Jump to content


Spartacus

Who Killed JFK?: Poll and Discussion?


  • Please log in to reply
233 replies to this topic

#211 Daniel Meyer

Daniel Meyer

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans
  • Interests:New Orleans, history, early jazz

Posted 01 January 2012 - 05:55 PM

I'm glad that this thread has settled into speculations about the ground-crew in Dallas who actually managed and accomlished the shooting. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979, after criticizing the Warren Commission and re-opening then re-closing the JFK assassination proceedings, concluded that Oswald probably had accomplices. This was hard to squeeze out of the US government, which still insisted on keeping hundreds of documents on this topic top secret.

[...edit...]


As to the actual crew at Dealey Plaza, let me redraw attention to Harry D. Holmes.

http://educationforu...showtopic=16815

IMO one of the people there most clearly with foreknowledge and active participation -- not as a shooter, but watching it go down then actively taking part in the coverup pretty much before the bystanders in the plaza had time to catch their breath. If he was watching from the rooftop on the South side of the plaza as he said, he seems to have gotten down to the street quite quickly, pocketing physical evidence including a piece of Kennedy's skull which was then lost (!) and checking out what could be seen on Moorman's Polaroids before the newsmen got to them.

Might have had some interesting cross examination of him if the HSCA had been allowed to be a real investigation.

Edited by Daniel Meyer, 01 January 2012 - 05:56 PM.


#212 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,523 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:28 PM


I'm glad that this thread has settled into speculations about the ground-crew in Dallas who actually managed and accomlished the shooting. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979, after criticizing the Warren Commission and re-opening then re-closing the JFK assassination proceedings, concluded that Oswald probably had accomplices. This was hard to squeeze out of the US government, which still insisted on keeping hundreds of documents on this topic top secret.

[...edit...]


As to the actual crew at Dealey Plaza, let me redraw attention to Harry D. Holmes.

http://educationforu...showtopic=16815

IMO one of the people there most clearly with foreknowledge and active participation -- not as a shooter, but watching it go down then actively taking part in the coverup pretty much before the bystanders in the plaza had time to catch their breath. If he was watching from the rooftop on the South side of the plaza as he said, he seems to have gotten down to the street quite quickly, pocketing physical evidence including a piece of Kennedy's skull which was then lost (!) and checking out what could be seen on Moorman's Polaroids before the newsmen got to them.

Might have had some interesting cross examination of him if the HSCA had been allowed to be a real investigation.


As deduced through testimony HDH watched from the office of the Terminal Annexe directly opposite the sixth floor. Price was on the rooftop. Not only that but he(HDH) had a handful of unidentified persons with him so the witness list from there...?
I think he picked up a finger sized piece of bone and discarded it, which is odd as he was an ex dentist student and would surely recognise bone and in the context see some significance in it yet he went on searching for other things. What?
So he checked out the Polaroid as well. I didn't know that.
That's quite a tally so far re imagery and other items that passed through his hands at some time or other.
Pity, yes. I read some 80's 90's articles where Cters still take him as a nobody and I think hence various hypothesis inevitably are skewed, unless he really was a nobody tho I think a case that he should be vigorously pursued could be just what the doctor ordered.(imo)

edit typos

Edited by John Dolva, 02 January 2012 - 03:30 PM.


#213 Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Philosophy, Theology, JFK Research, Music

Posted 02 January 2012 - 10:22 PM



I'm glad that this thread has settled into speculations about the ground-crew in Dallas who actually managed and accomlished the shooting. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979, after criticizing the Warren Commission and re-opening then re-closing the JFK assassination proceedings, concluded that Oswald probably had accomplices. This was hard to squeeze out of the US government, which still insisted on keeping hundreds of documents on this topic top secret.

[...edit...]


