New Book!

[Roger DeLaria]

Through my reading and study, I've come to the conclusion that it was LBJ. It wasn't just LBJ alone by himself, but LBJ was the lynchpin at the epicenter of other conspirators(Texas Oil, CIA, industrialists/war profiteers) whom he had deep ties to, and whom had a vested interest in JFK being eliminated. LBJ was going to be personally and politically ruined and go to prison. LBJ had Big Oil and MIC money behind him, as well as the Texas political machine. He had deep relations and contacts throughout congress, the state of Texas, industry and commerce, as well as law enforcement to ensure he got off scot-free. I see the who and the why right there. LBJ had a clear motive and wouldn't have any problems finding willing co-conspirators.

[Paul Trejo]

Through my reading and study, I've come to the conclusion that it was LBJ. It wasn't just LBJ alone by himself, but LBJ was the lynchpin at the epicenter of other conspirators(Texas Oil, CIA, industrialists/war profiteers) whom he had deep ties to, and whom had a vested interest in JFK being eliminated. LBJ was going to be personally and politically ruined and go to prison. LBJ had Big Oil and MIC money behind him, as well as the Texas political machine. He had deep relations and contacts throughout congress, the state of Texas, industry and commerce, as well as law enforcement to ensure he got off scot-free. I see the who and the why right there. LBJ had a clear motive and wouldn't have any problems finding willing co-conspirators.

Well, Roger, if LBJ and the Military-Industrial Complex killed JFK, then they surely didn't need the Extreme Right Wing in politics to help them.

Yet., IMHO, such a conclusion must be based on the misguided notion that JFK was "against" the Military-Industrial Complex. In fact, JFK was divided about the Vietnam War -- JFK was a believer in the Domino Theory.

Also, JFK was a war-hero of WW2, and he was proud of it.

Also, JFK's family wealth was just as much tied up with Big Oil and Big Industrialists as anybody else -- including H.L. Hunt. The Kennedy millions were conservatively invested along with all of the other vastly wealthy families of 1963.

I think an all-too-liberal reading of JFK makes him look like a left-wing bleeding-heard liberal -- when actually JFK was a pragmatist of the first order.

On the contrary -- the notion that JFK was an ultra-liberal was the Big Lie that the Extreme Right Wing tried to spread about JFK. JFK didn't like the Extreme Right Wing, but JFK wasn't an Extreme Left Winger. It isn't an Either/Or scenario.

JFK was in the Center. He might have gone into Vietnam if he had lived -- and if he had gone in, IMHO JFK would have conducted the Vietnam War to a quick and successful end, because being Catholic, he could see that the real problem in South Vietnam was the Catholic banning of Buddhism. JFK would have handled that, and stopped all those Buddhist monks from making human torches out of themselves. (Probably the average Vietnamese fighter in the forest thought that the Americans were coming to Vietnam to force them all to become Catholics -- what did the average Vietnamese farmer know about Marxism-Leninism? Nothing!)

OK, I can go on and on; but my point is that JFK wasn't part of the Extreme Left Wing. JFK was slightly left of Conservative -- yet we shouldn't go too far in that assessment. The Kennedys were also invested in Big Oil. Big Oil didn't kill JFK. The Extreme Right Wing in politics -- the radicals in the Tea Party of their day -- that, IMHO, is who killed JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

The theory that the Extreme Right Wing in the USA, led by the resigned General Walker, plotted to kill JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963 in Dealey Plaza isn't a new theory, but it is definitely one of the least perused theories in the past 50 years.

By far, the theory of Jim Garrison (canonized in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie, JFK, which would have been better titled, The Jim Garrison Story) has been the most popular of all JFK conspiracy theories (CTs). Almost all of the CIA-did-it theories of the JFK murder refer directly to Jim Garrison at some point.

Although Jim Garrison failed to solve the JFK murder, he did expose a network of Extreme Right Wing radicals in New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA) who were exploiting Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) during the summer of 1963, using a Fake FPCC branch in NOLA.

We can see from the Google Books preview of this new CT by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, that Dr. Caufield will show a direct linkage between Guy Banister of NOLA and the resigned General Walker, specifically through the JBS and the Minutemen organizations.

