Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Bill, it would be interesting to see a timeline on that since we do know that very early on, either by late November or certainly December Garrison was very much interested in the mysterious Cubans Oswald might have been in contact with in Dallas and was sending investigators to Miami to start an inquiry there...and it was at that point Bernardo de Torres inserted himself. I gather than that the book focuses on leads earlier than that which show his first inquiries were actually about the ultra right groups. Of course as soon as Banisters name came up it would have been obvious that there were leads there given Bannister's interest and volunteer offer to the collect information targeting Communists in the civil rights movement. That aspect was discussed in great detail decades ago in Jerry Rose's third and fourth decade journal articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul, Actually it's a general observation that has to do with the nature of the Garrison "probe". It's sudden turn away from the 'Racist Right' (or "Nazi's" as Garrison once described them) to the "intelligence agencies" was noticeably acute. It's a theory, but I believe from our research that it's an accurate take.

I saw a video once where Garrison says (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'When you talk about the NSRP and the Citizens Councils... what you're really talking about is the CIA!... that's whats behind them.

Somewhere I have this video, but I cannot locate it. My point is that it displays his shift away from the radical segregationists, to the intelligence agencies such as CIA. You may say that Garrison merely came up empty handed in that regard, and moved onto another theory, but his own documents show he had good enough leads not to suddenly abandon it. (IMO)

Bill

Bill, your report of a video of Jim Garrison claiming that these Radical Right organizations were really CIA fronts is astounding to me. It is certainly a sharp detour from reason and common sense, IMHO.

The NSRP (National States Rights Party) and the Citizens Councils had Segregation as their topmost issue, and even in the 1950's they promoted the idea that "Race Integration is Communism."

That is, the NSRP and the CC's (which were born in the US South, along the old Civil War boundary lines) wanted to blur the lines between Earl Warren's Integration project in the Brown Decision (1954) and the legacy Red Scare that was rising again under the name of McCarthyism and the HUAC.

By joining the Brown Decision with Communism, some Southern States, like Mississippi, succeeded in stalling the Brown Decision up until 1962. (I've heard reports that some communities still resist it.)

It was an issue that the Moderate Right and the Radical Right would agree upon. "Impeach Earl Warren" became the most prominent slogan of the John Birch Society, for example.

Now -- for Jim Garrison to claim that the CIA was actually supporting the NSRP and the CCs is the same as Garrison saying that the CIA had already broken with the US Government policies as established by the Supreme Court!

Such a view is contrary to common sense, and one can easily surmise a double-confusion to arise from it: (1) foreigners and the Radical Left would insist that it was true; and (2) the Radical Right would laugh and cheer over causing so much confusion, and about taking the spotlight away from themselves.

For 50 years, then, Jim Garrison's move (either by error or by blackmail) would condition the JFK Conspiracy Theories from that point forward. The CIA became the focus of most CT's, while the Radical Right cheered.

Is that what you're getting at, Bill? Because that makes sense of the facts, IMHO. The Radical Right has taken a free ride for 50 years in these JFK investigations -- and its high time that they finally paid the piper.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul . Yes, essentially Garrison was trying to make them synonymous which is absurd. The Radical Right hated the CIA and that's reflected in their literature and correspondence. That's what caught my eyes and ears when he tried to make that metaphorical shift, like a slight of hand diversion to shift focus onto another object. Yet, there was a reason for this, and he felt the need to verbalize it.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to digress for a moment to a related subject, can anyone doubt J Edgar Hoover's hatred of MLK? Does anyone think that MLK's assassination was the work of James Earl Ray all on his own?

I bring this up because I am reading what in my mind are false dichotomies. The idea that there are sharp lines of distinction between heads of the FBI, CIA, ONI, SISS (members of the U.S. Senate such as James Eastland or attorneys such as Robert Morris or Sourwine) and the radical right or racist right is to me just more of the same obfuscation that has prevented us all these years from naming the guilty. The main difference between US government racists and private racists is that the former distance themselves from the latter because it is necessary for their survival. It is a form of plausible deniability.

I applaud Caulfield for his research. Garrison never struck me as racist. He suggests that Garrison was not intimidated, but rather in sympathy with the racist right. Hancock suggests it might have been intimidation. I suggest he was merely looking to go up the food chain to the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I really don't know - or recall at this point - the detailed timing of the Garrison investigation enough have an opinion on his shifts other than the fact that when De Torres and friends aborted his Cuban inquiry he pretty much had to turn another direction. All that ties to the Roselli H bomb media campaign of early 67 as well. I think its Bill who is suggesting Garrison was intimidated to focus on the CIA. My own research suggests the CIA's main worry was that Garrison was getting names of a number of Cuban exiles and other associated with anti-Castro activities and the he would be exposing not only operational information but possibly the Castro assassination effort. The FBI was worried about something else entirely...having to do direct with Oswald.

