Paul Brancato Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 John Dolva - I like your idea. It is more or less what I was trying to say in my previous post. Jon Tidd - I agreed with you earlier but wonder what distinction you make between the 'right wing' and guys like Angleton, Dulles, Hoover, LeMay etc. My feeling, from the beginning, has been that it was a right wing conspiracy. If it is true that Walker, Banister and the Minuteman ran the operation and set up Oswald, I find it nearly impossible to imagine that they did it without help, and without get out of jail free cards. There will never be a paper trail that proves this, but circumstantial evidence points there. I imagine it this way. One of the big righties in the MIC lets someone, say one of the big shot lawyers around LBJ, or Walker, know that the deed needs to be done. From there the top of the pyramid is kept informed, but kept out of the planning loop. Nothing is written down, unless it is meant to mislead future investigators. The murder of a popular president had to be handled in an extraordinary manner. If non-governmental 'rogues' ran the operation they did it because it was made clear to them that it would be appreciated, maybe rewarded in some cases, and certainly not investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 I suggest that one look at the evolution of this plot as acts in a Play, taking place on several different stages,which were eventually brought together or exploited, by a common interest and need by "interested parties" Yes I'm being vague, but it is spelled out in the chapters. One has to understand the historical and political context of the time, especially in the various locations that Oswald occupied along the way to Dallas. This is where the evolutionary roots of the plot began. IN MY OPINION This is where the research started and was followed. Hoover was compromised early on by KNOWLEDGE. Given how sensitive he was about the legacy of the FBI, he had little choice but to cooperate in a CYA cover-up. This is documented in the book. I give you credit Mr. Lazar for going after the Field office records, this is where Hoover often stashed his skeletons. Weisberg learned that early on. We FOIPA'd the whole file on Walker and Banister years ago. I'm sure they are not complete. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Thanks, I can assure people that their are startling revelations in this book. It's not just about Walker, it's over 900 pages and covers a large area of Right Wing activity from 1956 through 1968. From the likes of Guy Bainister to James O. Eastland to Joesph Milteer to HL Hunt, Robert Morris,Walker, Hoover etc etc........it covers the gamut. The book was originally over 1,200 pages, but the publisher though it best to keep under that figure. So,some things had to be left out or condensed. Hopefully a website in the future can be a repository for these eliminated items and more. This work will be self published and all costs are paid out of pocket. We don't expect to make much at all, it was a labor of love and a search for truth. Bill Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right. Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again. Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible. Mr Lazar, i like the first two paragraphs so much that i would ask your permission to quote them, for the most part, on another website i'm beginning. with proper credit, of course. well said. well focused. Be my guest----but many historians have made similar comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) I suggest that one look at the evolution of this plot as acts in a Play, taking place on several different stages,which were eventually brought together or exploited, by a common interest and need by "interested parties" Yes I'm being vague, but it is spelled out in the chapters. One has to understand the historical and political context of the time, especially in the various locations that Oswald occupied along the way to Dallas. This is where the evolutionary roots of the plot began. IN MY OPINION This is where the research started and was followed. Hoover was compromised early on by KNOWLEDGE. Given how sensitive he was about the legacy of the FBI, he had little choice but to cooperate in a CYA cover-up. This is documented in the book. I give you credit Mr. Lazar for going after the Field office records, this is where Hoover often stashed his skeletons. Weisberg learned that early on. We FOIPA'd the whole file on Walker and Banister years ago. I'm sure they are not complete. Bill Actually, Bill, I may have to disagree with your comment -- but maybe after I read the book I will change my judgment. Let me briefly provide some background: When I first started making FOIA requests in 1980-1981, I had a very limited purpose. I was curious about what existed in FBI HQ files with respect to right-wing individuals and groups--particularly those related to the Birch Society. Initially, I did not even know about the existence of separate field office files. During that initial period, the FBI informed me that I was the first person to submit requests on the subject matters contained in my requests and I also discovered that the FBI took years to process what they currently describe as "large track" requests (i.e. those over 2500 pages). But after I discovered what type of information