New Book!

[Ernie Lazar]

For anybody who wants to purchase the entire OMPF -- it is 2434 pages -- and NARA charges $1,947.20 (80 cents per page).

That price is highway robbery. I've got over 10 years experience in Litigation Support and I'd never get even the deepest pocketed lawyers to cough up $2k for 2434 photocopies.

Go green and give us the PDF.

NARA has the highest price for photocopies of any government agency -- and what is worse, even if they just copy documents onto a CD or DVD, they STILL charge 80 cents per page. What they sometimes use as an excuse is that NARA is the archive for an enormous amount of very old documents. Consequently, they take special care to preserve them in mint condition and, in some cases, that even requires them to make individual photocopies (i.e. not run a bunch of pages through an automatic document feeder). So, they think that they have much higher labor costs than other agencies,

However, it is possible that in the future, NARA might digitize those Walker documents and perhaps offer them for a much more reasonable cost. I obtained some of Walker's military records over 20 years ago but nothing approaching 2434 pages.

[Ernie Lazar]

Given the topic of this thread and how far it rambles, and the fact that Paul must have his copy of the new book now - Paul, how about some discussion of what you are reading in the book? You could do it here or even in the book forum. I'd be interested in some dialog from those actually involved with or reading the book itself. I don't have the time for it at the moment but seeing some discussion of what's new or what new dots have been connected would be real interest.

Well, Larry, I received my copy of Dr. Caufield's book this morning and I started skim-reading portions that interested me most.

As I stated previously in an earlier message, even if Dr. Caufield just compiled into one book, a coherent summary of all the data which has been published over the years regarding Walker and/or about the JBS or about those elements of the radical right who were interested in eliminating JFK -- that, by itself, would certainly be a praiseworthy endeavor -- because it would make it easier to understand an argument which puts "all the usual suspects" into a plausible narrative or at least one worth considering.

I probably will write a detailed review of certain portions of Dr. Caufield's book after I plow through more of the book. The first section I decided to read in its entirety was pages 590-606 pertaining to Harry Dean. I have never read Harry's 1990 publication, Crosstrails and, of course, I was never privy (before now) to the correspondence between Caufield and Harry- so there was new information to consider. What immediately struck me, however, is that there are even MORE contradictions now in Harry's "recollections" than when we previously debated him in the Memoirs thread and there are also contradictions between Caufield and what Paul Trejo presented in his 2013 eBook about Harry's story. In addition, Dr. Caufield apparently has never seen the FBI or CIA files on Harry so he could not know how much of Harry's story is falsified in those files.

I will put together a brief summary of some of the most glaring discrepancies and post it here later. But I will make the following general statement now.

In probably just about every crime, there are conflicting witness statements or evidence which presents different possibilities for analysis and interpretation and, therefore, conclusions.

However, what often seems to be unique about political conspiracy theories is the sheer number of people who come forward to claim they have some sort of "unique special knowledge" but, often, as the years go by -- their stories disintegrate into absurdity. I believe that Harry Dean is "Example A" for that phenomenon.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

I've received my copy and started reading from the beginning. I'll post something soon about the early chapter on Banister.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, Not sure what you mean by "online reading". "General Walker" does not come in e-book format...?

Bill

Well, Bill, what I mean by "online reading" is simply sharing notes with each other on an online Forum such as this one. I've found that if people take a book chapter by chapter, there is significantly less rambling, more focus, and a more satisfactory experience for all.

I notice that Paul Brancato will soon share his observations on Chapter One of Jeff Caufield's new book -- that's in the spirit of what I meant.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I've received my copy and started reading from the beginning. I'll post something soon about the early chapter on Banister.

Thanks, Paul B., for pushing this forward.

Here's my take on the first chapter (Lee Harvey Oswald and Guy Banister), pages 1-4:

The link between Lee Harvey Oswald and Guy Banister in New Orleans is a topic that is indebted to NOLA DA Jim Garrison (1968). Yet Garrison's investigation ended by linking the Oswald-Banister bond with the CIA. Here, Caufield is linking the Oswald-Banister bond with the radical right wing of civilian US politics.

Caufield claims that "there is an abundance of evidence that Director J. Edgar Hoover deliberately concealed from the Warren Commission a plot to murder the president by the radical right wing and segregationist elements." While I agree fully with that sentence, it can take two directions, either: (1) Hoover himself was part of the plot; or (2) Hoover was terrified about National Security and riots in American cities. Caufield does not yet draw a conclusion about Hoover's motive.

Caufield makes an early, direct link between Guy Banister and the resigned General Edwin Walker. According to a statement by Ivan Nitschke (the Western VP of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, and a former Director of the NRA) the Minutemen high-command moved a load of weapons through Mississippi during the "integration crisis" (presumably Ole Miss) led by Walker. Jerry Brooks, highly placed in the Minutemen, made a direct connection between Guy Banister together with Minutemen Director, Robert DePugh.

That by itself is provocative, and reveals the basic direction for Caufield's chapter.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, that's pretty strong stuff to start with so do we have any specifics yet - for example does he spell out at what point in time Hoover has that evidence in hand and is knowingly withholding it? It would make a great deal of difference just when the evidence was being concealed as against the chronology of when the FBI report was being prepared and presented to Johnson.

My next question would be where is it being concealed, is it in reports, files, testimony and how/where does he conceal it? And of course that leads to examples....does he provide specific examples of that evidence or has he found indications that the evidence was collected, assembled, withheld and then destroyed?

Or is this really just the lead in to the book - a thesis that not only was there such a conspiracy but Hoover and FBI agents accumulated an "abundance" of it, assembled it somewhere and withheld it. That would be a lot stronger statement than saying they all suspected a conspiracy but either decided not to pursue it or were unable to accumulate a substantive body of evidence. And of course if the FBI agents involved and Hoover himself were concealing such evidence it would also be a major crime in and of itself - which is a lot different than simply "missing" a right wing conspiracy.

I know all that might not be answered in the first chapter, but if not then I would suggest those would be benchmark questions to come back to as you progress though the book.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, that's pretty strong stuff to start with so do we have any specifics yet - for example does he spell out at what point in time Hoover has that evidence in hand and is knowingly withholding it? It would make a great deal of difference just when the evidence was being concealed as against the chronology of when the FBI report was being prepared and presented to Johnson.

My next question would be where is it being concealed, is it in reports, files, testimony and how/where does he conceal it? And of course that leads to examples....does he provide specific examples of that evidence or has he found indications that the evidence was collected, assembled, withheld and then destroyed?

Or is this really just the lead in to the book - a thesis that not only was there such a conspiracy but Hoover and FBI agents accumulated an "abundance" of it, assembled it somewhere and withheld it. That would be a lot stronger statement than saying they all suspected a conspiracy but either decided not to pursue it or were unable to accumulate a substantive body of evidence. And of course if the FBI agents involved and Hoover himself were concealing such evidence it would also be a major crime in and of itself - which is a lot different than simply "missing" a right wing conspiracy.

I know all that might not be answered in the first chapter, but if not then I would suggest those would be benchmark questions to come back to as you progress though the book.

Yes, yes, Larry, all good questions. So far my take on Caufield's statement about Hoover is that the "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald -- which all serious scholars and historians now accept as false -- amounts to a "concealment of evidence" to the Warren Commission.

We need only cite the ARRB publications by Douglas P. Horne (2009) that fully vindicate David Lifton's 1981 book, Best Evidence, which proposed a cover-up of evidence glaring from the Bethesda Naval Hospital as a pre-autopsy surgery -- and the subsequent withholding of all JFK autopsy photos and X-rays from the Warren Commission.

This is now a historical fact, dear readers, and no longer David Lifton's theory.

So far, in Chapter One of his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, Dr. Jeff Caufield is only alluding to this common knowledge among JFK researchers, but putting a new spin on it. Instead of the most common CIA-did-it spin that congeals with the 1968 trials pursued by NOLA DA Jim Garrison, our new book by Jeff Caufield is saying that J. Edgar Hoover was concealing evidence that would have convicted the Radical Right in the USA.

