Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

quote Paul Trejo: "My objection was this -- if a person was in a hurry, or worried or nervous, about to commit a crime and perhaps get arrested"

like if you shot the president unlike the cool calm collected unflappable harvey oswald

i would like to ReTweet this... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT: It is only your WISH, James, that the WC Portrait of the Paines as Good Samaritans has "collapsed into a hundred pieces."

​You are dead wrong on this one Paul.

​See, in the official inquires, the Paines pretty much got off free and easy. The WC featured them as star witnesses. In fact, no one except Marina delivered the goods on Oswald like they did. In fact, they may have done even more than Marina to aid Dulles and McCloy and Ford on their preordained verdict of Oswald as lone assassin.

​The HSCA committed an utter disgrace by not even examining them.

The ARRB compounded this by doing the same. They expended so much of their resources on the medical evidence and the Z film, there was little left over for the Paines. That is what Tunheim actually said when questioned on it.

​The only official inquiry that did anything with Ruth was Jim Garrison's New Orleans probe. And as noted above, he came up with some very interesting responses from both her and Marina on this issue.

​But it turns out that Garrison was only scratching the surface. For finally, in the nineties, toward the end of the Third Decade of research, Carol Hewett appeared, a crackerjack lawyer from Florida. Assisted by Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, those three finally began to strip away the carefully upholstered veneer off the "kindly Quaker couple". This trio was responsible for about six devastating articles in Probe on the Paines, which examined them in all aspects. They were the first to do it. After about 30 years. And things have literally not been the same.

First, there was the Evica book.

Second, there was the Douglass book.

​Then there were my two books.

​Now there is Talbot.

​And if you look around at various web sites on the internet you will see that Ruth and Mikey are mentioned prominently now. This is why DVP and Holland have had to come to their aid.

Its open season.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT: Yet here are the facts: The ARRB released "The Lopez Report" in 2003, which confirms Jim Garrison's theory of LHO working with Guy Banister in New Orleans to assemble a resume specifically to take to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to obtain *immediate* passage to Cuba -- as FPCC Directors regularly obtained.

Then, in 2009, the ARRB released Douglas Horne's careful work showing that David Lifton's suspicions in this landmark book, "Best Evidence" (1986) were entirely correct. The Bethesda autopsy was indeed deliberately falsified, and a JFK Cover-up can be proven scientifically. The actual medical evidence (the Best Evidence) proves that there were multiple shooters at Dealey Plaza.

Paul, the above is a perfect example of why I say I am hesitant to debate you since we end up going in circles.

​The Lopez Report was not first released in 2003. And in 2003 the ARRB did not exist. Also, how does the Lopez Report confirm LHO working with GB in New Orleans? The only way it even tangentially touches on the issue is negatively, because Duran said LHO was not at all prepared to get the in transit visa. If GB had prepped him he would have been prepared.

​But beyond that, the Lopez Report's main thrust is that Oswald was not in Mexico City. Or if he was, he did not do the things the WR said he did. I won't go through all the evidence in that magnificent volume that touches on this, but I will say that Shenon has to avoid it like the plague to make his horrible work viable.

​Second, how could the ARRB release Horne's work in 2009 if it had folded up in 1998?

​If you are talking about the famous Two Brain Memorandum, that was during the ARRB, but about ten years earlier.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...None of [the] crap DiEugenio [has ever written] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening...

David, two things.

First, I truly appreciate your sympathetic approach to Ruth Paine. I agree with you fully on that.

Secondly, however, I want to ask you kindly, with all due respect, to please help me tone down the ad hominem attacks on this thread.

Jim DiEugenio has a following, and so a bar room brawl is a possibility in this thread -- and that only wastes time and space.

So, please help me raise the tone of this thread above ad hominem attacks, David. This will help to highlight when others are using ad hominem

I appreciate your intense energy, David. Now, just elevate it one notch, and it will be more effective, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

explain to him what ad hominem means. that might help your cause,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT: It is only your WISH, James, that the WC Portrait of the Paines as Good Samaritans has "collapsed into a hundred pieces."

​You are dead wrong on this one Paul.

