter=0&psj=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep#hl=en&safe=off&q=Mr.+Stuart+L.+Reed+was+employed+effective+November+24,+1962,+as+Executive+Officer,+Canal+Zone+Civilian+Personnel&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&fp=fb5c6b2e4422f17cAnnual report, fiscal year ended ...Panama Canal Company - 1959 - Snippet viewMr. Stuart L. Reed was employed effective November 24, 1962, as Executive Officer, Canal Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Coordinating Board, vice Mr. George R. Johnson, resigned December 30, 1961. Capt. Eli D. Ring, USN, was reassigned... Quote http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/3691.html( Individuals considered employees for certain purposesFor the purposes of this Act, including any amendment made by this Act, the Executive Director of the Canal Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Coordinating Board, the Manager, Central Examining Office, and their staffs shall be considered to have been employees of the Panama Canal Company with respect to service in those positions before October 1, 1979, and as employees of the Commission with respect to service in those positions on or after that date. Quote http://www.google.com/search?q=%22stuart+l+reed%22+panama&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivo&filter=0&psj=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep#hl=en&expIds=25657,25907,26637,27026,27031,27032,27035,27036,27042,27404&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=usacara+%22Canal+Zone+Civilian+Personnel+Policy%22&cp=8&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=usacara+%22Canal+Zone+Civilian+Personnel+Policy%22&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=2289185d5cea093[PDF]US ARMY CIVILIAN APPELLATE REVIEW AGENCYFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick ViewUSACARA is a field operating agency of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for ... (3) The Canal Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Coordinating Board, .. \l " Quote MultiQuote http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=reports&rcom=post&tid=16712&pid=211266&page= >>>> END SCULLY POST <<<<<<<< ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ GAAL BELOW YUP GENERAL WALKER CONTROLLED THE CANAL ZONE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Panama Canal Company - 1959 - Snippet viewMr. Stuart L. Reed was employed effective November 24, 1962, as Executive Officer, Canal Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Coordinating Board, vice Mr. George R. Johnson, resigned December 30, 1961. Capt. Eli D. Ring, USN, was reassigned... 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 wiki Effective July 1, 1951, under an act of Congress September 26, 1950 (64 Stat. 1038), governance of the Canal Zone was through the Canal Zone Government with the canal operated by the Panama Canal Company until 1979 when the Panama Canal Commission took over its governance.[18][19] The entire structure was under the control of the United States government with the Secretary of the Army appointing the Panama Canal Company board of directors and the Canal Zone Government was entirely financed by the company.[20] The office of Governor of the Panama Canal Zone was not usually a stepping stone to higher political office but a position given to retired senior Army officers of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.[21] The Governor was also President of the Panama Canal Company. The Canal Zone had its own police force (the Canal Zone Police), courts, and judges (the United States District Court for the Canal Zone). +++++++++SECRETARY OF ARMY CONTROLLED THE CANAL ZONE via Reed's board ......and the JCS disliked Walker ( PER TREJO).... golly its almost like the ARMY MONITORED LHO ESCAPE BUS !! OH WAIT GENERAL WALKER CONTROLLED THE CANAL ZONE........LOL Edited March 20, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Ernie - confusing the messenger with the message. You just havent read enough about the subject matter here. I feel certain with your intelligence, and expertise, you will see through the article you posted. I have suggested those two books to you previously, as well as anything by Peter Dale Scott, because they are experts in reading CIA files the way you are with FBI files. Give them a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) ...This is the same Bill Kelly who accepted as absolute literal truth every syllable that came out of Harry Dean's mouth and every jot and tittle that Harry ever wrote. Bill posted the "redacted short version" of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover and, naturally, Bill accepted Harry's assurances that the FBI had forged or edited that document in some manner. Significantly, Paul Trejo bought that same argument and went even further to explain the alleged psychiatric reasons which motivated FBI employees who supposedly had nothing better to do than convert a sentence case original letter into an ALL CAPS piece of correspondence.As already discussed numerous times -- Paul Trejo's standards for good "evidence" and compelling "logic" are very simple and uni-dimensional --- namely -- ANYTHING which Paul thinks can be used to support his already formed beliefs is something he considers to be accurate, truthful and factual -- no matter whom or what is the source and no matter how illogical or fact-challenged. Well, Ernie, I know Bill Kelly's work fairly well, and I can say with certainty that he never "accepted as absolute literal truth every syllable that came out of Harry Dean's mouth and every jot and tittle that Harry Dean ever wrote." If Bill was unkind to you, then you have repaid him in full. Yet Bill's question to David was not so arcane -- we STILL don't know what your agenda is, Ernie. All we know is that you seem to hold the world's record for the most FBI documents requested and purchased. To what end? You share them, and that's nice. But where's your own Hypothesis? Bill Kelly wasn't being unkind to you, IMHO, but was simply expressing his frustration with your usual bias and authoritarian demeanor. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Paul, you should go back and read all of Bill Kelly's messages which mention Harry Dean. I cannot find anything which is critical or skeptical of Harry. Instead, you will see repeated instances when Bill declared that Harry was a credible source and anybody who thought otherwise or who was agnostic was a fool. I do not have any "agenda" other than sharing what I have discovered from my research. I have repeatedly pointed out that while my own interest began by being focused upon the JBS (especially since nobody had ever made an FOIA request to the FBI on the JBS or many JBS-related subjects) -- after I became aware of the type of files and documents available from FOIA requests I expanded my research interest to literally HUNDREDS of non-JBS subjects (which are shown on my FOIA webpage). The fact that you (or others) cannot even comprehend intellectual curiosity without positing some sort of sinister "agenda" speaks volumes about you Paul. [Every week I receive inquiries from a professor or author or researcher or student) which ask me to share something I have obtained. Most of the inquiries I receive have nothing whatsoever to do with the JBS or Harry Dean or Edwin Walker or anything we have discussed on EF. How many people contact you in any typical month?] The final sentence of your message stands as the most indisputable example of YOUR bias. You wrote: Bill Kelly wasn't being unkind to you, IMHO, but was simply expressing his frustration with your usual bias and authoritarian demeanor. What "bias" or "authoritarian demeanor" was present from ONE message by me in 2010 summarizing what I had discovered from my own research? Normal people ASK QUESTIONS when they confront something that they think deserves further exploration. But that is NOT what Bill Kelly did. Instead, he immediately formed a defamatory judgment about me even though simultaneously he admitted that he knew absolutely NOTHING about me! That is NOT the attitude or behavior of someone who has an open mind or a kind heart. You can attempt to defend Bill Kelly but you merely reveal your own bias and unwillingness to consider alternative points of