Larrie Schmidt

July 26, 2012

Tom, can you explain for me and any other member chronically befuddled and bemused by the exercise of "free speech" in these here parts, what the connection is between what you highlighted and "the rules" you pointed to?

If you are alleging a breach in the rules, could you explain what Paul did wrong?

And as far that second rule goes, whilst it would be great to have Larrie Schmidt join and answer questions directly, it would seem an unlikely event. Are you really willing to stomp on Paul's ability to even paraphrase an important witness?

Because that is all he did here...

Greg, Tom Scully sent me an email with this response to your post. He does not object to me posting it here.:

Greg, given the way I presented my reaction to Paul's post and considering your response to Paul, I am surprised my point is not obvious to you, at least.

I quoted the portion of Paul's post where he emphasized Schmidt's PR background and ability. Paul quotes Schmidt and by the end of the post, seems to have transitioned from suspecting Schmidt conspired with Gen. Walker and with LHO in separate plots, to accepting that Schmidt was of benign motives and actions, unfairly portrayed by the press, simply a misunderstood young man of strong political beliefs. Paul seems to me not to recognize that he became a conduit for Schmidt to place a flattering PR statement in a thread on this forum named for Schmidt. Paul could have quoted a couple of facts sourced from Schmidt and dismissed the bulk of Schmidt's response for what it was. Instead:

......................

.................................

(4) Larrie was in no way hiding from the FBI during the Warren Commission proceedings, he says. Instead, he was in Miami, supporting anti-Castro efforts with Cuban Exiles in full view and knowledge of the US Government.

(5) Larrie was interviewed by LOOK Magazine (1 Jan 65) which made a hatchet job out of his CUSA story, calling it a conspiracy. Actually, it is no conspiracy to struggle to have your favorite candidate elected; and it is no conspiracy to try to weld various political groups into a larger unit. It was quite ridiculous to call CUSA a conspiracy.

(6) Larrie was ambitious -- but not so ambitious as to delve into murder or bribery, and he resents those unfounded allegations.

............

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

Nice work, Larry Schmidt, you haven't lost your touch!

Edited July 26, 2012 by Tom Scully

Paul Trejo · July 26, 2012

Paul,

Bernard Weissman and Burley did get jobs at a carpet company but were employed on commission only basis. As they made no sales in the short time they were in Dallas, they made no money from it. They lived on the small amount they brought with them, along with a credit card belonging to Schmidt.

Did Larrie answer each specific question you put, or was what you posted, his entire response?

I absolutely believe that he was not involved in any direct sense, in the Kennedy assassination (indirectly, perhaps as a possible fall guy).

Since he has a psyops background Angers is not credible and I absolutely believe Larrie was not involved in any conspiracy to kill Walker - though by the same token, I do believe the attempt was either a publicity stunt or part of a psyop (tho' the difference is sometimes moot).

(1) I am puzzled by his denial regarding bribery since I am unaware of any allegations of this.

(2) I am also puzzled about his denial that CUSA amounted to a conspiracy. Yes, his ambition was to have his "favorite candidate" elected and to "weld" various groups together - but some of the methods did involve groups of people in conspiratorial actions. The Black Border ad was a conspiracy involving men who did not want their identities known, and involved inventing a fictional front group headed by a Jew to publicly accuse JFK of being a communist traitor.

(3) The Stevenson incident was a conspiracy which went beyond mere protest.

(4) And CUSA was not trying to weld various groups together by dent of overt persuasive argument or by other open means - it was intent on infiltrating those groups and taking them over under the CUSA banner, so in that regard, it was indeed, a conspiracy.

In any case, here are some more questions you might put to him:

(5) Why did he advise Weissman to change his name and religion before coming to Dallas because of the antisemitism, then get him to put his name on the black border ad to show that the Dallas Right Wing was not anti-Jewish?

(6) There is a photo of CUSA members in the LOOK article. Larrie and Bernard are both there. Was the third individual Larry Jones or Bill Burley?

-->Why did Weissman grow to dislike Jones so much?

--> Why did Larry Jones phone Weissman at the carpet company on the day of the assassination and leave a message to meet him at the bar "where the brothers" have lunch (The FBI report is ambiguous as to whether it was just prior to, or just after the assassination)?

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=143707

--> edit to add: When given the message from Jones, why did Weissman go into a panic and deny ever knowing anyone by that name?

--> Why did Weissman testify that Jones had left Dallas when according to the above document, he was clearly in Dallas on the day of the assassination?

--> The first group Larrie joined in Dallas was the NIC. As this was about the same time that Michael Paine was attending meetings/spying on that group, does he recall meeting Paine?

(7) I recall reading somewhere that you (Larrie) received a beating after the assassination as a message to "keep your mouth shut". Is this another unfounded rumor?

(8) Your interview with the FBI touched on your education and work history to that point, but omits what you did between leaving the army the first time in '57 and commencing work with the Culver City Citizen in '59. Is it true that during this period you were living in Miami and editing the University of Miami newspaper?

(9) What historical perspective does he derive from his German-Russian background, and did that influence his political thinking?

--> What was his impression of Bob Morris?

Greg, thanks for your interest and questions. I numbered your questions above for ease of reference below.

I congratulate Larrie Schmidt for finally stepping forward, but I don't push him or bully him, as you might understand. I hope that he will eventually be willing to join the FORUM, but at present he is uncomfortable with dealing with what he expects would be amateur prosecuting attorneys making wild accusations.

I think of my interview with Larrie Schmidt as a boon, so I'm taking it gently and slowly -- it may take some time before he is willing to speak with me on a totally familiar basis. For now, he is mainly concerned with stopping the wild rumors that circulate about him.

I will bear all your questions in mind, Greg, as I proceed. For the present, I advise anybody interested to find a copy of the LOOK interview of Larrie Schmidt from 26 January 1965. This will bring you up to speed faster than anything I know today.

I can answer some of your questions based on what Larrie has offered so far:

(1) Somebody in an insensitive mood said that Larrie would do anything for money. That was random and callous.

(2) Actually, the black-bordered ad was signed by a member of the CUSA using his real name. The CUSA had some splinter organizations in Dallas, specializing in different actions, but they were duly registered with the city of Dallas. Bernard Weissman's name was indeed selected because it was Jewish, and Larrie explained his dual reasoning: (i) evidence that the right-wing could be friendly to Jews; and (ii) the potential to charge leftist critics of being anti-Semitic, and so prove that rightists had no monopoly on anti-Semitism.

(3) Larrie, who was present at the Stevenson incident, went public in the DTH that week to deny that any spitting had occurred, and to argue that it was a mere accident that a young woman hit Adlai Stevenson on the head with her picket sign (i.e. as video of the event shows, Adlai's bodyguards pushed Adlai through the protesters and pushed this woman back and she dropped her sign which lightly fell on Adlai's head). The biased press made it much worse than it actually was, says Larrie.

(4) That's a matter of interpretation at any level, Greg. There are many methods by which one can weld various groups together.

(5) Those were two separate incidents, Greg. In the first case, Larrie was excited by all the progress he was making in Dallas, and he was certain that Weissman would rise faster in Dallas as a 'born-again' Christian. But remember, Weissman was deeply offended by this suggestion, and would have no part of it. When that became clear to Larrie, Larrie came to believe that the Jewish Weissman could rise fastest in Dallas politics by boldly coming out with this criticism of JFK in the Dallas morning news.

(6) Actually, Bernard Weissman is not in that photo. The three people were Larrie, Larry Jones and Norman Baker.

(7) Greg, that myth was started by Bradford P. Angers, and repeated by Dick Russell (TMWKTM). Larrie denies every part of that story.

(8) Larry Henry Schmidt joined the Army twice. The first time was in early 1955. He dropped out of high school and joined up when he was 17. He served out his tour in Germany. He was honorably discharged in late 1957. Then he used his GI Bill to attend Miami U. and study journalism, where he excelled and served an internship with the Miami Herald, learning from some now-famous journalists. But after two years, a pair of personal crises stunned him, and he dropped out of college and returned to the Army in late 1959. Again he was assigned to Germany, and this time he used his journalism experience to get a job with the Armed Forces Recreation Center (AFRC) where he excelled and excelled again, rising to a position of Assistant Director of their Bavarian hotels, which often hosted VIP visitors. Larrie was honorably discharged from his second tour of duty in late 1962.

(9) Larrie says that his youth was virtually politics-free. He was a young American, and liked his freedom, and was liberal in most of his attitudes and behavior. Having grown up in Nebraska, he had little experience with Southern racial segregation, and always thought it was bizarre. Larrie says that his German background was helpful in his Army tours in Germany, where soldiers who spoke German got opportunities that English-speaking soldiers would never imagine. Larrie also says that his political awakening came during his second Army tour, when he had the time to read two books: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, after which he considered himself an Objectivist and atheist, and also Barry Goldwater's, Conscience of a Conservative, after which he considered himself a Conservative. He admits that he had no further ideological orientation than this. Larrie's entry into politics was based firmly on his confidence in his journalism skills and understanding of mass media.

