Paul Trejo

It's not only my theory that the FBI LIED TO THEMSELVES about the JFK murder. One only needs to read the accounts of former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen to see the hard facts and the absolute truth of that statement. Furthermore, it's already well known, and admitted by the US Government (i.e. the HSCA) that the Lone Nut theory of J. Edgar Hoover was a fiction designed for political purposes. The fact that many FBI Agents still repeat the Lone Nut theory to this very day is proof *positive* that the FBI LIED TO THEMSELVES in actual history. Regards, --Paul Trejo

It's not so far-fetched, Paul B., considering that the left-wing in the USA was so decimated by the Cold War that there is hardly anything left of them. They don't have their own ideology any more, so they mainly merely repeat the key doctrines of the extreme right-wing from 1961, namely, that the Hidden Government, the Eastern Establishment, the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the One World Government, the Skull and Bones society, the Masons, the International Banks, the Federal Reserve Bank -- and the CIA -- are destroying the USA. When the left-wing sings about the "Hidden Government," I know they've hit rock bottom. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Not at all, Tommy. I only claim that it leaves the matter OPEN. Ernie is trying to say that the matter is CLOSED. That's our difference. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Larry, I deny that I state matters as proven -- I consistently repeat that I have only a THEORY. Yet it was David Atlee Phillips himself who said that he worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to murder Fidel Castro (in his 1982 book, Night Watch ). Further, Alpha 66 leader Antonio Veciana reported that he met Lee Harvey Oswald along with David Atlee Phillips together in Dallas in the context of a plot to murder Fidel Castro. That's pretty solid evidence, Larry. I admit it's not PROOF, but it's pretty solid evidence. Also -- even if Phillips was involved with Lee Oswald in a plot against the FPCC, the immediate target there was Cuba and Fidel Castro again -- obviously. Beyond that, I also hope that Bill Simpich joins the Forum to discuss his new book, State Secret (2014), because I'd like to hear his opinion of my interpretation of his findings. Surely there are other possible interpretations, but mine seems to me to be the most straight-forward, using Occam's Razor, so to speak. The Oswald tape impersonation is the critical factor under scrutiny. The CIA mole-hunt makes this clear. If the mole-hunt was led by Phillips, then this suggests to me that Phillips didn't know that David Morales was trying to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the COMMUNISTS (in the same way that Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier were trying to link Oswald with the FPCC in New Orleans that same summer). It seems to me that Phillips was still trying to kill Fidel Castro, and didn't know that David Morales had switched gears to kill JFK. As for Joan Mellen's claim (as I recall) about David Morales meeting with Banister/Walker in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, I'll dig that out of my notes as soon as I can. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul, you STILL don't understand. Let's be honest about this -- just one time OK? 1. You have NO knowledge about any "secret files" pertaining to Harry Dean or the "JBS plot". If you had such specific knowledge, you would quote from or refer us to some document which lends credence to your assertion about the possibility that such files or serials exist. 2. Instead, you have just INVENTED your assertion from whole cloth. <snip> I'm honest, Ernie. You just misunderstand me. I'm not saying that I KNOW that there are FBI secret files about Harry Dean. I'm saying that you DON'T KNOW that there AREN'T any. You claim that there's no way I can possibly be right, based on the partial evidence you've seen. So, your logic is simply incorrect, that's all. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Phillips is still not guaranteed as a JFK plotter, since his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald circled around the plot to murder Fidel Castro, first and foremost, and there's no proof of any other scenario. David Morales was surely a JFK plotter, and fairly highly placed, but he still wasn't part of the CIA high-command. Bill Simpich's book, State Secret (2014) is careful scholarship, painstakingly researched from the latest CIA releases of FOIA material. There simply is nothing better in print today. Highly recommended. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I'm not merely speaking about differences of opinion within the CIA. I'm speaking about (and Bill Simpich is speaking about) a mole-hunt. Somebody had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in order to link Oswald's name with the notorious KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. That fact was known to the CIA within one hour of the impersonation. Now, who would do such a thing? Clearly only a CIA Officer would know how to work the system in that way. Yet this wouldn't be a KGB mole -- because the KGB would never try to link itself with Lee Harvey Oswald. So, the CIA high-command wasn't looking for a KGB mole -- they were looking for an ultra-right-wing mole. And they knew it. Now, the CIA is largely considered right-wing by most Americans. But the CIA isn't "ultra" right-wing, that is, extremist, like, for example the members of the John Birch Society. Somebody who wanted to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the COMMUNISTS, without the knowledge of the CIA high-command, was the mole they were looking for. But who? We know now, a half-century later, that it was CIA Officer David Morales (almost certainly, given the work of Hancock/Simpich). We also know from Joan Mellen (as I recall) that David Morales met with Guy Banister and Ex-General Edwin Walker in New Orleans in August 1963, at a hotel owned by Carlos Marcello. The leaders of the JFK murder were therefore some radical elements of the John Birch Society. It's so logical. IMHO, Michael Paine knew on 11/22/1963 that Ex-General Edwin Walker had led the plot to kill JFK. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, David, you're speculating beyond speculation. It's an interesting "what-if" scenario, but nobody outside the CIA high-command even knew that there was a mole-hunt in place until a half-century later. The only purpose of that mole-hunt (as well-demonstrated by Bill Simpich) was to find the mole. Identification of the mole would then disclose the intentions of the mole. Finding the mole was the urgent matter. In your speculation, David, those who started the mole-hunt (e.g. Angleton) already knew who the mole was, but wanted to play some other game. But with whom? Only the CIA high-command would even know about a mole-hunt. So, in your scenario, David, if the mole-hunters already knew who the mole was, then they were CIA high-command officers who were seeking to fool other CIA high-command officers. If that's the case, then we are back to my theory -- that the CIA was sharply divided inside itself. But we don't need to speculate so far afield to arrive at that conclusion. The existence of a mole-hunt, all by itself, shows that the CIA officer who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City was operating below the vision of the CIA high-command. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well Paul B., if you think I've been shown ample reason to doubt my theory, you're welcome to summarize those reasons briefly. The JFK Cover-up is well explained by the difference between the Kill Team (that Oswald was a COMMUNIST) and the Cover-up Team (that Oswald was a Lone Nut). J. Edgar Hoover came up with the Lone Nut strategy, and LBJ supported Hoover all the way. The FBI did everything they could to suppress all evidence of more than one shooter. This is not proof of a murder conspiracy, this is proof of a Cover-up conspiracy, which is very different. I realize that most JFK researchers don't understand this, yet. The fact is that millions of people believed in the McCarthy/JBS nonsense about COMMUNISTS in the White House. As stupid as that truly was, the fact of public belief remains. (This also helps to explain ideologues like Sarah Palin today). Peter Dale Scott has elucidated nothing for me. He blames the "Hidden Government" for everything, just the way that the John Birch Society did back in 1961. When it comes to politics, Americans don't learn very quickly. While almost nobody agrees with my theory today, I predict that situation will change 180 degrees in 2017, when the JFK Information Act is finally fulfilled, and all the secret files about the JFK murder are finally made public. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Evidently Ernie Lazar believes that the FBI would tell him if they had any secret files on the JFK murder; down to the file numbers themselves! LOL, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., You're probably remembering that I interviewed Larrie Schmidt in 2012, and that he was an avid supporter of Willard (Mitt) Romney, and that he broke off our interviews (near the end) when he suspected that I wasn't supporting Romney for President. That's the only time I mentioned Romney on the Forum. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Paul B., my tone hasn't changed. I have a theory that I'm pursuing, and it remains a theory. My definitions are plain and simple within the context of my theory. The JBS (John Birch Society) which held the neo-McCarthy belief that all US Presidents since FDR were COMMUNISTS, holds the key to the JFK murder. This means that the JFK murder was a Civilian plot, and those few elements of US government that joined this Civilian plot were therefore Rogues. The motive for killing JFK was the belief that he was a COMMUNIST. During the Cold War, this was a most plausible reason to commit Treason -- because it claimed that JFK was the real traitor. Your argument, Paul B., is that US officials who were not swayed by McCarthy or the JBS "may have considered him a traitor nonetheless." That's a maybe. I don't want to deal in maybe anymore. I want to name the ground-crew. The ground-crew will tell us who the topmost plotters were. It's fruitless just to guess about it, the way that Peter Dale Scott does. No doubt the hate groups overlapped -- but the JBS line was the line with the most broad-based support. Surely the KKK and the ANP also hated JFK. Surely