Nixon Operative Roger Stone on JFK Assassination: "LBJ had it done. Mob, CIA, Hoover, all in on it. RFK knew. So did Nixon."

[Scott Kaiser]

Pawley was also a member of the Suite 8F group based in Texas. I GUARANTEE YOU some of the key players in that group killed JFK. Period - end of story.

Suite 8F group: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2868

Pawley grew up in Cuba and no doubt lost a lot of family money when Castro nationalized billions of assets. So he was invested beyond belief in anti-Castro activies. And if those "traitor Kennedys" were not going to get rid of Castro ... then (the thinking goes) someone needed to put a bullet in the Kennedys. That is exactly how many folks in the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban community thought.

Pawley certainly is a "person of interest" (i.e. suspect) in the JFK assassination.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy, that we have identified the killers of JFK. Far more proof is needed. These blanket statements are too general.

Theoretically, of course, it makes sense that they would hope to kill Kennedy, and since they were wealthy it also makes sense that they would throw money at anybody who promised they would try to kill Kennedy. Many such money-throwers have been named over the past half-century, including Howard Hughes, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Jimmy Hoffa, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Joseph Milteer and countless others. The fact that they threw money at countless mercenaries to kill Castro or to kill Kennedy might make them deplorable, but it doesn't prove they were the killers.

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another.

Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means. Only the few who actually succeeded in killing Kennedy would be guilty of the crime.

We can't blame people generally just because they hated Kennedy with a purple passion, and possessed more than enough money to get the job done. The actual assassination wasn't as easy as it may appear.

Just as only a few assassins were actually guilty of killing Kennedy (though a hundred tried to some degree), in the same way, only those few financiers who funded the actual killers are guilty of the conspiracy.

I propose that in order to identify who the truly guilty financiers were, we must first and foremost identify at least the contours of the ground-crew who actually held the rifles and pulled the triggers.

That demand, unfortunately, is too often treated as a 'minor detail' that will fall out as a result of identifying the financiers. I suggest the opposite. There were too many financiers to identify them with certainty. They resided in perhaps every single State of the USA. There were far too many. Focus on the ground-crew.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another.

Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means

So what you're saying is for those men who are having to go through a bad divorce its okay to higher a killer to kill their wife and only be the financiers of the assassin and that doesn't make you involved? Okay then! that's cheaper then keeping her.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy

Ummm Wrong again, Pawley who was apart of Operation 40 certainly mingled with less fortunate people, people who had no money, and yet hated Kennedy, take Sturgis and my father as example, as well as many of the Cubans at the time struggling to survive, although, my father liked Kennedy, Sturgis and many others hated Kennedy, however, both men mingled with the rich and both men were poor, so I don't get your way of thinking, another words if you were to say money talks I'd agree, Pawley financed several projects into Cuba. So what makes you think he couldn't finance Kennedy's assassination too?

Scott

Edited February 1, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Paul Trejo]

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another. Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means

So what you're saying is for those men who are having to go through a bad divorce its okay to higher a killer to kill their wife and only be the financiers of the assassin and that doesn't make you involved? Okay then! that's cheaper then keeping her.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy

Ummm Wrong again, Pawley who was apart of Operation 40 certainly mingled with less fortunate people, people who had no money, and yet hated Kennedy, take Sturgis and my father as example, as well as many of the Cubans at the time struggling to survive, although, my father liked Kennedy, Sturgis and many others hated Kennedy, however, both men mingled with the rich and both men were poor, so I don't get your way of thinking, another words if you were to say money talks I'd agree, Pawley financed several projects into Cuba. So what makes you think he couldn't finance Kennedy's assassination too?

Scott

First, Scott, I'm not saying that the financiers were innocent, I'm saying that of the thousands of financiers who paid boasters and frauds to kill Kennedy, only those financiers who actually paid the actual killers, the tiny few, were actually guilty of a conspiracy.

In other words, if husband pays assassin Y to kill his wife, but separately and unknown to the husband, her butler pays assassin Z to kill her, and assassin Z actually kills her, then the butler is guilty of conspiracy and the husband is innocent. Conversely, if assassin Y kills her, then the butler is innocent of conspiracy, but the husband is guilty.

Same way with the JFK assassination. Even if you had video tape that shows rich-man AA giving a million bucks to hit-man BB to kill JFK, that would mean nothing unless you could also prove that hit-man BB was the hit-man who actually killed JFK.

This is relevant because Assassination Science can name dozens, scores, perhaps a hundred or more possible shooters of JFK. There were so many plots in the Mafia, among rogue CIA elements, the Jimmy Hoffa guys, the Cuban Exiles, the Russian Exiles, the German ex-Nazis, and what not, that we must first of all reach a consensus which of these many plots was the one that actually succeeded.

Then and only then can we identify which financiers were the guilty ones. Yes - they were all deplorable. But only a few were actually guilty.

Yes, money talks. But not all money screams and swears. And not all money hits the mark. We must be more particular.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 1, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Scott Kaiser]

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another. Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means

So what you're saying is for those men who are having to go through a bad divorce its okay to higher a killer to kill their wife and only be the financiers of the assassin and that doesn't make you involved? Okay then! that's cheaper then keeping her.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy

Ummm Wrong again, Pawley who was apart of Operation 40 certainly mingled with less fortunate people, people who had no money, and yet hated Kennedy, take Sturgis and my father as example, as well as many of the Cubans at the time struggling to survive, although, my father liked Kennedy, Sturgis and many others hated Kennedy, however, both men mingled with the rich and both men were poor, so I don't get your way of thinking, another words if you were to say money talks I'd agree, Pawley financed several projects into Cuba. So what makes you think he couldn't finance Kennedy's assassination too?

Scott

First, Scott, I'm not saying that the financiers were innocent, I'm saying that of the thousands of financiers who paid boasters and frauds to kill Kennedy, only those financiers who actually paid the actual killers, the tiny few, were actually guilty of a conspiracy.

In other words, if husband pays assassin Y to kill his wife, but separately and unknown to the husband, her butler pays assassin Z to kill her, and assassin Z actually kills her, then the butler is guilty of conspiracy and the husband is innocent. Conversely, if assassin Y kills her, then the butler is innocent of conspiracy, but the husband is guilty.

Same way with the JFK assassination. Even if you had video tape that shows rich-man AA giving a million bucks to hit-man BB to kill JFK, that would mean nothing unless you could also prove that hit-man BB was the hit-man who actually killed JFK.

This is relevant because Assassination Science can name dozens, scores, perhaps a hundred or more possible shooters of JFK. There were so many plots in the Mafia, among rogue CIA elements, the Jimmy Hoffa guys, the Cuban Exiles, the Russian Exiles, the German ex-Nazis, and what not, that we must first of all reach a consensus which of these many plots was the one that actually succeeded.

Then and only then can we identify which financiers were the guilty ones. Yes - they were all deplorable. But only a few were actually guilty.

Yes, money talks. But not all money screams and swears. And not all money hits the mark. We must be more particular.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Okay! Now I am greatly confused...

