Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

The John Birch Society's analysis of the release of thousands of JFK-related documents---and the Warren Commission:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Thousands More Warren Commission Docs to be Released; Will They Be Informative?
Written by  Kurt Hyde

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/27436-thousands-more-warren-commission-docs-to-be-released-will-they-be-informative 

  
The National Archives announced on November 17 that it was releasing another 10,744 Warren Commission documents that had been previously withheld. The total released so far this year is 34,334 documents. If there is a comprehensive analysis of this voluminous collection of documents it would be a herculean task. But will it shed more light on the Kennedy assassination and subsequent killings, or will it just result in the continuation of confusion regarding the planning and committing of the crimes?

The whole idea of putting Chief Justice Earl Warren in charge of the investigation into Kennedy's assassination was flawed from the start. Warren was quoted in the New York Times the day after the assassination as having said, “A great and good President has suffered martyrdom as a result of hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.” Had Warren kept his remarks solely to expressions of grief, he would have been in adherence to the U.S. Constitution. But his remarks regarding his opinion of the cause were unconstitutional for two reasons. First, as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which might have heard any of the murder cases had any rights been infringed in the lower courts, he prejudiced his position by claiming publicly that he knew the cause of a crime. Secondly, he was in Washington, D.C., and the shootings took place in Dallas. He had no direct observation. The only basis he had was hearsay evidence at best.

It’s notable that Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, was quoted in the same New York Times article having said in a message to Mrs. Kennedy: “On behalf of the council of [the] John Birch Society and our members and myself, I wish to express our deep sorrow at so untimely a loss to our nation of its youngest elected President and to convey more particularly to you and to all members of President Kennedy’s family our sincere and heartfelt sympathy in your overwhelming personal loss.” Mr. Welch’s remarks were an example of what Chief Justice Earl Warren should have said, if he had said anything.

Furthermore, the Warren Commission’s genesis was suspect, as noted in the February 1964 Bulletin of the John Birch Society:

The assassination of President Kennedy was on Friday, November 22. On Tuesday, November 26, the Midweek Edition of The Worker, the official publication of the Communist Party, USA, issued an insistent demand — backed up by a long editorial which began on the front page — that President Johnson appoint a special investigating committee, headed by Chief Justice Warren. On Friday, November 29, through executive order 11130, President Johnson complied with this Communist demand by appointing such a committee and naming Earl Warren as its chairman.

The Warren Commission violated the constitutional separation of powers in two ways. First, the investigation of a crime should be accomplished by law enforcement, which is part of the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch. Second, it was a federal intervention into a state matter since murder is constitutionally under state jurisdiction. There were at least three related killings to be investigated: The assassination of the president, the killing of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippet, and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Some suggest there were other suspicious deaths as well. The investigations of these crimes should have been conducted by detectives, not politicians.

As an aside, it should be noted how well the Dallas Police Department gathered evidence and reacted to the assassination. Officers of the Dallas Police Department had arrested Oswald about an hour and 20 minutes after the assassination, and did so while obeying the U.S. Constitution as well as the Constitution of the State of Texas.

It would have been constitutional for agencies of the federal government to assist the Texas Attorney General, the Texas Rangers, and the Dallas Police Department. Certainly federal agencies had evidence, whether it be evidence of guilt or evidence of innocence, because the number one suspect in the assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, had defected to the Soviet Union, had lived in the Soviet Union, was married to a foreign national, and had crossed a number of state lines during the months prior to the assassination. Oswald visited Mexico in September of 1963 where he reportedly applied for a transit visa to Cuba. Clearly, the U.S. Departments of Defense, Justice, and State could have assisted state and local law enforcement.

The Warren Commission had no constitutional authority to tell state and local law-enforcement agencies to cease investigating these killings. Robert Welch noted in the John Birch Society Bulletin for January of 1964: “His threat to resign as chairman of that Commission, unless the Attorney General of Texas ceased all investigation of two murders committed within the state of Texas, undoubtedly is extremely pleasing to the Communists, under the present circumstances. But it ought to frighten half to death any patriotic American who wants to save our whole Republic from becoming just one more administrative province in a world-wide Communist empire.”

The Warren Commission was touted as being bipartisan in the establishment news media because the commission included a number of Republicans. As previously stated in this article, murder investigations are better accomplished by detectives than politicians. Also, noticeably absent from appointments to the Warren Commission were likes of such genuinely conservative Republicans as Senator John Tower (R-Texas).  Senator Tower took umbrage with the image being portrayed by some in the news media that the assassination was a psychological product of politically conservative thinking. Tower disagreed strongly and was quoted in the Dallas Morning News of December 1, 1963: “‘They have said and are still saying, that there is something wrong in our society that breeds men like Lee Harvey Oswald. These people overlook the simple fact, or they refuse to admit it, that Oswald was not fashioned by our society,’ Tower said in his weekly radio broadcast to Texas stations.”

