Paul Trejo

BUMP

Greg, there's no way I made that up. In fact, Gerry Patrick Hemming spent more hours interviewing with A.J. Weberman than with you, and the interviews of A.J. Weberman are famous, while yours are less well-known. As I recall the interview -- Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he called Lee Harvey Oswald from Florida on 11/21/1963 and offered Oswald double the market price of his Mannlicher Carcano if only Oswald would bring it to the Texas School Book Depository on Friday 11/22/1963 and leave it on the 6th floor. The reason was that some desperate figure needed it, and would pay extra for it. Oswald took the bait, and that's why he took his rifle to the TSBD on that day. THAT'S A CONFESSION. Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman that he knowingly and deliberately took part in the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK. If Hemming didn't tell you that, Greg, then too bad. He told Weberman, and that's an EXCELLENT source. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

It's an interesting clip, David. Also -- I can't deny that the theory that the CIA/Pentagon killed JFK over Vietnam might possibly turn out to be the correct theory. However, there are still too many doubts and questions. First, where is the ground-crew? The level at which the CIA/Pentagon theory operates just says the ground-crew doesn't matter. I completely disagree with that. Before we can name the plotters, we have to name the ground-crew. Some of them have already confessed. We have some of them. Now -- what can we make of this ground-crew? Can we blame the CIA/Pentagon and Vietnam? Nope. Who confessed? Howard Hunt confessed that he was on the sidelines; proving he was not near the top. David Morales confessed to his friend Raoul, but we have no more details. Both these guys were LOOSE CANONS and hot-heads who were enraged over the BAY OF PIGS. Not Vietnam, but CUBA. Who else confessed? There were several CIA flunkies, I call them, but they really weren't in the CIA, but they were mercenaries. Jim Garrison uncovered many of them, e.g. Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie ahd Thomas Edward Beckham. These are some truly low-level guys. Also, there's Frank Sturgis, who basically bragged about it. Again Sturgis was merely a mercenary -- not a CIA Agent. Also, there's John Martino. He knew Morales and Sturgis and the JBS sponsored his speeches. Also, there's Johnny Roselli. Here's a low-level mercenary if there ever was one -- all Mafia. Also, some say Loran Hall semi-confessed when he shouted out, "only me and Santos Traficante are left, and I ain't gonna say xxxx!" Also, Harry Dean, who was part of the California Minutemen side of the plot, confessed in January 1965 and never changed his story. Also, Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman of his participation. So, we have a fair portion of the ground-crew today! We don't have more confessions (to the best of my memory today) but we do know their comrades-in-arms. We can name Interpen, La Sambra, Guy Gabaldon, DACA, Carlos Marcello, Larry Howard, and several others. What can we make of this ground-crew? Did they have the power to kill JFK? I think so, because David Morales supplied some of his mercenaries and underlings, and I think Edwin Walker supplied some of his Minutemen and underlings, and they had a tight control of the Dallas city machinery. I think we can explain everything having to do with ASSASSINATION of JFK with the ground-crew we can name so far. Now -- as far as the COVER-UP of the assassination -- that's beyond our ground-crew. But my point this year has always been that the COVER-UP people (who held that Oswald was a Lone Gunman) were opposed to the murderous Ground-crew (who held that Oswald was a Communist). So -- I take the COVER-UP off the table. The COVER-UP had different motives (i.e. National Security). The question remains -- can we explain the murder of JFK with the ground-crew that Jim Garrison, Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have identified so far? I SAY WE CAN! Best regards, --Paul Trejol

It's a great question, David. But it seems to be a two-part question. First: why were they not discovered? The evidence shown by Bill Simpich in his latest book (STATE SECRET, 2014) demonstrates that the CIA started a mole hunt to find out who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963. They knew it wasn't Lee Oswald, as I recall, because the spoken Russian was too broken, the spoken English was too broken, and the spoken Spanish was too good. But after months of the mole-hunt, the CIA came up with NOTHING. They never discovered who had done this. As per their Standard Operating Procedure, the CIA modified Lee Harvey Oswald's 201 file, changing the photograph to show some big Russian dude, and changed Oswald's middle name to "Henry", and changed his parent's names, too. But after all that time, they never discovered who it was inside the CIA who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald to try to link Oswald's name with the name of the wanted KGB Agent, Valery Kostikov. It was a botched job, so it started a mole-hunt. But it wasn't an amateur job. Whoever impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald (and Sylvia Duran) knew very well that those Mexico City phone lines were tapped by the CIA. They knew very well that KGB Agent Valery Kostikov was watched closely by the CIA, and that his name would start alarms off inside the CIA. So, it was a mole -- a right-wing mole inside the CIA who was trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. But who was it? Going by the CIA paperwork explored by Bill Simpich, the CIA never discovered who it was. Therefore, how could they prosecute anybody? So that's the second part of your question -- why were the plotters not killed? The reason is that the CIA never found out who impersonated Oswald -- though it was clear that whoever did that was part of the plot to frame Oswald as a Communist. So, the CIA failed yet again (after the Bay of Pigs). They had lost control of their own people. OK, as to your next point: these people had bosses, right? Yes, I say that David Morales reported to somebody higher than himself -- BUT NOT INSIDE THE CIA. There was somebody higher up in the plot to kill JFK. David Morales took orders from whoever that was. The question nobody has been able to answer in a half-century is: WHO WAS IT? That's why I think my guess is as good as (or better than) any other answers out there. In my opinion, there was an organization in Dallas that truly and firmly believed that FDR, Harry Truman, Ike and JFK had all been deliberate, conscious Communist Agents. As such they were traitors and worthy of a firing squad. The name of that group was the John Birch Society. One of their top leaders in Dallas was Ex-General Edwin Walker. Jack Ruby told this to Chief Justice Earl Warren on 7 June 1964, but Earl Warren didn't understand it (or at least he claimed that he didn't understand it). I say Jack Ruby was part of the plot, so he knew exactly what he was talking about. I believe we can even name some of the guilty parties. Jim Garrison did a great job in naming Guy Banister as one of the key plotters -- and Banister was also a member of the JBS. Edwin Walker and Guy Banister were the two topmost leaders of the plot to kill JFK (according to my theory) and they met with David Morales (and his flunky, Frank Sturgis) in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. As I recall, Joan Mellen spoke about this very meeting. It was at this meeting that David Morales received his orders -- \according to my theory. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Perhaps, David, but that appears more plausible in hindsight -- so many years later. It is almost impossible to foretell the future. In 1963 the big news was Cuba, Cuba, Cuba -- some Civil Rights marches -- and more Cuba, Cuba. The Bay of Pigs was still fresh in many minds. The Cuban Missile Crisis was barely one year old in late 1963. There were Cuban Exiles marching in the streets of many cities in the USA. Cuban Raiders like Loran Hall and Carlos Bringuier were in demand for speeches before "Conservative" groups around the USA, including the John Birch Society, coast to coast. The passionate people were still hot about Cuba. Not only the Cuban Exiles themselves, who were burning up, but also the ultra-rightists who were seeking some way to make JFK look bad. Cuba was their central target in 1963 (that and Civil Rights). One only needs to read the John Birch Society literature from 1963 to recognize this -- what to speak of the radical right-wing newspapers that filled the newsstands in Los Angeles (where I grew up, and saw this as a kid). In 1963 -- before JFK was killed, the mindset of the USA was practically in the 1950's. Vietnam was a passing comment on the back pages of newspapers. Cuba was making the political headlines. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Hoover was not the first person to "come up with the Lone Nut Theory" on the evening of 11/22/1963. Indeed, during the afternoon of 11/22/1963, McGeorge Bundy, while in the White House Situation Room (Code name: CROWN), can be heard on the Air Force One tapes informing LBJ that there was no conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (aka: it was the work of a lone nut) while LBJ was still en route back to Washington. According to Bill Kelly, this was quoted by Pierre Salinger and William Manchester, as well as, T.H. White from unedited transcripts of the AF1 tapes. Well, Greg, it turns out that you're half-right about this one. Hoover actually was the first person to "come up with the Lone Nut Theory," but it wasn't on the "evening" of 11/22/1963, rather, it was only one hour after Oswald was arrested. After I saw your post I had to review my source on that, which was Professor David R. Wrone (University of Wisconsin), author of The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1980). I got the hour wrong -- it wasn't in the evening, but the early afternoon. Here's what Wrone says about J. Edgar Hoover. "Within an hour of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, he had confirmed that it was a Lone Assassin, for purely personal reasons, that shot him. That was Hoover's instantaneous vision. He got that sitting at his desk on the banks of the Potomac -- instantaneous. Many FBI Agents -- even at the local level -- wanted to go with this Lone Assassin theory, which they called the 'Lone Nut' theory. They immediately would move that way." (Dr. David R. Wrone, 2006, interview in the DVD, The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History) Regards, --Paul Trejo

