Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Paul Brancato]

Man are you spinning out of control Paul T. The whole point here is that Walthers gave sworn testimony to finding small files at the Paine's that somehow never appeared on the DPD report. You were the one that said they were files on Communists, and then you asked us to prove it. Walthers never said that, neither did I or Ron. Liebeler made allusions to it, but not Walther. You even tried to use that non fact to buttress your case that Walther lied, suggesting he was embellishing his discovery by adding 'Communist' to his file discovery. You were the one that said it would have taken a small truck to carry all those files, and no such truck was used, proving they didn't exist. Now you complain that Walthers shouldn't have used the word cabinet. So what? You're evading the point, and denying the undeniable. Either Walthers lied under oath, or files disappeared. So fine, argue that he was lying. I prefer the disappearing files angle, and suggest that it's more logical. Either they belonged to the Paines, which would have been really inconvenient, or they belonged to Oswald, which might have revealed too much about him. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 2:55 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Man are you spinning out of control Paul T. The whole point here is that Walthers gave sworn testimony to finding small files at the Paine's that somehow never appeared on the DPD report. You were the one that said they were files on Communists, and then you asked us to prove it. Walthers never said that, neither did I or Ron.

Liebeler made allusions to it, but not Walther. You even tried to use that non fact to buttress your case that Walther lied, suggesting he was embellishing his discovery by adding 'Communist' to his file discovery.

You were the one that said it would have taken a small truck to carry all those files, and no such truck was used, proving they didn't exist. Now you complain that Walthers shouldn't have used the word cabinet. So what? You're evading the point, and denying the undeniable.

Either Walthers lied under oath, or files disappeared. So fine, argue that he was lying. I prefer the disappearing files angle, and suggest that it's more logical. Either they belonged to the Paines, which would have been really inconvenient, or they belonged to Oswald, which might have revealed too much about him. 

Paul B.,

You're evading the facts and you know it.  

What I demand that you PROVE -- since you insist on it -- is that Buddy Walther's reported finding METAL FILING CABINETS  in Ruth Paine's garage.

I demand ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT to back that up -- and you shy away.   You and Ron both.

You and Ron both know the RUMOR -- it's more than fifty years old.  

Way to back-pedal, dude.   

Let's see what EVIDENCE you have from 11/22/1963!!   HOW DID THAT RUMOR START?  IT DIDN'T START IN JULY 1964.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Clark]

37 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

You're evading the facts and you know it.  

What I demand that you PROVE -- since you insist on it -- is that Buddy Walther's reported finding METAL FILLING CABINETS  in Ruth Paine's garage.

I demand ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT to back that up -- and you shy away.   You and Ron both.

You and Ron both know the RUMOR -- it's more than fifty years old.  

Way to back-pedal, dude.   

Let's see what EVIDENCE you have from 11/22/1963!!   HOW DID THAT RUMOR START?  IT DIDN'T START IN JULY 1964.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Man are you spinning out of control Paul T.

Agreed....

[Jason Ward]

On 11/6/2017 at 3:20 PM, Cory Santos said:

...

 His opinion, which I respect, surprised me as Ruby- while having many quirks and having a mob attitude, was not as . . . lets say. . . appropriate for such a task as killing the accused patsy in a huge plot to kill the president. 

...

CAS

I've never seen any evidence that anyone in a position of established power, wealth, or success (be it criminal success or corporate success or government rank) would have even the slightest inclination to hire Jack Ruby.   I hate to use quick and broad brush strokes, but this is a low rent guy who you trust only with low rent jobs.  The Rockefellers or Dulles or LBJ or even the KGB or Mafia wouldn't hire Ruby to do anything more than errand-boy type work.    Pros would never hire Ruby anymore than they would hire John Hinckley or Sirhan Sirahn or Lynette Squeeky Fromme, IMO.

 

Jason

[Cory Santos]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

I've never seen any evidence that anyone in a position of established power, wealth, or success (be it criminal success or corporate success or government rank) would have even the slightest inclination to hire Jack Ruby.   I hate to use quick and broad brush strokes, but this is a low rent guy who you trust only with low rent jobs.  The Rockefellers or Dulles or LBJ or even the KGB or Mafia wouldn't hire Ruby to do anything more than errand-boy type work.    Pros would never hire Ruby anymore than they would hire John Hinckley or Sirhan Sirahn or Lynette Squeeky Fromme, IMO.

 

Jason

So you agree with what I was told.

Now, the other view is that this makes him easy to manipulate, but... the problem is if he messes up, if the plan is not full proof, then you have a problem because now he is in on it, Oswald is alive and knows he is a marked man.  See the problem?

Of course, Ralph Cinque apparently is stating that the real Ruby was not in the Dallas Police basement, it was someone else. 

Based on pictures.

Ruby does have connections and a history of doing dirty deeds, but, I fail to see how any of that even remotely makes sense, but, assuming Ralph Cinque's theory was correct, they did not rely on Ruby, but a look a like?  So now there are 2 Rubys running around? 

Seems so far out their, especially when I hear from a credible source about Ruby.  He was trouble yes, but, deeply involved in a government plot and associated with several key players, no.  Unless it was only a Dallas conspiracy and no one else was involved.  But then, why did LBJ act the way he did, and records get destroyed, manipulated, lost etc. 

His association with Marcello is the biggest concern however as it shows he could be used.  I just question whether he would be used for something as important as taking out the key person in this whole thing, i.e. Oswald.  I dont agree he is, as you put it, a "low rent guy". 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Cory Santos

[Jason Ward]

On 11/7/2017 at 9:00 PM, Paul Trejo said:

...

The fabrication by Buddy Walthers

...

Paul,

As you know, in my work for ASU and Mary Ferrell, I've never encountered one single document among 2 million+ searched with finding aids and several 1000 read in entirety that indicates Ruth Paine was anything but an uncomonly generous Quaker woman.  Her religion and dedication to living as she believes her faith demands automatically makes her odd; even in 1963 Dallas few were living with this much religious certainty AND practice.   My thought is that if she were just a "normal" Dallas woman, like say her neighbor Linnie Mae Randle, few of us would entertain these melodramatic notions of Paine-as-CIA, Paine-as-paid-Oswald-babysitter, or all the rest.  Her faith, sadly and ironically, crucifies her - but she is only less famous than those figures in history who face similar punishments for integrity.

...

...

...

Just to stimulate discussion and without trying to make a point, here are a few documents about Walthers that I have saved in my personal collection, in turn mostly from Mary Ferrell Foundation.

Jason

 

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

On 11/8/2017 at 9:30 PM, Paul Trejo said:

 

2.  Jason Ward says that, by using computerized methods, he has identified THOUSANDS of FBI pages on General Walker.   As I say, it will take TIME to read 38,000 pages of material.

There's a library full of Walker stuff still undiscovered, still unreleased, never set to be released.

AFTER I help digest the document releases of 2017  (among other things; I'm helping to create a database of CIA cryptonyms and other key terms that repeat with frequency throughout the documents which Bill Simpich is hoping to leverage, we're hoping with new revelations implied by data relationships and patterns); I'm hoping to get Rex Bradford, Paul Trejo, and a few others to help compose a FOIA request on Walker.  If Paul Trejo is right about the Radical Right, THIS new pursuit of documents might produce the real headline document release.  I'm 100% convinced that the government holds nothing unreleased related to traditional CIA-did-it or Hoover-did-it or the Cubans-did-it or Oswald-was-a-spy-type conspiracy theories.   These theories must be all wrong - there is simply no primary source building anything like a certainty of conclusion.   The truth must be hidden by decades of pursuing the wrong direction and the wrong evidence.

 

regards

 

Jason

Edited November 10, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

On 11/7/2017 at 9:46 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Ron,

Actually, the USA is not Colonialist, and never was.  We made a serious mistake supporting the French in Vietnam, but that was a 1960's mistake based on our domino theory of Communism -- not a ploy to support the French Colony in Vietnam.

As proof of our mistake, we cut our losses and got out of Vietnam ten years later.  There are no more Colonies on Planet Earth, thanks largely to the USA.   Not Vietnam, not Hong Kong, not Kuwait.

It is a Communist Myth that the USA was ever a Colonialist or neo-Colonialist nation.  We want Democracy for Everybody.  Sadly, not everybody in the world wants Democracy for Everybody.

Don't believe the Communists -- also, the Radical Right is mainly echoing Marxist claptrap these days.

The CIA serves at the pleasure of the POTUS.  Always has.  Always will.

Sure, the Bay of Pigs radicalized some CIA agents who later went ROGUE.

William Harvey -- E. Howard Hunt -- David Morales -- they lost too many pals in the Bay of Pigs, and they could not sleep at night.   So they went ROGUE.

(William Harvey kept sending in Cuban Raid groups into Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis!   Imagine that!)

But face it -- the Bay of Pigs was designed to be a 100% Cuban Operation.   No US Military was supposed to be visible at any time.  So, this wasn't a screw-up by JFK, it was a major screw-up by the CIA.   (Sadly, since JFK was the boss of the CIA at the time, JFK had to take the blame -- and he took it like a man.)

The CIA was to blame for the Bay of Pigs catastrophe.  Some guys were too shell-shocked to live it down.  They became ROGUES.  They also confessed near the ends of their lives.   We know what minor roles they played in the JFK assassination.  NOTHING compared to the Dallas Players.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I mostly agree with this, Paul.

One major reason why there is no smoking gun in the 2017 document release is that decades of Garrison disciples have wasted so much time pursuing Cuba and the whole Bay of Pigs nonsense - these are those who believe the CIA is not only the supreme power in the universe but also capable of operating a large bureaucracy with no evidence whatsoever.  So, conveniently for the authors of the assassination, much of the 2017 release has been Cuban related.  Just more piles of crap is what we get because we have so many CTers mindlessly repeating Garrison's late 60s mantra that the machine put in place to kill Castro backfired to kill Kennedy. All the document dumps are disappointing because they are in response to mindless Cuban-centric theories from those calling themselves researchers.

So, we get  endless names of now dead or nearly dead CIA-paid Cubans in Havana, Moscow, Prague, Beijing, Miami, etc.  all of whom would never lift a finger nor risk their life to actually fight Castro but who greedily and fraudulently took CIA money by promissing a return to the crime-ridden dystopia of Batista's Cuba.  THE CUBANS COULDN'T EVEN KILL CASTRO - no way in hell they or they paymasters could or would kill Kennedy.

The whole Cuban angle is a waste of time.   The Cubans by the mid-60s are completely rejected by the CIA et al. for being incompetent blowhards who talk big but never get past drunken "training camps" in the Keys and New Orleans.  The Cubans loved Kennedy - both the exile community in the US and those stuck under Castro.  There might be a few Cubans on a low operational level in Dallas, but they're strategically irrelevant and play no role in motivating the killers of Kennedy.

 

Jason

Edited November 10, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

10 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Well, and there is the missing spy camera.

Paul, if you think the radical right did it, and police were involved, you must admit it is possible that an honest officer documented the filing cabinets and then, due to a cop "in on the conspiracy", most likely a radical right type of guy, took the filing cabinets to support the conspiracy. 

Do you admit that is a possibility?

It is no possibility according to the evidence.

If you prefer speculation - anything and everything is a possibility, and no reason to limit yourself to missing filing cabinets.

[Jason Ward]

44 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So you agree with what I was told.

Now, the other view is that this makes him easy to manipulate, but... the problem is if he messes up, if the plan is not full proof, then you have a problem because now he is in on it, Oswald is alive and knows he is a marked man.  See the problem?

Of course, Ralph Cinque apparently is stating that the real Ruby was not in the Dallas Police basement, it was someone else. 

Based on pictures.

Ruby does have connections and a history of doing dirty deeds, but, I fail to see how any of that even remotely makes sense, but, assuming Ralph Cinque's theory was correct, they did not rely on Ruby, but a look a like?  So now there are 2 Rubys running around? 

Seems so far out their, especially when I hear from a credible source about Ruby.  He was trouble yes, but, deeply involved in a government plot and associated with several key players, no.  Unless it was only a Dallas conspiracy and no one else was involved.  But then, why did LBJ act the way he did, and records get destroyed, manipulated, lost etc. 

His association with Marcello is the biggest concern however as it shows he could be used.  I just question whether he would be used for something as important as taking out the key person in this whole thing, i.e. Oswald.  I dont agree he is, as you put it, a "low rent guy". 

I knew people who knew Ruby, the people I knew are now dead and are mostly fringe-criminal types themselves.  I ate and drank at the Egyptian Room many times. Ruby had something, lets don't deny that.  Owning nightclubs is a few steps above pimp or muscle guy or loan shark.  But, everyone around here seems to think you're either in the mafia or you're not.  (they even think you're either in the CIA or you're not).   Did Ruby fraternize with mafia guys?  Sure.  Did he fraternize with the Dallas Police?  of course.  

Was he IN the mafia in the traditional since of the word?  Certainly not.   Did he buy off cops in some kind of full-scale racketeering scheme - there's no evidence for it.  He probably had just enough name value and free tail to pimp around to get him down the ramp or inside police headquarters...but Ruby has little more "association" with Marcello than the manager of La Louisiane or the Sho Bar in Bourbon Street...he's a fricken' nightclub owner and quasi pimp.  It's like saying a pit boss or bar manager at the Taj Mahal is associated with Trump.  Ruby's not a major player in a national level conspiracy, he doesn't shmooze with Marcello or Trafficante or Dulles or Hoover.

...anyway what I said is based on primary sources and written evidence - I place little value in secondary sources (books, authors, conspiracy theoriests)....there is simply no evidence that Ruby is anything more than a low rent guy (he shares a cheap apartment for Chirssakes and is very very badly in debt - this is nowhere near Marcello's level).

...

...

But one thing you and I can agree upon is that YES INDEED Ruby is easy to manipulate.  I'm not sure "easy" is the right word, but his personality and life situation make him vulnerable to manipulation to much higher extremes than guys with normal jobs, normal relationships.   

Do me a favor - read the transcript of Ruby's testimony in front of Earl Warren.  Ruby names the organization in Dallas and man in Dallas who -according to Ruby- curated the assassination.

 

 

Jaspon

Edited November 10, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

It is no possibility according to the evidence.

If you prefer speculation - anything and everything is a possibility, and no reason to limit yourself to missing filing cabinets.

Are you speculating that Walther lied under oath? 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

I mostly agree with this, Paul.

One major reason why there is no smoking gun in the 2017 document release is that decades of Garrison disciples have wasted so much time pursuing Cuba and the whole Bay of Pigs nonsense - these are those who believe the CIA is not only the supreme power in the universe but also capable of operating a large bureaucracy with no evidence whatsoever.  So, conveniently for the authors of the assassination, much of the 2017 release has been Cuban related.  Just more piles of crap is what we get because we have so many CTers mindlessly repeating Garrison's late 60s mantra that the machine put in place to kill Castro backfired to kill Kennedy. All the document dumps are disappointing because they are in response to mindless Cuban-centric theories from those calling themselves researchers.

So, we get  endless names of now dead or nearly dead CIA-paid Cubans in Havana, Moscow, Prague, Beijing, Miami, etc.  all of whom would never lift a finger nor risk their life to actually fight Castro but who greedily and fraudulently took CIA money by promissing a return to the crime-ridden dystopia of Batista's Cuba.  THE CUBANS COULDN'T EVEN KILL CASTRO - no way in hell they or they paymasters could or would kill Kennedy.

The whole Cuban angle is a waste of time.   The Cubans by the mid-60s are completely rejected by the CIA et al. for being incompetent blowhards who talk big but never get past drunken "training camps" in the Keys and New Orleans.  The Cubans loved Kennedy - both the exile community in the US and those stuck under Castro.  There might be a few Cubans on a low operational level in Dallas, but they're strategically irrelevant and play no role in motivating the killers of Kennedy.

 

Jason

Jason - perhaps you are forgetting QJWIN and William Harvey? This angle comes under both the Cuban angle and the far right angle. Recall that it was Clay Shaw that was put on trial by Garrison, a man now known to be both CIA connected and CMC, the latter a direct link to European fascists and Nazis, about as far right as you can go. 

[Ernie Lazar]

2 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

There's a library full of Walker stuff still undiscovered, still unreleased, never set to be released.

AFTER I help digest the document releases of 2017  (among other things; I'm helping to create a database of CIA cryptonyms and other key terms that repeat with frequency throughout the documents which Bill Simpich is hoping to leverage, we're hoping with new revelations implied by data relationships and patterns); I'm hoping to get Rex Bradford, Paul Trejo, and a few others to help compose a FOIA request on Walker.  If Paul Trejo is right about the Radical Right, THIS new pursuit of documents might produce the real headline document release.  I'm 100% convinced that the government holds nothing unreleased related to traditional CIA-did-it or Hoover-did-it or the Cubans-did-it or Oswald-was-a-spy-type conspiracy theories.   These theories must be all wrong - there is simply no primary source building anything like a certainty of conclusion.   The truth must be hidden by decades of pursuing the wrong direction and the wrong evidence.

 

regards

 

Jason

The problems with Jason's message are as follows:

1.  There are numerous methods which serious researchers can use to discover all the documents created by (or in the possession of and/or under the control of) government agencies.  Nobody has ever found some previously unknown or secret indexing system which might produce a listing of records which have never been seen before.

2.  IF the proposed new "FOIA request" about Walker refers to a plan to submit some new request for FBI documents, then there are some fundamental facts which must be addressed as follows: 

(2a)  the FBI (like every large bureaucracy) created a very extensive cross-referenced indexing system to capture information about any and all subjects discussed in FBI documents.  In a previous message I listed the DOZENS of different indexes used by the FBI to capture information about every conceivable subject.  See:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22106-new-book/?page=104&tab=comments#comment-356905

This was particularly necessary because (unlike many other agencies)....

(2b) the FBI had an intelligence function which required them to have rapid, thorough, and readily accessible access to pertinent data contained in FBI files and

(2c) the FBI was required to compile and organize factual data and compelling evidence about matters which might have to withstand scrutiny within an adversarial courtroom environment

3.   Because of (2b), the FBI developed systems to facilitate quick retrieval of data by their employees. 

(3a)  Keep in mind that during the time period we are discussing (the 1960's), information was compiled and indexed BEFORE the advent of sophisticated computer systems.  In other words, the 6000+ FBI Special Agents as well as all FBI HQ personnel did NOT have their own personal desktop computer so that they could perform their own search of FBI records.  

(3b)  INSTEAD:  The standard method used to retrieve information from FBI files was the same for all FBI employees regardless of each employee's status within the organization.  In other words, both senior management officials (such as Assistant Directors, HQ Section Chiefs, HQ Supervisors, or Special Agents in Charge of a field office OR just a newly hired Special Agent) used the same method to request a search of FBI files to discover data on persons, organizations, publications, events, controversies, etc.  That method was to fill out a search request form (form 4-22) and give it to the unit within either their field office location or at FBI HQ which performed records searches.  [NOTE:  However, there were some records or files where access was limited to just certain specific people.]

4.   FBI records pertaining to Edwin Walker have been identifiable for many decades especially because FBI HQ compiled a "Correlation Summary" on two occasions regarding Walker (January 1964 and again in July 1966).  A Correlation Summary lists all the file numbers and serial numbers containing information about a person or subject AND that summary also provides a synopsis of the information contained in those serials AND if the same information is contained in some other file -- that additional file and serial number is identified.

5.  Another method which is particularly useful for researchers is when a field office is asked to identify all references in its indexing system to a specific person's name (or about an organization, publication, event, or other subject).  The results of those requests are listed on a "Search Slip".  FBI employees who perform searches are trained to find and list ANYTHING which corresponds to the search terms----including name variations.  For example:  a person named William Randolph Smith could be searched under "Bill", "Billy", "Willie" or W.R. Smith and other permutations.

BOTTOM-LINE

Researchers already know all the file numbers which contain some sort of reference to Edwin Walker.  In my case, I requested and received all the main files created on Walker AND I also requested and received many (perhaps most) of the secondary files which contain references to Walker (but which are not exclusively about him).  NOTE:  Many of those secondary files will be added to my Internet Archive webpage once the Univ of California finishes their scanning project of my paper FBI files.]

Nobody has ever discovered ANY references to Walker being involved in a murder plot against JFK -- and certainly not in conjunction with the people whom are the main protagonists in the preferred conspiracy theories on Education Forum.

Consequently, one has to ask the obvious question:  WHAT would any new FOIA request accomplish?  YES--there are some files which have been destroyed (such as a New York City file on Walker) but many field offices opened files for some specific purpose (such as covering a speech) and then closed their file -- or subsequently destroyed it because it contained no useful information which was not already in HQ files.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Cory Santos]

 

3 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

I knew people who knew Ruby, the people I knew are now dead and are mostly fringe-criminal types themselves.  I ate and drank at the Egyptian Room many times. Ruby had something, lets don't deny that.  Owning nightclubs is a few steps above pimp or muscle guy or loan shark.  But, everyone around here seems to think you're either in the mafia or you're not.  (they even think you're either in the CIA or you're not).   Did Ruby fraternize with mafia guys?  Sure.  Did he fraternize with the Dallas Police?  of course.  

Was he IN the mafia in the traditional since of the word?  Certainly not.   Did he buy off cops in some kind of full-scale racketeering scheme - there's no evidence for it.  He probably had just enough name value and free tail to pimp around to get him down the ramp or inside police headquarters...but Ruby has little more "association" with Marcello than the manager of La Louisiane or the Sho Bar in Bourbon Street...he's a fricken' nightclub owner and quasi pimp.  It's like saying a pit boss or bar manager at the Taj Mahal is associated with Trump.  Ruby's not a major player in a national level conspiracy, he doesn't shmooze with Marcello or Trafficante or Dulles or Hoover.

...anyway what I said is based on primary sources and written evidence - I place little value in secondary sources (books, authors, conspiracy theoriests)....there is simply no evidence that Ruby is anything more than a low rent guy (he shares a cheap apartment for Chirssakes and is very very badly in debt - this is nowhere near Marcello's level).

...

...

But one thing you and I can agree upon is that YES INDEED Ruby is easy to manipulate.  I'm not sure "easy" is the right word, but his personality and life situation make him vulnerable to manipulation to much higher extremes than guys with normal jobs, normal relationships.   

Do me a favor - read the transcript of Ruby's testimony in front of Earl Warren.  Ruby names the organization in Dallas and man in Dallas who -according to Ruby- curated the assassination.

 

 

Jaspon

I have read it.  Many times actually.

I found it rather odd.  The questions lacked proper direction.

Certainly any good trial attorney would have asked much more detailed questions and NEVER would have let follow up questions not be asked.

But, he was clearly a difficult person to depose.

Please tell me though, you said he named the organization and man who "curated" the assassination.

Please tell me you are not referring to this:

Months back had I been given a chance--I take that back. Sometime back a police officer of the Dallas Police Department wanted to know how I got into the building. And I don't know whether I requested a lie detector test or not, but my attorney wasn't available.
When you are a defendant in the case, you say "speak to your attorney," you know. But that was a different time. It was after the trial, whenever it happened.
At this moment, Lee Harvey Oswald isn't guilty of committing the crime of assassinating President Kennedy. Jack Ruby is.

 

If the above is not what you meant, to save time, please be exact, who are you referring to?

Edited November 10, 2017 by Cory Santos

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

It is no possibility according to the evidence.

If you prefer speculation - anything and everything is a possibility, and no reason to limit yourself to missing filing cabinets.

I think you missed the point on this.

But the question for Paul is still there.