Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Jason Ward

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jason Ward

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, Did I come up with my own Radical Right CT? I didn't mean to, and no I haven't read Hosty's book. I believe the case for the Radical Right CT is more persuasive than any other for a few reasons: Walker has non-public knowledge of Oswald as shown by his press leaks before the famous letter is found in the stuff from Ruth Paine's re: the 10 April shooting. The Martin film goes even further. The film establishes a connection between Walker and the New Orleans cell. Obviously both Oswald and Walker know in advance that Walker's pal Carlos Bringuier will incite a scuffle on Canal St., which is part of a successful effort to make Oswald into a media-confirmed communist. (Strangely Oswald's letter in the Paine materials is an essential pillar of the 'proof' she is CIA. We can tell feom Walker's WC testimomy that WC attorney Liebeler determined in 64 that this letter was preceded by Walker's monumentally significant leaks, meaning that unless Walker is in the CIA, Ruth Paine is certainly NOT in the CIA.) The Radical Right has stated motive and anticipated benefits from Kennedy's death. No other CT provides both motive and benefits without a lot of assumption and conjecture unsupported by testimony or documents. Garrison attributed the assassination to the Right, but obviously got scared or threatened. I suspect Marcello had something to do with this. Garrison thereafter hooks up with Mark Lane and the conventional CIA theory. Why do you think Garrison backed off the Right? With all that said, and I'm almost finished with Caufield's book, I can't crown Walker the author of the assassination versus any of a half dozen others who also want segregation now and segregation forever, or a redux of McCarthyism, or an end to the UN. I hope the upcoming document release settles all this. Jason
  2. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Hi Paul, My point wasn't to argue an alternative to Simpich, but rather to help paint the overall atmosphere and recent history of the 1963 CIA in Mexico City. Regardless of the CT advocated, my feeling is that we make a big mistake by slicing a snapshot of the station and peering at CIA behavior as if they started on a blank slate - without the usual disconnect and even tension present in every home office v. branch office scenario across all organizations. In sum, the CIA in MC wasn't born the day Oswald showed up in town. There were other more important things going on and potentially they already had something of a contentious relationship with the head office. Anyway, it's not essential. As for Kostikov, IMO this is probably yet another example of constructing Oswald's dangerous commie persona. I mean, no less than the KGB assassination squad is meeting with LHO: obviously the entire communist world is plotting to kill Kennedy! The CIA will dutifully report that Oswald is close to a KGB killer....the conspirators hope! BUT: how did Walker know about Kostikov and the conveniently bugged phone line in your Radical Right CT???? Jason
  3. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul What I mean to suggest is that the last time the CIA found an American making advances toward the Cuban embassy previous to Oswald, the station got in trouble. The correct way to play it was to passively monitor the American and notify the FBI. Instead, they aggressively pursue Hensen. CIA HQ was angry about the way Mexico City handled this since it compromised the existence of the embassy phone taps - which was a far higher priority than tracking down every American who calls the Cubans. So, when 'Oswald' calls the Cuban Embassy a couple months later, the CIA guys are none to eager to prioritize him for serious study - they were still smarting from the rebuke they received over Hensen over the summer. Ergo, the CIA info in MC on LHO is scarce in part because the last time they got nosey with an American, they were castigated for it. I guess my point is that the earlier Hensen incident is part of the context we might consider which influences local CIA behavior when Oswald shows up calling on the Cubans. They are curious but skittish of another Langley rebuke. Jason
  4. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Here's what Garrison's look at 544 Camp Street makes him say about government involvement in the assassination --- and the assassination coverup:
  5. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, Speaking of what you term "the most wiretapped telephone in the world," I feel compelled to share the interesting cable below. Have you seen it? Perhaps we should consider the calls to the embassies attributed to Oswald as coming in the wake of earlier examples like this? {Bill Simpich says the MC station was rebuked for this incident}
  6. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Michael, there is also another description of Oswald: {the CIA cryptonym LIENVOY is the telephone tapping program in Mexico City} {also interesting is LCIMPROVE which is an umbrella header for global anti-Soviet counterintelligence operations} {LIEMPTY is the umbrella header for all Mexico City surveillance projects} SOURCE: https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php#_LI
  7. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Thanks, Roger. It seems to me that the hardcore Right Wing really hated JFK and the worst of them truly wanted the president dead. The scary part is that you can still hear much of the same rhetoric from the same quarters today. I don't see this same level of passionate disgust in the CIA or Cubans, do you? Jason
  8. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Hi Roger, I haven't studied much about Criswell but Hargis is really quite disturbing. How does he get millions of followers and 200+ TV stations to broadcast his show? How rich is he? I'm about to start Dallas 1963 in a few days.... I'm aghast that some substantial portion of America in the late 1950s and early 1960s is only about one or two steps away from Nazi Germany in terms of racial beliefs and passionate right-wing violence in service of nationalism. Jason
  9. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, how close is your CT to what Garrison says here?
