Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jason Ward

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jason Ward

  1. I guess it is if you already believe in Harvey and Lee. There are 100s of Oswald sightings in evidence and IMO more than half are mistakes or deliberate frauds. Steenbarge's sighting isn't enhanced by waiting 20 years to mention it - when another phase of assassination interest was peaking in the media. If this very detailed account was made in 1963 I'd take it very seriously. In 1978 I take it as creatively enhanced memory. Jason
  2. One of the several reasons why I believe it is worthwhile to investigate Walker and the Radical Right is because that's who Earl Warren and many others assumed killed Kennedy: SOURCE All items available in the Warren Commission Hearings & Exhibits https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1006
  3. In case readers are not aware, Harry Dean is the only person active on this thread who had a connection to Oswald etc. in 1963: Much more on Harry Dean: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=75354#relPageId=2&tab=page No, Roger, my plate is full with reading at the moment. Plus, I have a day job and a family and aging parents and....everything... I hope to get to Craven's thesis. I've read Walker's testimony in places but haven't given it a full treatment. For the moment, the most glaring point that stands out is the way WC attorney Liebeler ambushes Walker into perjury around the German newspaper article; the article that shows Walker has unpublished/nonpublic information about Oswald on 22NOV63. In my reading of the evidence posted above in this thread, Decker, Curry, and Fritz are the stage directors of Dealey Plaza. So-and-so has a brother who was once in the CIA doesn't connect this murder to the CIA in my book. Jason
  4. David Von Pein is a much-needed voice of rational evidence-based discussion on this forum. Jason
  5. The Dallas authorities have original jurisdiction and their ongoing decision to ignore the assassination speaks volumes. The truth could still shake things up badly. BTW, just to nitpick, the Texas Attorney General is not really an active crime-fighting office. The Dallas DA, the DPD, and the Dallas County Sheriff's Department are in prime positions to release old-hidden evidence and even generate new undiscovered evidence; in the unlikely event they want to re-open the case and risk upheaval in their own agencies. Jason
  6. I work on projects for Rex Bradford at the Mary Ferrell Foundation and I hope everyone will just browse through the huge collection - you'll be very surprised at what you find just by random searches. In case anyone is looking for more primary source material on this subject, there is a wealth of General Walker information here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Walker_Documents.html?search=general walker
  7. For one thing, he's a secondary player as far as official and most conspiracy theories go, which is to his advantage. He gets less attention. Maybe Westbrook's less obvious role is a deliberate part of the plan? - - - based on the fact that while all the action at DPD headquarters was around Capt Fritz and Oswald, Westbrook is inexplicably in the decidedly less interesting HR office. Even more inexplicably, "Oswald's pistol" is processed in this HR office, along with the usual comedic chain-of-evidence routine and inconsistent testimony that is typical of Dallas police officers on this the most important day of their career. {PS - I have some catching up to do. I've been busy at work and with the family, but there are a lot of points posted over the last week that deserve a response} Thanks for looking at evidence and asking pertinent questions. Your serious input is appreciated. 🎖️ >>>In memory of all the people who died for America - this is their Memorial Day <<< Jason
  8. Hi B.A. Copeland, Thanks for adding some intelligent comments to the thread. IMO the method of this crime points to who "these guys" might be, and IMO the method of the assassination isn't often looked at rationally. I am not a cop nor a professional investigator, but at one point in my career I did bank and insurance-related investigations often involving major crimes. I took 4-5 classes, which, again, doesn't make me an expert. With that said, I feel fairly confident in applying a few truths from basic crime science to Dealey Plaza - and the top line item I invoke is that the method of any serious crime will 9 times out of 10 tell you a lot about who you are looking for. Forget motive. Look at method. The assassination was a wildly dangerous circus stunt. It almost failed. Trying to kill someone as they drive by in a convertible is absurd for anyone who has easy access to the president. There were 100s of witnesses, dozens of cameras, and a slew of Dallas doctors indicating a frontal shot and therefore a conspiracy. Half the witnesses heard shots from places other than the TSBD and a few witnesses saw more than one shooter. This tells me a couple things: 1. The conspirators were not Washington insiders who had easy, private, controllable access to the president. The conspirators had no choice but to take a big risk at both success and at getting caught. Professionals do not choose the most difficult, most risky method of attack. The CIA or FBI or ONI and so forth could have made it look like a heart attack, they could have had JFK killed in a private place with no witnesses, they could have controlled the doctors, they could have made sure there was no film. They could have killed JFK the way RFK was killed if they wanted a "public" job. Moreover, Washington insiders could have simply removed Kennedy with scandal - real or framed. If the CIA wants to kill, there is never a hint of any conspiracy, they pull it off perfectly. The CIA killing the president risks prison for the conspirators and risks the end of the CIA - there is simply no rational way this can be "a CIA" job unless you believe "the CIA" is criminally insane. 