Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Ernie dumped a ton of recent, non-JFK related John Birch Society material on this thread.  I was responding to that.  

Yep, he did.

The one connecting link that Ernie made was that some in the John Birch Society now claim that the "Liberals" in the USA want to assassinate President Trump the way "they" assassinated JFK in 1963. 

Fascinating.

My main point was that the "Liberals" didn't assassinate JFK -- instead, in my CT, the Radical Right associated with the John Birch Society assassinated JFK.

A fair enough CT. As good as any other of the good ones. Respect to this...

So -- the question is -- does today's political position of the John Birch Society have any relevance to the JFK assassination of 1963?

Of course not, other than the strength given any JBS type fraternity by the mainstream media. Without media coverage, no fraternity like this has any power. Very honestly, I had no idea that the JBS had any more existence than Ralph Kramden's Racoon Lodge.

So, I tend to agree with Ernie to this degree -- I see is a relevant link between the question of, 'Who Killed JFK?'', and 'what are they doing today?

No question that this is one of the most relevant questions in this thing. In fact, I believe that it's the reason this thing is still alive and is still so strong.

I do agree with one of your points -- namely -- that not all of the Radical Right killed JFK, just as not all of the Radical Right support President Trump today.   There are nuances that can be emphasized.   I was painting in broad strokes, as that is often useful in getting conversation started.

I simply wished to separate the idea a- not all of Trump's supporters are Radical, 2nd Amendment, Confederate Flag waving, Rightists, b- not all of Trump's supporters are Trump supporters, c- there's no room for racial accusations in discussing the President's ideologies other than his fantastic propensity to say the most wrong thing possible on a successful Presidential Campaign, and d- there's very little room, IMHO, for extensive political preaching when we've all joined this forum specifically to find a common truth.

WE have the chance to work bipartisanly, and WE have the opportunity to exemplify that it can be done on a grander scale. If I started pronouncing MY political views, ya'll would think less of me than you already do. It would serve no purpose.

MY purpose is to get closer to the exposure of the Deep State by means of discovering the truths of who killed Jack and Bobby and Martin. And why it matters to people today.

Who killed JFK?   Was it the Communists?   Was it the Radical Right?   And what are the implications for American History and Civics?

Fully agree. Appreciate your honesty - and something else has come up about Gen Walker that is news to me, and so I'm open to this thing heading that direction. 

And toward Watergate and Nixon (of course). 

But not to Robert Muehler and all this crap today. It has NO relevance as far as we know at this point, unless someone can SHOW connection.

 

Appreciate your honesty

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Ernie dumped a ton of recent, non-JFK related John Birch Society material on this thread.  I was responding to that.  

Yep, he did.

No I didn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

So -- the question is -- does today's political position of the John Birch Society have any relevance to the JFK assassination of 1963?

Of course not, other than the strength given any JBS type fraternity by the mainstream media. Without media coverage, no fraternity like this has any power. Very honestly, I had no idea that the JBS had any more existence than Ralph Kramden's Racoon Lodge.

What do you mean by "political position"?   The position of the Birch Society has been made very clear for over 5 decades.  They believe most of our political leaders (Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives) are part of, or agents of, a criminal conspiracy to destroy our country.   The JBS has declared that every President since JFK has been guilty of "treason".  That "political position" could explain why someone might feel "justified" in plotting to murder a President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

I do agree with one of your points -- namely -- that not all of the Radical Right killed JFK, just as not all of the Radical Right support President Trump today.   There are nuances that can be emphasized.   I was painting in broad strokes, as that is often useful in getting conversation started.

I simply wished to separate the idea a- not all of Trump's supporters are Radical, 2nd Amendment, Confederate Flag waving, Rightists, b- not all of Trump's supporters are Trump supporters, c- there's no room for racial accusations in discussing the President's ideologies other than his fantastic propensity to say the most wrong thing possible on a successful Presidential Campaign, and d- there's very little room, IMHO, for extensive political preaching when we've all joined this forum specifically to find a common truth.

WE have the chance to work bipartisanly, and WE have the opportunity to exemplify that it can be done on a grander scale. If I started pronouncing MY political views, ya'll would think less of me than you already do. It would serve no purpose.

MY purpose is to get closer to the exposure of the Deep State by means of discovering the truths of who killed Jack and Bobby and Martin. And why it matters to people today.

Since nobody in this thread has made the accusations listed -- I don't even understand why this became some issue.

1.  Some of the people who voted for Trump had previously voted for Obama twice -- so, obviously, it would be impossible to describe them as "radical, second Amendment, Confederate Flag waving..."  etc. etc.  but since NOBODY here made such a claim, it is entirely a STRAW MAN argument to pretend that someone did.

2.   Genuine bi-partisanship requires one major pre-requisite -- i.e. a belief by all parties involved that the people involved in the discussion and the decision-making are honorable, decent, principled individuals who may just have an honest disagreement about how best to resolve some issue or problem we confront as Americans.  However, Trump has NEVER proceeded from that premise.  Most politicians who are successful realize that politics is a process of addition and multiplication, i.e. finding allies, building coalitions (even if just temporary) to accomplish some desired result.  By contrast, Trump (and Birchers) believe in the precise opposite form of politics -- i.e. dividing Americans into "us" vs "them" categories -- which is why Trump routinely attacks and defames even members of his own party and Administration.

3.  I recently had a lengthy debate with someone who claimed that Trump's critics in the Republican Party were RINO's.  However, I pointed out that the persons most often mentioned as RINO's (such as Sen. Flake and Sen. McCain of AZ, Sen. Corker of TN, Sen. Graham of SC, Sen. Majority Leader McConnell of KY, Sen. Sasse of NE, House Speaker Paul Ryan of WI, and others) have voted 90% or more of the time the way which Trump wanted --- including on the recent tax reform legislation.   So, clearly, this RINO accusation is NOT based upon FACTS.

4.   The "Deep State" is a myth used by demagogues to normalize any crazy idea which they want to present or excuse any failure to accomplish a stated political objective.  This is a typical tactic used by Third World dictators---blame some scapegoat for their personal failings.  If some information disputes or falsifies what you prefer to believe, then, in our current political atmosphere, you just call that info "fake news".   This is VERY dangerous because, ultimately, it will corrode the public trust in ALL of our institutions and in the very concept of representative democracy and it will make authoritarianism appear more acceptable.  Career bureaucrats serve every President regardless of which political party wins an election.  There is no such thing as "Republican science" or "Democratic science" or a "Republican navy or air force" vs a "Democratic navy or air force" OR a "Republican  Centers for Disease Control" or a "Democratic Center For Disease Control".

 

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Unfortunately, there is no way to limit a discussion to a single topic when the basic terms of discussion are not agreed upon at the outset. 

For example:  YOU introduced the notion that describing the radical right in our country as being a devout supporter of Trump was inaccurate.  But you are mistaken. 

The easiest way to demonstrate your error (to your satisfaction) is simply for you to list what YOU consider to be the TEN or TWENTY most significant or most prominent radical right organizations and individuals in contemporary America.  THEN, we could compare your list to their public positions concerning Trump.  If we discover that 80% of the persons and organizations on your list, DO support Trump -- then why would it be "inaccurate" or erroneous to say so?

IF, HOWEVER, your REAL point is NOT actually about the sympathies or positions of the radical right -- but, instead, your REAL objection is that you don't want ANY discussion of Trump to appear in this thread -- then that is an entirely different matter.

Sorry. "...the Radical Right is a devout supporter of Pres Trump..." is a comprehensive, inclusive and irresponsible statement. Just like "...the Radical Left support selling fetus parts..." would be comprehensive (all inclusive) and irresponsible. It's of course not true and not a responsible statement to make, especially in a forum of people where such topics would most likely to be pretty damn sensitive.

That's ALL i was point out. That statement, on its face, is incorrect. 

And then when Paul got on the soapbox, I commented on partisanship at large within the forum. 

In my opinion, it doesn't belong, and it almost always turns into personal attack.

That's ALL I've said.

done with this ridiculous thread. ta ta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Since nobody in this thread has made the accusations listed -- I don't even understand why this became some issue.

1.  Some of the people who voted for Trump had previously voted for Obama twice -- so, obviously, it would be impossible to describe them as "radical, second Amendment, Confederate Flag waving..."  etc. etc.  but since NOBODY here made such a claim, it is entirely a STRAW MAN argument to pretend that someone did.

2.   Genuine bi-partisanship requires one major pre-requisite -- i.e. a belief by all parties involved that the people involved in the discussion and the decision-making are honorable, decent, principled individuals who may just have an honest disagreement about how best to resolve some issue or problem we confront as Americans.  However, Trump has NEVER proceeded from that premise.  Most politicians who are successful realize that politics is a process of addition and multiplication, i.e. finding allies, building coalitions (even if just temporary) to accomplish some desired result.  By contrast, Trump (and Birchers) believe in the precise opposite form of politics -- i.e. dividing Americans into "us" vs "them" categories -- which is why Trump routinely attacks and defames even members of his own party and Administration.

3.  I recently had a lengthy debate with someone who claimed that Trump's critics in the Republican Party were RINO's.  However, I pointed out that the persons most often mentioned as RINO's (such as Sen. Flake and Sen. McCain of AZ, Sen. Corker of TN, Sen. Graham of SC, Sen. Majority Leader McConnell of KY, Sen. Sasse of NE, House Speaker Paul Ryan of WI, and others) have voted 90% or more of the time the way which Trump wanted --- including on the recent tax reform legislation.   So, clearly, this RINO accusation is NOT based upon FACTS.

4.   The "Deep State" is a myth used by demagogues to normalize any crazy idea which they want to present or excuse any failure to accomplish a stated political objective.  This is a typical tactic used by Third World dictators---blame some scapegoat for their personal failings.  If some information disputes or falsifies what you prefer to believe, then, in our current political atmosphere, you just call that info "fake news".   This is VERY dangerous because, ultimately, it will corrode the public trust in ALL of our institutions and in the very concept of representative democracy and it will make authoritarianism appear more acceptable.  Career bureaucrats serve every President regardless of which political party wins an election.  There is no such thing as "Republican science" or "Democratic science" or a "Republican navy or air force" vs a "Democratic navy or air force" OR a "Republican  Centers for Disease Control" or a "Democratic Center For Disease Control".

 

you're right. 

convert all my "bi-partisan"s to "non-partisan."

my mistake.

ta ta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Sorry. "...the Radical Right is a devout supporter of Pres Trump..." is a comprehensive, inclusive and irresponsible statement. Just like "...the Radical Left support selling fetus parts..." would be comprehensive (all inclusive) and irresponsible. It's of course not true and not a responsible statement to make, especially in a forum of people where such topics would most likely to be pretty damn sensitive.

That's ALL i was point out. That statement, on its face, is incorrect. 

And then when Paul got on the soapbox, I commented on partisanship at large within the forum. 

In my opinion, it doesn't belong, and it almost always turns into personal attack.

That's ALL I've said.

done with this ridiculous thread. ta ta.

There is nothing "irresponsible" about such a statement -- although one could argue that, like all generalizations, it can be mis-interpreted or mis-applied.

The point you are missing is very simple:

1.  IF you could produce EVIDENCE that "the radical left" generally supported selling fetus parts --- then that would NOT be inaccurate or irresponsible to say so.  It would simply be a correct statement but subject to limitations because "the radical left" is a large assortment of individuals and organizations and NOBODY can know what every single person in the radical left believes.

2.  HOWEVER:  we do have indisputable FACTUAL evidence concerning the prevailing position of the radical right with respect to Donald Trump's campaign and his subsequent election and his policy proposals and objectives.  You cannot dismiss or de-value or euphemize what the radical right generally believes by ignoring available evidence.  AGAIN:  The simplest way to recognize your error would be for you to specify what YOU consider to be the 10 or 20 most prominent radical right individuals and organizations in our country and then we could research what position each of those persons and organizations has taken re: Trump.  If MOST of them support Trump then there is nothing "comprehensive, inclusive, or irresponsible" about making a fact-based conclusion which ACCURATELY represents what MOST of those radical rightists believe.

Surely you understand how public opinion polling operates -- don't you?  The KEY (during elections) is selecting an appropriate scientific sample of likely voters in order to get a snapshot of what those persons believe and how they intend to vote.  IF you correctly select the appropriate sample -- then you will accurately report the likely election result.  BUT---if we use YOUR criteria, you would describe ALL polling results as "comprehensive, inclusive, or irresponsible" -- just because a generalization is made based upon available factual EVIDENCE.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

you're right. 

convert all my "bi-partisan"s to "non-partisan."

my mistake.

ta ta

Not sure why BI-partisan or NON-partisan has any relevance in the context of what we are discussing.  I guess bi-partisan normally means Democrats and Republicans whereas NON-partisan would refer to everybody -- regardless of their political beliefs or what their voter registration category is?   Realistically, Congress works best when either type of cooperation (bi-partisan or non-partisan) is responsible for the agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Actually, Paul, if you re-read what I posted, I pointed out that the MAIN reason I posted that article from the JBS website was (1) because it reveals that there is a connection between Trump's dad and the Birch Society and (2) Birchers are currently supporting Trump and (3) Birchers have developed a conspiracy theory regarding what THEY regard as a possible motive for assassinating Trump -- and they connect their theory to JFK...

Ernie,

I agree with you there.  I had changed my wording shortly after I wrote it, actually.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highlight in blue font one sentence which destroys the hopes of Paul Trejo, et al, regarding what remains to be released by April.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article200391724.html

Documents haven’t quelled JFK conspiracy theories. Do the answers lie abroad?

BY KEVIN G. HALL

khall@mcclatchydc.com

February 16, 2018 05:00 AM

Updated 7 hours 35 minutes ago

MINNEAPOLIS 

 

Does the key to unlocking the enduring mystery of the Kennedy assassination lie abroad, in Belarus, Cuba or Mexico?

A special review board created in the 1990s to declassify U.S. government assassination secrets tried to secure important information from those countries. It was unsuccessful. 

But as the window for the 25-year-long declassification of John F. Kennedy assassination documents closes on April 26 — with experts warning that a smoking-gun document is unlikely to turn up in the remaining tens of thousands of U.S. government files — pursuit of definitive answers is likely to shift overseas.

John R. Tunheim, now a federal district judge in Minnesota, led the Assassination Records Review Board from 1994 to 1998. It oversaw and set dates for the release of tens of thousands of government documents about the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

 “The biggest cache of records that are still out there, the real treasure trove, are the Oswald KGB surveillance records,” said John R. Tunheim, now a federal district judge in Minnesota, who from 1994 to 1998 headed the Assassination Records Review Board. 

That bipartisan body was created after Congress passed a law in 1992 starting the clock for release of all JFK assassination records. The action was prompted by an outcry after Oliver Stone’s hit movie JFK discredited the official version of Kennedy’s murder.

In the 1990s, Belarus was still home to a five-foot-high stack of KGB surveillance documents on alleged Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.

The 20-year-old Marine defected to the Soviet Union soon after he was discharged in 1959 and was given a factory job in Minsk, the capital of what today is Belarus. The accused Kennedy assassin worked there until returning to the United States in 1962.

Tunheim and colleagues declassified tens of thousands of U.S. documents in those four years and set a timetable for complete release of documents that had been redacted. Many have trickled out over the past 25 years under schedules set by the board.

Then last year came four large document releases by the National Archives. The veil was supposed to be fully lifted by October 2017, but President Donald Trump extended the deadline to April 26.

More than 34,000 documents were posted online by the National Archives last year, many with redactions. McClatchy has learned that more than 22,000 documents still have not been released in full.

But most of those at least partially released have not been complete surprises, dampening anticipation of a big reveal by the end of April.

When Tunheim’s panel began declassifying the documents almost 30 years after JFK’s death, many were missing. Some of those had been under the control of the all-powerful CIA counterintelligence chief James J. Angleton.

Some believe that James Angleton, former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's counterintelligence division, destroyed a number of documents related to the Kennedy assassination.

 “I am convinced he destroyed everything because he knew it was coming. He knew he was going to get fired,” said Tunheim, in a lengthy interview in January. “I don’t know how he did it but he got rid of just about everything before he was gone because there were huge gaps in the record.”

That view is shared by Jefferson Morley, author of a new biography on Angleton called The Ghost. In an interview, Morley called “defunct” the official version that Oswald was a lone-wolf gunman who came out of nowhere to kill an American president.

“Oswald was under counterintelligence surveillance from 1959 to 1963,” Morley said. “Everywhere he went he touched CIA collection operations, code-named secret intelligence operations, whose product was delivered to Angleton.”

In the 1970s, congressional hearings showed how the CIA had misled the Warren Commission, which issued an exhaustive report in 1964. The CIA again came under fire for misleading the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

These missteps by the CIA, ostensibly aimed at hiding from public view how it carried out spy craft and meddled in the affairs of foreign governments, helped fuel today’s theories of “conspiracy and cover up,” said Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst with the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

Now, virtually every alternative theory of possible culprit and motive for the JFK killing seems to get new life with each release of documents.

Fidel Castro? Government documents show how the CIA sought to kill him, giving him a motive to retaliate. The mob? Files prove the agency worked closely with mobsters in Cuba and Chicago as they plotted to kill Castro. Texans in the CIA? Documents released last year showed that Earle Cabell, mayor of Dallas at the time of the killing, had actually been a CIA asset since 1956. His brother Charles was a top CIA official forced by Kennedy to resign less than a year before the assassination on Nov. 22, 1963.

Minsk matters

As time was running out on his review board — which concluded its work on Sept. 30, 1998, with a lengthy report — Tunheim traveled to Minsk in Belarus and tried to copy the entire Oswald surveillance record.

I was going to pay $100,000 for copying charges, I probably would have been criticized over that but it was such a gem of a file,” recalled Tunheim, adding that “I have seen many of them, I’ve had a lot of them read to me.”

But every time the review board came close to securing the Minsk files, tension with Belarus flared. Its leader then and now — Alexandr Lukashenko — is fiercely pro-Russian and has clashed with successive U.S. administrations.

“We could never get it in the time we had available,” Tunheim lamented. “And that covers every damn thing that Oswald did over his three or so years in the Soviet Union. It’s an amazing file and there is a copy of it somewhere in the Kremlin files someplace.”

The review board did acquire about 500 pages of Minsk documents, many of them from author Norman Mailer who had been there first and acquired some for use in his famous 1995 book Oswald’s Tale: An American Mystery.

What might the rest of those files contain? Much of it is likely mundane, but some JFK conspiracy theorists believe that Oswald was actually helping to train Cuban fighters while in Minsk. The files, now believed to be locked up in Russia, might also shed light on the KGB’s efforts to monitor Oswald once he returned to the United States.

Cuba libre?

One of the review board’s major accomplishments was releasing the files on Operation Mongoose — a Kennedy administration plot to overthrow and possibly kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Once the Mongoose files were made public, Tunheim had copies delivered to the Cuban interest section, which worked out of the Swiss embassy in Washington.

“The complete set of them, everything. We put together a box and said, ‘Send it to Fidel, your president,’” said Tunheim. The hope was that goodwill would beget goodwill.

 “He wanted to meet but the State Department didn’t allow it,” the judge said, chalking it up to concerns that at the time no one wanted to run afoul of the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms.

The North Carolina Republican had co-authored legislation toughening the Cuba trade embargo. Relations were also frayed by the 1996 downing by Cuba of civilian aircraft operated by the anti-Castro group Brothers to the Rescue.

Some lower level meetings took place in the Bahamas, and the Cuban government shared some documents but told Tunheim’s team that it didn’t have much since “defending the revolution” took so much effort.

“Castro intuited right away that CIA propaganda assets were trying to blame the assassination on Cuba, and the records we now have confirm that,” said Morley, who is also editor of the website JFK Facts, adding that Cuba’s documents could shed light on anti-Castro groups. “They heard lots of talk, coming from inside the anti-Castro movement. What they heard after the assassination would be very interesting to know, and important.”

The JFK documents released by the National Archives last year confirmed the full portfolio of CIA activity designed to destabilize the Castro regime, and the extent of spying on the Cuban embassy in Mexico City.

Much of the spying effort was led by Texan David Atlee Phillips, a charismatic Fort Worth native whose alleged relationship with Oswald has also been the subject of speculation by conspiracy theorists.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, on Oct. 4, 1975, reported that Phillips told a local gathering that he was “reasonably convinced” Oswald had acted alone.

But Cuban exile leader Antonio Veciana has maintained for years that Phillips, using the assumed name Maurice Bishop, was Oswald’s handler, and that he saw the two together in Dallas a month before the assassination. Now elderly and in ill health, Veciana told McClatchy in December that he stands by his account.

Phillips, who died in 1988, was a high-level CIA official in Cuba before and after Castro’s arrival in power. Transferred later to Mexico, he was tasked with watching all traffic and calls into and out of the Cuban and Soviet embassies.

And that’s where the U.S.’s southern neighbor fits into Tunheim’s view that important answers may still come from abroad.

Fresh Mex

Some of the most significant documents left classified for the bulk of the 25-year timeframe and released last year deal with Oswald’s trip to Mexico City weeks before the assassination of Kennedy.

During that timeframe, Oswald’s calls to the Cuban and Soviet embassies are believed to have been recorded. Tunheim recalled being told by the CIA that the recordings were not thought of consequence at the time and were recorded over.

“We know they existed at some point in time. I also know that our deal with the Mexican government was that they got a copy of everything we recorded,” said Tunheim, adding that “I am convinced that that probably exists somewhere, whether someone has taken it home or it’s in a closet or attic someplace.”

Tunheim had seen documents showing that CIA leaders had either seen transcripts of or heard the actual recordings. He flew to Houston in 1998 to meet with CIA officials from the U.S. embassy in Mexico City, asking them to see what they could dig up.

They promised to follow up and I never heard another word from them,” he said.

Among the calls that would be of greatest interest is the intercept of Oswald’s Oct. 1, 1963 call with Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov, described in documents released last year. Kostikov was not only a consul general, the documents said, but a KGB officer who had been part of Department 13 — the feared sabotage and assassination unit.

Just hearing Oswald’s voice would be important.

What little audio of Oswald that exists publicly comes from an interview he gave in New Orleans in a pro-Cuba protest. His limited on-camera footage features a brief denial that he killed Kennedy, calling himself “a patsy.” Two days after the JFK assassination, Oswald was fatally shot by Jack Ruby as he was led from his Dallas jail cell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, that's just one more CT -- "the KGB has the true records."

I'll believe it when it see it.

Nobody but NOBODY in the past 50 years has been able to focus global attention on the Dallas Police and Deputies who were also among the Radical Right in Dallas -- including groups like the Minutemen, the White Citizens Councils, the John Birch Society and the KKK.

Everybody else is a suspect -- LBJ, the CIA, the US Army, the Congress, the Senate, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles and now the KGB.

Everybody will get blamed before Dallas is analyzed for the JFK Assassination which occurred in the heart of Dallas.

Like I say -- I'll believe it when I see it.    In the meantime, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

Nope, that's just one more CT -- "the KGB has the true records."

I'll believe it when it see it.

Nobody but NOBODY in the past 50 years has been able to focus global attention on the Dallas Police and Deputies who were also among the Radical Right in Dallas -- including groups like the Minutemen, the White Citizens Councils, the John Birch Society and the KKK.

Everybody else is a suspect -- LBJ, the CIA, the US Army, the Congress, the Senate, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles and now the KGB.

Everybody will get blamed before Dallas is analyzed for the JFK Assassination which occurred in the heart of Dallas.

Like I say -- I'll believe it when I see it.    In the meantime, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, we are all touched by your faith in what does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI:  The second batch of my paper FBI files have been converted into PDF files by the Center for Right Wing Studies at University of California-Berkeley, (paid through the generosity of Southern Poverty Law Center) and I will be uploading these files into my Internet Archive webpage over the next 3 days after I perform an OCR scan on them. 

Several of these files pertain to individuals and organizations discussed in Dr. Caufield's book.

For those who may be interested, the subjects in this batch of files are as follows:

RIGHT WING and EXTREME RIGHT INDIVIDUALS/ORGANIZATIONS/PUBLICATIONS

American Anti-Communist League – HQ 62-82948 (120pp)

Arab Participation in Distribution of Hate Literature in U.S. – Los Angeles 105-6400 (265pp)

Arab Participation in Distribution of Hate Literature in U.S. – WFO 105-29384 (358pp)

   [Note:  These two files pertain to propaganda circulated in U.S. by extreme right individuals and groups]

Arizona Patriots/Ty Hardin – HQ 100-487422 (252pp)

Canadian Intelligence Service/Ron Gostick – HQ 105-15137 (168pp)

Christian Anti-Communism Crusade/Fred Schwarz – San Francisco 100-40407 (300pp)

Council for Statehood-Mary M. Davison – HQ 157-758 (320pp)

Covenant, Sword, Arm of the Lord/James Ellison – HQ 100A-16708 (256pp)

DILYS, Joseph – Chicago 105-8307 (199pp)

DILYS, Joseph – Chicago 177B-74353 (107pp)

EASTLAND, James O. (U.S. Senator-MS) – HQ 94-4-5130 (242pp)

Facts Forum – HQ 62-94811 (95pp)

FORT JR., William E. – HQ 62-102708 (351pp)

GOFF, Kenneth – Minneapolis 100-12138 (33pp)

GOFF, Kenneth – WFO 105-29384 (162pp)

Human Events, newspaper – HQ 105-8697 (201pp)

JOSEPHSON, Emmanuel – Newark 100-442049 (14pp)

LAVARRE, William J. – HQ 62-61481 (202pp)

LAVARRE, William J./American Mercury magazine– xrefs (47pp)

Let Freedom Ring – Chicago 157-716 (92pp)

Liberty and Property, Inc./Willis Carto – HQ 105-47766 (159pp)

Liberty and Property, Inc./Willis Carto – WFO 100-33381 (16pp)

Liberty Lobby/Willis Carto – HQ 62-106941 (623pp)

Liberty Lobby/Willis Carto – WFO 157-69 (132pp)

LOGAN, Bard A./Constitution Party – San Antonio 100-8085 (252pp)

Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee—Subversion in Racial Unrest – Parts I and II - HQ 62-103863 (303pp)  [Includes testimony by Guy Banister, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, Leonard Patterson, Manning Johnson, Martha Edmiston, Leander Perez, Hubert Badeaux]

MASON SR., Hatley N. – HQ 62-101087-49 (26pp)

MORRIS, Robert J. – HQ 62-98670 (250pp)

National Association of White People – HQ 105-18867 (150pp)

National Citizens Protective League – Philadelphia 105-1457 (87pp)

National Renaissance Party/James Madole – HQ 62-83296 (204pp)

National Renaissance Party/James Madole – NYC 105-6112 (226pp)

National Youth Alliance – NYC 157-3447 (211pp)

Nationalist Action League/W. Henry MacFarland Jr. – Philadelphia 105-426 (92pp)

Network of Patriotic Letter Writers – Los Angeles 62-4594 (145pp)

ROBNETT, George W. – HQ 51-324 (40pp)

THOMPSON JR., H. Keith – Newark 105-1160 (34pp)

Tocsin newsletter/Charles Fox – San Francisco 100-47243 (122pp)

TREVOR SR., John B. – HQ 62-21364 (66pp)

Voters Alliance of Americans of German Ancestry – HQ 105-11215 (211pp)

We, The Mothers Mobilize for America, Inc./Lyrl Clark Van Hyning – San Francisco 100-10704 (120pp)

Western American Security Police – Houston 100-10177 (205pp)

Williams Intelligence Summary newsletter/Robert H. Williams – HQ 105-10091 (77pp)

WILLIAMS, Robert H. – Army Intel Report (7pp)

Women’s Voice newsletter/Lyrl Clark Van Hyning – Chicago 105-456 (194pp)

Young Americans For Freedom – HQ 100-434516 (200pp)

GENERAL FILES

American Research Foundation – HQ 62-102255 (73pp)

WHITE, Walter F./NAACP – HQ 100-328241 (72pp)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 12:49 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

Well, Paul, we are all touched by your faith in what does not exist.

Ernie,

Are you suggesting that you have proof that the KGB killed JFK?     Of course not.

I'm resigned to just wait until the experts have analyzed all the pages of the JFK Records Act.  The FORUM is getting rather boring during the wait, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

Ernie,

Are you suggesting that you have proof that the KGB killed JFK?     Of course not.

I'm resigned to just wait until the experts have analyzed all the pages of the JFK Records Act.  The FORUM is getting rather boring during the wait, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I am not suggesting anything except that Judge Tunheim has seen everything and he knows what documents remain to be released and he has never said one single word about any documents pertaining to a "radical right" plot or about any plot involving the JBS or its members -- which is your theory.  I prefer to rely upon people who have first-hand in-depth knowledge of a subject.  YOU prefer to rely upon your personal delusions.   There is no context where YOUR preferred use of the word "expert" makes any sense because, clearly, you DO NOT rely upon "experts".

Edited by Ernie Lazar

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

×