  10. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Not only Hoover it seems...also Jim Garrison places the responsibility for the assassination on:
  11. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, I'll look more into Don Adams. The FBI communications traffic on 22-23November from the field offices is dominated by pinning down known violent Right Wingers. From the overall view of FBI communications style during this era, it seems that this is a culture that will document and write back and forth about intricate details. They establish files for each new investigation on the local level with unique local file numbers, which are in turn summarized into a HQ communication. They follow up and then follow up their follow ups. But after around the 24th there is almost nothing more in the available release that indicates any follow up or any files/investigations started from the initial flurry of 22-23 November interest in the Radical Right. The sheer volume is overwhelming: is it possible for a brief point in time FBI HQ sent out orders to define locations/movements of known Right Wingers? ...because either a known and documented bloodlust for Kennedy was established previous to 22November by the field offices such that there was only one obvious place to look ... OR Hoover initially sent out word to document the violent Right Wingers before deciding it had to be a Lone Nut. Jason [an interesting twist below: both the Klu Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam are of initial interest]
  12. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Hi Paul, I'm still working through the document dump from earlier this summer. The most apparent reveal is that the KKK/Birchers/Minutemen/Radical Right were the assumed plotters on 22 - 23 November by a dozen+ FBI field offices. They immediately went into action on their own initiative focusing only on the Right Wingers.... ...but almost nothing further was done to investigate them - that we know of, that is. The first thing many local SAs did was ascertain the whereabouts of known violent right wingers. Why would they do that unless there was already a known motive and known talk of harming the president? Then...nothing. Silence. The Right goes almost completely off the FBI's radar. So, if you are right, I expect the biggest new reveals will be deeper FBI investigations into the Right that were concealed because they got too close to the truth. Jason
  13. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Hi Paul, I don't see why only somebody inside Dallas has to be the absolute leader of the plot. I do agree that somebody inside Dallas is essential for the operational aspects of the plot. The financial and other power necessary does not seem necessarily in Dallas, in my view. Tactically, a strong Dallas operational role is obviously in place. However, the strategic vision need not have any particular nexus to Dallas as far as I can see, but I'm happy to hear why you think otherwise. As far as looking at the alternatives and seeing them as self-canceling; I understand your point but I suggest that's the same lazy logic of the CIA-did-it-crowd. Where they can't pinpoint anything they invoke the CIA secrecy to explain everything. I hope there is enough courage to say, "I don't know," and not simply default to Walker the way some default to a generic "the CIA" for every unknown link in the chain and for every place evidence is non-existent. I don't see much from the CIA CTers nor the Right Wing CTers that crowns a strategic leader with anything like confidence; although granted your certainty is more convincing than arguing the intangible unidentifiable "CIA" has both the motive and operational ability for the assassination. The great convincing evidence from your CT is that the Right stated they wanted Kennedy gone and expected to benefit from him being gone - I've never seen any evidence the CIA wanted Kennedy gone nor expected any benefit from his death. Walker doesn't appear politically astute enough to be the prime mover here, I sense someone is backing him, even using him - but admittedly that is purely a subjective opinion at this point. Jason
  14. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, I'm about to finish the Caufield book and I question Walker's role as solo commander. What evidence is there that Walker is running the assassination effort? In the same way generals implement policy as instructed by the Pentagon or President, isn't it plausible that Walker is the public face of the reactionaries, but in fact takes direction or is part of a committee? The Hunts, Perez, Welch, and even the likes of Hargis seem substantially more powerful in terms of finance and ability to infiltrate key nodes such as DPD. I think they have the money and connections for talent (gunmen) recruitment. Why so sure about Walker and Walker alone? Jason
  15. My belief is that Marina is judged by US standards incorrectly - because she is of course Russian. Aside from the language problem (which is FAR too underappreciated), we are wrong to evaluate Marina based on our experience as Americans. We are judging her against something of a cultural paradigm we have of a young grieving widow, personified by Jackie Kennedy. In the USSR survival means going along with wherever the government, police, and other authority figures lead you. Furthermore, there is considerably less expectation that honesty is an essential aspect of the Justice system and witness testimony: outcome is more important. In sum, only a Russian can give us an accurate read of Marina during the early period here. Eventually she is Americanized and behaves congruent with cultural values and assumptions we all expect, but not in 63-64. IMO. Jason