Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- since you did not want to answer my question about "tracking" or "watching" - I will give you an example of the type of document created by the FBI when its Agents actually did perform those functions.  See:  https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32191928.pdf    The Special Agent assigned to perform the "tracking" would prepare a summary memo addressed to their Special Agent in Charge.

Tracking/watching includes such techniques as:

1.  physical observation  (the most labor-intensive option -- which often involved 24/7 surveillance by a team of Agents; CPUSA "Smith Act" defendants were often surveilled on a regular basis).  In other cases, FBI Agents would just physically confirm that the targeted person was in their home or at their place of employment

2.  pretext phone calls  (the FBI created a training monograph for its employees to instruct them how to obtain desired information by pretending to be someone else so the targeted person would not know of the FBI's interest)

3.  pretext physical contacts  (such as an Agent visiting an employer to ask a question without identifying himself as an FBI Agent)

4.  contacts with informants or confidential sources who had daily direct knowledge about the targeted person's whereabouts and/or plans (often this would be co-workers or employees of the targeted person)

5.  regular inquiries made with neighbors, and/or to postal employees, utility companies, credit reporting agencies -- to obtain desired information

NOTE:   These are just SOME of the techniques used.  Notice they all have a common-denominator, namely, they are pro-active measures taken by FBI employees (usually with a specific goal in mind) -- not just passively waiting for someone to contact the FBI to share information -- which might not even be pertinent to what the FBI wanted to know. 

In addition, FBI Agents would write regular memos to report what they had done and what information they developed about the targeted person (or organization) as opposed to waiting for some contact to occur and then merely summarizing what some person told them---and not even knowing if that information was accurate or not.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

5 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

By the Ole Miss integration in 1962 and the opposition riots produced by General Edwin Walker, Hoover had started tracking the southern-based right wingers with a vigilance comparable to the communist party.

Sorry, Jason, this is the most absurd comment you have ever posted.

There are many different ways which can disprove your observation.  Here are just a few:

1.  THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF FILES CREATED

In one respect, I began my FOIA research 36 years ago in order to address the very point you raise. 

I wondered if the FBI created files on right-wing individuals, groups and publications (or events) with the same zeal and thoroughness as they did with left-wing individuals, groups, publications, and events?

When I submitted my first batch of FOIA requests, I asked that the FBI inform me (for each subject) if anybody else had requested and received documents on those subjects.  Over 80% of the time, their answer was "NO" -- so I was the first person to make those requests.

That triggered me into start making comprehensive requests on literally THOUSANDS of right-wing individuals, organizations, publications, events, controversies and other related subjects.   You can get a general idea of the scope of my research on my FOIA request webpage:   https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/foia/   I also attached a 253-page computer printout which the FBI produced for me in 2007 which showed all my FOIA requests up to that time.

BRIEFLY THIS IS WHAT I DISCOVERED:

(a)  The files which the FBI opened on right-wing subjects were minimal compared to what they opened on left-wing subjects

(b)  The right-wing files, on average, were quite small.  Often, the FBI just wanted some background info to ascertain who was involved and what their objectives were -- and then they closed the file except, sometimes, for responding to incoming inquiries from concerned citizens.  The total number of serials often was less than 100.

(c)  IF a right-wing organization had chapters in different locations (multiple cities and/or states), the FBI rarely opened separate files for each location (major exceptions: KKK-related and White Citizens Council movement, Minutemen, JBS, and American Nazi Party).  However, typically, all reports or info on most right-wing subjects was just combined into one HQ file.   

(d)  By contrast, the CPUSA files were massive (often 8000 or more serials) AND the FBI opened a separate file for every city/state and in some cases even individual counties along with every individual CPUSA club.

(e)  In summary:  the CPUSA files total MILLIONS of pages.  There is so much material that NOBODY has ever seen all of it AND NOBODY could afford to obtain all of it.  You can get a small idea of what I am talking about by reviewing my CPUSA webpage (scroll to bottom to see a few CPUSA-related file numbers)

https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/cpusa1

2.  TRAINING MATERIAL FOR FBI EMPLOYEES

The second question I was trying to answer is:  what did the FBI do with all the information they collected? 

(a)  With respect to the CPUSA, I discovered that the FBI created dozens upon dozens of training monographs for its employees -- and many of those monographs were periodically updated with new editions (see link below for their Bibliography of Central Research Monographs).

https://archive.org/stream/BibliographyOfCentralResearchMonographsHQ1/Bibliography of Central Research Monographs-HQ-1#page/n1/mode/2up

(b)   BY CONTRAST:   There is virtually nothing pertaining to right-wing groups (exceptions: one monograph and subsequent update on KKK / NSRP / American Nazi Party

(c)   Keep in mind that J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren Commission that:

"I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies."

"Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man." (Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101)

Hoover was lying for public relations purposes.   Neither he (or the FBI) actually believed that the "extreme right" was "just as much a danger" as the "extreme left".   His only concern about the extreme right was basically limited to violent groups like White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi----the most violent Klan in our nation's history -- and violence-prone groups like National States Rights Party.

3.  BOTTOM LINE

While it is correct to point out that the FBI did not exist in a vacuum --- and -- consequently, outside events (and political pressure) triggered changes in their emphasis or in resources devoted to certain types of investigations and intelligence gathering, it is a FALSEHOOD to pretend (as Jason falsely claims) that Hoover "had started tracking the southern-based right wingers with a vigilance comparable to the communist party."

(a)  Every FBI field office had what amounts to a "Communist squad" -- i.e. a permanent group of Agents assigned to work exclusively upon CPUSA-related cases (and other radical left groups such as Socialist Workers Party).  In major cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco --- there might be 15-50 Agents assigned to work on just those cases.

(b)  BY CONTRAST:  There was no permanent "Radical Right Squad" in any FBI field office.  The FBI would flood resources into a field office (when required) to cope with something like the murder of civil rights workers -- but once those crimes were solved, those extra Agents would then return to their original assignments in their home office.

(c)  It is EXTREMELY rare for any file on a right-wing subject to total more than 2000 pages.  Again -- the major exceptions being KKK, ANP, Minutemen, National States Rights Party, and JBS, and White Citizens Councils movement.  However -- typically the FBI interest was predominantly in violent right-wing groups OR persons who were thought to be in a position to facilitate violence OR persons who might know information about potential or actual violence.

BY CONTRAST:  The FBI monitored/tracked/watched every conceivable aspect of the CPUSA (and related radical left wing individuals/groups).   At its peak, the FBI had about 425 live informants inside the CPUSA -- massively dwarfing what they had inside extreme right-wing groups (if any at all!)   Example: the FBI had no informants inside the JBS -- although they did maintain contacts with people who knew what was going on inside the JBS.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Sometimes this new Forum Editor will not allow comments to be added to a quoted post, when the quoted post is truncated first.   I consider it to be a bug.   Just my opinion.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

ERROR!

What was your "error"?

[Michael Clark]

16 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

ERROR!

 

12 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

What was your "error"?

I think Trejo is saying that he would like his falsehoods to be regarded as errors; as if they were not committed ad infinitum or innocently, or sumthin'...

[Ernie Lazar]

5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 

I think Trejo is saying that he would like his falsehoods to be regarded as errors; as if they were not committed ad infinitum or innocently, or sumthin'...

Well, Paul is entitled (like all the rest of us) to his share of honest errors.   However, there is a difference between an honest mistake versus deliberately ignoring verifiable factual and documentary evidence.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Hard to know why they are "old" when un-redacted versions of some were just released two days ago! 

In any event -- you present your opinions without providing links to anything.  By contrast, I supply direct quotations and/or links to EVIDENCE. 

Ernie,

The following is my opinion:

I supply plenty of documents and quotations.  You just don't pay enough attention.   Also, this isn't an ACADEMIC Forum, where everybody is expected to supply footnotes.   This space has always been far more informal, so that people can feel free to express their honest opinions.

The documents you revealed are all OLD -- even though a few words here and there were REDACTED in decades past.  

B-O-R-I-N-G-!

Let's see something new for a change.   Jason Ward is on the right track.  He will arrive at the goal first, IMHO.

As for the Tippit-did-it CT, it is only a short walk from there to the Walker-did-it CT, since Jeff Caufield links both Walker and Tippit to the Dallas BBQ joint, "Austin's Barbecue", where regular John Birch Society meetings took place.

Also -- the Tippit-did-it CT is several years old.  There are several books on this topic in the past decade, including old threads on this Forum.   Here's one small taste from YouTube which suggests that J.D. Tippit was Badge Man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2IzHhgwzBw

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 28, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

BUMP

 

1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

What was your "error"?

In case anyone isn't aware, whenever Trejo wants to delete what he has posted, he changes what he says to "bump". I take that to mean that he can't accept and is not big enough to admit that he was wrong about something or thought better of posting it. I have seen this numerous times. 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Ernie Lazar]

27 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

The following is my opinion:

I supply plenty of documents and quotations.  You just don't pay enough attention.   Also, this isn't an ACADEMIC Forum, where everybody is expected to supply footnotes.   This space has always been far more informal, so that people can feel free to express their honest opinions.

The documents you revealed are all OLD -- even though a few words here and there were REDACTED in decades past.  

B-O-R-I-N-G-!