was available in FBI files, I was hooked and I expanded my requests to include field office requests. Over the next 10-15 years I obtained hundreds of thousands of pages of FBI files. HOOVER: One of my greatest regrets is that I didn't have the presence of mind at the beginning of my research project to take detailed notes regarding all of Hoover's handwritten comments on FBI memos and reports. He commented on literally hundreds of subjects (persons, organizations, publications, events, controversies). [One of my favorites continues to be Hoover's handwritten comment on one document in Edwin Walker's main file: "Walker is nuts".] However, one thing was very clear. Often, Hoover was NOT aware of investigative information or just general info in FBI files. He frequently would hand-write something like this on a memo or report: "What do we have on......?(enter name or subject here) or "Have we investigated...? (enter name or subject here). Hoover would underline portions of newspaper or magazine articles and then ask subordinates to tell him what information existed in FBI files about the subject(s) discussed. Hoover was acutely sensitive to anything which might embarrass the Bureau or which would compromise its reputation so he often asked subordinates to provide a summary of information in FBI files about some person or organization -- particularly when the FBI was asked to provide a speaker for some event or when the Bureau became involved in some local controversy because local politicians or journalists became aware of FBI interest or involvement in some matter that affected them. FIELD OFFICES: It would be a mistake to assume that Hoover was intimately familiar with every field office investigation. A lot of information in field office files never made its way up the food chain to HQ. I'm not sure what you meant by your comment that Hoover "stashed his skeletons" in field offices. Perhaps you meant that he approved transfers of Agents to smaller field offices as a disciplinary measure? That would be true. For example: Dan Smoot got in hot water at the end of his career and he was ordered to report to Savannah GA as a disciplinary measure but he abruptly retired instead. FBI PERSONNEL FILES: I've written this before but I will repeat it. Whatever you think about Hoover (pro or con) -- my personal judgment is that he was a very competent administrator. It is quite interesting to review the personnel files of SAC's and Assistant Directors. Many of them were censured and/or were placed on probation (multiple times) for all sorts of deficiencies -- including picayune matters such as not catching grammatical errors in memos, reports, or outgoing correspondence or not responding properly or in a timely manner to inquiries from the Justice Department or the White House or Congress. Investigative delinquencies produced the most severe consequences. FBI RECORDS: Sometimes researchers forget that the Freedom-of-Information-Act did not become operative until mid-1967 but FBI files were largely exempt from release until Carl Stern's successful lawsuit in 1973. The JFK-era records were created in a period when nobody within the FBI (or any other agency) ever dreamed that their documents could become public. Although it is certainly true that the Bureau developed methods to shield its records from public scrutiny (by use of special categories such as "June mail"), it is unlikely that the Bureau can successfully prevent persistent researchers from discovering the existence of specific files. KNOWLEDGE: So, in conclusion, I doubt it is possible, after all this time, to make a successful case that, somehow, Hoover and the FBI had "knowledge" of JFK's murder which it has been able to hide. Furthermore, it is manifestly clear from FBI files that senior FBI officials (including Hoover) contemptuously dismissed people like Edwin Walker, Robert Welch, and their soulmates (even including former FBI Agents like Dan Smoot) as irrational political extremists and "professional anticommunists". Edited July 23, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Thanks, I can assure people that their are startling revelations in this book. It's not just about Walker, it's over 900 pages and covers a large area of Right Wing activity from 1956 through 1968. From the likes of Guy Bainister to James O. Eastland to Joesph Milteer to HL Hunt, Robert Morris,Walker, Hoover etc etc........it covers the gamut. The book was originally over 1,200 pages, but the publisher though it best to keep under that figure. So,some things had to be left out or condensed. Hopefully a website in the future can be a repository for these eliminated items and more. This work will be self published and all costs are paid out of pocket. We don't expect to make much at all, it was a labor of love and a search for truth. Bill Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right. Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again. Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible. Mr Lazar, i like the first two paragraphs so much that i would ask your permission to quote them, for the most part, on another website i'm beginning. with proper credit, of course. well said. well focused. Be my guest----but many historians have made similar comments. of course; i just liked your wording. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Thanks, I can assure people that their are startling revelations in this book. It's not just about Walker, it's over 900 pages and covers a large area of Right Wing activity from 1956 through 1968. From the likes of Guy Bainister to James O. Eastland to Joesph Milteer to HL Hunt, Robert Morris,Walker, Hoover etc etc........it covers the gamut. The book was originally over 1,200 pages, but the publisher though it best to keep under that figure. So,some things had to be left out or condensed. Hopefully a website in the future can be a repository for these eliminated items and more. This work will be self published and all costs are paid out of pocket. We don't expect to make much at all, it was a labor of love and a search for truth. Bill Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right. Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again. Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible. David Talbot's new book The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government" is available on preorder from Amazon with a release date in mid October 2015. I suspect this book will be very revealing. Thanks for the heads up about the book, Paul, and for the kind words in your previous post. I just read the description of the book on Amazon and can't wait to read it. BRIAN me too !! Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles were very close friends since the early 1930s , GAAL see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21367&p=289607 the Dulles did it thread by gaal -------------------------------------------------------- This Talbot book should be the new book that will help with the answer, gaal Mr. Lazar please see these two posts below. THANKS gaal --- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306376 post #637 === http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306402 post # 641 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Paul Brancato, In my previous posts in this thread, by "right-wing" I mean private citizens as opposed to government officials. BTW, on 11-22-63, two seniors in my fraternity who qualified as right-wingers applauded JFK's murder with delight. Neither of them would have participated in the murder plot, however, I'm certain. They despised JFK but despised LBJ (because of his civil rights legislation) even more. They were Nixon guys who, I'd bet, wound up despising Nixon as well (for his EPA and OSHA legislation). Purists wind up despising all presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Understood. But why dwell on this distinction? Are you then saying you think the perpetrators were right wing private citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Mr. Lazar, I know where you're coming from, we were there many times. Let me just make a super long story shorter. -Walker was nuts, they all were! We are not dealing with the Boy Scouts of America. I've read most of their political ephemera and it's all pretty GD crazy! -When Hoover issued instructions and or responses, were these really truisms or statements for the record? Several FBI agents have told us this was routine MO in threatening situations. The record is cloudy because of his obfuscations, demonstrated through subsequent claims and provable falsehoods about who knew what and when. That is covered in the book. Even non - conspiratorial authors acknowledge this practice. -Wiesberg and Paul Hoch demonstrates in the archives, numerous incidents of Hoover's Field Office personnel not transmitting important information to HQ. This is not typical protocol for field agents unless it is understood to be permissible. There were agent scapegoats in the aftermath of 11-22. Most of them did not deserve that treatment and were sacrificial lambs for Hoover. This is why the Field Office records are important , IMO. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Mr. Lazar, I know where you're coming from, we were there many times. Let me just make a super long story shorter. -Walker was nuts, they all were! We are not dealing with the Boy Scouts of America. I've read most of their political ephemera and it's all pretty GD crazy! -When Hoover issued instructions and or responses, were these really truisms or statements for the record? Several FBI agents have told us this was routine MO in threatening situations. The record is cloudy because of his obfuscations, demonstrated through subsequent claims and provable falsehoods about who knew what and when. That is covered in the book. Even non - conspiratorial authors acknowledge this practice. -Wiesberg and Paul Hoch demonstrates in the archives, numerous incidents of Hoover's Field Office personnel not transmitting important information to HQ. This is not typical protocol for field agents unless it is understood to be permissible. There were agent scapegoats in the aftermath of 11-22. Most of them did not deserve that treatment and were sacrificial lambs for Hoover. This is why the Field Office records are important , IMO. Bill Not sure what you mean by "were these really truisms or statements for the record". There was no "record" other than what senior FBI officials entered in handwriting onto memos when they had questions or comments or recommendations concerning the subject matters discussed or when they prepared formal typewritten replies to inquiries. "Several FBI Agents" means absolutely nothing in terms of fact-based reporting. One first has to understand what position(s) those Agents held, i.e. were they worker bees or in the chain of decision-making? Then one has to figure out if they are malcontents or have personal gripes which they express to cover their own deficiencies and disappointments (for example: were they passed over for promotions or salary increases or did they receive performance evaluations they did not like or were they not assigned to their preferred field office location or were they not given the type of investigative cases they preferred?). Then one must figure our whether or not those Agents were really in the chain of command and whether or not they actually had access to the type of information they claim to be knowledgable about. Let me give you a very clear example: In 1962, former FBI Agent Jack Levine made comments (after he resigned from the FBI) which were widely repeated in books and articles at that time and in subsequent decades----even by well-known and respected scholars---regarding the number of FBI informants inside the CPUSA. Levine declared that 1500 of the 8500 members of the CPUSA were paid FBI informants and, consequently, the FBI was the single largest financial contributor (from dues payments) to the Communist Party in our country. However, FBI Domestic Intelligence Division Inspection Reports establish that there were only a total of 401 FBI informants inside the CPUSA in 1962 and the Party had only 5164 members at that time. Levine was employed by the FBI from September 12, 1960 through August 4, 1961 and then he resigned. Since FBI Agents usually have a minimum of 13 or 14 weeks of "New Agent" training classes before they are assigned to a field office, that means Levine had a maximum of EIGHT MONTHS work experience within the FBI. Jack never worked at FBI HQ in Division 5 (where Agents have access to classified information regarding CPUSA membership numbers and numbers of FBI informants inside the Party.) As you might expect, the FBI was a highly compartmentalized organization. Many Agents never were assigned to work on any significant number of internal security related cases. A lot depended upon what field office(s) Agents were assigned to. For example, if you were assigned to Omaha NE, chances are you had very little exposure to internal security cases because there were only 5 CPUSA members in the entire state in 1962 and Nebraska had no other extremist-type individuals on the FBI's Security Index. Pulitzer-Prize winning historian (David J. Garrow) sent me the following email after I made him aware of what various FBI files revealed concerning CPUSA membership (from files that had never previously been released to anyone before me): Hi--This is superb--thank you tremendously for e-mailing me! First off, I'm not at all surprised by the informant numbers. On present-day reflection those make *much* more sense than the Levine #, and Levine of course was not a Division 5 HQ guy who would have been in any informed position to know the overall total--what he knew was no doubt street agent chatter. I've seen tens of thousands of pages of FBI docs, but I've never before seen unredacted inspection reports, and filing for inspection reports was a brilliant FOIA idea, and one neither I (nor anyone else that I'm aware of) ever thought of. There is no FBI scholar that I know of who has ever claimed that Hoover's handwritten statements and questions on memos were anything but real expressions of his approval, disapproval, or skepticism and demand for more information. Your statements are not susceptible to logic because ALL bureaucracies have methods of communication from senior officials to subordinates. I do not agree with your "cloudy" observation except in this sense: Most scholars have never requested or reviewed any significant number of FBI personnel files. They probably thought it would be boring material that would contain no significant data. But it turns out that is a HUGE mistake because there are all sorts of previously classified documents which exist in those files. The first time I stumbled upon an Inspection Report was when I received the personnel files of two Section Chiefs who worked in Division 5 (the Domestic Intelligence Division). For additional information, see my CPUSA webpage. FIELD OFFICES NOT TRANSMITTING IMPORTANT INFO: This subject is way-too-complicated to be discussed intelligently here. Obviously, in ANY large bureaucracy (government or private sector) there will be major screw-ups. [Look at what happened shortly before 9/11]. Sometimes, information which seems trivial on one day becomes significant on another day -- but the original "dots" did not seem compelling enough to send up the food chain. And, of course, you always have to deal with competency issues, i.e. sometimes mediocre employees are assigned to work on important cases OR sometimes employees who excel at one type of assignment are given something which exceeds their abilities. With respect to the statement by you that there were.... "numerous incidents of Hoover's Field Office personnel not transmitting important information to HQ. This is not typical protocol for field agents unless it is understood to be permissible." Once again, I would first have to know the extent of your knowledge or the extent of knowledge which another FBI critic had with respect to FBI protocols. The FBI's Manual of Instructions (now known