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I really don't know - or recall at this point - the detailed timing of the Garrison investigation enough have an opinion on his shifts other than the fact that when De Torres and friends aborted his Cuban inquiry he pretty much had to turn another direction. All that ties to the Roselli H bomb media campaign of early 67 as well. I think its Bill who is suggesting Garrison was intimidated to focus on the CIA. My own research suggests the CIA's main worry was that Garrison was getting names of a number of Cuban exiles and other associated with anti-Castro activities and the he would be exposing not only operational information but possibly the Castro assassination effort. The FBI was worried about something else entirely...having to do direct with Oswald.

Well, Larry, this forms an interesting set of possibilities.

If the CIA was worried that Garrison might expose some on-going CIA projects to topple Latin-American dictators such as Fidel Castro, then that would explain their hostility toward Garrison's flailing efforts.

Although I agree with Jeff Caufield that Guy Ganister is so close to General Walker that he must be counted among Walker's conspirators -- I need not jump to the conclusion that everybody associated with Guy Banister has "inside information" into the JFK murder plot being hatched in Dallas.

For example, Lee Harvey Oswald, as far as I can tell, was kept entirely in the dark about the Dallas plot. He wouldn't have brought his Manlicher-Carcano rifle to the TSBD building on 11/22/1963 unless, IMHO, Gerry Patrick Hemming had offered him double its market price if he would leave it on the 6th floor for Gerry's pals to pick up (per Weberman).

This would imply that Lee Harvey Oswald's work with Guy Banister's Fake FPCC was considered by Oswald himself to be part of a separate project, namely, one of the many projects in NOLA and Miami to murder Fidel Castro.

The same might also apply to Antonio Veciana -- Veciana might have only known about the plot to assassinate Fidel. If so, then the same might apply to nearly all of the Cuban Exiles hovering around 544 Camp Street in NOLA in the summer of 1963. They could all have been plotting to assassinate Fidel.

If so, then Garrison only stumbled on a CIA plot to assassinate Fidel -- and it was only dumb luck that a few of these guys (Banister, Ferrie, Bringuier and Butler) were really connected to General Walker in Dallas, who was plotting to assassinate JFK.

But Garrison, instead of chasing these Radical Right plotters after JFK, was somehow diverted to chase the CIA plotters after Fidel!

That's how this seems to be shaping up so far, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, Lee Harvey Oswald, as far as I can tell, was kept entirely in the dark about the Dallas plot. He wouldn't have brought his Manlicher-Carcano rifle to the TSBD building on 11/22/1963 unless, IMHO, Gerry Patrick Hemming had offered him double its market price if he would leave it on the 6th floor for Gerry's pals to pick up (per Weberman).

Hi Paul,

Do you have a source for a Weberman claim about Hemming and Oswald and a Carcano?

The logic (or more accurately the illogic) behind such an action boggles my mind.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, towards the last few years of GPH's (Hemming) interaction with researchers, he was just F'N with researchers.What he had to say was suspect, as to it's validity and or purpose. Having interviewed him on two occasions, I realized this when he kept dodging my questions the second time, most of those had never been previously broached by anyone to my knowledge.

Once he realized I was on to something REAL, Oh boy, his respect level changed and his attitude got more serious. He wasn't shinning me on anymore (I guess)... cause he caught himself in mid sentence several times, realizing he was saying too much, after I got him a little worked up.He swore at me several times, realizing I was knowledgeable and touching on things that were sensitive.

One sore subject was Robert Morris!...no BS!

No Brag folks, just the way it went down.

Bill

Edited by William O'Neil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, towards the last few years of GPH's (Hemming) interaction with researchers, he was just F'N with researchers.What he had to say was suspect, as to it's validity and or purpose. Having interviewed him on two occasions, I realized this when he kept dodging my questions the second time, most of those had never been previously broached by anyone to my knowledge.

Once he realized I was on to something REAL, Oh boy, his respect level changed and his attitude got more serious. He wasn't shinning me on anymore (I guess)... cause he caught himself in mid sentence several times, realizing he was saying too much, after I got him a little worked up.He swore at me several times, realizing I was knowledgeable and touching on things that were sensitive.

One sore subject was Robert Morris!...no BS!

No Brag folks, just the way it went down.

