Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

It is my understanding that the FBI is not a prosecutorial body. That would have to come from the Justice Dept. and the AG. The FBI’s job was to investigate and gather information.

Bill

Basically, yes, Bill, but history also shows a different side of the FBI. For example, arrests and shootouts with notorious criminals, including John Dillinger, Al Capone's gang, Bonnie and Clyde, the KKK and so much more, are well-known.

Yes, on paper the FBI were desk jockeys and spies who sat at their easels and radio receivers. But in real life they did have to use their guns on occasion.

The Minutemen were indeed on the radar of the FBI. It was not easy for the FBI to determine how many Minutemen members were actually active in each State -- but there were some estimates in the tens of thousands. These were heavily-armed groups, sometimes with military grade weapons.

We must also try to remember the political philosophy of the Minutemen -- even though they used the name of a loyal Militia from 1776, in fact they were anti-Feds, largely because of McCarthyism, which in the 1950's had preached that Washington DC was full of Communists -- and also because of the JBS, which in the 1960's preached that the White House itself had been infected with Communism since FDR.

The Radical Right, as you note, also attracted racist fanatics who violently opposed Earl Warren's "Brown Decision" for US racial integration in public schools ("Impeach Earl Warren!"). We can easily imagine that in the South, the Minutemen attracted a spillover from the White Citizens Councils and the KKK.

Harry Dean says that he saw no segregationists in the California Minutemen, and I believe him -- it was Anticommunist paranoia that moved Californians -- but who can doubt the existence of racists within Minutemen groups in the Southern States?

It seems to me that the resistance to Jeff Caufield's "Walker-did-it" theory of the JFK murder stems from the American reluctance to confront today's Right-wing (e.g. Tea Party) which still thrives in our society. It's much easier to just blame the CIA -- which doesn't bark back.

If it's true today, then it was even more true 25 years ago, and even more true 50 years ago.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually Ernie, Jeff and I agree totally on this. If the book included all of our sources and citations, the book would have been back to 1,200+ pages again.I mentioned this example, as a means to show there was not a monolithic viewpoint among all Right Wingers. I don't believe Caufield states that at all.

Write a book, and deal with editors who insist on compromise and brevity.

Bill

I certainly understand the limitations imposed by book editors but my point is different, namely, the way Caufield is weaving his story as a spider's web where names are thrown together for a specific purpose, namely, to show a certain or probable nexus among them.

Thus, for example, Caufield often states something like "it is not known" if person "x" attended a particular meeting but by the time you read that disclaimer it does not make any difference because Caufield has piled on the guy with citation-after-citation of sinister "associations" he supposedly had in various organizations or the guy "attended" other meetings with known extreme right or racist or violence-prone (in terms of their rhetoric) individuals.

Maybe it is because I have read so much extreme right (and especially JBS) literature that I am ultra-sensitive to this methodology. In chapter 3 of my JBS report which discusses our civil rights movement, I show how the Birch Society utilized this same technique. I quote below, the opening paragraphs of my section about A. Philip Randolph for illustration:

The Birch Society’s evaluation of African American labor leader A. Philip Randolph’s career may be gleaned from its lengthy litany of Randolph’s alleged “affiliations” with organizations and causes which the JBS describes as “subversive and Communist” or “Communist front”.
Randolph is but one of about 1200 people and organizations discussed in a 4-volume book series which the Birch Society published under the title Biographical Dictionary of the Left.
The concluding sentence of the JBS summary about Randolph epitomizes the manner in which the JBS slimes the reputation and character of people through malicious and sinister innuendo:
“Randolph learned his lessons well as he rubbed elbows with Communists over the past three decades.” [Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, Volume 1, page 488; Western Islands Publishers, 1969]
So, to avoid yet another libel lawsuit, the JBS does not come right out and declare Randolph to be a Communist; instead you read two pages about Randolph's "affiliations" and then, by the time you slog your way through all that, you are expected to draw the inescapable logical conclusion from the coded language regarding how Randolph "learned his lessons well as he rubbed elbows with Communists over the past three decades."
Essentially, Caufield is doing the same thing.
He is patiently (and competently) listing the "Six Degrees of Separation" of every person shown in the Index of his book and he is building a narrative around those "associations" and "affiliations".
But here is the ultimate problem:
Suppose you are a 20-something college history major from Australia and you've never heard of 99% of the right-wing people and organizations whom Caufield discusses in his book.
Keep in mind that every organization mentioned in the book is now defunct except for the JBS and every major figure discussed is dead. If you go through the Index to Caufield's book and extract every personal name and every organizational name because you intend to do your own research into them -- here is what you confront as a researcher:
1. With perhaps 2 or 3 exceptions, there are no book-length biographies written about any of these people -- and almost none of their friends or associates are still living.
2. Often, there are not even any contemporaneous lengthy magazine or newspaper articles published about them prior to 1963.
3. Many (and perhaps most) of the organizations mentioned left no institutional archives and some (like the JBS) do not allow outside independent researchers to have access to their archives for historical research
4. The personal papers of some individuals mentioned in the book are located in various universities, state historical societies, and other institutions in many different locations around our country but sometimes (as Dr. Caufield notes) there are gaps in those papers. Furthermore, there were very few oral histories recorded with the key figures discussed by Dr. Caufield.
5. Most of the FBI files pertaining to these individuals and organizations were destroyed during the past 20 or 30 years or, if you are lucky, some of them are currently archived at NARA but NARA charges 80 cents per page to provide photocopies or to copy documents onto a CD or DVD--which means only the most wealthy among us could afford to obtain those files. [incidentally, NARA processing times can be 2-3 years].
So...how does any fair-minded person determine if Dr. Caufield has presented a complete and factually accurate depiction of each person and organization he mentions?
Essentially, Caufield wants us to use the JBS-method (as discussed above with respect to A. Philip Randolph. The problem, however, with that method is that it selects ONLY the most adverse information (with respect to past affiliations and associations) without considering all of the normal variables which apply to all human beings -- which, as you correctly point out -- involves human egos, political differences, and even major conflicts which often are irreconcilable.
I will digress for one moment to give some illustrations of my point.
Most segregationists and Citizens Council-types thought highly of, and praised, Gov. Orval Faubus (Arkansas). But Robert Welch told his followers that Faubus was a Communist!
Another example: the persons involved in Willis Carto's activities and organizations (as Dr. Caufield points out on page 578) overlapped considerably with the JBS, Hargis's Christian Crusade, the Congress of Freedom, and We, The People along with virtually every major right-wing figure discussed in Caufield's book. And Caufield discusses "meetings" which Carto-affiliated individuals attended -- showing a nexus between Carto's Liberty Lobby and the JBS/Welch plus various Constitution Party personalities (including, according to Caufield, major actors inside the "high-ranking military underground").
So -- if somebody is impressed with all those "connections" or "links" -- one might reasonably conclude that Carto served as a facilitator (or "accessory") to JFK's murder.
Nevertheless, it is also true that major figures within the Birch Society despised and excoriated Carto and, in fact, some of those Birchers testified against Carto in libel lawsuits. The CEO of the JBS (after Welch died) described Carto's Liberty Lobby as "an organization founded by Willis Carto who seeks to use American populist causes as the method to bring about a National Socialist regime."
Another example: Caufield mentions Kent and Phoebe Courtney on about 60 different pages in his book and it is certainly true that they impacted right-wing political activities across our country. But it is also true that Willis Carto attempted to discredit the Courtneys and, in fact, Carto wrote letters questioning Phoebe's background because of her grandfather's Jewish heritage.
In short --- even within highly ideological movements there are always major irreconcilable schisms. Those schisms come about because of personality disputes, bruised egos, perceived slights, internal controversies which cannot be resolved, different perceptions about what needs to be done, who should lead and who should follow, competition for financial resources, etc.
But just listing "associations" and "affiliations" and "meetings" attended together does not give our hypothetical Australian college student a full picture of the complex relationships that existed within the radical right. In addition, (as I have previously discussed) there are factual errors contained in Caufield's book -- but proper evaluation of those errors must wait until I have finished reading it.
Lastly, on a personal note: I have enjoyed reading Caufield's book because I spent my adult lifetime studying all these folks and their groups and their activities. So, for me, this is a slow walk down memory lane. I just wonder, however, how readers without 50 years of extensive personal knowledge will interpret what Caufield is presenting. When I read what Caufield is writing, certain statements jump out at me but younger readers may just accept what is written without question and with no alarm bells ringing.
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your theory I am resisting Paul. I didn't overstate my case, I stated your case that LHO led a secret life. Your response about Robert Oswald was strange. Like you I question his honesty and motives. But stand by your statement that LHO was a secret right wing fanatic, and that this was kept secret from everyone close to him.

I would also like you and maybe others to address a previous question I put to you which no one took up - the fact that there is no proof in writing from the various racists and anti-communist radicals that LHO either mentions in his address book or intersects with in NO that they knew him, or if they did know him, that they considered him one of their own. If LHO kept his true alliances secret from his family and known friends, her certainly would have had little reason to do likewise with his secret compatriots.

