Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Paul Trejo

Members
  • Content count

    5,854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Trejo

  1. I perceive a new interest in the CT that the Radical Right in Dallas was behind the JFK assassination. This would include such WC witnesses as General Walker, Robert Alan Surrey, Revilo P. Oliver, Bernard Weisman, and possibly included Dallas officials, Will Fritz, BIll Decker, Jesse Curry, Buddy Walthers, Harry Holmes, James Hosty, Forrest Sorrels, Earle Cabell and others in their company. Such a theory would attempt to harmonize with Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen's identification of a dozen people in New Orleans, including Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Tommy Beckham. Also implied are Rightist elements in the South including Joseph Milteer, Billy James Hargis, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier and Kent Courtney. It would also include people who have already confessed, such as Frank Sturgis, Howard Hunt, David Morales, Roscoe White, Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Lee Harvey Oswald. As a starting point, the recent book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) is presented. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  2. New Article by John Armstrong

    To Jim Hargrove, Actually, I believe in the Warren Report, too, up to a point (everything spoken by the Oswald family, the White Russians, the Paines and the folks from Washington DC, I believe fully). Your team believes in the Warren Report, too, really, because you quote from the WC quite a lot (especially the "mistaken identity" cases, which you misinterpret as real sightings of Lee Harvey Oswald). As for your "21 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA" they are entirely hearsay, as I've often demonstrated in this and other threads. By merely reposting them, please don't imagine that you freshen them up. They are no longer fresh. Your failure to make one, single cogent argument for your case is what you're ultimately offering this Forum. Readers are picking this up, IMHO. This is slowly working out as a public service. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  3. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    The Walker-did-it CT in the JFK Assassination may be the least represented among the CT's on the Forum. We take our cues from Dr. Jeff Caufield in his recent book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015, 900 pages). This isn't Probe Magazine. It's the cure for the Probe Magazine craze of the 1990's. Sadly, many Forum readers are still stuck in the 90's. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  4. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, Thanks for the second school record for Lee Harvey Oswald in New York. You have laid out the case in a very clear manner. Your explanation of the manual administrative record-keeping system was most helpful. In my reading, this is not proof of two boys named Lee Harvey Oswald attending two different schools, with two mothers named Marguerite Oswald, but rather of a combination of New York records for one student. The book-keeping is unclear -- we in ITS would call it sloppy today -- but in 1950, when all paperwork was locally controlled school to school -- this is the clumsy system they had to work with. I have taken Tracy Parnell's advice and examined Greg Parker's critique of this "Two Oswalds Two Schools" claim, and I agree with Greg. This is a case of misinterpretation of the clumsy school records that were kept in the early 1950's. (Here was a great motive for computerizing and thus standardizing record-keeping for New York schools.) There was only One Oswald in question, with One Mother, and the boy went to Two Schools in the New York area, because she kept moving around. That's all the record says to me. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  5. New Article by John Armstrong

    Tracy, I tend to agree with this. Cases of "mistaken identity" are often built on such shabby ground. Attempting to build a spy story based on countless cases of "mistaken identity" appears to be a new art form pioneered by John Armstrong. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  6. New Article by John Armstrong

    A careful reading of the WC testimony of the natal family of Lee Harvey Oswald offers a more reasonable explanation of these school records. The poverty of Marguerite Oswald at all levels is the key. She moved to New York with her wealthy new husband, Mr. Ekdahl, and when they divorced, Marguerite and young Lee had to move from the rich side of town to a poorer side of town. At first they imposed on her eldest son John Pic and his wife, but Marguerite was a control freak, and could not get along with John's wife. Well, Marguerite also had a more-than- full-time job, so they could have muddled through, but all this was too much for the young teenager, Lee Harvey Oswald, who began to channel his mother after school every week day and on weekends, until Mrs. Pic could no longer stand it. Out they went again, this time to an even poorer side of town, and young Lee never went to a worse school in his life. Truancy became a big problem for Lee, and he even struck his mother during this time. A local judge ordered a psychiatric examination. Teenage angst had overcome our boy. All this moving around during the school year was not easy to record by using the primitive bureaucratic forms of 1953. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  7. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, Nice record of 9/1952- 3/1953 and 9/1953 grades of Lee Harvey Oswald at Jr. High School in New York City. It's interesting that Lee's grades were low in the semester of 9/1952, but rose sharply in 2/1953. Perhaps this is because Lee was truant for much of 9/1952, or perhaps Lee registered late in the semester. By all means, share the next file with us, please. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  8. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, Sounds like spy fiction at first glance. Yet I want to see your evidence, slowly -- sentence by sentence -- in time sequence. Please show me your documents for the first school to prove it wasn't a bureaucratic error. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  9. New Article by John Armstrong