What a difference a month makes. This month I read the new book by Bill Simpich, "State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald" (2014) which is available for FREE on the Mary Ferrell web site. Suddenly, my opinion about James Jesus Angleton and J. Edgar Hoover with regard to the murder of JFK was changed like a whirlwind. I used to suspect the Hoover and Angleton of at least *some* complicity in the murder of JFK. The fact that J. Edgar Hoover declared Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of killing JFK on the very day it happened, without even hearing all the evidence, made me extremely suspicious of Hoover. Also, the fact that James Jesus Angleton manipulated the documents about Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City during the last week of September 1963, made me very suspicious of Angleton. Bill Simplich changed my mind by cogently demonstrating that the CIA started a mole-hunt in September 1963 to search for the persons who *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in a telephone call from the Cuban consulate to the USSR consulate in Mexico City. That phone was the hottest, most wire-tapped phone in Mexico City, and the CIA was hot on the trail of that phone call, because the *impersonators* claimed to be Silvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald seeking to contact the KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. After confirming that the phone call was BOGUS, the CIA started a mole-hunt that involved altering the CIA 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald (to provide disinformation, so that whoever spread that disinformation, would be revealed as the mole). The CIA also sent out two memos on 10/10/1963 with rigid, contradictory instructions, so that whoever disobeyed those instructions would quickly be revealed as the mole. This was done at the highest levels of the CIA, and known only to its highest officers. Bill Simpich deserves a medal for figuring it all out with logical precision. What this proves, however, is that the CIA rogues who *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September 1963 in order to link his name with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov were acting below the radar of the official CIA high-command. In other words -- just as the HSCA said -- if any CIA Agents were involved, they were rogues, wandering off the reservation. This new fact has drawn a line in the sand. The killers of JFK wanted to blame the Communists. That's why Lee Harvey Oswald was framed as a Communist in New Orleans, in newspaper, radio and on TV. That's why some *rogue* CIA Agent and his staff *impersonated* Oswald in Mexico City to link his name with the KGB. Here are the plotters. We finally have them after half a century. But wait -- J. Edgar Hoover didn't say that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. ON THE CONTRARY. J. Edgar Hoover insisted, like a bulldog, that Lee Harvey Oswald was a LONE NUT. Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover could not have been one of the plotters! Instead, J. Edgar Hoover (who was the first to come up with the LONE NUT theory on the evening of 11/22/1963) was out to FOIL the killers of JFK. The killers of JFK wanted to blame the Communists. Hoover did NOT. Also, I no longer suspect James Jesus Angleton or the high-command of the CIA of plotting the murder of JFK, because Bill Simpich, whether he intended this result or not, has proven that CIA *rogues* acted below the radar of the CIA high-command to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. All this is hard evidence, IMHO. What does this mean for Harry Dean's claims? It's good news, actually. By taking the floodlight away from the CIA and the FBI, we can place that floodlight back where it belongs -- back toward Ex-General Edwin Walker and his John Birch Society contacts in 1963. A new day is dawning in JFK research. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

But the joke is on you, Greg. You aren't forthcoming with your own theory, but it sort of shows, anyway. You want to blame the US Government for the murder of JFK. But after 50 years, your argument still has insufficient EVIDENCE! It's not like I always had my theory -- I also suspected Hoover, Dulles, the FBI, the CIA including Angleton, Helms, Phillips, Harvey, Joannides and Ted Shackley, at one time or other. Actually -- if more evidence comes to the surface, I might also slip some of them back into the dark side. But for now, all I can guarantee from the CIA in the JFK murder are Morales and Hunt -- and nobody else -- yet. I suspected Hoover because I thought he was too quick to name Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin. After years of study on the topic, without finding a smoking gun, I changed my tune. I doubt that I'll change again -- BUT MY MIND IS OPEN TO REAL EVIDENCE. I can only smirk at the sort of innuendo and rumor that passes for evidence among so many. Hoover is off the hook now, IMHO, because the line of demarcation is the distinction between the LONE NUT and the COMMUNIST. (1) Anybody who promoted the theory of Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist agitator was PART OF THE MURDER CONSPIRACY. (2) Anybody who promoted the theory of Lee Harvey Oswald as a Lone Nut was Part of the COVER-UP which was opposed to the Murder Conspiracy. (3) Anybody who promoted the theory of a Right-wing Conspiracy in the first weeks of the JFK murder were 100% right -- but they were torn apart by the rip-tide of the COMMUNIST theory from below and the LONE NUT theory from above. I'm still open to consider other people in the JFK murder plot, Greg. But not without HARD EVIDENCE. That's exactly what the JFK research community has been lacking for 50 years. Bill Simpich's most recent findings (2014) tend to exonerate the CIA high-command. It is a revolution in the thinking of JFK research. It will revolutionize the future literature. By taking the heat off of the CIA high-command, we now have more heat to apply to the Right-wing in the JFK murder. That's the state of the art in 2014. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

You haven't really nailed my position yet, Greg. First of all, Presidential assassins don't need to be more powerful than the US Government. We only need to look at John Wilkes Booth as proof positive. Secondly, I never used the word, "force" to describe what the rightists did to try to convince the US Government to invade Cuba. I used the word "trick." You deliberately switched the words. Nor did I stop there. I spoke about the means and the opportunity at length. The means included the framing of the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, which was done almost exactly as described by Jim Garrison back in 1968 -- naming all the people he named. Garrison did great work when it came to Louisiana. It was with Dallas that Jim Garrison dropped the ball. There were other means that I discuss, namely, the CIA rogues, like David Morales and Howard Hunt, who spun off their own plot to whack JFK using their low-level CIA assets like Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and so forth. One does not need to have US Governmental power to create a Conspiracy of paramilitary goons. That's what you're missing, Greg. The CIA rogues provided the bulk of the organization and coordination -- it was their professional business. But they were ROGUES. This was basically PROVEN by Bill Simpich this year when he painstakingly demonstrated how the CIA high-command had no idea who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City to try to align him with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov, and so that CIA started a mole-hunt. Also, anybody who doubts that Americans have made Conspiracies is simply uninformed. As for naming the Birchers involved, I actually name some -- Ex-General Edwin Walker for one, and Guy Banister for another. There are many more, of course. H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were also ranking members of the John Birch Society in Dallas -- but that's only the tip of the iceberg. You're really asking for a full book Greg, and this is only an informal thread. Also, I'm only one guy. One the main reasons I'm here on the FORUM is to find like-minded folks to HELP ME GATHER INFOMRATION along these lines. As for documentation on Walker, you probably missed the YEARS of documentation and links to his Personal Papers that I've posted over my years on the Forum. That's my principle reason for being here. So, you can be excused. Your summation of my view is merely a joke, Greg. I do indeed excuse the CIA, LBJ, Hoover, the FBI and the Warren Commission from the MURDER of JFK, but not from the COVER-UP of that Murder. And yes, I agree with LBJ that the Truth about the murder of JFK was a matter of National Security. It's too bad that the JFK research community has devolved into closed minds who merely want to shake a finger at the CIA, the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ. It's too sophomoric, and it doesn't take into account all the FACTS. The evidence that JFK researchers use to condemn J. Edgar Hoover is even weaker than the evidence used to condemn Lee Harvey Oswald. I fully agree that the LONE NUT theory is full of holes. It can only be justified by what it accomplished -- it prevented Civil War in the USA. Now that we are a half-century past the murder of JFK, and now that the USSR has fallen, it is probably safe to review the true facts of the JFK murder -- and lay the blame where it really should have been laid in 1964, namely, at the feet of the Right-wing radicals who claimed that US Presidents were Communists. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Too bad Greg Burnham didn't come here to share his own views about the JFK assassination, but only to doubt my new view. The flaw in all previous theories of the JFK assassination (including those by Joan Mellen, Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, Dick Russell, Robert Groden and John Newman) is that they all operate on the assumption that the Killers of JFK were the same people as those who Covered it up . This gives rise to an illusion about a plot by the US Government to kill its own President. My proposal, on the contrary, shows that the Kill Team and the Cover-up Team were in OPPOSITION to each other. The Kill Team portrayed Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist, in order to inspire the American People to invade Cuba. The Cover-up Team portray Lee Harvey Oswald as a LONE NUT, in order to cancel the argument of the Kill Team. With this division of data, we can finally make sense of many previously mysterious facts. This is a new theory -- yet it still covers the same material as the old theories; only better. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

