New Book!

[Larry Hancock]

OK Paul, admittedly you do use IMHO a great deal but I did not see that in post #684; it reads as a firm statement and someone just lurking here might assume there were facts to support it. As long as its clear that its purely surmise and supposition then I won't pester you for factual corroboration.

I do think that since this is a thread on the Caufield book, it would be good for someone who has read it or reads all of it to chime in and tell us whether or not the book agrees with your Hoover/3pm Walker did it scenario and if so if he found something concrete to support it.

[Kenneth Drew]

Paul, what evidence do you have that LBJ was telling people Walker wanted the US to invade Cuba?

That is almost as dramatic as:

"by 3pm CST Hoover telephoned RFK to announced that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an FPCC leader and not a Communist.

This proves that Hoover figured out Walker's plot very quickly. Hoover realized that Walker's gang wanted to blame Castro and invade Cuba."

Do you have any actual proof for your statement that Hoover knew Walker was behind it by 3pm - as in anyone ever hearing something like that from Hoover or any communication from Hoover on that. Could you also cite the wording from that RFK telephone call that you refer to, we went through this once before with your claim about

what Hoover was doing at 3pm and that proved to be a dead end; it appears that you are now substituting the RFK call for your proof that Hoover was totally on top of it and launching the cover up as of 3pm Friday.

Your criteria for "proof" is pretty interesting so I'd just like to see a bit of elaboration or verification for your assertion. I'm gathering that claim is also not something anybody has found in Caufield's book yet?

Well, Larry, by now I'm fairly well-known for typing "IMHO" multiple times in every post. It means, "In My Humble Opinion."

I am surmising based on FBI documents. For example, we have an FBI document of 11/22/1963 that records Hoovers telephone calls that day. On or about 3pm CST, Hoover called RFK and told him that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an FPCC leader and not a Communist.

That happens to be a historical fact.

We further have FBI reports indicating that reports about Lee Harvey Oswald from Dallas Texas said that Oswald was: (1) a leader of the FPCC; and (2) a Communist. That is another historical fact.

(And no, I don't have my resources with me at present, so I'll allow others to identify those FBI documents. Many of us know they exist.)

Here is the summary of these historical facts. (1) Hoover is being told at 2pm CST that Oswald is an FPCC Communist; and (2) Hoover concludes by 3pm CST that Oswald is the opposite.

IMHO this is an important historical event -- and I'm surprised that in the past half-century, I'm the only one that I know of who has pointed it out consistently.

Now, here is my surmise. The only possible way that Hoover could have known that the information he was getting from Dallas Texas (from officials there) was back-assward, is because Hoover had a big fat file on Lee Harvey Oswald.

Hoover was also close enough to Guy Banister in New Orleans to know very, very well, that the FPCC in New Orleans was a Fake Branch. Hoover and his FBI knew it was Fake with total certainty. There was no question or doubt. So, right away, Hoover knew that Lee Harvey Oswald could not be a leader in the FPCC there in New Orleans, where these TV, radio and newspaper reports had been produced to prove Oswald's "Red" credentials (courtesy Guy Banister and Edwin Walker).

Furthermore, Hoover knew the FPCC well enough so that he knew the names and addresses of every leader of every FPCC branch. I have no doubt.

FURTHERMORE, Hoover knew the names and addresses of every Card-Carrying Communist in the USA, and he was absolutely certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT ON HIS LIST.

Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover --- I surmise from the historical facts -- figured out within one single hour on 11/22/1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been set-up as a PATSY for the Radical-Right Wing Conspiracy to murder JFK, so that the FPCC Communists would take the blame.

It was as obvious to Hoover at 3pm CST 11/22/1963 as it is obvious to the reader today.

When the Walker-did-it theory is taken to its full fruition, I believe that these facts and surmises will become apparent to all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover --- I surmise from the historical facts -- figured out within one single hour on 11/22/1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been set-up as a PATSY

I certainly have no problem believing that much.