As to the actual crew at Dealey Plaza, let me redraw attention to Harry D. Holmes.

http://educationforu...showtopic=16815

IMO one of the people there most clearly with foreknowledge and active participation -- not as a shooter, but watching it go down then actively taking part in the coverup pretty much before the bystanders in the plaza had time to catch their breath. If he was watching from the rooftop on the South side of the plaza as he said, he seems to have gotten down to the street quite quickly, pocketing physical evidence including a piece of Kennedy's skull which was then lost (!) and checking out what could be seen on Moorman's Polaroids before the newsmen got to them.

Might have had some interesting cross examination of him if the HSCA had been allowed to be a real investigation.

Daniel, I agree that this person, Harry D. Holmes, is interesting because his behavior at Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 is suspicious.

What can we say about his social connections? Was he a rightist or a leftist? Did he have connections with the Texas Minutemen? With the John Birch Society?

Did he have any connection with General Edwin Walker? What research has already been completed for this person?

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo, 02 January 2012 - 10:23 PM.


#214 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,523 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 03 January 2012 - 03:24 PM

Paul, to my knowledge there is a lot of free-floating stuff on HDH now. Very much of it odd.
Also, he was pretty close to Fritz. He was a trained 'suspicioner' (his words). Even though arriving in Dallas in '48 he was firmly entrenched in the local scene and deferred to by many. He had a status in Dallas (The City of Hate) ruled by the Citizens Council, the membership list of which may lead to connections.

#215 Malcolm Ward

Malcolm Ward

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:10 PM

This is my second post,first being biography,but a question on who killed JFK seems a good place to start,to give you a idea of my viewpoint.

I think as in most Coup d'état.It was the Military.To expand,going back to 1963 we have to think in that context.Only 18 years after the end of WW11.Russia was seen as the enemy.Everyone or most people in the West expected a conflict with Russia.I know growing up most of my peers thought a nuclear war with Russia,or the USSR as then was,seemed likely.

You have Generals Like Edwin Walker,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker.Curis Le May,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay,Edward Lansdale,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lansdale.All gung ho types.They wanted Kennedy to intervene in the Bay of Pigs,and they wanted him to do a first strike in the Cuban Missile crisis.Add to that the humiliation of General Edwin Walker being committed to a psychiatric institute.And you have some top level Generals who hated President John F Kennedy with a passion.

Then you have JFK,s stance on Vietnam,about to pull out of a war.Generals want a war,its what they trained for.Its putting theory into practice.Am I as good as Robert E Lee.
Also talks with Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev,the President of the USSR,on arms reduction.
I am sure these Generals thought JFK was a Commie,a pinko.a Traitor.
I think to these Generals Taking out JFK was a moral duty.

I doubt if LBJ was a plotter,probably was given a nod and a wink,you want to be President.Turn the other way and cover up,or something like that.Hoover would probably have wanted to kiss whoever killed JFK,and sure as hell would have little interest in finding out who really did it.

Oswald seems likely to have been military intelligence.And was probably a patsy has he claimed.

I think had JFK lived,the world would be a much better place.If his arms reduction was successful then we would have avoided the massive cost of the arms race,we might have also avoided Vietnam.And the high price both monetarily and in the lives of those that were lost.

#216 Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Philosophy, Theology, JFK Research, Music

Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:42 PM

This is my second post,first being biography,but a question on who killed JFK seems a good place to start,to give you a idea of my viewpoint.

I think as in most Coup d'état.It was the Military.To expand,going back to 1963 we have to think in that context.Only 18 years after the end of WW11.Russia was seen as the enemy.Everyone or most people in the West expected a conflict with Russia.I know growing up most of my peers thought a nuclear war with Russia,or the USSR as then was,seemed likely.

You have Generals Like Edwin Walker,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker.Curis Le May,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay,Edward Lansdale,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lansdale.All gung ho types.They wanted Kennedy to intervene in the Bay of Pigs,and they wanted him to do a first strike in the Cuban Missile crisis.Add to that the humiliation of General Edwin Walker being committed to a psychiatric institute.And you have some top level Generals who hated President John F Kennedy with a passion.