There's no circularity at all, Greg. The JFK killers had no power to invade Cuba, and they knew it -- but they sincerely believed they had ONE CHANCE to convince the American People and the US Government to invade Cuba -- and that was by framing Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. That's what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing in New Orleans during the Spring and Summer of 1963. That's why Lee Harvey Oswald went to New Orleans ONLY DAYS after General Walker survived Oswald's shooting attack of 10 April 1963. Everything was set up at that time by two top ranking JBS/Minutemen, namely, General Walker and Guy Banister. Jim Garrison -- for all his faults -- proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Edward Beckley worked closely with Cuban Exiles Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist officer of the FPCC. Garrison proved that the FPCC in New Orleans was BOGUS. That alone was proof of the plot in New Orleans. Jim Garrison failed to see the full role of Dallas and Ex-General Edwin Walker. Bill Simpich -- despite his one error -- proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a rightist mole inside the CIA -- probably David Morales -- used CIA resources to *impersonate* Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City -- an impersonation which deliberately linked the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. (In proving a mole-hunt after this, SImpich also proved that the official CIA was ignorant of this rogue plot against JFK.) So, CIA *rogues* played along with the JBS\Minuteman plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. The murderers of JFK did EVERYTHING THEY COULD to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist -- when in reality Oswald was a loyal Marine who never really renounced his USA citizenship. The killers of JFK gambled everything they had on this one trick -- if they could convince the American People and the US Government that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist, then they would have won, and we surely would have invaded Cuba. But they lost. They gambled and they lost. The US Government figured out their stupid plot in less than ONE DAY. The counter-gambit by J. Edgar Hoover was nothing less than genius -- he wouldn't play the Rightists against the Communists and stoop down to their level -- instead he just removed Lee Harvey Oswald from BOTH sides. Hoover came up with the doctrine that Lee Harvey Oswald was a LONE NUT. In doing that, Hoover spared the USA from Civil War. If I'm right, then the survivors of Lee Harvey Oswald, namely, Marina, June and Rachel, deserve MEDALS for the sacrifices that their family made in preventing a disastrous breach of National Security, that could have been massively deadly. There's nothing circular about my logic, Greg. I do admit, however, that my theory is original and unique. In a half-century (to the best of my knowledge) nobody has come up with a solution quite like mine. I believe my theory is getting stronger every week. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Greg, the flaw in your argument is that you confuse the KILL Team with the COVER-UP Team. They have two different sets of capabilities. I will outline that below. The Kill Team at best had expertise over the local level of town administration, and some subordinate governmental departments. Let's take your points by the numbers: (1) General Walker and his right-wing friends in Dallas, with "friends of Walker" inside the DPD and John Birch Socity members inside the local government, was able to orchestrate violent attacks on Adlai Stevenson only one month before JFK entered Dallas -- AND HE GOT AWAY WITH IT. I have no doubt, therefore, that Walker's people could change the Dallas motorcade route. No problem. That still doesn't give him US Military Power. (2) General Walker, who claimed to the end of his life that he knew Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter only four days after the 10 April 1963 shooting in Dallas, was completely capable of calling his JBS and Minutemen friends in Louisiana to design a strategy to SHEEP-DIP Lee Harvey Oswald in revenge. Walker was capable of it, and was motivated to do it. Jim Garrison already proved that the Louisiana players were Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham. Not one of these sheep-dippers had US Military Power. (3) General Walker had a personal correspondence with Gerry Patrick Hemming, as shown in his personal papers. Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman that he personally called Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/21/1963 to offer him double the market price for his Mannlicher-Carcano piece of junk if Oswald would only bring it to work on Friday and leave it between some boxes on the 6th floor for an underground friend to find there. We have evidence that Oswald did that. Now, from 8AM in the morning until 1 PM that afternoon is PLENTY of time for conspirators to frame the weapon and ammunition. So, again, General Walker was completely capable of doing this. And Walker had no US Military Power at all. NONE. (4) As for the Secret Service laxities, that could be managed within a secret society of John Birch Society or other rightist radicals with ties to the Secret Service. Only one Secret Service Agent needed to be part of the conspiracy to make it work, as long as he held the trust of the other members of the Secret Service. As for the acceleration of the limo, we must remember that the JFK limo was FOLLOWING another limo, and could not speed up until the lead limo sped up -- and Jesse Curry was DRIVING the lead limo. So, that could easily be a LOCAL decision. As for the washing of the car -- the Secret Service takes Orders -- it does not give Orders. Those officials who gave the ORDERS to wash the limo, remove the body to Washington, and destroy Secret Service records, however -- and this is the key point -- were not acting to KILL JFK but to COVER-UP the true identity of the murderers of JFK. To separate the KILL Team from the COVER-UP Team is the strategy that will eventually crack this case wide open. (5) As for the complex problem of standing down the 112th Military Intelligence Group at Fort Sam Houston from their routine duty of supplementing the Secret Service in Dallas -- I have argued against Larry Hancock that General Edward Lansdale was responsible for that -- and I cited Fletcher Prouty to confirm my view. Yet Larry Hancock says that this fact might be misunderstood by critics of Lansdale. I was once willing to name Edward Lansdale as our highest ranking Military officer who was involved in the JFK murder, but Larry Hancock convinced me to suspend judgment until more data is available. (For example, it might turn out that CIA rogues *impersonated* Edward Lansdale, just as they *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.) If I suspend judgment on the act of standing down the 112th MIG, then I have NOBODY in the US Military to blame for this. (6) As for the perfect paramilitary ambush on JFK, that is easily explained by identifying CIA rogues. In particular, CIA Agent David Morales informally confessed to the JFK murder -- and Morales was an expert in assassination. So, that part, we may all agree (and Larry Hancock also agrees) can be ascribed to David Morales. Yet David Morales was a mid-level CIA Agent -- and as such had no US Military Power -- although he did have access to Cuban Exile assets for secretly raiding Cuba, and very likely used those resources. Those were NOT official US Military resources, as painfully proved at the Bay of Pigs. (7) General Edwin Walker was a recognized leader of the right-wing in Dallas, and many DPD officers were regular members of various right-wing groups, such as the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, the NSRP, the Citizen's Councils and so on. We have William Turner's books as good evidence for this. Again, General Walker proved he had control over the DPD when he got away scot free after his attacks on Adlai Stevenson in late October 1963. Again, General Walker had no US Military Power. (8) General Edwin Walker was completely capable of covert operations, being a Veteran of both WW2 and the Korean War. It would be very easy, in fact, for somebody with such a military background to coordinate a local assassination through a weasel like Jack Ruby. Yet as history shows, Edwin Walker RESIGNED from the US Army, and even spurned his Pension in doing so. Therefore, he had no further US Military connections, and no US Military Power whatsoever. (9) As for screwing up the Autopsy, that was done IN ORDER TO BLAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD ALONE for the murder of JFK. So we can find the fingerprints of J. Edgar Hoover, then LBJ, who followed Hoover's lead, and also Allen Dulles and other highly placed people in the Warren Commission. The ballistics and autopsy data would have shown that JFK was killed by multiple rifles firing from multiple places, with multiple bullet types. Hoover said that Oswald as a LONE NUT. LBJ decided to put all his weight behind Hoover's direction. Therefore, all the autopsy X-rays and photographs had to be altered to fit a LONE NUT scenario. It wasn't easy. In fact, it was impossible, so that's why many records were destroyed or simply made Top Secret. The alteration of the Medical evidence was done by the COVER-UP Team, and not by the KILL Team. These Teams had opposite goals -- the KILL Team wanted to blame the Communists. The COVER-UP Team wanted to blame Oswald ALONE. (10) As for the COVER-UP of the crime, that was designed only AFTER JFK was murdered, by a completely SEPARATE Team. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Warren -- these people saw what had to be done in the interest of National Security. They did the right thing. (11) Also, the control of the News Media to agree with the LONE-NUT theory of the JFK murder, instead of the Communist Conspiracy theory of the JFK murder, was not done by the KILL Team, but by the COVER-UP team. So, no, Greg, those who sponsored the killing of JFK were only capable on a LOCAL level, and had absolutely NO POWER TO INVADE CUBA as they clearly wished. We know they wished this because they kept pushing their stupid idea to the Press -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was a COMMUNIST and therefore it was the COMMUNISTS who killed JFK. The people with REAL Power, namely LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles and the Warren Commission -- told the world how stupid that idea was, because they would stick to the story that Lee Harvey Oswald was just a LONE NUT. The people who framed Lee Harvey Oswald and murdered JFK wanted to blame the Communists. But they had no US Military Power to back up their desires. The people who gave us the LONE NUT theory and decision DID NOT WANT TO BLAME THE COMMUNISTS for something that the US right-wing clearly did. They had the US Military Power. Therefore, the USA would not invade Cuba. Therefore, Cuba remains Communist to this very day. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Greg, there's nothing circular about my argument. You asked why Cuba is still Communist today, if the killers of JFK wanted to recapture Cuba first and foremost. My answer was that the killers of JFK were NOT ranking members of the US military or any branch of the the US government. It's a simple and concise reply, and completely answers your question. You refuse to accept that answer -- but there's nothing circular about it. It's very straight forward. Regards, --Paul Trejo