Yet most CTs have emphasized the CIA-did-it aspect of Jim Garrison's CT. I'd like to remark about the differences.

When I first joined this FORUM in 2011, I had just finished reading the book by Robert Morrow, First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of JFK (1992). (I was so impressed with that book, and so eager to contact Robert Morrow that when I saw his name on this FORUM, I contacted him right away, only to find that this was a different, much younger Robert Morrow, the author of that book having passed on years previously. The young Robert Morrow was still impressed by my enthusiasm, even though he holds to an LBJ-did-it theory, so that as a personal friend of John Simkin, he arranged for my acceptance into this FORUM.)

Morrow's 1992 book confirms several aspects of Jim Garrison's CT. In brief, his story runs as follows. Morrow was one of many CIA assets in the war against Fidel Castro in 1963, and in this context he met David Ferrie. As a result of their common purpose, Robert Morrow received a cash payment from David Ferrie for the delivery of four customized Manlicher-Carcano rifles, capable of being dismantled and reassembled in seconds. When he asked why, Morrow was told this was for a "secret mission." This occurred in August 1963.

Morrow's 1992 book further claims that at the same time, Eladio Del Valle asked Morrow to purchase four walkie-talkie transceivers. Morrow delivered all these items to David Ferrie, who then admitted to Morrow the purpose of this secret mission -- it was to provoke an invasion of Cuba.

Morrow thought very little of this routine request, because he had seen that Ferrie and Del Valle were working closely with CIA officers Tracy Barnes and William Harvey, so he presumed it was an official CIA operation, although it also included many lower-level Cuban assets and Mafia-connected figures such as Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Sergio Archana Smith and Rolando Masferrer. However, after the JFK murder, Robert Morrow came to suspect David Ferrie of the plot.

I happen to believe Robert Morrow as regards his eye-witness account of the events -- although I don't believe that Morrow correctly interpreted many of the events that he witnessed. He jumped to conclusions (as so many do), and furthermore, he later connected the dots based on the findings of Jim Garrison. In Robert Morrow's opinion, David Ferrie was the mastermind of the JFK murder. As far as he could tell, David gave orders to Guy Banister and to everybody in the plot. The Mafia figures and even Clay Shaw were merely money donors for David Ferrie.

IMHO, Robert Morrow gives us valuable eye-witness information, and yet we must accept it with a grain of salt. Morrow was not high enough in the chain of command of the CIA to see clearly enough. For example, Bill Simpich just last year, in his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), demonstrated conclusively, IMHO, that the CIA high-command had zero knowledge about who impersonated LHO in Mexico City (which is why they started the famous Simpich Mole-Hunt).

Removing his leaps of judgment, the eye-witness account of Bill Morrow is exactly as valuable, IMHO, as the eye-witness accounts of Harry Dean, and of FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen. These gentlemen are like four blind men, each touching a different aspect of an elephant, and each offering different reports about what the elephant is like. (I call this approach the Unified Field Theory of the JFK assassination.)

It seems to me that David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Beckham -- the main NOLA characters publicly identified by Jim Garrison in 1968 -- were too low-level to be considered CIA officers, but were all in agreement about Extreme Right Wing politics in the USA. It seems to me that Jim Garrison failed to identify the true motive of the JFK murder -- JFK's political clash with the Extreme Right Wing in the USA.

This new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will reopen this discussion, IMHO, and this will soon solve the JFK murder once and for all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Paul, Be careful regarding Morrow and his "credibility". After talking with Mr. Morrow after a COPA meeting in Chicago, Caufield and I determined that he never met David Ferrie. Morrow could barely describe Ferrie physically, and said he would never forget his "southern drawl". As Steve Roy can confirm, Ferrie hailed from Cleveland Ohio, which Morrow did not seem to know, and DID NOT have a "southern drawl"... at all! This and other observations led us to discount Morrow for the most part.


-Bill

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, Be careful regarding Morrow and his "credibility". After talking with Mr. Morrow after a COPA meeting in Chicago, Caufield and I determined that he never met David Ferrie. Morrow could barely describe Ferrie physically, and said he would never forget his "southern drawl". As Steve Roy can confirm, Ferrie hailed from Cleveland Ohio, which Morrow did not seem to know, and DID NOT have a "southern drawl"... at all! This and other observations led us to discount Morrow for the most part.