​See, in the official inquires, the Paines pretty much got off free and easy. The WC featured them as star witnesses. In fact, no one except Marina delivered the goods on Oswald like they did. In fact, they may have done even more than Marina to aid Dulles and McCloy and Ford on their preordained verdict of Oswald as lone assassin.

​The HSCA committed an utter disgrace by not even examining them.

The ARRB compounded this by doing the same. They expended so much of their resources on the medical evidence and the Z film, there was little left over for the Paines. That is what Tunheim actually said when questioned on it.

​The only official inquiry that did anything with Ruth was Jim Garrison's New Orleans probe. And as noted above, he came up with some very interesting responses from both her and Marina on this issue.

​But it turns out that Garrison was only scratching the surface. For finally, in the nineties, toward the end of the Third Decade of research, Carol Hewett appeared, a crackerjack lawyer from Florida. Assisted by Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, those three finally began to strip away the carefully upholstered veneer off the "kindly Quaker couple". This trio was responsible for about six devastating articles in Probe on the Paines, which examined them in all aspects. They were the first to do it. After about 30 years. And things have literally not been the same.

First, there was the Evica book.

Second, there was the Douglass book.

​Then there were my two books.

​Now there is Talbot.

​And if you look around at various web sites on the internet you will see that Ruth and Mikey are mentioned prominently now. This is why DVP and Holland have had to come to their aid.

Its open season.

"...Carol Hewett appeared, a crackerjack lawyer from Florida. Assisted by Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, those three finally began to strip away the carefully upholstered veneer off the "kindly Quaker couple". This trio was responsible for about six devastating articles in Probe on the Paines..."

James, i would really like to see these articles. are they readily available? would you mind sharing any links, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn:

I hate to say this but the best way to get those articles is by ordering the Probe CD. Go to CTKA and you click through on the insignia on the right.

http://www.ctka.net/home.html

That is the only way now to get all of them.

BTW, in his inscription of JFK and the Unspeakable to me, Jim wrote that he did his JFK apprenticeship by reading Probe Magazine.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT: It is only your WISH, James, that the WC Portrait of the Paines as Good Samaritans has "collapsed into a hundred pieces."

​You are dead wrong on this one Paul.

​See, in the official inquires, the Paines pretty much got off free and easy. The WC featured them as star witnesses. In fact, no one except Marina delivered the goods on Oswald like they did. In fact, they may have done even more than Marina to aid Dulles and McCloy and Ford on their preordained verdict of Oswald as lone assassin.

​The HSCA committed an utter disgrace by not even examining them.

The ARRB compounded this by doing the same. They expended so much of their resources on the medical evidence and the Z film, there was little left over for the Paines. That is what Tunheim actually said when questioned on it.

​The only official inquiry that did anything with Ruth was Jim Garrison's New Orleans probe. And as noted above, he came up with some very interesting responses from both her and Marina on this issue.

​But it turns out that Garrison was only scratching the surface. For finally, in the nineties, toward the end of the Third Decade of research, Carol Hewett appeared, a crackerjack lawyer from Florida. Assisted by Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, those three finally began to strip away the carefully upholstered veneer off the "kindly Quaker couple". This trio was responsible for about six devastating articles in Probe on the Paines, which examined them in all aspects. They were the first to do it. After about 30 years. And things have literally not been the same.

First, there was the Evica book.

Second, there was the Douglass book.

​Then there were my two books.

​Now there is Talbot.

​And if you look around at various web sites on the internet you will see that Ruth and Mikey are mentioned prominently now. This is why DVP and Holland have had to come to their aid.

Its open season.

OK, James, let's deal with your reply here:

I agree that the WC relied heavily on the testimony of Marina Oswald, and Ruth and Michael Paine. Marina and Ruth give far more testimony than anybody else. Ruth herself was called back eight times. Marina gave her full life story to the WC.

Yet I think we can agree, James, that the WC insisted -- at all costs -- to portray LHO as the "Lone Nut" killer of JFK, with "no accomplices who are still at large."

In that effort, nobody could possibly be more valuable than two women to whom LHO lied to on a daily basis. This is because LHO told both Marina and Ruth that he did everything alone. (For example, LHO told Marina that he did the Walker shooting all alone.)

