Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      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

Members
  • Content count

    479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Jason Ward

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

    'another American' ... hmmm ...
  2. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Alright, Paul, you may have convinced me there is something possibly blockbuster in this. Because of their immense, repetitive and generally disorganized ways, two of our largest and least audited government agencies in1963 (the FBI and CIA) frequently toss around the same kernal of information repeatedly, repackaged a dozen or more times as staff send memos back and forth between themselves. The tidbit from the CIA cable I posted above about Gabaldon and an unnamed source "80%" certain the commies killed Kennedy acts as a marker I've been able to trace through 20+ documents spanning about two decades. I think I've located the original, unedited rough report from a local Mexico City CIA operative; probably that he turned into his boss, who in turn gave it to Winston Scott, who in turn edited it for transmission to Langley (which is the version I posted above). It's always essential to find the original raw intelligence report so that we can filter out the superfluous bureaucratic efforts of staffers, analysts, and paper pushers who like to mix and match intelligence reports into something they imagine is more comprehensive or useful. Here's the potentially explosive part: remember Gilberto Alvarado, the guy almost immediately discredited who initially comes forward to say he saw and heard Oswald taking big cash from some Cuban in Mexico City to kill Kennedy? Alvarado is either the source of the Gabaldon reference or is outright connected to Gabaldon according to documented evidence I've seen today. Likely both. Get it? Alvarado is a hired provocateur of Gabaldon. Chew on that for awhile! Jason {have to be with the family tonight - I may get some time later to post more. I like to verify this 2 or 3 different ways before we call this a secure find.)
  3. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, So Harry Dean was friendly with both the revolutionary Left --- and the reactionaries? It takes a special personality to rail against the injustices of capitalism on Tuesday only to rail against the injustices of communism on Wednesday. Harry Dean has a striking dichotomy of friends. Someone else attached to this case has a similar blueprint of social connections; oh yeah, I remember now. Some guy named Lee Harvey Oswald is friends with both the ultra right wingers like Banister, but also friendly with the pro-Castro types. It's so strange that Oswald is connected to Birchers like Carlos Bringuier, but also maintains a friendly relationship with the CPUSA and the FPCC, is it not? Why do you think Oswald has General Walker's personal phone number in his address book? An eclectic group of friends.... ps - I got called in to work today and only just now got home. I'll do a little Gabaldon work tonight and post the best of what I find.
  4. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    It's CIA. You can tell by the typeset most of all. But also their header, idiomatic style, and CIA-speak paints an easy reveal. I'm already in bed and away from the JFK iMac, so more details I hope can wait until tomorrow. Don't get ahead of ourselves, but we have to ask what the subject's true purpose is here. 80% is an odd reference in my book. Also, the name Gabaldon is enshrined for all eternity in this date, place, and role, as the subject knew it would be. It's almost like deliberately using the most tapped telephone in Mexico. The James Bondish flourishes scream wanna-be 007, but not an actual intelligence operative. Finally, and this is more of my subjective take than anything I can quantify, whenever either a CIA or FBI field office/station tells Washington words to the effect of "investigating all angles, will advise later," this means the angles are already known. The field office / station is in my view saying that they want a yes/no direction in this matter from HQ, and that they can either a. proceed by opening the conduit to this subject and therefore advancing the subject's purpose into the CIA's internal JFK-assassination-conversation, OR, b. they can shut the door, close the conduit, and make no mention of this source ever again. I think b. was chosen in this case: whatever the source (desperately) wants to say, Washington doesn't want to hear..... I'm fairly certain that what this subject wants to say is that the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City is the hemispheric locus for the planned communist takeover of the United States, in cooperation with their Soviet financial and logistical support team......but does the CIA allow him to speak freely or do they cut off his pipeline to Langley? I'll look in more detail tomorrow.... Jason
  5. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Well, maybe we should communicate more often as it seems the documents I rather haphazardly posted above certify the Loral Hall - Gabaldon connection you theorize, right? It seems we are answering each other tonight on accident, without even trying.... Jason
  6. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Is it a blockbuster? See, this is why I am just a document crunching researcher. Interpretation and strategic meaning is often obscured when you're knee deep in the weeds. ... Here's more Gabaldon stuff, largely from CIA files; including Oswald's 201 file, Ferrie's file, etc...note Loran Hall (somewhere up above in this thread is mention of Hall's late summer 1963 trip through Dallas and onward to Southern California, where he sees all the usual Right wing extremists across the southern states......). Also note how none other than your pal and mine Dan Rather was on to Gabaldon in the mid 70s. If you're CT is correct, Gabaldon could be one of the tracer elements that leads to a certified solution (note to self....) Jason
