Challenge for Paul Trejo -- Why would the US Government cover up a Gen. Walker conspiracy?

[Sandy Larsen]

I maintain that, for a given conspiracy theory to be viable, it must include a strong motive for the U.S. government to cover up the conspiracy. Otherwise the government would have proceeded to solve the case.

In another thread, I asked Paul Trejo what the motive was for the government cover up in his Walker-did-it theory. His reply was that the U.S. government was certain that General Walker was behind the assassination, and that that needed to be covered up because the public wouldn't understand it.

I disagreed with the part about the public not understanding an ex-general killing the president. But what struck me was Paul's bold statement, which I quote here:

"In my reading, Sandy, the US Government after 1963 knew with a certainty that General Walker's Minutemen and sundry Radical Right forces in Dallas were responsible for the JFK assassination, and trying to blame the Communists like mad."

Paul, how do you know that the U.S. government knew "with a certainty" that General Walker was behind the assassination? What evidence is there for that?

 

[Paul Trejo]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I maintain that, for a given conspiracy theory to be viable, it must include a strong motive for the U.S. government to cover up the conspiracy. Otherwise the government would have proceeded to solve the case.

In another thread, I asked Paul Trejo what the motive was for the government cover up in his Walker-did-it theory. His reply was that the U.S. government was certain that General Walker was behind the assassination, and that that needed to be covered up because the public wouldn't understand it.

I disagreed with the part about the public not understanding an ex-general killing the president. But what struck me was Paul's bold statement, which I quote here:

"In my reading, Sandy, the US Government after 1963 knew with a certainty that General Walker's Minutemen and sundry Radical Right forces in Dallas were responsible for the JFK assassination, and trying to blame the Communists like mad."

Paul, how do you know that the U.S. government knew "with a certainty" that General Walker was behind the assassination? What evidence is there for that?

Sandy,

The evidence I see is as follows:

1.  Professor David Wrone (Wisconsin U. 2005) wrote that J. Edgar Hoover recognized by 3pm EST that Lee Harvey Oswald was *not* a Communist as the authorities in Dallas were reporting, and that Oswald wasn't an officer of the FPCC, either.   (This is from FBI HQ records from 11/22/1963)

2.  Yet the Dallas authorities were telling the press that the JFK assassination was certainly a Communist plot.

3.  White House Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach had to call Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr and demand proof of these Press Releases.  Waggoner Carr pled ignorance, and called Dallas DA Henry Wade right away.   Henry Wade pled ignorance, and sped to the Dallas Police Department to tell Jesse Curry and his men that if they have no proof, they must stop those press releases immediately.   They stopped.

4.  J. Edgar Hoover had three choices during the Cold War: (1) the Radical Left did it; (2) the Radical Right did it; or (3) It was a Loner.

5.  J. Edgar Hoover could see quickly that this was no act of a Loner.  He could also see quickly that the Radical Left had not done this.   That left the likely option.

6.  J. Edgar Hoover had a big, fat file on Lee Harvey Oswald.  That's how he knew that Oswald was not a Communist -- J. Edgar Hoover had the name of every single Communist in the USA, and all their friends.

7.  J. Edgar Hoover also knew the names of every single FPCC officer in the USA.  He knew Lee Oswald was not a real FPCC officer, but Hoover also knew that there had been a Fake FPCC running out of New Orleans, and led by Guy Banister, a former FBI Chief.   He quickly saw that Lee Harvey Oswald was in cahoots with Guy Banister, who worked in the same circles as Ex-General Walker.

8.  J. Edgar Hoover also knew that FBI agent James Hosty was primarily assigned to watch the Radical Right in Dallas (cf. Assignment Oswald, 1996, ch. 1).  He also knew that the FBI was responsible for telling the Secret Service PRS of any dangerous people in any town -- and that James Hosty neglected to tell the PRS about the people who wrote the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill, although Hosty knew very well it was Robert Allen Surrey, his bridge partner for many years.

9.  In my surmise, Hoover figured out the whole plot before 3pm EST that the Radical Right in Dallas had killed JFK and had set up Lee Harvey Oswald as their Patsy, specifically in order to blame the Communists for it.

10.  Therefore, knowing that his men would have to clean up a ton of evidence to the contrary, he opted to fight for a Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder.

11.  This would rip a victory out of the hands of the Dallas Radical Right -- because they would have no more Communist plot.

12.  This would also allow the USA to attain stability of changing a US President during the middle of the Cold War.  

13.   Hoover proposed this to LBJ, and LBJ decided it was the right thing to do.   It became US dogma -- even after a ton of material evidence came crashing down on it.

