Michael Paine

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Mark, thanks for your advice about logic, but I've read quite a lot about formal logic from the writings of Bertrand Russell (who was also an avid JFK researcher) as well as works by Whitehead, Quine, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Hempel, Ayer, Kripke, Kuhn and their school.

I think I've got this covered.

Besides, your characterization of my position is inaccurate -- a straw dog. Perhaps you should follow your own Ten Commandments of Logic. Or just be more specific about your objections.

It's important to keep trying to make viable and logical connections to solve the JFK murder. What do YOU have to propose about the JFK murder?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Perhaps then, if my impression of what you're saying is incorrect, you might better explain why your "soft connections" are valid "building blocks" for your theory.

Because the impression I'm getting is, even though these "soft connections" are NOT facts, you are using them to support the basic foundation of your "theory."

Please point out at what point my impression of your methods are incorrect.

And what I propose about the JFK murder isn't germain to discussing what appears to be serious flaws in YOUR theory.

"Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)"

[Paul Trejo]

Perhaps then, if my impression of what you're saying is incorrect, you might better explain why your "soft connections" are valid "building blocks" for your theory.

Because the impression I'm getting is, even though these "soft connections" are NOT facts, you are using them to support the basic foundation of your "theory."

Please point out at what point my impression of your methods are incorrect.

And what I propose about the JFK murder isn't germain to discussing what appears to be serious flaws in YOUR theory.

"Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)"

OK, Mark, I'll try to show how my "soft" connections can be considered as valid building blocks. Let's look at my "soft" connections again. Remember -- I'm combining the facts already proved by Jim Garrison regarding Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald, with the bio-fiction left by CIA Officer David Atlee Phillips (DAP) in his unpublished "novel," The AMLASH Legacy (1987), and with the account given to Gaeton Fonzi by Alpha 66 leader, Antonio Veciana. [both DAP and Veciana worked together on plans to assassinate Fidel Castro.]

Here are my "soft" connections:

(1) Both DAP and Guy Banister knew Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963;

(2) Both DAP and Guy Banister worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of anti-Communist and anti-FPCC activities;

(3) Both DAP and Guy Banister worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of Cuban Exile counter-revolutionaries like Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier.

(4) Both DAP and Guy Banister sought to sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald with "Marxist bona fides" to make him look as Communist as possible, e.g. as an officer of the FPCC.

(5) Both DAP and Guy Banister sought to exploit Oswald's "Marxist bona fides" in Mexico City, to try to get Oswald a hasty Visa to Cuba.

If we totally accept the findings of Jim Garrison, the account of Antonio Veciana, and this bio-fiction from DAP, then these five connections must be regarded as HARD EVIDENCE.

But we can't accept the bio-fiction totally -- so that's what makes these connections "soft".

Yet -- it is the agreement of DAP's bio-fiction with the account of Antonio Veciana (whom Gaeton Fonzi found believable) that makes some of us consider DAP's bio-fiction more carefully.

IF AND ONLY IF we accept DAP's bio-fiction as confessional, then these five factors will become "hard" evidence.

So, it's worthwhile, IMHO, to keep working on this line of research, because of the possibility of uncovering new evidence that has not been uncovered in the past 50 years.

I'm not placing the burden of proof on the skeptic. I'm only hoping that the skeptic will be open to new ideas.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

In what way does this implicate Walker? Does Phillips mention hm too?

[Paul Trejo]

In what way does this implicate Walker? Does Phillips mention hm too?

Well, Paul B., it's my hypothesis that David Atlee Phillips (DAP) was blind-sighted by the turning of Lee Harvey Oswald - that DAP was fooled by Guy Banister (who was working together with Edwin Walker and Joseph Milteer, among others).

Since DAP was fooled by Guy Banister, it is likely that DAP had no idea that the plot that took over Lee Harvey Oswald was being led by Edwin Walker.

That is a plausible way to explain why DAP didn't mention Walker -- he never knew the truth until weeks after the JFK murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Paul T:

You said: "It's my hypothesis...that DAP was fooled by Guy Banister..."

And then you take that "hypothesis" and turn it onto a "fact" used to support your next statement: "Since DAP was fooled by Guy Banister,..." Your "hypothesis" suddenly became a fact. Shaky foundation there, Paul.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T:

You said: "It's my hypothesis...that DAP was fooled by Guy Banister..."

And then you take that "hypothesis" and turn it onto a "fact" used to support your next statement: "Since DAP was fooled by Guy Banister,..." Your "hypothesis" suddenly became a fact. Shaky foundation there, Paul.

Well Mark, your point is merely about semantics or grammar. Why should I keep repeating the context of my remarks with every single sentence? If I say that's a hypothesis in sentence #1, then of course it remains a hypothesis in the next and following sentences (unless proof was offered in the interim).