This all goes to your theory that LHO is guilty in part for the murder of JFK, that he was part of a right wing plot. Well, I have no doubts now, and never have had any doubts, that the assassination was carried out by a committed cabal of right wingers. But there is little reason to think Oswald was one of them. He was their Patsy, not their co-conspirator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that the FBI is not a prosecutorial body. That would have to come from the Justice Dept. and the AG. The FBI’s job was to investigate and gather information.

Bill

Basically, yes, Bill, but history also shows a different side of the FBI. For example, arrests and shootouts with notorious criminals, including John Dillinger, Al Capone's gang, Bonnie and Clyde, the KKK and so much more, are well-known.

Yes, on paper the FBI were desk jockeys and spies who sat at their easels and radio receivers. But in real life they did have to use their guns on occasion.

The Minutemen were indeed on the radar of the FBI. It was not easy for the FBI to determine how many Minutemen members were actually active in each State -- but there were some estimates in the tens of thousands. These were heavily-armed groups, sometimes with military grade weapons.

We must also try to remember the political philosophy of the Minutemen -- even though they used the name of a loyal Militia from 1776, in fact they were anti-Feds, largely because of McCarthyism, which in the 1950's had preached that Washington DC was full of Communists -- and also because of the JBS, which in the 1960's preached that the White House itself had been infected with Communism since FDR.

The Radical Right, as you note, also attracted racist fanatics who violently opposed Earl Warren's the Brown Decision for US racial integration in public schools ("Impeach Earl Warren!"). We can easily imagine that in the South, the Minutemen attracted a spillover from the White Citizens Councils and the KKK.

Harry Dean says that he saw no segregationists in the California Minutemen, and I believe him -- it was Anticommunist paranoia that moved Californians -- but who can doubt the existence of racists within Minutemen groups in the Southern States?

It seems to me that the resistance to Jeff Caufield's Walker-did-it theory of the JFK murder stems from the American reluctance to confront today's Right-wing (e.g. Tea Party) which still thrives in our society. It's much easier to just blame the CIA -- which doesn't bark back.

If it's true today, then it was even more true 25 years ago, and even more true 50 years ago.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, can you cite a source for your comment that:

"The Minutemen were indeed on the radar of the FBI. It was not easy for the FBI to determine how many Minutemen members were actually active in each State -- but there were some estimates in the tens of thousands. These were heavily-armed groups, sometimes with military grade weapons."

1. Whom, exactly, estimated that there were "tens of thousands" of Minutemen?

2. Why was it not easy for the FBI to determine the number of MM members in each state?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your theory I am resisting Paul. I didn't overstate my case, I stated your case that LHO led a secret life. Your response about Robert Oswald was strange. Like you I question his honesty and motives. But stand by your statement that LHO was a secret right wing fanatic, and that this was kept secret from everyone close to him.

I would also like you and maybe others to address a previous question I put to you which no one took up - the fact that there is no proof in writing from the various racists and anti-communist radicals that LHO either mentions in his address book or intersects with in NO that they knew him, or if they did know him, that they considered him one of their own. If LHO kept his true alliances secret from his family and known friends, her certainly would have had little reason to do likewise with his secret compatriots.

This all goes to your theory that LHO is guilty in part for the murder of JFK, that he was part of a right wing plot. Well, I have no doubts now, and never have had any doubts, that the assassination was carried out by a committed cabal of right wingers. But there is little reason to think Oswald was one of them. He was their Patsy, not their co-conspirator.

Paul B.

When you’re running a covert operation do you reveal your relationships in writing and risk blowing the Op? Banister, Walker and Co. weren’t foolish enough to do that, and if there were breaches that they knew about they would have tried to resolve them before it did any damage. It would have been very poor tradecraft to leave evidence like you suggest around, especially when your plotting to kill the President! You don’t commit those things to paper, especially anything linking yourself to the fall guy.

If at one point there were some written evidence linking individuals with Oswald, then surely after 11-22, all who had any sense of self-preservation would make sure it was destroyed. That’s not to mention what the interested parties in Government (pushing the agenda of the ‘Lone Assassin theory’) were concealing.

This is what we were looking for when searching these individuals’ papers etc. What we found time and again was correspondence files in pertinent times and years were missing or purged, especially of any discussion of the assassination. So much so, that it became a suspicious pattern. So, if there ever was any written correspondence or discussion with, or regarding Oswald and the assassination, it would have been removed. We were told by several archivists that collections had been edited, and or parts withheld by the families requests. Material was also confiscated by the FBI and other agencies of Gov. This happened to us with the Hale Boggs collection at Tulane, and the archivist finally acknowledged it, due to his disgust that it had even happened.

Many of these collections came with caveats regarding use, especially their ‘correspondence’ files. We found for example at University Of Miss. that there were entire boxes of correspondence withheld indefinitely in the James O. Eastland Papers. “Why?” we asked, “They just are” was the response.

