Gerry Patrick Hemming discusses E Howard Hunt

[David Andrews]

CIA strikes me as a Company where only the uppermost can - for a time - repose on their laurels: Angleton, Harvey, Helms, Wisner, Colby.

And all of these gentlemen were, after a time, quite undone.

At his own level of mediocrity, Aldrich Ames' longevity was the exception that proved the rule.

Other middling types - Marchetti, Agee, Robert Baer...and Hunt - had to find their own sustaining outs, under or apart from the Company umbrella.

Hunt, darkly, sought his out in serving, then blackmailing, Nixon. He didn't know under from apart.

Was Hunt instructed to begin with service? He ought to have calculated the patsy payback that awaited him; then the aircrash comeuppance; and last the deathbed debt he would owe, oxygen tubing affixed to nostrils.

History is a chamberpot, someone said. Throw all the typewriters in the lake! - that hollow sound on the wind is Richard Case Nagell's happy-hour chuckle.

Whatever the flaws and omissions of Don DeLillo's fine novel on Oswald, Libra, the author certainly understands the Company dynamic in characters like Win Everett and the Hunt-like Larry Parmenter. Company watchers, check this book.

Edited April 19, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Douglas and Tommy,

I don't suggest that E. Howard Hunt was washed-up as a CIA Agent for EVERYTHING, but only for paramilitary operations.

As you correctly note, E.H. Hunt was now writing biographies of important people -- that's what one does when one is set out to pasture. E.H. Hunt was a fairly good GHOST WRITER -- so he was used for his strengths.

I think that Gary Patrick Hemming's observation remains plausible -- for PARAMILITARY OPERATIONS, Hunt was no longer feasible.

Also, Marita Lorenz only said that Hunt brought MONEY to support an illegal gun-running operation. There is no absolute proof that he was involved more deeply than that -- although he might have heard rumors. Hunt himself called himself a "bench warmer" in the JFK plot, and that can mean many things.

Insofar as Paramilitary Planning is on a need-to-know basis, and many pawns in the game likely believed that they were still pursuing a new Raid on Cuba -- there is plausible reason to accept Gary Patrick Hemming's verdict on E.H. Hunt.

Further, it's noted that Richard Helms placed E.H. Hunt in a CIA Front in 1969 -- but that is more of a DESK job. It requires the skill of spy, no doubt, but I would note that it isn't a direct part of PARAMILITARY OPERATIONS.

So, I'm not saying that E.H. Hunt was washed up as an "Agent" generically, but regarding PARAMILITARY OPERATIONS, I think that Hemming probably makes a good point.

This then tends to marginalize Hunt's "deathbed confession" because Hemming puts him farther away from the Center of the Planning than we often imagine.

In other words, Hunt's "deathbed confession" probably contains more speculation than fact. Granted, his guesses were clearly "educated," but today perhaps we can see that they were also removed from the center of the activity.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Douglas Caddy]

Ron Ecker asked yesterday in another topic in this forum:

“On the general subject of proving that a known CIA person was in Dallas, can someone refresh my memory about Helms or Angleton saying (either in an alleged conversation or memo) that they may have to explain someday what E. Howard Hunt was doing in Dallas at the time of the assassination?”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21151

[Paul Trejo]

Regarding the opening point of the thread, Gerry Patrick Hemming offered yet another opinion on the JFK murder; this time to Greg Burnham.

This time, Hemming claimed that E. Howard Hunt was not a central player in the JFK murder, because he was, as Hemming suggests, past his prime.

This corresponds roughly with the findings of Larry Hancock (SWHT\2010) in which the planners and executors of the JFK murder were only the most capable paramilitary operators in the CIA, at the very peak of their skills and powers.

Those persons whom Larry Hancock names in the JFK murder are roughly the same as those identified by former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen in his 2013 whistle-blower book, To Kill a President. The CIA, the Bay of Pigs personnel -- their Mafia financiers -- those who failed so long to kill Fidel Castro -- finally turned their frustration upon JFK.

Larry Hancock, further, still reserves an open spot for Gerry Patrick Hemming, who was still young enough to be a paramilitary operative.

Insofar as Hemming claims to know who wasn't in the central planning of the JFK murder, he implies (without saying so) that he also knew who was in the central planning.

Furthermore, Hemming admitted to A.J. Weberman that he did play an active role, i.e. he telephoned Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/21/1963 and offered to pay Oswald double the market price for his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, if he would only bring it to the TSBD building the next morning, and leave it on the upper floor for the secret buyer.

Given that Hemming told the truth to Weberman, then he was probably closer to the central planning of the JFK murder than E. Howard Hunt was -- and that is why Hemming felt justified to make these remarks about Hunt to Greg Burnham.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

Gerry told me to take everything that Weberman wrote about him [Hemming] with a grain of salt because Weberman got more than half of it wrong. He also said that

Weberman wanted to use libel and/or slander in order to induce a law suit for defamation of character in which the government's files would be subject to subpoena.

