Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Paul Brancato]

7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

It is my opinion that just as General Walker leaked the Oswald/Walker story to that German newspaper you cited above from Jesse Curry's mail -- so also did General Walker leak this story about Oswald/Ruby to the National Enquirer.  Not just this story, but other stories, too. 

Propaganda was important to General Walker -- he called it the "fourth dimension" of warfare.  He had been reduced to tabloids and underground press -- but he used them continually and consistently.   He has left history many clues about his actual behavior in 1963.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Is it known whether Walker called the German newspaper editor first or the othe way around?

[Jason Ward]

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - are you able to look at records of the Minutemen? Or Robert Morris? 

I remember all too well (even though I was 16 at the time) hearing about the Minutemen for the first time within the first week after Nov.22. However I am not so quick to dismiss government involvement. You and Paul seem to think that exploring CIA files has yielded no results. You posted some info on Bringuier a few posts ago and his various connections. I am sure you know that he had a CIA connections as well, and that both CIA and FBI had operations to discredit FPCC. It would seem obvious that Bringuier and Oswald were part of those operations, which included Bannister as well. The CIA man most likely to have been the connector to Bringuier is Joannides, whose files are still hidden despite a decade of lawsuits trying to get access to his still hidden files. Joannides was the very same agent put in charge of CIA liaison with the HSCA, and his true history was unknown to HSCA at the time. What can you dig up about him?

Despite your previous explanations as to why an ultra right conspiracy (why not use the actual term that historians have used rather than Radical right) has been kept hidden all these years - that Hoover was afraid of disclosures that would have ruined his career - I continue to believe that it makes no sense that a small group of such men could pull off the crime of the century and then enjoy the fruits of their labors without exposure. How many times I've heard it said by Trejo and many others that the explanation rests on the idea that the coverup and crime were two different unconnected groups. Again, logic tells me there was considerable overlap. As for Hoover, the same logic - fear of exposure - could apply to explain his participation in a coverup if the actors were mafia, or CIA, or US military. His participation proves nothing as to who he was protecting. 

We have a coverup that is now 54 years old, presumably to protect a small group of racist ultra rightists conspirators, a coverup managed by government agencies, elected and unelected, a compliant media. This makes no sense on its face.

the other thing you have said many times Jason is that you believe that people with too much to lose would not conceive of a crime this dangerous. Well, history has shown us that 'they' got away with it because of the enormous amount of help in covering up the crime and the criminals. Are you really willing to dismiss William Harvey and ZRRIFLE? Are you really willing to ignore the only group that demonstrably benefitted from the crime - those that wanted their war and the continuation of policies that enriched them - because these actors had too much to lose? Actors with just as much hatred for JFK and what he represented, actors often aligned with the ultra right racists in their beliefs, actors with so much to gain, and so much more power to control all aspects of the event? 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Paul B,

To keep our posts manageable I'll shorten what I would normally say to:

• Yes, I think records of the Minutemen and/or Robert Morris exist to some extent in FBI files but also elsewhere.  No one's asked for them because everyone thinks the CIA did it.
• In my view, the CIA files have yielded next to nothing in telling us who killed Kennedy.    
• Bringuier is not a CIA agent.  He's an extreme right winger.  Below is a picture of him at a recent John Birch Society meeting.
• Bringuier has no connector to the CIA in the form of Joannides or anyone else.  He was never given a role, nor a cover and never hired; a case officer was never a established.  He was loosely part of some organizations the CIA quickly learned were pointless in any effort to topple Castro.
• Bringuier was one of dozens of Cubans who were nominally interested in overthrowing Castro in an effort to get CIA money.  That's it as far as US intelligence is concerned.   In the early 60s this meant free government money which he gladly took by associating himself in some ways with anti-Castro organizations.   He, like most of the rest of Batista's followers, was never trusted nor ever employed by the CIA.
• Bringuier was a small time FBI informant and a member of an organization cut off from CIA funding for incompetence - this was the extent of his government contacts.  See below.
• I understand your points about Hoover but this is really in the realm of opinion, as our my own thoughts on JEH.  We don't have a lot of documentary evidence to show his motivations.
• Yes, I'm willing to almost dismiss William Harvey and ZRRIFLE as related to the JFK assassination.   There's no evidence.   
• No, I'm not willing to ignore the Cold Warriors or Vietnam war-wanters, but there is no evidence LBJ as president would have helped them.   In my view that was more of a lucky result for them, not an intended-planned outcome.  In any case, these guys that you no doubt speak of - the Pentagon brass - have absolutely zero record of desire to risk the electric chair or life in prison at the time of the assassination.   The non-government Cold Warriors and Vietnam war-wanters are largely members of Trejo's radical right CT.
• I disagree that anyone you mentioned "had so much to gain."  I disagree that ANYONE had "so much to gain" by Kennedy's death.  Those who believed erroneously they had much to gain by JFKs death were dominated by irrational fears and wildly inaccurate beliefs concerning the reaction of the American people.  None of the establishment intellectuals like Hoover, Dulles, Helms, Bush, etc. were so gripped by fear and mistaken perception of the public reaction.   These were politically naive, desperate actors in the assassination IMO.  You don't go to such lengths to sheep dip LHO as a commie-pro-Castro extremist if you're goal is the Vietnam War.  You don't create the Oswald legend if you're goal is to end the RFK pursuit of the mafia.   The pre-assassination Oswald conspiracy does not match the post-assassination outcomes.

Thanks for your kind conversation, I hope you'll continue.

I just finished processing 3000+ documents in tens of thousands of pages for the Mary Ferrell Foundation from the earlier release this summer.  I started participating here because the ultra-right explanation is growing stronger with evidence and the CIA-did-it side is getting weaker.   

Carlos Bringuier isn't explained by the CIA, to understand Bringuier look to his pals Walker and Courtney and the charming men of the John Birch Society.

 

regards,

 

Jason 

Carlos Bringuier recently at the John Birch Society .... and his documentation as a FBI source in the early 60s.

Carlos Bringuier as a target of FBI informants:

 

 

Carlos Bringuier and the extremist Billy James Hargis:

 

 

 

...and just to stir the pot and feed the conspiracies, lets consider Ted Cruz and his father, Rafael Cruz - once a Castro Supporter and later anti-Castro, claimed by our current president to appear with Oswald on Canal Street confronting none other than Dr Carlos Bringuier:

 

 

The key to research aimed at the CIA is their monstrous collection of cryptonyms.   Carlos Bringuier has no cryptonym of which I am aware and I think these Mary Ferrell pages give the flavor of Carlos Bringuier's tentative relationship with the CIA:

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AMPALM&search=bringuier

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AMSPELL&search=bringuier

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AMBUD&search=bringuier

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AMDENIM-1&search=bringuier

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AMSERF-1&search=bringuier

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=JMHOPE&search=bringuier

Edited October 9, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

Where do you want me to look?

Normally I wouldn't instruct anyone on what to do, what research to do, what to study, etc., but you asked so here it is. 

It seems you have some resources. With that in mind I suggest you look into the following ...

1) Travel, appointments, phone records,  and correspondance of Allen Dulles and D. Eisenhower starting in June 1963 and ending Nov 22, 1963

2) Travel and phone record of Bill Harvey for the same period

3) Phone record of David Atlee Phillips for the same period

4) Find out if Dulles met with David Atlee Phillips when Phillips visited Wash DC in summer of 1963

Any info would be very helpfull. Good luck

 

 

Ok, thanks George.  I'll try to add at least some of these points to my efforts.

Jason

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Roger DeLaria said:

During this 1960s time period, the radical right movement most certainly had a lot in common with protestant fundamentalism, and their common battle against communist atheism. I think the most outward symbols of this are persons like Billy James hargis, Gerald L.K. Smith, Kent & Phoebe Courtney, others. Cerainly less visible person could be John Foster & Allen Dulles, many of the Georgetown set with their wasp background. JFK being Catholic was a huge thing. All these groups/individuals whether east coast protestant or deep south/southwest protestant all had a common thought that liberals, catholics, democrats, etc. were all "communist", and it was like a dominoe theory.