14.  Earl Warren chose to hide thousands of JFK related documents from the American People for 75 years, because of this decision.   President GHW Bush changed that date to only 53 years.   This year we will finally get to see them all.   I expect my CT to be vindicated.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

[Jason Ward]

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I maintain that, for a given conspiracy theory to be viable, it must include a strong motive for the U.S. government to cover up the conspiracy. Otherwise the government would have proceeded to solve the case.

In another thread, I asked Paul Trejo what the motive was for the government cover up in his Walker-did-it theory. His reply was that the U.S. government was certain that General Walker was behind the assassination, and that that needed to be covered up because the public wouldn't understand it.

I disagreed with the part about the public not understanding an ex-general killing the president. But what struck me was Paul's bold statement, which I quote here:

"In my reading, Sandy, the US Government after 1963 knew with a certainty that General Walker's Minutemen and sundry Radical Right forces in Dallas were responsible for the JFK assassination, and trying to blame the Communists like mad."

Paul, how do you know that the U.S. government knew "with a certainty" that General Walker was behind the assassination? What evidence is there for that?

 

Hi Sandy,

 Paul explains his points well , but I do have some thoughts about this as it has occupied my research for the past week or so.  I think there might be good reasons for the government to deny most any conspiracy and instead advance a Lone Nut narrative.  When choosing between the truth and the politically expedient answer, politicians will always choose the politically expedient answer.  A conspiracy is frightening and messy. There are loose ends. A single crazy man is finite, easily neutralized . Politicians only care about getting reelected, they care somewhat less about the truth.

As for your question about how the government knows with certainty that it was a right-wing conspiracy: well, first of all, that this is a conspiracy is known on day one or two because we've got a dead body with both front and rear entry wounds.   Perhaps LBJ knows this as early as 1pm at Parkland; I mean that's what the doctors would tell him in a private briefing. So the only real issue here becomes: Who is the CEO of the criminal enterprise to kill JFK?

Basically instead of seeing Oswald as working with guys like Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Banister doing the CIA's work like in many theories, this CT has Walker and the Right Wing in the drivers seat. I understand Walker and the extreme Right as both more motivated and more capable to pull this off versus the CIA.   This changes nothing about what Oswald was doing in Russia and it may not change anything about what Oswald himself imagined he was doing and  working for on 22 November.  LHO probably thought CIA because that's what Ferrie said.   It's really overwhelmingly the Birchers and their front man Walker who are documented as violently hating Kennedy and considering assassination for 2-3 years.   The Cubans are just a sideshow, a diversion, a labor supply exploited.

 

Jason

Edited August 20, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

Paul is essentially saying that, since J. Edgar Hoover knew by 3 PM that Oswald wasn't a communist, the assassination therefore couldn't have been a leftist operation, and so it must have been a rightist operation. And that, because some government agents ignored the right-wing WANTED FOR TREASON handbills, it must be those behind the handbills who carried out the assassination. Or something like that.

My response...

First, even if Hoover knew Oswald wasn't a communist, how would that have led him to conclude it wasn't a leftist operation? Nobody at the time knew for sure what Oswald's politics were. And if they "knew" anything, it would have been that he was indeed a communist or Marxist!) It just doesn't follow that Hoover would have concluded it was a rightist operation.

Second, the WANTED FOR TREASON handbills may be circumstantial evidence that those on the far right were involved in the assassination. But they are not evidence that the U.S. government knew ("with certainty") that General Walker's Minutemen and radical right were behind the assassination. The same is true of the federal agents ignoring the handbills and the radical right.

THE BOTTOM LINE is that Paul has not provided any evidence that the U.S. government knew (by 3 PM, with certainty) that General Walker's minutemen and the radical right were behind the assassination. It is therefore just his opinion.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

I think there might be good reasons for the government to deny most any conspiracy and instead advance a Lone Nut narrative.  When choosing between the truth and the politically expedient answer, politicians will always choose the politically expedient answer.  A conspiracy is frightening and messy. There are loose ends. A single crazy man is finite, easily neutralized . Politicians only care about getting reelected, they care somewhat less about the truth.

Jason,

I disagree with your statement that politicians will always go with the politically expedient answer over the truth. They certainly would take into account the ramifications should the truth ever leak out. Which in the JFK assassination case was fairly probable considering the large number of people involved in the cover up.

When the decision was made to cover up the conspiracy, surely officials knew that the cover-up would become a gigantic mess if the truth ever got out. It had to have taken some serious sh*t to convince the federal government it was better to cover up rather than run a proper investigation.

 

[David Andrews]

I think they have this saying down in Texas, which applies to Edwin Walker: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

[Jason Ward]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

I disagree with your statement that politicians will always go with the politically expedient answer over the truth. They certainly would take into account the ramifications should the truth ever leak out. Which in the JFK assassination case was fairly probable considering the large number of people involved in the cover up.

When the decision was made to cover up the conspiracy, surely officials knew that the cover-up would become a gigantic mess if the truth ever got out. It had to have taken some serious sh*t to convince the federal government it was better to cover up rather than run a proper investigation.

 

Sandy,

The truth DID leak out yet there was no political price to pay for the lie. You're assuming a modern post-Watergate post-Vietnam cynicism in the American people that didn't exist yet.   LBJ and Hoover knew the American people well.

1. close observers in the public are suspecting the lie from day one as confused stories indicated a Mauser as the weapon, shots from the railroad tracks, Connally's statements, and the fact that right wing epicenter Dallas is the scene of the crime.   The whole east coast liberal establishment of college professors, writers, media figures, etc., assume right away that Walker and the racist Southern conservative movement are behind this.   

2. Ruby's assassination of Oswald solidifies the assumption of conspiracy in the public.

3. Mark Lane, Jochim Joesten, and the foreign press are leaking the truth from 1964 on.

4. Trust in the WR decays steadily from the day it's released.   The continued cover up in Washington and the media ensures lies about the assassination never morph into political demands or punishment at the polls.   Neither the Democrats nor Republicans dare make it an issue.  But the truth leaked out from 64 through today.   

. . .

So, LBJ and Hoover know that as long as the media and political rhetoric from BOTH parties support the cover-up, the establishment and political careers are safe.   The truth is leaked constantly, Rush to Judgement is a best seller.  But the truth lacks a famous powerful proponent so delivers no political repercussions for the accessories after the fact in the cover-up

They were lying for decades before this.  Why stop now?

 

 

Jason

[Paul Brancato]

Trejo used to say, often, that Hoover prevented Civil War by going with the lone nut rather than going after the radical right. Has he changed his tune? 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Sandy,

The truth DID leak out yet there was no political price to pay for the lie.

Jason,

All kinds of irregularities became apparent and caused people to question the official story. That's not the same as the truth leaking out.

There was no political price to pay because there was no smoking gun. But there could have been. Which is why there would have been no decision to cover up except in the most dire of cases.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Trejo used to say, often, that Hoover prevented Civil War by going with the lone nut rather than going after the radical right. Has he changed his tune? 

Paul,

In my exchange with Paul Trejo,  he has only said that the administration (or just Hoover?) chose to cover up because the public would not have understood what was going one. That they might think it was a Walker orchestrated coup d'etat.

I say that they would have realized that a cover-up could end in disaster, should the truth leak out. can you imagine the headlines? U.S. GOVERNMENT COVERS UP WALKER PLOT!  It seems obvious to me that the government would perform a cover up only under the most dire of circumstances.

Let us not forget... unlike with the Walker-did-it CT, the prevailing CIA-did-it theory DOES have a strong motive for a cover up -- to prevent WW3. And the evidence for that motive DOES exist.

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul is essentially saying that, since J. Edgar Hoover knew by 3 PM that Oswald wasn't a communist, the assassination therefore couldn't have been a leftist operation, and so it must have been a rightist operation. And that, because some government agents ignored the right-wing WANTED FOR TREASON handbills, it must be those behind the handbills who carried out the assassination. Or something like that.

My response...

First, even if Hoover knew Oswald wasn't a communist, how would that have led him to conclude it wasn't a leftist operation? Nobody at the time knew for sure what Oswald's politics were. And if they "knew" anything, it would have been that he was indeed a communist or Marxist!) It just doesn't follow that Hoover would have concluded it was a rightist operation.

Second, the WANTED FOR TREASON handbills may be circumstantial evidence that those on the far right were involved in the assassination. But they are not evidence that the U.S. government knew ("with certainty") that General Walker's Minutemen and radical right were behind the assassination. The same is true of the federal agents ignoring the handbills and the radical right.

THE BOTTOM LINE is that Paul has not provided any evidence that the U.S. government knew (by 3 PM, with certainty) that General Walker's minutemen and the radical right were behind the assassination. It is therefore just his opinion.

Sandy,

Although I agree that I have no smoking gun (and neither do you), I will also appeal to the latest FBI files that have not yet been released by the US Government to this very day.   I expect to see:

1.  FBI files on Ex-General Walker, showing repeated signs of anti-Government activity.

2.  FBI files on Dallas Rightists, showing repeated signs of anti-Government activity.

3.  FBI files recognizing that Ex-General Walker was behind the Dallas humiliation of Adlai Stevenson only 30 days before the JFK assassination.

4.  FBI files recognizing that the JBS was behind both the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill, as well as the WELCOME TO DALLAS MR. KENNEDY black-bordered ad in the DMN.

5.  FBI files recognizing that those who were loudly claiming a Communist plot against JFK were all among the Dallas Right-wing -- and they had no evidence.

6.  FBI files recognizing that Lee Harvey Oswald had been working for the Radical Right at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans.

In other words, the near-certainty of J. Edgar Hoover that the Radical Right in the South was plotting to kill JFK already.   This would of course include Joseph Milteer as reported by Willie Somerset for some months before the actual JFK murder.

In other words, J. Edgar Hoover would not have been surprised in the slightest after adding up all the evidence by 3pm EST on 11/22/1963.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I think they have this saying down in Texas, which applies to Edwin Walker: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

David,

In 1963, Ex-General Walker had already won millions in court cases by suing the Associated Press and many of the newspapers that had printed the AP stories about his Ole Miss episode.

So, the common perception in Dallas (and with Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall) was that Ex-General Walker already was rich.   (Only in 1967 would Earl Warren's Supreme Court finally decide against Walker and for the AP, and send Walker away empty-handed, pleading for his US Army Pension to be restored.)

Since Dallas was a Right-wing city, the factor remains that in 1963 Ex-General Walker was well-respected in Dallas -- even by people like the Sheriff, the Chief of Police and the Mayor.   

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Although I agree that I have no smoking gun (and neither do you), I will also appeal to the latest FBI files that have not yet been released by the US Government to this very day.

Paul,

The difference is that I didn't make the claim that the U.S. government knew right away that the CIA was behind the assassination. You did make that claim about Walker, which is the reason I asked for evidence.

This particular item is important to me because it is related to my proof that the Walker-did-it theory cannot be valid.

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

The difference is that I didn't make the claim that the U.S. government knew right away that the CIA was behind the assassination. You did make that claim about Walker, which is the reason I asked for evidence.

This particular item is important to me because it is related to my proof that the Walker-did-it theory cannot be valid.

Sandy,

I had presumed that you subscribe to the CIA-did-it CT.   At least, you seem to defend those who do.  So, when I said, "neither do you," have any proof of your CT, it that was the context.

It seems instead that you have no firm CT at all -- and so of course you don't need any proof -- since you defend nothing.   Right?

During my more than five years on this Forum I have always admitted that I don't have final proof of my Walker-did-it CT -- but that in itself is no proof that it is WRONG -- it is simply awaiting the final proof.

The evidence that I have is very wide, and comprises more than five years and more than 5,000 posts on this Forum.  Granted, many of those posts are simply self-defense of positions I've held.  Yet some positions I've also learned on this Forum from others, for example, Harry Dean, David Lifton, Bill Simpich and other solid CTers (who do defend a CT).

Your alleged "proof" that my Walker-did-it CT "cannot be valid" amounts to a fallacy of logic.  

J. Edgar Hoover saw that the Radical Right in Dallas killed JFK, and he chose to sweep that under the rug -- and LBJ chose to support that decision, and obliged Allen Dulles and Earl Warren to support that.

J. Edgar Hoover was the author of the Lone Nut theory of Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is not my original CT, that was first announced by Professor David Wrone of Wisconsin University in 2002.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Jason Ward]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

The difference is that I didn't make the claim that the U.S. government knew right away that the CIA was behind the assassination. You did make that claim about Walker, which is the reason I asked for evidence.

This particular item is important to me because it is related to my proof that the Walker-did-it theory cannot be valid.

 

 

 

Sandy, 

I think you're failing to recognize that at 12:29 in Dallas before any shots are fired the presumption is that any assassination attempt on Kennedy would come from the Right.  This is proven by the fact that as Oswald is brought into the story he is brought in not as "we have a suspect, no more details until we conclude the investigation," but rather as a man who lived in the Soviet Union with ever-greater-communist labels applied thereafter, with intensity.

Hoover already knows the radical right is gunning for Kennedy.   The fact that the radical right in Dallas are immediately blaming the Radical Left as early as Oswald's arrest proves to Hoover that the Radical Right is behind this.   The Right is rolling out an impressive campaign to divert attention from themselves and Hoover knows this is a lie because he knows Oswald is no commie.

QED: Why would the Right start lying right away about Oswald?   Hoover knows why.  

 

Jason

Edited August 21, 2017 by Jason Ward