(This is not an attack on Weberman. I am merely reporting what Hemming said to me about him.)

[Paul Trejo]

Gerry told me to take everything that Weberman wrote about him [Hemming] with a grain of salt because Weberman got more than half of it wrong. He also said that Weberman wanted to use libel and/or slander in order to induce a law suit for defamation of character in which the government's files would be subject to subpoena.

(This is not an attack on Weberman. I am merely reporting what Hemming said to me about him.)

I believe that, Greg. Yet a "grain of salt" is exremely vague.

Further, disinformation was part of the very TRAINING of people in Special Ops. So, it was second nature to Hemming.

They key is to be able to decipher from the situation what can be accepted and what must be rejected.

Why, for example, would Gerry Patrick Hemming tell Al Weberman what he (Hemming) called Lee Harvey Oswald on the day before the JFK murder, to offer Oswald double the market value of his rifle if he would bring it to the TSBD building the next morning to be picked up secretly by an agent of somebody who wished to remain anonymous?

Why invent that sort of story unless there was at least some truth in it? That single claim speaks volumes.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Greg, I'd really like hear more of your digitized interviews of Gerry Patrick Hemming.

The Hemming scenario reminds me of Larry Hancock's 2010 version of his book, Someone Would Have Talked, and especially its chapter, End Game.

The profile of Hemming rises like a ghost on almost every page of that chapter. In 1963, a tiny group of Anti-Castro Cubans (and their fellow travelers, like Hemming) mobilized to murder JFK. A Free Cuba was the main objective.

JFK was regarded as the main obstacle. The catastrophe of the Bay of Pigs was, by 1963, the symbol of their rage. Those CIA comrades were who directly involved in the Bay of Pigs became emotionally involved.

Of all the people in the US Government as well as outside the Government in the extreme right-wing who openly hated JFK, these Cuban Exile radicals became the magnet -- because they had paramilitary training camps ready to swing into action at a moments notice.

The Cuba Raid groups (like Interpen, La Sambra, Alpha 66 and so many others) who were supported by CIA entities like JM\Wave, were ready and itching to make a move.

Training for months to kill Fidel with scientific precision -- their frustration drove them to a logical, fatal conclusion.

Larry Hancock follows the trail of John Martino, one of their number who tracked the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps as closely as Richard Case Nagell had tracked him. (Both Martino and Nagell seemed confused about the true politics of Oswald -- was he on the left or the right?)

It seems obvious to me, fifty years later, that Lee Oswald was a committed rightist pretending to be a leftist, so that he could penetrate more deeply into enemy territory. (The fake FPCC in NOLA with only one member, Oswald himself, with its address at the offices of racist rightist Guy Bannister, is ample evidence.)

Far from a "loner," Lee Oswald had many friends -- unknown to his wife, Marina. Oswald's true friends tended to gather around his Marine background. (Note that Lee Harvery Oswald related to his leftist contacts mainly through the mail, where he could deliberately leave a "paper trail" to establish street credentials. He would take these bogus credentials to Mexico City with him.)

Was Lee Harvey Oswald confusing? If so, then we make too little of the fact that Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall both fought alongside Fidel Castro himself to further the Cuban Revolution! The Cold War was truly a confusing time!

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

Paul,

More to come...stay tuned. You might not have heard this interview yet -- Hemming to Burnham: The Bay of Pigs Was Meant to Fail

The following is a reply that I wrote to a comment (regarding that interview) on my website that is apropos:

"It is important to remember that the cover story, (as opposed to the cover-up, aka: obstruction of justice), was conceived, planned, and set in motion long before the commission of the deed (assassination) was itself accomplished. We know this due to the age and deep history of the legend created for–and sometimes unwittingly by–the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. We know the Secret Service was demonstrably remiss in its duties to protect President Kennedy as evidenced by his demise, but were not under the direction of the mob nor of the anti-Castro Cubans. We know the Dallas authorities were relieved of possession of the deceased president’s body by its being illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the Coroner of the County in which his murder occurred by Secret Service Agents who were not following the orders of Carlos Marcello or Manuel Artime, for example. We know that the autopsy findings were bogus (either intentionally or because the president's body had been altered en route to Bethesda), notes were burned, doctors’ testimonies were obtained under duress created by senior military officials who attended the autopsy, but who also were not under the orders of the mob or the anti-Castro Cubans. We know that the Warren Commission was appointed–not by the mob nor by anti-Castro Cubans–for the purpose of, wittingly or not, framing a lone assassin. While this list is sufficient to demonstrate my point it is in no way exhaustive of the evidence leading away from both the mob and the anti-Castro Cubans as the PRIME MOVERS of the hit. Therefore if we accept the fact that neither the mob nor the anti-Castro Cubans had the power to generate this kind of “cover story” prior to the act, we must ask the question: “Who did?” The answer is obvious: Those whose normal job function is to generate cover stories. After all, whoever had the power to accomplish what I listed above–in terms of the cover story AND the cover-up, including, I might add, controlling what information was leaked to the media and how the media would handle receipt of such information–whoever had THAT kind of power did not answer to the mob nor to the anti-Castro Cubans. Period.

