Paul Trejo Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) Two weeks ago I purchased a new computer and as I was loading all my saved Word documents and pdf files onto my new PC hard drive, I came across something which I totally forgot I had (common problem when you have over 6000 files saved---lol). This pertains to the debate which Paul and I have had concerning FBI "secret files". Back in 1948, senior FBI officials made a proposal to J. Edgar Hoover concerning highly sensitive files which they thought should NOT be listed in the Bureau's normal filing system, i.e. its Central Records System. What they proposed to Hoover is that such highly confidential and sensitive files should be placed into a "Special Files" room entirely outside the normal filing system and only certain designated individuals would be allowed to have access to those files. Hoover accepted this proposal. This separate filing procedure enabled Hoover (and senior FBI officials) to technically provide correct answers to questions from superiors in the Justice Department and from Congressional oversight committees or from the White House when they asked if the FBI could find any references in their filing system to subject or person "x". Since the "Special Files" were NOT recorded in the normal Bureau Central Records filing system, FBI officials could "honestly" answer "no" to any question if they thought an entirely candid reply might cause problems. Naturally, being a highly bureaucratic entity, there WAS nevertheless a file created to capture data about the files kept in Room #7231 (the confidential or "Special Files" room). Historians later discovered that these "Special Files" filled about 80 filing cabinets! The type of files which were put into Room 7321 were mostly classified "secret" and "top secret". For example, here is a brief sample of files put into Room 7321: * American War Plans * FBI War Plans * Department of State Codes * Sex Perverts in Government * National Intelligence Estimates * Biological Warfare * Double Agents Program (reports from Joint Chiefs of Staff) * Soviet Diplomatic Couriers * Files about key Mafia figures I mention this because as I have attempted to make Paul understand, FBI files which are "classified" (even those with the highest level of classification because they include the most sensitive ultra-secret info maintained by our government) have often been identified through meticulous research by historians and political scientists -- such as that done by Dr. Athan Theoharis who is arguably our nation's most knowledgeable expert about FBI history and FBI filing practices. In 2008, an FOIA request was processed on FBI HQ file 66-17404. This is the control file which pertains to "Confidential Files Maintained in Room 7321". I attach the 460 pages which were released. Obviously, there are numerous redactions because of the extreme sensitivity of the information -- but many of the subject matters and the FBI HQ file numbers are often revealed. Yesterday, I received from the FBI the final portion of the HQ file which was used to archive the annual Inspection Reports on the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division. One document was classified "secret". It was discussing the operations and accomplishments of the Nationalities Intelligence Section of the Division. The subject matter of the first item was redacted. But the HQ file number for that subject was not redacted. It is shown as 100-356015. I was curious whether or not I had ever previously seen any references to that file number during my FOIA research so I searched for that file number in my saved files/documents and, sure enough, I found it. So I now know what that file subject is, namely, "Communist Coverage Along Mexican Border". I mention this merely to point out that even when the existence of a "secret" file is theorized or when the subject matters of files classified "secret" have been redacted it is still possible to discover what the file is about -- and, one can often determine if that file (or specific serial from it) have been released to anybody. Obviously, the more interest there is in a particular subject -- the more likely it is that one or more researchers will have discovered something significant and previously unknown through their FOIA research. If nothing else, they might discover specific HQ and field office file numbers which pertain to the subject matters which interest them. However, it is also true that many FBI files will never be identified (because of the enormous volume of files which were created by the FBI or because they have already been destroyed). Ernie, although your recent findings may come in handy at some future date, they fail to address the debate currently in progress, namely, the status of FBI secrets regarding the JFK assassination. We notice that in your brief sample of files stored inside FBI Room 7321, there was no mention at all of the JFK assassination. Also, a perusal of the PDF file you kindly shared shows zero mention of the JFK assassination, or Oswald's name. Recently you challenged my proposal that the FBI still keeps secrets about Lee Harvey Oswald (even 50 years after the man was killed on national TV). More recently you seem to be praising the FBI for releasing 99.999% of all its formerly "top secret" files to public scrutiny. Can you really be unaware that we are instead interested in the .001% of FBI files that remain locked up that refer to Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination? WE WANT TO SEE THOSE FILES, OR KNOW THE REASON WHY. Thus, while many of us might be impressed that you're able to wrest many historical documents from the FBI -- we remain frustrated that the ones you obtain are of little or no interest to JFK Forum readers in the year 2013. Who cares about Communists on the Mexican border in 1965 anymore? Who cares about Communists who snitched to the FBI in 1959? We don't care about these arcane aspects of US History around here! We only care about the JFK assassination! Your criticisms of Harry Dean -- despite all your errors -- remain relevant on this thread simply because Harry Dean's memoirs about the JFK assassination are currently under discussion. However, the amount and nature of formerly secret FBI files are of little interest on this thread unless those files relate to the JFK assassination. I think that should be clear. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited December 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) Two weeks ago I purchased a new computer and as I was loading all my saved Word documents and pdf files onto my new PC hard drive, I came across something which I totally forgot I had (common problem when you have over 6000 files saved---lol). This pertains to the debate which Paul and I have had concerning FBI "secret files". Back in 1948, senior FBI officials made a proposal to J. Edgar Hoover concerning highly sensitive files which they thought should NOT be listed in the Bureau's normal filing system, i.e. its Central Records System. What they proposed to Hoover is that such highly confidential and sensitive files should be placed into a "Special Files" room entirely outside the normal filing system and only certain designated individuals would be allowed to have access to those files. Hoover accepted this proposal. This separate filing procedure enabled Hoover (and senior FBI officials) to technically provide correct answers to questions from superiors in the Justice Department and from Congressional oversight committees or from the White House when they asked if the FBI could find any references in their filing system to subject or person "x". Since the "Special Files" were NOT recorded in the normal Bureau Central Records filing system, FBI officials could "honestly" answer "no" to any question if they thought an entirely candid reply might cause problems. Naturally, being a highly bureaucratic entity, there WAS nevertheless a file created to capture data about the files kept in Room #7231 (the confidential or "Special Files" room). Historians later discovered that these "Special Files" filled about 80 filing cabinets! The type of files which were put into Room 7321 were mostly classified "secret" and "top secret". For example, here is a brief sample of files put into Room 7321: * American War Plans * FBI War Plans * Department of State Codes * Sex Perverts in Government * National Intelligence Estimates * Biological Warfare * Double Agents Program (reports from Joint Chiefs of Staff) * Soviet Diplomatic Couriers * Files about key Mafia figures I mention this because as I have attempted to make Paul understand, FBI files which are "classified" (even those with the highest level of classification because they include the most sensitive ultra-secret info maintained by our government) have often been identified through meticulous research by historians and political scientists -- such as that done by Dr. Athan Theoharis who is arguably our nation's most knowledgeable expert about FBI history and FBI filing practices. In 2008, an FOIA request was processed on FBI HQ file 66-17404. This is the control file which pertains to "Confidential Files Maintained in Room 7321". I attach the 460 pages which were released. Obviously, there are numerous redactions because of the extreme sensitivity of the information -- but many of the subject matters and the FBI HQ file numbers are often revealed. Yesterday, I received from the FBI the final portion of the HQ file which was used to archive the annual Inspection Reports on the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division. One document was classified "secret". It was discussing the operations and accomplishments of the Nationalities Intelligence Section of the Division. The subject matter of the first item was redacted. But the HQ file number for that subject was not redacted. It is shown as 100-356015. I was curious whether or not I had ever previously seen any references to that file number during my FOIA research so I searched for that file number in my saved files/documents and, sure enough, I found it. So I now know what that file subject is, namely, "Communist Coverage Along Mexican Border". I mention this merely to point out that even when the existence of a "secret" file is theorized or when the subject matters of files classified "secret" have been redacted it is still possible to discover what the file is about -- and, one can often determine if that file (or specific serial from it) have been released to anybody. Obviously, the more interest there is in a particular subject -- the more likely it is that one or more researchers will have discovered something significant and previously unknown through their FOIA research. If nothing else, they might discover specific HQ and field office file numbers which pertain to the subject matters which interest them. However, it is also true that many FBI files will never be identified (because of the enormous volume of files which were created by the FBI or because they have already been destroyed). Ernie, although your recent findings may come in handy at some future date, they fail