Ed Epstein's tale of George De Mohrenschildt's last day

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

[Paul Trejo]

This is why nearly everybody here is completely frustrated with you or instead want nothing to do with you.

Explain why Hosty decided to do nothing with the information given that he was told, as a "Federal Police Officer", that one of the neighbours thought Oswald was going to kill Marina. He knew where they were living after speaking to Tobias yet he backed off.

Let's forget why Tobias, and the phantom neighbour, did nothing, Give me an explanation why Hosty asked for a 45-60 day cooling off period before speaking to Marina given he was told she was suffering numerous severe beatings at the hands of a suspected communist.

Blah, blah, blah, Lee. You make no sense at all.

Well I'm surprised you're not hard at work weaving it into your nonsensical "theory." Come back when you have a damn clue what I'm talking about you ignorant little man.

My "obsession" was with your "police reports" and "neighbours phoning the police"-- both of which turned out to be complete crud. Made up. Out of thin air.

You should be thanking me for fact checking your posts. At least now you have got one thing right.

P.S. You can keep bumping your posts all you want. They'll attract as much positive attention as a Texas pan-handler with diarrhoea.

Lee, kindly take your confused ramblings about this valid FBI report by James Hosty to its appropriate thread. This is a thread about George De Mohrenschidt.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Lee, if you want a response to your errors about FBI Agent James Hosty, then, take your discussion to its appropriate thread. This is a thread about George De Mohrenschidlt.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 30, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

I've been to some extent following this exchange. At the moment it seems to have similarities to some disagreements Paul and I have had re the CIA and the FBI. It has often seemed to me that Paul has an unwarranted trust in these bodies and that Lee rightly tries to point that out. I don't know. It seems that way to me. There are many reasons to do the opposite (include the CIA and the FBI as direct involvement) without in any way negating the premise that the militant right killed the Kennedys,or the K's, including a direct line from there to the Heads of Impulse, Planning and Finance. In fact that is a 'resolution' of various hypothesis put forward over time. The apparent fact that someone sees events through a filter that necessarily cannot in itself arrive at a unified solution does not mean that that cannot be done.

[Paul Trejo]

I've been to some extent following this exchange. At the moment it seems to have similarities to some disagreements Paul and I have had re the CIA and the FBI. It has often seemed to me that Paul has an unwarranted trust in these bodies and that Lee rightly tries to point that out. I don't know. It seems that way to me. There are many reasons to do the opposite (include the CIA and the FBI as direct involvement) without in any way negating the premise that the militant right killed the Kennedys,or the K's, including a direct line from there to the Heads of Impulse, Planning and Finance. In fact that is a 'resolution' of various hypothesis put forward over time. The apparent fact that someone sees events through a filter that necessarily cannot in itself arrive at a unified solution does not mean that that cannot be done.

John, one cannot really have it both ways. If the Radical Right is ultimately behind the death of JFK in their covert aims to overthrow the Establishment, then we cannot at the same time say that the Establishment was behind JFK's death.

We can, obviously, posit that some rogue members of the Establishment were secretly members of the Radical Right, and they offered secret support here and there. I have always said that there were members of the FBI and CIA who "looked the other way" when they could have acted.

Hoover's knowledge of Carlos Marcello's hit contract on JFK is a case in point, as Hoover evidently took no action at all. Yet that is not the same as saying that Hoover himself put out a contract on JFK.

We know that several "assets" of the CIA were involved with Interpen, Hemming, Hall, Banister, Bringuier and Walker. Frank Sturgis was one -- and in fact Frank Sturgis boasted about his role in the JFK assassination.

However, these "assets" were not official CIA employees. They did not act under CIA direction. They were loose cannons and they acted on their own initiatives. IMHO those CIA "assets" who had been directly involved in the Bay of Pigs disappointment were motivated to kill JFK -- and they openly said so. Again, Loran Hall made this point very plain in his various speeches to the John Birch Society.

Although the FBI and the CIA were not as innocent as lambs in the death of JFK, it is a bizarre fantasy to imagine that the FBI and the CIA were "officially" involved in some conspiracy, e.g. going back to 1959 when Lee Harvey Oswald first went to the USSR, to kill JFK (who was not even President yet).

It is equally bizarre, IMHO, to try to involve James Hosty without hard proof. Such behavior shows a weakness of logic.

Getting back to De Mohrenschildt (since this is his thread) we must recognize plainly that he was involved in the CIA and that he was almost certainly "babysitting" Lee Harvey Oswald on behalf of the CIA.

Yet it is futile to attempt to engage De Morhenschildt in the assassination of JFK. Bruce Campbell Adamson exhausted that possibility with scholarly precision. The role that George De Mohrenschildt plays in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald involves messing with Oswald's mind, and waking the raging bull, ex-General Edwin Walker.

We have lots and lots of hard evidence supporting that scenario. The Warren Commission made that plain (although they should have dug deeper into Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, IMHO).

Aside from rogue assets here and there, I see no hard evidence of CIA involvement. Even Mark Lane's swan song, Plausible Denial (1991), only proves that E. Howard Hunt helped Frank Sturgis and party run some guns for anti-Castro forces sometime in November, 1963. That's simply not hard proof of CIA involvement in the JFK assassination -- and that was Mark Lane's very best work.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 30, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

Carlos was a tomato salesman and MLK the most dangerous n in the US, a communist in need of death. - Hoover

edit typos

Edited April 30, 2013 by John Dolva

[Paul Trejo]

Carlos was a tomato salesman and MLK the most dangerous n in the US, a communist in need of death. - Hoover

edit typos

John, I agree with you that Hoover leaned to the Right, but he was not a member of the Radical Right.

Hoover deliberately sent FBI men to infiltrate the KKK, to undermine their growth. I believe that was a success.

Also, Hoover made a study of the John Birch Society, and he concluded that they were not patriotic, because they accused recent and sitting Presidents of being Communists. Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover made a rule for the FBI -- no member of the FBI could join the John Birch Society.

So, it's a matter of nuance -- it's a matter of degree, John. J. Edgar Hoover was rightist, but he was not Radical Right, IMHO.

Hoover disliked JFK and MLK, but he didn't plot to overthrow the US government the way the John Birchers plotted.

It is possible -- even plausible -- that Hoover looked the other way when he learned that there were JFK kill plots afoot. I'm still undecided about his ultimate role.

However, at the end of the day, I'm confident that J. Edgar Hoover did not plot with the KKK or with the John Birch Society to kill JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Hoover was rightist, but he wasn't *that* far to the right, compared with these rabid rightists.

Also, even though I'm defending Hoover of complicity in the JFK plot -- I don't defend Hoover from all charges -- I also believe he was a blackmailer and was knee-deep in Mafia messes himself. Yet as with Lee Oswald -- just because he was guilty of crimes A, B and C, does not prove that he killed JFK.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 30, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

Hoover tried to kill MLK, at least once.

[Paul Trejo]

Hoover tried to kill MLK, at least once.

John, I will stipulate, for the sake of argument, that Hoover tried to kill MLK at least once.

Nevertheless, there is an explanation. Hoover was convinced -- insofar as he was not as sophisticated a thinker as he supposed -- that MLK was a Communist controlled by Moscow.

He wrote this, and he believed it. Now, it is also a fact that this was the same theory proposed by the White Citizens' Council, the State Sovereignty Commissions and the States Rights Parties in the 1960's. Clearly the KKK signed on to this theory, because it gained new supporters for their racist cause *that they otherwise would never have*.

That is, most Americans were (and are) not racists. Yet most Americans were (and are) Anticommunists. So, when Judge Tom Brady (Black Monday) and Robert Patterson (White Citizens' Council) promoted this idea that the Civil Rights Movement in the USA was controlled by Moscow, that was a stroke of political mastery.

The racists in America, whose only hope in 1954-1964 was to Impeach Earl Warren and reverse his *Brown* ruling to integrate public schools, made a masterful political stroke by claiming that MLK was controlled by Moscow. Millions of Americans who would otherwise never march with the racists, suddenly joined the racists.

This is one of the most important aspects of USA Cold War history.

We now find honest (however naive) Anticommunists switched over to the KKK agenda -- without realizing it.

This is why I noted that ex-General Walker did not have any racist comments in his copyrighted speeches written in 1961 and early 1962. Racism was not on his agenda -- but Anticommunism was his obsession.

It was because Walker was not a well-read man that he fell victim to the mythology that the Civil Rights movement was Communist. So he joined the John Birch Society, and called for the Impeachment of Earl Warren in a billboard that he installed on his front lawn. Because of his poor reading skills, Walker was fooled by the John Birch Society, and ended up supporting racist causes (like the Ole Miss riot) to his own detriment.

Because the Ole Miss riots ruined his political career in mainstream America, ex-General Walker was forced to move to the extreme right of racism, and to work with Robert Allen Surrey and the White Citizens' Councils, in order to remain in the public arena at all. He didn't realize it at the time, but this totally ruined his chances in politics.