It's a new slant -- but the evidence presented so far isn't ground-breaking -- only the new slant.

WHO WAS HOOVER PROTECTING? That seems to be the crux of this new orientation. For Jim Garrison (and perhaps most CTers) Hoover was protecting the CIA. But for Jeff Caufield, Hoover was really protecting the Radical Right and the resigned General Edwin Walker.

I completely agree with Caufield, by the way -- because at this point he hasn't yet claimed any MOTIVE for Hoover's Cover-up. One can still argue that NATIONAL SECURITY was Hoover's motive.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 21, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

This is now a historical fact, dear readers, and no longer David Lifton's theory.

For the record, I believe this is the case: that there was pre-autopsy surgery. Dr. Lifton certainly should take all the credit for discovering the initial evidence and Mr. Horne for clarifying and recording it.

I don't understand though how General Walker had control of Bethesda and/or the Secret Service. Wouldn't this be above General Walker's pay grade?

[William O'Neil]

Chris, Once again, I think it's a mistake to confuse the whole "COVER -UP with the CRIME.! This will lead you into a confusing maze.

"I believe some people are merging the motive for the crime with that of the cover-up. I think that is a common mistake, and one that will confuse. Imo, I think we should approach them as two different acts. There are differing motives for different individuals and agencies, some innocent, some not.

Since Oswald’s presented “legend” caused National Security implications, some individuals and agencies would have acted out of those concerns and not necessarily out of a desire to cover culpability.

Did the plotters try and cover? Yes!

However, I think there are several distinctions as to why the Government, i.e. Hoover, LBJ, CIA, SS and Military acted as they did. I don’t think they all had common collective reactions or motives"

Bill

[Paul Trejo]

This is now a historical fact, dear readers, and no longer David Lifton's theory.

For the record, I believe this is the case: that there was pre-autopsy surgery. Dr. Lifton certainly should take all the credit for discovering the initial evidence and Mr. Horne for clarifying and recording it.

I don't understand though how General Walker had control of Bethesda and/or the Secret Service. Wouldn't this be above General Walker's pay grade?

Chris, I agree with Bill O'Neil's reply. I will only add that if (and only if) Hoover's motive was genuinely National Security -- that is, the prevention of riots in the USA -- then his energetic pursuit of a Cover-up in the JFK murder makes perfect sense, and is completely and utterly divorced from the JFK assassination plot.

Nevertheless, it is quite easy -- and most common -- to accept Jim Garrison's opinion that the people who covered up the JFK murder "must be" the same ones who killed JFK.

I say that Jim Garrison (who brilliantly exposed the NOLA scenario of Lee Harvey Oswald) was dead wrong about the JFK Cover-up. Let's see how Jeff Caufield will work this out.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 21, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

OK Paul, so in regard to the quote from Caufield:

"there is an abundance of evidence that Director J. Edgar Hoover deliberately concealed from the Warren Commission a plot to murder the president by the radical right wing and segregationist elements."

at this point per Chapter 1 then its simply a statement of his belief/conclusion as he opens the book. That's fine, not unusual to have a strong, aggressive lead in the first chapter. I'll just wait for the answers to the questions which will help determine if he is able to maintain the assertion with details.

Certainly I'd be happy to see comments from Bill, Ernie, Paul B and anyone else reading it as to how he he supports the points in my specific questions, stated above, as the chapters proceed. Its a pretty strong claim not only to assert that such evidence exists but that Hoover an his agents assembled it and intentionally concealed it. Not to say that I don't think the Bureau concealed information about Lee Oswald, did not effectively pursue a number of leads and has other things to answer for but that quote goes a way good beyond that.

[Paul Brancato]

In general I would agree with the idea of not confusing the crime and the coverup. However, when it comes to the actions of certain individuals on the day of the crime, such as pre autopsy surgery, change of autopsy venue, I find it hard to believe that these decisions were made by people who were unprepared for the events of the day.

i'd also like to point out to Paul Trejo, and perhaps Mr. O'Neil, that drawing a line between the non-governmental far right wing and parts of our government, such as Hoover and Dulles, as if the private folks are more right wing than the heads of our intelligence agencies or our Joint Chiefs, is ridiculous. Hoover was just as much a racist as Banister. Caufield quotes a few sources that claim that Banister was in close touch with Hoover all through his 'retirement'. That makes sense. They were both in the business of smearing civil rights leaders with the Communist brush, a la McCarthy.

Caufield and Trejo seem very concerned with giving credit to Garrison while making sure to point out how mistaken he was to suspect the CIA. To hear Caufield tell it, Garrison protected the racists because he was one of them. This is the same kind of argument that 'Mafia did it' promoters use to explain why Garrison ignored the evidence pointing at Marcello.

I am curious what proof Caufield will offer showing Hoover had preknowledge of a right wing assassination plot.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Paul Brancato

[William O'Neil]

Wow Paul B, I don't recall saying all those things!? I'm not the Author. There are long discussions in the book about your points.

Bill

[Ernie Lazar]

OK Paul, so in regard to the quote from Caufield:

"there is an abundance of evidence that Director J. Edgar Hoover deliberately concealed from the Warren Commission a plot to murder the president by the radical right wing and segregationist elements."

at this point per Chapter 1 then its simply a statement of his belief/conclusion as he opens the book. That's fine, not unusual to have a strong, aggressive lead in the first chapter. I'll just wait for the answers to the questions which will help determine if he is able to maintain the assertion with details.

Certainly I'd be happy to see comments from Bill, Ernie, Paul B and anyone else reading it as to how he he supports the points in my specific questions, stated above, as the chapters proceed. Its a pretty strong claim not only to assert that such evidence exists but that Hoover an his agents assembled it and intentionally concealed it. Not to say that I don't think the Bureau concealed information about Lee Oswald, did not effectively pursue a number of leads and has other things to answer for but that quote goes a way good beyond that.

I will return to this question regarding "abundance of evidence" after I read the entire book but I have a general philosophical question first.

I don't have a clue what everyone in this thread does for a living or how long you have worked at your current job but here is my question.

Suppose, for sake of discussion, that you work in a large corporation. Let's assume you were first employed in a low-level position (perhaps even just a clerical position) but you gradually worked your way up the food chain and within a few years you became a supervisor (over a particular unit) and then a manager over several units. And, let's say that within 10-15 years, you were elevated to a senior management position, i.e. a policy-making position where hundreds or thousands of people were your subordinates.

Let's also assume for purposes of this discussion, that you happen to work in an organization which has a lot of career-oriented people, i.e. there is not a lot of turnover so as you work your way up the food chain you work with other people whom, like yourself, plan to be there for a long time. Obviously, you develop a lot of personal relationships with not only other management or supervisory personnel but even administrative support personnel.

Let's also assume that for anything to get done in your organization, there are very detailed protocols which must be followed. In other words, you cannot even purchase office supplies or equipment without 3 or 4 people carefully reviewing each request, placing the orders, and maintaining a property inventory, as well as detailed records regarding repairs and service.

This is the type of organization you work in, i.e. very detail-oriented and many different people involved in every type of decision.

And that includes policy-making decisions regarding everything of importance from hiring panels (who will participate, what questions they should ask at interviews, how new employee selections are made) to performance evaluations (what factors are considered and how employees are scored, and whether or not commendations or disciplinary actions are taken or promotions are given) to decisions concerning the public position which your organization will take regarding any matter.

Again---assume that since you work in a very large detail-oriented organization, there are always dozens of people (clerical staff, regular worker bees, section chiefs, supervisors, low-level managers, and senior management) whom, by necessity, know about every decision made about important matters AND those decisions are memorialized in writing (usually in quadruplicate or more copies) AND those decisions have to be shared not just within the building where you work but with dozens of your satellite offices across the country AND with many other outside independent entities.

And the process I just summarized above is repeated in those satellite offices and outside independent entities because each of them have similar protocols and practices in terms of how decisions are made and communicated and memorialized in written form.

Sorry this has been so wordy -- but I want to make sure everyone understands the scope of what I am proposing here.

Do you think it is possible in the type of environment I just described (and be sure to put yourself there as a career employee) that a decision could be made which would be totally hidden for 50 years?

Let me put my question in the context of an automobile company.

Could it be possible (for example), for General Motors to design, manufacture, advertise and promote and sell a vehicle which they knew (from the outset) contained defective parts but that knowledge could be tightly controlled and limited to just perhaps 3 or 4 people? Where would you expect to find "the evidence" of that knowledge? Could it be limited to just senior management (perhaps 3 or 4 people) for 50 years and somehow buried over subsequent decades so that nobody who came into contact with that knowledge ever brought it to public attention, i.e. not management personnel, not supervisory personnel, not any vehicle designers, not any public relations personnel, not any administrative support employees who typed memos and reports about the defects or lawsuits, not any corporate legal staff, not any dealers who sold the vehicle, not any dealer repair employees?

Edited September 21, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, that's pretty strong stuff to start with so do we have any specifics yet - for example does he spell out at what point in time Hoover has that evidence in hand and is knowingly withholding it? It would make a great deal of difference just when the evidence was being concealed as against the chronology of when the FBI report was being prepared and presented to Johnson.

My next question would be where is it being concealed, is it in reports, files, testimony and how/where does he conceal it? And of course that leads to examples....does he provide specific examples of that evidence or has he found indications that the evidence was collected, assembled, withheld and then destroyed?

Or is this really just the lead in to the book - a thesis that not only was there such a conspiracy but Hoover and FBI agents accumulated an "abundance" of it, assembled it somewhere and withheld it. That would be a lot stronger statement than saying they all suspected a conspiracy but either decided not to pursue it or were unable to accumulate a substantive body of evidence. And of course if the FBI agents involved and Hoover himself were concealing such evidence it would also be a major crime in and of itself - which is a lot different than simply "missing" a right wing conspiracy.

I know all that might not be answered in the first chapter, but if not then I would suggest those would be benchmark questions to come back to as you progress though the book.

The questions which Larry asks are important in themselves but there is also a larger context. This gets back to my previous comments about epistemological methods employed to separate fact from fiction.

If I was required to do so -- I probably could write a narrative which would make all sorts of horrific statements and conclusions about almost any person or organization. My task would certainly be easier if there already existed some kernels of fact which I could use, in conjunction with falsehoods, to defame someone. The best fiction contains such kernels of fact -- which is what makes the fiction so plausible. Disinformation campaigns are based upon that principle.

There are several things which I will look for as I read Dr. Caufield's book -- such as:

(1) What familiarity does Caufield have with FBI internal protocols, practices, and procedures? In other words, does he merely assert something is true or should be believed or does he have verifiable factual knowledge regarding the inner workings of that organization?

(2) What methodology does Caufield employ when there is ambiguous or suspect evidence to consider? In other words, does he always select the option which conforms to his personal beliefs and which reflects adversely upon the persons or entities he consider villainous?

(3) To what extent are there multiple independent sources to support whatever Caufield wants the reader to believe? In other words, does he merely artfully select and emphasize whatever data conforms to a pre-determined conclusion while ignoring or minimizing contradictory evidence?

The great philosopher of science (Karl Popper) observed (before internet came into existence) that in the universe of all available data, there will ALWAYS be "confirmations" for whatever someone wants to believe. In other words, you can always find "proof" for whatever conclusions you prefer to believe about any subject matter.

Popper then pointed out that discovering actual truth (aka reality) does NOT occur from finding "confirmations" -- but, rather, from acknowledging the existence of and then falsifying contradictory evidence.

In other words, one must be receptive to and candidly acknowledge the existence of data which does not conform to one's initial belief -- and THEN go about the more arduous process of falsifying that data before coming to a final conclusion about the truth or falsity of the initial predicate.

However, if an author decides to use or emphasize data from sources which are not reliable or are highly suspect, then it naturally raises a question about judgment.

Similarly, if an author presents bold statements or conclusions which are disconnected from the reality of how an organization or agency functions, then even if the author presents what seems to be a plausible hypothesis regarding motivations or objectives of certain people or groups, the author's argument must produce rigorous skepticism.