to address the debate currently in progress, namely, the status of FBI secrets regarding the JFK assassination. We notice that in your brief sample of files stored inside FBI Room 7321, there was no mention at all of the JFK assassination. Also, a perusal of the PDF file you kindly shared shows zero mention of the JFK assassination, or Oswald's name. Recently you challenged my proposal that the FBI still keeps secrets about Lee Harvey Oswald (even 50 years after the man was killed on national TV). More recently you seem to be praising the FBI for releasing 99.999% of all its formerly "top secret" files to public scrutiny. Can you really be unaware that we are instead interested in the .001% of FBI files that remain locked up that refer to Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination? WE WANT TO SEE THOSE FILES, OR KNOW THE REASON WHY. Thus, while many of us might be impressed that you're able to wrest many historical documents from the FBI -- we remain frustrated that the ones you obtain are of little or no interest to JFK Forum readers in the year 2013. Who cares about Communists on the Mexican border in 1965 anymore? Who cares about Communists who snitched to the FBI in 1959? We don't care about these arcane aspects of US History around here! We only care about the JFK assassination! Your criticisms of Harry Dean -- despite all your errors -- remain relevant on this thread simply because Harry Dean's memoirs about the JFK assassination are currently under discussion. However, the amount and nature of formerly secret FBI files are of little interest on this thread unless those files relate to the JFK assassination. I think that should be clear. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> No, Paul, you again miss the significance of what I presented in my previous message. As I have stated, you have an impenetrable brain freeze about this matter. For the record, I did NOT challenge your statement that the FBI still keeps "secrets" about LHO or about any other matter. So stop lying Paul and try to pay attention to what I have actually written. What I have said (for the 100th time) is that "secret" information is, by definition, UNKNOWN. Consequently, neither you, or I, or anybody else can make definitive assertions or even credible plausible "theories" about what data is contained in those alleged "secret" files. I object to your incessant attempt to claim that something exists which will corroborate Harry Dean's recollections BUT, simultaneously, you assert ALL of that data is in "secret" files. Obviously, you do not know if there is ANY data in those "secret" files which would support Harry. So this is ENTIRELY an INVENTION of your fevered imagination at this point. What I have been attempting to get you to focus upon (unsuccessfully) is that there is considerable verifiable EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to dispute Harry's contentions. But you always reject EVERYTHING that you think might diminish Harry's story. In addition, I have tried to get you to understand that events never have just ONE witness or ONE participant or ONE person who has substantive knowledge about the event. JFK assassination theories have been circulating since day one. And there have been NUMEROUS individuals who have spent most of their adult lives tracking down every available piece of evidence as well as interviewing every conceivable person who might have anything to add to the historical record. And, of course, there have been umpteen different major investigations involving SCORES (perhaps even hundreds) of investigators. Despite all of this effort and energy and all of the resources expended, it appears that NOBODY with direct personal knowledge has ever come forward to support Harry's story. Surely you realize Paul that it is not uncommon for friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers or other individuals to present corroborating evidence to support claims made by conspiracy theorists. And, by the same token, it is not uncommon for such folks to come forward weeks or months or years after the event to present contradictory evidence. However, what is NOT common, is for NOBODY to come forward (pro or con) to support or to refute the story presented by an alleged "eyewitness". Nor did I "praise" the FBI for releasing its JFK-related documents. Here, again, you never are capable of presenting literal truth. You always feel compelled to embellish something. I merely presented a FACTUAL summary of what has been done -- not based upon my personal opinions but based upon the ARRB (the work done by the Assassination Records Review Board) which, obviously, was required by law. I included a link to the statement made by U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim who served as Chairman of the ARRB from its beginning until its closure. If you have information which HE did not reveal, then I will be happy to read it. Here is the link again: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/tunheim.htm So I DID address your interest in JFK assassination records. In fact, do you recall when YOU claimed (falsely) that JFK-related files would be sealed for 75 years and it was ME who brought your attention to the superceding 1992 JFK law -- and the relevant October 2017 date? So you have a lot of nerve for not candidly acknowledging your MANY factual errors. In fact, as a public service, I have been thinking about going back to the start of this thread and compiling a "Greatest Hits" summary of all your false statements, conclusions, and assumptions. Just so everyone can see how much bullxxxx you shovel out. Recent examples include: * your claim that Walker was the only General who resigned in the 20th century * your claim (message #433) that FBI documents I produced on this website "confirm" that "Harry did indeed interact with the JBS in southern California from 1961-1963" and "confirm" that "Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious individuals of the JBS" * your utter falsehoods about Robert Welch's manuscript "The Politician" (message #428) You obviously do not understand the use of analogies to illustrate a larger point about FBI filing practices and procedures. And you dismiss everything as "arcane" details -- when it is precisely such "arcane" details which enable any genuine student or researcher to separate fact from fiction. Which is why you do not understand the significance of discussing your profound misunderstanding about "secret FBI files". To close with your final words: "I think that should be clear". Edited December 4, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) No, Paul, you again miss the significance of what I presented in my previous message. As I have stated, you have an impenetrable brain freeze about this matter. For the record, I did NOT challenge your statement that the FBI still keeps "secrets" about LHO or about any other matter. So stop lying Paul and try to pay attention to what I have actually written. What I have said (for the 100th time) is that "secret" information is, by definition, UNKNOWN. Consequently, neither you, or I, or anybody else can make definitive assertions or even credible plausible "theories" about what data is contained in those alleged "secret" files. I object to your incessant attempt to claim that something exists which will corroborate Harry Dean's recollections BUT, simultaneously, you assert ALL of that data is in "secret" files. Obviously, you do not know if there is ANY data in those "secret" files which would support Harry. So this is ENTIRELY an INVENTION of your fevered imagination at this point. What I have been attempting to get you to focus upon (unsuccessfully) is that there is considerable verifiable EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to dispute Harry's contentions. But you always reject EVERYTHING that you think might diminish Harry's story. In addition, I have tried to get you to understand that events never have just ONE witness or ONE participant or ONE person who has substantive knowledge about the event. JFK assassination theories have been circulating since day one. And there have been NUMEROUS individuals who have spent most of their adult lives tracking down every available piece of evidence as well as interviewing every conceivable person who might have anything to add to the historical record. And, of course, there have been umpteen different major investigations involving SCORES (perhaps even hundreds) of investigators. Despite all of this effort and energy and all of the resources expended, it appears that NOBODY with direct personal knowledge has ever come forward to support Harry's story. Surely you realize Paul that it is not uncommon for friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers or other individuals to present corroborating evidence to support claims made by conspiracy theorists. And, by the same token, it is not uncommon for such folks to come forward weeks or months or years after the event to present contradictory evidence. However, what is NOT common, is for NOBODY to come forward (pro or con) to support or to refute the story presented by an alleged "eyewitness". Nor did I "praise" the FBI for releasing its JFK-related documents. Here, again, you never are capable of presenting literal truth. You always feel compelled to embellish something. I merely presented a FACTUAL summary of what has been done -- not based upon my personal opinions but based upon the ARRB (the work done by the Assassination Records Review Board) which, obviously, was required by law. I included a link to the statement made by U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim who served as Chairman of the ARRB from its beginning until its closure. If you have information which HE did not reveal, then I will be happy to read it. Here is the link again: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/tunheim.htm So I DID address your interest in JFK assassination records. In fact, do you recall when YOU claimed (falsely) that JFK-related files would be sealed for 75 years and it was ME who brought your attention to the superceding 1992 JFK law -- and the relevant October 2017 date? So you have a lot of nerve for not candidly acknowledging your MANY factual errors. In fact, as a public service, I have been thinking about going back to the start of this thread and compiling a "Greatest Hits" summary of all your false statements, conclusions, and assumptions. Just so everyone can see how much bullxxxx you shovel out. Recent examples include: * your claim that Walker was the only General who resigned in the 20th century * your claim (message #433) that FBI documents I produced on this website "confirm" that "Harry did indeed interact with the JBS in southern California from 1961-1963" and "confirm" that "Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious individuals of the JBS" * your utter falsehoods about Robert Welch's manuscript "The Politician" (message #428) You obviously do not understand the use of analogies to illustrate a larger point about FBI filing practices and procedures. And you dismiss everything as "arcane" details -- when it is precisely such "arcane" details which enable any genuine student or researcher to separate fact from fiction. Which is why you do not understand the significance of discussing your profound misunderstanding about "secret FBI files". To close with your final words: "I think that should be clear". Ernie, everybody knows that "secret" information is, by definition, UNKNOWN. That's not saying anything new. Yet you're once again mistaken in the conclusions that you, Ernie, draw from that fact. For example, you conclude that "neither you, or I, or anybody else can make definitive assertions or even credible plausible 'theories' about what data is contained in those alleged 'secret' files." That is simply incorrect. Here are only three definitive assertions that can be made with ease about those secret FBI files: 1. Some of those secrets involve the assassination of JFK 2. Some of those secrets involve Lee Harvey Oswald, even though he has been dead for 50 years 3. Some of those secrets involve a cross-section of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of JFK. So, your logic once again fails to hold, and your rude manners only backfire on you. There are even more definitive assertions that can be made, as logical deductions from those three. Following the model of logical deductions provided by Peter Dale Scott should give you a clue -- but obviously it hasn't yet done so. Nor did I ever claim that the contents of those FBI secret files will certainly and without doubt confirm Harry Dean's memoirs; however, anybody with an open mind (obviously not you) can connect the dots and recognize that: (i) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve the assassination of JFK (ii) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve Lee Harvey Oswald (iii) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve a cross-section of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of JFK. Furthermore, the FBI has already shown -- in documents that you yourself presented -- that the FBI took a hostile attitude with regard to Harry Dean for taking his story public on the Joe Pyne Show on television in early 1965 -- soon after the disappointing results of the Warren Commission (for which the FBI provided the investigation). It is not assured -- but it remains plausible -- that the many FBI files about Harry Dean that we cannot yet find are also filed away in those "secret" files. I'm not 100% certain that they are, but I am surely curious to see for myself. Objective thinkers can try to connect those dots, and then, in a patriotic fashion, demand to know what the FBI prefers to keep secret about men who died 50 years ago -- despite the requests of men who have had powers bestowed upon them by the Constitution of the United States of America. You don't seem to have the normal curiosity of finding out what the FBI secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald might be. At least that's what I see. Perhaps I missed something, Ernie -- perhaps you've made multiple requests to the FBI to see the Lee Harvey Oswald files -- have you? Well, have you? Further, it is a documented fact that Major General Edwin Anderson Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century. That is not merely my observation, but confirmed history. Walker was the only US General so hot-headed as to renounce his 30-year pension by resigning (although later in life he begged to have his pension back, and we gave it to him) Further, it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that your many new findings of FBI material on Harry Dean clearly confirm parts of Harry's memoirs -- without even trying to do that. (You should simply calm down and admit the fact, Ernie, just as you should also apologize to Harry Dean for accusing him of "lying" for saying that he took information to the FBI from 1961 through 1963. Your own FBI records prove that he truly did.) Further, my statements about Robert Welch's, THE POLITICIAN (1959), namely, that he stated within it that President Eisenhower was a Communist Traitor, are verifiably true and correct. Your continuing harping on "FBI filing practices and procedures," Ernie, only confirms the portrait of your activity as "bureaucratic arrogance." Your claim objectivity, but ultimately your attitude tends to defend the FBI Yet the FBI has chosen to march over people Gestapo-style with its secret file cabinets, and that brutal march continues to this very day. IMHO, Ernie, you should attempt to obtain the FBI secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, and tell us how the FBI replies to somebody like yourself. And if you refuse to do that, then I must continue to wonder why. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited December 10, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) No, Paul, you again miss the significance of what I presented in my previous message. As I have stated, you have an impenetrable brain freeze about this matter. For the record, I did NOT challenge your statement that the FBI still keeps "secrets" about LHO or about any other matter. So stop lying Paul and try to pay attention to what I have actually written. What I have said (for the 100th time) is that "secret" information is, by definition, UNKNOWN. Consequently, neither you, or I, or anybody else can make definitive assertions or even credible plausible "theories" about what data is contained in those alleged "secret" files. I object to your incessant attempt to claim that something exists which will corroborate Harry Dean's recollections BUT, simultaneously, you assert ALL of that data is in "secret" files. Obviously, you do not know if there is ANY data in those "secret" files which would support Harry. So this is ENTIRELY an INVENTION of your fevered imagination at this point. What I have been attempting to get you to focus upon (unsuccessfully) is that there is considerable verifiable EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to dispute Harry's contentions. But you always reject EVERYTHING that you think might diminish Harry's story. In addition, I have tried to get you to understand that events never have just ONE witness or ONE participant or ONE person who has substantive knowledge about the event. JFK assassination theories have been circulating since day one. And there have been NUMEROUS individuals who have spent most of their adult lives tracking down every available piece of evidence as well as interviewing every conceivable person who might have anything to add to the historical record. And, of course, there have been umpteen different major investigations involving SCORES (perhaps even hundreds) of investigators. Despite all of this effort and energy and all of the resources expended, it appears that NOBODY with direct personal knowledge has ever come forward to support Harry's story. Surely you realize Paul that it is not uncommon for friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers or other individuals to present corroborating evidence to support claims made by conspiracy theorists. And, by the same token, it is not uncommon for such folks to come forward weeks or months or years after the event to present contradictory evidence. However, what is NOT common, is for NOBODY to come forward (pro or con) to support or to refute the story presented by an alleged "eyewitness". Nor did I "praise" the FBI for releasing its JFK-related documents. Here, again, you never are capable of presenting literal truth. You always feel compelled to embellish something. I merely presented a FACTUAL summary of what has been done -- not based upon my personal opinions but based upon the ARRB (the work done by the Assassination Records Review Board) which, obviously, was required by law. I included a link to the statement made by U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim who served as Chairman of the ARRB from its beginning until its closure. If you have information which HE did not reveal, then I will be happy to read it. Here is the link again: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/tunheim.htm So I DID address your interest in JFK assassination records. In fact, do you recall when YOU claimed (falsely) that JFK-related files would be sealed for 75 years and it was ME who brought your attention to the superceding 1992 JFK law -- and the relevant October 2017 date? So you have a lot of nerve for not candidly acknowledging your MANY factual errors. In fact, as a public service, I have been thinking about going back to the start of this thread and compiling a "Greatest Hits" summary of all your false statements, conclusions, and assumptions. Just so everyone can see how much bullxxxx you shovel out. Recent examples include: * your claim that Walker was the only General who resigned in the 20th century * your claim (message #433) that FBI documents I produced on this website "confirm" that "Harry did indeed interact with the JBS in southern California from 1961-1963" and "confirm" that "Harry did indeed make several efforts to tell the FBI about his activities with suspicious individuals of the JBS" * your utter falsehoods about Robert Welch's manuscript "The Politician" (message #428) You obviously do not understand the use of analogies to illustrate a larger point about FBI filing practices and procedures. And you dismiss everything as "arcane" details -- when it is precisely such "arcane" details which enable any genuine student or researcher to separate fact from fiction. Which is why you do not understand the significance of discussing your profound misunderstanding about "secret FBI files". To close with your final words: "I think that should be clear". Ernie, everybody knows that "secret" information is, by definition, UNKNOWN. That's not saying anything new. Yet you're once again mistaken in the conclusions that you, Ernie, draw from that fact. For example, you conclude that "neither you, or I, or anybody else can make definitive assertions or even credible plausible 'theories' about what data is contained in those alleged 'secret' files." That is simply incorrect. Here are only three definitive assertions that can be made with ease about those secret FBI files: 1. Some of those secrets involve the assassination of JFK 2. Some of those secrets involve Lee Harvey Oswald, even though he has been dead for 50 years 3. Some of those secrets involve a cross-section of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of JFK. So, your logic once again fails to hold, and your rude manners only backfire on you. Paul, you are proposing a logical fallacy, i.e. something which is UNKNOWN or SECRET can, nevertheless, be identified. Suppose, for example, your actual name is UNKNOWN (i.e. secret). I cannot then propose a plausible "theory" regarding your name. I could, obviously, list every known male name which exists on Planet Earth (based upon my assumption that you are a male) but that would NOT help me make a rational fact-based conclusion about your actual real name. Based upon currently available factual information, we can reasonably state that the remaining "secret" information pertaining to LHO includes (1) his tax records and (2) CIA documents re: LHO and (3) some of those CIA documents may also appear in FBI files. But there is absolutely nothing currently available (in the 5 or 6 million pages of documents which have already been released) which would allow us to make any statement regarding documents currently being withheld that might support Harry Dean's story. BY CONTRAST, we have considerable empirical evidence to support the conclusion that NOTHING exists in remaining JFK-related records which will support Harry's story. There are even more definitive assertions that can be made, as logical deductions from those three. Following the model of logical deductions of Peter Dale Scott should give you a clue -- but obviously it hasn't yet done so. Nor did I ever claim that the contents of those FBI secre" files will certainly and without doubt confirm Harry Dean's memoirs; however, anybody with an open mind (obviously not you) can connect the dots and recognize that: Actually, you have repeatedly made previous statements which suggest that such evidence DOES exist in "FBI secret files". The entire thrust of your criticism about my comments has been that I put "blind faith" in FBI documents and I am not willing to entertain the idea that corroborating evidence for Harry's story exists in "secret" JFK files. IF, from the beginning, you had merely written something like this, we would have no problem: "Ernie, I realize that existing FBI documents do not support Harry's statements but I think there may be support for his recollections (as presented in our eBook) in FBI and CIA files/documents which currently are not available but should become available in 2017". (i) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve the assassination of JFK (ii) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve Lee Harvey Oswald (iii) Harry Dean's memoirs also involve a cross-section of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of JFK. Furthermore, the FBI has already shown -- in documents that you yourself presented -- that the FBI took a hostile attitude with regard to Harry Dean for taking his story public on the Joe Pyne Show on television in early 1965 -- soon after the disappointing results of the Warren Commission (for which the FBI provided the investigation). It was not a "hostile attitude". It was a factual statement based upon their internal records. That is why Hoover had to request that Chicago and Los Angeles field offices provide HQ with specific details about their contacts with Harry -- because FBI HQ had no record of Harry being an FBI informant or confidential source. You have never realized the significance of that FACT. As I previously informed you, FBI HQ maintained a "Security Informant Index" on both active and inactive informants and confidential sources. That Index recorded the name, address, code name, FBI file number and symbol number of FBI informants and confidential sources. EVERY field office submitted that data to HQ on FBI form FD-348 (which was a monthly and quarterly status report). The fact that FBI HQ had no record of Harry and Hoover had to request details from two field offices tells you something extremely significant -- although YOU obviously missed it entirely. It is not assured -- but it remains plausible -- that the many FBI files about Harry Dean that we cannot yet find are also filed away in those "secret" files. I'm not 100% certain that they are, but I am surely curious to see for myself. Curiosity is great! But you go many steps beyond that. You make astonishing conclusions which are not warranted by available empirical evidence. You then want us to discard, dismiss, or de-value EVERYTHING which does not support your "theory" Objective thinkers can try to connect those dots, and then, in a patriotic fashion, demand to know what the FBI prefers to keep secret about men who died 50 years ago -- despite the requests of men who have had powers bestowed upon them by the Constitution of the United States of America. It is NOT what the "FBI prefers". It is what U.S. law passed by Congress required. If the FBI got what it "preferred", FOIA statutes would never have been enacted OR (at a minimum) the FBI would be permanently exempt from FOIA requests. You don't seem to have the normal curiosity of finding out what the FBI secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald might be. At least that's what I see. Perhaps I missed something, Ernie -- perhaps you've made multiple requests to the FBI to see the Lee Harvey Oswald files -- have you? Well, have you? No, of course not. There is nothing about LHO that pertains to my research project. Altogether, I have submitted about 10,000 requests to the FBI (on persons, organizations, publications, filmstrips, and controversies PLUS FBI employee personnel files and FBI administrative files re: its internal policies and procedures). How many FOIA requests have YOU submitted? NONE? Then do not lecture me about "normal curiosity". You did not even have enough "normal curiosity" to ask Harry to give you a notarized affidavit so you could obtain CIA and FBI documents which discuss him or any other subject! What nerve you have! Further, it is a documented fact that Major General Edwin Anderson Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century. That is not merely my observation, but confirmed history. Walker was the only US General so hot-headed as to renounce his 30-year pension by resigning (although later in life he begged to have his pension back, and we gave it to him) Documented by WHOM? WHO or WHAT is YOUR SOURCE for that statement? [significantly, you never provide a footnote to document ANYTHING you assert!] And how do you explain my brief (and partial list) of the OTHER Generals who resigned during the 20th century? Further, it is objectively obvious to the casual observer that your many new findings of FBI material on Harry Dean clearly confirm parts of Harry's memoirs -- without even trying to do that. (You should simply calm down and admit the fact, Ernie, just as you should also apologize to Harry Dean for accusing him of "lying" for saying that he took information to the FBI from 1961 through 1963. Your own FBI records prove that he truly did.) You made very specific comments about me CONFIRMING your assertions regarding Harry and the JBS. I challenged you to provide the specific evidence. As usual, you attributed something to me without providing ANY documentation to support your assertion. And you STILL refuse to do so. My reference to Harry "lying" is CONFIRMED by explicit statements in FBI memos (both field and HQ). You have NO proof to establish otherwise. Further, my statements about Robert Welch's, THE POLITICIAN (1959), namely, that he stated within it that President Eisenhower was a Communist Traitor, are verifiably true and correct. But that is not what was in dispute. Interesting that you always have selective amnesia about your own statements. You claimed that the JBS (as an organization) "published" the first edition of The Politician. It did not. You then claimed that Edwin Walker attempted to indoctrinate his troops with the "JBS lie" about Eisenhower being a Communist traitor. But the JBS (at that time, in 1960-1961) did NOT present that assertion to its membership. It was ENTIRELY the personal opinion of Robert Welch in a PRIVATE letter he wrote starting in 1954. In fact, when John Rousselot was JBS National Public Relations Director, a reporter asked him about Welch's 1950's manuscript and Rousselot stated that if Welch's personal opinion in his private letter became official JBS dogma, he (Rousselot) would resign. As I previously pointed out, the JBS National Council explicitly declared that the JBS as an organization did NOT endorse Welch's sentiments and about half of the Council wanted to replace Welch as head of the JBS because of the controversy over his PRIVATE comments. Your continuing harping on "FBI filing practices and procedures," Ernie, only confirms the portrait of your activity as "bureaucratic arrogance." Your claim objectivity, but ultimately your attitude tends to defend the FBI Yet the FBI has chosen to march over people with its secret file cabinets, and that brutal march continues to this very day. You do not understand the difference between respect for factual accuracy and "defending". If somebody accuses you of being a child molester or a member of the American Nazi Party -- I might post a message stating such assertions are false. Does that mean I am NOT being objective just because I challenged the accuracy of those assertions? OR -- am I required to ALWAYS be hostile toward you and endorse whatever false statements are made about YOU simply because we disagree about Harry Dean or about FBI filing practices and procedures? IMHO, Ernie, you should attempt to obtain the FBI secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald, and tell us how the FBI replies to somebody like yourself. And if you refuse to do that, then I must continue to wonder why. And ALL OF US continue to wonder why neither you or Harry has ever made an FOIA request to CIA or FBI for everything pertaining to Harry. Particularly since many of these documents have been available since at least 1985! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Paul -- my replies are underneath your comments within your message above Edited December 5, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Paul T. - can you tie your theory about Walker and the Minutemen being involved in the on the ground Dallas hit team with the idea that Angleton set up Oswald as the patsy? I have read Dean's book, done with help from you, and have also read most of your Walker did it posts, so no need to repeat information here. I find Newman and PD Scott convincing on the Mexico City story, and strongly suggest you read Scott's latest book Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics as well as Newman's Oswald and the CIA, which I think you said you had read. For your theories on Walker to make sense, I think you have to tie Walker and Oswald not just to the FBI but to the CIA. You rely on Banister's connections to the JBS and Minutemen, and have suggested to me that Banister was running Oswald in his FPCC smear campaign and sheep dipping him for use as the patsy. Do you think Banister was operating totally on his own, with no cooperation with ONI, FBI, or CIA in that effort? Well, Paul B., I have further comments about your intriguing questions. You say I must tie Walker and Oswald to the CIA as well as to the FBI. That will be more difficult because the CIA is generally regarded as international in scope, and therefore subject to additional secrecy -- even more than the FBI. So, while some FBI documents can be obtained, as our thread in the past month as ably showed, CIA documents are harder to obtain. I am grateful that Peter Dale Scott has obtained a few for us, as published in his latest book, Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics (2013). That said, I can only refer to stories told by the principals. The Tattler, for example, and the National Enquirer, many years ago, produced