  7. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    This is one of the benefits of communicating research publicly. Without communicating, we wouldn't realize what is interesting to you is to me so pervasive in FBI documents of the era that I thought literally every knew this. This essential and extensive FBI*credit bureau nexus is so common in the evidence as to seem unremarkably routine to me. I assumed everyone knew this tidbit as well as they knew Hoover was the head of the FBI - but maybe I shouldn't make assumptions? From the 1940s through the 1960s the 100s of local credit bureaus were everything the CIA/FBI-worshiping CTers imagine the CIA and FBI were in terms of data collection and data control. In fact, as today, the FBI and CIA outsourced much of their most essential data collection to private parties and would have been laughably helpless without credit bureaus. ... a little more Gabaldon stuff: from CIA files: (these guys are no doubt interesting and not more than 1 degree separated from the likes of General Walker, Hargis, Carlos Bringueir, Banister)
  8. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    That's very interesting, Paul; as we know this is not the only clue that the identity of the patsy was in flux and that there were likely several candidates. One of the great flaws of the CIA-did-it-religion is the obsession with Oswald. Why obsess endlessly over someone who didn't commit the crime? Although it's ridiculous to think Ruth Paine is the world's first and last completely undocumented CIA resource, or that the CIA would hire guys like Oswald and Ferrie to do anything important - in the end it really doesn't matter if Oswald went to Russia as a CIA spy, or if he took Russian lessons in the marines, or if he, Paine, Ferrie and a cast of 1000s were CIA operatives -----because---- OSWALD DID NOT KILL KENNEDY. Let's just say someone "proves" Oswald was, after Ruth Paine, the world's 2nd and last CIA resource for which no documentary evidence exists .... SO WHAT? Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. ..."proving" that the patsy is in the CIA, (which in Oswald's case is a ridiculous claim anyway) tells us nothing whatsoever about who killed Kennedy. "Proving" or even tending to believe the guy who didn't shoot Kennedy has CIA connections proves nothing. It's a logical fallacy and contrary to criminology 101 to put much effort towards the guy known NOT to have committed the crime. But this folds into an even greater investigative fallacy of attempting to explain every detail - when you read books like Mindhunter or any of Ressler's books, you realize cases are solved in large part because the investigators are comfortable leaving big gaps of the case unexplained, since the only essential piece of knowledge is the author of the crime. What Oswald did in Russia is irrelevant, just as Gabaldon's presence in Mexico City is explosively meaningful. In all big cases there are lots of unanswered questions, gaps in the narrative, and downright contrary pieces of evidence that simply don't make sense. As you say - and as internal FBI/CIA documents bear out, guys like Harry Dean were also on the radar as possibly related to the Mexico City fiasco. In a thread earlier this year we discussed what date Oswald's patsy status was solidified - I think this is an important question which by itself tends to indicate a solution to the case. As far as I can see, there's no evidence Oswald was the certified patsy until around the time of the Mexico City shenanigans....before then the patsy could have been any of a half dozen guys like Dean.... . . . Chew on this doc below....now who could be in Mexico City making waves like this and yelling loudly that it is all a commie plot? hmmmmmmm.. Jason
  9. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    ...and again...you are correct.... . . . As the document below whos, T numbers are assigned not based on occupation (cop or credit bureau clerk or newspaper reporter), nor on how often information is provided, nor on the quality of information. T numbers are provided to mask the true confidential informant number in documents of wide dissemination and/or documents distributed to non-FBI readers:
  10. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    By way of example, the most common way I've seen T-symbols used is when the writer of a FBI documented wanted to temporarily refer to an informant who already had a symbol designation of some kind, typically as a confidential informant. See the example below. In effect, the T number is as far as I've seen just a code often used only once in a single document when the document for whatever reason may be exposed beyond FBI circles. So, rather than expose a confidential informants 'symbol' in a document that might be shared with the CIA, INS, a local police agency and so forth, the document will refer to that person as "T-1". Then, a document-by-document code sheet is created. In the example below, all the T-numbers are created so that the FBI doesn't have to reveal the actual CI numbers, perhaps in a document they will in this case share with the LAPD. T-1 through T-7 are applied to those with already-established symbols/numbers for use in this one document only. It has nothing to do with how often they are called upon to provide information, nor does it have to do with the quality or type of information they provide. T numbers are not assigned to bank officials, credit bureau employees, contacts at veterans organizations, reporters, cops, nor any other particular type of informant - they are assigned based only on a document-by-document need to temporarily obscure the established FBI informant number from readers of the document. In sum, from my review of the evidence, T-numbers are not assigned to temporary or occasional informants, they are assigned on a document-by-document basis so that the reader of the document is not shown the true informant symbol (code / number). Jason T numbers ARE NOT assigned to a certain type of informant, nor is the frequency, type or quality of their information in any way used to create a T designation. For example, the informants below all have established informant numbers (in this case CNDI - confidential national defense informant), but in order to protect their established CNDI numbers from non-FBI clients and sponsors, they were allocated T numbers for this document only.
  11. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    I've read about 4000 documents in their entirety released this year and thumbed through another 10000ish. I agree with your point here. In those days credit bureaus were not national as today, they were local to each city; and were more knowledgeable about average non-criminal citizens than any government agency of the era BY FAR. Before the FCRA and other consumer regulations prohibited such practices, the credit bureaus basically kept a small intelligence file on every local citizen. Step one in any FBI investigation from the 1940s through the 1960s was to check with the local credit bureau. They saved a huge amount of time for special agents because a lot of basic information was readily available (jobs, addresses, finances); but additionally the credit bureaus sometimes provided information well beyond what in any sense of the word might seem credit-related (i.e. drinking habits, friends and family information, sometimes racially stereotypic notations, etc.) In some cities the credit bureau was pretty basic in data-collection standards - while in other cities the credit bureau operated as a full-time domestic intelligence unit complete with gossip and innuendo as part of someone's credit file. Credit bureau employees typically had either they own CI number (rare) or were simply referred to by their name (very common). A T number has nothing to do with the occupation of the informant. T numbers have NOTHING to do with "developing background" of an investigative target. Credit union clerks and assistant managers were never given T numbers or any other informant number in the documents I've seen - with a few rare exceptions. In my sense of the evidence, the T numbers were assigned when the information provided the FBI was illegally obtained even by the flimsy consumer-protections of the day, or if the information was so explosive that danger existed for the source if their identity became known. (example: some credit files had notations like, "rumored to have killed mom for inheritance," or "known to be having an affair with his boss's wife," etc...) In this case, a T number was assigned only to ensure that the ultimate reader of the document would not find the true CI number of the informant. The FBI might do this for documents shared outside of the FBI. So, sorry for the roundabout essay here and apologies if it seems like I'm preaching to the choir, but I do definitely agree the mountains of internal FBI data I've seen supports your statement I quote above. regards Jason
  12. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    How many of us can say we were once considered a serious candidate for the famous unknown man pictured outside the Soviet embassy in Mexico City?
  13. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    4011 Turtle Creek Blvd in Dallas today is estimated by Zillow to a salable value of $3.5 million. The area is just south of Highland Park, very close to downtown, Love Field, Dealey Plaza, etc. It's a tony neighborhood, probably beyond the reach of a US army general both then and now. $3.5 million 2016 dollars is equivalent to between $120,000 - $568,000 in 1963 dollars. There is quite a variance because there are many ways to compare the relative value of dollars across the decades, such as by comparing the cost of a typical consumer's basket of goods, or by comparing average wage, or by reversing inflation, and so forth. It is of course possible or probable that real estate in this area of Dallas appreciated faster than even the most inflationary standard economic measures of relative dollar value. From 1958-1962 military pay remained the same. Walker's last rank was Major General (i.e. a 2 star general), which was in the O-8 pay grade. Walker was earning $1350 a month in army pay. $1350/month is of course $16,200 a year. In the early 1960s interest rate and lending environment, Walker's income would at the outside qualify him for a $40,000 home mortgage. However, he has no demonstrable income after he leaves the army. Can Walker afford the Turtle Creek Home on his own? If not, where's the money coming from? An interesting original research find could come from the Dallas County courthouse if we could get someone off their lazy butts to do some easy work.....the value, ownership, and transfer records of Walker's Turtle Creek property might be illuminating. Jason ... A reliable way to compare dollars across the decades: https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ military pay of Walker's era: https://www.navycs.com/charts/1958-military-pay-chart.html ... ... ... This pair of dimensions is originally sourced to none other than the illustrious Marguerite Oswald. She sloppily uttered this guess of her son's size around the time he went to Russia. I believe me and my colleagues are on the verge of retroactively concluding what is variously known as a Canary Trap, Blue Dye Test, or Barium Meal Test on this little tidbit of information. Although mother Oswald was unaware of it's later importance, this version of Oswald's height and weight makes an interesting odyssey among the documentary evidence. Precisely because it is uniquely wrong, it is in fact a unique marker in the flow of information. Mom's rather unmotherly knowledge of her son's size is I think about to demonstrate once and for all the source of the information in the DPD's broadcasts post-assassination; as well of course the true meaning of the Mexico City fiasco, among other illuminations now apparent wherever 5'10, 165 pounds appears in the record. (hint: the CIA at all times knows Oswald's true height and weight) Jason
×