William O'Neil

New Book!

1,472 posts in this topic

Yesss! Here is where new data in the JFK murder will finally be revealed after 50 years of CIA-did-it nonsense (finally choking on the absurd Harvey&Lee series).

I'm very excited about the printing status of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book on Edwin Walker and the JFK Assassination. Here's what drew me to this theory in the first place:

  • Jack Ruby told Earl Warren that Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society of Dallas murdered JFK (WC Testimony).
  • ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth told the WC that Edwin Walker and the Minutemen in Dallas were his prime suspects for the JFK murder.
  • Harry Dean said he personally heard Edwin Walker threaten JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same sentence in mid-September 1963 in SoCal.

In his book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992), Dick Russell said he interviewed Mrs. Igor Voshinin who claimed that on the morning of Sunday 14 April 1963, George De Mohrenschildt frantically told her and her husband of his suspicions that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Edwin Walker four days previously, but he refused to tell the police. So, when he left that morning, Mrs. Voshinin immediately called the FBI and told them.

IMHO, the following letter confirms the account told by Dick Russell. It also confirms the theory that Walker tracked Lee Harvey Oswald for the rest of the year, basically through people who knew Oswald, like the members of Interpen (Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, etc.) and David Ferrie. Edwin Walker's personal papers hint continually that he tracked Lee Harvey Oswald for most of 1963. For only one of many examples, here is Walker's letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

We would probably blame anybody else in the world for the JFK murder, except one of our beloved, victorious Generals of WW2.

Edwin Walker, however, resigned from the US Army in 1959, because of his John Birch Society belief that all sitting Presidents since FDR had been Communists -- and for Edwin Walker that infection included the United Nations and even the Pentagon. So, Walker resigned and spurned his 30-year Army Pension. (Eisenhower rejected that resignation, so Edwin Walker resigned again in 1961, again spurning his Army Pension. Once out of the Army, citizen H.L. Hunt financed Walker's political career.)

IMHO, the work proposed by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will complete the work done by Bill Simpich (2014) which effectively exonerates the CIA high-command from the JFK murder.

I believe the new debate in JFK research will be about possible Civilian plots. I look forward to the refreshing splash of cleansing water that Dr. Caufield proposes for a CIA-weary JFK readership.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--- Harry Dean said he personally heard Edwin Walker threaten JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same sentence in September 1963 in SoCal.

Hearsay is inadmissible in court for a very good reason.

--- We would probably blame anybody else in the world for the JFK murder, except one of our beloved, victorious Generals of WW2.

not me, buster. I'd finger Lansdale in a heartbeat if something called good evidence pointed me to him. alas, there's so little of it for either "beloved" Generals.

--- effectively exonerates the CIA high-command from the JFK murder

this is putting words in my, and I'm sure others', mouth. high command is not who i think of when i consider the CIA moving-parts in this thing.

--- "LHO shot at Walker" ... ?

and...? you'd be hard pressed to get that into court, mainly because no one can see what that has to do with the price of cumquats in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--- Harry Dean said he personally heard Edwin Walker threaten JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same sentence in September 1963 in SoCal.

Hearsay is inadmissible in court for a very good reason.

--- We would probably blame anybody else in the world for the JFK murder, except one of our beloved, victorious Generals of WW2.

not me, buster. I'd finger Lansdale in a heartbeat if something called good evidence pointed me to him. alas, there's so little of it for either "beloved" Generals.

--- effectively exonerates the CIA high-command from the JFK murder

this is putting words in my, and I'm sure others', mouth. high command is not who i think of when i consider the CIA moving-parts in this thing.

--- "LHO shot at Walker" ... ?

and...? you'd be hard pressed to get that into court, mainly because no one can see what that has to do with the price of cumquats in China.

OK, Glenn, if you wish to dismiss the claims of Harry Dean on the basis that he was not under oath when he made them -- that's OK. Let's set him aside for the moment.

Yet this also implies, IMHO, that you will give weight to testimony that was given under oath, or in a sworn affidavit -- am I correct? In that case, I repeat my first two points -- both of which refer to sworn statements:

  • Jack Ruby told Earl Warren that Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society of Dallas murdered JFK (WC Testimony).
  • ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth told the WC that Edwin Walker and the Minutemen in Dallas were his prime suspects for the JFK murder.

Do you have remarks about those statements, Glenn?

Now, as for my claim that Bill Simpich used FOIA released CIA documents to prove that in October 1963 a Mole-Hunt was started by the CIA high-command (that means, the highest ranking officers in the CIA, who alone have the power to start a Mole-Hunt in the CIA), let me clarify:

(1) Somebody IMPERSONATED Lee Harvey Oswald on Monday 1 October 1963 in Mexico City using the Cuban Consulate telephone, calling the USSR Embassy telephone, claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald and asking for KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

(2) Because that line was perhaps the single most wire-tapped line on the planet at the time, the CIA senior staff in Mexico City received an English transcript with photographs and other identification within 15 minutes.

(3) The CIA translators themselves were certain that this was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

(4) The CIA senior staff agreed fully. Further, they agreed that it was an inside job by somebody who knew very well that these phones were heavily wire-tapped.

(5) The CIA senior staff therefore instigated a Mole-Hunt to find out which CIA (or FBI, or ONI) Agent had done this IMPERSONATION, and why.

(6) One SOP for a CIA Mole-Hunt, suggests Bill Simpich, is to modify the CIA 201 Files of the principals involved. So, a photo of a large Russian man was placed in Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA 201 File. Also, Oswald's middle name was changed to "Henry" in his CIA 201 File. Also, his mother's maiden name was changed, and other subtle changes were made. This was SOP.

(7) The reasoning was this -- any CIA 201 File is heavily restricted to specific personnel. If a Mole tried to obtain a copy of that CIA 201 File, then, not knowing it had been changed, that Mole would begin to disseminate bogus information about Lee Harvey Oswald, according to these changes.

(8) Therefore, when this bogus data about Lee Harvey Oswald would begin to appear, the CIA high-command (the highest ranking CIA officers only) would realize that this CIA 201 File had been obtained illegally -- and they would be able to trace their Mole from that breach.

(9) Again, only the very highest officials of the CIA were able to start a Mole-Hunt, and they kept it ultra-secret, so that most CIA staff never knew it was happening. (In 1963, the highest ranking members included David Atlee Phillips and James Jesus Angleton, and anyone above their level.)

(10) Because of this, after JFK was murdered, and the FBI demanded the CIA 201 File on Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA staff who responded to the FBI request delivered a photograph of a large Russian man, and gave the FBI Oswald's name as "Lee Henry Oswald." This confusion is still spoken of to this very day.

(11) The CIA tried to find this Mole for several years, and failed to do so. They never found out who it was. (Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have wondered out loud whether it might have been David Morales, who later confessed to his friend Ruben Carbajal of some role in the JFK murder. Another possible CIA rogue could be Howard Hunt.)

So, Glenn, if you haven't read about the Simpich Mole Hunt (2014) I invite you to do so, since Simpich's work provides a paradigm shift in JFK research, IMHO.

Relevant to this thread, which announces the forthcoming book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, Bill Simpich (perhaps without trying to) has undermined all theories that the CIA high-command was part of any plot that involved the IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

Including the plot of the JFK-Kill Team.

So, if the CIA didn't kill JFK, then 9 out of 10 JFK CTer's will need a new theory, IMHO, and so I applaud the forthcoming appearance of this new book.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you make assumptions you have no right or reason to make. debate with you is a waste of time because you put words in my mouth (like DVP does).

i've tried to say several times that we agree on many of these things, yet you re-present them as in a disagreement.

i.e. - i do NOT think the High Command of the CIA was involved. I DO think some people from the CIA were involved. If YOU need to split hairs, do it with someone else. You'll not be happy until i say "Walker DID IT."

//***

"if you wish to dismiss the claims of Harry Dean on the basis that he was not under oath when he made them..."

this is not what i said. i said that hearsay is inadmissible for good reason, distrust of the witness being, if any, a very small part of the reason.

Damn.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Glenn - Trejo is like a broken record. His complete attachment to the fact that 'his' theory exonerates the CIA etc is a clue to his rigid mindset. As you say, he twists every argument to fit his own set of 'facts', makes shameless assumptions routinely even after someone here has shown him the reasons he shouldn't, makes half true statements just for the sake of some unknown traveler stumbling upon his posts, not caring that those of us who spend time here know full well that he is repeating something he knows is misleading, routinely misrepresents the work and the intent of some authors while loudly dissing any researcher who is less willing than he is to exonerate government officials, and assumes a generally condescending tone to all readers.

What he doesn't seem to get is that he is the worst representative for the theory he espouses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, you are never going to get Nostra-Trejo-Damn-Us to let go of the idea that he already knows what the documents to be released in 2017 are going to say.

I'd bet some good money--or at least a chicken dinner at DVP's KFC--that he's wrong.

And if that's the case, I'm betting he'll say the documents that would surely prove him correct have been destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Glenn - Trejo is like a broken record. His complete attachment to the fact that 'his' theory exonerates the CIA etc is a clue to his rigid mindset. As you say, he twists every argument to fit his own set of 'facts', makes shameless assumptions routinely even after someone here has shown him the reasons he shouldn't, makes half true statements just for the sake of some unknown traveler stumbling upon his posts, not caring that those of us who spend time here know full well that he is repeating something he knows is misleading, routinely misrepresents the work and the intent of some authors while loudly dissing any researcher who is less willing than he is to exonerate government officials, and assumes a generally condescending tone to all readers.

What he doesn't seem to get is that he is the worst representative for the theory he espouses.

My, my, Paul B., what a number of accusations all at once! How shall I proceed? I know; I'll just set your account to IGNORE from now on.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, you are never going to get Nostra-Trejo-Damn-Us to let go of the idea that he already knows what the documents to be released in 2017 are going to say.

I'd bet some good money--or at least a chicken dinner at DVP's KFC--that he's wrong.

And if that's the case, I'm betting he'll say the documents that would surely prove him correct have been destroyed.

Mark, you're on for the chicken dinner.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was beginning to question my own sanity and memory.

he exonerates the CIA and yet Morales or Hunt could possibly have been rogue...

you're right, with supporters like that, who needs enemies?

i'm learning as i go. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was beginning to question my own sanity and memory.

he exonerates the CIA and yet Morales or Hunt could possibly have been rogue...

you're right, with supporters like that, who needs enemies?

i'm learning as i go. thanks.

What, Glenn, you think that CIA Agents David Morales and Howard Hunt were part of the CIA high-command?

Try again.

A key puzzle for any CT that names Edwin Walker as leader is to explain the roles of David Morales and Howard Hunt who have already confessed to some role in the JFK murder.

Considering them to be CIA Rogues is a valid, logical explanation. I take Joan Mellen as my signpost here, because she describes a meeting in Louisiana among the Guy Banister group regarding the discussions of a possible JFK dialogue with Castro that was strictly known only by the CIA.

Insofar as the CIA high-command wasn't involved in the Walker/Banister plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, then CIA Rogues would be the logical explanation for the source of topic of their meeting.

The key is that the CIA high-command was in the dark about framing Lee Harvey Oswald -- this was proved IMHO by Bill Simpich in his free eBook, State Secret (2014). It's a paradigm shift indeed.

So, somebody else in the CIA besides the CIA high-command had to leak this data to Guy Banister in Louisiana. It stands to reason.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul. Read this slowly.

NO. As i said in my previous post, i do NOT think High Command when I think CIA and JFK. YOU are the one who said we (the CTers) think High Command.

I think rogue CIA, for many good reasons, none of which have ANYTHING to do with General Walker.

You ARE more frustrating than DVP. You're doing your job.

any of you guys remember the old movie Ten Little Indians, or Clue? where nobody knows who the shill is, and everybody's running around trying to guess...?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul. Read this slowly.

NO. As i said in my previous post, i do NOT think High Command when I think CIA and JFK. YOU are the one who said we (the CTers) think High Command.

I think rogue CIA, for many good reasons, none of which have ANYTHING to do with General Walker....

OK, Glenn, then you are I are closer in our theories than I realized.

Most of the CTers I know think of the CIA high-command when they say the CIA-did-it.

If this is now correct, then you and I actually agree that ROGUES from the CIA, secretly, behind the backs of the leaders of the CIA, participated in a plot to murder JFK.

So far, then, we only differ on the role of Ex-General Edwin Walker with regard to these CIA Rogues. I say Walker was their LEADER.

Somebody else might argue that Walker was their PEER. Somebody else might argue that Walker was their SUBORDINATE.

Let's see how Dr. Jeffrey Caufield illuminates the landscape when his forthcoming book comes out.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you make assumptions you have no right or reason to make. debate with you is a waste of time because you put words in my mouth (like DVP does).

i've tried to say several times that we agree on many of these things, yet you re-present them as in a disagreement.

i.e. - i do NOT think the High Command of the CIA was involved. I DO think some people from the CIA were involved. If YOU need to split hairs, do it with someone else. You'll not be happy until i say "Walker DID IT."

//***

"if you wish to dismiss the claims of Harry Dean on the basis that he was not under oath when he made them..."

this is not what i said. i said that hearsay is inadmissible for good reason, distrust of the witness being, if any, a very small part of the reason.

Damn.

It is virtually impossible to have a serious debate or discussion with Paul Trejo because he routinely invents straw-men arguments and falsely attributes beliefs or positions to opponents which they do not have.

For example: In a 100-page thread here on EF -- numerous individuals (including me) engaged in an exhaustive debate concerning the statements and assertions made by Harry Dean.

Significantly, at no point during that debate regarding Harry Dean, did anyone object to anything Harry Dean wrote or said simply because he was "not under oath". Instead, every critic (including myself) pointed out materially important discrepancies in Harry's recollections---including obvious falsehoods.

Nobody (repeat: nobody) engaged in historical research requires statements made "under oath" as the only significant standard for separating fact from fiction. Everyone who has ever done historical research understands that "eyewitness testimony" is notoriously unreliable. Furthermore, passage of time (even relatively short periods) adversely affects memory. In addition, ALL of us apply filters to incoming data, i.e. we made determinations regarding what is credible vs non-credible or exaggerated or flawed.

Often it is possible to discern major defects in statements or assertions or data uncovered simply by applying normal rules of logic and evidence. For example: one of the most significant disputes in our Harry Dean debate on EF concerned an FBI document which presented an excerpt from a letter written by Harry to J. Edgar Hoover in November 1963. Paul Trejo created an elaborate argument to discredit the FBI version of Harry's letter. One of Paul's major points was that the FBI version was typed in all CAPS---which Paul thought was done as a means of characterizing Harry in an adverse manner.

Months later, after I acquired the FBI-Los Angeles field file on Harry Dean, all of us discovered that Harry Dean wrote numerous letters to that field office. Interestingly, ALL of them were typed in ALL CAPS. Harry could have told us from the beginning of the discussion that he routinely typed his correspondence during the 1960's in all CAPS -- but he chose not to do so. Instead, he joined Paul in suggesting that the documents contained in his FBI file were forgeries. However, after the Los Angeles FBI file was released, we were able to see that every FBI memo that discussed Harry Dean was accurate in every detail and it was Harry and Paul who were fabricating bizarre and malicious "explanations" regarding FBI motives.

Paul Trejo's "theory" is not really a genuine "theory" in the normal sense of that word. Paul does NOT subscribe to normal rules of logic and evidence -- which is why it is almost impossible to have a serious discussion with him about anything. THAT is why Paul can get away with declaring the following in his recent message:

"Edwin Walker, however, resigned from the US Army in 1959, because of his John Birch Society belief that all sitting Presidents since FDR had been Communists..."

Paul has repeatedly made this accusation even though he has been advised numerous times that, in 1959 and 1960 and 1961 and 1962, the John Birch Society never made such an accusation against "all sitting Presidents since FDR". Instead, JBS founder Robert Welch made critical comments about FDR, Truman and Ike in a private letter which he wrote 4 years before the JBS was founded AND the founding members of the Birch Society explicitly disavowed Welch's personal beliefs because they did not want them to be part of official JBS dogma. In fact, many senior JBS officials (including National Council members) had worked for the election and re-election of Eisenhower and two had served in Ike's Administration!! And after Welch's personal views from his 1954 letter became public knowledge in 1960 and 1961, JBS National Council members proposed that Welch step down as leader of the JBS because they did NOT want Welch's views associated with the Society! But none of this matters to Paul because he has a story which he wants everyone to believe --- regardless of relevant facts.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i say you don't read other people's posts closely enough to exhibit that you actually care what other people think. this is obvious, and this leads me to not want to know the things that you DO know.

you've proven the other guys' statements correct. and mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy vey, Ernie. Anybody who read John Birch Society material in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's as I did, knows very well the McCarthyist slant of their rant -- and their accusation that Washington DC, and especially the White House, was riddled with Communists.

You want to fight -- but please remember that the Harry Dean thread was shut down partly because of your relentless defense of the John Birch Society.

You want to be the only authority on the John Birch Society -- but too many people have read too many of their works already -- and we know what McCarthyists they were.

It was probably their incessant pushing at JFK, accusing him of being a Communist, that drove a True-believer like Ex-General Edwin Walker INSANE, so that he planned and executed the JFK Assassination in his effort to please Robert Welch, his new tin god.

(For example, one cartoon in American Opinion depicted JFK in a wedding gown, being approached by Khrushchev. This was typical of the political pornography that Robert Welch published!)

In the same way, Edwin Walker was obeying the instructions of Robert Welch when he and his quislings humiliated United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 24 October 1963.

The John Birch Society bears the same weight of blame for the murder of JFK as Edwin Walker will bear. Let's wait for Dr. Caufield's book to estimate the extent of his blame.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now