Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

All the wise-cracks and jokes aside, the new book by Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), is no work of fiction -- it's the best historical review of the data about Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset ever published in the past 50 years.

And y'all know it.

And you have nothing to match it. Your silly CIA-did-it theories have failed for 50 years now. FBI Agent Don Adams knew about this history of the JFK assassination, but the National Security restrictions on Don Adams prevented his knowledge from being publicized, and no less a power than J. Edgar Hoover himself stomped all over Don Adams to ensure the TRUTH of the JFK conspiracy was never heard in his lifetime.

The Don Adams web site is supplemented by many YouTube videos of this outspoken FBI Agent, for example, at this URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vjrc7hdcYk

James DiEugenio is getting better at wise-cracks, but Don Adams has the real facts about the JFK conspiracy.

To get closer to the real truth behind the real JFK conspiracy, start with this new book by Jeff Caufield -- way beyond anything that the CTKA has ever published.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Once again Paul has exhibited how he makes determinations regarding the accuracy or credibility of what someone says or writes. IF somebody writes or says something which Paul agrees with, then (according to Paul), that information is indisputable.

Former FBI Special Agent Don Adams had no direct connection to the investigation of JFK's murder. Adams never worked in Division 5 of the FBI (the Domestic Intelligence Division formerly known as Security Division). Consequently, his access to confidential or secret information was limited to whatever cases he worked on.

In the not-too-distant future, I will be able to provide specific details regarding Adam's FBI career. Unlike Paul Trejo -- I investigate the actual background of people who claim to have unique or special knowledge or who use their employment to inflate their credentials.

BTW---If Adams had any real knowledge which "national security restrictions" prevented him from disclosing during his lifetime, there is nothing which would have prevented him from telling a friend, relative, or lawyer to release that information after his death.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like I said -- all the CT-did-it fellows have to contribute anymore are wise-cracks.

No substance.

The tide has shifted. Read Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

It's 900 pages long and costs only $30 on amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/General-Walker-Murder-President-Kennedy/dp/0991563700/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467741675&sr=1-1&keywords=general+walker+and+the+murder+of+president+kennedy

.

If you act now you can get a copy for a low as $23.65 plus S&H.

Come up to present time. Find the real solution to the actual Conspiracy to Murder JFK.

You'll be glad you did.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Caufield's book may be purchased from Abebooks.com for $22.65 plus $2.64 shipping.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=17006350330&clickid=wuwTkE2F11laycvywGSz0RxsUkk0UDSJUUmYxs0&cm_mmc=aff-_-ir-_-73934-_-77797&ref=imprad73934&afn_sr=impact

Amazon normally charges $3.99 for shipping if you purchase less than whatever minimum they require to be purchased (which may be either $35 or $50 if you are not a "Prime" member).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul did you note this?

"In a smugly self-fulfilling way, Caufield then writes that the only scenario which explains Oswald’s behavior that day was that he was supposed to shoot but miss. Hence, that someone else would actually kill Kennedy. And Oswald would only go to jail for just a few days. He says that since both weapons used—the handgun for the Tippit slaying and the rifle for the assassination—had been rechambered, it would have been hard to convict Oswald. (He is wrong about the latter point. Mannlicher Carcano expert Robert Prudhomme informed me by e-mail that both versions of the MC rifle, the 6.5 and 7.35 mm, had the same chamber, but the larger caliber rifle used a modified type of ammunition.)

He then writes something that is a bit shocking: “Oswald deliberately left his own traceable rifle on the sixth floor for it to be discovered and traced to him, which was another scripted act that supports the postulated shoot-and—miss scenario.” (Caufield p. 469) To go into all the arguments that undermine this would take an essay in itself. But just to mention one: in addition to the strong indications he did not order the rifle, there is also the evidence that the disassembled rifle could not fit into the bag that Oswald carried to work that day. (Meagher, pp. 54-57)