Let's see something new for a change.   Jason Ward is on the right track.  He will arrive at the goal first, IMHO.

As for the Tippit-did-it CT, it is only a short walk from there to the Walker-did-it CT, since Jeff Caufield links both Walker and Tippit to the Dallas BBQ joint, "Austin's Barbecue", where regular John Birch Society meetings took place.

Also -- the Tippit-did-it CT is several years old.  There are several books on this topic in the past decade, including old threads on this Forum.   Here's one small taste from YouTube which suggests that J.D. Tippit was Badge Man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2IzHhgwzBw

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Sorry, Paul, but you rarely provide any sort of substantiation for your most definitive assertions or statements.  Your typical procedure is to attribute some comment or belief to someone whom you think can be used in support of your argument (such as Donald Adams or Wes Swearingen or James Hosty or Harry Dean) but you rarely (if ever) actually QUOTE them verbatim or provide a link to what you claim supports your statement.  [Of course, in Harry's case, you wrote an ENTIRE book without providing ANY supporting documentation or substantiation.]

Second:  if you make ANY personal attack upon me or anybody else and, especially, if you characterize something I write as dishonest or inaccurate or false -- THEN it is incumbent upon YOU to provide your specific evidence -- NOT just express your unkind or ad hominem slurs or evade obvious questions.

This has NOTHING to do with whether or not EF is an "Academic Forum" --- another typical Trejo attempt at misdirection and straw-man argumentation.  Nobody is requesting "footnotes".  But this is an educational website -- and BY DEFINITION, educational means "intended or serving to educate or enlighten". 

SO---unless you are now telling us that OUTRIGHT LIES are "educational" -- OR -- if you are telling us that deliberate mis-direction and straw-man arguments are "educational" OR if you now want us to believe that rumor, gossip, and hearsay are "educational"  -- OR -- if you are telling us that totally unsubstantiated personal opinion is "educational" ---  THEN I don't really think ANY of us would bother to be here.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Michael Clark]

50 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

The following is my opinion: that is all we ever get from Paul.

I supply plenty of documents and quotations. Falsehood

 You just don't pay enough attention.    False, ad hominem 

Also, this isn't an ACADEMIC Forum, where everybody is expected to supply footnotes.  An excuse, and justification for years of foisting opinions and falsehoods as facts. Only recently have you been compelled, persuaded or saw the logic in starting your posts with the disclaimer: "The following is my opinion".

This space has always been far more informal, so that people can feel free to express their honest opinions. Not so. It was, in the past, a much more scholarly forum. But opinions were expressed as such. Only recently have you started imitating that kind if integrity.

The documents you revealed are all OLD -- even though a few words here and there were REDACTED in decades past. What kind of document is worth anything at all that is not old, or vintage. A typical Trejo falsehood know as a non-sequitor.

B-O-R-I-N-G-!  Anyone reagingnyour posts Paul is probably doing so for entertainment and the thrill of amazement of fantasy. It is exciting to see real scholarship, such a as Ernie's replies to you, and is far from boring. What caould be more boring than see you post the same stuff, hour after hour, day after day, year after rear; making the same prognostications over and over, except for thoughtful and learned  retorts and reality checks.

Let's see something new for a change.  Ernie does that with every post, except for when, out of logical necessity, he has to post a retort to you.

 Jason Ward is on the right track.  He will arrive at the goal first, IMHO. More prognostications.

........

everything below is straight-up a diversion, red-herring, straw-man or false insinuation.

As for the Tippit-did-it CT, it is only a short walk from there to the Walker-did-it CT, since Jeff Caufield links both Walker and Tippit to the Dallas BBQ joint, "Austin's Barbecue", where regular John Birch Society meetings took place.

Also -- the Tippit-did-it CT is several years old.  There are several books on this topic in the past decade, including old threads on this Forum.   Here's one small taste from YouTube which suggests that J.D. Tippit was Badge Man:

.........

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

My replies are in orange.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Ernie Lazar]

26 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

The documents you revealed are all OLD -- even though a few words here and there were REDACTED in decades past.

Well, if you consult the NARA listing of all docs released in 2017  -- it is 134 pages in length:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release

441 of the documents released in July were never released previously (fully withheld)

about 500 of the documents released on October 26th were never released previously (i.e. fully withheld)

Most of those fully-withheld docs pertain to CIA reports or FBI informant reports about matters un-related to what YOU want to see

YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT up to now -- has been that there are TOP SECRET FBI documents which have never been previously released.   But we now know that the FBI docs never previously released until July or October of 2017 -- do NOT contain anything which advances YOUR argument.

WE ALSO KNOW that the documents being withheld until April 2018 are primarily CIA documents or FBI documents by informants whom, in some cases, may still be living and/or informants in other countries who expected that we would keep their names confidential.

So, there is NO rational reason to believe that you are going to find ANYTHING to support your theory -- because we already have a NARA list which shows the file numbers of the fully withheld documents (and their classification status) and those file numbers DO NOT pertain to the JBS, Walker, or any related subject matter.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

BTW == in case you missed this:

In addition, the National Archives is also releasing to the public the unclassified electronic records of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), including 52,387 emails and 16,627 files from the ARRB drives.

[Michael Clark]

Because Trejo and Jason may find this interesting.

Thanks to Bruce Johnson for posting this in another thread.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32246608.pdf

Edited October 28, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sometimes this new Forum Editor will not allow comments to be added to a quoted post, when the quoted post is truncated first.   I consider it to be a bug.   Just my opinion.

Perfect example of Paul's inability to accept that he may be a flawed human being. User Error or ignorance becomes a "bug" in the software.

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

As for the Tippit-did-it CT, it is only a short walk from there to the Walker-did-it CT, since Jeff Caufield links both Walker and Tippit to the Dallas BBQ joint, "Austin's Barbecue", where John Birch Society meetings took place.

Also -- the Tippit-did-it CT is several years old.  There are several books on this topic in the past decade, including old threads on this Forum.   Here's one small taste from YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2IzHhgwzBw

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

If you look at JD Tippit in totality according to the evidence, he is clearly in the same ideological family as Walker, Masen, Hosty, Logue, Bringuier, and their merry band of reactionaries.  But Tippit is not in their league.  Walker had certain immense talents and world-class career achievements, even if his academic record was marginal; Bringuier is a (non-medical) doctor who is literate and well-spoken, Logue was a scientist.  

Tippit was something noticeably different.

Tippit was no intellect and his employment record is of the kind that would today see him routed away from a sworn law enforcement officer role and instead pointed towards clerk or civilian police department employee. Today he would be stopped from any further promotions and I see plenty in his DPD HR file indicating that he was stopped from advancement even by 1963 Dallas standards.

Tippit had a psychological evaluation as part of his routine employment and promotion eligibility and IIRC, his evaluation indicated what a layman calls sociopathic tendencies.   His regard for life and others in general was deemed minimal.  Tippit is among the very few in the JFK cast of chracters that owns the disturbing written professional evaluation equivalent to criminal and equivalent to murderer.  

The absurdity of the usual CTer here is without input from Criminology or even basic psychology - merely being against Kennedy is to the weak minded an adequate mens rea to kill.  In reality, the ability or true wish to murder is rare and is always associated with mental disturbance.  Murderers have known, defined, quantifiable mental criteria 100% of the time.  Tippit is the only one around who has documented proof of the requisite mental state necessary to kill with ease, and without need of justification/imminent threat.

Jason

In no particular order are my personal snippets of Tippit-related material. 

 

1. The Tippit-Ruby connection is weak, but I don't rule it out:

 

 

2. JD Tippit has probably reached the apex of his career by the time of the assassination, although he is not yet 40.

 

 

3. This is Hoover's letter to the WC summarizing the raw testimony from Crafard I snip above in item 1 re: Ruby and Tippit.

 

 

3.  Hmmm....there's the John Birch Society again.

 

 

 

4. Mae Cook is one of hundreds with information but of no interest in standard CT research.

 

 

5. Here's some evidence Tippit and Oswald were at least in the same room together:

 

 

6.  Officer JD Tippit's widow collected $500k+ in public donations after the assassination, but somehow I sense the marriage was already not in the best shape and his loss was not altogether the catastrophe one might assume:

 

 

7.  Tippit - Mather - Wise and the mechanic....connect the dots here and it's a CT all its own.

 

 

8.  John Birch Society enthusiast Bernard Weissman paid the equivalent of $10000+ in 2017 dollars for a horrific ad in the Dallas Morning News attacking Kennedy on 22 November, approved by ultra right winger and newspaper publisher Ed Dealey; whose last name is not coincidentally a byword for the Kennedy assassination.

...the same ad was refused by the more Progressive Dallas Times Herald.  Weissman was not only the bag man for the ads waiting for Kennedy upon arrival in Dallas, Weissman was so scared he would be implicated in the assassination plot that he went underground for a few weeks and left the scene of the crime.  Weissman testified that  the assassination was produced by General Edwin Walker and that he, Wiessman, was afraid the associates of Walker like himself would be blamed for the murder:

 

9. This is almost certainly the key piece of evidence that launched Mark Lane's landmark work; although in retrospect "WALDO" is to my understanding almost certainly a fictional character, or a composite character, or some other contrivance.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Jason Ward