Tower said Oswald’s mind had been fashioned by the propaganda of communism and he had renounced his American citizenship to express loyalty to the Soviet Union. The senator said he had refused to help Oswald when the latter wrote him from the Soviet Union, seeking assistance in returning to the United States. Thankfully, Senator Tower didn’t take the bait. One can only imagine how the liberal news media would have spun this as a half-truth proof that the Kennedy assassination was a right-wing plot had Senator Tower unknowingly helped Lee Harvey Oswald in any way.

Further evidence that the Kennedy assassination was not a right-wing plot can be found by listening to the recording of Lee Harvey Oswald on WDSU Radio in New Orleans on August 21, 1963. The radio show was recorded and sold on 33 1/3 RPM records and entitled Oswald Self-Portrait in Red. It starts with Lee Harvey Oswald proclaiming “Yes. I am a Marxist.” In the ensuing interview, Oswald went on to explain how he was trying to start a chapter of The Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans. But even more telling is the critique afterward by Edward Butler of INCA (Information Council of the Americas) as he analyzed Oswald’s statements pointing out a heavy influence of Marxist ideology and considerable debating skills.

The 34,334 documents thus far released may seem spicy as news material because they are flavored with the distinction of having been previously classified material. But now that they have been declassified and released to the public, it remains to be seen whether they are meaningful documents or are just a product of political posturing by some Washington, D.C., insiders. It may well be that the real evidence has been hidden in plain sight all along, as pointed out by Robert Welch in the aforementioned John Birch Society Bulletins for January and February of 1964.

One way to look the assassination and relating killings is to consider who would have benefitted from the aftermath. For instance, state and local police were pushed aside in favor of a federal commission. The Second Amendment was violated because these killings help lead to the passage of federal gun-control laws. There was a federal law passed making it a federal crime to kill or threaten to kill a president, as well as other presidential cabinet-level people. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater gaining popularity up until November 22, 1963, and there was a real possibility that he would have defeated Kennedy in the 1964 presidential election. But in the ensuing emotionalism following the assassination, Goldwater and many other conservative political candidates, tainted by insinuations that conservative political thinking shaped Lee Harvey Oswald’s mental attitude, lost their elections. Liberal, Marxist policies were advanced, breaking down state power and furthering consolidation of power into federal hands

In other words, following the Kennedy assassination, the liberal agenda was advanced as a result of the emotional reaction of the American public. Frequently, during times of high emotions, the logical side of people’s thinking is overcome and they forget to consider the constitutionality of the government reaction. It was during such a time in 1963 that an unconstitutional commission was formed and it did a poor job of investigating the Kennedy assassination and the subsequent killings. Will the declassification and release of 34,334 additional documents change anything? Don’t hold your breath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GERALD PATRICK HEMMING:

As I was reviewing files I have saved, I came across one re: Hemming that I don't even remember where I got it.  Some of the docs are Lexis-Nexis printouts.  I've uploaded the file into my Internet Archive webpage (link below)

https://archive.org/details/GERALDPATRICKHEMMINGFOIADOCSInclLexisNexis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing Ernie. For anyone interested it's not got just Hemming records in there is also a 1992 Carl Oglesby piece about the movie JFK for Playboy and at the bottom are some other people's army records including Kerry Thornley 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 11:17 AM, David Butler said:

Thanks for sharing Ernie. For anyone interested it's not got just Hemming records in there is also a 1992 Carl Oglesby piece about the movie JFK for Playboy and at the bottom are some other people's army records including Kerry Thornley 

Right, David.  It's a fairly boring collection of 198 pages of drivel -- the first 136 pages are from Hemming's high school and early Marine career, including medical records, awards and other useless paperwork.

The most interesting thing to me was Kerry Thornley's very own signature on page 146.

Then there is a 20 page excerpt about Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK, in which Hemming advised.   Then there are pages from Mark Lane (Plausible Denial) and from Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation) when they mention Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Then there this bizarre return to old Marine records.

This is one of the most boring collections I've seen yet.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Right, David.  It's a fairly boring collection of 198 pages of drivel -- the first 136 pages are from Hemming's high school and early Marine career, including medical records, awards and other useless paperwork.

The most interesting thing to me was Kerry Thornley's very own signature on page 146.

Then there is a 20 page excerpt about Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK, in which Hemming advised.   Then there are pages from Mark Lane (Plausible Denial) and from Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation) when they mention Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Then there this bizarre return to old Marine records.

This is one of the most boring collections I've seen yet from the recent JFK Records Act releases.

That's 200 pages down, only 37,800 pages to go...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

These documents were NOT "from the recent JFK Records Act releases".  Another indication of how Paul always jumps to conclusions and "connects dots" which don't really exist.  [These  docs were originally released in 2010].

