Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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. O'Neil 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.

O'Neil, 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 O'Neil 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 O'Neil will offer showing Hoover had pre-knowledge of a right wing assassination plot.

OK, Paul B., all I'm asking for today is to keep your mind open to the possibility.

(1) I fully realize that the overwhelming volume of JFK CT literature in the past half-century has slammed the CIA and Hoover as the guilty parties. It is almost taken for granted -- and yet there remains the lack of proof, and so a hunger arises for more theories -- and so we get the Mafia-did-it and the LBJ-did it nonsense, or the ultra-nonsense of H&L.

(2) I was once convinced that Hoover was part of the JFK Kill Team when I noticed how quickly Hoover blamed Lee Harvey Oswald as the "Lone Nut" (i.e. the day of Oswald's arrest) and never once changed from his position, no matter how much contradictory evidence came in. I used to think that was final. However, upon reconsideration of the facts, I now admit that since Hoover had solved the JFK plot by 3pm CST, and given the enormous power he had in 1963, it is just as feasible that he devised his "Lone Nut" strategy at that moment, and ordered his FBI men to push the "Lone Nut" theory immediately, in the interest of National Security. That would explain the entirety of the JFK evidence tampering that we see starting at 4pm CST on the day JFK was killed , until the publication of the Warren Report.

(2.1) That would also include informing LBJ of the "Lone Nut" strategy that very afternoon, and getting his approval.

(2.2) That would also include informing the Pentagon of this strategy.

(2.3) Therefore, the pre-autopsy surgery of JFK at Bethesda Naval Hospital occurring only six hours after JFK was killed makes perfect sense in this context. Commander Humes was only following ORDERS, and those ORDERS came from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and LBJ.

(2.4) The consistency with which the "Lone Nut' fiction was pushed by all branches of the US Government is consistent with a concerted effort to Cover-up the Truth of the JFK murder. The only question is how to interpret that; either: (i) the US Government was part of the JFK Kill Team; or (ii) the US Government acted in the cause of National Security on a moment's notice.

(2.5) The latter choice is consistent with Jim Marrs' claim that the JFK Murder conspiracy was executed flawlessly, but the JFK Cover-up conspiracy was full of holes. Of course it was full of holes -- Hoover had only one hour to plan it, while the JFK Kill Team had six months to plan.

(2.6) The latter choice is also consistent with David Lifton's book, Best Evidence (1981), and he actually raises that possibility multiple times in that book.

(3) It seems to me that an individual who is far left of center in politics cannot distinguish very well between center, center-right, right, far right and radical right political parties. Hoover was in the center. This is proved by his policy of banning JBS members from being FBI Agents.

(3.1) Communism and Anticommunism confused the issue -- because even the center and center-left in US politics were Anticommunist, including JFK himself. However, the far right was not only Anticommunist, but also Dixiecrat, Jim Crow, JBS and Minuteman. That's a major difference -- yet it's a nuance that the far left (even those in Australia, evidently) cannot seem to grasp.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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. O'Neil 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.

O'Neil, 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 O'Neil 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 O'Neil will offer showing Hoover had pre-knowledge of a right wing assassination plot.

OK, Paul B., all I'm asking for today is to keep your mind open to the possibility.

(1) I fully realize that the overwhelming volume of JFK CT literature in the past half-century has slammed the CIA and Hoover as the guilty parties. It is almost taken for granted -- and yet there remains the lack of proof, and so a hunger arises for more theories -- and so we get the Mafia-did-it and the LBJ-did it nonsense, or the ultra-nonsense of H&L.

(2) I was once convinced that Hoover was part of the JFK Kill Team when I noticed how quickly Hoover blamed Lee Harvey Oswald as the "Lone Nut" (i.e. the day of Oswald's arrest) and never once changed from his position, no matter how much contradictory evidence came in. I used to think that was final. However, upon reconsideration of the facts, I now admit that since Hoover had solved the JFK plot by 3pm CST, and given the enormous power he had in 1963, it is just as feasible that he devised his "Lone Nut" strategy at that moment, and ordered his FBI men to push the "Lone Nut" theory immediately, in the interest of National Security. That would explain the entirety of the JFK evidence tampering that we see starting at 4pm CST on the day JFK was killed , until the publication of the Warren Report.

