Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

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

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

Recommended Posts

On 11/7/2017 at 8:39 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Kenneth,

I'm also surprised that two CIA agents confessed to a role in the JFK assassination.   As you say, it was a severe betrayal of the brotherhood to come out in the open like that, and sully the name of the CIA.

Yet -- from my CT, it was an even more severe betrayal of the CIA brotherhood to ride off the reservation and become ROGUES to join a CIVILIAN plot to kill JFK.

CIA agents Howard Hunt and David Morales became ROGUES.  That explains: (1) why they helped to kill JFK; and (2) why their tortured souls at the very end of their sad lives finally sang like birds.  

They had lost their membership in their brotherhood on 11/22/1963.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul T Only way you can account for CIA confessions is they went rogue. Meanwhile you often quote Phillips fictional book as proof of your theory. I'd much rather see the CIA files on these three, which as of the previous release were still almost totally redacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Paul T Only way you can account for CIA confessions is they went rogue. Meanwhile you often quote Phillips fictional book as proof of your theory. I'd much rather see the CIA files on these three, which as of the previous release were still almost totally redacted.

Paul B.,

I'm also interested in seeing the CIA files on Morales, Hunt and DA Phillips -- but here's what I expect.

1.   Even though E. Howard Hunt confessed on his deathbed to his son of a role "on the sidelines" of the JFK assassination, the only other people he named as actual JFK co-conspirators were: (A) David Morales; and (B ) Frank Sturgis.  

1.1.  Although Hunt named Cord Meyer as a CIA guy who hated JFK with a purple passion, because JFK slept with his wife, Mary Meyer, there was no evidence that Cord Meyer was anything other than one more American who cheered with JFK was killed.

2.  Even though David Morales, when stinking drunk, confessed to his best friend, Ruben Carbajal, that, "we really took care of that sonuvabitch, didn't we?" when the discussion turned to JFK, there was no evidence that he was talking about the CIA, when he said, "we".

3.  As you know, in my CT, Hunt and Morales were simply lending their assistance to a JFK plot already in progress, led by the Radical Right.

4.  Because of this, and because Bill Simpich (2014) proved that the CIA High Command had no clue which CIA agent had Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City during the summer of 1963, I am convinced that the CIA had no clue who killed JFK in 1963, just as most CIA people have no clue who killed JFK down to this very day.

5.  Therefore, look all you want at all the hundreds of CIA documents that are being released by the JFK Records Act these days -- YOU WILL FINDING NOTHING AT ALL.

6.   Instead, people should be reading the newly released FBI records with an eagle eye.  The FBI high command knew ALL ABOUT who killed JFK only three hours after the shooting.  I predict -- that's what the USA is about to learn.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

I'm also interested in seeing the CIA files on Morales, Hunt and DA Phillips -- but here's what I expect.

1.   Even though E. Howard Hunt confessed on his deathbed to his son of a role "on the sidelines" of the JFK assassination, the only other people he named as actual JFK co-conspirators were: (A) David Morales; and (B ) Frank Sturgis.  

1.1.  Although Hunt named Cord Meyer as a CIA guy who hated JFK with a purple passion, because JFK slept with his wife, Mary Meyer, there was no evidence that Cord Meyer was anything other than one more American who cheered with JFK was killed.

2.  Even though David Morales, when stinking drunk, confessed to his best friend, Ruben Carbajal, that, "we really took care of that sonuvabitch, didn't we?" when the discussion turned to JFK, there was no evidence that he was talking about the CIA, when he said, "we".

3.  As you know, in my CT, Hunt and Morales were simply lending their assistance to a JFK plot already in progress, led by the Radical Right.

4.  Because of this, and because Bill Simpich (2014) proved that the CIA High Command had no clue which CIA agent had Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City during the summer of 1963, I am convinced that the CIA had no clue who killed JFK in 1963, just as most CIA people have no clue who killed JFK down to this very day.

5.  Therefore, look all you want at all the hundreds of CIA documents that are being released by the JFK Records Act these days -- YOU WILL FINDING NOTHING AT ALL.

6.   Instead, people should be reading the newly released FBI records with an eagle eye.  The FBI high command knew ALL ABOUT who killed JFK only three hours after the shooting.  I predict -- that's what the USA is about to learn.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anybody missed it -- there was another NARA release of JFK-related documents last Friday:

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr-18-10

New Group of JFK Assassination Records Available to the Public
Press Release ·Friday, November 17, 2017

Washington, DC

In the fifth public release this year, the National Archives today posted 10,744  records subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).   