[Chris Newton]

I

we have an FBI document of 11/22/1963 that records Hoovers telephone calls that day. On or about 3pm CST, Hoover called RFK and told him that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an FPCC leader and not a Communis

If only it were so easy.

JEH's memo has a "4:01 p.m." on the left hand side of page 1. Nowhere does it state what "4:01 p.m." represents, it doesn't say that "4:01 p.m." is the time of the phone call. It presumably is the time the memo was dictated but it doesn't say that either.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=96&tab=page

JEH mentions 2 cases of possible foreknowledge in the same memo, that sounds like he's leaving it open to conspiracy.

[Ernie Lazar]

I

we have an FBI document of 11/22/1963 that records Hoovers telephone calls that day. On or about 3pm CST, Hoover called RFK and told him that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an FPCC leader and not a Communis

If only it were so easy.

JEH's memo has a "4:01 p.m." on the left hand side of page 1. Nowhere does it state what "4:01 p.m." represents, it doesn't say that "4:01 p.m." is the time of the phone call. It presumably is the time the memo was dictated but it doesn't say that either.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=96&tab=page

JEH mentions 2 cases of possible foreknowledge in the same memo, that sounds like he's leaving it open to conspiracy.

Normal protocol when Hoover entered a time on any memo he sent to his Assistant Directors is that the time refers to when he made the phone call referenced on the memo.

If you want to confirm the exact time, there is a written log of Hoover's activities every day -- and, in fact, at one time I received documents that contained that info but I don't recall what period it was for.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

OK Paul, admittedly you do use IMHO a great deal but I did not see that in post #684; it reads as a firm statement and someone just lurking here might assume there were facts to support it. As long as its clear that its purely surmise and supposition then I won't pester you for factual corroboration.

I do think that since this is a thread on the Caufield book, it would be good for someone who has read it or reads all of it to chime in and tell us whether or not the book agrees with your Hoover/3pm Walker did it scenario and if so if he found something concrete to support it.

OK, Larry, I was trying to stick to Jeff Caufield's new book -- however, there was significant resistance from others here, to the effect that they couldn't accept any Walker-did-it scenario because of one Prime Objection -- namely -- how could the resigned General Walker be the mastermind of the JFK Cover-up, since that involves a massive coordination of many branches of the US Government?

My goal was (1) to keep a focus on Caufield's new book; by (2) showing that Walker could still be the mastermind of the JFK murder without playing any role at all in the JFK Cover-up.

I wasn't trying to push my theory or to change the topic of Caufield's new book -- rather, my intent was to continue to focus on his new book, by obviating that objection.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

This is what Hoover's Appointment and Phone Call Logs look like -- but you would have to make an FOIA request for the November 1963 logs and I suppose they have been transferred to NARA.

https://vault.fbi.gov/J.%20Edgar%20Hoover%20Appointment%20and%20Phone%20Logs%20

At one time, the "Daily Log, Director's Office" was identified as being in HQ file 66-4760. However, when I checked the 1960's logs, I did not see any reference to a file number. In 1972, I noticed one log was identified as coming from file number HQ 66-1855-A.

The actual telephone logs format was most often like this: see section 20

I noticed that they were previously processed under FOIA request #293,195 which, judging from my own request numbers, probably was made around 1988-1989 and then released circa January 1991.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I

we have an FBI document of 11/22/1963 that records Hoovers telephone calls that day. On or about 3pm CST, Hoover called RFK and told him that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an FPCC leader and not a Communis

If only it were so easy.

JEH's memo has a "4:01 p.m." on the left hand side of page 1. Nowhere does it state what "4:01 p.m." represents, it doesn't say that "4:01 p.m." is the time of the phone call. It presumably is the time the memo was dictated but it doesn't say that either.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=96&tab=page

JEH mentions 2 cases of possible foreknowledge in the same memo, that sounds like he's leaving it open to conspiracy.

Well, Chris, it does appear to be that easy, for me. The FBI memo says 4:01 pm, and that's EST time in Washington DC, which equates to about 3pm CST -- only one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested.

As Ernie showed, that's the actual time of the call itself, by FBI protocol.

I think we're dealing with historical facts here.

As for Hoover leaving options open -- OF COURSE he left options open so EARLY in the JFK murder saga. Firstly, Hoover had no warrantee so early that others (especially LBJ) would accept his Lone Nut theory. It would take a few hours more, IMHO, before LBJ and the whole US Government would be "all in" with Hoover's strategy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I

we have an FBI document of 11/22/1963 that records Hoovers telephone calls that day. On or about 3pm CST, Hoover called RFK and told him that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an FPCC leader and not a Communis

If only it were so easy.

JEH's memo has a "4:01 p.m." on the left hand side of page 1. Nowhere does it state what "4:01 p.m." represents, it doesn't say that "4:01 p.m." is the time of the phone call. It presumably is the time the memo was dictated but it doesn't say that either.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=96&tab=page

JEH mentions 2 cases of possible foreknowledge in the same memo, that sounds like he's leaving it open to conspiracy.

Well, Chris, it does appear to be that easy, for me. The FBI memo says 4:01 pm, and that's EST time in Washington DC, which equates to about 3pm CST -- only one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested.

As Ernie showed, that's the actual time of the call itself, by FBI protocol.

I think we're dealing with historical facts here.

As for Hoover leaving options open -- OF COURSE he left options open so EARLY in the JFK murder saga. Firstly, Hoover had no warrantee so early that others (especially LBJ) would accept his Lone Nut theory. It would take a few hours more, IMHO, before LBJ and the whole US Government would be "all in" with Hoover's strategy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I probably will regret entering this discussion -- but in case this helps.........

Paul declares (with emphasis --as though it cannot be disputed) that:

FURTHERMORE, Hoover knew the names and addresses of every Card-Carrying Communist in the USA, and he was absolutely certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT ON HIS LIST.

1. First of all, the CPUSA stopped issuing membership cards in 1948.

2. Secondly -- in order to evaluate Paul's statement rationally, one would have to get into all the intricacies regarding how the FBI developed its knowledge regarding CPUSA members.

3. Thirdly -- It is NOT true (as Paul claims) that Hoover or the FBI knew the names and addresses of every Communist in the U.S. If you review the FBI "Security Investigations" file, you will discover scores of memos which reflect what the FBI did not know because they had no reliable source of information. In many cases, the Bureau would learn (for example) about somebody whose first name was "Paul" and "Paul" was involved in some Communist activity -- but the FBI did not know (-1-) was Paul that person's real first name? (-2-) Paul's last name (-3-) Paul's occupation or residence address. In many cases, the FBI did not even have a name. Instead, an informant merely provided a physical description. Sometimes, a name was only phonetic -- i.e. the actual name was not known but it "sounded like..."

4. With respect to addresses: I hope Paul is not telling us that he thinks that the FBI had so many Special Agents that it was possible for the FBI to physically follow every known or suspected Communist in our country and, consequently, the FBI always knew their exact location (home address, work location, etc?)

5. Also keep in mind that FBI statistical summaries re: CP membership constantly changed as new information became available. For example: suppose an informant reported to his FBI handler that "he heard" that "Paul Trejo attended a Communist-front meeting a few months ago". Does Paul Trejo then get entered into FBI records as "a Communist"?

6. Now---here is what Hoover would have known very quickly (such as during the first hour or two after the assassination):

(-a-) Both HQ and field offices maintained a list of all FBI informants (current and former) -- so Hoover would have known if LHO had ever been used as an FBI informant or confidential source

(-b-) Anybody who travelled from the U.S. to the Soviet Union or its satellite countries would be known.

(-c-) Anybody who was identified as a CP member or a CP sympathizer....

• during state or federal legislative hearings or
• in state or federal court cases or
• by the Civil Service Commission, or
• by the Subversive Activities Control Board or
• by the Loyalty Review Board or
• by military intelligence or
• by the CIA or
• by "informants" known to be reliable (whether human or technical devices) or
• from CP membership records that the FBI obtained or
• from reports about discussions of senior CP leaders during their closed, secret meetings--particularly in their NYC headquarters, etc.
• The FBI probably would also have been able to discover very quickly from their liaisons with any Police Department Intelligence Unit or from local Police Chiefs whether or not they had any info re: any specific person. [in many cases, these Police Dept Chiefs and intelligence officers attended training classes at the FBI National Academy or they were otherwise previously connected with the FBI in some manner.

So, yes, it is not particularly surprising that Hoover could have learned within 60-90 minutes about LHO's background and based upon all the readily available info -- that LHO was not a Communist Party member "but had Communist leanings".

But that is different from saying that Hoover was "absolutely certain" that LHO "was not on his list" --- by which I assume Paul means that he thinks Hoover knew the identity of every Communist in our country. That is not true.

[Paul Trejo]

Returning to the topic of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, I would proceed with a notation on page 22.

Caufield wishes to show that the John Birch Society was a forum that both Guy Banister and Edwin Walker shared in common. Caufield writes:

Banister sent a letter to Welch in Belmont, Massachusetts, in the form of a Members Monthly Messages (or MMM, as noted previously). On August 14, 1963, Robert Welch's secretary, in Welch's absence, sent Banister a letter thanking him for submitting the MMM. (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, p. 22)

The first time I heard about the MMM was from Harry Dean. The MMM were evidently common knowledge inside the John Birch Society in 1963.

I note here that Hephaestus Books (2010) names the following, among others, as members of the John Birch Society in the 1960's: Guy Banister, Edwin Walker, Dan Smoot, Robert De Pugh, Billy James Hargis, Kent Courtney, Nelson Bunker Hunt and John Wayne.

Caufield is here preparing the ground to link not only Guy Banister with Edwin Walker, but also Lee Harvey Oswald with both rightists.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Returning to the topic of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, I would proceed with a notation on page 22.

Caufield wishes to show that the John Birch Society was a forum that both Guy Banister and Edwin Walker shared in common. Caufield writes:

Banister sent a letter to Welch in Belmont, Massachusetts, in the form of a Members Monthly Messages (or MMM, as noted previously). On August 14, 1963, Robert Welch's secretary, in Welch's absence, sent Banister a letter thanking him for submitting the MMM. (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, p. 22)

The first time I heard about the MMM was from Harry Dean. The MMM were evidently common knowledge inside the John Birch Society in 1963.

I note here that Hephaestus Books (2010) names the following, among others, as members of the John Birch Society in the 1960's: Guy Banister, Edwin Walker, Dan Smoot, Robert De Pugh, Billy James Hargis, Kent Courtney, Nelson Bunker Hunt and John Wayne.

Caufield is here preparing the ground to link not only Guy Banister with Edwin Walker, but also Lee Harvey Oswald with both rightists.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I have no clue what Hephaestus Books refers to but I can tell you that Dan Smoot and John Wayne were NOT JBS members and, of course, DePugh's membership was cancelled.

I know how all these rumors got started. It is a very convoluted story which I will not bore anybody with. It is also important to remember that many individuals "joined" the Birch Society for some very brief period of time -- until they discovered the full scope of what Welch and the JBS believed. Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign manager (Denison Kitchel) joined in 1960 but he then resigned 10 days later!!

See: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19650719&id=VxtbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6k4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=7096,1460581&hl=en

Phyllis Schlafly and her husband joined -- but then left. The actor Adolphe Menjou joined and even was listed as a JBS National Council member -- but after he accepted a dinner invitation from William Buckley Jr. and they discussed it -- Menjou not only resigned from the National Council, he also resigned from the Society!

During the Eisenhower Administration period there was a very strong "rejectionist" wing within the Republican Party (which is VERY similar to our current situation in terms of the 30-40 "Tea Party" member caucus in the House which recently forced the resignation of Boehner. The rejectionists (in the 1950's and 1960's and today) all believed that their Party leaders were "selling them out" and making a mockery of conservative principles. They all believed that their Party leaders were "accommodating" or "appeasing" Democrats.