(2.1) That would also include informing LBJ of the "Lone Nut" strategy that very afternoon, and getting his approval.

(2.2) That would also include informing the Pentagon of this strategy.

(2.3) Therefore, the pre-autopsy surgery of JFK at Bethesda Naval Hospital occurring only six hours after JFK was killed makes perfect sense in this context. Commander Humes was only following ORDERS, and those ORDERS came from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and LBJ.

(2.4) The consistency with which the "Lone Nut' fiction was pushed by all branches of the US Government is consistent with a concerted effort to Cover-up the Truth of the JFK murder. The only question is how to interpret that; either: (i) the US Government was part of the JFK Kill Team; or (ii) the US Government acted in the cause of National Security on a moment's notice.

(2.5) The latter choice is consistent with Jim Marrs' claim that the JFK Murder conspiracy was executed flawlessly, but the JFK Cover-up conspiracy was full of holes. Of course it was full of holes -- Hoover had only one hour to plan it, while the JFK Kill Team had six months to plan.

(2.6) The latter choice is also consistent with David Lifton's book, Best Evidence (1981), and he actually raises that possibility multiple times in that book.

(3) It seems to me that an individual who is far left of center in politics cannot distinguish very well between center, center-right, right, far right and radical right political parties. Hoover was in the center. This is proved by his policy of banning JBS members from being FBI Agents.

(3.1) Communism and Anticommunism confused the issue -- because even the center and center-left in US politics were Anticommunist, including JFK himself. However, the far right was not only Anticommunist, but also Dixiecrat, Jim Crow, JBS and Minuteman. That's a major difference -- yet it's a nuance that the far left (even those in Australia, evidently) cannot seem to grasp.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, some of what you have written above makes logical sense but when you get to point "(3)" -- you take the "Fantasyland" exit on the freeway.

As I have told you before, if your statement was true that Hoover "had a policy" of "banning JBS members from being FBI Agents" -- then, obviously, that "policy" would have to be communicated in some form to all subordinates----right?

In other words, what point is there in having a policy if nobody is told about it? Right?

So -- for once -- let's try to be logical.

1. What methods does ANY organization or agency use to codify policy? Usually, there are written policy directives. Those directives are in written form because, over the years, as new management or supervisory personnel participate on hiring panels they must be made aware that certain categories of applicants should not be permitted to become FBI Agents -- right?

2. The ultimate problem with your statement is that nobody has ever found such a statement or policy directive by Hoover. Not in any FBI manuals, not in any FBI internal memos, not in the summaries about the meetings of the "FBI Executive Conference" (the policy body of the FBI), not in any file pertaining to the Birch Society, not in any public speeches, or testimony before Congress, or in any newspaper interviews, nor in any FBI response to any inquiries from the public, nor was that "policy" reported by any former FBI Assistant Director who has written a book about their FBI experiences.

3. I have purchased or read every book ever published in the U.S. which contains a discussion about the JBS.

4. I also purchased or obtained through inter-library loan almost every master's thesis and doctoral dissertation written about the JBS (which you may see posted online here:) http://crws.berkeley.edu/theses-and-dissertations

5. Significantly, no historian or political scientist or former FBI management employee has ever made the assertion which you have made. Doesn't that give you pause to reconsider your statement?

6. Therefore, unless you can provide specific documentary evidence (not your assumptions, not your idiosyncratic analysis) -- you should stop making your statement.

7. Lastly, it should be remembered that many individuals who were connected to the FBI (as Special Agents or as administrative support staff or as paid security informants) were (at some point in time) also associated with the Birch Society. Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were both JBS endorsers (although that occurred after they retired from the FBI -- because the JBS did not exist during their FBI service) but many other individuals were "employed" by the FBI when (at the same time) they were JBS members -- including FBI informants like Delmar Dennis and Gerald Kirk).