All of the documents released today are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Of the documents released today, 8,336 documents are released in their entirety and 2,408 are released with limited redactions.  Also, this is the first release for 144 of the documents.  Released records are available for download.

The versions released today were processed by the FBI and, in accordance with the President’s guidance, are being posted expeditiously in order to make the documents available to the public, even before the March deadline established by the President on Oct. 26, 2017.  Any information that has been redacted from the records in this public release remains subject to further review by the FBI and the National Archives in accordance with the President’s direction.

The National Archives released 13,213 documents on Nov. 9, 676 documents on Nov. 3, 2,891 documents on Oct. 26, and 3,810 records on July 24

The National Archives established the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in November 1992, and it consists of approximately five million pages of records. The vast majority of the collection has been publicly available without any restrictions since the late 1990s. 

Online Resources:
The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Documenting the Death of a President
JFK Assassination Records Review Board
The work of the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
JFK Assassination Records FAQs
Warren Commission Report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent a few hours going through the thousands of documents released last Friday.  BTW--these are ALL FBI docs.

It really is outrageous that the FBI was permitted to withhold some of these docs for 50+ years. 

For example: several of the docs come from James P. Hosty's personnel file.  They are docs concerning his medical exams.  Is it really a matter of national security to prevent us learning that Hosty had "testicular atrophy" ??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Can't remember if I ever shared this here before previously -- but this is a CIA file on Edwin Walker:

https://archive.org/stream/WalkerEdwinA.CIAFile/Walker%2C Edwin A.--CIA file#page/n0/mode/2up

Ernie,

There's almost nothing to this CIA file on Ex-General Edwin Walker -- the only US General in the 20th century to resign from his post and forfeit his Army pension.  It was really a pathetic, self-destructive act for Walker to forfeit his 30-year pension, as there was really no good reason for him to leave it on the table like that.  None in the world.

Anyway -- the simple reason that the CIA has such a skinny file on Edwin Walker is because the CIA is interested in International Crime, while all the crimes that Edwin Walker completed as part of the Radical Right Underground were all Domestic crimes.

The FBI had a big, fat file on General Walker, as Jason Ward recently disclosed (thousands of pages, he said).   Jason Ward builds on top of the work done by Jeff Caufield's "new book," General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

But the CIA file on Edwin Walker was not very fat, or very interesting. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

There's almost nothing to this CIA file on Ex-General Edwin Walker -- the only US General in the 20th century to resign from his post and forfeit his Army pension.  It was really a pathetic, self-destructive act for Walker to forfeit his 30-year pension, as there was really no good reason for him to leave it on the table like that.  None in the world.

Anyway -- the simple reason that the CIA has such a skinny file on Edwin Walker is because the CIA is interested in International Crime, while all the crimes that Edwin Walker completed as part of the Radical Right Underground were all Domestic crimes.

The FBI had a big, fat file on General Walker, as Jason Ward recently disclosed (thousands of pages, he said).   Jason Ward builds on top of the work done by Jeff Caufield's "new book," General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

But the CIA file on Edwin Walker was not very fat, or very interesting. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Yes - I know that his CIA file was very small. 

Walker's FBI files have been released.  BUT:  the only reason his FBI files total "thousands of pages" is because of the Univ. of Mississippi incident.  If you subtract out all the serials which pertain to that matter, then Walker's actual FBI HQ and Dallas field files would total only about 933 pages. 

However, there are many other files which contain serials that refer to Walker including the "Alleged Klan Insurrection Plot" files, as well as files pertaining to White Citizens Councils, KKK, or other white supremacist groups where he was the featured speaker.  Also are files which refer to his assistance with the formation of paramilitary groups such as American Royal Rangers or Western American Security Police.

There is one file pertaining to Walker which I don't think anybody has ever seen, namely HQ 97-3813 which has something to do with Walker and a Costa Rica Revolution.  There was also a Bonn, Germany FBI-Legat file that was destroyed in August 2009.

Many FBI field offices opened a file on Walker because of his appearance in that FBI territory at some event -- but usually those files were very small.  For example, his Los Angeles field file was only 58 pages -- and, often, such files were not much more than copies of newspaper articles about his speeches or about protesters who picketed Walker's events.

With respect to his pension -- he ultimately got it back.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Yes - I know that his CIA file was very small. 

Walker's FBI files have been released.  BUT:  the only reason his FBI files total "thousands of pages" is because of the Univ. of Mississippi incident.  If you subtract out all the serials which pertain to that matter, then Walker's actual FBI HQ and Dallas field files would total only about 933 pages... 