I would add to that Harry, by saying that elements of our government and our corporations remained allied with Nazi Germany during the war as well. These elements, and I would include the Dulles family, and the Bush family, and the Rockefellers, clearly saw the Soviets as the greater threat. In my mind there is a clear thread between these corporate entities who enlisted so many Nazis after the war, and the killing of JFK, who clearly had in mind and heart ending the Cold War. Khrushchev was no Stalin, and yet the idea of finding a way to peacefully coexist with the Communist regimes in Russia and China was still unacceptable to these families. Was it for ideological reasons - Capitalism vs. Communism - or purely for economic reasons - war profiteering - is for me an open question. Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference. In Harry Dean's Confessions we read that Harry's earliest memories as a poor American kid growing up in the UK formed his political orientation for life. Harry was very pleased to be repatriated back in the USA when he was accepted into the US military near the end of World War Two. The clash between England and Germany that formed the core of World War Two was confusing to many Americans, because after all, hadn't we attained our precious National Independence by our own war with England? Besides, isn't it a fact that more American citizens today can trace their heritage back to Germany than to England? (The German migration to the USA started in 1845, and never stopped.) So, many Americans hoped the USA would side with Germany, and not with England in World War Two. JFK's own father, Joe Kennedy, publicly stated before the USA joined the war, that Germany would emerge the victor. He had to eat those words. The UK today is a mere shadow of its former self. Oh, the UK is plenty rich -- but not in proportion to its wealth when it was the undisputed Empire of the World. Just look at all the Colonies that the UK has lost since WW2 -- not the least of which have been Hong Kong and Kuwait. Instead the UK depends on the USA economy -- just as most of the world does. Today we see the flourishing of the American Empire -- vastly different than the British Empire because the British were Colonialists, while the USA is Anti-Colonialist. It seems to me that the USA has a better grasp of the world situation today than the British Empire did a century ago. As for Germany, however, by its Nazi episode (which they greatly regret today, and have made the Nazi Party illegal) it reduced its own capitol to rubble, and failed to take the title of World Empire which it so zealously envied. Yet the Nazi nonsense is over and done with. There are still Aryan supremacists here and there, but they have NO POWER (which is the whole key). Also, the USA is more racially diverse than any other nation has ever been, and today the USA is more racially diverse than it ever has been in the past. So, any notion that the Nazi ideas play any part at all in today's USA politics is ridiculous. JFK was killed by right-wing extremists in the USA, some of whom held racist views. We know this was true for Robert Allen Surrey and Ex-General Edwin Walker, as well as Guy Banister. Yet the prime motive for the JFK murder was never race, it was always CUBA. Without CUBA there would have been no way to involve colored people like David Morales, Guy Gabaldon and Larry Howard into a right-wing plot. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Then why is Cuba still Communist to this day? If it was thought that JFK was "standing in the way" of the US forcing Cuba back into the fold, why was Cuba spared once JFK was removed? Don't say it's because WWIII was feared. The very act of killing JFK could have potentially sparked a nuclear exchange, particularly since the patsy was framed as a Castro supporter. JFK appears to have been more likely to invade Cuba than ANY of his successors have since been...else they would have done it. Hell, they even HAD AN EXCUSE for doing it. I can just see the headlines now: Castro's Boy Killed Kennedy: US Invades Cuba Of course, JFK did not intend to invade Cuba and neither did those who killed him...else they would have done exactly that. Greg, you challenge me to explain why Cuba is still Communist today, given my theory that the main goal of the JFK murderers was taking back Cuba. My answer has three parts: (1) The people in the Team that killed JFK weren't in high positions of power; instead, they were rogues and rightist radicals who wanted to manipulate the US Government into acting on their goal of a Free Cuba; (2) The people in power in Washington DC quickly figured out who REALLY murdered JFK, and quickly figured out what their gambit was, and quickly came up with a way to FOIL their goals. The sun had not even set on 11/22/1963 when J. Edgar Hoover decided on the official US Government response -- Lee Harvey Oswald was a LONE NUT. Not a Communist, but a LONE NUT. See the strategy? (3) LBJ and Hoover decided against telling the TRUTH to the American public, because they foresaw a Civil War as the liberals in the USA (the majority) would seek revenge against heavily armed rightist radicals in the JBS/Minutemen and various Cuban Exile paramilitary groups. A Civil War in the middle of the Cold War could easily have led to a bigger mess, so the people in power in Washington DC decided to COVER-UP the TRUTH about the JFK murder. (When LBJ said that the JFK secrets were a matter of National Security, he was dead serious.) In my theory, Greg, the Kill Team was completely separate from the Cover-up Team, which directly opposed them. The Right-wing does not speak for all of America, but they fool themselves into believing that they speak for us all. They wanted Cuba back, according to the Monroe Doctrine. They framed Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist in order to make it appear that the Communists killed JFK -- to fool not only the American People, but also to fool our leaders in Washington DC. The murderers of JFK were not half as smart as they thought they were. Our leaders in Washington DC figured out their stupid little plan within one day. But the TRUTH could never be told to the American People during the Cold War, because of the danger of Civil War and where that might lead. Therefore, Hoover, the FBI, LBJ, Earl Warren, Allen Dulles and the whole Warren Commission promoted the broken-down theory of the Lone Nut killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, in order to calm the American People down. No other reason. In my opinion, the murderers of JFK were punished in other ways. One of those ways was to just change the subject onto Vietnam, and let Cuba remain Communist -- because after all, it presented no real geo-political threat (after the Cuban Missile Crisis was over), and its economic contribution has always been tiny. So, Greg, the reason that Cuba remains Communist today is because the USA stopped caring about that tiny economy. (No doubt when Fidel and Raoul Castro finally die of natural causes, Cuba will go the way of China after Mao died, i.e. their government will publicly praise their dead leader, but privately make a thousand deals with the West to get an infusion of capital and investment opportunities going inside their so-called socialist paradise.) The truth is, Greg, that VERY FEW really believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist! The official US Government position was that Oswald was a LONE NUT. This means, clearly, that the Communist Conspiracy version of the JFK murder (which the killers tried to promote) was NEVER taken seriously by Washington DC -- and never taken seriously by the American People, either. In reality, the US Government always knew that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a Lone Nut, just as they always knew he wasn't a Communist. The only question today is whether the American People are ready to finally hear the Truth. I think we are. My theory gives a plausible identification for the real murderers of JFK, because Washington DC didn't believe their Communist Conspiracy claptrap. The people who covered up the JFK murder actually FOILED the people who murdered JFK, precisely by removing Cuba from the table. This was done with the LONE NUT theory. So, to answer your question, Greg -- the people who killed JFK didn't invade Cuba because they couldn't -- THEY HAD NO POWER. The JBS/Minutemen/Cuban Exile morons who killed JFK ran and hid for 50 years, hiding in the shadows like beaten dogs, like the cowards they really were, because they were powerless.. Their only hope was to convince the American People and Washington DC that Lee Harvey Oswald was really a Communist. But they failed. The people in POWER decided to foil their goals by promoting the LONE NUT theory -- as full of holes as that was -- and sticking to it. I think that after fifty years, now, this should be obvious. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, David, that's an excellent video that you shared about CIA Agent David Morales, with a virtual live confession from him that he was closely involved with the murder of JFK. The only other official CIA Agent on record who has confessed to participation in the JFK murder was Howard Hunt in his now-famous deathbed confession. Yet Hunt also claimed at that time that he was "only on the sidelines." As for his eye-witness account, we only know that Frank Sturgis approached Howard Hunt about the JFK plot, and invited Hunt to meet with David Morales. It was at this meeting with David Morales that Howard Hunt learned of "details" that implicated LBJ and CIA Agent Cord Meyer -- however, this was only hear-say. Howard Hunt says that he declined to join the plot -- but he stayed "on the sidelines" which means that he would not report these plotters to the Justice Department, but would keep their secret. (Maybe Hunt would also make a few payoffs for them.) So, all we really have inside the CIA -- by actual confession -- are David Morales and Howard Hunt. It is highly probable that David Morales used low-level CIA assets underneath his command. There were many of them, especially from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and their many American supporters, like Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Then there are all those people named by Joan Mellen in her excellent book (following Jim Garrison) which identified many other people in the plot who confessed -- yet NONE of them were official CIA Agents. Instead, every single one of them was a low-level CIA asset -- a field flunky. Those low-level assets who confessed included Frank Sturgis, John Martino, Johnny Roselli, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Thomas Edward Beckham. So, from my viewpoint, the *only* guaranteed official CIA Agents that were unquestionably involved in murdering JFK were David Morales and Howard Hunt. Everybody else was a low-level flunkie, a rabble of rabble-rousers. Now, David, you would like to push the envelope and find more people inside the CIA, higher than David Morales, who were clearly involved in the plot to murder JFK. I would like this too. But I want hard evidence. You point out that David Morales "was afraid of something, and then died." Our hard evidence from this is the word of his best friend, Ruben Carbajal, whose story we heard in that video you shared. In his opinion, David Morales didn't "die", but he was "murdered," and he was murdered because he "knew too much." Maybe, maybe not. Granted, David Sánchez Morales (1925-1978) was only 53 when he died, yet he did live a particularly hard life in the military and in the undercover field in Latin America. He orchestrated the deaths of "thousands" of Latin American leftist activists, according to Larry Hancock. He was a man of action. But was he murdered? Our only evidence is from his best friend, yet he only offers the all-too-common expression of grief when freinds say that their dear departed did not "die" but were "killed" by negligent doctors, nurses, enemies and so on. The evidence is paper thin. If that is the evidence we have for building a case for a higher CIA officer than David Morales in the JFK murder, then I want more evidence. Next, David, you ask if the buck stops with David Morales. I believe you make an excellent point that David Morales was a leader only over his direct subordinates -- and ultimately he obeyed orders for his entire career. I agree with you 100% on this point, David. My guess is that David Morales was the highest level CIA Agent in the plot, but I agree with you that he was probably following orders. The only question then becomes: who gave those orders? So, David, in my theory, David Morales was not the ring-leader -- in my theory the ring-leader was outside of the CIA, and was a US civilian. You ask, David: "Are rogue agents and right-wing organizations the end users of the JFK assassination?" My answer today has to be, "Yes." My starting point is the answer that Jack Ruby gave to Chief Justice Earl Warren on 7 June 1964, as follows: ------------------------------ Jack RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren...there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization -- take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren...Don't register with you, does it? Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that. ------------------------------- What was the motivation of the JFK murderers? The John Birch Society was extremely clear in their literature -- that the following people were part of the Communist Conspiracy: FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Milton Eisenhower, JFK, RFK, along with John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and so many more leaders of Washington DC that space forbids their listing here. The John Birch Society truly believed this. They plainly implied that only by overthrowing the US Government could the Constitution be saved from godless Communism. They truly believed it. People like Ex-General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, Guy Banister, Harry Dean, Guy Gabaldon, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin -- joined the John Birch Society and their radical program. Very likely they took it to the next level, being men of ACTION. It's my belief that David Morales joined THEIR PLOT to murder JFK. If memory serves me, Joan Mellen places David Morales with Guy Banister and Edwin Walker in Louisiana at a hotel owned by Carlos Marcello in July, 1963. THAT was the meeting in which David Morales received his orders to do his part to murder JFK. That's my theory. Some of these people hated JFK for his June 1963 support of Civil Rights -- some didn't. The one thing they all agreed upon, however, was that Cuba had to be taken back from the Communists to re-join the Free World -- at any cost. This is what got David Morales involved in the JBS/Minuteman underground plot to murder JFK (according to my theory). I realize that I'm speaking contrary to the majority of JFK researchers after Jim Garrison who have tried to pin the JFK murder entirely on the CIA. However, following the chain of evidence, I think my case is becoming stronger, and the Garrison/Mellen case is becoming weaker. The superb book by Bill Simpich, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald (2014) which is available for free on the Mary Ferrell site, IMHO proved conclusively that the CIA didn't know who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City (so they started a molehunt). In my opinion, that's solid proof that the CIA high-command had no clue about what David Morales was up to. It was a secret plot. It was hatched in Dallas on Easter Sunday, 1963, was nurtured in Louisiana, was financed from *dozens* of sources, and ended up back in Dallas. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

To put it in simpler terms, Joan Mellen's book falls into the same error as her mentor, Jim Garrison, namely, surveying these low-level CIA mules and flunkies (e.g. David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Edward Beckham) and jumping to the conclusion that the CIA high-command was in charge of all their antics. While it is certainly true that the CIA high-command participated with the FBI and the Warren Commission to "cover up" their antics, this is not the same as showing that the CIA was in charge, or ordered them to commit their crimes. Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have, I believe, adequately demonstrated that CIA Agent David Morales was the highest level CIA Agent who was unquestionably involved in the murder of JFK. (Howard Hunt confessed only to being "on the sidelines".) Bill Simpich, further, seems to have proven beyond any doubt that a rift existed inside the CIA that found a mole (David Morales) impersonating Oswald in Mexico City, while the CIA high command was caught by surprise and started a mole-hunt. The hard evidence actually suggested that the JFK murder was evidently plotted by David Morales, aided by Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, and his loyal subordinates inside JM\WAVE. Along with these low-level mischief-makers we can find Cuban Exiles and their American supporters in arms, like Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. When we consider plotters in New Orleans, however, we encounter a completely different chain of command, starting with Guy Banister over Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham and Lee Harvey Oswald. When we consider plotters in Dallas, further, we encounter an entirely different chain of command, starting with Edwin Walker over his John Birch Society coven, Larrie Schmidt, Bernard Weissman, and radicals in the DPD who were also active in ultra-right-wing politics (NIC, WCC, KKK, etc.). Like Jim Garrison, Joan Mellen fails to make a solid case for a CIA plot -- too many threads are left hanging. It is more likely that CIA rogues became involved with an on-going, ultra-right-wing conspiracy to murder JFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

In general, David, I agree with you. Yet there are nuances. (1) Your first question is difficult: How high does a CIA rogue need to attain to cease being a rogue? 1.1. You named Bill Harvey. We know that Bill Harvey was busted down to size by RFK for his insubordination during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and he was stationed in Italy after that, to keep him out of the way. Harvey basically drank himself to death in Italy. Now -- did Harvey hate JFK and RFK enough to kill them? Evidently so. Did he participate in the sheep-dipping of Lee Harvey Oswald all the way from Italy? Maybe, maybe not. 1.2. You named David Atlee Phillips. We know that David Atlee Phillips was seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas during September 1963 by Antonio Veciana of Alpha 66, a notoriously violent Cuban Exile group. The connection seems very suspicious, except that Veciana says that the context of that meeting was the murder of FIDEL CASTRO, and not the murder of JFK. In his book, "The Night Watch" (1982) Phillips suggests that he was training Lee Oswald to murder FIDEL CASTRO, when Lee was "diverted" by other forces to murder JFK. Admittedly, Phillips confessed to his brother that he was in Dallas on 11/22/1963. So I agree that he is very suspicious. However, there is still no full confession or "smoking gun" to link him. His alibi seems to hold for the time being. 1.3. You named Theodore Shackley, who was the immediate superior of David Morales, who basically confessed to a JFK plot. The immediate connection of Shackley to Morales is most suspicious, IMHO, because it seems next to impossible to keep secrets from one's immediate supervisor, who can ask about every minute that one was on duty and off duty. The politics of Shackley also seem to fit an anti-JFK agenda. Yet I don't have further evidence, aside from innuendo. I need a confession or a "smoking gun" and I don't have those from Shackley. It remains possible -- however unlikely -- that David Morales kept a JFK plot secret from his immediate supervisor. 