many Cuban Exiles hated JFK after the Bay of Pigs. But they didn't have broad-based American support in every city in the USA. The JBS did. The JBS was able to absorb support from the KKK in the South, and the ANP in the North, and the Minutemen in the West, and even more. Once the momentum got going, the JBS would even absorb support from Cuban Exiles, the Mafia, and finally, disgruntled employees of the CIA and the Secret Service. You seem to forget, Paul B., that in 1963 the Cold War was raging hot, and to be a COMMUNIST was the worst thing in the eyes of mainstream America -- especially to all the many shades of color on the right-wing. The COMMUNIST was the worst. Dulles, Angleton and Helms were too educated to regard JFK as a COMMUNIST, and that is why I refuse to count them in the JFK plot unless I have rock-hard evidence. Peter Dale Scott does not provide that. Nor does John Newman. Nor did Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Jim Marrs, Dick Russell, Joan Mellen, Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock or Bill Simpich. It doesn't matter if the JBS was stupid to think that JFK was a COMMUNIST. The FACT is that they truly thought this. The FACT is that a true-believer in the JBS would necessarily call for the execution of JFK on moral and Constitutional grounds of Treason. The killers of JFK believed they were doing the right thing. In 1963, one group stood head and shoulders above all others in the USA to call JFK a COMMUNIST, and that was the JBS. My theory may be mistaken -- but it is far from ludicrous. The JBS killed JFK -- almost certainly. Jack Ruby said so. Harry Dean said so. Ron Lewis also linked Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald. Loran Hall himself alluded to it. The history and personal papers of Edwin Walker make my JBS theory a near-certainty. I'll change my theory if I see strong evidence that I'm mistaken. So far, the evidence against me has been weak, mainly innuendo, circumstantial, and high-level theories blaming the CIA or the COG or some high-level entity. That's not good enough. Only the GROUND-CREW will solve this case. We have the basics of the ground-crew. Guy Banister; David Ferrie; Clay Shaw; Jack S. Martin; Fred Crisman; Thomas Edward Beckham; Carlos Bringuier; Ed Butler; Gerry Patrick Hemming; Loran Hall; Larry Howard; Guy Gabaldon; Harry Dean; Ex-General Edwin Walker; David Morales; Frank Sturgis; John Martino; Johnny Roselli; Howard Hunt; Roscoe White; Jesse Curry and Lee Harvey Oswald (the patsy). We have an excellent portrait of their relationships from Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen, especially. There is no excuse for JFK researchers to ignore these people and talk at high-levels about the COG or CIA high-command. We have the ground-crew. They were mostly CIVILIANS and their leaders were all JBS-connected. They all shared the same ideology -- that JFK was a COMMUNIST. This is the key to the JFK assassination. Nobody has shown me a good reason to look elsewhere in the four years I've been on this Forum. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Steve, I will agree with you on these points. I think many readers and writers on this Forum agree that without Secret Service participation at SOME level, the JFK murder would not have happened. Yet again, my argument here is similar to my argument about the CIA. I claim that there were Secret Service ROGUES who acted in a small, secret conspiracy with David Morales, Guy Banister, Edwin Walker and others who held the common JBS belief that JFK was a COMMUNIST. I think that might have included the Secret Service Agents in the LEAD CAR of the JFK motorcade, which was driven by DPD Chief Jesse Curry (whom I also regard as part of the ground-crew). I doubt that the entire Secret Service can be blamed. I doubt, for example, that the Secret Service Agents inside the JFK limo knew about the JFK plot. It was a tiny few. I believe that if we discovered WHICH Secret Service Agents were regular readers of JBS magazines, we would probably pinpoint those few Secret Service Agents who were clearly part of the JFK murder plot. I sincerely doubt that COG, as cited by Peter Dale Scott, was at the root of it. It was a JBS fantasy that JFK was a COMMUNIST. Plain and simple. Just my opinion. --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I'm also interested in meaningful exchanges here. I'm less interested in flattering so-called "good researchers" who mainly spread disrespect or alarmism toward the US Government. Peter Dale Scott isn't a sacred cow. Furthermore, I doubt that he'd run away from criticism. Peter Dale Scott, IMHO, is one of the many JFK researchers who evade the question of the ground-crew in order to remain at a high-level and to blame an abstract CIA and COG 'cloud' for the murder of JFK. From my perspective, Scott's work emphasizes the 'big picture' too much, and the 'ground-crew' too little. Regards, --Paul Trejo