Just when I thought this whole wild and woolly tangent could not get any worse, it did. Like the Warren Commission, Caufield actually uses the testimony of Charles Givens to place Oswald on the sixth floor. Let us be candid: Givens was a damned xxxx. His WR testimony about coming down the elevator to the first floor, realizing he left his cigarettes on the sixth floor, then going back up and seeing Oswald there at about 11:55, having a brief conversation with him in which Oswald said he was not going down right now—this is all perjury. Givens never went back upstairs, and Oswald was downstairs before 11:55. It has been proven false by writers like Sylvia Meagher, Pat Speer, and Gil Jesus. With the Commission’s own sworn testimony from Givens, Gil shows that, in his first story to the FBI, Givens himself said that he saw Oswald downstairs reading a newspaper in the domino room at 11:50. The Commission let Givens deny this under oath. In other words, they suborned perjury.

Can Caufield really not be aware of this? I mean, Meagher’s classic essay, “The Curious Testimony of Mr. Givens“, has been around for 45 years. It was published in The Texas Observer, it has been collected in anthologies, and anyone with a computer can find it online. Again, I don’t know what is worse; for if Caufield did not know about this issue, that is a bit scary for someone who says he has been on the case for over 20 years. The other alternative is that he did know, but this is how much he is wedded to his bizarre theory. If it’s the latter, then a legitimate question arises: How does his handling of evidence significantly differ from that of the Warren Commission?"

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words Paul, according to Caufield:

Oswald ordered the rifle,

he took a shot at Kennedy,

he then deliberately left the rifle on the sixth floor,

and Givens is a credible witness for this?

Can you really be serious?

And you did not notice anything wrong with this?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably been over a year since I read or wrote on this thread, mostly because I lost interest rather early because it contain(ed) nothing new or reasonable at that time. It seems as if it is mostly someone trying to blame someone else for the assassination. A little 'mis-direction' perhaps. Until someone can actually say who pulled the trigger(s) in Dealey Plaza that day, there is no way that anyone can say who planned it. There is no doubt that LHO was not one of the shooters, or that he never owned a rifle. I realize the plotters did a good job of setting LHO up, but not good enough that they were ever able to put a gun in his hand. To try to blame 'right wing' for the conspiracy is just the way democrats do things. The people that gained politically by the assassination, were all democrats. The business people that benefited were a mixture of right and left. I especially like the statement by Martin Blank just above: "you can say anything you want in a work of fiction" This is clearly a book whereby the plot is all fiction, bolstered by just enough facts (which could apply to most scenarios) to make it seem slightly possible.

Well, Kenneth, this thread is not quite one year old, so it hasn't been as long as you think.

While some people might claim that Jeff Caufield's new book (2015) isn't new, this is because some of the information about Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset has been widely known.

But nothing tothe extent that Jeff Caufield has written. Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. It was led by Ex-General Edwin Walker, the only US General in the 20th century to resign his command and forfeit his US Army Pension -- the leader of the Old Miss racial riots of 1962.

Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. . Read all about Jeff Caufield's new and exciting data on Joseph Milteer and Willie Somerset. You'll be glad you did.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. "

So you don't know who the shooters were? At least you didn't say LHO. And if you can't name a shooter, how can you identify him(them) as 'radical right'?

"The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" By whom and when are they going to let us in on it?

"all the CT-did-it fellows" let me see if I understand.....there was no CT but "The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" If I interpret that correctly, there was not a CT but there WAS a conspiracy?

Well, even though it hasn't been quite a full year, it's obvious that there is still nothing new to be added to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don adams, huh. that's a wowzer. if memory serves me well (thanks for that one bob) this means you are bringing the famed maxwell smart (aka agent 86) and his shoe phone onto the investigative team (bravo for you!). as if that weren't enough we get inspector gadget and underdog along with him. i'm certain control can now beat kaos. we can't lose

just one thing before i enter the cone of silence: do you know if agent 99 is seeing anyone? she is hot.

yr. friend

tennessee tuxedo

smile everyone. jim valvano says we should do that everyday

"smile everyone. jim valvano says we should do that everyday" yes, and have your emotions moved to tears everyday" great man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words Paul, according to Caufield:

Oswald ordered the rifle,

he took a shot at Kennedy,

he then deliberately left the rifle on the sixth floor,

and Givens is a credible witness for this?

Can you really be serious?

And you did not notice anything wrong with this?

James, you're cherry-picking texts out of Jeff Caufield's new 900-page book that you can nit-pick, because Caufield said, explicitly, that at a certain point, after covering the evidence about Joseph Milteer, Willie Somerset, Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald, that the researcher is obliged to speculate.

So, Caufield -- like you -- and like all researchers -- allows himself to speculate the final stages.

For example, the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of General Walker's alleged plot for a "fake" assassination attempt is a grey area that has almost no evidence, but Jeff Caufield (like Gary Wean before him) believes it ties up many loose ends.

Yet Caufield says openly that he is "speculating" on such points.

If you want to pretend that everything that Caufield said in his 900 page book must be literally true or none of it is true -- then you should also be willing to apply the same criterion to your work -- which contains more guesswork than any ten other authors I know.

I've never said that all of Caufield's work is always true and free of guesswork -- all I've said was that Caufield's work has more solid evidence and more proofs from FBI files than anything you've ever published.

If you want me to give you cases in point on this thread (as I have in other threads) just say the word, James, and I'll do that.

I've already said -- months ago on this thread -- that I find places in Caufield's book that I would have treated differently. I have a very different approach to Gary Wean's theory -- and that is my main difference with Jeff Caufield.

However -- that said -- the historical basis upon which Jeff Caufield has set up his accusations of ex-General Edwin Walker in historical conjunction with Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Willie Somerset, and the Radical Right Wing in the USA (especially in the South), is based on FBI documentation and hard facts.

I emphasize that your work in the past two decades has missed all these important facts -- and the guesswork that you produce (much of which is laughable) can't even compare with Jeff Caufield.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. "

So you don't know who the shooters were? At least you didn't say LHO. And if you can't name a shooter, how can you identify him(them) as 'radical right'?

"The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" By whom and when are they going to let us in on it?

"all the CT-did-it fellows" let me see if I understand.....there was no CT but "The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" If I interpret that correctly, there was not a CT but there WAS a conspiracy?

No, Kenneth, that's a typo. I intended to say, "all the CIA-did-it fellows" were the mistaken ones.

Yes, there was a conspiracy -- but it wasn't the CIA -- it was the Radical Right led by General Walker.

The shooters were protected by the Dallas Police and the Dallas Sheriff's office, IMHO.

These officers led the public, the press and each other into the area behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll -- for at least five minutes. Nobody saw anything -- except other policemen back there. And NOBODY in those days would suspect the police of the shooting -- would they?

These same officers allowed the TSBD to be free and clear for at least five minutes before sending hundreds of police into it.

Anybody could have slipped out of the TSBD in those first five minutes. It was COORDINATED by the Dallas police and deputies.

The Dallas officers controlled the scene of the crime, the evidence, the witnesses, the suspects, the testimony, the photographs, the movie film, the automobiles -- every aspect of the crime scene.

The most likely scenario is that these Dallas officers were also the shooters. Two shooters have been named in the past 50 years, namely, Roscoe White of the DPD, and J.D. Tippit, also of the DPD. Jeff Caufield also links J.D. Tippit with General Walker -- and so this gives extra weight to that suspicion. The Tippit suspicion is one of Caufield's most interesting links.

So -- the shooters were among the Radical Right -- and I think Caufield makes a fair case for that -- but there were so many young hot-shots who would have stepped up to do this for misplaced patriotic reasons, that it will take us many more years before their surviving relatives are finally willing to come forward. That's my opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight Paul:

You are saying that the only thing factual in the 790 page book is, the stuff on Milteer and Somersett?

Everything else is speculation?

As Oprah said to Lance Armstrong, please answer yes or no.

You don't want to hear the full answer, James, so you wiggle for these yes-or-no tricks.

There is so much FBI material in Jeff Caufield's book that no sensible historian should ignore it.

The vast totality of the Milteer-Somerset FBI material (which your work has missed for 20 years) is the core, but there is much more factual, historical material about the Radical Right that Caufield illuminates.

For example, we have material on Guy Banister with the LUAC, the LSSC, the WCC, Kent Courtney, Leander Perez, George Lincoln Rockwell, Daniel Burros, Ray James Leahart, and Ned Touchstone.

