John Dolva Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 funny mistake. I thought I was correcting the wrong thing because of Richard Helms. I'd written Richard Nagel. At these moments I think the lighter side of Nietzsche helpful. Anyway, Chapter three paragraph one. " One name that will be remembered for years to come whenever the death of President Kennedy is discussed, is that of Gordon Novel, the talkative CIA man. He may become more famous than Lee Harvey Oswald, and for a much better reason. For, while Oswald was only a small cog in a huge machine, Novel played a big role in the conspiracy. For that reason alone, the Warren Commission made sure it missed him completely, as it did. " last paragraph " I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of Novel's attorney - the one, I mean, who is sitting on a stack of explosive documents that could blow the whole Kennedy Murder Fraud sky-high. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) funny mistake. I thought I was correcting the wrong thing because of Richard Helms. I'd written Richard Nagel. At these moments I think the lighter side of Nietzsche helpful. Anyway, Chapter three paragraph one. " One name that will be remembered for years to come whenever the death of President Kennedy is discussed, is that of Gordon Novel, the talkative CIA man. He may become more famous than Lee Harvey Oswald, and for a much better reason. For, while Oswald was only a small cog in a huge machine, Novel played a big role in the conspiracy. For that reason alone, the Warren Commission made sure it missed him completely, as it did. " last paragraph " I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of Novel's attorney - the one, I mean, who is sitting on a stack of explosive documents that could blow the whole Kennedy Murder Fraud sky-high. " John, I think the guy wearing the coat and tie directly behind Oswald's nose in this photo is Gordon Novel: [i "lifted" this photo from the John McAdams website. -T.G.] --Tommy P.S. I've always wondered what kind of "message" the Japanese guy (Ehari?) on the left was trying to convey to/about Oswald by standing and walking around with his arms "akimbo" like this. I suspect it was some kind of dirty inside joke about how LHO was being manipulated into a patsy role... Edited October 14, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) Chapter 5 Case History of a 'Psychotic' Oil Millionaire hmmm... he argues that Hunt is guilty, centring the argument, apart from Oil Depletion and tax loopholes, on Hunt's FBI assisted departure from Dallas under an assumed name (to New York) an hour after the assassination and why it happened. To understand his argument there one has to look at chapter 14 to understand : "Oswald had vanished...Connally had been wounded ... that 'Oswald' must have fired three bullets would have to be explained." Interestingly in the last chapter Hunt (in a 1966 playboy interview) says 'I heard that the Justice Department had caused previous charges against Oswald to be dropped - which made it possible for him to shoot anyone he decided to shoot.' Presumably that's about Walkers story? The statement is part of a reply to a question regarding JJ's 1964 '......very serious charge against you What do you have to say?' edit add MONEY - THEN AND NOW Installment VII H.L. Hunt's Boys and the Circle K Cowboys Larry LaBorde http://www.gold-eagl...orde012704.html Edited October 17, 2012 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) During the early days of the Warren Commission, Rep. Henry Gonzalez asked Earl Warren "to see whether there is any relationship between the Minutemen organization and the assassination of President John F Kennedy." http://news.google.c...minutemen&hl=en Michael, that's an interesting newspaper clipping from January, 1964. I suspect there was no follow-up to the Representative's request. The Minutemen, so closely linked to ex-General Edwin Walker of Dallas as well as to Guy Banister of New Orleans, were also suspected by ATF agent Frank Ellsworth in 1964. Ellsworth also advised the Warren Commission to look deeper into the names he collected in his research. (He had been following a trail of underground firearms in Dallas and New Orleans, as well as a box of bullets for a Manlicher-Carcano rifle.) Nothing came of Ellsworth's advice to the Warren Commission, either. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited October 17, 2012 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) ... JJ steps back from putting Walker in the centre because of ' it's too pat ' as well as looking at some deeper connections that seem to indicate Walker may have been an innocent fall-guy, so in being obvious (I agree) AND innocent to a large degree anyone looking into it will, at some point, meet a blank wall with the central figures eliminated, and Walker can live on knowing but unable to speak. That last bit is a more my take on it, iow I don't know. Back to JJ. The pillars of the fraud were 1. The identity shift of Oswald from Oswald the Minuteman to Oswald the Marxist. 2. That Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. 3. He did it alone. John, I'm disappointed that Joesten stepped back from putting ex-General Edwin Walker in the center of the JFK-assassination cyclone on the sheer basis that "it's too pat". That is unsatisfactory as a reason. If it is "too pat" that means there was a lot of smoke (so to speak). Thus Joesten seems to conclude that, "since there is so much spoke there, we cannot possibly suspect any fire." Such a reverse conclusion can be justified on only one ground -- that the smoke was created by Unknown Others who wished to frame Walker. But unless they are named, unless hard evidence is presented about a true frame-up, then we are left with a deathly weak reason. I am curious -- if Walker was "framed" -- or as you wrote, "Walker may have been an innocent fall-guy," what is the evidence? Also, why did you say that you agree, John? Did I get that right? Were you convinced by Joesten that somebody tried to frame ex-General Walker, the guy who was so bold as to start a riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to protest JFK's support of sending a black student to study there? If Walker was innocent of involvement in the JFK assassination, I want to see the evidence. His hand was in the attacks on Adlai Stevenson on 24 October 1963, and in the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbills that also circulated in October, as well as in the black-bordered Ad funded by the JBS and published by CUSA. Walker was the center of the extremist cyclone in Dallas. He was a leader in the Minutemen as well as the JBS. He was suspect #1 by Bernie Weissman and Jack Ruby (according to their Warren Commission testimony). Until Lee Harvey Oswald was thrown to the wolves (so to speak) ex-General Edwin Walker was suspect #1 in many minds. I find no reason to alter my suspicions of ex-General Walker, based on Joesten's claim that it is "too pat". On the other hand, I agree strongly with Joesten when he claims that the pillars of the JFK plot were: 1. The identity shift of Oswald from Oswald the Minuteman to Oswald the Marxist. Right. This was planned, IMHO, immediately after the attempted assassination of ex-General Edwin Walker by a plot involving Oswald, and very possibly Michael Paine, George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt, among several others. Walker learned the facts about Oswald by Easter Sunday (only days after the shooting). Walker (and the Minutemen) then arranged in April, 1963, to transform Oswald into the patsy of their larger scheme to shift power. That is why Oswald was sent to New Orleans that very month to work with Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. In New Orleans, Oswald's identity was shifted from "the Minuteman" to "the Marxist." 2. That Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. Right; Jim Garrison presented ample evidence that casts complete doubt on the Warren Commission's case against Oswald as the sole shooter at Tippit on 11/22/1963. Even the ballistics evidence that is claimed as genuine cannot fully account for all the forensic questions raised. 3. That Oswald did it alone. Right. That was the official position of the US Government in 1964, and remained the official position throughout the period of Joesten's main writings on this topic. However, the HSCA's conclusion (1979) is currently the official position of the US Government, namely, that Oswald could never have acted alone in the face of the forensic evidence. Oswald did not act alone. The HSCA was incapable of finding Oswald's accomplices. Yet we are assured by the evidence that Oswald's accomplices were the very ones who made Oswald into their patsy. Oswald knew who these people were -- he trusted them. They betrayed him. Again -- the evidence I see points in the direction of ex-General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century). Insofar as Walker was an exhibitionist who loved the limelight -- and also loved a good fight -- I find insufficient strength in Joesten's argument that our suspicion of Walker should be discounted because "it's too pat." On the contrary -- that's actually a perfect reason to suspect the man. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited October 17, 2012 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Sorry, I'm not a reviewer. I'm trying, but it's hard. What's the situation re copying an entire book like this and posting it. The it's too pat is a summary at the end of a list of arguments and a reference to another book. Yet he does not discount him as a person of interest and remember this was written before the Shaw trial, before MLK died, before RFK died. Further he spends some time responding to an attack by the Army on him where he had to explain he did not mean and never said The Army' was guilty and maintained that certain army persons were involved, when he talks of such he talks a fair bit about Walker and Dallas Generals..Most of it's an evolution of earlier books showing how statements he made as early as 1964 were being shown to be correct and also a list of new predicctions with arguments for them. I wish you could have had this discussion with him. I'm sure he knew far more than what he wrote in these thin books and with knowledge as it is today could very well use his approach and knowledge to shift and focus. His flexibility on matters indicate he could be swayed by new data. It's inflexible to decry this. Take what works and leave the rest. Anyway, me, no, no. The obvious is italicised indicating I agree with that and the reason for highlighting that is to highlight a commonality re that, the separation I thought was obvious. Obviously not. I'll try to elaborate some more in the future, but it's hard when also striving for brevity. But, thanks for highlighting problems. I said he may have been an innocent fall guy but in the know and his role was to be obvious and to be the person whose window frame was shot in preparation for what was to come including the shift of Oswald the Minuteman to Oswald the Marxist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) ... JJ steps back from putting Walker in the centre because of ' it's too pat ' as well as looking at some deeper connections that seem to indicate Walker may have been an innocent fall-guy, so in being obvious (I agree) AND innocent to a large degree anyone looking into it will, at some point, meet a blank wall with the central figures eliminated, and Walker can live on knowing but unable to speak. That last bit is a more my take on it, iow I don't know. Back to JJ. The pillars of the fraud were 1. The identity shift of Oswald from Oswald the Minuteman to Oswald the Marxist. 2. That Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. 3. He did it alone. John, I'm disappointed that Joesten stepped back from putting ex-General Edwin Walker in the center of the JFK-assassination cyclone on the sheer basis that "it's too pat". That is unsatisfactory as a reason. If it is "too pat" that means there was a lot of smoke (so to speak). Thus Joesten seems to conclude that, "since there is so much spoke there, we cannot possibly suspect any fire." Such a reverse conclusion can be justified on only one ground -- that the smoke was created by Unknown Others who wished to frame Walker. But unless they are named, unless hard evidence is presented about a true frame-up, then we are left with a deathly weak reason. I am curious -- if Walker was "framed" -- or as you wrote, "Walker may have been an innocent fall-guy," what is the evidence? Also, why did you say that you agree, John? Did I get that right? Were you convinced by Joesten that somebody tried to frame ex-General Walker, the guy who was so bold as to start a riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to protest JFK's support of sending a black student to study there? If Walker was innocent of involvement in the JFK assassination, I want to see the evidence. His hand was in the attacks on Adlai Stevenson on 24 October 1963, and in the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbills that also circulated in October, as well as in the black-bordered Ad funded by the JBS and published by CUSA. Walker was the center of the extremist cyclone in Dallas. He was a leader in the Minutemen as well as the JBS. He was suspect #1 by Bernie Weissman and Jack Ruby (according to their Warren Commission testimony). Until Lee Harvey Oswald was thrown to the wolves (so to speak) ex-General Edwin Walker was suspect #1 in many minds. I find no reason to alter my suspicions of ex-General Walker, based on Joesten's claim that it is "too pat". On the other hand, I agree strongly with Joesten when he claims that the pillars of the JFK plot were: 1. The identity shift of Oswald from Oswald the Minuteman to Oswald the Marxist. Right. This was planned, IMHO, immediately after the attempted assassination of ex-General Edwin Walker by a plot involving Oswald, and very possibly Michael Paine, George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt, among several others. Walker learned the facts about Oswald by Easter Sunday (only days after the shooting). Walker (and the Minutemen) then arranged in April, 1963, to transform Oswald into the patsy of their larger scheme to shift power. That is why Oswald was sent to New Orleans that very month to work with Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. In New Orleans, Oswald's identity was shifted from "the Minuteman" to "the Marxist." 2. That Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. Right; Jim Garrison presented ample evidence that casts complete doubt on the Warren Commission's case against Oswald as the sole shooter at Tippit on 11/22/1963. Even the ballistics evidence that is claimed as genuine cannot fully account for all the forensic questions raised. 3. That Oswald did it alone. Right. That was the official position of the US Government in 1964, and remained the official position throughout the period of Joesten's main writings on this topic. However, the HSCA's conclusion (1979) is currently the official position of the US Government, namely, that Oswald could never have acted alone in the face of the forensic evidence. Oswald did not act alone. The HSCA was incapable of finding Oswald's accomplices. Yet we are assured by the evidence that Oswald's accomplices were the very ones who made Oswald into their patsy. Oswald knew who these people were -- he trusted them. They betrayed him. Again -- the evidence I see points in the direction of ex-General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century). Insofar as Walker was an exhibitionist who loved the limelight -- and also loved a good fight -- I find insufficient strength in Joesten's argument that our suspicion of Walker should be discounted because "it's too pat." On the contrary -- that's actually a perfect reason to suspect the man. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Did Oswald pose as a Minuteman-type to get Minutemen/neo-Facists into trouble and then pose as a Marxist to get Marxists/Communists into trouble? Toward which end of the political/economic/social spectrum did he naturally feel more affinity? Or was he not attracted to either extreme and was perhaps not even a political/economic/social "moderate" but just really liked working undercover as a spy/operative and did whatever his controlers told him to do? And/Or did he take out charismatic, uber-authority figure JFK (by himself or with others) because he got tired of being jerked around by those authority figure controlers and maybe even wanted to turn the tables on them and get them into trouble? Did he try to set someone else up in the killing of JFK and end up getting patsied himself? --Tommy Edited October 18, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I think those are* some very important questions, Tommy. edit were*. Some still are. Edited October 18, 2012 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) ... JJ steps back from putting Walker in the centre because of ' it's too pat ' as well as looking at some deeper connections that seem to indicate Walker may have been an innocent fall-guy, so in being obvious (I agree) AND innocent to a large degree anyone looking into it will, at some point, meet a blank wall with the central figures eliminated, and Walker can live on knowing but unable to speak. That last bit is a more my take on it, iow I don't know. Back to JJ. The pillars of the fraud were 1. The identity shift of Oswald from Oswald the Minuteman to Oswald the Marxist. 2. That Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. 3. He did it alone. John, I'm disappointed that Joesten stepped back from putting ex-General Edwin Walker in the center of the JFK-assassination cyclone on the sheer basis that "it's too pat". That is unsatisfactory as a reason. If it is "too pat" that means there was a lot of smoke (so to speak). Thus Joesten seems to conclude that, "since there is so much spoke there, we cannot possibly suspect any fire." Such a reverse conclusion can be justified on only one ground -- that the smoke was created by Unknown Others who wished to frame Walker. But unless they are named, unless hard evidence is presented about a true frame-up, then we are left with a deathly weak reason. I am curious -- if Walker was "framed" -- or as you wrote, "Walker may have been an innocent fall-guy," what is the evidence? Also, why did you say that you agree, John? Did I get that right? Were you convinced by Joesten that somebody tried to frame ex-General Walker, the guy who was so bold as to start a riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to protest JFK's support of sending a black student to study there? If Walker was innocent of involvement in the JFK assassination, I want to see the evidence. His hand was in the attacks on Adlai Stevenson on 24 October 1963, and in the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbills that also circulated in October, as well as in the black-bordered Ad funded by the JBS and published by CUSA. Walker was the center of the extremist cyclone in Dallas. He was a leader in the Minutemen as well as the JBS. He was suspect #1 by Bernie Weissman and Jack Ruby (according to their Warren Commission testimony). Until Lee Harvey Oswald was thrown to the wolves (so to speak) ex-General Edwin Walker was suspect #1 in many minds. I find no reason to alter my suspicions of ex-General Walker, based on Joesten's claim that it is "too pat". On the other hand, I agree strongly with Joesten when he claims that the pillars of the JFK plot were: 1. The identity shift of Oswald from Oswald the Minuteman to Oswald the Marxist. Right. This was planned, IMHO, immediately after the attempted assassination of ex-General Edwin Walker by a plot involving Oswald, and very possibly Michael Paine, George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt, among several others. Walker learned the facts about Oswald by Easter Sunday (only days after the shooting). Walker (and the Minutemen) then arranged in April, 1963, to transform Oswald into the patsy of their larger scheme to shift power. That is why Oswald was sent to New Orleans that very month to work with Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. In New Orleans, Oswald's identity was shifted from "the Minuteman" to "the Marxist." 2. That Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. Right; Jim Garrison presented ample evidence that casts complete doubt on the Warren Commission's case against Oswald as the sole shooter at Tippit on 11/22/1963. Even the ballistics evidence that is claimed as genuine cannot fully account for all the forensic questions raised. 3. That Oswald did it alone. Right. That was the official position of the US Government in 1964, and remained the official position throughout the period of Joesten's main writings on this topic. However, the HSCA's conclusion (1979) is currently the official position of the US Government, namely, that Oswald could never have acted alone in the face of the forensic evidence. Oswald did not act alone. The HSCA was incapable of finding Oswald's accomplices. Yet we are assured by the evidence that Oswald's accomplices were the very ones who made Oswald into their patsy. Oswald knew who these people were -- he trusted them. They betrayed him. Again -- the evidence I see points in the direction of ex-General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century). Insofar as Walker was an exhibitionist who loved the limelight -- and also loved a good fight -- I find insufficient strength in Joesten's argument that our suspicion of Walker should be discounted because "it's too pat." On the contrary -- that's actually a perfect reason to suspect the man. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Did Oswald pose as a Minuteman-type to get Minutemen/neo-Facists into trouble and then pose as a Marxist to get Marxists/Communists into trouble? Toward which end of the political/economic/social spectrum did he naturally feel more affinity? Or was he apolitical and not only not attracted to either extreme, but not even to more moderate political/economic/social ideas? Was he just a guy who really liked working undercover as a spy/informer and did whatever his controlers told him to do? Is it possible that he took out charismatic, uber-authority figure JFK because he got tired of being jerked around by those darn authority figure controlers and maybe even wanted to "turn the tables" on them and get them into trouble? Is it possible he tried to set someone else up as a scapegoat in the killing of JFK and ended up getting patsied himself? --Tommy edited significantly and bumped Edited October 18, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Did Oswald pose as a Minuteman-type to get Minutemen/neo-Facists into trouble and then pose as a Marxist to get Marxists/Communists into trouble? Toward which end of the political/economic/social spectrum did he naturally feel more affinity? Or was he not attracted to either extreme and was perhaps not even a political/economic/social "moderate" but just really liked working undercover as a spy/operative and did whatever his controlers told him to do? And/Or did he take out charismatic, uber-authority figure JFK (by himself or with others) because he got tired of being jerked around by those authority figure controlers and maybe even wanted to turn the tables on them and get them into trouble? Did he try to set someone else up in the killing of JFK and end up getting patsied himself? --Tommy Tommy, I believe that Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt told the truth about Oswald's real attitude when they said he complained repeatedly that JFK must be criticized for letting the Cuban Exiles down at the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. This was Oswald's actual opinion, according to Volkmar Schmidt, when he reported that he and George De Mohrenschildt tried to talk Oswald out of his political position, and Volkmar tried to "transfer" Oswald's anger from JFK to ex-General Edwin Walker. Also, I believe that Loran Hall told the truth to Sylvia Odio when he called her on the phone and told her that Lee Harvey Oswald said that "you Cubans don't have any guts because somebody should have taken care of JFK after the Bay of Pigs." In other words, I believe that Oswald held the standard right-wing view -- but he was open to persuasion from George De Mohrenschildt -- the aristocrat, and also the successful engineers, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine. Let's face it -- Oswald was a Marine and it is absurd to imagine that from 1959-1962 the Marines would ever have accepted an outspoken Communist in their ranks. Insofar as Lee Harvey Oswald learned to speak Russian while he was in the Marines, this must be understood within the historical context of the politics of the Cold War. Also -- Oswald never posed as a Minuteman type. We have no pictures of him with any Minuteman regalia. We only have pictures of Oswald -- in the newspapers and on television, as well as in private photographs -- of Oswald posing as a Communist. Nor was Oswald posing as a Communist in order to frame any Communists; rather, in my theory Oswald posed as a Communists in order to fool Castro's government into allowing him fast and easy entry into Cuba. But they weren't as easily fooled as he (and his handlers) hoped they were. So, to answer your question, Tommy, Oswald fit closer (not 100%, but certainly closer) to the rightist end of the socio-political spectrum. He was a Marine. We should always bear that in mind. Nevertheless, Oswald was more modern than his KKK and JBS counterparts. Lee Harvey Oswald, being fatherless and knowing how cruel people can be to the luckless, had a strong and abiding sympathy toward the Underdog. It wasn't simply black people, or non-white people (like the Cubans) that stimulated his sympathies, but anybody who was an underdog -- and this attitude is fairly common amongst young people everywhere. Oswald liked to defend the cause of black people riding anywhere they liked on a public bus -- although we have little evidence that Oswald actually befriended any black person in his life for more than a day. That said, those were his personal morals, and as long as he was under orders, he would behave accordingly. Also, I don't see any knee-jerk hatred of authority for its own sake in Oswald's words or behavior. Oswald offered reasons for his actions - as far as possible. Volkmar Schmidt and Loran Hall (via Sylvia Odio) recorded their views -- Oswald was livid about the Bay of Pigs as a humiliating circumstance, and blamed JFK for that circumstance. In my theory, Tommy, it was Schmidt and De Mohrenschildt and Paine who goaded Oswald to try to assassinate ex-General Edwin Walker, and when he failed, his life just became a dwindling spiral after that. George De Mohrenschildt confessed his evidence to Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin only four days later, who told the FBI on Easter Sunday (14 April 1963) who almost certainly told ex-General Walker that very day. Walker, for his part, a leader of the Minutemen, started up the para-military justice tribunal. According to Ron Lewis (Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, 1993) Guy Banister told Oswald directly that Oswald was charged with trying to kill ex-General Edwin Walker, and he wouldn't be forgiven -- he would do what he was told -- and Oswald agreed to this treatment. In my humble opinion, Ron Lewis' account has the ring of realistic truth. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited October 19, 2012 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 There seems to me that the bit that explains it is ignored. Why, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong but I've read no-one contradicting it. Oswald hmself provides the clue in his own writing in two sentences in a page on his musings on the Russian system and the US system. In a couple of sentences he wrrites of his admiration for the Minutemen but also an idea he has: to trigger a civil war in the US and have the Minutemen come out on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Chapter 5 Case History of a 'Psychotic' Oil Millionaire hmmm... he argues that Hunt is guilty, centring the argument, apart from Oil Depletion and tax loopholes, on Hunt's FBI assisted departure from Dallas under an assumed name (to New York) an hour after the assassination and why it happened. To understand his argument there one has to look at chapter 14 to understand : "Oswald had vanished...Connally had been wounded ... that 'Oswald' must have fired three bullets would have to be explained." Interestingly in the last chapter Hunt (in a 1966 playboy interview) says 'I heard that the Justice Department had caused previous charges against Oswald to be dropped - which made it possible for him to shoot anyone he decided to shoot.' Presumably that's about Walkers story? The statement is part of a reply to a question regarding JJ's 1964 '......very serious charge against you What do you have to say?' edit add MONEY - THEN AND NOW Installment VII H.L. Hunt's Boys and the Circle K Cowboys Larry LaBorde http://www.gold-eagl...orde012704.html from the above. " Then the most significant financial event of his life occurred when a friend from El Dorado passed along some inside information about a little test well in East Texas. Before it was all over H.L. became a leading independent producer in the largest oilfield ever found to date, the great East Texas oilfield near Kilgore, TX. During the great depression this area of the country never suffered. It was the biggest boom of all the oil booms to date. Oil was selling at over $1.00/bbl and fell to $.15/bbl after the field was discovered and brought on line because of the oversupply that it created. H.L. entered his East Texas deal at a time he was short on cash. With a haberdasher bachelor friend from El Dorado H.L. sold a 20% interest to for $30,000 - H.L. proceeded to close one of the biggest oil deals in history without any of his own money. He paid for the deal with production from the very field he purchased. He tried to borrow money from the Shreveport banks to develop his East Texas leases but they would not loan money on in ground reserves. He then went to the First National Bank in Dallas and obtained the needed loans to drill and bring his production on line. A banking relationship for the next 50 years was cemented in Dallas that day. Hunt was dogged for years in and out of court in East Texas by Dad Joiner and others who claimed H.L. cheated them out of their leases but when it was all over H.L. came out on top. He moved his first family to Tyler, TX for a few years and then moved them onto Dallas. Shortly thereafter H.L.'s notoriety revealed to Frania that Franklin Hunt was indeed H.L. Hunt. The relationship broke up and H.L. set up trusts for his children with Frania and agreed to provide for Frania as well. H.L. continued to prosper and build his oil empire. He also moved into the food and cosmetic industry with disastrous results. I remember personally meeting him at the Louisiana State Fair where he was hawking his HL food products in the 1960's. In 1955 his first wife, Lyda died. Shortly thereafter he married his third wife, Ruth Ray with whom he already had 4 children with while still married to Lyda. (In all, he had 15 children with these 3 women.) While Ruth tried to bring everyone together, there were hard feelings between the three separate families of H.L. Of these children our story starts with the 3 youngest children from the first family, Bunker, Herbert and Lamar along with a brother in law, Randy Kreiling, from the third family. The eldest Hunt son was Hassie. He amassed quite a fortune on his own before he was 25 years old in the oil business after a falling out with his father. Through a strange and terrible twist, Hassie developed a mental condition that eventually led to a frontal lobotomy and his incapacitation early in life. Ironically his personal oil business that he started continued to grow and prosper even after his incapacitation into a rather large business in its own right. Bunker, being the next oldest male child fell heir to the kingdom. Bunker, Herbert and Lamar owned and operated Penrod Drilling Company. All six of the first family children owned Placid Oil Company. Hunt Oil was owned by H.L. himself (later it was parceled out to his 14 surviving children). Bunker started out by drilling a string of dry holes in Pakistan losing over $11 million dollars. He then went head to head against the major oil companies and bid on leases in Libya. He obtained tracts #2 and #65. By then he was in such financial straits as a result of his dry holes that he sold a ½ interest in tract #65 to BP. In 1961 the largest oilfield in Africa to date was discovered on tract #65. Bunker's ½ interest was valued at about $7 billion dollars making him the richest private individual in the world at age 35. He was also a little short on cash and had to borrow $5 million from H.L. to hold him over until he could get his production in Libya on line. While Bunker was out on his own, Herbert ran Hunt Oil and quietly built up the company's oil reserves as well as invested in real estate North of Dallas during the 1960's. At the same time Lamar was organizing the AFL and his Kansas City Chiefs. During the 1970's Bunker was still the heavy hitter betting on one big business deal after another including oil, real estate (5 million acres throughout the world), cattle, sugar and pizza parlors. His Libyan oil leases in the late 1960's and early 1970's were bringing in $30 million/year in revenues (even at $3/bbl). In 1970 when silver was at $1.50/oz Bunker decided to invest there as well. At that time it was illegal for US citizens to own gold so silver was a natural second choice. Inflation was starting to gain steam, Vietnam was causing doubts about our government and riots in our country, the Middle East was a powder keg and Libya (along with his valuable oil field) was in transition. Bunker personally believed that the worldwide situation was going to get worse and as a result decided to hedge his assets. But with the usual Hunt flair for "pushing all the chips out on the table" it did not take long for a hedge to become a very large position." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Killed ; The Full Unbeliable Story As It Has Never Been Told Before - a Tandem-Dawney Special (1968) (the moment of the first volley) What is it about this book that has an unused copy listed around US$500 ? Got hip to Joesten several years ago. Bought his book on Johnson for around $150 and sold it in a weak moment for about the same. I had figured I could get a bunch of money from the Johnson Estate then foolishly let it go. Joesten, as has mentioned , was as about as early a researcher as you could be. He was not a native English speaker, yet moved around in top circles - getting what could be done in interviewing Aristotle Onassis - who he briefly called upon in New York according to Joesten. No offense people- but this brings up a soar subject of mine that posters on this board do not read much - just regurgitate other online writings. To get up to speed on Ari , you can view http://www.biography.com/people/aristotle-onassis-9428627/videos Edited October 20, 2012 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 Sometimes I think people read too much about other peoples ideas. I still don't get how a Walker as central or peripheral in any way reflects on JJ's theme. The DPD, the CIA, H.L. Hunt, The JBS Minutemen, Dallas Generals, and certain other persons, all have particular roles in this 'Fraud' (as JJ calls it). I wonder if anyone knows who 'the other five' were who died with Chep Morrison in Mexico, 1964? (JJ has this thing for mysterious deaths.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) Chapter 5 Case History of a 'Psychotic' Oil Millionaire hmmm... he argues that Hunt is guilty, centring the argument, apart from Oil Depletion and tax loopholes, on Hunt's FBI assisted departure from Dallas under an assumed name (to New York) an hour after the assassination and why it happened... Interestingly in the last chapter Hunt (in a 1966 Playboy interview) says, "I heard that the Justice Department had caused previous charges against Oswald to be dropped - which made it possible for him to shoot anyone he decided to shoot."' Presumably that's about Walkers story? The statement is part of a reply to a question regarding JJ's 1964 "...very serious charge against you; What do you have to say?" John, I think this begins to get to the root of the issue. I agree with you that Hunt's reference to the "previous charges against Oswald" that were dropped were a key part of ex-General Edwin Walker's main fiction about Oswald which he told to a German newspaper (Deutsche Nationalzeitung) on the early morning of 23 November 1963 -- less than 24 hours after the JFK assassination. In that interview with a German (formerly Nazi) newspaper, ex-General Walker told his interviewer that Oswald had also been his shooter on 10 April 1963, and that the police arrested Oswald that night, but higher authorities set Oswald free around midnight. Edwin Walker stuck to that story for the rest of his life. Here is proof -- a couple years before he died he sent this same story to the Kerrville Daily Times. It is a short article, typed on his own typewriter and signed in his own shaky handwriting in late 1991 (and published in early 1992), as shown at this URL: http://www.pet880.co...ld_arrested.pdf Part of Walker's story claims that Federal authorities captured Oswald and then released him -- so he could try again. Instead, quipped Walker, Oswald killed JFK. I'm impressed that H.L. Hunt would repeat this fiction, but I'm not too surprised, since Walker and Hunt knew each other fairly well (i.e. Hunt had financed Walker's failed campaign for Governor of Texas in 1962). What this suggests to me is that Hunt and Walker spoke with each other about the JFK assassination a fair amount. (Hunt's butler once told Dick Russell that before the JFK assassination, he overheard Hunt and Walker talking about Lee Harvey Oswald). I have little doubt that H.L. Hunt financed the JFK assassination -- but the ground-crew was left to a former US General who lived in Dallas, and who was also an exhibitionist in politics, but who had also learned to keep deep dark secrets for a lifetime. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited October 21, 2012 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now