Paul Trejo

Another problem with you, Ernie, is that you don't LISTEN. Your mind is made up. You're spinning in your own circles. I've posted plenty of documents from Edwin Walker's own personal papers here -- but you want FBI documents. I've given you all the time I'm going to give you, because you're simply not worth the bother. I've answered the same questions for MONTHS because your posts represent a position that's stubborn as a mule and just as dull. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, as usual, your theory is so full of HOLES and you make so many amateur GUESSES that it amazes me how you can fail to see them. Here are my responses, "by the numbers": 1. Just because all the people who were at the JBS meeting that Harry Dean alleges have died except Harry, this certainly doesn't mean that those avenues are blocked forever. Nobody has PROVED the absence of other documentary evidence of this meeting. Because of J. Edgar Hoover (foremostly) authorities have never followed up on Harry's story. I'm not a researcher -- I'm a computer operator. I co-wrote Harry Dean's CONFESSIONS as a personal favor to him and for the record, and I never offered it as independent research. I clarified Harry Dean's story for history, and set the record straight from the LIES told about Harry Dean by W.R. Morris. Anybody who's read those CONFESSIONS now know that W.R. Morris was a rank xxxx (and perhaps paid by the FBI to guarantee disinformation about Harry Dean). Yet if I was a researcher, I'd have tracked down all the kinfolk of those connected with that meeting. Your error (once again) is jumping to conclusions, that just because nothing has shown up SO FAR, then NOTHING will ever be available. Actually, researchers have neglected the story of Harry Dean for half a century -- and IMHO that is WHY the JFK murder has never been solved. 2. Harry Dean does talk about "outer circle" people, for example, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (who were NOT in that meeting) and he has done this since 1963, and went public with this since 1965 -- completely independent of all other research into Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- which is substantial in the JFK research literature. Again -- the sticking point has always been Ex-General Edwin Walker, who has so far enjoyed a "ticket to ride" on the JFK murder. I think that after a half-century, that ticket has finally expired. 3. So, Ernie, you're again mistaken in jumping to the conclusion that Harry is the ONLY source of that meeting. Harry is the only KNOWN source today, but that is subject to change as research continues into this field. A new book coming out on about the JFK murder and Ex-General Edwin Walker (perhaps this year) will open a floodlight of evidence never before seen. 4. Larry Hancock's observation that there is always "noise level" about a plot like this is precisely what enabled him to move to the forefront of JFK research in 2014. My only point is that JFK researchers have failed to research ALL the noise, and have incorrectly overlooked the noise that points to Ex-General Edwin Walker. To get a start on that "noise," I advise the reader to return to the Warren Commission volumes, and just read the INDEX to those 26 volumes, and recognize the HUNDREDS of times that Walker is named in those volumes. The relation of Walker to the JFK murder was far more apparent in 1963-1964 than at any other time in US History. My point is that JFK researchers have so far failed to fully research Edwin Walker, and to track down the "noise level" about him that existed from 1962 through 1964. 5. Edwin Walker was a complex American. Your portrait of him as an "authoritarian personality" is merely your own amateur psychology -- and you're not really very good at it, Ernie. Edwin Walker was a GREAT American General of World War Two, who was RUINED as an officer when he was INFECTED by the disloyalty of the John Birch Society. Any objective research in the Edwin Walker will show the sudden BREAK in his loyalty, when he joined the JBS and became the ONLY General of the USA to resign in the 20th century. The John Birch Society is the PRIMARY KEY to the crimes of Edwin Walker. 6. While it's true, Ernie, that no historical event can ever depend on one person's memory, the weakness of your case has always been your obsession to shut down the Harry Dean Story in any way you can, and PREVENT discussion about researching the trails that are implied by Harry Dean's Story. You seem to have some sort of Obsession to shut it down -- and your mind is slammed shut. 7. The weakness in your theory so far, Ernie, pales in comparison to your latest arrogance, namely, to pretend to be an expert in psychology and to pontificate about the "underlying personality issues" of Harry Dean because he quickly moved from being a supporter of Fidel Castro (ultra-left-wing) to being a supporter of the John Birch Society and Minutemen (ultra-right-wing). You have a lot of nerve to raise the psychology issue, Ernie, because you're simply unqualified to talk about "personality issues" -- you have no degree in Psychology. You're a rank amateur. You fail to recognize, first and foremost, that there were HUNDREDS of people in 1960-1963 who moved from supporting Fidel Castro to suppporting the Ultra-right-wing, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming; Frank Sturgis; Jack Ruby; David Ferrie; Loran Hall; Larry Howard; and dozens of people in the CIA, named by Larry Hancock. The fact is that Fidel Castro hid his Communism at first, and then came out as a Communist subsequently. This fooled HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of people. But you want to play psychiatrist in public! You should be ashamed. 8. You continue, Ernie, to naively defend the "standard operating procedure" of the FBI, even when it comes to the JFK murder. Even after former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen firmly told you to stop doing that! You're evidently stubborn on an obsessive scale, Ernie. 