Also, as for your interesting questions about Weissman and Jones, Greg, I don't have those answers at this time, and I will ask Larrie in due time.

As for your interesting questions about Michael Paine and the NIC, I also have no answer yet. I will ask Larrie about Paine in due time.

As for your interesting question about Robert Morris, I also have no answer yet. I will ask Larrie about Morris in due time.

For the present, I again advise anybody interested to find a copy of the LOOK interview of Larrie Schmidt from 26 January 1965. This will bring you up to speed faster than anything I know today -- it is biased against Larrie, but it also covers the chronology quite well.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 26, 2012 by Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo · July 26, 2012

...I quoted the portion of Paul's post where he emphasized Schmidt's PR background and ability. Paul quotes Schmidt and by the end of the post, seems to have transitioned from suspecting Schmidt conspired with Gen. Walker and with LHO in separate plots, to accepting that Schmidt was of benign motives and actions, unfairly portrayed by the press, simply a misunderstood young man of strong political beliefs. Paul seems to me not to recognize that he became a conduit for Schmidt to place a flattering PR statement in a thread on this forum named for Schmidt. Paul could have quoted a couple of facts sourced from Schmidt and dismissed the bulk of Schmidt's response for what it was....

Nice work, Larry Schmidt, you haven't lost your touch!

Tom, there's no need to emphasize that Larrie Schmidt was an expert PR man -- I'm well aware of the implications.

As for any transitions, it's worth some reflection. Until just this month, historians had only three documented sources about Larrie Henry Schmidt, namely: (i) the Warren Commission hearings and exhibits; (ii) a biased LOOK magazine article of 26 January 1965; and (iii) allegations by Bradford P. Angers, and recorded by Dick Russell (The Man Who Knew Too Much, 1992, 2003)

GIven no other information, my assumptions and speculations followed logically.

Yet with further information, particularly from an eye-witness, it would seem strange to hold on to the same old assumptions and speculations.

Although Dick Russell's theory neatly filled in some gaping holes in the Warren Commission theory, there may be other candidates, too, for other accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald in the shooting at General Walker on 10 April 1963.

Actually, I had a few doubts about Dick Russell's account because the story changed radically from the 1992 edition of TMWKTM to its 2003 edition.

Notice that in its 1992 edition of TMWKTM Dick Russell says that Robert Schmidt was the source of the confession to Bradford P. Angers, while in the 2003 edition of TMWKTM Dick Russell says that Larrie Schmidt was the one who confessed to Angers. I was always bothered by that.

I still maintain that Oswald had accomplices and that the eye-witness to the escape of the shooters as recorded by the DPD is still valid and correct.

However, the identity of those accomplices has never been established with certainty -- and that is why I held onto Dick Russell's theory so strongly -- he is the only one to offer a plausible explanation (after we saw how William McEwan Duff, alias Bill McDuff, alias Bill Duff is easily acquitted).

I admit that eliminating Larrie Schmidt as a suspect still leaves the identities of Oswald's accomplices in question. But that is a separate issue.

So - the changing story of Dick Russell on this topic must weaken the claims of Dick Russell to accuracy, and the strident denials of Larrie Schmidt himself about this must now bear some weight in the argument.

That's a logical, rational approach to evaluating the evidence, and it has nothing to do with Larrie's PR experience.

Show me evidence -- that's my request. Innuendo and wit have no argumentative weight whatsoever.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 29, 2012 by Paul Trejo

Greg Parker · July 27, 2012

Greg, thanks for your interest and questions. I numbered your questions above for ease of reference below.

I congratulate Larrie Schmidt for finally stepping forward, but I don't push him or bully him, as you might understand. I hope that he will eventually be willing to join the FORUM, but at present he is uncomfortable with dealing with what he expects would be amateur prosecuting attorneys making wild accusations.

Paul,

I have not read the LOOK article, nor the original version of TMWKTM, and have forgotten what Russell said in the second version. Anything I say or ask is mainly based on the WC testimony of Weissman and Walker and on the FBI reports as they relate to CUSA and its members. Some questions may spring from research outside the box e.g. the history of Germans in Russia, or newspaper articles on matters related in some general way to any of these topics.

I think of my interview with Larrie Schmidt as a boon, so I'm taking it gently and slowly -- it may take some time before he is willing to speak with me on a totally familiar basis. For now, he is mainly concerned with stopping the wild rumors that circulate about him.

Fair enough.

I will bear all your questions in mind, Greg, as I proceed. For the present, I advise anybody interested to find a copy of the LOOK interview of Larrie Schmidt from 26 January 1965. This will bring you up to speed faster than anything I know today.

I can answer some of your questions based on what Larrie has offered so far:

(1) Somebody in an insensitive mood said that Larrie would do anything for money. That was random and callous.

"Anything" is pretty broad and though it may include bribery, I still wonder why it was singled out particularly for denial among the 1001 things "anything" could refer to.

(2) Actually, the black-bordered ad was signed by a member of the CUSA using his real name. The CUSA had some splinter organizations in Dallas, specializing in different actions, but they were duly registered with the city of Dallas.

Paul, he used his real name because he was told to do so on the basis that it was Jewish.

The American Fact-Finding Committee was not registered with the city. According to Weissman, it was a name made up by Larrie and Joe Grinnan.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=140709

Since the name of the group was made up, I do wonder why, if they wanted it to have a Jewish head, they didn't just make up a name there as well. One reason might be if you wanted to implicate that person in some way, in some matter or other.

There indeed was one other entity - AMBUS.

Bernard Weissman's name was indeed selected because it was Jewish, and Larrie explained his dual reasoning: (i) evidence that the right-wing could be friendly to Jews; and (ii) the potential to charge leftist critics of being anti-Semitic, and so prove that rightists had no monopoly on anti-Semitism.

See above. That could have been accomplished by using a fake name as head of the fake organization.

(3) Larrie, who was present at the Stevenson incident, went public in the DTH that week to deny that any spitting had occurred,

Well, it did in fact occur. There is no question about that. If Hatfield had only spat at Stevenson, he would never have been charged because Adlai did not want to press charges. He was charged because he made the mistake of also spitting at a cop. He was found guilty and fined $200.00.

and to argue that it was a mere accident that a young woman hit Adlai Stevenson on the head with her picket sign (i.e. as video of the event shows, Adlai's bodyguards pushed Adlai through the protesters and pushed this woman back and she dropped her sign which lightly fell on Adlai's head). The biased press made it much worse than it actually was, says Larrie.

"young" is a relative term. Cora Frederickson was 47. Cora herself claimed someone jostled her arm just as she was attempting to put the sign up close to Stevenson in order for him to read it.

This is the film of the incident. I don't see either Larrie's or Cora's explanation being confirmed by the film, but maybe others can see it. There are some here who are gifted at that sort of thing.

(4) That's a matter of interpretation at any level, Greg. There are many methods by which one can weld various groups together.

No Paul, it is not a matter of interpretation. The records show in unambiguous language that CUSA had the intent of joining organizations, doing virtually whatever it took to take control of them, then bring them under the CUSA umbrella.

According to Richard Helms, to "monitor" a group was merely to attend its public meetings and hear what any citizen present would hear; to "infiltrate" a group was to join it as a member and appear to support its purposes in general; to "penetrate" a group was to gain a leadership position, and influence or direct its policies and actions.

So in intelligence terms, CUSA was "penetrating" those other groups.

(5) Those were two separate incidents, Greg. In the first case, Larrie was excited by all the progress he was making in Dallas, and he was certain that Weissman would rise faster in Dallas as a 'born-again' Christian. But remember, Weissman was deeply offended by this suggestion, and would have no part of it. When that became clear to Larrie, Larrie came to believe that the Jewish Weissman could rise fastest in Dallas politics by boldly coming out with this criticism of JFK in the Dallas morning news.

Well, that's certainly a new spin on it!

(6) Actually, Bernard Weissman is not in that photo. The three people were Larrie, Larry Jones and Norman Baker.

Thanks for the correction. Could you tell me which one this is?

(7) Greg, that myth was started by Bradford P. Angers, and repeated by Dick Russell (TMWKTM). Larrie denies every part of that story.

Good. Thanks. As I said, Angers was psyops and is therefore anything he says is suspect without independent corroboration.

