Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Ernie-

And during the depression the US Army was in charge of processing the CCC workers......Walker played a roll in processing 10's of thousands of young men. He would do the same thing again in Norway at the end of WWII when he processed not only German's who had surrendered but also Russian and Eastern European POW's that were held by the Germans prior to being repatriated. At the end of the Korean War Walker would be in charge of processing Chinese and North Korean POW's.

Jim Root

PS Wasn't it in the late 1960's or early 70's that the US Army destroyed lots of records collected from their domestic spying?

I'm not sure about the exact date but I think the general consensus is that by 1972, military intelligence files on civilians had been destroyed. The specific answer regarding a date might be in: Negative Intelligence: The Army and the American Left by Roy Talbert Jr. (University Press of MS, 2008)

This also gives some general idea about records-destruction practices which indicates that 1971-1972 was probably the likely period for destruction of files -- particularly for files on civilians not connected to the Defense Department.

http://www.jfklancer.com/RobertJones.html

1. Dossier AB 652876, Oswald, Lee Harvey, was identified

for deletion from IRR (Intelligence Records and Reports)

holdings on Julian date 73060 (1 March 1973) as stamped on

the microfilmed dossier cover. It is not possible to determine

the actual date when physical destruction was accomplished,

but is credibly surmised that the destruction was accom-

plished within a period not greater than 60 days following the

identification for deletion. Evidence such as the type of dele-

tion record available, the individual clerk involved in the

identification, and the projects in progress at the time of dele-

tion, all indicate the dossier deletion resulted from the imple-

mentation of a Department of the Army, Adjutant General

letter dated 1 June 1971, subject: Acquisition of Information

Concerning Persons and Organizations not Affiliated with the

Department of Defense (DOD) (Incl 1). Basically, the letter

called for the elimination of files on non-DOD affiliated per-

sons and organizations.

Sounds like the only files the Army didn't destroy were the files of people who were currently "affiliated with the Department of Defense". Too bad it didn't keep the files of those who were formerly affiliated, like Oswald's for example.

--Tommy :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...I do agree that Walker, throughout his life, continuously suggested that Oswald was arrested immediately following the assassination attempt on his life and seems to have believed that it was the Kennedy administration that stepped in to have Oswald released.

I have found nothing to suggest that that story is true...

Jim Root

Jim, I also deny that JFK and RFK sent Lee Harvey Oswald to Edwin Walker's home on 10 April 1963 to assassinate him. That's not the important point, however. The important point is whether Walker himself believed it was true.

Walker's personal papers repeat this fantasy starting with the German newspaper, Der Deutsche Nationalzeitung in November 1963, all the way through 1993, the year he died.

I've already reproduced his article from the Kerrville Daily Times, 19 January 1992, many times; so now here's the final public letter that Edwin Walker ever wrote -- according to his personal papers. Eight weeks after he wrote this letter, Edwin Walker died. The letter is to Attorney General Janet Reno:

--------------------------- BEGIN LETTER BY EDWIN WALKER --------------------

MAJ. GEN. EDWIN ANDERSON WALKER, U.S.A. RTD.

8411 SWANANOAH

DALLAS, TEXAS 75209

SEPTEMBER 1, 1993

THE HONORABLE JANET RENO, US ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

10TH AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW

WASHINGTON D.C. 20530

DEAR MRS. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

I CITE THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT AND THE DALLAS POLICE CASE FILE NO. F48156 AS OFFICIAL RECOGNITIONS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S DALLAS CRIMES, APRIL 10 AND NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

I HEREBY REQUEST COPIES OF ALL RELEASED AND TO BE RELEASED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO OSWALD'S APRIL 10, 1963 CRIME TO BE DELIVERED TO ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

SINCERELY,

EDWIN A. WALKER

--------------------------- END LETTER BY EDWIN WALKER ----------------------

Here we apparently witness Edwin Walker continually trying to learn more about the "secret" information that the US Government kept in hidden vaults, regarding Lee Oswald's April shooting at Walker.

As we saw from Warren Commission records above, Edwin Walker wanted to press Marina Oswald for more information about that incident because, and I quote James Herbert Martin: "he is in fear for his life" -- he was certain that there were *two* shooters trying to kill him on 10 April 1963, and yet the FBI reported that there was only one Lone Shooter, namely, Lee Harvey Oswald, so one shooter was still at large.

In my theory, the best explanation for Walker's belief is Walker's alleged paranoia. Two psychiatrists (the two who agreed Walker should be committed to an insane asylum for observation following the Ole Miss riots of September 1962) stated that "paranoia" was a probable diagnosis (but they needed 90 days for a full evaluation).

If (and only if) Edwin Walker was somewhat "paranoid," then we can actually begin to formulate a psychological profile of a person who could assassinate JFK "by reason of insanity."

Edwin Walker walked around fearing that his *second shooter* was always out there, threatening his life. Edwin Walker also said to many people that JFK and RFK had sent Lee Harvey Oswald to his home in Dallas to murder him.

Is it possible that Edwin Walker was certifiably paranoid? Yet there would be many people who would say, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!"

The right-wingers in Dallas would be among these. One might guess that John Birch Society ideologies are based on a "paranoid" belief that the Communists have already taken over the White House and Washington DC, and are "coming to get you" in your home town.

In other words -- "paranoia strikes deep -- into your life it will creep -- it starts when you're always afraid...step out of line, the Man comes and takes you away" (Buffalo Springfield, 1967).

Add this Cold War paranoia to clinical paranoia, and then mix in a gallon of military expertise along with a quart of Cold-War-weary CIA rogues -- and pour out the result in Dallas.

Suddenly the JFK assassination in Dallas no longer seems so improbable.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo @ post #852:

I don't believe JFK was killed out of paranoia. I believe he was killed for a practical reason and that the reason for his killing has been masked by those who believe "Oswald" didn't do it.

One can present many possible reasons JFK was killed. IMO all the popular reasons are fog that obscures one's view.

JFK like many presidents had enemies. Obama has enemies. So did Bush II. And Clinton. And LBJ, and so on.

The vocal enemies are and always have been obvious. They are distractions.

The dangerous enemy appears to be your friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo @ post #852:

I don't believe JFK was killed out of paranoia. I believe he was killed for a practical reason and that the reason for his killing has been masked by those who believe "Oswald" didn't do it.

One can present many possible reasons JFK was killed. IMO all the popular reasons are fog that obscures one's view.

JFK like many presidents had enemies. Obama has enemies. So did Bush II. And Clinton. And LBJ, and so on.

The vocal enemies are and always have been obvious. They are distractions.

The dangerous enemy appears to be your friend.

I believe [JFK] was killed for a practical reason and that the reason for his killing has been masked by those who believe "Oswald" didn't do it.

Three questions about this sentence:

1 ) Why do you put Oswald's name in quotation marks?

2 ) What do you think the "practical reason" was?

3 ) Would it be better for us to believe that "Oswald" did it?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves @ post #854:

Tommy,

I often put Oswald's name in quotes because I'm not sure who is the person referred to as "Oswald". There are reasons to believe the name "Oswald" in the context of the JFK assassination was used by more than one person.

I believe JFK was killed for a practical as opposed to emotional reason. I believe that is what sets JFK's assassination apart from other attempts on the president's life. I believe the killers, the planners, expected rationally a particular outcome from JFK's death. An outcome that would fall into place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves @ post #854:

Tommy,

I often put Oswald's name in quotes because I'm not sure who is the person referred to as "Oswald". There are reasons to believe the name "Oswald" in the context of the JFK assassination was used by more than one person.

I believe JFK was killed for a practical as opposed to emotional reason. I believe that is what sets JFK's assassination apart from other attempts on the president's life. I believe the killers, the planners, expected rationally a particular outcome from JFK's death. An outcome that would fall into place.

Jon,

How does our believing that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy obfuscate the reason Kennedy was killed?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves @ post #856:

You write:

"How does our believing that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy obsfuscate the reason Kennedy was killed?"

All the great anti-Warren Report writers -- Lane, Meagher, Weisberg, for example -- focused on how Oswald could not have done it. That is true largely of today's writers as well. There has been a studious avoidance, in the main, of assigning responsibility. Except that some conspiracy theorists point a finger at the CIA, the FBI, LBJ, etc.

One can focus on Oswald at length. My comment is that by focusing on Oswald one is drawn away from the real, practical reason JFK was killed.

Sure, Oswald was set up as the fall guy. Who knew to do that? Who knew that by setting up Oswald, both the CIA and the FBI would be snookered?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves @ post #856:

You write:

"How does our believing that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy obsfuscate the reason Kennedy was killed?"

All the great anti-Warren Report writers -- Lane, Meagher, Weisberg, for example -- focused on how Oswald could not have done it. That is true largely of today's writers as well. There has been a studious avoidance, in the main, of assigning responsibility. Except that some conspiracy theorists point a finger at the CIA, the FBI, LBJ, etc.

One can focus on Oswald at length. My comment is that by focusing on Oswald one is drawn away from the real, practical reason JFK was killed.

Sure, Oswald was set up as the fall guy. Who knew to do that? Who knew that by setting up Oswald, both the CIA and the FBI would be snookered?

OSWALD GUILTY, TREJO (GAAL)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Customer Review AMAZON
Best video on JFK assassination available, January 5, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History (DVD)
I've seen every video about JFK, and in my opinion this is clearly the best one. It wasn't LBJ, it wasn't the CIA, it wasn't the FBI, and it wasn't Castro or the USSR -- yet Lee Harvey Oswald clearly had accomplices.

Doesn't that mean that LBJ, the CIA and the FBI lied to us? Not really; it was a matter of national security, to prevent a CIvil War in America, so the truth could not be revealed for 75 years according to Earl Warren. Well, now that the USSR has fallen and the Cold War is clearly over and done with, popular demand gave us the JFK act, so that in 2017 we can expect all the evidence to be released -- and when it is released, we'll almost certainly discover that this video got it right.

The experts in this video include the most capable researchers, including Jack Anderson, Arthur Schlesinger, Sam Halpern, Gaeton Fonzi, Gerald McKnight, David Wrone, Peter Kornbluh, Gordon Winslow and John Frankenheim. The film archive selected, including White House transcripts and interviews, is better than any other footage assembled. Five stars.

+++++++++++++

TREJO REVIEW AT TOP at AMAZON

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hidden in plain sight (revisited) (click link ,for video)

=

Ten months ago, the Rebel Website's editor "Rebel of Oz" published an article exposing the manipulations performed by leading website ranking firm Alexa for the purpose of reducing the search engine ranking of dissident websites. (http://therebel.website/en/editorial/...) After recently changing the domain name of the Rebel Website from therebel.org to therebel.website, Rebel of Oz revisited the matter. Here's what he has found out.

==============================

Webmaster's Commentary:

Alexa is owned by Amazon, which just signed a huge deal with the CIA.

================================================

TREJO REVIEW AT TOP at AMAZON

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that focussing on Oswald can be distracting. Armstrong went down that rabbit hole and found mystery after mystery, concluding that he could only account for what he discovered by postulating two Oswalds living parallel lives. The legend of Oswald is at least in part a creation of persons unknown. Jon - didn't Armstrong eventually conclude that some of his 'past' was forged after the fact?

Maybe the Legend was created and embellished for our endless amusement, a deliberate and elaborate distraction.

Jon - what was the singular purpose and expected outcome of the assassination in your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo @ post #852:

I don't believe JFK was killed out of paranoia. I believe he was killed for a practical reason and that the reason for his killing has been masked by those who believe "Oswald" didn't do it.

One can present many possible reasons JFK was killed. IMO all the popular reasons are fog that obscures one's view.

JFK like many presidents had enemies. Obama has enemies. So did Bush II. And Clinton. And LBJ, and so on.

The vocal enemies are and always have been obvious. They are distractions.

The dangerous enemy appears to be your friend.

Jon, I also believe that JFK was killed for a practical reason -- and that reason was to push the USA into war with Cuba.

I also believe that paranoia played a role in that -- because the people who wanted to invade Cuba also believed that Communists were in control of Washington DC (since the days of FDR) and that by invading Cuba, the USA would get back on a proper Anticommunist footing.

That was the practical reason for killing JFK -- and it had a paranoid component (i.e. Bircher ideology is quasi-paranoid on the face of it, and Edwin Walker was probably at least mildly paranoid.).

That is the reason for my opinion that the John Birch Society (and especially its members in Dallas) fully fit the profile for the conspirators who killed JFK.

Yet even if we disagree on my opinion so far, Jon, I wonder if you would offer your opinion on a related theory that I maintain, as follows.

I maintain that the Warren Commission, FBI and CIA clearly and demonstrably "covered-up" the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald could never have accomplished this murder as the Lone Shooter, and therefore they clearly knew who the real culprits were.

HOWEVER, I maintain that their cover-up of the culprits wasn't because they were part of the conspiracy, rather, it was because of National Security -- that is, they didn't want the USA to start riots and a Civil War over the revelation that the John Birch Society led this conspiracy.

So, although the US Government seems to have allowed the JFK killers to get away with it -- their judgment was mainly to prevent a Civil War during the Cold War which could easily have turned into World War Three.

The price that the USA has had to pay for this "National Security" decision a half-century ago, is that the JFK killers walked away without paying for their crime.

On the positive side, I believe the FBI and Earl Warren knew who the killers really were, and secretly ensured that they never prospered. For example, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren personally made sure that Edwin Walker collected zero of his $3 million winnings in court cases against US newspapers who printed that Walker led charges at Ole Miss in September of 1962.

What would be your opinion about that perception, Jon?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brancato @ post #859:

JFK's death brought about major changes in U.S. relations in the Middle East. I think the assassination's main purpose was to facilitate these changes. I believe some powerful persons in the U.S. who wanted the U.S. for economic reasons to re-configure its alliances in the Middle East signed on to the assassination.

As an aside, I can report that the largest contingent of students in my language school when I was there (1970 into 1971) was U.S. Navy enlisted men and officers studying Arabic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo @ Post #860:

I have read that when a youngster, the son of a Hoover friend, asked J. Edgar who killed JFK, hoover responded that it would be very bad for the country to know what he (Hoover) knew about the assassination.

If this story is true, it supports your view that Hoover covered up for national security reasons. I buy your view except that [a] I think Warren was clueless as to the facts of the assassination, and I don't believe the JBS had a hand in the assassination. JBS would have been way too easy for any intelligence service to infiltrate and therefore couldn't have maintained operational security necessary to carry out the hit, in my estimation.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd
Link to post
Share on other sites

JBS would have been way too easy for any intelligence service to infiltrate and therefore couldn't have maintained operational security necessary to carry out the hit, in my estimation // TIDD

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes Ive given a long list on this thread of who would/could have penetrated/compromised Walker-JBS group. If you can use the term 'funny' , then Gabaldon is a good example. Does anyone take it seriously that Mexican Police,whose bosses are working for CIA, would POTUS kill plot ?????????

THEIR FAMILIES - THEMSELVES WOULD BE TORTURED TO DEATH if caught......thats how its done, 'south of the border' .............Please tell us more SENIOR GABALDON about your JFK plot....it would give us increased confidence if we could have a complete list of your fellow plotters... so that we know we are not just dealing with you and your..how you say it in English "imagination ??" (the foolish gringo will tell us all)

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - an attempt on JFK's life that did not succeed in killing him, but was provably ordered by Castro, would have accomplished your stated theory. No need to take his life. I think that JFK himself would have backed such a plan if he believed Castro had tried to kill him. But if the aim of the plotters was to ensure the continuation of the Cold War and all that implies in terms of military spending and limited wars such as Vietnam, they would have had no choice but to get JFK out of the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brancato @ post #864:

The "Oliver Stone" postulate of the assassination (my term) is that JFK was killed in order to get him out of the way so that the war hawks could take us to war in Viet Nam. I believe this postulate confuses consequences with causes.

There were many consequences, I believe, to the successful assassination of JFK. Not least of which is that the public was prepared to accept the assassinations that followed JFK's. I believe the subsequent assassinations were based on learning taken from the JFK killing.

In any event, I think it's too easy to connect JFK's assassination with the war in Viet Nam. Easy explanations, which do not require careful thinking, are often mistaken in my experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...