New Book!

[Kenneth Drew]

Once again -- and for the final time, Ernie. Walker was the man who led the race riots at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962.

Walker did that to prevent a Black American, James Meredith, from attending that college, though he was fully qualified.

Walker was an outspoken enemy of Civil Rights in the USA.

That said, Edwin Walker was NOT a Grand Dragon of the KKK. Edwin Walker was NOT a member of the America Nazi Party.

It is worthwhile to pinpoint exactly where Edwin Walker -- the outspoken enemy of Civil Rights in the USA -- truly stood on the wide political spectrum of US politics in 1963. That is, if we truly want to know US History.

Walker was on the Extreme Right. Yet his position was very specific. He was not a KKK member. He was not a Grand Dragon, and he turned that offer down (and you have no idea what went on in his mind when Walker turned it down, Ernie, so come off your high horse). He was not an American Nazi.

The question is politics in 1963 -- not in 2015. In the context of 2015, yes, we all can say with clarity that Edwin Walker was a racist. In the year 1963, Edwin Walker was playing his cards to be nominated for US President (yes, he truly was that arrogant).

If you can't see the nuance of that point, then I'm finished with your posts on this thread, Ernie. You're becoming a bore.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, now you write that Walker WAS a racist but previously in the Edwin Walker thread you told me I was mistaken because I stated that Walker was a racist. You do not seem to understand how your own words are often extremely confusing -- particularly when you do not want anyone to consider their ultimate logical progression.

For example, you have previously written:

Technically speaking, Edwin Walker wasn't a racist -- however, in effective terms, he gave great support and comfort to racists, especially those who wanted to keep Ole Miss University all-white. He was willing to resort to violence to ensure that result -- and he knew what he was doing when he opposed JFK in September 1962 at Ole Miss.

and

Again I say -- Edwin Walker EXPLOITED racism for political opportunity. I don't deny that. Walker gave support and comfort to violent racists, specifically in his bizarre handling of the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 in Oxford, Mississippi.

and

Anybody who chooses to use violence and to violate the Constitution to pursue reactionary political goals is a radical reactionary. This is how I characterize Guy Banister (based on the evidence we have from Jim Garrison). This is also how I characterize the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker, who fomented a deadly riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to prevent one Black Student (James Meredith) from registering as a student there. Walker was also a radical reactionary.

I suggest that if someone declares that Walker....

1. gave great support and comfort to racists

2. was willing to resort to violence to prevent a qualified black student from enrolling in a university

3. exploited racism for his own political purposes

4. can be fairly described as a "radical reactionary"

5. wanted blacks to be kept in their proper place

THEN---there are certain inescapable conclusions that arise from those ideas. Chief among them is the conclusion that all of these characteristics have a common core, i.e. they arise from a set of values which is, in every respect, indicative of RACIST sentiments and beliefs.

The actual literal definition of racism is:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

and a racist is:

"showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another."

In every conceivable way, Walker exhibited racist sentiments and values and, more importantly, the complete absence of AFFIRMATIVE evidence to support a different conclusion is the most compelling argument.

Not using one particular racial slur or not belonging to one particular organization is totally irrelevant because, Walker accomplished through actions what the bigot made permissible or justifiable through words.

and a racist is:

"showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another."

Ernie, let me ask you this question: If (and notice I said 'if') intelligence can be determined by a series of tests, and it can be said that on an average, one race scores consistently higher than another race, is that considered a measure of 'superior to another'? Or if physical strength and ability can be measure by a series of tests and one race consistently scores 'on average' above the other race, is that considered to be 'superior to another'? So let's use those two series of tests, one intelligence and one physical. If the white race scores higher than blacks and you recognize that to be a fact, does that make you a racist if you are white and believe that on the average, on intelligence that the white race is superior. suppose you are a member of the black race and you believe that 'on average' white people test higher on intelligence than blacks, does that make a black person a racist to believe that white people score higher? Ask the same questions, in reverse, about athletic ability. If a white person thinks 'generally', black people have more athletic ability than white people, does that make them racist?

Are you saying that recognizing the truth of a situation, for example that, generally speaking, black people have more athletic ability than whites, makes you a racist?

