Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bernard Weissman

Recommended Posts

Most books about the Kennedy assassination have very little to say about Bernard Weissman. Those that do point out that Weissman placed the anti-Kennedy advert in the Dallas Morning News that appeared on the morning of the assassination. Others refer to the claims made by Mark Lane that Weissman met Ruby and Tippit at the Carousel Club on 14th November, 1963.

Weissman was interviewed by the Warren Commission and he had a very interesting story to tell.

In August, 1961, Weissman joined the U.S. Army and served in Germany where he met Larrie Schmidt. The two men shared an interest in right-wing politics and were both supporters of the John Birch Society. While in Germany the two men discussed the possibility of establishing a right-wing political group when they returned to the United States.

Weissman was discharged in August 1963 but was unable to find work. Short of money, Weissman contacted Larrie Schmidt who was at that time living in Dallas. Schmidt told Weissman about his involvement in the attack on the liberal politician, Adlai Stevenson. According to Schmidt, this had been organized by General Edwin Walker. Schmidt added that his brother was working as General Walker's chauffeur and general aide.

Schmidt invited Weissman to Dallas. Weissman later told the Warren Commission that Schmidt argued: "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage of the publicity, and at least become known among these various right-wingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich."

Weissman arrived in Dallas on 4th November, 1963. Soon afterwards Weissman joined an organization called the Young Americans for Freedom. Schmidt also invited Weissman to join the John Birch Society but according to his testimony before the Warren Commission he changed his mind when he discovered too many of them were anti-Semitic (Weissman was Jewish).

Schmidt introduced Weissman to Joe Grinnan of the John Birch Society. Grinnan was involved in organizing protests against the visit of John F. Kennedy. Grinnan seemed to know about the visit before it was officially announced to the public. Grinnan suggested that they should place a black-bordered advert in the Dallas Morning News on 22nd November, 1963. The advert cost $1,465. Grinnan supplied the money. He claimed that some of this came from Nelson Bunker Hunt, the son of Haroldson L. Hunt. Weissman was given the task of signing the advert and taking it to the newspaper office.

The advert attacked Kennedy's foreign policy as being anti-American and communistic. This included the claim that Gus Hall, "head of the U.S. Communist Party praised almost every one of your policies and announced that the party will endorse and support your re-election in 1964". It also attacked Kennedy's domestic policies. Another passage asked why Robert Kennedy had been allowed "to go soft on Communists, fellow-travelers, and ultra-leftists in America."

Weissman was shocked by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and told Schmidt he feared he would be accused of being involved in the killing. He told the Warren Commission he suspected that Kennedy had been killed by supporters of General Edwin Walker and that as a result he would be implicated in the plot. Weissman watched the reports on the assassination in a bar with Schmidt. He told the Warren Commission he felt relieved when he discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested for the murder. The Warren Commission did not ask how he knew that Oswald was not a right-winger. Despite this news, Weissman and Schmidt decided to leave Dallas

Mark Lane testified before that Warren Commission that Thayer Waldo, a journalist on the staff of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, had told him that Weissman was involved in a two-hour meeting with Jack Ruby and J. D. Tippit at the Carousel Club on 14th November, 1963. According to Joachim Joesten (How Kennedy Was Killed), "a rich oil man" was also at this meeting. Weissman denied he had ever been to the Carousel Club and had never met Ruby or Tippit.

George Senator told reporters that Jack Ruby had tried to contact Weissman after the assassination. According to Seth Kantor (Who Was Jack Ruby): "He (Ruby) couldn't get to Bernard Weissman. There was no such person in the Dallas phone book. He checked"

From this evidence it seems that Oswald was not the only one being set-up as a patsy in Dallas during November, 1963.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Interesting passage from Lee Israel's book, Kilgallen:

Under the headline NEW DOROTHY KILGALLEN EXCLUSIVE - TALE OF "RICH OIL MAN" AT RUBY CLUB - Dorothyprinted Mark's secret testimony. But his testimony implicated a trio at the Carousel: Ruby, Tippit, and Weissman.

Reexamining the transcript of Ruby's testimony before the commission, she noticed that the questions posed to him concerned not a trio, but a quartet. Earl Warren, in his questioning, informed Ruby that Lane had said: "In your Carousel Club you and Weisman (sic) and Tippit... and a rich oil man had an interview or conversation for an hour or two."

