Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

...3. LHO didn't necessarily use his rifle at all -- but what proves that he was involved was the fact that he knew about it on the same night that it happened.

I agree with that, especially since there has never been any proof that LHO ever owned a rifle in the state of Texas.

...7. The Backyard Photographs were made by LHO himself, at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. He used a Radical Right Winger, named Roscoe White, to help him.

This is possible, I say this only because it is clear that the BYP were fake photos, I don't think it shows that LHO ever had a rifle. I have no clue who actually faked the photos. Tell me again how White was identified as Radical?

...8. LHO was a CIA wannabe. He knew a lot about spying, but he was too head-strong (and not a college graduate) so he would never be a regular employee of the CIA, although that is probably the thing he wanted most in the whole world.

I doubt that the CIA required a college degree of their contract operators. Kinda 'special use' types, likely LHO's category.

9. When LHO worked for Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963, he truly believed that they were going to help him get a job with the CIA. So he cooperated with them fully.

All of those were CIA employees, why do you conclude LHO was not also?

...

Kenneth, we do agree on a few points -- namely, that LHO did not act to shoot General Walker (I) on his own; (II) with his own rifle; (III) on foot or bus; or (IV) bury his rifle.

I think we may agree that LHO told Marina that he did all those four things. Marina believed him, and Marina told what she knew to the FBI.

We also agree that the BYP were fakes. Jack White's work on the topic is supported by professionals in England and Canada, and I think it's scientifically proven.

In my theory, LHO himself made the fakes at his place of employment, namely, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, which had some very sophisticated photo equipment. We know that LHO made his fake ID's there for Alek J. Hidell. I say it is possible that LHO was fired from J-C-S because of this personal use of company equipment -- but the FBI would not let that truth come forward. Interviewing the children of the workers at J-C-S in 1963 would crack that case, IMHO.

As for Roscoe White, he was Radical because he was connected with Guy Banister personally. This was before he became a Dallas Policeman. This is from an alleged eye-witness, Ron Lewis, in his book, "Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald. (1993). Guy Banister was a committed racist and hired all the mercenaries he could afford.

It was about the time that LHO went to Mexico City with his fake Leftist resume on the instructions of Guy Banister that Roscoe White joined the Dallas Police Force. IMHO, this was no coincidence. Roscoe White and LHO were both at Atsugi in the Marines at the same time -- they weren't strangers.

As for LHO wanting to be a CIA agent, but was never hired -- you suspect that the CIA would have hired a high-school graduate for "special use." However, I make a distinction between a regular CIA employee, with a nice salary, a nice car and a nice home, and the many mercenaries that the CIA would pick up for attacks on Cuba.

I named David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963, and you suggested that they were all "CIA employees." That's what CTKA and even Joan Mellen herself has claimed in the past 50 years -- but they're all mistaken, I say.

These were mercenaries -- not even Field Agents. They were expendable and drew no regular salary. If they could find other work, they would. It was strictly part-time mercenary soldiering. We both know that the CIA was more than that, and I say that LHO was smarter than that -- and knew he was.

LHO wanted to be a regular spy -- with a regular salary. That was his motive for working with Guy Banister, because Guy Banister lied to LHO, promising to make him a CIA employee. David Ferrie, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin all lied to LHO, claiming to be CIA Agents. Clay Shaw also lied about it.

Notice, also, that LHO moved to New Orleans immediately after the Walker shooting. I say that's no coincidence. My theory is that Walker called Banister the very weekend after the shooting, with the knowledge that LHO had been his shooter. Again, here's Walker's signature on that fact:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

Banister then called David Ferrie, who knew LHO since he was a kid. David Ferrie probably offered LHO a good job in the CIA if he would come to New Orleans, and Clay Shaw, the rich guy, probably gave LHO a cash advance to seal the deal.

Guy Banister then (in my theory) told LHO that the "mission" was to pretend to be an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans, and to get into police records, newspapers, radio and TV as an FPCC officer, and build up a Fake Resume to take to Mexico City, to get "instant passage" into Havana Cuba.

This was because all FPCC officers were given instant passage to Havana Cuba in those days.

Once in Cuba, LHO was told he would meet contacts there in order to assassinate Fidel Castro. They would then help LHO escape, and he would come back to the USA for a fat reward and a permanent job with the CIA -- and possibly a parade and maybe even a chance to be US President.

LHO took the bait -- and went through all the steps -- up to and including Mexico City, where he was laughed out of the Embassies there.

By the way, if you want another look at Edwin Walker, the real mastermind of all this, here is my three-part Smashwords offering on the topic.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

walker depends on the warren commission to validate his story of oswald attempting to shoot him!!!!!! i swear to god things can't get any stranger, weirder, kookier, nuttier, zanier, laughable, horrifying, goofier, irrational, foolish, outrageous, bizarre, outlandish, ridiculous, idiotic , dafter, or odd. please make it stop.

please do not pass go. do not collect $200. but do take a course in historiography -- and soon.

Historiography, the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination. The term historiography also refers to the theory and history of historical writing.

you'll be glad you did and to paraphrase bob, you'll be doing society a favor

Edited by Martin Blank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

What do you make of Marina Oswald's sworn testimony that LHO was the shooter at General Walker on 10 April 1963?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you've read something about General Walker in the past -- did that happen to include the scholarly work, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) by Chris Cravens? That was Craven's masters thesis for his history degree. It's truly brilliant (and decades ahead of CTKA).

Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas? How credible can that be, he doesn't seem to know the correct terminology "Radical Right Wing in Dallas"

Cravens shows documented evidence that Walker orchestrated the Dallas attack on Adlai Stevenson. It's not imagination. Actually, it was well-known in Dallas.

Chuckle, "orchestrated Dallas attack" how did he orchestrate it when he wasn't there? Was it really an 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson? wouldn't it be more correctly labeled as a peaceful protest? Surely it would if it were done by liberals.

No witness saw LHO shoot at Walker, no bullet has been tied to Oswald. In fact, absolutely no evidence ties LHO to the Walker shooting.

I have no opinion about Don Adams, have read nothing about him except on this thread. I think Milteer was likely one of the planners of the assassination

Kenneth, regarding Chris Craven's 1993 breakthrough, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) you mocked his title, saying it should be the "Radical Right Wing," since I'm extolling the book. Actually, however, Chris Cravens wrote his book as a defense of Edwin Walker. He deliberately hides facts to make Walker look better than later history will reveal him.

Edwin Walker has not been proven to have been involved in the JFK assassination by anyone, ever. It seems as if it would be a big task to make a very patriotic American look much better. I think aspire to his standards would be a large achievement. Do you have a big problem with patriotic Americans?

For example, Cravens blames JFK for the racial riot at Ole Miss. So, his book is biased in that way.

I would likely agree that if JFK had not gotten involved with a local law enforcement action, there would have been no riot.

As for the attack on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is documented history. I even interviewed Larrie Schmit himself on this topic (another Right Winger) and Larrie admitted the role of General Walker and the leaders of the Dallas JBS.

I disagree in two ways. There was no 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson and Edwin Walker was not at Stevenson's performance. There was a political protest, probably not much different from what some of the lefties are doing at Trump's rallies now.

Chris Cravens cites several local newspapers, showing that the Dallas press knew very well that General Walker was behind the attack -- that the attack was orchestrated the night before during the "USA Day" rally (in contrast to the "UN Day" rally of Adlai Stevenson." The auditorium itself was rigged. Walker made a joke about not being there -- that was his modus operandi.

You persist in saying 'attack on Stevenson', would you enumerate the injuries he sustained.

There's no way it was a peaceful protest. There was disruption inside the auditorium as well as physical attacks on Adlai outside the auditorium. Here's several news articles on that night:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631023_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Texas_Observer.pdf

Ohh, this was bad, 'booing', 'laughing' 'coughing' "jangling charm bracelets" but no mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631025_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

Oh, now I see, that paper sign brushing against him could be considered an 'attack'. But, thankfully I've identified the problem. His police escort was all Radical Right Wing Walker Supporters. I read all four links and I missed any reference to Walker being present.

Chris Cravens could not deny the well-known facts, known throughout Dallas. Somehow, however, this common sense in Dallas was withheld from the Secret Service PRS for JFK's Dallas trip. The Dallas FBI and the Dallas SS were to blame for that, IMHO.

As for LHO and the Walker shooting -- you can't rightly say that there is "absolutely no evidence," since we have the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. Also, Michael Paine more recently admitted he saw a BYP one week before the Walker shooting, in LHO's Neely Street apartment.

Sworn testimony of Marina? Chuckle, which version. You referring to her testimony to the ARRB in the 70's? I have not seen anything 'sworn' in the WR that I would consider to not be fruits of the conspiracy.

I'd gratified that you believe that Joseph Milteer was "likely one of the planners of the assassination." This is a major breakthrough, IMHO, and a major break with the CIA-did-it CTers. You're on the right track, sir.

I've thought he was involved for quite some time, that's not a recent revelation. Certainly doesn't exclude the CIA being involved with him, along with several others.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Footnote: What do you make of that leftie liberal in Dallas attempting to eliminate all those Radical Right Wing policemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

What do you make of Marina Oswald's sworn testimony that LHO was the shooter at General Walker on 10 April 1963?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, there are so many versions of her 'testimony' I'm sure if I had to believe her I could find at least one version that might sound true. I especially like the one where he threw his rifle away after the shot, that means someone else must have found it and used it for the sniper rifle plant, well, except the bullet found was not from an MC rifle. If you could choose one of the statements that you believe, I'll try to tell you why it's made up. Maybe even who made it up. How did you decide which version you liked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to Adlai Stevenson:

Robert E. Hatfield spat on Stevenson and was arrested for assault. Hatfield was the chapter leader of Dallas John Birch Society chapter QUQE, as well as a member of Friends of General Walker, and a member of the racist Indignant White Citizens Council.
Hatfield went on trial on May 21, 1964. He was found guilty and paid a $200 fine. He subsequently resigned from the JBS after a bitter exchange of letters with JBS founder Robert Welch. In one of his letters to Welch, Hatfield complained about a "Jewish-UN campaign to put me behind bars."
Cora Fredrickson was another member of the JBS and of Friends of General Walker who was arrested for assault upon Stevenson. However, at Stevenson's request, she was released. Fredrickson acknowledged that her anti-UN placard hit Stevenson but she claimed (not very convincingly) that someone had pushed her hand.
There are documents which establish that the Friends of General Walker discussed what actions to take against Stevenson's planned visit to Dallas.
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...3. LHO didn't necessarily use his rifle at all -- but what proves that he was involved was the fact that he knew about it on the same night that it happened.

I agree with that, especially since there has never been any proof that LHO ever owned a rifle in the state of Texas.

...7. The Backyard Photographs were made by LHO himself, at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. He used a Radical Right Winger, named Roscoe White, to help him.

This is possible, I say this only because it is clear that the BYP were fake photos, I don't think it shows that LHO ever had a rifle. I have no clue who actually faked the photos. Tell me again how White was identified as Radical?

...8. LHO was a CIA wannabe. He knew a lot about spying, but he was too head-strong (and not a college graduate) so he would never be a regular employee of the CIA, although that is probably the thing he wanted most in the whole world.

I doubt that the CIA required a college degree of their contract operators. Kinda 'special use' types, likely LHO's category.

9. When LHO worked for Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963, he truly believed that they were going to help him get a job with the CIA. So he cooperated with them fully.

All of those were CIA employees, why do you conclude LHO was not also?

...

Kenneth, we do agree on a few points -- namely, that LHO did not act to shoot General Walker (I) on his own; (II) with his own rifle; (III) on foot or bus; or (IV) bury his rifle.

Or any other way. Edit: I find it strange that you post a link below that contains a statement that the bullet fired at Walker was linked to LHO's rifle.

I think we may agree that LHO told Marina that he did all those four things. Marina believed him, and Marina told what she knew to the FBI.

I don't think LHO ever told Marina anything about any of the JFK conspiracy. Since he wasn't involved in the Walker shooting, I'm not sure why he would have said anything about that.

We also agree that the BYP were fakes. Jack White's work on the topic is supported by professionals in England and Canada, and I think it's scientifically proven.

Well, while I'm sure they were fakes, and have been proven to be, I don't think there is any evidence, only speculation, that LHO was involved in faking them.

In my theory, LHO himself made the fakes at his place of employment, namely, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, which had some very sophisticated photo equipment. We know that LHO made his fake ID's there for Alek J. Hidell. I say it is possible that LHO was fired from J-C-S because of this personal use of company equipment -- but the FBI would not let that truth come forward. Interviewing the children of the workers at J-C-S in 1963 would crack that case, IMHO.