Did you finish Dallas 1963?

I'm at page 121.  Good stuff.

Jason

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

George,

Actually, the truth is right there in the Warren Report and FBI documents -- but one must read with careful discernment.   The SBT is make-believe, but the rest of the WC testimony is as good as GOLD.

In 1971, one of the former assistants to Allen Dulles, whose name was Jacques Zwart, published a book entitled, Invitation to hairsplitting. A hypercritical investigation into the true function of the Warren Commission and the true nature of the Warren Report (1971).

Zwart begins his book with a story.  He and Allen Dulles were having coffee, and the subject of the Warren Report came up.  Allen Dulles then told Zwart words to this effect: 'The full story of the JFK assassination is in the Warren Report -- but one must become an expert at hair-splitting."

Of course Allen Dulles knew that the Warren Report had conveyed a false conclusion.  So did Earl Warren.  So did J. Edgar Hoover.  So did LBJ.   So did a lot of people (although not everybody on the Warren Commission knew the full truth -- because even some of these could not see the forest for the trees).

Earl Warren was kind enough to convey the REASON why they could not tell us the whole Truth -- it was a matter of National Security.  By saying this to us, he told us bluntly that the Warren Report had provided a false conclusion.

Yet the full 26 volumes of the Warren Commission hearing and exhibits are much larger than the single-volume Warren Report.  All the truth is there -- but we must become experts at hair-splitting.

What Jason Ward is finding is that there are many FBI documents out there which have not yet been perused, because so many people in the CT community are obsessed with some version of a CIA-did-it CT.   They keep looking in the wrong places, and requesting the wrong FBI documents.

We have barely scratched the surface of the Walker-did-it CT, and we have spent more than a half-century on the CIA-did-it CT.

The full truth of the JFK assassination is in the Warren Commission volumes -- if one carefully focuses on the WC witnesses from the Radical Right.

I suppose it does take some political savvy to distinguish the shades of Right wing -- become some Right wingers are entirely innocent of the JFK murder.  But when we focus intently on the Radical Right -- the ones who published t he WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill, for example, we have them cornered.  The Truth is there.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul

I think a disinterested 3rd party reading the Warren Commission testimony in raw form without reading the editorialized and agenda-serving Warren Report commentary would conclude

          1. there was a conspiracy

          2. the only ones who pleaded the 5th and refused to answer should be investigated further.

 

Jason

Edited October 9, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Roger DeLaria]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Did you finish Dallas 1963?

I'm at page 121.  Good stuff.

Jason

No, I haven't finished it yet. It is a good snapshot of the climate in Dallas during that time. 

I temporarily put it aside because I'm going through the masters thesis by Chris Cravens that Paul T. mentioned some pages back, "Edwin A. Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas, 1960-1966. I got it through interlibrary loan via my local library.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Roger DeLaria

[Jason Ward]

25 minutes ago, Roger DeLaria said:

No, I haven't finished it yet. It is a good snapshot of the climate in Dallas during that time. 

I temporarily put it aside because I'm going through the masters thesis by Chris Cravens that Paul T. mentioned some pages back, "Edwin A. Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas, 1960-1966. I got it through interlibrary loan via my local library.

Ok, very interesting, I should read that master's thesis next.  The inter-library loan is a great thing - you can get even the most obscure titles with it, I've found.

Jason

[Jason Ward]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

...