    Jim, You must know by now that many of your detractors here already accept the idea of a US Government Cover-up of the JFK Assassination. The US Government actually admitted it -- twice. First, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the US Government would not release all the evidence in the JFK Assassination "in your lifetime." This was the first confession of the US Government that they were withholding the Truth about the JFK Assassination "for National Security." The second confession was the HSCA, which concluded that JFK was "probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy." So, astute and objective readers of the JFK Assassination history have always recognized a Cover-up by the US Government. Nor is it disloyal to the US Government to consider this historical aspect. HOWEVER -- that proves exactly nothing about the H&L CT. The attitude of the H&L literature is one-sided. You repeat it here. Just because the Warren Commission arrives at a "Lone Shooter" conclusion, y'all feel justified in making up your own CIA spy story fiction to explain what happened. For one thing, just because the US Government Covered Up the core facts of the JFK Assassination, you have leaped to the conclusion that the US Government actually plotted and executed the JFK Assassination. That conclusion is simply unwarranted by the fact of a US Government Cover-up. The US Government told us why they had to withhold the core facts, namely, "National Security." It is a leap of unfaith to conclude that the US Government, e.g. the CIA, was the killer of JFK. James Wilcott, in my reading, was a clerk who jumped to conclusions, based on almost no data at all. The closest corollary to James Wilcott in the WC testimonies is the sporting goods store repair man and clerk, Dial Duwayne Ryder, of the Irving Sports Shop. He said he mounted a scope for a man named "Lee Oswald" there during the first 2 weeks of November. His only evidence was the repair ticket with the name "Oswald" on it. And he lost it. Nor were the details clear in his memory. In the same way, CIA accounting clerk James Wilcott testified in 1978 -- 15 years after the JFK Assassination -- that "he believed" he had personally disbursed money for "the Oswald Project or for Oswald." This was based on what another CIA agent had told him. But he lost the paperwork. These are like Bigfoot sightings. They are clearly "mistaken identity" cases. If you have better evidence than this, Jim, kindly present it here. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  10. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, You're mistaken yet again. I'm sincere when I say my mind is open for evidence. I haven't made up my mind -- my CT is fluid and adaptable. Yet you've provided no conclusive evidence -- only some coincidence that you've interpreted in a one-sided manner. There were IN FACT multiple people named Lee Harvey Oswald in the USA in 1963. Exactly how many? That is really a task for the H&L people to complete -- since it is their CT that multiple people named Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 were actively involved in the JFK Assassination plot at some level or another. For example -- for decades I believed I was the only "Paul Edward Trejo" in the USA -- because I had never met anybody else named even "Paul Trejo". It's not a common name. But with the advent of the Internet, I found that there are dozens of other folks named "Paul Trejo" and at least three named "Paul Edward Trejo." Now, let's talk about a far more common last name of "Oswald" in the USA. How many folks named "Lee Harvey Oswald" do you suppose there were in the USA in 1963? Whatever the number -- will you then argue that ALL OF THEM were involved in the JFK Assassination? No? Only TWO? Then -- even if it is only TWO -- then you must show carefully -- slowly -- how each of the "sightings" claimed for Lee Oswald in 1963 was genuine -- and not a case of "mistaken identity" reported soon after the most famous Assassination story in the world. This you have failed to do -- and in fact y'all shy away from the task. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  11. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, You may call them whatever you like -- yet that doesn't mean that all the false sightings of Lee Harvey Oswald (the one charged with the JFK Assassination) can be recycled to write a mythology of Two Oswald's who were BOTH involved in the JFK Assassination. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  12. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, That evidence only shows that there were two boys named "Lee Harvey Oswald" at the same time in these two US cites. No supernatural powers were needed. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  13. New Article by John Armstrong

    Mr. Hargrove, You are incorrect to say -- and to repeat -- that no amount of evidence is enough to convince me of John Armstrong's H&L CT. I can be persuaded by evidence. That's why I'm on this Forum. Yet the evidence you present is faulty. For example, I challenge the notion that every document that the Texas DPS produces with the name of Lee Harvey Oswald has to be the same Lee Harvey Oswald that was charged in the JFK Assassination. Instead of showing a Texas phone book, you showed a New Orleans phone book, with no Lee Oswald's at all. Then, you again raised the bogus claim of John Wilcott, the accounting clerk. You do understand that we only have his word for his claim; nothing else. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  14. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, OK -- despite our many differences, I admit that there is no good reason for anybody to belittle anybody else here. It's a weakness I've seen on all sides of the JFK debate. I apologize for any times that I myself have fallen into the temptation to insult people -- which I have always justified by saying that I was defending myself from the insults of others. I often was -- but then again -- it's hard to keep track of who started which train of insult when that begins to predominate in members' posts here. I will commit to a polite discourse with everybody -- and I will ask everybody to commit to a polite discourse. I will ask those who have insulted Michael Walton so harshly to recognize the likelihood that he probably regards his own negative remarks as self-defense -- because I have seen some horrible insults hurled at Michael Walton (out of the blue, I thought). I think our Forum would be so much more productive if people would cease all personal attacks -- and stick to the ISSUES. Try to prove a point, or criticize a point or defend a point -- but please stop attacking members of the Forum with whom we engage in these heated debates. It really wastes time and energy. You don't like it -- I don't like it -- I truly believe nobody likes it. I'll commit to stopping it. If everybody would stop it, I believe we would all feel an increasing sense of accomplishment in our many hours of contributions here. Agreed? --Paul Trejo
  15. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Michael, Absolutely correct. It is well worth fact-checking. The information can be found in their WC testimony, which has been online for 20 years now. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  16. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, I fail to see your point. Are you saying that those who criticize the H&L CT are causing problems "for the rest of society," and are "despicable"? If not, then what are you trying to say here? If so, then please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks, and stick to the issues. If you can't defend the H&L CT with arguments that stand up under scrutiny, then kindly admit that and move on. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  17. New Article by John Armstrong

    Jim, You're mistaken on numerous accounts in this post. I have read all of the WC testimony (several thousand pages) as it refers to Lee Harvey Oswald. The material produced by his mother, Marguerite Oswald, and his brother, Robert Oswald, and his half-brother, John Pic, as well as various people from his childhood, including a psychiatrist who saw him when he was a youth in New York City, provides a very rich biography of Lee Harvey Oswald. The fact that multiple workers as the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department said that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had a Texas drivers license, and that it was returned to the office less than a week after the assassination proves NOTHING AT ALL unless we can see the license to confirm that it was the same "Lee Harvey Oswald" who was shot by Jack Ruby -- because neither John Anderson nor David Joseph nor yourself have done due diligence in demonstrating that no other Texans in 1963 were named "Lee Harvey Oswald." You have long argued that there was a "Lee Oswald" and a "Harvey Oswald" and now you seem to be arguing that that BOTH were named "Lee Harvey Oswald??" There are a number of WC witnesses who claimed a one-time "sighting" of JFK's alleged killer, based only on the NAME. This was at a rifle-repair shop, at a gun range, at a car dealership, and many others. Now we have this "memory" of a "driver's license" which nobody can show us, because it doesn't exist. I will answer the weak arguments in John Armstrong's "Setting up HARVEY Oswald as the "Patsy" in another post. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  18. New Article by John Armstrong

    Michael, Thanks for the courteous advice. I've dealt with Sandy for most of 2017, so I know his style fairly well. His position is harder to define, yet that may be, as you suggest here, because Sandy is still working out his own CT. It's sad that he's been taken in by the H&L CT, yet I believe that Sandy is sincere, and so he'll soon see beyond it. By the way, Sandy and I agree on a few points -- for example, that Antonio Veciana could have met David Atlee Phillips and Lee Harvey Oswald during the summer of 1963 in Dallas. I'm still trying to convince Sandy that this was in the context of a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  19. New Article by John Armstrong

    Says you -- the number one insult-meister on this Forum. --Paul
  20. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, What Jack White said was that both the 13" head photo of Oswald and the one that Jim posted (a Fake) were both taken in the Marines. Although Jack said they were taken two years apart, they look identical to me. The only difference was that the second one in Jack's line-up was used for a passport. Jack White showed a very fuzzy copy of the 13" head photograph. Here it is again in a much clearer format. It looks the same as the Fake photograph to me, where BOTH were retouched. In any case -- you're technically correct -- Jack White himself said that these two photographs were taken a "couple of years" apart. It's just that I see it differently. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  21. New Article by John Armstrong

    Michael, How dare you accuse anybody else, by saying, "He should be banned from this forum, all he does is criticize and fabricate slander about other members..." You're describing yourself to a "T". Regards, --Paul Trejo
  22. New Article by John Armstrong

    Jim, Like many of the H&L doctrines about LHO photographs, y'all make no mention of the fact that photographic and print technology in 1963 was very basic, and prone to countless touch-ups, out of focus prints, smudges, and so forth. You try to take every photograph as "literal." You are photographic "literalists" and this is the weakest part of the H&L doctrine of LHO photographs. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  23. New Article by John Armstrong

    Sandy, You claim you want to see evidence, and not mere opinions. So, I offered a link from YouTube featuring Jack White himself. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LClaOlzslJk Start the video at minute 27:45, and watch for about 5 minutes (until about minute 33:00). Jack White here recognizes that the alleged "Marine" photograph which Jim displayed, is taken from an original that massively enlarges Lee Harvey Oswald's head. It's photographically altered. Do you deny that? The "enormously enlarged head" of Lee Harvey Oswald is the ORIGINAL of the alleged "Marine" photograph that Jim presented. Do you deny that? If so, tell me why. You asked for material evidence and I presented it. Instead of paying attention to it, you go off into Michael's opinions. Do you want evidence or not? If so, please stick to the issues, and try to avoid personal insults. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  24. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Jeff, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. There is much to consider and reconsider in your observations. I agree that the document directly names Ruth Paine and then Marina Oswald, with a mention of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) only in passing -- and yet I am leaning toward a stronger implication of LHO in agreement with one of your observations, viz., "carefully written to imply information without actually stating information." In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald. Yet since she just had a baby only weeks ago, James Hosty would have mercy on her, and not interview her at all, to minimize her stress. Instead, he would only introduce himself politely to her, and assure her that his interest was entirely friendly. In the meantime, however, since he was already at Ruth Paine's house, FBI agent Jame s Hosty decided to ask Ruth Paine several questions about LHO. C'mon! It's clear to me that (1) Hosty claimed he was there to visit Marina Oswald because FBI protocol allowed that it was time to contact any Russian national on his list by procedure, and he could arbitrarily choose Marina; and (2) once there, he didn't meet with Marina all, but grilled Ruth Paine about Lee Harvey Oswald. That is, LHO was the real target of his visit, and Marina Oswald was only a ruse to get to LHO, because the FBI had no reason at all to pursue LHO in Dallas on November 1, 1963. You can't raise the issue of the August arrest of Oswald in New Orleans for his FPCC activities, because LHO himself called the FBI to visit him in that New Orleans jail cell. The FBI found LHO's meeting entirely useless, and the FBI soon closed the Oswald file. IT WAS CLOSED. But here is James Hosty in Dallas seeking information about LHO from Ruth Paine. This was on November 1, 1963 -- shortly before the wiretap was requested and set-up. Now, in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996), FBI agent James Hosty goes on and on about the possibility that Marina Oswald "still might be a KGB sleeper agent." Hosty in his book said that he did consider the possibility back in 1963. HOWEVER --- on that first visit Hosty had no questions for Marina, but many questions for Ruth Paine about LHO. That's no accident, in my reading. If (and only if) FBI agent Hosty truly thought that Marina Oswald might be a KGB sleeper agent, then by spending his first visit almost entirely with Ruth Paine asking questions about LHO (his whereabouts, his living arrangements, his contact information, his place of employment) then by proxy FBI agent Hosty was also seeking to nail LHO and Ruth Paine as Marina's accomplices. Otherwise (and I find this more likely) James Hosty was really trying to nail Marina, Ruth and Michael as LHO's accomplices. This would have been in keeping with the politics of Ex-General Edwin Walker -- anybody who comes from Russia, or consorts with Russians, is automatically suspect of being RED. At that same time, the Dallas Minutemen, led by Walker (according to Hosty, ibid. p. 4) were planning to greet JFK in Dallas in Dealey Plaza with their rifles in hand (according to me). Thus, the soon-to-be-implemented wire-tap would have been planned as: (1) a way to continue the FPCC sheep-dip of LHO, but there in Dallas; (2) a way to accuse all Communists of killing JFK; (3) a way to accuse Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald of Communism; (4) a way to include whoever called Ruth Paine on that line of Communism; and (4) a way to prove that Communist plot should be suspects #1 in a JFK Assassination. In my personal interviews of Ruth Paine over telephone in December 2015, she told me that she is still very interested in learning who set up that wire tap. She admits that there was a call from Michael Paine on 11/22/1963, at the time reported, and that they did mention JFK and LHO in that context. She denies the wording as given in the official report. Ruth Paine does admit that Michael said, "We both know who's responsible." She explains that as a generic statement -- in reference to the fact that the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill was all over Dallas that day, and the Dallas Morning News, full page, black-bordered ad, "Welcome, Mister Kennedy to Dallas" stunned many Dallas residents. The meaning of Michael's comment was interpreted by Ruth Paine as, "Whoever is responsible for these publications was responsible for the JFK Assassination." That's her explanation. In any case, Ruth Paine repeatedly asked the Warren Commission to tell her who tapped her home telephone. They never did. It's apparently part of the top secret JFK data that is supposed to come out in the final rounds of the JFK Records Act. So, Bart Kamp shared with us this new release of the Aynesworth document. Yet what it says is that the FBI did not set up this wire-tap. I think there is some budding suspicion that FBI James Hosty was involved, but if so, he acted on his own, without telling the FBI Headquarters. Does that sound right to you, too, Jeff? Regards, --Paul Trejo
  25. Lee Harvey Oswald and the Linguistic Problem

    Steve, The following is my opinion. They split because of religious-politics. Holy Rome tried to take over Constantinople forever, but the Byzantine Empire wouldn't have it. So the Church split between Rome and Greece (Greek Orthodox, sometimes Russian Orthodox, sometimes Orthodox Church) around 1050 AD, and their governments and cultures went sharply separate ways. Greece kept her alphabet, and Russia developed a Greek-style alphabet. The second great schism came when Martin Luther broke off from Rome with his Protest (Protestant Church) in German around 1500 AD, which spread to England, France and eventually the USA. This is related to the JFK Assassination because JFK was the first (and only) Catholic US President. Also, Dallas was fiercely WASP (Protestant). So JFK received less respect traveling through Dallas than an ordinary US President would have received, because of the old, Southern Protestant bias against Catholics. It was another cultural split. Regards, --Paul Trejo
×