Jason Ward

Positive! The emperor has no clothes. Jason

Your accusations here (in the form of questions) illuminate both the motive and method of those who insist on an explanation for this school in conflict with the evidence. Indeed, "why did everyone pretend" and endlessly repeat these dogmatic conclusions about Albert Schweitzer College? Jason

I'm concerned about this; weren't you told on this forum in no uncertain terms that this matter has already been researched thoroughly? Why aren't you accepting what others have already concluded? Are you implying the received wisdom of the assassination fans and "research" community has a dogma which relies on carefully selected evidence, curated in stone for decades? Jason

New original research! Great stuff! This is the highest contribution anyone can make in a post IMO. Thanks, please keep it up, Mervyn. Jason

I hope you can share here what more you may find. Maybe there are some records in the UK as yet undiscovered. Doesn't the UK have a FOIA type mechanism to make public old police, immigration, MI5/6 records? Not much attention is given to Oswald in Britain so it could be a real breakthrough if records exist! Jason

Hi Paul, 1. Sylvia Odio's famous moment in the assassination saga comes when Oswald IIRC is meant to be on a bus to Mexico City. Can you explain the timeline in your CT for these few days if you have one? 2. Is it plausible that Loran Hall, Hemming, Howard, Seymour, and/or others in the Interpen group were part of the Mexico City scenes? Could one or more of them, along with Oswald, explain the different voice and appearance descriptions attached to Oswald by various Mexico City witnesses? Jason

Hi Mervyn, Yes, the letter is interesting. I see many possible explanations but perhaps(?) one safe assumption: Albert Schweitzer College hoped or expected that LHO would be in attendance for the upcoming term. I suppose it could be an administrative error and mean nothing. What do you think about this letter? Jason

Hi Mervyn, I'm not sure what you mean here and am easily distracted in any case. Would you like to get back to Oswald's European Tour? I think we left it at agreeing he seems intent on school in Switzerland until Southampton and the night in the UK on 09OCT59. Jason

Hi Paul, I want to review some more WC testimony but what you've brought up here is one of the strongest reasons I'm interested in looking at the Radical Right with you - New Orleans. However, I might look at New Orleans with a somewhat different focus than most people because for me the most telling character in New Orleans is.....>>>Carlos Bringuier<<< The fact that General Walker is close to Bringuier speaks volumes. The fact that General Walker directs John T Martin to produce a film first of the window Oswald officially shot through in the Walker attack on 10APR63, and then films Oswald in New Orleans on Canal St with Carlos Bringuier ............speaks to a level of conspiracy to the point that Walker knows in advance what Oswald's actions will be. On the morning of 22NOV63 the DPD already know the patsy's identity as we've seen in their conspicuous WC testimony. Likewise, since Walker knew where Oswald was going to be in the provocative "fight" with Carlos Bringuier in August of 1963, could we wonder if Walker knew in advance Oswald's role on 22NOV63, along with the DPD? 1. General Walker and Carlos Bringuier don't even try to hide their association with each other; they appear at "anti-communist leadership" schools together. Oswald gets into a theatrical fight with Carlos Bringuier in New Orleans after earlier that spring shooting at General Walker's house in Dallas....but....Walker + Bringuier are friends....hmmmm....why is Oswald targeting these two friends? 2. Carlos Bringuier joins the "Christian Crusade" in speaking tours across the country, frequently with General Edwin Walker.....and monitored by the FBI: 3. Carlos Bringuier for the rest of his life insists Oswald is Castro's agent, just like the rest of the extreme right: 4. Jim Garrison was on to Bringuier and Walker and believes the Dealey Plaza operatives were General Walker's Minutemen: 5. Dr Jerry Rose made a point still almost never mentioned in the assassination "research" community: General Walker is linked to Carlos Bringuier 6. On 13OCT63 General Walker went to a meeting in support of Carlos Bringuier's DRE 7. Carlos Bringuier and General Walker together on tour: 8. Dr Carlos Bringuier in a recent photo, still a fixture of the John Birch Society: SOURCES 1 - The Shreveport Times, February 8, 1964, p. 5. 2 - The Albuquerque Journal, March 25, 1964. 3 - FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 198 4 - Ramparts Magazine, January 1968, p. 52. NARA 104-10406-10071 5 - Dr Jerry Rose, The Third Decade, Vol 3 Iss 6, September 1987 6 - FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 59 7 - FBI Files on Edwin Walker, 82-2130 File, Misc. refs 9 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0792KVLRL/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1