I have no problem with those speculations..might have even thought along those lines myself.

As for Roscoe White, he was Radical because he was connected with Guy Banister personally. This was before he became a Dallas Policeman. This is from an alleged eye-witness, Ron Lewis, in his book, "Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald. (1993). Guy Banister was a committed racist and hired all the mercenaries he could afford.

Good for Roscoe, nice to know we had some patriotic Americans back then. That must mean then, that the theory is leaning toward 'patriotic Americans eliminated JFK'.

It was about the time that LHO went to Mexico City with his fake Leftist resume on the instructions of Guy Banister that Roscoe White joined the Dallas Police Force. IMHO, this was no coincidence. Roscoe White and LHO were both at Atsugi in the Marines at the same time -- they weren't strangers.

I still have never seen any evidence that LHO ever went to Mexico City. Lot's of guessing, but no evidence. I also don't see what difference it makes if he did, or not.

As for LHO wanting to be a CIA agent, but was never hired -- you suspect that the CIA would have hired a high-school graduate for "special use." However, I make a distinction between a regular CIA employee, with a nice salary, a nice car and a nice home, and the many mercenaries that the CIA would pick up for attacks on Cuba.

Ummm, I don't think LHO was a high school grad. But I know, from some personal experience that they will hire anyone that fits a particular need.

I named David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963, and you suggested that they were all "CIA employees." That's what CTKA and even Joan Mellen herself has claimed in the past 50 years -- but they're all mistaken, I say.

Count me amongst those that think Ferrie was, Don't know about the others.

These were mercenaries -- not even Field Agents. They were expendable and drew no regular salary. If they could find other work, they would. It was strictly part-time mercenary soldiering. We both know that the CIA was more than that, and I say that LHO was smarter than that -- and knew he was.

I can go along with that. But 'mercenary' means being paid as an employee for their services. While they may have only been temporary, that still qualifies them as CIA.

LHO wanted to be a regular spy -- with a regular salary. That was his motive for working with Guy Banister, because Guy Banister lied to LHO, promising to make him a CIA employee. David Ferrie, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin all lied to LHO, claiming to be CIA Agents. Clay Shaw also lied about it.

I think LHO was being paid by the CIA.

Notice, also, that LHO moved to New Orleans immediately after the Walker shooting. I say that's no coincidence. My theory is that Walker called Banister the very weekend after the shooting, with the knowledge that LHO had been his shooter. Again, here's Walker's signature on that fact:

Define 'immediately'. 30 minutes? one day? two day's? a week? two weeks? a month? Is everything that happened within that period, in Dallas, also reasons for him to move? Sounds like some more of that..... speculation.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

I see nothing of interest there. by that I mean nothing related to JFK shooting or LHO.

Banister then called David Ferrie, who knew LHO since he was a kid. David Ferrie probably offered LHO a good job in the CIA if he would come to New Orleans, and Clay Shaw, the rich guy, probably gave LHO a cash advance to seal the deal.

Guy Banister then (in my theory) told LHO that the "mission" was to pretend to be an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans, and to get into police records, newspapers, radio and TV as an FPCC officer, and build up a Fake Resume to take to Mexico City, to get "instant passage" into Havana Cuba.

This was because all FPCC officers were given instant passage to Havana Cuba in those days.

All? of them?

Once in Cuba, LHO was told he would meet contacts there in order to assassinate Fidel Castro. They would then help LHO escape, and he would come back to the USA for a fat reward and a permanent job with the CIA -- and possibly a parade and maybe even a chance to be US President.

LHO took the bait -- and went through all the steps -- up to and including Mexico City, where he was laughed out of the Embassies there.

I think LHO was a little smarter than that.

By the way, if you want another look at Edwin Walker, the real mastermind of all this, here is my three-part Smashwords offering on the topic.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

"and the Walker bullet is linked to Oswald’s ammunition." Not true. Steel jacketed bullet. JFK bullet copper.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629

More evidence that Walker was a very patriotic American.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646

It's interesting that you have apparently spent so much time studying a very patriotic American for the express purpose of linking him to the JFK assass but have been unable to come up with a single piece of evidence to link him to it. Is it just coincidence that you can't find it, or maybe it doesn't exist.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth, regarding Chris Craven's 1993 breakthrough, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) ... Chris Cravens wrote his book as a defense of Edwin Walker. He deliberately hides facts to make Walker look better than later history will reveal him.

Edwin Walker has not been proven to have been involved in the JFK assassination by anyone, ever. It seems as if it would be a big task to make a very patriotic American look much better. I think aspire to his standards would be a large achievement. Do you have a big problem with patriotic Americans?

For example, Cravens blames JFK for the racial riot at Ole Miss. So, his book is biased in that way.

I would likely agree that if JFK had not gotten involved with a local law enforcement action, there would have been no riot.

As for the attack on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is documented history. I even interviewed Larrie Schmit himself on this topic (another Right Winger) and Larrie admitted the role of General Walker and the leaders of the Dallas JBS.

I disagree in two ways. There was no 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson and Edwin Walker was not at Stevenson's performance. There was a political protest, probably not much different from what some of the lefties are doing at Trump's rallies now.

Chris Cravens cites several local newspapers, showing that the Dallas press knew very well that General Walker was behind the attack -- that the attack was orchestrated the night before during the "USA Day" rally (in contrast to the "UN Day" rally of Adlai Stevenson." The auditorium itself was rigged. Walker made a joke about not being there -- that was his modus operandi.

You persist in saying 'attack on Stevenson', would you enumerate the injuries he sustained.

There's no way it was a peaceful protest. There was disruption inside the auditorium as well as physical attacks on Adlai outside the auditorium. Here's several news articles on that night:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631023_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Texas_Observer.pdf

Ohh, this was bad, 'booing', 'laughing' 'coughing' "jangling charm bracelets" but no mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631025_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

Oh, now I see, that paper sign brushing against him could be considered an 'attack'. But, thankfully I've identified the problem. His police escort was all Radical Right Wing Walker Supporters. I read all four links and I missed any reference to Walker being present.

Chris Cravens could not deny the well-known facts, known throughout Dallas. Somehow, however, this common sense in Dallas was withheld from the Secret Service PRS for JFK's Dallas trip. The Dallas FBI and the Dallas SS were to blame for that, IMHO.

As for LHO and the Walker shooting -- you can't rightly say that there is "absolutely no evidence," since we have the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. Also, Michael Paine more recently admitted he saw a BYP one week before the Walker shooting, in LHO's Neely Street apartment.

Sworn testimony of Marina? Chuckle, which version. You referring to her testimony to the ARRB in the 70's? I have not seen anything 'sworn' in the WR that I would consider to not be fruits of the conspiracy.

I'd gratified that you believe that Joseph Milteer was "likely one of the planners of the assassination." This is a major breakthrough, IMHO, and a major break with the CIA-did-it CTers. You're on the right track, sir.

I've thought he was involved for quite some time, that's not a recent revelation. Certainly doesn't exclude the CIA being involved with him, along with several others.

Footnote: What do you make of that leftie liberal in Dallas attempting to eliminate all those Radical Right Wing policemen.

1. Kenneth, I agree that with regard to the JFK assassination, the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker has not been proven -- just as the case against the CIA was never proven, nor the case against the Mafia or LBJ and so on. As for Walker himself, I also agree -- and have always agreed -- that before he resigned from the Army, he was one of the great US Generals of World War Two. He served with courage and leadership and he earned his stripes the hard way. There is much to admire in Edwin Walker as a General.

When Walker quit the Army in 1961, however, this wasn't an ordinary retirement. Walker had 30 years of honorable military experience and so he had a right to a reasonable Army Pension. Yet Walker spurned that pension. A resignation from the US Army is very different from retirement -- an option that was wide open for him. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.

The mythology about Walker says he was fired by JFK, or fired by the State Department, or some such nonsense. That's how it's explained. But the historical truth is that Walker was never fired from the Army. He resigned in 1961. Nor was that the first time. He also tried to resign in 1959, but President Eisenhower and the JCS denied that resignation. This was Walker's second resignation in protest.

What was he protesting? He wasn't protesting being fired -- just the opposite. In 1959 Walker joined the Birchers. Now, I realize that the Birchers are largely genteel, conservative Americans, lots of doctors, lawyers and dentists, basically good folks. Yet they had this weird belief, stimulated by a paranoid version of patriotic Anticommunism, namely, that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been Communists themselves.

Their belief was so weird that J. Edgar Hoover openly spoke out against them, and their leader Robert Welch, and held a solid rule that no FBI Agent could ever join them. Hoover had been a personal friend of President Eisenhower, and it offended Hoover to hear the Birchers say that Eisenhower was "a deliberate, conscious agent of the Communist Party."

Nobody can say that J. Edgar Hoover was soft on Communism -- but the Birchers went too far according to Hoover.

It is a direct consequence of this Bircher belief in the Communism of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK, that spurred General Walker to resign his post -- precisely because Walker was an honorable man. It was his honor that obliged him to resign from the US Army, because how could he then -- in conscience -- serve under a Communist, and go into the field and train soldiers to fight Communists?

The Birchers had completely befuddled this formerly great American General, so that General Walker resigned from the Army in November 1961, and forfeited his Army Pension. Walker was the only US General in the 20th century to do that.

So, to answer your question, Kenneth, about my own loyalty -- no, I have no problems at all with patriotic Americans. I myself come from a military family. My dad and my four uncles all served in the Navy during World War Two. I'm proud of them. And as for General Walker, I'm proud of his service to our country.

My issue with General Walker was that he resigned from the US Army, and began to think of Washington DC as Communist. And while many Birchers just played the Bircher role at cocktail parties -- General Walker was a man of honor and action. Walker would act on his beliefs -- and that would take him into Ole Miss on 30 September 1962. Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..

2. As for JFK calling on Federal Troops to protect James Meredith's right to attend college at Ole Miss, we should remember that there was a legal precedent for this, when President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.

It is an irony of history that Ike selected General Walker to lead those Federal Troops, and Walker successfully completed that mission. It was toward the end of that mission that General Walker joined the JBS and submitted his first resignation to the Army. Yet it was in reward for a successful mission that Eisenhower rewarded Walker with his command in Augsburg, Germany.

3. Kenneth, to say that there was an attack on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 24 October 1963 is a matter of history. Yes, it started out as a political protest, but it became massive, and turned to violence when one man spit on Adlai, and a woman clobbered Adlai over the head with her protest sign. It was in national news. The woman and the man were both arrested -- and they both belonged to the "Friends of Walker" organization in Dallas.

You are correct to note that Edwin Walker was not at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on that evening. Yet Walker was at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium that night before, where he gave explicit instructions to his many followers. This was in obedience to Robert Welch (leader of the Birchers) who set a rule for the Birchers, that they must never allow any Communist to complete any speech in their neighborhood, and to use all available means to stop that speech.

General Walker took that literally. He instructed his followers to use Halloween noisemakers, heckling, skits, to stand on their seats and give opposing speeches -- march down the aisles -- anything to stop the speech. It worked. Adlai did not finish his speech, and there are snippets of Adlai on YouTube on stage during this event.

One of Walker's dramatic moves was to attach a giant banner to the ceiling of the auditorium, with the words, "UN out of US!" on the one side, and "US out of UN!" on the other side. The banner was then rolled up to the ceiling, and tied with a pull-string, so that when the string was pulled, the banner would unfold down to dramatically reveal the slogans. As every Bircher knows, those were two of the key slogans of the Birchers during that period of history. This was one more way to systematically disrupt Adlai's speech.

General Walker trained his people to do this on the evening of 23 October 1963 at Dallas Memorial Auditorium the night before Adlai Stevenson's speech. Then, on the night of Adlai's speech, Walker went out to dinner with a friend. That was his modus operandi. He led the charge by training, rather than by physical presence.

5. As for the "injuries" that Adlai sustained, there was no hospitalization -- they were mainly the result of manhandling. The spitting was humiliating, but not painful, and the protest sign that hit him on the head made him stumble and nearly fall over except that a Adlai's friend held him up. When Adlai got in his car to get away, the large crowd there rocked his car back and forth, threatening to tip it over. But the driver got away. So the effect on Adlai was emotional strain, and not serious physical damage. Yet this treatment of an official from Washington DC was unexpected and shameful for most Americans. In the context of a genteel, polite evening of political speeches, it was called a political "attack", although I grant you that this was not a military attack.

6. Kenneth, I thank you for reading the newspaper articles that Chris Cravens reported in his historical research. They show that Dallas was aware that General Walker was the leader of that "political attack" on Adlai Stevenson. Chris Cravens adds further interviews in which Walker boasted about his role that night. As for the Dallas Police that night -- it is significant that they allowed the commotion to get out of hand to that extent -- and is possibly explained by a significant membership of Dallas Police in the JBS.

7. Kenneth, regarding Joseph Milteer, I'm interested in your statement about "the CIA being involved with him, along with several others." This is exactly my position -- the JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.

FOOTNOTE: Regarding the tragic news yesterday of the Dallas shooting, I'm broken-hearted about it, because it fans the flame of racial violence in the USA -- and ever since the Civil War, racial violence has been the Achilles Heel of our Union. Following the two shootings of Black Americans by policemen in Louisiana and Minnesota, and a speech by President Obama about it, it made this week more intensely sour than any week since 9/11, in my humble opinion.

I weep for the five lost officers in Dallas. Their murder was premeditated -- carefully planned -- tragic and purely evil. The only recent crime that can even compare to it, IMHO, is the Church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina that occurred at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on the evening of June 17, 2015.

The intent in both shootings appeared the same -- to start a race war. I pray to God that Americans refuse to follow in these evil footsteps.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth, regarding Chris Craven's 1993 breakthrough, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) ... Chris Cravens wrote his book as a defense of Edwin Walker. He deliberately hides facts to make Walker look better than later history will reveal him.

Edwin Walker has not been proven to have been involved in the JFK assassination by anyone, ever. It seems as if it would be a big task to make a very patriotic American look much better. I think aspire to his standards would be a large achievement. Do you have a big problem with patriotic Americans?

For example, Cravens blames JFK for the racial riot at Ole Miss. So, his book is biased in that way.

I would likely agree that if JFK had not gotten involved with a local law enforcement action, there would have been no riot.

As for the attack on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is documented history. I even interviewed Larrie Schmit himself on this topic (another Right Winger) and Larrie admitted the role of General Walker and the leaders of the Dallas JBS.

I disagree in two ways. There was no 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson and Edwin Walker was not at Stevenson's performance. There was a political protest, probably not much different from what some of the lefties are doing at Trump's rallies now.

Chris Cravens cites several local newspapers, showing that the Dallas press knew very well that General Walker was behind the attack -- that the attack was orchestrated the night before during the "USA Day" rally (in contrast to the "UN Day" rally of Adlai Stevenson." The auditorium itself was rigged. Walker made a joke about not being there -- that was his modus operandi.

You persist in saying 'attack on Stevenson', would you enumerate the injuries he sustained.

There's no way it was a peaceful protest. There was disruption inside the auditorium as well as physical attacks on Adlai outside the auditorium. Here's several news articles on that night:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631023_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Texas_Observer.pdf

Ohh, this was bad, 'booing', 'laughing' 'coughing' "jangling charm bracelets" but no mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631025_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

Oh, now I see, that paper sign brushing against him could be considered an 'attack'. But, thankfully I've identified the problem. His police escort was all Radical Right Wing Walker Supporters. I read all four links and I missed any reference to Walker being present.

Chris Cravens could not deny the well-known facts, known throughout Dallas. Somehow, however, this common sense in Dallas was withheld from the Secret Service PRS for JFK's Dallas trip. The Dallas FBI and the Dallas SS were to blame for that, IMHO.

As for LHO and the Walker shooting -- you can't rightly say that there is "absolutely no evidence," since we have the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. Also, Michael Paine more recently admitted he saw a BYP one week before the Walker shooting, in LHO's Neely Street apartment.

Sworn testimony of Marina? Chuckle, which version. You referring to her testimony to the ARRB in the 70's? I have not seen anything 'sworn' in the WR that I would consider to not be fruits of the conspiracy.

I'd gratified that you believe that Joseph Milteer was "likely one of the planners of the assassination." This is a major breakthrough, IMHO, and a major break with the CIA-did-it CTers. You're on the right track, sir.

I've thought he was involved for quite some time, that's not a recent revelation. Certainly doesn't exclude the CIA being involved with him, along with several others.

Footnote: What do you make of that leftie liberal in Dallas attempting to eliminate all those Radical Right Wing policemen.

1. Kenneth, I agree that with regard to the JFK assassination, the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker has not been proven -- just as the case against the CIA was never proven, nor the case against the Mafia or LBJ and so on. As for Walker himself, I also agree -- and have always agreed -- that before he resigned from the Army, he was one of the great US Generals of World War Two. He served with courage and leadership and he earned his stripes the hard way. There is much to admire in Edwin Walker as a General.

When Walker quit the Army in 1961, however, this wasn't an ordinary retirement. Walker had 30 years of honorable military experience and so he had a right to a reasonable Army Pension. Yet Walker spurned that pension. A resignation from the US Army is very different from retirement -- an option that was wide open for him. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.

The mythology about Walker says he was fired by JFK, or fired by the State Department, or some such nonsense. That's how it's explained. But the historical truth is that Walker was never fired from the Army. He resigned in 1961. Nor was that the first time. He also tried to resign in 1959, but President Eisenhower and the JCS denied that resignation. This was Walker's second resignation in protest.

What was he protesting? He wasn't protesting being fired -- just the opposite. In 1959 Walker joined the Birchers. Now, I realize that the Birchers are largely genteel, conservative Americans, lots of doctors, lawyers and dentists, basically good folks. Yet they had this weird belief, stimulated by a paranoid version of patriotic Anticommunism, namely, that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been Communists themselves.

Their belief was so weird that J. Edgar Hoover openly spoke out against them, and their leader Robert Welch, and held a solid rule that no FBI Agent could ever join them. Hoover had been a personal friend of President Eisenhower, and it offended Hoover to hear the Birchers say that Eisenhower was "a deliberate, conscious agent of the Communist Party."

Nobody can say that J. Edgar Hoover was soft on Communism -- but the Birchers went too far according to Hoover.

It is a direct consequence of this Bircher belief in the Communism of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK, that spurred General Walker to resign his post -- precisely because Walker was an honorable man. It was his honor that obliged him to resign from the US Army, because how could he then -- in conscience -- serve under a Communist, and go into the field and train soldiers to fight Communists?

The Birchers had completely befuddled this formerly great American General, so that General Walker resigned from the Army in November 1961, and forfeited his Army Pension. Walker was the only US General in the 20th century to do that.

So, to answer your question, Kenneth, about my own loyalty -- no, I have no problems at all with patriotic Americans. I myself come from a military family. My dad and my four uncles all served in the Navy during World War Two. I'm proud of them. And as for General Walker, I'm proud of his service to our country.

My issue with General Walker was that he resigned from the US Army, and began to think of Washington DC as Communist. And while many Birchers just played the Bircher role at cocktail parties -- General Walker was a man of honor and action. Walker would act on his beliefs -- and that would take him into Ole Miss on 30 September 1962. Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..

2. As for JFK calling on Federal Troops to protect James Meredith's right to attend college at Ole Miss, we should remember that there was a legal precedent for this, when President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.

It is an irony of history that Ike selected General Walker to lead those Federal Troops, and Walker successfully completed that mission. It was toward the end of that mission that General Walker joined the JBS and submitted his first resignation to the Army. Yet it was in reward for a successful mission that Eisenhower rewarded Walker with his command in Augsburg, Germany.

3. Kenneth, to say that there was an attack on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 24 October 1963 is a matter of history. Yes, it started out as a political protest, but it became massive, and turned to violence when one man spit on Adlai, and a woman clobbered Adlai over the head with her protest sign. It was in national news. The woman and the man were both arrested -- and they both belonged to the "Friends of Walker" organization in Dallas.

You are correct to note that Edwin Walker was not at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on that evening. Yet Walker was at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium that night before, where he gave explicit instructions to his many followers. This was in obedience to Robert Welch (leader of the Birchers) who set a rule for the Birchers, that they must never allow any Communist to complete any speech in their neighborhood, and to use all available means to stop that speech.

General Walker took that literally. He instructed his followers to use Halloween noisemakers, heckling, skits, to stand on their seats and give opposing speeches -- march down the aisles -- anything to stop the speech. It worked. Adlai did not finish his speech, and there are snippets of Adlai on YouTube on stage during this event.

One of Walker's dramatic moves was to attach a giant banner to the ceiling of the auditorium, with the words, "UN out of US!" on the one side, and "US out of UN!" on the other side. The banner was then rolled up to the ceiling, and tied with a pull-string, so that when the string was pulled, the banner would unfold down to dramatically reveal the slogans. As every Bircher knows, those were two of the key slogans of the Birchers during that period of history. This was one more way to systematically disrupt Adlai's speech.

General Walker trained his people to do this on the evening of 23 October 1963 at Dallas Memorial Auditorium the night before Adlai Stevenson's speech. Then, on the night of Adlai's speech, Walker went out to dinner with a friend. That was his modus operandi. He led the charge by training, rather than by physical presence.

5. As for the "injuries" that Adlai sustained, there was no hospitalization -- they were mainly the result of manhandling. The spitting was humiliating, but not painful, and the protest sign that hit him on the head made him stumble and nearly fall over except that a Adlai's friend held him up. When Adlai got in his car to get away, the large crowd there rocked his car back and forth, threatening to tip it over. But the driver got away. So the effect on Adlai was emotional strain, and not serious physical damage. Yet this treatment of an official from Washington DC was unexpected and shameful for most Americans. In the context of a genteel, polite evening of political speeches, it was called a political "attack", although I grant you that this was not a military attack.

6. Kenneth, I thank you for reading the newspaper articles that Chris Cravens reported in his historical research. They show that Dallas was aware that General Walker was the leader of that "political attack" on Adlai Stevenson. Chris Cravens adds further interviews in which Walker boasted about his role that night. As for the Dallas Police that night -- it is significant that they allowed the commotion to get out of hand to that extent -- and is possibly explained by a significant membership of Dallas Police in the JBS.

7. Kenneth, regarding Joseph Milteer, I'm interested in your statement about "the CIA being involved with him, along with several others." This is exactly my position -- the JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.

FOOTNOTE: Regarding the tragic news yesterday of the Dallas shooting, I'm broken-hearted about it, because it fans the flame of racial violence in the USA -- and ever since the Civil War, racial violence has been the Achilles Heel of our Union. Following the two shootings of Black Americans by policemen in Louisiana and Minnesota, and a speech by President Obama about it, it made this week more intensely sour than any week since 9/11, in my humble opinion.

I weep for the five lost officers in Dallas. Their murder was premeditated -- carefully planned -- tragic and purely evil. The only recent crime that can even compare to it, IMHO, is the Church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina that occurred at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on the evening of June 17, 2015.

The intent in both shootings appeared the same -- to start a race war. I pray to God that Americans refuse to follow in these evil footsteps.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

As is Paul's custom, he fabricates what he presents as "fact" when, in reality, his assertions are often fictional.

(1) Paul begins his fiction by claiming that:

"The mythology about Walker says he was fired by JFK, or fired by the State Department, or some such nonsense. That's how it's explained."

Not surprisingly, Paul does not provide any substantiation for this claim because it is totally fictional.

When Walker died in October 1993, the New York Times obituary correctly noted that:

"Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, whose right-wing political activities led to an official rebuke and his resignation from the Army in 1961, died on Sunday at his home in Dallas. He was 83."

BUT -- how did the NY Times report Walker's behavior at the time when it actually occurred? Did they claim Walker was "fired"?

Nope!

Here is the original page one headline from the November 3, 1961 issue of the NY Times:

"WALKER RESIGNS FROM THE ARMY: Tells Senators He Will Push Anti-Communist Drive -- May Enter Politics Walker Resigns From the Army To Push Anti-Communist Fight"

A second article (page 22) that same day in the NY Times was captioned:

"Excerpts From Walker Statement to Senators on Resignation"

OK---what about newspapers that relied solely upon wire service reports (from AP or UPI)? Maybe THEY got it wrong?

Nope!

You can check "Newspapers.com" to see excerpts from news articles published across the U.S. and they ALL refer to Walker resigning!

See: https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=Edwin+Walker&lnd=1&ymd=1961-11-03&offset=4

(2) Let's now proceed to Paul's next absurdity -- when he writes about J. Edgar Hoover’s response to the JBS:

"Their belief was so weird that J. Edgar Hoover openly spoke out against them, and their leader Robert Welch, and held a solid rule that no FBI Agent could ever join them."

First, let's be clear about what a "rule" means -- particularly in the context of a large bureaucracy. By definition, a "rule" is:

"one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere"

This begs an obvious question -- namely, how does one communicate "a rule" (especially a "solid rule") within a very large organization?

Keep in mind that this "solid rule" had to be communicated not only to FBI HQ staff but also to the senior management of 56 FBI field offices.

Fortunately, we know with absolute certainty, how "rules" were communicated within the FBI hierarchy because there are literally many tens of thousands of pages of regularly issued “rules” from FBI HQ to all of its employees---and, particularly, to its Special Agents in Charge (of field offices) as well as to its HQ Section Chiefs and Supervisors. Those rules were communicated through an FBI publication called a "SAC Letter".

Even more fortunately, we have a complete archive of "SAC Letters" thanks to the research and generosity of Dr. Athan Theoharis -- who has donated them to Marquette University

[see index here: http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/FBI/FBI-series73.shtml ]

As Dr. Theoharis pointed out: "In September 1920, Bureau Director William Flynn issued the first SAC Letter, thereafter issued periodically outlining new or revised Bureau policy."

Incidentally, there is also another FBI HQ file captioned "FBI Executive Conference" (HQ file 66-2554) which might be even more relevant for this discussion. This file captures all of the internal memos by senior FBI management (FBI Assistant Directors and Hoover/Tolson) which consider recommendations for new or revised policies. Significantly, there is no discussion in those memos which support Paul's contention.

In summary, NOBODY has ever found the solid rule which Paul boldly assures us was in existence.

Furthermore, no senior FBI employee who had hiring responsibilities has ever confirmed what Paul asserts.

Importantly, the ONLY way in which the FBI would ever know whether or not one of its prospective Agents was a member of the JBS would be if that applicant listed the JBS on their employment application as an organization to which the applicant belonged.

Lastly, the FBI (like all other government agencies) used the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations as their basis for denying employment due to unacceptable organizational affiliations. The JBS was never listed on the Attorney General’s List – AND the JBS was never even formally investigated by the FBI or ever considered for such investigation. But Paul does not care about such obvious falsifications of his personal delusions.

[Addendum: If Paul's assertion was correct, would it not be logical to conclude that the FBI would not want to associate itself with ANY JBS member in any capacity because of the likely embarrassment to the FBI if such associations were discovered and because of the Bureau's conclusion that JBS ideology represented irrational "right-wing extremist" ideas? In other words---knowing Hoover's caustic judgment about the JBS, do you think ANY FBI employee would ignore Hoover's derogatory evaluation of both Welch and the JBS--and use or employ a Bircher regardless?

Well---then---how does Paul explain the informants recruited and often paid by the FBI (for services and expenses) who were JBS members -- including Delmar Dennis and Gerald Kirk and George DeMerle (AND if you want to believe him--Harry Dean)?

(3) Let’s continue to the next Paul Trejo absurdity:

“It is a direct consequence of this Bircher belief in the Communism of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK, that spurred General Walker to resign his post -- precisely because Walker was an honorable man.”

It would take considerable space to demonstrate the problem with Paul’s assertion. For now, let me just point out that the official JBS position regarding FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK was NOT what Paul claims.

For some people (like Paul), all human history is able to be condensed and simplified into short bumper-sticker sentences – because (like Paul) many individuals do not want to expend the time or effort or resources to carefully review the documentary record and then accurately summarize the position of persons or organizations perceived as enemies. Instead, caricatures are used as a short-hand method for analysis and discussion. Suffice it to say (for now) that Paul is (and has always been) woefully ignorant about JBS history.

(4) The next Trejo assertion is:

“This was in obedience to Robert Welch (leader of the Birchers) who set a rule for the Birchers, that they must never allow any Communist to complete any speech in their neighborhood, and to use all available means to stop that speech.”

If there actually was such a “rule for the Birchers” which Robert Welch announced, then it would be more convincing if Paul would QUOTE that “rule” – and identify where it was published, but, again, as is Paul’s custom, he just makes an assertion without providing substantiation for whatever accusations he makes.

As I have noted many times in this forum, nobody should EVER rely upon Paul Trejo for ANY accurate understanding about ANYTHING because he just INVENTS whatever he thinks will advance whatever argument he wants to make.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

What do you make of Marina Oswald's sworn testimony that LHO was the shooter at General Walker on 10 April 1963?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, there are so many versions of her 'testimony' I'm sure if I had to believe her I could find at least one version that might sound true. I especially like the one where he threw his rifle away after the shot, that means someone else must have found it and used it for the sniper rifle plant, well, except the bullet found was not from an MC rifle. If you could choose one of the statements that you believe, I'll try to tell you why it's made up. Maybe even who made it up. How did you decide which version you liked?

Kenneth,

As you requested, here is an extract from Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission on February 3, 1964, as interviewed by J. Lee Rankin. In the excerpt below, I removed the Questions by Rankin to expose only Marina's answers, for ease of reading.

I remind the reader that Marina Oswald is a native Russian speaker, and although she was college educated in pharmacology at Minsk, she was only beginning to learn English in late 1963, so her sentences show this sort of beginner's vocabulary.

------- BEGIN EXTRACT FROM MARINA OSWALD TO LEE RANKIN -- WC VOLUME 1 -----

Before the incident with General Walker, I know that Lee was preparing for something. He took photographs of that house and he told me not to enter his room. I didn't know about these photographs, but when I came into the room once he tried to make it so that I would spend less time in that room. I noticed that accidentally once when I was cleaning the room – he tried to take more care of it himself.

I asked him, what kind of photographs are these, but he didn't say anything to me. Those were the photographs of the Walker house that I was asking about.

Later, after Lee shot at Walker, he told me about it. I didn't know that he intended to do it – or that he was planning to do it. I believe he had been practicing with the rifle. I think that he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the rifle, but I knew that Lee was practicing because he told me. He would mention that in passing – it isn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take this rifle in my hands here and go out to practice," but he would say, "Well, today I’ll take the rifle along for practice." So, I don't know whether he took it from the house or whether he had the rifle somewhere outside. There was a little square, sort of a little courtyard where he might have kept it.

Also, Lee didn't only have a rifle, but he also had a gun, a revolver. I remember it first on Neely Street, but I think he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice -- once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs. I don’t remember the period of time between when I first saw the rifle and the time that I first saw the pistol.

When I testified about his practicing with the rifle, I was describing a period when we were still at Neely Street. I don’t know where he practiced with the rifle. I don't know the name of the place where this took place, but I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield, or perhaps Love Field – that is an airport, no? I think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range.

I don’t recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it; I hadn't paid any attention initially. A rifle was a rifle; I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing the lens was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. Possibly the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that. I made an objection to having the rifle around. Lee said that for a man to have a rifle, since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him; a fine life.

That was the same rifle that I was referring to that I took the picture of with Lee and when he had the pistol, too. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business – it was a man's business. If I had known these were such dangerous toys – of course I thought that Lee had changed in that direction and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him – just playing around.

I dimly recall the day that I took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol; I think that that was towards the end of February or the beginning of March. I can't say exactly, because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me if someone had ever asked me to photograph. No. I do remember it was on a Sunday. I was hanging up diapers and he came up to me with the rifle and I was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time.

I did not examine the picture or notice that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

I had nothing to do with the prints of the photograph, or after the prints were made, that is, I didn’t put them in a photographic album myself. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn't need photographs like that.

I dimly recall how long after that the Walker matter occurred; two, perhaps three weeks later. I know better when this happened. I first learned that Lee had shot at General Walker like this: that evening he went out I thought that he had gone to his classes or perhaps that he just walked out or went out on his own business. It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried; perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it – I was pacing around.

Then I saw a note there. I did not look for the gun at that time. I didn't understand anything. On the note it said, "If I am arrested" and there are certain other questions, such as, for example, the key to the mailbox is in such and such a place, and that he left me some money to last me for some time, and I couldn't understand at all what he would be arrested for. When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker.

Of course I didn't sleep all night. I thought that any minute now, the police will come. Of course I wanted to ask him a great deal. But in his state I decided I had best leave him alone it would be purposeless to question him. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did I do with it?" He said, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know – I am not a criminologist.

I told him that he had no right to kill people in peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that night be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives. I told him that this is no method to prove my ideas, by means of a rifle.

He said he had been planning for two months. Yes--perhaps he had planned to do so even earlier, but according to his conduct I could tell he was planning--he had been planning this for two months or perhaps a little even earlier. He showed me a picture of the Walker house then; after the shooting. He had a notebook in which he noted quite a few details. It was all in English, I didn't read it. But I noticed the photograph. Sometimes he would lock himself in his room and write in the book. I thought that he was writing some other kind of memoirs, as he had written about his life in the Soviet Union.

I never read that book. I know of nothing else he had in it besides this Walker house picture. Photographs and notes, and I think there was a map in there. It was a map of Dallas, but I don't know where Walker lived. Sometimes evenings he would be busy with this.

Perhaps he was calculating something, but I don't know. He had a bus schedule and computed something.

After this had happened, people thought that he had a car, but he had been using a bus. Lee explained to me about his being able to use a bus just as well as other people could use a car – simply as a passenger. He told me that even before that time he had gone also to shoot, but he had returned. I don't know why. Because on the day that he did shoot, there was a Church across the street and there were many people there, and it was easier to merge in the crowd and not be noticed.

I asked him about this note that he had left, what he meant by it – he said he had in mind that if in case he were arrested, I would know what to do. The note doesn't say anything about Walker. I asked him if that is what he meant by the note – as soon as he came home I showed him the note and asked him "What is the meaning of this?" And that is when he gave me the explanation about the Walker shooting.

I know that on a Sunday he took the rifle, but I don't think he shot it on a Sunday. Perhaps that was on Friday. So Sunday he left with the rifle. The Walker shooting was in the middle of the week – maybe on Wednesday. When he shot, he did not know whether he had hit Walker or not. He ran several kilometers and then took the bus. He turned on the radio and listened, but there were no reports. The next day he bought a paper and there he read that it was only bare chance that saved Walker's life. If he had not moved, he might have been killed.

Lee said only that he had taken very good aim, that it was just chance that caused him to miss. He was very sorry that he had not hit him. I asked him to give me his word that he would not repeat anything like that. I said that this accident proves that Walker must live and that he should not be shot at again. I told him that I would save the note and that if something like that would be repeated again, I would go to the police and I would have the proof in the form of that note. He said he would not repeat anything like that again.

By the way, several days after that, the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as I recall, practically as soon as he opened the door he said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he became speechless. I saw that other people knew Lee better than I did; not always – but in this case, yes.

De Mohrenschildt was a friend, but Lee did not tell him personal things that I knew of. He asked Lee not because Lee had told him about it, but because he was smart enough to guess it. He was simply a liberal man (and I don't think that he was justly accused of being a Communist).

I didn’t tell the authorities anything about this Walker incident when I learned about it. I told the Secret Service and the FBI people the reasons why I didn't. First, because he was Lee; as far as I know, according to the local laws here, a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband. But, of course, if I had known that Lee intended to repeat something like that, I would have told.

Lee didn’t ask me to return the note to him; he forgot about it. But apparently after that he thought that what he had written in his book might be proof against him, and he destroyed his book! That was his notebook that I just referred to in which he had the Walker house picture.

I kept the note that he left for me after I said I was going to keep it; I have it among my things in a cookbook. I don't remember in which one.

My relations with Lee changed after this Walker incident. Soon after that, Lee lost his job – I don't know for what reason. He was upset by it. And he looked for work for several days. And when the idea of New Orleans came up, I insisted that it would be better for him to go to New Orleans where he had relatives. I insisted on that because I wanted to get him further removed from Dallas and from Walker, because even though he gave me his word, I wanted to have him further away, because a rifle for him was not a good toy – it was too enticing.

But what I told him was simply that I wanted to see his home town – where he was born. When he promised that he would not do anything like that again, I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house. I asked him to get rid of the rifle at that time. After he shot at Walker, I didn’t notice his taking the rifle out any more to practice. We went to New Orleans in May. Lee went there by himself, first.

------- END EXTRACT FROM MARINA OSWALD TO LEE RANKIN -- WC VOLUME 1 -----

As you suggested, Kenneth, please let me konw what part of Marina's testimony that you will accept, and what part you don't accept.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth, regarding Chris Craven's 1993 breakthrough, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas" (1993) ... Chris Cravens wrote his book as a defense of Edwin Walker. He deliberately hides facts to make Walker look better than later history will reveal him.

Edwin Walker has not been proven to have been involved in the JFK assassination by anyone, ever. It seems as if it would be a big task to make a very patriotic American look much better. I think aspire to his standards would be a large achievement. Do you have a big problem with patriotic Americans?

For example, Cravens blames JFK for the racial riot at Ole Miss. So, his book is biased in that way.

I would likely agree that if JFK had not gotten involved with a local law enforcement action, there would have been no riot.

As for the attack on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is documented history. I even interviewed Larrie Schmit himself on this topic (another Right Winger) and Larrie admitted the role of General Walker and the leaders of the Dallas JBS.

I disagree in two ways. There was no 'attack' on Adlai Stevenson and Edwin Walker was not at Stevenson's performance. There was a political protest, probably not much different from what some of the lefties are doing at Trump's rallies now.

Chris Cravens cites several local newspapers, showing that the Dallas press knew very well that General Walker was behind the attack -- that the attack was orchestrated the night before during the "USA Day" rally (in contrast to the "UN Day" rally of Adlai Stevenson." The auditorium itself was rigged. Walker made a joke about not being there -- that was his modus operandi.

You persist in saying 'attack on Stevenson', would you enumerate the injuries he sustained.

There's no way it was a peaceful protest. There was disruption inside the auditorium as well as physical attacks on Adlai outside the auditorium. Here's several news articles on that night:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631023_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

No mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631024_Texas_Observer.pdf

Ohh, this was bad, 'booing', 'laughing' 'coughing' "jangling charm bracelets" but no mention of any 'attack'

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631025_Dallas_Morning_News.pdf

Oh, now I see, that paper sign brushing against him could be considered an 'attack'. But, thankfully I've identified the problem. His police escort was all Radical Right Wing Walker Supporters. I read all four links and I missed any reference to Walker being present.

Chris Cravens could not deny the well-known facts, known throughout Dallas. Somehow, however, this common sense in Dallas was withheld from the Secret Service PRS for JFK's Dallas trip. The Dallas FBI and the Dallas SS were to blame for that, IMHO.

As for LHO and the Walker shooting -- you can't rightly say that there is "absolutely no evidence," since we have the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. Also, Michael Paine more recently admitted he saw a BYP one week before the Walker shooting, in LHO's Neely Street apartment.

Sworn testimony of Marina? Chuckle, which version. You referring to her testimony to the ARRB in the 70's? I have not seen anything 'sworn' in the WR that I would consider to not be fruits of the conspiracy.

I'd gratified that you believe that Joseph Milteer was "likely one of the planners of the assassination." This is a major breakthrough, IMHO, and a major break with the CIA-did-it CTers. You're on the right track, sir.

I've thought he was involved for quite some time, that's not a recent revelation. Certainly doesn't exclude the CIA being involved with him, along with several others.

Footnote: What do you make of that leftie liberal in Dallas attempting to eliminate all those Radical Right Wing policemen.

1. Kenneth, I agree that with regard to the JFK assassination, the case against Ex-General Edwin Walker has not been proven -- just as the case against the CIA was never proven, nor the case against the Mafia or LBJ and so on. As for Walker himself, I also agree -- and have always agreed -- that before he resigned from the Army, he was one of the great US Generals of World War Two. He served with courage and leadership and he earned his stripes the hard way. There is much to admire in Edwin Walker as a General.

Good comments.

When Walker quit the Army in 1961, however, this wasn't an ordinary retirement. Walker had 30 years of honorable military experience and so he had a right to a reasonable Army Pension. Yet Walker spurned that pension. A resignation from the US Army is very different from retirement -- an option that was wide open for him. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.

I understand all that. I agree that he quit. But if your boss comes in and tells you that you've been a bad boy and just go sit in the corner until you decide to retire, that's essentially what they did to Walker. Told he would never 'command again', do you think he had a lot of options. I think his resignation was a sign of formal protest. You do know that his pension was restored later.

The mythology about Walker says he was fired by JFK, or fired by the State Department, or some such nonsense. That's how it's explained. But the historical truth is that Walker was never fired from the Army. He resigned in 1961. Nor was that the first time. He also tried to resign in 1959, but President Eisenhower and the JCS denied that resignation. This was Walker's second resignation in protest.

What was he protesting? He wasn't protesting being fired -- just the opposite. In 1959 Walker joined the Birchers. Now, I realize that the Birchers are largely genteel, conservative Americans, lots of doctors, lawyers and dentists, basically good folks. Yet they had this weird belief, stimulated by a paranoid version of patriotic Anticommunism, namely, that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been Communists themselves.

What was he protesting.

Surely you know the answer to that. Your statement " that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been communists themselves" doesn't seem to be likely. How could the 'government' be communist? As for the past 4 presidents, I don't think any of them were communists and I've never seen any claim that Walker accused them of being communist themselves. That they were all influenced by communists, yes...especially FDR, and Truman to some extent and maybe even Ike, but I've not seen anything linking any communists to JFK. Walker certainly had an inside track to knowledge about the persons influencing presidents than I ever had.

Their belief was so weird that J. Edgar Hoover openly spoke out against them, and their leader Robert Welch, and held a solid rule that no FBI Agent could ever join them. Hoover had been a personal friend of President Eisenhower, and it offended Hoover to hear the Birchers say that Eisenhower was "a deliberate, conscious agent of the Communist Party."

How and when did Eisenhower and Hoover develop this 'personal friendship'? If you can give me a link to something the Birchers put out that accused Eisenhower of being a 'conscious agent of the Communist Party'. As I've said before, Ike worked with a lot of them, allies during WWII and probably developed a respect for the ones he worked with, but I don't think anyone has ever declared that Eisenhower was a 'communist agent'.

Nobody can say that J. Edgar Hoover was soft on Communism -- but the Birchers went too far according to Hoover.

But I also wouldn't say Hoover was 'hard' on communism either. I think it was all politics for him and them.

It is a direct consequence of this Bircher belief in the Communism of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK, that spurred General Walker to resign his post -- precisely because Walker was an honorable man. It was his honor that obliged him to resign from the US Army, because how could he then -- in conscience -- serve under a Communist, and go into the field and train soldiers to fight Communists?

I don't believe that was any part of the reason he resigned, I've already said why, in my opinion.

The Birchers had completely befuddled this formerly great American General, so that General Walker resigned from the Army in November 1961, and forfeited his Army Pension. Walker was the only US General in the 20th century to do that.

So, to answer your question, Kenneth, about my own loyalty -- no, I have no problems at all with patriotic Americans. I myself come from a military family. My dad and my four uncles all served in the Navy during World War Two. I'm proud of them. And as for General Walker, I'm proud of his service to our country.

My issue with General Walker was that he resigned from the US Army, and began to think of Washington DC as Communist. And while many Birchers just played the Bircher role at cocktail parties -- General Walker was a man of honor and action. Walker would act on his beliefs -- and that would take him into Ole Miss on 30 September 1962. Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..

If that's your problem with General Walker, I think it's time you started a serious reassessment as you seem to have totally have missed the mark on his reason for resigning. As far as Walker and Mississippi, Walker went there to protest, a right he defended in the military for most of his life. Why would Pres JFK violate the basic constitutional rights of Americans by using federal troops in a situation where it was not called for. Had the troops not been sent there at JFK's orders, the riots and deaths probably would not have occurred. I see no blame on Walker for JFK's misuse of his authority.

2. As for JFK calling on Federal Troops to protect James Meredith's right to attend college at Ole Miss, we should remember that there was a legal precedent for this, when President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.

Eisenhower illegally or improperly using federal troops is/was not a good precedent. Just because a law has been broken in the past does not establish precedent that it is a good thing to do.

It is an irony of history that Ike selected General Walker to lead those Federal Troops, and Walker successfully completed that mission. It was toward the end of that mission that General Walker joined the JBS and submitted his first resignation to the Army. Yet it was in reward for a successful mission that Eisenhower rewarded Walker with his command in Augsburg, Germany.

3. Kenneth, to say that there was an attack on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 24 October 1963 is a matter of history. Yes, it started out as a political protest, but it became massive, and turned to violence when one man spit on Adlai, and a woman clobbered Adlai over the head with her protest sign. It was in national news. The woman and the man were both arrested -- and they both belonged to the "Friends of Walker" organization in Dallas.

Why didn't those links you supplied above indicate the things you are claiming. One of them said a woman was holding a sign and that when someone bumped into her arm it did brush against Stevenson, but you'll note the woman was not arrested for assault, as I'm sure no 'intent' could be shown. Spitting? that's 'violence'. ? And tell me again how someone (Walker) that wasn't even there was 'responsible'. Your newspaper articles talk of a protest rally but I see nothing of an 'attack' on Stevenson and no relationship to Walker for the protest rally? It doesn't help your argument when you start 'making it up'

You are correct to note that Edwin Walker was not at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on that evening. Yet Walker was at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium that night before, where he gave explicit instructions to his many followers. This was in obedience to Robert Welch (leader of the Birchers) who set a rule for the Birchers, that they must never allow any Communist to complete any speech in their neighborhood, and to use all available means to stop that speech.

Why didn't they pick some other person that was at the arena the night before to 'claim' was leading an 'attack'. Using that logic, the shooter in Dallas the other day should blame it on whoever was there the day before he was. The General 'led' the charge from his easy chair at home. Wow, how heroic.

General Walker took that literally. He instructed his followers to use Halloween noisemakers, heckling, skits, to stand on their seats and give opposing speeches -- march down the aisles -- anything to stop the speech. It worked. Adlai did not finish his speech, and there are snippets of Adlai on YouTube on stage during this event.

Aren't you describing a protest rally? Not an 'attack'.

One of Walker's dramatic moves was to attach a giant banner to the ceiling of the auditorium, with the words, "UN out of US!" on the one side, and "US out of UN!" on the other side. The banner was then rolled up to the ceiling, and tied with a pull-string, so that when the string was pulled, the banner would unfold down to dramatically reveal the slogans. As every Bircher knows, those were two of the key slogans of the Birchers during that period of history. This was one more way to systematically disrupt Adlai's speech.

How did Walker get to the ceiling of the auditorium to attach that banner? You suppose the hired hands at the auditorium provided him with scaffolding? And you would put that in the category as an "attack".? Hmmmm....

General Walker trained his people to do this on the evening of 23 October 1963 at Dallas Memorial Auditorium the night before Adlai Stevenson's speech. Then, on the night of Adlai's speech, Walker went out to dinner with a friend. That was his modus operandi. He led the charge by training, rather than by physical presence.

Oh, he 'trained' them? Who documented the training and how long was the training sessions? Was it classroom training or 'on the job'?

5. As for the "injuries" that Adlai sustained, there was no hospitalization -- they were mainly the result of manhandling. The spitting was humiliating, but not painful, and the protest sign that hit him on the head made him stumble and nearly fall over except that a Adlai's friend held him up. When Adlai got in his car to get away, the large crowd there rocked his car back and forth, threatening to tip it over. But the driver got away. So the effect on Adlai was emotional strain, and not serious physical damage. Yet this treatment of an official from Washington DC was unexpected and shameful for most Americans. In the context of a genteel, polite evening of political speeches, it was called a political "attack", although I grant you that this was not a military attack.

Tell all of us why Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas in October, 1963? I believe he likely had an office in Washington DC and maybe one at or near the UN hdqtrs in New York, but what would be his reason to be in Texas in Oct 63? What was his speech about? Oh, it 'wasn't' and 'attack' it was a 'political attack'. Maybe if you can clearly tell us why Stevenson was in Dallas that day, you might determine that it was itself, an attack. So fill us in on why he was there?

6. Kenneth, I thank you for reading the newspaper articles that Chris Cravens reported in his historical research. They show that Dallas was aware that General Walker was the leader of that "political attack" on Adlai Stevenson. Chris Cravens adds further interviews in which Walker boasted about his role that night. As for the Dallas Police that night -- it is significant that they allowed the commotion to get out of hand to that extent -- and is possibly explained by a significant membership of Dallas Police in the JBS.

7. Kenneth, regarding Joseph Milteer, I'm interested in your statement about "the CIA being involved with him, along with several others." This is exactly my position -- the JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.

Civilian? led. As in 'not military'. If I knew all the answers, and I've read so many books about it since '6 Seconds in Dallas', I would write my own book, but several stories seem to be possible, but for me, while there are some things I certainly don't know, there are a few that I do know. LHO was NOT a shooter. LHO did not kill JDT. LHO did not own a rifle. The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved.

FOOTNOTE: Regarding the tragic news yesterday of the Dallas shooting, I'm broken-hearted about it, because it fans the flame of racial violence in the USA -- and ever since the Civil War, racial violence has been the Achilles Heel of our Union. Following the two shootings of Black Americans by policemen in Louisiana and Minnesota, and a speech by President Obama about it, it made this week more intensely sour than any week since 9/11, in my humble opinion.

The sad part here is when Obama was asked if he saw a common thread in these acts, he blamed it on guns. We do not stand a chance of solving problems if the President of the USA will not even acknowledge what the problem is. Just as he won't say the words 'Islamic terrorism"

I weep for the five lost officers in Dallas. Their murder was premeditated -- carefully planned -- tragic and purely evil. The only recent crime that can even compare to it, IMHO, is the Church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina that occurred at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on the evening of June 17, 2015.

The intent in both shootings appeared the same -- to start a race war. I pray to God that Americans refuse to follow in these evil footsteps.

I do agree this was the intent.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Lots of interesting comments,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--Paul Trejo

Kenneth,

What do you make of Marina Oswald's sworn testimony that LHO was the shooter at General Walker on 10 April 1963?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, there are so many versions of her 'testimony' I'm sure if I had to believe her I could find at least one version that might sound true. I especially like the one where he threw his rifle away after the shot, that means someone else must have found it and used it for the sniper rifle plant, well, except the bullet found was not from an MC rifle. If you could choose one of the statements that you believe, I'll try to tell you why it's made up. Maybe even who made it up. How did you decide which version you liked?

Paul, my preliminary comment on all of this material, in general, I don't think that whoever put it together to be filed under Marina's name did a very good job. There are quite a few obvious mistakes and a lot that differs from other 'statements" attributed to her. Do you personally have an opinion as to who wrote this version?

Kenneth,

As you requested, here is an extract from Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission on February 3, 1964, as interviewed by J. Lee Rankin. In the excerpt below, I removed the Questions by Rankin to expose only Marina's answers, for ease of reading.

I remind the reader that Marina Oswald is a native Russian speaker, and although she was college educated in pharmacology at Minsk, she was only beginning to learn English in late 1963, so her sentences show this sort of beginner's vocabulary.

------- BEGIN EXTRACT FROM MARINA OSWALD TO LEE RANKIN -- WC VOLUME 1 -----

Before the incident with General Walker, I know that Lee was preparing for something. He took photographs of that house and he told me not to enter his room. I didn't know about these photographs, but when I came into the room once he tried to make it so that I would spend less time in that room. I noticed that accidentally once when I was cleaning the room – he tried to take more care of it himself.

I asked him, what kind of photographs are these, but he didn't say anything to me. Those were the photographs of the Walker house that I was asking about.

Wonder how she was able to say it was a photograph of Walker's house? Hmmm......

Later, after Lee shot at Walker, he told me about it. I didn't know that he intended to do it – or that he was planning to do it. I believe he had been practicing with the rifle. I think that he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the rifle, but I knew that Lee was practicing because he told me. He would mention that in passing – it isn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take this rifle in my hands here and go out to practice," but he would say, "Well, today I’ll take the rifle along for practice." So, I don't know whether he took it from the house or whether he had the rifle somewhere outside. There was a little square, sort of a little courtyard where he might have kept it.

Also, Lee didn't only have a rifle, but he also had a gun, a revolver. I remember it first on Neely Street, but I think he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice -- once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs. I don’t remember the period of time between when I first saw the rifle and the time that I first saw the pistol.

When I testified about his practicing with the rifle, I was describing a period when we were still at Neely Street. I don’t know where he practiced with the rifle. I don't know the name of the place where this took place, but I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield, or perhaps Love Field – that is an airport, no? I think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range.

I don’t recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it; I hadn't paid any attention initially. A rifle was a rifle; I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing the lens was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. Possibly the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that. I made an objection to having the rifle around. Lee said that for a man to have a rifle, since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him; a fine life.

That was the same rifle that I was referring to that I took the picture of with Lee and when he had the pistol, too. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business – it was a man's business. If I had known these were such dangerous toys – of course I thought that Lee had changed in that direction and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him – just playing around.

I dimly recall the day that I took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol; I think that that was towards the end of February or the beginning of March. I can't say exactly, because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me if someone had ever asked me to photograph. No. I do remember it was on a Sunday. I was hanging up diapers and he came up to me with the rifle and I was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time.

Took the picture in Feb or early March? Before he 'ordered' the rifle from Klein's? Just one of the mistakes the writer made? If she took these photo's, why did he later make some at his employment place?

I did not examine the picture or notice that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

I had nothing to do with the prints of the photograph, or after the prints were made, that is, I didn’t put them in a photographic album myself. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn't need photographs like that.

I dimly recall how long after that the Walker matter occurred; two, perhaps three weeks later. I know better when this happened. I first learned that Lee had shot at General Walker like this: that evening he went out I thought that he had gone to his classes or perhaps that he just walked out or went out on his own business. It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried; perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it – I was pacing around.

Then I saw a note there. I did not look for the gun at that time. I didn't understand anything. On the note it said, "If I am arrested" and there are certain other questions, such as, for example, the key to the mailbox is in such and such a place, and that he left me some money to last me for some time, and I couldn't understand at all what he would be arrested for. When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker.

Of course I didn't sleep all night. I thought that any minute now, the police will come. Of course I wanted to ask him a great deal. But in his state I decided I had best leave him alone it would be purposeless to question him. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did I do with it?" He said, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know – I am not a criminologist.

I told him that he had no right to kill people in peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that night be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives. I told him that this is no method to prove my ideas, by means of a rifle.

Any guess as to why Oswald would refer to Walker (Radical right wing, your words) as a fascist (radical left winger, my words) exactly the opposite of what Walker's politics were.

He said he had been planning for two months. Yes--perhaps he had planned to do so even earlier, but according to his conduct I could tell he was planning--he had been planning this for two months or perhaps a little even earlier. He showed me a picture of the Walker house then; after the shooting. He had a notebook in which he noted quite a few details. It was all in English, I didn't read it. But I noticed the photograph. Sometimes he would lock himself in his room and write in the book. I thought that he was writing some other kind of memoirs, as he had written about his life in the Soviet Union.

I never read that book. I know of nothing else he had in it besides this Walker house picture. Photographs and notes, and I think there was a map in there. It was a map of Dallas, but I don't know where Walker lived. Sometimes evenings he would be busy with this.

Perhaps he was calculating something, but I don't know. He had a bus schedule and computed something.

After this had happened, people thought that he had a car, but he had been using a bus. Lee explained to me about his being able to use a bus just as well as other people could use a car – simply as a passenger. He told me that even before that time he had gone also to shoot, but he had returned. I don't know why. Because on the day that he did shoot, there was a Church across the street and there were many people there, and it was easier to merge in the crowd and not be noticed.

I asked him about this note that he had left, what he meant by it – he said he had in mind that if in case he were arrested, I would know what to do. The note doesn't say anything about Walker. I asked him if that is what he meant by the note – as soon as he came home I showed him the note and asked him "What is the meaning of this?" And that is when he gave me the explanation about the Walker shooting.

I know that on a Sunday he took the rifle, but I don't think he shot it on a Sunday. Perhaps that was on Friday. So Sunday he left with the rifle. The Walker shooting was in the middle of the week – maybe on Wednesday. When he shot, he did not know whether he had hit Walker or not. He ran several kilometers and then took the bus. He turned on the radio and listened, but there were no reports. The next day he bought a paper and there he read that it was only bare chance that saved Walker's life. If he had not moved, he might have been killed.

Lee said only that he had taken very good aim, that it was just chance that caused him to miss. He was very sorry that he had not hit him. I asked him to give me his word that he would not repeat anything like that. I said that this accident proves that Walker must live and that he should not be shot at again. I told him that I would save the note and that if something like that would be repeated again, I would go to the police and I would have the proof in the form of that note. He said he would not repeat anything like that again.

By the way, several days after that, the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as I recall, practically as soon as he opened the door he said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he became speechless. I saw that other people knew Lee better than I did; not always – but in this case, yes.

De Mohrenschildt was a friend, but Lee did not tell him personal things that I knew of. He asked Lee not because Lee had told him about it, but because he was smart enough to guess it. He was simply a liberal man (and I don't think that he was justly accused of being a Communist).

I didn’t tell the authorities anything about this Walker incident when I learned about it. I told the Secret Service and the FBI people the reasons why I didn't. First, because he was Lee; as far as I know, according to the local laws here, a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband. But, of course, if I had known that Lee intended to repeat something like that, I would have told.

Lee didn’t ask me to return the note to him; he forgot about it. But apparently after that he thought that what he had written in his book might be proof against him, and he destroyed his book! That was his notebook that I just referred to in which he had the Walker house picture.

I kept the note that he left for me after I said I was going to keep it; I have it among my things in a cookbook. I don't remember in which one.

My relations with Lee changed after this Walker incident. Soon after that, Lee lost his job – I don't know for what reason. He was upset by it. And he looked for work for several days. And when the idea of New Orleans came up, I insisted that it would be better for him to go to New Orleans where he had relatives. I insisted on that because I wanted to get him further removed from Dallas and from Walker, because even though he gave me his word, I wanted to have him further away, because a rifle for him was not a good toy – it was too enticing.

But what I told him was simply that I wanted to see his home town – where he was born. When he promised that he would not do anything like that again, I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house. I asked him to get rid of the rifle at that time. After he shot at Walker, I didn’t notice his taking the rifle out any more to practice. We went to New Orleans in May. Lee went there by himself, first.

------- END EXTRACT FROM MARINA OSWALD TO LEE RANKIN -- WC VOLUME 1 -----

As you suggested, Kenneth, please let me konw what part of Marina's testimony that you will accept, and what part you don't accept.

Basically I believe someone, perhaps a staffer on the Warren Commission, wrote this for her to fit the story the Warren Commission was going to tell. If any of the story about him having a rifle is true, it is apparently a rifle he had prior to February of that year, which would exclude the Manlicher Carcano If there is anything 'true' in this statement, it is insignificant to the assassination or the shooting at Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.

I understand all that. I agree that he quit. But if your boss comes in and tells you that you've been a bad boy and just go sit in the corner until you decide to retire, that's essentially what they did to Walker. Told he would never 'command again', do you think he had a lot of options. I think his resignation was a sign of formal protest. You do know that his pension was restored later.

What was he protesting.

Surely you know the answer to that. Your statement " that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been communists themselves" doesn't seem to be likely. How could the 'government' be communist? As for the past 4 presidents, I don't think any of them were communists and I've never seen any claim that Walker accused them of being communist themselves. That they were all influenced by communists, yes...especially FDR, and Truman to some extent and maybe even Ike, but I've not seen anything linking any communists to JFK. Walker certainly had an inside track to knowledge about the persons influencing presidents than I ever had.

How and when did Eisenhower and Hoover develop this 'personal friendship'? If you can give me a link to something the Birchers put out that accused Eisenhower of being a 'conscious agent of the Communist Party'. As I've said before, Ike worked with a lot of them, allies during WWII and probably developed a respect for the ones he worked with, but I don't think anyone has ever declared that Eisenhower was a 'communist agent'.

Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..

If that's your problem with General Walker, I think it's time you started a serious reassessment as you seem to have totally have missed the mark on his reason for resigning. As far as Walker and Mississippi, Walker went there to protest, a right he defended in the military for most of his life. Why would Pres JFK violate the basic constitutional rights of Americans by using federal troops in a situation where it was not called for. Had the troops not been sent there at JFK's orders, the riots and deaths probably would not have occurred. I see no blame on Walker for JFK's misuse of his authority.

2. ...President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.

Eisenhower illegally or improperly using federal troops is/was not a good precedent. Just because a law has been broken in the past does not establish precedent that it is a good thing to do.

3. Why didn't those links you supplied above indicate the things you are claiming. One of them said a woman was holding a sign and that when someone bumped into her arm it did brush against Stevenson, but you'll note the woman was not arrested for assault, as I'm sure no 'intent' could be shown. Spitting? that's 'violence'. ? And tell me again how someone (Walker) that wasn't even there was 'responsible'. Your newspaper articles talk of a protest rally but I see nothing of an 'attack' on Stevenson and no relationship to Walker for the protest rally? It doesn't help your argument when you start 'making it up'

How did Walker get to the ceiling of the auditorium to attach that banner? You suppose the hired hands at the auditorium provided him with scaffolding? And you would put that in the category as an "attack".? Hmmmm....

5. Tell all of us why Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas in October, 1963? I believe he likely had an office in Washington DC and maybe one at or near the UN hdqtrs in New York, but what would be his reason to be in Texas in Oct 63? What was his speech about? Oh, it 'wasn't' and 'attack' it was a 'political attack'. Maybe if you can clearly tell us why Stevenson was in Dallas that day, you might determine that it was itself, an attack. So fill us in on why he was there?

7. The JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.

Civilian? led. As in 'not military'. If I knew all the answers, and I've read so many books about it since '6 Seconds in Dallas', I would write my own book, but several stories seem to be possible, but for me, while there are some things I certainly don't know, there are a few that I do know. LHO was NOT a shooter. LHO did not kill JDT. LHO did not own a rifle. The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved.

Kenneth, I'm glad that despite our political differences, we can agree on some basic concepts here. Let me offer some more documentation to support my claims.

1. As for Walker's forfeit of this 30-year Army Pension, yes, I agree that it was later restored -- but that was 22 years later -- and he had to beg and plead for it. I simply see no rational explanation for his refusal to accept his well-earned Army Pension. He hurt nobody but himself.

As for Walker allegedly having "inside knowledge" of US Presidents, he had no more than the Pentagon, surely, and they didn't resign their offices. No, actually, despite his brilliant military career, Edwin Walker was no great intellectual. He believed whatever Robert Welch of the JBS wrote, e.g. in 1959, Welch wrote that President Eisenhower was a communist, and Walker submitted his first resignation in 1959. I see a connection.

As for documented proof that Robert Welch called President Eisenhower a "conscious agent of Communism," I supply the following from Ernie Lazar's own links for Welch's so-called Black Book:

"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p. 267)

"For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p 268)

Regarding J. Edgar Hoover's personal connection with President Eisenhower, I supply the following documents:

During his Presidency and afterwards at Gettysburg, I was close with Gen. Eisenhower. He was a great man and a great President.” [01/72 interview of Hoover in Nation’s Business magazine]

Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man." [J. Edgar Hoover testimony before Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101]

I have received your letter dated September 25, 1963. Any rumors you have heard indicating the FBI has evidence that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower is a communist are completely false and too absurd to merit consideration.” [FBI HQ file 62-81742, serial #263, the 10/2/63 Hoover reply to a private letter about Ike]

As for the Ole Miss riots, Kenneth, we must agree to disagree. I take the word of Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi, who was an eye-witness at those riots.

2. The same applies to the Little Rock, Arkansas episode in 1957. I agree with Duncan Gray, i.e. that President Eisenhower acted in obedience to Supreme Court ruling on the Brown Decision.

3. As for my use of the word, 'attack' in the context of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on October 24, 1963, that word came from the newspapers themselves. Of course it doesn't mean a military attack, but a political attack. But you knew that.

As for Walker's team hanging a large JBS banner from the ceiling of the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is an indication of the great respect that Edwin Walker had in Dallas from 1961-1963. Witnesses say he had over a hundred people in his team that night.

5. As for Adlai Stevenson's purpose in Dallas in October, 1963, it is well known. The occasion was "UN Day" and Adlai was the Ambassador to the United Nations at that time. He was giving a speech in support of the UN. He was profoundly ignorant, however, that Dallas was a key center for the JBS which openly hated the UN, and published for years their hatred of the UN, calling it a Communist Conspiracy.

How could Adlai ignore the signs? In the same way, the Secret Service ignored the signs just one month later.

7. Finally, Kenneth, I'm very gratified by your final words on this topic of the JFK assassination: "The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved."

On this point you and I agree 100%.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.

I understand all that. I agree that he quit. But if your boss comes in and tells you that you've been a bad boy and just go sit in the corner until you decide to retire, that's essentially what they did to Walker. Told he would never 'command again', do you think he had a lot of options. I think his resignation was a sign of formal protest. You do know that his pension was restored later.

What was he protesting.

Surely you know the answer to that. Your statement " that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been communists themselves" doesn't seem to be likely. How could the 'government' be communist? As for the past 4 presidents, I don't think any of them were communists and I've never seen any claim that Walker accused them of being communist themselves. That they were all influenced by communists, yes...especially FDR, and Truman to some extent and maybe even Ike, but I've not seen anything linking any communists to JFK. Walker certainly had an inside track to knowledge about the persons influencing presidents than I ever had.

How and when did Eisenhower and Hoover develop this 'personal friendship'? If you can give me a link to something the Birchers put out that accused Eisenhower of being a 'conscious agent of the Communist Party'. As I've said before, Ike worked with a lot of them, allies during WWII and probably developed a respect for the ones he worked with, but I don't think anyone has ever declared that Eisenhower was a 'communist agent'.

Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..

If that's your problem with General Walker, I think it's time you started a serious reassessment as you seem to have totally have missed the mark on his reason for resigning. As far as Walker and Mississippi, Walker went there to protest, a right he defended in the military for most of his life. Why would Pres JFK violate the basic constitutional rights of Americans by using federal troops in a situation where it was not called for. Had the troops not been sent there at JFK's orders, the riots and deaths probably would not have occurred. I see no blame on Walker for JFK's misuse of his authority.

2. ...President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.

Eisenhower illegally or improperly using federal troops is/was not a good precedent. Just because a law has been broken in the past does not establish precedent that it is a good thing to do.

3. Why didn't those links you supplied above indicate the things you are claiming. One of them said a woman was holding a sign and that when someone bumped into her arm it did brush against Stevenson, but you'll note the woman was not arrested for assault, as I'm sure no 'intent' could be shown. Spitting? that's 'violence'. ? And tell me again how someone (Walker) that wasn't even there was 'responsible'. Your newspaper articles talk of a protest rally but I see nothing of an 'attack' on Stevenson and no relationship to Walker for the protest rally? It doesn't help your argument when you start 'making it up'

How did Walker get to the ceiling of the auditorium to attach that banner? You suppose the hired hands at the auditorium provided him with scaffolding? And you would put that in the category as an "attack".? Hmmmm....

5. Tell all of us why Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas in October, 1963? I believe he likely had an office in Washington DC and maybe one at or near the UN hdqtrs in New York, but what would be his reason to be in Texas in Oct 63? What was his speech about? Oh, it 'wasn't' and 'attack' it was a 'political attack'. Maybe if you can clearly tell us why Stevenson was in Dallas that day, you might determine that it was itself, an attack. So fill us in on why he was there?

7. The JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.

Civilian? led. As in 'not military'. If I knew all the answers, and I've read so many books about it since '6 Seconds in Dallas', I would write my own book, but several stories seem to be possible, but for me, while there are some things I certainly don't know, there are a few that I do know. LHO was NOT a shooter. LHO did not kill JDT. LHO did not own a rifle. The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved.

Kenneth, I'm glad that despite our political differences, we can agree on some basic concepts here. Let me offer some more documentation to support my claims.

1. As for Walker's forfeit of this 30-year Army Pension, yes, I agree that it was later restored -- but that was 22 years later -- and he had to beg and plead for it. I simply see no rational explanation for his refusal to accept his well-earned Army Pension. He hurt nobody but himself.

This I take as his way of showing that he was a man of principle. Would most people have done that? Not likely.

As for Walker allegedly having "inside knowledge" of US Presidents, he had no more than the Pentagon, surely, and they didn't resign their offices. No, actually, despite his brilliant military career, Edwin Walker was no great intellectual. He believed whatever Robert Welch of the JBS wrote, e.g. in 1959, Welch wrote that President Eisenhower was a communist, and Walker submitted his first resignation in 1959. I see a connection.

Inside knowledge, only from the perspective that he was much closer to the president in his military roles than most civilians will ever be. I have no knowledge of his intellect, but he certainly seemed to be a man of high patriotic principles as he was very concerned with the communist infiltration of the government. Even if Welch did write that Ike was a communist, and I don't believe that he did, that says nothing about Walker's belief's about Eisenhower. Being 'an agent of the communists' I take to mean he is being 'used' by the communists. I see quite a distinction. Surely you would not contend that FDR was not used intensely by the Communists. You will recall, as I mentioned before, that the Communists were allies of the US during WWII and there was needs for them to work together. Eisenhower must have worked with several Soviets in his role as Supreme Commander and i'm sure respected some of them. I think Walker was capable of keeping those scenarios separate and would just advise Ike to beware.

As for documented proof that Robert Welch called President Eisenhower a "conscious agent of Communism," I supply the following from Ernie Lazar's own links for Welch's so-called Black Book:

First, I have no respect for Ernie Lazar or any of his opinions.

"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p. 267)

"For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p 268)

Regarding J. Edgar Hoover's personal connection with President Eisenhower, I supply the following documents:

During his Presidency and afterwards at Gettysburg, I was close with Gen. Eisenhower. He was a great man and a great President.” [01/72 interview of Hoover in Nation’s Business magazine]

Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man." [J. Edgar Hoover testimony before Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101]

I have received your letter dated September 25, 1963. Any rumors you have heard indicating the FBI has evidence that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower is a communist are completely false and too absurd to merit consideration.” [FBI HQ file 62-81742, serial #263, the 10/2/63 Hoover reply to a private letter about Ike]

Neither of those two quotes are of value to me, they are opinions, everyone has one.

As for the Ole Miss riots, Kenneth, we must agree to disagree. I take the word of Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi, who was an eye-witness at those riots.

Of what value is an eye witness. The question was should JFK have ordered Federal troops to Mississippi, the answer is no. It was not legal. How does an eye witness change that?

2. The same applies to the Little Rock, Arkansas episode in 1957. I agree with Duncan Gray, i.e. that President Eisenhower acted in obedience to Supreme Court ruling on the Brown Decision.

BS, the Supreme Court did not rule that Eisenhower should send Federal troops to Little Rock.

3. As for my use of the word, 'attack' in the context of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on October 24, 1963, that word came from the newspapers themselves. Of course it doesn't mean a military attack, but a political attack. But you knew that.

Newspapers are notoriously liberal and don't have much use for patriotic Americans and don't tend to slant their stories toward the truth. Other than that........

'Political attack', would that be like a 'protest rally'?

As for Walker's team hanging a large JBS banner from the ceiling of the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is an indication of the great respect that Edwin Walker had in Dallas from 1961-1963. Witnesses say he had over a hundred people in his team that night.

Oh, so now it's not Walker doing it, but his 'team' doing it. Let me make a note of that. Note: Hanging a banner equals a 'political attack'. got it......

5. As for Adlai Stevenson's purpose in Dallas in October, 1963, it is well known. The occasion was "UN Day" and Adlai was the Ambassador to the United Nations at that time. He was giving a speech in support of the UN. He was profoundly ignorant, however, that Dallas was a key center for the JBS which openly hated the UN, and published for years their hatred of the UN, calling it a Communist Conspiracy.

I like your comment that Stevenson was 'profoundly ignorant', few would disagree. And why would he pick Dallas Texas to make a speech promoting the UN? and only one month before JFK's visit. Think that might have been part of the JFK Assassination Conspiracy? Sure fits in. Wonder why he didn't make that speech in Boise, ID or Missoula, Montana? Why Dallas and why then? Hmmmm.........

How could Adlai ignore the signs? In the same way, the Secret Service ignored the signs just one month later.

Ah so...... Did he ignore the signs? Was he 'the sign'? Did the SS 'ignore' the signs? or create them? Maybe they created exactly the situation they desired for Nov 22. I'm kinda 'leaning' here.

7. Finally, Kenneth, I'm very gratified by your final words on this topic of the JFK assassination: "The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved."

'government was 'very' involved" as in " Did he ignore the signs? Was he 'the sign'? Did the SS 'ignore' the signs? or create them? Maybe they created exactly the situation they desired for Nov 22. I'm kinda 'leaning' here." You may be turning in the right direction, but you need to quit looking toward Edwin Walker and looking at the conspirators.

On this point you and I agree 100%.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I appreciate your comments Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Resignation was an act of political protest, and he was warned that to resign from the Army in protest, that he would forfeit his 30 year pension. Yet he resigned.

I understand all that. I agree that he quit. But if your boss comes in and tells you that you've been a bad boy and just go sit in the corner until you decide to retire, that's essentially what they did to Walker. Told he would never 'command again', do you think he had a lot of options. I think his resignation was a sign of formal protest. You do know that his pension was restored later.

What was he protesting.

Surely you know the answer to that. Your statement " that the US Government and even the past four US Presidents had all been communists themselves" doesn't seem to be likely. How could the 'government' be communist? As for the past 4 presidents, I don't think any of them were communists and I've never seen any claim that Walker accused them of being communist themselves. That they were all influenced by communists, yes...especially FDR, and Truman to some extent and maybe even Ike, but I've not seen anything linking any communists to JFK. Walker certainly had an inside track to knowledge about the persons influencing presidents than I ever had.

How and when did Eisenhower and Hoover develop this 'personal friendship'? If you can give me a link to something the Birchers put out that accused Eisenhower of being a 'conscious agent of the Communist Party'. As I've said before, Ike worked with a lot of them, allies during WWII and probably developed a respect for the ones he worked with, but I don't think anyone has ever declared that Eisenhower was a 'communist agent'.

Like most Americans, I do have a problem with that racial riot in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded..

If that's your problem with General Walker, I think it's time you started a serious reassessment as you seem to have totally have missed the mark on his reason for resigning. As far as Walker and Mississippi, Walker went there to protest, a right he defended in the military for most of his life. Why would Pres JFK violate the basic constitutional rights of Americans by using federal troops in a situation where it was not called for. Had the troops not been sent there at JFK's orders, the riots and deaths probably would not have occurred. I see no blame on Walker for JFK's misuse of his authority.

2. ...President Eisenhower called upon Federal Troops in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, so that thirteen Black American school children could go to high school there, against the violent clamor of the local PTA.

Eisenhower illegally or improperly using federal troops is/was not a good precedent. Just because a law has been broken in the past does not establish precedent that it is a good thing to do.

3. Why didn't those links you supplied above indicate the things you are claiming. One of them said a woman was holding a sign and that when someone bumped into her arm it did brush against Stevenson, but you'll note the woman was not arrested for assault, as I'm sure no 'intent' could be shown. Spitting? that's 'violence'. ? And tell me again how someone (Walker) that wasn't even there was 'responsible'. Your newspaper articles talk of a protest rally but I see nothing of an 'attack' on Stevenson and no relationship to Walker for the protest rally? It doesn't help your argument when you start 'making it up'

How did Walker get to the ceiling of the auditorium to attach that banner? You suppose the hired hands at the auditorium provided him with scaffolding? And you would put that in the category as an "attack".? Hmmmm....

5. Tell all of us why Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas in October, 1963? I believe he likely had an office in Washington DC and maybe one at or near the UN hdqtrs in New York, but what would be his reason to be in Texas in Oct 63? What was his speech about? Oh, it 'wasn't' and 'attack' it was a 'political attack'. Maybe if you can clearly tell us why Stevenson was in Dallas that day, you might determine that it was itself, an attack. So fill us in on why he was there?

7. The JFK assassination was a civilian-led plot, and anybody from the Government who joined, was joining a civilian plot, including CIA rogues like Howard Hunt and David Morales. I wonder if you're open to that degree of involvement.

Civilian? led. As in 'not military'. If I knew all the answers, and I've read so many books about it since '6 Seconds in Dallas', I would write my own book, but several stories seem to be possible, but for me, while there are some things I certainly don't know, there are a few that I do know. LHO was NOT a shooter. LHO did not kill JDT. LHO did not own a rifle. The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved.

Kenneth, I'm glad that despite our political differences, we can agree on some basic concepts here. Let me offer some more documentation to support my claims.

1. As for Walker's forfeit of this 30-year Army Pension, yes, I agree that it was later restored -- but that was 22 years later -- and he had to beg and plead for it. I simply see no rational explanation for his refusal to accept his well-earned Army Pension. He hurt nobody but himself.

This I take as his way of showing that he was a man of principle. Would most people have done that? Not likely.

As for Walker allegedly having "inside knowledge" of US Presidents, he had no more than the Pentagon, surely, and they didn't resign their offices. No, actually, despite his brilliant military career, Edwin Walker was no great intellectual. He believed whatever Robert Welch of the JBS wrote, e.g. in 1959, Welch wrote that President Eisenhower was a communist, and Walker submitted his first resignation in 1959. I see a connection.

Inside knowledge, only from the perspective that he was much closer to the president in his military roles than most civilians will ever be. I have no knowledge of his intellect, but he certainly seemed to be a man of high patriotic principles as he was very concerned with the communist infiltration of the government. Even if Welch did write that Ike was a communist, and I don't believe that he did, that says nothing about Walker's belief's about Eisenhower. Being 'an agent of the communists' I take to mean he is being 'used' by the communists. I see quite a distinction. Surely you would not contend that FDR was not used intensely by the Communists. You will recall, as I mentioned before, that the Communists were allies of the US during WWII and there was needs for them to work together. Eisenhower must have worked with several Soviets in his role as Supreme Commander and i'm sure respected some of them. I think Walker was capable of keeping those scenarios separate and would just advise Ike to beware.

As for documented proof that Robert Welch called President Eisenhower a "conscious agent of Communism," I supply the following from Ernie Lazar's own links for Welch's so-called Black Book:

First, I have no respect for Ernie Lazar or any of his opinions.

"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p. 267)

"For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." (Robert Welch, THE POLITICIAN, 1959, p 268)

Regarding J. Edgar Hoover's personal connection with President Eisenhower, I supply the following documents:

During his Presidency and afterwards at Gettysburg, I was close with Gen. Eisenhower. He was a great man and a great President.” [01/72 interview of Hoover in Nation’s Business magazine]

Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man." [J. Edgar Hoover testimony before Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101]

I have received your letter dated September 25, 1963. Any rumors you have heard indicating the FBI has evidence that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower is a communist are completely false and too absurd to merit consideration.” [FBI HQ file 62-81742, serial #263, the 10/2/63 Hoover reply to a private letter about Ike]

Neither of those two quotes are of value to me, they are opinions, everyone has one.

As for the Ole Miss riots, Kenneth, we must agree to disagree. I take the word of Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi, who was an eye-witness at those riots.

Of what value is an eye witness. The question was should JFK have ordered Federal troops to Mississippi, the answer is no. It was not legal. How does an eye witness change that?

2. The same applies to the Little Rock, Arkansas episode in 1957. I agree with Duncan Gray, i.e. that President Eisenhower acted in obedience to Supreme Court ruling on the Brown Decision.

BS, the Supreme Court did not rule that Eisenhower should send Federal troops to Little Rock.

3. As for my use of the word, 'attack' in the context of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on October 24, 1963, that word came from the newspapers themselves. Of course it doesn't mean a military attack, but a political attack. But you knew that.

Newspapers are notoriously liberal and don't have much use for patriotic Americans and don't tend to slant their stories toward the truth. Other than that........

'Political attack', would that be like a 'protest rally'?

As for Walker's team hanging a large JBS banner from the ceiling of the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, this is an indication of the great respect that Edwin Walker had in Dallas from 1961-1963. Witnesses say he had over a hundred people in his team that night.

Oh, so now it's not Walker doing it, but his 'team' doing it. Let me make a note of that. Note: Hanging a banner equals a 'political attack'. got it......

5. As for Adlai Stevenson's purpose in Dallas in October, 1963, it is well known. The occasion was "UN Day" and Adlai was the Ambassador to the United Nations at that time. He was giving a speech in support of the UN. He was profoundly ignorant, however, that Dallas was a key center for the JBS which openly hated the UN, and published for years their hatred of the UN, calling it a Communist Conspiracy.

I like your comment that Stevenson was 'profoundly ignorant', few would disagree. And why would he pick Dallas Texas to make a speech promoting the UN? and only one month before JFK's visit. Think that might have been part of the JFK Assassination Conspiracy? Sure fits in. Wonder why he didn't make that speech in Boise, ID or Missoula, Montana? Why Dallas and why then? Hmmmm.........

How could Adlai ignore the signs? In the same way, the Secret Service ignored the signs just one month later.

Ah so...... Did he ignore the signs? Was he 'the sign'? Did the SS 'ignore' the signs? or create them? Maybe they created exactly the situation they desired for Nov 22. I'm kinda 'leaning' here.

7. Finally, Kenneth, I'm very gratified by your final words on this topic of the JFK assassination: "The government was 'very' involved in it as well as some of the military(not as an organization, just some high individuals) Who's overall plan was it? Let's say there was probably a lot of Texans involved."

'government was 'very' involved" as in " Did he ignore the signs? Was he 'the sign'? Did the SS 'ignore' the signs? or create them? Maybe they created exactly the situation they desired for Nov 22. I'm kinda 'leaning' here." You may be turning in the right direction, but you need to quit looking toward Edwin Walker and looking at the conspirators.

On this point you and I agree 100%.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I appreciate your comments Paul.

Some people have no clue about the difference between a personal "opinion" versus verifiable and indisputable FACT.

Anybody can read exactly what Robert Welch said about Eisenhower because I donated Welch's manuscript to Internet Archive.

The pages containing the most often quoted statements made by Welch are here:

https://archive.org/stream/foia_Welch_Robert-The_Word_Is_Treason-1958.PDF/Welch_Robert-The_Word_Is_Treason-1958#page/n13/mode/2up

But the entire manuscript is also available here:

https://archive.org/stream/foia_Welch_Robert_The_Politician_manuscript.PDF/Welch_Robert_The_Politician_manuscript#page/n0/mode/2up

No U.S. library has a copy of this "private letter" edition of The Politician. Welch loaned copies of his manuscript to trusted friends and acquaintances starting in 1954 but he periodically updated his manuscript during the 1950's. The last revision (the one I donated to Internet Archive) was revised in June 1958 and loaned out starting in August 1958.

During my debates with JBS members about The Politician they frequently have (falsely) claimed that Welch never called President Eisenhower a Communist.
Instead, according to some Birchers, Welch offered a relatively benign option, namely, that Ike might just have been a political opportunist -- hence, the title of Welch's narrative, i.e. "The Politician".
But in both the unpublished 1950's version of his manuscript and in the subsequent edited 1963 and 2002 published editions of The Politician, Welch was explicit about his evaluation of Eisenhower.
There are many passages in both the published and unpublished versions of The Politician wherein Welch makes clear that he considered Eisenhower a Communist traitor.
Below I quote a few examples.
In discussing Eisenhower’s appointment of Philip C. Jessup, Robert Welch refers to Eisenhower as “he and his fellow Communists [The Politician, unpublished version, page 214]
In discussing Eisenhower’s appointment of James B. Conant, Robert Welch refers to “the appointment of Conant…made by a Communist President…” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 221]
and
“In my opinion the chances are very strong that Milton Eisenhower is actually Dwight Eisenhower’s superior and boss within the Communist Party.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 210]
“We think that an objective survey of Eisenhower’s associates and appointments shows clever Communist brains, aided by willing Communist hands, always at work to give the Communists more power, and to weaken the anti-Communist resistance.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 239]
“For Eisenhower and his Communist bosses and their pro-Communist appointees are gradually taking over our whole government right under the noses of the American people.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 238-239]
Welch refers to Eisenhower’s actions in Europe which “show his sympathies with the Communist cause and friendship for the Kremlin tyrants…[The Politician, unpublished version, page 263]
“For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower’s motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy for all of his adult life.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 266]
“But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 267]

Some of Welch's personal friends (such as Elizabeth Churchill Brown and Alfred Kohlberg) wrote letters to Welch suggesting corrections to what they considered factual errors in his manuscript (copies in my possession). Welch politely thanked them for their communication, but he never revised a single word.

After first vehemently denying any connection between The Politician and the John Birch Society, eventually, the JBS explicitly endorsed The Politician after it was published in 1963. For example:
JBS Bulletin, 09/63:
Robert Welch declared that The Politician "has now proved to be by far the most effective single help to our recruiting efforts."
JBS Bulletin, 6/63
Welch encouraged JBS members to make The Politician "the largest selling book in all history".
AND, in a 8/22/62 letter to Ezra Taft Benson in which he offered to send a copy of the unpublished edition of The Politician to Benson, Mr. Welch told Benson:
"For there are quite a number of outstanding Americans who are among our strongest and most unshakable supporters who had been made so by reading this document; and we have never really had any trouble with, or criticism from, those who have actually read the 'letter' themselves..."
THEN...in 2002, the JBS published a new edition of The Politician. This new edition is self-described on the back cover as the most devastating expose of the last century” because ittells the bitter, but little known truth” about our postwar history and Eisenhower's role in that history AND the back cover statement concludes:
“But most importantly, The Politician exposes that ‘conspiracy of gangsters’ which even now is setting America’s foreign and domestic policy.”
Edited by Ernie Lazar
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...