If Edwin Walker had an address book with Oswald’s address or contact info, would it be left in the papers for public viewing? I’m sure Walker and /or his relatives including his nephew who donated them, would have sanitized the record before release, which by the way was “restricted” (read banned) for many years to “researchers” Wonder why?... I don’t.

Bill

---------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

...This all goes to your theory that LHO is guilty in part for the murder of JFK, that he was part of a right wing plot. Well, I have no doubts now, and never have had any doubts, that the assassination was carried out by a committed cabal of right wingers. But there is little reason to think Oswald was one of them. He was their Patsy, not their co-conspirator.

Well, Paul B., these are still good questions. For most of the past five years I've opined that LHO believed that he was involved in a secret plot to kill Fidel Castro, and that this was how LHO got involved with the JFK conspirators without knowing it.

It is Jeff Caufield's theory that LHO was knowingly part of a Neo-Nazi plot to kill JFK -- and I'm willing to give Jeff lots of lee-way, because in the past five years I've found nobody -- anywhere -- who is ready to back my theory.

Not even Harry Dean.

At least Jeff Caufield meets my theory half-way and names General Edwin Walker at the center of the JFK Kill Team. So, as I say, I'm willing to give Jeff a lot of room to explain himself. I've just started studying his 900-page book, and I'm learning a lot.

That said -- let's look at your objection -- that LHO was only the Patsy, and nothing else. That raises a long list of questions that have been asked since Jim Garrison -- for over 45 years -- firstly, how innocent was LHO, really?

Some have opined that LHO was 100% innocent, almost like an innocent bystander. Lee Oswald...a choir boy?

Others have opined that LHO was really working for the FBI at the time he was transformed into the Patsy. Others say, CIA or ONI.

But that is quickly debunked -- a genuine FBI, CIA or ONI Agent would be far too smart to be set-up as a Patsy. (Besides that, they would be supported by a tough organization.)

The problem is that there is so much CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that links LHO to the JFK assassination. How did the real JFK conspirators get ahold of so much CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that belonged to LHO, in order to set him up?

This includes the rifle, running from the TSBD to get his pistol, the Backyard photographs, the newspaper, radio and TV accounts of LHO in New Orleans as an FPCC officer extolling Marxism-Leninism, as well as the Mexico City "credentials" resumé.

No -- in order to make sense of LHO as a Patsy at all, one must throw LHO into bed with his Patsy-makers at some point -- the only question is exactly where to draw the line.

Now, I prefer to use Occam's Razor -- to use the minimum possible theory to make the point. IMHO, Occam's Razor can support the notion that LHO was working with Guy Banister & Company in New Orleans in a plot to kill Fidel Castro. IMHO that explains Veciana's sighting of Oswald with David Atlee Philips, and it even explains the entire Mexico City episode (including the Simpich Mole Hunt) and much more. It all fits together perfectly, IMHO.

But the topic of this thread is Jeff Caufield's new book, which claims that LHO was a secret Neo-Nazi. That is a legitimate and alternate explanation for LHO's cooperation with Guy Banister. I say we should give Jeff some room to breathe here, and hear all the evidence that he has to present to us.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, Chapter 3, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Nazis, Caufield now turns to Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) himself.

According to Jeff Caufield, LHO showed signs of being a racist segregationist while in the Marines. As a young Marine LHO would write letters to Senator Strom Thurmond -- an outspoken advocate of segregation in 1957. After LHO was transferred to the El Toro marine base in California, LA Times reporter Peter Noyes reported that LHO attended Radical Right wing meetings in that town.

Even when LHO was requesting "asylum" in the USSR in 1959, when he gave his interview to a Western news reporter about his modern, liberal views, LHO could not contain his Soutern roots in his reply. (Caution, this historical vignette contains the "N" word.) Jeff Caufield writes:

Then, on November 13, 1959, reporter Aline Mosby interviewed Oswald at the Metropole Hotel in Moscow where he was staying. Mosby asked Oswald about his views on life in America. Oswald told him, "I am against conformism in such matters, such as fashionably hating minority groups. Being a southern boy I've seen poor niggers. That was a lesson, too. People hate because they are told to hate. Like school kids. In Little Rock they don't know the difference between a n and a white man, but it was the fashion to hate niggers so they hated them. People in the United States were like that in everything." (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 89)


According to Jeff Caufield, we shouldn't be surprised by the language of racism used by LHO, because the FBI had reported that LHO's mother, Marguerite Oswald, demanded to know "why Negroes have not been implicated" in the JFK assassination (p. 87)

Jeff Caufield reminds us that LHO really was a Southern boy, born in 1939, and raised in a climate of unchallenged white privilege. That is why, even when he was going undercover for the ONI in the USSR, he could not help letting his Southern roots show.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: GUY BANISTER (page 217)

At this point, Caufield discusses the assertion that Banister served in the Office of Naval Intelligence during World War II (which has been the subject of dispute). I think I can clarify this matter.

