Jump to content
The Education Forum

William O'Neil

Members
  • Content count

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by William O'Neil

  1. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    Coming soon! General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy The new book by Dr. Jeffery Caufield, on Edwin Walker and the plot to kill John F. Kennedy. It is a story we’re all pretty sure we know. On a fateful day in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald—working alone—shot President John F. Kennedy. End of story. Or is it? In General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, author Jeffrey H. Caufield explores the forces which led Oswald to be in Dallas that day. Unlike many theorists, however, Dr. Caufield applies acquired academic methodology in rigorously researching the story through public records, private correspondence, and a number of sources not available to the general public until the Freedom of Information Act released them. Caufield explains that when President Kennedy relieved Major General Edwin A. Walker of his command in Germany in 1961, he (Kennedy) started the chain of events that would lead to his own death. In June 1963, President Kennedy proposed his sweeping Civil Rights Act bill that would abolish the sacred Southern institution of segregation. In response, the segregationists threatened a second Civil War that culminated in the murder of JFK. Working with a who’s who of fellow right wing radicals (including some of the most powerful military and political leaders of the time), Walker was in the forefront of a plot to assassinate a large number of people in power positions in both government and industry. This plot, masterminded by Walker, evolved into a plan to assassinate President Kennedy and made Oswald an unwitting pawn in one of our country’s greatest historical mysteries. Meticulously researched over 25 years using documents from the National Archives, the FBI, and other archival sources—along with extensive personal interviews—this book presents a massive amount of new evidence (900+ pages). Never before has there been such compelling proof of the involvement of the radical right and General Walker in the murder of the president. This book is in the printing stages, stay tuned for further information regarding availability and pricing.
  2. William O'Neil

    Earl Lively Jr.

    Earl Lively Jr. was a RW radical in the Dallas area , he wrote a news paper column, and also did a radio show for a time, he was connected with Robert Morris and was a follower of Edwin Walker. He was intent on tying Oswald and the FPCC to the assassination, and intended to write a book on the subject. Does any body have any further info on this cat? -Bill
  3. William O'Neil

    Who is "Draskovitch"?

    Steve, "Birds of a feather....." Evidently Draskovitch had extensive connections, which guys like De Pugh (Minutemen) could use. Guys like Oliver and Draskovitch were seeking compatriots further to the Right at that time, who were more action oriented than Welch. Bill
  4. William O'Neil

    Who is "Draskovitch"?

    Dr.Slobodan M. Draskovitch; Native of Serbia who fled his country (Communism) and became a citizen of U.S. in 1956. He was a writer for and member of the National Council of the JBS, He "resigned" from it along with Revilo Oliver, after some "acrimonious disputes" with Robert Welch, in I believe August of 1966. Author of ,"Tito, Moscow's Trojan Horse" and Editor of "Srpska Borba" (Serbian Struggle), a weekly newspaper in Chicago. Was considered "one of the worlds best informed men in all aspects of the Communist Conspiracy" Sources are my personal files and Weisberg files on Draskovitch. Bill
  5. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    I have corrected my post typo in which I wrote Oswald had Walkers address in his notebook, it should have been name and phone #. Bill
  6. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    I think things are getting a little twisted around. Caulfield’s theory is not that Walker knew Oswald personally or had a direct relationship with him. Rather, that Oswald’s involvement in the shooting attempt may have been the result, of his getting involved with others who did have relationship with “Ted” The reference by Caufield to Oswald and Walker “possibly working together”, was in regards to the Police ignoring the odd fact that Oswald had Walkers name and phone number in his address (note)book (p392). Not only did the DPD,FBI and the WC fail to consider that possibility, every subsequent investigation did as well, as far as I know.... Caufield is not saying they did know each other, but why was this possible clue ignored ? Bill
  7. William O'Neil

    New Medical Evidence Poll

    I'm not sure multiple choice polls are a good source of data for conclusions, since there might be many variables within a vote. It is also dependent on an individuals knowledge or understanding of the evidence at hand. Yes, it's interesting on a surface level but after that... can we really draw real conclusions? Just asking. Bill
  8. William O'Neil

    Jim DiEugenio on The Devil's Chessboard

    Scott, Not quite sure what you mean by "Banister FBI reporting to McCord" ?? Could you clarify that a bit? Thanks Bill
  9. William O'Neil

    Edwin Walker

    Craig, The CIA had as much love for JFK as Walker did.There would have been little motivation to collaborate in this regard and if it had happened, that secret would have been played to the hilt (Blackmail) by CIA. JFK would have been fully aware of that potential gambit, and not risked it. Bill
  10. The government and the media did such a propaganda mind trip on the American people which continues to this day, that most young folks will never know (confused), or even want to know the truth (weary and non- relevant),about what was taken away from them. “Sheeple” forever is the goal, and it works well enough that it is repeated every year at this time Re- -propped…like clockwork! Just my opinion......... Bill
  11. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    Paul B. When you’re running a covert operation do you reveal your relationships in writing and risk blowing the Op? Banister, Walker and Co. weren’t foolish enough to do that, and if there were breaches that they knew about they would have tried to resolve them before it did any damage. It would have been very poor tradecraft to leave evidence like you suggest around, especially when your plotting to kill the President! You don’t commit those things to paper, especially anything linking yourself to the fall guy. If at one point there were some written evidence linking individuals with Oswald, then surely after 11-22, all who had any sense of self-preservation would make sure it was destroyed. That’s not to mention what the interested parties in Government (pushing the agenda of the ‘Lone Assassin theory’) were concealing. This is what we were looking for when searching these individuals’ papers etc. What we found time and again was correspondence files in pertinent times and years were missing or purged, especially of any discussion of the assassination. So much so, that it became a suspicious pattern. So, if there ever was any written correspondence or discussion with, or regarding Oswald and the assassination, it would have been removed. We were told by several archivists that collections had been edited, and or parts withheld by the families requests. Material was also confiscated by the FBI and other agencies of Gov. This happened to us with the Hale Boggs collection at Tulane, and the archivist finally acknowledged it, due to his disgust that it had even happened. Many of these collections came with caveats regarding use, especially their ‘correspondence’ files. We found for example at University Of Miss. that there were entire boxes of correspondence withheld indefinitely in the James O. Eastland Papers. “Why?” we asked, “They just are” was the response. If Edwin Walker had an address book with Oswald’s address or contact info, would it be left in the papers for public viewing? I’m sure Walker and /or his relatives including his nephew who donated them, would have sanitized the record before release, which by the way was “restricted” (read banned) for many years to “researchers” Wonder why?... I don’t. Bill ---------------------
  12. William O'Neil

    New Book!

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

    New Book!

    There were radical anti- communists and there were radical anti- communists racists. They often co-mingled and sat at the same tables. However, that doesn’t mean they all shared the same particular philosophies across the board. Walker complained / explained to J. Evetts Haley, that Robert Morris was not quite like us on the segregation front. He also had to be convinced of the threat in their view, of the United Nations threat to world order. This is documented in a letter from Walker to Haley. These folks are not always monolithic, or in lock step with each other. Like any movement there are ego’s and differing opinions on some issues. Yet, in the end they had an overriding mutual commitment to the anti- communist agenda! This is what brought them together in the first place. Compromises were made along the way, to facilitate those objectives. Even Hitler had his problems with contrary viewpoint’s among his loyalists. Bill
  14. William O'Neil

    New Book!

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

    New Book!

    We don't know that it was LHO that Hubie was referring to in this instance. However, it shows a definite proclivity and MO as to what these folks were up to at the time! The activities that LHO subsequently engaged in, fit the designed program to a tee. If it wasn't directed by Banister it definitely helped his cause, coincidence? Bill
  16. William O'Neil

    De Mohrenschildt question of interest

    Jim, I believe this "T-2" source referred to information taken from FBI informant Victor Thomas Vicente, who was was opening/ intercepting mail and allowing FBI access to FPCC material in New York office. He found Oswald's letter photographed it, and On April 21, 1963, Vicente -" advised that Lee H. Oswald of Dallas, Texas, was in contact with FPCC of New York City at which time he advised that he passed out pamphlets for the FPCC.....” ( Bill Simpich in "FPCC and the Cuban Revolution" article). The" Dallas T-2" designation was puzzling for years until this revelation, since it seemed to indicate that the info was from a local source, when it was actually from an illegal mail intercept program in NY which they were trying to disguise. Bill
  17. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    Look, towards the last few years of GPH's (Hemming) interaction with researchers, he was just F'N with researchers.What he had to say was suspect, as to it's validity and or purpose. Having interviewed him on two occasions, I realized this when he kept dodging my questions the second time, most of those had never been previously broached by anyone to my knowledge. Once he realized I was on to something REAL, Oh boy, his respect level changed and his attitude got more serious. He wasn't shinning me on anymore (I guess)... cause he caught himself in mid sentence several times, realizing he was saying too much, after I got him a little worked up.He swore at me several times, realizing I was knowledgeable and touching on things that were sensitive. One sore subject was Robert Morris!...no BS! No Brag folks, just the way it went down. Bill
  18. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    Paul B , Caufiled and I are in agreement on Garrison. I was just elaborating on the other factors which( IMO) also played into his actions. Bill
  19. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    Paul . Yes, essentially Garrison was trying to make them synonymous which is absurd. The Radical Right hated the CIA and that's reflected in their literature and correspondence. That's what caught my eyes and ears when he tried to make that metaphorical shift, like a slight of hand diversion to shift focus onto another object. Yet, there was a reason for this, and he felt the need to verbalize it. Bill
  20. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    Paul, Actually it's a general observation that has to do with the nature of the Garrison "probe". It's sudden turn away from the 'Racist Right' (or "Nazi's" as Garrison once described them) to the "intelligence agencies" was noticeably acute. It's a theory, but I believe from our research that it's an accurate take. I saw a video once where Garrison says (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'When you talk about the NSRP and the Citizens Councils... what you're really talking about is the CIA!... that's whats behind them. Somewhere I have this video, but I cannot locate it. My point is that it displays his shift away from the radical segregationists, to the intelligence agencies such as CIA. You may say that Garrison merely came up empty handed in that regard, and moved onto another theory, but his own documents show he had good enough leads not to suddenly abandon it. (IMO) Bill
  21. William O'Neil

    New Book!

    Due to others of record who were on the scene, we suspect Garrison was also influenced by certain “researchers” who gained favor with the DA. They managed to sway ( distract) Garrison towards their own theories that mostly revolved around Government involvement, chiefly, the CIA. I won’t get into individual names but they are known to most. In our opinion, the main factor for Garrison’s abrupt shift was fear and intimidation by the Right Wing extremists in Garrisons midst. I suspect he was strongly urged, if not threatened by some influential segregationists to cease pursuing that trail. Keep in mind who became his $ponsors …! Bill
  22. William O'Neil

    Walker's Ruby Threat.

    General Walker’s Warning: Ruby Might Talk On October 5, 1966, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jack Ruby a new trial, citing the fact that Ruby’s statements to the police shortly after the shooting should not have been admissible. The death sentence was reversed, and the venue was changed to Wichita Falls, Texas. When the sheriff of Wichita Falls arrived to transfer Ruby, he noticed that Ruby was ill and refused to move him. Ruby was taken to Parkland Hospital on December 19, 1966, and was diagnosed with pneumonia. Shortly after that, it was determined that Ruby had cancer in both lungs. On December 28, 1966, nine days after Jack Ruby entered the hospital, General Walker wrote to Billy James Hargis and expressed his fear that Ruby might talk, and then Walker issued a warning. The information was buried in the third paragraph of a letter following a trivial discourse about a briefcase Hargis had given him, his regrets that he could not attend a function with Hargis and his family, and his libel lawsuit. The letter was discovered by the author and revealed here for the first time. Walker wrote: “Another peculiarity—with de Mohrenschildt returning to Dallas from Haiti as Rubenstein is allegedly dying with cancer (and might talk)—de M. made a front-page spread; and our informant produced his address and whom he is staying with—not good. A warning. When Rubenstein leaves the hospital in a box (the only way he will come out), there is no further “block” to returning the blame on the right wing. The books and press will gradually pick it up again. RFK must have it—it must be done, as insurance and assurance—an RFK political necessity.” The letter concluded with seven unrelated paragraphs about the business matters of the Christian Crusade.2675 The letter and comments are extraordinary. Walker is not completely sure Ruby is dying of cancer, deeming it only an allegation. History regards Walker as a near victim of the president’s assassin, not a confederate. As such, Walker has no need to be concerned about George de Mohrenschildt, the Russian who had an early relationship with Oswald—and may have known that he was not the true Communist the Warren Commission concluded he was. De Mohrenschildt suspected Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting incident from the beginning and asked him how it was that Oswald had missed him. In turn, Oswald gave de Mohrenschildt the photo, taken before the shooting, of him standing in the backyard holding his pistol and rifle, and the Communist newspapers, which was inscribed with the words, “The Hunter of Fascism. Ha, Ha, Ha.” The inscribed comments suggest that Oswald was letting his friend know that the shooting was a hoax. If so, Walker had plenty to worry about regarding de Mohrenschildt and what he might say on his recent return to Dallas. Otherwise, as Oswald’s near victim, Walker would have had no need to take the extraordinary step of using an informer to determine where De Mohrenschildt resided and with whom. De Mohrenschildt’s return and interview in the newspaper was, as he put it in his letter to Hargis, “not good” for Walker. Walker’s worry and warning that Ruby might talk is astonishing. It is inconceivable that Walker meant anything else in the message to Hargis other than that he would murder Ruby (or have him killed) before he allowed him to leave the hospital (and presumably leave Dallas for Wichita Falls for his re-trial, where Walker had no power). As long as Ruby was in Dallas, the comment suggests, Walker could block him from talking. (*This may have been behind Ruby’s frantic pleas to Earl Warren to take him back to Washington, and his expressed fear of Walker and the John Birch Society) With Ruby out of the Dallas County Jail, and on his way to the change of venue for re-trial in Wichita Falls (which was scheduled for February 1967), then the block on his talking was off. Only a guilty man makes the type of remark Walker made to Hargis. (As we shall see in the next chapter, during the Clay Shaw trial, Walker relayed his concerns about Marguerite Oswald in another letter, and had informers watching her very closely. He embedded the remarks, similarly, in an otherwise ordinary letter to another close associate.) *My additional comment-WCO These summaries are just of few of those presented in the extracts I have read from the soon-to-be released book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, by Dr. Jeffrey H. Caufield. I am just reporting or summarizing on what is in the book. It is meticulously sourced with over 4,000 end notes and citations" Bill
  23. William O'Neil

    The First JFK Conspiracy Theorist

    Seems he meant that JFK,also had the same disdainful feeling towards Lemay "Bombs away Curtis Lemay" Bill
  24. One of the perks of writing a book, about a controversial or ‘unsolved’ case, is that previously unknown witnesses or relatives are sometimes inspired to come forward, to reveal things they never felt motivated or comfortable to disclose. Yes, one has to be very careful of phonies making up stories, so due diligence is required. This is why one can’t take someone’s word for a claim, without some confirmation. This is starting to happen now, and the people that are contacting Dr. Caufield seem genuine and sincere. Their credentials are also checking out via their own disclosures and verification, which appear to check out! This also happened during the long field trips to interview lesser known witnesses over the years. These folks didn’t want to ‘rock the boat’, as they figured the Government had their man in LHO. Or, that their knowledge had little or no significant importance, due to the authorities stated conviction they they had found the lone perpetrator in Lee Oswald. Most of them repeated the phrase; “you are the first people to contact us about this subject, no one has ever asked us about any of this; not the police, the FBI, the Warren Commission, HSCA…nobody!” We cannot reveal who these people are at present, as we offer to uphold their trust or confidentiality as requested. They will decide as to what level they choose to become public. The only reason I put this out is to demonstrate that even at this late date, that perhaps there are still unknown witnesses to history. Bill
×