Of course, within the context, my sentence should be taken as: "Insofar as DAP was fooled by Guy Banister, then..."

Do we really need to pick on grammar here? What's next...spelling? Why not deal with the issues?

My point STANDS. If (and only if) DAP was fooled by Guy Banister, then we can make sense of these facts:

(1) Antonio Veciana said DAP knew Lee Harvey Oswald personally.

(2) Antonio Vaciana said he met DAP and Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas sometime around September 1963 in the context of killing Fidel Castro.

(3) Jim Garrison proved that Guy Banister was manipulating the "Marxist bona fides" of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.

(4) DAP's bio-fiction "novel" claims that he knew Lee Harvey Oswald personally.

(5) DAP's bio-fiction "novel" claims that he was training Oswald in the context of killing Fidel Castro.

(6) DAP's bio-fiction "novel" claims that he was manipulating the "Marxist bona fides" of Lee Harvey Oswald during the summer of 1963.

Suddenly all those factors line up in a pattern. What's wrong with that?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

When Phillips wrote that fiction or whatever it was he certainly had possession of more facts than he had two weeks after the assassination. So is it your contention that he deliberately left Walker out of the story, or that he didn't know at that late date that Walker was involved with Banister?

[Paul Trejo]

When Phillips wrote that fiction or whatever it was he certainly had possession of more facts than he had two weeks after the assassination. So is it your contention that he deliberately left Walker out of the story, or that he didn't know at that late date that Walker was involved with Banister?

Good question, Paul B.

It's my current belief that David Atlee Phillips (DAP) learned the truth about the accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald only a few weeks after the JFK murder.

However, DAP was a Team Player -- and the CIA had signed on with the FBI and LBJ and the Warren Commission to promote J. Edgar Hoover's fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Lone Shooter." Therefore, DAP would never reveal the whole truth.

Yet DAP was only human. He wanted to leave a "legacy" to posterity, and that is why he left so many clues in his autobiographical novel.

It reminds me of Edwin Walker, who would never admit to the whole truth, but he left countless clues in his personal correspondence to others that he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald since the weekend of the 10 April 1963 shooting at his home in Dallas.

Clues, clues, clues, but never the whole truth.

So, we're getting clues from DAP, I believe, but not the whole truth. DAP is telling the world -- in my opinion -- that his demonstrable attachment with Lee Harvey Oswald could be EXPLAINED.

What we're seeing in this bio-fiction by DAP is his EXCUSE for knowing Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963, all summer long -- and even in Mexico City -- AND STILL BE INNOCENT OF THE JFK PLOT.

I believe that DAP knew that history would look back at his life and find these links to Lee Harvey Oswald. He wanted to be sure that his name was in the clear.

Therefore, as I see it, there are TWO CHOICES:

(1) DAP was working with Guy Banister to make a "Marxist" patsy out of Lee Harvey Oswald, to blame the COMMUNISTS for the murder of JFK, and then finally take back Cuba;

-or-

(2) DAP was just as fooled by Guy Banister (and Edwin Walker) as Lee Harvey Oswald was.

Currently I'm leaning toward choice #2, only because I want to see how far this argument can last. I sincerely wonder, Paul B., if you would be challenging my theory half as much if I had instead leaned toward choice #1.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

David Atlee Phillips aside, the theme of this thread is Michael Paine.

The importance of Michael Paine to the JFK murder is, in my opinion, simply his untold story about Lee Harvey Oswald in relation to Ex-General Edwin A. Walker.

In this sense, the importance of Michael Paine to the JFK mrder is exactly the same as the importance of George De Mohrenschildt to the JFK murder -- namely -- his partially untold story about Lee Harvey Oswald in relation to Ex-General Edwin A. Walker.

This is where researchers should be looking in 2015. I predict that scholarship will inch its way in this direction in the months to come.

Because I accept choice #2 about DAP, I doubt that DAP knew or cared much about Edwin Walker, George De Mohrenschildt or Michael Paine.

However, it still remains possible that choice #1 about DAP is correct -- and that DAP really did know a lot about Edwin Walker -- in which case he would have also known a lot about George De Mohrenschildt and Michael Paine, who in their righteous indignity fully despised Edwin Walker.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>

Edited December 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...That's a major claim about proving Morales in a New Orleans meeting with Marcello....that deserves some details and some source citations including what Joan uses as sources. If you could provide that it would be really helpful in evaluating such a claim.

Well, Larry, I've scanned my notes many times in the past six weeks trying to find my "source" on this. At length, I decided that I must have combined two different sources, and drew a speculative conclusion.

Here's my first source -- it's from Joan Mellen's Farewell to Justice (2005) on page 79. She's speaking about Thomas Edward Beckham, a grammar school dropout and unemployed folk singer who spent much his time in the summer of 1963 in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Clay Shaw.

Our brilliant Ms. Mellen writes:

"Tommy attended meetings at Algiers, on the West Bank of the Mississippi River, but still part of Orleans Parish, and at the Town & Country Motel in Jefferson Parish. The subject is always the same -- what is to be done about John F. Kennedy? The group assesses the news that Kennedy had assigned his school friend, William Atwood to meet with Fidel Castro, seeking rapproachment. This effort, not yet reported in the press, is known to everyone here...Clay Bertrand, Anna Burglass (on behalf of Guy Banister), G. Wray Gill, Jack S. Martin, Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby." (Joan Mellen, FTJ, p. 79)

Of course, that Town & Country Motel belonged to Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello.

I underscored that line, "not yet reported in the press," because it reminded me of my second source, which was your own, SWHT/2010, Larry.

I thought I recalled a claim in your book that CIA Officer David Morales and his CIA cronies had been complaining about William Atwood's plans to meet with Fidel Castro "before this was reported in the press."

So, these two scenarios merged fairly smoothly -- David Morales was enraged that William Atwood was going to meet with Fidel Castro to pursue a peaceful solution to the Cuban Crisis -- after so many honest Cuban soldiers had lost their lives in the Bay of Pigs. It was unforgivable.

The connection was natural -- the CIA would have inside information on this, but how else would Guy Banister, Clay Bertrand, Jack. S. Martin, Carlos Marcello and all the low-level street thugs named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen get this fresh information before the press -- if not from someone like David Morales?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

It's reasonable to conclude that Morales and others in the NO crowd would be enraged. It's also obvious that if they knew about the Atwood plan, it came from higher ups, and if I read this correctly the first person consulted on the plan was Harriman. I guess the point I would make is that the anger goes to the top of the national security establishment. Why do you always stop at Morales? If he and Banister and others were angry about this so were Harriman and McGeorge Bundy and Helms and others. Please don't run through your whole theory in response. Just take it in. We cannot know for sure where the anger at JFK became an assassination plot against him. But we can know for sure that the entire military and intelligence chain were pissed off.

[Larry Hancock]

Paul T., first off you present a rather amazing question....?

"The connection was natural -- the CIA would have inside information on this, but how else would Guy Banister, Clay Bertrand, Jack. S. Martin, Carlos Marcello and all the low-level street thugs named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen get this fresh information before the press -- if not from someone like David Morales?"

First, could you substantiate or cite a source stating that Marcello, Shaw, Ferrie, etc had information about the progress of the Atwood back channel negotiations. Admittedly all those individuals had reason to speak out against JFK over events ranging from RFK's efforts to get Marcello kicked back out of the country to Ferrie's opposition to JFK's no invastion agreement with the Russians, I know of no indication they knew of the back channel deals. Now it is true that information coming from on the spring outreach contacts that was being circulated within segments of the exile community in Miami, during August and Sept, but that's another story entirely and I connect the dots on that in SWHT. Yet those dots go back to the earlier outreach from spring, and even discussions inside the SGA, which Morales and Shackley would have been privy too. The surprising restart and rapid progress of new contacts circa Oct was something entirely different, and I trace that in NEXUS. JFK was keeping that very tight and trying to use non State Dept communications, and there is evidence that Angleton and probably Helms were very much trying to monitor that, perhaps even with their own bugs on private and hotel telephones.

Second, you are citing Beckham as a key source on activities being discussed by Marcello. I know that comes from my friend Joan and from Beckham - who I've cautioned about many times. There is evidence that he hung aground Bannister's office and Bannister's street people. The thought that someone with his record and lack of connections to the Marcello network would somehow be sitting in on Marcello organized planning meetings at his motel really is hard to credit given Marcello's known concerns over bugs, phone taps and informants.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T., first off you present a rather amazing question....?

"The connection was natural -- the CIA would have inside information on this, but how else would Guy Banister, Clay Bertrand, Jack. S. Martin, Carlos Marcello and all the low-level street thugs named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen get this fresh information before the press -- if not from someone like David Morales?"

First, could you substantiate or cite a source stating that Marcello, Shaw, Ferrie, etc had information about the progress of the Atwood back channel negotiations. Admittedly all those individuals had reason to speak out against JFK over events ranging from RFK's efforts to get Marcello kicked back out of the country to Ferrie's opposition to JFK's no invastion agreement with the Russians, I know of no indication they knew of the back channel deals. Now it is true that information coming from on the spring outreach contacts that was being circulated within segments of the exile community in Miami, during August and Sept, but that's another story entirely and I connect the dots on that in SWHT. Yet those dots go back to the earlier outreach from spring, and even discussions inside the SGA, which Morales and Shackley would have been privy too. The surprising restart and rapid progress of new contacts circa Oct was something entirely different, and I trace that in NEXUS. JFK was keeping that very tight and trying to use non State Dept communications, and there is evidence that Angleton and probably Helms were very much trying to monitor that, perhaps even with their own bugs on private and hotel telephones.

Second, you are citing Beckham as a key source on activities being discussed by Marcello. I know that comes from my friend Joan and from Beckham - who I've cautioned about many times. There is evidence that he hung aground Bannister's office and Bannister's street people. The thought that someone with his record and lack of connections to the Marcello network would somehow be sitting in on Marcello organized planning meetings at his motel really is hard to credit given Marcello's known concerns over bugs, phone taps and informants.

Thanks again, Larry, for the vote of confidence.

As I showed, my source was Joan Mellen. I don't claim to have more data on New Orleans than Joan Mellen. I have only said that I interpret a few factors differently than she does -- for example, I say that the ground-crew she identified were NOT official members of the CIA, but loud-mouthed braggarts who might have brushed shoulders with the CIA in this or that attack on Fidel Castro's Cuba.

These low-level "assets" including criminal figures such as Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana and Santos Trafficante -- could be depended upon only to brag about their "status" and to exploit it on the street.

This mind-set also infected people like Banister's key men: David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, and Fred Crisman.

Yes, they were also reputed to have received a few bucks from the CIA for some role in this or that attack on Cuba -- but to regard all the actions of these street thugs as CIA-controlled is the Achilles Heel of Joan Mellen's narrative, IMHO.

Therefore, I confess that I have no other source beyond Joan Mellon to state that Marcello, Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Wray and Crisman had information about the progress of the William Atwood back channel negotiations to Fidel Castro.

You say, Larry, that you have no indication they knew of the back channel deals -- but Joan Mellen clearly did within my quotation of her work.

You seem to suspect, rather, that if they did get this Atwood data, it would have come from within the Cuban Exile and mercenary community with whom these street-thugs often interacted. Perhaps. Yet CIA Officer David Morales was a leading figure in THAT community. So my suspicions are again fired up.

Besides, Larry, your own research connects those same dots and arrives at David Morales and Tom Shackley as the clear HOLDERS of the Atwood data.

Finally, Larry, you want to caution against the data of Thomas Edward Beckham as reported by Joan Mellen. But let's look at this again. We agree that young Tom hung aground Banister's office and street people.

Next, we agree that Guy Banister's office and his main people, including David Ferrie, were very close to Carlos Marcello. Joan Mellen tells us that these underground political activists had meetings with violent language at Carlos Marcello's Town & Country Motel in Louisiana.

So far so good.

Yet you have a doubt that Carlos Marcello himself -- who was so paranoid about leaks and spies and snitches, would allow a young drifter like Tom Beckham to attend his secret meetings.

That would depend, IMHO, on how many of Carlos Marcello's "trusted" people would vouch for the young Tom Beckham. From Joan Mellen we know that Fred Crisman vouched for Tom Beckham, and David Ferrie also vouched for him. Now -- David Ferrie was also a close associate of attorney Wray Gill, who was Carlos Marcello's attorney in his case against the RFK deportation. This case was very close to Marcello's heart.

Taking a closer look -- here is this very young man, not much more than a teenager -- who is manifestly a grammar school dropout. Fred Crisman would vouch for that. What kind of CIA or FBI agent would a grammar school dropout make? On the contrary -- he'd make a much better Mafia stooge.

So, IMHO somebody as deprived as Thomas Edward Beckham, attractive because of his youth and naivete, would become "adopted" by these right-wing fanatics, Fred Crisman, David Ferrie and Jack S. Martin. These street-people would vouch for the utter INNOCENCE of this boy, and based on that, the paranoia of a Mafia boss would be assuaged.

My question, however, is not so much about Thomas Beckham -- my question is Joan Mellen's formulation that Carlos Marcello's inner circle (Banister, Ferrie, Shaw, Oswald) had early information -- which was classified top secret -- about the William Atwood plans to meet Fidel Castro.

THAT's the real question. In my view, these street-thugs had no other source for that information than the CIA -- and David Morales tops that list of sources because of his own reputed confession of his role in the JFK murder.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 4, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, about all I can offer is that you are presenting pieces of logic to establish linkages - but without citation other than a general reference to Joan as a source. Are you able to find any citations in her work that offer corroboration....either for a linkage from Morales to Marcello or Beckham to Marcello (other than Beckham's own remarks).

If you want to take matters further you really do need the citations and corroboration. Otherwise you are left with inference....which is fine but pretty much leaves you floating around with a number of other scenarios that are no better documented or corroborated.

So I guess what I'm really saying is that if you propose those sorts of connections you need specific information from sources like Garrison and Joan rather than just referring broadly to their work (and if you were citing me I hope I'd be just as picky...grin).