under a different name) controlled what type of information a field office was supposed to report to HQ and on what schedule. There are so many variables here that it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion but I will give one clear example for reference purposes. I was the first (and only) person to obtain Harry Dean's FBI and CIA files. ALL of the letters which Harry wrote to the Los Angeles field office were kept in Los Angeles field. In October 1964 Harry addressed a letter to "Chief Agent, FBI Los Angeles". In his letter, Harry discussed Castro and Fair Play For Cuba Committee-related matters. At the bottom of this letter, Los Angeles Special Agent William McCauley (who handled Cuban matters for the Los Angeles field office) hand-wrote the comment: “Is this fellow a mental case somewhere? No acknowledgement needed.” So, it is not surprising that a senior FBI Agent (like McCauley) did not bother to forward Harry's letter to HQ -- and, in fact, Harry's FBI-HQ main file does not even contain a summary memo from Los Angeles field regarding the content of Harry's letters to Los Angeles. Furthermore, when Harry wrote a letter to J. Edgar Hoover just a few days prior to JFK's assassination, Hoover had no clue who Harry was even though Harry (falsely) claimed to have been an "undercover Agent" for the FBI in Chicago and Los Angeles. So Hoover instructed the SAC's in both Chicago and Los Angeles to provide HQ with a summary memo regarding Harry before deciding how to respond to Harry's letter to Hoover. So---my point is that there are always logical and valid reasons why a field office might elect to not send information to HQ. If YOU were appointed FBI Director, YOU would decide what type of information you wanted your 56 field offices to send to HQ. Obviously, no single person could read every page of information memorialized in memos, reports, letters, etc -- so YOU would have to decide what parameters to put into place to screen out data which (in the context of your responsibilities and knowledge at the time) seemed less important or unimportant. Edited July 24, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 I guess it all depends on how much you trust the record. I'm sure most of the factors you site regarding agents knowledge and competency are factors. I doubt they explain it all.I think you should be equally as skeptical regarding the motivations of senior personnel involved in "decision making" who were answerable to SOG (Hoover) Wasn't one of their motivational priorities, 'protect the Agency at all costs?' Is the FBI's extant record,always the real record? What IS your interest in the Field Office files? Just curious.Would love to see some of those. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) I guess it all depends on how much you trust the record. I'm sure most of the factors you site regarding agents knowledge and competency are factors. I doubt they explain it all.I think you should be equally as skeptical regarding the motivations of senior personnel involved in "decision making" who were answerable to SOG (Hoover) Wasn't one of their motivational priorities, 'protect the Agency at all costs?' Is the FBI's extant record,always the real record? What IS your interest in the Field Office files? Just curious.Would love to see some of those. Bill 1. I am skeptical of everything that deserves skepticism but I also recognize what scholarship (and Congressional hearings) into FBI history has been able to prove 2. The "record" is not as obscure as you want to make it. Obviously, presenting an all-encompassing "trust" argument allows you to assert anything and when challenged you can simply claim that the "record" has been altered or manipulated or does not provide credible factual data. 3, Of course senior officials protected the FBI. Do you know of ANY context when long-term career employees (in government or in the private sector) do NOT defend their employer when they think they are being wrongfully attacked? 4. FBI RECORD: You would have to be very specific and present verifiable evidence from multiple independent sources before I would accept your all-purpose intellectual escape hatch. FOr example, how do you resolve a conflict in evidence when 2 Agents say "x" is true but 2 or 3 other Agents say "x" is either NOT true or is seriously flawed? Do you just always believe the version which conforms to what you prefer to believe because it is convenient to your larger argument? [Question: Have you EVER defended Hoover or the FBI during his tenure -- or do you ALWAYS accept whatever criticisms are put forward? I refer you back to the Jack Levine example.] 