-Bill

Wow, Bill, based on your statement, one would conclude that Robert Morrow had to be a fiction writer -- there's no other conclusion I can see because David Ferrie was the centerpiece of Robert Morrow's well-known book, First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of JFK (1992).

Do you believe it might be possible that Robert Morrow simply mistook certain features of David Ferrie's personality -- features which were possible faked by David Ferrie himself?

For example, it's well-known that David Ferrie was gay, and it's well-known that Robert Morrow insisted that David Ferrie wasn't gay -- but Morrow was surprised that most people with whom David Ferrie associated were gay.

In other words, David Ferrie could have been leading a double life.

I mention this because David Ferrie, though he was from Ohio, nevertheless lived in the so-called "French Quarter" of NOLA, close to Clay Shaw. So, is it possible that David Ferrie -- to blend in with his social surroundings, presented himself to Robert Morrow with a Southern drawl while he lived in Louisiana? And is it possible that David Ferrie, who was homosexual, nevertheless gave Robert Morrow the distinct and deliberate impression that he wasn't?

In other words -- is it possible that David Ferrie made himself appear other than he really was to Robert Morrow, specifically? Remember that Robert Morrow came away with the distinct impression that David Ferrie was the mastermind of the JFK murder. Could that have been how Ferrie presented himself, namely, a straight man from the South, with battle scars from military battles against Fidel Castro -- and a mastermind of CIA operations?

That seems to be the choice, Bill: either David Ferrie fooled Robert Morrow into believing that he was somebody very powerful -- or Robert Morrow lied through his teeth about the key narrative and characters of his famous book.

And if he lied about David Ferrie, did he also lie about John Martino and the CIA in Miami? Was it all just fiction?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

No Paul, Ferrie was a well known homosexual in the 'Quarter' and elsewhere. This was one reason he couldn't get along with some of the exiles, who frowned upon him because of their Roman Catholic attitudes (beliefs). Word filtered down through the Cuban community in NO's early on, that Ferrie had been charged with "crimes against nature" and it did not sit well with them...at all!

I don't want to get into specifics online about Mr. Morrow. Suffice it to say, I have several reasons to think he was a phony, interested in selling books..or, disinfo . Most likely both. He later got sued and lost, for his accusations in his book on the RFK case.

Bill

Edited September 5, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Larry Hancock]

Well once more I'm going to jump in having researched Robert Morrow at great length. For starters, I got to be good friends with Professor who had been very close to Morrow and had the opportunity to talk to him over an extended period of time. The net of those conversations was that Morrow was intensely interested in the assassination, his wife worked in DC and in the early 70's both of them collected a considerable amount of information from people who stated they had known something about the assassination (none of those individuals being people we normally discuss such as Ferrie). Morrows most explosive leads came from the son of an Air Force officer and his girlfriend; both of who suspected his father and another officer of having somehow been involved. You will find the two Col's mentioned in his Morrow's books. To make a long story short on that one, the son was not very stable, had a very poor relationship with his father and had seen some cash in the house that was most likely involved with pay offs to French officials for defense equipment sales - both Col's went on to work for aircraft industry companies after retiring.

Morrow himself did help stimulate interest in DC and got the attention of some individuals, one of whom helped lobby for the creation of a new investigation. The problem is, that Morrow admitted to my friend and to other researchers that what was in his books was extremely exaggerated - fiction in regard to most of his personal stories - written with the goal of stirring public interest in a new investigation. Anyone reading most of his books where he talks about his contacts with CIA officers and especially the fascinating deep bunker under one senior officers house has to suspect he is exaggerating even if its not totally fiction - the Cuban attack at Adam Clayton Powells island home is another example.

So after all that, I dug into his CIA files...which do exist...and the bottom line is that he did get involved with a counterfeiting project with a Cuban exile - who thought it had been approved after he met with a couple of US officials - State Dept no less. And later on he helped lobby and do political outreach for the guy in a couple of Latin American countries. The CIA files make it clear that the only reason for their interest is that he and the Cuban political figure kept stumbling though other activities they were carrying out in Latin America. Morrow may have belived the counterfeiting venture was CIA approved, perhaps it even got a head nod from somebody. But the rest of his story is pure exaggeration, perhaps with a good motive but still a major obstacle to real research.

And for full disclosure, his was the first assassination book I ever read, I was enthralled by it and it got me started in research on exile connections. In regard to his book on the RFK assassination, he did get sued and lost but it just may be that the the leads he was following there were far more significant than anything of his JFK books. Larry

[Stephen Roy]

All historical evidence is not created equal; Some is good, some is not. A seasoned researcher can read an account like Morrow's and reasonably place it in context: Not necessarily a definitive thumbs up/down, but at least a caution that a particular account seems wildly anomalous to the existing body of evidence. In other words, an instinct that the account might be wrong or, at least, in need of corroboration.

Looking at Morrow's books in context, I agree with Dr. Jeff and Bill that it is very unlikely that he ever met Ferrie, and with Larry that the bulk of his story is pure exaggeration. You can feel free to disagree, but I would not recommend using Morrow's info without specific corroboration.

[William O'Neil]

Interesting stuff Larry! Good to hear from you Stephen!

Bill

[Paul Trejo]

...Morrow himself did help stimulate interest in DC and got the attention of some individuals, one of whom helped lobby for the creation of a new investigation. The problem is, that Morrow admitted to my friend and to other researchers that what was in his books was extremely exaggerated - fiction in regard to most of his personal stories - written with the goal of stirring public interest in a new investigation...

Larry

Well, I'll be doggone. Robert Morrow made such a believable account. Yet insofar as he admitted that it was "extremely exaggerated," then the strength of his narrative must have been based on the stringy thread of truth in his account. Yet when somebody deliberately exaggerates, we have no way of separating the truth from the fiction.

I'm now obliged to scratch Robert Morrow off my list of a Unified Field Theory of the JFK assassination. Pity.

In the long run, however, Robert Morrow's account had only been an extra support for Jim Garrison's identification of David Ferrie and Clay Shaw as central players of the JFK plot in NOLA. Still, by removing Robert Morrow's alleged eye-witness claims about David Ferrie, this immediately weakens the Jim Garrison case, for me.

I mention this because my trust in Jim Garrison's conclusions suffered a set-back last year with Bill Simpich's free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), which IMHO exonerates the CIA high-command from involvement in the JFK plot. And especially when we consider the bio-fiction by David Atlee Phillips (aka Maurice Bishop), namely, The Amlash Legacy (1988). In that book Phillips claims that he groomed Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA and in Mexico City for the purpose of assassinating Fidel Castro in Cuba -- and then somebody somehow hijacked Oswald away for the JFK murder.

If that's probable, then it's equally probable that David Ferrie, Clay Shaw and the whole NOLA crew identified by Jim Garrison were really working as flunkies for the CIA as they claimed -- specifically to murder Fidel Castro, and not JFK.

In other words, by removing Robert Morrow from my list, the odds have now increased that Jim Garrison didn't discover a JFK-murder-plot it NOLA, but only another Castro-murder-plot. Thus, everybody on Jim Garrison's list might have been as completely innocent of the JFK plot as David Atlee Phillips claimed to be.

Then the question would turn to this -- who hijacked Lee Harvey Oswald to be the Communist FPCC Patsy for the Dealey Plaza murder? The answer seems to shoot out at us -- it was the resigned General Walker of Dallas, in cooperation with Guy Banister of NOLA.

In other words, as unlikely as it might seem today, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie might have been totally ignorant of the Dallas plot to kill JFK (despite the fact that they expressed infinite hatred for JFK, as most Minutemen and Extreme Right Wingers always had).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 6, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Stephen Roy]

Interesting stuff Larry! Good to hear from you Stephen!

Bill

Back atcha! I got the book, finished a "scan-read," and now I'm re-reading it in detail. An unexpected direction, lots of surprises, lots to ponder and maybe re-think.

[Kenneth Drew]

The theory that the Extreme Right Wing in the USA, led by the resigned General Walker, plotted to kill JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963 in Dealey Plaza isn't a new theory, but it is definitely one of the least perused theories in the past 50 years.