 

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main point was that this collection is boring drivel about Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Nothing new.  Nothing interesting.  What a waste of time.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

My main point was that this collection is boring drivel about Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Nothing new.  Nothing interesting.  What a waste of time.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Your "main point" is the top of your head.  You think all info was "waste of time" but researchers might be interested in Hemming's service records or any background information about him.  The "main point" is that you never provide ANYTHING which has been previously unavailable or unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Your "main point" is the top of your head.  You think all info was "waste of time" but researchers might be interested in Hemming's service records or any background information about him.  The "main point" is that you never provide ANYTHING which has been previously unavailable or unknown.

Ha!  That's a good one, Ernie!   My point is the top of my head!   Ha!   And so original, too! 

You should consider stand-up comedy, Ernie, really -- because JFK Research clearly isn't your game.  Or maybe you want another chance.   Here's a clue: it's about finding the JFK ground-crew, Ernie.   Keep digging in the right place. That's the key.   

Hint #1:  The CIA-did-it CT is a half-century old and moldy.   Try someplace fresh.

Hint #2:   Jeff Caufield's "new book," General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), tells more about Gerry Patrick Hemming than Hemming himself ever told.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Readers,

It's hard to imagine, but two years have passed since this New Book was announced on this thread, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) by Jeff Caufield.

Since it's publication, the CIA-did-it CTers have been tormented by how dumb their own CT looks when compared with Caufield's (and my) Walker-did-it CT.  

For the six years that I've been on this FORUM, I've taken almost nothing but attacks, week in and week out.  Since Caufield's book was published, and totally confirmed my CT about Walker, the attacks against me have only increased.   

William O'Neil (owner of this thread) told me that he and Dr. Caufield refuse to participate on the FORUM because of the sheer weight of hostility they receive from the CIA-did-it CTers -- who never attain consensus among themselves, except on their rejection of the Walker-did-it CT.

No matter -- as time moves forward we continue to obtain further confirmation of our CT.   Last month we saw the final execution of the JFK Records Act, signed into law in 1992 by President GHW Bush, so that all the secret JFK Records held by our Government were finally released to the American public.  Approximately 38,000 pages of documents.

In the last few weeks, Jason Ward has made some amazing discoveries which confirm key parts of Harry Dean's claims about Guy Gabaldon and the El Monte, California branch of the John Birch Society.  

Specifically, Jason Ward has discovered a CIA document which has linked the name of Guy Gabaldon with the name of the infamous Gilberto Alvarado in Mexico City.   Simply amazing, in my opinion.

Keep watching this space for further breakthroughs which promise to confirm the Walker-did-it CT by Dr. Jeff Caufield (and myself, and to a large degree, Harry Dean).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ha!  That's a good one, Ernie!   My point is the top of my head!   Ha!   And so original, too! 

You should consider stand-up comedy, Ernie, really -- because JFK Research clearly isn't your game.  Or maybe you want another chance.   Here's a clue: it's about finding the JFK ground-crew, Ernie.   Keep digging in the right place. That's the key.   

Hint #1:  The CIA-did-it CT is a half-century old and moldy.   Try someplace fresh.

Hint #2:   Jeff Caufield's "new book," General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), tells more about Gerry Patrick Hemming than Hemming himself ever told.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Here's something "fresh".  Try finding out where Edwin Walker was in September 1963 and let us know what you discover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Dear Readers,

It's hard to imagine, but two years have passed since this New Book was announced on this thread, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) by Jeff Caufield.

Since it's publication, the CIA-did-it CTers have been tormented by how dumb their own CT looks when compared with Caufield's (and my) Walker-did-it CT.  

For the six years that I've been on this FORUM, I've taken almost nothing but attacks, week in and week out.  Since Caufield's book was published, and totally confirmed my CT about Walker, the attacks against me have only increased.   

William O'Neil (owner of this thread) told me that he and Dr. Caufield refuse to participate on the FORUM because of the sheer weight of hostility they receive from the CIA-did-it CTers -- who never attain consensus among themselves, except on their rejection of the Walker-did-it CT.

No matter -- as time moves forward we continue to obtain further confirmation of our CT.   Last month we saw the final execution of the JFK Records Act, signed into law in 1992 by President GHW Bush, so that all the secret JFK Records held by our Government were finally released to the American public.  Approximately 38,000 pages of documents.

In the last few weeks, Jason Ward has made some amazing discoveries which confirm key parts of Harry Dean's claims about Guy Gabaldon and the El Monte, California branch of the John Birch Society.  

Specifically, Jason Ward has discovered a CIA document which has linked the name of Guy Gabaldon with the name of the infamous Gilberto Alvarado in Mexico City.   Simply amazing, in my opinion.