9. BOTTOM LINE: You evade reasonable arguments, Ernie, and your case is anything but reasonable. You claim that you didn't call Harry Dean a "mental case" in your words today, but actually you descended into the topic of "underlying personality issues" which amounts to the same thing. Again, you're trying to jump to a conclusion based on partial data. You call yourself a reearcher, but really you only want to collect FBI documents, and rely on those obsessively. I personally don't put you in the same class of researchers as Gaeton Fonzi, Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock or Bill Simplich. Or anywhere near them. With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, As to (1) I agree that the only person still living today who can verify Harry Dean's claim is Harry Dean himself. All the other parties to that alleged John Birch Society meeting have died. As to (2) I agree that when 2017 arrives and the US Government finally releases all FBI and CIA records associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK murder (presuming they really and truly do this, as they promised) and if we still cannot find documentary evidence to substantiate Harry Dean's claim, then yes, I will give up that particular search. I will continue to maintain that Loran Hall was somehow involved in the JFK murder. We have ample evidence that he was, from Gaeton Fonzi, Joan Mellen and Larry Hancock -- and even from Gerry Patrick Hemming (who said Loran Hall had his 30.06 rifle with him in Dallas on 11/22/1963; and we know the FBI seized that same rifle on that day, and soon after the JFK murder questioned its most recent pawn-broker because of the fingerprints found on it). Even without a 2017 FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's story, we still have reason to suspect Loran Hall. Even New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison suspected Loran Hall back in 1968. Also, I will still maintain that Ex-General Edwin Walker was somehow involved in the JFK murder. We have ample evidence from the record that Edwin Walker lied to the Warren Commission about Lee Harvey Oswald when he told them he never heard of Oswald until the JFK murder. Walker in 1975 wrote to Senator Frank Church that he knew Oswald was his shooter only days after his April 1963 shooting. Walker boasted about this connection to a German newspaper within hours of the JFK assassination. He boasted about it for the rest of his life. The connecting link between Loran Hall and Ex-General Edwin Walker was the John Birch Society. Wherever Loran Hall went, so went Larry Howard (both were members of La Sambra and former members of Interpen). Larry Howard's name was also on the lease of the Louisiana paramilitary training camp at which Guy Banister, David Ferrie and the DRE were active in 1963. Even without FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's claims -- I still suspect Larry Howard was somehow involved in the murder of JFK. My reasoning is, Ernie, that long before I ever cared about Harry Dean's story I was already researching the noise about Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard with regard to the JFK murder. I believe Harry Dean when he said he went to the FBI about his claims, however we have seen from a few FBI documents that have already been released, that some FBI Agents had been known to rudely dismiss Harry Dean as a "mental case." That's no shame, because actually Sylvia Odio, a highly educated, upper-class woman from pre-Castro Cuba was also called a "mental case" by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI -- mainly because she, too, said that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. (In her case the FBI promptly picked up Loran Hall as a prime suspect, and actually he confessed that he visited Sylvia Odio with Larry Howard that day, only he denied it was Lee Harvey Oswald with them. His story soon fell apart, and J. Edgar Hoover knew it, but still Hoover's final word to the Warren Commission about Sylvia Odio was that she was a "mental case.") We know that anybody who disputed the claim of J. Edgar Hoover that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the murder of JFK was to be bureaucratically dismissed. That was simple; just call them a "mental case." So -- after 2017, if released FBI documents fail to corroborate Harry's story, my conclusion would be that Harry Dean really did try to tell the FBI (because actually we have plenty of documentary evidence that Harry Dean liked calling the FBI) but the FBI refused to listen, and they patronized him, humored him and privately laughed behind his back -- even though Harry Dean's story would have cracked the JFK murder case wide open. I will always believe that Harry Dean really saw what he saw, and he really heard what he heard in that John Birch Society meeting in September, 1963. The pieces fit snugly into a well-reasoned suspect list for the JFK murder. All that said -- I have more faith in the US Government in general than in Hoover's FBI, so I will continue to expect to see FBI corroboration of Harry Dean's story by FBI documents in the year 2017. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Actually, no, Ernie. Because you post more than any other person on this thread -- repeating yourself countless times -- and you seem only to want to harrass 87-year old Harry Dean because he claims that in September 1963 he heard Ex-General Edwin Walker address a gathering of John Birch Society members in Southern California and announce that their patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, was ready for the patsy role in the JFK murder. Harry also said he gave this information to the FBI. You can't find that report in the FBI records, Ernie, so you've spent YEARS on this thread defending the FBI records and how they are complete, and how they shared everything with you (!) and you can't find proof of Harry Dean's claim. But most folks here just laugh at your naivete and jejune belief that the FBI would single you out and share data with you that they've withheld from the Warren Commision, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Senator Church, Senator Schweiker, the HSCA, Gaeton Fonzi and even our current member, Larry Hancock. You think you have all the FBI records (which is a laugh) and you then choose to insult, insult, insult Harry Dean on this thread FOR YEARS, along with anybody who happens to believe him (which I do). But this is all you really stand for, Ernie. You want to be RIGHT. And you can't stand it if somebody points out the dozens of HOLES in your flimsy theory. What do I stand for? I stand for the TRUTH -- and Historical Accuracy -- and also pointing out the dozens of HOLES in your naive faith in the FBI's record-keeping, honesty and sharing procedures. Former FBI Agent Wesley Swearington just laughs at your immature belief that the FBI always keeps perfect records, and always plays by the rules. He should know. With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo

As usual, Ernie, you don't read very carefully. I never said that This Land Press removed your comments because of their tone or substance, but only because they chose to re-edit their article about Billy James Hargis, and "absorbed" our debate inside their article. So, once again, Ernie, your post is a dog chasing his own tail. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., since we've already disagreed... The clash between Capitalism and Communism cannot be made into a choice of EITHER ideology OR economic. It is both. The ideology of Communism proposes (according to Marx and Engels and their Communist Manifesto of 1844) to abolish Private Property, abolish Religion, abolish Marriage and abolish Nationalism. This is an attack on Western tradition both ideologically and economically. Our Family Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law and National Law have no other basis than Private Property, and the redress and settlement of Private Property disputes. There is probably no Law at all without Private Property -- even if it's only about the Private Property of My Own Ownership of My Own Body (which was the issue of the Slavery Era). The Communists knew good and well that by proposing to abolish Private Property, Religion, Marriage and Nationalism that these were fighting words -- and that they had declared war on the West. The issue with the USSR, also, was that they had no real goal to abolish Nationaiism in *their* case -- and they were always loyal to Mother Russia. Also, Marriage was still the norm in the USSR. They also lied to the world about Race, saying that they had no Race problem, and no Crime problem, and even no Alcohol problem. All lies. Communism was a pipe dream -- and this is easily seen a half-century later, after the USSR has fallen. It didn't even last out three generations -- despite every Police State trick in the book. Their culture was a disaster -- it would have been a joke if it was actually funny instead of perfectly tragic. So, yes, the USA is based on Capitalism and its Profits -- but most profits aren't war profits. Most profits are due to Import and Export, and Wholesale and Retail, as one can easily imagine. The big change in the USA from 1930 to 1950 was that the United Kingdom fell from its great height as the Global Empire, and the USA took over that role. The USA -- although we didn't seek it -- became the new Global Empire. The big difference between the UK and the USA, as I see it, is that the UK was Colonial, and the USA is Anti-colonial. Still, after 9/11 the whole world can see that the USA inherited all of the problems that the UK used to manage on their own. We've made some mistakes -- sure -- and Vietnam was admittedly one of them. But we're not Colonialists (as the USSR charged) and we absorbed countless thousands of Vietnamese Exiles in 1975 just as we absorbed thousands of Russian Exiles in 1917, and thousands of Cuban Exiles in 1960. We aren't Colonialists -- but we are the Global Empire of the 21st century. That's not Nazi, by the way. The Nazi's are Aryan Supremacists, and in the USA these Nazi's are regarded as kooks. Your view seems to be biased against the Rich in the USA -- yet if this was 1910 you'd probably be biased against the Rich in the UK. But all nations have their Rich people. It's the way it's always been since the days of the Old Testament. To imagine that people can do without Private Property is a pipe dream. To hope for a world with greater equity is noble, and that was also the dream of JFK. But JFK was also one of the Rich people in the USA -- and JFK respected the Rich as well as the working class. It's a mistake, IMHO, to think that the Rich and Powerful killed JFK. Instead, it was the paramilitary ultra-right-wing who killed JFK -- especially those mobilized against Fidel Castro on the one hand, and those mobilized against the Civil Rights Movement on the other hand. These radicals had the help of rogues inside the CIA -- we have their names and their confessions. One of those ultra-right-wing radicals was Ex-General Edwin Walker. Another was Loran Hall. It's not just that Harry Dean has identified these two with a first-hand witness, but we have personal papers by Walker that tend toward his guilt, and a near-confession from Loran Hall himself, dated 1968. Read this interview of Loran Hall by Harold Weisberg and see for yourself. We're very close to solving the JFK murder at the ground-crew level. http://www.pet880.com/images/19680903_Natl_Enquirer_NB.pdf Regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Ernie, I provide lots of facts and lots of documentation to substantiate them. Your immature method however, is to cover your ears and sing la-la-la-la whenever a fact is presented -- and documented -- that does not fit into your bias. Anybody who's familiar with the years of debates on this very thread knows of many, many artifacts I've shared with this thread. So, you're just making a fool of yourself, Ernie. Why not cut your losses? Better yet -- why not finally explain to readers here what your point is? What are you trying to prove, after years of attacking Harry Dean on this thread -- since 2010? What does Ernie Lazar stand for? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Paul -- you have made a serious allegation about something I allegedly wrote in "early 2013". And you have made that accusation before here in EF. But as is your routine custom you never QUOTE what I wrote. SO WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU? The "number" you are referring to was an FBI file number right? Would you care to share with everyone here "the number" you are referring to? If you would QUOTE what I actually wrote -- then all of this disagreement would immediately be resolved. SO DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS AND COMMON DECENCY TO QUOTE WHAT I WROTE? ... As I factually wrote, Ernie, your claims on the web page, "The Strange Loves of Billy James Hargis" from 2013, made in a long and insulting thread, much like the tone of this thread, were removed by the editors of that web page, and the conclusions were absorbed into the next version of his article. So, you're simply lucky there -- your crimes have been covered over, and you can continue your lies and pretences with impunity -- at least on that count. Make no mistake, Ernie. Many readers here see right through your bias, your hostility, your insulting arrogance -- and know that you're a weak writer with poor logical skills. Another thing I know with certainty, former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen has lost all respect for your truly ignorant methods of so-called fact-finding, and of claiming that if the FBI wrote something, it must be true -- and that the FBI never broke their own rules or procedures. The harsh words that FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen wrote about you I have deliberately withheld from this Forum until today. Yet if you persist in your incessant insults, I'll have no other moral choice but to air them publicly. Calm down, Ernie. Seek professional help. With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo

MODERATOR! MODERATOR! Is this form of insult still being allowed on John Simkin's Education Forum?? Well, you'll soon upload that silly little file of the FBI giving a green light to the JBS moron, former Congressman John Rousselot, to work for Ronald Reagan for two years as a "consultant," Ernie. There's no need for me to sully my hands with it. The FBI merely interviewed 33 of Rousselot's pals and provided no further investigation than that. It's extremely boring reading that all these neighbors and co-workers thought John was a "great guy." That's the sort of work we got from the FBI in response to a Presidential request. No cross-examination whatsoever. I certainly don't care who sees that silly little file, Ernie. Still, your insults have for some reason obtained a new lease on life. Probably you're crowing because Harry Dean has divorced me -- by surprise -- using this very thread on the Education Forum. I don't blame Harry Dean -- if Harry's exhausted from a lifetime of telling his truth, and being bashed in the teeth, to to speak, from FBI and JBS shills like yourself, then one can easily understand his exhaustion. A half-century of argumentation is long enough for anybody. But I myself am not giving up. All FBI files on Harry Dean have still not been accounted for -- despite your biased web site, Ernie. The TRUTH about the central role played by Ex-General Edwin Walker in the Dallas leg of the JFK murder plot has still not had its proper hearing. BULLETIN: There is a new book coming out -- probably this year -- and probably more than a thousand pages long -- about the role of Ex-General Edwin Walker in the JFK murder plot. The scholar who's preparing this book has asked me to refrain from naming him until the book is in print. So, I'll honor his request. But get ready, dear readers; 2014 could be the year. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Ernie, in early 2013 you were still writing in a web page entitled, "The Strange Love of Billy James Hargis," (on ThisLandPress.com) that Harry Dean had no FBI number at all. The truth is that it was I, in 2013, who found that number and gave it to you, and started your buying spree of FBI materials on Harry Dean. Since then, of course, the editors of that article subsumed our online debate in their article, so your deception is now covered. Yet you are frankly dishonest to claim that you "discovered" the FBI files on Harry Dean. Harry Dean did call the FBI this year to obtain all FBI records about himself. The FBI responded by saying that all that material was sent to NARA. NARA, as we know, charges very high prices for their records -- so Harry Dean is basically locked out from viewing those records on his own. Those are the facts. You might crow about being able to afford many of those NARA records, Ernie, but your blog about them still suffers from one major defect -- the Editor -- that's you. Your collection of the Harry Dean material is questionable, because actually, who knows what you're withholding due to your bias? Further, you provide a special link called "Analysis," which is nothing more than your bias and one-sided so-called logic having a field day in a web site that is completely protected from critiicism. So what? Any objective reader can see through your bias. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Paul B - I thought I'd already answered it. I said that in the early days of US Intelligence after WW2, the immediate situation of the Cold War, as nations globally lined up with either the USA or the USSR, made a "practical" necessity of the USA drafting former Nazi intelligence agents to help set up files and databases about known proto-KGB and KGB spies. The Nazi intelligence service (the SS and others) had IBM computers by then, along with code-breakers and a relatively enormous database on Soviet agents -- their names and activities. The files of the former Nazi spy network in the USSR and in Europe became valuable resources for USA intelligence operatives like Allen Dulles when first establishing new agencies in the USA like the CIA. That was entirely a practical consideration. It was not "collusion with the Nazis." The Third Reich was already defeated. The USSR was not playing nice. In fact, it's a well-known historical fact that both the USSR and the USA would compete fairly aggressively to hire or otherwise "draft" former Nazi intelligence agents and scientists to obtain assistance in the race for rocket technology and other intelligence data. Regards, --Paul Trejo

So -- as developments in the case against Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK continue to solidify, interest will soon center around the question about a possible confession or near-confession of Edwin Walker. That is, we have confessions and near-confessions from John Martino, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Jack S. Martin, Thomas Edward Beckham and Gerry Patrick Hemming. Depending on how we define terms, we might argue for near-confessions from David Ferrie, David Atlee Phillips and Harry Dean. So -- how do I explain a possible near-confession from Ex-General Edwin Walker? My logic is this -- it comes from Edwin Walker's Warren Commission testimony, specifically the part about the German newspaper, Deutsche-Nationalzeitung. The Commission attorney asked Edwin Walker about the weekend issue of this weekly magazine, which was published exactly one week after the JFK murder. That magazine's reporter admitted to the German State Police that Edwin Walker told him, on the very weekend of the JFK murder, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963. The reason that the Commission attorney asked Walker about this is because the Commission -- and even the FBI -- didn't know that Lee Harvey Oswald was Walker's shooter until the first week of December 1963. How did Edwin Walker know, demanded the attorney, that Oswald was his shooter even before the FBI knew it? At this point Edwin Walker lied to the Warren Commission. It wasn't his only lie, but it was one of his biggest -- Edwin Walker told the Warren Commision that the reporters at the Deutsche Nationalzeitung simply "guessed the truth". The Commission attorney simply accepted this "explanation" and changed the topic. However, cross-examination (which was notoriously absent from the Warren Commission proceedings) would have shown that the German State Police interviewed the reporter in Germany, and that reporter clearly stated that Edwin Walker -- on the weekend of the JFK murder -- told that reporter point blank that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter. One might say that it's a debatable point -- and that I don't have any further proof that Edwin Walker lied. (Actually, I have a Bishop of the Episcopalian Church in Mississippi, Duncan Gray, who insists that Edwin Walker lied to a Mississippi Grand Jury when he claimed he was at Ole Miss on 9/30/1962 to keep the peace, when actually he was there to foment a deadly race riot.) But this is where the personal papers of Edwin Walker now come center stage. Because for years after the Warren Commission -- and really until the end of his life -- Edwin Walker admitted several times that he knew Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter only "days" after the April shooting! Walker admitted this to his followers, but he also admitted it to Government officials, e.g. Senator Frank Church. Here's a URL showing that 1975 letter: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf Yet for some odd reason, this confession just flew over their heads. Walker spread this story for the rest of his life, even to the year before his death. Here's the final publishing of this 1992 story in the Kerrville Daily News: http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf This, in my opinion, will turn out to be Edwin Walker's near-confession to the JFK murder. With this confession Walker is admitting that he lied to the Warren Commission when he testified that he never heard about Lee Harvey Oswald until the JFK murder. But with these subsequent confessions that Walker knew about Oswald since 14 April 1963, Walker is actually reaching out to researchers -- he is trying to confess. That's my theory, and despite lots of opposition, I know it's a strong theory. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I'm glad you put our differences in very clear terms. I absolutely disagree that the Nazi ideology has any hold at all on the Republican Party or has any remote semblance to State Power in the USA. Your view is radically anti-Republican, Paul B., and I think you've gone to an extreme. There's another extreme view that I've heard in contemporary scene, namely, that the two Parties (Democrat and Republican) have no differences at all, and only support the Ruling Class. That's nonsense -- there are sharp and even irreconcilable differences between the two Parties (except that they both respect the Will of the Voters ever four years). So, I do agree with you this far, Paul B., that Democrats and Republicans have extremely sharp differences. Yet it's going way too far to demonize the "loyal opposition" and try to paint the opposing Party as treasonous. It's flatly incorrect because it also suggests that the American People are dumb enough to be fooled by a Nazi Party that controls the Republican Party. That's going way too far. I understand that there is competition between the Parties -- but we can't have a Democratic process if we call the Republicans nothing but Nazi operators, because that would imply outlawing them -- and that's no longer Democratic. So -- we totally disagree, Paul B. And it also underscores why I don't agree with the CIA/Nazi theory of Steven Gaal. It should also explain, perhaps, why we disagree so sharply when I say that CIA Headquarters are innocent of the plot to murder JFK. As you know I disagree with the Warren Commission -- I maintain that Lee Harvey Oswald never acted alone. But the nature of Oswald's accomplices (and framers) must be spelled out in ground-crew detail. HOWEVER, I am currently certain that the official CIA did not plot JFK's murder. CIA rogues were involved (and we know many of their names) but so were many civilians, and I suspect right-wing racists, Cuban Exiles, and several prominent members of the John Birch Society -- not in subordinate roles, but in leading roles. I think that new discoveries in historical science will justify my theory in the years -- or possibly months ahead. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, despite the single question about the dates in which Harry Dean spoke with FBI Agent Wesley Grapp (yes, I still believe Harry Dean) the eBook which we published is solid as a rock. Harry Dean provides, in fact, a viable account of the JFK assassination from an eye-witness very close to Loran Hall, Larry Howard and other well-discussed accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald. The fact that I defeated Tommy's flimsy theory about Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo", and the fact that I've torn hole after hole in the extremely poor logic and bias of Ernie Lazar's claims about the FBI (claims which even his erstwhile hero, FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen now mocks and ridicules) is alone the motivation which causes them to criticize our eBook. The 2nd Edition of "Harry Dean's Confessions" will have only minor modifications -- a clarification of the dates of Harry's talks with Wesley Swearingen, and corrected names of the actual FBI Agents that Harry spoke with in 1963. Also, FBI documents will be added to the Appendix. Further information about Ex-General Edwin Walker is also emerging as I write these words. Scholars from various US Universities have requested copies of my manuscript about Walker's personal papers (2012) and perhaps by the end of this year a major book by a significant researcher will be published outlining in great historical detail the case against Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK. Keep vigilant -- keep watching this space for updates. The JFK case will finally be solved with this theory -- after 50 years of flailing about with half-truths and nonsense of the kind offered by Tommy and Ernie. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I suppose I should repeat myself here, Steven; everybody knows that Allen Dulles and the CIA cooperated with officials of the fallen Third Reich in setting up US Intelligence Agencies to face off against the USSR. It was a practical matter. Also, everybody knows that the fallen Third Reich had tried to conquer the world based on their idea of Aryan supremacy. Yet it's a major error of logic to jump to the conclusion that Allen Dulles and the CIA were therefore believers in Racism and wanted to perpetuate the goals of the Third Reich. It's a mistake of logic. The USA has its own Racial problems, but they don't involve Aryan supremacy. They involve African American issues, such as wide cultural differences, and sharp economic differences going to African culture. But 19th century Southern politics never stooped to Aryan supremacy. That nonsense arose among a few fanatics during the Civil Rights resistance, and remains limited to few kooks on the ultra-right-wing, e.g. the American Nazi Party and sundry other wackos. The vast majority of US Americans are, and have always been CHRISTIANS, and Christianity is totally incompatible with the Third Reich. (Knowing this, Hitler said in his Table Talks 1941, that he planned to replace the Cross with the Swastika. Also, remember the Pope said that Hitler forced him to take that photograph with Hitler kissing his hand, or Hitler would have bombed the Vatican.) Nazi's hate Christ because He was Jewish -- that's one of the key features of Third Reich Aryan ideology. It was because of Christianity that is why the USA North put a stop to Slavery in the USA South (remember the Battle Hymn of the Republic), and that is also why the USA joined the Allies in WW2 -- to kick some Nazi butt. Please recognize that the Third Reich surrendered. That doesn't mean that Racism vanished from the face of the earth -- but as I said above, it does mean that Racism no longer has State Power. (The same thing happened when the US South surrendered to the US North in 1865 -- the Racists lost State Power, but they didn't vanish from the face of the earth. Bluntly put, racists have rights, too.) So, there are Racists in the USA -- but that does not in the slightest mean that the US Government is Racist. It follows the Will of the People, and since the Civil Rights movement and the recognition of Martin Luther King Day, racial discrimination in the workplace is flatly against the law. You simply can't compare that with the Third Reich and the Germany of 1935. So, again, Steven, you haven't produced real proof of a CIA/Nazi connection. Nor have you changed my mind about CIA rogues (joined with ultra-right-wing US civilians) being responsible for the JFK murder. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Steven, nothing that Rosenberg said in that article was really news. I was already aware of the reach of the Nazi Party in the 1930's and 1940's, and that Racism is still alive and well in the world, even today. The important thing today is that Racism doesn't hold official State powers. Racists can still vote -- that's their right -- and in a few US counties they have quite a lot of influence. But in most US counties they don't, and just as we have to live with our morons on the left-wing, we simply have to live with our morons on the right-wing. Look at the outcome of the US Civil War: although the surrender of the South was attained and the Slaves were freed by Abraham Lincoln, that didn't mean that Racism simply vanished. It merely lost State Power. The Civil Rights movement was still needed a hundred years later to fine-tune those social gains. In the same way, even though Nazi Germany surrendered in 1944, that didn't mean that White Supremacy simply vanished. It merely lost State Power. Nazi intellectuals from the Third Reich were immediately hired by the US Government to help in the immediate Cold War effort against the USSR as soon as WW2 was over. It was a practical matter -- not an ideological matter. There is still a Nazi Party in the USA to this very day -- not very big, not very influential, and clearly crackpot. But it exists. Yet they are as harmless as a common street gang (or even more harmless) unless they actually get ahold of State Power -- which is their pipe dream. They also have the right to vote any way they want. It's simply part of American Freedom of Speech. (By contrast, the Nazi Party is illegal in Germany today. I guess they know their own limits.) So, the existence of extreme right-wingers in the USA doesn't cause me to lose sleep at night, any more than the existence of extreme left-wingers. Both are tragi-comic relief in our Democratic Republic. Their relevance for the JFK murder, however, is something different. What matters for JFK research is to outline the nature of Racism in 1963, in particular their specific opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, because JFK on 6/6/1963 made a speech in support of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. The very night of that speech by JFK, Mississippi saw the cold-blooded murder of Medgar Evers, the NAACP official who had successfully supported Black American James Meredith, a US Air Force veteran, to become the first Black student at the University of Mississippi on 9/30/1962. Who opposed James Meredith and Medgar Evers with "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union?" None other than Ex-General Edwin Walker. Walker led the riots at Ole Miss in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed, right in the middle of the JFK Presidency, and right in the same period as the Cuban Missile Crisis. This event -- which is underplayed in history books, and of which film-footage is still protected by FOIA exceptions at NARA -- is the apex of the Cold War. JFK confronted the two major issues of his Administration on that single day -- Cuba and Civil Rights. Walker lost that battle that night. He had to lie to a Grand Jury to escape prosecution. But Medgar Evers would not escape murder, because Walker, after his acquittal, immediately went on the war path in a coast-to-coast speaking tour with segregationist preacher Billy James Hargis, slamming the NAACP and Fidel Castro -- and whipping up the ultra-right-wing in America. The John Birch Society organized the turn-out for that speaking tour, but it was mainly the White Citizens Councils who attended those rallies (which were picketed by local NAACP members). Some say Billy James Hargis would target the NAACP in his speeches, while Ex-General Walker would target Cuba and JFK. Who shot Medgar Evers in the back? That's well known -- that was the KKK member, Byron de la Beckwith. What is less well-known is that during his first murder trial in January 1964, Byron de la Beckwith recieved an encouraging visit from Ex-General Edwin Walker. So, Steven, I'm interested in Racism in the USA as it pertains to the JFK murder. But I'm not interested in broad theories -- I'm interested in the ground-crew -- in specific names of those directly suspect in the murder of JFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Steven, I've also done my own research, and I just don't find the Republican Party to be dangerous to the USA. Yes, they may be guilty of dirty tricks in politics now and again -- but politics is politics. They aren't fascists (though I don't typically vote for them). As for the "Liberal Press" charge, I'd like to comment on that. In the 1970's I was very interested in the Cold War, and I read everything I could get my hands on from the extremes to the moderates. The extremes were more interesting. The left-wing writers were all very predictable -- they were parrots of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and so on. The same old blather about the industrial proletariat destined to defeat the industrial bourgeoisie, blah blah blah. They never changed that tune. The right-wing writers were more creative. Rather than grand theories about the "inevitable tide of history" and so on, they challenged the key tenets of the left-wing as it hit the street, building on the Red Scare tactics of old Joe McCarthy. Robert Welch of the John Birch Society led the way, as follows: -------- Begin quotation of Robert Welch 1959 -------------- "This brings us to the most important of their separate Big Lies. The first is that Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses against their oppressors. The truth is exactly the opposite. Communism is imposed on every country, from the top down, by a conspiratorial apparatus, headed and controlled by suave and utterly ruthless criminals, who are recruited from the richest families, most highly educated intellectuals, and most skillful politicians within that country. The rest of the show, including all of the noise made and work done by the poor 'revolutionary' beatniks and dupes at the bottom, is mere pretense and deception." (Robert Welch, 1959, The Politician, p. xxxxv) ------------ End quotation of Robert Welch 1959 --------- That stunned me back in the 1970's. The "real" Communists are the rich and powerful in New York City? The working class protest crowds on the street are really dupes of the rich? Wow, I really had to stop and think about that. The right-wing had lots of other tricks up their sleeve -- for example, they named all these rich, alleged Communists from New York, and they even named the main group they belonged to -- the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). That group was named by the John Birch Society in 1960, in a book by Dan Smoot, entitled, The Invisible Government (1960). They published the names of CFR members like the names of wanted criminals -- including John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas Fairbanks, Harvey Firestone, Felix Frankfurter, John Kenneth Galbraith, Harry Guggenheim, H.J. Heinz, Herbert Hoover, Herbert Hoover Jr., Hubert Humphrey, Henry Kissinger, General Edward Lansdale, Owen Lattimore, Henry Cabot Lodge, George Cabot Lodge, Walter Lippman, John Loeb, Henry Luce, Stanley Marcus, Edward R. Murrow, Richard M. Nixon, Fritz Oppenheimer, Robert Oppenheimer, David Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller, George Emlen Roosevelt, Alexander Sachs, David Sarnoff, John Schiff, Adlai Stevenson, General Maxwell Taylor, Paul Warburg, Eric Warbug, James Warbug, General William Westmoreland -- and if that sounds like a long list, Steven, I assure you that the JBS listed an additional 1,350 names in their "roster of shame." At first I was impressed -- and then I realized the real roots of this political screed, namely, Southern Politics. I noticed that these were the names of the politicians of The Eastern Establishment. Some early John Birch Society material actually used that term. It was with this sort of nonsense that the John Birch Society gained membership from the small manufactuers in the North, and the Southern Dixiecrats in the South. It was a winning political strategy, exploiting the small business class with fears of Communists under the bed. Building on the McCarthyist Red Scare, the Birchers made a ton of money and had millions of sympathetic Americans believing in their nonsense. Abolish the Federal Reserve! Abolish Social Security! Impeach Earl Warren! Flouride in your water is a Communist plot! Then, in the early 1990's, the Red Menace simply collapsed. The USSR vanished into thin air. It had been built on a Big Lie -- not the Big Lie that Robert Welch warned about -- but simply the Big Lie that Communism was the will of the People, and that the USSR had no crime, no alcohol problem, no race problem, and was a perfect society. What a hoax. It couldn't stand on its own two feet to endure even three generations. But here's the worst part -- after the Red Menace vanished from International Politics -- after Marxism-Leninism was humiliated in the eyes of intellectuals everywhere -- what ideology did the left-wing in the USA have to cling to anymore? You guessed it -- the John Birch Society! What makes me laugh loud everyday is observing left-wing intellectuals spouting the same nonsense that we heard in the 1960's coming from the John Birch Society! Beware of the Council on Foreign Relations! Beware of the Trilateral Commission! Beware of the Bilderbergers! Beware of International Banks! Beware of the Eastern Establishment! The US Mass Media and Press is somehow biased toward the "LIBERAL"! And they fail to see that all this echoes the radical right-wing of the 1960's. It would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. The left-wing in the USA is basically a burnt chicken wing today -- with no substance of its own, and only a twisted form of Right-wing ideology to cling to desperately. I even hear Democrats complaining about Social Security and the Federal Reserve Bank today -- the irony is tragi-comic. After all that, Steven -- my point is this. Grand political theories of the JFK assassination are noise-level to me. The only politics that are valid motives for the murder of JFK are the politics of 1963. Period. Nobody in 1963 knew what politics would arise after 1963. People can't predict the future. People react to the politics that they perceive under their noses today -- to the best of their ability. The issues in 1963 in the USA were basically twofold: the Cuba Crisis and the Civil Rights movement. This is what moved the USA, both left and right in 1963, and this is what motivated the murder of JFK. That's my position because it's rational and verifiable. By contrast, grand political theories can give conspiracy research a bad name. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, Larry, fair enough, insofar as semantic distinctions are wanted. My point was that neither Roselli nor Martino were CIA Agents -- neither was a full-time employee of the CIA. In my usage of the term, "CIA asset," I meant that they were useful to the CIA in various projects, but were never hired as CIA Agents. This is an important distinction, because so many low-level CIA assets would brag about their CIA connections on the street and underground, to increase their prestige and perhaps their authority (and perhaps even raise funds). We saw this with Joan Mellen's descriptions of Fred Crisman, David Ferrie and Jack S. Martin. Yet your point is well-taken. I was lumping all CIA "assets" into one big bucket, and that's not fair. There were very valuable CIA assets like Johnny Roselli, who provided services on multiple levels -- and then there were low-level CIA assets like Jack S. Martin, who was marginally useful. So, your finer distinction between the CIA assets is correct, Larry. I acknowledge that. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Steven, it seems to me that you're pursuing the John Newman argument about a "shadow government" conspiracy, with all its gaps, toward a conclusion. Yet there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion in Newman's data. He admitted he had to guess in places to fill up gaps. As long as one includes blatant guesses, one's conclusions cannot be certain. This is the kind of logic that convicted Lee Harvey Oswald of being the Lone Assassin. There seems to be a vague consensus among many here on the FORUM about some murky "shadow government" conspiracy. I'm calling for the opposite -- for names and dates and places. I was disappointed that Gaeton Fonzi gave up his exploration of the Cuban connection when he did. He should have kept digging. Also, I was disappointed when Joan Mellen concluded that Fred Crisman, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Edward Beckham actually represented the official CIA in the JFK murder. Those low-level quasi-assets had no pull at all in the CIA. So, Joan Mellen was really repeating Jim Garrison's findings -- which were disappointing on their own account. (Don't get me wrong -- I'm not dismissing Jim Garrison's mammoth contribution, except to say that he failed to solve the case, and fell back into a "shadow government" theory.) I'm more impressed with Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich, who make it a point to demand hard evidence, documented evidence, before they level charges. This is the level at which I prefer to operate. Now, I still don't agree with all of their conclusions -- for one thing, they also admit that they are guessing here and there, to fill in the gaps. But at least they admit it when they're guessing. When we have personal confessions of the principals, we are on solid ground. We have personal confessions from David Morales, John Martino, Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt. That's solid. We can take that to the bank, IMHO. However, when