I will also cite Harry Dean in this regard. I made a point to meet Harry Dean personally, and found him to be a fair-minded working man and family man with conservative American values. Harry Dean is no racist -- and furthermore, in his dealings with the John Birch Society and even with the Minutemen in Southern California, Harry Dean saw no evidence of racism in their ranks. If he had, he would have objected immediately. My conclusion is that the John Birch Society, despite their close dealings with the White Citizens' Council goal to Impeach Earl Warren, did not wear their racism on their sleeve. It was hidden. This was a deliberate strategy on the part of the founder, Robert Welch.

I cite Walker and Dean here as a comparison with J. Edgar Hoover. Just because Hoover also fell victim to the belief that Martin Luther King was controlled by Communist Moscow, this does not mean that Hoover was also a racist.

There are nuances to be observed here. Millions of people *unknowingly* marched with the racists in the 1960's by following the ideas of the John Birch Society and similar organizations throughout the USA. Yet their aim was Anticommunism -- not racism.

This factor helps explain the mystery of civilized Germany following Adolf Hitler in 1930. Hitler was a racist, as anybody who read "Mein Kampf" could plainly see. But many people didn't read "Mein Kampf", and Hitler's original agenda that he broadcast to the public was the agenda of Anticommunism. Hitler promised to put a stop to Communism, and millions of Germans supported him on that basis. Only after it was too late -- after Hitler destroyed all Republican\Democratic principles in Germany, and established a brutal dictatorship -- did the German people realize the mistake they made. Then they were forced to see it through to the bitter end.

In the same way, J. Edgar Hoover was fooled by the KKK spin-off of the White Citizens' Council and the State Sovereignty Commissions and the States Rights Parties. These institutions concealed their racist roots -- and J. Edgar Hoover was fooled by that. So, I believe history will show that J. Edgar Hoover's well-known hatred for Martin Luther King will prove to be his great failing due to his mistaken belief that MLK was controlled by Communist Moscow.

I strongly doubt that Hoover was a racist in the sense of the Nazi Party. Very, very few Americans are that crass.

I will end with a note about George De Mohrenshildt (as this is his thread). George was known to have supported the Nazi Party when he was in Europe. Yet George was an opportunist, not a racist. He thought better of Lee Harvey Oswald, knowing that Oswald would speak up for Black Americans.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 2, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

Okay. So the head of the FBI trying to kill JFK's and RFK's ally MLK in no way qualifies him or 'the Feebs' as plausible participants in the assassination of JFK?

[Paul Trejo]

Okay. So the head of the FBI trying to kill JFK's and RFK's ally MLK in no way qualifies him or 'the Feebs' as plausible participants in the assassination of JFK?

Nobody's saying that, John. We're only asking what solid evidence exists to make the claim that Hoover tried to kill MLK.

I will grant this -- if we have solid evidence that Hoover tried to kill MLK, then we can surmise that Hoover believed the right-wing lies about the Civil Rights movement in the USA being controlled by Communist Moscow (instead of being a grass-roots movement for justice, which is what it truly was).

Now, if Hoover was so intellectually drained by 1963 (after all, he was born in 1895 and had lived through much) that he believed MLK was a Communist, then it is surely plausible that Hoover believed that JFK was also controlled by Communists, particularly after JFK's Civil Rights Speech of 11 June 1963 which was clearly in support of MLK.

However, I doubt that Hoover was that stupid. After all, he knew that the John Birch Society was teaching that JFK was a Communist, and that Eisenhower had been a Communist, and that Truman had been a Communist and that FDR had been a Communist, and he wrote down for all to see his rule that the John Birch Society was therefore not a patriotic organization, but a subversive organization.

For that reason, Hoover made a rule that no FBI Agent could be a member of the John Birch Society.

Now -- given that factoid, how should I come to believe that Hoover himself decided to believe in the John Birch Society nonsense? That is a difficult stretch. Not impossible -- but difficult based on the material evidence.

So, knowing the material evidence that you allude to when you say that "Hoover tried to kill MLK at least once" would be very helpful in forming a conclusion about this controversy.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

"There is an opportunity in everything."

[Paul Trejo]

"There is an opportunity in everything."

John, I will admit that I have more than a little doubt about Hoover's total innocence in the JFK assassination itself.

I say this even though I completely separate the JFK assassination from the JFK assassination cover-up.

My first doubt begins with Hoover's super-fast identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone-nut assassin of JFK. That, to me, is the most suspicious fact of all.

My second doubt begins with Gerry Patrick Hemming's claim that J. Edgar Hoover was the mastermind of the JFK murder plot. Now, Hemming was not under oath when he made this claim, and Hemming is also well-known for his wild-goose chases. So, this is not "material" evidence, although it is worth discussing.

Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that after J. Edgar Hoover presented RFK and JFK with sex photographs of JFK commiting adultery -- and threatened to go public with them, RFK immediately hired inside people with a request for sex photographs on J. Edgar Hoover. Those people hired Gerry Patrick Hemming for the job, and gave Hemming a lot of money to begin.

Hemming claimed that his first act was to buy a huge quantity of high-grade marijuana and then go underground to work with drug addicts and other underground people. He used the drugs to bribe people for his contraband -- actual photographs of J. Edgar Hoover engaged in homosexual acts.

Hemming claimed that in only a few days they were successful, and delivered these photographs to RFK, who immediately showed them to J. Edgar Hoover, who sat down in his chair with his jaw open, completely stunned. Of course, J. Edgar Hoover turned over his compromising photographs of JFK, and slammed the door.

Hemming further claimed that Hoover (1) plotted to kill JFK after that; and (2) plotted to make Hemming and Interpen into the patsies of this plot. This was to occur at the Miami airport (as I recall) and Interpen was paid a lot of money to show up at the airport. Hemming told his crew to show up -- but without any guns at all.

FBI men arrested the Interpen guys, but when they learned they had no guns, they had to let them go. At that point, claimed Hemming, J. Edgar Hoover swore personal vengeance against Gerry Patrick Hemming. If I got some of the details wrong, I believe he told this story on this Forum in 2007.

So -- Hemming offers a portrait of J. Edgar Hoover that might be biased or might be true. If true, it certainly implicates Hoover far more than I have ever implicated him.

Yet we have no confirmation of Hemming's story -- and he was capable of making up stories, too, as Noel Twyman admitted in 1997.

As for Hoover's super-fast identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone-nut killer of JFK, that can also be explained as a think-fast strategy to avert a Civil War in America. So, I don't think this has been proved one way or the other yet. I will keep my mind open about J. Edgar Hoover.

I seek the dirty characters -- the ones who were open and outspoken in favor of racism, segregation, and the riots at Ole Miss in 1962. That includes ex-General Edwin Walker and Guy Banister, and it doesn't include J. Edgar Hoover.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 5, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Yet we have no confirmation of Hemming's story -- and he was capable of making up stories, too

Lee wasn't innocent.

Lee Harvey Oswald probably shot nobody on 11/22/1963 -- but he knew who did -- and he was also dumb enough to bring his rifle to work that day, when asked to do so by Gerry Patrick Hemming (courtesy A.J. Weberman).

I am among the minority who demand to see hard proof before I come to a conclusion.

Once again, Lee, you seek to find irony or contradiction by snipping portions of my posts.

Yet you've really only shown so far that you're uncomfortable with nuances. It's possible for Harry Dean to be right sometimes, and mistaken at other times. It's possible for Gerry Patrick Hemming to make sense sometimes, and relapse into nonsense at other times.

Further, you continue to fail to distinguish between a conclusion and a theory.

Discernment is necessary in complex intellectual research. People who are uncomfortable with nuances are poorly suited to master the discrernment required.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 7, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

Yet we have no confirmation of Hemming's story -- and he was capable of making up stories, too

Lee wasn't innocent.

Lee Harvey Oswald probably shot nobody on 11/22/1963 -- but he knew who did -- and he was also dumb enough to bring his rifle to work that day, when asked to do so by Gerry Patrick Hemming (courtesy A.J. Weberman).

I am among the minority who demand to see hard proof before I come to a conclusion.

Once again, Lee, you seek to find irony or contradiction by snipping portions of my posts.

Yet you've really only shown so far that you're uncomfortable with nuances. It's possible for Harry Dean to be right sometimes, and mistaken at other times. It's possible for Gerry Patrick Hemming to make sense sometimes, and relapse into nonsense at other times.

Further, you continue to fail to distinguish between a conclusion and a theory.

Discernment is necessary in complex intellectual research. People who are uncomfortable with nuances are poorly suited to master the discrernment required.

Paul Trejo is really not in a good position to lecture Lee Farley about terms such as nuances, discernment, complex intellectual research. conclusions and theories.

Lee finds contradictions in Paul's claims because they are there and they are abundant.

Lee Farley is far from alone in his assessments of Paul's "conclusions and theories."

The majority of responses to Paul's arguments have been negative . Criticisms have come from many members with diverse backgrounds and approaches.

To be on the same side of an argument as Lee Farley, Robert Charles-Dunne and Martin Hay is a pretty safe bet.