interviews of Loran Hall. Loran Hall was interviewed briefly by the Warren Commission, in the last week of its operation, in connection with allegations by Silvia Odio that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald and two accomplices at her doorstep in September, 1963. In those articles, Loran Hall said words to the effect that he had been offered a lot of money by right-wing extremists in Dallas, if he would kill JFK. In those same articles Loran Hall cited "ex-military" men in Dallas, and others who eagerly wanted a race war in America, so that they could seize power. Loran Hall also claimed that CIA agents that he had personally worked with were also involved with these right-wingers. Now - there's been a confusion within JFK research in the past 50 years, regarding differences between CIA agents, CIA contractors and CIA operatives (flunkies). Harry Dean, said W.R. Morris, was a CIA agent. That was a lie. Frank Sturgis has been called a CIA agent, but in fact he was a private contractor for the CIA. Lee Harvey Oswald has been suspected of being a CIA agent, but at the very most, IMHO, he was a CIA operative working for peanuts. While William Harvey was a CIA agent, it seems that David Morales was an independent contractor. When we comb the literature of JFK research regarding CIA agents (distinct from their contractors and operatives) who were close to the JFK assassination, we tend to come up with three names: James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, H.L. Hunt. To these we might add two more who were former high-level CIA executives, Allen Dulles and Charles Cabell -- both Bay of Pigs flubbers. It seems to me that Allen Dulles hated the idea that JFK fired him as head of the CIA, but let RFK have wide control. It seems to me, also, that Charles Cabell hated the idea even more. As I recall the literature, Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton were close friends. That a pathological hatred could have grown amongst those CIA agents who were directly involved with the Bay of Pigs must be given high priority. You also ask whether I believe that Guy Banister was operating "totally on his own," that is, without governmental coordination. IMHO, Guy Banister did not act alone -- but neither did he work with the government. He quit the government and he was working closely with career criminals -- i.e. Carlos Marcello. Marcello was a mafia boss who hated RFK more than anyone. J. Edgar Hoover knew that Carlos Marcello put up a multi-million dollar contract on JFK -- and did nothing about it. Guy Banister also worked with General Walker, I'm convinced, partly because both men were leaders in the JBS and leaders in their local Minutemen organizations, and partly because both men were close friends with Medford Bryan Evans, and partly because of documents and research that will soon be published by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield. Also, it is very clear that Guy Banister worked directly with INCA director, Ed Butler and his DRE friend, Carlos Bringuier, in sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspapers, police reports, radio and even TV. Now, INCA and DRE were also funded by the CIA. Yet INCA and DRE funding was on the books -- it was legitimate. The JFK assassination was not. IMHO, the CIA agents I named above probably split off from the main body of the CIA and started their own private war on JFK. They found General Walker's project already in progress, and they put their collective shoulders to that wheel. I think Peter Dale Scott has found lots of dirt on these guys -- but he must use logical deduction, because CIA files keeps such "secret" files. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited December 10, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) For absolute clarity, I would like to point out that my original statements concerning Harry Dean were based upon John Simkin's description of Dean's involvement with the Birch Society -- which you may still see here: From: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm "In 1975 Harry J. Dean claimed he had been an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who in 1962 infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that John Rousselot and General Edwin Walker had hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy." I objected to two statements made in this sentence, i.e. (1) Dean was never an "undercover agent" for the FBI [He simply provided unsolicited raw information to the Chicago FBI field office] (2) Dean never "infiltrated" the JBS [The FBI never assigned anybody to "infiltrate" the JBS because there was nothing which the FBI wanted to know that required an "infiltrator"; Furthermore, the FBI never even investigated the JBS. Infiltrators were used when there was an ongoing investigation and the FBI needed confidential information about the targeted group.] I would also like to point out that John Simkin described the publication of The Politician partially correctly when he wrote: "In 1961 Robert Welch published The Politician (better known as the Black Book)." [The first published version was in 1963, not 1961. The major newspaper publicity about the existence of Welch's "private letter" manuscript entitled The Politician commenced in April 1961 -- which is probably why John used the 1961 date. However, John correctly wrote that WELCH published it -- not (as Paul Trejo falsely claimed), the JBS] And John Simkin CORRECTLY wrote in this article about General John K. Singlaub: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsinglaub.htm that "As a specialist in unconventional warfare and covert operations, Singlaub kept a low profile. However, he eventually became chief of staff of the United Nations Command in South Korea. He was forced to resign in May, 1978 after criticizing President Jimmy Carter and his plans to reduce the number of troops in South Korea." You may also see additional confirmations regarding Singlaub's RESIGNATION here: Los Angeles Times book review of Singlaub's autobiography: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-06/books/bk-50_1_hazardous-duty "Singlaub spoke out against policies promulgated by President Carter that the general considered weak or worse. Not once, but twice. Carelessly. In front of reporters. In 1978, after 35 years of good and true military service, he was forced to resign." ALSO HERE: http://books.google.com/books?id=ymANimNtKAIC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=john+k+singlaub+resign&source=bl&ots=EVPDgrZcSB&sig=nSCFR-sE-CAFeZai-cTRBDdQsh0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ELmgUqG6KIH2oASKlYL4CQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=john%20k%20singlaub%20resign&f=false So much for Paul T's categorical statement regarding Edwin Walker being the only U.S. General to resign in the 20th century. I can provide comparable DOCUMENTATION for the other U.S. Army Generals who resigned during the 20th century which I mentioned in one of my previous messages. BUT----CAN PAUL PROVIDE OR IDENTIFY EVEN ONE SOURCE TO DOCUMENT HIS ASSERTION ABOUT EDWIN WALKER? Notice the difference between how I present evidence compared to Paul Trejo. 1. I provide specific details 2. I provide links to corroborating evidence 3. Paul provides NOTHING WHATSOEVER except his bald assertions. Edited December 5, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Paul T. - can you tie your theory about Walker and the Minutemen being involved in the on the ground Dallas hit team with the idea that Angleton set up Oswald as the patsy? I have read Dean's book, done with help from you, and have also read most of your Walker did it posts, so no need to repeat information here. I find Newman and PD Scott convincing on the Mexico City story, and strongly suggest you read Scott's latest book Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics as well as Newman's Oswald and the CIA, which I think you said you had read. For your theories on Walker to make sense, I think you have to tie Walker and Oswald not just to the FBI but to the CIA. You rely on Banister's connections to the JBS and Minutemen, and have suggested to me that Banister was running Oswald in his FPCC smear campaign and sheep dipping him for use as the patsy. Do you think Banister was operating totally on his own, with no cooperation with ONI, FBI, or CIA in that effort? Well, Paul B., I have further comments about your intriguing questions. You say I must tie Walker and Oswald to the CIA as well as to the FBI. That will be more difficult because the CIA is generally regarded as international in scope, and therefore subject to additional secrecy -- even more than the FBI. So, while FBI documents can be obtained, as our thread in the past month as ably showed, CIA documents are harder to obtain. I am grateful that Peter Dale Scott has obtained a few for us, as published in his latest book, Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics (2013). That said, I can only refer to stories told by the principals. The Tattler, for example, and the National Enquirer, many years ago, produced interviews of Loran Hall. Loran Hall was interviewed briefly by the Warren Commission, in the last week of its operation, in connection with allegations by Silvia Odio that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald and two accomplices at her doorstep in September, 1963. In those articles, Loran Hall said words to the effect that he had been offered a lot of money by right-wing extremists in Dallas, if he would kill JFK. In those same articles Loran Hall cited "ex-military" men in Dallas, and others who eagerly wanted a race war in America, so that they could seize power. Loran Hall also claimed that CIA agents that he had personally worked with were also involved with these right-wingers. Now - there's been a confusion within JFK research in the past 50 years, regarding differences between CIA agents, CIA contractors and CIA operatives (flunkies). Harry Dean, said W.R. Morris, was a CIA agent. That was a lie. Frank Sturgis has been called a CIA agent, but in fact he was a private contractor for the CIA. Lee Harvey Oswald has been suspected of being a CIA agent, but at the very most, IMHO, he was a CIA operative working for peanuts. While William Harvey was a CIA agent, it seems that David Morales was an independent contractor. When we comb the literature of JFK research regarding CIA agents (distinct from their contractors and operatives) who were close to the JFK assassination, we tend to come up with three names: James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, H.L. Hunt. To these we might add two more who were former high-level CIA executives, Allen Dulles and Charles Cabell -- both Bay of Pigs flubbers. It seems to me that Allen Dulles hated the idea that JFK fired him as head of the CIA, but let RFK have wide control. It seems to me, also, that Charles Cabell hated the idea even more. As I recall the literature, Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton were close friends. That a pathological hatred could have grown amongst those CIA agents who were directly