view. Finally, let us remember something important: You have provided NOTHING in EF except your personal opinions and endless speculations. Everything which has been debated between you and I, and between you and others here with respect to Harry Dean's story, your eBook, and your declarations regarding Edwin Walker and others has been based solely upon your assurances that you are knowledgeable and fair-minded. BY CONTRAST: I took the time (and interest) and I expended the money to obtain (and share) relevant FBI and CIA files which have been available for almost THREE DECADES -- and those files present a treasure trove of primary source documentation which enables everyone to make informed judgments about Harry, about Harry's story, about your eBook, and about Edwin Walker and other subject matters. YOU never did that. HARRY never did that. BILL KELLY never did that. It is easy and risk-free to carp from the sidelines and be an ankle-biter. But GENUINE research is accomplished by serious people who are willing to discover and share never-previously-available documents or oral history interviews, etc. Whatever differences I have with other people about any subject -- I always respect and admire those people who have expended effort and resources to acquire and advance our knowledge. By contrast -- you do not believe knowledge exists if such material contradicts what you prefer to believe. Edited March 20, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Ernie - confusing the messenger with the message. You just havent read enough about the subject matter here. I feel certain with your intelligence, and expertise, you will see through the article you posted. I have suggested those two books to you previously, as well as anything by Peter Dale Scott, because they are experts in reading CIA files the way you are with FBI files. Give them a chance. Paul -- You are confusing two separate matters. I did not post that article because I was expressing agreement with everything in it. Instead, the article presents a good summary of information which any serious researcher can pursue further. I was trying to show an example of an evidence trail which could be pursued by any serious person. I was trying to illustrate something which Mark discussed in his messages to Paul Trejo. Anyone can create an hypothesis concerning a crime (i.e. who did it, why, when, and how). But finding and presenting verifiable factual evidence is qualitatively different from mere speculation---even if that speculation seems superficially plausible. Our imagination allows us to create and be entertained by fiction. But the process of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt or even by just a preponderance of evidence is a much more arduous endeavor which is subject to well-established and widely accepted rules regarding logic and evidence. What I think Mark was suggesting (and I have done the same repeatedly) is that Paul Trejo's speculations about Edwin Walker (and the "JBS plot") amount to conjecture with very little factual evidence to support the conjecture. There are tenuous and inflated "links" and "connections" -- all of which require leaps of faith or assumptions that are not fact-based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Ernie - read the article Bill Kelly linked to his recent post on the June Cobb thread. OK, Paul B., I read that June Cobb post. I was unimpressed. I saw an account of another Harry Dean type, an American who who joined Fidel's movement in 1959, became disillusioned in 1960, and began secretly relaying information to the FBI. What did you see? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 30, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) It occurred to me today that to say Ex-General Edwin Walker used elements inside the DPD who were loyal to him, in a plot to murder JFK, is to revive the question of Ricky White and his father, Roscoe White. While Ricky White should have his own thread, I would like to focus on a possible connection between DPD Officer Roscoe White and Ex-General Edwin Walker. Lee Harvey OSWALD and Roscoe White crossed paths at Atsugi. White may appear in some of OSWALD's Marine photos. Further, Jack White claims that the neck, shoulders, right wrist, and one-legged stance that we see in the Backyard Photographs, actually belong to Roscoe White. If so, then the faked Backyard Photographs were either: (1) faked by Roscoe White alone; (2) faked with DPD help; (3); faked with JBS help; or (4) faked with the help of Lee Harvey OSWALD himself. OSWALD certainly had access to advanced photographic equipment where he worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Though employees weren't allowed to use company equipment for personal uses, OSWALD did anyway, e.g. he made his Alek J. Hidell card there. If Jack White is correct, then I say this confirms Ricky White's claim that members of the Dallas Police Department were directly involved in the murder of JFK. In my view, a careful identification of those DPD who were also Minutemen would help this case, because Edwin Walker was also a leading figure in the Minutemen. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited April 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Carvalho Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I have a theory that can be supported with specific evidence. But for now I would like to "float" the idea out there, (here), and get a general reaction/opinions regarding it's premise. An event leading up to the president's assassination that I feel has been mistakenly ignored by in large was Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of retired general Edwin Walker. Case in point, I recall debating with another researcher about Oswald's choice of weapon for the assassination of JFK. He argued that the Carcano was ill equipped for the task of firing multiple shots at a moving target. My reply was simply that Oswald had not ordered the rifle with that in mind. My contention was that Oswald had in fact ordered the rifle with the intention of firing one shot at a stationary target, namely Edwin Walker. As this section of the forum pertains more specifically to the Kennedy administration, allow me to refocus a bit. In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor? In terms of foreign policy, I would put Cuba at the top of this list. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which publicly JFK took responsibility for and which would ultimately lead to the Cuban missile crisis, I believe would have been political fodder for any republican opponent he may have faced in the 64' election. Domestically, the raging battle over civil rights, particularly in the south, was escalating to a point at which the federal government had quickly become the only "stop-gap" between state authority and all out anarchy as a response to integration. This situation came to a boiling point on the campus of the University of Mississippi resulting in several deaths and the shooting of federal marshals sent there to keep the peace. Edwin Walker was a central figure in this debacle, and he would prove, as his past would suggest, that he was a man to be reckoned with... possibly seen by some as a risk to national security. Following the incident at 'Ole Miss' attorney general Robert Kennedy took aggressive action against Walker, (let's not forget that it was JFK himself who relieved Walker of his command in Germany). However, both of the attorney general's tactics failed miserably. Walker's indictment for sedition was struck down by a southern grand jury. Kennedy's subsequent attempt to have Walker committed to a mental institution also failed, with the head psychologist publicly denouncing the AG's actions as nothing more than a politically motivated act of revenge. It is also interesting to note that at about this time president Kennedy read a novel entitled, Seven Days in May, in which a general, (many, including JFK believed this character to be modeled after Walker), hatched a plan to overthrow the U.S. government rather than negotiate an arms agreement with the Soviets. When word came out of Hollywood that the novel might be made into a movie, the president offered the use of the oval office for the filming of key scenes. Ironically, the movie was released one week after the