Jason, there are a few points where I disagree with what you have stated, but we are mainly going down the same path. Great! Let's move on the, shall we? I believe we are at a point where we both agree: That the evidence suggests Oswald intended to attend school in Switzerland until some time after arriving in Southampton. However, we depart somewhat with each other because You see MI6/CIA as the most likely force influencing Oswald's change of destination to Helsinki While I see no evidence for MI6/CIA involvement, although I admit this is possible. Basically, my own subjective comfort level with assumptions and speculation ends at admitting Oswald likely changed his destination at or after Southampton. You feel comfortable about suggesting MI6/CIA, which is fine, you will never be lonely in making this assumption. I prefer to say we don't know what we don't know, and anyway the CIA assumption has been explored for 50 years and I'm sure I can't find anything new going down the CIA path. Jason

I disagree. I didn't answer because the question is almost absurd. The word 'right' as a direction is of course no longer relevant. The term as established in the 18th century French parliament is in use by professional historians and political scientists with a widely accepted meaning. The left and right as a physical course or indication of physical whereabouts is only accurate in the original French Estates General where those who support the current or yesterday's arrangement of power sat on the Right, while those who wanted a new arrangement of power sat on the Left. Today the terms are useful because of their obvious suggestion of opposition, Left is opposite of Right. It seems you have a concern about nomenclature. As you no doubt are aware, American English attaches "the" in many places where British English does not. It is, however, meaningless, at least insofar as American English is used on this forum. Americans go to the hospital or the university; people in Britain go to hospital or university. I'm sure you know this. Likewise, Americans have the CIA while those in Britain omit "the" and simply have MI6. If it's really bugging you, perhaps you can persuade yourself to simply overlook the word "the" in what is written on the forum? Me (and Paul Trejo btw) are both working in US research universities and the right wing, the right, radical right and other such terms are very meaningful and hold some degree of precision in both history and political science. If you find this term meaningless, again, perhaps you can overlook the term or substitute terms that work for you. The definitions of these terms are published and widely accepted in my work, so these are the terms I use. I understand your point of course, and in mainstream media or the public mind, the Left and Right are drifting towards ambiguous. If I was writing for People magazine or Facebook, I would perhaps not use these terms. Jason

David Josephs is one of the very few friends here who makes every effort to show us the evidence he uses to support CIA-centric explanations. If everyone who speculated about the CIA were as dedicated as he is to staying close to the evidence, I think our understanding would be in a much better place. Most of the others I see who invoke the CIA begin diverging farther and farther from the evidence so much that they even drift into the absurd areas of classical fallacies in logic. They start arguing that because so many people believe in the CIA explanation, this is evidence that the CIA explanation is true. They argue that because so-and-so believes in the CIA explanation, this is evidence the CIA explanation is true. There is something about the CIA as an explanation that causes researchers or "researchers" to depart from merely rational (and certainly academic or legal) standards of evidence, persuasion, and logic. So I choose to avoid the CIA - there's enough people working on that already. Ehhhhh....maybe. If you take Oswald as a 19 y.o. ne'er-do-well with a modest education, modest bank account, and the product of precarious single motherhood in the 1940s/1950s, I think many of us would see him differently if we excluded everything else we "know" about him. Can we try to take Oswald as he was in 1959 - an anonymous teenager? Can we try not looking as Oswald as a figure in history, the center of all conspiracy theories, a man who helped change history? I think everything we "know" and study about Oswald is too often taken in terms of what happens in 1963. It becomes the defining point in our understanding and all parts of Oswald before then are made to explain and enhance his famous day in 1963. Can we just forget all that and look at him as an insecure 19 y.o. boy in 1959, just to see where that leads? Jason

This is why I do not usually embrace any explanation that has the CIA or a faction of the CIA influencing Oswald. Once this door is opened, it seems, anyone who opens it from then on invokes the CIA whenever there is a lack of evidence or ambiguous evidence. There is something about the CIA in our collective imagination that imbues them with global, superhuman powers and for researchers this becomes a problem because it's like asking for proof of God. Evidence doesn't exist because it is the CIA. If evidence of CIA involvement did exist, then they wouldn't be the CIA. See how that works? The circular reasoning becomes endemic and inevitably it leads to a master conclusion that explains not only Oswald but the entire history of mankind since the end of WW2. It's a house of cards built on one assumption after another. I'm fine with hypotheses and assumptions to work out possibly new avenues of exploration, as long as one assumption doesn't start building on another such that you get remote from any certain fact. The CIA may be involved, or a faction of the CIA, I don't know. Everyone else has pursued and adopted this course since Jim Garrison in the late 60s, which has given us our current state of "understanding." I prefer to make other assumptions besides the CIA to see if that arrives at fresh thinking and fresh evidence. Ok, if that is your conclusion, I'm probably not going to argue with you. I aim to primarily post evidence in the form of documents. I try to ask questions around the evidence I post. The point was that the CIA doesn't control 100% off all actors in situations we cannot explain. They don't' have a monopoly on secrecy. They don't have a monopoly on loyalty. The CIA doesn't have a monopoly on obedience. The IRA, al-qaeda, the KKK, and many other non-government actors persuade people to commit murder. I wasn't offering the evidence I posted for proof of what the evidence says at face value, I was offering the evidence merely to show alternative forces of secrecy, loyalty, and obedience exist apart from the CIA. I disagree. No. This is quite wrong. The Right Wing as a term of political understanding began in the 18th century French parliament. Those who sat on the Right in the parliament (aka Estates General) were supportive of the monarchy, tradition, and the then-dominant institutions of power. This is a reasonable if basic working definition: http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/right-wing https://www.britannica.com/topic/right Fair enough. Jason

Hi Mervyn, As you've seen in another thread I am looking closely at General Walker. Here is a post-assassination FBI report looking into Oswald's associates and the associates of Oswald's associates. I post the document below not to imply that Oswald is involved with the IRA, but to suggest that there are potent non-government actors who gain loyalty and effective control over people, and who operate in both Europe and America. 1. FBI Report of 5DEC63 SOURCE 1 - Warren Commission Document 110

The FBI also had connected Loran Hall and Gerry Patrick Hemming to General Walker well before the assassination - see (1) below. Can you clarify the obvious reasons you mention for those of us who are not so attuned to the obvious? 1. Loran and Hall with General Walker as known to the FBI in early 1963 2. The CIA was also aware of the Hemming - Walker friendliness SOURCES 1 FBI, HSCA Subject File: Interpen. NARA 124-10294-10354 2 CIA, Russ Holmes Work File, NARA 104-10435-10025

Tiny? We're talking millions. The KKK and basically everyone who voted for George Wallace in 1968 (10 million people) are in my book the extreme Right. They killed MLK. This is a big wealthy group. IMO, there is no effort of misdirecting attention to the extreme Right by David Atlee Phillips, the CIA or anyone else. The WC and the rest of officialdom make a big effort to point us away from looking in their direction. Practically no one is looking here. Everyone else looks entirely at the CIA. Not sure I agree, but in any case I suggest that all the people in the KKK never achieved anything either - but they ignited, lynched, and destroyed many victims along the way. What conspiracy buffs? No one scapegoats them for anything, as far as I can see. Stupid, no. Politically naive - yes. They sought to instill fear and counted on the usual public reaction when in the grips of fear. They were a one trick pony - it's the same reason Hitler had the Reichstag burned. Make the public scared and outraged! They love to show the public that the commies are a dangerous DOMESTIC threat, not just a threat in Europe and Asia. Basically, Mervyn, the CIA and David Atlee Phillips have been through the wringer and face plenty of continuing scrutiny. I doubt I can offer anything new when so many have looked and are still looking at a potentially CIA-controlled Oswald. Jason

Oswald's defection was a noteworthy event to the Marines and a newsworthy event for everyone else in America. I believe the Marines downgraded his discharge to "undesirable" because he surrendered to the enemy as it were. Oswald made a point of telling the US Embassy in Moscow that he intended to share his knowledge from the Marines with the Soviets. I'm too tired to find and post the documentation around that, but let me know if you want it. I imagine the Marines would do this today if a Marine joined al-qaeda, "ISIS", or the Iranian Republican Guard. Back in the days of the draft - which didn't end until the 1970s, the status of one's military discharge was a big deal. It could keep you from employment if it was undesirable and Oswald spent the rest of his life trying to get this designation changed. Downgrading a discharge status was a form of punishment, still in use today. This is a lot of speculation, which is fine of course, but it might be too much speculation for me to spend a lot of time on discussing. Plenty here will engage you on this though! I am more comfortable with agreeing that the evidence suggests Oswald fully planned on school in Switzerland until some time after arriving in Southampton. I do ask why the US government would piss Oswald off by retroactively downgrading his discharge status to UNDESIRABLE if the government is in some way involved in his defection? Jason

Hi Paul, There's plenty of titillating references in the new releases that perhaps hold promise for your CT. I'll keep looking and post what I find - some tidbits are below. If your CT is correct and the Radical Right are behind the assassination, what do you think about leveraging the MLK investigative files? Much of that investigation looks at right wingers and some of the familiar names pop up - like Kent Courtney, the John Birch Society, the Minutemen and so forth.

Both then and now there were/are many schools who specialise a little less in education and a little more in providing some kind of product or service to their students. The worst of them actively manipulate and defraud students, but most are taking money in return for something the "student" wants. Diploma mills are one variety. Another variety are the schools in Europe that aim at Americans solely for the purpose of providing a European vacation masquerading as a semester or year studying overseas. In Oswald's case, he's required to stay stateside by law because he's on active military reserve - one exception is overseas travel for educational purposes. Europe in this time is still recovering from the war and divided down the middle by an Iron Curtain - young Americans were an active target for both legitimate schools and less-legitimate businesses calling themselves schools. Young GIs then and now are targets for schools seeking paying students. I'm making no comment on what Albert Schweitzer College was or is - their purpose could very well be only for serious education. I attach a few documents possibly of interest. 1 The CIA constructed a narrative of Oswald's defection 2. Marguerite Oswald receives a letter from Albert Scweitzer college 3. The FBI summarizes the content of their Oswald file pre-22NOV63 for the Warren Commission: 4. The HSCA submitted interrogatories to the CIA asking what they knew about Oswald pre-22NOV63 SOURCES 1 - CIA-constructed Oswald narrative, part of the HSCA Russ Holmes work file, NARA 104-10423-10214 2 - NARA 104-10428-10116 3 - FBI Headquarters Oswald file, 105-82555, section 236 4 - NARA 104-10138-10297

Well we can look at Walker, Oliver, and a few more on the extreme right who gave testimony to round out their initial stories. But what to look for in the new releases? In the criminology of major cases the guilty parties are almost always under suspicion within days, even in cases where they aren't brought to justice for years or decades. Earl Warren implicated the Radical Right before he was asked to serve up a Lone Nut story, and IMO he was positioned to have a good grasp on the way crime and politics mix. But Hoover is the best positioned to know about everything. Jason

Mervyn found rhis great link about Oswald and the Albert Schweitzer college: http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005/07/oswald-and-albert-schweitzer-college.html This is an amazing point from Greg Parker's article. Oswald needed an educational purpose in order to legally leave the US while still under military service obligation: As an inactive Reservist, Oswald could be called up in a mobilisation any time during the balance of his enlistment (3 months) and therefore could not leave US shores without a legitimate reason. One reason recognized as legitimate by the authorities was "education".

Mervyn, can we discuss this in the thread you started about Oswald in Europe? I'll share one quote from that link about Oswald's application to Albert Scweitzer College that might interest Paul Trejo: How Oswald found out about this obscure little college has long been regarded as something of a mystery. [...] The answer to the mystery may well be found in his relationship with Kerry Thornley. Thornley - a noted right-winger - .... I'll move this link to the other thread.

Thanks, Mervyn. I see too many people trying to explain every detail and every known event in Oswald's life. In my view it's better to just leave open questions as open questions, and note them as such. For instance, we just don't know what Oswald did between his 9OCT59 arrival at Southampton and his 10OT59 departure from Heathrow, and AFAIK there isn't even the slightest clue to help us. He tells HM Customs that he's staying in Britain for a week before heading to school in Switzerland - but the next day he's flying to Helsinki.. .. We can reasonably speculate he spent the night somewhere and had a meal or two. I think it's reasonable to suggest he obtained help in moving around the UK - but it's quite possible the help was nothing sinister, perhaps just the kindly help of train stationmasters, taxi drivers, or strangers. For all we know, maybe it's a phone call that night that leads him to Helsinki the next day. There need not be sneaky characters around Oswald - phones work just as well. Or, as always, he could just be something of an errant wanderer in much of what he does. However, I think trying to understand when and how (logistically) the Helsinki decision is made might give us some profitable clues, although again this will mostly be speculation. I hypothesize that Helsinki is not a destination for Oswald until the night of 9OCT59 or the morning of 10OCT59. Stockholm may even have been the original destination. In any case, don't his odd travels at Le Havre suggest other than Helsinki/Stockholm was on his mind upon arriving in Europe? Jason

Yes, Paul, I think given what I've seen of the documents released over the last year, the freshest clues in the assassination might yet be found in old papers in someone's attic, in local law enforcement files not subject to the JFK records act, or in the stories handed down by family members. For example, in December of 1963 someone in New York was already pining for your Walker-did-it-conspiracy-theory.....did they know something and leave some clues for us to find? 1. Walker is accused in an anonymous DEC63 letter of programming Oswald in the assassination: 2. ...."a notorious figure..." SOURCE 1 & 2 FBI files on General Walker, 9-41583

Hi David, thanks for joining us. It seems the letter Billy Lord wrote to Jimmy Carter that you showed us caused something of a stir in officialdom - here is the FBI report of that letter and subsequent interview with Lord.