In other words, if husband pays assassin Y to kill his wife, but separately and unknown to the husband, her butler pays assassin Z to kill her, and assassin Z actually kills her, then the butler is guilty of conspiracy and the husband is innocent.

I would think that if the wife would have been killed by "Z" who was unknown to be the killer to the husband and "Y" didn't do it because the murder plan was carried out sooner then planed then how does that allow the husband or "Y" off the hook? I mean the murder took place and everyone was in on it according to any prosecutor whether it was prior or after the fact. The only circumstantial evidence was that "the husband and butler" was plotting her death. How does that, in a court of law excluded the husband of conspiracy to comment murder?

By the way, here is a little more on Pawley:

David Price Cannon began researching the life of Ambassador William Douglas Pawley over 35 years ago. An aviation pioneer in Cuba and China. Founder of the Flying Tigers. Global entrepreneur. Diplomat in Peru and Brazil. Advisor to President's Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. An architect of U.S. covert policy. Coup plotter against governments in Guatemala and Cuba. A CIA covert agent. An organizer of Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. A critic of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. A friend of Clare Boothe Luce, CIA Director Allen Dulles, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Senator James Eastland and foreign dictators. A name high on the witness list for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassination's hearings at the time Pawley committed suicide.

Although an Ambassador and a friend of Secretary of State George C. Marshall, William D. Pawley despised those in the State Department who believed diplomacy was superior to sabotage and subversion in Russia, Guatemala, Cuba and China. He fed his own paranoia and became its most vocal advocate.

When President Kennedy failed to provide air cover during the Bay of Pigs invasion and hinted at detente instead of bombing Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, William Pawley not only criticized him but then partook in a project to discredit JFK. When Lee Harvey Oswald was barely known, Pawley, Clare Boothe Luce and their associates claimed Oswald was working for Castro.

Counting Richard Nixon as an ally against communism, Pawley contributed heavily to his campaign and was stunned when President Nixon opened diplomatic talks with communist China, Pawley's enemy of 40 years. He soon titled his own biography Russia Is Winning and not long after its completion committed suicide. In the end, William Pawley who built planes in India to fight an airwar over China was unable to fathom that diplomacy could transform Mao's China from communism into one of the most powerful capitalistic societies in the world.

This site outlines the content of the in-depth research David Price Cannon has accumulated about William Pawley. Queries should be made to pawleyinfo@aol.com

Researching Pawley's life took decades because hundreds of documents relating to his covert activities during the 1950s and 60s were classified for three decades. They were finally made available through the combined efforts of the Mary Ferrell Foundation --http://www.maryferrell.org/ -- which provides online access to more than one million pages of declassified documents. The majority of them come from the Assassination Archives and Research Center in Washington DC, run by James Lesar: http://www.aarclibrary.org

Many additional details about William Douglas Pawley were found in the Pawley Collection at George C. Marshall Library in Lexington, Virginia: http://www.marshallfoundation.org

The Flying Tiger years of William D. Pawley in China are illuminated by Daniel Ford: http://www.flyingtigersbook.com

Lets not forget, that I remember Pawley as "uncle Sidney Saks".

Edited February 1, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Pawley was also a member of the Suite 8F group based in Texas. I GUARANTEE YOU some of the key players in that group killed JFK. Period - end of story.

Suite 8F group: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2868

Pawley grew up in Cuba and no doubt lost a lot of family money when Castro nationalized billions of assets. So he was invested beyond belief in anti-Castro activies. And if those "traitor Kennedys" were not going to get rid of Castro ... then (the thinking goes) someone needed to put a bullet in the Kennedys. That is exactly how many folks in the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban community thought.

Pawley certainly is a "person of interest" (i.e. suspect) in the JFK assassination.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy, that we have identified the killers of JFK. Far more proof is needed. These blanket statements are too general.

Theoretically, of course, it makes sense that they would hope to kill Kennedy, and since they were wealthy it also makes sense that they would throw money at anybody who promised they would try to kill Kennedy. Many such money-throwers have been named over the past half-century, including Howard Hughes, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Jimmy Hoffa, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Joseph Milteer and countless others. The fact that they threw money at countless mercenaries to kill Castro or to kill Kennedy might make them deplorable, but it doesn't prove they were the killers.

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another.

Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means. Only the few who actually succeeded in killing Kennedy would be guilty of the crime.

We can't blame people generally just because they hated Kennedy with a purple passion, and possessed more than enough money to get the job done. The actual assassination wasn't as easy as it may appear.

Just as only a few assassins were actually guilty of killing Kennedy (though a hundred tried to some degree), in the same way, only those few financiers who funded the actual killers are guilty of the conspiracy.

I propose that in order to identify who the truly guilty financiers were, we must first and foremost identify at least the contours of the ground-crew who actually held the rifles and pulled the triggers.

That demand, unfortunately, is too often treated as a 'minor detail' that will fall out as a result of identifying the financiers. I suggest the opposite. There were too many financiers to identify them with certainty. They resided in perhaps every single State of the USA. There were far too many. Focus on the ground-crew.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I attached a high degree of credibility to Madeleine Duncan Brown who Lyndon Johnson told on 12/31/63 that it was the Texas oil men she knew in Dallas and the CIA who killed JFK.

Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination. These are oil men who Ed Clark (LBJ's key political player in Texas) would have close contact with. Barr McClellan has confirmed that the inner circle of LBJ's law firm believed that he had orchestrated the JFK assassination. In addition, Billie Sol Estes, who plotted murders with LBJ, had a conversation with Cliff Carter and they discussed LBJ's role in the JFK assassination.

That is one key reason why I think Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil men were at the heart of the JFK assassination. Currently, I do not have Edwin Walker "in" the JFK assassination, but his profile is a natural for it.

Secondly, I just don't think Oswald would be taking pot shots at 2 political enemies: Walker on the far right (Oswald most likely US intelligence) and Kennedy who was considered a traitorous liberal in Dallas.

Also, most JFK researchers don't know that Clint Murchison, Sr. and John J. McCloy were close personal friends. Or that LBJ and Nelson Rockefeller were close personal friends and that LBJ had in fact supported Rockefeller for president behind the scenes in spring, 1968.

Madeleine Duncan Brown was the most beloved mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years from 1948 until 1969. Madeleine is one of the truth tellers and keys to understanding the ugly reality of the JFK assassination. She had a son Steven Mark with Lyndon in 1950. Madeleine lived from 1925 to 2002 and was madly in love with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote the book Texas in the Morning 24 years after the death of LBJ. She makes some BLOCKBUSTER revelations in this book, such as:

In the night of 12/31/63 or the morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendezvous’ with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

Do I think that OTHER members of the Texas Suite 8F community were involved in the JFK assassination. Probably ... or at the very least they knew what was about to happen (or found out after the fact.)

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I attached a high degree of credibility to Madeleine Duncan Brown who Lyndon Johnson told on 12/31/63 that it was the Texas oil men she knew in Dallas and the CIA who killed JFK.

Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination. These are oil men who Ed Clark (LBJ's key political player in Texas) would have close contact with. Barr McClellan has confirmed that the inner circle of LBJ's law firm believed that he had orchestrated the JFK assassination. In addition, Billie Sol Estes, who plotted murders with LBJ, had a conversation with Cliff Carter and they discussed LBJ's role in the JFK assassination.

That is one key reason why I think Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil men were at the heart of the JFK assassination. Currently, I do not have Edwin Walker "in" the JFK assassination, but his profile is a natural for it.

Secondly, I just don't think Oswald would be taking pot shots at 2 political enemies: Walker on the far right (Oswald most likely US intelligence) and Kennedy who was considered a traitorous liberal in Dallas.

Also, most JFK researchers don't know that Clint Murchison, Sr. and John J. McCloy were close personal friends. Or that LBJ and Nelson Rockefeller were close personal friends and that LBJ had in fact supported Rockefeller for president behind the scenes in spring, 1968.

Madeleine Duncan Brown was the most beloved mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years from 1948 until 1969. Madeleine is one of the truth tellers and keys to understanding the ugly reality of the JFK assassination. She had a son Steven Mark with Lyndon in 1950. Madeleine lived from 1925 to 2002 and was madly in love with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote the book Texas in the Morning 24 years after the death of LBJ. She makes some BLOCKBUSTER revelations in this book, such as:

In the night of 12/31/63 or the morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendezvous’ with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

Do I think that OTHER members of the Texas Suite 8F community were involved in the JFK assassination. Probably ... or at the very least they knew what was about to happen (or found out after the fact.)

Robert, thanks for keeping the door open to my arguments. Here's how I respond to your objections:

1. Granting that Madeleine Brown is telling the truth, how far does her statement go? All that happened was that LBJ, who was emotional and angry, told her this phrase: "It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington."

2. Let's say that Madeleine Brown told the truth - but what makes us think LBJ was telling the truth? He was angry. When people are angry they say many things.

3. I mention this because of the well-known story about what LBJ told the famous reporter, Howard K. Smith in October, 1968. Smith was trying to get a scoop from LBJ about JFK, but LBJ said he had nothing to say. But before Smith left LBJ said, "I'll tell you something about Kennedy's murder that will rock you...Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got him first." Not one word about the Texas oil barons.

4. What involves HL Hunt and Clint Murchison, in my opinion, is not that they were rich oil barons, but that their political views were extremely right-wing (taken largely from Joe McCarthy, to the effect that communists had infiltrated the highest offices of the US Government).

5. H.L. Hunt made money with these views -- his radio show, LIFELINE -- was the Rush Limbaugh show of his time.

6. Two Dallas men who agreed with H.L. Hunt in these extreme views were former Major General Edwin A. Walker and racial segregationist preacher, Billy James Hargis. These two would tour the USA together, preaching the Gospel of Joe McCarthy to sell-out crowds.

7. When General Walker resigned from the Army in 1961 (not retire, but resign; Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century) he gave up his pension. Yet he had no other income. He immediately went to work for himself, in office space donated by the American National Oil Company in Dallas. Walker spent weeks writing speeches.

8. Who can doubt that H.L. Hunt was behind his resignation, offering to protect Walker with a golden parachute?

9. Walker resigned because JFK publicly 'admonished him' for trying to influence the troops' politics with John Birch Society materials, and other materials sent to him by Billy James Hargis.

10. H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were also major supporters of the Billy James Hargis radio show.

11. H.L. Hunt was a friend and supporter of General Walker when he quit the military and needed work. Hunt probably got Walker started with his own speaking tours (which were very successful) and his own publishing company, American Eagle.

12. These Dallas right-wing extremists were also dedicated racial segregationists. When James Meredith, a black Air Force Veteran, insisted on enrolling in Oxford University in Mississippi, and the Supreme Court insisted on making this happen, and JFK committed thousands of Federal troops to make this happen, the segregationists rallied behind former General Edwin A. Walker.

13. In September, 1962, Walker got on national radio and called for thousands of para-military marchers to meet him in Jackson Mississippi to protest JFK's decision. Who can doubt that Hunt, Murchison and Hargis were cheering him on?

14. When the Oxford protest turned into a riot with scores wounded and two dead, RFK chose to arrest General Walker for sedition and contempt of court. Walker quickly came up with the bail, but that wasn't good enough for RFK.

15. RFK then made what may have been the biggest blunder of his careeer -- he exploited the power of his office and the science of psychiatry to hold General Walker in a psychiatric hospital against his will "for his own safety". Dr. Thomas Szasz erupted in protest against this political use of psychiatry, and the ACLU (which Walker detested) rushed to defend Walker against this bizarre novum of scientific tyranny.

16. RFK had to quickly back down. Katzenbach offered to free Walker in exchange for silence. Walker shot back, "That's blackmail! Go to hell!" The Government dropped the charges and Walker returned to Dallas and a hero's welcome in October, 1962.

17. Promptly, Walker and Hargis implemented a new USA tour to preach about the new Communists in the White House who plan to use psychiatry to brainwash people and make them Communists! They called their tour, the Midnight Ride, calling the warning to Americans about the Reds inside the US Government.

18. The night that Walker returned from his long tour was April 10, 1963. That night around 9pm, somebody shot a high-powered rifle from his backyard fence into his living room, missing him by an inch. This shot changed his life.

19. Instead of the USA trotting super-speaker, Walker dropped out of sight.

20. Why do Barr McClellan (2003) and Philip Nelson (2011) insist that LBJ was the origin of the plot against JFK? They rely on the notion that Ed Clark planned and managed this plot for LBJ. But that is the weakest part of their theory.

21. Because Ed Clark is also credited with keeping LBJ ignorant of all the details - so that LBJ would not have any information about what was happening. This is a clever way of explaining why LBJ actually knew no details at all, while still blaming him for allegedly "master-minding" the JFK assassination.

22. Even though the inner circle of LBJ's law firm believed that Ed Clark orchestrated the JFK assassination, that proves exactly nothing at all. It is merely innuendo.

23. Even though Billie Sol Estes and Cliff Carter would go drinking together and talk about LBJ's alleged role in the JFK assassination, that also proves exactly nothing. Mere hear-say.

24. If those are the only reasons that we have for blaming LBJ, we must admit that this case is even weaker than the one Garrison brought against Clay Shaw.

25. General Walker had a clear, personal motivation for revenge against the Kennedys. To the end of his life he told people that RFK was behind the April 10th incident when somebody shot at him at 9pm in his own home. (He said some stranger things than that, but this was the staple charge.)

26. It was not so much the Texas OIL men that were at the root of the JFK plot, IMHO, but the Texas RIGHT-WING. Naturally, some big oil barons were ALSO extreme right-wingers, but that only meant that the extreme right-wing could afford to do anything they wanted. It's the POLITICS that count.

27. Edwin Walker's profile is front and center for the JFK plot.

28. Add to this Walker's leadership role in the Texas Minutemen, and the fact that many Dallas Police Department employees were members of (or sympathetic to) the Texas Minutemen and the John Birch Society...and any role that any members of the Dallas Police Department may have played in this very elaborate plot would have a strong center to rally around.