1.4. You named James Jesus Angleton. While he was openly suspicious that JFK was too close to Castro and Khrushchev for his political comfort, it seems that Angleton was one key CIA officer who was targetted to be fooled by the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City. It seems that Angleton was fooled, and the mole-hunt begins with him. I know Angleton distrusted JFK, but that isn't enough evidence to accuse him. I don't see enough evidence here, yet. 1.5. You named Richard Helms coached by Allen Dulles. Allen Dulles was fired by JFK, so according to many people he had a strong motive to kill JFK. I disagree; Allen Dulles was a mature adult and he could tolerate being fired without plotting a murder. Stronger evidence is needed. As for Richard Helms, he was promoted to Director of Plans after JFK fired Dulles and Bissell over the Bay of Pigs disaster. Richard Helms was inside the CIA high-command, and he authorized many economic attacks on Cuba. By 1962 Helms was already taking a bigger role in Vietnam. One can try to link Helms through Bissell to the many Mafia plots to kill Fidel Castro, but that is a stretch, and farther than that I've seen no evidence. From what I've seen so far, Richard Helms was caught off guard by the murder of JFK. In my opinion today, with the evidence I've seen so far, David Morales is the highest-level CIA Agent involved in the JFK murder. We pretty well have his confession on this. We also have the death-bed confession of Howard Hunt. Hunt was over-the-hill when he was approached by Frank Sturgis (a CIA flunky) on behalf of David Morales to join their plot. Hunt claims he stayed "on the sidelines." That's what we have in the bank; these two mid-level CIA Agents, David Morales and Howard Hunt. Underneath them I perceive dozens of low-level CIA flunkies, including Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, and players of that level. (Many of these folks confessed in one way or another.) The common element of all those men is that they spoke some Spanish as well as English. So underneath them we have countless Cuban Exiles, many of them very motivated and very well trained paramilitary types, passionate about revenge for the Bay of Pigs. (2) Your second question is even more complicated, David. First you agree that the Oswald impersonators in Mexico City wanted first and foremost to fool the CIA high-command that Oswald was linked to the KGB. However, after this, you interpret the events differently than I do. In your speculation (as I understand it) the JFK plotters had the foresight to see that the next US President and the US Congress would learn from the CIA that Oswald made a deal with the KGB, and therefore would let the real killers go free because of the fear of World War III and Mutually Assured Destruction. (Thus the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City was all about frightening LBJ and the Congress.) Did I get that right? If so, it doesn't match very well. It suggests that the JFK murderers had only one goal -- to get away with murdering JFK. That's all they wanted? Their only motive was revenge and hatred -- and they didn't care about sending a message to the USA about why they did it? That doesn't match well because (until JFK) every assassin of a US President has always (1) admitted it; and (2) explained why he did it, even knowing he was going to be hung for his act. It's part of the unwritten honor code of Presidential assassins. So, the idea that the JFK murderers were merely cowards who wanted to hide in the shadows for the rest of their lives, content only in the knowledge that JFK was dead, and not caring who else that hurt, but just gloating over his death -- that doesn't really fit the profile of a Presidential assassin. Nor does it fit the psychology of high-powered paramilitary types who had been trying for years to kill Fidel Castro and to get Cuba back into the Free World. (3) Your third question, about whether the many mole hunts of James Jesus Angleton, for years after the murder of JFK, were all just coverups of assassinations, doesn't move me. Mole hunts are by definition Top Secret. Nobody knows they are even going on except the CIA high-command. As for LBJ, he never referred to CIA data on a KGB plot to justify any decision he ever made. (4) In your view, the molehunt conducted by the CIA was done to "hoodwink a majority of the rank-and-file CIA." But that doesn't fit because a mole-hunt is Top Secret and reserved only for the CIA high-command. (5) Your theory, David, is like the most popular theory I've seen on the FORUM, namely, that JFK was killed by an "Invisible Government" involving the high-command of the CIA and others with high positions inside the US Government and high positions of influence over the US Government. Certainly this was suggested by Howard Hunt in his death-bed confession, when he basically blamed LBJ for the whole plot. But Howard Hunt also admitted he was on the "sidelines" of the plot. So, how did he hear all the sordid details? We only know that he was approached by Frank Sturgis (a notorious rascal) and David Morales (the main CIA plotter, IMHO). Ascribing their JFK plot to LBJ and Cord Meyer would be a typical come-on for a sales pitch. The rumors were well-known in the CIA that JFK had slept with Cord Meyer's ex-wife. The mythology of an LBJ/Cord Meyer plot fits better with a sales pitch come-on than the truth. (6) Also, David, you cite the Sylvia Odio incident as "painting Oswald as a lone nut." I interpret that incident in just the opposite fashion, and so did the Warren Commission and the FBI. On the contrary, the Sylvia Odio incident proves that Lee Harvey Oswald had "accomplices" in the murder of JFK, and that he was far from a Lone Nut. The fact that the FBI strove energetically to brand Sylvia Odio as a "mental case" is hard evidence that Hoover could never let her story come out -- because it directly contradicted his "Lone Nut" theory. In my humble opinion, Sylvia Odio told the truth -- it was Lee Harvey Oswald at her apartment with two Latino men. This story -- which many in the FBI found credible, and Gaeton Fonzi also found "eminently believable" -- is totally true, and also confirms (and is confimed by) the story of Harry Dean, who claims that he heard Loran Hall and Larry Howard receive orders in mid-September 1963 from Guy Gabaldon to drive to New Orleans to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald, and drive him to Mexico City, where Guy Gabaldon would meet Oswald. Evidently Gabaldon would pretend to be a CIA Agent and give Oswald $500 to play along with his new "mission" in Dallas. (Richard Case Nagell also learned that Oswald was going to Mexico to get $500 from somebody.) The miscalculation was made by Loran Hall (who was probably Leopoldo, because the FBI picked Hall up in that context) who alone decided in their trip from New Orleans to Mexico that the three would drop by the apartment of Sylvia Odio, and shake her tree. Sylvia Odio testified later that she thought Leopoldo was getting "fresh" with her and was seeking a date. Loran Hall was such a macho show-off that her story rings true as a bell. (7) Finally, David, you compare all these suspects to cards in a deck, and that "you can stare at them forever but you still have to bet." Yes, we are still guessing to some degree -- I admit that. However, some hands make more sense than others. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

David, I gather from this comment that you're familiar with the 2014 work by Bill Simpich, "State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald." IMHO, Bill Simpich significantly advanced JFK research this year. Sure, he stood on the shoulders of giants and he enjoyed recent CIA disclosures under the FOIA and JFK Information Act. Still, he just leap-frogged ahead of everybody. I don't hesitate to call Bill Simpich a genius -- yet I also propose that he made one error. Well, not exactly an error, because Bill Simpich offered his interpretation of the facts only tentatively, in the interest of getting the facts out to the public ASAP. For example, he wrote in Chapter 5: "...Now let me offer a hypothesis that provides what I call the Mexico City solution to the suppression of Oswald’s connections to Cuba, why the assassination was covered up -- and, just maybe, an important insight into the assassination itself...What is presented here will not answer all the questions, but it offers a working solution that is based on the facts that we know...The reader is invited to join in, contribute, and add to this body of research. There’s more to learn, and I could be wrong, but I think I have the gist of it right." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5) So Bill Simpich graciously offers his interpretation as a tentative hypothesis. He has, IMHO, clearly established key facts, namely, that somebody inside the CIA impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran from the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, calling on a known wire-tapped line to the USSR consulate in Mexico City on 28 September 1963, knowing this would set off alarms inside the CIA. Simpich shows that this impersonation was quickly detected by the CIA and caused a CIA mole-hunt, which in turn caused the CIA 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald to be deliberately altered per SOP in order to catch the mole, and that twin 10/10/1963 memos were published by the CIA, designed to whack a mole. Brilliant work, and IMHO no theory about Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA can be valid from this point forward without taking the findings of Bill Simpich into consideration. OK, that's the genius. The error, according to me, is his final speculation on the *motives* of the impersonators and as he terms it, "why the assassination was covered up." Here's what Bill Simpich wrote: "Whoever imitated Oswald on the telephone in Mexico City knew that such a paper trail would be a powerful way to blackmail the involved CIA and FBI officers after November 22 into deep-sixing any serious investigation of the assassination -– even an internal inquiry that could be hushed up on the grounds of 'national security.' If it went public that these officers had used the Oswald legend for a molehunt prior to the assassination, the result would be not only embarrassment or a security breach, but suspicion that they were involved in the assassination itself. At a minimum, it would mean the end of the careers of these officers. The impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5) My problem here is that the issue of National Security just doesn't match the projected disaster, namely, "the end of the careers of these officers." The CIA would botch the murder investigation of a US President in order to save a few jobs of a few CIA people? I sincerely doubt it. Bill Simpich urges that, "the impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." To a few people, yes, but not to National Security. So blackmail hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated by his argument. Rather, a better explanation, IMHO, is that National Security really means National Security -- that is, if the American Public really knew the truth about the JFK murder, then there would have been riots in the street, and possibly a Civil War in 1963. That's plausible. See, there were three stories that hit the street on 11/22/1963 -- almost immediately. (1) The first story was voiced by Bernard Weissman in his Warren Commission testimony about his opinion in the first minutes after CBS announced the death of JFK, namely, that the Right-wing had murdered JFK. Weissman used the name of Ex-General Edwin Walker openly in this context. Several Americans thought this immediately. (This was the true story; the truth about what actually happened.) (2) The second story was that the Left-wing had murdered