We can see, therefore, that their perception of LHO would be the most valuable resource that the WC ever had.

In real life, LHO had many connections -- and Jim Garrison brilliantly exposed them in New Orleans. Sadly, nobody has done for us in Dallas what Jim Garrison did for us in New Orleans.

Yet we know for a fact today (because of FOIA releases by the ARRB) that LHO was part of a larger conspiracy.

Again -- I don't blame Marina Oswald for telling the story she told about LHO to the WC -- she was only telling them what she knew -- which was exactly what LHO had told her -- which was ALMOST ENTIRELY A BED OF LIES.

This was the best luck that the WC ever had. Ruth Paine's testimony mainly confirmed what Ruth said.

Now, getting back to the Walker shooting -- Marina said two things that made Michael Paine sweat and scramble. Marina said: (1) that LHO and Michael Paine spoke a lot together, and went to various political meetings together involving General Walker; and (2) that LHO told Marina, "Michael knows I shot at Walker."

So, the WC had to bring Michael Paine back to ask him about this -- and Michael Paine flatly denied this. The answer, claimed Michael Paine is that: (i) LHO misunderstood Michael Paine; or (2) LHO lied to Marina; or (iii) Marina misunderstood LHO; or (iv) Marina lied to the WC.

I agree with you that the HSCA should have re-examined them -- but the HSCA's greatest omission, IMHO, was that it failed to re-examine General Walker.

IMHO, the key omission in Ruth and Michael Paine's testimony is simply this:

(1) Ruth and Michael Paine agree that after LHO arrived at Irving, Texas on Friday 4 October 1963, all the way through Sunday 17 November 1963, that Michael Paine would join them for dinner almost every Friday and almost every Sunday, and perhaps a Saturday here and there.

(2) If we just estimate two dinners every weekend in that period of 7 weekends, that's 14 dinners.

(3) That's potentially 14 deep conversations between Michael Paine and Lee Harvey Oswald about General Walker -- the one topic on which they could ostensibly agree.

(4) Yet Michael Paine insisted to the WC that he had only "4" conversations with LHO in 1963, including that first conversation on April 2nd, 1963.

(5) This is the main Paine problem that I see: Michael Paine knew far more about LHO than he told -- and IMHO he knew far more about the General Walker shooting than he told.

(6) I want to know what Michael knew. I don't believe Ruth Paine knows -- I believe Michael Paine kept this information from Ruth -- but I can't entirely absolve Ruth Paine from knowing how many conversations Michael and LHO had during those 7 critical weekends before the JFK assassination.

IMHO, Edwin Walker killed JFK because he and his people were convinced that JFK was a Communist, and was about to give the USA over to the USSR.

IMHO, Edwin Walker made LHO his Patsy because he found out on Easter Sunday 1963 that LHO had been his shooter (per Dick Russell, 1992).

Finally -- about George Michael Evica -- I read both of his books, A Certain Arrogance, as well as, And We are All Mortal and I found them to be academic speculation with very little substance. To imagine that the CIA controlled the Quakers and the Albert Schweitzer College is REACHING beyond belief. Very weak work.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT: Yet here are the facts: The ARRB released "The Lopez Report" in 2003, which confirms Jim Garrison's theory of LHO working with Guy Banister in New Orleans to assemble a resume specifically to take to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to obtain *immediate* passage to Cuba -- as FPCC Directors regularly obtained.

Then, in 2009, the ARRB released Douglas Horne's careful work showing that David Lifton's suspicions in this landmark book, "Best Evidence" (1986) were entirely correct. The Bethesda autopsy was indeed deliberately falsified, and a JFK Cover-up can be proven scientifically. The actual medical evidence (the Best Evidence) proves that there were multiple shooters at Dealey Plaza.

Paul, the above is a perfect example of why I say I am hesitant to debate you since we end up going in circles.

​The Lopez Report was not first released in 2003. And in 2003 the ARRB did not exist. Also, how does the Lopez Report confirm LHO working with GB in New Orleans? The only way it even tangentially touches on the issue is negatively, because Duran said LHO was not at all prepared to get the in transit visa. If GB had prepped him he would have been prepared.

​But beyond that, the Lopez Report's main thrust is that Oswald was not in Mexico City. Or if he was, he did not do the things the WR said he did. I won't go through all the evidence in that magnificent volume that touches on this, but I will say that Shenon has to avoid it like the plague to make his horrible work viable.

​Second, how could the ARRB release Horne's work in 2009 if it had folded up in 1998?

​If you are talking about the famous Two Brain Memorandum, that was during the ARRB, but about ten years earlier.

James -

don't hesitate. make a decision.

just refrain. it'll add years to your life.

G (IMHO)

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, the above is a perfect example of why I say I am hesitant to debate you since we end up going in circles.

​The Lopez Report was not first released in 2003. And in 2003 the ARRB did not exist. Also, how does the Lopez Report confirm LHO working with GB in New Orleans? The only way it even tangentially touches on the issue is negatively, because Duran said LHO was not at all prepared to get the in transit visa. If GB had prepped him he would have been prepared.

​But beyond that, the Lopez Report's main thrust is that Oswald was not in Mexico City. Or if he was, he did not do the things the WR said he did. I won't go through all the evidence in that magnificent volume that touches on this, but I will say that Shenon has to avoid it like the plague to make his horrible work viable.

​Second, how could the ARRB release Horne's work in 2009 if it had folded up in 1998?

​If you are talking about the famous Two Brain Memorandum, that was during the ARRB, but about ten years earlier.

OK, James, I misspoke on this.

I said the ARRB, but I was referring to the JFK Records Act, signed by President GHW Bush in 1992. The Lopez Report was released as a part of that FOIA effort.

However, regarding my characterization of the Lopez Report, it is accurate -- the Lopez Report provided a "credentials" listing of Lee Harvey Oswald, which included his Fake FPCC directorship, and a Fake CPUSA card.

In other words, it was clear that LHO was a PHONY Communist, and there was no way that the Cuban Consulate or the USSR Embassy was going to give LHO a Visa to Cuba that weekend.

That's the most important thing about the Lopez Report. It confirms the entire New Orleans period of LHO's career.

As for Douglas Horne's work (2009) he called it, "Inside the ARRB" -- and that's the connection I was making.

Otherwise, again, my characterization of it is true and correct.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, check your messages ...

And if Oswald did not fire at Walker, what was the photo of his house doing at the Paines, taken by a camera that-- according to the police--was not there at the time?

Great observation!

Actually, according to one Irving policeman, the Imperial Reflex was there at the time, but the alleged "reason" he hadn't reported it or taken it in as evidence was because, he lamely said, it looked to him to be in such bad condition (but it wasn't) as to be inoperable.

As though that (even if true) would bear on it's possible evidentiary value!

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, four out of the five policeman said they did not recall seeing it.

And it was not on the police inventory.

That is what I was referring to.

Yes, Jim, I know.

That policeman from Irving said he told the others not to pay any attention to it because, he claimed, it looked broken.

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, four out of the five policeman said they did not recall seeing it.

And it was not on the police inventory.

That is what I was referring to.

Yes, Jim, I know.

That policeman from Irving said he told the others not to pay any attention to it because, he claimed, it looked broken.

--Tommy :sun

LOL

:idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT The Lopez Report was released as a part of that FOIA effort.

The ARRB had nothing to do with FOIA. That is why it worked in many instances. It was a whole new law that finally put the onus on the agency to prove something had to be kept secret.

​As per his credentials, that is not why Duran and the Russians denied him, at least as far as I read it.

Because he was not actually denied. The in transit visa eventually arrived, but weeks later.

The problem was he did not have enough credentials when he went. I mean he even had to reportedly go and get a photo ID.

But the problem is, the FBI searched every passport office in a five mile radius, and no one recalled him doing that.

Anyone who reads the Lopez Report understands that the major problem is this: was it Oswald in MC? It sure does not appear to be him based on the weight of the evidence.

​The second problem is this one: Why did Phillips and Goodpasture lie so much? To the point that the HSCA prepared dual indictments for them for perjury. A good example being Goodpasture and the Mystery Man photo. The Lopez Report proves in spades that she knew this was not LHO very early. But she had to have some kind of photo to try and BS this fact: She really did not have a photo of Oswald.

​Which becomes a major problem since Eddie and Dan spend the first twenty pages of the report demonstrating how the photo coverage of the Cuban Embassy was so solid and foolproof. A fact which Phillips then lied about, by saying such and such a camera was out, when it was not.

That is what most people get from reading the report. And that is the big question about MC today: Did Oswald go? Because now there are even problems with the trip down. Which is something Ed and Dan pretty much ignored. Because David Josephs and others have now raised questions about the credibility of the main witness the WC used to place him on the bus. The return trip back is even worse. I mean its a mess.

In any normal reading, these are the things that stick out so much about MC today. That is why I see it as the key to the crime.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT The Lopez Report was released as a part of that FOIA effort.

The ARRB had nothing to do with FOIA. That is why it worked in many instances. It was a whole new law that finally put the onus on the agency to prove something had to be kept secret.

​As per his credentials, that is not why Duran and the Russians denied him, at least as far as I read it.

Because he was not actually denied. The in transit visa eventually arrived, but weeks later.

The problem was he did not have enough credentials when he went. I mean he even had to reportedly go and get a photo ID.

But the problem is, the FBI searched every passport office in a five mile radius, and no one recalled him doing that.

Anyone who reads the Lopez Report understands that the major problem is this: was it Oswald in MC? It sure does not appear to be him based on the weight of the evidence.

​The second problem is this one: Why did Phillips and Goodpasture lie so much? To the point that the HSCA prepared dual indictments for them for perjury. A good example being Goodpasture and the Mystery Man photo. The Lopez Report proves in spades that she knew this was not LHO very early. But she had to have some kind of photo to try and BS this fact: She really did not have a photo of Oswald.

​Which becomes a major problem since Eddie and Dan spend the first twenty pages of the report demonstrating how the photo coverage of the Cuban Embassy was so solid and foolproof. A fact which Phillips then lied about, by saying such and such a camera was out, when it was not.

That is what most people get from reading the report. And that is the big question about MC today: Did Oswald go? Because now there are even problems with the trip down. Which is something Ed and Dan pretty much ignored. Because David Josephs and others have now raised questions about the credibility of the main witness the WC used to place him on the bus. The return trip back is even worse. I mean its a mess.

In any normal reading, these are the things that stick out so much about MC today. That is why I see it as the key to the crime.

Well, James, in my reading of the Lopez Report, the people who saw the photograph on LHO's "Credentials" resumé successfully identified LHO in MC.

The bogus LHO was the one who called the USSR Embassy from the Cuban Consulate telephone. Bill Simpich's STATE SECRET: WIRETAPPING IN MEXICO CITY (2014), is the definitive work on that LHO Impersonation.

The Lopez Report made it clear, in my reading, that Duran and the Cubans would never allow LHO into Cuba because he presented a Fake Communist Party card, and they were themselves members of the Communist Party, and knew immediately that LHO's card was an amateur hack job.

As for the bogus "credentials" that LHO was a "Director" of the FPCC in New Orleans, a simple phone call to the FPCC in NYC would clear that up quickly. Obviously LHO was trying to get into Havana based on a wooden nickel. The only real problem after that would be how to remain polite to this interloper.

So, it wasn't the "quantity" of credentials that was the main problem, but the "quality." The Photo ID issue is easily solved if one considers that the photos were taken in a USA Photomat, and LHO just left them at the hotel.

The second problem -- about the incessant lying by David Phillips and Anne Goodpasture to the HSCA -- why would *anybody* expect the Truth from the CIA? They are *trained* to lie to everybody but their superiors, about any open CIA case.

Anyway, Bill Simpich completely explains their lies: Goodpasture lied about the Mystery Man photograph because it was part of an open CIA case, namely, the "Simpich Mole Hunt." When a bogus LHO called the USSR Embassy from the Cuban Consulate telephone -- perhaps the single most wire-tapped phone on the planet -- the transcript and ID of the callers and recipients were on the Mexico City CIA Director's desk in 15 minutes -- by policy.