2. The conspiracy to kill is completely separate from the cover-up. You don't need a theatrically rabid communist like Oswald to be the official assassin if the conspirators plan a lone nut explanation. Likewise, no need for the grand public fireworks show in Dealey Plaza if the conspirators plan a Lone Nut explanation. In short, in my view everyone is caught up in motive and illogically using motive as part of the "proof" in their assassination theories. IMO the method of this crime shows an overwrought, overdramatic, needlessly risky murder which decidedly points away from a CIA which has killed or removed leaders all over the world. I talk to Paul Trejo because he sticks close to the evidence and because in my opinion the method of this crime points away from any deep CIA/government conspiracy. This is a wild west circus stunt perhaps one missed shot away from failure - that happened to succeed....and covered up professionally by those not active in the murder, it seems to me. The people who shot Kennedy have the same childish understanding of public perception as those who printed the anti JFK flyers and anti-JFK newspaper ad in that morning's Dallas Morning News. Is Walker the author of the assassination? I don't know. I believe his personality and friends are better suspects than the Ivy League elitists at the CIA. BTW, I too am very suspicious of DPD Capt. Westbrook - his Warren Commission testimony is examined in detail earlier in this thread. He's perjured himself and obviously a conspirator, IMO. I hope you'll comment or critique what I say, and thanks again for joining the thread. Jason 1. General Walker was a suspect as early as 22NOV63: 2. DPD Capt Westbrook's story doesn't add up and suggests the police are the operations crew of the assassination, IMO. SOURCES 1 - Dr Jerry Rose, "Nut Country: The Friends of General Walker." The Third Decade, Vol 5, Iss 5. July 1989. 2 - Dr Jerry Rose, The Third Decade, Vol 4, Iss 3. March 1988.
  9. Hi Paul, FBI agent Hosty says Oswald had FPCC contact right around the time of the Walker shooting on 10APR63. Correlation does not imply causation. However, correlation does imply correlation so I have to ask how the shooting of General Walker in April is related to Oswald's April move to New Orleans, and the April(?) contact between the FPCC and LHO? SOURCE HSCA Administrative Folder, Lee Harvey Oswald, Vol. 6. NARA 124-10369-10018
  10. Hi Paul, I think some of those who have the CIA running the assassination likewise incorporate some rogue Radical Right players as an admitted possibility. The problem in all theories is in connecting an identifiable leader with the ground crew in Dallas. In this thread we've spotted cops who are obviously part of the conspiracy. But who are the cops in bed with, or following? IMO the likes of Buddy Walthers are ideologically, culturally, and of course physically closer to General Walker and the southern Radical Right than anyone in Washington or the CIA. In many cases these cop types in Dallas distrust or sometimes despise the entire federal apparatus, CIA/FBI included. I think it's farfetched to imagine Sheriff Decker working with east coast elites like the Dulles brothers or Bush family. All CTs are missing a link. Jason
  11. Hi Paul, Obviously I have no doubt Dr Caufield told you that Garrison's first CT was a Radical-Right-did-it explanation for the assassination. I believe that Caufield inspected Garrison's files and today we find evidence as to why Caufield would tell you this (see document 1 below). However, I have to be honest and say that once believing the Radical Right is to blame and then switching to a CIA-did-it narrative really doesn't make sense. 1. According to Jim Garrison's discovered witness Rudloph Davis, the Lake Pontchartrain training camp was a creation of the John Birch Society. In interviews, Garrison says the FBI raid on this camp is the last straw that solidifies anti-JFK sentiment and begins the assassination plans. So why does assassination lore equate the camp, David Ferrie, and the CIA? Why not the JBS instead? SOURCE 1 - HSCA Segregated CIA files, Jim Garrison Investigations, Reel 25, Folder F, Volume 4, NARA 1994.05.06.08:46:54:280005 the CIA didn't kill Kennedy
  12. That's how it worked in 1963 as well. The "deep state" both then and now has no need to risk the wildly dangerous, circus-show stunt of trying to kill someone as they drive by in a convertible, cameras rolling. Those in power have and had many ways to defrock a president. Dealey Plaza barely "worked" with 1-2 "good" shots and several misses; furthermore it never really "worked" since the conspiracy accusations began, loudly, right away. Sloppy evidence is all over the place. The "Deep State" destroys presidents with no or very little second guessing from its opponents - zero reason to do this in public, with cameras, with Dallas doctors indicating a frontal shot right away, with 100s of witnesses, etc. Jason