president's assassination. I place Walker at the center of both of these volatile issues. On the one hand Walker was a staunch anti-communist. His speeches were wildly popular among right-wing southerners. Just weeks before JFK's visit to Dallas, Adlai Stevenson had been accosted by a crowd of Walker supporters following a speech given by the former general. He had a unique background that gave him the ability to organize and carry out acts of civil unrest. In what way(s) could a man like Walker impact the president's bid for re-election? And how far would the Kennedy's go to silence such a man? The CIA had begun developing plans to assassinate Fidel Castro under orders from vice-president Nixon during the Eisenhower administration. The attempts continued during the Kennedy administration, and would go on far into the future. So, the idea that these plans somehow originated with John F. Kennedy, (an idea that I feel has been popularized as it may relate to his assassination), can and should be filed under the heading of "urban myth". What is important to note during the Kennedy administration is that these plans came to involve men at the head of organized crime. This created a rather dubious partnership to say the least. At a time when AG Robert Kennedy was prosecuting mob leaders in record numbers, (even by today's standards), the CIA, under his direction, chose to utilize organized crime during one of our nations darkest times of covert activity. The perils of which, in my opinion, would play out in Dealey Plaza in November of 1963. The guilt for this, and other things, would haunt Robert Kennedy for the rest of his days. Could the Kennedy administration have found Edwin Walker to be of such grave danger to domestic tranquility as well as an armed advocate of the furtherance of peace worldwide, that they might have pursued the same strategy against him as was being used against Fidel Castro? If so, logic would dictate that the same back channels would be utilized, possibly even the same individuals. This could have given the Kennedy's greatest enemies, the mafia, a final trump card to play. While the American public may have accepted, if not condoned, the assassination of a communist leader, (in 1973 we did just that), learning of a plot to assassinate a retired, highly decorated, U.S. Army general could have been viewed as treasonous, (regardless of his personal views and bigotries). Was this the opportunity organized crime had been waiting for to end their bitter war with the newly elected Kennedy administration? Could they have used such a secret to silence the Kennedy family and provoke a government cover-up following JFK's assassination? How far were these brutal men willing to go to ensure their survival? I'm new here guys/gals, so go easy on me. I wrote this in one sitting. I'm sure there are errors. Thanks to those of you who had the patience to read the entire thread! More to come if there is an interest in it. Regards, Craig C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Carvalho Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Food for thought... How was Oswald able to order and receive the Carcano rifle through the mail when he was being monitored through the CIA's HT LINGUAL program? Where did Oswald hide for nearly three hours following the attempt on Walker's life? (Jack Ruby's Vegas Club was less than 6 blocks from Walker's home) Who was Oswald in fear of during his visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City? (remember the pistol he brandished... "This will end badly for me!") Many have speculated it was the FBI. But following his arrest in New Orleans weeks earlier, instead of simply paying the fine and going home, he requests, (and was granted), an interview with the FBI. Puzzling to say the least. After leaving his rooming house on N. Beckley following the assassination, Oswald took a route which placed him about 3-4 blocks from Jack Ruby's apartment at the location of the Tippit shooting. On May 26, 1964 Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr sent this private advisory to J. Lee Rankin... "May I also suggest that every effort be made to determine why Oswald was headed in the general direction of Jack Ruby's house at the time he was intercepted by officer Tippit." On the morning of Sunday November 24, 1963 two Dallas police detectives reported for duty.Their names were William Harrison and Louis Miller.Immediately upon arriving for duty the two left the building for coffee at the Delux Diner across the street from police headquarters. After spending approximately 1/2 hour there they received a phone call from headquarters requesting their return. During their Warren Commission testimony, (initially Miller refused to testify), neither man could recall a single word spoken between them during this "coffee break". At the time of Oswald's transfer Miller was in an adjoining office where Oswald sat during his "last-minute" interrogation by Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Only minutes later Harrison was standing shoulder to shoulder with Ruby in the basement garage just before Ruby lunged forward and shot Oswald. During Jack Ruby's Warren Commission testimony, when pressed by Chief Justice Earl Warren as to why he was in fear for his life in Dallas, Ruby responded... "... There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life at this moment to say it, and Bill Decker said be a man and say it, there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization--take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren. ..." While much of this is considered common knowledge among most researchers, how each piece fits, (or is fitted), into the puzzle can radically effect one's view of the overall picture. And there is more... P.S. Both of these posts were actually parts of a thread I started in the JFK Discussion section of the forum. I felt they might be of equal relevance here in this thread. Hope you don't mind my jumping in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I have a theory that can be supported with specific evidence. But for now I would like to "float" the idea out there, (here), and get a general reaction/opinions regarding it's premise. An event leading up to the president's assassination that I feel has been mistakenly ignored by in large was Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of retired general Edwin Walker. Case in point, I recall debating with another researcher about Oswald's choice of weapon for the assassination of JFK. He argued that the Carcano was ill equipped for the task of firing multiple shots at a moving target. My reply was simply that Oswald had not ordered the rifle with that in mind. My contention was that Oswald had in fact ordered the rifle with the intention of firing one shot at a stationary target, namely Edwin Walker. As this section of the forum pertains more specifically to the Kennedy administration, allow me to refocus a bit. In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor? In terms of foreign policy, I would put Cuba at the top of this list. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which publicly JFK took responsibility for and which would ultimately lead to the Cuban missile crisis, I believe would have been political fodder for any republican opponent he may have faced in the 64' election. Domestically, the raging battle over civil rights, particularly in the south, was escalating to a point at which the federal government had quickly become the only "stop-gap" between state authority and all out anarchy as a response to integration. This situation came to a boiling point on the campus of the University of Mississippi resulting in several deaths and the shooting of federal marshals sent there to keep the peace. Edwin Walker was a central figure in this debacle, and he would prove, as his past would suggest, that he was a man to be reckoned with... possibly seen by some as a risk to national security. Following the incident at 'Ole Miss' attorney general Robert Kennedy took aggressive action against Walker, (let's not forget that it was JFK himself who relieved Walker of his command in Germany). However, both of the attorney general's tactics failed miserably. Walker's indictment for sedition was struck down by a southern grand jury. Kennedy's subsequent attempt to have Walker committed to a mental institution also failed, with the head psychologist publicly denouncing the AG's actions as nothing more than a politically motivated act of revenge. It is also interesting to note that at about this time president Kennedy read a novel entitled, Seven Days in May, in which a general, (many, including JFK believed this character to be modeled after Walker), hatched a plan to overthrow the U.S. government rather than negotiate an arms agreement with the Soviets. When word came out of Hollywood that the novel might be made into a movie, the president offered the use of the oval office for the filming of key scenes. Ironically, the movie was released one week after the president's assassination. I place Walker at the center of both of these volatile issues. On the one hand Walker was a staunch anti-communist. His speeches were wildly popular among right-wing southerners. Just weeks before JFK's visit to Dallas, Adlai Stevenson had been accosted by a crowd of Walker supporters following a speech given by the former general. He had a unique background that gave him the ability to organize and carry out acts of civil unrest. In what way(s) could a man like Walker impact the president's bid for re-election? And how far would the Kennedy's go to silence such a man? The CIA had begun developing plans to assassinate Fidel Castro under orders from vice-president Nixon during the Eisenhower administration. The attempts continued during the Kennedy administration, and would go on far into the future. So, the idea that these plans somehow originated with John F. Kennedy, (an idea that I feel has been popularized as it may relate to his assassination), can and should be filed under the heading of "urban myth". What is important to note during the Kennedy administration is that these plans came to involve men at the head of organized crime. This created a rather dubious partnership to say the least. At a time when AG Robert Kennedy was prosecuting mob leaders in record numbers, (even by today's standards), the CIA, under his direction, chose to utilize organized crime during one of our nations darkest times of covert activity. The perils of which, in my opinion, would play out in Dealey Plaza in November of 1963. The guilt for this, and other things, would haunt Robert Kennedy for the rest of his days. Could the Kennedy administration have found Edwin Walker to be of such grave danger to domestic tranquility as well as an armed advocate of the furtherance of peace worldwide, that they might have pursued the same strategy against him as was being used against Fidel Castro? If so, logic would dictate that the same back channels would be utilized, possibly even the same individuals. This could have given the Kennedy's greatest enemies, the mafia, a final trump card to play. While the American public may have accepted, if not condoned, the assassination of a communist leader, (in 1973 we did just that), learning of a plot to assassinate a retired, highly decorated, U.S. Army general could have been viewed as treasonous, (regardless of his personal views and bigotries). Was this the opportunity organized crime had been waiting for to end their bitter war with the newly elected Kennedy administration? Could they have used such a secret to silence the Kennedy family and provoke a government cover-up following JFK's assassination? How far were these brutal men willing to go to ensure their survival? I'm new here guys/gals, so go easy on me. I wrote this in one sitting. I'm sure there are errors. Thanks to those of you who had the patience to read the entire thread! More to come if there is an interest in it. Regards, Craig C. Craig: With respect to this portion of your message: "In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor?" I recently posted a message in the "New Book" thread about Edwin Walker which addresses your question -- as follows: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here is a brief summary of Gallup polls from that period: JFK was enormously popular in early 1963. In February, he had a 70% approval rating! His ratings for handling foreign policy and handling domestic problems were equally high (64%) and most Americans (56%) were satisfied with the way he was handling the situation in Cuba. In March 1963, 74% of Americans expected him to be reelected – He held a whopping 67% to 27% lead over Goldwater in Gallup's test election. The country was heavily Democratic (54% compared with 25% Republican) and it had been that way since the 1930's The Democratic Party was seen as more likely to keep the country prosperous than the Republicans (49% to 20%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I have a theory that can be supported with specific evidence. But for now I would like to "float" the idea out there, (here), and get a general reaction/opinions regarding it's premise. An event leading up to the president's assassination that I feel has been mistakenly ignored by in large was Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of retired general Edwin Walker. Case in point, I recall debating with another researcher about Oswald's choice of weapon for the assassination of JFK. He argued that the Carcano was ill equipped for the task of firing multiple shots at a moving target. My reply was simply that Oswald had not ordered the rifle with that in mind. My contention was that Oswald had in fact ordered the rifle with the intention of firing one shot at a stationary target, namely Edwin Walker. As this section of the forum pertains more specifically to the Kennedy administration, allow me to refocus a bit. In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor? In terms of foreign policy, I would put Cuba at the top of this list. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which publicly JFK took responsibility for and which would ultimately lead to the Cuban missile crisis, I believe would have been political fodder for any republican opponent he may have faced in the 64' election. Domestically, the raging battle over civil rights, particularly in the south, was escalating to a point at which the federal government had quickly become the only "stop-gap" between state authority and all out anarchy as a response to integration. This situation came to a boiling point on the campus of the University of Mississippi resulting in several deaths and the shooting of federal marshals sent there to keep the peace. Edwin Walker was a central figure in this debacle, and he would prove, as his past would suggest, that he was a man to be reckoned with... possibly seen by some as a risk to national security. Following the incident at 'Ole Miss' attorney general Robert Kennedy took aggressive action against Walker, (let's not forget that it was JFK himself who relieved Walker of his command in Germany). However, both of the attorney general's tactics failed miserably. Walker's indictment for sedition was struck down by a southern grand jury. Kennedy's subsequent attempt to have Walker committed to a mental institution also failed, with the head psychologist publicly denouncing the AG's actions as nothing more than a politically motivated act of revenge... I'm new here guys/gals, so go easy on me. I wrote this in one sitting. I'm sure there are errors. Thanks to those of you who had the patience to read the entire thread! More to come if there is an interest in it. Regards, Craig C. Very interesting post, Craig. Volkmar Schdmit says that he convinced Oswald that Walker was "as bad as Adolf Hitler" in late February 1963. Also, George DeMohrenschildt used to call General Walker, "General Fokker" to make LHO laugh. It was after Volkmar's persuasion that LHO purchased his rifle. Volkmar denies that he told LHO to kill Walker -- but actually, he did tell LHO that Walker was "as bad as Hitler." So, it's a fairly short step. Anyway, Volkmar (who is now dead) agreed with you -- LHO purchased his rifle specifically to kill Edwin Walker. On your point about JFK and Cuba -- I agree entirely with you that the Right wing, but especially the Radical Right wing in the USA was terrified about JFK's policies with regard to Cuba. I note the rise of the Minutemen, coast-to-coast, in response to Cuba. I would refer you to the movie starring Patrick Swayze, Red Dawn, (1984) which