Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

The fundamental points remain the same:

(1) when adjudicated within our legal institutions, the charges made regarding Walker's behavior were found to be false and libelous, and

(2) the FBI investigation into the Ole Miss incident produced conflicting statements from "eyewitnesses"

What is ironic about your response, Ernie, is that you're the one who stridently argues that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a racist.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

You lost me. Why is that "ironic"?

AND you still have not given us an example of ANY scholar who disputes that Walker was a racist.

BTW -- do YOU consider Gov. George Wallace (AL) to be a racist?

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul, here is a link to the beginnings of my opinions on book one. I'm enjoying reading it. I'm posting this link because it is about 6 pages as of now, a little lengthy to post here on this blog. If you think I should post it you can comment.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Cl13iUKLkDin3fZ7ApqenBS1C8p4rAmDx9rm2uVtJw/edit

Respectfully,

Kenneth Drew

Kenneth, I'd like to get your opinion on my theory that General Walker was not removed from his command in Augsburg, Germany in April 1961 because of his JBS membership or his Pro-Blue program (as if the Pentagon was ignorant of this before it was printed in the US Army newspaper, Overseas Weekly).

Rather, General Walker was removed from his command because of his "shore flap" with the Overseas Weekly in Europe during the Cold War.

The charges of Right-wing extremism were not made of Walker in his "admonishment" -- but it is only the CT literature of the past 50 years which has tried to sensationalize his removal -- trying to invent some 1961 clash between JFK and General Walker.

Actually, on April 16, 1961, JFK wasn't at all interested in the contents of the Overseas Weekly newspaper, because he was smack in the middle of the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

While it's true that General Walker held the general JBS attitude against JFK, it's also true that JFK didn't think about Walker very often at all -- since he was far too busy to be bothered with such trivial matters as an Overseas Weekly article.

Opinions?

All best,

--Paul Trejo

Kenneth Drew,

It's been more than a month since we've heard from you on this thread. Is everything all right?

I continue to consider your viewpoint to be interesting, and would like to hear your further thoughts about Ex-General Edwin Walker, who is the prime suspect of Jeff Caufield's conspiracy theory about JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI-DALLAS FIELD FILE ON EDWIN WALKER

I have uploaded sections 1 thru 3 of the Dallas FBI field office file about Walker to Internet Archive here:

https://archive.org/details/WalkerEdwinA.Dallas157218Sections13

However, the file is still in the process of spooling so the searchable version of this file ("PDF with text") has not yet finished. If you want to review the searchable version, it would probably be best to come back in about 2 hours to check if the "PDF with text" is available.

I have also posted the "1A" Dallas sub-file (newspaper articles) here:

https://archive.org/details/WalkerEdwinA.Dallas1A

I have only read about one-half of the main file but I have discovered a lot of details which I do not recall seeing before -- including info regarding Edwin Walker's connections to Klan officials in Louisiana (but of course Paul Trejo will tell us that does not mean anything!) In addition, there are serials which discuss INTERPEN and Jerry Patrick Hemming which I don't recall seeing before.

So far, I have seen very few redactions in this Walker file -- and the names of many informants have not been redacted even though I did not provide proof-of-death on those individuals. So, this file should be a very valuable addition to the available literature about Walker.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI-DALLAS FIELD FILE ON EDWIN WALKER

...

I have only read about one-half of the main file but I have discovered a lot of details which I do not recall seeing before -- including info regarding Edwin Walker's connections to Klan officials in Louisiana (but of course Paul Trejo will tell us that does not mean anything!) In addition, there are serials which discuss INTERPEN and Jerry Patrick Hemming which I don't recall seeing before...

Once again you misrepresent my position, Ernie. I have repeatedly said that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a COMPLEX personality with both good and bad traits.

One of his key traits was that he associated almost exclusively with Southern Racists in his bid for political position in the early 1960's. Walker supported Governor George Wallace in his bid for the White House.

At the same time, I've noted that there are no confirmed accounts of Walker ever using the "N" word in public, by contrast with Governor George Wallace who frequently used the "N" word in public.

Also, when Ex-General Walker made his tour of the USA, from Florida to Los Angeles, with the Segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis, Walker was directly asked about racism by the Los Angeles Times, and Walker told reporters that he didn't mind if individual States wished to racially integrate their public schools -- his political objection was that States were forced to racially integrate by the Federal Government -- with actual weapons directed against US citizens.

Walker consistently claimed that his argument was about States' Rights, and not about the superiority or inferiority of any racial group. General Walker had served not only in WW2, but also in Korea, where the troops were racially mixed, so he saw, first-hand, the abilities of Black Americans in patriotism and in combat.

Again -- Walker insisted that his objections to the racial integration of US public schools was an issue for States Rights. On the contrary, the KKK and the American Nazi Party would argue that white folks were racially superior, by some sort of genetic consideration. Edwin Walker spoke before those groups and accepted money from them, yet he refused to join them formally.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19660606_Walker_Joins_Nothing.JPG

In 1962 Walker did tell one young politician (who is a member of this Forum, IIRC) that he expected a race war in the USA, and that it would get so bad that the American public would beg the Pentagon to rule, which they would do, and then never again relinquish control to civilians. This military-orientation explains Walker better than any other paradigm.

Because young Edwin Walker was gay, his father had sent him to military school. Edwin Walker went directly from military school into West Point, and directly from West Point into World War Two, and then served in Taiwan before serving in the Korean War. All his life Walker had known only a military orientation -- and nothing else.

As for your sharing of the FBI Field File on Ex-General Walker with the public, Ernie, I'm sure I speak for many here who thank you for your efforts. The FBI section on Gerry Patrick Hemming will be of special interest to our JFK assassination history, as many readers here are familiar with Hemming's interviews over the decades.

As a few people may recall, Gerry Patrick Hemming was also a member of this Forum shortly before he died, although Hemming spoke very little about his relationship with Ex-General Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI-DALLAS FIELD FILE ON EDWIN WALKER

...

I have only read about one-half of the main file but I have discovered a lot of details which I do not recall seeing before -- including info regarding Edwin Walker's connections to Klan officials in Louisiana (but of course Paul Trejo will tell us that does not mean anything!) In addition, there are serials which discuss INTERPEN and Jerry Patrick Hemming which I don't recall seeing before.

So far, I have seen very few redactions in this Walker file -- and the names of many informants have not been redacted even though I did not provide proof-of-death on those individuals. So, this file should be a very valuable addition to the available literature about Walker.

Once again you misrepresent my position, Ernie. I have repeatedly said that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a COMPLEX personality with both good and bad traits.

One of his key traits was that he associated almost exclusively with Southern Racists in his bid for political position in the early 1960's. Walker supported Governor George Wallace in his bid for the White House.

At the same time, I've noted that there are no confirmed accounts of Walker ever using the "N" word in public, by contrast with Governor George Wallace who frequently used the "N" word in public.