ADDENDUM:

One could also take issue with your statement that Hoover "was in the center" - in terms of his personal beliefs or political preferences. I suggest that you clearly define/describe what "center" means to you -- in the context of our 20th century history. Give us some examples of other prominent Americans whom you also consider to be "in the center" as opposed to "center-right" or "right" or "far right".

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul B. said; “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.”

To clarify, I don’t mean to imply that there were no political commonalities between the right wing and some of those in government that you mention. I merely meant that some may have had different motivations for their actions.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr O'Neil - sorry for that. Not sure why I thought you were the author. Duh. I stand by my statement otherwise, but forgive me for unintentionally putting words in your mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add, referring to Paul T's #3 about Hoover disallowing his agents from joining the JBS, that even if it were true how would that prove Hoover a centrist? He had no trouble allowing his agents to join the Communist Party, obviously to infiltrate. Does that make him a leftist? If he did not treat the JBS with the same suspicion that is to his detriment.

There is such a long history of Hoover going after the left with extreme prejudice and leaving the right, corporate crooks, mobsters, alone. And don't try to prove me wrong by bringing up the FBI going after nazis during WW2. He went after the civil rights movement unceasingly, and MLK in particular. Which makes Caufield's suggestion that Banister remained in close contact with Hoover after he officially left the FBI all the more interesting. Banister's agenda was Hoover's agenda. How can anyone argue otherwise? Smear the Civil Righrs movement by smearing them as Communists? Paul - whatever else your theory is based on, it's time you got over your blind spot re Hoover.

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add, referring to Paul T's #3 about Hoover disallowing his agents from joining the JBS, that even if it were true how would that prove Hoover a centrist? He had no trouble allowing his agents to join the Communist Party, obviously to infiltrate. Does that make him a leftist? If he did not treat the JBS with the same suspicion that is to his detriment.

There is such a long history of Hoover going after the left with extreme prejudice and leaving the right, corporate crooks, mobsters, alone. And don't try to prove me wrong by bringing up the FBI going after nazis during WW2. He went after the civil rights movement unceasingly, and MLK in particular. Which makes Caufield's suggestion that Banister remained in close contact with Hoover after he officially left the FBI all the more interesting. Banister's agenda was Hoover's agenda. How can anyone argue otherwise? Smear the Civil Rights movement by smearing them as Communists? Paul - whatever else your theory is based on, it's time you got over your blind spot re Hoover.

OK, Paul B., fair enough. J. Edgar Hoover was no angel. I admit that.

Yet Nazis are the true opposites of the Communists -- the furthest right vs. the furthest left. The JBS only represented the radical right in the USA because they accused sitting US Presidents of being Communists. That is very harsh rhetoric, and J. Edgar Hoover -- in writing -- refused to tolerate that.

Having said that, I fully admit that Hoover and the JBS both had one sleazy fact in common, namely, they both played the card of accusing the Civil Rights Movement (or at least MLK in Hoover's case) of being Communist.

It was transparent to many of us -- it was a lie intended to justify Jim Crow in the South and elsewhere. So obvious. The fact that Hoover would play into that sleaze and then double-down by attacking MLK more harshly than anybody but actual assassins -- that will always haunt the memory of J. Edgar Hoover for the rest of US History.

So, I admit to that opinion.

Yet when we focus strictly on the assassination of JFK, then I hope we can separate the JBS-inspired plot by General Walker to kill JFK in Dallas, from the JBS-Hoover rhetoric against MLK.

Hoover might be innocent of the JFK Murder (and guilty only of the JFK Cover-up). I ask you today only to open your mind to the possibility. The benefit of this experiment will allow us to do something that has not been done in a half-century of JFK research, namely, to focus intently on General Walker as the mastermind of the Dallas plot -- and on Walker astonishing powerful people from J. Edgar Hoover to Robert Welch.

Let's look at the evidence as proposed by Jeff Caufield. (And by the way, I'll keep my opinions to a minimum in this book review -- we still don't know what details Caufield himself has to share about Hoover.)

Shall we continue?

For example, on page 6, Caufield suggests that while folks typically dismiss Walker as a suspect in the JFK murder because "he was in New Orleans that day," the very fact that Walker was in New Orleans -- the home of Guy Banister -- should have been seen as a clue.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add, referring to Paul T's #3 about Hoover disallowing his agents from joining the JBS, that even if it were true how would that prove Hoover a centrist? He had no trouble allowing his agents to join the Communist Party, obviously to infiltrate. Does that make him a leftist? If he did not treat the JBS with the same suspicion that is to his detriment.

There is such a long history of Hoover going after the left with extreme prejudice and leaving the right, corporate crooks, mobsters, alone. And don't try to prove me wrong by bringing up the FBI going after nazis during WW2. He went after the civil rights movement unceasingly, and MLK in particular. Which makes Caufield's suggestion that Banister remained in close contact with Hoover after he officially left the FBI all the more interesting. Banister's agenda was Hoover's agenda. How can anyone argue otherwise? Smear the Civil Rights movement by smearing them as Communists? Paul - whatever else your theory is based on, it's time you got over your blind spot re Hoover.

OK, Paul B., fair enough. J. Edgar Hoover was no angel. I admit that.

Yet Nazis are the true opposites of the Communists -- the furthest right vs. the furthest left. The JBS only represented the radical right in the USA because they accused sitting US Presidents of being Communists. That is very harsh rhetoric, and J. Edgar Hoover -- in writing -- refused to tolerate that.

Having said that, I fully admit that Hoover and the JBS both had one sleazy fact in common, namely, they both played the card of accusing the Civil Rights Movement of being Communist.

It was transparent to many of us -- it was a lie intended to justify Jim Crow in the South and elsewhere. So obvious. The fact that Hoover would play into that sleaze and then double-down by attacking MLK more harshly than anybody but actual assassins -- that will always haunt the memory of J. Edgar Hoover for the rest of US History.

So, I admit to that opinion.

Yet when we focus strictly on the assassination of JFK, then I hope we can separate the JBS-inspired plot by General Walker to kill JFK in Dallas, from the JBS-Hoover rhetoric against MLK.

Hoover might be innocent of the JFK Murder (and guilty only of the JFK Cover-up). I ask you today only to open your mind to the possibility. The benefit of this experiment will allow us to do something that has not been done in a half-century of JFK research, namely, to focus intently on General Walker as the mastermind of the Dallas plot -- and on Walker astonishing powerful people from J. Edgar Hoover to Robert Welch.

Let's look at the evidence as proposed by Jeff Caufield. (And by the way, I'll keep my opinions to a minimum in this book review -- we still don't know what details Caufield himself has to share about Hoover.)

Shall we continue?

For example, on page 6, Caufield suggests that while folks typically dismiss Walker as a suspect in the JFK murder because "he was in New Orleans that day," the very fact that Walker was in New Orleans -- the home of Guy Banister -- should have been seen as a clue.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I am trying (sincerely Paul) to understand where you get your information -- when you say Hoover thought the civil rights movement was "Communist".

I copy below the section of my JBS Report which addresses your contention:

In 1965, J. Edgar Hoover described the civil rights movement as "a great and too long neglected cause of human rights" in our country. [FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Introduction, April 1965].

After warning about radicals that had no genuine interest in advancing civil rights, Hoover observed in a December 1964 speech, that:

"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all."

[J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis on "not" and "never" in original document].

In November 1966, Hoover received an inquiry from a self-identified JBS member who saw the above quote in a letter-to-the-editor of his local newspaper and he wanted to know if the quote was an accurate reflection of Hoover’s judgment both in 1964 and 1966. Hoover replied affirmatively and concluded: “This position remains essentially unchanged today.” [HQ 62-104401-3021, 11/15/66 Hoover reply to incoming Bircher inquiry].

Also see following Hoover comments :

“It would be absurd to suggest that the aspirations of Negroes for equality are communist inspired. This is demonstrably not true…” [J. Edgar Hoover speech, Faith In Freedom, 12/4/63, page 6].

“In general, legitimate civil rights organizations have been successful in excluding Communists, although a few have received covert counseling from them and have even accepted them as members…The CP is not satisfied with this situation and is continually striving to infiltrate the civil rights movement at every level. " [J. Edgar Hoover, U.S. News and World Report, 11/1/65, page 46].

“It is no secret that one of the bitterest disappointments to communistic efforts in this Nation has been their failure to lure our Negro citizens into the party. Despite every type of propaganda boomed at our Nation’s Negro citizens, they have never succumbed to the party’s saccharine promises of a Communist ‘Utopia’. This generation and generations to come for many years owe a tremendous debt to our Negro citizens who have consistently refused to surrender their freedoms for the tyranny of communism.” J. Edgar Hoover testimony before U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 01/17/60, reprinted in March 1960 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, page 7]

As these comments make clear, Hoover and the FBI saw Communists as OUTSIDERS seeking ways to exert influence and control within the civil rights movement whereas the JBS portrayed them as INSIDERS who created and controlled the movement from the beginning.

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

Paul -- I think what you (and others) are confusing is Hoover's attitude toward specific individuals (like MLK Jr) versus his conclusion regarding the overall civil rights movement.

Incidentally, -- the FBI's "Security Investigations" file contains monthly statistical summaries regarding the number of people whom the FBI identified as Communist Party members and sympathizers whom were regarded as a potential security concern. In addition, the "CP Membership" file also contains statistical summaries of CP members by state, by Communist Party District, and by FBI field office territory. Those summaries also reflect a breakdown by race so any serious student or researcher can easily ascertain the number of black Americans who joined the CPUSA or who were secret members or who were sympathizers. That number was always minuscule. The religious background of most African Americans probably explains why so few were ever attracted to the Party.

ADDENDUM:

Another way in which you can understand the actual position of Hoover regarding Communists and our civil rights movement is when he made public statements about race riots that occurred during the 1960's. Among the things that informed Hoover's judgment regarding those riots (and which he revealed during his testimony or statements) is the fact that the FBI had detailed knowledge about the closed, secret meetings of Communist Party functionaries -- including their National Executive Committee.

I copy below another section from my JBS Report because it helps explain why Hoover stated that Communist Party members did not control or dominate our civil rights movement -- nor did they initiate or control the racial riots that occurred during the 1960's. What follows pertains to the Watts Riot in Los Angeles -- but comparable FBI reports can be found about other racial disturbances.

The FBI’s Los Angeles field office file entitled “Communism in Racial Matters” contains the following pertinent details and observations:

J. Edgar Hoover to Los Angeles Special-Agent-in-Charge

“Concerning the rioting which has been taking place in a Negro section of Los Angeles the past two days, by return airtel…advise whether or not there have been any indications of subversive involvement. You should also canvas informants in the security field to determine whether or not any subversives are involved and what the attitude is of subversive groups relative to these riots.” [Los Angeles file 100-66078, serial #305 (8/13/65 airtel J. Edgar Hoover to SAC Los Angeles]

Los Angeles Reply to Hoover

“Close contact has been maintained with informants in the security field, particularly those who are in the Communist Party (CP) since the outset of the rioting which started on the night of 8/11/65, and to date, there is no indication of subversive involvement or direction in the rioting or that the CP intends to participate in any way.”

“[Name deleted] advised on 8/13/65, that at a meeting of section organizers, Southern California District Communist Party (SCDCP) held on the evening of 8/13/65, [name deleted] SCDCP, instructed those present to stay away from the riot area and that the SCDCP would take no action until things had calmed down, at which time “they” would know how to proceed. Two Negro CP members present at this meeting were specifically instructed by [name deleted] to stay out of the riot area.”

