Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

...Paul, for the life of me, I have no idea why you keep stating that Walker was the only General to resign in the 20th century as if that has some relevance to anything (leaving aside that he was not "the only" General to resign -- as I previously brought to your attention)...

Actually, Ernie, it is a historical fact that General Edwin Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century -- given that we define "resignation" according to Army regulations.

Your point, so long ago, was that the term "resign" might also be applied to people who "retired" from the US Army. Your example was a high-level US military leader who "retired" when he was asked to "resign" by some high official, but that official really meant "retire," and you obscured the fact.

The proof that Edwin Walker truly and actually resigned according to US Army regulations, is that Walker forfeited his Army pension.

You have always neglected to identity one other US General who forfeited his Army pension, and so your examples were always based on a faulty definition.

Your motivation was probably to protect the JBS from further accusations with regard to their association with General Walker.

Now, regarding Dr. Jeff Caufield's forthcoming new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, I have not seen it yet, so I cannot say with certainty that the John Birch Society will receive the sort of accusations from Dr. Caufield that I am willing to make with regard to their association with resigned General Walker.

So I look forward to the publication of this book for clarity on the JBS from Dr. Caufield.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul - the word "resign" does not have anything to do with forfeiting a pension. The definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position." You should use the English language correctly and not use idiosyncratic meanings.

I have no interest of any kind in "protecting" the JBS from any accusations but if you make ridiculous statements about any person or organization, you should expect to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - the word "resign" does not have anything to do with forfeiting a pension. The definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position." You should use the English language correctly and not use idiosyncratic meanings.

I have no interest of any kind in "protecting" the JBS from any accusations but if you make ridiculous statements about any person or organization, you should expect to be corrected.

Ernie, when General Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army, he did so in such a way that he forfeited his Army pension, which he had earned with over 30 years of loyal service in World War 2, Korea, Little Rock and Germany.

Walker forfeited his pension. That was the consequence of his resignation from the US Army. That is a historical fact and you continue to refuse to deal with it.

If defense of Robert Welch is not your motivation, then as usual your motivation eludes many of us -- but facts are facts and should not be denied. Walker forfeited his Army pension by his resignation, and was the only US General in the 20th century to do so.

So, you're entirely mistaken on this point.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg - you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. I did not state or hint that Walker was "mentally deficient". That is your deliberate mis-representation. All I wrote is what many people have stated regarding Walker i.e. Walker was not an intellectual or a thinker or someone known for his cleverness of thought and speech. In other words, not the kind of person you would expect to dream up an elaborate plot involving dozens of variables. Nor was he the type of person whom you would expect to motivate large groups of followers through his unique insights and inspirational rhetoric. His "talent" was as a polemicist, i.e. hyperbolic attack, invective, condemnation -- giving an adoring (subordinate) crowd the red meat they wanted to hear.

As I previously stated, Walker spent his entire career in a top-down authoritarian and hierarchical environment. The qualities one values and exercises in that type of environment are much different than the qualities one uses in "normal" life.

One could argue that spending one's adult lifetime receiving and executing orders in a military chain of command where unquestioning obedience is the standard operating procedure does not present a lot of opportunity for original thinking or for challenging one's superiors or even for routinely convening meetings with hundreds or thousands of rank-and-file to persuade them to accept whatever decisions you make or to get their input on something which is your responsibility and your decision. Instead, a military commander functions within a much more constricted circle of advisers and subordinates.

So, my original point was, and continues to be, that Walker never displayed the level of intelligence or the temperament one would expect to be self-evident for creating and executing a complex criminal conspiracy.

Lastly, you continue to misrepresent my point about Dr. Stubblefield. I did not dispute his competence. I simply stated that relying upon a single individual who has had very limited exposure to someone is not prudent. And incidentally, there were other psychiatrists who presented their (critical) evaluations of Walker. I do not rely upon their conclusions either. [And since you chose to not answer my questions re: what Stubblefield asked Walker during his "examination" -- we can reasonably conclude that you have no clue what was asked or answered....so, again, you demand that we accept your word about the sufficiency of Walker's "examination".

This seems to be your standard debate technique. i.e. criticize and reject whatever someone else presents but demand uncritical acceptance of everything you tell us.

* If YOU state that somebody is an "expert" -- that ends the discussion.

* If YOU state that someone is "intelligent"---that ends the discussion.

* If YOU state that critics of Walker must fall only into these categories "disaffected ex-employees and ex-friends and political colleagues" -- that ends the discussion.