That's just the beginning. There are new FBI revelations about the Congress of Freedom, George Soule, P. Cameron Terry, the Constitution Party, William Gale, Wesley Swift, and General Pedro Del Valle -- and there's still lots more.

There's also FBI materials on Woody Kearns, Kenneth Goff, Wally Butterworth and the Shickshinny Knights. Closer to New Orleans we find FBI materials on Carlos Bringuier and Clay Shaw, Lloyd and Alvin Cobb, Gordon Novel, Thomas Beckham and Terry Thornley.

There's also California FBI materials on Eugene Bradley, Stanley Drennan, Clinton Wheat and Carl McIntire who brings us back to Billy James Hargis and his close personal relationship with Ex-General Edwin Walker.

There's still lots more. Digging even deeper into New Orleans, our Dr. Jeff Caufield offers FBI materials about Judge Leander Perez and his close ties to Walker and the Radical Right in NOLA. Walker's contact, GW Gill forms a close contact with Guy Banister and Joseph Milteer -- so we close yet another circle.

Then, back in Dallas, Caufield illuminates the biography of Robert Allen Surrey -- central to the Dallas action on 11/22/1963. AND THERE'S MORE.

So, the idea is pretty apparent by now. Before we get to Chapter 17 and the speculative part of Dr. Caufield's theory, we have more than 500 pages of FBI documentation on the Radical Right in the USA that the CIA-did-it writers all MISSED in the past 50 years.

Given all this historical data, I say that Dr. Caufield has earned the right to a bit of speculation.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"James, you're cherry-picking texts out of Jeff Caufield's new 900-page book that you can nit-pick, because Caufield said, explicitly, that at a certain point, after covering the evidence about Joseph Milteer, Willie Somerset, Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald, that the researcher is obliged to speculate."

the researcher is obliged to draw educated conclusions based on the evidence. if there is no evidence, you can't make it up. that's called academic fraud unless you are writing a work of fiction. but when you get someone with "acquired academic methodology" that's what you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who were the shooters? They were among the Dallas Police. They formed a Dallas-led Conspiracy, with the Radical Right in Dallas at the helm. "

So you don't know who the shooters were? At least you didn't say LHO. And if you can't name a shooter, how can you identify him(them) as 'radical right'?

"The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" By whom and when are they going to let us in on it?

"all the CT-did-it fellows" let me see if I understand.....there was no CT but "The answer to the JFK conspiracy is finally known" If I interpret that correctly, there was not a CT but there WAS a conspiracy?

No, Kenneth, that's a typo. I intended to say, "all the CIA-did-it fellows" were the mistaken ones.

Yes, there was a conspiracy -- but it wasn't the CIA -- it was the Radical Right led by General Walker.

The shooters were protected by the Dallas Police and the Dallas Sheriff's office, IMHO.

These officers led the public, the press and each other into the area behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll -- for at least five minutes. Nobody saw anything -- except other policemen back there. And NOBODY in those days would suspect the police of the shooting -- would they?

These same officers allowed the TSBD to be free and clear for at least five minutes before sending hundreds of police into it.

Anybody could have slipped out of the TSBD in those first five minutes. It was COORDINATED by the Dallas police and deputies.

The Dallas officers controlled the scene of the crime, the evidence, the witnesses, the suspects, the testimony, the photographs, the movie film, the automobiles -- every aspect of the crime scene.

The most likely scenario is that these Dallas officers were also the shooters. Two shooters have been named in the past 50 years, namely, Roscoe White of the DPD, and J.D. Tippit, also of the DPD. Jeff Caufield also links J.D. Tippit with General Walker -- and so this gives extra weight to that suspicion. The Tippit suspicion is one of Caufield's most interesting links.

So -- the shooters were among the Radical Right -- and I think Caufield makes a fair case for that -- but there were so many young hot-shots who would have stepped up to do this for misplaced patriotic reasons, that it will take us many more years before their surviving relatives are finally willing to come forward. That's my opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Radical Right" " Radical Right" is there a dictabelt loop somewhere repeating that in your head as you write? what is 'radical right'? Are you saying all Dallas police officers back then were 'radical right'? Dallas Book Depository 'free and clear' for full 5 minutes? Wasn't there a police officer(Marion Baker) inside the building in the 2nd floor lunchroom within 90 seconds?

Regarding this: "because Caufield said, explicitly, that at a certain point, after covering the evidence about Joseph Milteer, Willie Somerset, Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald, that the researcher is obliged to speculate." Wouldn't that ring much truer if that the researcher is obliged to speculate were replaced with " and then you just make it up as you go along. I read at least one book of fiction a week, and every one of them 'could' be true, but most are clearly just fiction. From all the comments I've read about this book, there seems to be very little 'known' true information in it. Though I have not read this book, and don't intend to, I have read a lot from some trying to link Edwin Walker to the conspiracy but have seen absolutely nothing convincing. There are far more persons with a lot more to gain from the death of JFK than Walker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note above, Paul changed his answer between 1162 and 1165.

Now, let us note another section of Caufield's book that is created in spite of the evidence, not because of it. In other words to fulfill his rather unusual theory. And again, Paul never pointed this out.

"Caufield then tops this off by saying that, after Givens’ phony sighting, Oswald was not seen on the lower floors until after the assassination. (Caufield, p. 473) He therefore writes off Carolyn Arnold, who says she saw him on the second floor at about 12:15, maybe even later. (op. cit. Benson, p. 17) Like the Warren Report, Caufield’s index shares the dubious distinction of not containing an entry for Carolyn Arnold’s name."

Neither does it have one for Victoria Adams. Recall, Barry Ernest’s book on Adams—The Girl on the Stairs—has been out since at least 2011. She and her friend Sandy Styles ran down the depository stairs just seconds after the last shot. They neither heard nor saw Oswald. Which, in Caufield’s case, they would have had to, because the author also buys into the Patrolman Marrion Baker/Oswald meeting at the second floor soda machine right after the assassination. (Caufield, p. 474) Oblivious to new developments in the case, Caufield never mentions the differences between the Warren Report version of this incident and Baker’s first day affidavit, where the whole thing goes unmentioned. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pp. 192-96)

The scary thing is I could go on further in this regard; but I will stop there for a brief evaluation. For if one demonstrates all the lies in Givens’ testimony; if one then includes Carolyn Arnold’s FBI report; the evidence of both Adams and Styles; and finally Baker’s first day affidavit, then how is Oswald on the sixth floor at 12:30? The unexpurgated facts will simply not support Caufield’s bizarre thesis.

By now, the reader will not at all be surprised when I note that Caufield writes that Oswald likely murdered J. D. Tippit—who probably had it coming to him since he was one of the assassins in Dealey Plaza—and he was going to kill Officer Nick McDonald at the Texas Theater. (see pp. 479, 481, 483) That’s quite a sentence is it not? But this is what happens when one is religiously wedded to a theory, has no real editor to advise him, and apparently feels like he does not have to keep up on the recent discoveries in the case."

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, there is almost no possibility that Oswald was on the sixth floor, but since Caufield cuts that evidence out, he can write as if its possible. In other words, he finds Givens credible but does not find Adams or Styles, or Arnold.

Whew.

And Oswald likely killed TIppit, who was a sniper in Dealey Plaza.

Got that, Oswald fired a shot, and Tippit was a sniper of Kennedy.

This is what Paul calls a breakthrough book.

BREAK THROUGH TO WHAT!

And he then tries to excuse this as speculation? Why say it is you cannot back it up at all? And, in fact, the evidence in the arena actually denies what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on Cauifled's "assassins":

"And it was here that Somersett first said that a man named Ted Jackman was also an assassin in Dealey Plaza. (In addition to the aforementioned J. D. Tippit.) He later added a man named R. E. Davis. Davis was 73 years old in 1963. Back then the life expectancy for a male was 66. If we translated Davis’ age to today, with life expectancy much longer, he would be 80 in 1963. Hopefully Milteer was giving him his arthritis pills regularly."

Very smart Paul, the equivalent on an 80 year old sniper.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...