Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Harriman and Lodge got Diem killed.  The Rockefellers were their patrons.  Allen Dulles had worked for the gang through Sullivan & Cromwell. Hunt, Helms and Phillips were Dulles' protégés.  Does the Better Business Bureau boast such a lineage?

General Walker met lady Diem in Dallas after her husband's murder.   Walker blamed the "Communists" in Washington DC for this death, since of course they were working against the cause of American Freedom.

For General Walker -- as for the JBS and Revilo P. Oliver -- the Rockefellers were the leaders of the Communists.  Of course Allen Dulles was a Communist, since the whole CIA was working with the KGB on a close basis.

The John Birch Society was tracking every single move of the Eastern Establishment.   Their early work probably informs every left-leaning narrative (and CT) to this very day.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

General Walker met lady Diem in Dallas after her husband's murder.   Walker blamed the "Communists" in Washington DC for this death, since of course they were working against the cause of American Freedom.

For General Walker -- as for the JBS and Revilo P. Oliver -- the Rockefellers were the leaders of the Communists.  Of course Allen Dulles was a Communist, since the whole CIA was working with the KGB on a close basis.

The John Birch Society was tracking every single move of the Eastern Establishment.   Their early work probably informs every left-leaning narrative (and CT) to this very day.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul,

The irony of political paranoia leading the Left to dutifully follow the CIA red herring planted by reactionary forces is rich; even comical if the circumstances were not so tragic.

 

Jason

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

General Walker met lady Diem in Dallas after her husband's murder.   Walker blamed the "Communists" in Washington DC for this death, since of course they were working against the cause of American Freedom.

For General Walker -- as for the JBS and Revilo P. Oliver -- the Rockefellers were the leaders of the Communists.  Of course Allen Dulles was a Communist, since the whole CIA was working with the KGB on a close basis.

The John Birch Society was tracking every single move of the Eastern Establishment.   Their early work probably informs every left-leaning narrative (and CT) to this very day.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul T - can you post documents showing that Walker thought Dulles and Rockefeller were Communists?

[Paul Brancato]

So - If Hoover was worried about Walker prior to the assassination, why didn't he do more to protect JFK? 

ATF agent Frank Ellsworth was investigating Masen in relation to weapons theft from an armory. His efforts came to a crashing halt when DPD detectives stopped a vehicle and arrested minor players in this plot, thereby alerting the rest to Ellsworth, who was undercover. At least that's the way I remember it. Ellsworth did in fact later say he thought the Ultra Right had killed JFK, something I agree with btw. But the ongoing coverup can't be explained, imo, because CIA or FBI would be shown to be incompetent. They are hiding something else. And Hoover's actions, imo, cannot be explained by his fear of being exposed as a homosexual, or his fear of an insurrection. Dulles and McCoy being chosen for the WC wasnt in order to hide the secrets of General Walker. The conspiracy is bigger than that.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Paul T - can you post documents showing that Walker thought Dulles and Rockefeller were Communists?

Paul B.,

I cite the John Birch Society publication, American Opinion.  Let anybody who is already familiar with that publication take notice.  If you're not familiar with that publication -- well, that explains so much.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 19, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

So - If Hoover was worried about Walker prior to the assassination, why didn't he do more to protect JFK?  

Paul B.,

The US System was supposed to work.  The Secret Service PRS (Protective Research Service) had the policy/duty to contact the local FBI in each city to inquire about dangerous individuals in each city.

It was the duty of Dallas FBI agent James Hosty to provide the PRS with the names of General Walker (and Robert Alan Surrey).

James Hosty failed to uphold his duty.  The PRS took Hosty at his word, and so just shipped JFK into Dallas.  The US System would have worked -- had James Hosty not fallen into the clutches of General Walker himself -- the very person that he was supposed to be monitoring in Dallas.