With respect to his pension -- he ultimately got it back.

Ernie,

In my CT, the racial riots at Ole Miss University (the Mississippi incident) and their outcome, were the indirect cause of the JFK Assassination.

JFK and RFK decided to put a former US General into an insane asylum (1 October 1962)

Then, four months later, a Mississippi Grand Jury fully acquitted General Walker of all charges (late January, 1963). 

Walker then announced his main political target would be CUBA.

Then, Walker went on a Coast to Coast speaking tour with Segregation Preacher Billy James Hargis (late February 1963 - early April 1963)

Then, two people tried to shoot to kill General Walker at his home.  All his life, General Walker believed that RFK had sent those assassins to kill him (10 April 1963)

Then, Walker went underground -- possibly working on his target of CUBA with like-minded Radical Rightists.

In my CT, the Radical Rightists in Dallas assassinated JFK (22 November 1963).

Walker also hired lawyers to sue every US newspaper who printed that he was responsible for the Ole Miss riots, because, after all, he was now acquitted.

By 1966, Walker had won $3 million in lawsuits (about 10% of his target) against US newspapers.  (This would be about $30 million today).

However, the Associated Press took the case to the Supreme Court; heard by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1967, who decided against Walker.

Walker was now poor as a church-mouse.  He could barely make his ends meet by preaching to the White Citizens' Councils, the KKK and so forth.

In 1973 Walker begged the US Army to get his pension back.

By 1982, the US Army gave Walker his pension back.

On Halloween, 1993, General Walker passed away.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

In my CT, the racial riots at Ole Miss University (the Mississippi incident) and their outcome, were the indirect cause of the JFK Assassination.

JFK and RFK decided to put a former US General into an insane asylum (1 October 1962)

Then, four months later, a Mississippi Grand Jury fully acquitted General Walker of all charges (late January, 1963). 

Walker then announced his main political target would be CUBA.

Then, Walker went on a Coast to Coast speaking tour with Segregation Preacher Billy James Hargis (late February 1963 - early April 1963)

Then, two people tried to shoot to kill General Walker at his home.  All his life, General Walker believed that RFK had sent those assassins to kill him (10 April 1963)

Then, Walker went underground -- possibly working on his target of CUBA with like-minded Radical Rightists.

In my CT, the Radical Rightists in Dallas assassinated JFK (22 November 1963).

Walker also hired lawyers to sue every US newspaper who printed that he was responsible for the Ole Miss riots, because, after all, he was now acquitted.

By 1966, Walker had won $3 million in lawsuits (about 10% of his target) against US newspapers.  (This would be about $30 million today).

However, the Associated Press took the case to the Supreme Court; heard by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1967, who decided against Walker.

Walker was now poor as a church-mouse.  He could barely make his ends meet by preaching to the White Citizens' Councils, the KKK and so forth.

In 1973 Walker begged the US Army to get his pension back.

By 1982, the US Army gave Walker his pension back.

On Halloween, 1993, General Walker passed away.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

There are lots of assumptions in your message which are not borne out by evidence.  I don't think Walker was ever "poor as a church mouse" -- and neither you or anybody else has ever presented verifiable factual evidence concerning the amount or sources of his income at any time after he left the military.  Nor have you (or anybody else) ever presented verifiable factual evidence that Walker "could barely make his ends meet".

We have debated numerous Walker-related subject matters in this and other threads.  Neither you (or anybody else) has ever established with verifiable factual evidence WHERE Walker was located and what he was doing during the first two weeks of September 1963Nevertheless, that "small detail" is critical to your entire "theory"! 

I would have much more respect for you as a researcher as well as a serious person IF you had spent just a modest amount of time finding factual evidence to answer that question!    But that is always the advantage of dealing in conspiracy theories.  You do not actually need verifiable facts.  Instead, you can let your imagination control everything you present.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

There are lots of assumptions in your message which are not borne out by evidence.  I don't think Walker was ever "poor as a church mouse" -- and neither you or anybody else has ever presented verifiable factual evidence concerning the amount or sources of his income at any time after he left the military.  Nor have you (or anybody else) ever presented verifiable factual evidence that Walker "could barely make his ends meet".

We have debated numerous Walker-related subject matters in this and other threads.  Neither you (or anybody else) has ever established with verifiable factual evidence WHERE Walker was located and what he was doing during the first two weeks of September 1963Nevertheless, that "small detail" is critical to your entire "theory"! 