(8) Larry Henry Schmidt joined the Army twice. The first time was in early 1955. He dropped out of high school and joined up when he was 17. He served out his tour in Germany. He was honorably discharged in late 1957. Then he used his GI Bill to attend Miami U. and study journalism, where he excelled and served an internship with the Miami Herald, learning from some now-famous journalists. But after two years, a pair of personal crises stunned him, and he dropped out of college and returned to the Army in late 1959. Again he was assigned to Germany, and this time he used his journalism experience to get a job with the Armed Forces Recreation Center (AFRC) where he excelled and excelled again, rising to a position of Assistant Director of their Bavarian hotels, which often hosted VIP visitors. Larrie was honorably discharged from his second tour of duty in late 1962.

"Now famous journalists"? Okay. Got it.

(9) Larrie says that his youth was virtually politics-free. He was a young American, and liked his freedom, and was liberal in most of his attitudes and behavior. Having grown up in Nebraska, he had little experience with Southern racial segregation, and always thought it was bizarre. Larrie says that his German background was helpful in his Army tours in Germany, where soldiers who spoke German got opportunities that English-speaking soldiers would never imagine. Larrie also says that his political awakening came during his second Army tour, when he had the time to read two books: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, after which he considered himself an Objectivist and atheist, and also Barry Goldwater's, Conscience of a Conservative, after which he considered himself a Conservative. He admits that he had no further ideological orientation than this. Larrie's entry into politics was based firmly on his confidence in his journalism skills and understanding of mass media.

If you throw in the Birch Society Blue Book and it sounds about right.

Also, as for your interesting questions about Weissman and Jones, Greg, I don't have those answers at this time, and I will ask Larrie in due time.

Please do. Weissman's strange reaction to a message from Jones at around the time of the assassination needs to be explained.

As for your interesting questions about Michael Paine and the NIC, I also have no answer yet. I will ask Larrie about Paine in due time.

If he was there at the same time as Paine it may be nothing more than coincidence, and I ask that you and Larrie understand that I understand that. But if he does remember him, any memory he has of it is potentially important to understanding what Paine was up to (if anything).

As for your interesting question about Robert Morris, I also have no answer yet. I will ask Larrie about Morris in due time.

Please do. I am very interested in any personal recollections anyone has of Morris.

For the present, I again advise anybody interested to find a copy of the LOOK interview of Larrie Schmidt from 26 January 1965. This will bring you up to speed faster than anything I know today -- it is biased against Larrie, but it also covers the chronology quite well.

I don't think I can get a copy anywhere, but agree it probably has some good info.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Greg Parker · July 27, 2012

Tom, can you explain for me and any other member chronically befuddled and bemused by the exercise of "free speech" in these here parts, what the connection is between what you highlighted and "the rules" you pointed to?

If you are alleging a breach in the rules, could you explain what Paul did wrong?

And as far that second rule goes, whilst it would be great to have Larrie Schmidt join and answer questions directly, it would seem an unlikely event. Are you really willing to stomp on Paul's ability to even paraphrase an important witness?

Because that is all he did here...

Greg, Tom Scully sent me an email with this response to your post. He does not object to me posting it here.:

Greg, given the way I presented my reaction to Paul's post and considering your response to Paul, I am surprised my point is not obvious to you, at least.

Tom,

Greg asked me to reply that he doesn't believe Paul was directly quoting Larrie Schmidt - and that your charge of a rule breach is therefore baseless. But Greg has added that he guesses that the only way Paul can prove he did not breach any rule and was merely paraphrasing would be to ACTUALLY BREAK THAT VERY RULE by posting the contents of the email exchanges. Such are the pickles tossed up by the creators of "free speech within a framework of rules".

I quoted the portion of Paul's post where he emphasized Schmidt's PR background and ability. Paul quotes Schmidt and by

See... that's where you turned left at Albuquiokie and ended up in the desert with Yosemite Sam for company instead of at Playa del Rey with Ms Monroe.

the end of the post, seems to have transitioned from suspecting Schmidt conspired with Gen. Walker and with LHO in separate plots, to accepting that Schmidt was of benign motives and actions, unfairly portrayed by the press, simply a misunderstood young man of strong political beliefs. Paul seems to me not to recognize that he became a conduit for Schmidt to place a flattering PR statement in a thread on this forum named for Schmidt. Paul could have quoted a couple of facts sourced from Schmidt and dismissed the bulk of Schmidt's response for what it was. Instead:

According to Greg (and I am merely paraphrasing now) we have no way of knowing how accurately Schmidt's words and meanings are being portrayed. You are simply piling supposition upon supposition and again almost begging Paul to do what you have already wrongly accused him of - break the forum rules by posting Schmidt's emails in order to validate or disprove your speculations.

......................

.................................

(4) Larrie was in no way hiding from the FBI during the Warren Commission proceedings, he says. Instead, he was in Miami, supporting anti-Castro efforts with Cuban Exiles in full view and knowledge of the US Government.

Which may just explain why he was never called by the WC... he was an "untouchable" asset. But that is just speculation....

(5) Larrie was interviewed by LOOK Magazine (1 Jan 65) which made a hatchet job out of his CUSA story, calling it a conspiracy. Actually, it is no conspiracy to struggle to have your favorite candidate elected; and it is no conspiracy to try to weld various political groups into a larger unit. It was quite ridiculous to call CUSA a conspiracy.

(6) Larrie was ambitious -- but not so ambitious as to delve into murder or bribery, and he resents those unfounded allegations.

............

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

Nice work, Larry Schmidt, you haven't lost your touch!

Nor have you!

Paul Trejo · July 27, 2012

Greg, I tend to agree that the most valuable printed resource we have about CUSA and Larrie Schmidt is the WC testimony of Bernard Weissman. I will see what I can do about making the LOOK article more easily accessible. For now, I'll respond to your comments:

(1) Upon review, I agree with your statement that the American Fact-Finding Committee was never registered with the city of Dallas, since Weissman’s WC testimony admits that that name was selected out of thin air, and never used before the black-bordered Ad, nor afterwards. So, you’re correct.

(2) Larrie Schmidt, in his political naiveté, admits that he wanted to “launch Bernie’s political career” in Dallas. That is, in his opinion as the professional PR man, the expert in Advertising, this was a simple exercise in Free Speech, and was intended to make Bernie a hero among the Dallas right-wing.

In addition to that, Larrie thought that signing Bernie’s name to the Ad would be (i) evidence that the right-wing could be friendly to Jews; and (ii) a potential way to charge leftist critics of the Ad with being anti-Semitic, and thereby prove that rightists had no monopoly on anti-Semitism. I believe that is a plausible explanation for the event.

In other words – to the chagrin of some CT’s, Larrie Schmidt and the CUSA participated in the black-bordered Ad in a purely naïve manner, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and did not for a moment suspect that they might have been used by darker forces.

(3) Greg, your proof that the spitting at Adlai Stevenson did occur – i.e. that the offender was arrested and fined, is duly accepted. The question about spitting being “violent” in 1963 is open to dispute. It is surely hostile and non-hygienic but it doesn’t leave a wound. Larrie’s position on the spitting is only that he didn’t see it and he was watching Adlai pretty steadily – but that of course is not a proof.

The picket sign striking of Adlai on 24 October 1963 is also open to dispute, based on the video, which seems (to me) to show that the lady who ‘bumped’ Adlai with her sign engaging him in a conversation a few seconds later. That’s my take on it. (And thanks for providing the video.)

(4) I still maintain that the CUSA never exhibited any conspiratorial behavior -- none that I can see, unless one stretches the meaning of the word too far. The CUSA was a moderate conservative movement that included Jews, and was not prejudiced against African-Americans or Civil Rights. This comes out clearly in Bernard Weissman’s testimony to the WC, but also in Larrie’s narrative (and in that LOOK article).

It is true that they’d long planned to “penetrate” (as you ably defined it) as many right-wing groups as possible, to control them from their headquarters downward – but that is not illegal or even immoral. That is a legitimate strategy, if one can possibly pull it off. Only a brilliant person could pull it off, and I’m not surprised that the CUSA failed in its attempt to do so.

Yet the records show only that people bandied the word ‘conspiracy’ around, and they applied it to peccadillos. Nothing that the CUSA ever did (that I have seen so far) was harmful or violent, nor did they ever advocate violent revolution at any time. Their worst offense, as I see it, was that they advocated the John Birch Society, which was potentially violent, when actually the CUSA didn’t subscribe to the excesses of the John Birch Society. I think Bernie Weissman’s testimony to the WC makes that clear.

(5) I’m glad you see the plausibility of Larrie’s explanation that he asked Bernie to change his religion, and after Bernie refused, only later, did he ask Bernie to be the Jewish spokesperson for the right-wing in Dallas.

(6) The person whose photo you shared from that LOOK article, Greg, is Larry Jones. Bernard Weissman said that Larry Jones was 21 but looked 30 years old.