Let me put it this way: If Greg Parker were ever arrested for something and a court decided that Greg should be evaluated for mental competence -- I suspect that Greg would want more than one person to evaluate him AND I suspect that Greg might expect that his "examination" should take more than some period of time during 2 days to make an objective and informed decision.

Correct. You did not use the term "mentally deficient". You simply indicated he wasn't smart enough to organize a party in a brewery.

What you gave us was your opinion that others would say he wasn't smart enough to do xyz. You offered no names... no direct quotes to substantiate that claim. On the other hand, in rebuttal, I offered a direct quote from a qualified person who had examined Walker in a clinical setting. And now you have the gaal to suggest I expect people to take my word? It is entirely the other way around.

Look, I know you have modeled your style on the anally-retentive, uber-bureaucratic bully-boy authoritarian methods of Hoover, but that style isn't going to get you anywhere with me.

Greg - supplied direct quote from expert

Ernie - gave an opinion on what others would say.

See the difference?

That you want to play down Stubblefield is shocking. You are right. I don't know the entire contents of the report he made. I do know it was good enough to make the government back off. Yet you somehow believe it is insufficient? Robert Kennedy obviously never thought so, yet you know better... without having the foggiest as to what it said.

Greg -- you are correct about some matters but wrong on others.

I was not giving you my "opinion". I repeated what has been reported numerous times in media accounts. You say that I offered no specific names. That is correct because I did not think it was necessary to substantiate what was common knowledge to everyone who has done research into Walker's history. I suspect that even Paul Trejo would be able to provide you some specific examples.

You then state that you offered a direct quote from a qualified person "in a clinical setting". But you cannot tell us what questions that qualified person asked Walker--can you?

And you cannot tell us what answers Walker gave to those questions--can you? So, instead, you are just offering YOUR opinion regarding the adequacy of Walker's examination -- right?

Your position continues to be that one single "qualified" person who performs an "examination" of unknown content and unknown duration with unknown answers should be dispositive and it should shut down further discussion---correct?

I wonder if you are aware that medical research supports a link between intelligence and mental health problems? For example, some studies have suggested that bipolar disorder may be four times as common among young adults who received straight-A’s in school. So, if Dr. Stubblefield examined those folks, he might have reported that they had "superior intelligence".

However perhaps our disagreement is simply because I do not understand how you (or Paul) use the phrase "superior intelligence".

Why don't you define that or describe what you think that means with respect to Walker so we all understand your point?

For example: Suppose that I wrote "Gen. David Petraeus had a sterling military career which evidenced superior intelligence".

Would anybody here dispute that observation? I doubt there would be much disagreement because here (briefly) is what we know about him:

1. highly decorated 4-star general with 37 years of service

2. B.S. degree (1974) from U.S. military academy (graduating in top 5% of his class)

3. top graduate (class of 1983) from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

4. Masters of Public Administration degree (1985) from Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University

5. PhD (1987) from Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University

6. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the United States Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

7. He has a long history over 3 decades of published books and articles in prestigous academic and military journals

8. He served in 5 combat commands

9. He was instrumental in reshaping American military doctrine and then in implementing it

Now----can anyone give me a brief summary regarding Walker which would comparably substantiate the idea that Walker had "superior intelligence" ???

1. Tell us about his educational achievements.

2. Tell us if he is known for authoring any changes in American military doctrine or implementing them

3. Tell us how many books he wrote during his military service and how many articles he authored that were published in prestigous academic or military journals - about military tactics or history

4. Tell us how many times he taught military-related subjects at colleges or universities

5. Tell us about his post-service achievements in private life

THEN we can resume our conversation regarding the evidence for his "superior intelligence".

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - the word "resign" does not have anything to do with forfeiting a pension. The definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position." You should use the English language correctly and not use idiosyncratic meanings.

I have no interest of any kind in "protecting" the JBS from any accusations but if you make ridiculous statements about any person or organization, you should expect to be corrected.

Ernie, when General Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army, he did so in such a way that he forfeited his Army pension, which he had earned with over 30 years of loyal service in World War 2, Korea, Little Rock and Germany.

Walker forfeited his pension. That was the consequence of his resignation from the US Army. That is a historical fact and you continue to refuse to deal with it.

If defense of Robert Welch is not your motivation, then as usual your motivation eludes many of us -- but facts are facts and should not be denied. Walker forfeited his Army pension by his resignation, and was the only US General in the 20th century to do so.

So, you're entirely mistaken on this point.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I don't "refuse to deal with it". it just has no relevance to anything. If you had originally stated that Walker was the "only U.S. General to resign and forfeit his pension" -- then nobody would have objected. But you chose not to say that. Instead you originally stated he was the only General to resign, Period. End of sentence. Which is false.