“Close contact has been maintained with [name deleted], a CP member who lives in the Watts area, where the rioting is centered and this informant knows of no CP involvement in the rioting and has received no instructions from the CP.”

“[Name deleted], a CP Club in the Moranda Smith Section, SCDCP, has been in continuous daily contact since the rioting began. This informant has personally been in the riot areas and mingled with the rioters and has furnished information about the intentions of some of the rioters which has been promptly passed on to the Los Angeles Police Department and interested military agencies. This informant has stated that there has been no domination, direction, or involvement by the CP in the rioting. [Name deleted] a long-time CP functionary who belongs to a CP section covering part of the area of the rioting and who is employed in the general vicinity of the riot area, has been alerted since the outset of the rioting and this informant knows of no domination, direction or involvement by the CP in the rioting.”

[Name deleted – but identified as security informant], advised on the night of 8/13/65, that the Muslim leadership in Los Angeles has issued instructions to their membership not to get involved in the rioting and to keep out of trouble…”

“Racial sources have been contacted concerning the rioting and none of them have any information that the CP is involved in any way in the rioting.” [Los Angeles 100-66078, #366 (8/14/65 airtel SAC Los Angeles to J. Edgar Hoover.]

Los Angeles 100-66078, #387 (8/27/65 SAC Los Angeles to J. Edgar Hoover) summarizes “reliable”informant report of 8/24/65 concerning a meeting of the Southern California District Communist Party leadership:

“[Name deleted] also advised on 8/24/65 that at a meeting of the SCDCP Negro Commission held on 8/18/65, the Los Angeles riots were discussed and it was agreed that with the attitude of the Los Angeles Police Department following the riots there would probably be a bigger flare up in the near future. [Name deleted] said that the riots which were of a class nature rather than a race nature were not channeled in any way but were spontaneous. After the first two days, however, a number of gangs moved in and it became obvious that the local criminal element had taken over…”

“Los Angeles has canvassed logical CI, PCI, PSI and SI’s concerning this matter. These sources had no additional information which would indicate that subversives were involved in the recent Los Angeles riots.” [The abbreviations refer to various categories of informants used by the FBI.]

“Los Angeles has no additional pertinent information concerning the involvement of subversive elements in the riots in Watts and South Los Angeles during the period August 11-15, 1965. A canvass of logical criminal and security informants and racial sources has been completed and no additional information has been obtained.” [Los Angeles 100-66078, #390 (9/6/65 SAC Los Angeles to J. Edgar Hoover.]

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add, referring to Paul T's #3 about Hoover disallowing his agents from joining the JBS, that even if it were true how would that prove Hoover a centrist? He had no trouble allowing his agents to join the Communist Party, obviously to infiltrate. Does that make him a leftist? If he did not treat the JBS with the same suspicion that is to his detriment.

There is such a long history of Hoover going after the left with extreme prejudice and leaving the right, corporate crooks, mobsters, alone. And don't try to prove me wrong by bringing up the FBI going after nazis during WW2. He went after the civil rights movement unceasingly, and MLK in particular. Which makes Caufield's suggestion that Banister remained in close contact with Hoover after he officially left the FBI all the more interesting. Banister's agenda was Hoover's agenda. How can anyone argue otherwise? Smear the Civil Righrs movement by smearing them as Communists? Paul - whatever else your theory is based on, it's time you got over your blind spot re Hoover.

FBI "Agents" did not join the CPUSA. I assume you meant to use the term in its generic sense, i.e. informants who functioned as an "agent" for the FBI -- when agent is defined as: A person who obtains information for a government or other official body, typically in secret

Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 7 of Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, we're reading about Lee Harvey Oswald and Guy Banister, and here is a direct quote:

"Louise Decker McMullen worked in Banister's office in the Newman Building from October 1961 to January 1962...Decker told Garrison's investigators that her job consisted mainly of clipping articles about racial problems throughout the country and articles on Communism. She noted that Banister was 'a fanatic on these two subjects.' Banister felt integration was a Communist-inspired effort and devoted his efforts to fighting it." (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 7)

This shows the character of the man who created the Fake FPCC in New Orleans of which Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole member.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Banister's other secretary, Delphine Roberts, picketing N.O. City Hall on 4/16/62.