1. Banister entered-on-duty with the FBI on November 5, 1934.

2. After completion of his New Agent training class, he was assigned to 9 FBI locations: Washington field (D.C), Indianapolis, Newark, Tacoma, New York City, Butte Montana (from August 1938 until October 1941), Oklahoma City (October 1941 to November 1943) then back to Butte where he remained until 1952, then to Minneapolis. In January 1954, he transferred to his final office, Chicago, and he retired in December 1954.

3. Significantly, none of the New Orleans newspaper articles reporting upon Banister's background after he was hired as an Asst. Superintendent in the New Orleans Police Department mention that Banister had any military service or any ONI service. It should also be noted that every FBI Agent's personnel file during World War II contains extensive paperwork sent by Hoover to their local Selective Service Board explaining why FBI Agents should be exempt from service due to the nature of their position at the FBI and the national security requirements of the country. In almost every instance, selective service officials re-classified otherwise eligible FBI Agents so that they could remain in their position at the FBI.

4. On several occasions, Caufield claims that Banister (after his retirement) enjoyed a close relationship with J. Edgar Hoover. I do not think this is accurate for several reasons:

(1) In February 1955, Banister addressed a letter to "Director, FBI". In his letter, he requested that he be added to the Bureau's Mailing Lists for the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Uniform Crime Reports, copies of speeches made by Hoover and any other public statements made by Hoover.

  • The impersonal way in which Banister addressed his letter to "Director, FBI" suggests a formal arms-length relationship. Former Agents (especially SAC's) who were actually close to Hoover sometimes even addressed Hoover by his preferred first name (i.e. Edgar). When you work 20 years for one person, (and you supposedly had a "close" relationship with that person) wouldn't you think that, after retirement, you would address your correspondence to that person by name instead of by title?
  • Banister's request to be added to Bureau mailing lists for FBI publications often was made by former FBI employees -- particularly former SAC's -- and they were routinely approved. In fact-- retired FBI agents often were automatically placed on Bureau mailing lists without even asking. It is significant, however, that the notation on Banister's request was "Uniform Crime Reports ONLY" -- with "ONLY" in CAPS and underlined. This again suggests an arms-length relationship which minimized the Bureau's relationship with Banister to what every police department official would normally receive. [Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other former FBI Agent whose file I have obtained (especially former SAC's) who was denied a subscription to the "FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin" [LEB] or denied copies of Hoover's speeches. I have a relative who had no connection of any kind to Hoover; he did, however, work for the Oakland CA Police Department and when he retired, he asked the FBI to be added to the mailing list for the FBI's LEB -- and he did receive it!]
  • When Banister was fired from the New Orleans Police Department in June 1957 -- Hoover handwrote a sarcastic comment on one memo summarizing the matter which indicates that he thought Banister deserved to be fired.

So, unless we see more specific primary source evidence, it seems to me that Banister had no close relationship with Hoover.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been contacted by an acquaintance who is doing research into Walker's life. He noticed the September 15th message I posted here from a Google discussion group concerning Robert Surrey (I copy it again below). His comment about the person who posted the message on Google is as follows:

I happen to know this guy and he is from Dallas. He did know one of the Surrey boys and there was a video-tape made by both Surrey brothers claiming this happened. I'm not sure why the Surrey boys would make up something like this, but I don't believe it for one minute. David Surrey boy died a few years ago and the other, Bill lives up in Oregon. Here is a tribute video by David Surrey's family (Robert Surrey is in one photo).

THE ORIGINAL GOOGLE MESSAGE:

Hello I'm new to this forum but I do know a lot more about the shot fired at
Gen Walker than most people. You see my best friend for the last 32 years
was Robert Surrey’s eldest son, David Surrey. Many years ago he shared
with me his knowledge of the events leading up to Kennedy’s assassination.
David died in August of COPD in Farmers Branch. Last year I videotaped
David telling his story about his childhood experiences during this time.
This spring David’s brother Bill came and paid David one last visit before
his death. I videotaped Bill concerning the events he remembered also.
As you know, Robert Surrey was the PR man for Gen. Edwin Walker. When Mr.
Surrey testified before the Warren Commission, he lied about being at home
when the shot was fired at Gen Walker’s house April 10, 1963. The
entire Surrey family was at Walker’s house that evening stuffing
envelopes with campaign material. The kids were paid for each envelope
that they stuffed. When they had finished, Roberts wife Mary Kessler, took
her two daughters Karen and Julie along with Roberts two youngest sons
Bill and Richard back home, leaving Robert and David there at Walker’s
house. Robert and David Surrey were present when the shot was fired at
Walker. Mary received a call from Robert shortly after they arrived home
concerning the shooting and Robert had them all come back over to the
Walker house. Once it was clear the shooting had stopped, Robert took his
son David out with him to look for whoever did the shooting (that is what
he told David). A few blocks away Robert pulled his car over (a 1961 Ford
Sunliner white with a black top) and parked behind another car with 2 men
in it. His Dad got out of the car and walked up to the car in front of
them. David heard them talking about if they got him. At first David
thought they were talking about the shooter. He later realized they were
talking about Gen Walker
Robert Surrey always took one (and only one) of his sons with him when he
slipped into the Johnson Printing press room at night or to visit Lee H
Oswald among other things. He did that as a cover for his activities.
David went to Oswald house on at least two occasion with his father. One
was at the Neely house in Oak Cliff and the other time was at the Paine
house in Irving.
In the fall of 1963 David went out with his Dad to shoot rifles out in the
country. This was along Spring Creek in Richardson where the Owens meat
packing plant is. David was introduced to Oswald at that time and they
fired both Robert’s and Lee’s guns that day. But they did something
unusual for that period in time, they picked up ALL shell casings. In
1963 no one picked up shell casings unless they were going to be reloaded,
which they didn’t do.
Bill also went out with his Dad for target practice. Being younger than
David he didn't remember who the other man(men?) were. And they too
picked up all of the shell casings. But, Bill did remember meeting Oswald
at a house in Louisiana with his parents.
So Robert Surrey, the man who printed the “Wanted for Treason”
handbill which was handed out by H L Hunt (amongst others) downtown was
also out in the woods shooting high powered rifles with Lee Harvey Oswald
leading up to Kennedy’s assassination. David was with his Dad when he
printed the "Wanted For Treason" handbill.
There is a very good chance then that the men that Robert was talking to
that night were the Schmidt brothers mentioned in Dick Russell's book
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie - the video you posted was a waste of time, but perhaps the post accompanying it is interesting. Would you care to give your two cents on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ernie, for posting this video about the late David Bruce Surrey (1950-2013), one of the sons of Robert Allen Surrey, publisher for the ANP and publisher of General Walker's "American Eagle" in Texas in the 1960's.

I watched the video looking for that "one photograph of Robert Allen Surrey," and there it was, holding his infant son, but also looking down, so that his eyes weren't visible to the camera. So, IMHO, nobody has yet ever produced even one single recognizable photograph of Robert Allen Surrey so that I can say I know what he looks like.

Anyway, I also appreciate, Ernie, that you re-posted the story of David Bruce Surrey as told by his good friend (whose name is omitted in your post).

In that re-post, David's friend said that in 2012 he "videotaped David telling his story about his childhood experiences during this time." He also said in 2013 he videotaped brother Bill Surrey about these events. We did not see any part of those videotapes, however, we do see the family photo album of David Bruce Surrey accompanied by a soundtrack of (I suppose) David Bruce Surrey playing guitar and singing two original songs in his own raspy voice.

The family photographs accompanying his two songs are of family birthdays and Christmases -- and a Christian lifestyle comes through in the iconography of the photography -- without his father. If there is a story to that, history would like to hear it.

It's interesting that his own son claims that Robert Allen Surrey lied to the WC about the Walker shooting, when he said he was at home with his family, when actually, says David, the Surrey family was at Walker's residence on the night of the shooting.

As the evening progressed, Mary Kessler Surrey took four of her children, Karen, Julie, Bill and Richard, back home, leaving Robert and David (then 13 years old) there at Walker’s house, and they were present when the shot was fired at Walker.

This is a surprising twist to the official, WC rendition of the Walker shooting!

Robert phoned Mary to return to the Walker home with their children -- presumably for safety and to obtain their car. Then, Robert and David drove away -- as Robert told David -- to find the shooters. A few blocks away Robert pulled over and parked behind a car with two men inside. From his car-seat he heard somebody ask, "Did we get him?" (More data is needed here.) In later years, David came to suspect that the two in the car ahead were Larrie and Robbie Schmidt (as implied by Dick Russell's 1992, TMWKTM).

If that wasn't enough -- David then claims that his dad, Robert Allen Surrey, would take him to visit Lee Harvey Oswald himself, there at the Johnson Printing company. David claims that he even accompanied his dad to visit Lee Harvey Oswald's home, twice: once at the Neeley house in Oak Cliff, and once at Paine house in Irving. This is a serious claim.

In the fall (October or November) of 1963, David Surrey says, he went into the countryside with his dad to shoot rifles. David is very specific about the location, and he says he met Lee Harvey Oswald there. As a trio, they practiced with both Lee's and Robert's rifles. Then, as David distinctly recalls, his father asked him to pick up all the shell casings for that shooting. They never did that before or after.

His younger brother Bill also went shooting with his dad, but he doesn't remember who the other man was on that outing. However, he does remember his dad asked him to pick up all the shell casings for that shooting. Also, Bill Surrey claims that he met Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, Louisiana at "somebody's house" -- too young to remember whose.

If David Allen's story is even partly true, it is of historical interest. True, it relies on the memories of a 13-year old boy, and so legitimate doubts can be raised about it. For example -- how certain was David that the man he met with his dad was actually Lee Harvey Oswald himself?

Yet even if David Surrey had an honest case of mistaken identity, then let's not talk about what he might mistake. Rather, let's talk about what he actually knows, namely, his own family.

Let's follow the scenario anyway, presuming that David met somebody else at those shooting parties, and at those various homes they visited. If (and only if) David is being sincere in all his memories, then we can say with complete certainty that the Surreys were with General Walker on the night of the Walker shooting, Wednesday 10 April 1963.

First and foremost, this means that Robert Allen Surrey lied to the Warren Commission. That's historical in and of itself.

Also, the narrative that Robert Allen Surrey, ostensibly searching for the criminals in their getaway car -- oddly pulls up behind a parked car a few blocks away, and gets out to discuss the Walker shooting with two men, is astonishing.

Yet a child cannot be in doubt about his own father. I would like to see this theme developed. Perhaps Dr. Jeff Caufield will develop this theme in his new book.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie - the video you posted was a waste of time, but perhaps the post accompanying it is interesting. Would you care to give your two cents on it?

My "two cents" would be only worth about one cent...lol.

It's just another interesting tidbit of "information" floating around -- but there is no way to confirm it.

I do have one additional thought about this part of the story:

"Mary received a call from Robert shortly after they arrived home concerning the shooting and Robert had them all come back over to the
Walker house."
Maybe I am missing something (?) -- but, if I was in someone's home where there was an incident that appeared to be an attempted murder, I don't think I would have called my wife to instruct her to return to that home with my young children!
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gather that we're finished as a group, pondering the Neo-Nazi sentiments of David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. I propose that we move on to Chapter 4 in Jeff Caufield's new book, namely: Joseph A. Milteer and the Plot to Murder the President.

The first thing that leaps out from the page is the name of Joseph A. Milteer, who is already familiar to many JFK researchers.

Milteer's name never came up in the Warren Report (1964) but it surely came up in the HSCA hearings (1979), and in recent years former FBI Agent Don Adams published a book about this, entitled, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle: One FBI Agent's View of the JFK Assassination (2012).

The late Don Adams once also published a web site to link Milteer with the murder of JFK.

It's probably worthwhile to surf YouTube videos of Adams to get his bird's eye view about Joseph A. Milteer, before delving into the extensive new evidence that Jeff Caufield will share in his own new book.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, other than the entries in his notebook (which clearly run the gamut of the political spectrum) and a some sort of a relationship with Ferrie (who was staunchly anti-Communist, and avidly Catholic) what is the proof that Oswald was somehow a hard core racist/Facist and a fantastic actor from even during his time in the Marine Corps - good enough to ultimately fool a sophisticated fellow like Demohrenschieldt (sp) into thinking he was a proto hippie? As I read the comments, my impression is that the book is representing that as he left New Orleans for the Marine Corps, Oswald was hard core, ultra right, racist and a bit Fascist in his beliefs.....and reverted to that that true character upon his return to New Orleans, coming under the control of Bannister for whatever projects Bannister had in mind at that point in time. If you could list four or five bullet points supporting that it would be helpful. I saw a couple but a full list would make a good reference before going further.

-- is that the right take or did I over state?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, other than the entries in his notebook (which clearly run the gamut of the political spectrum) and a some sort of a relationship with Ferrie (who was staunchly anti-Communist, and avidly Catholic) what is the proof that Oswald was somehow a hard core racist/Facist and a fantastic actor from even during his time in the Marine Corps - good enough to ultimately fool a sophisticated fellow like Demohrenschieldt (sp) into thinking he was a proto hippie? As I read the comments, my impression is that the book is representing that as he left New Orleans for the Marine Corps, Oswald was hard core, ultra right, racist and a bit Fascist in his beliefs.....and reverted to that that true character upon his return to New Orleans, coming under the control of Bannister for whatever projects Bannister had in mind at that point in time. If you could list four or five bullet points supporting that it would be helpful. I saw a couple but a full list would make a good reference before going further.