ADDENDUM: Incidentally, just to keep this discussion totally factual --- as I am sure you know, Reagan re-instated his pension in 1982. I think he was receiving something like $45,000 a year.

I have never "defended" Robert Welch. I have corrected your obvious errors and ignorance about him and about the JBS. That is what upsets you. (Example: you claiming that "IMHO, any person who joined the John Birch Society showed signs of intellectual inferiority." Apparently, you are so intent upon demonizing Birchers or others whose views you disagree with that you don't even recognize them as human beings with just as much potential and brainpower as anybody else which is absurd on its face. As I pointed out (and of course you refused to deal with it) the only 3 studies ever done on JBS members concluded that they had disproportionately higher income and higher educational levels compared to national averages.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In further reply to Greg's criticism of my previous comments, I would like to add this:

1. Does everyone know that Dr. Robert Stubblefield was always the first choice of Walker's lawyers as the psychiatrist THEY preferred?

2. Does everyone know that, originally, the intent was for 2 psychiatrists to examine Walker. The second (the government's choice) was Dr. Winfred Overholser but Walker's attorneys objected to him?

3. Does everyone know that, originally, the "examination" period was going to be 60-90 days? Instead, it was reduced to an unknown period during 2 days.

Now -- with respect to specific comments regarding Walker's mental state and intellectual ability:

1. I don't have all the materials handy to provide Greg with exhaustive examples but perhaps the following will suffice for now:

2. NY Times, 10/4/62, page 30: "Military Men Say Walker Changed After He Became General"

This article quotes a comment made by Joint Chief Chairman General Maxwell Taylor on professional soldiers. Taylor observed that such soldiers are taught to be "analytical, incisive and accurate". The article then reports "A Pentagon officer...said that former Gen. Walker's recent public appearances had demonstrated 'a marked inability to express himself--the very opposite of military professionalism' "

3. NY Times, 10/10/62, page 41: "Far Right Groups Flourish in Texas But Birch Society Declines"

"Before his Mississippi operation, Mr. Walker's popularity in Texas had been slipping fast. He made such a sorry appearance at Senate hearings on the censoring of officers that leading John Birch Society members including Rep. Edgar Hiestand of California tried to persuade him not to run for Governor in the Texas Democratic primary. He scorned their advice."

The next section of the article is captioned "Walker Inarticulate" -- and it reports: "Half-way through a sentence he will pause for several seconds, staring blankly into space, before finishing his thought, His writing is no better."

4. Dr. Donald T. Critchlow's 2008 book, "Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism", chapter 4 on "The Republican Right Under Attack", page 102:

"However there was one insurmountable problem in rallying conservatives to Edwin Walker's defense---the general himself. Behind the emotion over Walker's leaving the military and the Fulbright Memorandum lay a man who did not fit the image created by the rightwing press. When Walker testified at congressional hearings on muzzling the military, he rambled, seemed disorganized, and at times incoherent. His speech before an overflow audience in Chicago in early 1962 (The American Eagle Is Not A Dead Duck), was prolix and his inflated language landed on the audience like the Hindenberg dirigible."

[Note: with respect to Walker's 4/62 Congressional appearance -- William Buckley's National Review magazine described his testimony as "pitiful"]

5. Critchlow's footnote for the above paragraph includes a reference to Robert Welch's 10/8/62 private comments about Walker to his National Council which I have previously quoted in reply to Paul Trejo's messages in another thread. I also sent a complete copy of Welch's comments to Paul by email.

6. The police officer who arrested Walker in Mississippi declared: "I didn't feel like I was talking to a rational man...There was a wild dazed look in his eyes. He was unable to speak too well."

Unfortunately, I cannot give you the exact citation for this because my FBI file on the Univ, of MS incident was sent to Internet Archive but I can tell you the file number where this comment was reported, i.e. HQ 157-401 on "Desegregation of University of Mississippi". The equivalent Dallas field file (157-203) also contains this comment.

7. American National Biography Online contains this description of Walker. I bold-type one pertinent portion:

"Walker settled in Dallas, Texas, where his conservative views found widespread support. With the financial support of the noted businessman H. L. Hunt, but with the discouragement of political professionals, Walker entered the Democratic primary for governor of Texas in February 1962. In April of that same year he testified before a special Senate subcommittee investigating charges that army officers were being silenced by the government. His rambling and nearly incoherent testimony disappointed even his supporters, and in the May gubernatorial primary Walker finished last of six candidates with less than 10 percent of the vote."

Hopefully, this will be sufficient for Greg to candidly admit that my previous comments were not just my unsupported personal opinion.