It was *immediately* reported that the callers were not Oswald or Duran -- and they had asked for KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov, known for foreign assassination activity. Yet whoever called *knew* that the phone was wire-tapped -- so the logical conclusion was that the call was made by a Mole operation. Some CIA insider was trying to link the names of LHO and Kostikov in official records. But who? (The CIA high-command did not know -- therefore, it was a ROGUE operation.)

It immediately became a CIA high-priority to identify the Mole. The first steps were to falsify the LHO 201 File -- change the photograph -- change his middle name to "Henry" -- change parts of his parent's names -- and so on.

That same CIA Mole Hunt was still open 15 years later, evidently -- but in any case, Anne Goodpasture was never going to tell the truth about it without specific orders from CIA headquarters. Bill Simpich did great work here, IMHO.

Duran knew that the LHO that she met was not who he said he was -- that much is true. But the man in the late photo was surely the lying man with whom she was talking. This is my reading of the Lopez Report.

​Again -- asking CIA officer David Atlee Phillips to tell the truth to the HSCA is a laughing matter. The CIA has specific orders to lie to everyone -- even to a judge -- and even under oath -- about open CIA cases. Why feign outrage at it? It's a good rule to support National Security.

Yet most of the lies about LHO in MC were told by the Warren Commission. They absolutely mandated that LHO be a "Lone Nut," and in MC LHO was clearly not alone. MC records show LHO arrived as a passenger in a car, and exited MC as a passenger in a car. If LHO was ever seen with anybody in MC, the WC would hide the fact.

The WC could not answer why there were no bus records of LHO or any luggage, nor any of the scores of MC witnesses on the busses -- so they seized on four foreigners whose testimony was shaky and contradictory -- and approved THEM. The two New Zealand girls said they never saw LHO's name or photo on his passport when this talkative guy showed them he had been to Russia. Nor did this fellow even tell them his name!

What finally convinced them was that LHO was wearing the same shirt on TV at the line-up that he was wearing on the bus. But LHO got that shirt from a line-up wardrobe at the DPD station! As for the doctor and his wife who claimed they saw LHO on that MC bus, she said nothing, but he only said that LHO boasted he was a Communist going to do some spy work in MC -- exactly what the FBI wanted to him to say. What a charade. (The fifth person in that group denied that it was LHO.)

LHO was in Mexico City with a GROUP. His entourage probably included "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" -- that makes the pieces fit best. That's what the WC didn't want us to know. As for the later, post-assassination stories about parties and love-affairs between LHO and Duran -- these were clearly lurid anti-Communist fictions told for public consumption in Mexico, but perhaps useful to those who wanted to push the "Communists-did-it" theory of the JFK murder.

So -- yes, LHO did go to MC. The Lopez Report provides clear evidence of it.

I do agree with you on one thing, James, namely, that LHO's MC visit is a crucial key to the JFK murder. This is because it was part of the New Orleans "sheepdip" as Jim Garrison put it. All of the antics that LHO performed in New Orleans in August 1963 were documented into a phony "credentials" list and taken to MC to try to sneak into Havana.

The rumor was that FPCC officers received *immediate* passage into Cuba -- no waiting. So, all LHO had to do, evidently, was produce some newspaper, radio and TV reports that LHO was a "Director" of the FPCC in New Orleans. Nobody had to know that the FPCC in New Orleans was a FAKE. Besides, the Mexicans were so easily fooled that they would be impressed at all these American newspaper clippings, and rush LHO into Cuba right away.

This is where David Atlee Phillips' (DAP) confessions really come in handy. In his bio-fiction, THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988), DAP claims that he was part of the effort to groom LHO as a Fake Communist to get him into Cuba through MC so that LHO could join a team in Havana to help to assassinate Fidel Castro in a motorcade from a tall building with a high-powered rifle.

Unfortunately, claimed DAP, "somebody" hijacked LHO to use him for the JFK assassination instead. There are real clues in these words, IMHO.

For purposes of this thread -- Ruth Paine herself thought that LHO was in Houston during this two week period, looking for a job. This is what LHO told Ruth Paine, lying to her as usual.

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

×