By far, the theory of Jim Garrison (canonized in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie, JFK, which would have been better titled, The Jim Garrison Story) has been the most popular of all JFK conspiracy theories (CTs). Almost all of the CIA-did-it theories of the JFK murder refer directly to Jim Garrison at some point.

Although Jim Garrison failed to solve the JFK murder, he did expose a network of Extreme Right Wing radicals in New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA) who were exploiting Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) during the summer of 1963, using a Fake FPCC branch in NOLA.

We can see from the Google Books preview of this new CT by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, that Dr. Caufield will show a direct linkage between Guy Banister of NOLA and the resigned General Walker, specifically through the JBS and the Minutemen organizations.

Yet most CTs have emphasized the CIA-did-it aspect of Jim Garrison's CT. I'd like to remark about the differences.

When I first joined this FORUM in 2011, I had just finished reading the book by Robert Morrow, First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of JFK (1992). (I was so impressed with that book, and so eager to contact Robert Morrow that when I saw his name on this FORUM, I contacted him right away, only to find that this was a different, much younger Robert Morrow, the author of that book having passed on years previously. The young Robert Morrow was still impressed by my enthusiasm, even though he holds to an LBJ-did-it theory, so that as a personal friend of John Simkin, he arranged for my acceptance into this FORUM.)

Morrow's 1992 book confirms several aspects of Jim Garrison's CT. In brief, his story runs as follows. Morrow was one of many CIA assets in the war against Fidel Castro in 1963, and in this context he met David Ferrie. As a result of their common purpose, Robert Morrow received a cash payment from David Ferrie for the delivery of four customized Manlicher-Carcano rifles, capable of being dismantled and reassembled in seconds. When he asked why, Morrow was told this was for a "secret mission." This occurred in August 1963.

Morrow's 1992 book further claims that at the same time, Eladio Del Valle asked Morrow to purchase four walkie-talkie transceivers. Morrow delivered all these items to David Ferrie, who then admitted to Morrow the purpose of this secret mission -- it was to provoke an invasion of Cuba.

Morrow thought very little of this routine request, because he had seen that Ferrie and Del Valle were working closely with CIA officers Tracy Barnes and William Harvey, so he presumed it was an official CIA operation, although it also included many lower-level Cuban assets and Mafia-connected figures such as Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Sergio Archana Smith and Rolando Masferrer. However, after the JFK murder, Robert Morrow came to suspect David Ferrie of the plot.

I happen to believe Robert Morrow as regards his eye-witness account of the events -- although I don't believe that Morrow correctly interpreted many of the events that he witnessed. He jumped to conclusions (as so many do), and furthermore, he later connected the dots based on the findings of Jim Garrison. In Robert Morrow's opinion, David Ferrie was the mastermind of the JFK murder. As far as he could tell, David gave orders to Guy Banister and to everybody in the plot. The Mafia figures and even Clay Shaw were merely money donors for David Ferrie.

IMHO, Robert Morrow gives us valuable eye-witness information, and yet we must accept it with a grain of salt. Morrow was not high enough in the chain of command of the CIA to see clearly enough. For example, Bill Simpich just last year, in his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), demonstrated conclusively, IMHO, that the CIA high-command had zero knowledge about who impersonated LHO in Mexico City (which is why they started the famous Simpich Mole-Hunt).

Removing his leaps of judgment, the eye-witness account of Bill Morrow is exactly as valuable, IMHO, as the eye-witness accounts of Harry Dean, and of FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen. These gentlemen are like four blind men, each touching a different aspect of an elephant, and each offering different reports about what the elephant is like. (I call this approach the Unified Field Theory of the JFK assassination.)

It seems to me that David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Beckham -- the main NOLA characters publicly identified by Jim Garrison in 1968 -- were too low-level to be considered CIA officers, but were all in agreement about Extreme Right Wing politics in the USA. It seems to me that Jim Garrison failed to identify the true motive of the JFK murder -- JFK's political clash with the Extreme Right Wing in the USA.

This new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will reopen this discussion, IMHO, and this will soon solve the JFK murder once and for all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

This new book by Xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx will reopen this discussion, IMHO, and this will soon solve the JFK murder once and for all.

I wonder approximately how many times that statement or one very similar has been written in the last 50 years and how many more times it will be written in the next 50?

[Paul Trejo]

...This new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will reopen this discussion, IMHO, and this will soon solve the JFK murder once and for all....

I wonder approximately how many times that statement or one very similar has been written in the last 50 years and how many more times it will be written in the next 50?

Well, Kenneth, I don't know about that, but I can say this. I've read well over 200 books on the JFK murder in the past 24 years, and by far most of them have been variations on Jim Garrison's "CIA-did-it" conspiracy theory. Even Mark Lane, one of the original witnesses of the Warren Commission, got himself married to the CIA-did-it CT with his 1991 book, Plausible Denial.

After the HSCA disappointment led by Professor Robert Blakey, we saw a spate of JFK books proclaiming the "Mafia-did-it" CT. Perhaps the most famous of those today is the well-known "James Files" series.

Most recently we've seen an upsurge of "LBJ-did-it" theories. There are probably half a dozen of these CT's out there; some of them by well-known writers.

Of course, they've all failed to make a solid case. After 50 years, we're no closer to answering the question, "who killed JFK if it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald?"

So, it's no wonder that the modern reader would be skeptical. What? Another JFK conspiracy theory? Aren't they all floundering flops?

However, the truth is that one of the CT's will eventually prove to be the correct one. We know this because Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren promised the American people that the true record of events was "being preserved" and that it would be released to the American people in a later generation.

In a sense this is a moot point, because in 1992 President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act, creating the ARRB and setting the new date for the full release of JFK top secret records as Thursday 26 October 2017. In a sense, all we really need to do is wait for that date, to find out who really killed JFK.

At the same time, after 50 years of beating our heads against the wall of Warren Report lies, many of us have a stubborn habit of seeking the truth about JFK -- a habit that's hard to break.

Fifty years ago -- January 1965 to be exact -- Harry Dean shocked the American public on the Joe Pyne Show when he announced that he attended a September 1963 John Birch Society meeting in Southern California along with sundry secret JBS members, Congressman John Rousselot, war hero Gabby Gabaldon, and the resigned General Edwin Walker. In that tightly closed meeting, claims Harry Dean, General Walker told the group that he had the perfect Patsy for their JFK murder plot in Dallas -- his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Ever since that time, Harry Dean has been taking plenty of heat for his story -- but he never changed it. Two close pals of Gabby Gabaldon and Harry were also involved, said Harry, namely Loran Hall (a Cuban-American from Kansas) and Larry Howard (a Mexican-American from Los Angeles).

Then, in 1968, Jim Garrison held his widely publicized case against Clay Shaw in NOLA (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK). It's a little known fact that Jim Garrison also held Loran Hall and Larry Howard for questioning.

Anyway, Jim Garrison lost his case against Clay Shaw, and ended up blaming the CIA for botching his case, and ultimately for killing JFK as well. The publicity that Jim Garrison got in the late 1960's was sufficient to start a cottage industry of books blaming the CIA for the murder of JFK.

But none of them panned out. That 1992 book by Robert Morrow that we've been discussing is just one more case in point.

What excites me about this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, is that he's finally reviving the 1965 suspicions about the resigned General Walker again -- after a half-century. This is actually an unusual approach. It's almost unique -- except for Harry Dean's work, that is.

After looking at the personal papers of the resigned General Walker at UT Austin in the past few years, I believe that scholars and JFK researchers have overlooked the best clues in the case.

Aside from the General Walker CT, the best book of the past 50 years, IMHO, was David Lifton's classic, Best Evidence (1980). However, that book only proves that the US Government lied about the JFK Cover-up -- and presents no significant data about the JFK Murder -- two very different scenarios.

I'd note here that one of the chiefs of the ARRB, namely Douglas P. Horne, wrote his book, Inside the ARRB (2009) which completely upholds the findings of David Lifton. (Congratulations, David.) However, I repeat -- we know that the US Government covered up the JFK murder, but that doesn't tell us who the killers were (unless we enjoy jumping to conclusions). Even David Lifton recognized a few times in his famous book that there could have been a good reason for the cover-up, namely, National Security.

Again -- the best JFK CT books in the past half-century have brought us no closer to a solution to the JFK murder itself. IMHO, we will find more positive clues about the JFK murder in this new book by Jeffrey Caufield than any other book in the past 50 years.

Just my opinion,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 6, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

Just my opinion,

--Paul Trejo

And a very good opinion, I sure have no problem with it. But a few comments. I have been reading about the JFK murder since the Warren Report came out, then especially started reading a lot about it with Rush to Judgment and 6 Seconds in Dallas. I have never thought that LHO killed JFK. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it since 1963. All LN books follow the same pattern, they all believe the WCR hook line and sinker. No questions asked.

I have no idea how many JFK books I have read, very very many, and, in fact, have forgotten many that I've read. I've started a few that are so silly and ridiculous that I didn't bother to finish them. O'Reilly's book, Killing Kennedy fits in that category. Warren Report all the way. The book DVP assisted on this year was like that. Complete waste of time.

I don't know who I think was responsible for the killing and it doesn't seem to be very important exactly who it was because he/they totally got away with it, apparently with the approval of many very high people in the US government. (Which includes the military.)

Think about your statement: "However, that book only proves that the US Government lied about the JFK Cover-up" Did the US Government 'lie' about the cover-up? Let me make a simple statement of the scenario, it goes something like this: Ok, fellows, we are going ahead with our plan to kill JFK. Here's how it's going to be done. We are going to have 6 shooters all around Dealey Plaza. Firing will begin on signal. There will be about one shot every 3 seconds until it is clear that JFK is dead. Once we see some sign (his brains splattering all over the street) we will cease firing. Depending on the situation, how many shots and from where, we will have several different scenarios to feed to the public about who was responsible, We have a couple of Patsy's set up to take the fall. Here is the story that will be fed to the public, any questions?". Then say that script plays out exactly as it did. Who is lying? Aren't they just following the script? If an actor in a movie tells a story about what he is doing in the movie, is he lying? Or is that part of the planned activities?

Yes, I know it's all semantics, but they are serious players and likely would not consider themselves to be acting or lying, just following their plan.

"January 1965 to be exact -- Harry Dean shocked the American public on the Joe Pyne Show when he announced that he attended a September 1963 John Birch Society meeting in Southern California along with sundry secret JBS members,"

As you noted that this was said in Jan, 1965. Is it possible it took him a full year to come up with that story? Could it have had a purpose?

This whole effort to say that it was Edwin Walker that headed up the assassination is a relatively new thing. I know that Walker has been named in association with the murder for a long time, but not until more recently as the 'leader' of the plot. I think it is just that, though, just one of the cover stories for who might have done it. The odds that Walker had an organization that could control all the high ranking military, J E Hoover, LBJ, the CIA, the Secret Service is somewhere between slim and none. And most likely much closer to the ' none' than to the 'slim'. And for those Lone Nutters, the odds that LHO could get all those people to cover for him are much slimmer than Walker's chances (which as you recall are 'none').

So, yes.... some people can write interesting novels, with scenarios that can be quite believable if it were in a vacuum, but when people with a good knowledge of all the facts that have gone before it start reading, it often doesn't take long to realize they are reading crap. Such as the Bug Man's book. I read some of that and skimmed the rest of it and there just is nothing there. This new book, I will start. Wonder how far I will get.

Just my opinion

Kenneth Drew

[Ernie Lazar]

...This new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will reopen this discussion, IMHO, and this will soon solve the JFK murder once and for all....

I wonder approximately how many times that statement or one very similar has been written in the last 50 years and how many more times it will be written in the next 50?

Well, Kenneth, I don't know about that, but I can say this. I've read well over 200 books on the JFK murder in the past 24 years, and by far most of them have been variations on Jim Garrison's "CIA-did-it" conspiracy theory. Even Mark Lane, one of the original witnesses of the Warren Commission, got himself married to the CIA-did-it CT with his 1991 book, Plausible Denial.

After the HSCA disappointment led by Professor Robert Blakey, we saw a spate of JFK books proclaiming the "Mafia-did-it" CT. Perhaps the most famous of those today is the well-known "James Files" series.

Most recently we've seen an upsurge of "LBJ-did-it" theories. These are probably half a dozen of these CT's out there; some of them by well-known writers.

Of course, they've all failed to make a solid case. After 50 years, we're no closer to answering the question, "who killed JFK if it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald?"

So, it's no wonder that the modern reader would be skeptical. What? Another JFK conspiracy theory? Aren't they all floundering flops?

However, the truth is that one of the CT's will eventually prove to be the correct one. We know this because Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren promised the American people that the true record of events was "being preserved" and that it would be released to the American people in a later generation.

In a sense this is a moot point, because in 1992 President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act, creating the ARRB and setting the new date for the full release of JFK top secret records as Thursday 26 October 2017. In a sense, all we really need to do is wait for that date, to find out who really killed JFK.

At the same time, after 50 years of beating our heads against the wall of Warren Report lies, many of us have a stubborn habit of seeking the truth about JFK -- a habit that's hard to break.

Fifty years ago -- January 1965 to be exact -- Harry Dean shocked the American public on the Joe Pyne Show when he announced that he attended a September 1963 John Birch Society meeting in Southern California along with sundry secret JBS members, Congressman John Rousselot, war hero Gabby Gabaldon, and the resigned General Edwin Walker. In that tightly closed meeting, claims Harry Dean, General Walker told the group that he had the perfect Patsy for their JFK murder plot in Dallas -- his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Ever since that time, Harry Dean has been taking plenty of heat for his story -- but he never changed it. Two close pals of Gabby Gabaldon and Harry were also involved, said Harry, namely Loran Hall (a Cuban-American from Kansas) and Larry Howard (a Mexican-American from Los Angeles).

Then, in 1968, Jim Garrison held his widely publicized case against Clay Shaw in NOLA (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK). It's a little known fact that Jim Garrison also held Loran Hall and Larry Howard for questioning.

Anyway, Jim Garrison lost his case against Clay Shaw, and ended up blaming the CIA for botching his case, and ultimately for killing JFK as well. The publicity that Jim Garrison got in the late 1960's was sufficient to start a cottage industry of books blaming the CIA for the murder of JFK.

But none of them panned out. That 1992 book by Robert Morrow that we've been discussing is just one more case in point.

What excites me about this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, is that he's finally reviving the 1965 suspicions about the resigned General Walker again -- after a half-century. This is actually an unusual approach. It's almost unique -- except for Harry Dean's work, that is.

After looking at the personal papers of the resigned General Walker at UT Austin in the past few years, I believe that scholars and JFK researchers have overlooked the best clues in the case.

Aside from the General Walker CT, the best book of the past 50 years, IMHO, was David Lifton's classic, Best Evidence (1980). However, that book only proves that the US Government lied about the JFK Cover-up -- and presents no significant data about the JFK Murder -- two very different scenarios.

I'd note here that one of the chiefs of the ARRB, namely Douglas P. Horne, wrote his book, Inside the ARRB (2009) which completely upholds the findings of David Lifton. (Congratulations, David.) However, I repeat -- we know that the US Government covered up the JFK murder, but that doesn't tell us who the killers were (unless we enjoy jumping to conclusions). Even David Lifton recognized a few times in his famous book that there could have been a good reason for the cover-up, namely, National Security.

Again -- the best JFK CT books in the past half-century have brought us no closer to a solution to the JFK murder itself. IMHO, we will find more positive clues about the JFK murder in this new book by Jeffrey Caufield than any other book in the past 50 years.

Just my opinion,

--Paul Trejo

With respect to Paul's comment that...

"Fifty years ago -- January 1965 to be exact -- Harry Dean shocked the American public on the Joe Pyne Show when he announced that he attended a September 1963 John Birch Society meeting in Southern California along with sundry secret JBS members, Congressman John Rousselot, war hero Gabby Gabaldon, and the resigned General Edwin Walker. In that tightly closed meeting, claims Harry Dean, General Walker told the group that he had the perfect Patsy for their JFK murder plot in Dallas -- his name was Lee Harvey Oswald."

When Harry contacted California Senator George Murphy in October 1966, Harry told Murphy that he began publishing "some of my old records that I had saved" -- and he gave copies of that material to "organizations, individuals, and government officials" -- starting in January 1964. Apparently, the "American public" was not "shocked" by what Harry was presenting -- just dismissive.