Since cover stories are designed to draw attention from the true perpetrators of the crime and direct investigators and the opinion of the general public to the patsy, it would be counterintuitive to employ the services of those with a direct “dog in the fight” such as, the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mob. That is not to say that some of those in both those groups were not delighted at the development. I am sure that Marcello lost no sleep (other than from partying) at the news of the assassination of JFK. However, he did not have the power to pull off the most important–aside from the actual hit itself–part of the plan: getting away with it. The same applies to the anti-Castro Cubans. Finally, as for the actual mechanics (shooters and spotters) of the operation: They did not hate Kennedy. They did not care. They had no adrenalin coursing through their veins generated by a deep desire for revenge. Assuming the target is in the open and the sniper is properly concealed, adrenalin is arguably the sniper’s biggest enemy–possibly matched only by the presence of excessive speed or unpredictable lateral motion.

Those in control of this operation, including its precursive cover-story and its ensuing cover-up, would not have risked using “hot headed anti-Castro Cuban snipers who had a dog in the fight” for an assignment of this magnitude when they had dispassionate professionals at their disposal.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

More to come...stay tuned. You might not have heard this interview yet -- Hemming to Burnham: The Bay of Pigs Was Meant to Fail

The following is a reply that I wrote to a comment (regarding that interview) on my website that is apropos:

"It is important to remember that the cover story, (as opposed to the cover-up, aka: obstruction of justice), was conceived, planned, and set in motion long before the commission of the deed (assassination) was itself accomplished. We know this due to the age and deep history of the legend created for–and sometimes unwittingly by–the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. We know the Secret Service was demonstrably remiss in its duties to protect President Kennedy as evidenced by his demise, but were not under the direction of the mob nor of the anti-Castro Cubans. We know the Dallas authorities were relieved of possession of the deceased president’s body by its being illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the Coroner of the County in which his murder occurred by Secret Service Agents who were not following the orders of Carlos Marcello or Manuel Artime, for example. We know that the autopsy findings were bogus (either intentionally or because the president's body had been altered en route to Bethesda), notes were burned, doctors’ testimonies were obtained under duress created by senior military officials who attended the autopsy, but who also were not under the orders of the mob or the anti-Castro Cubans. We know that the Warren Commission was appointed–not by the mob nor by anti-Castro Cubans–for the purpose of, wittingly or not, framing a lone assassin. While this list is sufficient to demonstrate my point it is in no way exhaustive of the evidence leading away from both the mob and the anti-Castro Cubans as the PRIME MOVERS of the hit. Therefore if we accept the fact that neither the mob nor the anti-Castro Cubans had the power to generate this kind of “cover story” prior to the act, we must ask the question: “Who did?” The answer is obvious: Those whose normal job function is to generate cover stories. After all, whoever had the power to accomplish what I listed above–in terms of the cover story AND the cover-up, including, I might add, controlling what information was leaked to the media and how the media would handle receipt of such information–whoever had THAT kind of power did not answer to the mob nor to the anti-Castro Cubans. Period.

Since cover stories are designed to draw attention from the true perpetrators of the crime and direct investigators and the opinion of the general public to the patsy, it would be counterintuitive to employ the services of those with a direct “dog in the fight” such as, the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mob. That is not to say that some of those in both those groups were not delighted at the development. I am sure that Marcello lost no sleep (other than from partying) at the news of the assassination of JFK. However, he did not have the power to pull off the most important–aside from the actual hit itself–part of the plan: getting away with it. The same applies to the anti-Castro Cubans. Finally, as for the actual mechanics (shooters and spotters) of the operation: They did not hate Kennedy. They did not care. They had no adrenalin coursing through their veins generated by a deep desire for revenge. Assuming the target is in the open and the sniper is properly concealed, adrenalin is arguably the sniper’s biggest enemy–possibly matched only by the presence of excessive speed or unpredictable lateral motion.

Those in control of this operation, including its precursive cover-story and its ensuing cover-up, would not have risked using “hot headed anti-Castro Cuban snipers who had a dog in the fight” for an assignment of this magnitude when they had dispassionate professionals at their disposal.

Thanks, Greg, for sharing that taped interview with Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Because you're such a good listener, it seems to me that Hemming was more open and lucid in interviews with you than in most I've heard.

In this particular interivew, I believe historians heard from an eye-witness real details about how the Eisenhower administration interacted with the Cuban Revolution -- there at the ground level.

Gerry Patrick Hemming was a man of action. He was shrewd, with tremendous confidence and common sense -- and yet it seems that the events of history overtook him and robbed him of a noble place in history. Such was the Cold War.

It was unclear to me until this interview that anti-Batista forces -- even militants within the USA -- were already opposing Batista in Cuba before Fidel Castro arrived on the scene. That is an exciting historical narrative.

As for your own comments that you wrote below the Hemming link, Greg, I have some critical comments, if that's all right.

First, I agree that the Cover Story is a major tell-tale sign, and that the Secret Service would hardly be persuaded to misbehave by mere civilians of any rank, and that no civilians of any rank could have seized the corpse of JFK, much less altered the autopsy findings. I agree with all that.

Yet I think that you’ve missed a key point with regard to those who planned and executed the murder of JFK, and their relationship with the Warren Commission.

It seems that in your opinion, the Warren Commission merely supported the Cover-story of the Plotters, but I find reason to disagree. The Cover Story made a Communist into the murderer of JFK, and they hoped that all Communists would be blamed, and that Cuba would be invaded.

I think this is clear based on your interviews with Hemming (the few I’ve heard so far) as well as other interviews with Hemming, and with recent writings that have appeared after the Mexico City Consulate papers of Edwin Lopez. The Plotters wanted to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. That was the prize.

Yet everything the Warren Commission did was to oppose that result. Lee Harvey Oswald may have been an amateur Communist, but not a Party Communist, said Hoover. Rather, Oswald was merely a malcontent, that is, a “lone nut”

If the Warren Commission worked for the Plotters, the Commission would have handed Fidel over to the Plotters. Instead, the "lone gunman" theory undercut and undermined the most important thing that the Plotters hoped for in their murder of JFK.

So, the Cover Story does not tell the entire story.

The Cover Story theory goes back to Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X in Oliver Stone's JFK). It is undeniable evidence of wildman rogues in the Pentagon and the CIA, with vast powers over US media.

Yet the Cover Story theory still fails to explain why these powerful people still failed to accomplish the second phase of their Plan, namely, to inspire the USA to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro.

It was precisely on that point that they failed, and it was precisely LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission who formed the powerful obstacle to their ultimate success.

There is one other point that I think you might have also mistaken. Like Larry Hancock you see the Plotters and their Mechanics as consummate professionals, at the very peak of their youthful powers and careers. It was this professionalism that you credit with the calm nerves needed to accomplish their world-historical deed.

These mechanics had no feeling one way or another toward JFK, you propose. However, I think you have overlooked a key point, namely: where in the world would one find any militant mercenary in 1963 who did not hate JFK vehemently?

Young, ex-Marine sharpshooters were not really in short supply. One could find volunteers – even confidential volunteers -- with very little effort in 1963.

SO – did these shooters really need to be without emotion? Would it not make more sense to ensure that there were more radio operators in Dealey Plaza than shooters, and that the plan was coordinated with precision – rather than rely on the political feelings of any given shooter?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

If I might inject something Paul, I don't see any problem finding professional hit men with no dog in the fight. I also don't buy your logic that the Warren Commission, Hoover and LBJ could not have been part of the plan because they put the kibosh on going after Castro. The reason I disagree is that for the plotters, getting rid of JFK was about far more than Cuba. Had any honest investigation of Oswald actually occurred it would have been clear that at the very least he was a tool of US Intelligence. The cover story of Oswald as a leftist was paper thin. I am sure you are right that some of the people running Oswald had a Cuban invasion in mind. But as Scott and Newman point out, its more likely that the plotters had something else in mind, something much bigger than Cuba, but not big enough to start a hot war with the USSR. JFK was a commie sympathizer to the less intellectually inclined, but a mortal threat to the 'strategy of tension' that underlay our foreign policies. In order to buy your theory I would have to accept the proposition that the Cold War was some kind of political compromise between the left and right forces in our government, which I don't.

[Greg Burnham]

Paul,

More to come...stay tuned. You might not have heard this interview yet -- Hemming to Burnham: The Bay of Pigs Was Meant to Fail

The following is a reply that I wrote to a comment (regarding that interview) on my website that is apropos:

"It is important to remember that the cover story, (as opposed to the cover-up, aka: obstruction of justice), was conceived, planned, and set in motion long before the commission of the deed (assassination) was itself accomplished. We know this due to the age and deep history of the legend created for–and sometimes unwittingly by–the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. We know the Secret Service was demonstrably remiss in its duties to protect President Kennedy as evidenced by his demise, but were not under the direction of the mob nor of the anti-Castro Cubans. We know the Dallas authorities were relieved of possession of the deceased president’s body by its being illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the Coroner of the County in which his murder occurred by Secret Service Agents who were not following the orders of Carlos Marcello or Manuel Artime, for example. We know that the autopsy findings were bogus (either intentionally or because the president's body had been altered en route to Bethesda), notes were burned, doctors’ testimonies were obtained under duress created by senior military officials who attended the autopsy, but who also were not under the orders of the mob or the anti-Castro Cubans. We know that the Warren Commission was appointed–not by the mob nor by anti-Castro Cubans–for the purpose of, wittingly or not, framing a lone assassin. While this list is sufficient to demonstrate my point it is in no way exhaustive of the evidence leading away from both the mob and the anti-Castro Cubans as the PRIME MOVERS of the hit. Therefore if we accept the fact that neither the mob nor the anti-Castro Cubans had the power to generate this kind of “cover story” prior to the act, we must ask the question: “Who did?” The answer is obvious: Those whose normal job function is to generate cover stories. After all, whoever had the power to accomplish what I listed above–in terms of the cover story AND the cover-up, including, I might add, controlling what information was leaked to the media and how the media would handle receipt of such information–whoever had THAT kind of power did not answer to the mob nor to the anti-Castro Cubans. Period.

Since cover stories are designed to draw attention from the true perpetrators of the crime and direct investigators and the opinion of the general public to the patsy, it would be counterintuitive to employ the services of those with a direct “dog in the fight” such as, the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mob. That is not to say that some of those in both those groups were not delighted at the development. I am sure that Marcello lost no sleep (other than from partying) at the news of the assassination of JFK. However, he did not have the power to pull off the most important–aside from the actual hit itself–part of the plan: getting away with it. The same applies to the anti-Castro Cubans. Finally, as for the actual mechanics (shooters and spotters) of the operation: They did not hate Kennedy. They did not care. They had no adrenalin coursing through their veins generated by a deep desire for revenge. Assuming the target is in the open and the sniper is properly concealed, adrenalin is arguably the sniper’s biggest enemy–possibly matched only by the presence of excessive speed or unpredictable lateral motion.

Those in control of this operation, including its precursive cover-story and its ensuing cover-up, would not have risked using “hot headed anti-Castro Cuban snipers who had a dog in the fight” for an assignment of this magnitude when they had dispassionate professionals at their disposal.

Thanks, Greg, for sharing that taped interview with Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Because you're such a good listener, it seems to me that Hemming was more open and lucid in interviews with you than in most I've heard.

In this particular interivew, I believe historians heard from an eye-witness real details about how the Eisenhower administration interacted with the Cuban Revolution -- there at the ground level.

Gerry Patrick Hemming was a man of action. He was shrewd, with tremendous confidence and common sense -- and yet it seems that the events of history overtook him and robbed him of a noble place in history. Such was the Cold War.

It was unclear to me until this interview that anti-Batista forces -- even militants within the USA -- were already opposing Batista in Cuba before Fidel Castro arrived on the scene. That is an exciting historical narrative.

As for your own comments that you wrote below the Hemming link, Greg, I have some critical comments, if that's all right.

First, I agree that the Cover Story is a major tell-tale sign, and that the Secret Service would hardly be persuaded to misbehave by mere civilians of any rank, and that no civilians of any rank could have seized the corpse of JFK, much less altered the autopsy findings. I agree with all that.

Yet I think that you’ve missed a key point with regard to those who planned and executed the murder of JFK, and their relationship with the Warren Commission.

It seems that in your opinion, the Warren Commission merely supported the Cover-story of the Plotters, but I find reason to disagree. The Cover Story made a Communist into the murderer of JFK, and they hoped that all Communists would be blamed, and that Cuba would be invaded.

I think this is clear based on your interviews with Hemming (the few I’ve heard so far) as well as other interviews with Hemming, and with recent writings that have appeared after the Mexico City Consulate papers of Edwin Lopez. The Plotters wanted to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. That was the prize.

Yet everything the Warren Commission did was to oppose that result. Lee Harvey Oswald may have been an amateur Communist, but not a Party Communist, said Hoover. Rather, Oswald was merely a malcontent, that is, a “lone nut”

If the Warren Commission worked for the Plotters, the Commission would have handed Fidel over to the Plotters. Instead, the "lone gunman" theory undercut and undermined the most important thing that the Plotters hoped for in their murder of JFK.

So, the Cover Story does not tell the entire story.

The Cover Story theory goes back to Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X in Oliver Stone's JFK). It is undeniable evidence of wildman rogues in the Pentagon and the CIA, with vast powers over US media.

Yet the Cover Story theory still fails to explain why these powerful people still failed to accomplish the second phase of their Plan, namely, to inspire the USA to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro.

It was precisely on that point that they failed, and it was precisely LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission who formed the powerful obstacle to their ultimate success.

There is one other point that I think you might have also mistaken. Like Larry Hancock you see the Plotters and their Mechanics as consummate professionals, at the very peak of their youthful powers and careers. It was this professionalism that you credit with the calm nerves needed to accomplish their world-historical deed.

These mechanics had no feeling one way or another toward JFK, you propose. However, I think you have overlooked a key point, namely: where in the world would one find any militant mercenary in 1963 who did not hate JFK vehemently?

Young, ex-Marine sharpshooters were not really in short supply. One could find volunteers – even confidential volunteers -- with very little effort in 1963.

SO – did these shooters really need to be without emotion? Would it not make more sense to ensure that there were more radio operators in Dealey Plaza than shooters, and that the plan was coordinated with precision – rather than rely on the political feelings of any given shooter?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I couldn't disagree with you more. In my opinion, you are simply offering suppositions, nothing of substance. You are a bit over your head when it comes to talking operations and the dispassionate nature of assassins...particularly

snipers.

Trust me--this was the Crime of the Century--and, notwithstanding your pet theory to the contrary, nothing could be left to chance. The precision required for this job has never been matched either before or since in terms of the

target's high profile and the level of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. It was not left to pissed off amateurs.

[Paul Trejo]

I couldn't disagree with you more. In my opinion, you are simply offering suppositions, nothing of substance. You are a bit over your head when it comes to talking operations and the dispassionate nature of assassins...particularly snipers.

Trust me--this was the Crime of the Century--and, notwithstanding your pet theory to the contrary, nothing could be left to chance. The precision required for this job has never been matched either before or since in terms of the target's high profile and the level of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. It was not left to pissed off amateurs.

That's fine, Greg, that's actually a secondary point. I will stipulate for the sake of argument that the executioners (or mechanics) involved in the JFK murder were dispasstionate professionals without any particular hatred for JFK.

But let's return to my main point, if you're willing -- and attempt to address why the Plotters were so keen to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist, in the context of 1963 politics, which were so focused on Cuba and Fidel Castro.

Do you disagree with Larry Hancock (SWHT/2010 End Game) that Cuba was the prize?

The Lone Nut theory cuts both ways. It undermined any reprisal against Communists, and it undermined any reprisal against Fascists. In other words, it was the obvious non-violent solution. As the Warren Commission declared -- the truth was a matter of National Security.

So, if Cuba was the prize, then why did the Warren Commission deny this prize to the Plotters? Do you have an explanation for that?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

If I might inject something Paul, ... I also don't buy your logic that the Warren Commission, Hoover and LBJ could not have been part of the plan because they put the kibosh on going after Castro. The reason I disagree is that for the plotters, getting rid of JFK was about far more than Cuba.

Had any honest investigation of Oswald actually occurred it would have been clear that at the very least he was a tool of US Intelligence. The cover story of Oswald as a leftist was paper thin.

I am sure you are right that some of the people running Oswald had a Cuban invasion in mind. But as Scott and Newman point out, its more likely that the plotters had something else in mind, something much bigger than Cuba, but not big enough to start a hot war with the USSR. JFK was a commie sympathizer to the less intellectually inclined, but a mortal threat to the 'strategy of tension' that underlay our foreign policies. In order to buy your theory I would have to accept the proposition that the Cold War was some kind of political compromise between the left and right forces in our government, which I don't.

Well, Paul B., you refer to Peter Dale Scott and John Newman, who both highlight Lee Harvey Oswald's connections with the CIA.

I would counter that Oswald's connections with the CIA are also paper thin. Oswald simply was not a CIA Agent -- although he was a prospect at one time. But he was never hired full-time because he had many flaws.

Of course, I agree that Oswald was a "tool" of the CIA -- but who wasn't in 1963? (Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, DRE, Ed Butler, INCA, Antonio Veciana, Alpha 66, Loran Hall, La Sambra, Larry Howard, Interpen -- and many more -- these were all "tools" of the CIA.)

Greg objected to my questions on the grounds that they were speculative. On the same grounds I could object to citing Scott and Newman as conclusive -- because they both admit that without the CIA 201 file on Oswald in our hands, everything we say about Oswald in this context is speculative.

Fletcher Prouty seems absolutely certain that the Vietnam War was the prize for those Plotters closer to the Pentagon. But this is also speculative, IMHO, and it paints a wildly speculative portrait in the imagination, rather than dealing with material facts and the ground-crew (as identified by Jim Garrison and Mark Lane, for example).

If we believe we have enough facts today that we can step away from speculation, then let's be consistent about it. Let's, for example, use the most modern techniques to analyze the photographic evidence of photos taken at Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963, and identify each and every person there.

Former FBI Agent Don Adams finds John Milteer there -- and Milteer predicted the very modus operandi of the JFK murder, months in advance. He was not a CIA or Pentagon agent -- he represented the far right, politically.

The problem I have with the Scott/Newman speculations is that they remain politically oriented. They cast doubts upon the Pentagon, actually -- and I'm not willing to do that without a preponderance of material evidence.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

I couldn't disagree with you more. In my opinion, you are simply offering suppositions, nothing of substance. You are a bit over your head when it comes to talking operations and the dispassionate nature of assassins...particularly snipers.

Trust me--this was the Crime of the Century--and, notwithstanding your pet theory to the contrary, nothing could be left to chance. The precision required for this job has never been matched either before or since in terms of the target's high profile and the level of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. It was not left to pissed off amateurs.

That's fine, Greg, that's actually a secondary point. I will stipulate for the sake of argument that the executioners (or mechanics) involved in the JFK murder were dispasstionate professionals without any particular hatred for JFK.

But let's return to my main point, if you're willing -- and attempt to address why the Plotters were so keen to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist, in the context of 1963 politics, which were so focused on Cuba and Fidel Castro.

Do you disagree with Larry Hancock (SWHT/2010 End Game) that Cuba was the prize?

The Lone Nut theory cuts both ways. It undermined any reprisal against Communists, and it undermined any reprisal against Fascists. In other words, it was the obvious non-violent solution. As the Warren Commission declared -- the truth was a matter of National Security.

So, if Cuba was the prize, then why did the Warren Commission deny this prize to the Plotters? Do you have an explanation for that?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I disagree completely with Larry Hancock.

If Cuba had been the prize, we would have taken it. After the assassination we didn't take it because we didn't need to take it. Castro was OURS after that. And he still is and he knows it. We have the ability to "take"

Cuba at will because of the mountain of incriminating evidence that had been falsely generated implicating him through Oswald's actions. We contained communism in the Western Hemisphere, limiting it to Cuba and

Cuba alone, for over 50 years without firing a single shot... after Dallas. There were no plotters seeking to gain Cuba. That is myth. The only concern Cuba posed was its Communist Political affiliation and connection to

the Soviet Union. It was both a military and idealogical conflict where the Soviet brand of Communism, to which Fidel was most closely aligned, seeks always to expand. THAT was perceived as a threat to National Security.

Once Kennedy was eliminated and the murder was ABSOLUTELY pointing to a Castro plot, the need to intervene militarily in Cuba became moot. Because we could justify such a thing (and everyone knew it) we didn't need

to carry it out. It was our trump card--and still is...militarily.

Why do you think there are files being withheld? Because the American People will scream about us NOT attacking Castro. Watch how fast the files are freed once Castro passes away. Tick tock tick tock...

[Paul Trejo]

When speaking of Gerry Patrick Hemming -- who confessed to A.J. Weberman that he directly participated in the plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK (by offering to pay Oswald double the market value for his rifle if he would only bring it to work on 11/22/1963) -- we do well to review his direct associates.

As a highly trained U.S. Marine, Gerry Patrick Hemming was widely connected with miltary and paramilitary forces. As an active participant in the Cuban Revolution, he was also widely connected with the big losers of that battle, namely, the Cuban Exiles who had congregated in Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

As a passive participant of the Bay of Pigs, Hemming knew many CIA operatives -- some at a high level (e.g. Hemming made CIA contacts at a time when James Jesus Angleton, for example, was still reporting to William Harvey, as he noted in his interviews with Greg Burnham). Among these contacts were David Morales and E. Howard Hunt.

Yet it appears that as a man of action, rather than as a desk jockey, most of Hemming's contacts remained in the field, foot soldiers, whom he formed into his mercenary force, Interpen. Here Hemming led Roy Hargraves, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour and many others. In this capaity Hemming also dealt with CIA contract assets (not CIA Agents) like Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Rolando Masferrer and many others.

Actually -- all this is well-known, but I recap all this to introduce a connection of Gerry Patrick Hemming who is hardly known, namely, Ex-General Edwin Walker. Hemming spoke of Walker only a little bit in interviews I've read. (I'm interested in learning about every mention of Walker that Hemming ever made.)

When I explored Ex-General Edwin Walker's personal papers at UT Austin in 2012 and 2013, I was surprised to find written correspondence there between Walker and Hemming -- precisely in 1963.

Listening to the tape of Hemming that Greg Burnham shared with us yesterday, I noticed how freely and how many times Hemming used the "N" word in his conversations. This reminded me of Ex-General Edwin Walker, who in 1957 led Federal Troops to racially integrate Little Rock high school, yet then turned to the other side in 1962 and opposed Federal Troops seeking to racially integrate Ole Miss University with its first Black American student, James Meredith.

Hundreds were wounded and two were killed in those riots on the night of 30 September 1962.

Still -- the times being what they were in the South -- a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Walker of all charges in January 1963, and Walker and his lawyers (Robert Morris and Clyde Watts) went about to sue every American newspaper that had printed the truth about Walker in October 1962. Walker won case after case, and had amassed $3 million in winnings at one point (all pending appeal).

Walker would then promise cash and support to Cuban Exile radical groups like the DRE "when his ship came in". Walker was very much interested in the Cuban situation. In his opinion, it was the weakest link in JFK's political platform. (Though he lost his bid for Texas Governor in 1962, Walker was still very much interested in political engagement.)

Gerry Patrick Hemming and Ex-Generl Edwin Walker therefore had a written correspondence because they had quite a bit in common. They both wanted Fidel Castro out of the way; they both suspected JFK of being "soft on Communism," and where Walker would be rich, Hemming would seek funds for Interpen.

It is in this context, therefore, that I share one of personal papers of Edwin Walker on this thread. Walker wrote this soon after his acquittal by the Mississippi Grand Jury. It is a short article entitled: Operation Cuba -- Operation Mississippi -- Operation Press Control.

----------------------- BEGIN FEBRUARY 1963 ARTICLE BY EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER --------------------

Operation Cuba, Operation Mississippi and Operation Press Control are all inseparable. While Khrushchev moved troops and weapons into Cuba and took control, Kennedy moved troops and weapons into Mississippi and took control.

The press was controlled and muzzled, which means censorship of public information and public reaction. The secrets of the Kennedy-Khrushchev operations and plans could not be disclosed. The fate of the nation had to hang in the balance with publicity and propaganda while the President was on a stumping tour for 1962 and '64.

The nation had to be saved from destruction by a quick jump from the stump, to gain the votes for 1962 and '64. Khrushchev was assisting the vote campaign with a threat of missile-based destruction; a crisis with exact timing, all "fixed" for the liberal socialist Democrats to solve.

Khrushchev had assisted before when he said he did not release the captured American flyers before the elections in 1960 because it would have helped Nixon. He waited until after the election, to help Kennedy.

Khrushchev did not mind having his professional liars accused of lying, as long as he came out on top with control of Cuba. Khrushchev has Cuba -- Kennedy has Mississippi. Both should be charged against campaign expenses but no such luck for the American tax payer.

The two operations went according to plan which could not have been otherwise since both were carried on under the operating requirements and directions of The Hidden One World Government plan, fronted by the U.N.

The Hidden World Government working through the U.N. took control of Cuba through Moscow and took control of Mississippi through Washington D.C.

Its control of Cuba is a lesson to all 110 nation members of the U.N. that they cannot stand in the way of, or oppose, the Hidden World Government's sovereign power behind the U.N.

The Hidden World Government's control of Mississippi came through Washington D.C. It is a lesson to 50 states, our Constitution and anything else, that nothing can stand in the way of the Hidden World Government's sovereign power emanating through the U.N.

Kennedy and Khrushchev each got their direction, clearance and protection from the Hidden World Government (HWG). Khrushchev's missiles were exposed to make the crisis which, when solved by Kennedy, would get the votes.

Military forces were used in Mississippi in the name of the law -- which could only mean U.N. Law. They were perfectly timed to include the registration of James Meredith to effect the 1962 elections with the big pay-off intended for 1964.

The Kennedys’ position as President and Khrushchev's seat on top of a volcanic empire, which could erupt at any moment it was allowed to, were further secured and stabilized by the controls and power of the Hidden World Government.

The military forces of both countries are being played in complete unison and accord in the interest and development of the Hidden World Government. So guided and directed, it would be unnatural and inconceivable for U.S. military and Russian military forces to fight each other. U.S. military forces were directed to guard and protect Russian military vehicles going into West Berlin.

The only place in the world, ever, where American troops faced Russian troops was in Berlin. The latter have withdrawn here turning over to East German command. Through this method of the establishment of a coalition military or civil government control, the U.N. localizes each incident or conflict, thus making any U.S. or Russian conflict in military purpose or action inconceivable or impossible.

American troops are sent into each foreign country in turn for propaganda effect and to lead the way for Russian diplomats and agents to enter the same area -- as in Korea, Laos, Berlin. Then the coalition plan of Washington and Moscow arranges for local continuing disputes and controversy in the areas under U.N. domination.

We see Myhoyen, the Russian representative, acting for the Hidden World Government, Moscow and Washington D.C. in his three week visit to Cuba. There he arranged with Castro for the continued spread of subversion, intimidation and weapons throughout central and Latin America.

Edwin Walker

2/2/1963

----------------------- END FEBRUARY 1963 ARTICLE BY EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER --------------------

It is very likely that this was delivered in one of Walker's speeches on his Midnight Ride coast-to-coast speaking tour with the segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis from 2/14/1963 through 4/8/1963. It largely reflects the thinking of the John Birch Society in those days.

I hope that this 1963 article may shed some light upon the relationship between Gerry Patrick Hemming and Edwin Walker -- and upon the politics of both men, and upon the U.S. ultra-conservative politics of 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 27, 2014 by Paul Trejo