Also, when Ex-General Walker made his tour of the USA, from Florida to Los Angeles, with the Segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis, Walker was directly asked sbout racism by a the Los Angeles Times, and Walker told reporters that he didn't mind if individual States wished to racially integrate their public schools -- his political objection was that States were forced to racially integrate by the Federal Government -- with actual weapons directed against US citizens.

Walker consistently claimed that his argument was about States' Rights, and not about the superiority or inferiority of any racial group. General Walker had served not only in WW2, but also in Korea, where the troops were racially mixed, so he saw first hand the abilities of Black Americans in combat.

Again -- Walker insisted that his objections to the racial integration of US public schools was an issue for States Rights. On the contrary, the KKK and the American Nazi Party would argue that white folks were racially superior, by some sort of genetic consideration. Edwin Walker spoke before those groups and accepted money from them, yet he refused to join them formally.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19660606_Walker_Joins_Nothing.JPG

In 1962 Walker did tell one young politician (who is a member of this Forum, IIRC) that he expected a race war in the USA, and that it would get so bad that the American public would beg the Pentagon to rule, which they would do, and then never again relinquish control to civilians. This military-orientation explains Walker better than any other paradigm.

Because young Edwin Walker was gay, his father sent him to military school. Edwin Walker went right from military school into West Point, and right from West Point into World War Two, and then served in China before serving in the Korean War. All his life Walker had known military orientation -- and nothing else.

As for your contribution of the FBI Field File on Ex-General Walker to the public, Ernie, I speak for many here who thank you for the efforts. The section on Gerry Patrick Hemming is of special interest to the JFK assassination history, as many readers here are very familiar with his writings and interviews over the decades.

As a few people may recall, Gerry Patrick Hemming was also a member of this Forum shortly before he died.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I have never "misrepresented" your position. You have adopted an extreme idiosyncratic definition of what constitutes indisputable evidence of racist sentiments.

In fact, I will take this a step further. I do not think you can find ANYBODY knowledgeable about the history of racism in our country OR about the history of Edwin Walker who agrees with your position -- and I have repeatedly challenged you to QUOTE any historian, political scientist, sociologist, or any scholar who agrees with you. You have NEVER done that because there is NOBODY who agrees with you.

Your own statements over the years prove, beyond dispute, how illogical you are. EVERYBODY has a "complex personality". So what?

Our debate concerns a very distinct PATTERN of behavior, associations, plus the underlying values and motivations which informed Walker's decision-making. I note, for the record (again!) that you would NEVER apply your argument's principles to any discussion of how we should correctly identify JBS members and sympathizers. Your criteria for that discussion is quite simple -- namely -- if somebody routinely uses JBS premises and advances JBS arguments -- then, in your judgment, they should be considered JBS members or JBS sympathizers -- which is PRECISELY why you have falsely identified many persons as "members" of the Birch Society--when they were NOT members. But you do NOT apply that same standard to discussions about racist sentiments -- particularly with respect to Walker.

Furthermore, you have never even bothered to give us a plausible explanation for the logical inferences which arise from your own admission that Walker "associated almost exclusively with Southern Racists".

You limit your comment to Walker's "bid for political position" but the actual reality is that Walker preferred those associations because he agreed with their larger arguments about the inferiority of African Americans--and the need to keep them segregated from whites. THAT is why the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America spent over 6 hours in a meeting with Walker to discuss, among other subjects, the possibility that Walker might want to accept the position of Grand Dragon of the UKA for the State of Texas --- a position which Walker told a friend of his that he was seriously considering!!!

In addition, you never seem able to understand the logical implications about why someone CHOOSES to associate himself with the most extreme racist elements within our country--including anti-semites. It would be different if your argument was that Walker was totally naive--i.e. he had no clue about the personal background of the people and organizations whom he considered friends and allies.

I have already addressed your specious argument about use of the n-word being some sort of exceptionally important dispositive evidence. MANY life-long racists never used the n-word. So what? And MANY (in fact, MOST) never joined the KKK. So what? Only YOU can invent such an incredibly stupid argument.

You keep repeating another TOTALLY specious argument about Walker being opposed only to "forced" racial integration.

You claim (falsely) that Walker was totally ok if a state wanted to racially integrate their public schools. He did NOT believe that -- regardless of what phony public relations statement he made to the L.A. Times.

Instead, he adopted the argument used by all radical rightists during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. Briefly, here is their position:

1. The aspirations of black Americans for racial equality and equal treatment under the laws of the U.S. were "Communist inspired" [it all began in the 1920's.]

2. ALL national civil rights organizations and national civil rights leaders were either CPUSA members or CPUSA sympathizers or CPUSA dupes.

3. The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision was NOT lawful.

4. Racial Integration (however it is put into place) was ILLEGAL.

5. The civil rights movement in our country "served only Communist purposes". [This was the JBS position]. Obviously, a movement working for societal change which allegedly "served only Communist purposes" (note the word "only") --- is, BY DEFINITION, subversive, illegal and perpetually unacceptable!

THAT is why Walker associated himself with Gov. Wallace who declared in his January 1963 inaugural address:

"Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever."

Notice that Wallace did not say what YOU falsely claim was Walker's position.

With respect to this comment by you:

"Walker consistently claimed that his argument was about States' Rights, and not about the superiority or inferiority of any racial group. General Walker had served not only in WW2, but also in Korea, where the troops were racially mixed, so he saw first hand the abilities of Black Americans in combat."

Are you really that naive? Do you always accept, at face value, whatever a racial bigot says? And you are very mistaken about our troops being "racially mixed" in World War II and Korea. Most African Americans who served during those wars were segregated into their own units.

With respect to this comment by you:

"Again -- Walker insisted that his objections to the racial integration of US public schools was an issue for States Rights. On the contrary, the KKK and the American Nazi Party would argue that white folks were racially superior, by some sort of genetic consideration. Edwin Walker spoke before those groups and accepted money from them, yet he refused to join them formally."

You continue to make a totally irrelevant observation.

As I have already explained upon numerous occasions, Walker had political ambitions and he knew with absolute certainty that he could NEVER achieve his ambitions if he ever joined any subversive organization (the KKK was on the Attorney General's List). Nevertheless, that did not prevent Walker from making statements which made it clear that he thought the KKK was an honorable and patriotic organization which attracted many decent, honorable, moral, principled, and intelligent Americans --- while he simultaneously excluded liberal organizations from that description.

Furthermore, you totally ignore and de-value the mountain of evidence which shows how Walker worked to achieve the goals of organizations like the KKK and ANP without becoming a formal member. As previously mentioned, there are always at least TEN TIMES the number of "state-of-mind" members/sympathizers as there are actual dues-paying members in almost every organization.

One last observation:

Walker almost certainly knew that members and endorsers of the KKK and the ANP were under constant monitoring by the FBI and military intelligence and by Police Department "subversive" squads -- AND that included infiltration by informants from all of those sources.

Consequently, don't you think Walker would be VERY reluctant to join ANY organization which he knew would result in immediate scrutiny of his every move by umpteen local, state and federal agencies?

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're simply mistaken about me, Ernie -- I don't have a racist bone in my body.

Its your words about General Walker that join the exoneration of his leadership role in the Ole Miss racial riots of 30 September 1962. Yet Walker was an obvious suspect, going by his own radio ads and TV interviews. Walker should have gone to prison for what he did at Ole Miss. Instead, he walked out smiling. .

Also -- let us please get this thread back on track of the JFK assassination, and especially to the new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield about his JFK Conspiracy Theory, namely, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

It seems to me that Edwin Walker always wanted to brag about his role in killing JFK and LHO at various times. He tried a few times, with the National Enquirer and with the Deutsche Nationalzeitung -- but his fellow conspirators held him back..

Walker's conspiratorial side always wanted to be on the front page. Walker leaked clues all over. Newspapers were his favorite medium. Walker wanted bragging rights. The National Enquirer articles scream his guilt. So did the German articles. Walker ENJOYED THIS and encouraged it.

Ultimately Walker wanted a rep as a bad-ass Commie-hater. With this, rep, he could have eventually gone all the way to the White House, in his mind.

Hi co-conspirators did not agree with his openness. The other conspirators-- especially his lawyers--- urged him to lie in his defense -- but that went again the generals' gin.

Regards

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're simply mistaken about me, Ernie -- I don't have a racist bone in my body.

Your words about General Walker, joined the exhoneration of him for his leadership role in the Ole Miss racial riots of 30 Septmeber 1962, Walker was the more glaring suspect IMHO. Walker should have gone to prinson for what he did at Ole Miss. Instead, he walked out smiling. .

Also -- let us please get this thread back on track of the JFK assassination, and especially to the new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield about his JFK Conspiracy Theory, namely, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

It seems to me that Edwin Walker always wanted to brag about his role in killing JFK and LHO at various times. He tried a few times, with the National Enquirer and with the National Zeitug -- but his fellow conspirators held him back..

Walker's conspirtoral side always wanted to be on the front page. Walker leadked clues all over. Newspapers were his favoiriet medium. Walker wanted bragging rights. The National Enquier articles scream guilty. So did the German articles. Walker ENJOYED THIS and encouraged it.

Ulltimately Walker wanted a rep as a bad-ass Commie-hater. With this, rep, he couldhave eventually gone all the way ito the White House,in his mind.

Hi co-conspirators did not agree with his openness. The other conspirators-- especially his lawyers--- urged him to lie in his defense -- but that went again the generals' gin.

Regards

--Paul Trejo.

It's so fascinating.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Regards,

--Paul Trejog

Another straw man argument. Nobody accused you of being a racist.

I have stated that you do not understand what racism means and the many ways in which it can be expressed.

The most insidious type is a subtle but conscious effort to keep an entire class of human beings subordinate in perpetuity because they are perceived as inferior morally and/or intellectually OR as YOU correctly described Walker's position:

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

ANY person motivated by THAT is, by definition, a racist! However, Walker was NOT "naive".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Ernie, since we are still talking about the JFK assassination, insofar as Jeff Caufield's new book names Ex-General Edwin Walker as the prime suspect, the topic of racism is only slightly tangential.

IMHO, the essential racist of the 20th century is the Nazi -- the political Party that has declared the genetic supremacy of the white race. There are a few (not many) echoes of this view in the USA, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, including the so-called "Christian Identity" movement, which preaches that only white people are human beings, and that Adam is a name that stands for white people only -- because only white people can blush, allegedly.

This is what I call racism -- the notion that there are stark genetic differences between people.

Offshoots of the KKK have also published screeds that declare that colored folks are really animals, or even "missing links" and so forth, in their twisted version of the theory of evolution.

These are the truly dangerous racists, worthy of the name racists. To pick at different cultural values, and different cultural and class origins of various nationalities may be offensive to some, it is nevertheless ubiquitous. It would be wrong to be too thin-skinned with regard to cultural sterotypes, IMHO.

I belong to a minority race myself, being Mexican-American, although my family has been in the USA for several generations, and the name Trejo goes back in California to the late 1700's.

Nevertheless, I'm sensitive to racial comments by others -- yet I'm also an American citizen, and I refuse to walk around paranoid of white folks. I can understand the fear of White Americans with regard to crime gangs, and violent political groups of color, voicing revenge -- for example, the shooting of the five Dallas Police officers last month.

We cannot close our eyes to the fact of racial tension in the USA, or make it go away with some Pollyanna attitude. It is a genuine American problem that only American politics can resolve. We've tried since the end of the Civil War in the 1800's, and since the dawn of the Civil Rights movement in the 1900's, and we still have the problem today.

I'm not a racist. Most Americans are not racists. There are a few racists in America, but thank God they don't have any political power to speak of. If things got truly out of control with racial riots as in the 1960's, then we might have to revisit the threat of Ex-General Edwin Walker, who prophesied that a race war is coming to the USA, which would utterly destroy civilian rule forever.

I think General Walker was mistaken -- I think his politics were mistaken. Yet I refuse to demonize him. He represents a significant portion of the American electorate, and unless we can reason with that portion, we will only delay the solution of our national issue.

It remains my opinion that JFK was killed over a combination of two issues: (1) Communist Cuba; and (2) Civil Rights marches.

Both of these issues terrified the ordinary US citizen in 1963. We are more mature today -- 53 years later -- but then again, Donald Trump has taken over the Republican Party, so this suggests that the Right Wing in the USA has not really found its voice or leadership among the status quo Republicans. It's the modern problem.

And yes, I believe all this is relevant to the JFK assassination, and to the conspiracy surrounding JFK's murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Ernie, since we are still talking about the JFK assassination, insofar as Jeff Caufield's new book names Ex-General Edwin Walker as the prime suspect, the topic of racism is only slightly tangential.

That is an odd statement since Caufield goes to extraordinary lengths to document the racist views and associations which motivated so many of the alleged key actors in the JFK murder conspiracy.

IMHO, the essential racist of the 20th century is the Nazi -- the political Party that has declared the genetic supremacy of the white race. There are a few (not many) echoes of this view in the USA, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, including the so-called "Christian Identity" movement, which preaches that only white people are human beings, and that Adam is a name that stands for white people only -- because only white people can blush, allegedly.

Another amazingly bizarre and ignorant viewpoint by you Paul.

In its 2015 annual report, published in February 2016, the SPLC counted 892 active hate groups in the U.S., an increase from the previous year. Of these, 190 were KKK groups, 94 were neo-Nazi groups, 85 were white nationalist groups, 95 were racist skinhead groups, 19 were Christian Identity groups, 35 were neo-Confederate groups, 180 were black separatist groups, and 184 were classified as "general hate groups" (subdivided into anti-LGBT, anti-Immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, and radical traditionalist Catholic groups, with an additional "other" sub-category.

If you carefully review the background of the people and organizations listed in Caufield's index, as having some kind of connection to JFK's murder---a very substantial number of them have clearly identified racist beliefs and associations by Caufield.

In fact, if you check all of the subjects listed under Edwin Walker's name in Caufield's index, at least 42 of those 140 references (29%) pertain to racist individuals and organizations even though there is only ONE reference on a single page to any sort of "nazi connection" to Walker.

If you genuinely believe that there are only "a few (not many) echoes of this view in the U.S." i.e. white supremacist themes, arguments, and activities in our country then I suggest you use the SEARCH feature on SPLC's website.

"Racist" produces 2480 hits.

"White supremacy" produces 3514 hits. Check the links below:

RACIST: https://www.splcenter.org/resources?keyword=racist

WHITE SUPREMACY: https://www.splcenter.org/resources?keyword=white+supremacy

This is what I call racism -- the notion that there are stark genetic differences between people.

Racists and racism are NOT limited by your idiosyncratic definitions. The actual definition of racism is as follows:

(1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
(2) racial prejudice or discrimination

Yes, there are highly intellectual racists (such as Madison Grant) who author very detailed arguments often based upon their understanding of genetics and eugenics.

However, uneducated individuals (which overwhelmingly comprise the greatest number of racists in our history) often have utterly no understanding of genetics or eugenics so their racism was merely a visceral dislike and hostility toward minorities (racial, ethnic, and/or religious).

Offshoots of the KKK have also published screeds that declare that colored folks are really animals, or even "missing links" and so forth, in their twisted version of the theory of evolution.

These are the truly dangerous racists, worthy of the name racists. To pick at different cultural values, and different cultural and class origins of various nationalities may be offensive to some, it is nevertheless ubiquitous. It would be wrong to be too thin-skinned with regard to cultural sterotypes, IMHO.

Well, that may be your "opinion" -- but some of us oppose racist sentiments in all its many forms and expressions.

I belong to a minority race myself, being Mexican-American, although my family has been in the USA for several generations, and the name Trejo goes back in California to the late 1700's.

Nevertheless, I'm sensitive to racial comments by others -- yet I'm also an American citizen, and I refuse to walk around paranoid of white folks. I can understand the fear of White Americans with regard to crime gangs, and violent political groups of color, voicing revenge -- for example, the shooting of the five Dallas Police officers last month.

We cannot close our eyes to the fact of racial tension in the USA, or make it go away with some Pollyanna attitude. It is a genuine American problem that only American politics can resolve. We've tried since the end of the Civil War in the 1800's, and since the dawn of the Civil Rights movement in the 1900's, and we still have the problem today.

I'm not a racist. Most Americans are not racists. There are a few racists in America, but thank God they don't have any political power to speak of. If things got truly out of control with racial riots as in the 1960's, then we might have to revisit the threat of Ex-General Edwin Walker, who prophesied that a race war is coming to the USA, which would utterly destroy civilian rule forever.

There are some analysts who argue that Donald Trump's popularity and success has been fueled, significantly, by the white nationalist movement and, in fact, Trump just hired as his campaign CEO an individual whose website is filled with white nationalist arguments!

I think General Walker was mistaken -- I think his politics were mistaken. Yet I refuse to demonize him. He represents a significant portion of the American electorate, and unless we can reason with that portion, we will only delay the solution of our national issue.

It is NOT "demonizing" someone to accurately describe and summarize their history, their associations, their beliefs, and their values.

There is absolutely NOTHING to support your statement that Walker represented a "significant portion of the American electorate". The people who knew him best (in Texas) refused to hire him as their representative (Governor) and his vote total during that election was insignificant.

Gallup polling regarding the Birch Society also reflects the same statistical information -- i.e. they do NOT "represent a significant portion of the American electorate".

It remains my opinion that JFK was killed over a combination of two issues: (1) Communist Cuba; and (2) Civil Rights marches.

And AFTER he was killed, we still had Communist Cuba and civil rights marches!

Both of these issues terrified the ordinary US citizen in 1963. We are more mature today -- 53 years later -- but then again, Donald Trump has taken over the Republican Party, so this suggests that the Right Wing in the USA has not really found its voice or leadership among the status quo Republicans. It's the modern problem.

It is a gross overstatement to claim that the "ordinary U.S. citizen in 1963" was "terrified" by Cuba or civil rights marches.

Once again you make broad generalizations without any evidence to support your delusions. Yes, there was opposition to the new legislation but one month after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a majority of Americans expressed support for the legislation while 20% were "not sure".

CUBA: In February 1963, JFK enjoyed a 70% approval. His ratings for handling foreign policy and handling domestic problems were equally high (64%) and most people (56%) were satisfied with the way he was handling the situation in Cuba.

That is NOT the result one would expect to see if Americans were (as you claim) "terrified" by the Cuba issue.

And yes, I believe all this is relevant to the JFK assassination, and to the conspiracy surrounding JFK's murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

My comments appear underneath yours in blue font

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDWIN WALKER - FBI Dallas File Glitch

For some reason, the Dallas-FBI files on Edwin Walker which I uploaded a couple days ago on Internet Archive, did not include a searchable version (aka "pdf with text").

This morning, I sent an email to my Archive contact to inquire why that happened and to determine if there is some way to correct it.

BTW---the original Archive webpage which was created in 2013 for my FBI files collection recently passed a milestone. There now have been over 500,000 views of files in that collection. The category with the most views is "Extreme Right" groups and individuals with 162,016 views as of this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It remains my opinion that JFK was killed over a combination of two issues: (1) Communist Cuba; and (2) Civil Rights marches.

And AFTER he was killed, we still had Communist Cuba and civil rights marches!

Both of these issues terrified the ordinary US citizen in 1963. We are more mature today -- 53 years later -- but then again, Donald Trump has taken over the Republican Party, so this suggests that the Right Wing in the USA has not really found its voice or leadership among the status quo Republicans. It's the modern problem.

It is a gross overstatement to claim that the "ordinary U.S. citizen in 1963" was "terrified" by Cuba or civil rights marches.

Once again you make broad generalizations without any evidence to support your delusions. Yes, there was opposition to the new legislation but one month after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a majority of Americans expressed support for the legislation while 20% were "not sure".

CUBA: In February 1963, JFK enjoyed a 70% approval. His ratings for handling foreign policy and handling domestic problems were equally high (64%) and most people (56%) were satisfied with the way he was handling the situation in Cuba.

That is NOT the result one would expect to see if Americans were (as you claim) "terrified" by the Cuba issue.

And yes, I believe all this is relevant to the JFK assassination, and to the conspiracy surrounding JFK's murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

My comments appear underneath yours in blue font

Ernie, the fact that Cuba was still Communist and the Civil Rights Movement went forward after the murder of JFK does not affect my logic at all. It remains clear -- even based on the new book by Dr. Caufield -- that the enemies of JFK intently focused on Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights marches as motivations for their crime.

Your one-sided logic -- that if JFK was killed for those two issues, then those two issues should have disappeared -- is woefully inadequate.

The fact is --- as you admitted -- most Americans supported JFK in his treatment of Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement -- despite their terrifying aspect. The murderers of JFK were evidently hoping to scare the US Public into changing their behavior, but the murderers failed to attain their goal. They killed JFK, but that wasn't their main goal -- their main goal was to obtain political power over Cuba and MLK. That is what they failed to accomplish.

That said, I also lived through the 1963 period, and I watched my conservative neighbors as they huddled around the radio to listen to the latest reports of Black American violence at this or that Civil Rights March, and commented to each other at length that this was one of the signs of the Last Days as prophesied by the Book of Revelation. These were conservative Americans, common people. The world was frightening to them.

By the way, Ernie, your overstatements and harsh language (e.g. "delusions") only weakens your argumentation. When you stick to facts and figures your contributions are more useful.

Again, just because Cuba and MLK continued in full force after the death of JFK is no proof that the killers of JFK weren't ultimately attempting to change those trends. They failed. Cuba is still Communist today. MLK is celebrated with a national holiday every year. The killers of JFK failed to attain their ultimate goals.

By the way, in addition to this new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, I also recommend the JFK CT classic by Walt Brown, namely, Treachery in Dallas (1995), which offers a special focus on the Dallas Police Department as a hotbed of Radical Right activity in 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It remains my opinion that JFK was killed over a combination of two issues: (1) Communist Cuba; and (2) Civil Rights marches.

And AFTER he was killed, we still had Communist Cuba and civil rights marches!

Both of these issues terrified the ordinary US citizen in 1963. We are more mature today -- 53 years later -- but then again, Donald Trump has taken over the Republican Party, so this suggests that the Right Wing in the USA has not really found its voice or leadership among the status quo Republicans. It's the modern problem.

It is a gross overstatement to claim that the "ordinary U.S. citizen in 1963" was "terrified" by Cuba or civil rights marches.

Once again you make broad generalizations without any evidence to support your delusions. Yes, there was opposition to the new legislation but one month after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a majority of Americans expressed support for the legislation while 20% were "not sure".

CUBA: In February 1963, JFK enjoyed a 70% approval. His ratings for handling foreign policy and handling domestic problems were equally high (64%) and most people (56%) were satisfied with the way he was handling the situation in Cuba.

That is NOT the result one would expect to see if Americans were (as you claim) "terrified" by the Cuba issue.

And yes, I believe all this is relevant to the JFK assassination, and to the conspiracy surrounding JFK's murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

My comments appear underneath yours in blue font

Ernie, the fact that Cuba was still Communist and the Civil Rights Movement went forward after the murder of JFK does not affect my logic at all. It remains clear -- even based on the new book by Dr. Caufield -- that the enemies of JFK intently focused on Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights marches as motivations for their crime.

Your one-sided logic -- that if JFK was killed for those two issues, then those two issues should have disappeared -- is woefully inadequate.

The fact is --- as you admitted -- most Americans supported JFK in his treatment of Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement -- despite their terrifying aspect. The murderers of JFK were evidently hoping to scare the US Public into changing their behavior, but the murderers failed to attain their goal. They killed JFK, but that wasn't their main goal -- their main goal was to obtain political power over Cuba and MLK. That is what they failed to accomplish.

That said, I also lived through the 1963 period, and I watched my conservative neighbors as they huddled around the radio to listen to the latest reports of Black American violence at this or that Civil Rights March, and commented to each other at length about this was one of the signs of the Last Days as prophesied by the Book of Revelation. These were conservative Americans, common people. The world was frightening to them.

By the way, Ernie, your overstatements and harsh language (e.g. "delusions") only weakens your argumentation. When you stick to facts and figures your contributions are more useful.

Again, just because Cuba and MLK continued in full force after the death of JFK is no proof that the killers of JFK weren't ultimately attempting to change those trends. They failed. Cuba is still Communist today. MLK is celebrated with a national holiday every year. The killers of JFK failed to attain their ultimate goals.

By the way, in addition to this new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, I also recommend the JFK CT classic by Walt Brown, namely, Treachery in Dallas (1995), which offers a special focus on the Dallas Police Department as a hotbed of Radical Right activity in 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I never made the argument you claim I made. I referred to the fact that after JFK was murdered the issues which YOU identified as being paramount still remained so I have no clue why you think they were so important.

I have a question which I am not sure anybody has answered -- and I solicit everyone's reply.

PREFACE:

(1) If you are a criminal -- what is the MOST important objective you have in mind? Isn't it something along these lines??

You commit your crime and law enforcement has no clue who was responsible!

(2) If that is what happens -- then you (as the criminal) can rest easy and enjoy the fruits of your crime --- right?

(3) OK -- what is the SECOND most welcome development for any criminal who has committed a crime?

Wouldn't whomever committed a successful crime fervently desire that law enforcement would pursue dead-end leads which cannot possibly implicate the actual criminal(s) who did the deed?

EXAMPLE: Suppose Paul Trejo and two associates successfully commit a major robbery and they each walk away with $500,000.

What do Paul and his two associates want to happen?

First -- Paul and his partners in crime hope that law enforcement has no clue who was responsible.

Second -- Paul and his partners in crime hope that law enforcement pursues leads which have no connection whatsoever to Paul and his partners. Thus, Paul and his partners will never even be suspected of the crime---right??

BOTTOM-LINE QUESTION

Given the above information -- then why (if Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder as Paul thinks) -- why did Walker declare repeatedly that the Warren Commission report was "a fraud" and why did Walker, the JBS, and the radical right contemptuously dismiss Hoover's "lone nut" theory?

In short, why ask people to re-open the JFK murder investigation? Walker et al could not control what would happen after law enforcement decided to consider new potential explanations. In other words, they put themselves at risk of being discovered by criticizing the Warren Commission and the "lone nut" theory.

Insofar as everyone interested believed the argument being circulated by the WC, Hoover, the FBI, and associated law enforcement entities -- Walker and his gang were "home free" because just like the hypothetical situation I put forth with respect to Paul Trejo and his partners in crime -- they could enjoy the fruits of their crime without any possibility of being discovered as long as law enforcement pursued dead-end bogus leads.

So WHY did Walker et al want Americans to dismiss the official version of events and explore some other explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOTTOM-LINE QUESTION

Given the above information -- then why (if Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder as Paul thinks) -- why did Walker declare repeatedly that the Warren Commission report was "a fraud" and why did Walker, the JBS, and the radical right contemptuously dismiss Hoover's "lone nut" theory?

In short, why ask people to re-open the JFK murder investigation? Walker et al could not control what would happen after law enforcement decided to consider new potential explanations. In other words, they put themselves at risk of being discovered by criticizing the Warren Commission and the "lone nut" theory.

Insofar as everyone interested believed the argument being circulated by the WC, Hoover, the FBI, and associated law enforcement entities -- Walker and his gang were "home free" because just like the hypothetical situation I put forth with respect to Paul Trejo and his partners in crime -- they could enjoy the fruits of their crime without any possibility of being discovered as long as law enforcement pursued dead-end bogus leads.

So WHY did Walker et al want Americans to dismiss the official version of events and explore some other explanation?

Well, Ernie, we finally get a good, solid question about the JFK assassination from you.

(1) First, let me emphasize that I'm no longer alone in my accusation of Edwin Walker as the mastermind of the JFK murder. This new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield (General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy) published in 2015, also makes a strong case for this same CT. Certainly more work needs to be done, but at least the old, tired, "CIA-did-it," or the foolish, "LBJ-did-it" or the tepid, "Mafia-did-it" nonsense theories are finally put into their rightful graves.

(2) So, why would a treasonous Ex-General Edwin Walker declare repeatedly that the Warren Commission report was "a fraud"? The reason, as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, is that Ex-General Walker hated and despised the "Lone Nut Theory" of the JFK assassination. You can't invade Communist Cuba without the motive of a Communist-Oswald.

(2.1) The main reports out of Dallas on 11/22/1963, starting with Ex-General Walker, claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist, a supporter of Fidel Castro and his Communist Cuba, an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans, and had gone to Mexico City in order to make a deal with Mexican Communists there.

(2.2) J. Edgar Hoover heard all of these reports. So did Nicholas Katzenbach -- and they just rolled their eyes. J. Edgar Hoover had a fat file on Lee Harvey Oswald, and Hoover knew good and well that the FPCC in New Orleans with which Oswald was associated was a bogus chapter, connected with Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street.

(2.3) By 3pm on 11/22/1963, J. Edgar Hoover called RFK to tell him that Lee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect, was NOT a Communist and was NOT a leader of the FPCC. This is all part of released FBI records.

(2.4) When this result was taken to the Warren Commission, the proposal was clear -- the Communists had nothing to do with the murder of JFK. Everybody in Washington DC agreed with this. J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Allen Dulles, Earl Warren, Dean Rusk, Llewellyn Thompson, John McCone, Alan Belmont, C. Douglas Dillon and James Rowley -- the core of Washington DC was in agreement: the Communists did not kill JFK.

(2.5) This was outrageous to Ex-General Edwin Walker. He had helped to sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald for most of 1963 to appear exactly like a Communist and an officer of the FPCC, which was beloved by Fidel Castro. How could the Warren Commission be so blind?

(2.6) Yet this is exactly what happened. J. Edgar Hoover saw right through Edwin Walker's scheme, and turned the tables.

(2.7) Naturally, then, Edwin Walker would charge from the very first day that the Warren Commission was a "fraud," because he knew very well that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "Lone Nut," instead, Lee Harvey Oswald was his very own patsy.

(3) The question often arises -- didn't General Walker worry that he would be caught by drawing attention to himself?

(3.1) The question arises from people who have not studied the personality of General Walker as I have. Walker was an extrovert who thrived on public attention.

(3.2) Walker called a German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, within 18 hours of the JFK murder to boast that Lee Harvey Oswald had also been his own shooter back in April 1963, and that RFK set Oswald free.

(3.3) Walker would call the National Enquirer rag multiple times over the next several weeks, leaking stories that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter back in April, perhaps accompanied by Jack Ruby -- and that RFK set the suspects free.

(3.4) Walker repeatedly told his Friends of Walker in Dallas that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his own shooter back in April 1963, and that RFK set Oswald free.

(3.5) When the HSCA was being formed, Walker wrote a letter to Senator Frank Church and admitted that he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald only days after the April shooting (contrary to his own WC testimony). Walker wasn't afraid of being caught at all.

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

(3.6) Walker remained convinced for years that if he could only convince the American People that the Communists had killed JFK, that the American People would rise in fury against Communist Cuba. This was Walker's political obsession.

(4.0) Walker, the JBS and the Radical Right contemptuously dismissed Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory, IMHO for two reasons: (I) they knew it to be false, since they themselves were the real killers of JFK; and (II) Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory undermined their own theory of a "Communist Nut" theory, which they hoped could be used to topple Fidel Castro.

(4.1) The Radical Right following Edwin Walker in 1963-1965 would hope they could re-open the JFK assassination to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was a COMMUNIST. They considered the risks low. They had already risked a great deal, and the payoff was never delivered.

(4.2) Ex-General Edwin Walker was not concerned primarily with his own safety. IMHO Walker had JFK killed for patriotic reasons, in his own mind. Walker was proud of what he did. If Walker could convince America that LHO was a Communist, so that we would invade Communist Cuba and assassinate Fidel Castro, then Walker would have been vindicated thoroughly -- even if he went to prison for it afterward. This was Walker's obsession. Walker was a hero to his followers. Safety was not his key criterion.

(5.0) By the way -- the FBI knew the "Lone Nut" theory was bogus -- but they also knew that the "Communist Nut" theory was bogus. This gets strong evidence from at least two former FBI men, Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen.

(5.1) Hoover didn't care that his "Lone Nut" theory was bogus or weak -- just as long as most people believed it, and that most Americans would refuse to act upon the stupidity of a "Communist Nut" theory.

(5.2) This is especially what enraged Ex-General Walker about the Warren Report.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOTTOM-LINE QUESTION

Given the above information -- then why (if Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder as Paul thinks) -- why did Walker declare repeatedly that the Warren Commission report was "a fraud" and why did Walker, the JBS, and the radical right contemptuously dismiss Hoover's "lone nut" theory?

In short, why ask people to re-open the JFK murder investigation? Walker et al could not control what would happen after law enforcement decided to consider new potential explanations. In other words, they put themselves at risk of being discovered by criticizing the Warren Commission and the "lone nut" theory.

Insofar as everyone interested believed the argument being circulated by the WC, Hoover, the FBI, and associated law enforcement entities -- Walker and his gang were "home free" because just like the hypothetical situation I put forth with respect to Paul Trejo and his partners in crime -- they could enjoy the fruits of their crime without any possibility of being discovered as long as law enforcement pursued dead-end bogus leads.

So WHY did Walker et al want Americans to dismiss the official version of events and explore some other explanation?

Well, Ernie, we finally get a good, solid question about the JFK assassination from you.

(1) First, let me emphasize that I'm no longer alone in my accusation Edwin Walker as the mastermind of the JFK murder. This new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield (General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy) published in 2015, also makes a strong case for this same CT. Certainly more work needs to be done, but at least the old, tired, "CIA-did-it," or the foolish, "LBJ-did-it" or the tepid, "Mafia-did-it" nonsense theories are finally put into their rightful graves.

(2) So, why would a treasonous Ex-General Edwin Walker declare repeatedly that the Warren Commission report was "a fraud"? The reason, as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, is that Ex-General Walker hated and despised the "Lone Nut Theory" of the JFK assassination. You can't invade Communist Cuba without the motive of a Communist-Oswald.

(2.1) The main reports out of Dallas on 11/22/1963, starting with Ex-General Walker, claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist, a supporter of Fidel Castro and his Communist Cuba, an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans, and had gone to Mexico City in order to make a deal with Mexican Communists there.

(2.2) J. Edgar Hoover heard all of these reports. So did Nicholas Katzenbach -- and they just rolled their eyes. J. Edgar Hoover had a fat file on Lee Harvey Oswald, and Hoover knew good and well that the FPCC in New Orleans with which Oswald was associated was a bogus chapter, connected with Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street.

(2.3) By 3pm on 11/22/1963, J. Edgar Hoover called RFK to tell him that Lee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect, was NOT a Communist and was NOT a leader of the FPCC. This is all part of released FBI records.

(2.4) When this result was taken to the Warren Commission, the proposal was clear -- the Communists had nothing to do with the murder of JFK. Everybody in Washington DC agreed with this. J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Allen Dulles, Earl Warren, Dean Rusk, Llewellyn Thompson, John McCone, Alan Belmont, C. Douglas Dillon and James Rowley -- the Communists did not kill JFK.

(2.5) This was outrageous to Ex-General Edwin Walker. He had helped to sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald for most of 1963 to appear exactly like a Communist and an officer of the FPCC, which was beloved by Fidel Castro. How could the Warren Commission be so blind?

(2.6) Yet this exactly what happened. J. Edgar Hoover saw right through Edwin Walker's scheme, and turned the tables.

(2.7) Naturally, then, Edwin Walker was charge from the very first day that the Warren Commission was a "fraud," because he knew very well that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "Lone Nut". Walker knew this perfectly well, because he knew that Lee Harvey Oswald was his very own patsy.

(3) The question often arises -- didn't General Walker worry that he would be caught by drawing attention to himself?

(3.1) The question arises from people who have not studied the personality of General Walker as I have. Walker was an extrovert who thrived on public attention.

(3.2) Walker called a German newspaper within 18 hours of the JFK murder to boast that Lee Harvey Oswald had also been his own shooter back in April 1963, and that RFK set Oswald free.

(3.3) Walker would call the National Enquirer rag multiple over the next several weeks, leaking stories that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter back in April, perhaps accompanied by Jack Ruby -- and that RFK set the suspects free.

(3.4) Walker repeated told his Friends of Walker in Dallas that Lee Harvey Oswald had also been his own shooter back in April 1963, and that RFK set Oswald free.

(3.5) When the HSCA was being formed, Walker wrote a letter to Senator Frank Church and admitted that he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald only days after the April shooting (contrary to his own WC testimony). Walker wasn't afraid of being caught at all.

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

(3.6) Walker remained convinced for years that if he could only convince the American People that the Communists had killed JFK, that the American People would rise in fury against Communist Cuba. This was Walker's political obsession.

(4.0) Walker, the JBS and the Radical Right contemptuously dismissed Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory, IMHO for two reasons: (I) they knew it to be false, since they themselves were the real killers of JFK; and (II) Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory undermined their own theory of a "Communist Nut" theory, which they hoped could be used to topple Fidel Castro.

(4.1) The Radical Right following Edwin Walker in 1963-1965 would hope they could re-open the JFK assassination to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was a COMMUNIST. They considered the risks low. They had already risked a great deal, and the payback was never delivered.

(4.2) Ex-General Edwin Walker was not concerned primarily with his own safety. IMHO Walker had JFK killed for patriotic reasons, in his own mind. Walker was proud of what he did. If Walker could convince America that LHO was a Communist, so that we would invade Communist Cuba and assassinate Fidel Castro, then Walker would have been vindicated thoroughly -- even if he went to prison for it afterward. This was Walker's obsession. Walker was a hero to his followers. Safety was not his key criterion.

(5.0) By the way -- the FBI knew the "Lone Nut" theory was bogus -- but they also knew that the "Communist Nut" theory was bogus. This gets strong evidence from at least two former FBI men, Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen.

(5.1) Hoover didn't care that his "Lone Nut" theory was bogus or weak -- just as long as most people believed it, and that most Americans would not act on the stupidity of a "Communist Nut" theory.

(5.2) This is especially what angered Ex-General Walker about the Warren Report.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Nothing you wrote makes any logical sense.

From the beginning, the majority of Americans rejected the "lone nut" theory. Public polling reveals only one instance from 1963 to 2001 where Americans believed the "lone nut" explanation (see poll results below).

So----that leaves the question of motivation.

The evidence presented from the beginning described Oswald as a Marxist as well as somebody who had defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 where he attempted to renounce his American citizenship.

Oswald's hatred of the United States was clearly stated in his November 26, 1959 letter to his brother Robert. Oswald tried to explain why "I and my fellow workers and communist's would like to see the present capitalist government of the U.S. overthrown."

Oswald stated that the U.S. government had an economic system "which exploits all its workers" and under which "art, culture and the spirit of man are subjected to commercial enterpraising, (sic) [and] religion and education are used as a tool to surpress (sic) what would otherwise be a population questioning their government's unfair economic system and plans for war."

AND: "I have been a pro-communist for years and yet I have never met a communist, instead I kept silent and observed, and what I observed plus my Marxist learning brought me here to the Soviet Union. I have always considered this country to be my own."

Let's assume you agree with Caufield's contention (and the "JBS plot" argument) which states that all this pro-Communist rhetoric by Oswald was completely phony.

Nevertheless, any ordinary person reading the above excerpts (along with other Oswald comments), would probably accept this as indisputable compelling evidence of Oswald's actual true political convictions.

My point is this:

Walker (and his allies) would NOT have a difficult task to "convince America that LHO was a Communist". No significant research would be required. No access to "secret" government documents was necessary. No prolonged investigation was needed.

Just the publicly available empirical evidence was sufficient because Americans were already pre-disposed to believing that there was a conspiracy and Oswald's political convictions were extreme leftist in nature.

So we are STILL left with this question:

WHY would Walker (and his acolytes) ramp up a public campaign to discredit the WC and FBI?

Any re-opening of JFK's murder could not be controlled by Walker.

Walker could not possibly know (in advance, with certainty), that any renewed attention by law enforcement and investigative journalists and Congressional investigating committees to JFK's murder would NOT open a can of worms that would discredit and falsify Walker's preferred explanation.

Walker also could not possibly know, in advance, that his own participation in the "plot" would remain totally secret OR that unsavory aspects about his personal behavior and his sexual orientation would not be revealed.

We all have heard the expression "let sleeping dogs lie" -- which means -- do not instigate trouble OR leave something alone if it might cause problems.

No rational criminal would do anything that might draw attention to himself or attention toward anybody associated with the criminal who had knowledge about the criminal's illegal activities, associations, location, etc. This is particularly true in high-profile matters (not some petty crime which law enforcement might decide to ignore because of limited resources to pursue the matter). JFK's murder was, arguably, the singularly most important and consequential historical development since the end of World War II.

Why would Walker NOT want to "let sleeping dogs lie" -- when he would so obviously benefit by that status?

In short---there STILL is no credible explanation for why Walker (and his allies) attempted to discredit the WC and Hoover and their "lone nut" theory.

IN ADDITION: I copy an excerpt below from a January 1978 Washington Post article which shows that even within the highest levels of the FBI, there was a desire to blame the assassination on Communists---and that included Hoover's approval of the proposed counterintelligence action discussed in this article:

"Less than two months after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI officials were planning to anonymously distribute posters meant to disrupt the Communist Party by depicting Lee Harvey Oswald as a Marxist. The Bureau was still in the early stages of investigating the murder for the Warren Commission when the proposal was made on Jan. 10, 1964, and apparently given at least preliminary approval.
'Because the poster is a factual graphic illustration on public information and because its distribution under the Counterintelligence Program will not be traceble to the government, it should in no manner affect the deliberations of the Warren Commission presently considering the facts surrounding the assassination,' an aide to high-ranking FBI official William C. Sullivan urged in a two page memo.
The proposal, which was for an anonymous mailing of the privately printed poster to selected Communist Party members at 'Communist-sponsored meetings,' was intialed by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover with what appeared to be an "OK" in his hand-writing. But the document also contains an 'addendum' on a third page indicating that Hoover aide Alan H. Belmont had canceled the plan at the last minute.
'I have not approved because I believe it is undesirable to use the Oswald case for counterintelligence purposes while it is under consideration by the Presidential Commission,' said the postscript, which has attributed to "AHB" and which seemingly over ruled Hoover."
JFK Assassination Public Opinion Polls, 1963–2001 Date Organisation Lone Nut Conspiracy No Opinion Nov 1963 NORC 29 52 19 Dec 1963 Gallup 29 52 19 Sept 1964 Harris 45 40 15 Oct 1964 Harris 56 31 13 Dec 1966 Gallup 36 50 15 Feb 1967 Harris 35 44 21 May 1967 Harris 19 66 15 Sept 1967 Harris 24 60 16 Oct 1975 Harris 20 65 15 Dec 1976 Gallup 11 81 9 Sept 1978 Harris 18 75 7 Mar 1981 Harris 21 67 12 Oct 1983 Gallup 11 74 15 Nov 1983 ABC/Wash.Post 13 80 7 Oct 1988 CBS/N.Y.Times 13 66 21 May 1991 Washington Post 19 57 24 May 1991 PSRA 12 73 15 Dec 1991 Yankelovich 11 73 16 Jan 1992 CBS/N.Y.Times 10 77 13 Oct 1993 CBS News 11 75 14 Nov 1993 Gallup 15 75 10 Mar 2001 Gallup 13 81 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Ernie, what I say makes good sense.

Although the "Lone Nut" theory has obtained resistance from its very first days, it nevertheless became a dogma of the US Government, and for a while became a litmus test for American Loyalty. Some people still view it that way (e.g "Lone Nutters").

I agree that the question of Motivation is key in the contemplation of a CT in the JFK murder, and yet the Warren Commission deliberately sidestepped that question -- with good reason.

Your attempt, Ernie, to portray Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) as a fellow-traveler among the Communists was flatly rejected by J. Edgar Hoover himself -- in his own testimony to the Warren Commission. The FBI had followed the State Department in giving LHO a clean bill of health when he finally left the USSR in 1962, when LHO was just 22 years old.

The FBI interviewed Oswald when he returned from the USSR, and interviewed him again, and then closed the FBI file on Oswald at that time -- they saw nothing to indicate any danger or anything worth watching with regard to LHO. Hoover himself said this.

As for the letter of LHO to his brother in 1959, we must recognize that LHO knew very well that the KGB would be reading every letter he wrote, and LHO was attempting to make his own life easier in the USSR -- so naturally he would say nice things about the Communists. Yet what is urgent is this: (1) LHO never renounced his US citizenship or his US passport; (2) LHO never applied for USSR citizenship; and (3) LHO never joined the Communist Party while in the USSR.

Your accusations of LHO obviously overlooked these important factors.

It isn't just me and Dr. Caufield who reject LHO's letter to his brother, Robert Oswald, as "completely phony," but CIA Agents have also come public with similar statements (e.g. Victor Marchetti).

I fully agree with you on one point, Ernie -- that General Walker and the Radical Right would have little trouble convincing America that LHO was a Communist -- especially after LHO's antics in New Orleans, posing as a supporter of Fidel Castro. That was indeed the point of the sheep dip in the first case.

My disagreement with you, Ernie, extends to this -- that it was ultimately impossible for General Walker and the Radical Right to convince J. Edgar Hoover of the same thing!

My logic remains sound -- it is precisely because J. Edgar Hoover rejected the premise that LHO was a Communist and had killed JFK within the context of a Communist Conspiracy, that outraged General Walker and the Radical Right.

That is, the "Lone Nut" theory of J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission had completely undercut the Radical Right plan to exploit LHO as a Communist fellow-traveler.

Walker hoped beyond hope to convince the American people that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. We see this not only in his own Warren Commission testimony, but also in the final witness of the Warren Commission, the famous JBS writer, Revilo P. Oliver. Oliver urged and urged the Warren Commission to reconsider, and to recognize the urgency of a Communist Plot to kill JFK.

That is interesting testimony, by the way. Knowing that Oliver was a writer for the JBS, the WC attorneys asked him, "Why would a Communist kill a Communist?" Mocking him, in that way. Oliver took the question very seriously, and replied that this was part of a Communist purge in Moscow, that extended all the way to the USA White House! This is actually in the Warren Commission volumes!

Again, Ernie, you compare Ex-General Walker with a "rational criminal," and I must take exception to that. General Walker was complex on multiple fronts. Firstly, more than one psychiatrist diagnosed him with "paranoia". Secondly, General Walker had a full-size billboard on his front lawn, advertising the JBS. Thirdly, General Walker was PROUD of his political position, and PROUD of his actions with regard to the Kennedys.

General Walker was not some sniveling coward of a criminal who ran to hide in the shadows. It was an act of patriotism, in General Walker's mind, that the Communists were being driven back from Washington DC. It was simply horrifying for General Walker that the US Government would not accept his testimony that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. Here is a short extract from his WC testimony from July 23, 1964

------------ BEGIN EXTRACT OF GENERAL WALKER WC TESTIMONY 1964 --------

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you have any knowledge or any information that would indicate that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy of any type on the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. I think he designated his own conspiracy when he said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. That to me is a definite recognition of Conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Suggesting that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was involved?

General WALKER. I would say as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, it could not be segregated from being involved in it when one of its members does it, who thinks like they do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, that is of course, your view. My question of you is this. Do you have any evidence or any knowledge that would either the involvement of organization in a conspiracy or plot to assassinate the President...?


General WALKER. My answer to you is that I have exactly the evidence that you have, which is evidence that it was involved in the conspiracy, he said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and I the objectives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee a Communist activity a conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know if anyone discussed the assassination with him prior to the time that he assassinated the President; if he did then do you have any indication of that?

General WALKER. I have no personal knowledge that they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any indication that they did?

General WALKER. I certainly do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us what that is?

General WALKER. The indications seem to be not only mine, but all over the country that Rubenstein and Oswald had some association.

-------------- END EXTRACT OF GENERAL WALKER WC TESTIMONY 1964 -------------

That testimony continues with General Walker's reference to a recent National Enquirer issue (likely planted by Walker himself) to the effect that LHO was his April shooter, with Jack Ruby as his accomplice, and that RFK set both men free back in April.

My point is that Walker was not a normal person -- and that he was first in line to accuse LHO of being a Communist, and that the JFK murder was a Communist plot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
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...