GENERAL WALKER and the murder of PRESIDENT KENNEDY

[Harry Dean]

GENERAL WALKER and the murder of PRESIDENT KENNEDY
new book September 29 2015. By Jeffrey H. Caufield, MD.

"On target, historic"

[Drew Phipps]

http://www.amazon.com/General-Walker-Mur...0991563700

Thanks Harry, another one to add to my reading list.

[Drew Phipps]

Heh, I ordered this book Friday afternoon and it arrived in my mailbox Saturday morning, without any extra charge for delivery... First interesting nugget: author says David Ferrie bought arms from Crescent Firearms...

[Magda Hassan]

Wow! That's sure fast service! And an interesting nugget indeed.

[Albert Doyle]

Trejo probably sprinted the book to your mailbox.

[Drew Phipps]

Oops a second look at the book this AM told me it was "Crescent Gun Shop" NOLA. (Must remember to take better notes.) Don't know if its the same Crescent. (NOLA is known as the "Crescent City.")

I see that JVB has the same information in one of her online articles (not a stellar type of confirmation). JVB says this nugget came from Gaeton Fonzi.

Second nugget: (Reading between the lines) Caulfield doesn't like/trust Gaeton Fonzi. When I get home tonight I'll see if Caulfield cites Fonzi for this information.

[Drew Phipps]

Has anyone done a history of the Crescent Firearms Company? looks like they were bought out/shut down in the 1930s? Or at least quit using that name.

[Drew Phipps]

OK this particular "Crescent Firearms" was incorporated in 1958 to handle the distribution of these surplus weapons, being a joint venture between Adams Consolidated and Folsom Firearms.

[Drew Phipps]

All right! After 6 weeks of slogging thru I have finished the book. Let me start by saying it is exhaustively researched and footnoted. I have never seen such a meticulous study done of the particular cast of characters that parade thru the book.

That being said, you might expect the next remark. The book is very long. The narrative covers the same ground multiple times. Each separate fact appears as a supporting argument every time a particular person or event is mentioned. When a chapter features a person, the connections to all other persons also featured in the book are re-stated. To add to that, the author seemed determined to provide both foreknowledge ("In chapter x we will see....") and also reminders ("As we saw in chapter z") of every single nugget of fact he writes about. The biggest flaw in the book, to me, is this relentless self-referential format, which seems to double (or perhaps triple) the length of the 790 page manuscript.

The good news is, I think Caulfield has nailed down several important premises. One, the purpose and the tactics of the Banister operation in Louisiana. Senator Eastland, and Banister, Leander Perez, and that crowd, segregationists to a man, were attempting to discredit the civil rights movement by associating them with Communists, and then potentially filing charges and prosecuting them under Louisiana's Communist Control Act, prison time and excessive fines.

The organizations that Oswald associated himself with, FPCC, CORE (black voter registration - the Clinton incident), and apparently there was some other demonstrations involving NOCPA (ban the bomb) in which Oswald participated (but for which the evidence disappeared somewhere between the State of Louisiana and the Warren Commission,) these organizations were all tied to SCEF, whom was the target of a search warrant raid by the State of Louisiana on Oct. 2, 1963. The Biringuer fight and radio debate, under this view, is an attempt by Oswald and Bannister to firmly entrench his Commie credentials, and make his future services as an "ex-Commie expert witness" marketable for more McCarthy-esque Commie hunts.

It also seems pretty clear that Walker and a couple other generals were preparing to lead a coup against the government, which they expected to turn Communist at any moment, apparently. It was Walker, Robert Surrey (printer of the infamous "Wanted for Treason" poster), and a General Pedro del Valle, one or more of the Hunt's, and the Minutemen, at the core of this group. There was a notable lack of any concrete action on their part, excepting the assassination. If they did it.

It is at this point that a serious weakness of the author's theory becomes apparent. Other than Walker's social and ideological connections to Bannister, there isn't really anything to indicate how or why Oswald got hijacked, or agreed to switch roles, from the subtle and careful legislative chess match in Louisiana, to murder in Dallas. Caulfield thinks Oswald shot at Walker as part of an agreed-on publicity scam, and thinks Oswald might have been unknowingly shanghai'ed into a similar stunt involving JFK. Unfortunately, that's just pure speculation.

There is also no attempt to name the shooter(s) or solve the mysteries of the actual assassination. (He mentions Eugene Braden/Brading and connects him to Hunt and California right wingers.) I would have thought Caulfield would have tried to tie Hunt's office in the Dal-Tex building to the shooting or something, but no.

One really good thing about the book is that Harry Dean features prominently in it. As one of the three people who warned the FBI about the assassination in advance (and one of those three was a psychic), Harry deserves a lot more credit and attention than he has previously received. I was glad to see Harry's story receive some love.

So the book is subtitled "extensive evidence of a right wing conspiracy," and it is. It is not truly the work that authoritatively ties anyone to JFK. I will be keeping it as a reference book, however.

[Peter Lemkin]

I've put the book on my list too. It was self published, thus there was no professional editor involved...which explains the length and repeating, etc.

I noted Harry Dean started this tread. Harry, if you are again reading this thread, howz about reminding the younger people of your role in the events, generally. Have you read the book or the parts about you in the book, and what do you think of their accuracy? Any things about you missing in the book worthy of mention? Thanks.