New Book!

[Ernie Lazar]

...Now, the title of this book is General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive new evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy.

Which recalls the title of a book by Livingstone. Now, with that title I don't know how else you can classify this book except by saying that Walker and the rightwing nuts in Texas and their associated groups killed Kennedy. If that is not the case then the title is a misnomer....

Well, James, I took your comment to heart, and I went out and obtained a copy of that book you cite by Harrison Edward Livingstone, namely: The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy (2004).

Livingstone was an early JFK researcher along with Penn Jones Jr., and a co-author of books with Robert Groden, so I gather that he's widely respected among CT readers. So I got a copy and promptly turned to Livingstone's Index to see the extent of his work on the resigned General Walker. Here's what I found.

(1) In this 615 page book, only 20 pages mention General Walker.

(2) Of those 20 pages, by far most of the citations of General Walker are single sentences.

(3) Of those single sentences, many are repetitive. For example, seven of those sentences repeat the mythology that JFK "fired" Walker from the US Army. Also, three of those sentences repeat the mythology that Edwin Walker taught specifically "Nazi" doctrines to his troops in Augsburg.

• Actually, JFK didn't "fire" Walker; instead he offered Walker another post because JFK feared a scandal if Walker became the only US General in the 20th century to resign-and-forfeit-his-Army-pension. Actually, it was the Joint Chiefs who instantly removed Walker from his command in Augsburg after the Overseas Weekly Army newspaper slammed Walker, and the JCS gave Walker a desk job in another town . But the JCS didn't "fire" Walker -- they just wanted the scandal to stop. Actually, Walker resigned in protest, and this wasn't his first resignation -- he submitted his first resignation in 1959 after he joined the John Birch Society, but Eisenhower gave him a command in Germany instead. Actually, Walker promoted the John Birch Society doctrine to his troops, but never the specific "Nazi" doctrine which is very different. So, Livingstone simply exaggerated his case, probably because Walker played such a secondary role in his CT.

(4) Only two of those pages, pp. 96-97, are dedicated to the resigned General Walker, and these pages focus on his relationship with the Minutemen of Dallas.

In conclusion, I'm willing to discuss this book by Livingstone, because he was among the very few who realized that the JFK murder plot was first and foremost a Dallas plot -- and that the others who participated were always subordinate to these Dallas leaders. This is a clear advance over all the failed CIA-did-it theories that have dominated the JFK literature in the past half-century.

Yet Livingstone doesn't delve into the resigned General Edwin Walker in his 2002 book. That's why this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive new evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, is a major divergence from Harrison Livingstone's book, and IMHO promises to shed more light on the JFK murder than any other book yet published..

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Actually, Paul, once again you are presenting assertions which you claim to be factual but which are not factual. That is probably why you do not provide verifiable evidence to support your assertions.

With respect to this comment by you:

Actually, Walker promoted the John Birch Society doctrine to his troops, but never the specific "Nazi" doctrine which is very different.

The former US Army troops I contacted whom were in Germany during the "Pro-Blue" controversy told me that there was no "John Birch Society doctrine" taught to them.

Furthermore, the official Army investigation criticized Walker for his exclusive recommendation of partisan literature published by the Americans For Constitutional Action, i .e. by recommending their voting index. The official conclusion was that Walker was improperly attempting to influence the voting behavior of his troops.

In addition, some of Walker's defenders at that time (such as Capt. Bernard Garred) described the JBS as "un-American" while simultaneously denying the charges published against the Pro-Blue program in Overseas Weekly.

In a way, you have acknowledged that yourself in a June 2012 message here on EF when you wrote about a copy of an Army Bulletin which you found in Walker's personal papers. You reported that: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4461&page=3

It was an Army Bulletin from the 24th Infantry Division Deputy Brigade Commander dated 21 September 1960, written to General Edwin Walker. This Army Bulletin is a positive status report of the Pro-Blue campaign's "Citizenship in Service" program. The seven-page Bulletin details the number of people attending the meetings from April through July -- the numbers are in the thousands. Officials who supported the program were named and congratulated. Results of indvidual meetings were always favorable. The conclusion was favorable with a recommenation the Commander (Walker) to approve and continue the program.

Obviously, Walker's peers and superiors within the Army were not recommending or praising "John Birch Society doctrine" or they would have been subjected to the same investigation and disciplinary actions as Walker.

Significantly, when the Army Inspector General (Lt. Gen. Frederic J. Brown) issued his final report re: the Walker incident, he also disputed another one of Paul Trejo's favorite conclusions. Paul always tells us that Walker was somehow beguiled by Robert Welch's superior intellect and Walker became sort of a hero-worshiper or puppet of Welch.

However, Gen. Brown observed:

"I really believe he [Walker] regards Welch as a novice in the field of anti-communism." [incidentally, Walker's interest in "troop education" was triggered by his experiences during the Korean War and the Pentagon already had authorized troop education programs -- so let's not pretend that Walker just invented his program because of joining the JBS in 1959.]

However, it is accurate to state that Walker was officially vaguely "admonished" for being "injudicious" in his personal comments without finding him guilty of actionable wrongdoing. This refers to one Walker speech on January 24, 1960 where he purportedly declared that Harry S. Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dean Acheson were "definitely pink". [However, there is some dispute regarding exactly what Walker said.]

Edited August 19, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Actually, Paul, once again you are presenting assertions which you claim to be factual but which are not factual. That is probably why you do not provide verifiable evidence to support your assertions.

With respect to this comment by you:

Actually, Walker promoted the John Birch Society doctrine to his troops, but never the specific "Nazi" doctrine which is very different.

The former US Army troops I contacted whom were in Germany during the "Pro-Blue" controversy told me that there was no "John Birch Society doctrine" taught to them.

Furthermore, the official Army investigation criticized Walker for his exclusive recommendation of partisan literature published by the Americans For Constitutional Action, i .e. by recommending their voting index. The official conclusion was that Walker was improperly attempting to influence the voting behavior of his troops.

In addition, some of Walker's defenders at that time (such as Capt. Bernard Garred) described the JBS as "un-American" while simultaneously denying the charges published against the Pro-Blue program in Overseas Weekly.

In a way, you have acknowledged that yourself in a June 2012 message here on EF when you wrote about a copy of an Army Bulletin which you found in Walker's personal papers. You reported that: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4461&page=3

It was an Army Bulletin from the 24th Infantry Division Deputy Brigade Commander dated 21 September 1960, written to General Edwin Walker. This Army Bulletin is a positive status report of the Pro-Blue campaign's "Citizenship in Service" program. The seven-page Bulletin details the number of people attending the meetings from April through July -- the numbers are in the thousands. Officials who supported the program were named and congratulated. Results of indvidual meetings were always favorable. The conclusion was favorable with a recommenation the Commander (Walker) to approve and continue the program.

Obviously, Walker's peers and superiors within the Army were not recommending or praising "John Birch Society doctrine" or they would have been subjected to the same investigation and disciplinary actions as Walker.

Significantly, when the Army Inspector General (Lt. Gen. Frederic J. Brown) issued his final report re: the Walker incident, he also disputed another one of Paul Trejo's favorite conclusions. Paul always tells us that Walker was somehow beguiled by Robert Welch's superior intellect and Walker became sort of a hero-worshiper or puppet of Welch.

However, Gen. Brown observed:

"I really believe he [Walker] regards Welch as a novice in the field of anti-communism." [incidentally, Walker's interest in "troop education" was triggered by his experiences during the Korean War and the Pentagon already had authorized troop education programs -- so let's not pretend that Walker just invented his program because of joining the JBS in 1959.]

However, it is accurate to state that Walker was officially vaguely "admonished" for being "injudicious" in his personal comments without finding him guilty of actionable wrongdoing. This refers to one Walker speech on January 24, 1960 where he purportedly declared that Harry S. Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dean Acheson were "definitely pink". [However, there is some dispute regarding exactly what Walker said.]

Actually, Ernie, my remarks on Walker's Germany period are based on official sources -- and again you are found defending the John Birch Society from criticism.

The foremost doctrine of the John Birch Society was that sitting US Presidents were Communists. In 1963 the JBS applied this to FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK.

The Joint Chiefs formally "admonished" Walker for saying that Truman and Mrs. Eisenhower were "definitely pink." Walker tried to squirm out of it, but the Joint Chiefs formal report used that wording. Thus the admonishment.

Walker said this in a mass meeting of his troops and their wives -- and this is what caught the attention of the Overseas Weekly in April 1961.

If somebody wishes to defend the JBS by trying to distance the JBS from Walker, they would quickly deny that Walker taught this key JBS doctrine to his troops -- but the formal charges by the Joint Chiefs were very clear on this point.

Thus the admonishment. Naturally Walker tried to squirm out if it, and so you may claim it was "disputed," but it wasn't disputed according to the Joint Chiefs. My point remains solid.

It is also disingenuous to claim that Walker's Pro-Blue program was unrelated to the John Birch Society. The similarities are obvious to the casual observer. It is interesting to note that the Joint Chiefs did not really mind that extreme right-wing doctrines were taught to the troops, if it improved their performance, and they did find that the JBS was not in control of Walker's Pro-Blue program. Yet the specific attacks on former US Presidents offended the Joint Chiefs, just as it offended J. Edgar Hoover, as you well know.

The shame of a US General accusing a US President of being a secret supporter of the Communist Enemy is unforgivable today as it was 54 years ago. In no way did the resigned General Walker deserve to command those troops in Germany. The Joint Chiefs did very well by demanding Walker's removal on the very day that the news article was published.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

"The shame of a US General accusing a US President of being a secret supporter of the Communist Enemy is unforgivable today as it was 54 years ago."

Yet Kennedy was accused of this privately, and it was ignored. Kennedy was accused of this publicly, on the eve of his killing, in the infamous "Welcome Mr. Kennedy to Dallas" newspaper ad, yet this was swept under the rug of the national grief. In hindsight, it's a shame that the accusation wasn't made more blatantly by his enemies and answered more forcefully by Kennedy.

Edited August 19, 2015 by David Andrews

[Ernie Lazar]

Actually, Paul, once again you are presenting assertions which you claim to be factual but which are not factual. That is probably why you do not provide verifiable evidence to support your assertions.

With respect to this comment by you:

Actually, Walker promoted the John Birch Society doctrine to his troops, but never the specific "Nazi" doctrine which is very different.

The former US Army troops I contacted whom were in Germany during the "Pro-Blue" controversy told me that there was no "John Birch Society doctrine" taught to them.

Furthermore, the official Army investigation criticized Walker for his exclusive recommendation of partisan literature published by the Americans For Constitutional Action, i .e. by recommending their voting index. The official conclusion was that Walker was improperly attempting to influence the voting behavior of his troops.

In addition, some of Walker's defenders at that time (such as Capt. Bernard Garred) described the JBS as "un-American" while simultaneously denying the charges published against the Pro-Blue program in Overseas Weekly.

In a way, you have acknowledged that yourself in a June 2012 message here on EF when you wrote about a copy of an Army Bulletin which you found in Walker's personal papers. You reported that: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4461&page=3

It was an Army Bulletin from the 24th Infantry Division Deputy Brigade Commander dated 21 September 1960, written to General Edwin Walker. This Army Bulletin is a positive status report of the Pro-Blue campaign's "Citizenship in Service" program. The seven-page Bulletin details the number of people attending the meetings from April through July -- the numbers are in the thousands. Officials who supported the program were named and congratulated. Results of indvidual meetings were always favorable. The conclusion was favorable with a recommenation the Commander (Walker) to approve and continue the program.

Obviously, Walker's peers and superiors within the Army were not recommending or praising "John Birch Society doctrine" or they would have been subjected to the same investigation and disciplinary actions as Walker.

Significantly, when the Army Inspector General (Lt. Gen. Frederic J. Brown) issued his final report re: the Walker incident, he also disputed another one of Paul Trejo's favorite conclusions. Paul always tells us that Walker was somehow beguiled by Robert Welch's superior intellect and Walker became sort of a hero-worshiper or puppet of Welch.

However, Gen. Brown observed:

"I really believe he [Walker] regards Welch as a novice in the field of anti-communism." [incidentally, Walker's interest in "troop education" was triggered by his experiences during the Korean War and the Pentagon already had authorized troop education programs -- so let's not pretend that Walker just invented his program because of joining the JBS in 1959.]

However, it is accurate to state that Walker was officially vaguely "admonished" for being "injudicious" in his personal comments without finding him guilty of actionable wrongdoing. This refers to one Walker speech on January 24, 1960 where he purportedly declared that Harry S. Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dean Acheson were "definitely pink". [However, there is some dispute regarding exactly what Walker said.]

Actually, Ernie, my remarks on Walker's Germany period are based on official sources -- and again you are found defending the John Birch Society from criticism.

The foremost doctrine of the John Birch Society was that sitting US Presidents were Communists. In 1963 the JBS applied this to FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK.

The Joint Chiefs formally "admonished" Walker for saying that Truman and Mrs. Eisenhower were "definitely pink." Walker tried to squirm out of it, but the Joint Chiefs formal report used that wording. Thus the admonishment.

Walker said this in a mass meeting of his troops and their wives -- and this is what caught the attention of the Overseas Weekly in April 1961.

If somebody wishes to defend the JBS by trying to distance the JBS from Walker, they would quickly deny that Walker taught this key JBS doctrine to his troops -- but the formal charges by the Joint Chiefs were very clear on this point.

Thus the admonishment. Naturally Walker tried to squirm out if it, and so you may claim it was "disputed," but it wasn't disputed according to the Joint Chiefs. My point remains solid.

It is also disingenuous to claim that Walker's Pro-Blue program was unrelated to the John Birch Society. The similarities are obvious to the casual observer. It is interesting to note that the Joint Chiefs did not really mind that extreme right-wing doctrines were taught to the troops, if it improved their performance, and they did find that the JBS was not in control of Walker's Pro-Blue program. Yet the specific attacks on former US Presidents offended the Joint Chiefs, just as it offended J. Edgar Hoover, as you well know.

The shame of a US General accusing a US President of being a secret supporter of the Communist Enemy is unforgivable today as it was 54 years ago. In no way did the resigned General Walker deserve to command those troops in Germany. The Joint Chiefs did very well by demanding Walker's removal on the very day that the news article was published.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Not sure I understand what you mean by "Joint Chiefs". The investigation was conducted by Lt. Gen. Brown (not the Joint Chiefs). The "dispute" concerns different recollections of what was said by Walker in January 1960 when, subsequently (in 1961) witnesses made their statements. Reports by the NY Times (certainly no friend of Walker) correctly identified the "dispute". That is why Walker was only admonished instead of being censured and punished by reduction in rank or by outright dismissal. That is also why he was offered another position -- which he refused -- and, instead, he resigned.

I am not trying to parse words with you because everyone here knows you never admit your errors -- but the Pro-Blue program was documented in great detail. Most of the information used had nothing to do with the JBS. What got Walker into trouble was primarily his violation of the Army's equivalent of the Hatch Act -- i.e. attempting to influence the vote of his subordinates through use of biased "Voting Scorecards" published by the conservative group, Americans For Constitutional Action.

What you are conflating (as usual) is what was presented in the actual troop education program versus other non-required material which was available to troops. For example: Welch's biography, The Life of John Birch, was available but keep in mind that it was originally published in 1954 (5 years before the JBS came into existence) It was published by the Chicago conservative publishing house -- Henry Regnery. Does that make it John Birch Society material??

It also is totally absurd for you to claim that the Joint Chiefs "did not really mind that extreme right-wing doctrines were taught to the troops, if it improved their performance."

Why can't you be SPECIFIC? Tell us which members of the Joint Chiefs in the 1960-1961 period you are referring to as being sympathetic to "extreme right doctrines" -- and tell us WHERE you found your evidence of their sentiments.

Here are your choices:

Chairman, JCS

USAF Gen. Nathan F. Twining [August 1957-September 1960]

USAF Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer [October 1960-September 1962]

Army Chief of Staff

Gen. George H. Decker [October 1960-September 1962]

Chief of Naval Operations

Adm. Arleigh A. Burke [August 1955-August 1961]

Adm. George W. Anderson Jr. [August 1961-August 1963]

Commandant Marine Corps

Gen. David M. Shoup [January 1960-December 1963]

Chief of Staff U.S. Air Force

Gen. Thomas D. White [July 1957-June 1961]

Gen. Curtis E. LeMay [June 1961-January 1965]

ADDENDUM:

Incidentally, Paul, do you have any statements by soldiers who attended Pro-Blue training which confirm your assertion that "extreme right doctrines" were taught during those sessions? AND which "extreme right doctrines" are you referring to? Are you saying that soldiers were taught that former Presidents were Communists? OR that Communist traitors had significantly infiltrated and controlled our national government at the highest levels?

IF ANY military officer (of ANY rank) was teaching such "doctrines" -- they NEVER would have been allowed to continue in service under any circumstances because, in effect, those sentiments amount to sedition.

For additional information re: the "disputed" comments by Walker and the type of material available to troops see attached NYT article.

4-23-61 NYT re Walker--Pro-Blue.pdf

Edited August 19, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

"The shame of a US General accusing a US President of being a secret supporter of the Communist Enemy is unforgivable today as it was 54 years ago."

Yet Kennedy was accused of this privately, and it was ignored. Kennedy was accused of this publicly, on the eve of his killing, in the infamous "Welcome Mr. Kennedy to Dallas" newspaper ad, yet this was swept under the rug of the national grief. In hindsight, it's a shame that the accusation wasn't made more blatantly by his enemies and answered more forcefully by Kennedy.

I agree with this entirely, David. Yet somebody might argue that JFK answered the John Birch Society (JBS) nonsense in his famous "fluoride water" speech given at the Hollywood Palladium on Saturday 8 June 1963.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJs23wzNYtc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caNEkGut4-4

JFK didn't mention the JBS by name, because that would have given them too much publicity, perhaps. Nor would JFK stoop to their level and sling mud with them. But many Americans were impressed by his pushback at the rightwing in this speech.

BTW, it's a little-known fact that the picket outside the Hollywood Palladium that night was led by the resigned General Walker, who met with the JBS at Hollywood High School before the speech, making his own speech against the United Nations, JFK and other alleged Communists.

Then Walker led the JBS on a march from Hollywood High to the Palladium. I used to live in Hollywood, so I know that the marching distance is about one mile eastward on Sunset Boulevard -- and it was a fairly well publicized march at the time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

Coming soon!

General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy

The new book by Dr. Jeffery Caufield, on Edwin Walker and the plot to kill John F. Kennedy.

It is a story we’re all pretty sure we know. On a fateful day in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald—working alone—shot President John F. Kennedy. End of story. Or is it?

In General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, author Jeffrey H. Caufield explores the forces which led Oswald to be in Dallas that day. Unlike many theorists, however, Dr. Caufield applies acquired academic methodology in rigorously researching the story through public records, private correspondence, and a number of sources not available to the general public until the Freedom of Information Act released them.

Caufield explains that when President Kennedy relieved Major General Edwin A. Walker of his command in Germany in 1961, he (Kennedy) started the chain of events that would lead to his own death. In June 1963, President Kennedy proposed his sweeping Civil Rights Act bill that would abolish the sacred Southern institution of segregation. In response, the segregationists threatened a second Civil War that culminated in the murder of JFK. Working with a who’s who of fellow right wing radicals (including some of the most powerful military and political leaders of the time), Walker was in the forefront of a plot to assassinate a large number of people in power positions in both government and industry. This plot, masterminded by Walker, evolved into a plan to assassinate President Kennedy and made Oswald an unwitting pawn in one of our country’s greatest historical mysteries.

Meticulously researched over 25 years using documents from the National Archives, the FBI, and other archival sources—along with extensive personal interviews—this book presents a massive amount of new evidence (900+ pages). Never before has there been such compelling proof of the involvement of the radical right and General Walker in the murder of the president.

This book is in the printing stages, stay tuned for further information regarding availability and pricing.

Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude that he had the level of intelligence or the people skills and organizational ability required to implement or facilitate (undetected) any complex event such as the assassination of the President of the United States.

Furthermore, Walker was not a unique thinker. None of his writings reveal any serious scholarship or analytical ability. At best, he was a mediocre propagandist for one particular political and ideological viewpoint which was informed, primarily, by literature recommended or published by the John Birch Society and similar right-wing conspiracy sources.

Walker's friends and admirers often remarked that he was incoherent during his speeches and when Walker was given the opportunity to convince the voters of Texas that he deserved their serious consideration for political office -- the voters of Texas summarily rejected him (he placed 6th in a field of 6 candidates).

Consequently, unless Dr. Caufield has discovered some verifiable earth-shaking new factual information which has never previously been discovered by anybody -- then merely speculating about Walker will add nothing significant to what we already know. By definition, to speculate means to provide conjecture -- i.e. a guess or hypothesis without significant fact-based evidence to support it. Anybody can speculate. But real historical scholarship requires verifiable evidence---particularly newly discovered and previously unknown data. Significantly, nobody has (up to now) found anything in Walker's personal papers (at University of Texas-Austin) which links him to planning any illegal activity much less the assassination of JFK. And I don't think anyone has ever found any documentation in personal papers of anybody else to support the Walker-as-Co-Conspirator paradigm.

Also, FYI: the National Archives is currently processing for me the FBI-Dallas main field file on Walker. If NARA is correct, I am the first person to ever request the FBI-Dallas field file (157-218) which consists of 515 pages in the main file and an additional 68 pages of a sub-A file. NARA has stated that they anticipate finishing the processing of my request by May 2016. After I get it -- I will arrange to have it posted online on the Internet Archive website -- along with the other Walker-related files which I already have on the Archive -- here:

https://archive.org/details/ernie1241_jbs?&sort=titleSorter∧[]=FOIA:%20Walker,%20Edwin

I find it interesting that someone that graduated from West Point and rose to the rank of Major General is basically written of as if he were too dumb to tie his own shoes.

If he were involved in any way in the assassination of JFK, he was smart enough to hide it at least until now, almost 53 years later. No evidence linking him has been revealed to this date, and I suspect, never will be.

[Kenneth Drew]

I look forward to reading this, and have no doubt about the underlying hatred of the old south towards JFK. But I am with Jon Tidd on this one, and would go one step further. If, as O'Neil says, the coverup was aided by some who had foreknowledge, then they are equally guilty of the crime. If Angleton and Hoover and Dulles et al let Walker and his minions escape from punishment, then perhaps the perpetrators knew this was the plan and carried out the assassination knowing they had a green light.

I find it interesting that the authors did not, apparently see the FBI files which Lazar has requested. Mr. O'Neil - what do you think of this?

and have no doubt about the underlying hatred of the old south towards JFK. Paul is there an implication that 'the old south' had something to do with JFK being killed? That must be one of those '13 conspiracy theories'. But it's one I haven't heard. Who were the members of the conspiracy that were mostly known for their relationship to 'the old south' ? Just curious.

[Ernie Lazar]

Coming soon!

General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy

The new book by Dr. Jeffery Caufield, on Edwin Walker and the plot to kill John F. Kennedy.

It is a story we’re all pretty sure we know. On a fateful day in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald—working alone—shot President John F. Kennedy. End of story. Or is it?

In General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, author Jeffrey H. Caufield explores the forces which led Oswald to be in Dallas that day. Unlike many theorists, however, Dr. Caufield applies acquired academic methodology in rigorously researching the story through public records, private correspondence, and a number of sources not available to the general public until the Freedom of Information Act released them.

Caufield explains that when President Kennedy relieved Major General Edwin A. Walker of his command in Germany in 1961, he (Kennedy) started the chain of events that would lead to his own death. In June 1963, President Kennedy proposed his sweeping Civil Rights Act bill that would abolish the sacred Southern institution of segregation. In response, the segregationists threatened a second Civil War that culminated in the murder of JFK. Working with a who’s who of fellow right wing radicals (including some of the most powerful military and political leaders of the time), Walker was in the forefront of a plot to assassinate a large number of people in power positions in both government and industry. This plot, masterminded by Walker, evolved into a plan to assassinate President Kennedy and made Oswald an unwitting pawn in one of our country’s greatest historical mysteries.

Meticulously researched over 25 years using documents from the National Archives, the FBI, and other archival sources—along with extensive personal interviews—this book presents a massive amount of new evidence (900+ pages). Never before has there been such compelling proof of the involvement of the radical right and General Walker in the murder of the president.

This book is in the printing stages, stay tuned for further information regarding availability and pricing.

Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude that he had the level of intelligence or the people skills and organizational ability required to implement or facilitate (undetected) any complex event such as the assassination of the President of the United States.

Furthermore, Walker was not a unique thinker. None of his writings reveal any serious scholarship or analytical ability. At best, he was a mediocre propagandist for one particular political and ideological viewpoint which was informed, primarily, by literature recommended or published by the John Birch Society and similar right-wing conspiracy sources.

Walker's friends and admirers often remarked that he was incoherent during his speeches and when Walker was given the opportunity to convince the voters of Texas that he deserved their serious consideration for political office -- the voters of Texas summarily rejected him (he placed 6th in a field of 6 candidates).

Consequently, unless Dr. Caufield has discovered some verifiable earth-shaking new factual information which has never previously been discovered by anybody -- then merely speculating about Walker will add nothing significant to what we already know. By definition, to speculate means to provide conjecture -- i.e. a guess or hypothesis without significant fact-based evidence to support it. Anybody can speculate. But real historical scholarship requires verifiable evidence---particularly newly discovered and previously unknown data. Significantly, nobody has (up to now) found anything in Walker's personal papers (at University of Texas-Austin) which links him to planning any illegal activity much less the assassination of JFK. And I don't think anyone has ever found any documentation in personal papers of anybody else to support the Walker-as-Co-Conspirator paradigm.

Also, FYI: the National Archives is currently processing for me the FBI-Dallas main field file on Walker. If NARA is correct, I am the first person to ever request the FBI-Dallas field file (157-218) which consists of 515 pages in the main file and an additional 68 pages of a sub-A file. NARA has stated that they anticipate finishing the processing of my request by May 2016. After I get it -- I will arrange to have it posted online on the Internet Archive website -- along with the other Walker-related files which I already have on the Archive -- here:

https://archive.org/details/ernie1241_jbs?&sort=titleSorter∧[]=FOIA:%20Walker,%20Edwin

I find it interesting that someone that graduated from West Point and rose to the rank of Major General is basically written of as if he were too dumb to tie his own shoes.

If he were involved in any way in the assassination of JFK, he was smart enough to hide it at least until now, almost 53 years later. No evidence linking him has been revealed to this date, and I suspect, never will be.

Nobody is proposing that Walker was stupid or "too dumb to tie his own shoes". But there are different kinds and levels of intelligence.

As I previously mentioned, associates of Walker within the U.S. military stated that he changed after he became a General officer.

It is easy to dismiss what has actually been written by presenting a straw-man argument.

One last time:

The personal skills required to plan, finance, coordinate, execute and cover-up a very complex criminal conspiracy whose target is the most famous and prominent and public political figure in the United States are different from the skills required to function in an authoritarian hierarchical environment where unquestioning obedience is the norm and where the scope of action may be limited to one location or one specific time period or limited in terms of a very small number of individuals involved within the decision-making inner circle.

The assassination of any political figure in the United States (particularly at the national level) requires analyzing (in extraordinary detail) and addressing many different variables that involve (a) numerous stakeholders in the plot whom are participants in, or facilitators of, or whom have knowledge about the plot (-b-) neutralizing or thwarting numerous city, county, state, and federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies and (-c-) preventing all interested parties (public and private) including voracious investigative reporters from discovering ANYTHING about the plot.

This is NOT the type of environment where someone like Walker thrived.

I go back to my previous message where I suggested that we compare Walker to someone like Gen. David Petraeus --- in terms of documenting Walker's supposed "superior intelligence". I asked the following questions regarding Walker:

1. Tell us about his educational achievements.

2. Tell us if he is known for authoring any changes in American military doctrine or implementing them

3. Tell us how many books he wrote during his military service and how many articles he authored that were published in prestigous academic or military journals - about military tactics or military history

4. Tell us how many times he taught military-related subjects at colleges or universities

5. Tell us about his post-service achievements in private life

IF someone has details that would help us establish that Walker had the level of intelligence and the people skills required to plan and execute a complex conspiratorial plot --- they should present their best case for that proposition.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Kenneth Drew]

Thanks, I can assure people that their are startling revelations in this book. It's not just about Walker, it's over 900 pages and covers a large area of Right Wing activity from 1956 through 1968.

From the likes of Guy Bainister to James O. Eastland to Joesph Milteer to HL Hunt, Robert Morris,Walker, Hoover etc etc........it covers the gamut. The book was originally over 1,200 pages, but the publisher though it best to keep under that figure. So,some things had to be left out or condensed. Hopefully a website in the future can be a repository for these eliminated items and more. This work will be self published and all costs are paid out of pocket. We don't expect to make much at all, it was a labor of love and a search for truth.

Bill

Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right.

Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again.

Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible.

Mr Lazar, i like the first two paragraphs so much that i would ask your permission to quote them, for the most part, on another website i'm beginning. with proper credit, of course.

well said. well focused.

on another website i'm beginning. What's that about?

[Paul Trejo]

I find it interesting that someone that graduated from West Point and rose to the rank of Major General is basically written of as if he were too dumb to tie his own shoes.

If he were involved in any way in the assassination of JFK, he was smart enough to hide it at least until now, almost 53 years later. No evidence linking him has been revealed to this date, and I suspect, never will be.

Thank you Kenneth, for this shining example of common sense. There have been some well-known writers here who have claimed that Walker would not be taken seriously by the CIA, even as a Dallas coordinator for their plot (assuming they had one), because he was just "a crazy old man."

I've always protested that position on the grounds of common sense. The resigned General Edwin Walker was one of the victorious Generals of World War 2, and won Heartbreak Ridge in the Korean War. Not just a graduate of West Point, Edwin Walker went to Military School before he attended West Point. Walker was a leader US special forces before the Green Beret were even formed. He was a consummate warrior.

Although Edwin Walker was no intellectual, he was nevertheless as shrewd as a jungle tiger. He was also a candidate for Texas Governor in 1962. Why in the world would anybody write him off in 1963?

You also suggest another good point, Kenneth -- that the US Government and even the American people would unconsciously resist naming a victorious General of World War 2 in the murder of JFK, down to this very day -- and evidently Walker knew this and exploited the fact.

Very good points.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...and have no doubt about the underlying hatred of the old south towards JFK. Paul is there an implication that 'the old south' had something to do with JFK being killed? That must be one of those '13 conspiracy theories'. But it's one I haven't heard. Who were the members of the conspiracy that were mostly known for their relationship to 'the old south' ? Just curious.

Well, Kenneth, this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, provides a focus on the American right wing in the murder of JFK -- and in 1963 that featured the Confederate Flag.

Granted, there have been few who have proposed that JFK was killed first and foremost over Civil Rights. Yet Medgar Evers was slaughtered in his own driveway in Mississippi on the very night that JFK made his 11 June 1963 speech on Civil Rights. (Medgar Evers was the NAACP officer who helped James Meredith become the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University in 1962).

Yet I suspect that Dr. Caufield will name the members of the "Old South" conspiracy who killed JFK, including the resigned General Walker, along with Guy Banister and the White Citizens' Councils of Texas and Louisiana.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

...and have no doubt about the underlying hatred of the old south towards JFK. Paul is there an implication that 'the old south' had something to do with JFK being killed? That must be one of those '13 conspiracy theories'. But it's one I haven't heard. Who were the members of the conspiracy that were mostly known for their relationship to 'the old south' ? Just curious.

Well, Kenneth, this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, provides a focus on the American right wing in the murder of JFK -- and in 1963 that featured the Confederate Flag.

Granted, there have been few who have proposed that JFK was killed first and foremost over Civil Rights. Yet Medgar Evers was slaughtered in his own driveway in Mississippi on the very night that JFK made his 11 June 1963 speech on Civil Rights. (Medgar Evers was the NAACP officer who helped James Meredith become the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University in 1962).

Yet I suspect that Dr. Caufield will name the members of the "Old South" conspiracy who killed JFK, including the resigned General Walker, along with Guy Banister and the White Citizens' Councils of Texas and Louisiana.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Thanks Paul, I'm one of those old guys from the old south, being originally from Georgia. I certainly have no specific knowledge of who did or did not kill JFK, but I'm gonna suggest that if there were an 'old southerner' that might have been more responsible than any other, it likely was LBJ. But, that's just a guess

[Paul Trejo]

Thanks Paul, I'm one of those old guys from the old south, being originally from Georgia. I certainly have no specific knowledge of who did or did not kill JFK, but I'm gonna suggest that if there were an 'old southerner' that might have been more responsible than any other, it likely was LBJ. But, that's just a guess

Well, Kenneth, as writer James DiEugenio noted on this thread last week, there's a substantial JFK literature that blames LBJ for the JFK murder -- yet it remains inconclusive.

One of the writers, Barr McClellan, actually wrote that his "proof" that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK murder was that LBJ knew so little about the details. Hmm.

LBJ was a politician, and we're accustomed to accuse politicians of all things -- however, the politics of LBJ were too close to the politics of JFK to make me suspicious. LBJ actually completed JFK's Civil Rights Act after JFK was murdered.

LBJ was born and raised in the South, but LBJ was an FDR Democrat, and lobbied for the underprivileged. In fact, the South almost uniformly converted from Democrat to Republican after observing the legislation that LBJ enacted in his short term in office.

LBJ was a master of domestic politics, but IMHO he was incompetent with Foreign Affairs, so his conduct of the Vietnam War was a disaster. LBJ had no clue in the world why all those Buddhist monks were making human torches of themselves in the public squares of Hanoi. He didn't bother to question it either -- Anticommunism was the singular obsession of the USA in those days. No depth.

I don't suspect LBJ -- and the literature that I've read on the topic, starting in 1992 (i.e. Craig Zirbel's well known book, The Texas Connection, which is the best of the lot) is a monument to mere suspicion and political innuendo.

Less evidence is given for the guilt of LBJ than was given for the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald, so it's silly, IMHO, for people to defend Oswald on the basis of scanty evidence, but rush to condemn LBJ upon even less evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

For the record, the 2002 book by Harrison Livingstone entitled, The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy, also treats Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine as L-I-A-R-S on the topic of the shooting at resigned General Edwin Walker by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Further, the only motivation Livingstone offers for the WC creation of the alleged lie that Oswald tried to shoot Walker was to try to portray the peaceful Oswald as a violent maniac.

This alleged lie was considered so important to the Warren Commission, according to Livingstone, that they forged the Backyard Photographs, the Photographs of Walker's Dallas home, the "Walker letter," Ruth Paine's discovery of the letter, the story of Marina Oswald that Lee confessed to her, and the stories of George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt that they found Oswald's rifle with scope in his apartment, and strongly suspected that Oswald was Walker's shooter.

Again, the motive for Livingstone's charge of perjury against Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine was solely and only that the WC wished to to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as a homicidal maniac. No other reason.

Livingstone's explanation is superficial, IMHO. Why this particular fabrication? And why would General Walker leak this lie to the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung only 18 hours after the JFK assassination? These questions are never addressed by Livingstone.

A superior study of General Walker's role in the JFK assassination would address this vital testimony by Marina Oswald, Ruth Paine, George De Mohrenschildt, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Volkmar Schmidt and Mrs. Igor Voshinin with more care.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

The National Archives has many "Key Persons Files" that are related to JFK's assassination. Many of those NARA documents are posted online as jpg files.

I recently converted the NARA file on Robert A. Surrey (Walker's aide) into pdf documents. If anyone would like a copy - send me your email address (to ernie1241@aol.com) and I will forward you the file. Surrey's NARA file will also be on Internet Archive at a later date --- probably toward the end of this year when I send the Archive another batch of files to upload.

Surrey's file contains Dallas PD reports, US Secret Service Protective Service reports as well as Surrey's entire testimony before the Warren Commission.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Ernie Lazar