JFK. This was plain as soon as Lee Harvey Oswald was presented on TV as the main suspect. He was "a Communist." (This was the cover story created by the JFK Kill Team.) (3) The third story was that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Nut," and was the "Lone shooter" at JFK, and "had no accomplices." That story was presented by J. Edgar Hoover himself, before the sun set on 11/22/1963. The first story, however, seemed to fizzle into nothingness one day after Lee Harvey Oswald was identified as a Communist and a Castro supporter, because TV began showing film footage of Oswald in New Orleans passing out FPCC leaflets during the previous summer, and news about Oswald getting arrested because of a street fight with Carlos Bringuier, and appearing on radio and TV because of his FPCC antics. All of this filled the mass media just about continuously. So two stories remained on 11/23/1963. Those who insisted that the Communists murdered JFK were outspoken well into 1964, adding that we must invade Cuba right away, kill Fidel Castro and take back Cuba for the Free World. Among them were Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, David Morales (via some shills he set up to feed the mass media) as well as Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Billy James Hargis, Ex-General Edwin Walker (even to the Warren Commission) and others within the John Birch Society. The third story, that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a Lone Nut, was pushed hard by the US Government, and won the day. Those who argued for stories #1 and #2 faded away (for a half-century). Nevertheless, IMHO, the best explanation for the Mexico City impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald can be found inside the bugged conversation itself. As Bill Simpich relates it, the impersonator made the USSR consulate clerk say the name of 'Valery Kostikov' on tape. Kostikov worked at the USSR consulate in Mexico City and was known by the CIA to be a dangerous KGB Agent. THAT was the payoff. That Oswald was partners with Kostikov -- THAT's the bogus idea that the impersonators wanted to implant. So, this is the only error of Bill Simpich, IMHO. I propose, instead, that whoever imitated Oswald on the telephone in Mexico City believed that such a paper trail would be a plausible way to convince the CIA and FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was in league with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. With that connection, the US Government would have had all the proof they needed to conclude that the Communists killed JFK, and that we should immediately commit military forces to war against Cuba and the USSR. In my opinion, the US Government figured this out very early -- perhaps before November was over. They knew exactly who the JFK murderers were -- but rather than risk Civil War, they decided to cover-up the JFK murder for 75 years. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, David, these are relevant and worthy points. It's interesting that Nagell's actual employer was the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and he was was only on loan to the CIA. It's equally interesting that Nagell was blackmailed into working for KGB as a double-agent. Those details complicate my simple narrative. I must concede that Nagell wasn't entirely ignorant of operations conducted outside of the CIA; e.g. Nagell retained connections with the DIA, which is technically outside of the CIA. You admit that Nagell deliberately obscured his own motives in handling Lee Harvey Oswald. I think we both agree that this remains a problem. You offer a guess -- that Nagell saw Lee Oswald as quasi-DIA, who had also become lost in the maze of the CIA Agents, CIA Rogues and CIA Flunkies -- and was being framed. This certainly could explain Nagell's famous behavior of shooting up a bank in Texas in mid-September to get himself arrested -- to guarantee that he himself would not be made into the JFK murder patsy. That is, Nagell possibly (or probably) saw that Lee Oswald was being set up as a patsy in the JFK murder. I would note here that there were three others about whom fears were expressed that they were also being set up as patsies to be framed for the JFK murder, namely, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Harry Dean. Like Lee Oswald and Richard Nagell, the common thread throughout all their cases is that they once fought or publicly spoke out on the side of Fidel Castro at one time or other. In the case of Nagell, he was a double-agent for the CIA/KGB -- and so notoriously lacking in protection and always plausibly deniable by the CIA. One can make a mildly similar case for Lee Oswald -- he was a Marine who blamed JFK for the Bay of Pigs (according to George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Loran Hall, and as I recall, Michael Paine) on the one hand, and yet also a supporter of Fidel Castro via the FPCC on the other hand. Was Lee Harvey Oswald a true Marine or a true Communist? (In 1963 it is implausible to have been both, simultaneously, and the most plausible answer is that Oswald was a sort of double-agent, playing on both sides.) The traditional trouble with double-agents is that the CIA never fully trusts them -- so they become more expendible than ever. So, Nagell's behavior was rational when he escaped being set up as the patsy in a JFK plot. Yet that suggests that Richard Nagell knew that Lee Oswald was involved in a JFK plot, while clearly Lee Oswald himself was ignorant of that fact. In that sense, Nagell knew more about Oswald than Oswald himself. I am arguing that Lee Oswald acted in cooperation with his handlers and framers on the pretext that he was training for a CIA mission to murder Fidel Castro inside Cuba, pretending to be an FPCC officer, and getting an instant Visa from the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. This, better than any explanation I've seen so far, explains the foolish behavior of Lee Oswald in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963. If I'm correct, then Lee Oswald had no idea he was involved in a JFK murder plot, but Richard Case Nagell was totally aware that Lee Oswald was involved in it. The only question remains whether Nagell plainly warned Lee Oswald about this scenario. From the cryptic testimony and reports we receive from Nagell, it is extremely difficult to answer this question. Also, David, I revoke my claim that Nagell was more intelligent than Oswald -- but I still maintain that Nagell was more highly educated than Oswald. That counts for something -- at least it counts for the amount of trust and responsibility that the CIA would place in any given individual. It seems to me that the CIA didn't trust Lee Oswald very much, but Lee Oswald strongly desired a job in the CIA -- and that is how the handlers and framers of Lee Oswald were able to manipulate him so easily. These CIA flunkies simply pretended to be CIA Agents, and they promised Lee Oswald a regular job in the CIA if he would play their undercover role. We both do agree, David, that the CIA allowed Richard Case Nagell to have a "bigger picture" than they allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to have. In fact, in my theory, the official CIA gave Lee Harvey Oswald almost NO information whatsoever. All the information that Oswald received was from CIA flunkies, who were lying to Oswald. I agree with you that somebody must define Oswald's mission, and that the theories we have so far are unsatisfactory -- so I propose my own theory -- namely -- that Oswald had NO MISSION AT ALL from the officlal CIA, but was operating on a BOGUS MISSION hatched by low-level CIA flunkies. The creators of the BOGUS MISSION were probably Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Clay Shaw, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Thomas Edward Beckham (as Jim Garrison claimed) along with other players -- the ones who invented this entire "punking" operation in cooperation with JBS elements such as Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon and others (as Harry Dean claimed). That original BOGUS MISSION was evidently abetted by Frank Sturgis and Johnny Roselli, who obtained the help of the one CIA Agent in the batch, David Morales. Frank and David tried to recruit CIA Agent Howard Hunt, using the myth that LBJ and Cord Meyer were in charge. Howard didn't join, but he didn't turn them in, either; instead he remained "on the sidelines." (Maybe a few other CIA rogues knew about it, but I require more hard evidence to be certain.) We both seem to agree that Nagell knew that Oswald was being sheep-dipped (i.e. framed). Your linkage of Nagell to Oswald in 1959 in Japan is important -- yet it tends to show that Oswald probably didn't respect Nagell as much as he should have. As for your conclusion, David, we can't verify that final suggestion, i.e. that Lee Oswald was "employed" by the DIA while in Dallas and New Orleans, simply because Oswald's Tax Records remain Top Secret in US Government files. It seems to me today that Oswald was not very obedient, and so not a very good candidate for full-time employment, and that's why he shuffled around from one low-paying job after another. It seems to me today that Oswald was very hopeful that he could in the near future obtain full-time employment by some Intelligence Agency, and that is precisely how the JFK kill team was able to "punk" him. Does my theory sound implausible to you? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Quite right, David, because Roosevelt was wise enough to know that we couldn't win without taking charge of the battle field. At that time it became clear that the USA was going to rise up a notch in World History, but even at that point, it was unclear how high the USA would rise. We could not predict, for example, that London would be reduced to little pieces of rubble by the end of WW2. My argument remains -- Roosevelt did not aggressively seek to take the reigns of World Empire. That was Adolf Hitler who did that. Roosevelt cooperated with London as far as possible -- but it was also clear that London had got its own self into this mess, and we certainly couldn't throw good money after bad. The USA had to take more responsibility once the UK begged for the USA to come to its aid. However -- it was by no means clear that the USA would end up as the Global Empire of planet earth until WW2 was finally over. I think history affirms my view. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