I would have much more respect for you as a researcher as well as a serious person IF you had spent just a modest amount of time finding factual evidence to answer that question!    But that is always the advantage of dealing in conspiracy theories.  You do not actually need verifiable facts.  Instead, you can let your imagination control everything you present.

Ernie,

Whoever said that I was a "researcher?'  By vocation I'm an Information Technology professional over some decades, with various technical certifications.  

I also enjoy Western philosophy a great deal -- all aspects of it.  In 1964, the great British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, published his famous, "Sixteen questions on the JFK Assassination."   You can read it at this URL, for example:

http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

This is the starting point for a deeper penetration into the JFK Assassination.  Like many Americans, I was awakened from my dogmatic slumbers by Oliver Stone's movie, JFK (1992) and began reading the mountain of CT literature that had already accumulated since 1963.

Don't remind me -- but it's been a quarter-century since Oliver Stone's movie was released.  It's hard to believe that the JFK Assassination remains unresolved by thinking Americans for more than a half-century.

That's a heck of a lot of CT literature -- hundreds of books, actually.  Yet Bertrand Russell's "Sixteen questions" still remains a signpost in the road, offering guidance for the eager student of world history.

In any case -- the Walker-did-it CT is the most convincing I have seen to date.   And even though this Forum thread is two years old, the "New Book" by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) remains the best book on the topic by far, in my opinion. 

It's easy to sit back and wait for others to pose a theory -- and then pick at it with nay-saying.  Any fool can do that.  The really courageous act is to accept the challenge to connect the dots oneself -- the way that Bertrand Russell did back in 1964. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,  in the article by Bertrand Russell from 1964, is this quote  "One young lady standing just to the left of the presidential car as the shots were fired took photographs of the vehicle just before and during the shooting, and was thus able to get into her picture the entire front of the book depository building. Two F.B.I. agents immediately took the film which she took. Why has the F.B.I. refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case?"     (Bertrand Russell, 1964) 

Since the release of FBI documents this week, supposedly now, all or almost all FBI files have been released.   Do you know if  the photographs that Russell mentions been included in the release?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Whoever said that I was a "researcher?'  By vocation I'm an Information Technology professional over some decades, with various technical certifications.  

I also enjoy Western philosophy a great deal -- all aspects of it.  In 1964, the great British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, published his famous, "Sixteen questions on the JFK Assassination."   You can read it at this URL, for example:

http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

This is the starting point for a deeper penetration into the JFK Assassination.  Like many Americans, I was awakened from my dogmatic slumbers by Oliver Stone's movie, JFK (1992) and began reading the mountain of CT literature that had already accumulated since 1963.

Don't remind me -- but it's been a quarter-century since Oliver Stone's movie was released.  It's hard to believe that the JFK Assassination remains unresolved by thinking Americans for more than a half-century.

That's a heck of a lot of CT literature -- hundreds of books, actually.  Yet Bertrand Russell's "Sixteen questions" still remains a signpost in the road, offering guidance for the eager student of world history.

In any case -- the Walker-did-it CT is the most convincing I have seen to date.   And even though this Forum thread is two years old, the "New Book" by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) remains the best book on the topic by far, in my opinion. 

It's easy to sit back and wait for others to pose a theory -- and then pick at it with nay-saying.  Any fool can do that.  The really courageous act is to accept the challenge to connect the dots oneself -- the way that Bertrand Russell did back in 1964. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- don't play word games.  You have spent countless hours (and years) attempting to answer questions regarding who was responsible for JFK's assassination and for what reasons.  That, obviously, requires research.  By definition, research means  "studious inquiry or examination" BUT If you now genuinely want us to believe that you are not engaged (and have never been engaged) in research -- then nothing you have to say is even worthy of reading because you would be totally incapable of "connecting dots".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

You don't get to define terms whenever it suits you.

A Researcher proper is a professional, with a budget and funding.

That's not me and has never been me. 

I rely on others -- like Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, Professor Walt Brown, Professor David Wrone and so on.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again Paul.  How is it possible for you to have a college degree and yet be so totally ignorant about the meaning of commonly used words in the English language?

Hopefully, even you know that the gold standard for definitions of words in the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary.  The first (and therefore most commonly understood meaning) of the word "researcher" goes back to the year 1615.  Here is the OED definition (in use for over 4 centuries):

"A person who researches; an investigator, inquirer"

Another commonly used definition:  "To engage in research upon (a subject); to investigate or study closely."

Somebody should write a comprehensive article about your routine attempts to use mis-direction and straw-men arguments by your incessant practice of corrupting the normal meaning of words in the English language.  Incidentally, I have this exact same problem with John Birch Society members.

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

×