Keep watching this space for further breakthroughs which promise to confirm the Walker-did-it CT by Dr. Jeff Caufield (and myself, and to a large degree, Harry Dean).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Another example of your inability to report factually upon available evidence.  Contrary to what you state above,  there are still JFK records to be released.  However, the final batch (which may take as long as this April to be reviewed) are primarily CIA or FBI documents which specify names of informants -- some of whom may still be living and some of whom may be foreigners.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that anything in the final cache of documents will support your "theory" anymore than anything already released does.  Nothing released in 2017 "confirms" even one iota of what Harry Dean has invented over the past 5+ decades.

BUT---if you dumb-down the process of evidence-searching or analysis low enough, you can always find "confirmations" for whatever you want to believe.  That is the beauty of conspiracy theories.  Everybody can always find some "dot" or "link" to hang their theory upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grain of salt, Ernie.  You keep changing the topic to irrelevant little details, without seeing the Big Picture.

Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you don't even HAVE a JFK CT.  You're here to do what exactly -- show off your FBI knowledge?

Try using all that FBI knowledge to do some real work around here.  How about a focus on the JFK assassination for a change?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Grain of salt, Ernie.  You keep changing the topic to irrelevant little details, without seeing the Big Picture.

Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you don't even HAVE a JFK CT.  You're here to do what exactly -- show off your FBI knowledge?

Try using all that FBI knowledge to do some real work around here.  How about a focus on the JFK assassination for a change?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I know it is hard for you Paul but try to understand this basic principle. 

No matter what issue or controversy is being discussed or analyzed, there must be basic ground rules accepted by everybody.  Those ground rules pertain to what rules of evidence and logic are commonly used and accepted versus those which are NOT acceptable because they are defective or flawed and cannot result in factual conclusions.

As I have stated numerous times during our 7 years of debates -- our ultimate problem (yours and mine as well as any disputes here on EF) is epistemological.  YOU do NOT accept any normal rules of evidence and logic.  Consequently, you always complain, whine and moan when someone points out your intellectual shortcomings.

"Real work" is not achieved by just always agreeing with your propositions.  UNLIKE yourself, I have made available DOZENS of FBI files on the very people whom you and Dr. Caufield think we should focus our attention upon.  I have taken the time and expended the resources to obtain that primary source documentary evidence and then shared it with everybody.  BY CONTRAST, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

What YOU consider "irrelevant little details" are often blatant falsehoods which you expect all of us to mindlessly accept without comment.

MY JFK CT

There are two different types of arguments and evidence which can be presented for ANY theory (regardless of the subject matter being discussed).

1.  There is affirmative evidence --- i.e. presenting a specific case for some proposition.  Ideally, this is accomplished by conducting research which uncovers new factual material which has never previously been known AND which is so materially significant that it can inform all subsequent discussion by serious-minded (and rational) interested parties.   

I have provided affirmative evidence by obtaining and sharing (for the first time) Harry Dean's FBI and CIA files AND by obtaining and sharing numerous other FBI files about many of the persons whom Dr. Caufield's book proposes that we accept as central figures in JFK's murder.  Incidentally, in some instances, I am the first and ONLY person who obtained those files and some of them are now destroyed.

2.  There is contradictory evidence --  This is the type of evidence which Paul Trejo NEVER wants to accept or to even acknowledge if it pertains to somebody he admires, respects, or whom he needs for his "theory" to be credible. 

Contradictory evidence can take many forms.  Contradictory evidence usually takes the form of what is known as "witness impeachment".  Impeachment covers such matters as:  (a) precision of witness memory, (b) bias or personal interest (c) prior inconsistent statements (d) character or reputation (e) prior bad acts which reduce credibility (f) competency and (g) contradiction

I have provided considerable contradictory evidence not only with respect to Harry Dean's "recollections" but also with respect to falsifying many of the assertions made by Paul Trejo about numerous matters.

BOTTOM LINE:

Paul Trejo always expects us to accept his proposition that HE (and HE ALONE) is the sole arbiter of what is or should be relevant evidence or what is unacceptable for discussion in EF.

If someone presents ANYTHING which brings Paul's logic, arguments, assertions, conclusions, or reasoning ability into question--THEN Paul immediately resorts to his insults and ad hominem slurs in an attempt to de-value and dismiss whatever his critic presents.   Paul uses phrases such as  "irrelevant little details, without seeing the Big Picture" to express contempt for any alternative point of view -- especially if that alternative viewpoint reveals deficiencies in Paul's knowledge or reasoning ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

Your description of me is so far off-base that I'm literally TIRED, after years of bantering with you about trivial details regarding the JFK Assassination; so TIRED that I'm finally I'm fed up with your bantering.

Your posts waste not only my time, but the time of many good readers here.  So, from this point forward, I'm setting your Forum account to IGNORE.

Go misrepresent somebody else.

Goodbye,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×