Like today, the 1950's and 1960's rejectionists, were not interested in governing -- i.e. the process of finding allies, making compromises and building coalitions. Instead, the rejectionist wing merely wanted to purify its ranks and expel those who did not meet their litmus test for commitment to what they considered genuine conservative principles.

I had to laugh last night as I was listening to pundits discuss Boehner's resignation. Almost universally, the talking heads stated that Kevin McCarthy (the current Majority Whip) would be Boehner's successor. And they also said that McCarthy was somewhat "less conservative" (i.e. more moderate) than Boehner.

But if you check the lifetime scores which some of the more prominent conservative interest groups have given Boehner and McCarthy you will discover the following:

B=Boehner M=McCarthy

American Conservative Union......B=83 M=89

Americans For Prosperity.............B=76 M=84

JBS...............................................B=53 M=68

In addition, if you check each specific issue score on such things as:

Abortion / Animals & Wildlife / Arts-Entertainment / Budget-Spending-Taxes / Business & Consumers / Civil Liberties-Civil Rights / Crime / Defense / Drugs / Education / Employment / Energy / Environment / Finance and Banking / Foreign Affairs / Government Budget / Guns/ Health & Health Care

Boehner and McCarthy are virtually identical with McCarthy being slightly MORE conservative on some issues!!

So fasten your seat belts -- it is going to be a bumpy ride! The hard-core conservatives will reject McCarthy just like they did Boehner. Both Boehner and McCarthy came to Washington to govern. They know from their experience in politics that compromise is often required in order to get something done. That is what will enrage the purists -- just like it did in the Eisenhower years.

The rejectionists during the Eisenhower years were initially susceptible to the "take-no-prisoners" rhetoric of the JBS but many of them drew a red line over describing Eisenhower as a Communist traitor or advocating draconian measures to dismantle the entire federal government brick-by-brick because they knew the American people supported and approved of things like social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, etc. They did not view these programs as "socialism" or "Marxist ideas" or contrary to American values. Consequently, when you read that "person X" was "a member" of the JBS -- keep in mind that many of those "members" left the JBS relatively soon after they joined.

Postscript:

MMM's were available to every JBS member and they were encouraged to submit their MMM's on a regular basis -- for comments, suggestions, complaints, and questions.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Returning again to the topic of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, I would proceed with a notation on page 23.

Caufield wishes to show that Guy Banister was not above interaction with the Nazi Party in America (ANP). The context is a an event in 1961, when CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) came to NOLA to encourage minorities there to break the Jim Crow Laws. Guy Banister, in response, invited George Lincoln Rockwell and his ANP to NOLA in his now famous Volkwagon called "The Hate Bus". (This was because CORE had called their bus, "The Freedom Bus.") Caufield writes:

When the Nazis were arrested for picketing, Banister came to their aid by paying their bail. Nazi Commander Rockwell also visited Banister at his Newman Building office. As evidence in Chapter Three will show, Lee Harvey Oswald associated with at least one member -- and likely a second member -- of Rockwell's Nazi storm troopers in the summer of 1963. (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, p. 23)

Caufield is here preparing the ground to link not only Guy Banister, but also Lee Harvey Oswald with elements from the ANP. By establishing a rightist interpretation of Lee Harvey Oswald, evidently Caufield seeks to draw a triangle formed of Guy Banister, Edwin Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Bill -- Do you have any further information regarding Banister's "1013 file" -- which is discussed on page 38?

You describe the file as "on the CPUSA" -- which Banister "took from the Chicago FBI field office when he retired."

1. Do you mean that Banister made a photocopy of the Chicago file to take with him? OR are you suggesting that he actually took the entire original file?

2. Would you know the 2 or 3 digit prefix for that file? Such as 62-1013 or 157-1013?

3. Do you know if that file was the CPUSA "General Activities" file? OR perhaps was it the file for CPUSA District 8 (covering Illinois and Indiana)?

Any additional info would be helpful.

Thanks!

[Paul Trejo]

There's an interesting note about the Warren Commission on page 31 of Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy. Speaking of Guy Banister's landlord, Sam Newman, of the Newman Building, where Banister kept his office, Caufield writes:

Newman recalled that Banister and Arcacha Smith were very close, and he saw them together most times he visited the building.office. He also saw David Ferrie at the 544 Camp Street office, as well as Banister's office below it. Despite plentiful information to the contrary, the Warren Commission came to the conclusion that "neither the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, nor Lee Harvey Oswald ever maintained an office at that address. (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, p. 31)

This is interesting because, despite all his faults, the objective reader cannot deny that Jim Garrison showed a direct connection between Lee Harvey Oswald's FPCC and the offices of Guy Banister. Banister's address of 544 Camp Street was stamped on Oswald's FPCC fliers, of which one was in the possession of the FBI, which was (possibly accidentally) released with the Warren Commission Exhibits.

Further, the FBI tracked all the early 1963 postage between the FPCC and Lee Harvey Oswald, so the FBI was aware that the FPCC in New Orleans was Fake, and that the offices of that Fake FPCC were under Guy Banister's purview.

Jim Garrison -- despite his failed trial of Clay Shaw -- successfully showed that Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to Guy Banister's offices. Other people close to Guy Banister, such as Jack S. Martin (played by Jack Lemmon in Oliver Stone's JFK) and Banister's secretary, Delphine Roberts, among others, also admitted that they often saw Lee Harvey Oswald at Guy Banister's address.

So, why would the Warren Commission (WC) later insist that Lee Harvey Oswald's FPCC did not reside in Guy Banister's offices? The answer must be clear -- the "Lone Shooter" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald had to -- by definition -- conceal all of Oswald's connections -- each and every one. This went double for Guy Banister and his crew in New Orleans.

The WC -- despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary -- always insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald did everything strictly ALONE and "without confederates who are still at large." This was their consistent position, since the day JFK was shot to this very day -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Today we can point to David Horne's official ARRB publications (2009) that confirm evidence of multiple bullets (both FMJ and Frangible) and multiple wounds in JFK's brain. Although that was known to the WC, they still insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald acted ALONE, and presented only hand-drawn pictures of JFK's wounds..

There are only two logical explanations for this falsehood: (#1) National Security to prevent riots in the USA during the Cold War; and (#2) the FBI and WC were part of the plot to kill JFK.

For most of the past half-century, theory #2 has been most prominent among the CT community, and theory #1 was largely held to be a mark of the LN community. For the first time in a half-century, with Caufield's new Walker-did-it theory, we are able to promote theory #1 along with a CT.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

As a side-note here, I'd like to point out that Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald are often regarded by the CT community as two "plotters" who "must have been" inside the plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK.

This is because they insisted -- from start to finish and down to this very day -- that they knew of not one single accomplice to Lee Harvey Oswald throughout all of 1963.

Since the WC insisted the Lee Harvey Oswald had "no accomplices who are still at large," and this was the lynch-pin of their "Lone Nut" theory, it does seem, superficially, that Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald were cooperating with the WC in the fabrication of a "Lone Nut" Oswald (for it truly is a fabrication).

HOWEVER -- one need only recognize the fact that in 1963, in the USA, women were regarded as utterly inferior to men at all levels. Even in the most liberal US political movements in 1963, women in these movements were regularly relegated to making coffee, keeping notes, filing, typing and providing food.

In other words -- men regularly kept inside information away from women in 1963. Lee Harvey Oswald, it seems, was no exception. He regularly lied to Marina about where he would go -- for example, the various times when Oswald lost his job and failed to tell Marina about it for weeks at a time, but continued to leave home early in the morning, letting Marina believe that Lee was going to work.

Also, Marina said that Lee Harvey Oswald shot at the resigned General Walker entirely ALONE, because that is what Oswald himself told her. Lee claimed he was alone, that he was on foot and bus, and that he buried his rifle -- all three of which, IMHO, were total fabrications that Oswald told to Marina. And she believed him.

My point is this -- Oswald always gave Marina the impression that he acted ALONE, and furthermore, Oswald also gave Ruth Paine the impression that he acted ALONE in all his mysterious behaviors. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to consider that Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald told the facts-as-they-knew-them to the WC, because that was what they heard from Lee Harvey Oswald, and they had no reason to believe that they were falsehoods.

As Jim Garrison painstakingly revealed, Lee Harvey Oswald was a political chameleon, and he had many confederates on both the left and right wings of the political spectrum. Yet he never brought his companions home -- ever.

THEREFORE -- it was a brilliant strategy for the WC to emphasize the testimony of Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald (and in fact they testified far more than any other witnesses for the WC), because their very ignorance of the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 could be exploited to support Hoover's "Lone Nut" fabrication.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 28, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

For those of us who have researched the extreme right in general and/or right-wing racists in our country in particular, Caufield's book is very enjoyable to read. So much of this history is obscure or exists only in snippets which could easily take a lifetime to find and analyze.

I have been struck by the number of times when Caufield has said something to the effect that it is "not known" whether or not person "x" attended a particular meeting. The FBI files which I donated to Internet Archive contain a lot of the documentation which supports or amplifies upon what Caufield is presenting. Hopefully, during the next year or so, the Archive will be able to locate sufficient volunteer labor to start scanning my paper documents and files and then post them online as searchable pdf documents. I don't think I realized how significant some of my stuff is -- until I started reading Caufield's book. I obtained the FBI files on just about every significant person or organization mentioned in his book. In addition, I know some doctoral students who are currently working on their dissertations which will present new information. For example, one of my contacts at American University is currently finishing his doctoral dissertation on Wesley Swift and William Potter Gale.

MORE ERRORS:

I have noticed more errors in Caufield's book -- and at a later date I will summarize a number of them. Sometimes his errors are relatively minor but other times they are major.

Another problem is that Caufield often makes very derogatory statements but with no footnote to support his assertions. For example, on page 60, Caufield describes Harold Lord Varney as "an admitted Nazi" Oh really? When and where did Varney make his "admission"? No way to tell---because there is no footnote to document that assertion. However, from 1927-1933, Varney was a Managing Director of the Italian Historical Society, during which time they published 15 pro-Mussolini books. From 1933-1936, Varney was co-owner and co-editor with Joseph Kamp, of Awakener magazine and among the persons involved with that publication was fascist intellectual Lawrence Dennis.

On page 78, Caufield describes Edward Hunter as an "admitted Nazi before World War II" and Caufield cites John Roy Carlson's 1944 book, Undercover, for that characterization.

However, Carlson was referring to a totally different person by the name of Edward H. Hunter.

That different Edward Hunter was born in September 1874 (in Keene NH) and during the 1920's he founded and became Executive Secretary of the Industrial Defense Association which was another typical radical right-wing "countersubversive" group which offered its "investigative services" to employers who wanted to pay IDA for reports on the alleged "Communist background" of potential employees. The IDA focused upon what it considered "Jewish control of the U.S. government".

During the 1930's and 1940's, this other Edward Hunter reprinted articles which originated in the "World Service" -- the pro-Nazi news bulletin from Erfurt Germany that was published in 8 languages.

In October 1937, this other Edward Hunter testified before the Massachusetts Special Commission to Investigate Communism and Fascism. The Commission concluded that Hunter and his organization printed and distributed anti-semitic publications, some of which were imported from foreign sources. Hunter's Industrial Defense Association was dissolved by the Massachusetts legislature in July 1941. In February 1942, Hunter described President FDR as "insane and mentally deficient". Edward H. Hunter died in June 1945.

The "Edward Hunter" whom Caufield discusses in his book was born in July 1902 in New York City. During World War II he was a psychological warfare specialist with the U.S. Army and the OSS. Hunter served as Chairman of the organization, Anti-Communism Liaison Inc. and he published his own newsletter entitled "Tactics". He probably is best known for his speeches before anti-communism seminars around the country plus his 1951 book "Black Book on Red China" and his 1956 book "Brainwashing--The Story of the Men Who Defied It" and his July 1961 testimony before the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, "The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program" which you can see here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02092399q;view=1up;seq=3

Edited September 27, 2015 by Ernie Lazar