Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Jason Ward]

6 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Likewise

You complained of me.  I complain of no one.  I'm not the one who has thrice now said words to the effect "you are getting old...you agree too much with Paul T."  

Jason

[Jason Ward]

3 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Just more of the same.  Everyone else, besides you and Paul are a bunch of commie pinkos. It's old, worn out and ridiculous. You use lots of "they" "them" and make vague references to what "everyone but you and Paul" are claiming. It's pretty sad and pathetic.

You are responding here for what purpose then?

[Michael Clark]

Just now, Jason Ward said:

You complained of me.  I complain of no one.  I'm not the one who has thrice now said words to the effect "you are getting old...you agree too much with Paul T."  

Jason

Jason, you preach straight from Paul Trejo's tired worn-out boring and annoying claim to know what everyone else is thinking. You've repeated that lament a number of times in your last few posts.

[Jason Ward]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

Jason, you preach straight from Paul Trejo's tired worn-out boring and annoying claim to know what everyone else is thinking. You've repeated that lament a number of times in your last few posts.

Ok, it seems you aren't interested in providing evidence or discussing the death of the president.  Me and Paul Trejo are much more interesting?

I'll have to join Paul T. and put you on block now, sorry you found nothing to contribute to the Kennedy case; contact me sometime if you want to discuss JFK instead of me.

regard

Jason

[Michael Clark]

6 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

You are responding here for what purpose then?

Mainly, because I agree with Paul B's point that you and Trejo have gone way too far with your insinuation that it is the two of you against everyone else. Everyone else hardly agrees on much at all, except conspiracy, which you and Trejo agree with. It's bizarre, and annoying.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, Jason Ward said:

Ok, it seems you aren't interested in providing evidence or discussing the death of the president.  Me and Paul Trejo are much more interesting?

I'll have to join Paul T. and put you on block now, sorry you found nothing to contribute to the Kennedy case; contact me sometime if you want to discuss JFK instead of me.

regard

Jason

That's fine, Paul Trejo provides no evidence or documentation but that suits you fine. More bizarreness.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Jason Ward]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Paul, My greatest problem with your theory is that upon discovering that Walker was behind the JFK assassination the authorities would have responded by stomping on this faction with their little toe. Remember that up to that point there were no urban race riots, but peaceful protests and on the right there were just singular acts of resistance and a few small cowardly lynchings. (so what else is new?)

 

The capture of Walker would not have incited blacks at all because the media would have seized the narrative just as they did with Oswald and portrayed it as personal revenge for Walker's treatment at the hand of the Kennedys. So I assume you think the capture of Walker would foment an insurgence from the white racists, but the facts are that up to that point they had backed off at every confrontation to Federal forces. Why would the Feds fear them?

 

I can't imagine a government on the fly, as you say, brazenly risking exposure that they covered up the killing of a very popular President to protect a group of white racists. Somehow making this calculus that a largely regional white backlash was much  greater to be feared than the broad nationwide revolt across the political spectrum that would have ensued had the public found out that the government had in fear not punished those who negated their choice at the ballot box.  I can tell you with certainty, no one would have accepted the excuse that their government was cowering in fear at the feet of this group. It is just a fundamental flaw.

 

 

You have some good points, here, Kirk.

Look at the evidence - I've posted lots of it in this thread alone, much of it newly released in 2017.

1. The evidence indicates Hoover was afraid of Walker and the radical right to a degree of obsession only surpassed by his fascination with communists.   The FBI traffic from the Little Rock High School episode until the Ole Miss episode puts the radical right and Walker on a threat scale or level of interest equal to Cuba or drug traffickers.  There's lots of it, weekly.  

2. From the Ole Miss riots, which was a General Edwin Walker production and which ended with Walker in a psychiatric prison under RFK's orders, the FBI internal communications traffic is nothing less than dominated by informants, reports, infiltrations and strategy discussions related to the radical right.  By the summer of 63 Hoover is sending and receiving 5 or 10 teletypes/airtels a week about Walker, the Minutemen, the KKK, and the Birchers - meanwhile the CPUSA has receded in importance to perhaps one mention per week.   

3. From my reading of Hoover's communications there's one thing he's trying to accomplish at all times - the protection of the FBI.  Insofar as Hoover embodies the FBI, you can also say he's trying to accomplish two things - the protection of the FBI and the protection of Hoover.  All else is of less importance, although its clear in his mind that protecting the FBI is equivalent to protecting America.

4. But there are places in history where Hoover's ideological merger of the FBI's best interests with the American people's best interests went wrong - and covering up the JFK assassination was one of them.  The mafia was another one.   There are others.   By 1pm on 22 November, Hoover knows there is a conspiracy and he knows the FBI and CIA had nothing to do with it.  He's already had the Radical Right infiltrated and knows they've been actively stalking Kennedy and calling for his death.  In the immediate hours after the murder, the FBI teletypes are on fire with dozens of field offices reporting to Hoover on what topic?

...the whereabouts of the Radical Right.  The order from Hoover on 22 November to dozens of field offices was to pinpoint everyone on the Right and find out who was in Dallas, and who was back in Alabama burning crosses, who was drunk in a bar, etc.   Hoover knows by the evening of the 22nd 99% of the assassination truth.  He must decide between revealing the truth (which might destroy the FBI and himself) ... or ... creating every conspirator's favorite coverup - the Lone Nut.

5. Now, let me throw this out there, politically incorrect as it will be.  Hoover is gay.  General Edwin Walker is gay.  Garrison sloppily called this a homosexual thrill killing - which was wrong, but in 1963 it could have easily been portrayed that way.  Hoover-Walker-Ferrie-Shaw-and a motley selection of their boyfriends (who were minor witnesses/characters/confidants in the conspiracy or FBI in general) means this can come off, if handled the wrong way, as: all gay people must be evil....Hoover wanted to avoid this revelation much more than anything else he risked revealing.  

A dead president on Hoover's watch is bad.  Dangerous. An existential risk for the FBI.  A dead president PLUS unravelling the whole unseemly world of pimps, hustlers, Bourbon Street rent boys, drug abuse, and what was then considered sexual "deviance" was a bigger scare factor to Hoover than the American people revolting which you mention above.

Going after Walker means the FBI is revealed as coddling a presidential murderer.  Going after the Radical Right means Hoover becomes an outed gay man in 1963 America.  Revealing the truth of the assassination means the end of himself and the FBI in Hoover's mind.  Hoover and LBJ have their best choice in fabricating the coverup, the Lone Nut theory.  This they knew was risky and dangerous, and would eventually over the years fail.

So, IMO, it isn't as you say (in summarizing Paul Trejo's CT) that the risk of the people's backlash for exposing (or protecting) the radical right per se is motivating Hoover: Hoover is motivated by protecting the FBI aka Hoover.   This is Hoover's critical moment - either way he takes this is dangerous. The post-assassination is 100% a Hoover production.  Look at the fallout - we all know the coverup is a bunch of bullsh*t and Hoover knew that the FBI men would see this on day one - and he knew the truth would leak out slowly but surely over the years.  But he knew this was his best chance to survive.

6. Anyway, please take it back to the evidence.  Hoover was all over the radical right and by 63 probably considers them the #1 domestic threat, greater than the communists; as indicated by internal FBI communications now released.  On 22 November Hoover and the FBI throw all resources at the Radical Right and know the answer by bedtime....

...then comes the coverup.

 

regards

Jason

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

David Atlee Phillips.  William Harvey.  Richard Helms.  Allen Dulles.  Those are factional characters.

David - good try. Apparently you need to provide 'evidence' to Jason Ward proving that your cast of characters were capable of ordering a murder. Funny thing about covert operations is that paper trails pretty much don't exist. So thinking people read between the lines. 

[Jason Ward]

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

...

I can't imagine a government on the fly, as you say, brazenly risking exposure that they covered up the killing of a very popular President to protect a group of white racists. Somehow making this calculus that a largely regional white backlash was much  greater to be feared than the broad nationwide revolt

...

Hi Kirk,

Below is some evidence I find most provocative concerning the role of General Edwin Walker and the Radical Right, pulled at random just as a taste of the character of evidence available:

 

1. General Walker and Carlos Bringuier = that's an interesting friendship, don't you think?  How is that the this man is friends with General Walker?  Dr Bringuier who today STILL is an active John Birch Society member blaming Castro for killing JFK, and who still claims Oswald did it with Castro's help even now.  Purely by coincidence in 1963 Bringuier "fights" with Oswald on Canal Street and is parading around with Walker and Billy James Hargis for years afterwards.

...and I wonder why Hoover is so interested with these guys that they dominate FBI communications????  {this is from a 1964 FBI Airtel reporting on a FBI informant - to Hoover}

 

Bircher Carlos Bringuier recently:

 

 

 

2. Hoover's kind of testy with the way the Dallas FBI office is less than diligent towards the Radical Right, don't you think?  There is in 2017 considerable evidence newly released that Hoover views the Dallas FBI office and agent Hosty with mistrust; Dallas is clearly protecting guys like Pollard, dePugh, the Minutemen, and Walker

...and Hoover knows it:

 

 

3. Walker spends the rest of his life trying to convince the world that Oswald was part of a communist conspiracy, directed by Moscow and/or Castro. (hmmm..just like Carlos Bringuier...) He writes senators, Janet Reno, the DPD, etc. many similar letters for 30+ years:

 

 

4. Beginning on November 22, 1963, the FBI is deluged with dozens of tips like this:

 

 

 

 

 

This is in my view the most important tip received from a member of the general public.  This letter from Dr Martin Miller has it all spelled out 5 months after the assassination:

 

[Jason Ward]

31 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - good try. Apparently you need to provide 'evidence' to Jason Ward proving that your cast of characters were capable of ordering a murder. Funny thing about covert operations is that paper trails pretty much don't exist. So thinking people read between the lines. 

Paul - show me ONE EXAMPLE of a proven covert operation in ANY case at any time where the CIA is PROVEN involved but which A PAPER TRAIL DOES NOT EXIST !

You are essentially saying that anything you accuse the CIA of has to be true because evidence to prove it can never exist.  This thinking is beyond ridiculous.  There is no such thing as a CIA asset, operation, thought or fart which isn't documented dozens of times.  You aren't reading between the lines, you are blaming your political enemies for the JFK assassination with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER and worse - YOU ACTUALLY CLAIM THAT EVIDENCE CAN NEVER BE REQUIRED whenever the CIA is the accused criminal.

Now, imagine if you will, that I accuse someone close to you, perhaps your parents, of spying on the US military and prosecute them with the death penalty in mind - but my argument is "they're commies - they never leave a paper trail, you have to read between the lines as evidence NEVER exists where commies are concerned..." You wouldn't tolerate it and you'd scream to high heaven, but because the people you politically dislike are your own accused, you happily condemn them with nothing but your intuition.

Jason

Edited October 18, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

Jason - that's absurd on its face. Paper trails with implications and inferences isn't proof the way you demand it. Neither are the memos and letters you produce to show that Walker might have arranged the killing of a president. You demand proofs yet offer none. More importantly, you ignore history, ignore historians who have revealed that history. The CIA and the military are not killers? In what world is that true? 

Paul T and yourself know full well I have never eliminated Walker as a suspect. 

This forum was never a place where each poster presents a theory. You are impressed because Paul T has a theory and argues it against all comers as if that's something to be emulated. That's not the way I view the exchanges here. 

Jason - What do you think happened on Nov. 22, 1963? I'm not asking for proof, just an honest opinion. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Roger DeLaria]

This is in my view the most important tip received from a member of the general public.  This letter from Dr Martin Miller has it all spelled out 5 months after the assassination:

Jason,

This is very interesting indeed. Thanks for posting it, and for going through all the documents.

[Jason Ward]

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - that's absurd on its face. Paper trails with implications and inferences isn't proof the way you demand it. Neither are the memos and letters you produce to show that Walker might have arranged the killing of a president. You demand proofs yet offer none. More importantly, you ignore history, ignore historians who have revealed that history. The CIA and the military are not killers? In what world is that true? 

Paul T and yourself know full well I have never eliminated Walker as a suspect. 

This forum was never a place where each poster presents a theory. You are impressed because Paul T has a theory and argues it against all comers as if that's something to be emulated. That's not the way I view the exchanges here. 

Jason - why are you here? Who is JFK to you? Why do you care? What do you think happened on Nov. 22, 1963? I'm not asking for proof, just an honest opinion. 

Alright, Paul, how about this?

I will happily talk at length with whoever insists on evidence or values it higher than speculation.   But it's obviously pointless for me communicating with those who value more highly "reading between the lines," speculation, youtube videos, creative storytelling, and so forth. Likewise, it's pointless for you to talk with someone like me who believes witness testimony and documentation much more than fantasy.   Your answer to evidence, your answer to my repeated requests that you post evidence, your answer to any and all lack of evidence, indeed your answer to anything --- is always your right to read between the lines and believe in ideas for which no evidence exists.  

It's pointless.  We don't speak the same language.

It's quite like an atheist who asks for evidence of God and gets a reply from a Christian/Muslim/Jew who -rather than cite the bucketloads of archaeology, witness testimony, and so forth, instead says, "I provide no evidence and my only evidence is my  confidence in my own beliefs".  

It's inane for the evidence-based mind to converse with the subjective mind who values above all their own personal intuition and beliefs.   

So you and I will stop arguing.  There's nothing to be gained.  We will be friendly but until I say speculation trumps primary sources or until you say documented evidence trumps reading between the lines, we are incoherent to each other.

Let's just leave it, shall we?

regards

Jason

[Jason Ward]

8 minutes ago, Roger DeLaria said:

This is in my view the most important tip received from a member of the general public.  This letter from Dr Martin Miller has it all spelled out 5 months after the assassination:

Jason,

This is very interesting indeed. Thanks for posting it, and for going through all the documents.

Roger,

It's an amazing letter.

This letter from Dr Miller is the best of dozens like it, but there's more.  The newly released documents show at least dozens of people write Hoover and the Warren Commission with bits and pieces like,

• "I saw JoeBob load 4 rifles into the trunk of his car on November 19th and he told me he was joining the Minutemen in Dallas for the weekend"
• "I overheard a phone call saying "Walker will get Kennedy in Dallas or die trying."
• "A drunk guy fell down in the men's room and when I helped him up he told me Walker's going to get Kennedy and blame it on some guy who lived in Russia."
• "General Walker showed up looking for expert marksmen...."
• + on and on little bits and pieces like this, often from bartenders, taxi drivers, gas station attendants and others who we often talk in front of as if they aren't here.

I finished Dallas 1963 a few days ago.   I like the year-long chronology.   An outstanding insight into the mood and power brokers of the era....agree?

 

regards,

Jason

[Paul Brancato]

No way Jason. I don't accept your version. I am not running on blind faith. I reject your analogy. I accept the research done by those I respect that have spent their lives researching, not in promoting a doctrine of faith. I give you John Newman, David Talbot, Peter Dale Scott. I am well read on American history. There is no doubt what Dulles represented and for whom he worked. There is no doubt that William Harvey wrote the ZRRIFLE memos about outsourcing killers for the CIA's assassination program.