Edwin Walker

[Paul Trejo]

Well Paul T - I didn't know Crichton personally, but plenty is written about him on the forum website. Head of a local military intelligence unit in Dallas, involved in the motorcade planning, supplied the interpretor for Marina while she was in custody after the assassination of Oswald. According to the castro cubans -Escalante I think - he and George Bush were private funders of Nixon's Operation 40. He had his own oil company on whose board sat Clint Murchison, he was a friend of Sid Richardson, DeMohrenschilt, involved in oil leases with Batista. A very connected and suspicious character, a Republican and right winger, classmate of Earle Cabell, retired a Colonel. Wiki has a good article too.

It is unclear to me who would take orders from whom, but in general I think that guys at the head of the CIA like Dulles, or at the had of major oil companies and defense contractors - in otherwords the big money people - are atop the pyramid, and the military's job is to make the world safe for their global operations.

Paul B., with all due respect, sir, your cynicism is a little too steep for my taste. I have no doubt that Allen Dulles knew every last detail of the JFK assassination -- at the very least a few hours after the fact -- and far more than the Warren Commission knew. Yet I hesitate to name this great American as a conspirator without tons of proof. And just because somebody is rich, that does not immediately make me suspect them of foul play. Again, I need hard evidence.

That aside, I want to thank you for raising the spectre of Jack Crichton here. The most suspicious things you listed about Crichton, IMHO, are that he was: (i) connected with local military intelligence in Dallas; (ii) involved in the motorcade planning; (iii) a private funder of Operation 40; (iv) in business with Clint Murchison; (v) a friend of George DeMohrenschilt; (vi) a holder of oil leases with Batista; and (vii) a classmate of Earle Cabell.

In my view, Crichton, like many retired military men, would tend to naturally move in rightist circles after retirement. Yet insofar as he retired as a mere Colonel, IMHO he would defer to the resigned Major General Edwin Walker in social circumstances of all kinds.

However -- let us speculate, arguendo, that rogue elements of the CIA -- like James Jesus Angleton and his staff -- were involved at the highest levels of the JFK assassination conspiracy. I believe that such people could keep secrets even from their brilliant superiors for long periods of time -- and also manipulate juniors and contractors with great facility.

Nevertheless -- and this is my main point -- when it came to selecting the patsy for the JFK assassination conspiracy, which was very possibly the most sensitive and demanding task of all -- this would have best been left to ex-General Edwin Walker, a trustworthy, street-level old hand at clandestine operations. (And we have the recollections of Harry Dean and a number of other witnesses to that effect.)

In the late 1990's Jerry P. Shinley did some excellent work tracing the underground rightists in conjunction with Walker in both Dallas and Louisina. His work shows connections with Joseph Milteer and other street-level conspirators. This is the level at which I seek suspects.

It is too easy, IMHO, to start at the top of society and suspect rich and powerful people. It is just that sort of circumstantial evidence that was used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald -- which was a major disservice to history and politics. Just like those many new books that make sensations by blaming LBJ for the JFK killing -- all without any hard evidence whatsoever -- that's the sort of thinking we can do without, IMHO.

Crichton, however, is connected at the street level with street players -- and that is why he is now interesting to me. So, again, Paul B., I thank you for raising his name in this discussion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 20, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I see where you are coming from Paul T. The last thing I would ever call Allen Dulles was a great American. Let me ask you directly - why do you care about the JFK assassination? I will tell you why I care. JFK challenged the cold war thinking of our government. He tried to explore the possibility of peace with those that Dulles would have called our deadly enemies. He fired people like Dulles and Cabell and Walker (not in the latter's case technically)challenged the authority of those CiA nazi sympathizers in our government. He began the process of withdrawal from what became the longest war in our history, a totally senseless killing of millions of innocents. He was to me a hero. Walker and the others, the KKK, American Nazis, the Birchers, hated him for the very qualities I loved him for. They literally thought he was a Communist, an absurd and venal point of view. They had no interest in peace, thought there could be no peace with Communists. They totally missed the biggest truth of all imo, and that is that war begets war, and peace is only possible, whether on a personal or global level, if one seeks to understand the enemy rather than vilify them. They thought in the old mode, JFK was exploring something new. They professed to be Christians, JFK actually tried to practice Christian values. I could go on.

I am not anti-capitalist, anti-rich. But I think that the concentration of money in the hands of relatively few people gives them a degree of global power unheralded in human history. In my view JFK, from a rich family, began to take on this enormous power, and he lost.

[Paul Brancato]

That doesn't mean that Walker wasn't an organizer of the conspiracy. He might have conceived of Oswald as the patsy. He had plenty of motivation and plenty of ability to put things together. I have read a lot of what you've written about this and am very familiar with your good research and theories. I am not promoting the theory that Dulles was the man, but I haven't ruled it out. Even if he was a great American he surely hated JFK as much as Walker did. The CIA went to great lengths to sabotage all the governmental investigations, from Dulles on the WC, Phillips on the Mexico City coverup, Joannides on the HSCA.

I guess I don't understand why you think the Walker theory has more hard evidence than other theories. If its because you don't think the hatred of guys like Dulles or Cabell rises to the level of Walker's, I would have to disagree with that.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, it would be fantastic if you could find any copy of any old MSC movies (by Simms in Dallas and others) made about the Insurrection. I think one that I particularly want to see is called 'Oxford, USA" something like that. There were others (some that probably never got distributed.) The oxford one got a very wide viewing and shaped the opinions of many for a jnumber of years, (the MSC were circulationg it from 63 to 65 to any group like the JBS and others that wanted to show it,)

Good news, John; the "Oxford, USA" video finally arrived from the MDAH.

I posted it on Youtube at this URL: (...youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo&feature=youtu.be)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo&feature=youtu.be

It is 45 minutes long.

This is a one-sided film describing the racial riots at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962 which portrays as villains the US Marshals sent by JFK. The other side of the story is not told in this film.

On 17 May 1954 the Supreme Court decision in the case, Brown v. The Board of Education, interpreted the 14th Amendment to infer that Black Americans should have normal access to public schools in the USA, including colleges and Universities.

In response, on 11 July 1954, the first White Citizens' Council was founded in Mississippi, and this organization grew nationwide to form the spearhead of the so-called Massive Resistance against public school integration.

Although most States complied with the Supreme Court decision, Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama remained defiant. Mississippi remained 100% segregated through 1961. In 1962, aided by the NAACP, James Meredith chose to be the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University, and challenged JFK and RFK to uphold the law of the land.

JFK and RFK did uphold the Supreme Court ruling, and the result was a violent riot at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962, allegedly led by ex-General Edwin A. Walker (the only US General to resign from the Army in the 20th century).

Although Walker had successfully *integrated* Little Rock high school in 1957, he repented of his liberal ways in 1959 when he joined the John Birch Society. After he resigned from the Army in 1961, he became a featured speaker for the White Citizens' Councils in the South. Walker used radio and television to call for massive resistance to Meredith's registration at Ole Miss.

The grain of truth in this 45-minute narrative is when Colonel Birdsong and his allies admitted that if the Mississippi Highway Patrol had not turned back many cars with weapons at the roadblock points, "there would not have been one Federal Marshal standing."

I haven't yet been able to obtain film of the actual rioting at Ole Miss. This is still protected under exceptions to the FOIA by NARA.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

I shall watch that. The grain of truth is perhaps discolored by the explicit order by the Kennedys that weapons not be unholstered during the addmission and that the Guard use teargas. This ensured the scores of people who had gotten in in spite of Birdsongs propaganda were never given the excuse they were after. They certainly fired many rounds in provocation.

Anyway, I'll look forward to seeing a film I've been looking for and asking for for years to see how this widely distributed piece of proopaganda shaped opinions during these critical years.

Thank's for posting it.

[Paul Trejo]

I see where you are coming from Paul T. The last thing I would ever call Allen Dulles was a great American. Let me ask you directly - why do you care about the JFK assassination? I will tell you why I care. JFK challenged the cold war thinking of our government. He tried to explore the possibility of peace with those that Dulles would have called our deadly enemies. He fired people like Dulles and Cabell and Walker (not in the latter's case technically)challenged the authority of those CiA nazi sympathizers in our government. He began the process of withdrawal from what became the longest war in our history, a totally senseless killing of millions of innocents. He was to me a hero. Walker and the others, the KKK, American Nazis, the Birchers, hated him for the very qualities I loved him for. They literally thought he was a Communist, an absurd and venal point of view. They had no interest in peace, thought there could be no peace with Communists. They totally missed the biggest truth of all imo, and that is that war begets war, and peace is only possible, whether on a personal or global level, if one seeks to understand the enemy rather than vilify them. They thought in the old mode, JFK was exploring something new. They professed to be Christians, JFK actually tried to practice Christian values. I could go on.

I am not anti-capitalist, anti-rich. But I think that the concentration of money in the hands of relatively few people gives them a degree of global power unheralded in human history. In my view JFK, from a rich family, began to take on this enormous power, and he lost.

That doesn't mean that Walker wasn't an organizer of the conspiracy. He might have conceived of Oswald as the patsy. He had plenty of motivation and plenty of ability to put things together. I have read a lot of what you've written about this and am very familiar with your good research and theories. I am not promoting the theory that Dulles was the man, but I haven't ruled it out. Even if he was a great American he surely hated JFK as much as Walker did. The CIA went to great lengths to sabotage all the governmental investigations, from Dulles on the WC, Phillips on the Mexico City coverup, Joannides on the HSCA.

I guess I don't understand why you think the Walker theory has more hard evidence than other theories. If its because you don't think the hatred of guys like Dulles or Cabell rises to the level of Walker's, I would have to disagree with that.

Well, Paul B., the reasons I admire Allen Dulles are legion. Dulles became a diplomat at age 23. At age 28 Dulles helped expose the Nazi propaganda, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, as a forgery. At age 34 Dulles became director of the Council on Foreign Relations (and I am well aware that rightist crackpots regarded and still regard the CFR as a communist plot). In the 1930's Dulles became legal advisor to the League of Nations, where he personally met with Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Neville Chamberlain and other European leaders.

Dulles, appalled by the Nazi treatment of Jews in 1935, forced his own brother, John Foster Dulles, to shut down his law offices in Berlin. Dulles helped a number of German Jews escape to the USA. Dulles worked in Allied Intelligence during World War Two, and was exceptionally effective in his relentless work against Nazi forces. In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947. From that point forward, and until the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the CIA performed many political tasks that Truman and later Eisenhower liked very much.

The Bay of Pigs disaster was ultimately the fault of Dulles, nearly 70, who relied too heavily on others to watch the store. Charles Cabell was the man ultimately in charge, and was to blame for bungling the operation. Air forces in Guatemala failed to eliminate the Cuban air force as instructed, and instead of finishing that job properly, Cabell went fishing and allowed the Bay of Pigs schedule to go forward anyway. There was never any promise of US Air Force cover of this "secret" invasion -- that part of the story is flatly ridiculous, because either you have a declared war (with official troops) or you have an underground invasion (without official troops) and there is no middle ground. The promise was not to provide air cover for the invaders, but to have previously provided air protection by eliminating the Cuban air force. Cabell not only failed to do that, but was unavailable for his status report when queried. So, Cabell clearly deserved to be fired -- and by proxy, Dulles was resposible for his subordinate's failure, so he deserved to be fired.

JFK rightly said to Dulles -- "if this was England, I (as Prime Minister) would have to go; but this is America, and you have to go." Ultimately JFK was responsible for Allen Dulles, as well -- but in our system the penalty fell on Dulles, who clearly messed up.

It is sheer speculation to believe that Dulles wanted to kill JFK because JFK fired him. I don't find that sort of immaturity in Allen Dulles.

OK, enough about Allen Dulles. Now to some of your other points, Paul. B. You asked me directly why I care about the JFK assassination. Like many Americans, I disbelieve the Warren Commission mythology about a Lone Assassin. The evidence is overwhelming against that conclusion. I am pleased that the later investigation, the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations, concluded in 1979 that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy -- that is, Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. However, I was disappointed that the HSCA went on a wild goose chase seeking Mafia bosses who allegedly killed JFK.

True, there were many Mafia bosses who hated JFK and RFK for prosecuting the Mafia ten times more than any other President had ever done. But all the years of evidence only proved that Mafia bosses invested millions of dollars, throwing it at anybody who claimed they wanted to kill JFK. The Mafia were big dollar funders -- but not front-line participants (with the sole exception of Jack Ruby). So, the street-level crew was almost entirely ignored by the HSCA. Also, the HSCA failed to obtain the CIA records of Lee Harvey Oswald -- so to that extent they were ineffective.

Why do I care? Because I want the truth to come out, just like millions of Americans do. That's really the only reason. I don't believe that JFK was a pacifist, but I do believe that JFK was a better politician than most others. JFK stood on both sides of the Vietnam issue -- and he could have been persuaded either way. One advantage JFK had with regard to Vietnam was his Catholic background -- he could see clearly that Vietnamese Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire had nothing to do with Communism, but was the result of South Vietnam leader Diem (who was also Catholic) passing laws forcing all South Vietnamese to be Catholics -- some of the stupidist laws ever made.

If JFK had entered Vietnam, I feel confident that he would have assured the South Vietnamese that they could remain Buddhists if they wanted to. With that assurance, the South Vietnamese in the remote countryside would have remained loyal to the South, and they would have won their Civil War. But many South Vietnamese falsely believed (due to the indifference of LBJ) that the USA was there to destroy Buddhism in Vietnam. So, naturally we lost the support of the grass roots majority in Vietnam.

JFK was a fairly good President, but he was not a shining saint as he is often portrayed. He wanted to put on a face of peace and calm for the world, but underneath the radar RFK pursued a policy of assassination against Castro, with the full support of JFK.

The reason that Walker, the KKK, the ANP, the Birchers, and the WCC hated JFK was not because of Vietnam, but because of Race Integration in public schools. This was their obsession -- and to hell with the rest of the world. Those billboards that sprung up everywhere in Southern California in the 1960's that read -- IMPEACH EARL WARREN -- those were all references to keeping Black Ameicans out of white schools. Nothing else. Nothing else.

It is impossible to be anti-rich and anti-capitalist and still support JFK, because JFK was super-rich and a super-capitalist. So, let's be clear, JFK was not on the left -- although he was totaly correct to point out the crackpots on the right. JFK's great historical contribution, looking back a half-century later, will probably turn out to be his support of James Meredith in his registration at Ole Miss, and then his famous Civil Rights speech of June, 1963.

I am convinced that the kiling of JFK obtained its final, massive support in June, 1963 when he gave that speech in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr. On the very night of that speech, KKK member Byron De La Beckwith shot NAACP leader, Medgar Evers in the back at his own driveway, killing him dead. That was a foretaste of what would happen in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

Since Allen Dulles was not a racist or in any way a sympathizer with the White Citizens' Council (like Walker) or with the KKK, I don't find any reason to blame Allen Dulles of the killing of JFK.

On the contrary. The people who killed JFK wanted to take over the USA to make us invade Cuba right away, and also to reverse the Brown decision. The people who killed JFK failed to get their way. The people who killed JFK weren't the same people who covered up the plot to kill JFK. On the contrary. The people who covered up the plot were opposed to the people who carried out the murder of JFK.

The proof is that the JFK killers failed to get their way with regard to Cuba (or with regard to Brown v. The Board of Education).

I do admit that Allen Dulles was one of the people who covered up the plot to kill JFK -- not because he was one of the plotters, but because he (like Hoover, Warren and LBJ) was wise enough to know that the truth would revive the old Civil War in the USA. They knew that a Civil War in the midst of the Cold War would lead to World War 3.

Therefore, in the interest of National Security, Allen Dulles did in fact cover up the plot of the extreme right-wing in the USA to kill JFK. The perpetrators of the plot were actually punished -- but privately and secretly. This is my theory. I believe this will be the result we discover when the CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald are finally opened to the American public.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response. It was and is a complicated world, and there were patriots who supported the Cold War and patriots who opposed it.

I see the argument for the cover-up after the fact, but don't quite buy it. The worst thing imo that Dulles etc did was keep the secrets and protect the murderers. Our democracy was seriously injured by that decision.

Have you read JFK and the Unspeakable? Though the info in that book is not entirely new, the author does make clear, I think convincingly, that JFK turned against the military industrial complex. You and others believe he was at the time of his death still a centrist. I think he had turned leftward. I can see where, in your analysis, the view of JFK as a cold warrior who might have made a better more successful war in Vietnam than LBJ had he lived makes it unlikely that top level intelligence leaders like Dulles and Hoover and top level military brass would have seen a reason to get rid of JFK. I have drunk the koolaid that says JFK had changed and had become a threat to the national security state MIC. What turned me in that direction are the actions he took behind the scenes, the things he said to his closest advisors, and even the relationships he had with people like Mary Pinchot Meyer. The letters exchanged between him and the Russian premier, the back channels to Castro and Castro's reaction to the assassination, the filming of 7 Days In May in the white house with his encouragement and his stated fears of a coup by his own military, the effort by Angleton to keep Mary Pinchot's diary secret and the likelihood that she turned him onto LSD, the recent public statements by RFK Jr, the American University Speech and the unilateral suspension of nuclear testing, the national security directives to begin a drawdown of advisors in Vietnam, all lead me to think that JFK had turned, had envisioned a more,peaceful world. So my view of JFK leads me to believe that his mortal enemies could just as likely come from the national security apparatus as from the fringe right JBS or KKK. Of course, Walker intersects both.

One has to stretch a bit to think that possible civil war would have been a reason to cover up such a heinous crime. But one does not have to stretch at all to see that a cover-up would have been absolutely necessary if the perpetrators came from within the establishment. And then there are the beneficiaries of the change from JFK to LBJ. As you state the racist south got nothing, and neither did the Cuban exiles and their cohorts in the CIA and Mafia. But the pentagon and the military contractors, well, they sure got 'their war', as LBJ was quoted as saying.

Btw I think your analysis of Vietnam and the catholic problem is spot on. What I don't see is why a war there was necessary at all. It would have been a better strategy to support the Buddhists there for sure.

[John Dolva]

I find the perspective re catholicism and buddhism, afa the Viet Nam question goes, a rather incredible notion. I'm flabbergasted. I'd like to not be.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response. It was and is a complicated world, and there were patriots who supported the Cold War and patriots who opposed it.

I see the argument for the cover-up after the fact, but don't quite buy it. The worst thing imo that Dulles etc did was keep the secrets and protect the murderers. Our democracy was seriously injured by that decision.

Have you read JFK and the Unspeakable? Though the info in that book is not entirely new, the author does make clear, I think convincingly, that JFK turned against the military industrial complex. You and others believe he was at the time of his death still a centrist. I think he had turned leftward. I can see where, in your analysis, the view of JFK as a cold warrior who might have made a better more successful war in Vietnam than LBJ had he lived makes it unlikely that top level intelligence leaders like Dulles and Hoover and top level military brass would have seen a reason to get rid of JFK. I have drunk the koolaid that says JFK had changed and had become a threat to the national security state MIC. What turned me in that direction are the actions he took behind the scenes, the things he said to his closest advisors, and even the relationships he had with people like Mary Pinchot Meyer. The letters exchanged between him and the Russian premier, the back channels to Castro and Castro's reaction to the assassination, the filming of 7 Days In May in the white house with his encouragement and his stated fears of a coup by his own military, the effort by Angleton to keep Mary Pinchot's diary secret and the likelihood that she turned him onto LSD, the recent public statements by RFK Jr, the American University Speech and the unilateral suspension of nuclear testing, the national security directives to begin a drawdown of advisors in Vietnam, all lead me to think that JFK had turned, had envisioned a more,peaceful world. So my view of JFK leads me to believe that his mortal enemies could just as likely come from the national security apparatus as from the fringe right JBS or KKK. Of course, Walker intersects both.

One has to stretch a bit to think that possible civil war would have been a reason to cover up such a heinous crime. But one does not have to stretch at all to see that a cover-up would have been absolutely necessary if the perpetrators came from within the establishment. And then there are the beneficiaries of the change from JFK to LBJ. As you state the racist south got nothing, and neither did the Cuban exiles and their cohorts in the CIA and Mafia. But the pentagon and the military contractors, well, they sure got 'their war', as LBJ was quoted as saying.

Btw I think your analysis of Vietnam and the catholic problem is spot on. What I don't see is why a war there was necessary at all. It would have been a better strategy to support the Buddhists there for sure.

Paul B, I respect your viewpoint, i.e. the possibility still exists that the entire US Government rejected JFK in 1963, and spit him out. That is a distasteful possibility, and I don't like it, but I must admit that it is at least theoretically possible.

Such a scenario would imply that the JFK assassination was more than a remote plot by some remot cabal, but an unconscious act of 'bureaucratic resistance,' as JFK was frozen out socially. If so, then we would have sociological evidence that the WASP background of the USA could not in 1963 fully tolerate a Catholic President.

Not only was JFK our first Catholic President, he was also our last Catholic President -- and he didn't even finish one term. That is, if JFK was unable to make very many friends inside the US Government -- the Senate, the House, the Pentagon, the CIA -- and if he outraged his cabinet by his traditional Catholic promiscuity (e.g. rumors that he made the Secret Service procure women for him; rumors that he slept with Marilyn Monroe; rumors that he slept with his neighbor's wives in Washington DC, and so on) -- then there remains a likelihood that JFK lived outside the pale of the very tradition he was tacitly expected to uphold -- the Protestant standard (as expressed in traditional, Puritan monogamy).

I personally don't prefer to believe this -- but I will admit that it remains a theoretical possibility. (I'd also point out here that President Obama as a Black American nevertheless lives entirely within the Protestant tradition of monogamy, and this is one of the secrets of his success as POTUS.)

If JFK was socially frozen out of the society of Washington (i.e. they might smile in his face, but would quickly talk behind his back), then JFK would also have become a scape-goat for everything that the majority hated about the politics of 1963, namely: (1) Civil Rights riots over the integration of public schools; and (2) Cuba.

I think we must bear in mind that Eisenhower's CIA helped Castro drive Batista out of Cuba. People like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Harry Dean, E. Howard Hunt and many other CIA contractors, supported Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra, much like Ernest Hemmingway supported the Spanish underground in Spain's Civil War in the 1930's.

However, after Castro turned on his American supporters -- even killing some of them and aligning himself with Khrushchev -- Eisenhower made a 180 degree reversal, and condemned anybody who helped Castro! Imagine the fate of those CIA supporters of Castro in those days! On this very FORUM, Gerry Patrick Hemming declared how much he continued to admire Che Guevarra, long after Hemming conducted countless violent raids against Castro's Cuba. Those were confusing times. Harry Dean today still expresses the strain of Eisenhower's 180 degree reversal.

JFK inherited this chaos. JFK also inherited the Civil Rights chaos. Yet because he was a Catholic in 1963, he would take more blame for these issues than any other President, I believe. The right wing would turn on JFK in a more fierce manner than they ever would turn on a Protestant President. That's my estimate of the events.

I don't think JFK was left-leaning, and I don't think he showed any signs of taking LSD. He was a rich kid (like Mitt Romney) who lived in a bubble, and before Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK probably never met a Black American who wasn't a butler or a janitor. JFK was brilliant -- but not brilliant enough. He did his best -- but America was evidently not ready for JFK.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 23, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Well, my web site at www.pet880.com has been completely hacked and all 1,200 of my Dolph Briscoe photographs were deleted by an attacker. AT&T is looking into this as I write.

In a few days my site will be back to normal, with hardened security.

Paul,

Aren't you an IT professional? Are you saying that your website was infected with malware programmes, was also hacked to the point of having information removed from your server and that you did not know anything about it until the issue was highlighted to you by Greg Parker when his own computer warned him of the risk?

Do you not owe the members here, who have visited your website, an explanation as to what the malware was/is and what effect it may have on them? What else was it doing other than deleting photographs? Are the members here themselves at risk if they visited your site?

I work extensively with Information Systems and Technology personnel in my role and the knowledge that they have concerning information security and the risks involved with malware is second to none and doubt very much that their own systems and security is as poor as yours and I cannot believe your explanation for the mysterious "hacking" was because you are "getting close to the truth" because:

a.) You're not

and

b.) Deleting 1200 photographs of a former Texas Governor seems like a pretty crappy way to steer you away from the "truth"

So, do you have a more detailed, and less OTT, explanation as to what was going on with this malware please?

Lee, I appreciate that you're concerned about AT&T web hosting, and also that your theory about JFK is a dead end, but please remain calm.

FIrst, I'm a professional database guy, and I rely on my AT&T web hosting service to manage security for me. Obviously, AT&T does a poor job with web hosting (for small accounts like mine).

After two weeks, their Web Abuse team has not discovered how my Images folder was deleted. They have no explanation for why my web site became infected with whatever it's infected with. They admit it was attacked - but they don't know who did it or how they did it.

So -- until further notice, I must advise everybody on the FORUM to keep away from my web site at www.pet880.com. It's currently infected with something -- and the AT&T Abuse Team is taking their sweet time about it.

Secondly, as for the notion that my web site was attacked because "I'm getting closer to the truth," that was said in good humor. I surely don't suspect that the CIA wants to censor all those personal papers of ex-General Edwin Walker (who was never the Governor of Texas). Actually, all those images are freely available to anybody who wants to make an appointment to travel to Austin to explore the Dolph Briscoe Center during normal business hours. So, I hope you can still take a joke, Lee.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

My Antivirus software detects that Paul's website is infected with this.

http://www.microsoft...ML/IframeRef.DM

Duncan, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and helpfulness in helping AT&T identify the malware that somebody (probably one of my JFK debating opponents) used to hack into my website at www.pet880.com which held 1,200 photographs of articles from the personal papers of ex-General Edwin Walker until just two weeks ago.

I forwarded your technical findings to the AT&T Abuse team, for their comment. Perhaps you'll be the one who cracked this case.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947.

Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true.

Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/directors-of-central-intelligence-as-leaders-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community/chronology.htm

Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946

Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947

Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950

Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953

Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961

That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples:

As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy."

Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so.

But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing

Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen:

"I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club."

Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club.

More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?"

What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery.

Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963.

Based on the extant record, Dulles did not.

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

[Paul Trejo]

In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947.

Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true.

Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself:

https://www.cia.gov/.../chronology.htm

Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946

Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947

Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950

Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953

Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961

That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples:

As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy."

Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so.

But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing

Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen:

"I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club."

Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club.

More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?"

What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery.

Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963...

　

Robert, I'm impressed by your advanced historical perspective. I will revisit my sources.

As for Allen Dulles using the Nazi salute in his communications to Nazis during World War Two, however, that is, IMHO, easily explained by the probability that he was operating as an underground agent, seeking further information. That is a logical way to obtain further information from the enemy.

Many prominent American businessmen placed their bets with Nazi Germany before it was illegal to do so. Ford comes to mind, even Joe Kennedy. So John Foster Dulles was one among many, and Allen Dulles was the one who set him straight.

As for salvaging Nazi scientists for the West, keeping them out of the USSR orbit -- that sounds perfectly logical to me.

As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 26, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947.

Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true.

Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself:

https://www.cia.gov/.../chronology.htm

Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946

Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947

Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950

Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953

Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961

That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples:

As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy."

Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so.

But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing

Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen:

"I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club."

Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club.

More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?"

What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery.

Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963.

Based on the extant record, Dulles did not.

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

RCD you withhold the important fact that the United States was not at war with anyone during the time and circumstances you mention above. Tut Tut, eh wot?

[Paul Trejo]

The relationship of ex-General Edwin Walker to the White Citizens' Councils of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia was extensive. Walker was a professional speaker after he resigned the Army (as the only US General in the 20th century to resign).

He spoke for many right-wing organizations, but the evidence tends to show that he spoke most often for the White Citizens' Councils in the South. Walker made many rightist contacts in Louisiana, including many personal friends of Guy Banister. This would include Medford Evans (who accompanied Walker in his early 1962 hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on "Military Muzzling"). This would also include Leander Perez, the powerful, segregationist judge from Baton Rouge.

This would also include Kent Courtney, who provided the ACA Voting Index used by Walker in Augsburg, Germany to attempt to control the voting of his troops (violating the Hatch Act, and ultimately costing him his command over the 24th Infantry Division in 1961). This would also include Louis P. Davis, attorney, board member of a half-dozen segregationist groups in Louisiana, and a money source for Guy Banister. Louis P. Davis pledged Walker 10,000 men to march with him at Ole Miss in late 1962.

Walker was personally connected with each of these people involved in the segregationist movement to roll-back Earl Warren's Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education (1954) which ruled that all USA public schools must be racially integrated.

The segregationist groups all claimed that the Supreme Court ruling was a Federal government violation of States Rights, guaranteed under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That is why so many of the segregationist groups of from 1955 to 1965 had names like, State Sovereignty Commission as well as the States Rights Party.

Also, since the Supreme Court cited the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, demanding equal protection for all people born in the USA, as its justification for the Brown decision, the segregationists called their clash with the Supreme Court a "Constitutional" dispute. (This is what segregationist governor George Wallace meant in 1967 when he volunteered to run for US President, that his party was involved in a "Constitutional" dispute.)

The double-slogan of the segregationist White Citizens' Council was "States Rights" and "Racial Integrity." They did not make quick progress until they changed their name to "Citizens' Council", as you can see in this 14-minute segment on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48 (Watch for the end of that video, when the interviewer gives his audience a Sarah Palin wink at the very end.)

In that video, taken in early 1962, we see and hear ex-General Edwin Walker as he tries to explain why he resigned from the US Army. He does not offer the real reason -- just as the White Citizens Council did not broadcast their real name (but called themselves the "Citizens' Council"). Walker's real reason for resigning was that the John Birch Society told him that President Eisenhower was a "committed Communist," and Walker believed them. That is the nature of the John Birch Society (which still exists today).

President Eisenhower was a tolerant man, and he refused to accept Walker's resignation, and instead gave Walker a new duty in Augsburg, Germany. Walker took that opportunity to teach his 10,000 troops there that President Truman was also "Communist-influenced." That remark, plus the ACA Voting Index, got Walker pulled off his command post by JFK.

Walker was not fired. He was given a better job in Hawaii -- until Walker resigned for the second time. This time JFK accepted his resignation.

Harry Dean's memoirs do not contain any reference to racism inside the Minutemen in California. Nor was racism an open issue in the John Birch Society in Southern California where Harry Dean was a frequent visitor, along with David Robbins and Guy Gabaldon.

Nor did the topic of race and public school segregation arise in a meeting in which Harry Dean met with ex-General Edwin Walker and several other key players in the sheep-dipping of Lee Harvey Oswald. The issue was not race -- it was the assassination of JFK.

I once asked Harry if the KKK showed any presence among the Minutemen groups in which he associated -- and he said, no, that was never a topic of discussion. The key topic of discussion there, said Harry, was the necessity of killing JFK because of the liberal direction he was speeding the USA.

Walker could speak one way to folks in Jackson, Mississippi, and another way to folks in Los Angeles, California. Like a politician, he kept both groups interested in his plans, and he had a significant portion of the USA population on his side.

Harry tells us that Walker announced at a secret meeting of rightists (attended by Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall, John Roussellot, Larry Howard, David Robbins, and Harry) that Lee Harvey Oswald was going to be the patsy for their plot. John Rousselot handed Guy Gabaldon a large sum of cash to use in the manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico and back to Dallas. The plan was set.

To the best of Harry's knowledge, that was the only plot he saw with his own eyes. For this reason, he sympathizes with the inmate eye-witnesses in the Dallas jailhouse overlooking Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963, who said they saw two men in the 6th floor window ot the TSDB buildlng -- a lighter skinned man (possibly Loran Hall) and a darker skinned man (possibly Larry Howard).

Because Harry saw these two men at Edwin Walker's meeting, it could make sense that they were the shooters at JFK that day. Yet a close associate and battlefield buddy of both Loran Hall and Larry Howard (who was also a close associate of Edwin Walker) namely, Gerry Patrick Hemming, later admitted that he himself became part of the plot when he told Oswald that he would buy his Manlicher-Carcano rifle for double its price on the black market, if only Oswald would bring it to work the next day, and hide it on the sixth (or fifth) floor of the TSDB buliding.

My guess is that there were many more members of the JFK plot in Dallas besides those at the meeting that Harry attended with Edwin Walker. Hemming was only one of many, IMHO, and so there were probably many more shooters in Dallas than Hall and Howard (e.g. Roscoe White and Eladio del Valle). Perhaps Hall and Howard were only backups.

What we can be certain of is that the Dallas plot surely involved a New Orleans plot -- the plot uncovered by District Attorney Jim Garrison in 1967. Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw (by eye-witness accounts in Clinton, Louisiana), as well as Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier (Cuban Exiles who appeared with Lee Harvey Oswald on radio and TV in New Orleans), were also part of the plot to make a patsy out of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Given that theory, it is important to find more links that directly connect ex-General Edwin Walker with Guy Banister. I made some progress above, and I am continuing to make progress on this important aspect of the JFK assassination.

Harry's eye-witness account of his meeting in Southern California with ex-General Edwin Walker is an important piece of evidence connecting Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald *after* the 10 April 1963 shooting at Walker, and *before* the 22 November 1963 shooting of JFK.

There are other bits of evidence that link Walker with Oswald between those two dates -- one of them is the Jack Martin Film -- taken in 1963 by a young Minuteman who once served under General Walker in Augsburg, Germany. The first part of his home movie shows the bullet holes in the home of Edwin Walker where the sniper missed killing Walker. The second part of that same home movie shows Lee Harvey Oswald fighting with Carlos Bringuier and getting arrested by the New Orleans police.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 3, 2013 by Paul Trejo