Thomas Graves

From what I've found the Dallas one supposedly said "VIVA CASTRO" yet Lee [...] [This post was inadvertently truncated - T. Graves] Dear Forum Members and Forum Lurkers, It may be common knowledge already, but I thought I'd mention that Oswald's elusive August 9th, Canal Street placard can be glimpsed twice in Black Op Radio's "50 Reasons For 50 Years; Episode 4" video which is viewable on youtube. It can be seen at 3:58 and at 4:02. (It's hard to spot In both instances, so you may have to stop the video and "click" your mouse several times to advance the video in very small increments until you see it.) At 3:58, while Oswald is walking past a big, muscular, dark-complected man who's wearing a gray suit and continuously scratching the back of his neck (more about him later in another thread.), you can see the upper right corner of the placard against Oswald's chest. A few seconds later at 4:02, while Oswald is talking with a policeman and pointing at the sidewalk while leaning forward, the edge and back of it can be seen as it swings back and forth a bit away from Oswald's body. (Note the light colored piece of paper that's attached to the bottom of it.) Both of these 8/09/63 Canal Street placard sightings are from the elusive James Doyle Film (not to be confused with the John / "Jack" T. Martin Film.) The "Oswald" part of the Jim Doyle Film runs from 3:50 to 4:05 in this Black Op Radio video: Martin Shackelford writes about both the Doyle Film and the John ("Jack") Martin Film: : http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/MS/3pe.html 2b. The James ["Jim"] Doyle Film (8-9-63) James Doyle was a 16 [sic] year old teenager, visitingNew Orleans with his family in early August 1963. His film begins inLafayette Park, New Orleans, and includes a view of the Andrew Jacksonstatue. He, too, then noticed a commotion along Canal Street, crossedover to investigate, and began filming. Lee Oswald, back to the camera,is talking with Carlos Bringuier, when a police officer arrives, pushesBringuier aside, and talks with Oswald, who gestures. Oswald is then seenthrough the crowd, under arrest, obscured, moving to the left, and we seehim and the officer at curbside. The film ends with harbor views. To myknowledge, this film has only appeared in one television program, theBritish "Dispatches: The Day the Dream Died," available (as are frames)from The Collector's Archives or from All That Video (405 Hopkins Court,North Wales PA 19434, phone (213) 361-1365.) A still from this film wasalso first published in the 1995 Groden book. [The Oswald part of it can beviewed from 3:50 to 4:05 in rhe "50 Reasons For 50 Years - Episode 4" video by BlackOp Radio.com on youtube; see above link] 2a. The Jack [sic] Martin Film (8-9-63) In another of those aforementioned ironic twists, a tourist named JackMartin was in Dallas in August 1963. His film records his view from theairplane. Next, he visits General Edwin Walker, under whom he had served,allegedly target of an assassination attempt by Lee Oswald in April ofthat year. The film documents the scene of that attempt: the windowthrough which the shot was fired, the bullet hole, and the wall frombehind which it was most likely fired, ending with shots of Walker'sflag and mailbox, and a nearby building under construction (allegedlyalso photographed by Oswald prior to the attempt!) . Then we see theentrance to a movie theater, cypress trees, a seal at the edge of a pool,and the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Park in New Orleans.Aroused by a commotion on Canal Street, Martin crossed to see what washappening, and began filming. We see Lee Oswald, leaflets in hand,standing on the sidewalk, being harangued by anti-Castro militantsincluding Carlos Bringuier. Four police officers are seen arriving. Thefilm ends with a view of the yellow leaflets scattered on the sidewalkafter Bringuier knocked them out of Oswald's hands, and a brief aerialview of a subdivision. Parts of the film have only been used, to myknowledge, on the French television documentary, "Le Mystere Kennedy." The documentary is available on video, and frames from the film as well,from The Collector's Archives. A still from this film was finallypublished in Robert Groden's 1995 book, The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald,an essential photo archive on Oswald. [it's also viewable here:] http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/term@Home%20movie/6/title-desc;jsessionid=5DEFC9891B70CC9909BCC446E9E5E7AE?t:state:flow=48c4e7da-93f7-43cd-bceb-c6960c78dac1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Doyle was 14 years old in August of 1963, not 16 as Shackelford says. Jim Doyle's eleven-year-old sister, Sharon (now Sharon Cosgrove), was also in New Orleans that day with her brother "Jim", their parents, and some family friends, and she saw the placard. She told the Portland, Oregon office of the FBI on or around 11/27/63 that Oswald's placard said "Viva la Fidel", according to page two of this FBI report. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Martin%20John%20Minneapolis%20Film%20Enlargments/Item%2023.pdf Doyle died in 2003 at the age of 54. Here's his obituary: http://obitz.us/obits/Index%20D3/notesobit_d3_1335.txt --Tommy PS I suggest going back to page 7 of this thread and reading post #98, the 2011 post by Ed LeDoux that was inadvertently truncated by me, above.

From what I've found the Dallas [placard] supposedly said "VIVA CASTRO" yet Lee Double post deleted by T. Graves

Dear Steven, I think that Trejo's whole point is that although Ruby may have been a CIA asset, he was not a CIA OFFICER. --Tommy

Well, Paul B., I can't agree that people who were not CIA Officers should be counted as CIA -- that could only be proposed by somebody biased against the CIA and wants to attribute to them all these street-thugs, pimps, drug-pushers and other riff-raff. This would be the fastest way to make the anti-CIA case. Joan Mellen (following Jim Garrison) was simply mistaken when she supposed that Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham were "CIA". Beckham wasn't just a high-school dropout -- he was a GRAMMAR school drop-out. Beckham might have been used as a CIA asset, but Joan Mellen fails to prove that case. The best she can do is show that Beckham was an asset of Fred Crisman -- and she presumes that Crisman was CIA, without hard evidence. Crisman was a flim-flam man, and like David Ferrie he probably pretended to be in the CIA to get dates in New Orleans. This would explain the "buzz" in the underworld that Ferrie and Crisman were "CIA". They weren't. It's like Steven Gaal trying to make Jack Ruby into the same stature as Allen Dulles in the eyes of a common superior -- it's REACHING. So, in response -- yes, even if somebody has several years in the military and has worked as a gopher for the CIA for a long time -- HE'S STILL NOT A CIA OFFICER, and he can still be a pimp, a street-thug, a drug-pusher, a hit-man, or any other sort of riff-raff on the street. The CIA like the FBI has never been above hiring criminals and thugs to do dirty work. That doesn't make them CIA Officers. Take Lee Harvey Oswald, for example. He wanted to be an Intelligence Agent so bad he could taste it. He would probably have done ANYTHING to get a job in the CIA. He might even stick his neck out so far that somebody like Guy Banister would chop it off. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo [emphasis added by T. Graves] Pimping? Drug pushing? Hit men? Well, Paul, that sounds like a MKULTRA operation to me. --Tommy

Steven, if you're saying that Bobby Inman has evidence that Ex-General Edwin Walker led the plot to murder JFK, then I would be DELIGHTED to see it. This is news to me. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo No derogatory comment, but English not really your first language. [...] You've got a lot of damn gall, Gaal. Trejo writes English much better than you do. At least he writes in complete, intelligible sentences. --Tommy

We're talking about different guys, Steven. The guy I'm talking about doesn't look anything like your William Shelley. The guy I'm talking about is the "Chauncey Holt" figure on the far right starting at 1:05:35-36. He's very short and muscular and he's wearing a white short-sleeved shirt and sunglasses and he's holding his arms at his side as though he's getting ready to attack somebody or defend himself. Would you please go to 1:05:36 and "freeze" the frames so you'll know who I'm talking about? He's visible on the far right for only a split second. It looks like he was standing next to the guy in the dark colored short-sleeved shirt who's reading a flyer (pilot Leroy Young, according to Chauncey Holt), but then started walking away from him when he realized he was being caught on film. I'm not talking about the "Charles Rogers" figure who is much closer to the camera and who walks right in front it with his head down, apparently reading one of LHO's fliers as he walks. Nor am I talking about the guy (whom I think you are talking about) who is wearing a suit and tie and hiding his face with his cigarette-holding hand at 1:05:40. (FWIW, I don't think that's Shelley. I think it's Gordon Novell...) --Tommy NOTE: I just realized that the guy I'm talking about is only partially visible in this "Two Kennedy's" version. I'll try to find an un-cropped version of the film clip, if there is one, and post it. Regardless, in this video version at least you can see that he is now walking away from the group. ____________________________________________________________________________ PS-- The guy I'm talking about is standing on the far right in this frame. In this frame I think he hasn't started walking yet because his legs are spread far apart and it looks like he's standing there in a defensive posture. As I said earlier, James Richards didn't think this guy is Chauncey Holt, but instead an anti-Castro Cuban with ties to Alpha 66 and the DRE. --Tommy

At 1:05:35-36 of this video, a short muscular man wearing sunglasses can be seen walking away from the group of men surrounding Oswald. Over the years many people have speculated that this man is Chauncey Holt, but a few years ago James Richards said that the guy was an anti-Castro Cuban with ties to Alpha 66 and the DRE. James said that he didn't know the guy's name. In the video, it looks like the guy was "standing guard" for Oswald, but started walking away from the group when he realized he was going to be caught on film. I'm posting this to try to revive interest in this mysterious guy, and to try to find out who he was. Any thoughts? Thanks, --Tommy

Does anyone know if James ever got around to ID-ing this guy? Personally, I think it is Chauncey Holt, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Thomas photo of LHO leafleting with Bud Belcher and Leroy Young labeled on the photo, Chauncey Holt on the right.JPG Bumped yet again, 4.5 years later. --Tommy

Thanks, Larry, for the vote of confidence in my prospects of writing a book about Edwin Walker and the murder of JFK. To write such a book would take years for a professional, of course, and since I'm a working-man with a family, well, we can pretty much add more years to that. In short, in the short term, it's not going to happen. Nor do I think that I should pursue the Edwin Walker angle alone. (I was hoping that Harry Dean would be of help, but he reverted to his Mormon conspiracy theory, so that was that.) Ron Lewis is not a member of this Forum, and from what I gather, his book, FLASHBACK, has no supporters at all on this Forum. I've always had one interest since I joined this JFK Forum in 2011, namely, the Edwin Walker angle, which largely died away after the Warren Report. Nobody has picked it up -- not even Jim Garrison. Jerry Rose's few tidbits here and there are just barely worth mentioning. Paradoxically, the work of Jim Garrison and his protoge, Joan Mellen, have uncovered key suspects and even three who actually confessed to dealing with Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA (Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie, Thomas E. Beckham), with links to others who near-confessed," e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Joseph Milteer. Without trying, they uncovered many people with whom Edwin Walker had interactions in 1963. So, at least I know I'm not all alone here -- and I believe that a coming revival of the 1963-1964 research into General Walker will prove more fruitful than today's JFK researchers so far foresee. All I have is the Forum, today -- aside from the kind words by Doug Campbell's Podcast on Black Ops Radio, namely, The Dallas Action. Because of Doug, I'm no longer entirely alone in my intense suspicion of Edwin Walker in the JFK murder -- but it's still fairly lonely out here. Soon -- however -- a major groundswell will appear, and witnesses will begin to come out of the woodwork. Once the old eye-wtinesses come forward, the dam will burst open. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Paul, If you'd spent as much time writing your manuscript as you have on your JFK Assassination Debate posts, I venture to say that you'd be halfway finished by now! --Tommy

Could that be the nearly 18-year-old Miguel Mariano Cruz following Carlos Bringuier out of the New Orleans court house at 3:43 of this Black Op Radio video? I can only assume that the tall thin man with the moustache and sunglasses following right behind him is 47-year-old Celso Hernandez, as he was arrested along with Bringuier and Cruz on 8/09/63. --Tommy

################################################################################# That DeMoh was connected to CBS does not seem a far fetched idea. (GAAL) ################################################################################# The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein Rolling Stone, Oct. 20, 1977 In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America's leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA. Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services -- from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements America�s leading news organizations. The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception . . . . Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, The Miami Herald, and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc. .......The Columbia Broadcasting System -- CBS was unquestionably the CIA's most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS president William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well-known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings. ... At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley's cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite the denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant's investigators. "It wouldn't do any good," said one CBS executive. "It is the single subject about which his memory has failed." =========== The Alex Constantine ArticleTales from the Crypt The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine Who Controls the Media? On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================== This book Steinbeck: Citizen Spy: - Google Books Result states that Sig Mickelson had direct phone to CIA. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ ======================== The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century - Google Books Resultbooks.google.com/books?isbn=0930852435 Glen Yeadon - ‎2008 - Biography & Autobiography The media is riddled with close ties to the CIA. William Paley, a wartime colonel,founded CBS. Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the bidding of his ... Steven, Are you sure this should be on this thread? Regardless, I gotta ask you a few questions. What did George de Mohrenschildt do for CBS? Was he a reporter? Do you believe he was a Nazi spy? A Communist spy? A CIA spy? Or just a Garden Variety Liberal? Do you think Edwin Walker masterminded the assassination of JFK? --Tommy

Yes you are, Trejo. And It seems a bit hypocritical of you to accuse me of "guessing" about why Oswald was angry at JFK at Volkmar Schmidt's party when it's obvious to everyone that you're guessing (and arguing and hoping beyond hope) that Volkmar Schmidt really meant "lack of air support" by the word "support" in a well-constructed, unambiguous sentence! VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. http://www.pbs.org/w...ripts/1205.html It's also obvious that you're guessing (and arguing and hoping beyond hope) that Volkmar Schmidt was just projecting his own political beliefs onto Oswald when he said, "It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union." The problem for you is that it would have been contradictory for Oswald to have "idealized the socialism of Cuba" and at the same time to have been angry at JFK for his "lack of support" or "lack of air support" to the Bay of Pigs invasion. --Tommy

Well, Tommy, again I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my views on this arcane topic. I would first point out that we are now at the level of fine-tuning the finer points of my theory, and that is in-itself some progress. I would secondly point out that I respect your perspective, because you're the one who last year asked a key question in JFK research, namely, if Lee Harvey Oswald was truly a full-fledged member of the US Intelligence Community, then how could he have been made into the Patsy for the JFK murder? That was, IMHO, one of the most astute questions about the JFK murder in the past fifty years. So, despite our frequent disagreements, I genuinely respect your sincerity, your scholarship and your insight. OK, that said, let's look at your latest objections to my theory that Edwin Walker was the central plotter of the JFK murder: (1) In our generic context so far, it's a minor point to distinguish between "messing up" the Bay of Pigs and "authorizing" the Bay of Pigs. One can argue that JFK "messed up" by "authorizing" the Bay of Pigs. Stated in that way, there is no contradiction. It's minor. However -- we rightly ask what Lee Harvey Oswald actually said, remembering that Volkmar Schmidt was not above putting his own spin on events, especially if he could absolve himself a little more. Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion." Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support." Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous. Next, Volkmar Schmidt said: "It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union." Note that if Oswald idealized Cuban socialism while being critical of USSR socialism, that Oswald was really an individualist, because even Fidel Castro himself supported USSR socialism! So, regarding Cuba, Lee Harvey Oswald was an individualist, just like Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Frank Sturgis -- because all of these men fought next to Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra in Cuba -- hoping to make the Cuban revolution VERY DIFFERENT from the Russian revolution. After they failed miserably, they quickly switched sides to try to kill Fidel Castro. So, Volkmar Schmidt is arguably just projecting his own political opinions onto Oswald. What Oswald truly believed about Cuba can be best seen in his behavior in New Orleans -- faking membership in a Fake FPCC run by Guy Banister. Volkmar Schmidt evidently had no clue that Oswald was capable of this degree of deception.What is unambiguous, however, is Volkmar's final sentence, that Lee Harvey Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy." Surely that must remind every reader of what Sylvia Odio heard from "Leopoldo," namely, that "Leon Oswald says you Cubans don't have any guts because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs." Compare that with Volkmar's words: Lee Harvey Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy." That statement TOTALLY jibes with Silvia Odio's anti-Kennedy "Oswald". (2) Dick Russell says this about Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion: "Oswald claimed to see the Bay of Pigs as a symbol of American imperialism." However, in that same paragraph, Dick Russell also speaks at length about Larrie Schmidt, while Larrie Schmidt told me personally that Dick Russell's writings about CUSA and about himself specifically was "totally backassward." So, just because Dick Russell expressed an opinion, that can hardly be taken as accepted History. (3) George de Mohrenschildt (DM) wrote: "Lee thought President Kennedy should not have allowed any invasion of Cuba, but he was not vehement or violent in his views on this subject, himself." Yet we must take this with a large grain of salt. First, notice that he contradicts his friend, Volkmar, who said that Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy." Secondly, George DM felt guilty his whole life long because of how he arguably pushed Lee Harvey Oswald over the edge with regard to Edwin Walker. In his book, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!" which is the source of that passage, George DM tried to reverse all of his insulting remarks about Lee Harvey Oswald that we find so often in the pages of his Warren Commission testimony. It was an apologetic work. George DM was back-pedaling as fast as he could. Furthermore, we should remember that both in his Warren Commission testimony AS WELL AS in his "Patsy" book, George DM insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald was FRAMED and that Oswald would NEVER have shot at JFK. On this point George DM never wavered. He was sincere on this point, and I find him believable here. George DM truly believed -- and he told the Warren Commission this -- that the right-wing in Dallas killed JFK and FRAMED Lee Harvey Oswald. Notice, too, that George DM also fully accepted that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to assassinate Ex-General Edwin Walker. In his "Patsy" book, George DM made a partial confession about the Dallas engineer community pushing Oswald to the brink regarding Edwin Walker. George DM then wrote the final falsehood of his life, when he wrote that he couldn't remember the name of the man who tried to "manipulate" Oswald -- and that he was probably "Jewish". George DM knew good and well that his very good friend, Volkmar Schmidt, was that man, and that he was clearly "German." What George DM didn't know was that Volkmar Schmidt was never so ashamed of his role to hide it for the rest of his life. Volkmar Schmidt admitted the truth several times, in audio as well as video interviews (e.g. Frontline: Who Was LHO, available on Youtube). So, again, we must take George DM's word about the Bay of Pigs with a grain of salt. What we can say for sure is that George DM also acknowledged, along with Volkmar Schmidt, that Lee Harvey Oswald complained bitterly about JFK's role in the Bay of Pigs. This COMPLETELY agrees with what "Leopoldo" told Silvia Odio. Regards, --Paul Trejo bumped with emphasis PS Thanks for pointing that out, Mark Knight.

I'm quoting from George de Mohrenschildt and the unambiguous Volkmar Schmidt to show the other members of this forum the fallacy of one of your "nuances". I'm trying to show them that Oswald was angry about JFK's giving support to the Bay of Pigs operation in the first place, not about his not giving enough air support to the operation while it was taking place. And why was Oswald angry at JFK for supporting / authorizing the Bay of Pigs operation in the first place? Because Oswald thought that the Bay of Pigs Invasion (and the Cuban Missile Crisis) was an example of American Imperialism in action. This "far-left" or "left" or "liberal" stance by Oswald, by the way, totally contradicted the far-right, violently anti-Kennedy picture of Oswald that "Leopoldo" tried to paint over the phone for Sylvia Odio, a picture that falsely characterized Oswald as being angry at JFK for not providing enough air support for the BOP operation. --Tommy

Sure, Tommy, there's a difference, but its size depends on the context. Volkmar Schmidt's memory of his conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald is obviously conditioned by some level of guilt that he had in pushing Lee Harvey Oswald to the brink, trying to get him to transfer his "obsessive anger" with JFK over the BOP, away from JFK and towards Ex-General Edwin Walker and the race riots at Ole Miss in 1962, where hundreds were wounded and two were killed. Volkmar's guilt must add a grain of salt to the actual words that he used to describe Oswald's position. It cannot be taken as a direct quote from Lee Harvey Oswald. To grasp the actual state of mind of Lee Harvey Oswald himself (and not the liberal spin that Volkmar Schmidt wished us to see) we must refer to the work done by Jim Garrison in New Orleans, where he uncovered Lee Harvey Oswald faking an official post in a Fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans, run out of the offices of the radical right-wing friend of Ex-General Edwin Walker -- none other than Guy Banister. All of the evidence must be taken into account -- we can't just stop with a few biased words by Volkmar Schmidt. Volkmar Schmidt and George DM both tell us that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Edwin Walker. That's the main point we should take away from this literature that you're quoting, Tommy. Oswald's motives for shooting at Walker are just as prone to debate as his motives for participating -- even as a Patsy -- in the murder of JFK. Regards, --Paul Trejo What about the other 2/3 of my post? I'm cutting and pasting it here for your convenience: [Paul Trejo wrote:] [...] Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion." Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support." Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous. [...] __________________________________________________________________________________ Nice try! But one does not use words ambiguously in a PBS Frontline Special, one tries to avoid ambiguity. Volkmar Schmidt's use of the word "support" is not ambiguous except in the highly nuanced context you are trying to create to support your theory. Since Volkmar Schmidt was not a U.S. Marine, I very seriously doubt that he meant "air support". Regardless, it would have been misleading and presumptuous of him to assume that we would automatically infer that Oswald meant "air support" just because Oswald was a Marine. And even if Volkmar Schmidt had been a U.S. Marine and meant "air support", in that case he would have said that Oswald felt very angry about the "lack of support" which the Kennedy Administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. You know, to avoid ambiguity on that PBS Frontline Special. --Tommy PS [...] PPS Since you brought up Sylvia Odio on this thread, let me say that I think the reason "Leopoldo" told Odio all about "violently anti-Kennedy because-of-the-JFK-lack-of-air-support-BOP-disaster" Oswald over the phone instead of in front of Oswald and "Angelo" wasn't to prevent "Angelo" from hearing it, but to prevent Oswald from hearing it. This fits in with the idea that Oswald was a US or Cuban intelligence agent (or at least thought he was) who was monitoring "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" and / or Odio, and "Leopoldo" knew it.

[...] Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion." Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support." Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous. [...] Nice try! But one does not use words ambiguously in a PBS Frontline Special, one tries to avoid ambiguity. Volkmar Schmidt's use of the word "support" is not ambiguous except in the highly nuanced context you are trying to create to support your theory. Since Volkmar Schmidt was not a U.S. Marine, I very seriously doubt that he meant "air support". Regardless, it would have been misleading and presumptuous of him to assume that we would automatically infer that Oswald meant "air support" just because Oswald was a Marine. And even if Volkmar Schmidt had been a U.S. Marine and meant "air support", in that case he would have said that Oswald felt very angry about the "lack of support" which the Kennedy Administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. You know, to avoid ambiguity on that PBS Frontline Special. --Tommy PS You do agree, don't you, that there's a huge difference between saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for authorizing the BOP Invasion, and saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for the lack of air support he'd given the BOP Invasion? Well, Paul,... Volkmar Schmidt witnessed to the former, and Sylvia Odio effectively witnessed, with the help of "Leopoldo", the latter. PPS I think the reason "Leopoldo" told Odio all about Oswald over the phone instead of in front of Oswald and "Angelo" wasn't to prevent "Angelo" from hearing it, but to prevent Oswald from hearing it. This fits in with the idea that Oswald was a US intelligence agent who was monitoring "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" and / or Odio, and "Leopoldo" knew it.

[...] Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion." Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support." Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous. [...] Nice try! But one does not use words ambiguously in a PBS Frontline Special, one tries to avoid ambiguity. Volkmar Schmidt's use of the word "support" is not ambiguous except in the highly nuanced context you are trying to create to support your theory. Since Volkmar Schmidt was not a U.S. Marine, I very seriously doubt that he meant "air support". Regardless, it would have been misleading and presumptuous of him to assume that we would automatically infer that Oswald meant "air support" just because Oswald was a Marine. And even if Volkmar Schmidt had been a U.S. Marine and meant "air support", in that case he would have said that Oswald felt very angry about the "lack of support" which the Kennedy Administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. You know, to avoid ambiguity on that PBS Frontline Special. --Tommy PS You do agree, don't you, that there's a huge difference between saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for authorizing the BOP Invasion, and saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for the lack of air support he'd given the BOP Invasion? Well, Paul,... Volkmar Schmidt witnessed to the former, and Sylvia Odio effectively witnessed, with the help of "Leopoldo", the latter.

But according to what Volkmar Schmidt said in 1993, Oswald wasn't angry at JFK for "messing up" the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but for authorizing the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the first place! VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html So, unfortunately for your theory, Volkmar Schmidt's Oswald and Silvia Odio's "Oswald" were angry at Kennedy and the BOP Invasion for completely different reasons. --Tommy PS Dick Russell also writes on Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion. http://books.google.com/books?id=XJQX-4khd2QC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=%22bay+of+pigs+as+a+symbol+of+american+imperialism%22&source=bl&ots=qp-EMJME_A&sig=uq7Q4vr48QtWvp0KumrLqwxEHbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xiNgVKWXKbD2iQKW7oGIBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22bay%20of%20pigs%20as%20a%20symbol%20of%20american%20imperialism%22&f=false As does that great Dallas liberal, George de Mohrenschildt, himself. http://22november1963.org.uk/george-de-mohrenschildt-i-am-a-patsy-chapter27 In addition to saying (in so many words) that Oswald thought the BOP Invasion was an American imperialist intervention, it's interesting to note that, contrary to what you've written, de Mohrenschildt claimed that Oswald was not vehement or violent in his views on the subject.

[...] So, the answer to your question, Tommy, is that Edwin Walker, in his paranoia that was fueled by JBS literature, regarded the entire JBS cabinet to be COMMUNISTS. [...] [emphasis by T. Graves] The whole JBS Cabinet, or the whole JFK Cabinet? Obviously you meant to say JFK Cabinet. Regardless, you seem to be saying that de Mohrenschildt and friends were very concerned about Walker's possible attacking, at least propaganda-wise, the entire JFK Cabinet for their liberal stances, so they "urged" (to use your word) Oswald to shoot at Walker, knowing that Walker would automatically assume that Oswald (or whomever) had been sent by RFK to "get" him, and that Walker would therefore focus his REVENGE for the attack-against-him only on JFK and RFK, and hopefully not continue to concentrate on all of the "Communists" (in Walker's mind) in the JFK Cabinet for their liberal positions in general. If this is what you're saying, then it would be logical to conclude that you believe that the great liberals George de Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, and Michael Paine were trying to manipulate Edwin Walker into assassinating JFK and RFK. --Tommy

Paul the letter has to be put into context. DeMoh a notoriously poor money manager had squandered his earlier LHO setup monies given to him by the Bush family. The letter is not a confession but a veiled shakedown for money via college charity appeal. =============== BRUCE ADAMSON Throughout the 1950s, Paley admitted working with the CIA by allowing agents to pose as CBS employees. In the early 1990s, I received a letter from Paley's personal secretary, John S. Minary, (for 40 years) stating that Mr. Paley had hired George de Mohrenschildt in the early 1960s. One of the long-time Directors at CBS was Prescott Bush, whose son, also a CIA agent, George H.W. Bush had known de Mohrenschildt since 1942. In 1993, Bush Sr., wrote to me stating that he did not know of de Mohrenschildt's Intelligence connections. I later found out that de Mohrenschildt's father-in-law, Walter Samuel Washington, was in charge of more than 250 CIA agents between the years of 1950-53, ten years before the JFK Assassination. In May of 1963, prior to the Assassination of President Kennedy, after he left Senate, Prescott Bush's banking firm Brown Brothers & Harriman gave Lee Harvey Oswald's closest friend, George de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit, when de Mohrenschildt's credit "stunk" to high heaven. (approx 3 million $ dollars in todays monies) Steven, Has anyone besides Bruce Adamson seen the letter he claimed to have received from John S. Minary? Also, how does your JFK assassination researcher Bruce Adamson know that "[George H. W.] Bush knew George de Mohrenschildt since 1942"? (Bush was 18 years old in 1942 and de Mohrenschildt was 31 in 1942 and in that year was turned away by the CIA because he was considered to be a Nazi agent.) http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/deMohrenschildt%20George/Item%2062.pdf

I beg to differ, DVP. For height comparison purposes, that's Bonnie Ray Williams on the left in the bottom photo you posted (CE489). Taking the sharp angle of Dillard's camera into consideration, I think the person captured or placed in CE482 must have been taller than Bonnie Ray Williams in order to place his face in the center of that upper window. Here is Bonnie Ray Williams waiting to get into a police car, with Danny Arce and Officer Brown(?) standing right behind him. I'm guessing that Oswald was much closer in height to Arce and Brown(?) than he was to the tallish Bonnie Ray Williams. --Tommy

Looks like John Thomas Masen in CE482. LOL --Tommy

Very confusing. Who were the "Communists" in Walker's mind against whom Walker would have taken revenge if Oswald hadn't taken a shot at him? True liberals and staunch integrationists like George de Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, and and the young "yuppie" oil engineers of Dallas, Texas, who had attended Volkmar Schmidt's party? Please explain. --Tommy

Well, Tommy, I thought I answered Question #1 fully, so let me take a second shot at it. George de Mohrenschildt (DM) hated Edwin Walker because he saw the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany, and the devastation that this blind racism caused to Germany (in addition to the devastation it caused to European Jews, and to Europe generally). George DM did support the Nazi Party temporarily -- hoping to get his family's large Estate back if the USSR could be defeated. The Nazi Party failed to defeat the USSR. The Nazi Party further failed to keep Berlin from being bombed into little bits of rubble. The Nazi Party failed in all its missions. So, even though George DM supported the Nazi Party in 1940, he also turned againt the Nazi Party after 1945. That's important. In order to make that change of politics, George DM tried very hard to become an AMERICAN. That means that he bent over backwards to erase his former, European prejudice against Black people. George DM's testimony to the Warren Commission, and his booklet to the HSCA, repeat again and again how fair-minded George DM could be, especially with regard to minority races, and to Black people in general. In other words, George DM (for whatever reasons) became a LIBERAL, at least on the subject of racial equality. It is interesting to note that the testimony that his wife, Jeanne DM gave to the Warren Commision, showed that she herself didn't even like New York because there were so many colored people. She admitted she felt more comfortable in Dallas, where most people were white, and where white people could congregate freely in wealthy society, without colored people. George DM did not challenge his wife on the topic, but he, himself, would strident about racial equality. Now -- the friend of George DM, Volkmar Schmidt, said that shortly after that engineer's party in Dallas, Lee Oswald went out and bought himself some weapons, and then tried to murder Edwin Walker. Volkmar said that he often felt "a little bit responsible" for that, but he emphasized, "I certainly didn't tell him to shoot Walker." So, he came to forgive himself. My point is that the question of HATING Edwin Walker and KILLING Edwin Walker must be separated. George DM wanted to be sure that Lee Harvey Oswald HATED General Walker -- and so he would call him, "General FOKKER," when in Lee Oswald's presence. Lee Oswald had already expressed his sympathy with the Civil Rights movement. The one thing JFK did that Lee Oswald strongly approved was his positive stand on Civil Rights for Black Americans. This was a point of agreement between Oswald and George DM. Whether George DM wanted Lee Harvey Oswald to KILL Edwin Walker must be a moot point. The Saturday after the shooting, in response to the many Dallas news reports about the Walker shooting, George and Jeanne DM were so worried that they paid a 10 PM visit to the Oswald home -- got them out of bed -- and Jeane DM searched for any weapons. She found Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano with a scope on it. That was when George DM guessed that Oswald had taken a 'pot-shot' at Edwin Walker, and Oswald didn't deny it -- but then George laughed to break the ice, and they all laughed. (Actually, there are differing versions of that story in the Warren Commission volumes.) Did George DM tell Lee Oswald to KILL Edwin Walker? All we can opine with some certainty is that Lee Harvey Oswald BELIEVED that Edwin Walker (and Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine and the yuppie engineers in Dallas) WANTED him to kill Edwin Walker. The writing on the backyard photograph of Oswald in the possession of George DM, "Hunter of Fascists, ha ha", and signed by Lee Harvey Oswald himself, lends itself to a tragic conclusion. So, Tommy, the flaw in your question as worded is your assumption that because George DM was a Nazi supporter in the 1940's, that he could never change his mind and become Liberal after he moved to the USA, in order to fit in better with American Society. We must also remember that George DM was fairly close to the family of Jackie Kennedy -- a very LIBERAL family. George DM changed. If you can't accept that a rightist Baron could convert and become a Liberal oil-engineer in the wake of World War Two, then there's no reason to continue this specific debate. As for any "Marxist" angle, that doesn't really enter into the legitimate picture. That was always a "front" for Oswald, and never figured into any of the language used by George DM, Volkmar Schmidt or Michael Paine. They had no interest in that. They might not have wanted to see Edwin Walker killed (but they wouldn't have minded seeing him dead, I suppose) and they certainly wanted to have no part in any murder plot -- but Lee Harvey Oswald also liked to shock people -- and I think he did this act on his own to shock his "liberal" friends. Edwin Walker, however, believed that the Liberals (read Communists) in Dallas conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot Walker dead. Regards, --Paul Trejo Why do you suppose George de Mohrenschildt and his buddy Volkmar Schmidt wanted Oswald not to be angry at the US government for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but angry at Edwin Walker, instead, for what he'd done at 'Ole Miss? Was it just a parlor game to see if they could mess with Oswald's mind? Did they think that Oswald's anger towards the government was psychologically unhealthy for him, and that he would be better off channeling his anger towards Walker, instead? Or was it because de Mohrenschildt and Schmidt, although great liberals according to you, might have actually supported the Bay of Pigs Invasion? --Tommy bumped

[...] File cabinets full of information (even MAPS) of on anti-Castro Cubans in Ruth Paine garage. [...] [emphasis added by T. Graves] Dear Steven, In your great haste to type your longish and somewhat rambling and often off-topic posts, please try to at least get your facts straight. According to the Spartacus page on Buddy Walthers (which you referenced!), file boxes full of information on pro-Castro sympathizers (not anti-Castro Cubans as you claimed) were allegedly found in Mrs. Paine's garage. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalthersB.htm Important differences, don't you think? --Tommy PS Please also try to write complete, grammatically correct sentences. Doing so would greatly help to make your posts more... intelligible. Thank you.