However, Paul B., I AGREE with you that David Morales worked only within a chain of command. Yet my point is that David Morales switched to a DIFFERENT chain of command, when he began to follow the CIVILIAN plot to murder JFK led by Guy Banister and Edwin Walker, two radical JBS ideologues. David Morales had already been radicalized by the Bay of Pigs, and he expressed his certainty that JFK had BETRAYED the Cuban Exiles at the Bay of Pigs -- BECAUSE JFK WAS A COMMUNIST. The belief that JFK was a Communist was already well-worn by the JBS in 1963. David Morales did not need to go far to find the JBS, which was established in every major American city. This isn't bias -- Bill Simpich proved, IMHO, that David Morales was working OUTSIDE the view of the CIA high-command. This makes David Morales a ROGUE. Yet even as a ROGUE, David Morales needed a chain of command -- and I believe he found that chain of command in these JBS players. Finally -- where did you get the nonsense that I supported Willard Romney for President? Regards, --Paul Trejo

The new, October 5th article by veteran JFK researcher, Peter Dale Scott, namely, The Hidden Government Group Linking JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra and 9/1, is so full of half-truths and desperate reaching that somebody needs to point out its flaws. I'd start with his buzz-words, “Deep Politics” and “Deep State” and “Deep Events”, which are Scott’s stock-in-trade. These clever buzz-words remind us that Peter Dale Scott isn’t a professor of history, but of English. He’s a wordsmith making a career of conspiracy literature. Now, what’s meant by “Deep State” is little more than what the JBS (John Birch Society) in 1961 called, “The Hidden Government.” In the early days the JBS cited the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) as their bogey-man to scare the public. The JBS also used terms like “Shadow Government” to justify using words like “treason,” and “conspiracy” and “overthrow of the Government”. These are the sorts of terms that Peter Dale Scott’s readers also expect to read. Scott the wordsmith wishes to highlight the five most controversial US political events since the end of WW2, namely, the JFK murder, Watergate, the Iran Hostage Crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal and 9-11, and to elucidate these he uses his original term, “Structural Deep Events.” Peter Dale Scott wishes his readers to view these events, occurring over a 40 year period, as having a common source; what he calls, “an endemic process.” Instead of the CFR (which is already old-hat) Scott will focus on the Pentagon’s old, 1950’s “Doomsday Project,” though by its official name, Continuity of Government (COG) planning. The COG, as it turns out, is still in operation and still handsomely funded. Not much is known about it, which gives Peter Dale Scott plenty of room for his wordsmith skills to run free. What Scott wants us to worry about is that fact that civilians were originally included in COG, and still remain to this day. Civilians in government organizations; oh no! Further, Scott wishes to weave a yarn about all of the five “Deep Events” he named above; they were really, secretly the work of this secret cabal of civilians operating the COG. Scott’s main focal points in this article are the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Iran-Contra scandal (and even here he qualifies his statements with many slippery ifs and maybes). Can Scott really link the COG with the JFK murder? Not really. Yet Scott prefers to pose his point in the form of a question: could the COB network also have been used to murder JFK? Just in time for Halloween. What Scott passes off as a COG plot to murder JFK comes down to two members of the COG in 1963, who were also working in the Secret Service to support the JFK motorcade through Dallas. For some readers, of course, that connection is enough. Guilty as charged. End of story. But for critical readers Scott must offer more detail. So he tries. He’ll throw out raw meat in the form of two names: Winston Lawson (SS man in the lead car, in charge of the motorcade SS radio channels) and Jack Crichton (Army Intel reserve officer who with DPD Deputy George Lumpkin selected the Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald’s first, error-ridden FBI interview). Winston Lawson corrected himself in his WC testimony regarding the motorcycle guard around JFK’s limo. Instead of flanking JFK’s car, Lawson had to change his story and admit that the DPD motorcycles actually rode just behind JFK. Also, a DPD Captain testified that this arrangement was designed by Winston Lawson himself. Granted that this is very suspicious, the critical reader must promptly add that the COG is not linked with this breach of protocol by any evidence offered by Peter Dale Scott. Winston Lawson is also cited as the one who installed the radio frequency transmissions for the Secret Service throughout the JFK motorcade. Now, these tapes form a key document of the assassination of JFK, yet they were never reviewed by the Warren Commission, the HSCA or the ARRB. Again, I grant that this is very suspicious, and yet again, Scott fails to offer any evidence to link the COG with this breach of protocol. Finally, Scott’s narrative about the DPD radio announcement to make way for an ambulance carrying a supposed epileptic man about ten minutes before the JFK murder, amounts to a tempest in a teapot. What about COG member Jack Crichton? His “crime” according to Peter Dale Scott was his “collusion” with DPD Deputy Chief George Lumpkin to select a Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald, Ilya Mamantov, on 11/22/1963, and