Dorothy, who did not have access yet to the complete Warren Report, had to deduce:

"The mention of the "rich oil man" by Chief Justice Warren would indicate then, that the Commission was informed of the meeting by a source other than Mr. Lane, and that this second source provided the name of a fourth party - the oil man. If that is not the case, if the Commission had only Mr. Lane's testimony to go on, it would appear that the oil man was "invented" by the investigators. And it is difficult to imagine the Commission doing any such thing.

The introduction of the rich oil man into the questioning effectively discombobulated the already-confused Jack Ruby.

When the report was released, it was clear that no testimony was given by any of the 552 witnesses about a rich oil man. Either there was a significant omission in the report of the Warren Commission, or the oil man was part of the unofficial corpus of information to which Warren was privy, or Dorothy's thesis - however "difficult to imagine" - was correct.

Going by Weissman's testimony, the rich oil man was probably Joe Grinnan. Has Grinnan ever been interviewed about the assassination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From #180-1022-0065, an FBI document dated 7/31/67:

"Mr. Lawrence Schiller, Los Angeles, California, identified Paul Bridewell, aka, Phil Burns as Mark Lane's confidential informant who allegedly overheard a conversation of a meeting between Jack Ruby, Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippitt, and Bernard Weissman on 4/13/67. (sic) In addition, Schiller indicated one John Sutton was aware of Bridewell's location. Schiller allegedly received his information from Thayer Waldo who was located and interviewed in Mexico City."

I recall reading somewhere that Bridewell may have been at the club with a woman who was not his wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


you said in reference to Weissman:

From this evidence it seems that Oswald was not the only one being set-up as a patsy in Dallas during November, 1963.

Without going into minute detail, my research indicates a concerted effort was being made between Morris, Schmidt, Grinnan and co to demonstrate a Jewish friendly JBS. These efforts commenced in late October... and soon the black-border ad would first be discussed. These same Birchers however, had caused Schmidt to write to Germany requesting Weissman change his name -- otherwise he'd never be accepted by Dallas right-wingers.

Mike Paine, I believe, was involved with these people.

Schmidt arrived in Dallas Oct '62 and immediately made contact with the IWCC run by Grinnan.

Paine left Ruth in Sept '62 and set about going to r-w meetings - the first of which was the IWWC.

Move forward to Oct '63, and Paine is going to JBS meetings. So are the CUSA guys.

It is also in Oct (25th) that Oswald is alleged to be at a ACLU meeting with Paine where the ACLU supposedly now gets in on the act by announcing to the attendees that Birchers aren't anti-Semitic -- statements which apparently only challenged by Oswald.

IMO, however, the above never happened. The ACLU DEFENDS free speech; it does not try to suppress it. Moreover, only Paine, a friend from Bell and Paine's minister from the Unitarian Church (a bastion of birchers) "recalled" Oswald being there. Noone else - including Greg Olds recalled Oswald being there, nor anyone making any remardks about Birchers. It is far more likely that the meeting Paine and Oswald attended together was a meeting of Morris' (per)version of the ACLU (The Defenders of American Liberty), which had been set up to aid the extreme Right in legal and other matters. Place Paine and Oswald at THIS meeting, and the comments about Birchers not being anti-Semitic make sense... and gels with having Weissman's name on the ad.

The person of concern from CUSA is Larry Jones.

FBI report dated 4dec63, based on an interview with Norman Seigal, Manager

at Carpet Engineers - the place of Weissman's employment, states in part: "At

noon on Friday the men came out of the sales meeting and someone asked

Weissman if he had paid for the full page ad which had appeared in 'The Dallas

Morning News'. Weissman aknowledged that he had inserted and paid for the ad.

Seigal did not know of any other income that Weissman or Burley had but

remembered that on that morning, Weissman received a telephone call and when

the operator told the caller that Weissman was tied up in a conference, the

individual left a message to the effect that LARRY JONES had called and wanted

to meet him (Weissman) where his brother hangs out for lunch. It was believed

by Seigal that this was just a few minutes before President Kennedy was

assassinated and when the message was called to the attention of Weissman,

Weissman said something like 'somebody is crazy, I don't know anyone named


Weissman had told the WC that Jones had left Dallas before his own arrival. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the above shows he was in Dallas on 22nov63, and the mention of his name seemed to scare the dickens out of Weissman.

The call, by the way, could well have been made after the assassination, based on other evidence...

I think Weissman had less to scared about in being accused (afterall, he had a airtight alibi) then he did about what knowledge he had. He knew what had happened... as soon as he was told about the call from Jones.

Weissman, Schmidt and Burley were interviewed by the FBI. Jones wasn't. You have to wonder why...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
Guest John Gillespie


This approximates proof - there's that word again - that JBS and other organizations were deftly penetrated as 11/22/63 got closer and as red herrings, deflections, diversons, contingencies and - most important - layer upon layer of coverup abounded.

Indeed, Mr. Weissman became a patsy of another sort. There were several, of course, but no such fate befell Mr. Harry Power who was a Contingency Plan patsy and would have achieved infinitely more historical status had LHO somehow slipped out of the Texas Theater. The perps had their bases covered.

From homeinsightbb.com (try the caches):

"On November 25, 1963, Harry L. Power, an Army veteran and one-time resident of San Antonio, inexplicably left a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano in the Terre Haute House Hotel in Terre Haute, Indiana. When Terre Haute officials investigated the matter they found no fingerprints on the rifle and no explanation as to why it was abandoned. They also thought that the name of "Harry Power" may have been an alias. Terre Haute Police Chief Frank Riddle told an AP reporter that all the information that his office had collected was turned over to the Warren Commission when Secret Service Agents confiscated the rifle. Riddle also claimed that Power had no criminal record and was believed to be a member of the Young Communist League. A National Archives document about the affair was declassified in 1970. Research Dick Russell reported that the file reports that Power had been investigated in connection with the shooting attempt on General Walker in Dallas, a shooting that has been linked to Oswald and his Mannlicher-Carcano. Other files associated with the Power rifle claim that it was a 7.65 Mauser. CIA agent Richard Nagell told Garrison investigators in 1967 that Power was a Maoist or Trotskyite and "had known Lee Harvey Oswald and had been seen with him ..."



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

"Weissman .... decided to leave Dallas"

partly because an elderly man waited for him near his post office box that he had rented, and followed him. (Harry?). Where did Weissman have a post box? Harry was watching Oswalds box. Weissman left on Nov 26th. (NYT interview Dec 9, 1963)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernard Weissman was interviewed by Albert E. Jenner for the Warren Commission (1964)

Albert E. Jenner: Now, are you acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Larrie Schmidt?

Bernard Weissman: Yes; I am.

Albert E. Jenner: When did you first meet him?

Bernard Weissman: In Munich, Germany, about July or August of 1962.

Albert E. Jenner: Where does he reside?

Bernard Weissman: Well, he was in Dallas. I understand he has dropped from sight. I don't know where he is now.

Albert E. Jenner: Was he residing in Dallas in the fall of 1963 when you were there?

Bernard Weissman: Yes.

Albert E. Jenner: When did you arrive in Dallas?

Bernard Weissman: In Dallas, on the 4th of November 1963.

Albert E. Jenner: And was Mr. Schmidt aware that you were about to come to Dallas?

Bernard Weissman: Yes.

Albert E. Jenner: And what was the purpose of your coming to Dallas?

Bernard Weissman: I will be as brief as possible. It was simply to follow through on plans that we had made in Germany, in order to develop a conservative organization in Dallas, under our leadership.

Albert E. Jenner: Did that conservative organization, or your purpose in going to Dallas, as well, have any business context in addition to politics?

Bernard Weissman: I would say 50 percent of the purpose was business and the other 50 percent politics. We figured that only rich men can indulge full time in politics, so first we had to make some money before we could devote ourselves to the political end completely...

Albert E. Jenner: What contact did you have with Mr. Larrie Schmidt and Mr. Burley after you left the Army, which eventually brought you to Dallas? State it in your own words and chronologically, please.

Bernard Weissman: Well, I got out of service on the 5th, and I spent the month of August looking for a job. During this time, I had been in contact with Larrie. I had telephoned him once during August. Things were pretty bad. I didn't have any money. As far as I could ascertain he was broke himself. There wasn't any percentage in going to Dallas and not accomplishing anything. As a matter of fact, I had lost a good deal of confidence in Larrie in the year that he left Munich and was in Dallas, and the letters I got from him - he seemed to have deviated from our original plan. I wasn't too hot about going. He didn't seem to be accomplishing anything, except where it benefited him.

Albert E. Jenner: You say he deviated from the original plan. What was the original plan?

Bernard Weissman: Well, the original plan was to stay away from various organizations and societies that were, let's call them, radical, and had a reputation as being such.

Albert E. Jenner: When you say radical, what do you mean?

Bernard Weissman: I mean radical right. And I considered myself more of an idealist than a politician. Larrie was more of a politician than an idealist. He went with the wind - which is good for him, I guess, and bad for me. In any case Larrie wrote me easily a dozen letters imploring me to come down, telling me in one that he doesn't need me down there, but he would love to have my help because he can't accomplish anything without me, and in the next one saying, "Forget it, I don't need you," and so forth. As the letters came, they went with the wind, depending on what he was doing personally. And along about the end of October, I had been in contact with Bill - he was in Baltimore, Maryland, selling hearing aids. He wasn't getting anywhere. He was making a living.

Albert E. Jenner: Up to this point each of you was barely making a living?

Bernard Weissman: Right.

Albert E. Jenner: And you had no capital?

Bernard Weissman: No.

Albert E. Jenner: No funds of your own?

Bernard Weissman: None at all...

Albert E. Jenner: When did you first hear the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Bernard Weissman: We were sitting in a bar, right after President Kennedy's assassination.

Albert E. Jenner: This was the 22d of November 1963?

Bernard Weissman: Yes; it was Bill Burley, myself, and Larrie. We had made we were to meet Larrie and Joe Grinnan at the Ducharme Club.

Albert E. Jenner: For what meal?

Bernard Weissman: For luncheon. We were supposed to meet him at 12:30 or 1 o'clock, I forget which - about 1 o'clock. And I had a 12:30 on the button, as a matter of fact - I had an appointment to sell a carpet out in the Garland section of Texas - it was a 2:30 appointment. And I was in a hurry to get to meet Larrie and finish the lunch, and whatever business they wanted to talk about I didn't know. So I looked at my watch. I remember specifically it was 12:30, because at that time Bill had been driving my car. He had quit the carpet company and was looking for another job. He had looked at a franchise arrangement for insecticides. He picked me up. He was waiting for me from 10 after 12 to 12:30. We got into the car. I am a great news bug. So I turned the radio on, looking for a news station. And they had - at that time, as I turned the radio on, the announcer said, "There has been a rumor that President Kennedy has been shot." So we didn't believe it. It was just a little too far out to believe.

And after several minutes, it began to take on some substance about the President's sedan speeding away, somebody hearing shots and people laying on the ground. In other words, the way the reporters were covering it. I don't recall exactly what they said. And, at this time - we were going to go to the Ducharme Club through downtown Dallas. We were heading for the area about two blocks adjacent to the Houston Street viaduct. And then we heard about the police pulling all sorts of people somebody said they saw somebody and gave a description. And the police were pulling people off the street and so forth. So Bill and I didn't want to get involved in this. So we took a roundabout route. We got lost for a while. Anyway, we finally wound up at the other side of Dallas, and we were at the Ducharme Club.

Albert E. Jenner: When you arrived there, was Mr. Schmidt there?

Bernard Weissman: He was waiting for me. But Joe Grinnan wasn't there. He had heard this thing and took off. I guess he wanted to hide or something.

Albert E. Jenner: Why?

Albert E. Jenner: Well, because the way it was right away, the announcers, even before it was ascertained that President Kennedy was dead, or that he had really been shot, that it was a right-wing plot and so forth. And he had every reason to be frightened.

Albert E. Jenner: Why did he have every reason to be frightened?

Bernard Weissman: Because, let's face it, the public feeling would suddenly be very anti-rightwing, and no telling what would happen if a mob got together and discovered him. They would tear him apart. Bill and I were frightened to the point because I knew about the ad. And I knew exactly what - at least I felt in my own mind I knew what people would believe. They would read the ad and so forth, and associate you with this thing, somehow, one way or another. So we went to another bar - I don't remember the name of it - the Ducharme Club was closed, by the way, that afternoon.

Albert E. Jenner: When you reached the Ducharme Club, it was closed, but you found Mr. Schmidt there?

Bernard Weissman: Larrie was waiting on the corner. He got in the car. We sat and talked for a few minutes. We went to another bar a few blocks away. We drank beer and watched television. And we had been in the bar, I guess, about an hour when it come over that this patrolman Tippit had been shot, and they trapped some guy in a movie theater. And maybe half an our, an hour later, it came out this fellow's name was Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the first time I ever heard the name.

Albert E. Jenner: What was said at that time?

Bernard Weissman: By us?

Albert E. Jenner: Yes. When it was announced it was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Bernard Weissman: We were relieved.

Albert E. Jenner: Anything said about it?

Bernard Weissman: I don't recall. First, what was said, like, I hope he is not a member of the Walker group - something like that - I hope he is not one of Walker's boys. Because it is like a clique, and it is guilt by association from thereafter. So it came over later this guy was a Marxist. This was the same afternoon, I believe. It was found out this fellow was a Marxist. And then the announcers - they left the right-wing for a little while, and started going to the left, and I breathed a sigh of relief. After 4 hours in the bar, Bill and I went back to the apartment, and Larrie went to the Ducharme Club. He was afraid to go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Weissman is an important figure in the John Birch Society planning to knock off JFK and have back up plans, if the LHO script got into trouble, as well as force them to use the LHO script.

"Weissman" was Jewish and well noticed that the JBS, especially the top players, were anti-Jewish, Pro-Hitler, Pro-Nazi. The JBS plotters needed Weissman's name in the newspapers and they played him very well.

Likewise, they needed Jewish "Rubenstein" that Bircher plotter Gen. Walker repeatedly imprinted into the minds of the Warren Commission testimoney. Walker is real chummy with the Ghelen Organization of Germany that hated the Russians and were not too happy with British Bankers that screwed them in WWII.

And if one follows the Bircher's schemes to draw in more Jewish involvement, then the Dallas Nagy and his PERMINDEX group, run by a "Big Jew", fits that of Joseph Milteer's predictions of JFK getting knocked off and blaming it on the "Big Jew". Milteer would have been big buddies with Hunt and they shared lots of common ground on Civil Rights and Communist invaders running Civil Rights, both like Hoover's beliefs as well.

The Milteer "Big Jew" was leader of the DISC and oversight of places like Redstone Arsenal, TVA, Oak Ridge and the nuclear works, and also tight with Hoover's Div 5 counterespeonage. Most likely the NAZIs of Johnson's NASA group didn't like being overseen by a Jewish guy working for British Intelligence too much, meaning the same Big Bankers that screwed over Germany. JBS's Hunt would not have liked the idea either.

The Birchers not only wanted JFK killed, then intended to leverage setting up more than just LHO, just in case. Their Jewish theme is what got them all off Free.

Later, as it was discovered the Birchers got away with their Jewish Plot, the Birchers were invaded with all kinds of highly Zionist and Pro-Jewish people beating the crap out of them. Lots of the Jewish intelligence knew exactly what happened fed back by Nagy and Bloomfield to Mandel to Rosenbaum--King of Mossad funding.

Folks in Intelligence Circles know the British and Jewish scheming has been bad for America. First via the Balfore agreement to drag the US into WWI, and then similar with games played against Hitler as the Jewish Banker system made a run for German Royalty support in WWII and dragged the US into another war. For Birchers to have this Zionist British Intelligence type running DISC was not a common sense plan, if one observes history. With the Hunt JBS Jewish plan, Hunt then owned Bloomfield.


Classified TOP SECRET----now public domain:

The US has not always been very pleased with the Evil British Empire and the US planned to attack the UK's resources:


War on the 'Red Empire': How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons

Emerging world power feared British reaction to its ambitions

Plan Red was code for massive war with British Empire

Top-secret document once regarded as 'most sensitive on Earth'

$57m allocated for building secret airfields on Canadian border - to launch attack on British land forces based there


It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with 'The Red Empire' - its most dangerous empire.

But America's foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.

Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.

After the 1918 Armistice and throughout the 1920s, America's historic anti-British feelings handed down from the 19th century were running dangerously high due to our owing the U.S. £9billion for their intervention in The Great War.

British feeling against America was known to be reciprocal.

By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York's Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden.

Across the Atlantic, Britain had the largest empire in the world, not to mention the most powerful navy.

Against this backdrop, some Americans saw their nation emerging as a potential world leader and knew only too well how Britain had dealt with such upstarts in the past - it went to war and quashed them.

Now, America saw itself as the underdog in a similar scenario.

In 1935, America staged its largest-ever military manoeuvres, moving troops to and installing munitions dumps at Fort Drum, half an hour away from the eastern Canadian border.


'America felt Britain had thrown it under the bus in order to stay top dog,' says Professor Mike Vlahos, of the U.S. Naval War College.

'The U.S. was forced to contemplate any measure to keep Britain at bay.'

Even Hitler thought such a war was inevitable, but astonishingly wanted Britain to win, believing that to be the best outcome for Germany, since the UK could then join his forces to attack the U.S.

'You have to remember the U.S. was born out of a revolutionary struggle against Britain in 1776,' says Dr. John H. Maurer, of the U.S. Naval War College.

Using available blueprints for this war, modern-day military and naval experts now believe the most likely outcome of such a conflict would have been a massive naval battle in the North Atlantic with very few actual deaths, but ending with Britain handing Canada over to the U.S. in order to preserve our vital trade routes.


Edited by Jim Phelps
Link to comment
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...