David, thanks for recognizing my points about the kill team vs. the coverup team. As for your point about Richard Case Nagell, I find it interesting and worthy of a dialogue. I have no hard conclusions yet, but I do have a tentative argument. Richard Case Nagell was once considered as a possible witness in the Clay Shaw trial, but Jim Garrison decided against it because Nagell's style of speaking was so peculiar. Nagell was confident that he had something important to share about the murder of JFK, but any three people in his audience would report three different interpretations of what he said. Nagell was deliberately cryptic and guarded in his speech -- as a rule. Another feature of Nagell's witness, IMHO, is that he was focused on the CIA, which was his employer. Nagell was clearly educated -- and he knew a lot about Marxism-Leninism -- enough to be a legitimate, highly-paid double-agent for both the CIA and the KGB. By contrast, Lee Harvey Oswald was half-educated. He could speak Russian rather well -- but his knowledge of Marxism-Leninism was amateur. We have two sources for this -- the American consulate in Russia which noted that Oswald used Communistic terms without knowing their meaning, and George De Mohrenschildt, who told the Warren Commission roughly the same thing. Here's an excerpt from that testimony of George DM speaking of Lee Harvey Oswald: --------------- Begin Warren Commission transcript of 23 April 1964 ---------------------- Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. His mind was of a man with exceedingly poor background, who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them... Mr. JENNER. Did you think he understood it? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. He did not understand the words--he just used them. So how can you take seriously a person like that? You just laugh at him. But there was always an element of pity I had, and my wife had, for him. We realized that he was sort of a forlorn individual, groping for something. Mr. JENNER. Did you form any impression in the area, let us say, of reliability---that is, whether our Government would entrust him with something that required a high degree of intelligence, a high degree of imagination, a high degree of ability to retain his equilibrium under pressure, a management of a situation, to be flexible enough? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I never would believe that any government would be stupid enough to trust Lee with anything important. Mr. JENNER. Give me the basis of your opinion. Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. ...Well, frankly...He had a chance to be a Marine. Here was a perfect life for him -- this was my point of view. He was a man without education, in the Marines -- why didn't he stay in the Marines all his life? You don't need a high degree of intelligence to be a Marine corporal or a soldier. --------------- End Warren Commission transcript of 23 April 1964 ---------------------- I relate that testimony only to contrast Lee Harvey Oswald with Richard Case Nagell. Nagell was more highly educated than Oswald -- and Nagell would probably have been able to convince George De Mohrenschildt that he really was a Marxist-Leninist, rather than, like Lee Oswald, someone "who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them." Nagell claims that he interacted with Lee Oswald in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, and I believe him. Nagell says he warned Oswald that the "Cuban Communists" who were befriending Oswald at that time were really "Cuban Anti-communists." Nagell was disturbed that Oswald completely ignored Nagell's warnings. Despite the fact that Nagell was more educated than Oswald -- and probably thought he knew more than Oswald about everything, it is just as likely that Oswald had secret information that Nagell never guessed. In other words, it is just as likely that Lee Oswald already knew that the Cuban Anti-communists who befriended him in New Orleans were only pretending to be Communists. This would explain why Oswald ignored Nagell, although it upset Nagell. My point is this -- Nagell was smart, but not omniscient. Nagell was myopic -- totally focused on the CIA drama. It seems to me that Nagell was ignorant about the dynamics of the JFK plot that were unfolding outside of the CIA. He was barely aware of them, and unimpressed by them, and he was therefore in no position to suspect that the JFK plotters outside of the CIA were actually in the driver's seat, and giving orders to the CIA rogues who were involved without the knowledge of the CIA high-command. Joan Mellen, as I recall, says Thomas Edward Beckham attended a meeting in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 with Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Cuban Exiles, Carlos Marcello, Frank Sturgis and David Morales. Joan Mellen hastily concludes from this that the CIA was plotting something. I look at this motley ground-crew and realize that the CIA high-command is not represented there -- there one was CIA Agent (David Morales) and a half-dozen or so low-level CIA flunkies who probably boasted on the street that they were CIA Agents to naive kids like Thomas Edward Beckham and Lee Harvey Oswald. It seems to me that Lee Harvey Oswald believed they were CIA Agents, and that's why Oswald let himself get sheep-dipped by them as a phony officer of the FPCC, from May 1963 through September 1963 in New Orleans. Oswald was under the illusion that these "friends" of his were going to give him a legitimate job in the CIA as a reward for his service (in helping kill Fidel Castro via passage from Mexico City). Richard Case Nagell knew better -- but perhaps even Nagell failed to see close enough to realize that underground, paramilitary right-wing civilians were in charge of the plot, and not the CIA mules and flunkies in the field. Inside the CIA proper, we have confessions only from David Morales and Howard Hunt (who says he was on the "sidelines".) As for CIA flunkies, we have confessions from Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Edward Beckham. These confessors are all low-level CIA assets. Perhaps Richard Case Nagell knew that David Morales was involved, and that was, in his mind, extremely high in the CIA -- compared to Nagell himself. Perhaps that's why Nagell concluded that the CIA was in control of the plot. My tentative conclusion is that Nagell's opinion about the source of the CIA plot must remain inconclusive until we can fully identify the ground-crew. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thanks, Robert, for raising this vital issue in the case of Ex-General Edwin Walker, the only US General to resign in the 20th century. The Warren Commission testimony of Edwin Walker reveals so many cryptic clues to the murder of JFK that one hardly knows where to begin. The solution to the JFK murder, in my opinion, will one day be seen to involve the separation of the Team that murdered JFK from the Team that covered-up the murder. The two Teams were hostile to one another. The Team that murdered JFK is distinguished by its continual message that the Left-wing killed JFK. That includes blaming Fidel Castro, the USSR and the FPCC (Fair Play for Cuba Committee) which was used to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK murder. The Team that covered up the murder is distinguished by its continual message that only Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he did it absolutely alone, and he had no accomplices. This Lone-Nut (or Lone-shooter) theory of the JFK murder was the winner in the marketplace of ideas, because the US government spared no expense to ensure its victory. The obviously stupid "Magic Bullet" theory about one bullet that caused seven wounds in the JFK limo was defended by the US Government as Gospel Truth. This shows the commitment of the US Government to say ANYTHING to prevent the alternative theory -- that the Communists killed JFK -- from gaining the upper hand in the marketplace of ideas. The Truth about the JFK murder can be unraveled, therefore, by documenting all those persons who strenuously attempted to promote the idea in the mass media from 1963 to 1965 that JFK was the victim of a Communist Conspiracy. Those names are readily known to us. They include John Martino, David Morales, Frank Sturgis, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Billy James Hargis, and many more. Some of these people would lobby their local Congressmen, or attempt to forge documents to make the JFK murder look like a Communist plot. The impersonation of Oswald and Duran in Mexico City on the bugged line between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate was an attempt to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. That impersonation started a CIA mole-hunt, as amply proved by Bill Simpich (2014) thus proving that the CIA high-command did not know about it. All of this proves that those CIA Agents involved in framing Oswald (and just murdering JFK) were rogues working along with ultra-right JBS types. (The only unsettled question today, IMHO, is about who was leading whom.) The whistle-blowers in the Anti-Communist plot became our most valuable research resources, namely, John Martino, Richard Case Nagell, Howard Hunt, Jack S. Martin, Thomas Edward Beckham, Harry Dean and others. Billy James Hargis, for his part, made an LP album of his own voice dubbed over the voice of the WDSU radio interviewer of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. Hargis simply asked the same questions as the original interviewer, and simply replaced the interviewer's voice with his own voice, so that it sounded like Hargis was interviewing Oswald. At the end of the LP, Hargis added his own commentary, emphasizing strenuously that Lee Harvey Oswald proved that he was a Communist, and therefore we must all urgently conclude that the Communists killed JFK! Billy James Hargis, like Ex-General Edwin Walker, his partner on speaking tours, was just as connected to Carlos Bringuier and the DRE as Walker was. In one of the many right-wing speaking seminars held in the USA during 1963, Hargis speaks alongside Carlos Bringuier, Edwin Walker and Kent Courtney. We still have the program today. Finally, Robert, your previous post about W.T. Caley, who told FBI agent Louis Nicoletti about a "Counter-insurgency" program was probably referring to a booklet written by Ex-General Edwin Walker. Here's a sample page from that booklet, found among Walker's personal papers: http://www.pet880.com/images/19620502_Counterinsurgency_2.JPG The paranoid theme of this booklet is that the US Army under JFK was secretly setting up a "Counter-insurgency" program in order to suppress a coming Right-wing Revolution against JFK, which JFK, as a Communist agent, justly feared, in response to the Fulbright Memorandum (a memo to JFK written by J. William Fulbright in 1961, warning of extremists on the Right). Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Say, Greg, you interviewed Gerry Patrick Hemming personally. What did he have to say about General Edwin Walker? I mean, was it only one or two quick quips, or did he have any detail or stories to relate? Thanks, --Paul Trejo