(7) I’m impressed by your knowledge that Bradford P. Angers was a PsyOps player, which compromises his witness to Dick Russell. I wonder why Dick Russell didn’t mention that.

(8) Some of Larrie’s mentors and colleagues at the Miami Herald in 1958 were Al Neuharth, Derrick Daniels, George Southworth and Gene Miller. Journalists will recognize those names immediately. Larrie also claims that he briefly met Walter Winchell in that year.

(9) Greg, you wish to include the Blue Book of the JBS into Larrie’s readings and political orientation in 1962, and I’m not certain (yet) that Larrie or the CUSA read that book. The CUSA was largely opportunist, IMHO, and their orientating ideology as a group was Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative. Larrie’s personal orientation was the Objectivism of Ayn Rand as articulated in her lengthy novel, Atlas Shrugged.

I don’t have confirmation, yet, but my impression so far is that the CUSA never read the Blue Book, and therefore they didn’t know what they were getting themselves into when they attempted to penetrate the JBS in Dallas. Instead of the CUSA using the JBS, it seems rather that the JBS spun them around and used the CUSA.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 29, 2012 by Paul Trejo

July 27, 2012

Paul, I have no interest in reading third party accounts of Larrie setting the record straight, as told by Larrie to you or to anyone else who posts here. You've posted that you've received communications from Larrie, and considering what Larrie offered, you no longer consider him a suspect or much of anything suspicious or incredible about his activities involving protest against Stevenson or invol

ving Weissman, et al. It seems you've made a huge leap, especially considering so many inconsistancies still linger. Just two, who paid the $125 month rent on Weissman's Dallas apartment, why was no security deposit required, and how did their buddy William get drafted into the army with status as provider for a wife and four children? I ask because the Schmidt Weissman saga now seems unremarkable to you. The only thing seemingly clear about this crew is that they wanted

to make above average pay from their political activities. Wouldn't an easier way to do that be by working as clandestine agents of a government financed organization?

Paul Trejo · July 28, 2012

Paul, I have no interest in reading third party accounts of Larrie setting the record straight, as told by Larrie to you or to anyone else who posts here. You've posted that you've received communications from Larrie, and considering what Larrie offered, you no longer consider him a suspect or much of anything suspicious or incredible about his activities involving protest against Stevenson or invol

ving Weissman, et al. It seems you've made a huge leap, especially considering so many inconsistancies still linger. Just two, who paid the $125 month rent on Weissman's Dallas apartment, why was no security deposit required, and how did their buddy William get drafted into the army with status as provider for a wife and four children? I ask because the Schmidt Weissman saga now seems unremarkable to you. The only thing seemingly clear about this crew is that they wanted to make above average pay from their political activities. Wouldn't an easier way to do that be by working as clandestine agents of a government financed organization?

Tom, I don't claim to have some great revelation here -- I'm only glad that I now have another eye-witness to events in Dallas in 1963.

Nor do I claim to have all the answers. Nor do I claim even to have arrived at new, firm conclusions about vital concerns. For the present I'm content to make a little progress inch-by-inch, detail by detail.

However, I was able to accomplish a little something today, viz. I can now provide a first draft digital version of the two page LOOK magazine article on Larrie Schmidt from 26 January 1965 (per fair use rights).

I hope Forum members will tell me if y'all can access and read these JPEGs just fine:

http://www.pet880.co...2_CUSA_1_NB.jpg

http://www.pet880.co...2_CUSA_2_NB.jpg

After you read these pages in LOOK magazine, feel free to suggest some key questions and concerns that you have about the role of Larrie Schmidt and the CUSA regarding the events in Dallas in November 1963.

No guarantees.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 28, 2012 by Paul Trejo

July 28, 2012

Paul, I can access the images of the 1965 Look Magazine article by Patricia Swank. I am going to avoid responding to your posts because you post a position, or at least as personal leaning, as you have in this thread and in our exchanges on politics, and then you retreat from the positions. Since I am surprised by your responses, I have to accept that I am unable to grasp whether or not you are posting your opinion or taking a position, and call it a day.

You also did not attempt to answer my 2-1/2 questions.

I'll leave it at this..... the Patricia Swank article states that the Warren Commission "uncovered" Schmidt and CUSA. The Warren Commission had not even convened in early December when Weissman was making statements to the NY Times about his activities with Schmidt and declaring that the communist, Oswald, was the lone assassin.

Please read the linked page and the fwo that follow it and take into account that Buckley was a clandestine CIA agent who reported to E. Howard Hunt and was closely aligned with clandestine CIA agent, Peter Matthiessen and the gang of the Paris Review.

The JFK Conspiracy - Google Books Result

books.google.com/books?isbn=0595252672...David Miller - 2002 - History - 284 pages

Brussell mentioned CUSA and referred to Patricia Swank's January, 1965 LOOK magazine article “A Plot That Flopped” (a misleading title, considering the ....

The group included the stepson of Cass Canfield. Canfield controlled William Manchester's and Priscilla Johnson's and Allen Dulles's literary "offerings", to name just a few relevant to this research. Matthiessen;s partner, Plimpton, had a father mixed up with this.:

Land sakes, alive! They're talking about the people who were in Nancy Bush's 1946, wedding party, (Macomber, John Lindsay...his brother George became lead partner at Debevoise, Plimpton) and people close to them. Debevoise was Skull and Bones and McCloy's assistant HICOG in Germany. What are they all doing at the Met?

http://www.google.co...f65cf79dec33b5e
AID BY CIA PUT IN THE MILLIONS; GROUP TOTAL UP; A Wide...

‎

$3.95 - New York Times - Feb 19, 1967

The president of t.lac FoundsLion for Youth and Student Affairs, Arthur A. Houghton Jr., who is president of Steuben Glass, conceded in v statement last ...

►

Lyndon Asks Probe of CIA

‎

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Feb 16, 1967

Three named by Ramparts magazine, a publication of the student left, ... Arthur HOughton Jr., presi- dent of the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs, ...

http://books.google....n's cia&f=false

New York Magazine - Dec 8, 1969 - Google Books Result

Vol. 2, No. 49 - 88 pages - Magazine

Francis TP Plimpton — father of George Plimpton, a lawyer and former Deputy US ... He serves on Arthur Houghton's Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs, once linked to CIA...

Paul Trejo · July 28, 2012

Paul, I can access the images of the 1965 Look Magazine article by Patricia Swank. I am going to avoid responding to your posts because you post a position, or at least as personal leaning, as you have in this thread and in our exchanges on politics, and then you retreat from the positions. Since I am surprised by your responses, I have to accept that I am unable to grasp whether or not you are posting your opinion or taking a position, and call it a day.

You also did not attempt to answer my 2-1/2 questions.

I'll leave it at this..... the Patricia Swank article states that the Warren Commission "uncovered" Schmidt and CUSA. The Warren Commission had not even convened in early December when Weissman was making statements to the NY Times about his activities with Schmidt and declaring that the communist, Oswald, was the lone assassin.

Please read the linked page and the fwo that follow it and take into account that Buckley was a clandestine CIA agent who reported to E. Howard Hunt and was closely aligned with clandestine CIA agent, Peter Matthiessen and the gang of the Paris Review.

The JFK Conspiracy - Google Books Result

...

Tom, I'm glad you can access the images of the 1965 LOOK magazine article by Patricia Swank about Larrie Schmidt.

In response to your objection that I purport to represent a third party on this FORUM, upon reflection I agree that your objection is reasonable; otherwise, anybody could claim to do so and it could spin out of control. So, from this point forward, I won't offer to speak for Larrie Schmidt on this FORUM.

In response to your 2 1/2 questions above:

(1) I have no idea: (i) who paid the $125 month rent on Weissman's Dallas apartment, or (ii) why was no security deposit required, although I expect to find out in the future;

(2) I have no idea now the CUSA buddy William got drafted into the Army with status as provider for a wife and four children, although I expect to find out in the future.

I agree that the CUSA was ambitious and made no excuses about wanting riches, and I will hazard a guess regarding why they chose this manner of money accumulation, instead of, say, working for the CIA: (i) they weren't cut out for the CIA, as the CIA requires a serious education and far more than good looks or energetic youth; and (ii) the CIA doesn't really pay much, anyway.

As for my political position, I never retreated from it -- although some perhaps once perceived my position as more radical than it really is, and now it's clearer that my position has always been centrist.

I read several pages, Tom, from the link that you posted from David Miller and his 2002 book, The JFK Conspiracy. Miller's writing is a useful source for alleged connections, but Miller himself connects the dots by little more than placing them together in sentences, which method rarely makes solid connections.

In my own opinion, Patricia Swank's article was obviously biased -- she wanted to fit her humdrum story into the overall theme of that January LOOK issue, namely, "Conspiracy USA, the frightened Far Right and How it Operates." To force a fit, Swank liberally peppered her article with the words, conspiracy and plot. What a deceit.

The extent of the CUSA plot was that these Army buddies would plan what they would do when they got back to the USA, and with their desk jobs and connections they protected each other in bar fights and got their pals extra furloughs. Big deal. That was Swank's idea of a conspiracy?

The CUSA was not clandestine; they were registered with the city of Dallas. The CUSA company strategy was secret, but so what; so is every normal company strategy. The CUSA company goal was self-evident - to advance conservative and right-wing politicians. Big deal; there's nothing illegal about that. So, Patricia Swank was deliberately trying to bale hay where there were slim pickings. Plot schlmot.

As for Weissman blabbing to the NY Times about the "lone assassin," that was small potatoes because J. Edgar Hoover had long been leaking the lone assassin theory, and Weissman was only more Hoover fodder. Weissman was sought out by the NT Times for one reason only -- he was already slated to appear before the Warren Commission because his name was on the black-bordered Ad that appeared on the day JFK was killed.

Of course, everybody wanted to know if the JFK killers had gleefully announced their reasons for killing JFK by publishing this black-bordered Ad in the DMN, as well as circulating the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbill across Dallas. People could easily connect those dots, right? Well, not with Bernard Weissman.

Weissman was clearly clueless. He had only arrived in Dallas during the first week of November, resisting the trip for months, since he thought that Larrie Schmidt was overbearing and had dived in over his head. Weissman told the Warren Commission that he even warned Larrie about getting involved with General Walker.

Weissman's membership in the CUSA tells us a great deal about the CUSA. Most John Birch Society cells did not accept Jews (although the official JBS charter renounced anti-Semitism). Weissman was a centrist thinker who advocated the Civil Rights movement. However, he had been trying to sell Encyclopedias door to door, and was making squat from it. Weissman was also trying to coax Bill Burley to find a job and stop sleeping on his couch.

So Bernard Weissman responded to Larrie Schmidt's promise of fast money and moved to Dallas. Larrie would front some start-up money. Once in Dallas, Weissman held his nose, joined a JBS cell, and tried to fly up the political ladder behind Larrie Schmidt. Four weeks later Weissman would be answering to the FBI about his role in an alleged plot to kill JFK.

Finally, Tom, it seems the other links that you posted favor a "CIA did it" approach. In my view (which hasn't changed) the CIA watched from a distance, bemused, as the New Orleans and Dallas right-wing hustled under their noses, rushing towards 22 November 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 28, 2012 by Paul Trejo

Greg Parker · July 29, 2012

Paul, I'm sorry to see you've been cowed into submission by the Hall Monitor as I thought we were making progress with each being able to be convinced by the argument or evidence of the other... let me just add that I don't think anyone's political orientation is a relevant matter, unless they themselves make it relevant by blatantly and consistently bending any light being shone through that political prism.

I will press on regardless...

Paul Trejo, on 26 July 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Greg, I tend to agree that the most valuable printed resource we have about CUSA and Larrie Schmidt is the WC testimony of Bernard Weissman. I will see what I can do about making the LOOK article more easily accessible. For now, I'll respond to your comments:

(1) Upon review, I agree with your statement that the American Fact-Finding Committee was never registered with the city of Dallas, since Weissman’s WC testimony admits that that name was selected out of thin air, and never used before the black-bordered Ad, nor afterwards. So, you’re correct.

Thank you.

(2) Larrie Schmidt, in his political naiveté, admits that he wanted to “launch Bernie’s political career” in Dallas. That is, in his opinion as the professional PR man, the expert in Advertising, this was a simple exercise in Free Speech, and was intended to make Bernie a hero among the Dallas right-wing.

That actually sounds plausible. I do however, have a problem in that this information is missing from Larrie's FBI interview report. I can't think of any reason he would withhold such information from them, but reveal it 2 years later in an interview with LOOK magazine.

In addition to that, Larrie thought that signing Bernie’s name to the Ad would be (i) evidence that the right-wing could be friendly to Jews;

Which he knew was a lie as evidenced by his pleading with Weissman to change his religion and NAME before coming to Dallas, so there was deceit on his part by allowing this, and deceit is not usually a sign of naiveté. On the contrary...

and (ii) a potential way to charge leftist critics of the Ad with being anti-Semitic, and thereby prove that rightists had no monopoly on anti-Semitism. I believe that is a plausible explanation for the event.

Mail collected was 100% behind the ad for mail posted prior to the assassination. The Bernie's "Fact-Finding Committee" received 27 letters opposed to the ad which were posted after the assassination.

http://www.maryferre...9&relPageId=505

In other words – to the chagrin of some CT’s, Larrie Schmidt and the CUSA participated in the black-bordered Ad in a purely naive manner, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and did not for a moment suspect that they might have been used by darker forces.

Well, again, I don't think they were naive. They knew what they were doing was deceitful - and possibly illegal asking people to write to a fictitious organization. That said, I do agree they were outsmarted by Morris, and were being used - possibly in retaliation for trying to seize power by stealth. And I think Morris only found out because they (CUSA) had a Judas in their midst... which one was CUSA Security chief and allegedly vanished only to turn up on the day of the assassination making a mysterious phone call to Weissman causing Weissman to react in such a strange manner? Which one did Weissman display so much venom for during his testimony? Which one looked 30 - same age as most witnesses described the shooter? Which one has a "white spot" on his head same as described by one 6th floor witness? Which one resembled Tan Tan Coat Man (TCM)?

http://reopenkennedy...ones-pic_21.htm

(3) Greg, your proof that the spitting at Adlai Stevenson did occur – i.e. that the offender was arrested and fined, is duly accepted. The question about spitting being “violent” in 1963 is open to dispute. It is surely hostile and non-hygienic but it doesn’t leave a wound. Larrie’s position on the spitting is only that he didn’t see it and he was watching Adlai pretty steadily – but that of course is not a proof.

Not sure why Larrie is even concerned about it. He did not deny the incidents at the time, but maintained they had nothing to do with the 14 students he had brought along to picket - all of whom he he said back then, were well-behaved. Why is he now wanting to defend two people he has always disclaimed having anything to do with?

The picket sign striking of Adlai on 24 October 1963 is also open to dispute, based on the video, which seems (to me) to show that the lady who ‘bumped’ Adlai with her sign engaging him in a conversation a few seconds later. That’s my take on it. (And thanks for providing the video.)

Paul, you need to also read contemporaneous news reports. It was Stevenson who made the effort to break bread with her - not the other way around - by asking was everything alright and was there anything he could do for her. The man was gentleman to the end. The bitch would have needed a proctologist to remove the picket if it had been me. She nearly took his eye out according to witnesses.

(4) I still maintain that the CUSA never exhibited any conspiratorial behavior -- none that I can see, unless one stretches the meaning of the word too far. The CUSA was a moderate conservative movement that included Jews, and was not prejudiced against African-Americans or Civil Rights. This comes out clearly in Bernard Weissman’s testimony to the WC, but also in Larrie’s narrative (and in that LOOK article).

I agree with everything you say there, with the exception of whether they showed conspiratorial behavior. The "favors" they did for those in the army may seem harmless, but they were nevertheless illegal. But in any case, modern day usage of the word "conspiracy" has largely disposed of the once crucial element of illegality. In modern usage, it is enough that there is an element of secrecy among two or more individuals plotting some underhanded deed or other, with or without an element of illegality to it. Larrie's letters were full of plots and conspiratorial language.

It is true that they’d long planned to “penetrate” (as you ably defined it) as many right-wing groups as possible, to control them from their headquarters downward – but that is not illegal or even immoral. That is a legitimate strategy, if one can possibly pull it off. Only a brilliant person could pull it off, and I’m not surprised that the CUSA failed in its attempt to do so.

See above.

Yet the records show only that people bandied the word ‘conspiracy’ around, but they applied it to peccadillos. Nothing that the CUSA ever did (that I have seen so far) was harmful or violent, nor did they ever advocate violent revolution at any time. Their worst offense, as I see it, was that they advocated the John Birch Society, which was potentially violent, when actually the CUSA didn’t subscribe to the excesses of the John Birch Society. I think Bernie Weissman’s testimony to the WC makes that clear.

I agree that the LOOK article recklessly plays the "conspiracy" card at every opportunity. I think you're dead right about that (and thank you for making it available for all to read!), but I also think they seem to have quoted Larrie correctly throughout... or at least, everything in the article seems to be the same or similar to what you have reported him telling you now. In that regard at least, I don't think Larrie has anything to complain about regarding his treatment by LOOK.