The man behind her is Fred J. Huff. Does anyone have any information re: Fred Huff in regards to the far right?

post-621-0-73405600-1442895361_thumb.jpg

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul T; This was part of a larger effort called “Operation Tip Top” secretively code named “Operation 50”

This was designed and motivated by the state of Louisiana’s effort (LUAC), to link so called ‘communist’ orgs with the civil rights movement, principally targeting SCEF, but incuding several others including CORE and the FPCC as well.

All part of a larger project by the SISC (Senate Internal Sub -Committee) and Senator Eastland and others, to create examples of their theory of “interlocking subversion”

Don’t know what LUAC or SCEF is? Do the research and reading on it. Or, consult the book (Chapter 23), it’s all there!

Chris, yes Huff was close friends with Delphine and Guy Banister. Actually, Garrison produced some doc's on him and his association with Banister. Not too much else is known about him, tho' I do have a file on him. Have to dig that one out sometime.Where did you get that great pic?

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

If you could pull that file sometime and check whatever middle name you have for him that would be fantastic. I found a Fred C. Huff, same age as Fred J. Huff, that rented a property to Marguerite Oswald. Such a common name that I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

If I took the glasses off "Fred", would he then strongly resemble Guy B.? The reason I ask is supposedly Fred Huff is dead in April 1962 and the FBI interviews his widow after the assassination about the rental property.

Anyway, the photo was on sale on eBay. Here's the backside with the pertinent details:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gg2bm656sgl7dm/mav386b.jpg?dl=0

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul T; This was part of a larger effort called “Operation Tip Top” secretively code named “Operation 50”

This was designed and motivated by the state of Louisiana’s effort (LUAC), to link so called ‘communist’ orgs with the civil rights movement, principally targeting SCEF, but incuding several others including CORE and the FPCC as well.

All part of a larger project by the SISC (Senate Internal Sub -Committee) and Senator Eastland and others, to create examples of their theory of “interlocking subversion”

Don’t know what LUAC or SCEF is? Do the research and reading on it. Or, consult the book (Chapter 23), it’s all there!

Bill

Thanks, Bill, for highlighting this aspect of Dr. Caufield's new book on the JFK murder.

Right-wing politics in Louisiana play a major role in the life of the resigned General Walker. The LUAC (Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities) was busy attacking the SCEF (Southern Conference Educational Fund) as a Communist Front Group.

This is the nature of the politics of Guy Banister, the leader of the NOLA arm of the JFK plot hatched by the resigned General Walker.

The resigned General Walker opposed Civil Rights in the USA with countless speeches throughout the South including Los Angeles -- and showed his true colors in the national media with his deadly racial riot at Ole Miss on the evening of 30 September 1963, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

This specific racial riot illustrates the political bond between Guy Banister and General Walker.

Now, Jim Garrison (despite his many errors) correctly noted for history that Lee Harvey Oswald's FPCC chapter in NOLA was a Fake chapter, with offices in the building of Guy Banister. IMHO, this fact is central to cracking the JFK murder case wide open.

Again -- the murder of JFK is totally separate from the JFK Cover-up, conceived and led by J. Edgar Hoover starting at 3pm CST on 11/22/1963. The JFK Killers wanted the USA to think that Lee Harvey Oswald (their patsy) was an FPCC Communist, so that the USA would finally invade Cuba. J. Edgar Hoover -- on the contrary -- wanted the USA to think that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Nut" so that no further action was necessary.

The issue for Paul Brancato and John Dolva, IMHO, is how the radical right of Banister-Walker could be distinguished from the more moderate right of J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
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

×
×
  • Create New...