I don't agree with your 'hypothesis'. I think some people are smarter than others and some have more physical ability than others and I think that because I have good sense, not because I'm a racist.

[William O'Neil]

Ernie wrote' "I respectfully suggest that if you want to be considered a fair-minded and thoughtful researcher that you should not automatically dismiss data which does not conform to your preferred theory."

First off this is not "my preferred theory". Secondly, On what basis does Steven base his opinion that the theory is a “ridiculous, unfounded, spurious and outlandish claim."

How does he know that he had full knowledge of his Grandfathers life and secrets? Can he explain his Grandfather's association with Milteer?

He may well be right , but should we just take his word for it?

Bill

Edited August 30, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Kenneth Drew]

No Paul, you previously definitively stated your judgment that Walker was not a racist. Your original judgment was not based upon his speeches but, rather, because you told us that he never joined the KKK or similar groups.

You also wrote: "Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place."

I have no clue what you meant by "naively". He was a racist for his entire life! And he believed "integration is illegal".

Maybe there are two different Paul Trejo's who contribute messages in EF?

I also asked you for AFFIRMATIVE evidence to demonstrate Walker's NON-racist character, but you produced NONE.

I repeat my previous challenge:

• Does ANYBODY know of ANY local, state, or national civil rights organization or civil rights leader which Walker endorsed or praised?
• Did ANY civil rights organization EVER invite Walker to speak before their conventions?
• Did ANY civil rights organization or publication endorse Walker in Texas when he ran for Governor?
• Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) anything POSITIVE about civil rights groups OR
• Did Walker EVER make ANY financial contribution to a civil rights organization in Dallas, in Texas, or nationally?
• Did Walker EVER affirm or defend statements made by J. Edgar Hoover or by the FBI regarding our civil rights movement?
• Did Walker EVER refute or challenge racist comments made by his associates and friends or any of their defense-of-white-privilege arguments?

Your grandstanding is becoming silly, Ernie. Nobody doubts that the resigned General Walker, the man who led the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 would ever, ever, ever be a friend of the Civil Rights movement, or vice verse.

My point was simple -- Edwin Walker never used the "N" word. Edwin Walker wanted to be US President. Edwin Walker avoided intimate contact with the KKK and ANP -- precisely for that reason.

Edwin Walker deliberately preached to the White Citizens Councils all over the South -- yet never used the "N" word there.

Walker was "working his base" as they say in politics today. He did believe that colored people should stay in their place -- without power. That's racist in 2015, yet the truly outspoken racists in 1963 would use the "N" word in public speeches -- and would openly propose that all Black Americans should be shipped back to Africa. That's not a joke -- that's reality.

So -- one must know where to draw the line. Surely the NAACP always held Edwin Walker to be a nuisance. Yet George Wallace and the KKK were far more fearsome to them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

If I understand your position regarding how to determine racist sentiments, it continues to be the following:

The most important criteria for making fair determinations are:

(1) does someone use the n-word in their writing or speeches? AND

(2) does someone belong to the KKK or ANP or similar explicitly racist organizations?

According to the Trejo Theory of Racism -- if the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "NO" -- then the subject under scrutiny CANNOT fairly be described as racist.

So I repeat my previous challenge to Paul:

I suggest giving a random scientific sample of black Americans copies of articles and speeches authored/published by Walker AND then also give them a list of the organizations which Walker helped to create or which he endorsed AND a list of organizations and publications which Walker associated himself with (as a speaker or contributor of articles in their publications).

THEN, let's ask 1000 black Americans what THEY think about Walker, i.e. ask THEM, "Was Edwin Walker a racist?" And let's see the result and compare that result to Paul's assurances.

"I suggest giving a random scientific sample of black Americans copies of articles and speeches authored/published by Walker" sounds fair. Now there are a couple of stipulations: First they all have to be from 1963 and have no knowledge of any event that has occurred since that time.

The problem with your thinking is that you are thinking in today's terms, while Paul is talking about what was happening in the early 60's and he's talking in terms of the realities in that time frame.

Under those conditions, I think most blacks would say he was an average American. I have seen nothing of Walker's activities that make me inclined to think he was any different than the average white American living in the southern US in the 50's and 60's. One thing you're missing Ernie, is that blacks didn't have a 'race card' to play back then. Most of the racism that exists today is only as a result of someone playing a race card. The 'race card' being a Democrat invention. The average white citizen in the US today is no more or no less racist than the average black citizen of the US today.