involved with the Bay of Pigs must be given high priority. You also ask whether I believe that Guy Banister was operating "totally on his own," that is, without governmental coordination. IMHO, Guy Banister did not act alone -- but neither did he work with the government. He quit the government and he was working closely with career criminals -- i.e. Carlos Marcello. Marcello was a mafia boss who hated RFK more than anyone, and Hoover knew that Marcello put up a multi-million dollar contract on JFK -- and did nothing about it. Guy Banister also worked with General Walker, I'm convinced, because of documents and research that will soon be published by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield. Also, it is very clear that Guy Banister worked directly with INCA director, Ed Butler and his DRE friend, Carlos Bringuier, in sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspapers, police reports, radio and even TV. Now, INCA and DRE were also funded by the CIA. Yet INCA and DRE funding was on the books -- it was legitimate. The JFK assassination was not. IMHO, the CIA agents I named above probably split off from the main body of the CIA and started their own private war on JFK. They found General Walker's project already in progress, and they put their collective shoulders to that wheel. I think Peter Dale Scott has found lots of dirt on these guys -- but he must use logical deduction, because CIA files tend to be "secret" files. Best regards, --Paul Trejo There you go again! With respect to "secret CIA files" regarding CIA-Oswald connections -- try reviewing this article whose footnotes include scanned "secret" CIA documents: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Paul - I wouldn't get too worked up about who put what shoulder behind what wheel. The haters, and you mentioned most of the key ones, pulled together a plan that worked. If Dulles and Angleton were close that makes a lot of sense, because I think Newman has it right when he says that the ultimate sheep dip was tying Oswald to Kostikov, and that was Angleton and CIA Counterintelligence, as shown by Angleton's clever compartmentalizing of Oswald's files. No one on this board seems willing to engage me on something I've posted here and there - the idea that a large group of conspirators was in fact a safer way to operate. Conventional wisdom has been that the smaller the group in a conspiracy the easier it is to control. However this is no ordinary run of the mill operation. I have no problem now imagining several CIA guys (I would add Harvey to your list), several mafiosi, several Minutemen JBS types, some generals including the ex, HL Hunt, Clint Murchison and other oilmen (Bush, Brown) J Edgar, Secret Service, and of course LBJ. None of those people were going to crack. The smaller fry, such as the actual shooters and their support team, Dallas cops, Cuban exiles, and other on the ground types could be eliminated if necessary. An advantage of such a large group with tentacles in so many organizations is that they could keep close eye on each other in case weak links started to manifest. And in fact some links were eliminated - Roselli comes to mind. All of this has led to so many leads that many serious researchers have eventually decided one small group or another were guilty. It may be hard to imagine that there was a way to put such a large group together secretly, but to me the proof is in the pudding. Somehow they did do exactly that. We don't have to imagine it was the Mafia, or rogue CIA, or Walker and Banister. It makes more sense to me that it was all of them. What they all shared in common was that John Kennedy was a traitor, and needed to be eliminated. The compartmentalization of FBI, CIA, ONI, etc may serve to confuse and obfuscate, but by its very nature it leads one to conclude that there is little meaningful difference between actual agents, paid informers, contract agents, hip pocket operations (Phillips and Veciana, and Oswald as confirmed by Veciana). Guys at the top, like Angleton and J Edgar, LBJ, were able to oversee this complex maze with amazing authority. I personally would add Lemnitzer and LeMay to that group, and think that if Walker was in the middle of all this it was with Lemnitzer's knowledge and approval, possibly even direction. I know all of this is theorizing. But I prefer to stick with the 'why' rather than try to view the whole operation from the lens of what shooter was positioned where and how many shots they fired from what guns. Buchanan had the 'why' right. The concerned citizens and researchers on this and other forums have done remarkable research into the 'how'. But the American people were massively ripped off from their heritage, and until we really come to grips with that we will continue to devolve into debates about the minutiae and magnify our differences rather than come together as a unified voice. Edited December 5, 2013 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Paul - I wouldn't get too worked up about who put what shoulder behind what wheel. The haters, and you mentioned most of the key ones, pulled together a plan that worked. If Dulles and Angleton were close that makes a lot of sense, because I think Newman has it right when he says that the ultimate sheep dip was tying Oswald to Kostikov, and that was Angleton and CIA Counterintelligence, as shown by Angleton's clever compartmentalizing of Oswald's files. No one on this board seems willing to engage me on something I've posted here and there - the idea that a large group of conspirators was in fact a safer way to operate. Conventional wisdom has been that the smaller the group in a conspiracy the easier it is to control. However this is no ordinary run of the mill operation. I have no problem now imagining several CIA guys (I would add Harvey to your list), several mafiosi, several Minutemen JBS types, some generals including the ex, HL Hunt, Clint Murchison and other oilmen (Bush, Brown) J Edgar, Secret Service, and of course LBJ. None of those people were going to crack. The smaller fry, such as the actual shooters and their support team, Dallas cops, Cuban exiles, and other on the ground types could be eliminated if necessary. An advantage of such a large group with tentacles in so many organizations is that they could keep close eye on each other in case weak links started to manifest. And in fact some links were eliminated - Roselli comes to mind. All of this has led to so many leads that many serious researchers have eventually decided one small group or another were guilty. It may be hard to imagine that there was a way to put such a large group together secretly, but to me the proof is in the pudding. Somehow they did do exactly that. We don't have to imagine it was the Mafia, or rogue CIA, or Walker and Banister. It makes more sense to me that it was all of them. What they all shared in common was that John Kennedy was a traitor, and needed to be eliminated. The compartmentalization of FBI, CIA, ONI, etc may serve to confuse and obfuscate, but by its very nature it leads one to conclude that there is little meaningful difference between actual agents, paid informers, contract agents, hip pocket operations (Phillips and Veciana, and Oswald as confirmed by Veciana). Guys at the top, like Angleton and J Edgar, LBJ, were able to oversee this complex maze with amazing authority. I personally would add Lemnitzer and LeMay to that group, and think that if Walker was in the middle of all this it was with Lemnitzer's knowledge and approval, possibly even direction. I know all of this is theorizing. But I prefer to stick with the 'why' rather than try to view the whole operation from the lens of what shooter was positioned where and how many shots they fired from what guns. Buchanan had the 'why' right. The concerned citizens and researchers on this and other forums have done remarkable research into the 'how'. But the American people were massively ripped off from their heritage, and until we really come to grips with that we will continue to devolve into debates about the minutiae and magnify our differences rather than come together as a unified voice. Historically, the more actors there are in a conspiratorial plot -- the quicker it unravels. First of all, there is normal human nature. Human egos are involved -- particularly when you are talking about a major event of historical importance. Some actors want more significant roles because they think they are smarter or more committed to the objective; some participants resent other participants who they think have slighted or humiliated them in some fashion; some participants get cold feet at the critical moment and normal fear of discovery (and paying the piper) overwhelms their initial abstract enthusiasm. Some participants start blabbing details to outsiders they think can be trusted but those outsiders contact law enforcement. (as Harry claims he did after he drove Galbadon to see Rousselot to pick up the $10,000) -- and the list goes on and on and on. In my article about the nature and purpose of political conspiracy theories, https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/ct-1 I point out that the most rigorous criminal conspiracies are the ones held together by physical threats and intimidation -- especially in closed environments -- i.e. an environment under the control of a very small number of people who directly control rewards and punishments and they can inflict immediate and substantial harm upon uncooperative individuals -- PLUS -- these conspirators are often trained in, and have little hesitance about using, violence to achieve their objectives. For example: conspiracies involving police officers, prison officials, organized crime figures, military personnel etc. You expect less robust conspiracies to fall apart more easily than the most rigorous criminal conspiracies that involve professionals trained in using violence to accomplish their objectives. Nevertheless, the more robust conspiracies often disintegrate just as quickly -- i.e the plotters are arrested just before implementation of the conspiracy OR they are quickly discovered afterward. Police and prison officers, military personnel, and organized crime figures can plant evidence, falsely testify regarding the behavior of their victims, or they can inflict extreme psychic pressure and harassment/intimidation upon non-cooperative or suspect individuals. These folks routinely operate in an environment which involves threats, intimidation, and violence to keep people in line. And they often can rely upon a "code of silence" which prevails among their peers to shield them from exposure. NEVERTHELESS, we routinely see media reports about conspiracy indictments or trial verdicts involving all these types of individuals. So, again, the more people involved -- the greater the likelihood that a criminal conspiracy will unravel quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Paul - I wouldn't get too worked up about who put what shoulder behind what wheel. The haters, and you mentioned most of the key ones, pulled together a plan that worked. If Dulles and