  13. Hi Paul, Your question is interesting. I might say your question is another way of asking: What has New Orleans got to do with the assassination? From a historiography perspective, New Orleans is relevant because that's where Jim Garrison did most of his work. But didn't Jim Garrison say the CIA-did-it, both in his books and in the Oliver Stone movie JFK? 1. Serious students of the assassination believe LHO is a right winger?.........(according to Jim Garrison) 2. The CIA analysis of Jim Garrison's work invokes the extreme Right, so why is the CIA concerned? 3. Guy Bannister was an extreme right winger or a CIA operative? 4. Does David Ferrie reactivate his former teenage student Lee Harvey Oswald into the Anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans as Garrison says? 5. Is Garrison telling us that Oswald's patsyhood and the entire assassination begin with the 21JUL63 FBI raid on the anti-Castro Cuban camp at Lake Pontchartrain? SOURCES: 1, 3, 4, 5 - Eric Norden, "Jim Garrison, a candid conversation with the embattled district attorney of New Orleans," Playboy. October 1967. pp 59 - 2 HSCA segregated CIA collection, box 42. NARA 1993.07.20.15:03:55:870280
  14. I agree. The DPD stage managed the assassination, while the sheriff's department seems critical mainly at the TSBD. The WC testimony makes this obvious and the disturbing thing is that it apparently took a few years for anyone to read enough of their testimony to make a big deal about it, which is what I see Jim Garrison doing. If people would simply read the WC testimony, the starting point and critical people are obvious. Furthermore, everyone is so caught up in the high drama of conspiracy theories that very few are actually looking in Dallas; almost no one looks closely at the cops, which is IMO the one and only place there is certain guilt. In fact, as of this moment, I would say the cops are the only known guilty parties, 1. so is it possible that the cops themselves killed Kennedy? With no big sponsors or overlords other than themselves? Even though I myself have this hangup, I also have to ask: 2. Why is everyone obsessed with Oswald? If he's the patsy, then who gives a damn what his story is? I feel like we might understand everything about Oswald and still never get to the bottom of the assassination because Oswald is really at the fringe. He's the patsy, he's the diversion; meaning the conspirators want us to look at him - so why are we all looking at him just as the conspirators want? As usual, I think a different approach could do some good. Haven't we all been up and down Oswald 1000 times by now? In my research I must add Dr Jerry Rose to the list of those critical to the development of the Radical Right - Walker theory. If you read through Rose's old stuff he's working and meeting with Dr Caufield a lot along the way, from way back.... Also there is Harrison Livingstone.....here's a snippet from his book, which in turn quotes Robert Goodman. What do you think of the FBI raid on the Lake Pontchartrain camp as the last straw that "may have sealed Kennedy's fate?" SOURCE Harrison Livingstone, The Radical Right and the Murder of John F Kennedy. Traford Publishing Co (2004). p 98.
  15. Hi Mervyn, This is where I depart from your train of thought. There is no reason to invoke the supernatural or extraordinary, is there? For everyone else in the world using a passport is sufficient to confirm their identity. Why suggest that in Oswald's case there is no "proof...LHO was involved," when for everyone else in the world we believe they alone use their own passport unless strong evidence suggests otherwise? LHO may or may not be truly interested in ASC. Evidence of his interest or non-interest in ASC is not so important when we consider that the true value of ASC is the ability it affords Oswald to legally travel. If he is interested in traveling overseas, he needs at least nominal college plans in place to leave the country as a reservist. ASC provides this. As always, David, I appreciate very much posting evidence instead of mere commentary. In my work there is no evidence of CIA involvement whenever we encounter the unexplained. You take the evidence differently and see the CIA as the only explanation in places where I see alternatives equally or more likely than the CIA, which is of course fine with me. I just have what we might call a stricter standard of evidence and am totally comfortable with saying "we don't know why Oswald did xxxxxx." The unexplained does not equate to the CIA for me. Jason
  16. Just to be clear, Oswald is purposed towards FPCC infiltration in New Orleans according to your CT? But there is no FPCC in New Orleans until Oswald shows up, so what are they hoping to do; infiltrate up nationally? Or identify local Castroites/communists in New Orleans? Jason
  17. Hi David, thanks for the polite conversation. Let's be clear: I'm not arguing against your opinion. I'm only giving consideration to other explanations. It is IMO enough for a man in Oswald's situation to seek ASC admission merely as a way to legally travel. His interest or lack of interest in education is possibly not relevant. Having some even nominal educational plan in Europe is probably enough to count as an allowable exception to the rule against reservists leaving the country. I've seen this enrolling-in-college tactic used in many other examples where the military, the draft, the penal system, or the government in general is concerned. Authorities in all contexts are more lenient if they see you making an effort at education. Tens of thousands got out of the draft this way, so it's reasonable to me that LHO used the old college enrollment trick for his own purposes, such as travel. Thanks again for posting so much evidence for us to consider.
  18. Hi Paul, I'm just exploring possibilities here. I'm aware that many see the 10APR63 attack on Walker as a staged event which may or not have actually involved LHO. OTOH, you say George de Mohrenschildt incited Oswald's naturally leftist views so much that Marina's testimony about Oswald saying he shot at Walker is 100% true. In any case, the Oswalds bolt for New Orleans days after Walker is attacked. New Orleans in the summer of 1963 seems essential to both the assassination authors and the coverup. Events are apparently accelerating which will spiral in to Oswald's November roll. Enter Carlos Bringuier & his pal Arnesto Rodriguez. Below is a snippet from General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy by Jeffrey Caufield. I've looked at the source he cites and this summary seems accurate from the available evidence. In particular, Bringuier associate Arnesto Rodriguez has something of a close relationship with Oswald it seems, although his name is absent from any CT I've seen. Furthermore, I'm wondering if Bringuier's contacts with Oswald are perhaps more intricate than the simplistic version Bringuier wants us to believe. 1. Is Oswald more deeply immersed in anti-Castro activities in New Orleans than Bringuier and the WC want us to believe? 2. How deeply involved is Oswald with the New Orleans anti-Castro activists? SOURCES 1 Jeffrey Caufield, MD. General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy. Moreland Press (2015). pp 25-26 2 CIA 201 file on Lee H Oswald, Vol 1, Folder 5
  19. Hi David, Your evidence positioned in your posts are appreciated. Thanks again! Thanks for asking my opinion. I value your as well. I think the basic answer to your question is that we're coming at this with two different objectives. I think you see and want Albert Schweitzer College as part of a grand narrative and insofar as the discussion on this thread goes, I'm only talking about a snapshot of time. You want to see where it fits with everything else you know. I only want to look at ASC in terms of Oswald in the moment. As with a lot of teenagers, LHO could have a very fanciful and impractical idea of himself in the world. I see Oswald very pissed off that he is a lowly private and his situation in life is formed by poverty, father issues, and so forth. He might have picked ASC with all the same directionless lack of commitment that many teenagers do in choosing their college or career or first months of freedom. He may have had guidance. Or suggestions. Or even orders. I don't know. You see Oswald as a working intelligence agent with every detail carefully considered - fine. For this thread, I see him as a 19 y.o. ne'er do well. He hates the Marines, he wants to travel, he has delusions of grandeur, he considers himself an intellectual - Albert Schweitzer College fits. It allows him to travel legally, in fact, some nominal college plan was required for Oswald to travel legally because of his Marines reserve commitment. If Oswald is an intelligence asset as you argue, I see ASC and many other details as absurdly unnecessary. There's no reason for ASC if his role is a chess piece in the Cold War. Your interpretation may be right, I don't know, I'm not deciding one way or another. I think that's another issue - you want a full CT or explanation from me and all I'm here to do is review evidence, open possibilities, discount possibilities, and in general absorb and discuss. I'm less about taking a stance and more about exploring what is reasonably possible. IMO it's reasonably possible LHO sought ASC mainly for the purpose of invoking the exception to the foreign travel restriction placed on reservists. Historians can adopt several different lenses when looking at the same set of facts. You can look at a moment, a year, a lifetime, or centuries. Sometimes you can look at everything in terms of culture, economics, politics or even smaller lenses like gender, race, and the environment. Sometimes you can ignore time altogether and see where that leads. You are trying to write the Big History of Oswald, unfolding in linear order. I'm looking at the microcosm. You're a macroeconomist, in this thread I'm a microeconomist. All the lenses are useful, even if not every lens is equally revealing. In this case, I choose the lens of Oswald in 1959 up to crossing into the USSR. The benefit of using more focused lens is that it allows cleaner interpretation of the evidence without any impulse to fit the evidence with what comes later (or before). The shortcoming of using a tight time frame is that it can miss important clues from what comes later (or before.) No one lens is perfect. Sorry if that seems a long answer to a short question! I hope you'll continue to bring evidence forward for everyone to see. Jason
  20. I think Mervyn Hagger has shown us that Albert Schweitzer College was mentioned in many newspapers throughout the 50s, which kind of deflates the narrative that says Oswald would never have found this school on his own; what do you think? David, I appreciate your posted evidence very much! But this point is really weak - someone lies about being attending college and this means he is CIA? Are all liars CIA? Or just the ones who lie about college? DISAGREE Oswald is required by law to stay in the US as a condition of his Marines discharge. He is on active reserve, which restricts foreign travel. However, there's one convenient way to travel overseas in this scenario. Active Reservists are permitted overseas travel for educational purposes. Oswald wants to travel and he needs a quickie/easy college program to sign up for -¡voila!- world renowned Albert Schweizer College is offering all young Americans precisely the kind of cover that Vietnam draft dodgers would use shortly after Oswald. Using "college" as a way to get around military regulations is quite common - Oswald was neither the first nor last. Jason
  21. Thanks as always for posting so much evidence, David. As to this question you ask, hasn't Mervyn shown us (either here or on "the other" thread) that there were numerous advertisements and/or sources of publicity for ASC in various newspapers? Don't you think Mervyn's newspaper.com hits have shown that the ASC is not so obscure? Oswald's need to attend college overseas in order for the Marines to allow his post-discharge (but still Active Reserve) travel, so he finds an easy school soliciting young US students precisely like Oswald in their advertising. Jason
  22. Hi Paul, The fact that there are two officially mandated outbursts of violence from Lee Harvey Oswald prior to 22NOV63 is, IMO, important to the Oswald-as-Commie mask the assassination plotters hoped to broadcast to the public, don't you agree? One of the two key plot points in the patsification of Lee Harvey Oswald are the 1963 outbursts of violence against: General Edwin Walker, one time leader of the John Birch Society Carlos Bringuier, currently -14MAY2018- a John Birch Society member Apart from their JBS connection, General Walker and Carlos Bringuier are colleagues on the Radical Right speaking tours of the 1960s. Why does Oswald target these two? 1. Are Bringuier and Walker connected through Guy Banister? 2. Bringuier denies knowing Guy Banister....is he telling the truth? 3. According to Carlos Bringuier, Jim Garrison thinks Oswald is lured to New Orleans by William Riley 4. According to Harold Weisberg, Bringuier and Walker meet in Dallas 5. Walker, Surrey, Bringuier Oswald....are they all linked? 6. Is Oswald at an October 1963 meeting of the DRE in Dallas, the same meeting attended by General Walker? SOURCES 1 Francesca Akhtar, Dealey Plaza Echo Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2006 2 NARA 104-10304-10002 3 FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 135 4 Orleans Parish Grand Jury Testimony of Harold Weisberg, 28 Apr 1967, p. 29 5 NARA 104-10414-10045 6 Warren Commission Document 205
  23. I use imgbb.com, which hosts your images and provides an embedded link so that they appear here. You can also email it to me and I'll post it, attributed to you. Again, amazing work. Top notch. Thanks and keep it coming. Jason
  24. Hi Mark, Thanks for your note. We've been told in this thread to admire and accept the usual mantra of established CT dogma: that Albert Shweitzer College is obscure, certainly a fraudulent creation, and with no possible mechanism for LHO to find on his own. Hence, it is CIA, we're told. Mervyn Hagger has resisted groupthink. Instead of citing and accepting the conclusions of others, Mervyn shows us evidence he found on his own, evidence that IMO shows The Establishment is wrong about Albert Schweitzer College. Furthermore, his original research using primary sources shows that established assassination "researchers" are either sloppy or deliberately citing only evidence which supports their desired narrative. Mervyn shows that Albert Schweitzer College was widely publicised and easily on the radar of anyone who reads newspapers - contrary to the 50+ year unquestioned dogma that ASC was an unknown oddity unlikely to attract average 19 year old American applicants. Regards Jason Ward
  25. »»»OUSTANDING WORK, MERVYN««« This is evidence that speaks for itself, from a primary source, Dr Schacht. It's peerless research unmatched around here, thanks. Jason
  • Create New...