Glenn Nall

On 1/20/2018 at 5:14 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

In my opinion, the grain of truth in this line of speculation is that Robert Alan Surrey, one of the witnesses for the Warren Commission, actually was a Nazi.   Specifically, he was a Dallas Publisher for the ANP, the American Nazi Party, led by George Lincoln Rockwell.

Robert Alan Surrey was also the President of Ex-General Edwin Walker's "American Eagle Publishing Company,"  He kept an office inside Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas in 1962-1964.

Like all white racists in 1963, Robert Alan Surrey spoke kindly about the KKK and the White Citizens Councils (aka. Citizens Councils) coast to coast.   When General Walker went out on speaking tours, it was often to a Citizens's Council rally, to a John Birch Society rally, to a NSRP rally,  or to a KKK rally.   

Bringing back segregation to US Public Schools was the most common topic; and overthrowing the government was the second.

In the Walker-did-it CT, promoted by Jeff Walker in his recent book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), the connections between Walker and these Radical Right groups in America are spelled out in great detail.

So -- I do think that there was some Nazi connection with the JFK assassination -- but not the old German sort -- it was the new American sort.   Front and center.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

There's a fundamental philosophy associated with the term 'Nazi' - old German sort, or "new American sort" - just as there is with the word "Socialist." Fundamentally - and more importantly philosophically - a thing is either 'socialist,' or it's not. Something is either 'Naziist,' or it's not.

So it matters none to me "which" type of Nazi may or may not have been connected to Jack's death. Whoever was connected is a much worse sort of person than any Nazi. They're all effin' slugs, less than human, less than slugs, even.  Nazi, Bircher, Oil Magnate, CIA, Vice President, whichever was involved in the assassination = they're all P'sOS.

That wasn't my concern in the grand scheme of things, and my original comment wasn't about Nazi collusion - it was that there were powerful US Americans (i.e., Prescott Bush, et al) who were well associated with the Nazis that far back - long before the JFK Assassination.

I joined the US Navy in 1983 because I was proud of my country (I am now more than ever) and because there existed 'entities' like Nazi Germany. (Also because I had no real baseball prowess, but that's another story.) To look back on what I put into my Navy 'career' and to now discover that there were "americans" who colluded, albeit financially, with the Nazis - EFFIN' BREAKS MY HEART.

That was my point.

It is notable that those of us who have studied this murder are the few who understand that agencies like the DNC, DOJ  - and the FBI - are among the snakes in the grass - while we are today learning that little has changed, as memos are being leaked and text messages being "lost" which would indict such agencies as the snakes that they were - and are.

"We" are little surprised (and still distraught) about hearing such things that we've heard these past few days, because we've known of the ugly legacy of the FBI - unknown to the common man - since FDR (or before, probably). Not surprised, and still saddened, that this xxxx continues.

So I could really care less about what type of Nazi, or Bircher, or Oilman, was involved on killing John F Kennedy. I only care which snakes were in the grass.

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Glenn,

With all due respect, which of my many inadequacies are you referring to?

--  Tommy 

Pls reread... my bad...

On 1/15/2018 at 11:20 PM, Joe Bauer said:

 

So in essence this whole post is about Tommy Graves' inadequacies and opinions contrary to yours, and very little more...?

EDIT This was meant to in response to Paul's post, not Joe's.

Tommy, none. Just emphasising Paul's neg. response...

On 1/15/2018 at 7:18 AM, Ron Ecker said:

This is not a theory but a fact. Mary Moorman was hot.

 

 

then why was she wearing such a heavy coat?!

On 1/5/2018 at 7:13 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Correction - Prescott Bush and Union Bank were never actually convicted. 

Tell me more about Gisevius.

the link to the entire Rambler 'article' (it's very long), replete with all I know about Gisevius, is at the beginning of the post.

Recline in a special electric chair and watch the pounds melt away!

----

Ya'll really oughta subscribe to Paula's daily Flashback Dallas newsletter. Some really great stuff, and ... who knows...?

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

Was Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon.  Were getting revenge for Marilyn Monroe.

I was thinking it was Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. After all, it turned out Falk WAS CIA...

(The In-Laws - if you haven't, it's an absolute must see)

13 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I've read and heard a lot of theories, but I've never heard this one. I'd be more inclined to believe Umbrella Man was a shooter than Moorman and Hill (or people disguised as Moorman and Hill). Does that mean the real Moorman and Hill were just actresses, in this theory?

I'd be more inclined to believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy with three shots from the east window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building...

I'd be more inclined to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald "was killed himself a few weeks later."

I'd be inclined to say that there's no need to legitimize such a theory with legitimate questions. No offense, Denny.

32 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Robert Turner - for what it's worth, on your website you say Oswald was killed a few weeks later. He was actually gunned down on 11/24, two days Kennedy's murder. You may want to firm up your website's basic facts on the assassination before branching out to theories on what happened. In other words, if you can't get the basic facts of the case correct, then everything else falls to the wayside, too.

hilarious.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

i could not agree more...

Of all the theories I've encountered in my many years of studying the JFK assassination, this is certainly one of them.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was not Russia but England, and then when it did well, they sold the American rights.

Russia, England...

You say "tomato," I say "tomato..."

In Mark's Last Word he points to the CIA's somewhat successful attempts to stifle the publication of his first books and that he was only able to get initial publications in Russia. For some reason, but I don't remember the details.

For what it's worth.

56 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ted Shackley was Gehlen’s interpreter early on. 

Glenn - it seems that you have looked at some history regarding Bush family, Dulles, and their possible Nazi ties. If we think of Nazi Germany as vanquished and punished for their crimes then I would agree that thinking they might have killed JFK would just be another wacky theory. But my reading of the CIA history is that it is intimately intertwined with Nazis after the war. The theory presented here is that assassins were outsourced through QJWIN, by the plotters, who were Americans. The nexus that the Dealey Plaza shooters were drawn from were European fascist assassins connected to the underworld, probably Corsican. 

all well and good, but Prescott Bush was "convicted" by Congress of colluding with the Nazis well before they were "vanquished."

That's what stresses me. I don't blame the CIA of using Gehlen after the war. Makes sense to me. After all, FDR used Lucky Luciano, as brokered by Meyer Lansky, during the war.

So...

But I was speaking of Hans Gisevius, not R Gehlen.

3 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

Reinhard Gehlen

Roger that, Roger. I know who Gehlen was, brought over by the Fed Govt due to his spies in Germany.

This is from  Richard Bartholomew's Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy (1996...?) (these are excerpts - it's a very long article, and in fact has been published into a small paperback I've just noticed on Amazon...  ):

Toward the end of May, 1943, Mary Bancroft was asked by Allen Dulles to translate a book on the Third Reich by Hans Bernd Gisevius, a member of the Canaris organization -- the Abwehr -- stationed under the diplomatic cover of vice- consul at the German consulate in Zurich. His book was about the July 20 plot against Hitler, being coordinated by Admiral Canaris' subordinate, Colonel Hans Oster. M.B. reported: "I told Allen it all made sense to me.

Difficult as it might be to believe, the conspirators actually hoped that if they got rid of Hitler they would be able to take over the whole country and to negotiate peace with the Anglo-Americans. Their hopes went even further: They envisaged the western Allies joining them in a crusade against Russia -- and communism. Gisevius had been sent to Switzerland to get in touch with the western Allies. Other emissaries were making similar contacts in Sweden and elsewhere."

In early July, 1944, Gisevius left for Germany to prepare for the coup. M.B. and Mary Jane left for Ascona for six weeks. Gisevius' friend and Abwehr colleague, Eddie Waetjen, also attached to the German consulate in Zurich, also spent the summer in Ascona with his family. On July 20, the coup failed. M.B. and Mary Jane returned to Zurich on September 1, 1944. Jean spent the summer traveling.

In late January, 1945, Gisevius returned to Zurich and eventually moved to a rented house on Lake Geneva. In the weeks preceding July 20, Gisevius had been constantly on the move between Basel, Bern, Geneva, the Grisons, and Zurich.

On July 13, Gisevius met with General Beck who wanted to put the whole plan down on paper....

By July 23 Gisevius had managed to find a hiding place where he waited for Dulles to smuggle false papers to him. On January 20, 1945 the papers mysteriously appeared at the house where he was staying. "The papers included a special pass and a letter from Gestapo headquarters signed by Himmler (a perfect forgery), instructing all government officials to assist said Hoffman [his new identity] on an important secret mission to Switzerland." Still, he was lucky to make it back.

After analyzing Gisevius, Carl Jung told Mary Bancroft (they were friends), "`Of course, he still has rather grandiose ideas, and if he goes to the United States, he might attach himself to some current of power there that would permit him to realize at least some of them.'" Prior to this comment, the only contact Bancroft had established between Gisevius and the United States was with Dulles through Bancroft herself. Did Gisevius wish to continue his work in anti- communist assassination plots? As we shall see, Gisevius did go to the U.S. He "spent some time in Texas, then returned to Germany...."

In early summer 1952, M.B. and Mary Jane "again returned to the States, and she and Horace Taft announced their engagement at the Republican Convention in Chicago, where Horace's father, Senator Robert A. Taft, was contending with General Dwight D. Eisenhower for the presidential nomination. Mary Jane and Horace were married that September in Washington, where we made our headquarters with Clover [Allen's wife] and Allen. Sherwin [Jr.] could not make the wedding because by then he was a lieutenant in the United States Navy serving off Korea. Clover and Allen's son was also in Korea serving as an officer in the US marines." In the fall of 1953, M.B.  moved back to the States permanently and Sherwin, Jr. started working for Time magazine. Of particular interest, Bancroft reveals that "Gisevius married his Fräulein Braut, spent some time in Texas, then returned to Germany where he published several more books; he finally settled on the Lake of Geneva near Vevey. We kept in touch until his death in 1974."

Researcher Bruce Campbell Adamson discovered that, by 1953, Hans Gisevius was working for Dresser Industries, a Dallas-based oil equipment company. Adamson's research, for a book he is writing about George de Mohrenschildt, revealed that Dresser's long-time chairman of the board, Henry Neil Mallon and newly appointed CIA Director Allen Dulles were mutual friends of Gisevius.

[END EXCERPTS]

As best I can remember, G. de Mohrenschildt was on Dresser's board along with several other notables. Prescott Bush and his sons were connected. Also the creator and director was some dude whose memory also escapes me, an Army Intel guy, and very wrapped up in all this ugliness.

But WAIT - there's MORE...

21 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Story of the Ex-Nazi Officer Who Masterminded the JFK Assassination

http://aarclibrary.org/publication-spotlight-the-plot-to-kill-jfk-the-untold-story-of-the-ex-nazi-officer-who-masterminded-the-assassination/

And to think the rest of us actually thought we knew what we were talking about. Thank God it's finally solved.

Paul Trejo, sorry buddy. I'm as let down as you are.

Seriously: Interestingly enough, one of the more distressing elements of this entire thing to me has been the many different tentacles that reach to Nazi Germany, including GHWBush's dad, Allen Dulles and Mary Bancroft and that German guy (starts with a 'g?', rhymes with nothing - wait - Gesuvius...?) that they helped get over here, and others.

This (Nazi Germany) is not an answer I wish to find remotely relevant.

1 minute ago, Glenn Nall said:

not that it had a bearing one way or the other

oh. and dude, political correctness is a thing of the past. There's no need to qualify your remarks. I, nor few others, am reading any -phobia into that.

That xxxx's done. Let's all move forward.

respectfully,

gn

19 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I personally think there is a thread of homosexuality running thru assassination personnel...  not that it had a bearing one way or the other - other than linking them.

Just another interesting tangent...  cheers

Hoover

Ferrie, Ruby, Shaw, Oswald were part of yet another "group"

 

yep, i'd read this of Ruby, and of course of Hoover and Ferrie - i've also read it of George Michael and Boy George but refuse to accept it. 

I have never read of a tanning booth at the Adolphus, but, in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and conjecture with the Lone Nutters, I think that it was actually a hot tub.

please forgive my attempts at levity in this thread. I very seriously think Umbrella Man and DCM were intrinsically involved. I don't expend a lot of energy in Dealey - I don't think it's a road that leads to any real answers. I think the answers we all want will be arrived at from the outside circling in rather than from the inside circling outward.

As addictive as it is to discuss these things, proof of a second shooter by means of some new bullet trajectory analysis will get is no closer to an answer than we already are. Proof that DCM was __________________________ would do very little better.

Proof that Mack Wallace was on the 6th floor would get us nowhere. But I do love talking about it, surely.

On the other hand, new revelations into the murder of JD Tippit, connections between Big Oil and CIA and Big Steel and US Army, between Ruby and Chicago and Marcello and Trafficante and John Martino and the guns-for-Cuba ring, and ad infinitum, is a trail with a plausibly definitive answer or two.

11 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I think spray-on came before the booths....   those early bulbs left a nasty mark....

It's my premise that the "nasty marks" were simply part of Hoover's and Ferrie's, et al, enjoyment.

But again...

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

So I went thru the 2 mug shot books...   this is the only one I spotted who was close.

Not sure if he's dark enough...  just a guess.

Through extensive and sleepless research, I am convinced that DCM had gone straight to Dealey Plaza from a tanning booth located in room 116 of the Adolphus Hotel, wherein it is proposed that J Edgar Hoover and David Ferrie also enjoyed "lying in wait."

This photographic comparison, provided by the intrepid David Josephs, is yet more evidence.

But I could be wrong.

32 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Since nobody in this thread has made the accusations listed -- I don't even understand why this became some issue.

1.  Some of the people who voted for Trump had previously voted for Obama twice -- so, obviously, it would be impossible to describe them as "radical, second Amendment, Confederate Flag waving..."  etc. etc.  but since NOBODY here made such a claim, it is entirely a STRAW MAN argument to pretend that someone did.

2.   Genuine bi-partisanship requires one major pre-requisite -- i.e. a belief by all parties involved that the people involved in the discussion and the decision-making are honorable, decent, principled individuals who may just have an honest disagreement about how best to resolve some issue or problem we confront as Americans.  However, Trump has NEVER proceeded from that premise.  Most politicians who are successful realize that politics is a process of addition and multiplication, i.e. finding allies, building coalitions (even if just temporary) to accomplish some desired result.  By contrast, Trump (and Birchers) believe in the precise opposite form of politics -- i.e. dividing Americans into "us" vs "them" categories -- which is why Trump routinely attacks and defames even members of his own party and Administration.

3.  I recently had a lengthy debate with someone who claimed that Trump's critics in the Republican Party were RINO's.  However, I pointed out that the persons most often mentioned as RINO's (such as Sen. Flake and Sen. McCain of AZ, Sen. Corker of TN, Sen. Graham of SC, Sen. Majority Leader McConnell of KY, Sen. Sasse of NE, House Speaker Paul Ryan of WI, and others) have voted 90% or more of the time the way which Trump wanted --- including on the recent tax reform legislation.   So, clearly, this RINO accusation is NOT based upon FACTS.

4.   The "Deep State" is a myth used by demagogues to normalize any crazy idea which they want to present or excuse any failure to accomplish a stated political objective.  This is a typical tactic used by Third World dictators---blame some scapegoat for their personal failings.  If some information disputes or falsifies what you prefer to believe, then, in our current political atmosphere, you just call that info "fake news".   This is VERY dangerous because, ultimately, it will corrode the public trust in ALL of our institutions and in the very concept of representative democracy and it will make authoritarianism appear more acceptable.  Career bureaucrats serve every President regardless of which political party wins an election.  There is no such thing as "Republican science" or "Democratic science" or a "Republican navy or air force" vs a "Democratic navy or air force" OR a "Republican  Centers for Disease Control" or a "Democratic Center For Disease Control".

 

you're right. 

convert all my "bi-partisan"s to "non-partisan."

my mistake.

ta ta

46 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Unfortunately, there is no way to limit a discussion to a single topic when the basic terms of discussion are not agreed upon at the outset. 

For example:  YOU introduced the notion that describing the radical right in our country as being a devout supporter of Trump was inaccurate.  But you are mistaken. 

The easiest way to demonstrate your error (to your satisfaction) is simply for you to list what YOU consider to be the TEN or TWENTY most significant or most prominent radical right organizations and individuals in contemporary America.  THEN, we could compare your list to their public positions concerning Trump.  If we discover that 80% of the persons and organizations on your list, DO support Trump -- then why would it be "inaccurate" or erroneous to say so?

IF, HOWEVER, your REAL point is NOT actually about the sympathies or positions of the radical right -- but, instead, your REAL objection is that you don't want ANY discussion of Trump to appear in this thread -- then that is an entirely different matter.

Sorry. "...the Radical Right is a devout supporter of Pres Trump..." is a comprehensive, inclusive and irresponsible statement. Just like "...the Radical Left support selling fetus parts..." would be comprehensive (all inclusive) and irresponsible. It's of course not true and not a responsible statement to make, especially in a forum of people where such topics would most likely to be pretty damn sensitive.

That's ALL i was point out. That statement, on its face, is incorrect. 

And then when Paul got on the soapbox, I commented on partisanship at large within the forum. 

In my opinion, it doesn't belong, and it almost always turns into personal attack.

That's ALL I've said.

done with this ridiculous thread. ta ta.

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Ernie dumped a ton of recent, non-JFK related John Birch Society material on this thread.  I was responding to that.  

Yep, he did.

The one connecting link that Ernie made was that some in the John Birch Society now claim that the "Liberals" in the USA want to assassinate President Trump the way "they" assassinated JFK in 1963. 

Fascinating.

My main point was that the "Liberals" didn't assassinate JFK -- instead, in my CT, the Radical Right associated with the John Birch Society assassinated JFK.

A fair enough CT. As good as any other of the good ones. Respect to this...

So -- the question is -- does today's political position of the John Birch Society have any relevance to the JFK assassination of 1963?

Of course not, other than the strength given any JBS type fraternity by the mainstream media. Without media coverage, no fraternity like this has any power. Very honestly, I had no idea that the JBS had any more existence than Ralph Kramden's Racoon Lodge.

So, I tend to agree with Ernie to this degree -- I see is a relevant link between the question of, 'Who Killed JFK?'', and 'what are they doing today?

No question that this is one of the most relevant questions in this thing. In fact, I believe that it's the reason this thing is still alive and is still so strong.

I do agree with one of your points -- namely -- that not all of the Radical Right killed JFK, just as not all of the Radical Right support President Trump today.   There are nuances that can be emphasized.   I was painting in broad strokes, as that is often useful in getting conversation started.

I simply wished to separate the idea a- not all of Trump's supporters are Radical, 2nd Amendment, Confederate Flag waving, Rightists, b- not all of Trump's supporters are Trump supporters, c- there's no room for racial accusations in discussing the President's ideologies other than his fantastic propensity to say the most wrong thing possible on a successful Presidential Campaign, and d- there's very little room, IMHO, for extensive political preaching when we've all joined this forum specifically to find a common truth.

WE have the chance to work bipartisanly, and WE have the opportunity to exemplify that it can be done on a grander scale. If I started pronouncing MY political views, ya'll would think less of me than you already do. It would serve no purpose.

MY purpose is to get closer to the exposure of the Deep State by means of discovering the truths of who killed Jack and Bobby and Martin. And why it matters to people today.

Who killed JFK?   Was it the Communists?   Was it the Radical Right?   And what are the implications for American History and Civics?

Fully agree. Appreciate your honesty - and something else has come up about Gen Walker that is news to me, and so I'm open to this thing heading that direction. 

And toward Watergate and Nixon (of course). 

But not to Robert Muehler and all this crap today. It has NO relevance as far as we know at this point, unless someone can SHOW connection.

 

Appreciate your honesty

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

9 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

I have not "deviated" and I don't think you can identify anything about my alleged "dogma" -- particularly since I often post articles which do NOT represent my views but which I think might be of interest to other readers here because they often offer unique insights into the broader discussion regarding right-wing beliefs and links to the radical right in our country's history.

With respect to Paul's comment -- he was using a single message to challenge one portion of the article which I discovered on the Birch Society's website that mentioned that Donald Trump's father (Fred Trump) was a personal friend of Robert Welch AND a financial contributor to the Birch Society. 

Since the ENTIRE thrust of Dr. Caufield's book is that JBS members and JBS supporters were involved in planning, financing, executing, and covering-up the assassination of JFK -- I'm sure Paul just wanted to make some point about Donald Trump NOT being in the same potential jeopardy (for assassination) as was JFK.

Apparently, YOU have a VERY rigid and dogmatic view regarding what is, or is not, acceptable to be discussed here.  I don't think you will find many readers sympathetic with your personal opinion.

Regardless -- I still maintain that your comment that the radical right in the U.S. (or even in other countries) is not supporting Trump is grossly inaccurate and cannot withstand even the most cursory review.   In the context of this thread's focus upon the Birch Society being the PRIMARY "radical right" actor in the assassination of JFK, it is simply INDISPUTABLE that many (perhaps even most) Birchers are pro-Trump.  The ONLY reservations I have seen posted online by Birchers is that they are concerned about whether or not Trump will compromise with Democrats AND they are concerned that "globalists" (aka establishment elitists) might water down Trump's "natural instincts" to be anti-UN, anti-trade agreement, anti-immigrant, and anti-establishment elites.

not rigid at all. just vocal. I have no desire to be in a forum which discusses political persuasion, else I'd be a member of one. I joined this forum because some of its members are some of the best on the planet in this field. regretfully, threads in here often deviate toward personal attack and agenda, as noted in the Sticky post at the beginning of the forum.

I choose to voice my opinion. Most don't.

that's all.

22 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The following is this American's opinion:

The correct historical linkage is not between President Trump with the JFK Assassination, but President Trump with the impeachment of President Nixon.

Robert Mueller will be successful in toppling the Trump Presidency in 2018, as the Steele Document is systematically confirmed, and the dominoes of Trump cabinet members fall to Mueller indictments.  

The Republican candidates for President in 2016 were so maliciously insulted publicly by candidate Trump, that they will turn on him at the last minute, and vote for Impeachment, I predict.  

The stock market will take a tumble.

After taking the oath of office, President Pence will pardon citizen Trump and many others.   Then the stock market will begin to recover, and the USA will return to a more normal routine.

But no, there's zero chance of a repetition of the JFK Assassination in this case -- because it was the Radical Right who assassinated JFK, and the Radical Right is a devout supporter of President Trump.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

no need for this kinda xxxx here, Paul. useless commentary...