5. FIELD OFFICE FILES: There are many reasons to review field office files. Here are some of the more obvious reasons: a. Field office files contain important data which is not always sent to HQ (see my previous message re: Harry Dean for example) b. Sometimes a HQ file has been destroyed but you can reconstruct it from seeing relevant field office files. [The reverse is also true, i.e. field office files destroyed but can be re-constructed by seeing HQ files on same or related subjects] c. Copies of documents in field office files may be easier to read because they are the original documents. d. In my experience, FOIA employees (in all agencies) apply different understandings regarding what information should be redacted or denied. Consequently, often it is the case that separate FOIA requests (one for HQ and one for field office documents) will produce different results. In one famous example: I submitted requests to the FBI (at different times) for 5 different files (HQ and field office). I knew that each of those files contained a copy of one June 1960 memo that was of interest to me. After I received all 5 releases, I compared the text of each released version and by combining all of them, i was able to see the entire memo with no redactions....whereas none of the individual copies were without redactions. e. Field office files often contain references to other files (HQ and field) which contain pertinent info -- and often those files contain clues or hints which allow a requester to think "outside the box" and subsequently submit new FOIA requests. [Example: I submitted a request to FBI HQ for documents on Kent and Phoebe Courtney's newspaper, "Independent American". The FBI responded by stating they had no HQ records. I subsequently submitted a request to New Orleans field office for the same subject. That request produced a few pages which happened to mention that the parent company which published Independent American was known as Free Men Speak, Inc. THEN I re-submitted a request to the FBI HQ for documents on "Free Men Speak Inc" and lo-and-behold I got 1364 pages! In summary: Making FOIA requests is like detective work. No agency is required to interpret what a requester means or perform research for the requester. In other words, agencies generally accept the literal wording presented for each request they receive and then they search their indices for those literal words. There are very few people who have intimate knowledge of FBI filing systems. Serious researchers need to carefully think about what avenues should be pursued for their research and what type of wording should be used for FOIA requests and what locations could have relevant records. For me, part of the fun of making numerous FOIA requests has been to see all the notations on HQ and field office memos and reports that reveal the equivalent or related file numbers where something has been placed. On my CPUSA webpage, I provide a list of hundreds of FBI-New York City file numbers that pertain to the Communist Party. But I have only scratched the surface because the FBI filed CP-related documents into so many sub-categories. Those categories include by cities, by counties, by states, and in some cases by neighborhoods. The same thing applies to the KKK. There are HQ and field office files which are generic about a particular Klan but, then, there are sub-files by cities, by county, by state, and by Klavern numbers. There are also files devoted to all Klans plus separate files devoted exclusively to COINTELPRO operations against specific Klans. The list goes on and on and on. Edited July 24, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I guess it all depends on how much you trust the record. I'm sure most of the factors you site regarding agents knowledge and competency are factors. I doubt they explain it all.I think you should be equally as skeptical regarding the motivations of senior personnel involved in "decision making" who were answerable to SOG (Hoover) Wasn't one of their motivational priorities, 'protect the Agency at all costs?' Is the FBI's extant record,always the real record? What IS your interest in the Field Office files? Just curious.Would love to see some of those. Bill There is one additional comment I would like to make regarding FBI records and, particularly, about claims made by former FBI Agents. I was the first person to obtain the FBI files pertaining to former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen. By coincidence, around the time I obtained those files, a writer at Salon.com contacted me. He was writing a multi-part article which was scheduled to be published on the Salon website regarding Glenn Beck and Cleon Skousen. Later, this writer published a book about Glenn Beck which incorporated material regarding Skousen. For those reading our exchange who are not familiar with Skousen, for decades he has been one of the most important figures among those folks who believe in Birch Society ideology as well as conservative Mormon theology. Many arguments presented by right-wing propagandists about the alleged decline of American society are based upon writings of Cleon Skousen. Skousen's admirers often refer to his FBI career as proof-positive that he was indisputably knowledgeable and expert. When the Salon articles were published, they included a link to my Skousen report and I received numerous angry emails from Skousen admirers who thought I had "attacked" and defamed Skousen. Among those critics was Skousen's son, Paul (whom, incidentally, claims that he was once employed as a CIA analyst). Paul described my Skousen report as a "smear job". After I saw several of Paul Skousen's online attacks against me, I revised my Skousen report to include a lengthy addendum which replied to every criticism made by Paul. I won't repeat that lengthy addendum here -- but if anyone is interested, check out my rebuttal to Paul at the end of my Skousen report: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/skousen I mention this -- because it pertains to several issues which Bill O'Neill has raised, i.e. how do we separate fact from fiction when we review and analyze FBI records and how do we ascertain what is factually accurate with respect to claims made by former FBI employees who claim to have a special expertise or "inside knowledge". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Thanks, I can assure people that their are startling revelations in this book. It's not just about Walker, it's over 900 pages and covers a large area of Right Wing activity from 1956 through 1968. From the likes of Guy Bainister to James O. Eastland to Joesph Milteer to HL Hunt, Robert Morris,Walker, Hoover etc etc........it covers the gamut. The book was originally over 1,200 pages, but the publisher though it best to keep under that figure. So,some things had to be left out or condensed. Hopefully a website in the future can be a repository for these eliminated items and more. This work will be self published and all costs are paid out of pocket. We don't expect to make much at all, it was a labor of love and a search for truth. Bill Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right. Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again. Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible. David Talbot's new book The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government" is available on preorder from Amazon with a release date in mid October 2015. I suspect this book will be very revealing. Thanks for the heads up about the book, Paul, and for the kind words in your previous post. I just read the description of the book on Amazon and can't wait to read it. BRIAN me too !! Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles were very close friends since the early 1930s , GAAL see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21367&p=289607 the Dulles did it thread by gaal -------------------------------------------------------- This Talbot book should be the new book that will help with the answer, gaal Mr. Lazar please see these two posts below. THANKS gaal --- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306376 post #637 === http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306402 post # 641 == Don’t Belmont That Memo, My FriendIn my 8.21 riff about James DiEugenio‘s “Reclaiming Parkland,” I asked for “some decisive piece of smoking-gun evidence” that disproves the Warren Report. This morning Joe McBride, the longtime film writer and author of the recently released “Into The Nightmare,” sent me an image of an 11.22.63 internal FBI memo sent by Alan H. Belmont to Clyde Tolson, special assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. “Okay, so Belmont is reporting that they found two bullets,” I replied to McBride. “The pristine magic bullet, presumably, and another lodged in Kennedy’s head ‘behind his ear,’ right? No conspiracy whacko or official agency has ever asserted or even denied to my knowledge that a bullet was found lodged in JFK’s head so this was…what? An indication of a conspiracy to keep the truth from coming out? Or a wrongo due to the heat of the moment and the human capacity to misread or mishear or otherwise screw up, right? Or am I missing something?” McBride referred me to page 556 in “Into The Nightmare” for an explanation. He writes on that page that the Warren Commission not the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations “never disclosed” that there was a bullet lodged behind the President’s ear. “This crucial evidence” — i.e., the Belmont memo — “invalidates the official version of the assassination that only three bullets were fired, all from behind, and that none was recovered during the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.” McBride writes he discovered the Belmont memo in 1985, “buried among the 98,755 page sof FBI documents released to the public in 1977-78.” ==================== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Who would have the idea to kill Kennedy and outsource it? In Texas, besides the oil barons, lived H.L. Hunt, the richest man in the world at that time. Hunt was a John Bircher. Marches and riots were going on for Civil Rights. This would be his motive to have Kennedy killed. Also, since he couldn't be in Dealey Plaza himself, he wanted a film of it. Where was the camera? That's the question that nags at me. In some films it doesn't look like Zapruder was shooting at all. Someone deceased who saw the "other" film said it was beautifully photographed, professional, of Hollywood quality, and also much gorier. Nothing about the Zapruder film seems professional. Though the many things missing shows a lot of tinkering; understatement. Was H.L. Hunt behind it? Then I'm thinking about another wealthy man, one who hated black people. I don't think anyone's brought this name up in a long time: Howard Hughes. Howard Hughes was crazy. He certainly would have hated Kennedy and he had the money to pay for Kennedy's murder on color film. Since he was once involved in the movies, he may have known some cameraman who could film it and Hughes would pay him good money. I don't know if Hughes and Hunt knew each other. But either man would have a lot of pull. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military men hated Kennedy. The Cuban Exiles hated him. There were many people who wanted him dead. But who could afford it? Who hated him so much? Who could carry it out? Kathy C 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