But we are still left with the overarching question:

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THE EVIDENCE FOR A CONCLUSION THAT EDWIN WALKER HAD A SUPERIOR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE?

I welcome further discussion by Paul, Greg, or comments by anybody else.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are still left with the overarching question:

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THE EVIDENCE FOR A CONCLUSION THAT EDWIN WALKER HAD A SUPERIOR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE?

I welcome further discussion by Paul, Greg, or comments by anybody else.

The answer is simple, Ernie, namely, Edwin Walker was promoted to the level of Major General in the US Army.

Not everybody is allowed that great privilege.

Walker graduated from West Point, and furthermore he was victorious in battle in World War 2, and also in the Korean War. Walker was victorious in restoring peace to Little Rock High School in Arkansas. Walker's troops also received many awards during his leadership in Augsburg.

Walker was smarter than average -- and yet he was no intellectual. He wrote speeches, but could not write a book. He was bright -- but far from an intellectual, precisely because he was fooled by Robert Welch, who pushed his disloyal politics as pure patriotism. Walker fell for it. Walker wasn't an intellectual. But neither was Walker a "total nut" who can be easily dismissed in an intelligent discussion of the JFK murder (as most JFK researchers for the past 50 years have dismissed him).

It takes nuanced thinking to think about Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it seems to me that the forthcoming new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, has a far easier task than most JFK Conspiracy Theories.

Most JFK Conspiracy Theories bite off more than anybody can chew, i.e. they try to solve both the JFK murder and the JFK Cover-up at once, by regarding them as one single plot. Then they quickly fall into fantasy and fiction.

IMHO, Dr. Caufield only needs to show that resigned General Edwin Walker planned and executed the murder of JFK, full stop, and allow the entire Cover-up scenario to be explained separately (perhaps as a quick and dirty clean-up job by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, under orders from LBJ, to prevent riots in US streets during the Cold War; i.e. exactly as they said, for National Security).

Most JFK Conspiracy Theories try to solve too much in one theory -- and so they have all failed -- a half century later. Worse, many JFK Conspiracy Theories also fold in the murder of Oswald, and must then try to bring Jack Ruby and the Mafia into the JFK murder scenario. No wonder they quickly fall into fantasy and fiction. Actually, by following Seth Kantor (Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978)) we can completely separate the Jack Ruby saga from the JFK execution. Jack Ruby was an emotional pimp -- case closed.

I haven't seen Dr. Caufield's book yet, and I don't know what his position will be on the John Birch Society or Jack Ruby. Yet Jack Ruby wasn't the only Dallas-dweller who believed that Edwin Walker and the JBS in Dallas were behind the murder of JFK. ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth thought much the same when he named Edwin Walker and the Minutemen as his prime suspects. (The Minutemen are often characterized as the armed militia of the JBS, because they agreed on all the basics, i.e. that all US Presidents since FDR were Communists, and were manipulating history to allow the Communists to take over the USA.)

I can hardly wait until the actual publication of this long-awaited volume by Dr. Caufield. BTW, I first heard about this book from Harry Dean in 2013, and we've been waiting for it ever since. Since that time it has grown from 300 pages to 900 pages, so I expect the impact to be significant. It might also solve the JFK murder -- once and for all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are still left with the overarching question:

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THE EVIDENCE FOR A CONCLUSION THAT EDWIN WALKER HAD A SUPERIOR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE?

I welcome further discussion by Paul, Greg, or comments by anybody else.

The answer is simple, Ernie, namely, Edwin Walker was promoted to the level of Major General in the US Army.

Not everybody is allowed that great privilege.

Walker graduated from West Point, and furthermore he was victorious in battle in World War 2, and also in the Korean War. Walker was victorious in bringing the peace to Little Rock High School in Arkansas. Walker's troops also received many awards during his leadership in Augsburg.

Walker was smarter than average -- and yet he was no intellectual. He wrote speeches, but could not write a book. He was bright -- but far from an intellectual, precisely because he was fooled by Robert Welch, who pushed his disloyal politics as pure patriotism. Walker fell for it. Walker wasn't an intellectual. But neither was Walker an "total nut" who can be easily dismissed in an intelligent discussion of the JFK murder (as most JFK researchers for the past 50 years have dismissed him).

It takes nuanced thinking to think about Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- in reply to your comments above:

1. You are placing way-too-much emphasis upon "promotion" as definitive evidence of anything. Go back to my previous message which reported the Peter Principle and then read the New York Times article I referenced, i.e. "Military Men Say Walker Changed After He Became General"

2. A title or position, by itself, does not tell you anything (see next paragraph). Many mediocre or even incompetent individuals are promoted. Perhaps you have never worked in any position where you participated in hiring panels? Maybe you have no knowledge regarding how civil service operates?

Often, decisions in those instances are based upon personal relationships and conflict-avoidance instead of being based upon demonstrated abilities or objective evaluations regarding an applicant's competence or the likely ability of a candidate to be successful in the a position they are being considered for.

Paul--- just remind yourself about recent government scandals during the past few years. Start with the V.A. Administration.

Gen. Eric Shinsheki was unquestionably a successful 4-star general while he served in the US Army but he was a total disaster as a manager of the Veterans Administration. He had no clue what was going on at VA hospitals. He certainly had no clue regarding how VA computer systems were being manipulated to hide actual wait times for appointments. He had no clue regarding the extent of dishonesty by his senior management team out in the field in hospitals such as Phoenix.

Now consider Health and Human Services. By all accounts, Kathleen Sibelius was a successful and competent Governor of Kansas and before that the Kansas Insurance Commissioner.

However, she too, was a disaster at HHS. She had no clue about what was going on with the $400+ million website created for the most monumental new health program during the past 50 years. She never even asked obvious pertinent questions regarding the ACA website. So, when it experienced a wholesale meltdown, our government could not even depend upon its own internal IT experts to fix it. On July 30, 2014, the Government Accountability Office released a non-partisan study that concluded the administration did not provide "effective planning or oversight practices" in developing the HealthCare.gov website.

You continue to describe Walker as follows:

* "Walker was smarter than average" and

* he was "bright" and

* "this profound and shrewd American" and

* you tell us that evidence of his "superior intelligence" is simply that he graduated from West Point and he was promoted during his military career. [What was his status at West Point, i.e. what was his grade point average or his numerical position in comparison to the rest of his class?]

Where is your evidence for everything you claim??? You don't provide any.

I am still waiting for you to answer my specific questions -- which I repeat again below.

1. Tell us about his educational achievements.
2. Tell us if he is known for authoring any changes in American military doctrine or implementing them
3. Tell us how many books he wrote during his military service and how many articles he authored that were published in prestigous academic or military journals - about military tactics or history
4. Tell us how many times he taught military-related subjects at colleges or universities
5. Tell us about his post-service achievements in private life
IF you tell us (in answer to items #1 - #5 above) that you have nothing to cite -- other than his promotion to General --- then why should we accept your characterization of him?
ADDENDUM:
This additional comment addresses Paul's argument that a title or position achieved must be evidence of intelligence.
Last night I watched the GOP debate and I suppose other people here did the same. I have no specific knowledge regarding how Donald Trump made his fortune. I know that he is consistently ranked as one of the wealthiest people in our country and I know that his name is attached to lots of luxury real estate developments, casinos, golf courses, etc.
So, someone like Paul would be quick to conclude and tell us that Trump MUST possess "superior" intelligence and be a very "shrewd" and "capable" person.
However, the Donald Trump I saw on TV last night was a buffoon who had nothing significant to say and, today, I noticed that one very prominent Republican political strategist stated that he witnessed "the destruction of Trump's candidacy" last nite as a result of his debate performance.
I have no doubt that Trump knows how to make good business deals and he knows how to maximize the money he can make -- but as I tried to point out to Paul before (unsuccessfully), the qualities that elevate someone in one field of endeavor cannot always be transferred to another field. A genius in one set of circumstances may be a total loser in another set of circumstances.
AND a very competent, intelligent person in one set of circumstances can be a total failure in another set of circumstances---even though that person was "promoted" to his level of incompetence. I have seen this in my personal experiences and I suspect everyone here has also witnessed this phenomenon.
Unless and until Paul can provide us with much more specific evidence to substantiate his statements regarding Walker -- I do not see any valid reason to conclude that Walker was someone who exhibited superior intelligence or shrewdness.
AND I still maintain that based upon what we know about his personality and his history -- there is no reason to believe he had the creativity or intellect to mastermind and execute a historic criminal conspiracy and murder --- without leaving any discernible contemporary evidence and without any local, state, or federal agency being aware of his plans and his participation.
Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Most JFK Conspiracy Theories bite off more than anybody can chew, that is, they try to solve BOTH the JFK murder AND the JFK Cover-up at once, by regarding them as one single plot. Then they quickly fall into fantasy and fiction."

an fantastically unsupported and highly unlikely statement, and, even strictly in reference to written material, mathematically impossible for you to even be able to guess at.

"Dr. Caufield only needs to show that resigned General Edwin Walker planned and executed the murder of JFK, full stop, and allow the entire Cover-up scenario to be explained separately (perhaps as a ..."

allow me to suggest something of a truth about human nature; NO ONE would begin to be satisfied with "half" an answer. If someone were to present what he considers a finished research project ending on 11/22/1963 and with who arranged the hit and who pulled the triggers without offering an explanation of the much more complex and mysterious cover-up, and especially while suggesting how it does not relate to the other culprits, it would appear to be just what it is: a half-assed research effort which only attempts to answer some of the questions, and the least enigmatic ones, no less.

this will not satisfy the public, no matter how convincing its proposition; you show this to be so yourself, by succumbing to the need to explain Stage 2 yourself even while describing the book as leaving that part completely alone.

this is human nature. if someone's going to claim the mystery solved, then the answers need to be compelling and exhaustive, or the mystery is not solved.

just ask any jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...allow me to suggest something of a truth about human nature; NO ONE would begin to be satisfied with "half" an answer. If someone were to present what he considers a finished research project ending on 11/22/1963 and with who arranged the hit and who pulled the triggers without offering an explanation of the much more complex and mysterious cover-up, and especially while suggesting how it does not relate to the other culprits, it would appear to be just what it is: a half-assed research effort which only attempts to answer some of the questions, and the least enigmatic ones, no less.

this will not satisfy the public, no matter how convincing its proposition; you show this to be so yourself, by succumbing to the need to explain Stage 2 yourself even while describing the book as leaving that part completely alone.

this is human nature. if someone's going to claim the mystery solved, then the answers need to be compelling and exhaustive, or the mystery is not solved.

just ask any jury.

My point, Glenn, was that we can consider the JFK murder apart from the JFK Cover-up. Why does that seem so difficult?

From this vantage, there are two halves to the JFK saga -- the Murder and the Coverup.

From this vantage, to solve the JFK saga, we need TWO solutions -- the Solution to the Murder, and the Solution to the Coverup.

Two different Teams with two opposite motives. That's a viable solution that no JFK researcher in the past 50 years has ever guessed.

Two halves then make a whole.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it seems to me that the forthcoming new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, has a far easier task than most JFK Conspiracy Theories.

Most JFK Conspiracy Theories bite off more than anybody can chew, i.e. they try to solve both the JFK murder and the JFK Cover-up at once, by regarding them as one single plot. Then they quickly fall into fantasy and fiction.

IMHO, Dr. Caufield only needs to show that resigned General Edwin Walker planned and executed the murder of JFK, full stop, and allow the entire Cover-up scenario to be explained separately (perhaps as a quick and dirty clean-up job by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, under orders from LBJ, to prevent riots in US streets during the Cold War; i.e. exactly as they said, for National Security).

Most JFK Conspiracy Theories try to solve too much in one theory -- and so they have all failed -- a half century later. Worse, many JFK Conspiracy Theories also fold in the murder of Oswald, and must then try to bring Jack Ruby and the Mafia into the JFK murder scenario. No wonder they quickly fall into fantasy and fiction. Actually, by following Seth Kantor (Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978)) we can completely separate the Jack Ruby saga from the JFK execution. Jack Ruby was an emotional pimp -- case closed.

I haven't seen Dr. Caufield's book yet, and I don't know what his position will be on the John Birch Society or Jack Ruby. Yet Jack Ruby wasn't the only Dallas-dweller who believed that Edwin Walker and the JBS in Dallas were behind the murder of JFK. ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth thought much the same when he named Edwin Walker and the Minutemen as his prime suspects. (The Minutemen are often characterized as the armed militia of the JBS, because they agreed on all the basics, i.e. that all US Presidents since FDR were Communists, and were manipulating history to allow the Communists to take over the USA.)

I can hardly wait until the actual publication of this long-awaited volume by Dr. Caufield. BTW, I first heard about this book from Harry Dean in 2013, and we've been waiting for it ever since. Since that time it has grown from 300 pages to 900 pages, so I expect the impact to be significant. It might also solve the JFK murder -- once and for all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I want to focus upon one phrase you used: "General Walker planned and executed the murder"

What types of evidence are typically found to make a credible conclusion regarding a crime of this magnitude?

1. Confessions -- i.e. the culpable parties admit what they have done. However, nobody has ever found anything in Walker's personal papers where he admits that he planned or executed the murder of JFK and nobody has ever found any other personal papers authored by persons with direct knowledge which report Walker's planning or execution.

2. Recordings -- i.e. oral history taped conversations where somebody with first-hand knowledge provides credible details regarding the plot and who did what and when. However, nobody has ever found such recordings.

3. Eyewitnesses -- i.e, one or more persons present at the scene of the crime or present at the meetings where the crime was planned. The only "evidence" here appears to be Harry Dean's recollections regarding what he claims were frequent remarks made within John Birch Society circles about the need to get rid of JFK---including by murder. However, there are major problems with Dean's recollections which we have exhaustively covered in the "Memoirs" thread. Nobody has ever found any documentary evidence in the personal papers of the alleged plotters mentioned by Harry nor has anybody found any other evidence to support Harry's story. Even worse, a few days prior to JFK's assassination, Harry wrote a letter to J. Edgar Hoover in which he summarized his contacts with the FBI but, inexplicably, Harry never even mentions this alleged murder plot by JBS members nor does he even include his supposed reports to SAC Wesley Grapp in "September 1963" during which Harry allegedly told Grapp about the murder plot and nobody has found FBI documents in Harry's FBI files or in any JBS-related files which report Harry's supposed contacts with Grapp about the JBS murder plot.

4. Documentary Evidence -- This is related to item #1. But nobody has found any documentary evidence which clearly establishes that there was any sort of specific "JBS plot" to murder JFK.

However, there HAS been documentary evidence discovered which clearly establishes that individuals whom, coincidentally, were JBS members (and persons whom were members of other extreme right organizations) talked about eliminating JFK. Such evidence has been found with respect to National States RIghts Party, Constitution Party, Congress of Freedom, KKK members, Council For Statehood, Minutemen, and a slew of other extreme-right organizations.

So my point is: Paul's stated standard for "solving" JFK's murder---particularly with respect to Walker "planning and executing" any crime is unlikely to be met. Instead, it is more likely that Caufield's new book will re-state and summarize in one place all of the disparate threads of knowledge which have previously been presented and then present a more robust speculative argument than has previously been published in books like Harrison Livingstone's 2004 book, The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy: Stunning Evidence in the Assassination of the President

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...allow me to suggest something of a truth about human nature; NO ONE would begin to be satisfied with "half" an answer. If someone were to present what he considers a finished research project ending on 11/22/1963 and with who arranged the hit and who pulled the triggers without offering an explanation of the much more complex and mysterious cover-up, and especially while suggesting how it does not relate to the other culprits, it would appear to be just what it is: a half-assed research effort which only attempts to answer some of the questions, and the least enigmatic ones, no less.

this will not satisfy the public, no matter how convincing its proposition; you show this to be so yourself, by succumbing to the need to explain Stage 2 yourself even while describing the book as leaving that part completely alone.

this is human nature. if someone's going to claim the mystery solved, then the answers need to be compelling and exhaustive, or the mystery is not solved.

just ask any jury.

My point, Glenn, was that we can consider the JFK murder apart from the JFK Cover-up. Why does that seem so difficult?

From this vantage, there are two halves to the JFK saga -- the Murder and the Coverup.

From this vantage, to solve the JFK saga, we need TWO solutions -- the Solution to the Murder, and the Solution to the Coverup.

Two different Teams with two opposite motives. That's a viable solution that no JFK researcher in the past 50 years has ever guessed.

Two halves then make a whole.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

it's not that it's difficult, it's that it's illogical. it is not where the evidence AS I'VE SEEN IT has taken me, and if i were to consider it it would be contrary to reason. which is what i use to get from one conclusion to another, regardless of whether it is what you or DVP use.

Did you read my post the other day about the generic criminal and the crime? I explained very simply why the vast majority of CTers "jump" to the conclusion that the two (three, really) phases of the murder are connected. You didn't respond, not surprisingly, but i didn't sit around for too much more of the day wondering why ol' Paul didn't respond to my post.

my claim was this: that's how crime works. humans commit crimes, and humans obey their lizard-brained need of survival. They obey this need even more than they would obey the need to know, biblically, Kate Hudson.

here is how a generic crime invariably occurs - and this is almost invariable (did i say that?) -

phase 1) Bill considers, at various degrees, committing a crime because he has a need (for money, for revenge or for survival; i.e. keeping someone else from threatening his survival). Let's say Bill wants to rob a bank, or kill his girlfriend.

phase 2) Bill robs a bank, and kills his girlfriend who was the getaway driver because she turned left when he said right.

phase 3) - and this is the invariable part - because Bill does not possess the brains of an amoeba, he knew when he was considering these crimes that he will not want to get caught and so he makes plans to avoid capture - OR: Bill has the brains of an amoeba and does not think about things that would immediately follow said crimes UNTIL he's committed them, at which point he THEN realizes that he will probably not want to be caught and tried for robbing a bank and killing his girlfriend even if she just wouldn't listen.