Angleton were close that makes a lot of sense, because I think Newman has it right when he says that the ultimate sheep dip was tying Oswald to Kostikov, and that was Angleton and CIA Counterintelligence, as shown by Angleton's clever compartmentalizing of Oswald's files. ...An advantage of such a large group with tentacles in so many organizations is that they could keep close eye on each other in case weak links started to manifest. And in fact some links were eliminated - Roselli comes to mind. All of this has led to so many leads that many serious researchers have eventually decided one small group or another were guilty. It may be hard to imagine that there was a way to put such a large group together secretly, but to me the proof is in the pudding. Somehow they did do exactly that. We don't have to imagine it was the Mafia, or rogue CIA, or Walker and Banister. It makes more sense to me that it was all of them. What they all shared in common was that John Kennedy was a traitor, and needed to be eliminated. The compartmentalization of FBI, CIA, ONI, etc may serve to confuse and obfuscate, but by its very nature it leads one to conclude that there is little meaningful difference between actual agents, paid informers, contract agents, hip pocket operations (Phillips and Veciana, and Oswald as confirmed by Veciana). Guys at the top, like Angleton and J Edgar, LBJ, were able to oversee this complex maze with amazing authority. I personally would add Lemnitzer and LeMay to that group, and think that if Walker was in the middle of all this it was with Lemnitzer's knowledge and approval, possibly even direction. I know all of this is theorizing. But I prefer to stick with the 'why' rather than try to view the whole operation from the lens of what shooter was positioned where and how many shots they fired from what guns. Buchanan had the 'why' right. The concerned citizens and researchers on this and other forums have done remarkable research into the 'how'. But the American people were massively ripped off from their heritage, and until we really come to grips with that we will continue to devolve into debates about the minutiae and magnify our differences rather than come together as a unified voice. Well, Paul B., let me offer some alternative views here: 1. If the ultimate sheep-dip was trying to link Oswald with Kostikov (and Peter Dale Scott thinks so, too), then it's a major problem to your theory that the Warren Commission sunk that myth. 2. I think you're mistaken about the shooters being easy to eliminate -- they are inherently dangerous to everyone. 3. I don't think you can point to a gangland murder of a Mafia figure and claim that it was related to the JFK assassination. Roselli -- like Frank Sturgis -- tried to pretend he was working for the CIA when at best he was a gopher for the CIA. I'm sure the CIA thought of him as annoying, but he would never have been given enough information to make him dangerous enough to kill -- I think that stands to reason. He could have blown the whistle on the CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro using Mafia connections, but eventually the CIA chief Helms confessed that anyway. Sam Giancana was shot because he ratted out the Mafia to the FBI -- nothing to do with JFK as far as I can see. 4. I do agree with you that more than one GROUP played a part in the JFK hit. Rogue elements from the CIA probably did play a role -- but not a leading role, IMHO. Also, the Mafia played a role, we know, by throwing money at any JFK plot that came along (e.g. Marcello and Traficante). Also, IMHO, the Dallas Police played a role, necessarily, because they had such a tight grip on the streets of Dallas. Also, the FBI played a role, at the very least after the fact, and in their mishandling of Lee Harvey Oswald before the fact. Also, the right-wing in Dallas played a role -- through the John Birch Society and Minutemen -- not only in the Wanted for Treason handbill and the Welcome to Dallas Mister Kennedy advertisement, but also in the mistreatment of Adlai Stevenson the month beforehand, and the hate-literature campaign and fund-raisers they managed daily. 5. However, nobody played a more important role in the JFK assassination than the GROUND-CREW. That's one place that Peter Dale Scott has not yet examined. Newman has nothing to say about it. Yet when we turn our attention to the GROUND-CREW, we realize that all the other pieces had to be managed to fit inside their agenda. Even though many GROUPS had a part, the GROUND-CREW had the central part, and the most important part by far. This included the making, setting up and delivery of the patsy -- Lee Harvey Oswald. Yes, JFK had many, many enemies, and they are all suspect. Yet when we get down to material details, the field gets smaller - by necessity. That means that all those GROUPS had to be carefully coordinated around a CENTER. Whoever managed the CENTER was the key figure. Now, IMHO, the CENTER was the GROUND-CREW in Dallas. 6. I sincerely doubt that CIA rogues were the top managers -- they were middle managers, IMHO. One would need the boldness and confidence of a trained, experienced US General -- one who had vowed eternal hatred of JFK -- to coordinate all these pieces. It would be impossible, I'm confident,. to turn a sitting US General into a traitor. However, a US General who resigned from the Army and even forfeited his pension, after having been infected by the JBS doctrine that all US Presidents since FDR have been Communist Traitors -- such an ex-General would have the qualifications for this. We have ample evidence that General Walker resigned from the Army in 1959 soon after his contact with Robert Welch, the JBS, and the doctrine that Eisenhower was a Communist Traitor. Ike rejected General Walker's resignation, but Walker again resigned in 1961, and this time JFK accepted Walker's resignation. Despite the fact that Walker resigned, the myth persists down to this day that JFK fired Walker. That wasn't the case. Walker declared his own private war against JFK in 1961, and he came out swinging in 1962 at Ole Miss University, fomenting a race riot where hundreds were wounded and two were killed. JFK sent Walker to an insane asylum for that crime -- and there lay the seeds of the JFK assassination, IMHO. Now, when this ex-General finally got his feet back on the ground, Lee Harvey Oswald was (probably) part of a team that chose to assassinate Walker. Walker found out about Lee Harvey Oswald that very WEEK (according to the personal papers of Walker himself) and he suspected that the Kennedys had sent Oswald to make the hit. Walker was no intellectual -- Robert Welch was his intellectual mentor -- but Walker was shrewd, well-trained, a green-beret-before-there-were-any-green-berets, and he knew military maneuvers like the back of his hand. When he started working on making Lee Harvey Oswald his patsy, way back in April, 1963, the CIA rogues had not yet figured out what they were going to do, but Walker had engaged Guy Banister and David Ferrie and started the ball rolling -- as early as Easter Sunday, 1963. 7. By August, 1963, however, many supporters of the Walker plot were visible, including radicals associated with the Southern California John Birch Society -- radicals like John Rousselot, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gabby Gabaldon. This is when Harry Dean first became aware of the secret cabal seeking to make a patsy out of Lee Harvey Oswald. So, yes, Paul B., I do agree that the evidence exists to suspect CIA rogues and Mafia moneybags and more players into this plot -- but they don't start appearing until AFTER the patsy was selected and the sheep-dip had begun. General Walker was the first person in this particular JFK plot -- Guy Banister was the second man -- David Ferrie was the third. Then people and money kept being funneled into the plot after the patsy had been identified. 8. In early September of 1963 Harry Dean heard General Walker -- personally -- name Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy. Harry's memoirs are the most vital data we have to link Walker with Oswald, because Walker lied under oath to the Warren Commission when he claimed he never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until the day of 22 November 1963. Harry Dean says that Walker lied. We have further evidence today that Walker lied. That is why I raise Harry Dean's memoirs up to first place in JFK research. Knowing that ex-General Walker lied under oath -- this is the fact that will break the JFK case wide open. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited December 10, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Paul - long email. Just a quick response - the whole point of the Kostikov Oswald sheep dip was that there would be no proper investigation once the Soviet connection was known, and Angleton made sure that they would not find out about Kostikov until after the deed was done. This is of course what did happen, and the reason why Earl Warren agreed to chair the commission. LBJ was able to say to him and others he asked to serve that the alternative to Oswald the lone nut was WW3, which is exactly P D Scott and Newman's point. That is why Newman lays the patsy plan on Angleton. Only he held those cards, and the presumption here is that he foresaw the impossible situation his plan would present to the investigating authorities. As Scott points out, the rhetoric in the first 24 hours after the assassination changed from calling Oswald a Communist to calling him a Marxist. The Soviet connection became known that quickly, and the kabosh was put on any talk of conspiracy, as per the plan., Ernie - your point is the conventional view. Thanks for responding. I know my postulate isn't, but despite all the logic you present I still find it possible for the reasons I gave, that this was an exceptional case and deemed necessary by those 'patriots' who took on the task. Edited December 5, 2013 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) For absolute clarity, I would like to point out that my original statements concerning Harry Dean were based upon John Simkin's description of Dean's involvement with the Birch Society -- which you may still see here: From: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm "In 1975 Harry J. Dean claimed he had been an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who in 1962 infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that John Rousselot and General Edwin Walker had hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy." I objected to two statements made in this sentence, i.e. (1) Dean was never an "undercover agent" for the FBI [He simply provided unsolicited raw information to the Chicago FBI field office] (2) Dean never "infiltrated" the JBS [The FBI never assigned anybody to "infiltrate" the JBS because there was nothing which the FBI wanted to know that required an "infiltrator"; Furthermore, the FBI never even investigated the JBS. Infiltrators were used when there was an ongoing investigation and the FBI needed confidential information about the targeted group.] I would also like to