Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Paul Trejo

Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

Recommended Posts

David B

Thanks for posting the interesting Wheaton interview. No smoking gun but two significant points were noted.

1) Funding for the Kennedy assassination came from diverted funds from the CIA's project to snuff out Castro, which Wheaton determined from conversations with other CIA operatives. This of course does not mean the CIA funded the assassination it means someone who had control of the funds diverted them, possibly at the behest of an individual well connected to the CIA.

2) Within every CIA covert action , included is a plausible deniability part. In studying the Kennedy assassination I've found that the plot to kill Kennedy is riddled with plausible deniability.

There  are other significant points that I missed and may be noted by others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Jason,

This might be of some interest - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DPT9Oc0lsU&feature=youtu.be

 

Hi David,

Many thanks for joining in polite conversation.  I remember looking at Wheaton some time ago but it was interesting to see the  youtube video.   Do you think he adds much that hasn't been said elsewhere for years and years?   The main evaluation I have of him is of course is that he is not a witness to anything related to the assassination.   He is  a witness to things that happened in the 1980s; in particular he offers hearsay recollections of what he was told by someone else about the assassination.  He was told the interesting parts mainly by Carl Jenkins.

Some of the details he offers which can be verified are factually questionable and it seems he has a vendetta against Carl Jenkins related to the Iran-Contra shenanigans.  Even so, I don't really see him as entirely dishonest when he repeats what he says Jenkins told him.  

Jenkins says he was trying to impress Wheaton and made up the story about a bunch of Cubans involved in the JFK assassination under his (Jenkins') leadership.

So, we've got one guy (Wheaton) saying he heard Jenkins say something about killing JFK, but Jenkins himself says it is not true.   In a courtroom, Wheaton could not testify to what Jenkins said in any effort to prove what Jenkins said is true - only Jenkins could testify in that regard.  At best I see this as a possible reason to investigate further what Wheaton says, but ultimately it is just one of many many stories that invoke the intangible CIA-MAFIA-CUBAN triumvirate without providing a shred of evidence.   

What do you think the Wheaton interview tells us?

regards

 

Jason

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

David B

Thanks for posting the interesting Wheaton interview. No smoking gun but two significant points were noted.

1) Funding for the Kennedy assassination came from diverted funds from the CIA's project to snuff out Castro, which Wheaton determined from conversations with other CIA operatives. This of course does not mean the CIA funded the assassination it means someone who had control of the funds diverted them, possibly at the behest of an individual well connected to the CIA.

2) Within every CIA covert action , included is a plausible deniability part. In studying the Kennedy assassination I've found that the plot to kill Kennedy is riddled with plausible deniability.

There  are other significant points that I missed and may be noted by others. 

My take away from the Wheaton interview seemed to be an implication that the CIA backed anti-Castro apparatus was turned around and aimed at Kennedy. I would never expect Jenkins to admit he said anything, so who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the main indications that the Radical Right should be looked at further is that they were suspected immediately.  It took a quite an effort to reign in the efforts looking at the reactionaries and instead promote the lone nut explanation.

Here is Khrushchev as quoted in a May 1964 CIA report on Drew Pearson's social meeting in Cairo:

KHRUSCHEV_BAMES_THE_RIGHT_FOR_JFK.png

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 0:40 PM, Jason Ward said:

Hi Ty,

Thank you for the polite conversation.

My initial reply was actually referencing only the National Security Action Memo, which I take as basic bureaucratic wordiness of equivocal meaning.  As far as the splinter into a thousand pieces remark, sure that it is not something you want to hear your boss say about the organization you work for.  

However, I think there's a lot of mitigating factors here. For one thing: how often is a politician actually able to wrestle control or rearrange a major entity like the CIA? I mean really they are more or less permanent. Also, don't we have to consider who these people are in the CIA? In my view they are very law-abiding and very duty-bound people from both a Republican or Democratic background. The CIA is quite a bit different from a bunch of gangsters, don't you agree? Yet we are so easily giving them a gangster's mentality.  The CIA getting involved in the Kennedy assassination is in my view about the last thing they're going to do because if they were ever discovered - it really WOULD end the CIA.

Now if there were any evidence that CIA leadership or legitimate full-time CIA employees were bloodthirsty and angry towards JFK, I would definitely agree we can take this seriously until it's resolved. But for 50 plus years all we've seen is the supposition that the CIA must be mad at Kennedy. There is no proof whatsoever that the CIA was mad at Kennedy. There is no proof whatsoever that any CIA employee was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

...All there is is a bunch of made up hypotheses and a bunch of unknowns that are filled in with imaginative examples of creative storytelling. For example, a few weeks ago I had an encounter with a JFK researcher who has over the years contributed some good work to the assassination question.

However, he insisted to me that one reason we know that Ruth Paine is in the CIA is because Marina Oswald said that the Secret Service said that Ruth Paine had some CIA connections. That's a double hearsay problem; and, the mere accusation from someone or some agency in no way counts as evidence towards the veracity of the accusation they're making. There's simply no document and no witness testimony that places people like Ruth Paine and several others either in the CIA or actively part of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.

But if you could point out some evidence, I'd certainly like to discuss it!... because as you say, we should investigate the CIA as far as the evidence takes us. I work on projects for the Mary Farrell Foundation including the recently released document dumps and I can see that the CIA was as aloof of Oswald in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy as the FBI or the Secret Service or anyone else in official Washington.

Paul Trejo has pointed out that General Walker had advanced knowledge of Oswald's activity in the spring and Summer of 63 that only the conspirators could know. I know of no one else besides Walker in this whole saga who shows such knowledge of Oswald before this knowledge was publicly revealed.

I really appreciate the polite interaction and I look forward to discussing this further.

Jason

Jason - Paul Trejo knows that Walker never demonstrated advance knowledge of Oswald's activity before the assassination. What he claimed after the fact is proof of nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

I think one of the main indications that the Radical Right should be looked at further is that they were suspected immediately.  It took a quite an effort to reign in the efforts looking at the reactionaries and instead promote the lone nut explanation.

Here is Khrushchev as quoted in a May 1964 CIA report on Drew Pearson's social meeting in Cairo:

KHRUSCHEV_BAMES_THE_RIGHT_FOR_JFK.png

I agree with you - I remember the first headlines in the left wing press as pointing the finger at the Minutemen. 

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the assassination was the work of the radical right. But I agree with Chuck and others that the radical right was closely aligned with government, military, and Intelligence figures. Try not to be mislead by Trejo when he draws imaginary boundaries. He is an admitted apologist for Dulles, Hoover, and LeMay. I could go into detail about his past posts on the subject. But suffice it to say that he is blind to their perfidy. Walker and his ilk did not operate in a vacuum. Big Oil and Big Defense especially in Texas were closely aligned with those within government that made foreign and domestic policy in support of the aims and finances of these corporations. Khrushchev may have been especially sensitive about all this because he knew better than anyone how closely aligned our deep state power structure was with Nazi Germany, and not just after the war but before and during it too. Dulles was a lynchpin of this dark alliance. The radical right was not some fringe group of crazies, it was embedded in our power structures and still is. LeMay, to refresh your memory perhaps, was George Wallace's running mate in 1968. Hoover infiltrated the CPUSA heavily, and the JBS not at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 4:52 PM, George Sawtelle said:

David B

Thanks for posting the interesting Wheaton interview. No smoking gun but two significant points were noted.

1) Funding for the Kennedy assassination came from diverted funds from the CIA's project to snuff out Castro, which Wheaton determined from conversations with other CIA operatives. This of course does not mean the CIA funded the assassination it means someone who had control of the funds diverted them, possibly at the behest of an individual well connected to the CIA.

2) Within every CIA covert action , included is a plausible deniability part. In studying the Kennedy assassination I've found that the plot to kill Kennedy is riddled with plausible deniability.

There  are other significant points that I missed and may be noted by others. 

George - are you aware that the head of Cuban Intel, Fabian Escalante, later said that Operation 40 was funded outside of CIA channels through George Bush and Jack Crichton?  I would suggest that the answer to your point 1 is George Bush. It's at least worth considering. And you might want to look at the Crichton threads on the forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the main indications that the Radical Right should be looked at further is that they were suspected immediately.  It took a quite an effort to reign in the efforts looking at the reactionaries and instead promote the lone nut explanation.

Here is Khrushchev as quoted in a May 1964 CIA report on Drew Pearson's social meeting in Cairo:

KHRUSCHEV_BAMES_THE_RIGHT_FOR_JFK.png

Jason

That's great evidence. An impression, wow better than documentation. Of course I'm being facetious right?

But enlighten me when does an impression constitute evidence?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - Paul Trejo knows that Walker never demonstrated advance knowledge of Oswald's activity before the assassination. What he claimed after the fact is proof of nothing.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your kind response.   I'm not sure if Paul Trejo made the point, but what I was referring to is that Walker knows what Oswald did from the Spring of 63 through the Mexico City trip before this information is testified to the FBI or printed in the papers.   He's talking about Oswald's activities in a way that only someone involved with the conspiracy can know; i.e. he mentions the day Oswald receives his passport in New Orleans, he mentions the intention behind the Mexico City trip, and most spectacular of all the day after the assassination Walker is telling friendly reporters that it was Oswald that shot him (Walker) back in April.   The first time Oswald was connected to the April shooting was after the discovery of the letter in Ruth Paine's House (* in early December* ) whereby Oswald admits to the attack and Marina corroborates the note.  But Walker knew this on 23 November - how is that possible aside from conspiratorial involvement?

 

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

I think one of the main indications that the Radical Right should be looked at further is that they were suspected immediately.  It took a quite an effort to reign in the efforts looking at the reactionaries and instead promote the lone nut explanation.

Here is Khrushchev as quoted in a May 1964 CIA report on Drew Pearson's social meeting in Cairo:

KHRUSCHEV_BAMES_THE_RIGHT_FOR_JFK.png

Jason

That's great evidence. An impression, wow better than documentation. Of course I'm being facetious right?

But enlighten me when does an impression constitute evidence?

 

Hi George, as I say, my point is that the first response of those who already had good insight into Oswald (the FBI, the Russians, etc.) was to look at the Radical Right.   It was the gut reaction at the time, and I think it should be revisited.   Khrushchev is merely a provocative example of someone who already knew of Oswald pre-Nov63 and believed this was the work of the reactionaries - and Khrushchev is one of many who react this way.  

Before Hoover-LBJ got the word out that this was to be blamed on a Lone Nut, notice below which direction FBI agents acting on their own focus the initial  investigation, and remember Walker and Banister are active in the National States Right Party:

 

INITIAL_FBI_FOCUS_NSRPARTY.png

FBI_immediate_tip_Rad_Right_celebrt_JFK.

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason

So because some folks are happy and jubilent because of the death of Kennedy, or some are anti-jewish or anti-black doesn't mean they helped kill Kennedy. There is no evidence in those two reports that indicates the radical right killed Kennedy.

As far as some people thinking and saying that the radical right needs to be looked at as a possible suspect, so what?

There is a huge gap between suspected and convicted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

So because some folks are happy and jubilent because of the death of Kennedy, or some are anti-jewish or anti-black doesn't mean they helped kill Kennedy. There is no evidence in those two reports that indicates the radical right killed Kennedy.

As far as some people thinking and saying that the radical right needs to be looked at as a possible suspect, so what?

There is a huge gap between suspected and convicted. 

Hi George,

1. My point is that the Right needs to be looked at harder instead of only looking for CIA-did-it evidence.  BTW, do you have any evidence that any group besides the Radical Right celebrated JFK's assassination?

2. Why do you think one of the conspirators implicates General Walker (below)??????

 

Ruby_implicates_Walker.png

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 My point is that the Right needs to be looked at harder instead of only looking for CIA-did-it evidence.

Jason

I agree.

Would be great if we could close the gap between suspect and convict but we are going to need real evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you both keep referring to CIA did it theories? Who here posting has ever said the CIA did it? 

Share this post


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

×