29. Add to this Walker's role in the abuse of Adlai Stevenson on "UN Day" (24Oct63). Walker was directly involved, because when Adlai announced his speech for 24Oct63, Walker quickly rented a venue for 23Oct63 down the street, and called it, "US Day". Walker despised and detested the United Nations. Walker whipped up the crowd to disrupt Adlai in every way possible.

30. On the day of Adlai's speech, the KENNEDY WANTED FOR TREASON advertisements circulated in downtown Dallas -- one month before they would circulate in Dallas when JFK visited. Walker (along with Larrie Schmidt and crew) was behind this, too.

31. As for LHO taking shots at anybody -- he does not strike me as an emotionally solid person -- he was easily persuaded to do radical things by older, right-wing men like George DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt -- like David Ferrie and Guy Banister.

32. As for Oswald shooting Kennedy -- remember the German newspaper Deutsche NationalZeitung objected, "why would a communist shoot a communist?" That didn't stop Walker from telling his story.

33. If Oswald was persuaded to shoot at Walker (the next Hitler), and if he was captured in this crime by the paramilitary and underground Minutemen (represented by Guy Banister and Edwin Walker), then he could also be persuaded to at least hand his rifle over to somebody near the Texas School Book Depository.

34. I also doubt strongly that Oswald took any shots at JFK. But I don't doubt that Oswald was up to his neck in mud from the company that he kept (and we have footage).

35. I have no doubts that extremely wealthy US citizens would have close friendships with extremely powerful US Government figures. No matter how nefarious this might actually be, it is still no proof at all of murder.

36. Madeleine Brown truthfully told what she heard, but what she heard was rumor.

37. We need more detail - especially at the ground level. We should trace the Dallas Police activities more closely. We should trace the Minutemen in Dallas more closely.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

Edited February 2, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Stephen Courts]

I recently emailed Roger Stone, Nixon confidant and longtime and notorious GOP operative, my essay 'LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK." Or rather, I tweeted it to him.

My essay: http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/2011/12/lbj-cia-assassination-of-jfk-updated.html

Here is Roger Stone's "tweet" back to me on January 9, 2012:

"LBJ had it done. Mob, CIA, Hoover, all in on it. RFK knew. So did Nixon."

This comes from a man who was very, very, very close to Richard Nixon. Obviously, I need to follow up on this but I thought I would share it with you first.

You can google "Roger Stone Richard Nixon" and learn more about Stone.

Roger Stone was very close to Nixon. I would not be surprised if he had personal, private talks with Nixon about the JFK assassination.

Stone even has a tattoo of Nixon on his upper back; that is how vested he is in Nixon.

Nixon knew the truth about what LBJ and CIA had done. In fact, that was his firewall defense in Watergate – don’t investigate me or the “whole Bay of Pigs thing” is going to come out.

Nixon used to tell his operatives never, ever take any money from H.L. Hunt. I think one big reason for that was he knew that Hunt would then think he owned Nixon, and also Nixon was aware of Hunt’s role in the JFK assassination.

There is another longtime GOP operative named Jack Wheeler – his web site is “To The Point News.” Wheeler is a longtime GOP insider. Wheeler is also close friends with Jeb Bush. I once corresponded with Wheeler on this matter; he told me he had always suspected Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination.

Here is a brief bio of Roger Stone: http://biggovernment.com/author/rstone/

Roger Stone:

Roger Stone is a legendary American Republican political consultant who has played a key role in the election of Republican presidents from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Stone is credited with the public relations rehabilitation of President Richard M. Nixon after his resignation in 1974. Stone first worked for Nixon as Chairman of Connecticut Youth for Nixon/Agnew in 1968 and graduating to a position in Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign which won 49 out of 50 states.

In 1976 Stone was named National Director of Youth for Reagan, a division of Governor Ronald Reagan's 1976 Presidential campaign. In 1978, Stone co-founded the National Conservative Political Action Committee [NCPAC] where he is credited with developing the negative campaign into an art form and pioneering the use of negative campaign advertising which Mr. Stone calls "comparative, not negative."

Starting in 1979, Stone served as Regional Political Director for Governor Reagan's 1980 campaign for President handling New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, his native State. Stone became known for his expertise and strategies for motivating and winning ethnic and Catholic voters.

Stone went on to serve in the same capacity in Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign adding responsibility for Pennsylvania and Ohio to the states Stone managed in 1980. He went on to serve as a Senior Consultant for California for President George H. W. Bush's campaign.

In 2000 Stone is credited with the hard-ball tactics which resulted in closing down the Miami-Dade Presidential recount. Stone is credited in HBO's recent movie, "Recount 2000" with fomenting the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" in which a Republican mob swarmed the recount demanding a shutdown while thousands of Cuban-Americans marched outside the Courthouse demanding the same thing.

Stone has worked for numerous Republican US Senators like Senator Arlen Specter as well as pro-American political parties in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean. He is consulted regularly on communications and corporate and public relations strategy by fortune 500 ECO's and pro-democracy foreign leaders.

Stone has been profiled in the Weekly Standard, The New Yorker, and the Miami Herald in 2007 and 2008. Mr. Stone has written for the New York Times Sunday Magazine, The New York Times Op Ed page and for Newsmax.com. He has appeared frequently on FOX News, NBC Nightly News, CNN, MSNBC, and the Today Show. Stone is the editor and publisher of STONEzone.com.

Robert, outstanding true investigative journalism,a seemingly lost art in the bogus MSM. Just another day of great reporting and another contribution to our journey to bring the conspirators to some form of accountability. Robert Groden said, "it is too late for justice, but it is never too late for the truth". Stephen Courts

Edited February 2, 2012 by Stephen Courts

[Paul Trejo]

I recently emailed Roger Stone, Nixon confidant and longtime and notorious GOP operative, my essay 'LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK." Or rather, I tweeted it to him.

...

Here is Roger Stone's "tweet" back to me on January 9, 2012:

"LBJ had it done. Mob, CIA, Hoover, all in on it. RFK knew. So did Nixon."

This comes from a man who was very, very, very close to Richard Nixon...

This claim from Roger Stone, no matter how close he was to President Nixon, is still not proof.

It reminds me of the claim by E. Howard Hunt, long time CIA operative and Watergate burglar. He was also very close to Nixon, and he also claimed, in a deathbed confession, that LBJ was the leader of the plot to kill JFK.

But being close to Nixon - no matter how close - cannot in itself be a guarantee that: (1) this person was telling the truth; or (2) this person was privy to all the facts in the case.

Perhaps, from their limited historical viewpoint, it appeared to them that LBJ was the leader of the plot to kill JFK. Even if they believed what they themselves said (which is itself unproven) we have no proof that they had all the facts.

In the case of E. Howard Hunt, for example, his job as a CIA operative was to obey the orders of the President of the USA. In order for a man like that to participate in a plot to kill that very same President, that man must -- absolutely must -- immediately replace in his mind another President to whom he will be loyal. According to the US Constitution, that person would be the Vice President. So, it remains possible that Howard Hunt, in his limited viewpoint, justified his role (whatever it may have been) in the assassination of JFK by imagining that LBJ was the leader of the plot, insofar as LBJ was the topmost member of the US Government immediately after President John F. Kennedy.

In other words, Howard Hunt may have simply been justifying his own role, and resting his case on the shoulders of LBJ.

I say this because LBJ (even by the testimony of Ed Clark) had no knowledge of any details of such a plot, so LBJ could not have orchestrated any such plot. Besides this, LBJ, as Vice President, did not have great powers. Those who supported him had far greater powers.

Those who supported LBJ and who hated JFK had a tremendous motive to support a plot to kill JFK, if they heard about it or had an opportunity. But LBJ would at most only be a passive witness to all these deals involving all these millions of dollars of payoffs and so on.

If others were involved that LBJ knew about, then perhaps LBJ was an accomplice, but perhaps he was only an accomplice after the fact.

J. Edgar Hoover was closer to the events than LBJ was. J. Edgar Hoover mocked up the Lone Assassin theory that guided the Warren Commission. Not LBJ, but J. Edgar Hoover did that. Hoover was well aware of plots to kill JFK in 1963, from Carlos Marcello and others, too.

But Hoover did not participate in any planning to kill JFK (to the best of my knowledge), rather, Hoover knew that he only had to turn away for a short while for all potential assassins to rush into the scene. By failing to act on Marcello's threat, for example, Hoover became a passive accomplice to the killing of JFK. (This scenario is well-described by Gerald McKnight in his 2005 book, BREACH OF TRUST.)

Many people were aware that something was going on. Many people in Dallas who were far removed from these powerful people still joked among themselves by water coolers that morning, "I wonder where the shooting will start!" It was in the air.

I've read the books by Zirbel, McClellon and Nelson, and even with their combined thousand pages plus they don't convince me that LBJ was the leader of the plot to kill JFK.

Also, Roger Stone didn't mention the right-wing in Dallas? He didn't mention H.L. Hunt? And he said RFK knew? RFK? What did he know and when did he know it? It is common knowledge that RFK suspected LBJ at first, and even confronted him, but he had nothing to make it stick. LBJ calmly told RFK that he was in error, and that was the end of it.

So, Roger Stone reminds me of E. Howard Hunt. From their positions close to Nixon, they had rumors - no matter how lofty.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 3, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Len Colby]

LEN 1/24: My latest

Perhaps you are right to a degree about it being “a power play by W. Averell Harriman” but you contradict yourself a bit, Dillion AFAIK had nothing to do with the coup, you cited Hammer who said Rusk and McNamara were against it and JFK confirmed this regarding the latter.

Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon was a member of Kennedy's Executive Committee of the National Security Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis and attended a number of high-level meetings on the Vietnam crisis in '63. In this August 28 meeting he advocated for decisiveness -- one way or the other.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn07.pdf

LEN 1/24: At best then you’d have only one of the three pushing for a coup and the other two opposed, but as you noted he didn’t really support the coup.

But Kennedy was playing for indecisiveness at that point, as indicated in the cable sent to Lodge the next day and the comments he made during the 8/28 conference.

Len, check out the above and compare Kennedy's comments with both former Ambassador Nolting's and RFK's -- they seem to be stalling for time.

LEN 1/24: Yes they opposed the idea, apparently that was one of the reasons Nolting was pushed out. As for JFK:

The President said we should decide what we can do here or suggest things that can be done in the field which would maximize the chances of the rebel generals. We should ask Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins how we can build up military forces which would carry out a coup. At present, it does not look as if the coup forces could defeat Diem.

Secretary Dillon interrupted to say, “Then don't go.”

The President asked the Defense Department to come up with ways of building up the anti-Diem forces in Saigon.

So JFK was pushing for a coup but speculated the general’s might not be ready and Dillion the Republican ‘Harrimanite’ advised him “Then don't go” [down that road?]. But go ahead and rationalize that as JFK “playing for indecisiveness” and Dillion push for the opposite.

Ultimately however JFK cannot be absolved of responsibility, though perhaps manipulated he was fully aware of the cable’s contents and implications before approving it and did nothing to reverse course or fire those responsible over the course of the next 10 – 13 weeks respectively.

I'd argue that JFK didn't grasp the full implications of 8/24 "Hilsman" cable -- "he passed it off too quickly," as his brother Robert put it. "Major mistake."

LEN 1/24: I think “Bobby” was trying to rationalize away his brother’s mistake, he knew that it would incite a coup, normal cables to ambassadors don’t need to be cleared with the leaders of three departments.

From then on Harriman and his allies had the upper hand. And that's my knock on Kennedy -- he should have known better. Gilpatric smelled a rat -- why didn't JFK?

LEN 1/24: “Gilpatric smelled a rat”? Please elaborate.

So why didn't he fire Harriman?

Fire the guy who'd just negotiated an arms control treaty with the Soviets, landing him on the cover of Time mag? Fire the guy who financed both the Soviets and the Nazis in the 20's and 30's and who -- I'd argue -- was more responsible for the outbreak of WW2 than any other single individual? Fire the guy who was put in charge of implementing the Marshall Plan so that Europe could recover from the carnage Harriman played a major role in unleashing?

LEN 1/24: Hmmmm, the underlined part is a novel theory, worthy of its own thread. I guess you know better than:

- FDR, HST and JFK because they appointed him to various senior posts

- Churchill who negotiated with him at Yalta AND

- The good people of the state of NY (a good number of them Jews) who elected him governor in 1954 (the only Democrat elected between 1938 and 1974)

Proteges of Harriman (or his wife Pamela) occupied the White House for 20 years -- after he was dead!

LEN 1/24: ??? So every POTUS till Bush jr. was a Harrimanite?

Mess with someone with as much juice as Harriman, why, a guy could end up getting shot!...oh, uh...well, yeah...

LEN 1/24: So you think Averil was “in on it”?

My interpretation of the Aug. 29 cable is 180 degrees from yours how him saying “I have approved all the messages you are receiving from others today, and I emphasize that everything in these messages has my full support” help your case?

It fits perfectly with my case that JFK was struggling to re-gain control over Viet policy in the wake of Cable 243. What else was he going to tell Lodge? "I've been out-maneuvered by your allies in my Administration and I want to take a mulligan on 243"?

LEN 1/24: 1ST I don’t so underestimate JFK so much as to buy the notion he was so naïve as to not understand what he had approved. Why say it had his “full support” if he didn’t mean it? Why say reserved the right to reverse course if he didn’t mean it?

No, he owned it thoroughly and reserved the right to reverse course. But it was soon too late.

Take it away, James W. Douglass -- JFK and the Unspeakable, pg 192:

Kennedy was losing control of his government. In early September, he discovered that another key decision related to the coup had been made without his knowledge.

A White House meeting with the President was discussing whether or not to cut off the Commodity Import Program that propped up South Vietnam's economy. It was a far-reaching decision. For the United States to withdraw the AID program could prompt a coup against Diem.

David Bell, head of AID, made a casual comment that stopped the discussion. He said, "There's no point in talking about cutting off commodity aid. I've already cut it off."