point out that John Simkin described the publication of The Politician partially correctly when he wrote: "In 1961 Robert Welch published The Politician (better known as the Black Book)." [The first published version was in 1963, not 1961. The major newspaper publicity about the existence of Welch's "private letter" manuscript entitled The Politician commenced in April 1961 -- which is probably why John used the 1961 date. However, John correctly wrote that WELCH published it -- not (as Paul Trejo falsely claimed), the JBS] And John Simkin CORRECTLY wrote in this article about General John K. Singlaub: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsinglaub.htm that "As a specialist in unconventional warfare and covert operations, Singlaub kept a low profile. However, he eventually became chief of staff of the United Nations Command in South Korea. He was forced to resign in May, 1978 after criticizing President Jimmy Carter and his plans to reduce the number of troops in South Korea." You may also see additional confirmations regarding Singlaub's RESIGNATION here: Los Angeles Times book review of Singlaub's autobiography: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-06/books/bk-50_1_hazardous-duty "Singlaub spoke out against policies promulgated by President Carter that the general considered weak or worse. Not once, but twice. Carelessly. In front of reporters. In 1978, after 35 years of good and true military service, he was forced to resign." ALSO HERE: http://books.google.com/books?id=ymANimNtKAIC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=john+k+singlaub+resign&source=bl&ots=EVPDgrZcSB&sig=nSCFR-sE-CAFeZai-cTRBDdQsh0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ELmgUqG6KIH2oASKlYL4CQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=john%20k%20singlaub%20resign&f=false So much for Paul T's categorical statement regarding Edwin Walker being the only U.S. General to resign in the 20th century. I can provide comparable DOCUMENTATION for the other U.S. Army Generals who resigned during the 20th century which I mentioned in one of my previous messages. BUT----CAN PAUL PROVIDE OR IDENTIFY EVEN ONE SOURCE TO DOCUMENT HIS ASSERTION ABOUT EDWIN WALKER? Notice the difference between how I present evidence compared to Paul Trejo. 1. I provide specific details 2. I provide links to corroborating evidence 3. Paul provides NOTHING WHATSOEVER except his bald assertions. Ernie, your nonsense keeps on coming -- all your long-winded posts do is repeat your bias and sloppy methodology. For example, you quoted Simkin's text about Harry Dean, and then you blame Harry Dean for its lack of truth. Yet we've already told you that Simkin's text was never proposed by Harry Dean, instead, it was a series of fictional statements by W.R. Morris, the famous fiction writer who was seeking a Hollywood movie deal. Also, regarding General Singlaub, he was fired -- he did not voluntarily resign. He did not forfeit his pension, as in the cases of voluntary resignation, like Major General Edwin A. Walker. You're not very careful with your research, Ernie. You have a lot of volume -- but quantity is not the same as quality. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited December 5, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 (edited) Paul - long email. Just a quick response - the whole point of the Kostikov Oswald sheep dip was that there would be no proper investigation once the Soviet connection was known, and Angleton made sure that they would not find out about Kostikov until after the deed was done. This is of course what did happen, and the reason why Earl Warren agreed to chair the commission. LBJ was able to say to him and others he asked to serve that the alternative to Oswald the lone nut was WW3, which is exactly P D Scott and Newman's point. That is why Newman lays the patsy plan on Angleton. Only he held those cards, and the presumption here is that he foresaw the impossible situation his plan would present to the investigating authorities. As Scott points out, the rhetoric in the first 24 hours after the assassination changed from calling Oswald a Communist to calling him a Marxist. The Soviet connection became known that quickly, and the kabosh was put on any talk of conspiracy, as per the plan., Well, Paul B, first I should point out that Peter Dale Scott did not propose exactly what you're proposing -- he gave us a choice of four possibilities, although he did include your scenario as one of those four possibilities. I can easily criticize this scenario -- let me recap: 1. Angleton invented a Kostikov-Oswald sheepdip for the purpose of exposing it after JFK was killed. 2. Earl Warren agreed to chair the Warren Commission because LBJ showed Warren the Kostikov-Oswald sheepdip evidence and threatened WW3 as an alternative to the Lone-nut theory. This isn't a coherent plan -- it is an attempt to explain various facts in hand, but it is a weak explanation. It claims, in effect, that one CIA chief, James Jesus Angleton knew that if he could sheepdip Lee Harvey Oswald as a KGB agent working with Kostikov, that he could later convince the President's Commission to push for a Lone Nut theory by threatening them with the KGB-Oswald scenario. Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me. The only reasonable justification for such a sheepdip (which, by the way, I deny based on other scenarios that Peter Dale Scott ably proposed) would have been to convince LBJ and the American People to invade Havana, kill Fidel Castro and take over Cuba. When that lie failed to gain immediate credence, they had to come up with another alternative -- and they couldn't tell people about the Oswald-Kostikov sheepdip, because it would give the whole plot away. Now -- that sort of a plot has more of a common sense feeling to it. Yet Peter Dale Scott did not propose that scenario as the ONLY scenario, instead, as I showed yesterday, he offered FOUR scenarios. 1. Oswald really was working with the KGB and it was reported correctly. 2. Oswald was faking a role with the KGB (just as he faked his role with the FPCC) and it was reported as seen and heard. 3. An imposter pretended to be the KGB-Oswald, to justify a US invasion of Cuba, and it was reported as though it was true. 4. Neither Oswald nor an imposter said any such thing, but the entire report was fabricated by the CIA. As Peter Dale Scott brilliantly said -- the more falsehood in the scenario, the more likely it was a CIA conspiracy. But he did not settle on one scenario or another -- he admitted we don't have enough information today, because CIA files are so hard to obtain. He's 100% correct, IMHO. However, instead of opting for (3) or (4) as you seem to do in your post, I instead opt for (2) as the most plausible hypothesis. By coincidence that scenario also stands closest to Harry Dean's memoirs. In Harry Dean's account, Lee Harvey Oswald was being manipulated by various members of the John Birch Society, including General Walker, Gabby Gabaldon, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and John Rousselot. Adding Jim Garrison's findings, we can add Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier to the mix (as well as other players). Marina said that Oswald took all his FPCC street credentials to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico as he expected quick admittance to Cuba. Oswald wasn't smart enough to see the stupidity of such an act. If he really was a Communist (as Peter Dale Scott showed) the Communist Party in the USA would have arranged for his passage ahead of time. Oswald looked like a provocateur, but he was too naive to know it. Oswald clearly faked his FPCC credentials (and the Cuban and Soviet Embassies suspected that too). So it makes sense that he would also fake his Communist Party credentials. If he could not get passage into Cuba to kill Fidel Castro, he would have to play ball with Gabby Gabaldon who was waiting in the wings in Mexico City. Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- Oswald's drivers to Mexico City -- were ready and waiting to take him to meet Gabby. Therefore, the CIA and other officials in Mexico City only reported what they saw and heard. That's how the rumor got started. It was not invented by James Jesus Angleton at all. It was probably invented by the New Orleans, Dallas and Los Angeles sheep-dippers. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited December 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 It was Newman who proposed the Angleton theory, but Scott's research came to the same place, even if he was more tentative about a final conclusion. Read the addendum to the latest edition of Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA'. Don't forget, Angleton also knew he would have .LBJ, Dulles, and Hoover in place. Your counter theory implies that your sheep dippers were willing to risk ww3. Also, as it happened, it was the Kostikov coonection that bought about the lone nut theory in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 (edited) It was Newman who proposed the Angleton theory, but Scott's research came to the same place, even if he was more tentative about a final conclusion. Read the addendum to the latest edition of Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA'. Don't forget, Angleton also knew he would have .LBJ, Dulles, and Hoover in place. Your counter theory implies that your sheep dippers were willing to risk ww3. Also, as it happened, it was the Kostikov coonection that bought about the lone nut theory in fact. Peter Dale Scott was more tentative about Newman's theory because of all its holes. You're right that my counter-theory (which is also option #2 proposed by Peter Dale Scott) implies that the real sheep-dippers were willing to risk World War 3, and in fact several political groups in 1963 were willing to risk World War 3, including the radical right and even the great conservative, Barry Goldwater. It sounds mad to us today, but in 1963 the nuclear-bombers were outspoken. As for the Lone-nut theory, the evidence I've read says that J. Edgar Hoover was the man who invented it on the very night of the JFK assassination. It was a spontaneous insight that came to him as he viewed the banks of the Potomac River. LBJ had more confidence in J. Edgar Hoover than in any other person in Washington DC. Long before the Warren Commission even plugged in its first coffee machines, the FBI was leaking the Lone-nut theory to the mass media in a campaign that would peak with the cover of the 10 July 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. Peter Dale Scott articulated it well -- there was clearly a plot in the Oswald-Kostikov myth, as proved by its "level of falsehood." Yet it was not entirely false -- if it had been entirely false, then we could lay it at the feet of James Jesus Angleton and his CIA quislings. Instead, there was some truth in the story -- and that's why we can be sure that it wasn't a CIA plot -- they only reported what they actually saw and heard. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited December 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts