Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

https://22novembernetwork.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-dallas-actionpt-72-walker-banister-and-joseph-milteer-with-dr-jeffery-caufield/

Forum Members,

HERE is the Working Link to my recent conversation on my humble podcast with Dr. Caufield. (Apparently, I was not sufficiently caffeinated when attempting to post earlier.) Sorry about the above!

Peace,

D

Edited by Doug Campbell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Paul,

Thanks, Buddy. Hope all is well, and don't be such a stranger! You are welcome any time.

Peace,

D.

Thanks, Doug. Some of the Forum members here know that I did two shows with you back in April of this year, talking about the book that Harry Dean and I published together, Harry Dean's Confessions (2013).

Also, you interviewed Larry Hancock of this Forum very recently, as well as Gayle Nix Jackson, Ted Rubenstein and many others.

You've done 72 shows on www.Spreaker.com, by now, and your willingness to entertain the notion that Walker-did-it marks you among the avante garde in the fast-paced world of online JFK literature today.

I'm really glad that you're right on top of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book. General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy.

It's interesting to hear Jeff Caufield's own voice talking about his topic. In his program with you this week he wanted to stress the triumvirate of Guy Banister, Edwin Walker and Joseph Milteer.

I still remember former FBI agent Don Adams and his heart-felt regret that the FBI refused to follow-up on his investigation of Joseph Milteer, whom Adams was thoroughly convinced was a central figure in the JFK murder.

Because of your audio program today, I now regard Adam's 2012 book, From an Office Building with a High-powered Rifle, as a significant companion piece to Jeff Caufield's new book.

All best,

--Paul

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You, Paul.

You DO need to come back on! We had planned that, hadn't we?

Peace,

D

Doug, in your interview yesterday with Dr. Jeffrey Caufield about his new book, he expressed his ambivalence about J. Edgar Hoover -- leaning toward Paul Brancato here -- because of the support that Hoover regularly gave to the Center-Right wing, e.g. his position against MLK as a Communist.

The JFK Cover-up for Dr. Caufield was too thorough and consistent, he suspects, to easily absolve J. Edgar Hoover from complicity, even in a Walker-did-it scenario.

That said, and playing devil's advocate here (since that opinion doesn't match my own) I must admit at least the *possibility* that J. Edgar Hoover was acting in full cooperation with the resigned General Walker and the Radical Right in the murder of JFK.

How would that look? I have already indicated that J. Edgar Hoover, in his close relationship with LBJ, would have all the power necessary to organize all elements of the US Government to enforce a JFK Cover-up of the kind that we witness in the Warren Report -- based as it is upon the dogma of a "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This would answer Chris Newton, for example, who notes that the resigned General Walker lacked the "pay grade" to control the US Government, e.g. at Bethesda Naval Hospital, to implement a national Cover-up of his role in the JFK murder. In other words, the combination of Walker and Hoover (if such a thing were really possible) would have all the elements necessary to execute both the JFK murder and the JFK Cover-up.

As I say -- I must admit at least the *possibility* -- although I have strong doubts about its rationality. Hoover openly expressed disapproval toward the JBS beliefs of Walker, viz., that several sitting US Presidents were Communists. Hoover openly expressed disapproval toward the American Nazi Party, while Walker's continual companion was Robert Allen Surrey, the ANP publisher.

It still seems to me unlikely that J. Edgar Hoover would cooperate at any level with the resigned General Walker for anything. It still seems to me more likely that J. Edgar Hoover would implement the JFK Cover-up in order to prevent riots in US cities during the Cold War.

However, listening to Dr. Caufield in your program yesterday, Doug, I think we got a preview of the sort of argument we're going to see from Dr. Caufield as we slowly review his new book online.

All best,

--Paul

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul.

My *gut* still tells me that Hoover wasn't complicit in the Murder Plot, but it's hard to ignore the "willful ignorance"(as refered to during my conversation with Dr.Caufield) on the part of Hoover re: the "multiple murder" plots by Walker, Gen. Del Valle, etc. that the FBI was unquestionably~based on documentation discovered by Dr. Caufield~ fully aware of as early as 1962.

Two things that kinda stand out to me at this point as Hard To Walk Around:

A. In the days following The Hit, when SA Adams was dispatched to interview/ interrogate Milteer, his superiors *failed to inform him of the Somerset Tape*.

B. The Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents~ During April of '63(a Busy Month, no?) Drennan spills the beans to the FBI re: the organization of radical-right hit teams, even *naming Walker specifically*.

Then, less than seven days later, Brown tells the FBI that HE'S being recruited for these same hit teams~by Stanley Drennan. NONE of which~maybe most significantly the Milteer/Somerset tape~ever sees the light of day during the Warren Proceedings.

Willful Ignorance or a Helping Hand?

In short, I'm still very much reserving judgement on Hoover. There's MUCH new info in Dr. Caufield's book, which will require MUCH Critical Thought.

Peace,

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul.

My *gut* still tells me that Hoover wasn't complicit in the Murder Plot, but it's hard to ignore the "willful ignorance"(as refered to during my conversation with Dr.Caufield) on the part of Hoover re: the "multiple murder" plots by Walker, Gen. Del Valle, etc. that the FBI was unquestionably~based on documentation discovered by Dr. Caufield~ fully aware of as early as 1962.