THE FACT is that this is how crime works, this is ALWAYS how crime does work and has worked since Cain killed Abel (read the story, Cain attempted to avoid capture, too). There is no avoiding the fact that WHOEVER planned and committed the murder of JFK that day ALSO planned an escape - an escape the complexity of which must parallel the complexity of the crime.

Paul, THIS is why anyone with brains more advanced than basic protozoi assume, reasonably, that one follows the other. and this is why to assume otherwise is quite contrary to the natural order of events that surround crime.

The person committing the crime MUST commit the escape, and in this case, making good the escape mandates making good the cover-up. I cannot think of a way around this, but I'm open to being wrong. I've been wrong before.

(and this is also why i can safely assume that you will not agree with my (empirically solid) reasoning in any way.)

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...There is no avoiding the fact that WHOEVER planned and committed the murder of JFK that day ALSO planned an escape - an escape the complexity of which must parallel the complexity of the crime.

Paul, THIS is why anyone with brains more advanced than basic protozoi assume, reasonably, that one follows the other. and this is why to assume otherwise is quite contrary to the natural order of events that surround crime.

The person committing the crime MUST commit the escape, and in this case, making good the escape mandates making good the cover-up. I cannot think of a way around this, but I'm open to being wrong. I've been wrong before.

(and this is also why i can safely assume that you will not agree with my (empirically solid) reasoning in any way.)

Well, Glenn, your reasoning is far from solid, and yet your mind is fairly closed about it. For one thing, you regard it as absolute that every criminal always plans an escape. Yet in the case of Presidential Assassinations, your "empirically solid reasoning" falls apart when faced with the historical facts.

Example 1 -- the Assassination of President Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth did not run away and hide immediately after killing President Lincoln, but he jumped onto the Theater Stage, letting everybody see his face, and gave his short speech explaining the political motive for his crime before running away.

Example 2 -- the Assassination of President McKinley. Leon Czolgosz walked directly up to the President, surrounded by SS Agents, and shot point blank into him. He was arrested immediately, and facing the press, he quickly explained his political motivation for his crime.

Those examples are typical of a Political Assassination -- the killer wants the world to know why he did it.

The murder of JFK was atypical -- JFK's killers were two-bit cowards who refused to explain why they did it, and who would also kill any witnesses who threatened to get close enough to identify them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"you regard it as absolute"

wrong; i said "almost invariable," which left open the RARE cases where a criminal intends to get caught, as in your second example. he clearly planned on giving himself up, therefore had no plan of escape.

"John Wilkes Booth did not run away and hide immediately after killing President Lincoln, but he jumped onto the Theater Stage, letting everybody see his face, and gave his short speech..."

this is not accurate. he ran across the stage making his escape, as he had a horse tied up just out the back door for this very purpose. to ESCAPE. he made NO speech, Paul, he shouted "death to tyrants," that many people didn't even hear as he was running/hobbling on his broken ankle. he didn't mind his face being seen, as it was the mid 1800's and he knew the internet was a century away - he had confederates along the way to aid his escape. you knew that, right?

You're WRONG, Paul. his full AND PRE-PLANNED intention was to escape and not get caught. are you really saying he didn't try to escape? that it was not pre-planned??? wanting the world to know the politics has nothing to do with the desire to remain free.

My point is solid. As a rule, criminals plan to get away with their crime, and this 'atypical' assassination is even more the case. as i said, the evasion of prosecution required extensive cover-up. no way around that. (you failed to address that part).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg -- you are correct about some matters but wrong on others.
I was not giving you my "opinion".

Yes you were, Ernie. You said ""Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude..." That is the phrasing of someone who is offering their own opinion on what others would conclude.

1. Does everyone know that Dr. Robert Stubblefield was always the first choice of Walker's lawyers as the psychiatrist THEY preferred?

You keep dropping hints that there is something untoward about Stubblefield and/or his report. Instead of these veiled smears, how about offering something solid?

Stubblefield obtained advice from Charles Weber, Professor of Law at MSU and Dr Titus Harris and Dr Andrew Watson as to what would constitute a reasonable, proper and thorough examination of Walker. Are they all suspicious characters as well?

2. Does everyone know that, originally, the intent was for 2 psychiatrists to examine Walker. The second (the government's choice) was Dr. Winfred Overholser but Walker's attorneys objected to him?

I have already stated that the government had the option of obtaining its own report, but decided against it after reading Stubblefield's. There was no shortage of government psychs to call on and no one could could possibly blame his team for objecting to the very creepy Overholser.

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

×