Kenneth Drew
-
Posts
953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Kenneth Drew
-
-
1. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.
I understand all that. I agree that he quit. But if your boss comes in and tells you that you've been a bad boy and just go sit in the corner until you decide to retire, that's essentially what they did to Walker. Told he would never 'command again', do you think he had a lot of options. I think his resignation was a sign of formal protest. You do know that his pension was restored later.
What was he protesting.
Surely you know the answer to that. Your statement " that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been communists themselves" doesn't seem to be likely. How could the 'government' be communist? As for the past 4 presidents, I don't think any of them were communists and I've never seen any claim that Walker accused them of being communist themselves. That they were all influenced by communists, yes...especially FDR, and Truman to some extent and maybe even Ike, but I've not seen anything linking any communists to JFK. Walker certainly had an inside track to knowledge about the persons influencing presidents than I ever had.
How and when did Eisenhower and Hoover develop this 'personal friendship'? If you can give me a link to something the Birchers put out that accused Eisenhower of being a 'conscious agent of the Communist Party'. As I've said before, Ike worked with a lot of them, allies during WWII and probably developed a respect for the ones he worked with, but I don't think anyone has ever declared that Eisenhower was a 'communist agent'.
Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..
If that's your problem with General Walker, I think it's time you started a serious reassessment as you seem to have totally have missed the mark on his reason for resigning. As far as Walker and Mississippi, Walker went there to protest, a right he defended in the military for most of his life. Why would Pres JFK violate the basic constitutional rights of Americans by using federal troops in a situation where it was not called for. Had the troops not been sent there at JFK's orders, the riots and deaths probably would not have occurred. I see no blame on Walker for JFK's misuse of his authority.
2. ...President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.
Eisenhower illegally or improperly using federal troops is/was not a good precedent. Just because a law has been broken in the past does not establish precedent that it is a good thing to do.
3. Why didn't those links you supplied above indicate the things you are claiming. One of them said a woman was holding a sign and that when someone bumped into her arm it did brush against Stevenson, but you'll note the woman was not arrested for assault, as I'm sure no 'intent' could be shown. Spitting? that's 'violence'. ? And tell me again how someone (Walker) that wasn't even there was 'responsible'. Your newspaper articles talk of a protest rally but I see nothing of an 'attack' on Stevenson and no relationship to Walker for the protest rally? It doesn't help your argument when you start 'making it up'
How did Walker get to the ceiling of the auditorium to attach that banner? You suppose the hired hands at the auditorium provided him with scaffolding? And you would put that in the category as an "attack".? Hmmmm....
5. Tell all of us why Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas in October, 1963? I believe he likely had an office in Washington DC and maybe one at or near the UN hdqtrs in New York, but what would be his reason to be in Texas in Oct 63? What was his speech about? Oh, it 'wasn't' and 'attack' it was a 'political attack'. Maybe if you can clearly tell us why Stevenson was in Dallas that day, you might determine that it was itself, an attack. So fill us in on why he was there?
7. The JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.
Civilian? led. As in 'not military'. If I knew all the answers, and I've read so many books about it since '6 Seconds in Dallas', I would write my own book, but several stories seem to be possible, but for me, while there are some things I certainly don't know, there are a few that I do know. LHO was NOT a shooter. LHO did not kill JDT. LHO did not own a rifle. The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved.
Kenneth, I'm glad that despite our political differences, we can agree on some basic concepts here. Let me offer some more documentation to support my claims.
1. As for Walker's forfeit of this 30-year Army Pension, yes, I agree that it was later restored -- but that was 22 years later -- and he had to beg and plead for it. I simply see no rational explanation for his refusal to accept his well-earned Army Pension. He hurt nobody but himself.
This I take as his way of showing that he was a man of principle. Would most people have done that? Not likely.
As for Walker allegedly having "inside knowledge" of US Presidents, he had no more than the Pentagon, surely, and they didn't resign their offices. No, actually, despite his brilliant military career, Edwin Walker was no great intellectual. He believed whatever Robert Welch of the JBS wrote, e.g. in 1959, Welch wrote that President Eisenhower was a communist, and Walker submitted his first resignation in 1959. I see a connection.
Inside knowledge, only from the perspective that he was much closer to the president in his military roles than most civilians will ever be. I have no knowledge of his intellect, but he certainly seemed to be a man of high patriotic principles as he was very concerned with the communist infiltration of the government. Even if Welch did write that Ike was a communist, and I don't believe that he did, that says nothing about Walker's belief's about Eisenhower. Being 'an agent of the communists' I take to mean he is being 'used' by the communists. I see quite a distinction. Surely you would not contend that FDR was not used intensely by the Communists. You will recall, as I mentioned before, that the Communists were allies of the US during WWII and there was needs for them to work together. Eisenhower must have worked with several Soviets in his role as Supreme Commander and i'm sure respected some of them. I think Walker was capable of keeping those scenarios separate and would just advise Ike to beware.
As for documented proof that Robert Welch called President Eisenhower a "conscious agent of Communism," I supply the following from Ernie Lazar's own links for Welch's so-called Black Book:
First, I have no respect for Ernie Lazar or any of his opinions.
"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p. 267)
"For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p 268)
Regarding J. Edgar Hoover's personal connection with President Eisenhower, I supply the following documents:
“During his Presidency and afterwards at Gettysburg, I was close with Gen. Eisenhower. He was a great man and a great President.” [01/72 interview of Hoover in Nation’s Business magazine]
“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." [J. Edgar Hoover testimony before Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101]
“I have received your letter dated September 25, 1963. Any rumors you have heard indicating the FBI has evidence that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower is a communist are completely false and too absurd to merit consideration.” [FBI HQ file 62-81742, serial #263, the 10/2/63 Hoover reply to a private letter about Ike]
Neither of those two quotes are of value to me, they are opinions, everyone has one.
As for the Ole Miss riots, Kenneth, we must agree to disagree. I take the word of Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi, who was an eye-witness at those riots.
Of what value is an eye witness. The question was should JFK have ordered Federal troops to Mississippi, the answer is no. It was not legal. How does an eye witness change that?
2. The same applies to the Little Rock, Arkansas episode in 1957. I agree with Duncan Gray, i.e. that President Eisenhower acted in obedience to Supreme Court ruling on the Brown Decision.
BS, the Supreme Court did not rule that Eisenhower should send Federal troops to Little Rock.
3. As for my use of the word, 'attack' in the context of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on October 24, 1963, that word came from the newspapers themselves. Of course it doesn't mean a military attack, but a political attack. But you knew that.
Newspapers are notoriously liberal and don't have much use for patriotic Americans and don't tend to slant their stories toward the truth. Other than that........
'Political attack', would that be like a 'protest rally'?
As for Walker's team hanging a large JBS banner from the ceiling of the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is an indication of the great respect that Edwin Walker had in Dallas from 1961-1963. Witnesses say he had over a hundred people in his team that night.
Oh, so now it's not Walker doing it, but his 'team' doing it. Let me make a note of that. Note: Hanging a banner equals a 'political attack'. got it......
5. As for Adlai Stevenson's purpose in Dallas in October, 1963, it is well known. The occasion was "UN Day" and Adlai was the Ambassador to the United Nations at that time. He was giving a speech in support of the UN. He was profoundly ignorant, however, that Dallas was a key center for the JBS which openly hated the UN, and published for years their hatred of the UN, calling it a Communist Conspiracy.
I like your comment that Stevenson was 'profoundly ignorant', few would disagree. And why would he pick Dallas Texas to make a speech promoting the UN? and only one month before JFK's visit. Think that might have been part of the JFK Assassination Conspiracy? Sure fits in. Wonder why he didn't make that speech in Boise, ID or Missoula, Montana? Why Dallas and why then? Hmmmm.........
How could Adlai ignore the signs? In the same way, the Secret Service ignored the signs just one month later.
Ah so...... Did he ignore the signs? Was he 'the sign'? Did the SS 'ignore' the signs? or create them? Maybe they created exactly the situation they desired for Nov 22. I'm kinda 'leaning' here.
7. Finally, Kenneth, I'm very gratified by your final words on this topic of the JFK assassination: "The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved."
'government was 'very' involved" as in " Did he ignore the signs? Was he 'the sign'? Did the SS 'ignore' the signs? or create them? Maybe they created exactly the situation they desired for Nov 22. I'm kinda 'leaning' here." You may be turning in the right direction, but you need to quit looking toward Edwin Walker and looking at the conspirators.
On this point you and I agree 100%.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
I appreciate your comments Paul.
-
--Paul Trejo
Kenneth,
What do you make of Marina Oswald's sworn testimony that LHO was the shooter at General Walker on 10 April 1963?
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Paul, there are so many versions of her 'testimony' I'm sure if I had to believe her I could find at least one version that might sound true. I especially like the one where he threw his rifle away after the shot, that means someone else must have found it and used it for the sniper rifle plant, well, except the bullet found was not from an MC rifle. If you could choose one of the statements that you believe, I'll try to tell you why it's made up. Maybe even who made it up. How did you decide which version you liked?
Paul, my preliminary comment on all of this material, in general, I don't think that whoever put it together to be filed under Marina's name did a very good job. There are quite a few obvious mistakes and a lot that differs from other 'statements" attributed to her. Do you personally have an opinion as to who wrote this version?
Kenneth,
As you requested, here is an extract from Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission on February 3, 1964, as interviewed by J. Lee Rankin. In the excerpt below, I removed the Questions by Rankin to expose only Marina's answers, for ease of reading.
I remind the reader that Marina Oswald is a native Russian speaker, and although she was college educated in pharmacology at Minsk, she was only beginning to learn English in late 1963, so her sentences show this sort of beginner's vocabulary.
------- BEGIN EXTRACT FROM MARINA OSWALD TO LEE RANKIN -- WC VOLUME 1 -----
Before the incident with General Walker, I know that Lee was preparing for something. He took photographs of that house and he told me not to enter his room. I didn't know about these photographs, but when I came into the room once he tried to make it so that I would spend less time in that room. I noticed that accidentally once when I was cleaning the room – he tried to take more care of it himself.
I asked him, what kind of photographs are these, but he didn't say anything to me. Those were the photographs of the Walker house that I was asking about.
Wonder how she was able to say it was a photograph of Walker's house? Hmmm......
