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

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Paul,

1. How do you account for the fact that Oswald was being impersonated when he supposedly went to Mexico City?

2.  How do you also account for the fact that back in 1960, two descriptions of Oswald were given (the so-called 5-10 165 lbs description).  And within 15 minutes of the killing, the first description of a suspect is this same description that was cooked up for him three years before. Without anyone acknowledging WHERE this first suspect description came from. No one could have gotten that description of a man in the window crouching down 100 feet up in the air - yet it happened and kept being repeated.

3. The point is, I find it very hard to believe that the Right Wingers and Ed Walker could have come up with all of this. It just doesn't have the ring of truth.

4. We all know that many Right Wingers hated Kennedy, just like they hated Obama and Left Wingers hate Trump 50 years later. But it just doesn't seem possible to have pulled this off without having not been in the know, with all that we know now that was going on in NO and up to 11/22.

Michael,

By the numbers:

1.  Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was impersonated only over the TELEPHONE from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy.  The CIA started a Mole Hunt to find out which insider performed this impersonation of LHO.   They were convinced it was an insider.

1.1. The free eBook by Bill Simpich is the key to explaining the LHO impersonation in Mexico.  The title is: State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).  Putting it very briefly, the telephone from the Mexico City telephone from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy was the most wiretapped telephone in the world in 1963.  The person who impersonated LHO on that telephone ,knew it -- so he had to be an insider.

2.  The CIA had a file on LHO when he was in the USSR.  That is their job -- international crime (and suspects).  Also, some photographs and descriptions of LHO came out of the USSR -- including some bogus data for deception.   

2.1.  The data identifying LHO in the first few minutes of the JFK murder came from the Conspirators -- a Radical Right group with confederates in various middle-level posts in Government, including Military clerks and the local FBI.   The Dallas FBI (James Hosty) had friendly, low-level contacts in the CIA as well.

3.  I think, Michael, that you underestimate General Walker and the Radical Right.  One of their greatest assets has always been that they recruited from the ranks of the retired and former US Military.  Sometimes they got disgruntled former Military personnel.  These people knew how to use weapons with great skill. 

3.1.  Also, Radical Right recruits -- like the Minutemen of 1963 -- were used to Military organization and discipline, and taking orders from people they trusted -- like the Ex-General Edwin Walker and various other officers of the ultra-secret Minutemen organization -- coast to coast.

4.  One thing that Jeff Caufield (2015) shows is that General Walker was in communication with the same people who circulated at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans.   It was a carefully coordinated Radical RIght conspiracy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Paul,

How do you account for the fact that Oswald was being impersonated when he supposedly went to Mexico City? How do you also account for the fact that back in 1960, two descriptions of Oswald were given (the so-called 5-10 165 lbs description).  And within 15 minutes of the killing, the first description of a suspect is this same description that was cooked up for him three years before. Without anyone acknowledging WHERE this first suspect description came from. No one could have gotten that description of a man in the window crouching down 100 feet up in the air - yet it happened and kept being repeated.

The point is, I find it very hard to believe that the Right Wingers and Ed Walker could have come up with all of this. It just doesn't have the ring of truth. We all know that many Right Wingers hated Kennedy, just like they hated Obama and Left Wingers hate Trump 50 years later. But it just doesn't seem possible to have pulled this off without having not been in the know, with all that we know now that was going on in NO and up to 11/22.

Michael, there is also another description of Oswald:

{the CIA cryptonym LIENVOY is the telephone tapping program in Mexico City}

{also interesting is LCIMPROVE which is an umbrella header for global anti-Soviet counterintelligence operations}

{LIEMPTY is the umbrella header for all Mexico City surveillance projects}

LHO_mc_cable.png

SOURCE:

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php#_LI

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

...

1.1. The free eBook by Bill Simpich is the key to explaining the LHO impersonation in Mexico.  The title is: State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).  Putting it very briefly, the telephone from the Mexico City telephone from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy was the most wiretapped telephone in the world in 1963.  The person who impersonated LHO on that telephone ,knew it -- so he had to be an insider.

...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Speaking of what you term "the most wiretapped telephone in the world," I feel compelled to share the interesting cable below.  Have you seen it?   Perhaps we should consider the calls to the embassies attributed to Oswald as coming in the wake of earlier examples like this?  {Bill Simpich says the MC station was rebuked for this incident}

 

earlier_attempted_MC_cuban_contact.png

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


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

...

h the same people who circulated at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans.   It was a carefully coordinated Radical RIght conspiracy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

Here's what Garrison's look at 544 Camp Street makes him say about government involvement in the assassination --- and the assassination coverup:

 

garrison_says_govt_not_to_blame.png

 

Share this post


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

Paul,

Speaking of what you term "the most wiretapped telephone in the world," I feel compelled to share the interesting cable below.  Have you seen it?   Perhaps we should consider the calls to the embassies attributed to Oswald as coming in the wake of earlier examples like this?  {Bill Simpich says the MC station was rebuked for this incident}

 

earlier_attempted_MC_cuban_contact.png

Jason,

I see no connection between the Oswald affair in Mexico City with this cable.  None whatsoever.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

 

 

Here's what Garrison's look at 544 Camp Street makes him say about government involvement in the assassination --- and the assassination coverup:

 

garrison_says_govt_not_to_blame.png

 

Jason,

This exchange demonstrates how much Jim Garrison was guessing.   First of all, his phrase, "accessory after the fact" is a direct ripoff from Sylvia Meaghre.

Secondly, Jim Garrison is beginning to feel desperate, since his JFK investigation is dragging on and on, and he is falling further behind.

Thirdly, with regard to the General Walker shooting -- he's responding to two charges at once (because the question was ambiguous).  "Do you believe that?" he was asked.

Do I believe WHAT?  That Marina Oswald testified that LHO tried to kill Walker?   Of course not -- Marina only said that LHO told her that he tried to kill Walker.

Do I believe WHAT?  That the Walker shooting was a sign that LHO was homicidal?   Well, everybody is homicidal, when they are pushed far enough.  It proves nothing about JFK.

Do I believe WHAT?  That these two sentences tell enough about the Walker shooting?   I do NOT.

Again -- as for 544 Camp Street -- it is fully admitted by all parties, IIRC, that the CIA supported Cuban Mercenaries at 544 Camp Street to try to kill Fidel Castro.   The trouble was Garrison using the term, 'CIA employees' when he really meant to say, "CIA mercenary contractors."   They must always be sharply distinguished from CIA full-time officers.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

Jason,

I see no connection between the Oswald affair in Mexico City with this cable.  None whatsoever.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul

What I mean to suggest is that the last time the CIA found an American making advances toward the Cuban embassy previous to Oswald, the station got in trouble.  The correct way to play it was to passively monitor the American and notify the FBI.   Instead, they aggressively pursue Hensen.

CIA HQ was angry about the way Mexico City handled this since it compromised the existence of the embassy phone taps - which was a far higher priority than tracking down every American who calls the Cubans.

So, when 'Oswald' calls the Cuban Embassy a couple months later, the CIA guys are none to eager to prioritize him for serious study - they were still smarting from the rebuke they received over Hensen over the summer.   Ergo, the CIA info in MC on LHO is scarce in part because the last time they got nosey with an American, they were castigated for it.

I guess my point is that the earlier Hensen incident is part of the context we might consider which influences local CIA behavior when Oswald shows up calling on the Cubans.   They are curious but skittish of another Langley rebuke.

 

Jason

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul

What I mean to suggest is that the last time the CIA found an American making advances toward the Cuban embassy previous to Oswald, the station got in trouble.  The correct way to play it was to passively monitor the American and notify the FBI.   Instead, they aggressively pursue Hensen.

CIA HQ was angry about the way Mexico City handled this since it compromised the existence of the embassy phone taps - which was a far higher priority than tracking down every American who calls the Cubans.

So, when 'Oswald' calls the Cuban Embassy a couple months later, the CIA guys are none to eager to prioritize him for serious study - they were still smarting from the rebuke they received over Hensen over the summer.   Ergo, the CIA info in MC on LHO is scarce in part because the last time they got nosey with an American, they were castigated for it.

I guess my point is that the earlier Hensen incident is part of the context we might consider which influences local CIA behavior when Oswald shows up calling on the Cubans.   They are curious but skittish of another Langley rebuke.

Jason

Jason,

While that is a possibility -- I don't deny it -- it seems more likely to me that Bill Simpich nailed the LHO impersonation over the Mexico City Cuba Consulate telephone.

Instead, the CIA didn't give a damn about LHO in Mexico City -- until somebody used the most wire-tapped phone on planet earth to link the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of KGB assassin, Valeriy Kostikov.

Then it became serious business, because within MINUTES of that telephone call, the CIA translators were absolutely CERTAIN that the person who made that telephone call and claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald WAS NO SUCH PERSON.   And yet Kostikov was one of the most monitored people in Mexico City.

So -- this became an important new project for the CIA.  Not because Lee Oswald had ANYTHING to do with it -- but because only a MOLE would know enough about the status of the Cuba Consulate telephone on the one hand, and the status of Valeriy Kostikov on the other hand.

So, as Bill Simpich proved with scientific acumen -- the CIA started a top-secret Mole Hunt to find the Impersonator.  They quickly changed the CIA 201 file on Oswald.  They changed his middle name to "Henry."  They removed all his photos and substituted this photo of a large, Russian dude.

They never did catch the impersonator.   Bill SImpich figures that the impersonator was probably David Morales -- and if so, then I say Morales was therefore operating OUTSIDE of the perception of the CIA high-command -- and now supporting a Radical Right civilian plot.

On the other hand, I do agree that the CIA would go to any lengths to prevent the details of their Mexico City operations from being made public.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


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

Jason,

While that is a possibility -- I don't deny it -- it seems more likely to me that Bill Simpich nailed the LHO impersonation over the Mexico City Cuba Consulate telephone.

Instead, the CIA didn't give a damn about LHO in Mexico City -- until somebody used the most wire-tapped phone on planet earth to link the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of KGB assassin, Valeriy Kostikov.

Then it became serious business, because within MINUTES of that telephone call, the CIA translators were absolutely CERTAIN that the person who made that telephone call and claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald WAS NO SUCH PERSON.   And yet Kostikov was one of the most monitored people in Mexico City.

So -- this became an important new project for the CIA.  Not because Lee Oswald had ANYTHING to do with it -- but because only a MOLE would know enough about the status of the Cuba Consulate telephone on the one hand, and the status of Valeriy Kostikov on the other hand.

So, as Bill Simpich proved with scientific acumen -- the CIA started a top-secret Mole Hunt to find the Impersonator.  They quickly changed the CIA 201 file on Oswald.  They changed his middle name to "Henry."  They removed all his photos and substituted this photo of a large, Russian dude.

They never did catch the impersonator.   Bill SImpich figures that the impersonator was probably David Morales -- and if so, then I say Morales was therefore operating OUTSIDE of the perception of the CIA high-command -- and now supporting a Radical Right civilian plot.

On the other hand, I do agree that the CIA would go to any lengths to prevent the details of their Mexico City operations from being made public.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul,

My point wasn't to argue an alternative to Simpich, but rather to help paint the overall atmosphere and recent history of the 1963 CIA in Mexico City.   Regardless of the CT advocated, my feeling is that we make a big mistake by slicing a snapshot of the station and peering at CIA behavior as if they started on a blank slate - without the usual disconnect and even tension present in every home office v. branch office scenario across all organizations.  In sum, the CIA in MC wasn't born the day Oswald showed up in town.   There were other more important things going on and potentially they already had something of a contentious relationship with the head office. Anyway, it's not essential.

As for Kostikov, IMO this is probably yet another example of constructing Oswald's dangerous commie persona.  I mean, no less than the KGB assassination squad is meeting with LHO: obviously the entire communist world is plotting to kill Kennedy!   The CIA will dutifully report that Oswald is close to a KGB killer....the conspirators hope!

BUT: how did Walker know about Kostikov and the conveniently bugged phone line in your Radical Right CT????

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

I didn't acknowledge your impressive construction of your own Radical Right CT -- but I am impressed.

If you can come up with a better candidate for the 1963 leader of the Radical Right in the USA, I could be tempted.

The following is my opinion.

As for my Walker-did-it CT, his connection to lower levels in the CIA would be through James Hosty.

I opine this based on Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald (1996).

Hosty -- a secret supporter of General Walker -- kept closer tabs on LHO than was warranted by his charter.

Have you read Hosty's book?  It's an alarming exaggeration of KOSTIKOV.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

I didn't acknowledge your impressive construction of your own Radical Right CT -- but I am impressed.

If you can come up with a better candidate for the 1963 leader of the Radical Right in the USA, I could be tempted.

The following is my opinion.

As for my Walker-did-it CT, his connection to lower levels in the CIA would be through James Hosty.

I opine this based on Hosty's 1996 book, Assignment Oswald.

Hosty -- a secret supporter of General Walker -- kept closer tabs on LHO than was warranted by his charter.

Have you read Hosty's book?  It's an alarming exaggeration of KOSTIKOV.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, 

Did I come up with my own Radical Right CT?  I didn't mean to, and no I haven't read Hosty's book.

I believe the case for the Radical Right CT is more persuasive than any other for a few reasons:

Walker has non-public knowledge of Oswald as shown by his press leaks before the famous letter is found in the stuff from Ruth Paine's re: the 10 April shooting.  The Martin film goes even further.  The film establishes a connection between Walker and the New Orleans cell.   Obviously both Oswald and Walker know in advance that Walker's pal Carlos Bringuier will incite a scuffle on Canal St., which is part of a successful effort to make Oswald into a media-confirmed communist.

(Strangely Oswald's letter in the Paine materials is an essential pillar of the 'proof' she is CIA.   We can tell feom Walker's WC testimomy that WC attorney Liebeler determined in 64 that this letter was preceded by Walker's monumentally significant leaks, meaning that unless Walker is in the CIA, Ruth Paine is certainly NOT in the CIA.)

The Radical Right has stated motive and anticipated benefits from Kennedy's death.   No other CT provides both motive and benefits without a lot of assumption and conjecture unsupported by testimony or documents.

Garrison attributed the assassination to the Right, but obviously got scared or threatened.  I suspect Marcello had something to do with this.   Garrison thereafter hooks up with Mark Lane and the conventional CIA theory.  Why do you think Garrison backed off the Right?

With all that said, and I'm almost finished with Caufield's book, I can't crown Walker the author of the assassination versus any of a half dozen others who also want segregation now and segregation forever, or a redux of McCarthyism, or an end to the UN.

I hope the upcoming document release settles all this.

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

In addition to the books by Caufield and Hosty, I can recommend several others to support a Radical Right CT.

1. Treachery in Dallas (1995) by professor Walt Brown.
2. Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978) by Seth Kantor.
3. From  an Office Building with a High Powered Rifle  (2010) by Don Adams
4. There's a Fish in the Courthouse (ch. 44, 1971, 1987) by Gareth (Gary) Wean ***
5. Power on the Right (1973) by former-FBI agent William Turner

And of course the Lopez Report (2003) and the Simpich eBook: State Secret (2014).

*** NOTE: The CT by Wean makes H.L. Hunt into the leader of the Radical Right, with General Walker at his side.  Here's a summary link:

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Critical_Summaries/Articles/Wean_Chap_44.html

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

Paul, 

Did I come up with my own Radical Right CT?  I didn't mean to, and no I haven't read Hosty's book.

I believe the case for the Radical Right CT is more persuasive than any other for a few reasons:

Walker has non-public knowledge of Oswald as shown by his press leaks before the famous letter is found in the stuff from Ruth Paine's re: the 10 April shooting.  The Martin film goes even further.  The film establishes a connection between Walker and the New Orleans cell.   Obviously both Oswald and Walker know in advance that Walker's pal Carlos Bringuier will incite a scuffle on Canal St., which is part of a successful effort to make Oswald into a media-confirmed communist.

(Strangely Oswald's letter in the Paine materials is an essential pillar of the 'proof' she is CIA.   We can tell feom Walker's WC testimomy that WC attorney Liebeler determined in 64 that this letter was preceded by Walker's monumentally significant leaks, meaning that unless Walker is in the CIA, Ruth Paine is certainly NOT in the CIA.)

The Radical Right has stated motive and anticipated benefits from Kennedy's death.   No other CT provides both motive and benefits without a lot of assumption and conjecture unsupported by testimony or documents.

Garrison attributed the assassination to the Right, but obviously got scared or threatened.  I suspect Marcello had something to do with this.   Garrison thereafter hooks up with Mark Lane and the conventional CIA theory.  Why do you think Garrison backed off the Right?

With all that said, and I'm almost finished with Caufield's book, I can't crown Walker the author of the assassination versus any of a half dozen others who also want segregation now and segregation forever, or a redux of McCarthyism, or an end to the UN.

I hope the upcoming document release settles all this.

 

Jason

Agree with a lot if this. But I dont think Oswald shot at Walker. 

Share this post


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

Paul, 

Did I come up with my own Radical Right CT?  I didn't mean to, and no I haven't read Hosty's book.

I believe the case for the Radical Right CT is more persuasive than any other for a few reasons:

Walker has non-public knowledge of Oswald as shown by his press leaks before the famous letter is found in the stuff from Ruth Paine's re: the 10 April shooting.  The Martin film goes even further.  The film establishes a connection between Walker and the New Orleans cell.   Obviously both Oswald and Walker know in advance that Walker's pal Carlos Bringuier will incite a scuffle on Canal St., which is part of a successful effort to make Oswald into a media-confirmed communist.

(Strangely Oswald's letter in the Paine materials is an essential pillar of the 'proof' she is CIA.   We can tell feom Walker's WC testimomy that WC attorney Liebeler determined in 64 that this letter was preceded by Walker's monumentally significant leaks, meaning that unless Walker is in the CIA, Ruth Paine is certainly NOT in the CIA.)

The Radical Right has stated motive and anticipated benefits from Kennedy's death.   No other CT provides both motive and benefits without a lot of assumption and conjecture unsupported by testimony or documents.

Garrison attributed the assassination to the Right, but obviously got scared or threatened.  I suspect Marcello had something to do with this.   Garrison thereafter hooks up with Mark Lane and the conventional CIA theory.  Why do you think Garrison backed off the Right?

With all that said, and I'm almost finished with Caufield's book, I can't crown Walker the author of the assassination versus any of a half dozen others who also want segregation now and segregation forever, or a redux of McCarthyism, or an end to the UN.

I hope the upcoming document release settles all this.

 

Jason

I like a lot of what you said here , Jason. It will be interesting to see what the upcoming documents show. I'm starting to look at the radical right a lot more and incorporate them into the mix.

I read Caufield's book last year and have some others on deck to look at and consider.

Edited by Roger DeLaria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

I like a lot of what you said here , Jason. It will be interesting to see what the upcoming documents show. I'm starting to look at the radical right a lot more and incorporate them into the mix.

I read Caufield's book last year and have some others on deck to look at and consider.

Hi Roger,

I'm here to learn, share ideas, and ask people to prove what they allege.  I'm not here to sell a CT nor convince you my pet theories are correct.  So if the upcoming document release proves once and for all that the CIA did it, I will be happy to have the case resolved.

Killing the president is an unprecedented assault on the Constitution and democracy of our nation and my sense is that only the radical right is so certain of their mission that they would consider such a desperate and dangerous move.  Lets not forget this - 23 November 63 was a desperate and dangerous move; a hail Mary attempt to change the direction of government.   It didn't work.   LBJ expanded the welfare state, powered through Civil Rights, and cut down the power of diehard segregationists like Ross Barnett. 

The CIA is in my reading of the documentary evidence is first and foremost a government bureaucracy.  Like all bureaucracies, they care largely about pleasing their superiors and maintaining their bureaucracy.  The more I study the CIA guys of the era, the more I'm convinced that killing the president is an absurdly extreme existential risk for them to take - killing JFK could blowback into the destruction of the CIA.  They'd never do it.  Under any president if they just do nothing good or bad the worst they'd get is budget cuts.   With Cuba and the USSR around, even budget cuts were unlikely in any case.   Shooting the president is not only morally repulsive but is also spinning the roulette wheel of CIA fate - it's way too much of a gamble.

By contrast, Walker and the Radical Right actually believe that if desegregation and a less aggressive foreign policy continue, the US will end.  They are motivated to take the big risk because they almost feel they have nothing to lose - the US is lost in any case if JFK goes on (in their warped mind.)  We far too often under-appreciate the risk-reward dynamic when identifying who could have killed Kennedy.   Only the Right expects a big enough reward to justify the huge risk - IMO at the moment.

Of course, the adventurers, contractors, and wanna-be types hanging around the CIA may be involved - but I don't see proof or motive of any CIA organizational effort to kill Kennedy.

 

Jason

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

×