-- is that the right take or did I over state?

Thanks, Larry, for these interesting questions:

(1) First, I don't believe you overstated the case -- your take is close to the one I advocate.

(2) You ask me to set aside LHO's address book. OK.

(3) You ask me to set aside LHO's relationship with David Ferrie. OK.

(4.0) You ask for hard evidence that LHO was a hardcore Racist/Fascist. First, let me offer some evidence that LHO was on the RIGHT, and not on the LEFT. (The Fascism claims belong to Caufield, so I'll cite that later.) Here is why I say LHO was on the RIGHT wing:

(4.1) LHO was a Marine, not in any way an anti-War activist.

(4.2) LHO took a Russian Exam as a Marine, showing he was training for ONI Intelligence.

(4.3) LHO entered the USSR on behalf of an ONI "fake defector" dangle operations as Marchetti said.

(4.4) LHO never surrendered his US Passport or renounced his US Citizenship.

(4.5) LHO always remained in touch with the US Embassy while in the USSR.

(4.6) When LHO quit the USSR, the USA bent over backwards to bring him back with his Russian wife.

(4.7) Oswald quickly paid back the State Department for their repatriation loan.

(4.8) LHO met with the FBI upon his return to Fort Worth, and the FBI quickly accepted his statement.

(4.9) George DM was an informant for the CIA.

All all these factors portray LHO on the RIGHT wing, not on the LEFT. Still, IMHO, he was acting in character as a *Marine* (not a Fascist, as Caufield suggests). At least, for this period of time.

(5.0) You ask for hard evidence that LHO was pretending to be a Leftist and fooled George DeMohrenschildt.

(5.1) First, I think their relationship was far more complicated than that.

(5.2) LHO was a Fake Marxist. When LHO tried to convince George DM that he was a Marxist, George DM refused to accept it! We know this for a FACT because this is what George DM told the Warren Commission.

(5.3) George DM played with LHO's mind. This is clear from his brainwashing LHO to hate General Walker. We know this for a FACT because this is what George DM told the HSCA (I'm A Patsy, 1978), when they would joke and call General Walker, "General Fokker".

(5.4) George DM said in his 1978 manuscript that the reason George and Volkmar Schmidt (and perhaps other young Dallas Engineers) tried to convince LHO that General Walker was like "Hitler" was precisely because LHO was going around telling everybody that JFK really messed up with the Bay of Pigs.

(5.5) This is *exactly* what Sylvia Odio said that "Leopoldo" told her that LHO had said.

(5.6) George DM and Volkmar Schmidt (PBS Frontline) both agree that it took *hours* to convince LHO that General Walker was like "Hitler."

(5.7) The LHO attack on General Walker was attempted *only* because LHO was under the influence of George DM, whom LHO thought was very highly placed in the US Government (perhaps the CIA). So, it was a RIGHT wing act, he was convinced, because General Walker had evidently angered George DM who was probably with the "CIA".

(6.0) You ask that if LHO was a Fascist, except to George DM (and perhaps the Paines), and then later reverted to his true Fascism back in New Orleans, working for the Fascist Guy Banister, you'd like to see five bullet points. Well, I'll give you eight:

(6.1.) After LHO failed to kill General Walker, he had to quickly escape to New Orleans for the shelter of Guy Banister. This was only *days* after the Walker shooting.

(6.2) Once in New Orleans, LHO joined Guy Banister's organization. We know this for a FACT because of Jim Garrison's discovery of LHO's presence at 544 Camp Street, which was Guy Banister's headquarters.

(6.3) Guy Banister was indeed a Fascist.

(6.4) LHO cooperated in every way with Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler -- all possible Fascists seeking to restore a Batista-like regime in Cuba -- using police reports, newspaper, radio and television. (These artifacts still fool journalists to this very day.)

(6.5) LHO cooperated (probably) with Loran Hall and Larry Howard (both Fascists) at Sylvia Odio's.

(6.6) According to the Lopez Report, LHO tried to trick his way into Havana, using FAKE FPCC credentials, and a FAKE Communist Party card. This is the action of a Fascist provocateur.

(6.7) LHO's failure to enter Cuba -- despite his immature antics at the USSR Embassy (with a loaded pistol, and crying like a baby) -- was guaranteed because the Cuban Consulate recognized the FAKERY of his "credentials". They said so.

(6.8) LHO's coming and going from Mexico City was as a passenger of a car, as the Mexican records show (though the Warren Commission insisted he was a "Lone Nut" who took the bus alone). LHO tried to trick his way into Cuba (as a Fascist would) but he was not ALONE in that action. He was still working with members of the Guy Banister gang.

I think this adequately answers your questions, Larry. Please let me know if you think I missed a point.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...