Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Michael Clark]

11 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Ruby said a lot of things.  There is a film clip on YTV where a reporter on the street asked him something like (paraphrasing here) "who did it (murder JFK)" and his reply was something like:

"If Stevenson had been VP at the time, this would have never happened" or something like that. In other words, LBJ did it.

The point though is *someone* got him to kill Oswald.  All of the hooey about him doing it for Jackie is pure BS. Oswald was most probably supposed to die in the theater when he was arrested when he flipped out with the pistol.  When that didn't happen, there was panic and rather than try to make it look like a "it just so happened" death for Oswald (in other words, "crazed assassin pulls pistol and is gunned down by heroic cops") they said - what the xxxx just get someone in there and silence him.  Which is what happened. Amazingly it happened on live TV for all the world to see. The funny thing, too, about the LHO murder is it's almost as if they didn't give a xxxx any more about making it look like a normal act.  In other words, get the deed done and then we'll come up with an excuse for it ("he did it for Jackie") later, which is why that excuse is so lame when you really think about it.

But as for Ruby's affiliations and related to this thread, I find it very hard to believe that Paul's T's love theme (sorry Paul, you're a nice guy but a little too obssessed with this radical right thing) that the radical right did the job on JFK and LHO.  Bill Simpich's State Secret is the key - you can see the machinations taking place.  LHO was a low level mark for the intel community and upon leaving Russia, at the time they didn't quite know what else to do with him.

When the signal was given for Dallas, it was simple matter of building up the "crazed communist" narrative, moving him around like a chess piece, until 11/22.  I find it very hard to believe that the right could have had this much imagination and initiative to pull something like this off.

To be sure.

[Cory Santos]

Well, after reading these points and both sides,

while interesting, respectfully, my thoughts are:

1) Paul/Jason, you cannot say show me documents and then discredit an opinion by then not showing any documents to support your opinion.

2) Paul/Jason, you cannot say that Ruby pointed the finger in his testimony at the JBS and Walker based on one paragraph.  His whole testimony must be considered.  He did not say black and white it even was JBS and/or Walker as being responsible "for the assassination" and you are discounting the rest of his testimony.  You are speculating as to what he meant.  Interpretation.  That is it. 

3) you cannot claim the W.C. lawyer was in on a conspiracy or knew of a conspiracy simply because he asked questions that I (or any other competent trial lawyer) would have asked as well had I been in his shoes.

4) you cannot say that because questions were answered in the negative, that somehow that means they really were in the positive.  The testimony is clear by Ruby and Walker.

I find your theory interesting, but, using your logic at its most basic level, I could point the finger at many other people and back it up with half documents/facts and speculation.

Last year when I spoke about the assassination in Reno, I discussed my perspective of "strange coincidences" of which there are many in this case.  The problem with some conspiracists (overall not you) in many areas is they take these as pure direct evidence of a fact.  It is not.  Alone, strange coincidences do not prove a fact.  While they can be used to weaken the Oswald did it theory in front of a jury by putting doubt in a jurors mind, it does not prove a fact generally without other facts/documents/evidence which the "strange coincidence" supports or, alternatively is supported by the fact/document/evidence. 

You cannot prove with documents that the cabinets did not exist it seems and they cannot prove they exist with documents.  You are both then at a stand still.

So, I disagree, respectfully. . . as a trial lawyer I need more.  But I applaud you trying to fill in gaps and having a theory and actually looking at evidence in the case.  Keep researching, etc.

I find nothing wrong with that.

I do think rather than looking for documents or cabinets that might not exist or were destroyed, the best option at this point is to contact people alive that were in the DPD and try and get someone to talk that has first hand information.  If enough people with first hand knowledge speak out, then you have more substantial proof.  But time is ticking.  That is perhaps one main reason these documents were not released decades ago when people were still alive-and now not letting out the unredacted documents merely because some people are living.  That is the true evidence at this point that is needed to show what really happened.

Perhaps the release will be of some benefit, I think it already has been in many ways.

I am going to go watch the fights on TV.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Cory Santos

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:39 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I forgot to mention Walthers Warren Omission deposition on 7/23/64 in Dallas.  "a big pasteboard barrel and it had a lot of these little leaflets in it, "Freedom for Cuba"... we found some little metal file cabinets... would carry an 8 X 10 folder... there were six or seven..."  

https://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol7/page548.php

 

[Jason Ward]

53 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Trejo]

38 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Well, after reading these points and both sides,

while interesting, respectfully, my thoughts are:

1) Paul/Jason, you cannot say show me documents and then discredit an opinion by then not showing any documents to support your opinion.

2) Paul/Jason, you cannot say that Ruby pointed the finger in his testimony at the JBS and Walker based on one paragraph.  His whole testimony must be considered.  He did not say black and white it even was them as being responsible and you are discounting the rest of his testimony.  You are speculating as to what he meant.  Interpretation.  That is it. 

3) you cannot claim the W.C. lawyer was in on a conspiracy or knew of a conspiracy simply because he asked questions that I (or any other competent trial lawyer) would have asked as well had I been in his shoes.

4) you cannot say that because that because questions were answered in the negative, that somehow that means they really were in the positive.  The testimony is clear by Ruby and Walker were pretty clear.

I find your theory interesting, but, using your logic at its most basic level, I could point the finger at many other people and back it up with half documents/facts and speculation.

Last year when I spoke about the assassination in Reno, I discussed my perspective of "strange coincidences" of which there are many in this case.  The problem with some conspiracists (overall not you) in many areas is they take these as pure direct evidence of a fact.  It is not.  Alone, strange coincidences do not prove a fact.  While they can be used to weaken the Oswald did it theory in front of a jury by putting doubt in a jurors mind, it does not prove a fact generally without other facts/documents/evidence which the "strange coincidence" supports or, alternatively is supported by the fact/document/evidence. 

You cannot prove with documents that the cabinets did not exist it seems and they cannot prove they exist with documents.  You are both then at a stand still.

So, I disagree, respectfully. . . as a trial lawyer I need more.  But I applaud you trying to fill in gaps and having a theory and actually looking at evidence in the case.  Keep researching, etc.

I find nothing wrong with that.

I do think rather than looking for documents or cabinets that might not exist or were destroyed, the best option at this point is to contact people alive that were in the DPD and try and get someone to talk that has first hand information.  If enough people with first hand knowledge speak out, then you have more substantial proof.  But time is ticking.  That is perhaps one main reason these documents were not released decades ago when people were still alive-and now not letting out the unredacted documents merely because some people are living.  That is the true evidence at this point that is needed to show what really happened.

Perhaps the release will be of some benefit, I think it already has been in many ways.

I am going to go watch the fights on TV.

Cory,

I appreciate the honest skepticism, as well as your more encouraging words.

By far -- most JFK CTers follow the CIA-did-it CT promoted in the 1960's by Jim Garrison, Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg, and so perhaps 1% of all CTers have claimed that the Radical Right killed JFK.

This means that our muscle needed to move tons of documents from the TBD pile to the DONE pile is only now getting started.

The CIA-did-it CTers, on the other hand, have perhaps 80% of the muscle.  They have had hundreds of researchers, including college professors, laboring like ancient Egyptian slaves -- and after a half-century still have NO PROOF.

So -- in comparison, with so very few people on our team, I don't feel bad in the slightest that we still haven't found the smoking gun.  We have admitted that all along.

But the CIA-did-it CT has simply flopped -- and the LBJ-did-it CT is pitifully weak.  (Barr McClellan said, IIRC, that the reason he is certain that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination, is because LBJ "knew so little about it."  Pitiful!)  The Mafia-did-it CT was rejected by Jim Garrison for good reasons -- even Professor Blakey took back his 1979 theory.  The Cuba-did-it CT was never strong.

Now that the JFK Records Act has dumped 38,000 pages on us, the race is on between the CIA-did-it CTers and the Walker-did-it CTers to find that smoking gun.  You know where my money sits.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 12, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

56 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Cory,

I appreciate the honest skepticism, as well as your more encouraging words.

By far -- most JFK CTers follow the CIA-did-it CT promoted in the 1960's by Jim Garrison, Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg, and so perhaps 1% of all CTers have claimed that the Radical Right killed JFK.

This means that our muscle needed to move tons of documents from the TBD pile to the DONE pile is only now getting started.

The CIA-did-it CTers, on the other hand, have perhaps 80% of the muscle.  They have had hundreds of researchers, including college professors, laboring like ancient Egyptian slaves -- and after a half-century still have NO PROOF.

So -- in comparison, with so very few people on our team, I don't feel bad in the slightest that we still haven't found the smoking gun.  We have admitted that all along.

But the CIA-did-it CT has simply flopped -- and the LBJ-did-it CT is pitifully weak.  (Barr McClellan said, IIRC, that the reason he is certain that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination, is because LBJ "knew so little about it."  Pitiful!)  The Mafia-did-it CT was rejected by Jim Garrison for good reasons -- even Professor Blakey took back his 1979 theory.  The Cuba-did-it CT was never strong.

Now that the JFK Records Act has dumped 38,000 pages on us, the race is on between the CIA-did-it CTers and the Walker-did-it CTers to find that smoking gun.  You know where my money sits.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Pffffft!

Paul Trejo, where do you come up with this stuff?

"By far -- most JFK CTers follow the CIA-did-it CT promoted in the 1960's by Jim Garrison, Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg, and so perhaps 1% of all CTers have claimed that the Radical Right killed JFK."

You make this stuff out of whole cloth to build your personal myth as pioneer into "part-unknown". It's ridiculous.

Funnier-still is you are leading a charge with, and rallying troops that, are just not there!

Your pretending that you have allies and people who are agreeing with you when they are not. They are just trying to be polite!

lol!

Edited November 12, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Walton]

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The CIA-did-it CTers, on the other hand, have perhaps 80% of the muscle.  They have had hundreds of researchers, including college professors, laboring like ancient Egyptian slaves -- and after a half-century still have NO PROOF.

Paul, this is an amazing quote IMO from you.  Why? Because you seem to actually support State Secret.  So for argument's sake, let's take away all of the "promotions" and so forth of the CIA did it crowd (as you claim).  I have no monetary interest in this case - I'm like all the others out there.  I just want to get to some kind of truth in this case.

So if according to State Secret we're seeing machinations taking place with LHO from the time he returns to TX from Russia until 11/22 and with everything else we know - the Paines steering the family around; George DM and so on - I just don't see how anything *else* can possibly be going on.

I'm concerned too about too many people being involved.  If we're seeing the intel community "hijacking" Oswald to steer him into Dealey Plaza (per State Secret), would the planners really have had that many other people in the DPD involved in this, and then even more in the radical right community?

A couple of corrupt cops is one thing - all you have to do is look at the "oh xxxx here it comes" expression on Fritz's face when LHO is gunned down. But a whole other JB Society bevy of plotters?

And you mention proof. If there's any proof that you're looking for, look no further than State Secret.  The "5-10 165" announcement over the radio mere minutes after the guns went off is one very strong piece of proof that the hijacking of Oswald started at that very moment and that proof goes right back to State Secret. Think about it - no one saw LHO up there in the window, yet they come out with that description that quickly.  From whom? From those intel files that State Secret explains.

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:47 AM, Michael Walton said:

Paul, this is an amazing quote IMO from you.  Why? Because you seem to actually support State Secret.  So for argument's sake, let's take away all of the "promotions" and so forth of the CIA did it crowd (as you claim).  I have no monetary interest in this case - I'm like all the others out there.  I just want to get to some kind of truth in this case.

So if according to State Secret we're seeing machinations taking place with LHO from the time he returns to TX from Russia until 11/22 and with everything else we know - the Paines steering the family around; George DM and so on - I just don't see how anything *else* can possibly be going on.

I'm concerned too about too many people being involved.  If we're seeing the intel community "hijacking" Oswald to steer him into Dealey Plaza (per State Secret), would the planners really have had that many other people in the DPD involved in this, and then even more in the radical right community?

A couple of corrupt cops is one thing - all you have to do is look at the "oh xxxx here it comes" expression on Fritz's face when LHO is gunned down. But a whole other JB Society bevy of plotters?

And you mention proof. If there's any proof that you're looking for, look no further than State Secret.  The "5-10 165" announcement over the radio mere minutes after the guns went off is one very strong piece of proof that the hijacking of Oswald started at that very moment and that proof goes right back to State Secret. Think about it - no one saw LHO up there in the window, yet they come out with that description that quickly.  From whom? From those intel files that State Secret explains.

Michael,

Great conversation.  Thanks for this.

I made a multiple year study of George DeMohrenschildt and a separate study of Ruth Paine, including personal interview.

I am convinced without any doubt that the common portrait of their relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald is mistaken.

If (and only if) I am right, then your CT as stated here has no support.  Ruth Paine was exactly what she said -- a Quaker Charity lady.  George DM. following George Bouhe, was a Russian Orthodox Church volunteer (the only one that Lee liked), who unfortunately brought his own hatred of General Walker into the matter.

Guy Banister is the key to the Mexico City episode.  The political resumé carried to Mexico City by Oswald, claiming membership in the Fake FPCC in NOLA, and in the CPUSA, is conclusive evidence in my reading.

What Bill Simpich explained was that the CIA had NO CLUE about the identity of the Oswald Impersonator, except that he had to be an Insider.  Thus, the top secret Mole Hunt.

Also, Simpich invited alternative interpretations of his findings.  If we accept the innocence of Ruth Paine and George DeMohrenschildt in the JFK Assassination, then a Radical Right plot makes more sense.

I think 50 years of American CTers have REFUSED to consider that Dallas and Dallas police were front and center in this tragedy.

FINALLY: I agree with you that if the Intel community was steering Oswald, then there was no need for a Radical Right arm.  However -- this is where everything comes together.  Without the Intel community CT, what remains?   Why have researchers largely overlooked the Dallas players for 50 years?

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 13, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[Michael Clark]

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

If (and only if) I am right, then your CT as stated here has no support. 

Brilliant, "you're wrong, because I am right" lol

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Guy Banister is the key to the Mexico City episode.  The political resumé carried to Mexico City by Oswald, claiming membership in the Fake FPCC in NOLA, and in the CPUSA, is conclusive evidence in my reading.

And the CIA is nowhere to be seen in Paul Trejo's fiction about LHO's sheep-dipping in NOLA. 

"McCord worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, ultimately ascending to a GS-15 position in the Agency's Office of Security. For a period of time, he was in charge of physical security at the Agency's Langley headquarters; according to Russ Baker, then-Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel as "the best man we have".^[5]   In 1961, and under his (James McCord jr.'s) direction, a counter-intelligence program was launched against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.^[6"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._McCord_Jr.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Roger DeLaria]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Brilliant, "you're wrong, because I am right" lol

And the CIA is nowhere to be seen in Paul Trejo's fiction about LHO's sheep-dipping in NOLA. 

"McCord worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, ultimately ascending to a GS-15 position in the Agency's Office of Security. For a period of time, he was in charge of physical security at the Agency's Langley headquarters; according to Russ Baker, then-Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel as "the best man we have".^[5]   In 1961, and under his (James McCord jr.'s) direction, a counter-intelligence program was launched against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.^[6"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._McCord_Jr.

I wonder if "the best man we have", according to Dulles, was Lansdale. He wore an Air Force uniform, at least at that point I think he did.

[Michael Clark]

3 minutes ago, Roger DeLaria said:

I wonder if "the best man we have", according to Dulles, was Lansdale. He wore an Air Force uniform, at least at that point I think he did.

Interesting Roger. The "Best man", however, referred to McCord. The Air Force "Colonel" as Landsdale is an interesting suggestion, indeed!.

[Roger DeLaria]

18 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Interesting Roger. The "Best man", however, referred to McCord. The Air Force "Colonel" as Landsdale is an interesting suggestion, indeed!.

Yeah, I just noticed that. I think I conflated the 2. I meant the Air Force Colonel as Lansdale. Ooops! 

Lansdale was definitely Dulles' go-to guy.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Roger DeLaria

[Ron Bulman]

What thread on the Dallas Radical Right can go 55 pages without addressing Haroldson Lafayette  Hunt?  Richest man in the world in 1963, of Dallas Texas.  Financer of extreme right wing radio and newspaper propaganda in the 50's and early 60's.  The only media available to most at the time.  I read somewhere long ago he said the only way to get the Kennedy's out of government to was to shoot them out.  He went to his ranch in Mexico the day of or after the assassination and stayed there for a month or two per one report.  Another has him secretly in a hotel in Washington advising or directing LBJ.  Ruby went to his office building a day or two before to see one of his sons.  Ruby wrote a note asking for clarification of his role to "Hunt".

Carry forward.  One of his multiple progeny by many different women, Lamar, moved the AFL World Champion Dallas Texans to Kansas City in 1961 and renamed them the Chiefs.

Does anyone really think H L Hunt coordinated or financed the assassination through Walker?  That his organization could have covered it up to this day?  

Edited November 14, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Paul Trejo]

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

What thread on the Dallas Radical Right can go 55 pages without addressing Haroldson Lafayette  Hunt?  Richest man in the world in 1963, of Dallas Texas.  Financer of extreme right wing radio and newspaper propaganda in the 50's and early 60's.  The only media available to most at the time.  I read somewhere long ago he said the only way to get the Kennedy's out of government to was to shoot them out.  He went to his ranch in Mexico the day of or after the assassination and stayed there for a month or two per one report.  Another has him secretly in a hotel in Washington advising or directing LBJ.  Ruby went to his office building a day or two before to see one of his sons.  Ruby wrote a note asking for clarification of his role to "Hunt".

Carry forward.  One of his multiple progeny by many different women, Lamar, moved the AFL World Champion Dallas Texans to Kansas City in 1961 and renamed them the Chiefs.

Does anyone really think H L Hunt coordinated or financed the assassination through Walker?  That his organization could have covered it up to this day?  

Ron,

H.L. Hunt financed General Walker's campaign for Texas Governor.

Hunt also set up Walker in Dallas at Turtle Creek Boulevard, the neighborhood where Hunt's relatives were set up.

Walker couldn't afford that neighborhood himself because when he resigned from the US Army, he forfeited his Army Pension (which would have been about $100,000 annually in today's dollars). 

It was absurd that General Edwin Walker, who had 30 years of distinguished service in the US Army, and could have easily retired with full honors, chose instead to resign in 1961, and spit on his Pension.  It still makes no sense to me.

The only explanation I can find is some sort of 1961 deal with H.L. Hunt.

Hunt had financed the 1951 Presidential election campaign for General MacArthur, who had just been fired by Truman.  The myth that Walker was fired by JFK may have begun with H.L. Hunt.  Perhaps in 1961 Hunt had Presidential hopes for General Walker.  Getting  Walker elected Texas Governor in 1962 would have been a good first step.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 14, 2017 by Paul Trejo
1951

[Roger DeLaria]

I believe that Hunt stopped publicly supporting Walker, as did many others, after the riots, although I could be mistaken. Did he still support Walker privately? I don't know. It seemed many people walked away from Walker.