How do we know that Walker was Job #1 for Hosty?  Because James Hosty himself says this on page 4 of his book, Assignment Oswald (1996).  A more correct title of the book would have been, Assignment Walker.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 19, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

This comment by Paul is yet another example of how he always tries to REVERSE ENGINEER some explanation (no matter how implausible or absurd on its face) which can be used to divert attention from the FACT that Paul has absolutely NO VERIFIABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support his assertions.

A while back I posted a message from our nation's foremost expert about FBI history (Dr. Athan Theoharis) which (at that time) responded to another fabrication invented by Paul Trejo.  As Dr. Theoharis pointed out on that previous occasion, NOBODY (and I mean NOBODY) within the large community of FBI scholars believed Paul's previous assertions about the FBI filing system. 

Paul just INVENTS this stuff from whole cloth -- which is why he NEVER quotes anybody in order to support his hallucinations and delusions.

THIS is why Paul Trejo is NOT a legitimate researcher nor a respected analyst about ANYTHING.  Paul is (and always has been) nothing more than a fiction writer.

A quote worth bringing into this thread.

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

I cite the John Birch Society publication, American Opinion.  Let anybody who is already familiar with that publication take notice.  If you're not familiar with that publication -- well, that explains so much.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Well Paul, nice diversion, but I didn't ask what some jbs members thought or wrote, I asked what Walker thought. 

[Jason Ward]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

The US System was supposed to work.  The Secret Service PRS (Protective Research Service) had the policy/duty to contact the local FBI in each city to inquire about dangerous individuals in each city.

It was the duty of Dallas FBI agent James Hosty to provide the PRS with the names of General Walker (and Robert Alan Surrey).

James Hosty failed to uphold his duty.  The PRS took Hosty at his word, and so just shipped JFK into Dallas.  The US System would have worked -- had James Hosty not fallen into the clutches of General Walker himself -- the very person that he was supposed to be monitoring in Dallas.

How do we know that Walker was Job #1 for Hosty?  Because James Hosty himself says this on page 4 of his book, Assignment Oswald (1996).  A more correct title of the book would have been, Assignment Walker.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

It's clear from the FBI traffic that Hoover is watching Walker perhaps closer than any other civilian in 1963.  At this point even MLK is not as big a concern.   So Dallas is already blinking red on Hoover's threat board in November.   The leading progressives of Dallas were a decided minority, but nevertheless had enough resources for independence of action and apparently tried to provide some modest insight into the Radical Right for law enforcement.

The problem for leading Dallas liberals like Stanley Marcus is that their domestic intelligence was filtered through men like Hosty, Sorrels, and Gerald Hill of the DPD intelligence staff.   Marcus and local civil rights leaders feared among themselves the dangerous potential of Walker's movement backed with Hunt's money.   In particular, according to Minutaglio and Davis in their book Dallas 1963, Marcus was trying to raise the bar of rhetoric and discourse to a polite level of disagreement - versus the standard Dallas habit of violent confrontation against the Left.  

Marcus thought he could eventually put the ugly reactionary ways of Dallas in the past via his brand of gentlemanly tastes - by bringing Coco Chanel to town, by patronizing art exhibitions, by supporting music, and by encouraging cultural growth in a polite way.   I think we can say eventually Marcus accomplished what he was after and brought Dallas to a higher standard, but not before one last terrible gasp from the old ways.  {one important note here - being liberal in 1963 still means you are ok with segregated restaurants and have a strong distaste for the Soviets; so even the Left in this era is a bit more like the Right is today}

If you put all the pieces together, it's clear that JFK was only inches away from surviving into 1964.  The conspirators got lucky.   Stanley Marcus knew Dallas was not safe for JFK as did anyone in tune with the Radical Right in North Texas.  Their voices were just not strong enough, and were in large part under-reported by the men sworn to inform Washington of presidential threats.

Do you see Hosty as an active conspirator?  Or is he more like a conservative first, friend of Walker 2nd, and one who perhaps reluctantly got thrust into the position of protecting the authors of the assassin after the fact?   I can just about see guys like Hill and Hosty who might have been otherwise good cops, but who found themselves in a place where they had sympathy for the Right; so perhaps unmaliciously did not reveal the true threat in Dallas back to Hoover and SS headquarters.   Are the federal agents on the ground in Dallas in bed with Walker all the way at all times - or to borrow Meagher's famous phrase, is it closer to the truth to say they became accessories after the fact?

 

 

Jason

 

This is an excerpt from Dallas 1963, available to the public as part of a free preview on Google Books.

Minutaglio, Bill, and Steven L. Davis. Dallas 1963: the Road to the Kennedy Assassination. John Murray, 2014.

excerpt here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=AA11Njdo178C&q=hosty#v=snippet&q=hosty&f=false

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Michael Clark]

On 2/28/2008 at 5:58 PM, Douglas Caddy said:

I believe that the Appreciation published on the editorial page of The New York Times strikes the right note concerning the life of William F. Buckley, Jr.

That said, I cannot help but also believe that in his heart of hearts as his life drew to an end he was appalled that his/our conservative movement had been captured by sociopaths and opportunists whose evil actions have adversely affected to an degree beyond measurement the citizens in every country in the world.

.........

By "his/our conservative movement", Douglas Caddy is referring to the YAF, the Young Americans for Freedom, the Radical Right.... the Young Turks; the reckless, murderous hands of the Northeast Establishment.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

,,,Do you see Hosty as an active conspirator?  

Or is he more like a conservative first, friend of Walker 2nd, and one who perhaps reluctantly got thrust into the position of protecting the authors of the assassin after the fact?  

I can just about see guys like Hill and Hosty who might have been otherwise good cops, but who found themselves in a place where they had sympathy for the Right; so perhaps unmaliciously did not reveal the true threat in Dallas back to Hoover and SS headquarters.  

Are the federal agents on the ground in Dallas in bed with Walker all the way at all times - or to borrow Meagher's famous phrase, is it closer to the truth to say they became accessories after the fact?

 Jason 

Jason,

It's a great question.  The proximity of J. Edgar Hoover to Ex-General Walker is so damn close that I cannot see all the contours.

For the past few years -- and currently -- I still maintain the benefit of the doubt in favor of Hoover.  Let me agree with Sylvia Meagher here -- and say that J. Edgar Hoover was an "Accessory After the Fact."

However -- despite heavy pushback on this Forum -- I personally see no doubt that James Hosty was a first line and deliberate JFK conspirator inside Dallas itself.

The reason I say this is not some guesswork I invented -- i am basing my CT here on the book by James Hosty himself, Assignment Oswald (1996).

In that book, James Hosty makes the rumor about Lee Harvey Oswald working with KGB assassin Valeriy Kostikov into the introduction, the body and conclusion.  This rumor forms the central theme of his book!

And he also claims to have followed this story from October 1963, personally!

Now -- as we know from Bill Simpich (2014) that rumor was only known to a very select few among the CIA high-command.

Since James Hosty was a mid-level FBI man -- with no pull in the CIA -- I safely surmised that James Hosty had an inside MOLE connection inside the CIA -- and this this was almost certainly the same man who made Kostikov into a CIA scandal in October 1963 in the first place, namely (according to Bill Simpich again), David Morales.

So -- in October 1963 -- going by actual data inside Hosty's own book, Assignment Oswald (1996), I find Hosty far too close to the Kostikov scandal to make him innocent.

By contrast -- I personally find J. Edgar Hoover to be confused in the extreme about the entire CIA/Oswald/Kostikov affair -- as we should expect, again following Bill Simpich, because that affair was made into a CIA Top-Secret MOLE HUNT only HOURS after the telephone impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald occurred in Mexico City!

No FBI person should have known about it -- least of all a mid-level SAC from Dallas.

Further -- that's really only the tip of the iceberg.  I also demand a further investigation into anybody who was with Lee Harvey Oswald during the final interview of his life -- where those records were not produced until weeks after his death -- and where all those present at that final meeting agree on the proceedings there, down to the sentence structure.

(Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes is a is a special case who agreed with the others, but then added on, and doubled down, with extra data about the Mexico City episode.)

Oh yes -- James Hosty is on my suspect list all right.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 20, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[George Sawtelle]

Jason

You said ... "It's clear from FBI traffic that Hoover is watching Walker perhaps closer than any civilian in 1963".

Strange that Oswald is taken off the watch list prior to the assassination but Hoover is watching Walker like a hawk.

It would seem more plausible for the plotters to take Walker off the watch list since it was he who was gunning for Kennedy, according to the radical right theory.

[Ernie Lazar]

4 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

You said ... "It's clear from FBI traffic that Hoover is watching Walker perhaps closer than any civilian in 1963".

Strange that Oswald is taken off the watch list prior to the assassination but Hoover is watching Walker like a hawk.

It would seem more plausible for the plotters to take Walker off the watch list since it was he who was gunning for Kennedy, according to the radical right theory.

Walker was NOT being "watched" by the FBI

[George Sawtelle]

Ernie

I know. I believe zero that Jason and Paul write about the radical right and the plot to kill Kennedy.

If the FBI is watching Walker, they are watching the radical right plotters since Walker is the ringleader. The plotters were successfull in getting Oswald off the watch list, they would have gotten Walker off the watch list also.

Trying to point out the fallacy of their logic.

[Ernie Lazar]

20 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Ernie

I know. I believe zero that Jason and Paul write about the radical right and the plot to kill Kennedy.

If the FBI is watching Walker, they are watching the radical right plotters since Walker is the ringleader. The plotters were successfull in getting Oswald off the watch list, they would have gotten Walker off the watch list also.

Trying to point out the fallacy of their logic.

Here is the essential problem with people who make bold assertions about FBI behavior.

1.  Almost always, if you press them for details, they cannot provide any because (like in Paul Trejo's case), they just INVENT stuff from whole cloth.

2.  When a Supervisor in the FBI actually told one or more case agents to monitor some person, that instruction and the results of agent surveillance would be memorialized in FBI memos.  Those memos would specify, for example, the date(s) and time(s) when a person was monitored.   It would also indicate what method(s). were used.  "FISUR" referred to physical surveillance.  "ELSUR" referred to electronic surveillance. 

There could also be other methods -- including:  (1) a mail cover (i.e. instructing post office authorities to record names and addresses of incoming and outgoing correspondence received or sent by the person being monitored or (2) trash covers (i.e. going though the garbage bins at some location to find relevant information or (3) wiretaps or (4) surreptitious entries (aka black bag jobs).

3.  Everything just mentioned above normally would be authorized for a specific time period AND for some specific reason related to a potential violation of Federal law falling under the jurisdiction of the FBI.   When the time period expired, a Special Agent in Charge of a field office could request authorization to continue surveillance for some additional period of time.

THE PROBLEM:

4.  The basic problem with the notion that the FBI was "watching"  Edwin Walker is that there is NOTHING in his FBI files to corroborate that.  There are no standard FBI forms which were used to request permission to authorize surveillance, there are no reports by case agents assigned to investigate Walker, there are no summary memos which report what the alleged surveillance was intended to achieve or what it actually accomplished, etc. etc.

5.  In addition, Walker's HQ and Dallas field files make it very obvious that the FBI thought he was eccentric and a pain in the xxx -- but they did NOT believe he was engaged in ANY sort of criminal activity falling under FBI jurisdiction (other than the 1962 incident at University of Mississippi).

CONCLUSION:

6.  When ANYBODY makes some kind of definitive statement about what ANY government agency is doing, it is important to determine whether or not that person has any actual knowledge of the operative protocols in place as well as the routine paper trail that is created by all government bureaucracies.  IF a person cannot provide direct, verifiable, indisputable factual evidence to support their "theories" or assertions -- then, more often than not, they are just speculating or fabricating something from whole cloth.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Ernie Lazar