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 these  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

Everything posted by Jason Ward

  1. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, If there were anything of value in KGB files, it would have been sold off by now along with all the other Soviet state assets that mysteriously ended up in the hands of the Oligarchs. The privatisation of government property involved masses of physical and intellectual assets including several secret KGB files long ago monetized in the 1990s garage sale of a former superpower. The only thing left will look like 99% of the CIA/FBI files - endless minutiae produced by bureaucrats with no value whatsoever. They are arguing over whose 3rd cousin of some obscure Cuban official should be hired for intelligence value or how much money is needed to supply this month's favored foreign political party. Oswald is and always was an absurd klutz bumbling through only the distant fringes of Cold War intelligence interests in both camps. For those who imagine David Ferrie is an important career CIA operative, Oswald will likewise be of great assumed importance to the KGB...In reality, however, the KGB like the CIA tagged Oswald as a nobody, a poser, a lost child of no talent, no use, and no intelligence role. Jason
  2. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    ****YES**** 1. Roger, the Walker shooting and Walker's mysterious ability to tell the world that Oswald shot at him BEFORE the famous letter from Oswald admitting to the shooting is found at Ruth Paine's house and published in the papers.....makes all CIA-did-it devotees look like idiots. 2. Plus, how in the world does the John T Martin film show bullet hole damage from WITHIN Walker's house immediately after the April 10, 1963 shooting and also show candid film sequences of Oswald passing out literature on Canal Street....UNLESS WALKER KNEW OSWALD WOULD BE ON CANAL STREET? 3. It's all there in Warren Commission testimony.....See below.... Dulles is sure insistent on making sure it gets on the official record that Walker only knew Oswald shot him after he read it in the papers ...yet Walker told the German newspaper National Zeitung on November 22nd that Oswald was the shooter in the April 10 attack at Walker's residence. How is it possible for Walker to know this on 22 November 1963? Also, Chief Justice Warren also wants to make sure this is made "clear" that Walker only knew Oswald was the shooter of the 10April63 attack because of what he read in the papers, otherwise everyone might quickly realize the truth that Walker's advance knowledge that Oswald was the shooter on 10 April means Walker has conspirator-only-knowledge of Oswald's actions. {whoops! Dulles almost blows the whole smokecreen by his slip of the tongue admission that Walker knew BEFORE 22 November that Oswald shot Walker in April...had to get that fixed quick!} PS - Walker sending his aide to talk to Marina's lawyer is ...pregnant... with implications, is it not? A warning? Or simply a fishing expedition to find out what she knew about Walker?
  3. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Ok, let's work on a FOIA. (wait, I thought I was stepping back from the JFK thing in 2018???)
  4. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, Evidence I provide below show that Walker was tagged on the day of the assassination as a likely conspirator or instigator, and indeed southern California was a documented, fruitful connection for Walker as our friend Harry Deans says. ..., and, worst of all...much of the relevant information about Walker remains redacted because it is not thought part of the Kennedy assassination by the ruling junta of assassination researchers and their government enablers who are happy to let them search endlessly down a fruitless path chasing a blameless CIA. Wouldn't you like to see the list of the 11 interviewed for their relationship with Walker, but whose identity remains unknown in the Ole Miss-related document (#5) below ? Perhaps we can do our own FOIA requests..... Plenty of Walker intel remains hidden and certainly NOT part of the 2017 document release. Jason 1. Oswald suffered from the immediate accusations brought against him on 22November but your favorite general had the numerous accusations against him quashed in redactions or buried in mountains of paperwork. What does Mildred (or her surviving family) know? What causes someone to reach out to the AG on the day of the assassination and accuse Walker of ringleadership? 2. Plenty of references in the evidence of a southern California group of Minutemen who were in contact with Walker: 3. Walker rose to internal fame in the FBI because of Ole Miss integration riots which he lead; there's lots of info on Walker and especially his associates still hidden: 4. Some officious soul has thoughtfully decided what evidence is and is not relevant to the JFK assassination; since these notices appear largely in the midst of Walker intelligence reports, the general is apparently not officially subject to JFK assassination information releases and legislation: 5. Eight FBI and 11 Walker disciples not officially relevant to the JFK assassination (and therefore hidden to this day) presumably because they were obviously super-nice guys whose innocence needed protecting - as they were involved merely in keeping nonwhites out of Ole Miss: 6. This is from The Third Decade, Volume 4 Issue 1, by Jerry Rose. page 18 7. This is a perfect example of a document which may or may not be in the "official" JFK documents released because it is mainly about General Walker. Jerry Rose in 1987 was on to Walker in an era when Walker was still living....before computer assisted research I don't even know how he managed to find this internal DPD document published as the back cover illustration of The Third Decade, November 1987 edition. What does this tell us about the DPD? This is from The Third Decade, Volume 4 Issue 1, by Jerry Rose. page 30. (notice the nomenclature "Edwin A Walker Group")
  5. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, Mark Lane was indeed liberal to a fault. While almost singlehandedly establishing the essential mainstream opposition to the Warren Report and the Lone Nut theory, his work nevertheless put assassination research on a trajectory which is difficult to overcome. Let's rehash some evidence we've met beofre .....General Edwin Walker's links with the Mexico City episode are what exactly? Jason
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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)
  14. 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.
  15. 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???
  16. 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
  17. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Thus guy and Lechner are two I hope we can discuss further. J
  18. 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?
  19. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    'another American' ... hmmm ...
  20. 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.)
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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)