Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

This question remains important, in my opinion.  I've been banging my head against the wall of this Forum for more than five years, offering every stitch of evidence that I can find.

Some people have suggested that I write a book about it -- but that's work for which I have no time.

Rather than summarize my scores of reasons for my position, let me turn the question around, please. 

Please tell me some reasons that you've heard which would convince somebody that General Walker could not be the leader of the 1963 Radical Right in the USA.

All the reasons I have seen so far have been superficial, in my reading.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul,

1. As I mentioned a month or so ago when I first posted here, you have a demand for evidence that I appreciate and which I think is much higher than the CIA-did-it crowd.  If Ruth Paine's entire family is in the CIA, that is of zero relevance to the question of whether Ruth Paine is in the CIA.   If David Ferrie once flew a load of guns for the CIA, this does not mean David Ferrie is in the CIA.  If Shaw and DeMohrenschildt and 10000 other guys occasionally pass information to the CIA from their international travels and connections, this does not mean they are in the CIA. If Oswald spoke better Russian than Marina this is of zero relevance to whether Oswald was a part of US intelligence.  Just because a bunch of Cubans say they're violently anti-Castro and are willing to invade Cuba if it means they get to cash in on the CIA cash windfall, this does not mean they are in the CIA - it doesn't even mean they are passionately anti-Castro.  The Cubans are all running a scam for CIA money in my view.

2. The entire CIA-did-it CT is based on all or most of the logical fallacies I mention above.  Basically, wherever there is missing evidence, the excuse becomes "well, it's the CIA, of course there's no evidence."   Convenient.

3. But because I watched your posts for the last few years, I finally felt convinced enough to join in and explore your Radical Right CT.   Not that your posts are perfect, not that your CT is free of problems; rather, overall the evidence you supply is documented.  There is no citing other conspiracy theorists as "evidence" in your CT - yet if you ask a committed CIA-did-it guy for evidence he will actually cite another conspiracy-minded researcher.   If Mark Lane or Summers or Garrison or Douglass put something in print - that is evidence to these guys.  It's ridiculous. 

4. So, I engage with you because I think your approach and methods are closest to the scientific method and closest to the Federal Rules of Evidence, both of which to me present the Gold Standards of persuasiveness.

5. In answering your question, I say there is no evidentiary reason why Walker could not be the author of the assassination.   He hates Kennedy and wants the US to turn back the clock 50+ years; he in fact believes if Kennedy goes on then America dies.  On 22Nov a dozen or more FBI offices immediately pin down the Radical Right because they alone have the stated objective of getting rid of JFK.  "The CIA" (whoever this nameless group is) has no such motive and no expected benefit.   So, your Walker-as-prime-mover idea is stronger than "the CIA" blanket term, which sloppily stands for practically anyone who has ever worked for the government or been in the military.  Because of the Martin film and because of Walker's knowledge of Oswald only the conspirators know, Walker is unquestionably a conspirator himself.

6. The only other prime candidate for running the show I can see would be the Hunt family.   I see Walker post-1963 as the true Walker; I mean he's really kind of helpless and unloved without a sponsor like Hunt.  I don't see Walker as self-animated as you do; I think he requires a big spender or big military behind him to be effective.  Assassinating the president is desperate and a big gamble - I can only see the likes of extremists Hunt and Walker thinking times are desperate enough to take such a huge risk.  From the CIA perspective, assassinating the president is just insanity - and these guys are hyper-rational; the farthest from insane.  I believe the CIA would nembutal JFK or poison his cigar if "the CIA" wanted him dead; I in no event believe they'd get in bed with losers like Oswald and Ruby and try a big fireworks show like Dealey Plaza.   The people who killed JFK had no easy and regular access to JFK, which forced them to pull a dangerous stunt like the Dallas show.

So, Walker is as good as any on the Radical Right in terms of the likely author, and perhaps more so.  But there are others...

 

Jason

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - that wasn't a quote? 

The proofs of Oswald shooting at Walker come from Marina, and from a letter that Ruth Paine provided to the WC a week after the fact. I'll say again, there are no writings of Walker that we know of between the time someone shot at him and the assassination of JFK that mention Oswald. The importance of who shot Walker is that it appears to me and always has seemed to me to be part of a post assassination attempt to paint Oswald as someone who would shoot to kill. All the 'evidence' is hearsay and circumstantial. I'll stick with my question to you and others - if Oswald was working with Bringuier and Butler for some purpose, rather than working on behalf of an intelligence agency watching them, how does that add up to trying to kill Walker? 

I agree it's important to know who initiated the claim. Walker denied it was him. My own hunch is that the incriminating info comes from the German Nazi editor who called Walker on Nov. 23rd. If that's the case it would lead in an interesting direction - where did the editor get that idea? My answer would be from some Nazi connection. In any case, whoever it came from, the plan to turn Oswald into the patsy was already in place before Nov. 22. 

 

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.   We agree that without something in writing, strong witness testimony, or some other primary source indicating Walker's connection to Oswald between 10April and 22November 1963, the Walker did-it-CT is weaker.   However, I might suggest the Martin film is pretty close to perfectly establishing that Walker knows about Oswald after the 10April shooting but before the assassination.

 

Jason

[Jason Ward]

5 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

1.This is a bit fluid and subject to change.  Ed Lansdale, William Harvey, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt, each with their respective assets, contractors, etc., all being very compartmentalized. Even though he was technically out, I think Allen Dulles had foreknowledge(maybe not operationall details), and Richard Helms(although I'm not sure what he knew).

2.I think the faction had major ideological differences, maybe some revenge, financial compensation.

Just as an agent does a job that a client brings to them, I think that's how a faction within the CIA would work, operating on another's behalf.

Hi Roger, thanks for the reply.

As for point 1 - I don't see any of the guys you mention as anticipating life drastically improves for them when Kennedy is gone; especially when weighed against the risks of prison/the electric chair/the destruction of the CIA .... if they are caught.   What improves for these guys so much after 22Nov that it's worth the risk of assassinating a president?

Jason

[Roger DeLaria]

On 9/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Jason Ward said:

Hi Roger, thanks for the reply.

As for point 1 - I don't see any of the guys you mention as anticipating life drastically improves for them when Kennedy is gone; especially when weighed against the risks of prison/the electric chair/the destruction of the CIA .... if they are caught.   What improves for these guys so much after 22Nov that it's worth the risk of assassinating a president?

Jason

This is my own subjective opinion, but I don't necessarily think they would see life improving per se; I see them as cowboys doing a job that was brought to them, source immaterial and unknown, and getting paid well and congratulating themselves on pulling off the ultimate op. It is a risky job for sure, but that's where I see tradecraft, cover & deception, and having a patsy to throw under the bus for the public all coming into play. Obscure ultimately who paid handsomely for the bullets. Nothing to lead back to the source. That doesn't mean the CIA was the source of the contract and paid for the bullets, I don't believe that. I see the CIA faction more on the operational side.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Roger DeLaria

[Paul Trejo]

21 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi Paul...

6. The only other prime candidate for running the show I can see would be the Hunt family.   I see Walker post-1963 as the true Walker; I mean he's really kind of helpless and unloved without a sponsor like Hunt.  I don't see Walker as self-animated as you do; I think he requires a big spender or big military behind him to be effective.  Assassinating the president is desperate and a big gamble - I can only see the likes of extremists Hunt and Walker thinking times are desperate enough to take such a huge risk... 

So, Walker is as good as any on the Radical Right in terms of the likely author, and perhaps more so.  But there are others...

Jason

Jason,

Good answer.  I agree that without Mr. Moneybags our Ex-General Walker was practically a beggar.

That's why it was so important that Walker was certainly getting cash from Hunt, and that the social cream a of Dallas perceived this.

For example, when Walker ran for Texas Governor in early 1962, it is well-documented that H.L. Hunt was his sponsor.  Dallas was well aware.

Hunt had bigger plans for Walker, but those came to a screeching halt after the Ole Miss disaster of late 1962.

I think we agree that there was something like a hail-Mary pass situation in the JFK murder.

Hunt is the most likely bankroller in Dallas, as Clay Shaw is the most likely bankroller in New Orleans, 1963.

Yet the bankroller isn't the typical street organizer, or a paramilitary specialist.

Nor was Hunt motivated at the same viceral level as the man who wanted to be Texas Governor, but would soon be reduced to begging for his US Army pension.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

Nor was Hunt motivated at the same viceral level as the man who wanted to be Texas Governor, but would soon be reduced to begging for his US Army pension.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Hunt makes Trump look tame and presidential.  As usual I don't mean to blueprint a CT.   I am comfortable with just saying "I don't know," or indicating something like: Radical Right 90% chance and CIA-did-it 10% chance.  

I just re-watched the movie Zero Dark Thirty about how they tracked down bin Laden, which probably consumed 100x the resources they spent investigating Kennedy.  Even the CIA in the modern era with satellites, parabolic microphones and bribed Pakistani officials could only come up with something like "50% probability the house in Abbottabad is bin Laden's, 30% chance it is the home of a Saudi drug dealer, and 20% chance it's some unknown dark personality from the criminal Afghani underworld."  So absent the smoking gun, I'm more comfortable indicating probabilities than trying to define a certainty.

Ruby is a pimp and a ne'er do well, the DPD is substantially similar in composition to a KKK chapter, and Oswald is a chronically unemployed wannabe who relies on charity to take care of his family and his children's healthcare needs.   It's as far from the CIA as is possible in America.   No benefit flows to the CIA with Kennedy gone; yet the risk is immense that by killing the boss they go to prison or destroy their beloved spy cub.  All risk, no reward - I can't entertain a very high likelihood the CIA is behind this for that reason alone.  When you read the CIA traffic, Oswald is seen as an oddball and is given much lower priority than maintaining their sources and methods - such as the spy cameras and tapped phone lines in MC.

Walker may be the author of the assassination as he is certainly a conspirator.  It's just unknowable at this point whether he is the maximum leader or more like the maximum operational controller.  IMO.

 

Jason

 

I'm attaching an interesting memo for us to chew on and evaluate for implications:

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

On 9/15/2017 at 8:10 PM, Roger DeLaria said:

... powerful and influential preachers like W.A. Criswell and Billy James Hargis seemed to be. H.L. Hunt was a big supporter of Criswell's and a member of his church....

There are documented CLOSE connections between Oswald-Hargis-Bringuier-Walker-Hunt.   I see no documented connection between Oswald and the CIA.

 

 

 

I'd be interested in hearing how one can see there is documented proof Hargis, Bringuier and Walker are working on the same agenda vis-à-vis Oswald and yet somehow conclude this is all a CIA operation?

Edited September 22, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

There are documented CLOSE connections between Oswald-Hargis-Bringuier-Walker-Hunt.   I see no documented connection between Oswald and the CIA.

 

 

 

Jason - Have you read John Newman's Oswald and the CIA?

did you watch the Linda Pease video that was posted by David Andrews on this thread?

you see the links between the DPD and the KKK? I'm sure they were real, but where's the names? The proof? Meanwhile, there is plenty of documented proof of the huge numbers of DPD officers, and particularly detectives, who were ex army and members of the local reserve Army Intelligence groups such as the 488th reserve army Intel group and the (I think)112th. 

why in earth would the US government let someone like Walker, or Hunt, get away with murdering a president?

for someone so well able to post documents and ask good questions, and maintain civility, to come to conclusions like you seem to have done about links between Oswald and the CIA,  when there is so much evidence that contradicts your stated point of view, boggles my mind. 

does anyone want to tackle the question that I raised on this thread - in the absence of released tax returns of the Oswalds, how can anyone presume to know their financial position? Oswald lived poor, but he always had money, somehow, when he needed. 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Jason Ward]

29 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - Have you read John Newman's Oswald and the CIA?

did you watch the Linda Pease video that was posted by David Andrews on this thread?

why in earth would the US government let someone like Walker, or Hunt, get away with murdering a president?

for someone so well able to post documents and ask good questions, and maintain civility, to come to conclusions like you seem to have done about links between Oswald and the CIA,  when there is so much evidence that contradicts your stated point of view, boggles my mind. 

Yes I watched the video - I'm trying to be polite but how in the heck do you guys believe that a voice talking on YouTube is a citable authority on anything?

WHERE is this evidence you speak of; the evidence which is so powerful that my refusal to acknowledge it boggles your mind?   Some paranoid freak stating their opinion is not evidence in my book.

DOCUMENTS?  WITNESS TESTIMONY?

 

Jason

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

Exactly - you watch Linda Pease and - what - think she's just making stuff up? Have you read any of her research?

[Jason Ward]

8 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

why in earth would the US government let someone like Walker, or Hunt, get away with murdering a president?

 

 

Hi Paul,

Jim Garrison answers this quite well:

[Jason Ward]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Exactly - you watch Linda Pease and - what - think she's just making stuff up? Have you read any of her research?

Making stuff up?  Not exactly.

Offering her conclusions and assumptions as fact?  YES, that's exactly what she has always done.

Pease is connecting dots that are connected in the way she chooses, based on her values, her belief system, her Leftist ideology, her paranoia, and, most of all, her rejection of evidence that contradicts her desired conclusions.

There is no particular reason to connect the dots in the way she chooses except for those who likewise desire the conclusion she offers.

I don't accept conclusions - they are always agenda-driven.  Facts only for me, please, from primary sources --- CTers are not sources.

 

Jason

 

[Paul Brancato]

Jason - you couldn't possibly be well read and still say there is no evidence of CIA ties to Oswald. 

[Jason Ward]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - you couldn't possibly be well read and still say there is no evidence of CIA ties to Oswald. 

Paul,

Thanks for that.

I disagree.   

If you want to simply summarise the evidence of "CIA ties to Oswald" - it might help me see your point. (I'm not even asking you to cite sources, just maybe say in a few words the strongest evidence connecting LHO to the CIA)   Please?

 

 

Jason

[Jason Ward]

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

...

Yet the bankroller isn't the typical street organizer, or a paramilitary specialist.

...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

It seems the Minutemen are at minimum a wanna-be paramilitary force.  They are ready and anxious to get rid of the Kennedys, Earl Warren, and so forth...plus avert attention from themselves onto the Communists:

{FBI memo 2/28/1964 quoting a Minutemen Newsletter}