Then you have JFK,s stance on Vietnam,about to pull out of a war.Generals want a war,its what they trained for.Its putting theory into practice.Am I as good as Robert E Lee.
Also talks with Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev,the President of the USSR,on arms reduction.
I am sure these Generals thought JFK was a Commie,a pinko.a Traitor.
I think to these Generals Taking out JFK was a moral duty.

I doubt if LBJ was a plotter,probably was given a nod and a wink,you want to be President.Turn the other way and cover up,or something like that.Hoover would probably have wanted to kiss whoever killed JFK,and sure as hell would have little interest in finding out who really did it.

Oswald seems likely to have been military intelligence.And was probably a patsy has he claimed.

I think had JFK lived,the world would be a much better place.If his arms reduction was successful then we would have avoided the massive cost of the arms race,we might have also avoided Vietnam.And the high price both monetarily and in the lives of those that were lost.

Malcom, my research is arriving at a similar conclusion. The assassination itself and its long, long cover-up was beyond anything the CIA could afford to do. Only an institution with true longevity in the USA could get away with a conspiracy this big.

They got away with it in 1964 and the Warren Commission hearings, mainly because the Miiltary are treated as sacred cows in any Government hearing or any Senate Committee or Subcommittee. General Walker, whose fingerprints are everywhere in this saga, who is named over 500 times in the Warren hearing volumes, was suspected by many at the time. But the fact that he had Military connections made him too hot to delve into. He was treated with baby gloves.

They got away with it in 1979 and the HSCA hearings for the same reasons - only the Military has that kind of longevity to keep a cover-up safe.

If the CIA alone had been involved, the story would have cracked after a quarter-century, tops. We did get some clues from bit players in the CIA (Hunt, Sturgis) but it hardly moved a hair on the head of the cover-up. But the CIA was protecting somebody even higher.

If the FBI alone had been involved, the story would have cracked during the HSCA investigations. But the FBI was protecting somebody even higher.

Only an institution has powerful and as ingrained and as untouchable as the U.S. Military could accomplish something like this and actually justify it and get away with it forever.

One of the first indications of this that I recall was when the HSCA demanded that the Army hand over their files on Oswald, and the reply from the Pentagon was that all those files had been destroyed. Tough luck.

This shows who is really boss. Not the civilians. Not LBJ. Not the FBI. Not even the CIA.

Yet let's take this to its logical conclusion. If the Military was ultimately behind the JFK assassination, then we can't really call it a coup d'etat anymore, because the Military didn't take over the White House. The Military didn't dismiss the Congress. Not directly. That's the proper mark of a coup d'etat.

The Military , mostly following the ideas of the John Birch Society and other extremist rightist theories, did not believe eliminating JFK was smashing the Constitution, but restoring the Constitution. Walker did not believe this was a revolt, but a conservative restoration. They believed -- truly believed -- that JFK was a Communist symp.

Thus, in the minds of the conspirators, JFK was a traitor and had to be executed -- not as a revolution, but as a return to order. LBJ was far more liberal than JFK on the domestic front. The Great Society and the LBJ Civil Rights bill went far beyond what Kennedy proposed. But LBJ was on very friendly terms with the Military, while JFK treated the Military like red-headed step-children.

But - when all was said and done -- the real world was far more complicated than the world that the Military mind of 1963 ever dreamed it was. The Vietnam War could not be controlled. The largess of the United States as the new British Empire became vastly greater than the minds of 1963 could envision.

Those conspirators in the U.S. Military acted in good faith - even if they were wrong. Former General Edwin A. Walker used many foot soldiers, but nobody knew the unlimited funds and arms and strategies that he indirectly controlled. He covered their tracks with professional expertise. We might never learn all the facts; mainly because no written record was kept, and today all the perpetrators have passed on to their reward.

We who inherit America today -- with all its problems -- inherit the most powerful Institution that ever walked the earth. I don't think the Military in 1963 could foresee how powerful America would really become. I don't think they could truly understand that the way to combat Communism was to play footsie with it until we learned all their plans.

I don't think the Military in 1963 understood that the U.N. gives us more information about our enemies than our enemies learn from us. They were too paranoid. But they were Americans in a new situation. They did the best they could.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo, 18 April 2012 - 10:09 PM.


#217 Malcolm Ward

Malcolm Ward

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:11 AM

Paul Trejo said,"Yet let's take this to its logical conclusion. If the Military was ultimately behind the JFK assassination, then we can't really call it a coup d'etat anymore, because the Military didn't take over the White House. The Military didn't dismiss the Congress. Not directly. That's the proper mark of a coup d'etat."

Yes Paul,the term Coup d'etat would be the wrong word.They knew once they removed JFK,that LBJ, a old school type person,would listen to the military,take advice from them,act upon their advice.JFK was a loose cannon as far as they were concerned.

I have learned a lot about General E Walker from reading your posts,and others here,in fact you and some others undoubtedly helped me to reach my conclusion.I always thought the Assassination was a military black ops type operation.I suspected the military,but your work on Walker helped me join the Dots.

Thank You.

Edited by Malcolm Ward, 19 April 2012 - 08:25 AM.


#218 Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Philosophy, Theology, JFK Research, Music

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:15 AM

Malcom, I propose that we cannot think of General Edwin Walker without thinking of Billy James Hargis and H.L. Hunt at the same time.

H.L. Hunt wrote lots of letters offering advice to U.S. Presidents. He believed his letters influenced Presidents and he liked the idea that he could control the President of the USA. Hunt supported General Douglas MacArthur for President, and put a lot of money down on his compaign. When MacArthur lost his bid for President, H.L. Hunt looked around for another Army General to support for President.

It appears to me that, in early 1961, when JFK dismissed General Edwin Walker from his command over the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany, that H.L. Hunt had a flashback to 1951 when Truman dismissed MacArthur from his Korean command.

Now, there was little or no comparison between the two events. MacArthur was a five star General in a heated war campaign. Walker was a two star General in peacetime, quarelling with the local newspapers in Augsburg.

However, it appears that H.L. Hunt had his flashback, and may have sent General Walker some encouraging, perhaps flattering letters of praise, that a Communist like JFK made the wrong move when he dismissed a great U.S. General like Walker.

It may have been at this time that H.L. Hunt tempted Walker to quit the Army. Billy James Hargis had already tempted Walker to quit the Army in 1959 (I suspect) on the grounds that President Eisenhower was a Communist.

General Walker, from this viewpoint, was not an independent thinker. Indeed, MacArthur had been valedictorian of his class at West Point. Walker finished West Point in the bottom 10% of his class. Walker did not read deeply like MacArthur, but read mainly pamphlets from the John Birchers and other rightist fanatics -- his whole life long (as his archives plainly show).

Anyway - H.L. Hunt took an interest in Walker. When Walker quit the Army in November, 1961, he gave up his pension. In my opinion that was a bull-headed thing to do -- not very bright -- unless H.L. Hunt, the richest man in America, had promised General Walker to support him in style if he followed Hunt's wishes.

I am only speculating,but we know for certain that Walker had no visible means of support when he moved into a spacious house in a very nice neighborhood in Dallas, Texas, so I suspect that H.L. Hunt gave him a lot of money for quitting the Army.

Now, H.L. Hunt had a right-wing radio program. Also, Billy James Hargis had a right-wing radio program. H.L. Hunt was a billionaire due to oil. He ran his radio program on his tax breaks. Billy James Hargis was only a millionaire (self-made) due to his right-wing speeches on the radio and in live performances. But both clearly had some influence over General Walker.

It seems to me that both Hunt and Hargis helped Walker to write his six major speeches.

If you, Malcom (or anybody) have any information about these three rightists, at this low level, that would be very helpful in establishing their collaboration in the conspiracy to end the career of JFK.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo, 03 December 2012 - 05:39 AM.


#219 Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Philosophy, Theology, JFK Research, Music

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:26 AM

I suggest that the Warren Commission fabrication that Lee Harvey Oswald was: (1) a loner; and (2) a Communist, was carefully crafted to hide the facts showing the exact opposite, namely, that Oswald was: (1) very socially connected; and (2) an Anticommunist.

That is, Lee Harvey Oswald was very socially connected to Anticommunists during 1963, when he became the patsy of the JFK conspiracy.

In other words, this was no error on the part of the Warren Commission -- it was a deliberate deception. The Commission knew very well who Oswald's accomplices were -- and that is precisely why they went to so much trouble to hide their identities. (That is, Oswald's accomplices were the extreme Anticommunists in Dallas, whose propaganda was that JFK was a communist, a traitor, and deserved to die.)

I also suggest that most adults in Dallas knew who was behind the JFK assassination. Before Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and made into a media circus, a majority of reporters and citizens thought of General Edwin A. Walker and his favorite organization, the John Birch Society (JBS), as key suspects.

1. It was well-known in Dallas that Walker and the JBS had organized the attack on Adlai Stevenson only one month before the JFK assassination.

2. It was well-known in Dallas that Walker and the JBS had published the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbill, first on 24 October 1963 when Adlai Stevenson came to Dallas, and again on 22 November 1963 when JFK came to Dallas.

3. It was well-known in Dallas that Walker and the JBS had published the black-bordered ad (WELCOME MR. KENNEDY; WHY ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?) in the Dallas Morning News on 22 November 1963.

In the minutes before Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested as the patsy for the JFK assassination, Bernard Weissman, a writer for the JBS in Dallas thought that Walker and his circle were guilty, and that he himself had been made the patsy by signing his name to the black-bordered ad for all to see.

During the Warren Commission Hearings, when Earl Warren himself questioned Jack Ruby in a Dallas jail cell. Here is an excerpt from that testimony:

- - - - - - - - - - begin excerpt of Warren interview of Jack Ruby - - - - - - - - -

Mr. RUBY. ...All right. There is a certain 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…

Chief Justice WARREN. (silence)

Mr. RUBY. ...Don’t register with you, does it?

Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don’t understand that.

Mr. RUBY. Would you rather I just delete what I said and just pretend that nothing is going on?

Chief Justice WARREN. I would not indeed. I am only interested in what you want to tell this Commission. That is all I am interested in.

- - - - - - - - - - end excerpt Warren interview of Jack Ruby - - - - - - - - -

But actually, Ruby never returned to the topic, and was never asked about it again by the Warren Commission. If Justice Warren had been earnest when he told Ruby that he was "only interested in what you want to tell this Commission," then IMHO he should have listened more carefully to what Ruby had actually told the Commission.

I repeat -- until Lee Harvey Oswald was tossed into the media frenzy, the most viable suspect in the Dallas slaying of JFK was surely ex-General Edwin A. Walker and the JBS.

If a JFK researcher has come to doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was truly the main suspect, then it seems logical that the proper place to begin seeking new suspects should be in Dallas -- minutes before Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. What was the buzz in the news?

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo, 03 December 2012 - 05:38 AM.


#220 Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Philosophy, Theology, JFK Research, Music

Posted 17 July 2012 - 01:24 AM

As I reflect on the posts of the Education Forum in this past year, I'm impressed at how far we seem to remain, nearly 50 years later, from arriving at a general consensus about the JFK assassination.

So, I suspect that for the past 49 years we've been approaching the problem from the wrong angle, i.e. that there was only one plot.

This old approach presumes one plot, and therefore one group of plotters, who must then be crowned with incredible wisdom and organizing ability -- and then we're surprised that we can't figure out who they were.

So, I propose a new approach. I propose that there were actually two plots. These two plots were made by two separate groups, at two separate times, with two separate political goals.

The first plot was the JFK murder-plot. We are tempted to say that this plot was a success -- but not in my approach. Rather, the JFK murder-plotters had a purpose, and their purpose was foiled, foiled firmly by the second plot -- the JFK coverup-plot.

Because it seems to me that the JFK murder-plotters wanted to hijack the USA in the interest of the right-wing, for whom JFK was a Communist. They wanted to invade Cuba and overthrow the Communists there. They wanted to give the Pentagon the doomsday button, like General Douglas MacArthur, who wanted to be free to nuke China. They wanted to suppress the Civil Rights movement and return the USA to the good old days of racial segregation. This was the goal of the JFK murder-plotters, but they were foiled in their goal. (I believe the empirical evidence supports a theory that such rightists opposed JFK most actively in 1963.)

The goal of the JFK coverup-plot was to prevent this bizarre novelty from running amok. The death of JFK would not result in an invasion of Cuba, or in any improvement in the fortunes of the right. But there was a danger -- pursuing the rightists in this crime would have resulted in riots and a possible Civil War in the USA. So, the death of JFK must not result in any improvement in the fortunes of the Left, either. The solution must be that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "lone nut" assassin. That would prevent Civil War.

If, as I believe, the JFK murder-plotters were different from the JFK coverup-plotters, we can more easily explain the paramilitary precision of the JFK murder-plot, and more easily explain the Governmental omnipresence of the JFK coverup-plot.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo, 17 July 2012 - 01:26 AM.


#221 Paul Brancato

Paul Brancato

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Classical musician and author of several sets of trading cards including Iran-Contra Scandal, Bush League, and Coup D'etat JFK assassination.

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:10 AM

Paul - you have managed to keep this important theory alive on this board more than anyone else. There are of course many theories and many haters, people with motive and means. But no one could have hated the Kennedys more than Walker, and I do indeed remember that even in nyc the first suspects were Walker and the racist rightists around him. I have grown increasingly less willing to implicate the CIA eastern establishment types because Kennedy was one of them. It certainly seems odd that a collection of operational CIA types working with anti-Castro Cubans and mafiosi could be such failures when it came to assassinating Castro, but succeed in masterminding the killing of a US president. It seems to me not coincidental that the plotters chose Dallas.
If the assassination was the work of the racist Birchers and their military and ex-military cohorts it fits in with the history of the US from its inception. The perpetrators thought they were heroes in the best southern tradition. To them they lost the Civil War to the same eastern establishment internationalists that later became the Communist menace. They intersect with all the other possible parties to conspiracy, most especially the military industrial complex and the Texas oilmen. You rightly point out that covering up a conspiracy of southern racists was just as imperative as it would have been to not blame foreign communists. It might have led to another round of civil war. And we still face the same deep divisions today.


#222 Paul Brancato

Paul Brancato

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Classical musician and author of several sets of trading cards including Iran-Contra Scandal, Bush League, and Coup D'etat JFK assassination.

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:12 AM

I would also add that it is suspicious that this general theory should be under-investigated compared to others.

#223 Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Philosophy, Theology, JFK Research, Music

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:30 AM

Paul ...There are of course many theories and many haters, people with motive and means. But no one could have hated the Kennedys more than Walker, and I do indeed remember that even in nyc the first suspects were Walker and the racist rightists around him. I have grown increasingly less willing to implicate the CIA eastern establishment types because Kennedy was one of them. It certainly seems odd that a collection of operational CIA types working with anti-Castro Cubans and mafiosi could be such failures when it came to assassinating Castro, but succeed in masterminding the killing of a US president. It seems to me not coincidental that the plotters chose Dallas.

If the assassination was the work of the racist Birchers and their military and ex-military cohorts it fits in with the history of the US from its inception. The perpetrators thought they were heroes in the best southern tradition. To them they lost the Civil War to the same eastern establishment internationalists that later became the Communist menace. They intersect with all the other possible parties to conspiracy, most especially the military industrial complex and the Texas oilmen. You rightly point out that covering up a conspiracy of southern racists was just as imperative as it would have been to not blame foreign communists. It might have led to another round of civil war. And we still face the same deep divisions today.