this interpreter was not as accurate as someone else might have been. Peter Dale Scott wishes to seize upon one of the mistakes made by Mamontov, namely, that Marina Oswald actually said (in Russian) about Lee’s rifle scope, “it was a hump but I never saw through it,” while Mamontov interpreted this as: “she says there was a hump on the rifle but there was no scope.” This, Scott thinks, was proof of conspiracy, because the FBI researched a report from a store owner that one “Lee Oswald” (whom he never saw) asked for a scope to be placed on a similar rifle in his Dallas store only weeks before the JFK murder. The FBI debunked the witness. Peter Dale Scott believes that the witness told the truth, and that there was a scope, but that the FBI (and Mamontov) deliberately withheld the fact in order to eliminate the possibility that Oswald had any accomplices (e.g. the rifle store owner). That’s reaching. It’s reaching twice as far to hope that his readers will then blame the COG for this alleged conspiracy, with no further evidence whatsoever. Scott uses words like “sinister” and “conspiratorial” and the like, to allude to his point, all without further evidence. Finally, Peter Dale Scott raises his final point about the JFK murder – namely, the radio report that Lee Harvey Oswald was 5’10” and 165 pounds. (Actually, Oswald was a half-inch shorter, and 34 pounds lighter.) Scott rightly concludes that Howard Brennan, the unqualified “eye-witness” wasn’t the source of that report, despite FBI insistence that he was. Instead, the origin of that report seems to be the CIA, which had those figures in its 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald. However – and this is my key point – Peter Dale Scott neglects to mention the fact that Bill Simpich in his 2014 book, State Secret, indicated that a high-level mole-hunt inside the CIA that started in September 1963 in Mexico City, deliberately falsified Lee Oswald’s 201 file with that same faulty description! Furthermore – it was only that mole, sought by that mole-hunt, who would have obtained that false information, and who would have been quick to pass it on to other members of his ROGUE conspiracy! Thus, since David Morales was almost certainly the mole in question in Mexico City, we should first suspect that David Morales was probably the CIA mole who obtained Oswald’s falsified 201 file and supplied the DPD with this information. So, we don’t have evidence that the COG passed forward this false data – and we do have evidence that David Morales, working with a local, civilian, Dallas plot, was the actual source of that false data about Lee Harvey Oswald in the early minutes of the JFK murder. Well, that was it. That’s all Peter Dale Scott had to say about the JFK murder and the COG in his October 5th article, which is really a preliminary to his new book coming out in a matter of weeks, entitled: The American Deep State. I just don’t find his poetic wordsmith talents to be worthy of an authentic historian. If you like fiction, and if you liked JBS material when you were younger, you’ll probably enjoy this new book by Peter Dale Scott. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

The surprising value in Ron Lewis' book, FLASHBACK: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald (1993) is that without any prompting or ulterior motive -- without any attempt to impress any JFK researcher of any school -- Ron Lewis makes a positive, eye-witness, conversational linkage between Lee Harvey Oswald and Ex-General Edwin Walker. This makes the account of Ron Lewis rare in JFK literature. The same is true in Harry Dean's book, Crosstrails (1990), as well as our eBook, Harry Dean's Confessions (2013). Without any prompting or ulterior motive -- without any attempt to impress any JFK researcher of any school -- and actually in contradiction to most JFK researchers -- Harry Dean makes a positive, eye-witness, conversational linkage between Lee Harvey Oswald and Ex-General Edwin Walker. Though there are few books that confirm their independent accounts of Lee Harvey Oswald and Ex-General Walker -- I want to highlight the fact that they confirm EACH OTHER, without even trying to do so. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

More likely, Paul. B.? No, that's less likely. Only the CIA high-command can start a mole-hunt inside the CIA. The existence of a CIA mole-hunt is solid proof that the CIA high-command did not know who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald among its CIA staff. If nothing else, Bill Simpich proved -- conclusively -- that the CIA was divided in its highest levels about this impersonation. The most likely scenario is that the CIA high-command was clueless about which CIA staff impersonated Oswald. Regards, --Paul Trejo