Bill

Bill, I agree with you that Gerry Patrick Hemming was a compulsive L-I-A-R -- and yet he knew so many rare and salient details about the JFK murder that it is equally undeniable that his words are among the JFK researcher's most valuable resources.

The great problem, as you imply, is to sort out the lies from the truth in his words.

Whenever I cite Hemming's claim to A.J. Weberman that he offered Oswald double the price of his rifle if he'd bring it to the TSBD on 11/22/1963, I am consistently challenged that Gerry Patrick Hemming was a notorious L-I-A-R.

I certainly can't dispute that -- but I do dispute the notion that everything that a L-I-A-R says must be a lie. I also dispute the notion that a compulsive L-I-A-R should be excluded from the list of suspects in the JFK murder.

The reason I seize upon Weberman's report of this claim by Hemming is that it ties up so many loose ends so quickly. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Patsy -- and so it is clear that Lee wasn't a CIA agent. At the same time, Lee knew and trusted the people who made him into a Patsy -- and that means, IMHO, that Lee Harvey Oswald knew and trusted Gerry Patrick Hemming and his comrades, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. This trail leads right to the door step of General Walker in Dallas. So, Hemming ties up many loose ends.

The challenge that Dr. Caufield sets up for us in his first three chapters of his new book, is this rare portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald as an ambivalent member of the Radical Right. As you suggest, Bill, Jim Garrison had originally regarded Oswald as a secret Rightist -- however, this was too quickly erased and replaced by CIA suspicions and theories. A RIGHT WING OSWALD SOLVES THE JFK MURDER DEFTLY.

Also, the attorney Robert Morris who defended General Walker for his Ole Miss riot, was also the guy who bailed Loran Hall out of a Dallas jail in September of 1963. Robert Morris was an avid supporter of the John Birch Society paranoia that JFK was a secret Communist, according to Larrie Schmidt, who told me personally that he admired Robert Morris above all others in Dallas in 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul T,

In your humble opinion, LHO brought his scoped rifle to work and left it on the sixth floor so that friends of GPH could pick it up later. He did this despite allegedly knowing that JFK was to be driven by his place of business in a convertible on that very same day. He did this because he was lured by the money that GPH offered him for his priceless Carcano.

Questions abound:

How often does one buy weapons that are pre-loaded with live ammo, from any source?

Why would a sniper, of the world-class skill set that Oswald purportedly had (*), think that Soldier of Fortune GPH was interested in his $13 rifle?

Who brings their weapon to work and then leaves it unattended in a common area for someone else (that’s not an employee) to pick up as part of a transaction?

Is it common in Texas to bring your weapon to work on days when big parades are planned?

For that matter - Why in the world would Oswald have chosen to mail order a rifle when you could walk into any gun store in Dallas, buy a rifle for cash, no ID or background check required?

(*) Just for argument’s sake.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul T,

In your humble opinion, LHO brought his scoped rifle to work and left it on the sixth floor so that friends of GPH could pick it up later. He did this despite allegedly knowing that JFK was to be driven by his place of business in a convertible on that very same day. He did this because he was lured by the money that GPH offered him for his priceless Carcano.

Questions abound:

How often does one buy weapons that are pre-loaded with live ammo, from any source?

Why would a sniper, of the world-class skill set that Oswald purportedly had (*), think that Soldier of Fortune GPH was interested in his $13 rifle?

Who brings their weapon to work and then leaves it unattended in a common area for someone else (that’s not an employee) to pick up as part of a transaction?

Is it common in Texas to bring your weapon to work on days when big parades are planned?

For that matter - Why in the world would Oswald have chosen to mail order a rifle when you could walk into any gun store in Dallas, buy a rifle for cash, no ID or background check required?

(*) Just for argument’s sake.

Chris, these are all very good questions. Let's see if I can respond to them.

(1) LHO's mind wasn't on the JFK visit -- it was on two crucial matters: (1.1) that his baby girl Rachel had just been born, and he was living in a rooming house, far from his family; and (1.2) he had just failed to accomplish his rightist mission in Mexico City to enter Havana and join a coup party in Cuba. This is proved by his November 9 "Dear Sirs" letter written at Ruth Paine's house. LHO brought his rifle to the TSBD despite JFK's parade because LHO trusted his Patsy-makers with his whole heart.

(2) We don't know that the weapon was pre-loaded -- ammo could have been separate at the moment of sale. As suggested earlier in this thread -- Robert Allen Surrey had his sons collect the spent shells of LHO's rifle at a shooting range.

(3) Oswald probably thought GPH was interested in his cheap rifle for criminal purposes -- that is, some underground hood or mercenary wanted to have a quick rifle right away, without waiting. Oswald knew it was for criminal purposes, but he trusted GPH.

(4) You ask, "Who brings their weapon to work, unattended?" Yet this was Texas in 1963. Actually, we know from other sources that workers at the TSBD brought their weapons to work REGULARLY, just to show off. The Mauser found in the TSBD actually belonged to somebody who worked there, per one report.

(5) There were PLENTY OF WEAPONS at the TSBD that day. It was only up to the Police to select one and take it in. Parade day or not -- this was TEXAS in 1963. Gun Rights were practically a Religion in Texas -- like Football. It was even more of a macho culture then than it is today.

(6) You ask why LHO would mail-order a rifle -- which is a separate issue entirely. One must also ask, in that context, why LHO chose to use an ALIAS to make that purchase -- specifically, Alek J. Hidell, whose fake ID was created at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall by LHO himself.

(6.1.) The answer to that question is clear when we consider the career of Alek J. Hidell, who was also the only member of the Fake FPCC organization in New Orleans. To this FAKERY we must also consider all of LHO's postage to the Communist Party, to the Socialist Workers Party, to the "Militant" and the rest of it -- all without ever joining any of those organizations.

(6.2) LHO was busy constructing a Fake Persona. LHO was fully aware that the FBI was tracking all his letters -- including all of his postage, and all of the contents of his Post Office Box, including his ALIAS. LHO knew *exactly* what he was doing when he ordered a rifle through the mail.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Radical Right hated the CIA and that's reflected in their literature and correspondence...

Bill

Bill, this reminds me of the fact that the John Birch Society's darling of the 1950's, Dan Smoot, published a book in 1962 entitled, The Invisible Government. In this book Smoot claims that the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) was entirely a Communist Organization, and their stellar members, including President Eisenhower, were all secret Communists.

In the opinion of Dan Smoot, the CFR was really running the entire planet, and comprised the core of the Invisible Government, which was leading the USA further and further into Communism.

Among the names of the "secret Communists" named in his long list of CFR members was none other than Allen Dulles

along with his brother, John Foster Dulles.

So, yes, the Radical Right considered that the CIA was far too left-wing for their taste -- in fact it was Communist!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

Thank you for responding so promptly.

I know you are in Texas and you Texans are legendary braggarts but I still don't think every day in Dallas is, or was, a "bring your weapon to work day". I had the pleasure of living almost two years at Ft. Hood and for all intents I "commuted" to Austin every weekend. Almost every Texas friend drove a pick-up back then and every pickup had a rack but, even so, the rack was empty more often than not. My point about ammo - only a complete idiot brings a loaded weapon to a weapons purchaser with the intent of selling that loaded weapon.

Buell Frazier's Enfield was not in his car at the TSBD that day. The mauser and a .22 were purchased by a guy on lunch break a couple days before the motorcade and brought back to the guy's office (not left out on the floor).

Do you recall anytime that you saw any guns in the Texas School Book

Depository Building?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. Prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; I saw two guns on November 20.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. TRULY. They belonged to Mr. Warren Caster.


Mr. BALL. And have you had your offices since 1952 in the Texas School Book
Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. The offices have been in the Texas School Book Depository
Building, but not in this particular building here. We have occupied three
places since I have been with the Southwestern Publishing Co.
Mr. BALL. Your office is on which floor?
Mr. CASTER. Second floor.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository
Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon
hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other
was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Mr. BALL. Who owned them?
Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.
Mr. BALL. Well, tell us about it---what were the circumstances of the
purchase?
Mr. CASTER. Well, I left the Depository during the noon hour and had lunch
and, while out for the lunch hour, I stopped by Sanger-Harris sporting goods
department to look for a rifle for my son's birthday---I beg your pardon,
Christmas present--son's Christmas present, and while I was there I purchased
the single-shot .22--single shot--and at the same time was looking at
some deer rifles. I had, oh, for several years been thinking about buying a
deer rifle and they happened to have one that I liked and I purchased the
.30-06 while I was there.
Mr. BALL. And did they box them up?
Mr. CASTER. They were in cartons; yes.
Mr. BALL. And then you went back to work, I guess?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I picked both rifles up in cartons just like they were,
this was during the noon hour, and as I entered the Texas School Book
Depository Building on my way up to the buying office, I stopped by Mr.
Truly's office, and while I was there we examined the two rifles that I
had purchased.

Maybe I misunderstood, is it your contention that LHO was a patsy and fired the Carcano or that he was just set up and took no part in the assassination?

Edited by Chris Newton
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...