You posted some info on Bringuier a few posts ago and his various connections. I am sure you know that he had a CIA connections as well, and that both CIA and FBI had operations to discredit FPCC. It would seem obvious that Bringuier and Oswald were part of those operations, which included Bannister as well. The CIA man most likely to have been the connector to Bringuier is Joannides, whose files are still

 

Paul B.,

As he's still very much alive, I think it's relevant to let Carlos Bringuier address your point in his own words:

{from Crime Without Punishment, by Dr. Carlos Bringuier, p. 245 & p. 408}

https://books.google.com/books?id=2XB2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=carlos+bringuier&source=bl&ots=7lWXGE-CZQ&sig=1C6BbFE74vU_rgYhq7upm5KtsLA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVy_-J1LTVAhWDzIMKHUXSDnI4FBDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&q=cia agne&f=false

 

[Michael Walton]

I   can't see the radical  right doing it. They would  have  had  to  have  been  clued in  to  the  intel of MC and they weren't.

[Jason Ward]

18 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I   can't see the radical  right doing it. They would  have  had  to  have  been  clued in  to  the  intel of MC and they weren't.

Hi Michael,

Can you be more specific?   

What do you see as an essential intel aspect of Mexico City(?) required of those who conspired to kill Kennedy?

 

regards

Jason

[Jason Ward]

On 10/4/2017 at 12:58 PM, Harry J.Dean said:

 

 

 

 

 re; Agent-in-Charge, Los Angeles, Wes Grapp and I meeting of March 1964,  

 to confirm earlier JFK information mentioned to my usual in-person and telephone

 agent contacts .

Hi Harry,

November 19, 1963 is a very provocative day to write J Edgar Hoover.  What is your purpose in this letter I found in FBI files?

 

regards

Jason

 

• ...and here's J Edgar Hoover's reaction to the letter sent by forum member Harry Dean on a very interesting day:

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

On 10/4/2017 at 12:59 AM, Harry J.Dean said:

Re; phone billing, the 1964 wash calls were likely to Mrs. Lincoln, JFK's Secretary.The unclear notations

if possible could confirm, not likely any call made to Washington Bureau.

...

 

 

 

Hi Harry,

Paul Trejo explained to me  that he felt your story was to some degree misstated by others for their own benefit.   In particular, there seems to be this lingering question of whether you considered yourself working on behalf of the FBI?   

Is there anything else besides the FBI employment claim in this document below that you want to make clearer?

regards and thanks again for talking with me,

Jason

 

 

[George Sawtelle]

Jason

Why is Gen Walker or any other radical right leader not afraid of the electric chair but CIA agents are?

IOWs, your rational that the CIA did not do it is because they had too much to lose and did not want to die in the electric chair but when it comes to the radical right they did it but apparently they had nothing to lose and were not afraid of the electric chair.

[Jason Ward]

28 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

Why is Gen Walker or any other radical right leader not afraid of the electric chair but CIA agents are?

IOWs, your rational that the CIA did not do it is because they had too much to lose and did not want to die in the electric chair but when it comes to the radical right they did it but apparently they had nothing to lose and were not afraid of the electric chair.

You are 100% correct George.

The radical right thought they had nothing to lose.  The US and life as they knew it was surely over if Kennedy's programs stayed in place - in their minds dominated by irrational fear.  Better to shoot JFK, blame it on a commie, and count on the US public shifting to the far right in reaction.  Whoops - they miscalculated.  Badly.

No one else was that desperate; in fact all the others mentioned in CTs, especially the CIA, were quite secure no matter who was president and no matter what JFK's policies were.  The one thing that would end the CIA was if the CIA was involved in killing their boss - they would never risk it, there is nothing to gain and their entire lives to lose.

 

Jason

Edited October 10, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

1 minute ago, Jason Ward said:

You are 100% correct George.

The radical right thought they had nothing to lose.  The US and life as they knew it was surely over if Kennedy's programs stayed in place - in their minds dominated by irrational fear.

No one else was that desperate; in fact all the others mentioned in CTs, especially the CIA, were quite secure no matter who was president and no matter what JFK's policies were.  The one thing that would end the CIA was if the CIA was involved in killing their boss - they would never risk it, there is nothing to gain and their entire lives to lose.

 

Jason

I would quibble with your statement that CIA or military officials were secure. JFK already demonstrated that they weren't. LBJ surely didn't feel secure.