Two things that kinda stand out to me at this point as Hard To Walk Around:

A. In the days following The Hit, when SA Adams was dispatched to interview/ interrogate Milteer, his superiors *failed to inform him of the Somerset Tape*.

B. The Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents~ During April of '63(a Busy Month, no?) Drennan spills the beans to the FBI re: the organization of radical-right hit teams, even *naming Walker specifically*.

Then, less than seven days later, Brown tells the FBI that HE'S being recruited for these same hit teams~by Stanley Drennan. NONE of which~maybe most significantly the Milteer/Somerset tape~ever sees the light of day during the Warren Proceedings.

Willful Ignorance or a Helping Hand?

In short, I'm still very much reserving judgement on Hoover. There's MUCH new info in Dr. Caufield's book, which will require MUCH Critical Thought.

Peace,

D

Yes---there is a tremendous volume of data in Caufield's book which deserves very serious consideration. As I wrote previously, one must admire Caufield for the extraordinary research he has done over many years. I suspect that his book will be considered a definitive history of that period (at least in terms of how we view and interpret the radical right during the 1960’s).

But let's also remember the following points:

1. There are very few people who have the ability or time or resources to check out and verify every statement or assertion made by Dr. Caufield. However, it is easy to be impressed by 3912 footnotes and to assume that what is being presented must be indisputable simply because of volume of data presented.

2. As already noted, there are materially significant errors in Caufield’s book but few people have the knowledge of our history to recognize those errors or to recognize suspect statements that require further research; until I finish reading the entire book and I see how Caufield combines all the data he is presenting, it is not currently possible to determine what weight or significance should be assigned to those factual errors.

3. However: I am beginning to notice a pattern with respect to Caufield using extravagant (and false) descriptions of people he discusses in his book. I saw another one last nite (page 118) when Caufield described Kenneth Goff as “a former high ranking member of the American Communist Party…”

He provided no footnote for that assertion but I can tell you that Goff was never a “high ranking” CP member. In fact, there is a dispute about how long he was involved with the CP. During his brief period in the CP, he used the alias “John Keats”. He was only a CP member for about 3 years. Nobody became a “high ranking” CP member in such a short period of time within the Party and, significantly, Goff (Keats) never held any senior position in the Party. In addition, Goff lied repeatedly about his own background. For example he claimed that Communist Party members pushed him under a train as punishment for leaving the Party and that is how he lost his leg. In reality, he lost his leg in a childhood accident. He also repeatedly lied about him supposedly knowing the number of CP members in the U.S. The FBI field office in Denver described Goff “as a border-line psychopathic case.” This is why we must be cautious about believing anything attributed to Goff (and perhaps other figures in Caufield’s narrative.) I will have more to say about that when I finish reading his book.

4. Unfortunately, Dr. Caufield's voluminous footnotes are not always helpful. For example:

ü he often cites a newspaper article without providing a page number or author or article title [this presents a problem because most newspapers will not perform research; instead when an interested party cannot provide clear identifying info, the paper normally recommends a local researcher (often a college student) who typically charges $10-$20 an hour or more to find what is wanted and make copies]

ü he sometimes refers readers to specific book titles, but no page number is given for whatever the footnote is supposed to substantiate

ü he refers readers to the personal papers of (or “affidavits” by) various individuals but there is no other identifying info [if you ever have tried to obtain a photocopy of something archived in a collection of personal papers at any college or university library, you will instantly discover that the institution which has those papers rarely will do any time-consuming research for the requester---particularly if there is no "finding aid" to narrow their search down to a specific box number or folder etc. In other cases, the finding aid is worthless. For example, there is a 12-page “finding aid” to Edwin Walker’s papers at the Briscoe Center but it is almost useless because it does not identify any specifically named correspondents and it uses the most generic descriptive terminology possible. Realistically, the only way for anyone to obtain what they want would be to personally travel to Briscoe and go through Walker’s papers or pay a researcher to do it. Further complicating this matter is the fact that many archives will not make copies of individual documents; instead, a requester must purchase the content of the entire folder where those specific documents are located. I faced that problem when dealing with the Eisenhower Presidential Library.]

ü he refers readers to "interviews by author" but it is not clear if there is any written text of those interviews ---copies of which interested researchers could obtain

ü he refers readers to FBI files without using the normal bibliographic convention [file number, memo author/memo addressee, serial number and date) which means that an interested researcher would have no way to even know what to request. Thus, for example, if a requester wanted 2 or 3 memos which perhaps amounted to 10-12 pages, the only way to obtain them (without specific info) would be to purchase the entire file on some subject which could be hundreds or thousands of pages! For example: on page 74 Caufield discusses George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party and his footnote for that section (#313) directs readers to file number 105-70374. First of all, hopefully every reader understands that file number is a HQ number (not a field office file) but the real problem is that HQ 105-70374 is a HUGE file – 45,600 pages! The reason the normal convention is used for citations of FBI documents is a very practical one. Most FBI files are created in about 200-page increments known as “sections”. And those sections are pretty much in chronological order. So, providing a date and serial number would make it fairly easy to quickly determine what file section that serial was located in. When a requester submits a request to the FBI which is not clearly identified, the FBI (like all other agencies) has the option of charging “search fees”. The FBI calculates the total cost of those fees by separating what they consider “professional” employee time from “clerical” employee time and the result is not pretty. In 2006, the FBI wanted to charge me $2500 in search fees just because I sent them more than 20 FOIA requests in a single letter!

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You, Paul.