Later, after Lee shot at Walker, he told me about it. I didn't know that he intended to do it – or that he was planning to do it. I believe he had been practicing with the rifle. I think that he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the rifle, but I knew that Lee was practicing because he told me. He would mention that in passing – it isn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take this rifle in my hands here and go out to practice," but he would say, "Well, today I’ll take the rifle along for practice." So, I don't know whether he took it from the house or whether he had the rifle somewhere outside. There was a little square, sort of a little courtyard where he might have kept it.
Also, Lee didn't only have a rifle, but he also had a gun, a revolver. I remember it first on Neely Street, but I think he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice -- once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs. I don’t remember the period of time between when I first saw the rifle and the time that I first saw the pistol.
When I testified about his practicing with the rifle, I was describing a period when we were still at Neely Street. I don’t know where he practiced with the rifle. I don't know the name of the place where this took place, but I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield, or perhaps Love Field – that is an airport, no? I think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range.
I don’t recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it; I hadn't paid any attention initially. A rifle was a rifle; I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing the lens was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. Possibly the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that. I made an objection to having the rifle around. Lee said that for a man to have a rifle, since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him; a fine life.
That was the same rifle that I was referring to that I took the picture of with Lee and when he had the pistol, too. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business – it was a man's business. If I had known these were such dangerous toys – of course I thought that Lee had changed in that direction and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him – just playing around.
I dimly recall the day that I took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol; I think that that was towards the end of February or the beginning of March. I can't say exactly, because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me if someone had ever asked me to photograph. No. I do remember it was on a Sunday. I was hanging up diapers and he came up to me with the rifle and I was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time.
Took the picture in Feb or early March? Before he 'ordered' the rifle from Klein's? Just one of the mistakes the writer made? If she took these photo's, why did he later make some at his employment place?
I did not examine the picture or notice that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
I had nothing to do with the prints of the photograph, or after the prints were made, that is, I didn’t put them in a photographic album myself. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn't need photographs like that.
I dimly recall how long after that the Walker matter occurred; two, perhaps three weeks later. I know better when this happened. I first learned that Lee had shot at General Walker like this: that evening he went out I thought that he had gone to his classes or perhaps that he just walked out or went out on his own business. It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried; perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it – I was pacing around.
Then I saw a note there. I did not look for the gun at that time. I didn't understand anything. On the note it said, "If I am arrested" and there are certain other questions, such as, for example, the key to the mailbox is in such and such a place, and that he left me some money to last me for some time, and I couldn't understand at all what he would be arrested for. When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker.
Of course I didn't sleep all night. I thought that any minute now, the police will come. Of course I wanted to ask him a great deal. But in his state I decided I had best leave him alone it would be purposeless to question him. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did I do with it?" He said, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know – I am not a criminologist.
I told him that he had no right to kill people in peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that night be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives. I told him that this is no method to prove my ideas, by means of a rifle.
Any guess as to why Oswald would refer to Walker (Radical right wing, your words) as a fascist (radical left winger, my words) exactly the opposite of what Walker's politics were.
He said he had been planning for two months. Yes--perhaps he had planned to do so even earlier, but according to his conduct I could tell he was planning--he had been planning this for two months or perhaps a little even earlier. He showed me a picture of the Walker house then; after the shooting. He had a notebook in which he noted quite a few details. It was all in English, I didn't read it. But I noticed the photograph. Sometimes he would lock himself in his room and write in the book. I thought that he was writing some other kind of memoirs, as he had written about his life in the Soviet Union.
I never read that book. I know of nothing else he had in it besides this Walker house picture. Photographs and notes, and I think there was a map in there. It was a map of Dallas, but I don't know where Walker lived. Sometimes evenings he would be busy with this.
Perhaps he was calculating something, but I don't know. He had a bus schedule and computed something.
After this had happened, people thought that he had a car, but he had been using a bus. Lee explained to me about his being able to use a bus just as well as other people could use a car – simply as a passenger. He told me that even before that time he had gone also to shoot, but he had returned. I don't know why. Because on the day that he did shoot, there was a Church across the street and there were many people there, and it was easier to merge in the crowd and not be noticed.
I asked him about this note that he had left, what he meant by it – he said he had in mind that if in case he were arrested, I would know what to do. The note doesn't say anything about Walker. I asked him if that is what he meant by the note – as soon as he came home I showed him the note and asked him "What is the meaning of this?" And that is when he gave me the explanation about the Walker shooting.
I know that on a Sunday he took the rifle, but I don't think he shot it on a Sunday. Perhaps that was on Friday. So Sunday he left with the rifle. The Walker shooting was in the middle of the week – maybe on Wednesday. When he shot, he did not know whether he had hit Walker or not. He ran several kilometers and then took the bus. He turned on the radio and listened, but there were no reports. The next day he bought a paper and there he read that it was only bare chance that saved Walker's life. If he had not moved, he might have been killed.
Lee said only that he had taken very good aim, that it was just chance that caused him to miss. He was very sorry that he had not hit him. I asked him to give me his word that he would not repeat anything like that. I said that this accident proves that Walker must live and that he should not be shot at again. I told him that I would save the note and that if something like that would be repeated again, I would go to the police and I would have the proof in the form of that note. He said he would not repeat anything like that again.
By the way, several days after that, the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as I recall, practically as soon as he opened the door he said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he became speechless. I saw that other people knew Lee better than I did; not always – but in this case, yes.
De Mohrenschildt was a friend, but Lee did not tell him personal things that I knew of. He asked Lee not because Lee had told him about it, but because he was smart enough to guess it. He was simply a liberal man (and I don't think that he was justly accused of being a Communist).
I didn’t tell the authorities anything about this Walker incident when I learned about it. I told the Secret Service and the FBI people the reasons why I didn't. First, because he was Lee; as far as I know, according to the local laws here, a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband. But, of course, if I had known that Lee intended to repeat something like that, I would have told.
Lee didn’t ask me to return the note to him; he forgot about it. But apparently after that he thought that what he had written in his book might be proof against him, and he destroyed his book! That was his notebook that I just referred to in which he had the Walker house picture.
I kept the note that he left for me after I said I was going to keep it; I have it among my things in a cookbook. I don't remember in which one.
My relations with Lee changed after this Walker incident. Soon after that, Lee lost his job – I don't know for what reason. He was upset by it. And he looked for work for several days. And when the idea of New Orleans came up, I insisted that it would be better for him to go to New Orleans where he had relatives. I insisted on that because I wanted to get him further removed from Dallas and from Walker, because even though he gave me his word, I wanted to have him further away, because a rifle for him was not a good toy – it was too enticing.
But what I told him was simply that I wanted to see his home town – where he was born. When he promised that he would not do anything like that again, I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house. I asked him to get rid of the rifle at that time. After he shot at Walker, I didn’t notice his taking the rifle out any more to practice. We went to New Orleans in May. Lee went there by himself, first.
------- END EXTRACT FROM MARINA OSWALD TO LEE RANKIN -- WC VOLUME 1 -----
As you suggested, Kenneth, please let me konw what part of Marina's testimony that you will accept, and what part you don't accept.
Basically I believe someone, perhaps a staffer on the Warren Commission, wrote this for her to fit the story the Warren Commission was going to tell. If any of the story about him having a rifle is true, it is apparently a rifle he had prior to February of that year, which would exclude the Manlicher Carcano If there is anything 'true' in this statement, it is insignificant to the assassination or the shooting at Walker.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Kenneth, regarding Chris Craven's 1993 breakthrough, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) ... Chris Cravens wrote his book as a defense of Edwin Walker. He deliberately hides facts to make Walker look better than later history will reveal him.
Edwin Walker has not been proven to have been involved in the JFK assassination by anyone, ever. It seems as if it would be a big task to make a very patriotic American look much better. I think aspire to his standards would be a large achievement. Do you have a big problem with patriotic Americans?
For example, Cravens blames JFK for the racial riot at Ole Miss. So, his book is biased in that way.
I would likely agree that if JFK had not gotten involved with a local law enforcement action, there would have been no riot.
As for the attack on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is documented history. I even interviewed Larrie Schmit himself on this topic (another Right Winger) and Larrie admitted the role of General Walker and the leaders of the Dallas JBS.
I disagree in two ways. There was no 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson and Edwin Walker was not at Stevenson's performance. There was a political protest, probably not much different from what some of the lefties are doing at Trump's rallies now.
Chris Cravens cites several local newspapers, showing that the Dallas press knew very well that General Walker was behind the attack -- that the attack was orchestrated the night before during the "USA Day" rally (in contrast to the "UN Day" rally of Adlai Stevenson." The auditorium itself was rigged. Walker made a joke about not being there -- that was his modus operandi.
You persist in saying 'attack on Stevenson', would you enumerate the injuries he sustained.
There's no way it was a peaceful protest. There was disruption inside the auditorium as well as physical attacks on Adlai outside the auditorium. Here's several news articles on that night:
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631023_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf
No mention of any 'attack'
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf
No mention of any 'attack'
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Texas_Observer.pdf
Ohh, this was bad, 'booing', 'laughing' 'coughing' "jangling charm bracelets" but no mention of any 'attack'
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631025_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf
Oh, now I see, that paper sign brushing against him could be considered an 'attack'. But, thankfully I've identified the problem. His police escort was all Radical Right Wing Walker Supporters. I read all four links and I missed any reference to Walker being present.
Chris Cravens could not deny the well-known facts, known throughout Dallas. Somehow, however, this common sense in Dallas was withheld from the Secret Service PRS for JFK's Dallas trip. The Dallas FBI and the Dallas SS were to blame for that, IMHO.
As for LHO and the Walker shooting -- you can't rightly say that there is "absolutely no evidence," since we have the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. Also, Michael Paine more recently admitted he saw a BYP one week before the Walker shooting, in LHO's Neely Street apartment.
Sworn testimony of Marina? Chuckle, which version. You referring to her testimony to the ARRB in the 70's? I have not seen anything 'sworn' in the WR that I would consider to not be fruits of the conspiracy.
I'd gratified that you believe that Joseph Milteer was "likely one of the planners of the assassination." This is a major breakthrough, IMHO, and a major break with the CIA-did-it CTers. You're on the right track, sir.
I've thought he was involved for quite some time, that's not a recent revelation. Certainly doesn't exclude the CIA being involved with him, along with several others.
Footnote: What do you make of that leftie liberal in Dallas attempting to eliminate all those Radical Right Wing policemen.
1. Kenneth, I agree that with regard to the JFK assassination, the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker has not been proven -- just as the case against the CIA was never proven, nor the case against the Mafia or LBJ and so on. As for Walker himself, I also agree -- and have always agreed -- that before he resigned from the Army, he was one of the great US Generals of World War Two. He served with courage and leadership and he earned his stripes the hard way. There is much to admire in Edwin Walker as a General.
Good comments.
When Walker quit the Army in 1961, however, this wasn't an ordinary retirement. Walker had 30 years of honorable military experience and so he had a right to a reasonable Army Pension. Yet Walker spurned that pension. A resignation from the US Army is very different from retirement -- an option that was wide open for him. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.
I understand all that. I agree that he quit. But if your boss comes in and tells you that you've been a bad boy and just go sit in the corner until you decide to retire, that's essentially what they did to Walker. Told he would never 'command again', do you think he had a lot of options. I think his resignation was a sign of formal protest. You do know that his pension was restored later.
The mythology about Walker says he was fired by JFK, or fired by the State Department, or some such nonsense. That's how it's explained. But the historical truth is that Walker was never fired from the Army. He resigned in 1961. Nor was that the first time. He also tried to resign in 1959, but President Eisenhower and the JCS denied that resignation. This was Walker's second resignation in protest.
What was he protesting? He wasn't protesting being fired -- just the opposite. In 1959 Walker joined the Birchers. Now, I realize that the Birchers are largely genteel, conservative Americans, lots of doctors, lawyers and dentists, basically good folks. Yet they had this weird belief, stimulated by a paranoid version of patriotic Anticommunism, namely, that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been Communists themselves.
What was he protesting.
Surely you know the answer to that. Your statement " that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been communists themselves" doesn't seem to be likely. How could the 'government' be communist? As for the past 4 presidents, I don't think any of them were communists and I've never seen any claim that Walker accused them of being communist themselves. That they were all influenced by communists, yes...especially FDR, and Truman to some extent and maybe even Ike, but I've not seen anything linking any communists to JFK. Walker certainly had an inside track to knowledge about the persons influencing presidents than I ever had.
Their belief was so weird that J. Edgar Hoover openly spoke out against them, and their leader Robert Welch, and held a solid rule that no FBI Agent could ever join them. Hoover had been a personal friend of President Eisenhower, and it offended Hoover to hear the Birchers say that Eisenhower was "a deliberate, conscious agent of the Communist Party."
How and when did Eisenhower and Hoover develop this 'personal friendship'? If you can give me a link to something the Birchers put out that accused Eisenhower of being a 'conscious agent of the Communist Party'. As I've said before, Ike worked with a lot of them, allies during WWII and probably developed a respect for the ones he worked with, but I don't think anyone has ever declared that Eisenhower was a 'communist agent'.
Nobody can say that J. Edgar Hoover was soft on Communism -- but the Birchers went too far according to Hoover.
But I also wouldn't say Hoover was 'hard' on communism either. I think it was all politics for him and them.
It is a direct consequence of this Bircher belief in the Communism of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK, that spurred General Walker to resign his post -- precisely because Walker was an honorable man. It was his honor that obliged him to resign from the US Army, because how could he then -- in conscience -- serve under a Communist, and go into the field and train soldiers to fight Communists?
I don't believe that was any part of the reason he resigned, I've already said why, in my opinion.
The Birchers had completely befuddled this formerly great American General, so that General Walker resigned from the Army in November 1961, and forfeited his Army Pension. Walker was the only US General in the 20th century to do that.
So, to answer your question, Kenneth, about my own loyalty -- no, I have no problems at all with patriotic Americans. I myself come from a military family. My dad and my four uncles all served in the Navy during World War Two. I'm proud of them. And as for General Walker, I'm proud of his service to our country.
My issue with General Walker was that he resigned from the US Army, and began to think of Washington DC as Communist. And while many Birchers just played the Bircher role at cocktail parties -- General Walker was a man of honor and action. Walker would act on his beliefs -- and that would take him into Ole Miss on 30 September 1962. Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..
If that's your problem with General Walker, I think it's time you started a serious reassessment as you seem to have totally have missed the mark on his reason for resigning. As far as Walker and Mississippi, Walker went there to protest, a right he defended in the military for most of his life. Why would Pres JFK violate the basic constitutional rights of Americans by using federal troops in a situation where it was not called for. Had the troops not been sent there at JFK's orders, the riots and deaths probably would not have occurred. I see no blame on Walker for JFK's misuse of his authority.
2. As for JFK calling on Federal Troops to protect James Meredith's right to attend college at Ole Miss, we should remember that there was a legal precedent for this, when President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.
Eisenhower illegally or improperly using federal troops is/was not a good precedent. Just because a law has been broken in the past does not establish precedent that it is a good thing to do.
It is an irony of history that Ike selected General Walker to lead those Federal Troops, and Walker successfully completed that mission. It was toward the end of that mission that General Walker joined the JBS and submitted his first resignation to the Army. Yet it was in reward for a successful mission that Eisenhower rewarded Walker with his command in Augsburg, Germany.
3. Kenneth, to say that there was an attack on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 24 October 1963 is a matter of history. Yes, it started out as a political protest, but it became massive, and turned to violence when one man spit on Adlai, and a woman clobbered Adlai over the head with her protest sign. It was in national news. The woman and the man were both arrested -- and they both belonged to the "Friends of Walker" organization in Dallas.
Why didn't those links you supplied above indicate the things you are claiming. One of them said a woman was holding a sign and that when someone bumped into her arm it did brush against Stevenson, but you'll note the woman was not arrested for assault, as I'm sure no 'intent' could be shown. Spitting? that's 'violence'. ? And tell me again how someone (Walker) that wasn't even there was 'responsible'. Your newspaper articles talk of a protest rally but I see nothing of an 'attack' on Stevenson and no relationship to Walker for the protest rally? It doesn't help your argument when you start 'making it up'
You are correct to note that Edwin Walker was not at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on that evening. Yet Walker was at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium that night before, where he gave explicit instructions to his many followers. This was in obedience to Robert Welch (leader of the Birchers) who set a rule for the Birchers, that they must never allow any Communist to complete any speech in their neighborhood, and to use all available means to stop that speech.
Why didn't they pick some other person that was at the arena the night before to 'claim' was leading an 'attack'. Using that logic, the shooter in Dallas the other day should blame it on whoever was there the day before he was. The General 'led' the charge from his easy chair at home. Wow, how heroic.
General Walker took that literally. He instructed his followers to use Halloween noisemakers, heckling, skits, to stand on their seats and give opposing speeches -- march down the aisles -- anything to stop the speech. It worked. Adlai did not finish his speech, and there are snippets of Adlai on YouTube on stage during this event.
Aren't you describing a protest rally? Not an 'attack'.
One of Walker's dramatic moves was to attach a giant banner to the ceiling of the auditorium, with the words, "UN out of US!" on the one side, and "US out of UN!" on the other side. The banner was then rolled up to the ceiling, and tied with a pull-string, so that when the string was pulled, the banner would unfold down to dramatically reveal the slogans. As every Bircher knows, those were two of the key slogans of the Birchers during that period of history. This was one more way to systematically disrupt Adlai's speech.
How did Walker get to the ceiling of the auditorium to attach that banner? You suppose the hired hands at the auditorium provided him with scaffolding? And you would put that in the category as an "attack".? Hmmmm....
General Walker trained his people to do this on the evening of 23 October 1963 at Dallas Memorial Auditorium the night before Adlai Stevenson's speech. Then, on the night of Adlai's speech, Walker went out to dinner with a friend. That was his modus operandi. He led the charge by training, rather than by physical presence.
Oh, he 'trained' them? Who documented the training and how long was the training sessions? Was it classroom training or 'on the job'?
5. As for the "injuries" that Adlai sustained, there was no hospitalization -- they were mainly the result of manhandling. The spitting was humiliating, but not painful, and the protest sign that hit him on the head made him stumble and nearly fall over except that a Adlai's friend held him up. When Adlai got in his car to get away, the large crowd there rocked his car back and forth, threatening to tip it over. But the driver got away. So the effect on Adlai was emotional strain, and not serious physical damage. Yet this treatment of an official from Washington DC was unexpected and shameful for most Americans. In the context of a genteel, polite evening of political speeches, it was called a political "attack", although I grant you that this was not a military attack.
Tell all of us why Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas in October, 1963? I believe he likely had an office in Washington DC and maybe one at or near the UN hdqtrs in New York, but what would be his reason to be in Texas in Oct 63? What was his speech about? Oh, it 'wasn't' and 'attack' it was a 'political attack'. Maybe if you can clearly tell us why Stevenson was in Dallas that day, you might determine that it was itself, an attack. So fill us in on why he was there?
6. Kenneth, I thank you for reading the newspaper articles that Chris Cravens reported in his historical research. They show that Dallas was aware that General Walker was the leader of that "political attack" on Adlai Stevenson. Chris Cravens adds further interviews in which Walker boasted about his role that night. As for the Dallas Police that night -- it is significant that they allowed the commotion to get out of hand to that extent -- and is possibly explained by a significant membership of Dallas Police in the JBS.
7. Kenneth, regarding Joseph Milteer, I'm interested in your statement about "the CIA being involved with him, along with several others." This is exactly my position -- the JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.
Civilian? led. As in 'not military'. If I knew all the answers, and I've read so many books about it since '6 Seconds in Dallas', I would write my own book, but several stories seem to be possible, but for me, while there are some things I certainly don't know, there are a few that I do know. LHO was NOT a shooter. LHO did not kill JDT. LHO did not own a rifle. The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved.
FOOTNOTE: Regarding the tragic news yesterday of the Dallas shooting, I'm broken-hearted about it, because it fans the flame of racial violence in the USA -- and ever since the Civil War, racial violence has been the Achilles Heel of our Union. Following the two shootings of Black Americans by policemen in Louisiana and Minnesota, and a speech by President Obama about it, it made this week more intensely sour than any week since 9/11, in my humble opinion.
The sad part here is when Obama was asked if he saw a common thread in these acts, he blamed it on guns. We do not stand a chance of solving problems if the President of the USA will not even acknowledge what the problem is. Just as he won't say the words 'Islamic terrorism"
I weep for the five lost officers in Dallas. Their murder was premeditated -- carefully planned -- tragic and purely evil. The only recent crime that can even compare to it, IMHO, is the Church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina that occurred at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on the evening of June 17, 2015.
The intent in both shootings appeared the same -- to start a race war. I pray to God that Americans refuse to follow in these evil footsteps.
I do agree this was the intent.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
Lots of interesting comments,
-
...3. LHO didn't necessarily use his rifle at all -- but what proves that he was involved was the fact that he knew about it on the same night that it happened.
I agree with that, especially since there has never been any proof that LHO ever owned a rifle in the state of Texas.
...7. The Backyard Photographs were made by LHO himself, at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. He used a Radical Right Winger, named Roscoe White, to help him.
This is possible, I say this only because it is clear that the BYP were fake photos, I don't think it shows that LHO ever had a rifle. I have no clue who actually faked the photos. Tell me again how White was identified as Radical?
...8. LHO was a CIA wannabe. He knew a lot about spying, but he was too head-strong (and not a college graduate) so he would never be a regular employee of the CIA, although that is probably the thing he wanted most in the whole world.
I doubt that the CIA required a college degree of their contract operators. Kinda 'special use' types, likely LHO's category.
9. When LHO worked for Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963, he truly believed that they were going to help him get a job with the CIA. So he cooperated with them fully.
All of those were CIA employees, why do you conclude LHO was not also?
...
Kenneth, we do agree on a few points -- namely, that LHO did not act to shoot General Walker (I) on his own; (II) with his own rifle; (III) on foot or bus; or (IV) bury his rifle.
Or any other way. Edit: I find it strange that you post a link below that contains a statement that the bullet fired at Walker was linked to LHO's rifle.
I think we may agree that LHO told Marina that he did all those four things. Marina believed him, and Marina told what she knew to the FBI.
I don't think LHO ever told Marina anything about any of the JFK conspiracy. Since he wasn't involved in the Walker shooting, I'm not sure why he would have said anything about that.
We also agree that the BYP were fakes. Jack White's work on the topic is supported by professionals in England and Canada, and I think it's scientifically proven.
Well, while I'm sure they were fakes, and have been proven to be, I don't think there is any evidence, only speculation, that LHO was involved in faking them.
In my theory, LHO himself made the fakes at his place of employment, namely, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, which had some very sophisticated photo equipment. We know that LHO made his fake ID's there for Alek J. Hidell. I say it is possible that LHO was fired from J-C-S because of this personal use of company equipment -- but the FBI would not let that truth come forward. Interviewing the children of the workers at J-C-S in 1963 would crack that case, IMHO.
I have no problem with those speculations..might have even thought along those lines myself.
As for Roscoe White, he was Radical because he was connected with Guy Banister personally. This was before he became a Dallas Policeman. This is from an alleged eye-witness, Ron Lewis, in his book, "Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald. (1993). Guy Banister was a committed racist and hired all the mercenaries he could afford.
Good for Roscoe, nice to know we had some patriotic Americans back then. That must mean then, that the theory is leaning toward 'patriotic Americans eliminated JFK'.
It was about the time that LHO went to Mexico City with his fake Leftist resume on the instructions of Guy Banister that Roscoe White joined the Dallas Police Force. IMHO, this was no coincidence. Roscoe White and LHO were both at Atsugi in the Marines at the same time -- they weren't strangers.
I still have never seen any evidence that LHO ever went to Mexico City. Lot's of guessing, but no evidence. I also don't see what difference it makes if he did, or not.
As for LHO wanting to be a CIA agent, but was never hired -- you suspect that the CIA would have hired a high-school graduate for "special use." However, I make a distinction between a regular CIA employee, with a nice salary, a nice car and a nice home, and the many mercenaries that the CIA would pick up for attacks on Cuba.
Ummm, I don't think LHO was a high school grad. But I know, from some personal experience that they will hire anyone that fits a particular need.
I named David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963, and you suggested that they were all "CIA employees." That's what CTKA and even Joan Mellen herself has claimed in the past 50 years -- but they're all mistaken, I say.
Count me amongst those that think Ferrie was, Don't know about the others.
These were mercenaries -- not even Field Agents. They were expendable and drew no regular salary. If they could find other work, they would. It was strictly part-time mercenary soldiering. We both know that the CIA was more than that, and I say that LHO was smarter than that -- and knew he was.
I can go along with that. But 'mercenary' means being paid as an employee for their services. While they may have only been temporary, that still qualifies them as CIA.
LHO wanted to be a regular spy -- with a regular salary. That was his motive for working with Guy Banister, because Guy Banister lied to LHO, promising to make him a CIA employee. David Ferrie, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin all lied to LHO, claiming to be CIA Agents. Clay Shaw also lied about it.
I think LHO was being paid by the CIA.
Notice, also, that LHO moved to New Orleans immediately after the Walker shooting. I say that's no coincidence. My theory is that Walker called Banister the very weekend after the shooting, with the knowledge that LHO had been his shooter. Again, here's Walker's signature on that fact:
Define 'immediately'. 30 minutes? one day? two day's? a week? two weeks? a month? Is everything that happened within that period, in Dallas, also reasons for him to move? Sounds like some more of that..... speculation.
http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf
I see nothing of interest there. by that I mean nothing related to JFK shooting or LHO.
Banister then called David Ferrie, who knew LHO since he was a kid. David Ferrie probably offered LHO a good job in the CIA if he would come to New Orleans, and Clay Shaw, the rich guy, probably gave LHO a cash advance to seal the deal.
Guy Banister then (in my theory) told LHO that the "mission" was to pretend to be an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans, and to get into police records, newspapers, radio and TV as an FPCC officer, and build up a Fake Resume to take to Mexico City, to get "instant passage" into Havana Cuba.
This was because all FPCC officers were given instant passage to Havana Cuba in those days.
All? of them?
Once in Cuba, LHO was told he would meet contacts there in order to assassinate Fidel Castro. They would then help LHO escape, and he would come back to the USA for a fat reward and a permanent job with the CIA -- and possibly a parade and maybe even a chance to be US President.
LHO took the bait -- and went through all the steps -- up to and including Mexico City, where he was laughed out of the Embassies there.
I think LHO was a little smarter than that.
By the way, if you want another look at Edwin Walker, the real mastermind of all this, here is my three-part Smashwords offering on the topic.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625
"and the Walker bullet is linked to Oswald’s ammunition." Not true. Steel jacketed bullet. JFK bullet copper.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629
More evidence that Walker was a very patriotic American.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646
It's interesting that you have apparently spent so much time studying a very patriotic American for the express purpose of linking him to the JFK assass but have been unable to come up with a single piece of evidence to link him to it. Is it just coincidence that you can't find it, or maybe it doesn't exist.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Kenneth,
What do you make of Marina Oswald's sworn testimony that LHO was the shooter at General Walker on 10 April 1963?
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Paul, there are so many versions of her 'testimony' I'm sure if I had to believe her I could find at least one version that might sound true. I especially like the one where he threw his rifle away after the shot, that means someone else must have found it and used it for the sniper rifle plant, well, except the bullet found was not from an MC rifle. If you could choose one of the statements that you believe, I'll try to tell you why it's made up. Maybe even who made it up. How did you decide which version you liked?
-
I'm glad you've read something about General Walker in the past -- did that happen to include the scholarly work, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) by Chris Cravens? That was Craven's masters thesis for his history degree. It's truly brilliant (and decades ahead of CTKA).
Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas? How credible can that be, he doesn't seem to know the correct terminology "Radical Right Wing in Dallas"
Cravens shows documented evidence that Walker orchestrated the Dallas attack on Adlai Stevenson. It's not imagination. Actually, it was well-known in Dallas.
Chuckle, "orchestrated Dallas attack" how did he orchestrate it when he wasn't there? Was it really an 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson? wouldn't it be more correctly labeled as a peaceful protest? Surely it would if it were done by liberals.
No witness saw LHO shoot at Walker, no bullet has been tied to Oswald. In fact, absolutely no evidence ties LHO to the Walker shooting.
I have no opinion about Don Adams, have read nothing about him except on this thread. I think Milteer was likely one of the planners of the assassination
Kenneth, regarding Chris Craven's 1993 breakthrough, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) you mocked his title, saying it should be the "Radical Right Wing," since I'm extolling the book. Actually, however, Chris Cravens wrote his book as a defense of Edwin Walker. He deliberately hides facts to make Walker look better than later history will reveal him.
Edwin Walker has not been proven to have been involved in the JFK assassination by anyone, ever. It seems as if it would be a big task to make a very patriotic American look much better. I think aspire to his standards would be a large achievement. Do you have a big problem with patriotic Americans?
For example, Cravens blames JFK for the racial riot at Ole Miss. So, his book is biased in that way.
I would likely agree that if JFK had not gotten involved with a local law enforcement action, there would have been no riot.
As for the attack on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is documented history. I even interviewed Larrie Schmit himself on this topic (another Right Winger) and Larrie admitted the role of General Walker and the leaders of the Dallas JBS.
I disagree in two ways. There was no 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson and Edwin Walker was not at Stevenson's performance. There was a political protest, probably not much different from what some of the lefties are doing at Trump's rallies now.
Chris Cravens cites several local newspapers, showing that the Dallas press knew very well that General Walker was behind the attack -- that the attack was orchestrated the night before during the "USA Day" rally (in contrast to the "UN Day" rally of Adlai Stevenson." The auditorium itself was rigged. Walker made a joke about not being there -- that was his modus operandi.
You persist in saying 'attack on Stevenson', would you enumerate the injuries he sustained.
There's no way it was a peaceful protest. There was disruption inside the auditorium as well as physical attacks on Adlai outside the auditorium. Here's several news articles on that night:
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631023_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf
No mention of any 'attack'
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf
No mention of any 'attack'
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Texas_Observer.pdf
Ohh, this was bad, 'booing', 'laughing' 'coughing' "jangling charm bracelets" but no mention of any 'attack'
http://www.pet880.com/images/19631025_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf
Oh, now I see, that paper sign brushing against him could be considered an 'attack'. But, thankfully I've identified the problem. His police escort was all Radical Right Wing Walker Supporters. I read all four links and I missed any reference to Walker being present.
Chris Cravens could not deny the well-known facts, known throughout Dallas. Somehow, however, this common sense in Dallas was withheld from the Secret Service PRS for JFK's Dallas trip. The Dallas FBI and the Dallas SS were to blame for that, IMHO.
As for LHO and the Walker shooting -- you can't rightly say that there is "absolutely no evidence," since we have the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. Also, Michael Paine more recently admitted he saw a BYP one week before the Walker shooting, in LHO's Neely Street apartment.
Sworn testimony of Marina? Chuckle, which version. You referring to her testimony to the ARRB in the 70's? I have not seen anything 'sworn' in the WR that I would consider to not be fruits of the conspiracy.
I'd gratified that you believe that Joseph Milteer was "likely one of the planners of the assassination." This is a major breakthrough, IMHO, and a major break with the CIA-did-it CTers. You're on the right track, sir.
I've thought he was involved for quite some time, that's not a recent revelation. Certainly doesn't exclude the CIA being involved with him, along with several others.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
Footnote: What do you make of that leftie liberal in Dallas attempting to eliminate all those Radical Right Wing policemen.
-
This thread is now a year old, and Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), is now fairly well-known.
I've shown over several months on this thread that I've followed Dr. Caufield rather closely, and in fact he and I enjoyed an email correspondence a couple years ago, as he would share great new insights with me (and I'd share my notes from UT Austin's Briscoe Center Archives of General Walker's personal papers with him -- most of which he already had).
I didn't know until his book was published, however, that Jeff Caufield was a big fan of Gary Wean's theory of the "Fake Assassination Attempt". Yet he admitted it was speculative, and I admit it's an interesting theory, as many writers have proposed it, including somebody named William Fritz (no relation to Captain Will Fritz) and Don DeLillo and others.
Yet I still feel my take on the relationship of LHO to General Walker has more FBI evidence to support it. It goes like this:
1. Marina Oswald told the truth that she knew -- which wasn't much, because LHO would like to her continually -- and she'd believe him.
2. LHO didn't act alone in the shooting at Walker. Eye-witnesses saw multiple shooters and at least one automobile.
3. LHO didn't necessarily use his rifle at all -- but what proves that he was involved was the fact that he knew about it on the same night that it happened.
I agree with that, especially since there has never been any proof that LHO ever owned a rifle in the state of Texas.
4. So, LHO lied to Marina when he said he: (i) was on foot; (ii) buried his rifle; and (iii) acted alone.
5. Marina simply believed his lies, and honestly reported what she believed.
6. Marina Oswald knew nothing of LHO's connections with the Radical Right, or any of those personnel.
7. The Backyard Photographs were made by LHO himself, at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. He used a Radical Right Winger, named Roscoe White, to help him.
This is possible, I say this only because it is clear that the BYP were fake photos, I don't think it shows that LHO ever had a rifle. I have no clue who actually faked the photos.
Tell me again how White was identified as Radical?
7.1. We know this because Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, right-wrist and stance alone appear in the Backyard Photographs.
7.2. Also, LHO owned no black trousers or shirt, as in the BYP.
7.3. Marina said she took one-and-only-one Backyard Photograph. I believe her. The FBI refused to believe her because they had 3 different poses, but she insisted.
7.4. Roscoe White had a 4th pose.
7.5. LHO signed one of the poses and delivered it to George DeMohrenschildt in the record player that George and Jeanne had lent to Marina.
7.6. LHO made several Fakes at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall because he knew about "Plausible Denial."
8. LHO was a CIA wannabe. He knew a lot about spying, but he was too head-strong (and not a college graduate) so he would never be a regular employee of the CIA, although that is probably the thing he wanted most in the whole world.
I doubt that the CIA required a college degree of their contract operators. Kinda 'special use' types, likely LHO's category.
9. When LHO worked for Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963, he truly believed that they were going to help him get a job with the CIA. So he cooperated with them fully.
All of those were CIA employees, why do you conclude LHO was not also?
9.1. Guy Banister's crew in New Orleans all pretended to be in the CIA, but that was entirely bogus (except that Clay Shaw was a part-time informer during WW2 and a bit after).
10. Guy Banister knew General Ex-Walker -- and Dr. Jeff Caufield proved that beyond any doubt.
11. Ex-General Walker knew that LHO was *one* of his April shooters, and we have many writings by Walker (aside from that letter to Frank Church that I shared above) to prove this.
12. Therefore, the case for a Banister-Walker plot to sheep-dip (as Jim Garrison would say) LHO as a phony Communist, is very strong.
13. Ex-General Walker intended to frame LHO for the murder of JFK in revenge for the April shooting.
14. Even after LHO was dead, Ex-General Walker was still paranoid about the "second shooter" and we know this because of the Warren Commission testimony of James Herbert Martin (Volume I).
So, with respects to Dr. Jeff Caufield for a fantastic book on the JFK murder, this is the one point with which I will continue to differ -- there simply was no "Fake Assassination Attempt" that linked Walker with LHO.
Instead, LHO was completely fooled by Guy Banister and his crew, and truly believed that "someone would come forward to give me legal assistance" there in that Dallas jail.
That said, everything else that Caufield revealed is mind-blowing -- Willie Somerset and Joseph Milteer crack the case, and Milteer's close connections with Ex-General Walker and Guy Banister supply solid evidence. Caufield provides tons of FBI documents to make his case.
No more need to make stuff up about the CIA, LBJ or the Mafia -- we finally have the right approach -- after 50 years.
Stay tuned, new theory coming out soon, I think it might involve the Radical Left Wing of Dallas.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Paul wrote: "It's too bad you haven't read much about General Walker, Kenneth. Did you know, for example, that the attack on Adlai Stevenson one month before the JFK murder was orchestrated by General Walker?"
Actually I have read some on General Walker over the years, especially when he personally led the crucifixion of Jesus, no wait......Sometimes fiction is stranger than facts. Walker has been blamed for every hangnail and ingrown toenail for several years in the 50's and 60's. I'll bet he wishes he had thought of some of those escapades he has been credited with. If Oswald were 'working' with Walker to kill JFK, then why was he blamed for an attempt on Walker himself? I guess that was just part of the setting LHO up as the patsy. What I can't figure out, Paul, is why you've bought into this strange 'story'. Not one thing I've read in any of these comments would make me change my mind one bit about my thoughts of the assassination and my thoughts do not even include the name Walker. I did attempt to read a sample of the book, but for some reason Amazon does not supply a sample for Kindle as they usually do for every Kindle book they sell. Perhaps it is thought that if anyone read a sample there is no way they would buy the book. I did follow you recommendation above where you list several quotes from the book and am still going to some of them. If I find one that sounds reasonable, I'll let you know. Incidentally, I don't believe LHO ever made an attempt on Walker.
I'm glad you've read something about General Walker in the past -- did that happen to include the scholarly work, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) by Chris Cravens? That was Craven's masters thesis for his history degree. It's truly brilliant (and decades ahead of CTKA).
Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas? How credible can that be, he doesn't seem to know the correct terminology "Radical Right Wing in Dallas"
Cravens shows documented evidence that Walker orchestrated the Dallas attack on Adlai Stevenson. It's not imagination. Actually, it was well-known in Dallas.
Chuckle, "orchestrated Dallas attack" how did he orchestrate it when he wasn't there? Was it really an 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson? wouldn't it be more correctly labeled as a peaceful protest? Surely it would if it were done by liberals.
Also, it's mere speculation that Oswald was 'working' with Walker to kill JFK. Even Jeff Caufield will not stand by that theory, although he will give it some room when considering Gary Wean's theory.
speculation? talk about understatement.
The great question in that case is exactly what you asked, Kenneth, namely, why did LHO then shoot at Walker? JFK was on the Left; and Walker was on the Right. So -- it makes no sense. That has been noted for decades by many writers.
No witness saw LHO shoot at Walker, no bullet has been tied to Oswald. In fact, absolutely no evidence ties LHO to the Walker shooting.
I think my own theory makes the most sense -- it brings into focus the infamous George De Mohrenschildt. Few seem to know how much George De Mohrenschildt hated Ex-General Walker, especially after the Old Miss racial riots. This can be seen in autobiographical detail, however, in George's book, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy! (1977).
The best likelihood is that LHO was in thrall to George De Mohrenschildt in early 1963, and under his influence chose to impress George, Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and all these wealthy yuppie engineers in Dallas.
Despite his sworn WC testimony to the contrary, Ex-General Walker later admitted that he knew all about LHO's attempt on his life, as early as a few days after the shooting. (In this context, there is truth in Gary Wean's theory). Here's solid evidence with Walker's own signature:
http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf
So, by connecting General Walker with Guy Banister so effectively, we have the core of a plot between Dallas and New Orleans. I think this is closer to the truth than any other writer has ever published.
Does this influence your opinion, Kenneth? By the way -- what is your opinion about FBI Agent Don Adams, and his testimony about Willie Somerset and Joseph Milteer?
I have no opinion about Don Adams, have read nothing about him except on this thread. I think Milteer was likely one of the planners of the assassination.
Influence my opinion? absolutely not. Absolutely nothing tying LHO to Walker or Walker to the assassination. All pulled out of someone's orifice.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Paul wrote: "This demolishes the CIA-did-it theories"
Can't really see that reasoning. According to the commonly accepted definition of 'radical right wing', (that they are conservatives that love this country) that would seem to include most members of the CIA. Very few CIA guys are likely lefty liberals. So Edwin Walker got relieved of his duties in the Army and this infuriated the policemen in Dallas and they all got together and agreed to shoot JFK the next time he came to town and LHO agreed to pretend to order a rifle that he could plant on the sixth floor so that they would immediately jump to the conclusion that he did it, even though he was going to be on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom at the time so he could add to the confusion, then he was to proceed to the area where he could shoot JD Tippit because Edwin Walker wanted to get rid of the real shooter so he could not lead the police back to him. Not that he had to worry about that because all of the police there in Dallas were in the tank for Walker and certainly were not going to give anyone any evidence leading back to their leader and inspiration. Yep, I'd say this book has really opened some new avenues and finally given us all the answers. Now tell us again why the doctors that did the autopsy altered the findings. What was there in the autopsy that was going to point to Walker if they didn't alter the findings? And what was the reason J Edgar played along with Walker and arrested LHO and then got him eliminated? Was Hoover afraid LHO couldn't handle his part was going to lead back to Walker? I guess I just need to throw in a little more 'speculation' to come up with the answers that fit. It is nice that Walker wanted to include Davis, very compassionate of him.
Kenneth, I agree with you that when people are committed to their version of politics, they consider it to be patriotic.
Yet if we all agreed on the definition of patriotic, freedom and so on, then there would never be any political debate or any elections.
Just because a person is patriotic -- that is not enough to earn the label of Radical Right Wing. For example, J. Edgar Hoover refused to allow any FBI Agents to be members of the John Birch Society. That's a fact, did you know that?
I'm gonna guess that he also didn't allow his agent to belong to the church headed by MLK
Therefore, there must be a distinction between Right Wing (Hoover) and Radical Right Wing (General Walker).
As I now understand your definition or Radical Right Wing, it translates to "Patriotic American" Right?
What was the difference in this case? Well, Hoover spelled it out -- the Birchers openly said that President Eisenhower was a "deliberate, conscious agent of the Communist Party." J. Edgar Hoover was outraged by that nonsense. Anti-communism was important to Hoover, but statements like that -- from the Birchers and from General Walker -- well, that was counter-productive.
I'm not going to get into a big discussion about who was a communist and who wasn't. I will say that it is generally acknowledged that Eisenhower had a reasonable working relationship with the Soviets as a result of them working together to defeat Germany. But I do not believe him to be 'communist' in any form. I can see why some might think he had a closer relationship than I do.
Even so, the Birchers considered themselves super-patriots.
I would agree with that. Just as a footnote. I grew up in Georgia, so i'm quite aware of groups such as the John Birch society. I was never a member, but some of the things they did were ok.
The same applies to the CIA. Nobody who believes that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK were really and truly Communists would remain employed by the CIA or even the Pentagon. This was precisely the reason that Ex-General Walker resigned his commission!
I think General Walker resigned because he was told he was never going to get a high command again. i.e., he was on their sh*t list. You do agree, don't you, that both FDR and Truman had quite a number of communists in their administrations, don't you?
Of course, this cannot exclude ROGUES within the FBI and the CIA. So, when I say that the FBI and the CIA were not the killers of JFK, I mean that as Institutions, there was no official conspiracy by the CIA.
Not sure I can agree with that. I think there was quite a large conspiracy which included both the CIA and FBI and others high in the government, especially the military part of it. I can see no basis for any conclusion that LHO was not a patsy used by the CIA. He did not order a rifle, he did not shoot at Walker, he did not shoot at JFK, he was no where near JD Tippit.
We have personal confessions of two CIA men, that I'm aware of, namely, Howard Hunt and David Morales. But they were not the heads of the CIA -- they were ROGUES who were heartbroken over the fate of Cuba.
I have no problem with Hunt and Morales confessions, I think they are very likely almost completely true. I don't think either of them had the total picture.
I say that Howard Hunt and David Morales joined the Radical RIght under the leadership of Ex-General Walker.
Sounds like more of that '
speculation' making it up as you go along..Now can you see the reasoning, Kenneth? It's a matter of degree. Right Wing is not the same as Radical Right Wing. For the Birchers, even US Presidents were part of the Communist Menace. That's going too far.
You doubt that the communists were significant to FDR and continued into the Truman Admin.? Never looked into the Vernona Files, eh? I'm guessing you would even put Joe McCarthy into the 'radical right wing' category
You're mistaken about General Walker, Kenneth, if you believe he was fired by the US Army. He wasn't. He QUIT. JFK had even offered Walker a new post in Hawaii. Nor was this the first time that Walker submitted his resignation -- he actually submitted his resignation in 1959 to President Eisenhower -- but Ike rejected it and gave Walker a promotion to Augsburg, Germany.
Being forced to quit is kinda like being fired. I would say I think he might have been better off to just retire, but apparently he was a principled person.
Also, Kenneth, it sounds like you should read up on the Radical Right Wing politics of the South during 1961-1963, and the large role that Ex-General Walker played in those politics. It's largely ancient history today -- but in those days, it was big news. And Cuba was the centerpiece.
As I said, I grew up in Georgia and have lived all my life in the south, I was in my 20's during the 60's so I was very aware of what was going on. I would say that integration was probably a larger centerpiece during the 50's and 60's than Cuba was.
You can mock the scenario all you want, but I ask you take a closer look at the data. LHO was a patsy who was set up by the Radical Right Wing to look just like a Radical Left Winger who backed Fidel Castro and Communist Cuba. (Yet there are many professional journalists to this very day who still believe the Banister hoax.)
I will agree that LHO was set up as a lefty, except that wouldn't explain why he would want to assassinate a lefty president, would it?
Jeffrey Caufield shows (along with Jim Garrison) that LHO was always a bogus member of the Radical Left Wing. From New Orleans to Mexico City, LHO was playing a role that the Radical Right Wing had laid out for him.
One of the questions that Jeff Caufield leaves open is the degree to which LHO knew what was happening. That's why Caufield is willing to conjecture about the "Fake Assassination Plot" pioneered by Gary Wean back in 1979.
Quite generous of Jeff to leave that open, since he seems to not have a clue.
I say that's mistaken -- but then Jeff Caufield only presents it as speculation -- and that's fine with me.
I agree with Jeff Caufield on this point -- J.D. Tippit's role was to eliminate LHO, so that all the circumstantial evidence that the Radical Right Wing had accumulated would have made this an open-and-shut case in any US courtroom. The hellish surprise for the Radical Right was that LHO was too quick on the draw, and shot Tippit instead.
I thought JD's role was to shoot JFK? Then someone else was set up to take out JD. LHO's role by that time was to go to Texas Theatre where he was to be apprehended as the patsy. We know for sure that LHO was no where near where Tippit was shot. If LHO had a revolver, why were the shells from the bullets that shot Tippit from an automatic pistol?
Still, LHO was cool as a cucumber after his arrest -- and he truly expected "somebody to come forward and give me legal assistance." LHO was still playing up to the Radical Right, just as he had throughout the Spring and Summer of 1963 in New Orleans. He kept his mouth shut.
So where did the 'playing up to the Radical Right" come from?
Now -- Kenneth -- as to the altered autopsy findings. We know first and foremost that the Dallas Doctors were innocent of such nonsense. They reported the Truth, that is, there were shots from both front and rear. It was only the Bethesda Doctors who lied about the autopsy. You agree with that much, don't you?
Yep
Now -- here's the point where I believe I have a superior theory. The "Lone Nut" doctrine was the brainchild of J. Edgar Hoover, and he devised that theory by 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, when he decided for himself (probably with his fat FBI files on LHO) that LHO was a patsy of General Walker and Guy Banister and that phony FPCC in New Orleans.
fat FBI files on LHO? I guess we should assume that LHO, just being that young guy from down the street should have a 'fat FBI file', didn't everyone? Maybe he did because he was working with the CIA and who ever.
We know this because we have FBI files that show Hoover calling RFK and denying everything that the Dallas Police (and General Walker) was screaming -- that LHO was a Communist!
General Walker was screaming about LHO? Sounds like more of that speculation stuff. Did LHO go through the motions to lead some to the conclusion that he was a communist.
Hoover knew that LHO was no Communist and no FPCC officer -- and he told RFK just that. That's when Hoover decided to stick it to the Radical Right --- with his "Lone Nut" theory of LHO.
Oh, so it was just Hoover's 'it was the Radical Right' theory?
See, General Walker and his group wanted one thing with all their might -- they wanted the USA to take back Cuba. If they could blame the JFK murder on the Communists, then the USA would hurry up and invade Cuba.
So Walker was passionate about liberating the citizens of Cuba? Doesn't make sense to me.
But Hoover stole that option out from under their noses with his brilliant fib -- the "Lone Nut" theory. No invasion. General Walker was foiled. The Radical Right lost.
I would say that JFK was the loser.
Now, by this time LBJ and Allen Dulles had already accepted the "Lone Nut" strategy, and that's why Bethesda was ordered to falsify the autopsy. That had nothing to do with Walker.
Oh, so the order to falsify the autopsy came straight from LBJ... Now you're getting there. But of course LBJ didn't have anything ELSE to do with the assassination? Right?
Now do you understand?
Yep, think I've got it..
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>
-
"Radical Right" " Radical Right" is there a dictabelt loop somewhere repeating that in your head as you write? what is 'radical right'? Are you saying all Dallas police officers back then were 'radical right'? Dallas Book Depository 'free and clear' for full 5 minutes? Wasn't there a police officer(Marion Baker) inside the building in the 2nd floor lunchroom within 90 seconds?
Regarding this: "because Caufield said, explicitly, that at a certain point, after covering the evidence about Joseph Milteer, Willie Somerset, Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald, that the researcher is obliged to speculate." Wouldn't that ring much truer if
that the researcher is obliged to speculatewere replaced with " and then you just make it up as you go along. I read at least one book of fiction a week, and every one of them 'could' be true, but most are clearly just fiction. From all the comments I've read about this book, there seems to be very little 'known' true information in it. Though I have not read this book, and don't intend to, I have read a lot from some trying to link Edwin Walker to the conspiracy but have seen absolutely nothing convincing. There are far more persons with a lot more to gain from the death of JFK than Walker.OK, Kenneth, you ask what the Radical Right is. I'm a little surprised that an intelligent American with your wide experience would ask this question -- but I suppose that you're simply testing me.
Of course the answer must be taken in the context of the decade of which we speak, namely, the early 1960's. The key players in the Radical Right in the USA included the States Rights Parties, the John Birch Society, the White Citizens Councils, and various right-wingers for whom J. Edgar Hoover himself was not Anti-communist enough.
The leaders of these groups tended to focus on Ex-General Edwin Walker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century, thereby forfeiting his 30 year Army pension. Newsweek magazine put him on their front cover, which illustrates my point.
http://www.pet880.com/images/19611204_Newsweek_Cover.JPG
As for your question, "were all Dallas police officers 'radical right'?" of course in sociology the term "all" never applies, but according to former FBI man, the late William Turner, it was impossible to join the Dallas police force in the early 1960's without membership in at least one right-wing organization -- the WCC, the JBS or the KKK. Clearly there were exceptions, but not many, according to Turner.
DPD officer Marion Baker, by the way, was not only inside the TSBD building within seconds, but he ran all the way up the stairs to the rooftop with Roy Truly to look down to see most of the DPD searching around the parking lot behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll.
So, yes -- for the first 5 minutes he was the only DPD office up there, and he seems clueless. (He even met Lee Harvey Oswald on his way up, and just kept on running!).
So, either Officer Baker was clueless, or else he knew that LHO was the Patsy, but that the Patsy had to be eliminated while trying to escape -- and not in cold blood, so he just let him go.
As for speculation about the shooters, Kenneth, there are guesses and then there are educated guesses. Willie Somerset offers so many relevant facts, recorded by the FBI, that no guesswork should be considered apart from all his evidence about the Radical RIght in the South.
It's too bad you haven't read much about General Walker, Kenneth. Did you know, for example, that the attack on Adlai Stevenson one month before the JFK murder was orchestrated by General Walker?
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
It's too bad you haven't read much about General Walker, Kenneth. Did you know, for example, that the attack on Adlai Stevenson one month before the JFK murder was orchestrated by General Walker? Actually I have read some on General Walker over the years, especially when he personally led the crucifixion of Jesus, no wait......Sometimes fiction is stranger than facts. Walker has been blamed for every hangnail and ingrown toenail for several years in the 50's and 60's. I'll bet he wishes he had thought of some of those escapades he has been credited with. If Oswald were 'working' with Walker to kill JFK, then why was he blamed for an attempt on Walker himself? I guess that was just part of the setting LHO up as the patsy. What I can't figure out, Paul, is why you've bought into this strange 'story'. Not one thing I've read in any of these comments would make me change my mind one bit about my thoughts of the assassination and my thoughts do not even include the name Walker. I did attempt to read a sample of the book, but for some reason Amazon does not supply a sample for Kindle as they usually do for every Kindle book they sell. Perhaps it is thought that if anyone read a sample there is no way they would buy the book. I did follow you recommendation above where you list several quotes from the book and am still going to some of them. If I find one that sounds reasonable, I'll let you know. Incidentally, I don't believe LHO ever made an attempt on Walker.
-
More on Cauifled's "assassins":
"And it was here that Somersett first said that a man named Ted Jackman was also an assassin in Dealey Plaza. (In addition to the aforementioned J. D. Tippit.) He later added a man named R. E. Davis. Davis was 73 years old in 1963. Back then the life expectancy for a male was 66. If we translated Davis’ age to today, with life expectancy much longer, he would be 80 in 1963. Hopefully Milteer was giving him his arthritis pills regularly."
Very smart Paul, the equivalent on an 80 year old sniper.
Careful there James, I'm almost that old and can still aim a rifle competently. Not sure why Davis was necessary since they seem to have had so many police officers at the command of Edwin Walker.
James isn't being careful in his attacks of Caufield -- he's only reacting to the fact that in the past two decades he has strained his focus on the CIA, and has evaded the elephant in the room -- the Radical Right Wing led by Edwin Walker.
Identifying the actual shooters is a complex business -- and James DiEugenio, for all his complaining, also fails to supply us with a verifiable list of shooters.
Everybody knows at this stage of the JFK research, all guesses regarding the names of the shooters themselves is guesswork.
But Kenneth is right at this stage -- being an older man is no proof that he couldn't shoot a rifle well.
The most important criterion for a shooter at JFK is that he would HATE JFK with his whole heart and soul. There needn't be any money in the task at all. In fact, a person who acts out of political passion is more reliable on all counts, as Jeff Caufield rightly noted.
That said, the reason that Jeff Caufield named the suspects that he named, including Jackman, was because Willie Somerset himself named Jackman. Somerset was clearly stomped on by the FBI -- just like FBI Agent Don Adams was stomped on, and anybody else who questioned J. Edgar Hoover's dogma of a "Lone Nut".
The data supplied by Willie Somerset must be filtered to remove the crud of the smashing by the FBI -- and only then will we be able to make out its rational content.
What is crystal clear is that Willie Somerset names the Radical Right wing as the murderers of JFK. This demolishes the CIA-did-it theories that continue to give JFK CT theory a bad name -- to this very day.
Jeff Caufield's new book is a work of GENIUS compared to any writers of the CTKA literature -- which is now obsolete.
Imagine concluding as the CTKA concluded, that because Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood girlfriend who later became a mistress of Allen Dulles, that this is "proof* that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent. It's finally time to shut down the CIA-did-it nonsense. Just read Jeff Caufield's new book, and learn the TRUTH about who killed JFK.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
"This demolishes the CIA-did-it theories"
Can't really see that reasoning. According to the commonly accepted definition of 'radical right wing', (that they are conservatives that love this country) that would seem to include most members of the CIA. Very few CIA guys are likely lefty liberals. So Edwin Walker got relieved of his duties in the Army and this infuriated the policemen in Dallas and they all got together and agreed to shoot JFK the next time he came to town and LHO agreed to pretend to order a rifle that he could plant on the sixth floor so that they would immediately jump to the conclusion that he did it, even though he was going to be on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom at the time so he could add to the confusion, then he was to proceed to the area where he could shoot JD Tippit because Edwin Walker wanted to get rid of the real shooter so he could not lead the police back to him. Not that he had to worry about that because all of the police there in Dallas were in the tank for Walker and certainly were not going to give anyone any evidence leading back to their leader and inspiration. Yep, I'd say this book has really opened some new avenues and finally given us all the answers. Now tell us again why the doctors that did the autopsy altered the findings. What was there in the autopsy that was going to point to Walker if they didn't alter the findings? And what was the reason J Edgar played along with Walker and arrested LHO and then got him eliminated? Was Hoover afraid LHO couldn't handle his part was was going to lead back to Walker? I guess I just need to throw in a little more 'speculation' to come up with the answers that fit. It is nice that Walker wanted to include Davis, very compassionate of him.
-
More on Cauifled's "assassins":
"And it was here that Somersett first said that a man named Ted Jackman was also an assassin in Dealey Plaza. (In addition to the aforementioned J. D. Tippit.) He later added a man named R. E. Davis. Davis was 73 years old in 1963. Back then the life expectancy for a male was 66. If we translated Davis’ age to today, with life expectancy much longer, he would be 80 in 1963. Hopefully Milteer was giving him his arthritis pills regularly."
Very smart Paul, the equivalent on an 80 year old sniper.
Careful there James, I'm almost that old and can still aim a rifle competently. Not sure why Davis was necessary since they seem to have had so many police officers at the command of Edwin Walker.
-
"Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. "
So you don't know who the shooters were? At least you didn't say LHO. And if you can't name a shooter, how can you identify him(them) as 'radical right'?
"The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" By whom and when are they going to let us in on it?
"all the CT-did-it fellows" let me see if I understand.....there was no CT but "The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" If I interpret that correctly, there was not a CT but there WAS a conspiracy?
No, Kenneth, that's a typo. I intended to say, "all the CIA-did-it fellows" were the mistaken ones.
Yes, there was a conspiracy -- but it wasn't the CIA -- it was the Radical Right led by General Walker.
The shooters were protected by the Dallas Police and the Dallas Sheriff's office, IMHO.
These officers led the public, the press and each other into the area behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll -- for at least five minutes. Nobody saw anything -- except other policemen back there. And NOBODY in those days would suspect the police of the shooting -- would they?
These same officers allowed the TSBD to be free and clear for at least five minutes before sending hundreds of police into it.
Anybody could have slipped out of the TSBD in those first five minutes. It was COORDINATED by the Dallas police and deputies.
The Dallas officers controlled the scene of the crime, the evidence, the witnesses, the suspects, the testimony, the photographs, the movie film, the automobiles -- every aspect of the crime scene.
The most likely scenario is that these Dallas officers were also the shooters. Two shooters have been named in the past 50 years, namely, Roscoe White of the DPD, and J.D. Tippit, also of the DPD. Jeff Caufield also links J.D. Tippit with General Walker -- and so this gives extra weight to that suspicion. The Tippit suspicion is one of Caufield's most interesting links.
So -- the shooters were among the Radical Right -- and I think Caufield makes a fair case for that -- but there were so many young hot-shots who would have stepped up to do this for misplaced patriotic reasons, that it will take us many more years before their surviving relatives are finally willing to come forward. That's my opinion.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
"Radical Right" " Radical Right" is there a dictabelt loop somewhere repeating that in your head as you write? what is 'radical right'? Are you saying all Dallas police officers back then were 'radical right'? Dallas Book Depository 'free and clear' for full 5 minutes? Wasn't there a police officer(Marion Baker) inside the building in the 2nd floor lunchroom within 90 seconds?
Regarding this: "because Caufield said, explicitly, that at a certain point, after covering the evidence about Joseph Milteer, Willie Somerset, Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald, that the researcher is obliged to speculate." Wouldn't that ring much truer if
that the researcher is obliged to speculatewere replaced with " and then you just make it up as you go along. I read at least one book of fiction a week, and every one of them 'could' be true, but most are clearly just fiction. From all the comments I've read about this book, there seems to be very little 'known' true information in it. Though I have not read this book, and don't intend to, I have read a lot from some trying to link Edwin Walker to the conspiracy but have seen absolutely nothing convincing. There are far more persons with a lot more to gain from the death of JFK than Walker. -
don adams, huh. that's a wowzer. if memory serves me well (thanks for that one bob) this means you are bringing the famed maxwell smart (aka agent 86) and his shoe phone onto the investigative team (bravo for you!). as if that weren't enough we get inspector gadget and underdog along with him. i'm certain control can now beat kaos. we can't lose
just one thing before i enter the cone of silence: do you know if agent 99 is seeing anyone? she is hot.
yr. friend
tennessee tuxedo
smile everyone. jim valvano says we should do that everyday
"smile everyone. jim valvano says we should do that everyday" yes, and have your emotions moved to tears everyday" great man.
-
It's probably been over a year since I read or wrote on this thread, mostly because I lost interest rather early because it contain(ed) nothing new or reasonable at that time. It seems as if it is mostly someone trying to blame someone else for the assassination. A little 'mis-direction' perhaps. Until someone can actually say who pulled the trigger(s) in Dealey Plaza that day, there is no way that anyone can say who planned it. There is no doubt that LHO was not one of the shooters, or that he never owned a rifle. I realize the plotters did a good job of setting LHO up, but not good enough that they were ever able to put a gun in his hand. To try to blame 'right wing' for the conspiracy is just the way democrats do things. The people that gained politically by the assassination, were all democrats. The business people that benefited were a mixture of right and left. I especially like the statement by Martin Blank just above: "you can say anything you want in a work of fiction" This is clearly a book whereby the plot is all fiction, bolstered by just enough facts (which could apply to most scenarios) to make it seem slightly possible.
Well, Kenneth, this thread is not quite one year old, so it hasn't been as long as you think.
While some people might claim that Jeff Caufield's new book (2015) isn't new, this is because some of the information about Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset has been widely known.
But nothing tothe extent that Jeff Caufield has written. Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. It was led by Ex-General Edwin Walker, the only US General in the 20th century to resign his command and forfeit his US Army Pension -- the leader of the Old Miss racial riots of 1962.
Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. . Read all about Jeff Caufield's new and exciting data on Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset. You'll be glad you did.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
"Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. "
So you don't know who the shooters were? At least you didn't say LHO. And if you can't name a shooter, how can you identify him(them) as 'radical right'?
"The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" By whom and when are they going to let us in on it?
"all the CT-did-it fellows" let me see if I understand.....there was no CT but "The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" If I interpret that correctly, there was not a CT but there WAS a conspiracy?
Well, even though it hasn't been quite a full year, it's obvious that there is still nothing new to be added to the story.
-
It's probably been over a year since I read or wrote on this thread, mostly because I lost interest rather early because it contain(ed) nothing new or reasonable at that time. It seems as if it is mostly someone trying to blame someone else for the assassination. A little 'mis-direction' perhaps. Until someone can actually say who pulled the trigger(s) in Dealey Plaza that day, there is no way that anyone can say who planned it. There is no doubt that LHO was not one of the shooters, or that he never owned a rifle. I realize the plotters did a good job of setting LHO up, but not good enough that they were ever able to put a gun in his hand. To try to blame 'right wing' for the conspiracy is just the way democrats do things. The people that gained politically by the assassination, were all democrats. The business people that benefited were a mixture of right and left. I especially like the statement by Martin Blank just above: "you can say anything you want in a work of fiction" This is clearly a book whereby the plot is all fiction, bolstered by just enough facts (which could apply to most scenarios) to make it seem slightly possible.
-
David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: Rush Limbaugh apparently went off on "The Devil's Chessboard" on his radio show today. I'll return the favor this evening when I speak at The Peace Center in Los Angeles at 7:30 pm. I'll have a few things to say about Limbaugh and the rest of the soft-assed armchair generals who constantly bray for more blood -- but of course never shed their own.
One Facebook member commented on David's posting as follows: I just happened to be listening in my car (one-station radio) a few weeks ago when Rush was talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. It's hard to believe Mr. Limbodomy actually believes the lone nut theory, but he sure railed against anyone who did not..... Why is it that no reporter ever asks presidential candidates what they think of perhaps the most important political event or our lifetimes?
which war did you shed blood in ? Do you expect your response to be as widely heard as Limbaugh's was?
-
As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder.
And I know that conspiracy theorists who think Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in early 1963 have a heck of a lot MORE evidence to explain away than I do -- such as all this stuff.
And I know that conspiracy theorists who think Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in early 1963 have a heck of a lot MORE evidence to explain away than I do --
Surely the laugh of the day. There is absolutely no evidence that proves LHO was associated with that rifle, but someone has to prove he didn't buy it. Maybe some one should consider attempting to prove he did buy it. I know a lot have tried, but no one has come close yet and never will. You can't prove something to be true if it's not true.
-
You conceded when you didn't answer my question, even after I had posted it a second time.
In both your responses you completely ignored the fact that the money order had not been processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. As though that isn't an important point.
So I won the debate by default. That's what happens when one doesn't "show up" for a debate.
As for how LHO's handwriting got "all over" the money order, I would suggest the same way my dad's handwriting got all over the excuse notes I wrote to my home-room teacher explaining why I had been absent from school. Forging someone's handwriting isn't necessarily a difficult feat, and isn't an unheard of thing. Given that the money order is evidence that someone was attempting to frame Oswald, as I have demonstrated, it follows that the source of the handwriting be considered suspect as well.
Naturally. Nothing new or surprising there. Everything is "suspect" to a conspiracy theorist.
So, with respect to the evidence and the testimony associated with Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle purchase, the following things would have to be true, according to many CTers....
...William Waldman of Klein's was a big fat [L-word].
...Oswald's writing was forged on the money order.
...Oswald's writing was forged on the American Rifleman order form for the rifle.
...Oswald's writing was forged on the envelope that housed the M.O. and the order form.
...Waldman Exhibit No. 7 is a complete forgery.
...The FBI agents who helped search the Klein's files on late November 22 and early November 23 must have been told to lie their asses off if they were ever to be asked this question: Did you help search the Klein's records in Chicago and were you present when the microfilmed records were found in those files which included an order form clipped from a magazine which had the name "A. Hidell" on it, plus the internal Klein's order blank (Waldman #7), which verified that a rifle bearing the serial number "C2766" was shipped by Klein's to "A. Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas, on March 20, 1963? .... Because, according to many conspiracy theorists, those FBI agents actually witnessed the retrieval of no such "Hidell" microfilmed records in the Klein's files at all.
...The whole $21.45 money order, in every respect, is a fraudulent document (and not just Oswald's allegedly forged handwriting) --- e.g., the "GPO; Mar. 12" and "$21.45" markings that are stamped on the front of the money order. And the Klein's "Pay to the order" stamp on the back is fake too (i.e., somebody stole Klein's rubber stamp [or created a perfect duplicate] and stamped the phony money order in order to fool everybody into thinking Klein's really did deposit the M.O. into its First National Bank account --- I'd love to see some proof to show that this hunk of fakery ever happened too; but, as always, no CTer on Earth can possibly prove that the "PAY TO THE ORDER" stamp on CE788 is a fraudulent Klein's endorsement).
See how silly this starts to get really fast when you have to pretend that Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered Rifle C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods? Embarrassing, isn't it, Sandy? Yes, it is indeed.
Regarding the discovery of the original money order that was found in Virginia, hundreds of miles from the offices of Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, there are these excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book:
"[9:00 AM CST, 11/23/63] Although the FBI already has a microfilmed copy of the money order used to purchase the Carcano rifle, in preparing for trial prosecutors always want the original document. After depositing the money order into its bank account, Klein's, of course, no longer had the original money order.
[...]
[7:00 PM CST, 11/23/63] The IBM computers at the U.S. Postal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, have been humming for nearly seven hours now...searching for the original money order used to purchase the assassination weapon. There's no telling how many man-hours it might take to do a manual search.
Suddenly, a match is found, and the money order is located. The center rushes the original money order by special courier to the chief of the Secret Service in Washington. A handwriting analysis by a questioned-documents expert for the Department of the Treasury shows that the handwriting on the money order is that of Lee Harvey Oswald.*
If there is one thing that is now unquestionably certain, it is that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered and paid for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building shortly after the assassination."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 206 and 237 of "Reclaiming History" ©2007
* Sources -- CE1799 @ 23 H 419 and Warren Commission Testimony of Alwyn Cole @ 4 H 373
the following things would have to be true, according to many CTers....
...William Waldman of Klein's was a big fat [L-word].
...Oswald's writing was forged on the money order.
...Oswald's writing was forged on the American Rifleman order form for the rifle.
...Oswald's writing was forged on the envelope that housed the M.O. and the order form.
...Waldman Exhibit No. 7 is a complete forgery.
Not true at all. None of it has to be true. LHO was never involved with any of that. no one associated with LHO was involved.
-
Sandy,
You think Klein's would have shipped a rifle to PO Box 2915 (which they definitely did) WITHOUT being paid for the merchandise?
How silly.
Let me guess -- you think Waldman #7 is a fake document too. Right?
Related Links (re: bank stamps):
educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17428&page=4#entry220887
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-947.html
my but your dancing again, David... Sandy's question is relevant, well?
my but your dancing again, David he's a dancing machine.
-
Sandy,
The C2766 rifle was positively mailed by Klein's to Oswald's P.O. Box in Dallas. Waldman No. 7 proves that fact. And the money order was stamped by Klein's. So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle, and Klein's did the processing on their end by depositing it into their bank account. And that money order has Oswald's writing all over it.
Oswald ordered that rifle.
Klein's shipped that rifle to PO Box 2915.
Klein's received payment for that rifle (otherwise, of course, they never would have generated the order form which became Waldman Exhibit No. 7).
Case closed.
I don't see Oswald's name on any of those orders or forms. Are you making that up?
-
As long as they can pretend Oswald didn't fire a shot at anyone on 11/22, most Internet CTers are happy.
Well, there *is* more evidence that Oswald didn't fire the rifle that day than there is that he did.
And there *is* more evidence that Oswald was framed as the buyer of the Carcano than there is that he actually bought it.
And for your information, David, it isn't the goal of CTers to clear Oswald's name. It is their goal to find the truth.
But deep down you know that, don't you David.
Well, there *is* more evidence that Oswald didn't fire the rifle that day than there is that he did. Absolutely, as there is absolutely no evidence that he fired any weapon on that day.
And there *is* more evidence that Oswald was framed as the buyer of the Carcano than there is that he actually bought it. Another easy one as there is absolutely no evidence that he bought a rifle.
But deep down you know that, don't you David. Actually, yes, he does, but he is not free to believe what he would like to. See my signature below as a quote from DVP. He clearly says he is not free to believe what he chooses.
Yes Sandy, DVP likes to throw up a few links and thinks he has 'proven' something. You've heard of 'smoke and mirrors'.
-
Gee, he had more protection there than he did in Dallas.
Santa Monica might have been considered as a dangerous place.
-
August 19, 1962 - President John F. Kennedy takes a swim at the beach in Santa Monica, CA.
no wet suit? bet it was a short swim.
New Book!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Holy mackerel Paul, this caught my eye: "As for the word Fascist, according to most authorities, a Fascist is a Radical Right winger, not a Left winger."
Wow,
: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
: very harsh control or authority
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
I could go on and on, but it is very clear that fascism is 'exactly' the opposite of 'patritotic American' (your definiton of Radical Right Wing)
So strange that someone could make such a simple semantic mistake.
I don't have time now, but i'll comment more on the rest of your comments later, but this one just blew me out of the water. Fascism is a lot closer to Democrats than to Patriotic Americans.