(5) I’m glad you see the plausibility of Larrie’s explanation that he asked Bernie to change his religion, and after Bernie refused, only later, did he ask Bernie to be the Jewish spokesperson for the right-wing in Dallas.

That is what happened. But I have pointed out my problems with it here.

(6) The person whose photo you shared from that LOOK article, Greg, is Larry Jones. Bernard Weissman said that Larry Jones was 21 but looked 30 years old.

Thanks again.

(7) I’m impressed by your knowledge that Bradford P. Angers was a PsyOps player, which compromises his witness to Dick Russell. I wonder why Dick Russell didn’t mention that.

If some authors had done some background checking on people they relied upon as witnesses, this case could have been wound up ages ago. Russell isn't alone in that regard, and his may well be one of the less egregious "misses". Lane and Newman were also misdirected by witnesses who themselves should have been put under the microscope.

(8) Some of Larrie’s mentors and colleagues at the Miami Herald in 1958 were Al Neuharth, Derrick Daniels, George Southworth and Gene Miller. Journalists will recognize those names immediately. Larrie also claims that he briefly met Walter Winchell in that year.

(9) Greg, you wish to include the Blue Book of the JBS into Larrie’s readings and political orientation in 1962, and I’m not certain (yet) that Larrie or the CUSA read that book. The CUSA was largely opportunist, IMHO, and their orientating ideology as a group was Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative. Larrie’s personal orientation was the Objectivism of Ayn Rand as articulated in her lengthy novel, Atlas Shrugged.

You need to read (or re read, if you have already done so) Larrie's correspondence to fellow members. He REQUIRED them to read the Blue Book.

I don’t have confirmation, yet, but my impression so far is that the CUSA never read the Blue Book, and therefore they didn’t know what they were getting themselves into when they attempted to penetrate the JBS in Dallas. Instead of the CUSA using the JBS, it seems rather that the JBS spun them around and used the CUSA.

I believe you may be right in the latter part of that statement. Larrie wasn't naive, but he was up against a very old hand at duplicity. But even then, the tables may not have been turned without the help of someone inside CUSA...

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 29, 2012 by Greg Parker

July 29, 2012

Greg, thanks for your interest and questions. I numbered your questions above for ease of reference below.

I congratulate Larrie Schmidt for finally stepping forward, but I don't push him or bully him, as you might understand. I hope that he will eventually be willing to join the FORUM, but at present he is uncomfortable with dealing with what he expects would be amateur prosecuting attorneys making wild accusations.

Paul,

I have not read the LOOK article, nor the original version of TMWKTM, and have forgotten what Russell said in the second version. Anything I say or ask is mainly based on the WC testimony of Weissman and Walker and on the FBI reports as they relate to CUSA and its members. Some questions may spring from research outside the box e.g. the history of Germans in Russia, or newspaper articles on matters related in some general way to any of these topics.

I think of my interview with Larrie Schmidt as a boon, so I'm taking it gently and slowly -- it may take some time before he is willing to speak with me on a totally familiar basis. For now, he is mainly concerned with stopping the wild rumors that circulate about him.

Fair enough. .................

...........................

The emigration from Germany to Russia in the years 1763 to 1862

Karl Stumpp - 1973 - 1018 pages - Snippet view

All net proceeds from the sale of the books shall revert to and be at the disposal of the American Historical Society of Germans from Russia and the Landsmannschaft der Deutschen aus Rußland in Germany for the purpose of heritage and cultural research. The contributors have, in this manner, accomplished two worthwhile objectives. 1. They have made possible the publication of the book. 2. They have indirectly given their support to the cultural research activities. HONORARY CONTRIBUTORS LIST $ 28.00-$ 40.00 John Alles, SanGabriel, California Capt. N. C. Altenhof, Moosejaw, Saskatchewan, Mr. & Mrs. Carl Amen, Loveland, Colorado Miss Ruth M. Amen, Lincoln, Nebraska B. A. Anheliger, Holdfast, Saskatchewan, Canada Myron E. Anderson, Greeley, Colorado Assumption Abbey, Richardton, North Dakota John Baab, Berrien Springs, Michigan Dean C. Batt, Marion, Kansas Mr. & Mrs. Edwin A. Beisel, Saginaw,Michigan Mr. & Mrs. Howard O. Berg, Devils Lake, N. D. Robert H. Billigmeier, Santa Barbara, California Dr. Sc Mrs. Norman Bitter, Fresno, California Bill & Elsa (Silbernagel) Burley, Denver, Colo. Beverly J. Burres, Fresno, California George ...

Background on William M Burley, III's wife, Elsa Silbernagel :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16711entry257292

Greg, you would make a great research associate if you were not always so eager to incite and provoke.

Paul Trejo · July 29, 2012

Greg, I appreciate your dialogue. I will respond below, using a different numbering, since I believe we are making progress.

(1) You say that Larrie's explanation of his promotion of Bernie Weissman in LOOK magazine (1965) should have been included in his 1963 interview with the FBI. But in a way it was included in his 5 December 1963 FBI interview as printed in Warren Commission Exhibit #1815, where Larrie explained that a Jewish name on the black-bordered Ad would look good for the right-wing and bad for the left-wing. Did this address your concerns?

By the way, the LOOK article interview was conducted as soon as possible after the Warren Report was published (in late 1964) and was put into print in January, 1965, so it's not strictly correct to say it was "2 years later". The LOOK interview with Larrie Schmidt came about 1 year after the JFK assassination.

(2) I appreciate your recognition that mail collected from the Dallas public was 100% supportive of the black-bordered Ad before the JFK slaying, and only opposed to it after the JFK slaying. Thanks, too, for posting a link to prove your point.

(3) As for Larrie asking Bernie to sign his name to the famous black-bordered Ad as evidence that the right-wing could be friendly to Jews, you object that this was an obvious lie. I agree with you 100%. As you noted, the fact that Larrie begged Bernie to change his religion and name before coming to Dallas is sufficient proof.

Nevertheless, we might agree that this was a clever (if ultimately futile) political gambit to play at the time. If so, then it suggests to me a glaring naivete on the part of the CUSA, possibily indicating a thoroughly naive political position, open to exploitation by darker forces than they guessed really existed in Dallas. (This is not a conclusion, only a guess based on evidence so far.)

Now, when I say "naive," my context is the JFK slaying itself. It does not appear to me that the CUSA was announcing their reasons for killing JFK, as in a normal coup d'etat. My proof is that after JFK was killed, the CUSA did not rise up to claim credit and take absolute control over the US Government (as in any normal coup d'etat).

The CUSA clearly saw their deliberate deception concerning the Jewish angle. Yet that is politics as usual (as we see in today's Republican campaign Ads which cut and paste the President's speeches in such a way as to sound absurd). It isn't illegal, actually. Nor was using a fictitious name illegal in politics (since the mail was collected by an official organization registered by the City of Dallas, namely, CUSA).

(4) We seem to agree that CUSA was outsmarted by Robert Morris. You suggest that Morris was punishing them for their naive strategy of trying to take over rightist organizations from the top down. That is not implausible. I'm glad to dig deeper into that possibility.

(4.1) In your theory, CUSA had themselves been infiltrated by Morris, who sent a spy into their midst, namely, a CUSA Security chief, who went missing until the day of the assassination, and made a mystery phone call to Weissman that made him freak. I admit I don't know enough about this interesting angle, yet, but I will dig deeper into it. (Yet if you think that was Larry Jones, he was one of the original members in Munich, so he would have had to be "turned" rather than "sent".)

(4.2) Weissman was pissed at the CUSA in general, which left him holding the bag on 22 November 1963, but three members really irked him: Larrie, the leader, also Bob Schmidt, whom he called "a moron" and a lush who was happy to serve Walker for $35 a week with room and board, and who had something to do with those famous "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbills that Nazi Robert Allen Surrey published, by Weissman's own eye-witness account.

Also, Larry Jones irked Bernie Weissman, who said Jones was 21 years old but looked 30. In his Warren Commission testimony Bernie evaded explaining why he didn't like Larry. We know that Larry was a strong-arm type, pushy, like an MP, and was Larrie Schmidt's personal body guard. If Bernie was angry at Larrie, Larry Jones would keep Weissman in his place. Perhaps that was it. That's all I can see at the moment.

(4.3) I have not yet read about allegations that Larry Jones was a 6th floor shooter, but I will look into it. (Thanks for the link. The 6th floor shooter descriptions I currently recall identified a dark-skinned man and a lighter skinned brunette -- which reminded some readers of Loran Hall and Larry Howard. But remember this -- the windows on the TSBD building's 6th floor are only about 12 inches from the ground, so if the shooter was not sitting on the floor at the window, the average viewer could only see the torso, and not the head -- this is why the Warren Commission's only "eye-witness" of the TSBD shooter was finally admitted to be unreliable.)

(5) Even in the LOOK article, and earlier in his October 1963 DTH interview, Larrie Schmidt always said that the Democrats blew the Adlai Stevenson protests way out of proportion.

(6) Greg, regarding the clash during UN Day in Dallas, I highly recommend Chris Cravens' 1993 dissertation at SWTU (Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas, 1960-1966), which documents this episode brilliantly, IMHO.

(6.1) The reason that Adlai was severely rattled by the event was less about the disrespect that he received on the sidewalk than it was the horror that he experienced inside the meeting hall itself. Adlai was professionally mocked and heckled for his entire speech, so that he ultimately refused to finish the speech and sped out to his limousine.

(6.2) The mocking and heckling, complete with holiday noisemakers and rotten tomatoes, was carefully planned the night before by ex-General Edwin Walker to a crowd of hundreds of Minutemen, NIC, JBS, Citizens Council and KKK members in the same meeting hall. They were instructed to buy up as many tickets to the UN Day event as they could afford. The climax of the scheme included hanging a banner with a string from the ceiling, so that when the string was pulled, a banner would flap down with giant letters saying: US OUT OF THE UN; and UN OUT OF THE US. That, in my reading, was the last straw for Adlai Stevenson. He was completely caught off guard by this John Birch Society slogan in the middle of his UN promotional speech.

(6.3) Nor was Adlai the perfect gentleman throughout the entire roasting, since his chauffer reported that Adlai shouted, "animals! animals!" while driving away in his limousine. From a historians viewpoint, we should probably recognize that there were two opposite interpretations of the event, and that the most extreme reports were the least reliable on both sides.

(7) Greg, you are willing to accuse the CUSA of conspiratorial behavior. By getting under-the-table furloughs for pals (and for pay) the CUSA did break the rules -- but the end result was fairly harmless, and some might excuse them as youthful pranks. No real harm was done.

(7.1) When speaking in the context of the JFK conspiracy, I would seek to limit the use of the word conspiracy to acts of violent criminal acts, and would not wish to include every peccadillo unless there is a clear connection or trail to real violence. To define it lexicographically as "two people plotting secret deeds" covers far too many human sins to be of interest to me, anyway, in the research of this historical murder. That is, unless we can find some real dirt on the CUSA (and I'm all for the search) then I won't try to insinuate them in a JFK conspiracy, the way Patricia Swank tried to do.

(8) Although Larrie also used the language of secrecy in his letters, it is impossible for anybody to say what was suppposed to be so gosh darn secret. (It was like a hamburger stand's secret plans to take over the corner across the street.) Yes, it was secret; yes, it was a conspiracy as very-broadly defined; but it doesn't count as criminal. Nothing in Larrie's letters ever suggested one tiny little thing, IMHO, that was criminal.

(8.1) I think LOOK tried to make Larrie sound ten times more conspiratorial than Larrie made himself sound.

(9) Greg, you're 100% right that Larrie required the CUSA to read the Blue Book -- however, he does not seem to have held the iron-fisted control over them that he hoped. (Only two out of fifteen signed loyalty oaths to him.) Also, my doubts that they read the Blue Book are based not only on Bernard Weissman's testimony, but also on Larrie's vocabulary -- he does not show any signs of having read that book himself!

(9.1) J. Edgar Hoover had his staff read Welch's Blue Book (and The Politician) and make a report. The official FBI conclusion was that the John Birch Society was not truly patriotic, because they accused all US Presidents after FDR of being Communist Agents. Therefore, Hoover made a rule that no FBI agent could be a member of the JBS.

(10) There is nothing -- not even one scrap -- in Larrie's LOOK interview, or in his letters as recorded by the Warren Commission that makes me suspect that Larrie ever thought like this, or even knew about it. Therefore, I believe Larrie ordered the CUSA to read the Blue Book because they were about to join the John Birch Society for the first time, and he didn't want them to look ignorant. It was an afterthought -- not a forethought.

This is most important to me, and if anybody has any contrary evidence I'd love to see it -- Larrie Schmidt never gives any evidence in his own letters that he believed that all US Presidents from FDR forward were Communists.

The first evidence we find of this sort of language from Larrie Schmidt and the CUSA comes within the black-bordered Ad itself, which Bernard Weissman was pressured to sign, and which was entirely paid for by the John Birch Society. It was entirely the JBS language. It could have easily been penned by Robert Welch himself -- or by ex-General Edwin Walker. But it was new to the CUSA.

It seems to me that the CUSA was manipulated by two main players: Walker and the JBS. If so, then this confirms the theory of Harry Dean as well as the Warren Commission Hearing suspicions voiced by Bernard Weissman, Frank Ellsworth and Jack Ruby.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 29, 2012 by Paul Trejo

Greg Parker · July 30, 2012

Greg, I appreciate your dialogue. I will respond below, using a different numbering, since I believe we are making progress.

(1) You say that Larrie's explanation of his promotion of Bernie Weissman in LOOK magazine (1965) should have been included in his 1963 interview with the FBI. But in a way it was included in his 5 December 1963 FBI interview as printed in Warren Commission Exhibit #1815, where Larrie explained that a Jewish name on the black-bordered Ad would look good for the right-wing and bad for the left-wing. Did this address your concerns?

Not really, Paul. He never mentioned anything about the ad as a vehicle for promoting Weissman's political career.

By the way, the LOOK article interview was conducted as soon as possible after the Warren Report was published (in late 1964) and was put into print in January, 1965, so it's not strictly correct to say it was "2 years later". The LOOK interview with Larrie Schmidt came about 1 year after the JFK assassination.

Thanks. I stand corrected.

(2) I appreciate your recognition that mail collected from the Dallas public was 100% supportive of the black-bordered Ad before the JFK slaying, and only opposed to it after the JFK slaying. Thanks, too, for posting a link to prove your point.

(3) As for Larrie asking Bernie to sign his name to the famous black-bordered Ad as evidence that the right-wing could be friendly to Jews, you object that this was an obvious lie. I agree with you 100%. As you noted, the fact that Larrie begged Bernie to change his religion and name before coming to Dallas is sufficient proof.

Nevertheless, we might agree that this was a clever (if ultimately futile) political gambit to play at the time. If so, then it suggests to me a glaring naivete on the part of the CUSA, possibily indicating a thoroughly naive political position, open to exploitation by darker forces than they guessed really existed in Dallas. (This is not a conclusion, only a guess based on evidence so far.)

Well, it was not just a CUSA gambit. There was a concerted effort in other (quite surprising) arenas to scrub the JBS clean of antisemitism.

Mr. PAINE - I thought the [ACLU] meeting was conducted in a manner that illustrated its own beliefs. One of the things said was that the Birchers must not be considered anti-Semitic, anti-Semites because they' are also Birchers.

The ACLU (actually known as the DCLU in Dallas) was considered extreme left - so much so that Morris started a Right Wing group in opposition (Defenders of American Liberty). Yet here was the DCLU lecturing in defense of the JBS... strange times because you never would walk in to a meeting of the JBS to find them lecturing in defense of any group left of the Mongol Hordes. This lecture and the subsequent role the DCLU played in ensuring Oswald got no attorney, is prima facie evidence it had been penetrated by the JBS (which fits with one of the main aims of the JBS).

Now, when I say "naive," my context is the JFK slaying itself. It does not appear to me that the CUSA was announcing their reasons for killing JFK, as in a normal coup d'etat. My proof is that after JFK was killed, the CUSA did not rise up to claim credit and take absolute control over the US Government (as in any normal coup d'etat).

The CUSA clearly saw their deliberate deception concerning the Jewish angle. Yet that is politics as usual (as we see in today's Republican campaign Ads which cut and paste the President's speeches in such a way as to sound absurd). It isn't illegal, actually. Nor was using a fictitious name illegal in politics (since the mail was collected by an official organization registered by the City of Dallas, namely, CUSA).

Paul, do you know for certain that CUSA was registered? It was a political organization - not a political party. I can imagine that AMBUS was registered as a business name though because of the attempt to purchase a bar. Unless you cam point me to something showing that CUSA was registered (and therefore, not really clandestine), I tend to think that maybe you've confused CUSA for AMBUS.

(4) We seem to agree that CUSA was outsmarted by Robert Morris. You suggest that Morris was punishing them for their naive strategy of trying to take over rightist organizations from the top down. That is not implausible. I'm glad to dig deeper into that possibility.

Thanks.

(4.1) In your theory, CUSA had themselves been infiltrated by Morris, who sent a spy into their midst, namely, a CUSA Security chief, who went missing until the day of the assassination, and made a mystery phone call to Weissman that made him freak. I admit I don't know enough about this interesting angle, yet, but I will dig deeper into it. (Yet if you think that was Larry Jones, he was one of the original members in Munich, so he would have had to be "turned" rather than "sent".)