was written during the Cuba crisis, but was not turned into a movie until 15 years later. It gives a fairly clear idea of the fears of the Minutemen in their literature of the period. They truly, truly believed that JFK was a Communist. The JBS confirmed this fear for them in their more sophisticated journals. Add the fears of the Minutemen to the terrors of the South regarding the Brown Decision, and we find Guy Banister -- a member of BOTH the Minutemen AND the White Citizens Council in New Orleans. And in Dallas, we find General Walker as a member of BOTH the Minutemen AND the White Citizens Council in Dallas. It is not accidental to find LHO in the circles of both Banister and Walker in 1963. In the opinion of Ron Lewis, who claims to have briefly befriended LHO in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. LHO said that it was *because* of his role in the Walker shooting, that Guy Banister was quasi-blackmailing him -- sending him out with FPCC fliers, and on radio and TV and to Mexico City and so forth. Yes, JFK and General Walker clashed most violently at Ole Miss, with thousands of supporters on each side. (Yet you're mistaken that JFK relieved Walker of his command. The JCS did that. JFK wanted to keep Walker in the Army, because it looked so bad for a General to resign. JFK offered Walker another job in Hawaii. Walker turned it down. Walker resigned -- forfeiting his pension -- he was the only US General in the 20th century to do that. But that was really the 2nd time General Walker resigned -- he also tried to resign under Eisenhower, but Eisenhower tore up the resignation. JFK did accept Walker's resignation, but it's a common myth that JFK "fired" Walker. Nothing of the kind.) Perhaps JFK"s biggest blunder was sending General Walker to an insane asylum in 1962, instead of just arresting him for the Ole Miss riots. Because of that blunder, Walker's attorneys only had to convince the Grand Jury that Walker was sane -- and he was fully acquitted. You know a lot about Walker, Craig. Have you read the work by Chis Cravens (1990)? If you are thinking that Walker masterminded the JFK assassination in Dallas, Craig, then you are joining a fast-growing new branch of the JFK CT community. There is a new book on this topic, entitled, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield. It's over 900 pages long, and it's very well researched. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 6, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Carvalho Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I have a theory that can be supported with specific evidence. But for now I would like to "float" the idea out there, (here), and get a general reaction/opinions regarding it's premise. An event leading up to the president's assassination that I feel has been mistakenly ignored by in large was Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of retired general Edwin Walker. Case in point, I recall debating with another researcher about Oswald's choice of weapon for the assassination of JFK. He argued that the Carcano was ill equipped for the task of firing multiple shots at a moving target. My reply was simply that Oswald had not ordered the rifle with that in mind. My contention was that Oswald had in fact ordered the rifle with the intention of firing one shot at a stationary target, namely Edwin Walker. As this section of the forum pertains more specifically to the Kennedy administration, allow me to refocus a bit. In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor? In terms of foreign policy, I would put Cuba at the top of this list. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which publicly JFK took responsibility for and which would ultimately lead to the Cuban missile crisis, I believe would have been political fodder for any republican opponent he may have faced in the 64' election. Domestically, the raging battle over civil rights, particularly in the south, was escalating to a point at which the federal government had quickly become the only "stop-gap" between state authority and all out anarchy as a response to integration. This situation came to a boiling point on the campus of the University of Mississippi resulting in several deaths and the shooting of federal marshals sent there to keep the peace. Edwin Walker was a central figure in this debacle, and he would prove, as his past would suggest, that he was a man to be reckoned with... possibly seen by some as a risk to national security. Following the incident at 'Ole Miss' attorney general Robert Kennedy took aggressive action against Walker, (let's not forget that it was JFK himself who relieved Walker of his command in Germany). However, both of the attorney general's tactics failed miserably. Walker's indictment for sedition was struck down by a southern grand jury. Kennedy's subsequent attempt to have Walker committed to a mental institution also failed, with the head psychologist publicly denouncing the AG's actions as nothing more than a politically motivated act of revenge. It is also interesting to note that at about this time president Kennedy read a novel entitled, Seven Days in May, in which a general, (many, including JFK believed this character to be modeled after Walker), hatched a plan to overthrow the U.S. government rather than negotiate an arms agreement with the Soviets. When word came out of Hollywood that the novel might be made into a movie, the president offered the use of the oval office for the filming of key scenes. Ironically, the movie was released one week after the president's assassination. I place Walker at the center of both of these volatile issues. On the one hand Walker was a staunch anti-communist. His speeches were wildly popular among right-wing southerners. Just weeks before JFK's visit to Dallas, Adlai Stevenson had been accosted by a crowd of Walker supporters following a speech given by the former general. He had a unique background that gave him the ability to organize and carry out acts of civil unrest. In what way(s) could a man like Walker impact the president's bid for re-election? And how far would the Kennedy's go to silence such a man? The CIA had begun developing plans to assassinate Fidel Castro under orders from vice-president Nixon during the Eisenhower administration. The attempts continued during the Kennedy administration, and would go on far into the future. So, the idea that these plans somehow originated with John F. Kennedy, (an idea that I feel has been popularized as it may relate to his assassination), can and should be filed under the heading of "urban myth". What is important to note during the Kennedy administration is that these plans came to involve men at the head of organized crime. This created a rather dubious partnership to say the least. At a time when AG Robert Kennedy was prosecuting mob leaders in record numbers, (even by today's standards), the CIA, under his direction, chose to utilize organized crime during one of our nations darkest times of covert activity. The perils of which, in my opinion, would play out in Dealey Plaza in November of 1963. The guilt for this, and other things, would haunt Robert Kennedy for the rest of his days. Could the Kennedy administration have found Edwin Walker to be of such grave danger to domestic tranquility as well as an armed advocate of the furtherance of peace worldwide, that they might have pursued the same strategy against him as was being used against Fidel Castro? If so, logic would dictate that the same back channels would be utilized, possibly even the same individuals. This could have given the Kennedy's greatest enemies, the mafia, a final trump card to play. While the American public may have accepted, if not condoned, the assassination of a communist leader, (in 1973 we did just that), learning of a plot to assassinate a retired, highly decorated, U.S. Army general could have been viewed as treasonous, (regardless of his personal views and bigotries). Was this the opportunity organized crime had been waiting for to end their bitter war with the newly elected Kennedy administration? Could they have used such a secret to silence the Kennedy family and provoke a government cover-up following JFK's assassination? How far were these brutal men willing to go to ensure their survival? I'm new here guys/gals, so go easy on me. I wrote this in one sitting. I'm sure there are errors. Thanks to those of you who had the patience to read the entire thread! More to come if there is an interest in it. Regards, Craig C. Craig: With respect to this portion of your message: "In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor?" I recently posted a message in the "New Book" thread about Edwin Walker which addresses your question -- as follows: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here is a brief summary of Gallup polls from that period: JFK was enormously popular in early 1963. In February, he had a 70% approval rating! His ratings for handling foreign policy and handling domestic problems were equally high (64%) and most Americans (56%) were satisfied with the way he was handling the situation in Cuba. In March 1963, 74% of Americans expected him to be reelected – He held a whopping 67% to 27% lead over Goldwater in Gallup's test election. The country was heavily Democratic (54% compared with 25% Republican) and it had been that way since the 1930's The Democratic Party was seen as more likely to keep the country prosperous than the Republicans (49% to 20%) Ernie, While I don't doubt these statistics, the same could have been said about Nixon's 1960 election run. How quickly, and astonishingly, things can change in the world of politics... and by such a small margin. I do doubt that JFK would have felt entirely comfortable in believing he was shoe-in for re-election. I believe he was the type of man who would have prepared for a "worst case" scenario. Regards, Craig C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I have a theory that can be supported with specific evidence. But for now I would like to "float" the idea out there, (here), and get a general reaction/opinions regarding it's premise. An event leading up to the president's assassination that I feel has been mistakenly ignored by in large was Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of retired general Edwin Walker. Case in point, I recall debating with another researcher about Oswald's choice of weapon for the assassination of JFK. He argued that the Carcano was ill equipped for the task of firing multiple shots at a moving target. My reply was simply that Oswald had not ordered the rifle with that in mind. My contention was that Oswald had in fact ordered the rifle with the intention of firing one shot at a stationary target, namely Edwin Walker. As this section of the forum pertains more specifically to the Kennedy administration, allow me to refocus a bit. In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor? In terms of foreign policy, I would put Cuba at the top of this list. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which publicly JFK took responsibility for and which would ultimately lead to the Cuban missile crisis, I believe would have been political fodder for any republican opponent he may have faced in the 64' election. Domestically, the raging battle over civil rights, particularly in the south, was escalating to a point at which the federal government had quickly become the only "stop-gap" between state authority and all out anarchy as a response to integration. This situation came to a boiling point on the campus of the University of Mississippi resulting in several deaths and the shooting of federal marshals sent there to keep the peace. Edwin Walker was a central figure in this debacle, and he would prove, as his past would suggest, that he was a man to be reckoned with... possibly seen by some as a risk to national security. Following the incident at 'Ole Miss' attorney general Robert Kennedy took aggressive action against Walker, (let's not forget that it was JFK himself who relieved Walker of his command in Germany). However, both of the attorney general's tactics failed miserably. Walker's indictment for sedition was struck down by a southern grand jury. Kennedy's subsequent attempt to have Walker committed to a mental institution also failed, with the head psychologist publicly denouncing the AG's actions as nothing more than a politically motivated act of revenge... I'm new here guys/gals, so go easy on me. I wrote this in one sitting. I'm sure there are errors. Thanks to those of you who had the patience to read the entire thread! More to come if there is an interest in it. Regards, Craig C. Very interesting post, Craig. Volkmar Schdmit says that he convinced Oswald that Walker was "as bad as Adolf Hitler" in late February 1963. Also, George DeMohrenschildt used to call General Walker, "General Fokker" to make LHO laugh. It was after Volkmar's persuasion that LHO purchased his rifle. Volkmar denies that he told LHO to kill Walker -- but actually, he did tell LHO that Walker was "as bad as Hitler." So, it's a fairly short step. Anyway, Volkmar (who is now dead) agreed with you -- LHO purchased his rifle specifically to kill Edwin Walker. On your point about JFK and Cuba -- I agree entirely with you that the Right wing, but especially the Radical Right wing in the USA was terrified about JFK's policies with regard to Cuba. I note the rise of the Minutemen, coast-to-coast, in response to Cuba. I would refer you to the movie starring Patrick Swayze, Red Dawn, (1984) which was written during the Cuba crisis, but was not turned into a movie until 15 years later. It gives a fairly clear idea of the fears of the Minutemen in their literature of the period. They truly, truly believed that JFK was a Communist. The JBS confirmed this fear for them in their more sophisticated journals. Add the fears of the Minutemen to the terrors of the South regarding the Brown Decision, and we find Guy Banister -- a member of BOTH the Minutemen and the White Citizens Council in New Orleans. And in Dallas, we find General Walker as a member of BOTH the Minutemen and the White Citizens Council in Dallas. It is not accidental to find LHO in the company of both circles in 1963. In the opinion of Ron Lewis, who claims to have briefly befriended LHO in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. LHO said that it was *because* of his role in the Walker shooting, that Guy Banister was blackmailing him -- sending him out with FPCC fliers, and on radio and TV and to Mexico City and so forth. Yes, JFK and General Walker clashed most violently at Ole Miss, with thousands of supporters on each side. (Yet you're mistaken that JFK relieved Walker of his command. The JCS did that. JFK wanted to keep Walker in the Army, because it looked so bad for a General to resign. JFK offered Walker another job in Hawaii. Walker turned it down. Walker resigned -- forfeiting his pension -- he was the only US General in the 20th century to do that. But that was really the 2nd time General Walker resigned -- he also tried to resign under Eisenhower, but Eisenhower tore up the resignation. JFK did accept Walker's resignation, but it's a common myth that JFK "fired" Walker. Nothing of the kind.) Perhaps JFK"s biggest blunder was sending General Walker to an insane asylum in 1962, instead of just arresting him for the Ole Miss riots. Because of that blunder, Walker's attorneys only had to convince the Grand Jury that Walker was sane -- and he was fully acquitted. You know a lot about Walker, Craig. Have you read the work by Chis Cravens (1990)? If you are thinking that Walker masterminded the JFK assassination in Dallas, Craig, then you are joining a fast-growing new branch of the JFK CT community. There is a new book on this topic, entitled, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield. It's over 900 pages long, and it's very well researched. Regards, --Paul Trejo Fiction writers can propose any explanation which exists in their imagination. NON-fiction writers have to come up with a plausible explanation and find verifiable factual evidence to support their ideas and assertions. What nobody has yet explained is what, exactly, murdering JFK would accomplish?? If, for example, a very liberal President had chosen a very conservative running mate as Vice President -- then, one could argue that murdering the President would result in a major change of political convictions of the Chief Executive of the United States which would be reflected in new legislative proposals, new appointees to Cabinet positions, and new policies being adopted. However, everybody knew that LBJ would succeed JFK as President. And everybody knew that LBJ was a New Deal Democrat. His record as Senate Majority Leader under Eisenhower was also well known. Consequently, anybody who thought about murdering JFK would also have known that JFK was a fairly conservative Democrat and LBJ had a more populist background which would mean that he would almost certainly continue JFK's policies and probably would have expanded upon them -- which is exactly what he did. So how would murdering JFK "solve" any perceived problem identified by the radical right in our country? As was proven during LBJ's 1964 campaign, the extreme right in our country DESPISED LBJ. One of the most malicious and venomous anti-LBJ books ever written was J. Evetts Haley's 1964 book, A Texan Looks At Lyndon -- and it received widespread distribution through the efforts of the John Birch Society --- the very group which Paul Trejo and Dr. Caufield believe was involved in JFK's murder! So what, substantively, did the JBS (and Edwin Walker et al) actually accomplish by supposedly eliminating JFK? They accomplished an historic victory for Democrats during the 1964 election which kept Congress in control of liberal Democrats for decades! Edited November 6, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I have a theory that can be supported with specific evidence. But for now I would like to "float" the idea out there, (here), and get a general reaction/opinions regarding it's premise. An event leading up to the president's assassination that I feel has been mistakenly ignored by in large was Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of retired general Edwin Walker. Case in point, I recall debating with another researcher about Oswald's choice of weapon for the assassination of JFK. He argued that the Carcano was ill equipped for the task of firing multiple shots at a moving target. My reply was simply that Oswald had not ordered the rifle with that in mind. My contention was that Oswald had in fact ordered the rifle with the intention of firing one shot at a stationary target, namely Edwin Walker. As this section of the forum pertains more specifically to the Kennedy administration, allow me to refocus a bit. In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor? In terms of foreign policy, I would put Cuba at the top of this list. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which publicly JFK took responsibility for and which would ultimately lead to the Cuban missile crisis, I believe would have been political fodder for any republican opponent he may have faced in the 64' election. Domestically, the raging battle over civil rights, particularly in the south, was escalating to a point at which the federal government had quickly become the only "stop-gap" between state authority and all out anarchy as a response to integration. This situation came to a boiling point on the campus of the University of Mississippi resulting in several deaths and the shooting of federal marshals sent there to keep the peace. Edwin Walker was a central figure in this debacle, and he would prove, as his past would suggest, that he was a man to be reckoned with... possibly seen by some as a risk to national security. Following the incident at 'Ole Miss' attorney general Robert Kennedy took aggressive action against Walker, (let's not forget that it was JFK himself who relieved Walker of his command in Germany). However, both of the attorney general's tactics failed miserably. Walker's indictment for sedition was struck down by a southern grand jury. Kennedy's subsequent attempt to have Walker committed to a mental institution also failed, with the head psychologist publicly denouncing the AG's actions as nothing more than a politically motivated act of revenge. It is also interesting to note that at about this time president Kennedy read a novel entitled, Seven Days in May, in which a general, (many, including JFK believed this character to be modeled after Walker), hatched a plan to overthrow the U.S. government rather than negotiate an arms agreement with the Soviets. When word came out of Hollywood that the novel might be made into a movie, the president offered the use of the oval office for the filming of key scenes. Ironically, the movie was released one week after the president's assassination. I place Walker at the center of both of these volatile issues. On the one hand Walker was a staunch anti-communist. His speeches were wildly popular among right-wing southerners. Just weeks before JFK's visit to Dallas, Adlai Stevenson had been accosted by a crowd of Walker supporters following a speech given by the former general. He had a unique background that gave him the ability to organize and carry out acts of civil unrest. In what way(s) could a man like Walker impact the president's bid for re-election? And how far would the Kennedy's go to silence such a man? The CIA had begun developing plans to assassinate Fidel Castro under orders from vice-president Nixon during the Eisenhower administration. The attempts continued during the Kennedy administration, and would go on far into the future. So, the idea that these plans somehow originated with John F. Kennedy, (an idea that I feel has been popularized as it may relate to his assassination), can and should be filed under the heading of "urban myth". What is important to note during the Kennedy administration is that these plans came to involve men at the head of organized crime. This created a rather dubious partnership to say the least. At a time when AG Robert Kennedy was prosecuting mob leaders in record numbers, (even by today's standards), the CIA, under his direction, chose to utilize organized crime during one of our nations darkest times of covert activity. The perils of which, in my opinion, would play out in Dealey Plaza in November of 1963. The guilt for this, and other things, would haunt Robert Kennedy for the rest of his days. Could the Kennedy administration have found Edwin Walker to be of such grave danger to domestic tranquility as well as an armed advocate of the furtherance of peace worldwide, that they might have pursued the same strategy against him as was being used against Fidel Castro? If so, logic would dictate that the same back channels would be utilized, possibly even the same individuals. This could have given the Kennedy's greatest enemies, the mafia, a final trump card to play. While the American public may have accepted, if not condoned, the assassination of a communist leader, (in 1973 we did just that), learning of a plot to assassinate a retired, highly decorated, U.S. Army general could have been viewed as treasonous, (regardless of his personal views and bigotries). Was this the opportunity organized crime had been waiting for to end their bitter war with the newly elected Kennedy administration? Could they have used such a secret to silence the Kennedy family and provoke a government cover-up following JFK's assassination? How far were these brutal men willing to go to ensure their survival? I'm new here guys/gals, so go easy on me. I wrote this in one sitting. I'm sure there are errors. Thanks to those of you who had the patience to read the entire thread! More to come if there is an interest in it. Regards, Craig C. Craig: With respect to this portion of your message: "In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor?" I recently posted a message in the "New Book" thread about Edwin Walker which addresses your question -- as follows: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here is a brief summary of Gallup polls from that period: JFK was enormously popular in early 1963. In February, he had a 70% approval rating! His ratings for handling foreign policy and handling domestic problems were equally high (64%) and most Americans (56%) were satisfied with the way he was handling the situation in Cuba. In March 1963, 74% of Americans expected him to be reelected – He held a whopping 67% to 27% lead over Goldwater in Gallup's test election. The country was heavily Democratic (54% compared with 25% Republican) and it had been that way since the 1930's The Democratic Party was seen as more likely to keep the country prosperous than the Republicans (49% to 20%) Ernie, While I don't doubt these statistics, the same could have been said about Nixon's 1960 election run. How quickly, and astonishingly, things can change in the world of politics... and by such a small margin. I do doubt that JFK would have felt entirely comfortable in believing he was shoe-in for re-election. I believe he was the type of man who would have prepared for a "worst case" scenario. Regards, Craig C. Sorry, Craig, I do not understand your point. "The same thing" could NOT have been said about "Nixon's 1960 election run". Nixon never had the extraordinary approval ratings (both personal and domestic/foreign policy) which JFK had in 1963. [Nixon's final pre-election Gallup Poll result was 49%] You are, of course, correct that political circumstances can change but see my reply to Paul Trejo's message for additional information which refutes "the logic" behind claiming that the extreme right would have "solved" any perceived grievance by eliminating JFK. Edited November 6, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Carvalho Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I have a theory that can be supported with specific evidence. But for now I would like to "float" the idea out there, (here), and get a general reaction/opinions regarding it's premise. An event leading up to the president's assassination that I feel has been mistakenly ignored by in large was Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of retired general Edwin Walker. Case in point, I recall debating with another researcher about Oswald's choice of weapon for the assassination of JFK. He argued that the Carcano was ill equipped for the task of firing multiple shots at a moving target. My reply was simply that Oswald had not ordered the rifle with that in mind. My contention was that Oswald had in fact ordered the rifle with the intention of firing one shot at a stationary target, namely Edwin Walker. As this section of the forum pertains more specifically to the Kennedy administration, allow me to refocus a bit. In 1963 we were entering into an election year. Barring history's rather skewed image of JFK in light of his assassination, what were his chances of re-election, and what were the major obstacles he faced in this endeavor? In terms of foreign policy, I would put Cuba at the top of this list. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which publicly JFK took responsibility for and which would ultimately lead to the Cuban missile crisis, I believe would have been political fodder for any republican opponent he may have faced in the 64' election. Domestically, the raging battle over civil rights, particularly in the south, was escalating to a point at which the federal government had quickly become the only "stop-gap" between state authority and all out anarchy as a response to integration. This situation came to a boiling point on the campus of the University of Mississippi resulting in several deaths and the shooting of federal marshals sent there to keep the peace. Edwin Walker was a central figure in this debacle, and he would prove, as his past would suggest, that he was a man to be reckoned with... possibly seen by some as a risk to national security. Following the incident at 'Ole Miss' attorney general Robert Kennedy took aggressive action against Walker, (let's not forget that it was JFK himself who relieved Walker of his command in Germany). However, both of the attorney general's tactics failed miserably. Walker's indictment for sedition was struck down by a southern grand jury. Kennedy's subsequent attempt to have Walker committed to a mental institution also failed, with the head psychologist publicly denouncing the AG's actions as nothing more than a politically motivated act of revenge... I'm new here guys/gals, so go easy on me. I wrote this in one sitting. I'm sure there are errors. Thanks to those of you who had the patience to read the entire thread! More to come if there is an interest in it. Regards, Craig C. Very interesting post, Craig. Volkmar Schdmit says that he convinced Oswald that Walker was "as bad as Adolf Hitler" in late February 1963. Also, George DeMohrenschildt used to call General Walker, "General Fokker" to make LHO laugh. It was after Volkmar's persuasion that LHO purchased his rifle. Volkmar denies that he told LHO to kill Walker -- but actually, he did tell LHO that Walker was "as bad as Hitler." So, it's a fairly short step. Anyway, Volkmar (who is now dead) agreed with you -- LHO purchased his rifle specifically to kill Edwin Walker. On your point about JFK and Cuba -- I agree entirely with you that the Right wing, but especially the Radical Right wing in the USA was terrified about JFK's policies with regard to Cuba. I note the rise of the Minutemen, coast-to-coast, in response to Cuba. I would refer you to the movie starring Patrick Swayze, Red Dawn, (1984) which was written during the Cuba crisis, but was not turned into a movie until 15 years later. It gives a fairly clear idea of the fears of the Minutemen in their literature of the period. They truly, truly believed that JFK was a Communist. The JBS confirmed this fear for them in their more sophisticated journals. Add the fears of the Minutemen to the terrors of the South regarding the Brown Decision, and we find Guy Banister -- a member of BOTH the Minutemen and the White Citizens Council in New Orleans. And in Dallas, we find General Walker as a member of BOTH the Minutemen and the White Citizens Council in Dallas. It is not accidental to find LHO in the company of both circles in 1963. In the opinion of Ron Lewis, who claims to have briefly befriended LHO in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. LHO said that it was *because* of his role in the Walker shooting, that Guy Banister was blackmailing him -- sending him out with FPCC fliers, and on radio and TV and to Mexico City and so forth. Yes, JFK and General Walker clashed most violently at Ole Miss, with thousands of supporters on each side. (Yet you're mistaken that JFK relieved Walker of his command. The JCS did that. JFK wanted to keep Walker in the Army, because it looked so bad for a General to resign. JFK offered Walker another job in Hawaii. Walker turned it down. Walker resigned -- forfeiting his pension -- he was the only US General in the 20th century to do that. But that was really the 2nd time General Walker resigned -- he also tried to resign under Eisenhower, but Eisenhower tore up the resignation. JFK did accept Walker's resignation, but it's a common myth that JFK "fired" Walker. Nothing of the kind.) Perhaps JFK"s biggest blunder was sending General Walker to an insane asylum in 1962, instead of just arresting him for the Ole Miss riots. Because of that blunder, Walker's attorneys only had to convince the Grand Jury that Walker was sane -- and he was fully acquitted. You know a lot about Walker, Craig. Have you read the work by Chis Cravens (1990)? If you are thinking that Walker masterminded the JFK assassination in Dallas, Craig, then you are joining a fast-growing new branch of the JFK CT community. There is a new book on this topic, entitled, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield. It's over 900 pages long, and it's very well researched. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks Paul, To be specific... I believe that the Walker shooting was orchestrated by the CIA at the behest of the Whitehouse on grounds of national security. This operation also involved organized crime as did the attempts against Castro. Oswald and Ruby, although I do not believe they knew each other personally, were co-conspirators in the attempt on Walker. Under these circumstances Oswald lent himself to blackmail by the mob, and was forced to participate in the president's assassination, (although I do not believe he fired the fatal shot). Ruby, for the same reason, was then blackmailed into silencing Oswald. Robert Kennedy, who had helped initiate the action against Walker was silenced. The CIA then withheld, and is still withholding, evidence that could prove such an operation existed. I may be wrong, but to my knowledge no one, (other than Walker himself), has ever seriously considered such a correlation between these two events. Regards, Craig C. Edited November 6, 2015 by Craig Carvalho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now