I agree with Barbara Lamonica (Coalition on Political Assassination's Conference, 1995) when she suggests that Michael and Ruth Paine are among the most interesting and least studied of the people surrounding the JFK murder. However, my questions for the Paines would be very, very different from Lamonica's questions. Also, I disagree with the hyperbole in Lamonica's words. (1) Lamonica says that the Paines, "were the people who were closest to Lee Harvey Oswald - just prior, and leading up to, November 22." That's simply untrue. The Paines were closest to Marina Oswald -- that's true. But the Paines hardly interacted with Lee Harvey Oswald for most of 1963, for the simple fact that Lee Harvey Oswald spent half of 1963 in New Orleans, and not Dallas. Further, in New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald interacted on a most frequent basis with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, and various Cuban Exiles and their counter-revolutionary groups in New Orleans. Not with Michael Paine. Further, even in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald preferred the company of George De Mohrenschildt and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt to that of Michael and Ruth Paine. Lee Oswald openly told Marina that he thought little of Ruth Paine -- and he barely spoke about Michael Paine to Marina. (2) Lamonica says about the Paines that, "wittingly or unwittingly, they contributed to the subsequent condemnation of Oswald, and therefore to the success of the conspiracy and coverup." The basic flaw in her argument is that she merges the JFK murder and the JFK cover-up into one contiguous activity -- in her words, the "conspiracy-and-coverup". I have tried to show all year long that the JFK conspirators tried to make the "Communists" take the blame for the JFK murder, and that is why they spent MONTHS trying to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as an officer of the FPCC. However, it was New Orleans DA Jim Garrison who showed conclusively that the FPCC in New Orleans (of which Oswald as the director) was a FAKE and had only ONE MEMBER, namely Alek Hidell (the alias of Oswald). The JFK cover-up crew, I've been trying to show all year long, tried to make a "Lone Nut" take the blame for the JFK murder. This was intended to REVERSE the claim that the COMMUNISTS killed JFK. So the JFK Cover-up Team acted AGAINST the JFK Kill Team. Lamonica didn't guess that back in 1995. In fact, nobody guessed that throughout the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, the 1990's or the 2000's. Only in the current decade did anybody (namely, me) come up with this new theory, which IMHO should start a completely new direction for JFK research from this point forward. The works of Mark Lane, Harold Weisgerg, Jim Garrison, Gaeton Fonzi, John Newman, Jim Marrs, Fletcher Prouty, Dick Russell, Barbara Lamonica, David Lifton, Peter Dale Scott, Joan Mellen, James DiEugenio, Larry Hancock and even Bill Simpich continue to conflate the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up team. (3) Lamonica is reduced to "two timeframes, being the spring and fall of 1963," when the fates of the Paines and Oswalds came together. Yet Lamonica carelessly neglects the WINTER of 1963, before the Spring, when the Paines met and befriended the Oswalds at Dallas engineer parties organized by Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt. Because she neglects the Winter 1963 events, Lamonica fails to mention Ex-General Edwin Walker as a key figure in the local politics of Dallas in January, February and early March of 1963. It is a matter of urgent history that as the Winter of 1963 began our Ex-General Edwin Walker was on trial for his role in fomenting deadly race riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962. Yet at the end of January 1963, Walker was acquitted by an all-White Mississippi Grand Jury, on the bogus claim that Walker was at Ole Miss that night "to calm the mob." Because he was acquitted, Edwin Walker and his two lawyers, Robert Morris and Clyde Watts, went around the USA making lawsuits against newspapers who had printed the TRUTH about him, namely, that he really instigated that race riot in his radio and TV announcements. [BTW, I recently tried to buy these 1962 media clips of Edwin Walker from NARA, and was denied on grounds of "FOIA exceptions". ] Because many people knew the truth, Walker, Morris and Watts lost 9 out of 10 of their lawsuits -- but they won 10% -- and that amounted to $3 million in winnings. Naturally the newspapers appealed, but Walker and his lawyers were now millionaires on paper. (We should also note that, adjusting for inflation, that $3 million would amount to $30 million in today's dollars.) With his million dollar winnings, Edwin Walker became a new darling of Cuban Exile counter-revolutionary groups seeking money and support for their raids on Cuba. This included Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and many others. We have letters from Hemming to Walker among Walker's personal papers that prove this was the case. Yet Lamonica neglects this important aspect of the history. Ruth Paine's ancestors might have been connected with the government, but that's irrelevant. They key factor is Ruth Paine herself -- she was a housewife, mother and a Quaker. As a Quaker she was an American liberal. Michael Paines' father was a Trotsky follower, but that is actually irrelevant. They key factor is Michael Paine himself -- an oil engineer, a father and an American liberal. American liberals in the winter of 1963 were livid when Walker walked out of prison after causing the Ole Miss riots of 1962. Such liberals include Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt. They took steps that winter to brainwash Lee Harvey Oswald to their way of thinking. They both admitted this. I