Sorry for any confusion but I had meant to suggest that Jones "defected" to Morris.

(4.2) Weissman was pissed at the CUSA in general, which left him holding the bag on 22 November 1963, but three members really irked him: Larrie, the leader, also Bob Schmidt, whom he called "a moron" and a lush who was happy to serve Walker for $35 a week with room and board, and who had something to do with those famous "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbills that Nazi Robert Allen Surrey published, by Weissman's own eye-witness account.

Also, Larry Jones irked Bernie Weissman, who said Jones was 21 years old but looked 30. In his Warren Commission testimony Bernie evaded explaining why he didn't like Larry. We know that Larry was a strong-arm type, pushy, like an MP, and was Larrie Schmidt's personal body guard. If Bernie was angry at Larrie, Larry Jones would keep Weissman in his place. Perhaps that was it. That's all I can see at the moment.

Yet Larrie himself was apparently unable to explain why Jones departed.

(4.3) I have not yet read about allegations that Larry Jones was a 6th floor shooter, but I will look into it.

You won't find it anywhere. It is just one possibility I toss around at times.

(Thanks for the link. The 6th floor shooter descriptions I currently recall identified a dark-skinned man and a lighter skinned brunette -- which reminded some readers of Loran Hall and Larry Howard. But remember this -- the windows on the TSBD building's 6th floor are only about 12 inches from the ground, so if the shooter was not sitting on the floor at the window, the average viewer could only see the torso, and not the head -- this is why the Warren Commission's only "eye-witness" of the TSBD shooter was finally admitted to be unreliable.)

Baker suspect encountered on 3rd or 4th floor (later changed to 2nd floor and falsely claimed to be Oswald)

1. 30 year old

2. dark hair

3. 165 lb.

4. light color jacket

Brennan 6th floor shooter:

1. early 30's

2. slender, nice looking

3. 165-175 lb.

4. light colored clothing, no suit.

Rowland 6th floor shooter:

1. White or light Latin

2. Slender

3. Dark hair

4. Light colored shirt

5. Holding 30-odd 6 rifle

DPD BROADCAST SUSPECT

1. White male

2. Around 30

3. 5' 10"

4. 165 pounds

5. Slender

5. Carrying 30.30 rifle

These descriptions certainly do not rule Larry Jones out. In fact, I have to wonder if Weissman, knowing all the witnesses described a 30 year old, wasn't dropping a subtle hint when he gave the otherwise gratuitous information that Jones "looked 30".

(5) Even in the LOOK article, and earlier in his October 1963 DTH interview, Larrie Schmidt always said that the Democrats blew the Adlai Stevenson protests way out of proportion.

(6) Greg, regarding the clash during UN Day in Dallas, I highly recommend Chris Cravens' 1993 dissertation at SWTU (Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas, 1960-1966), which documents this episode brilliantly, IMHO.

Thanks. I'll have a look for it.

(6.1) The reason that Adlai was severely rattled by the event was less about the disrespect that he received on the sidewalk than it was the horror that he experienced inside the meeting hall itself. Adlai was professionally mocked and heckled for his entire speech, so that he ultimately refused to finish the speech and sped out to his limousine.

(6.2) The mocking and heckling, complete with holiday noisemakers and rotten tomatoes, was carefully planned the night before by ex-General Edwin Walker to a crowd of hundreds of Minutemen, NIC, JBS, Citizens Council and KKK members in the same meeting hall. They were instructed to buy up as many tickets to the UN Day event as they could afford. The climax of the scheme included hanging a banner with a string from the ceiling, so that when the string was pulled, a banner would flap down with giant letters saying: US OUT OF THE UN; and UN OUT OF THE US. That, in my reading, was the last straw for Adlai Stevenson. He was completely caught off guard by this John Birch Society slogan in the middle of his UN promotional speech.

(6.3) Nor was Adlai the perfect gentleman throughout the entire roasting, since his chauffer reported that Adlai shouted, "animals! animals!" while driving away in his limousine. From a historians viewpoint, we should probably recognize that there were two opposite interpretations of the event, and that the most extreme reports were the least reliable on both sides.

(7) Greg, you are willing to accuse the CUSA of conspiratorial behavior. By getting under-the-table furloughs for pals (and for pay) the CUSA did break the rules -- but the end result was fairly harmless, and some might excuse them as youthful pranks. No real harm was done.

(7.1) When speaking in the context of the JFK conspiracy, I would seek to limit the use of the word conspiracy to acts of violent criminal acts, and would not wish to include every peccadillo unless there is a clear connection or trail to real violence. To define it lexicographically as "two people plotting secret deeds" covers far too many human sins to be of interest to me, anyway, in the research of this historical murder. That is, unless we can find some real dirt on the CUSA (and I'm all for the search) then I won't try to insinuate them in a JFK conspiracy, the way Patricia Swank tried to do.

(8) Although Larrie also used the language of secrecy in his letters, it is impossible for anybody to say what was suppposed to be so gosh darn secret. (It was like a hamburger stand's secret plans to take over the corner across the street.) Yes, it was secret; yes, it was a conspiracy as very-broadly defined; but it doesn't count as criminal. Nothing in Larrie's letters ever suggested one tiny little thing, IMHO, that was criminal.

(8.1) I think LOOK tried to make Larrie sound ten times more conspiratorial than Larrie made himself sound.

I have no doubt that LOOK made a point of throwing around the C word with abandon. But having read the article, I do not see that they made any direct accusations regarding the assassination. Your "non-conspiratorial" CUSA theory seems to depend largely on your belief the group was registered in Dallas - and therefore not so secretive. But I'd be surprised if you have this right. See previous comments on this. It's all rather moot though. I think they were conspiratorial, but not in regard to the assassination.

(9) Greg, you're 100% right that Larrie required the CUSA to read the Blue Book -- however, he does not seem to have held the iron-fisted control over them that he hoped. (Only two out of fifteen signed loyalty oaths to him.) Also, my doubts that they read the Blue Book are based not only on Bernard Weissman's testimony, but also on Larrie's vocabulary -- he does not show any signs of having read that book himself!

(9.1) J. Edgar Hoover had his staff read Welch's Blue Book (and The Politician) and make a report. The official FBI conclusion was that the John Birch Society was not truly patriotic, because they accused all US Presidents after FDR of being Communist Agents. Therefore, Hoover made a rule that no FBI agent could be a member of the JBS.

(10) There is nothing -- not even one scrap -- in Larrie's LOOK interview, or in his letters as recorded by the Warren Commission that makes me suspect that Larrie ever thought like this, or even knew about it. Therefore, I believe Larrie ordered the CUSA to read the Blue Book because they were about to join the John Birch Society for the first time, and he didn't want them to look ignorant. It was an afterthought -- not a forethought.

This is most important to me, and if anybody has any contrary evidence I'd love to see it -- Larrie Schmidt never gives any evidence in his own letters that he believed that all US Presidents from FDR forward were Communists.

The first evidence we find of this sort of language from Larrie Schmidt and the CUSA comes within the black-bordered Ad itself, which Bernard Weissman was pressured to sign, and which was entirely paid for by the John Birch Society. It was entirely the JBS language. It could have easily been penned by Robert Welch himself -- or by ex-General Edwin Walker. But it was new to the CUSA.

Agreed.

It seems to me that the CUSA was manipulated by two main players: Walker and the JBS. If so, then this confirms the theory of Harry Dean as well as the Warren Commission Hearing suspicions voiced by Bernard Weissman, Frank Ellsworth and Jack Ruby.

We're reasonably close here.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Greg Parker · July 30, 2012

Greg, you would make a great research associate if you were not always so eager to incite and provoke.

I have been provoked by posters and moderators here and I'm, just an old counter-puncher unable to take a dive.

But it is also true that the tree needs more than shaking, and provocation is a largely misunderstood path to progress. Conflict doesn't need resolution - it needs harnessing.

All this stuff about obtaining consensus or sitting around holding hands for a rousing rendition of Kumbayah or whatever the hell people are calling for is just pathetic. The case is not Big Brother. We don't arrive at a "winner" or "the truth" by popular contest.

Any push for "Consensus" will immediately result in the Usual Suspects taking control of the asylum and proclaiming victory for their oft-times bizarre and evidence free theories. We will all be alterationists, or heretics to be outcast, with no other options available. Good luck with Consensus.

Meanwhile, I'll keep searching out the facts, thanks all the same because there is only one philosophical outlook that makes any sense to apply... fiction writers and song writers often say they write the books and songs that please them. If others get into it, that's nice.

The only people I need to influence are those who can reopen the case.

Larrie Schmidt

Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements