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

1 Follower

About Jason Ward

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

    Agreed. Dallas is a sign of desperation. Most of the contingencies were NOT managed well - which is why most people have always thought it was a conspiracy. A believable Lone Nut is John Hinckley. If I'm Hoover and want the Lone Nut assassin killing Kennedy, I do a Hinckley right in DC. The whole Oswald Dealey Plaza thing is as far from Hinckley as you can get and entirely unnecessary for killing Kennedy at the hands of a Lone Nut. Jason
  2. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Yes, Paul, I mostly agree. The assassination could benefit from a refresh in mindset and modality of study. If CTers would look at the method of murder in the way that cops and the FBI look at any standard murder -without trying to conflate method and motive- they might find that method leads to the murderers even with an unknown motive. I say : stop looking at who benefits from the murder and start looking at who thinks this is the best way to kill JFK? Who would choose Dallas? Who would choose long range rifle shots? Who would choose a moving target? Who would choose risky uncontrolled variables like the Dallas doctors, the witnesses, the home movie makers? Jason
  3. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Roger, again a pleasure to talk with you. After further thought of what you say above, my additional response is that you might be mixing motive and method. Is there any reason to do so? Most of the time, the method of murder has little to do with the motive. Who uses guns to kill? People who through their circumstances find guns the easiest way to kill. Killing with guns is probably the easiest way to kill for most of us, but is it the easiest way to kill for Dulles, Hoover, LBJ and so forth ...considering they control the investigatory processes? We know how Kennedy was killed. Forget motive entirely for a second . Concentrate on the method used to kill him and remember that everyone always chooses what they believe will have the highest chance of success . So we start with the method of the murder and from there try to figure out who is most likely to use this kind of method. In other words, if you need Kennedy killed, who in what position would think it easiest to kill him in the way that he was actually killed? Again forget motive. Who in what position would think it is easiest to kill someone as they're driving by in a convertible in front of hundreds of witnesses and dozens of photographers? If for no other reason than to indulge me, just concentrate only on the method and stop trying to conflate method with motive. Who would choose this method assuming their only objective is to kill Kennedy? What does the method of the murder tell us about the circumstances of the murderers, ignoring motive entirely.?.?.? Jason
  4. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Occam's razor. Those without easy access to the president have to kill the president in a wildly dangerous and unpredictable public way. They have no other choice. Those with easy access to the president plus control over US intelligence and security apparatus kill the president in the quickest, most efficient, and most certain way possible. What happened in Dallas was wildly inefficient, sloppy, and uncertain. Why take such a huge risk that this might not work? ....only because you have no other choice, no other way to kill the president except the hugely risky way of Dallas. The likes of Hoover and Dulles could have JFK or anyone killed and there would never be any question or controversy ...if they were behind it. Nice talking with you again. Jason
  5. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, if for nothing else than to show others that me and you are not entirely of the same mind I'll begin by saying that I disagree somewhat with your point about Mark Lane and a few of the others you mention. Mark Lane was a Rebel Without a Cause when he was given the great gift of the Kennedy assassination to latch onto as his cause célèbre. This in no way means that his work is invalid, in fact his work is probably critical in both timing and the direction he took ... but if it wasn't for the JFK assassination he would have concentrated on the Vietnam War or any of the other pet left-wing projects of his day. In other words, even people who are right pursue their CT for many of the same self-satisfying reasons as those who are wrong. . . . If you want to kill your wife or your boss, or anyone you see everyday and trusts you with their life, do you arrange for a spectacularly chaotic and mistake-filled circus as she drives by in a convertible with hundreds of witnesses around and a dozen or more photographers in place? Or do you kill her in a way that is guaranteed to succeed? Or do you do it in a way that is guaranteed to succeed and guaranteed that only the lone nut can be blamed? Only those with no easy access to JFK kill JFK in a fireworks show that was only 1 bullet away from total failure. Most indoctrinated CTers are getting too wrapped up in the details without looking at the overall picture. No one close to JFK spins the roulette wheel of sloppy chances that was this Dallas fiasco that almost failed. Anyone close to JFK that wants JFK killed does so with no witnesses, very little evidence, and one hundred percent certainty. Anyone close to JFK could still blame it on a lone nut with total certainty and no need of a cover-up- without embarking on the total gamble that was Dealey Plaza. Dallas left us with hundreds of witnesses, truckloads of evidence and was an unlikely crapshoot in terms of potential success. ... Another thing is that everyone seems to have no problem accepting that the Mayors Daley of Chicago or perhaps district attorneys in Mafia towns like New Orleans could look the other way AFTER all sorts of crimes are committed..... without actually being involved in the crime themselves. Very few conspiracy theories seem to recognize the same process could be in place with Kennedy, there seems to be a total block towards the idea that the killers and the cover-up are not necessarily in close relation nor in close cooperation. Jason
  6. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Happy New Year Paul + everyone - - Although this epistle from Paul today drifts more into political and social commentary, I agree with the implied invitation to look at how a CT or CTer's mentality might fit in with our view of government. Our views on government might even determine one's explanation for the JFK assassination. It is important to examine the reasons why one explores or adopts a CT; and examine how one's feelings towards power, authority, and government impact which CT is adopted. From my perspective, which might be slightly at odds with Paul's point, 90% of the CT community starts with the proposition that the government, the Establishment, wealthy people, law enforcement, the intelligence community, et. al, are inherently conspiratorial, dishonest, and supremely powerful. From this "truth" they adopt their CT. I am on a winter break and away from research until mid-January, but it's clear to me as I look through the body of CT resources that almost everyone starts with a conclusion, then finds evidence to support it. The conclusion almost unanimously begins with something like a group of Illuminati, Billderbergers, or another cabal of wealthy men who secretly control the world --- and all the JFK evidence is molded in to this thesis of how society and the world works. In my own case, I voted for Obama and reluctantly voted for Clinton. So I would be tagged as on the Left. But I have no inherent distrust of the Right. I've voted for Republicans before, many friends and family are conservatives. I've known people who work in the White House, I know cops, my friends and family are in some cases now or formerly in US intelligence, diplomacy, or government. There is NO wide-ranging conspiracy. None. Not now, not in 1963. Not possible. There are Democrats, Republicans, rich and not-so rich everywhere in law enforcement, intelligence, the national government, locally, and in the so-called Establishment, both now and 55 years ago. Each piece of evidence should stand by itself, or at most in relation to other evidence - evidence doesn't serve a conclusion, it can LEAD to a conclusion, or more frequently it merely adds weight to a conclusion, but just as often there is no safe conclusion whatsoever from much of what CTers doctrinal groupthink considers "proof". Jason
  7. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, as it happens the LITAMILs are a large component of the 2017 document release. I've spent most of August-October reading, cataloging, and summarizing the LITAMIL and LIENVOY intelligence held secret so long. This was kept secret because 100s of Cubans were and are working for both Castro and the CIA - a life-threatening situation. 95% of the withheld documents have nothing to do with Kennedy. Probably a movie could be made of this intelligence effort in Mexico against Cuba and the Soviets - or anyway, at least a Netflix movie. I should play Kostikov because I am a man of action and feared violence - you might play Morales since you are secret and conspiratorial, and we'll get Edward Norton or The Rock to play Oswald, just for celebrity value. 95% of the LITAMIL intelligence is uninteresting to an assassination researcher. But two conclusions are incumbent to anyone who dares read the entire LITAMIL and LIENVOY production from beginning to end (or in my case from 1963 to 1965ish.) LIENVOY is the cryptonym describing perhaps the most massive and successful wiretap operation in CIA history - the de facto ability of the US to tap at will any phone in Mexico. I read transcripts of the Mexican president's phone calls, when he is talking with the Cuban and Soviet amabassadors. LITAMIL is a family (not biological, but topical familly) of spies in the paid employ of BOTH the CIA and the Cuban government. Plenty of implications exist for assassination researchers, but, to keep it pithy I will highlight two: In 1963, the United States has 100% visibility into all Cuban diplomatic missions in Mexico including the first hand reports of dozens of Cuban diplomats - on a daily basis. This is supplemented by 100% visibility into what was then the extent of electronic communication - wired and wireless traffic to Havana, to the Mexican government, and to the general public contacting Cuban government offices in Mexico. Nearly 100% of Soviet electronic communication is visible to the US from KGB and diplomatic missions in Mexico; although there is the distinct possibility that they had other, still unknown, channels of communication with Moscow. So, the whole Mexico City episode needs to be reconsidered in terms of these facts, IMO, by almost all kinds of conspiracy theorists. Assume everything that happens at the Soviet and Cuban embassies are almost the equivalent of happening at CIA headquarters in Langley in terms of US visibility into what is taking place. Jason - - - - - - - - - For those interested in what excellent research analysis and reasonable conclusions based on primary sources looks like; I offer a taste of the raw documents and how the sublime intellect of Bill Simpich composes the mosaic into a picture we can all understand: {LI is CIA shorthand referring to LITAMIL intellgence product; LITAMIL-4 remains unmasked afaik, probably because they are still alive. LI-2 is likely Carlos Maristany, a Cuban ambassador and CIA agent.} {The redactions here shown as [ 01 ] were this year revealed as LITAMIL-9, the CIAs most valuable agent at the MC Cuban Embassy; Cuban diplomat Luis Soeto.} {The CIA's go-to man in the Cuban Embassy is LITAMIL-9, Cuban diplomat Luis Soeto, a proud Cuban but also a great friend of the United States} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ notice the saturation coverage of the Cuban Embassy the CIA enjoys in 1963^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ... ... ... Bill Simpich's Book State Secret is available free at the Mary Ferrell website: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146586
  8. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    All very interesting, Paul. A few thoughts, but not arguments: Guy Gabaldon is I thought either living full time in Mexico City in 1963 or has a house, office, and substantial presence there The CIA is allowed to tap embassy phones in part because they agree to share intelligence with the Mexicans. So the Mexicans largely know what the CIA knows about the Soviet Embassy. It is in fact the Mexican phone company that logistically facilitates the taps. The Mexicans know about Kostikov. It is not automatically true that knowledge of Kostikov implies a CIA connection - the Mexicans know about him as well. If David Morales is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald, this is exceedingly reckless. If he is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald with knowledge that the president is about to be killed and Oswald blamed, this is nothing less than suicidal. On top of the uncertain security of the Mexican sharing agreement, Morales would be risking having his voice on tape heard by everyone in the US intelligence community and the top level government executives - who, despite the belief system on this forum, are about half Democrats and half Kennedy supporters. I think it's very reasonable to theorize Morales hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k to kill Kennedy - but maybe Gabaldon hired Alvarado. Maybe they both did? But I wonder if a competent true CIA employee like Morales is going to put his voice on this tape. LITAMIL-9, which today we know as Luis Alberu Soeto, Cuban Cultural Attache in Mexico City, was a perfect example of the prodigious sourcing that the CIA (and Mexicans) had in Cuba's Mexico City Embassy. There is a large and fruitful LITAMIL family of spies making a living off both the CIA and Castro such that 100% of everything Cuban in Mexico City is crossing the desk of the CIA and the Mexican president/Mexican intelligence (DFS). Whatever the Soviets told the Cubans, they also told the CIA and the Mexican DFS. One detail CIA staff knew, but which maybe the Mexicans did not, was that the CIA employed a non-CIA subcontractor for language help in the LIENVOY project, which was the multi-decade CIA wiretap operation in Mexico City. The unusual and valuable Russian-English-Spanish trilingual translation ability was hard to come by, so the CIA relied on a husband and wife team to process the rough intelligence from the wiretaps. Hardway and Lopez correctly pinpointed this husband and wife interpretation team as potential witnesses NOT bound by CIA official or ideological bonds of loyalty and interviewed them in depth. They knew everyone worth knowing by voice alone. If the voice on the tapes was someone known to the CIA in Mexico City, we would have had the caller's identity in 1963. Yes indeed the Mexican Establishment is considerably more reactionary than the US government establishment. In the US there are left wing Democrats, mainstream Democrats, and non-aligned moderates who are somewhere between Democrat and Republican in every level of government including the FBI and CIA - but in Mexico of the day there were only hard right wingers in power at the high levels. Gabaldon hiring Loran Hall and indeed Loran Hall's presence in the assassination story should be enough for anyone not trapped in 1968 Garrison-think to maybe allow themselves to toy with the idea that the CIA is not running the show here. The CIA doesn't hire clowns like this. Does the actual voice on the phone really matter that much? I'm not sure I care whether it was Morales or Gabaldon or one of the very few random people in 1963 Mexico City who can speak and switch between English, Spanish, and Russian. What I really care about is who hired the voice on the phone - it's either Gabaldon or Morales in my mind at this point. Bill Simpich is 100% correct that the CIA has no idea what Oswald is doing in Mexico City and that the CIA cannot identify the voice on the phone. Where Bill ends his certainty on this point is where those interested in true research might begin - who directed Oswald and the Oswald impersonator in Mexico Ciy, and, most of all, who hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k from the Cubans to kill Kennedy? To my CIA-obsessed Garrison disciples, if Oswald is CIA, why wouldn't they just have Oswald himself make the calls to the Soviet Embassy? Harry Dean is far mare valuable than generally given credit for; everything he's said leads us closer to the truth in my view. Jason PS - - for a brief moment, Hoover seems ready to jump aboard the commie-did-it narrative advertised by Alvarado...LBJ shuts him down fast: (many thanks to my sometime boss Rex Bradford)
  9. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Here's a little Gerald L.K. Smith to supplement your reading plan.... Basically, the same guys who killed Medgar Evers and all the other Civil Rights victims are the same guys who killed MLK, and in my view are the most likely guys who killed Kennedy. These are radical right wing southerners, of violent and crude disposition. These aren't east coast intellectuals. These are Gerald L.K. Smith disciples.