believe Michael Paine did his part -- yet we have video and written confessions from Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenshildt that they did their part to make Lee Harvey Oswald hate Ex-General Edwin Walker. Nothing about this important political reality emerges from Lamonica's account, and instead she merely mentions the Walker shooting in passing, the way most JFK researchers do. (4) It's my opinion that Ruth Paines' interest in taking care of Marina Oswald was entirely a humanitarian effort, based entirely on her liberal politics and the fact that she was a Quaker. I find nothing suspicious in her care of Marina and June Oswald during this period. Further, it's incorrect to say that Ruth Paine got Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the TBSD building -- it was a neighbor woman who did that, during a social tea. (5) As for the Paines' garage and all the evidence about Lee Harvey Oswald within it, there is nothing that I see to suggest forgery. Marina admitted that she took one of the Backyard Photographs, and we know that Lee Oswald had access to advanced photographic equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall during that same period. The fact that The Militant newspaper admitted in the 1970's that they received a copy of one of those photographs from Oswald himself, and that DPD officer Roscoe White had another pose of that Backyard Photograph (unknown even to the Warren Commission) again suggests Oswald as the composer of all the FAKES, because Roscoe White and Lee Oswald knew each other while in the US Marines. Lamonica "wonders why someone intending to commit a crime would allow such items to be stored in another's garage." In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald committed no such crime as shooting at JFK. This has been demonstrated amply since the days of DA Jim Garrison, and the multiplicity of shooters was proved conclusively by the US Government itself, with the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) in 1979. In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald had no clue that he had been FRAMED as the Patsy of the murder of JFK, until the day after the murder. So, Lee Oswald had no motive to hide any contents in Ruth Paine's garage. Yet the FRAMING of Lee Oswald in New Orleans earlier in 1963 was professionally done -- very thorough. (6) I don't suspect Michael Paine of lying -- I suspect Michael Paine of withholding everything he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald, especially with regard to the attempted assassination of Ex-General Edwin Walker. I do agree with Barbara Lamonica on a key point -- that the Paines from the very start tried very hard "to distance themselves from Oswald." Yet for me, it isn't Ruth's testimony that places the murder weapon in Lee's hands -- instead, it's Gerry Patrick Hemming himself, who told A.J. Weberman that he personally called Lee Harvey Oswald from Miami on 11/21/1963 to promise Oswald double the price of his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle if only he would take it to the TSBD building on 11/22/1963, and hide it among some boxes on the 6th floor, for his underground friends to find. (Please notice the implication here -- that the plan to use the TSBD as part of the plot came very late in the JFK conspiracy -- only days before the murder.) (7) On the positive side, I agree with Barbara Lamonica that "the Paines are significant persons in the lives of the Oswalds, and warrant further research." I also agree with her that we should take Robert Oswald's claim that Michael Paine knew more about the event than he revealed. My questions, however, about the Paines' withholding would focus on Ex-General Edwin Walker. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Dear "Fast and Loose With Words" Trejo, Just because a CIA agent might do something that he's not authorized to do doesn't necessarily mean that that agent is unknown to the "CIA high command". D'oh. --Tommy You're missing the point, Tommy. CIA Officer David Morales did something he wasn't authorized to do (i.e. directing his underlings to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City on 28 September 1963). Now -- the proof that David Morales' behavior was unknown to the "CIA high command" is that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt to try fo find out who impersonated Oswald and Duran. It's the fact of the mole-hunt that proves that the CIA high-command didn't know which of its CIA Officers did the impersonation. They knew it had to be an inside job, because only CIA (and FBI) people knew that: (1) the phone line between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate in Mexico City was wire-tapped with a 15-minute order for English transcripts; (2) that Lee Harvey Oswald was being observed by the CIA in Mexico City; and (3) that KGB Agent Valery Kostikov's name was a high-profile name on the CIA wanted list. The impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald made extra certain that KGB Agent Valery Kostikov's name was included in the English transcript. So, the CIA high-command was very interested in this phone call, because it linked the names of Oswald and Kostikov -- however they knew within minutes of the English transcript that the caller wasn't really Lee Harvey Oswald. The only question was -- WHO made that impersonation? The CIA high-command didn't know. The proof that they didn't know is shown by the fact that they started an internal mole-hunt inside the CIA to find the culprits. It would take many years before David Morales would finally be named as the prime suspect. Bill Simpich used very recent CIA releases from the FOIA to demonstrate the nature and extent of this mole-hunt, which could only have been created by the CIA high-command. This is an important point. I may be the only person today who is making this point -- but it is a plausible challenge to all those JFK researchers who promote the urban myth that the CIA high-command murdered JFK. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I'd forgotten about this thread, but I thank you for reviving it. A lot has happened in the past year, e.g. Bill Simpich published his new book, State Secret (2014) for free on the Internet. This brilliant work convinced me that the CIA was divided inside itself, so that whatever CIA Officer impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 in order to FRAME Oswald as a COMMUNIST, was utterly and completely UNKNOWN to the CIA high-command. Bill Simpich demonstrated this plainly -- whether he intended to or not -- with his ample evidence of a CIA mole-hunt. Therefore, based on the strength of Simpich's findings, which are based on recently released CIA documents, I can easily conclude that David Morales was indeed part of the JFK murder plot (as he confessed to his friend, Ruben Carbajal and Bob Walton), without concluding that the CIA high-command was in control. I continue to deny any implication of the control of the CIA high-command in the murder of JFK. (If stronger evidence presents itself, I reserve the right to change my mind.) Today I wonder why so many who've read Bill Simpich's book this year haven't concluded as I've concluded. ON THE CONTRARY: The most important suspects in the murder of JFK remain the right-wing in Dallas, led by Ex-General Edwin Walker, and his motivation was precisely the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald (in conspiracy with liberal engineers in Dallas) really tried to kill him at his home in Dallas on 10 April 1963. David Morales merely joined a plot already in progress, starting on Easter Sunday, 1963, led by Edwin Walker and Guy Banister -- two chums from the JBS and Minutemen. The evidence is piling up in favor of my theory. Michael Paine is still alive. Who will step up to ask him the hard questions about Ex-General Edwin Walker? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Many thanks, Kathy. I found the link and I moved my discussion of Michael Paine to that thread. This will preserve the current thread for Ron Lewis' book, "FLASHBACK", and his own, independent reference to resigned General Edwin Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

This is useful information, Malcom, so thanks very much. In a nutshell, it suggests to me that when Michael Paine left Ruth Paine in their separation during 1963, he was invited by Volkmar Schmidt to move into his bachelor engineer's dormitory. (I'm presuming Schmidt wasn't married at this time.) It doesn't suggest to me that these men were gay -- although I feel certain that question will come up in today's milieu. Anyway, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely, the assassination of JFK. Here's what it implies to me: 1) That the plot against Ex-General Edwin Walker in Dallas went deeper than was admitted in the Warren Commission. 2) That Michael Paine withheld important information about the plot against Edwin Walker. 3) That Michael Paine is the only man still alive who can tell us about the anti-Walker politics in Dallas in 1963 4) That not only George De Mohrenschildt, but also Michael Paine conspired with Volkmar Schmidt to turn Lee Harvey Oswald against General Walker. Not that I believe that Volkmar Schmidt "hypnotized" Lee Oswald -- but Schmidt admits that he used a special "psychological" technique on Oswald -- FOR HOURS -- in the context of a dinner party, with many Dallas engineers watching. It was only days after this party that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased weapons over mail-order, and had Marina take a photograph of him, which he himself then "photo-shopped" at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall (according to me) for plausible denial. What do think of my approach here, Malcom? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul, That's why I think of him as being "Pedantic as a Professor". That and the fact that he's always reciting to us the well-known facts of the assassination. --Tommy Not true, Tommy. First, most readers don't agree (or don't know) the facts about Ex-General Walker as I present them in the context of the JFK assassination. Secondly, there has never been discussion on the FORUM regarding Ron Lewis' mention of Ex-General Walker. Thirdly, the call for Michael Paine's knowledge about Ex-General Edwin Walker hasn't been made since 1964. So, my points are NEW. You're just biased. Regards, --Paul Trejo P.S. What about it, Paul B.; would you please provide a link to that thread you mentioned about Paine and Schmidt?

Paul B., would you please provide a link to that thread? Thanks, --Paul T.