You DO need to come back on! We had planned that, hadn't we?

Peace,

D

Doug, in your interview yesterday with Dr. Jeffrey Caufield about his new book, he expressed his ambivalence about J. Edgar Hoover -- leaning toward Paul Brancato here -- because of the support that Hoover regularly gave to the Center-Right wing, e.g. his position against MLK as a Communist.

The JFK Cover-up for Dr. Caufield was too thorough and consistent, he suspects, to easily absolve J. Edgar Hoover from complicity, even in a Walker-did-it scenario.

That said, and playing devil's advocate here (since that opinion doesn't match my own) I must admit at least the *possibility* that J. Edgar Hoover was acting in full cooperation with the resigned General Walker and the Radical Right in the murder of JFK.

How would that look? I have already indicated that J. Edgar Hoover, in his close relationship with LBJ, would have all the power necessary to organize all elements of the US Government to enforce a JFK Cover-up of the kind that we witness in the Warren Report -- based as it is upon the dogma of a "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This would answer Chris Newton, for example, who notes that the resigned General Walker lacked the "pay grade" to control the US Government, e.g. at Bethesda Naval Hospital, to implement a national Cover-up of his role in the JFK murder. In other words, the combination of Walker and Hoover (if such a thing were really possible) would have all the elements necessary to execute both the JFK murder and the JFK Cover-up.

As I say -- I must admit at least the *possibility* -- although I have strong doubts about its rationality. Hoover openly expressed disapproval toward the JBS beliefs of Walker, viz., that several sitting US Presidents were Communists. Hoover openly expressed disapproval toward the American Nazi Party, while Walker's continual companion was Robert Allen Surrey, the ANP publisher.

It still seems to me unlikely that J. Edgar Hoover would cooperate at any level with the resigned General Walker for anything. It still seems to me more likely that J. Edgar Hoover would implement the JFK Cover-up in order to prevent riots in US cities during the Cold War.

However, listening to Dr. Caufield in your program yesterday, Doug, I think we got a preview of the sort of argument we're going to see from Dr. Caufield as we slowly review his new book online.

All best,

--Paul

Paul and Doug:

I don't think Hoover's attitude regarding the right-wing lunatic fringe was as difficult to understand as you may think. There is absolutely NO possibility that Hoover (or the FBI) would "cooperate" with somebody like Walker or with anybody connected to the JBS.

I think the problem with your discussion is the fact that it is entirely an abstract intellectual discussion which is not informed by, or constrained by, any actual research into FBI files to see how Hoover and his senior officials evaluated right-wing individuals and organizations whom, one might think, would be natural allies because they often praised Hoover and the FBI.

1. First of all, the FBI developed a sarcastic term to describe an entire category of individuals whom they did not respect, i.e. "professional anti-communist".

The FBI included in that category people whom they considered ignorant idiots as well as other individuals whom you might assume would be respected and highly regarded by Hoover and the FBI -- such as former Agents Dan Smoot and Cleon Skousen.

2. Obviously, the Bureau had access to an incredible number and variety of sources of information regarding just about any subject you could mention. You can also see that by reviewing the books and other materials archived in the FBI Library -- which often are cited in FBI reports and monographs.

At one time, I was asked to create a list of sources used by the FBI. So I went through about 10-15 FBI investigative files and I compiled a brief list of all the information sources identified in those case files (listed below):

Biographical sources such as Who’s Who in America
Better Business Bureau
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
Chamber of Commerce
CIA
Civil Service Commission Investigations Division
County Clerks or Secretary of State (state level) for articles of incorporation, corporate officers, corporate bylaws, or business fictitious name documents
County Prosecutor
County Sheriffs
Court Clerks re: civil actions
Credit Reporting Bureaus
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of State, Office of Security
Department of Motor Vehicles
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Friendly media sources such as newspaper publisher, editors, reporters, and columnists
Financial Institutions (banks, credit unions)
G-2 - Army Intelligence
Hearings before national or state legislative committees – and their reports
House Committee on Un-American Activities
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Informants (thousands within subversive and legitimate organizations—including state/local government employees)
Internal Revenue Service
National Personnel Records Center (military service records)
National Security Agency
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ONI – Naval Investigative Service
OSI – Air Force Intelligence
Police department “subversive squads” or intelligence units
Police department senior officers (such as Chief of Police or head of intelligence bureau)
Probate Court
Public organizations who monitored radicals (such as Anti-Defamation League, American Legion)
Registrar of Voters
Secretary of State – Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Selective Service Boards
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
Senate Judiciary Committee
State agencies which require annual reports from non-profit organizations
State Attorneys General
State Police or Highway Patrol
State Un-American Activities Committees (such as Massachusetts, New York, California, Ohio and South Carolina)
U.S. Attorney’s Office
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Justice Dept – Civil Rights Division and Criminal Division
U.S. Justice Dept – Internal Security Section
U.S. Marshal’s Service
U.S. Postal Service Inspector
U.S. Secret Service
Veterans Organizations such as Americanism Commission of American Legion and VFW
Vital Statistics Bureaus (birth and death info; marriage license info)
Wire taps, electronic and human surveillance, mail covers, trash covers

Consequently, FBI judgments about every conceivable matter were informed by much more than just their own employees.

3. With that in mind, I would like to quote a paragraph from an FBI file about Edgar Bundy. This particular serial was discussing one of Bundy's associates, Myers G. Lowman of Circuit Riders Inc. (Cincinnati OH). I bold type Hoover's handwritten comment which is referenced in the summary:

“Lowman and his organization are well known to us. He is an extremist and you will recall that in March 1961, he telephoned your (Assistant Director DeLoach’s) office to complain that Assistant Director Sullivan’s approach to communism was a serious deterrent to those trying to expose this menace. The Director noted at that time that Lowman ‘is a fanatic and therefore irresponsible’. According to our files as of June 1962, the IRS was investigating him for not having filed income tax returns for a period of nine years. SAC Mason recently advised us that this matter is still not adjudicated. SAC Mason advised that Lowman contacts him approximately once a year and he has noted that Lowman has been becoming visibly more nervous and unstable, and appears to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown.” HQ 62-104576, #unrecorded; 2/17/64 memo from M.A. Jones to DeLoach in Edgar Bundy file).

4. So, the bottom-line here is this: You can cite just about any right-wing extremist individual or group (remember Hoover's "Walker is nuts" comment?) and you can see a recurring pattern. Even fairly moderate types such as Fred Schwarz (Christian Anti-Communism Crusade) were held in contempt by the Bureau. Why?

Let's let senior FBI personnel explain for themselves.

The Bureau’s Chief Inspector (their expert about communist matters), made the following observations about Schwarz:

“As we know, Dr. Schwarz is an opportunist and we are not having anything to do with him and his activities. It might be added that such people as Dr. Schwarz are largely responsible for misinforming people and stirring them up emotionally to the point that when FBI lecturers present the truth, it becomes very difficult for the misinformed to accept it. In my opinion, Schwarz and others like him can only do the country and the anticommunist work of the Bureau harm.” [HQ 62-69602, #297; 3/13/61 memo from FBI Chief Inspector W.C. Sullivan to Assistant Director A.H. Belmont]. The Bureau frequently described Schwarz with the epithet “professional anticommunist” – and they also included Billy James Hargis (Christian Crusade), former FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot and Edgar C. Bundy (Church League of America) in this category.
5. If you want to propose that Hoover or the FBI "cooperated" with or condoned or recommended or approved of anything connected to right-wing extremists, you have to come up with something better than your abstract intellectual arguments that never are informed by comments that senior FBI officials wrote to each other (and to Hoover) and which are pervasive within dozens of FBI files.
6. YES---I know you will likely bring up Senator Joseph McCarthy. But keep in mind the context of that period in our history. Also keep in mind that once McCarthy started making wild unsupportable accusations which the FBI knew to be false -- they STOPPED cooperating with him at the explicit instructions of Hoover.
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul.

My *gut* still tells me that Hoover wasn't complicit in the Murder Plot, but it's hard to ignore the "willful ignorance"(as refered to during my conversation with Dr.Caufield) on the part of Hoover re: the "multiple murder" plots by Walker, Gen. Del Valle, etc. that the FBI was unquestionably~based on documentation discovered by Dr. Caufield~ fully aware of as early as 1962.

Two things that kinda stand out to me at this point as Hard To Walk Around:

A. In the days following The Hit, when SA Adams was dispatched to interview/ interrogate Milteer, his superiors *failed to inform him of the Somerset Tape*.

B. The Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents~ During April of '63(a Busy Month, no?) Drennan spills the beans to the FBI re: the organization of radical-right hit teams, even *naming Walker specifically*.

Then, less than seven days later, Brown tells the FBI that HE'S being recruited for these same hit teams~by Stanley Drennan. NONE of which~maybe most significantly the Milteer/Somerset tape~ever sees the light of day during the Warren Proceedings.

Willful Ignorance or a Helping Hand?

In short, I'm still very much reserving judgement on Hoover. There's MUCH new info in Dr. Caufield's book, which will require MUCH Critical Thought.

Peace,

D

Doug,

I don't agree with everything Ernie Lazar says, but on this point I do agree -- it will be hard to convince me that J. Edgar Hoover cooperated with the Radical Right in order to Cover-up the facts of the JFK murder.

Although -- most of the evidence in the JFK Cover-up certainly suggests some level of cooperation. The term you used, Doug, in your podcast with Dr.Jeff Caufield, is "willful ignorance".

That's undeniable -- so allow me to look at your examples again, from my skeptical viewpoint.

(1) When FBI Agent Don Adams was screaming up and down that he found Suspect #1 with Joseph Milteer -- the FBI senior staff just brushed him off.

Isn't that protecting the JFK Killers? I say no, because Hoover and the FBI senior staff had already decided not long after 3pm CST, that National Security concerns urgently required a "Lone Nut" interpretation of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO).

Within ONE HOUR of the arrest of LHO, the FBI senior staff had already begun scrubbing JFK evidence to bend it, twist it and force it into a "Lone Nut" paradigm.

Lower level FBI Agents, like Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen, would raise holy hell in the decades to come. They were told their EXCELLENT research was "useless." No wonder they spun around like spinning squirrels.

So, IMHO, this "willful ignorance" was based on a Grand Purpose, namely, the "Lone Nut" theory of LHO. The FBI senior staff could see this, but many agents out in the field just had to shut up and obey orders.

(2) In the Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents of April 1963, when Drennan informs the FBI that General Walker and the Radical Right are plotting government overthrow -- it is clear that the FBI had this data and deliberately concealed it in "willful ignorance."

Yet I say, again, that this is explained by the same Grand Purpose, namely, the "Lone Nut" theory of LHO.