"You've done what?" said John Kennedy.

"Cut off commodity aid," said Bell.

Kennedy shook his head in dismay.

"My God, do you know what you've done?" said the president.

He was staring at David Bell, but seeing a deeper reality. Kennedy knew Bell's agency, AID, functioned as a CIA front. AID administrator David Bell would not have carried out his "automatic" cutoff without CIA approval. "We do it whenever we have differences with a client government" could serve as a statement of CIA policy. By cutting South Vietnam's purse strings, the CIA was sending a message to its upstart client ruler, Diem, as well as to the plotting generals waiting in the wings for such a signal. Most of all, the message was meant for the man staring at David Bell in disbelief. He was being told who was in control. It was not the President.

By having AID cut off the Commodity Import Program, the CIA had made it impossible for Kennedy to avoid a coup in South Vietnam. The aid cutoff was a designated signal for a coup. In late August, the CIA had agreed with the plotting South Vietnamese generals that just such a cut in economic aid would be the U.S. government's green light to the generals for a coup.

LEN 1/24: Douglas of course mixed a lot of his own speculation in along with the facts obviously JFK could have overridden Bell. What was the source for this supposed dialogue?

And what about him telling Lodge “Until the very moment of the go signal for the operation by the Generals, I must reserve a contingent right to change course and reverse previous instructions.” But never revers[ing] previous instructions”?

See above. Kennedy's bureaucratic strategy of "indecisiveness" created a vacuum the pro-coup forces in his administration happily filled.

LEN 1/24: Does anyone besides a certain [Clark?] Clifford Varnell back this ‘bureaucratic strategy of "indecisiveness"’ theory?

JFK got lots of thing right, especially towards the end of his administration, but he was human and sometimes made mistakes, put politics ahead of principles or otherwise didn’t conform to the progressive image of him that he normally deserved.

At least you, unlike Jim D., acknowledge that JFK was aware of the cable an OKed the coup, he and a few other members seem to be unable to accept that 'St. Kennedy' could have done anything wrong.

He surrounded himself with vipers whose agendas ran contrary to his own.

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.

LEN 1/24: Did O’Donnell ever raise his concerns with his boss? How many years (decades) after the fact did he first make such claims?

BUMPED FOR CLIFF

[Cliff Varnell]

BUMPED FOR CLIFF

Len, I haven't forgotten you! This is a great discussion but it's going to be a little while longer before I draw all my material together.

Check my response on the GG thread?

[Mark Wengler]

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another. Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means

So what you're saying is for those men who are having to go through a bad divorce its okay to higher a killer to kill their wife and only be the financiers of the assassin and that doesn't make you involved? Okay then! that's cheaper then keeping her.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy

Ummm Wrong again, Pawley who was apart of Operation 40 certainly mingled with less fortunate people, people who had no money, and yet hated Kennedy, take Sturgis and my father as example, as well as many of the Cubans at the time struggling to survive, although, my father liked Kennedy, Sturgis and many others hated Kennedy, however, both men mingled with the rich and both men were poor, so I don't get your way of thinking, another words if you were to say money talks I'd agree, Pawley financed several projects into Cuba. So what makes you think he couldn't finance Kennedy's assassination too?

Scott

First, Scott, I'm not saying that the financiers were innocent, I'm saying that of the thousands of financiers who paid boasters and frauds to kill Kennedy, only those financiers who actually paid the actual killers, the tiny few, were actually guilty of a conspiracy.

In other words, if husband pays assassin Y to kill his wife, but separately and unknown to the husband, her butler pays assassin Z to kill her, and assassin Z actually kills her, then the butler is guilty of conspiracy and the husband is innocent. Conversely, if assassin Y kills her, then the butler is innocent of conspiracy, but the husband is guilty.

Same way with the JFK assassination. Even if you had video tape that shows rich-man AA giving a million bucks to hit-man BB to kill JFK, that would mean nothing unless you could also prove that hit-man BB was the hit-man who actually killed JFK.

This is relevant because Assassination Science can name dozens, scores, perhaps a hundred or more possible shooters of JFK. There were so many plots in the Mafia, among rogue CIA elements, the Jimmy Hoffa guys, the Cuban Exiles, the Russian Exiles, the German ex-Nazis, and what not, that we must first of all reach a consensus which of these many plots was the one that actually succeeded.

Then and only then can we identify which financiers were the guilty ones. Yes - they were all deplorable. But only a few were actually guilty.

Yes, money talks. But not all money screams and swears. And not all money hits the mark. We must be more particular.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

The husband would be guilty of conspiracy to murder his wife because he hired someone to do it.

[Paul Trejo]

The husband would be guilty of conspiracy to murder his wife because he hired someone to do it.

True, he could be guilty of a conspiracy, but he would not be guilty of murder, because in this case, a different assassin killed her than the assassin that the husband hired. He might be deplorable, but legally the husband in this case is not guilty of murder.

In the same way, if we want to find those who are truly guilty of the murder of JFK (aside from LHO) we need to first identify the actual assassins; and not simply stop when we find somebody who threw money at any assassin who promised to get the job done.

There were probably 100 plots of JFK just as there were probably 100 plots against Castro. I speculate that all those plots made lots of money for the assassins who promised to get the job done. Only a tiny few of those assassins actually killed JFK. So only a few of those financiers are actually guilty of murder.

--Paul

[Scott Kaiser]

The husband would be guilty of conspiracy to murder his wife because he hired someone to do it.

True, he could be guilty of a conspiracy, but he would not be guilty of murder, because in this case, a different assassin killed her than the assassin that the husband hired. He might be deplorable, but legally the husband in this case is not guilty of murder.

In the same way, if we want to find those who are truly guilty of the murder of JFK (aside from LHO) we need to first identify the actual assassins; and not simply stop when we find somebody who threw money at any assassin who promised to get the job done.

There were probably 100 plots of JFK just as there were probably 100 plots against Castro. I speculate that all those plots made lots of money for the assassins who promised to get the job done. Only a tiny few of those assassins actually killed JFK. So only a few of those financiers are actually guilty of murder.

--Paul

we need to first identify the actual assassins; and not simply stop when we find somebody who threw money at any assassin who promised to get the job done.

There were probably 100 plots of JFK just as there were probably 100 plots against Castro. I speculate that all those plots made lots of money for the assassins who promised to get the job done. Only a tiny few of those assassins actually killed JFK. So only a few of those financiers are actually guilty of murder.

Operation 40 started out with 40 men, and ended with 86 men altogether, can you identify, meaning name ALL 86 assassins?

Edited February 5, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Paul Trejo]

..Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination...

Robert, you and I agree on the central place that H.L. Hunt plays in the Dallas power structure, not only regarding wealth and power, but also regarding right-wing ideology. In my view, the assassination of JFK would not be possible without the extreme right-wing ideology that considered JFK to be a Communist-sympathizer or worse.

To appreciate this theory to the fullest, we should become familiar with the right-wing hermenuetic of Dallas in 1963. We should be familiar with their literature, i.e. the "Life Line" radio show of H.L. Hunt, the Dan Smoot Report (which is plagiarized by the 21st century American left wing today), the rants of segregationist Evangelist Billy James Hargis, the John Birch Society teachings of Robert Welch, and the nationally broadcast speeches of General Edwin A. Walker. These people knew each other (Hunt, Smoot, Hargis, Welch, Walker) and they shared stories.

I was at the Briscoe Center for American History for several hours today, looking through Edwin Walker's archives and trying to identify the tone of his speeches and writings. They sound so much like Robert Welch that it seems to me today that he borrowed much of his vocabulary and phrases from Welch. Now, Welch borrowed much of his vocabulary from Joseph McCarthy; and Joseph McCarthy got a lot of his ideas from General Charles Willoughby, the intelligence officer of General Douglas MacArthur. Willoughby was a right-wing fanatic (and like MacArthur he was an Army officer in World War One as well).

It now seems that when Truman dismissed MacArthur, that's when the modern right-wing propaganda fired up in a major way. MacArthur and Willoughby began to entertain humor about Truman's treason. This was all Joe McCarthy needed to fire up his lackluster Senate career and become a superstar. Thus the right-wing was born, and even after Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate, that didn't stop an American cottage industry in right-wing paranoia about Reds in Washington. Thus the John Birch Society was born.

These people took themselves very seriously. H.L. Hunt was so impressed with this train of thought that he spent millions on a radio show to promote these ideas. He called it, "Life Line." Dan Smoot was one of his first announcers. H.L. Hunt was himself the main writer. Sometimes, however, he would hire Billy James Hargis to write some of his radio spots (because a young Billy James Hargis also wrote for Joe McCarthy).

All of this was centered in Dallas, Texas, the national headquarters of the USA right-wing.

JFK should have known that this was dangerous territory for a Liberal like himself. For the extreme right-wing, the very word 'Liberal' was equivalent to 'Communist.' The very notion of the United Nations would make some of them virtually foam at the mouth. They saw the United Nations as the USSR giving orders to the USA, and the USA paying for the entire show. The Dallas right-wing wanted the UN out of the US now. (This is still a major plank in the John Birch Society platform.)

So, when Adlai Stevenson came to Dallas in October 24th, 1963 to advocate the UN, he should not have been surprised that the John Birch elements in Dallas would have had their own anti-UN rally the night before!

That was set up by General Edwin A. Walker. He called it, "US Day". For the Dallas right-wing, the choice was always between the US and the UN, with no middle ground. So Edwin whipped up his crowd into a religious frenzy, cursing the godless and Satanic UN in favor of the Christian USA. He instructed them to interfere with Adlai's speech by all means possible. And they did just that.

As part of this fiasco, in which Adlai Stevenson was struck on the head with a protest sign, a poster was circulated in downtown Dallas that day and evening. It read: WANTED FOR TREASON - JFK. Yes, Edwin Walker was behind that famous poster as well.

One thing I found in the General Walker archives -- notes for a speech written in early October 1963, marking the anniversary of time RFK had him locked up in an insane asylum in Missouri.

OK - that's the background, and now for my request. While at the Briscoe Center today, I asked to see all the transcripts they have for H.L. Hunt's radio show, "Life Line", for the year 1963. I wanted to read what H.L. Hunt had to say about the treatment of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 10/24/1963, and of course what Hunt had to say in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK on 11/22/1963.

As it turns out, after a lengthy search, the Briscoe archives only have "Life Line" transcripts for December, 1963 and forward. Very frustrating.

So - my question to you and to all who read this request -- do you have access to the written transcripts of H.L. Hunt's "Life Line" radio programs for the months of September through November of 1963? (I believe the transcriber will probably be Melvin Munn.) I would very much like to see these, and I suspect that the Forum might find them to be interesting as well.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 12, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Robert Morrow]

..Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination...

Robert, you and I agree on the central place that H.L. Hunt plays in the Dallas power structure, not only regarding wealth and power, but also regarding right-wing ideology. In my view, the assassination of JFK would not be possible without the extreme right-wing ideology that considered JFK to be a Communist-sympathizer or worse.

To appreciate this theory to the fullest, we should become familiar with the right-wing hermenuetic of Dallas in 1963. We should be familiar with their literature, i.e. the "Life Line" radio show of H.L. Hunt, the Dan Smoot Report (which is plagiarized by the 21st century American left wing today), the rants of segregationist Evangelist Billy James Hargis, the John Birch Society teachings of Robert Welch, and the nationally broadcast speeches of General Edwin A. Walker. These people knew each other (Hunt, Smoot, Hargis, Welch, Walker) and they shared stories.

I was at the Briscoe Center for American History for several hours today, looking through Edwin Walker's archives and trying to identify the tone of his speeches and writings. They sound so much like Robert Welch that it seems to me today that he borrowed much of his vocabulary and phrases from Welch. Now, Welch borrowed much of his vocabulary from Joseph McCarthy; and Joseph McCarthy got a lot of his ideas from General Charles Willoughby, the intelligence officer of General Douglas MacArthur. Willoughby was a right-wing fanatic (and like MacArthur he was an Army officer in World War One as well).

It now seems that when Truman dismissed MacArthur, that's when the modern right-wing propaganda fired up in a major way. MacArthur and Willoughby began to entertain humor about Truman's treason. This was all Joe McCarthy needed to fire up his lackluster Senate career and become a superstar. Thus the right-wing was born, and even after Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate, that didn't stop an American cottage industry in right-wing paranoia about Reds in Washington. Thus the John Birch Society was born.

These people took themselves very seriously. H.L. Hunt was so impressed with this train of thought that he spent millions on a radio show to promote these ideas. He called it, "Life Line." Dan Smoot was one of his first announcers. H.L. Hunt was himself the main writer. Sometimes, however, he would hire Billy James Hargis to write some of his radio spots (because a young Billy James Hargis also wrote for Joe McCarthy).

All of this was centered in Dallas, Texas, the national headquarters of the USA right-wing.

JFK should have known that this was dangerous territory for a Liberal like himself. For the extreme right-wing, the very word 'Liberal' was equivalent to 'Communist.' The very notion of the United Nations would make some of them virtually foam at the mouth. They saw the United Nations as the USSR giving orders to the USA, and the USA paying for the entire show. The Dallas right-wing wanted the UN out of the US now. (This is still a major plank in the John Birch Society platform.)

So, when Adlai Stevenson came to Dallas in October 24th, 1963 to advocate the UN, he should not have been surprised that the John Birch elements in Dallas would have had their own anti-UN rally the night before!

That was set up by General Edwin A. Walker. He called it, "US Day". For the Dallas right-wing, the choice was always between the US and the UN, with no middle ground. So Edwin whipped up his crowd into a religious frenzy, cursing the godless and Satanic UN in favor of the Christian USA. He instructed them to interfere with Adlai's speech by all means possible. And they did just that.

As part of this fiasco, in which Adlai Stevenson was struck on the head with a protest sign, a poster was circulated in downtown Dallas that day and evening. It read: WANTED FOR TREASON - JFK. Yes, Edwin Walker was behind that famous poster as well.

One thing I found in the General Walker archives -- notes for a speech written in early October 1963, marking the anniversary of time RFK had him locked up in an insane asylum in Missouri.

OK - that's the background, and now for my request. While at the Briscoe Center today, I asked to see all the transcripts they have for H.L. Hunt's radio show, "Life Line", for the year 1963. I wanted to read what H.L. Hunt had to say about the treatment of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 10/24/1963, and of course what Hunt had to say in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK on 11/22/1963.

As it turns out, after a lengthy search, the Briscoe archives only have "Life Line" transcripts for December, 1963 and forward. Very frustrating.

So - my question to you and to all who read this request -- do you have access to the written transcripts of H.L. Hunt's "Life Line" radio programs for the months of September through November of 1963? (I believe the transcriber will probably be Melvin Munn.) I would very much like to see these, and I suspect that the Forum might find them to be interesting as well.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

H.L. Hunt - a close friend of Lyndon Johnson and who was in Los Angeles in 1960 at the Democratic convention and who wrote a letter to LBJ telling him to take the VP spot - was at the epicenter of the JFK assassination. In fact, their was a keynote speaker from Canada at JFK Lancer 2010 who said the same thing.

I really need to learn a lot more about Hunt and you are helping me.

H.L. Hunt in 1968 funded the American Independent ticket with George Wallace at the top. Hunt and the other money men INSISTED that George Wallace put Curtis LeMay as the VP. Insisted - meaning it was their idea, not Wallace's.

So obviously, Edwin Walker was close to the murderers of JFK. But was he personally involved? I tend to think NOT because of his letter to the HSCA saying that the bullet in evidence for the Walker shooting was not the one that was shot at him.

That is not consistent with the behavior of someone who has murderered the president 15 years before because it draws too much attention. The best strategy is to just shut up and be quiet, especially for someone who was a highly visible and KNOWN enemy of the Kennedys.

I think that the Texas oil men had close military ties to the CIA/military men who killed JFK. The Air Force keeps coming up: Gen. Ed Lansdale was Air Force (and more significantly CIA). Curtis LeMay was an absolutely rabid JFK hater and present at the JFK autopsy at Bethesda chomping on his cigar. Col. Richard Burris was Air Force and he was LBJ's top military attache.

[Harry J.Dean]

..Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination...

Robert, you and I agree on the central place that H.L. Hunt plays in the Dallas power structure, not only regarding wealth and power, but also regarding right-wing ideology. In my view, the assassination of JFK would not be possible without the extreme right-wing ideology that considered JFK to be a Communist-sympathizer or worse.

To appreciate this theory to the fullest, we should become familiar with the right-wing hermenuetic of Dallas in 1963. We should be familiar with their literature, i.e. the "Life Line" radio show of H.L. Hunt, the Dan Smoot Report (which is plagiarized by the 21st century American left wing today), the rants of segregationist Evangelist Billy James Hargis, the John Birch Society teachings of Robert Welch, and the nationally broadcast speeches of General Edwin A. Walker. These people knew each other (Hunt, Smoot, Hargis, Welch, Walker) and they shared stories.

I was at the Briscoe Center for American History for several hours today, looking through Edwin Walker's archives and trying to identify the tone of his speeches and writings. They sound so much like Robert Welch that it seems to me today that he borrowed much of his vocabulary and phrases from Welch. Now, Welch borrowed much of his vocabulary from Joseph McCarthy; and Joseph McCarthy got a lot of his ideas from General Charles Willoughby, the intelligence officer of General Douglas MacArthur. Willoughby was a right-wing fanatic (and like MacArthur he was an Army officer in World War One as well).

It now seems that when Truman dismissed MacArthur, that's when the modern right-wing propaganda fired up in a major way. MacArthur and Willoughby began to entertain humor about Truman's treason. This was all Joe McCarthy needed to fire up his lackluster Senate career and become a superstar. Thus the right-wing was born, and even after Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate, that didn't stop an American cottage industry in right-wing paranoia about Reds in Washington. Thus the John Birch Society was born.

These people took themselves very seriously. H.L. Hunt was so impressed with this train of thought that he spent millions on a radio show to promote these ideas. He called it, "Life Line." Dan Smoot was one of his first announcers. H.L. Hunt was himself the main writer. Sometimes, however, he would hire Billy James Hargis to write some of his radio spots (because a young Billy James Hargis also wrote for Joe McCarthy).

All of this was centered in Dallas, Texas, the national headquarters of the USA right-wing.

JFK should have known that this was dangerous territory for a Liberal like himself. For the extreme right-wing, the very word 'Liberal' was equivalent to 'Communist.' The very notion of the United Nations would make some of them virtually foam at the mouth. They saw the United Nations as the USSR giving orders to the USA, and the USA paying for the entire show. The Dallas right-wing wanted the UN out of the US now. (This is still a major plank in the John Birch Society platform.)

So, when Adlai Stevenson came to Dallas in October 24th, 1963 to advocate the UN, he should not have been surprised that the John Birch elements in Dallas would have had their own anti-UN rally the night before!

That was set up by General Edwin A. Walker. He called it, "US Day". For the Dallas right-wing, the choice was always between the US and the UN, with no middle ground. So Edwin whipped up his crowd into a religious frenzy, cursing the godless and Satanic UN in favor of the Christian USA. He instructed them to interfere with Adlai's speech by all means possible. And they did just that.

As part of this fiasco, in which Adlai Stevenson was struck on the head with a protest sign, a poster was circulated in downtown Dallas that day and evening. It read: WANTED FOR TREASON - JFK. Yes, Edwin Walker was behind that famous poster as well.

One thing I found in the General Walker archives -- notes for a speech written in early October 1963, marking the anniversary of time RFK had him locked up in an insane asylum in Missouri.

OK - that's the background, and now for my request. While at the Briscoe Center today, I asked to see all the transcripts they have for H.L. Hunt's radio show, "Life Line", for the year 1963. I wanted to read what H.L. Hunt had to say about the treatment of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 10/24/1963, and of course what Hunt had to say in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK on 11/22/1963.

As it turns out, after a lengthy search, the Briscoe archives only have "Life Line" transcripts for December, 1963 and forward. Very frustrating.

So - my question to you and to all who read this request -- do you have access to the written transcripts of H.L. Hunt's "Life Line" radio programs for the months of September through November of 1963? (I believe the transcriber will probably be Melvin Munn.) I would very much like to see these, and I suspect that the Forum might find them to be interesting as well.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

From 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS.

All such information (re; President Kennedy) had no significance to those who desired

to hasten his death. Kennedy's Dallas trip was a non-secret. It was known and leaked

months earlier by .... mole-agents-in-place that lurked for years in every agency,

service and bureau of the U.S. government.

The burrowing moles who's 'sacred duty' is always to serve only the 'ultimate goal' of

the LDS-JBS conquest, informed RID (Research Intelligence Department) of the John Birch

Society on a continuing basis concerning the 'movements' and even the 'personal' activities

of the President.