  10. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    I'm looking into this. I have a mini-CT brewing that Gabaldon lures Oswald to Mexico City in order to be "seen" by Alvarado accepting money at the Cuban Embassy to kill Kennedy. In my view the orchestration of Oswald in Mexico City is entirely inconsistent with anyone planning a Lone Nut explanation for Kennedy's death. Oswald was in Mexico City to help pin the assassination on the commies - but LBJ shuts down any talk of this asap. Morales just might fit in here as Alvarado's controller - but so could Gabaldon. Either way, Morales is operating rogue of the CIA, although obviously he is able to exploit his CIA position in whatever he's up to here, if he's even involved at all in MC Oswald.... J This is exactly what LBJ wanted to hear. Did LBJ order Alvarado's repudiation???
  11. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    One of life's many injustices is that there are more books to read than time to read them. Let me know about the Gerald Smith book. It's really hard to imagine that such people were at least as mainstream now as Trump voters today. The fear that gripped their worldview is breathtaking. Jason
  12. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Thus guy and Lechner are two I hope we can discuss further. J
  13. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Hi David, I've read a few of your essays here and there but did not place a lot of resources onto them because I had the impression you weren't citing a lot of primary sources. I know there's something of a battle between writing for a popular audience in a way that is intriguing versus writing for those interested in looking at your sources in detail. Also, I probably saw 2nd or 3rd generation versions of what you wrote, which probably weren't sourced well in the format I saw them. In any case, I'd like to talk to you if you're up for it. I am at the Arizona State University History Department and I work for Rex Bradford at the Mary Ferrell Foundation. At ASU we're developing a tool that elicits from what is colliquilly known as Big Data amazing directions and implications in the Kennedy assassination. As a quick example, by analyzing 3 million documents at the MFF and including the Lexis-Nexis database, and adding in several thousand books in electronic format, we can predict certain associations which are not apparent in an individual artifact, document, letter, book, article, memo, file, etc. It's a derivative of the same tools used to find bin Laden. Instead of using big data in security intelligence applications, we're trying to use big data in historical analysis. Interested in helping, even just by talking to me on email? One of your essays of particular interest to me is nominally about the Christian Defense League. You write a lot about William Gale. I believe you also take something of a tour through the usual hard right figures of the assassination era, i.e., Gerald Smith, Wes Swift, Oren Potito, General Edwin Walker, Joseph Milteer, and so on. Connie Lynch is someone I'm trying to look at more closely. All these guys seem to overlap and relate to each other in some way or another through their organizations - the States Rights Party, the California Rangers, the Christian Defense League, the KKK, the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, the American Educational League, and various 'citizens councils' or quasi-church/relgious groups. You seem an expert on this interlocking labyrinth of ultra-right-wing America. I have no problem talking in public as I believe research should be shared openly - but talking here means a dozen interjections of meaningless opinions, insults, and distracting demands to return our focus to the CIA from non-researchers. Will you talk to me directly, perhaps starting with the message feature on this site? regards Jason Ward A December 1963 expose on the American hard right - from East Germany (!) I've seen perhaps 100+ tips like this from random citizens pointing at Walker, Rockwell and their pals: This is a verbatim reprint of a National Enquirer article - one of General Walker's efforts? Walker .. Rockwell ... Eagle Publishing ... hmmm.... A special treat for my pal Paul Trejo - General Edwin Walker is joined at the US Capitol by George Rockwell, who tastefully sports his Nazi regalia: Delusions of grandeur?
  14. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    'another American' ... hmmm ...
  15. 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.)