As I said earlier -- we can easily divorce the JFK Kill Team (Walker and the Radical Right) from the JFK Cover-up Team (Hoover and the US Gov't), on the basis of their vision of LHO.

  • The JFK Kill Team presented an FPCC Communist LHO.
  • The JFK Cover-up Team presented a "Lone Nut" LHO.

On this theory, J. Edgar Hoover realized within ONE HOUR of Lee Harvey Oswald's arrest that the resigned General Walker of Dallas had been working with former FBI Agent Guy Banister in New Orleans. Here's how: all the official reports from Dallas claimed that LHO had been an "FPCC Communist" in New Orleans, while at the same time Hoover had accurate files showing that the FPCC in New Orleans was a Fake FPCC, run by Guy Banister.

IMHO Hoover put these facts together with his previous files from Drennan, and recognized that Walker was up to his old antics again. LHO was arrested around 2pm CST, and by 3pm CST Hoover telephoned RFK and announced that LHO was not an FPCC leader and not a Communist.

I think this speaks for itself.

Now, based on your podcast this week, Doug, I gather that Jeff Caufield might argue that Hoover was dirtier than I currently believe. I will certainly keep an open mind -- but I ask others to also keep an open mind. Let's look at the FACTS together, as we explore Jeff Caufield's new book, and try to keep political bias out of it.

All best,

--Paul

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul.

My *gut* still tells me that Hoover wasn't complicit in the Murder Plot, but it's hard to ignore the "willful ignorance"(as refered to during my conversation with Dr.Caufield) on the part of Hoover re: the "multiple murder" plots by Walker, Gen. Del Valle, etc. that the FBI was unquestionably~based on documentation discovered by Dr. Caufield~ fully aware of as early as 1962.

Two things that kinda stand out to me at this point as Hard To Walk Around:

A. In the days following The Hit, when SA Adams was dispatched to interview/ interrogate Milteer, his superiors *failed to inform him of the Somerset Tape*.

B. The Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents~ During April of '63(a Busy Month, no?) Drennan spills the beans to the FBI re: the organization of radical-right hit teams, even *naming Walker specifically*.

Then, less than seven days later, Brown tells the FBI that HE'S being recruited for these same hit teams~by Stanley Drennan. NONE of which~maybe most significantly the Milteer/Somerset tape~ever sees the light of day during the Warren Proceedings.

Willful Ignorance or a Helping Hand?

In short, I'm still very much reserving judgement on Hoover. There's MUCH new info in Dr. Caufield's book, which will require MUCH Critical Thought.

Peace,

D

Doug,

I don't agree with everything Ernie Lazar says, but on this point I do agree -- it will be hard to convince me that J. Edgar Hoover cooperated with the Radical Right in order to Cover-up the facts of the JFK murder.

Although -- most of the evidence in the JFK Cover-up certainly suggests some level of cooperation. The term you used, Doug, in your podcast with Dr.Jeff Caufield, is "willful ignorance".

That's undeniable -- so allow me to look at your examples again, from my skeptical viewpoint.

(1) When FBI Agent Don Adam was screaming up and down that he found Suspect #1 with Joseph Milteer -- the FBI senior staff just brushed him off.

Isn't that protecting the JFK Killers? I say no, because Hoover and the FBI senior staff had already decided not long after 3pm CST, that National Security concerns urgently required a "Lone Nut" interpretation of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO).

Within ONE HOUR of the arrest of LHO, the FBI senior staff had already begun scrubbing JFK evidence to bend it, twist it and force it into a "Lone Nut" paradigm.

Lower level FBI Agents, like Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen, would raise holy hell in the decades to come. They were told their EXCELLENT research was "useless." No wonder they spun around like spinning squirrels.

So, IMHO, this "willful ignorance" was based on a Grand Purpose, namely, the "Lone Nut" theory of LHO. The FBI senior staff could see this, but many agents out in the field just had to shut up and obey orders.

(2) In the Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents of April 1963, when Drennan informs the FBI that General Walker and the Radical Right are plotting assassination -- it is clear that the FBI had this data and deliberately concealed it in "willful ignorance."

Yet I say, again, that this is explained by the same Grand Purpose, namely, the "Lone Nut" theory of LHO.

As I said earlier -- we can easily divorce the JFK Kill Team (Walker and the Radical Right) from the JFK Cover-up Team (Hoover and the US Gov't), on the basis of their vision of LHO.

  • The JFK Kill Team presented an FPCC Communist LHO.
  • The JFK Cover-up Team presented a "Lone Nut" LHO.

On this theory, J. Edgar Hoover realized within ONE HOUR of Lee Harvey Oswald's arrest that the resigned General Walker of Dallas had been working with former FBI Agent Guy Banister in New Orleans. How? Because of all the emotional reports from Dallas that LHO was an "FPCC Communist" and at the same time Hoover had accurate files showing that the FPCC in New Orleans was a Fake FPCC, run by Guy Banister.

IMHO Hoover put these facts together with his previous files from Drennan, and recognized that Walker was up to his old antics again. LHO was arrested around 2pm CST, and by 3pm CST Hoover telephoned RFK and announced that LHO was not an FPCC leader and not a Communist.

I think this speaks for itself.

Now, based on your podcast this week, Doug, I gather that Jeff Caufield might argue that Hoover was dirtier than I currently believe. I will certainly keep an open mind -- but I ask others to also keep an open mind. Let's look at the FACTS together, as we explore Jeff Caufield's new book, and try to keep political bias out of it.

All best,

--Paul

Paul -- with respect to this comment by you:

(2) In the Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents of April 1963, when Drennan informs the FBI that General Walker and the Radical Right are plotting assassination -- it is clear that the FBI had this data and deliberately concealed it in "willful ignorance."
1. The very first document in Drennan's file (serial #1) is an April 19, 1963 memo from Hoover to the Attorney General of the United States (with copies to the Deputy Attorney General and to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Internal Security Division) which summarizes information about what Drennan told an informant.
2. Furthermore, the previous day (April 18th), the FBI orally notified the U.S. Secret Service about this same information (i.e. FBI Agent Andrew J. Decker told U.S. Secret Service Agent Glenn Bennett --as discussed in serial #2). And again on April 19th, FBI Special Agent Bernard C. Rachner told U.S. Secret Service Agent Gerry Blaine.
3. Incidentally, Drennan did NOT inform the FBI (as you falsely claim) that Walker "was plotting the assassination" and there is no such document in Drennan's file. SHAME ON YOU!
4. The only reference to Walker in Drennan's file is the following statement (and notice that it begins with the word "allegedly"):
"Drennan allegedly has a hatred for the Administration; is a supporter of General Edwin A. Walker and the 'Cuban Raiders' and has engaged in collecting materials, drugs and clothing to be shipped to the Cuban Raiders at an unknown place."
5. How does this all amount to what you describe as: "...it is clear that the FBI had this data and deliberately concealed it in 'willful ignorance.' "
6. BTW -- the Robert K. Brown discussion with Drennan in 1963 only became known 2 weeks after the assassination and Brown did not mention Walker being involved in any sort of murder plot. In fact, Brown thought that Drennan was recruiting him (Brown) to execute the plot!!
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. BTW -- the Robert K. Brown discussion with Drennan in 1963 only became known 2 weeks after the assassination and Brown did not mention Walker being involved in any sort of murder plot. In fact, Brown thought that Drennan was recruiting him (Brown) to execute the plot!!

Well, Ernie, that's right -- there was no actual MURDER PLOT articulated in the Drennan papers --

-- nevertheless, the DEADLY HATRED of the POTUS was crystal clear.

It's the same with the John Birch Society -- the sick, passive aggression of calling US Presidents COMMUNISTS, while at the same time parading around like True Patriots -- this was crystal clear.

The very personality of the JBS was "covert hostility" -- with a smile for your face but a knife for your back. The real shame really attaches to all the professional Americans, the doctors, dentists, veterinarians and lawyers -- who would smugly call themselves True Patriots while calling FDR, Truman, Ike and JFK nothing but COMMUNISTS -- that's where the shame lies.

So, I say -- just because the John Birch Society (and Drennan) didn't actually articulate a MURDER PLOT -- nevertheless, there was murder IMPLICIT in their INFINITE HATRED which they politically aimed at the POTUS.

This led to the culture which allowed monsters like the JFK Killers to run loose -- and to some extent get away with it.

And to think that such backstabbers still walk among us today...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. BTW -- the Robert K. Brown discussion with Drennan in 1963 only became known 2 weeks after the assassination and Brown did not mention Walker being involved in any sort of murder plot. In fact, Brown thought that Drennan was recruiting him (Brown) to execute the plot!!

Well, Ernie, that's right -- there was no actual MURDER PLOT articulated in the Drennan papers --

-- nevertheless, the DEADLY HATRED of the POTUS was crystal clear.

It's the same with the John Birch Society -- the sick, passive aggression of calling US Presidents COMMUNISTS, while at the same time parading around like True Patriots -- this was crystal clear.

The very personality of the JBS was "covert hostility" -- with a smile for your face but a knife for your back. The real shame really attaches to all the professional Americans, the doctors, dentists, veterinarians and lawyers -- who would smugly call themselves True Patriots while calling FDR, Truman, Ike and JFK nothing but COMMUNISTS -- that's where the shame lies.

So, I say -- just because the John Birch Society (and Drennan) didn't actually articulate a MURDER PLOT -- nevertheless, there was murder IMPLICIT in their INFINITE HATRED which they politically aimed at the POTUS.

This led to the culture which allowed monsters like the JFK Killers to run loose -- and to some extent get away with it.

And to think that such backstabbers still walk among us today...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Wow, Paul, your comments are truly astounding. Actual behavior is not as important as alleged thoughts and covert hostility.

BTW -- interesting how you diverted attention from your absolute falsehoods.

1. Drennan never told the FBI anything. Someone who spoke to Drennan contacted the FBI.

2. Drennan never told the person he spoke to that Walker was "planning" any murder.

3. The FBI never "deliberately concealed" anything re: Drennan's comments....In reality, the FBI immediately informed the AG, the Deputy AG, the Assistant AG for Internal Security and the Secret Service (twice on same day).

4. Robert K. Brown did not provide anything which connected the JBS or Walker to any murder plot -- thus falsifying your opening phrase, "In the Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents of April 1963". [in any event, there were no "Brown documents" in April 1963.]

Could anyone, BESIDES YOU, get so many things totally wrong in just ONE message?

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Paul, your comments are truly astounding. Actual behavior is not as important as alleged thoughts and covert hostility.

BTW -- interesting how you diverted attention from your absolute falsehoods.