Paul, I appreciate that the HSCA researched thoroughly enough to admit in 1979 that Oswald did not act alone. I think their negative conclusions are sound, according to the evidence they dug up, namely, that the ballistics, medical and acoustics evidence demands at least one more shooter -- and thus guarantees a conspiracy.

I was disappointed with the HSCA, however, in their complete failure to revive any investigation about ex-General Edwin Walker. By contrast, the name of Edwin Walker appears more than 700 times in the Warren Commission volumes. Virtually all of the major witnesses were asked about Walker. Walker himself testified for them -- and he danced circles around their attorneys with countless acts of perjury (because Walker had utterly despised Chief Justice Earl Warren for many years).

I appreciate that you can remember the mood in NYC in the minutes after the JFK shooting. The same suspicions were heard from newsmen and citizens in other cities, too, including Dallas. Walker was suspect number one.

The HSCA said explicitly that although some individuals that defected from the CIA or from Cuban Exile militant groups or from th Mafia might have been Oswald's accomplices, they found no evidence that those organized instituations as such were involved. So, even if we can name Frank Sturgis or Gerry Patrick Hemming as two of the rogues from among the 1959 Cuban mercenaries who were also CIA pawns in the field, this does not necessarily implicate the CIA leadership in the slightest.

Dallas was deadly for JFK, and it was a tragic miscalculation on his part to have underestimated his enemies there.

Also, Paul, I like your linkage of the radical right in Dallas with the Southern nostalgia that sought to link the East Coast "Yankee" politicians with the Communist menace, because that agrees with my theory that the John Birch Society is basically equating all "Yankees" with Communists. It is as simple-minded as that.
Though the JBS had a few interesting writers, underneath they were basically the KKK with suits and ties (as Harry Truman once said).

Also, the need to avoid a direct conflict with the radical right in the South goes back to the memories of the Civil War -- where the USA suffered the most losses in US History, and where we obtained peace by leaving the matter of Civil Rights for future generations.

I also agree with your implication (if I understand you correctly) that the John Birch Society of the 1960's forms the platform of the Tea Party of the current generation (which may be why we heard absurd charges of Communism and Marxism bandied about by the Tea Party this last election season; Joe McCarthy lives on).

Every President since JFK has to specially account for the fact that the personality of the South makes up about half of our loosely united USA. It's our American duty and challenge to get along with the South without losing sight of the Yankee genius.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo, 11 December 2012 - 07:37 AM.


#224 Randy Gunter

Randy Gunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, CA
  • Interests:JFK, Military History, Harley-Davidson, Classic cars, Atlanta Falcons, Atlanta Braves, and Georgia Bulldogs.

Posted 07 March 2013 - 10:01 PM

"If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could ever have learned to shoot well enough to do the shooting they accused him of in Dallas." - Sherman Cooley, USMC, stationed with Oswald.

Oswald didn't shoot anyone.

#225 Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Philosophy, Theology, JFK Research, Music

Posted 07 March 2013 - 10:50 PM

"If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could ever have learned to shoot well enough to do the shooting they accused him of in Dallas." - Sherman Cooley, USMC, stationed with Oswald.

Oswald didn't shoot anyone.


Randy, I think most readers on this Forum would agree with you. Yet there are nuances. If Oswald was a "patsy" as he said, then who made him into a patsy? Who got close enough to him for that? How did they get that close? Did he know them? Did he hang out with them?

Several times during his time at the Dallas jail house Oswald had a chance to tell the Press about the people who made him into a patsy -- but he didn't do it. Was he covering for them? Did he believe that a good lawyer would set him free if he only kept his mouth shut? Did Lee Harvey Oswald know who the real killers were? If not, why was he killed only two days after JFK?

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users