Your comments are preposterous. The "average American" did not travel around the country giving speeches to white supremacy organizations -- nor did the "average" public figure do so.

Nor did the "average American" work with white supremacists to create a right-wing paramilitary group designed to take the place of the Klan nor was the "average American" offered the position of Grand Dragon of the KKK in Texas.

Nor was the "average American" being reported to the Secret Service by the FBI on a form which checked off the category, “Subversives, ultrarightists, racists, and fascists who meet one or more of the following criteria” – and then marking box © which is: “Prior acts (including arrests or convictions) or conduct or statements indicating a propensity for violence and antipathy toward good order and government.”

Nor did the "average American" accept an invitation to speak to the Pasco County (FL) Federation For Constitutional Government – a front for the United Florida Ku Klux Klan of Dade County.

Nor did the "average American" submit letters-to-the-editor to Conde McGinley's anti-semitic and racist newspaper (Common Sense) which the House Committee on Un-American Activities described as "almost exclusively a vehicle for the exploitation of ignorance, prejudice and fear" and as "a clearinghouse for hate propaganda throughout the country."

Nor did the "average American" assert (as Walker did) that “I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.” -- particularly when you consider that the KKK was on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations.

Nor did the "average American" make comments which caused J. Edgar Hoover to observe in a handwritten comment on a memo: "Walker is nuts!"

Sorry, Ernie, your method doesn't work. You can't just say that the 'average American did not travel around the country' etc.... Ok, what was the 'average' American doing instead. I'm going to state that the average American was much more involved and interested in those things than you think and that many Americans were doing exactly the same things. So how and why do you separate him from the many others doing the same thing. But mainly I think you just missed the meaning of the word 'average' American. To be average can mean that you are one of a kind in a country that has thousands of 'one of a kind'. So my definition of average is that he went to bed at night and got up in the mornings and did his day time activities, which includes various ways of making an income, some make speeches, some lay railroad track, some write on forums, etc. I don't see anything you've mentioned about Walker that puts him outside the 'average American' situation.

"Nor did the "average American" accept an invitation to speak to the Pasco County (FL) Federation " so, Pasco County only ever had one speaker?

your laundry lists imply that Walker was the only person that did these things. Must be strange applying to an organization with no members to give a speech to an organization that had no one to attend. Surely all these organizations and meetings had other average Americans attending, so how was he different.

"Nor did the "average American" make comments which caused J. Edgar Hoover to observe in a handwritten comment on a memo: "Walker is nuts!"" Did Hoover ever make a handwritten comment " I am nuts". He was, you know.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Kenneth Drew]

No Paul, you previously definitively stated your judgment that Walker was not a racist. Your original judgment was not based upon his speeches but, rather, because you told us that he never joined the KKK or similar groups.

You also wrote: "Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place."

I have no clue what you meant by "naively". He was a racist for his entire life! And he believed "integration is illegal".

Maybe there are two different Paul Trejo's who contribute messages in EF?

I also asked you for AFFIRMATIVE evidence to demonstrate Walker's NON-racist character, but you produced NONE.

I repeat my previous challenge:

• Does ANYBODY know of ANY local, state, or national civil rights organization or civil rights leader which Walker endorsed or praised?
• Did ANY civil rights organization EVER invite Walker to speak before their conventions?
• Did ANY civil rights organization or publication endorse Walker in Texas when he ran for Governor?
• Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) anything POSITIVE about civil rights groups OR
• Did Walker EVER make ANY financial contribution to a civil rights organization in Dallas, in Texas, or nationally?
• Did Walker EVER affirm or defend statements made by J. Edgar Hoover or by the FBI regarding our civil rights movement?
• Did Walker EVER refute or challenge racist comments made by his associates and friends or any of their defense-of-white-privilege arguments?

Your grandstanding is becoming silly, Ernie. Nobody doubts that the resigned General Walker, the man who led the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 would ever, ever, ever be a friend of the Civil Rights movement, or vice verse.

My point was simple -- Edwin Walker never used the "N" word. Edwin Walker wanted to be US President. Edwin Walker avoided intimate contact with the KKK and ANP -- precisely for that reason.

Edwin Walker deliberately preached to the White Citizens Councils all over the South -- yet never used the "N" word there.

Walker was "working his base" as they say in politics today. He did believe that colored people should stay in their place -- without power. That's racist in 2015, yet the truly outspoken racists in 1963 would use the "N" word in public speeches -- and would openly propose that all Black Americans should be shipped back to Africa. That's not a joke -- that's reality.

So -- one must know where to draw the line. Surely the NAACP always held Edwin Walker to be a nuisance. Yet George Wallace and the KKK were far more fearsome to them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

If I understand your position regarding how to determine racist sentiments, it continues to be the following:

The most important criteria for making fair determinations are:

(1) does someone use the n-word in their writing or speeches? AND

(2) does someone belong to the KKK or ANP or similar explicitly racist organizations?

According to the Trejo Theory of Racism -- if the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "NO" -- then the subject under scrutiny CANNOT fairly be described as racist.

So I repeat my previous challenge to Paul:

I suggest giving a random scientific sample of black Americans copies of articles and speeches authored/published by Walker AND then also give them a list of the organizations which Walker helped to create or which he endorsed AND a list of organizations and publications which Walker associated himself with (as a speaker or contributor of articles in their publications).

THEN, let's ask 1000 black Americans what THEY think about Walker, i.e. ask THEM, "Was Edwin Walker a racist?" And let's see the result and compare that result to Paul's assurances.

"I suggest giving a random scientific sample of black Americans copies of articles and speeches authored/published by Walker" sounds fair. Now there are a couple of stipulations: First they all have to be from 1963 and have no knowledge of any event that has occurred since that time.

The problem with your thinking is that you are thinking in today's terms, while Paul is talking about what was happening in the early 60's and he's talking in terms of the realities in that time frame.

Under those conditions, I think most blacks would say he was an average American. I have seen nothing of Walker's activities that make me inclined to think he was any different than the average white American living in the southern US in the 50's and 60's. One thing you're missing Ernie, is that blacks didn't have a 'race card' to play back then. Most of the racism that exists today is only as a result of someone playing a race card. The 'race card' being a Democrat invention. The average white citizen in the US today is no more or no less racist than the average black citizen of the US today.

Wrong! Victims of racism or bigotry are much more qualified to determine and speak about the character and values of someone than non-victims.

Ok, if I get into ranking 'dumbest statements I've ever heard', I'll reserve a spot near the top for that one.

[Paul Trejo]

...According to Gary Wean's fans, this 1987 book was based on a first-draft that appeared in 1974. That could explain why the idea of a Fake Assassination gone awry was first publicized in the September 1975 special issue of The Tattler. Later, the idea of a Fake Assassination gone awry was found in the JFK CT novel, Libra (1988) by Don DeLillo. Fourteen years later, a physicist named William J. Fritz, Jr. published his book, The Kennedy Mutiny (2002), and added his own twist.

Some problems I have with this:

Howard Hunt wasn't a household name in 1963. Did he specifically call out Hunt and was Hunt's identity known to those present at the meeting? Kind of coincidental that the story materialized in 1974. Also, if this were really how it happened, why wasn't it Hunt's "deathbed confession?"

Excellent questions, Brian. I hope we can develop this question further in the days ahead.

In my opinion, however, Howard Hunt told the truth when he said he played a minor role in the JFK murder. I truly believe that. Marita Lorenz identified Howard Hunt as the payroll man for an arms shipment. Period.

That matches my theory. Gary Wean's theory, that Howard Hunt was the mastermind of the JFK murder, is weakened by his theory of a Fake Assassination gone awry -- which IMHO is weak as a wet noodle.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 30, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

If a large conspiracy and larger cover-up were perpetrated against Kennedy with Walker at its head, one wants to know what political allies Walker retained in US military leadership after his resignation and throughout his post-military political activities.

This is something that is somewhat missing in the Caufield book, other than the Charles Willoughby association. Did Walker have political support in the military after his resignation?

I've often wondered about that, too, David. Yet, using Occam's Razor, I've also attempted to formulate the sort of scenario in which only a single team inside of Dallas could have accomplished the JFK murder.

It seems to me today that a superbly trained US General, who spent his childhood in Military school, who graduated from West Point, who then entered Special Forces, and then became a leader in World War Two, and then served in the Korean War, and quit the Military when he was only about 50 years old -- such a person would have all the skills necessary for a military-style ambush upon JFK at Dealey Plaza.

To this scenario we must also add the fact that thousands (if not millions) of Americans on the Extreme Right Wing continued to support the resigned General Walker, even after (or perhaps even because) JFK and RFK sent Walker to an insane asylum following his failed bid to prevent James Meredith from becoming the first Black American from registering as a student at Ole Miss University in September 1962.

We have FBI files, for example, in which several of the people detained by the FBI in 1962 at the Mississippi border, told the FBI that they were former US soldiers who had served in Germany under General Walker, and they responded to Walker's call on the radio and TV for "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union" to resist JFK's Federal Troops in Mississippi.

That's why they were there. I suggest that the resigned General Walker had thousands of trained sharp-shooters willing to serve him in Dallas in 1963 -- even though the majority of Americans thought of Walker as a "crazy old man" whom JFK and RFK had sent to an insane asylum in 1962.

Actually, the Extreme Right Wing in the USA was hopping mad that JFK had sent the resigned General Walker to an insane asylum. This was red meat for the Right Wing press in 1962 and 1963. I read some of the street newspapers in Los Angeles from that period -- and they all agreed -- only a Communist would mix politics with psychiatry.

So -- even though the majority would consider General Walker to be a dead duck, that simply wasn't true among the American minority of Extreme Right Wingers, including the thousands of Minutemen, and perhaps thousands of former US Army troops who had served under General Edwin Walker in Germany.

So -- in this scenario -- can anybody doubt that the military experience of the resigned General Edwin Walker, combined with a huge army of volunteer sharpshooters, obedient to Walker in 1963, would be able to manage the paramilitary ambush of JFK in Dealey Plaza?

I don't doubt it for a second. The only thing that Walker would require beyond that would be a few people in Dallas City Hall, perhaps the Dallas FBI Agent, and the Dallas Secret Service Agent, and a few DPD Officers -- and that would be sufficient to complete the murder of JFK.

Now -- somebody might quickly object: "What about the Cover-up?" Many of you know my response -- the JFK Cover-up was not planned by the JFK Killers. The JFK Killers set-up the Patsy to look like an FPCC Communist, so that the JFK murder would appear to be a Communist plot. The JFK Cover-up Team, however, re-framed the Patsy to look like a "Lone Nut" so that the USA would not feel obliged to invade Cuba.

The only question on the table, IMHO, is this: was the resigned General Walker able to plan and execute the JFK murder in Dealey Plaza as the mastermind, supported by countless volunteeers who would obey him out of a sense of honor (and perhaps a sense of Southern outrage over the Civil Rights movement that JFK had so recently supported, of the sort that Kenneth Drew asks us to consider)?

IMHO, General Walker was fully able to accomplish the Dealey Plaza ambush on his own. He certainly had the motive and the means, and I believe he seized the opportunity.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 30, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

David asked; “If a large conspiracy and larger cover-up were perpetrated against Kennedy with Walker at its head, one wants to know what political allies Walker retained in US military leadership after his resignation and throughout his post-military political activities.

This is something that is somewhat missing in the Caufield book, other than the Charles Willoughby association. Did Walker have political support in the military after his resignation?”

David,

I presume you mean active military?

He most likely did, but they would be extremely reluctant to show it after Walkers troubles. So, it’s hard to say or document for sure.

He had numerous Ex-military associates and supporters, which is covered to some extent in Chapter 8. There was more that had to be left out, due to limitations in book size.

Bill

Edited August 30, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie wrote' "I respectfully suggest that if you want to be considered a fair-minded and thoughtful researcher that you should not automatically dismiss data which does not conform to your preferred theory."

First off this is not "my preferred theory". Secondly, On what basis does Steven base his opinion that the theory is a “ridiculous, unfounded, spurious and outlandish claim."

How does he know that he had full knowledge of his Grandfathers life and secrets? Can he explain his Grandfather's association with Milteer?

He may well be right , but should we just take his word for it?

Bill

Well, Bill, instead of immediately forming a conclusion and dismissing what Steve Benson said, why don't you ask him "on what basis" he came to his conclusion?

Sorry, but this has always been one of my pet peeves about (for example) the quality of "research" done by Birch Society and similar groups, i.e. they make the most horrendous judgments about the character, integrity, values, behavior and motives of people whom they have never met, never contacted, and never asked a single question and, furthermore, whose friends, relatives, neighbors, business associates they have never questioned. It is what I describe as long-distance defamation.

This is why, after 14 years of litigation, including two different jury trials, numerous appeals, and review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the JBS paid Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages for malice because of their defamatory article which discussed Gertz. As you may know, punitive damages are only allowed when “malice” can be shown. Malice, in legalese, refers to “reckless disregard for truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.

As one Appeals Court observed about the JBS article on Gertz:

“There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz.” [u.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].

How do we know that YOU or CAUFIELD "has full knowledge of ETB's life and secrets"? Tell us something about the extent of Caufield's research done into ETB's personal papers, Caufield's interviews with people who were intimately familiar with ETB's beliefs, values, and character. Why should we accept YOUR word about any "association" between ETB and Milteer and the alleged length, character and purpose of that "association".

Edited August 30, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Sorry, Ernie, your method doesn't work. You can't just say that the 'average American did not travel around the country' etc.... Ok, what was the 'average' American doing instead. I'm going to state that the average American was much more involved and interested in those things than you think and that many Americans were doing exactly the same things. So how and why do you separate him from the many others doing the same thing. But mainly I think you just missed the meaning of the word 'average' American. To be average can mean that you are one of a kind in a country that has thousands of 'one of a kind'. So my definition of average is that he went to bed at night and got up in the mornings and did his day time activities, which includes various ways of making an income, some make speeches, some lay railroad track, some write on forums, etc. I don't see anything you've mentioned about Walker that puts him outside the 'average American' situation.

"Nor did the "average American" accept an invitation to speak to the Pasco County (FL) Federation " so, Pasco County only ever had one speaker?

your laundry lists imply that Walker was the only person that did these things. Must be strange applying to an organization with no members to give a speech to an organization that had no one to attend. Surely all these organizations and meetings had other average Americans attending, so how was he different.

"Nor did the "average American" make comments which caused J. Edgar Hoover to observe in a handwritten comment on a memo: "Walker is nuts!"" Did Hoover ever make a handwritten comment " I am nuts". He was, you know.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Straw man argument Ken which reveals that you are not a serious person.

I did not write that the average American did not travel around the country. I wrote that the average American did not travel around the country associating with and giving aid and comfort to bigots. More importantly, we have to consider the appropriate category, i.e. the average American public figure who was engaged in political activity.

Walker's sole purpose was not merely to maintain the "status quo" (your ridiculous euphemism) but, instead, he was actively engaged in creating new organizations and a movement with himself as the leader of that movement -- including, but not limited to, advocating (in one instance) that people travel to another state to prevent someone from getting a university education!

With respect to "many others doing the same thing" -- you would have to be very specific about what you mean -- i.e. give examples. Many Americans (including public officials) did travel around the country to give speeches, attend meetings, and build coalitions for various purposes but the "average American" did NOT travel for the purpose of associating himself with people and groups -- some of whom were well-known to be on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations.

My "laundry list" did not (as you claim) imply that Walker was the "only" speaker to accept invitations to speak at those groups. Another absurd straw-man argument. But only a very specific segment of public figures chose to associate themselves with such organizations. As I pointed out in a previous message, another public figure (Sen. Barry Goldwater) ....

UNLIKE Walker.

NEVER accepted a speaking invitation from ANY white supremacist organization

NEVER endorsed a white supremacist organization or political leader

NEVER accepted a request from an explicitly racist publication (such as Ned Touchstone's, The Councilor or Conde McGinley's Common Sense or Harry W. Pyle's Political Reporter) to write articles for their publications.

NEVER sought or wanted the endorsement of groups like KKK or Americans For The Preservation of the White Race

But you are certainly entitled to your mis-informed opinion.

[Ernie Lazar]

If a large conspiracy and larger cover-up were perpetrated against Kennedy with Walker at its head, one wants to know what political allies Walker retained in US military leadership after his resignation and throughout his post-military political activities.

This is something that is somewhat missing in the Caufield book, other than the Charles Willoughby association. Did Walker have political support in the military after his resignation?

I've often wondered about that, too, David. Yet, using Occam's Razor, I've also attempted to formulate the sort of scenario in which only a single team inside of Dallas could have accomplished the JFK murder.

It seems to me today that a superbly trained US General, who spent his childhood in Military school, who graduated from West Point, who then entered Special Forces, and then became a leader in World War Two, and then served in the Korean War, and quit the Military when he was only about 50 years old -- such a person would have all the skills necessary for a military-style ambush upon JFK at Dealey Plaza.

To this scenario we must also add the fact that thousands (if not millions) of Americans on the Extreme Right Wing continued to support the resigned General Walker, even after (or perhaps even because) JFK and RFK sent Walker to an insane asylum following his failed bid to prevent James Meredith from becoming the first Black American from registering as a student at Ole Miss University in September 1962.

We have FBI files, for example, in which several of the people detained by the FBI in 1962 at the Mississippi border, told the FBI that they were former US soldiers who had served in Germany under General Walker, and they responded to Walker's call on the radio and TV for "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union" to resist JFK's Federal Troops in Mississippi.

That's why they were there. I suggest that the resigned General Walker had thousands of trained sharp-shooters willing to serve him in Dallas in 1963 -- even though the majority of Americans thought of Walker as a "crazy old man" whom JFK and RFK had sent to an insane asylum in 1962.

Actually, the Extreme Right Wing in the USA was hopping mad that JFK had sent the resigned General Walker to an insane asylum. This was red meat for the Right Wing press in 1962 and 1963. I read some of the street newspapers in Los Angeles from that period -- and they all agreed -- only a Communist would mix politics with psychiatry.

So -- even though the majority would consider General Walker to be a dead duck, that simply wasn't true among the minority of Right Wingers, including the thousands of Minutemen, and perhaps thousands of former US Army troops who had served under Edwin Walker in Germany.

So -- in this scenario -- can anybody doubt that the military experience of the resigned General Edwin Walker, combined with a huge army of volunteer sharpshooters, obedient to Walker in 1963, would be able to manage this sort of paramilitary ambush in Dealey Plaza?

I don't doubt it for a second. The only thing that Walker would require beyond that would be a few people in Dallas City Hall, perhaps the Dallas FBI Agent, and the Dallas Secret Service Agent, and a few DPD Officers -- and that would be sufficient to complete the murder of JFK.

Now -- somebody might quickly object: "What about the Cover-up?" Many of you know my response -- the JFK Cover-up was not planned by the JFK Killers. The JFK Killers set-up the Patsy to look like an FPCC Communist, so that the JFK murder would appear to be a Communist plot. The JFK Cover-up Team, however, re-framed the Patsy to look like a "Lone Nut" so that the USA would not feel obliged to invade Cuba.

The only question on the table, IMHO, is this: was the resigned General Walker able to plan and execute the JFK murder in Dealey Plaza as the mastermind, supported by countless volunteeers who would obey him out of a sense of honor (and perhaps a sense of Southern outrage over the Civil Rights movement that JFK had so recently supported, of the sort that Kenneth Drew asks us to consider)?

IMHO, General Walker was fully able to accomplish the Dealey Plaza ambush on his own. He certainly had the motive and the means, and I believe he seized the opportunity.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Of course, one could take Paul's comment to the next level and ask the question......

IF Walker was such an accomplished military tactician, military planner, and skilled soldier and you consider the following about his career:

* he indisputably had considerable training during his military service as well as awards and decorations (Bronze Star, Silver Star, etc)

* he was Assistant Commandant of the Ranger Training Command in Ft. Benning GA where he was responsible for training elite Ranger companies in the early 1950's

* in 1957, he attended something called a "Weapons Employment Familiarization Course"

THEN.....why didn't Walker choose to personally assassinate JFK? In other words, why bother organizing a messy conspiracy which required recruiting and organizing many other people?

[William O'Neil]

Ernie, Fair enough, perhaps I was presumptive on Steve Benson’s views regarding his Grandfather. However, you are the one who presented those views and his critical comments. I thought perhaps he would have passed on some supporting reasons for those views to you. Neither Caufield nor I are accusing Ezra Taft Benson of being a plotter. That was Dean’s theory! However, he does come up in the Milteer saga, and given his (Benson’s) politics, I think it deserves a curious look, which is the way it was presented in the book. I wouldn’t mind asking Steve Benson his reasons, but I have no contact info for him. I will look into it.

Bill

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, Fair enough, perhaps I was presumptive on Steve Benson’s views regarding his Grandfather. However, you are the one who presented those views and his critical comments. I thought perhaps he would have passed on some supporting reasons for those views to you. Neither Caufield nor I are accusing Ezra Taft Benson of being a plotter. That was Dean’s theory! However, he does come up in the Milteer saga, and given his (Benson’s) politics, I think it deserves a curious look, which is the way it was presented in the book. I wouldn’t mind asking Steve Benson his reasons, but I have no contact info for him. I will look into it.

Bill

Steve Benson is a Pulitzer-prize winning editorial cartoonist for the Arizona Republic newspaper. You can contact him at steve.benson@arizonarepublic.com

Yes, you are correct that neither Caufield or you "accused" ETB of being a plotter but you characterized Harry Dean's accusations as "particularly compelling" because of "Dean's mention of Ezra Taft Benson's involvement in financing and backing the assassination."

You also wrote: "One example of this is Dean’s claim that Mormon Ezra Taft Benson was a part of the conspiracy. That is not too hard to believe..."

How the hell would Harry Dean know anything about ETB? Did he ever personally talk with ETB or exchange correspondence with ETB?

How would Harry know anything about Benson's "involvement in financing and backing" ANY criminal activity? Where is the fact-checking due diligence to prevent falsehoods from being elevated to "fact"?

How would YOU feel if someone accused YOU of being "involved in and financing" a murder -- if the only source cited for such an assertion is somebody you have never met, never spoken to, and you have never been contacted by?

Edited August 30, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[William O'Neil]

You also wrote: "One example of this is Dean’s claim that Mormon Ezra Taft Benson was a part of the conspiracy. That is not too hard to believe..."

Uh,no Ernie, I did not write that line. That was an extract from the book, should have put it in quotes.

Thanks for the contact info.

Bill

Edited August 30, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Ernie Lazar]

You also wrote: "One example of this is Dean’s claim that Mormon Ezra Taft Benson was a part of the conspiracy. That is not too hard to believe..."

Uh,no Ernie, I did not write that line. That was an extract from the book, should have put it in quotes.

Thanks for the contact info.

Bill

Well, ya, you were interpreting Caufield's conclusion but you presented it in the context of disputing my message where I suggested that Caufield had dismissed Harry Dean's recollections.

And your reply (message 442, page 30, with your bold type emphasis) refers to Caufield's predicate and then you present "one example" to support that predicate and you (and/or Caufield?) concluded "That is not too hard to believe..."

Dr. Caufield wants his readers not to think he disregards Harry Dean as a witness!

While it is true that Caufield has found some faults in the way Dean has told his story, in the end he concludes that Dean did indeed have inside knowledge about the assassination conspiracy and General Walker. One example of this is Dean’s claim that Mormon Ezra Taft Benson was a part of the conspiracy. That is not too hard to believe when you consider that Joseph Milteer, a General Walker associate, met with Benson a month before the murder in Utah. Milteer also had a bank account set up in Provo under an assumed name with considerable amounts of money for no honest reason. A massive amount of new evidence is presented on Milteer, who we know had pretty dead-on accurate foreknowledge of the JFK murder. There are more examples like this about Dean’s unique knowledge in the book.

Caufield concludes that Dean has not deliberately lied or attempted to fool anyone. He gets a little off line when he tries to interpret events he had no firsthand knowledge of, through those he did have knowledge of. Given that, I think Dean deserves that we take a kinder, more understanding and appreciative approach to him and his story.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[William O'Neil]

Once again, it was an extract, the bold type was meant to point out that Caufield had not totally dismissed all of Deans information! Simple as that. If you find that objectionable that's your prerogative.

Bill