1. Drennan never told the FBI anything. Someone who spoke to Drennan contacted the FBI.

2. Drennan never told the person he spoke to that Walker was "planning" any murder.

3. The FBI never "deliberately concealed" anything re: Drennan's comments....In reality, the FBI immediately informed the AG, the Deputy AG, the Assistant AG for Internal Security and the Secret Service (twice on same day).

4. Robert K. Brown did not provide anything which connected the JBS or Walker to any murder plot -- thus falsifying your opening phrase, "In the Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents of April 1963". [in any event, there were no "Brown documents" in April 1963.]

Could anyone, BESIDES YOU, get so many things totally wrong in just ONE message?

Covert Hostility -- especially of the political variety as epitomized in the John Birch Society -- was what killed JFK.

It's more dangerous because it's so insidious -- so SNEAKY. So DISHONEST.

Backstabbers are always more dangerous than courageous opponents -- because the honest person has a 50/50 chance with an honest warrior.

When Edwin Walker was a US General, he was an honorable man. After Walker joined the John Birch Society and quit the US Army (forfeiting his Army pension) he became a dishonorable agent -- a highly trained US General transformed into a monstrous political activist -- not face to face -- but drifting toward the JBS mode of COVERT HOSTILITY.

(For example, in his personal papers of his Grand Jury hearing for the Ole Miss riots, Edwin Walker claimed that he was at Ole Miss "in order to calm things down." Yet he encouraged violence there, as eye-witnesses, including a living Bishop, widely attest. That's just one instance of what I mean by COVERT HOSTILITY.)

BTW -- COVERT HOSTILITY always translates into actual behavior -- though HIDDEN. Like the JFK murder.

Metaphorically speaking, JFK was stabbed in the back by sundry members of the John Birch Society.

1. It simply doesn't matter that the FBI files on Drennan were 3rd party -- they were RELIABLE.

2. Drennan admitted that WALKER was a JFK HATER, who, like all JBS "True Patriots" condemned JFK as a COMMUNIST, that is, as a TRAITOR, that is, as an ENEMY OF THE STATE. It was a death sentence to rational people (though the Covert Hostility of the JBS would simply look around innocently and exclaim, "Who, me??").

3. The FBI *clearly* "deliberately concealed" the entire Drennan File from the Warren Commission. That was the original point, and that was my point. And you know it.

4. The picayune trivia that you try to slice out of each sentence, Ernie, is obvious to most readers. You're evading the elephant in the room, Ernie -- namely -- that the Radical Right Wing as led by the resigned General Walker was known to be COVERTLY HOSTILE to JFK back in April of 1963.

And the Warren Commission never heard hide nor hair of it!

IMHO,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Paul, your comments are truly astounding. Actual behavior is not as important as alleged thoughts and covert hostility.

BTW -- interesting how you diverted attention from your absolute falsehoods.

1. Drennan never told the FBI anything. Someone who spoke to Drennan contacted the FBI.

2. Drennan never told the person he spoke to that Walker was "planning" any murder.

3. The FBI never "deliberately concealed" anything re: Drennan's comments....In reality, the FBI immediately informed the AG, the Deputy AG, the Assistant AG for Internal Security and the Secret Service (twice on same day).

4. Robert K. Brown did not provide anything which connected the JBS or Walker to any murder plot -- thus falsifying your opening phrase, "In the Drennan/Robert K. Brown documents of April 1963". [in any event, there were no "Brown documents" in April 1963.]

Could anyone, BESIDES YOU, get so many things totally wrong in just ONE message?

Covert Hostility -- especially of the political variety as epitomized in the John Birch Society -- was what killed JFK.

It is more dangerous because it's so insidious -- so SNEAKY. So DISHONEST.

Backstabbers are always more dangerous than courageous opponents -- because the honest person has a 50/50 chance with an honest warrior.

When the Edwin Walker was a US General, he was an honorable man. After Walker joined the John Birch Society he became a dishonorable agent -- a highly trained US General transformed into a monstrous killing machine -- not face to face -- but entirely in the JBS mode of COVERT HOSTILITY.

BTW -- COVERT HOSTILITY always translates into actual behavior -- though HIDDEN. Like the JFK murder.

Metaphorically speaking, JFK was stabbed in the back by sundry members of the John Birch Society.

1. It simply doesn't matter that the FBI files on Drennan were 3rd party -- they were RELIABLE.

2. Drennan admitted that WALKER was a JFK HATER, who, like all JBS "True Patriots" condemned JFK as a COMMUNIST, that is, as a TRAITOR, that is, as an ENEMY OF THE STATE. It was a death sentence to rational people (though the Covert Hostility of the JBS would simply look around innocently and exclaim, "Who, me??").

3. The FBI *clearly* "deliberately concealed" the entire Drennan File from the Warren Commission. That was the original point, and that was my point. And you know it.

4. The picayune trivia that you try to slice out of each sentence, Ernie, is obvious to most readers. You're evading the elephant in the room, Ernie -- namely -- that the Radical Right Wing as led by the resigned General Walker was known to be COVERTLY HOSTILE to JFK back in April of 1963.

And the Warren Commission never heard hide nor hair of it!

IMHO,

--Paul Trejo

Paul there are so many non-sequiturs in your message I hardly know where to begin.

Let me start toward the end of your message with your sarcastic remark about "picayune trivia". In many respects, it is precisely such matters which enable us to separate fact from fiction -- which is clearly why you want us to dismiss or de-value your obvious mistakes.

1. In many of your previous messages, you ask us to consider what you describe as "nuances" about various matters or about various people. If I was as nasty or irrational as you are -- then I would have dismissed your comments as "picayune trivia". Instead, I take everything you write seriously and I try to make you understand that the key point here remains the same, i.e. your original message made statements that were total falsehoods. None of us can discover truth if we accept falsehoods as being equal in importance to, or as valuable as, verifiable facts.

2. Whatever your position about the Birch Society, it is totally absurd to characterize their positions about anything as "covert" or as "sneaky" or "dishonest". Sometimes I really wonder if you have ever actually read any JBS publications? JBS writers pulled no punches. They made horrific accusations about the intelligence, motivations, patriotism, loyalty and other characteristics of virtually every prominent national figure in 20th century America.

In fact, their Research Director (Dr. Francis X. Gannon) compiled their jeremiads about almost every left-wing organization and politician or prominent figure in America into a 4-volume series entitled "Biographical Dictionary of the Left" (2537 pages). Nothing "covert" about their derogatory (and defamatory) evaluations and characterizations in those 4 volumes. But you probably think that is more "picayune trivia".

3. Apparently, it is very important to you that we accept your premise that Walker was "an honorable man" when he was in the military. I suppose that any such conclusion depends upon how you define "honorable". When you think about it (calmly), was there anything different about Walker's personality in, say, 1950 or 1954 or 1957 -- as compared to 1959 when he joined the JBS? What made him susceptible to JBS ideology? You don't really have an answer for that, do you?

You just want us to pretend that Walker went through some kind of sudden metamorphosis that has no connection to his personality prior to 1959. I don't think that happens very often -- especially if you read the studies which have been done about political extremists -- and especially authoritarian personalities. Almost always, the poisonous seeds which eventually come to predominate their personality originate much earlier in life.

Have you ever read Milton Rokeach's 1960 book, The Open and Closed Mind? How about Theodor Adorno's 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality? or any of Bob Altemeyer's publications? I suggest that you need to open YOUR mind to other possibilities besides believing your bromide that Walker was "an honorable man" And, again, there was nothing "covert" about Walker's values, principles, and beliefs. He made himself perfectly clear.

4. With respect to your comment: "BTW -- COVERT HOSTILITY always translates into actual behavior -- though HIDDEN. Like the JFK murder."
NOT TRUE PAUL. If you read the literature about radicals whose rhetoric is violent and often very apocalyptic (i.e. doom-shaped perceptions of society) -- more often than not, their rhetorical excess is their way to cope with their inability to engage in actual violent behavior. In other words, often they confront a moral and practical conflict within themselves, i.e. they perceive very sinister forces as being pervasive within society, and they attribute to those forces the most vile and despicable morals as well as an absence of loyalty and patriotism -- but, simultaneously, they perceive themselves as the honorable, decent, moral, principled and patriotic exemplars for society which prevents them from behaving in ways commensurate with their violent rhetoric toward those whom they despise.
In fact, if your premise was accurate, then how do we explain the fact that the JBS had, at its peak, somewhere close to 80,000 members but they did not commit 80,000 or more more acts of violence commensurate with their alleged "covert hostility" which "always translates into actual behavior" ??
5. The issue with Drennan's statements was not what you claim, i.e. a third party source. Instead, the issue is that Drennan never said what you claimed he said.
I wonder how YOU would feel if somebody in this thread paraphrased something which they claim you have said or written but, in reality, you NEVER made such comments? I suppose you would describe the matter as more "picayune trivia" ?? In addition, you "forget" to mention that both the FBI and the Secret Service (which conducted its own lengthy investigation into Drennan) concluded that Drennan was just spouting rhetoric -- just as he did later with Col. Robert K. Brown---except when Drennan spoke with Brown, the discussion was about how NSRP members should facilitate the elimination of JFK, members of Congress, and members of the Americans For Democratic Action.
6. You state that "Drennan admitted that WALKER was a JFK HATER". Huh? Are you referring to his FBI file documents? When did he do that? QUOTE IT -- don't merely assert it.
7. If your contention is that the FBI "deliberately concealed" their Drennan file from the WC, is it also your contention that the Attorney General and the Justice Department and the Secret Service also "deliberately concealed" their knowledge about Drennan? So...in your scheme of things, "the plot" thickens -- because it is not just the FBI??
8. Lastly, I am not "evading" anything. However, unlike yourself, I don't immediately believe everything someone asserts. There was nothing "covertly hostile" about Walker's feelings concerning JFK. Walker was explicitly and publicly hostile toward JFK. I just do not understand your use of the word "covert" in the context of your statement. Neither the JBS or Walker were EVER "covert" regarding their evaluations about liberal Democrats and "mainstream" Republicans.
"Covert" (BY DEFINITION) means "not openly acknowledged or displayed".
So, in order to believe your nonsense, you are demanding that we believe that when men and women joined the first John Birch Society chapters starting in February 1959 -- they did so WITHOUT reading the Birch Society Blue Book? Or without listening to the 3-hour film presentation that was required for new members at recruitment meetings held around the country? In other words, they were TOTALLY CLUELESS about what Welch and the JBS believed?
In short, you want us to believe that all those JBS members had no clue about the official position of the JBS when Welch declared it in January 1960 as quoted below --- because this position was "covert hostility"?????
“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
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...