we reach higher than that in the CIA, we are on shakier ground. David Atlee Phillips gave us a near-confession, when he admitted to his brother that he was in Dealey Plaza when JFK was murdered -- but he stopped short of admitting participation. Later, in his book, THE NIGHT WATCH (1982) Phillips said that he was involved in training Lee Harvey Oswald to murder FIdel Castro, but then Oswald got diverted (behind his back) into the plot to murder JFK. So -- that's not a complete match, Steven. I still can't nail David Atlee Phillips based on the evidence we have so far. As for James Jesus Angleton, it seems clear to me now, after the work by Bill Simpich which proved that a mole-hunt was started inside the CIA for the impersonators of Oswald and Duran at the Mexico City Cuban consulate, that Angleton had no idea what David Morales was up to. Angleton was indeed trying to murder Fidel Castro, but the mole-hunt facts and figures exonerate Angleton from the JFK murder, IMHO, based on the evidence I've seen so far. The same applies to anybody at the level of Angleton or higher, including Richard Helms and John McCone. They are in the clear BASED ON THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH SO FAR. Suspicion won't change my mind, Steven. Only documented evidence will do that. And in this regard I continue to praise the efforts of Hancock and Simpich. I'm now starting to propose names for the ground-crew. David Morales; Frank Sturgis; Howard Hunt; John Martino; Johnny Roselli; Guy Banister; David Ferrie; Clay Shaw; Ed Butler; Carlos Bringuier; Fred Crisman; Tom Beckham; Jack Martin; Edwin Walker; Roscoe White; J.D. Tippit; Vidal Santiago; Loran Hall; Larry Howard; Eladio del Valle and Gerry Patrick Hemming. As time goes forward I'll add to this list perhaps subtract from it -- but the documented evidence (and personal confessions) that I have so far has led me to this current status of my theory. I also add an element that I believe Larry Hancock would approve, namely, photographic evidence. I never considered J.D. Tippit a suspect before, until I saw very recent photographic evidence regarding the Badge Man. I was astonished - down to the birthmark on his face. My point, Steven, is that the highest CIA guy that I can name so far is David Morales. Clearly a rogue. If you can find documented evidence (and not mere suspicion) of a confession, a smoking gun, a contradiction with no other explanation, then I'll change my tune about the CIA. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks, Larry, for that direction. Since I give lots of weight to your theory in Someone Would Have Talked (2010) I'd like to maintain as much agreement as I possibly can with your viewpoint until I'm forced by my own theory to diverge, however slightly. Let me stipulate that the team coming from out of town consisted largely of Cuban Exiles, but also included Americans who had been a part of the Bay of Pigs alongside those Cuban Exiles, and Americans among the anti-Castro right-wing involved with the Cuban Exiles in on-going raids of Cuba and attempts on Fidel's life. As far as I can tell today, their leader would have been the bull-headed CIA Agent David Morales. The Americans among the Cuban Exiles would include such low-level CIA assets as Frank Sturgis, who actually confessed to being a part of the JFK murder, as well as Gerry Patrick Hemming, who confessed to A.J. Weberman that he offered Lee Harvey Oswald double the market price of his personal rifle if he'd bring it to work on 11/22/1963, thus making himself a vital part of the JFK murder plot. Along with Hemming we may include a sampling of the members of his Cuba raid group, Interpen. Such a group of Americans would also include such low-level CIA assets as Johnny Roselli and John Martino, both of whom also confessed to participation in the JFK murder. John Martino never mentioned Edwin Walker, local leader of the Dallas John Birch Society, however, John Martino was sponsored by the John Birch Society when he made his anti-Castro speeches. Such a group of Americans would also include such low-level CIA assets as Loran Hall and Larry Howard, two of many gun runners for Cuban Exile training camps in Miami and Louisiana, as well as their immediate comrades in La Sambra. One of the fellow-travelers of these two was WW2 hero Guy Gabaldon, who was linked to them through the John Birch Society as well as through his own Cuba raid group, Drive Against Communist Aggression in Mexico City. (We have significant information about this group from Harry Dean.) It might be relevant that Gabaldon and Howard were Mexican-American US Army veterans, like David Morales. It might also be relevant that Gerry Patrick Hemming lived nearby Gabaldon, Howard and Hall in Southern California where the John Birch Society and California Minutemen were particularly active. See, Larry, I'm agreeing with your general definition of the Team under David Morales as Cuban Exile, but there were lots of American fellow-travelers along with the Cuban Exiles, and David Morales was himself an American (i.e. a Mexican-American). So, in seeking the ground-crew, I faully accept counting the Cuban Exiles themselves, yet I also wish to count those radicals among the Anti-Castro people who were American and yet moved in the same circles. (Spanish speaking Americans would tend to move even more intimately among the Cuban Exiles.) Recalling other Americans who moved in the same circles, we cannot forget CIA Agent Howard Hunt, who confessed on his deathbed that he participated "on the sidelines" in the murder of JFK. In his case, he heard about it from Frank Sturgis and David Morales -- and going by the evidence, those were his main and most highly placed CIA connections. So far I'm happy with this line-up, and I'm happy to consider that they all had a formal (though unofficial) chain-of-command leading up to David Morales. Let us go ahead and add Cuban Exile names to this mix, especially Felipe Vidal Santiago, a friend of John Martino, of whom we have film at Dealey Plaza when JFK was murdered, acting in a most suspicious manner. Having said all that, we must now consider the New Orleans team, and acknowledge that they had their own chain of command. In my view (going mainly by the findings of Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen) the leader of the New Orleans team was Guy Banister, and underneath his leadership there was a semi-formal (but loose-lipped) chain-of-command involving Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham and Jack S. Martin. Their key task, evidently, was to manage Lee Harvey Oswald as the Patsy. (We have lots of data about this group from Richard Case Nagell, for example.) And now we must consider the Dallas team -- and acknowledge that they had their own chain of command. In my speculative theory so far, I name Ex-General Edwin Walker at the top of that command, for many reasons. (1) Walker was a nationally recognized flamboyant leader of the right-wing in Dallas at the time; (2) Walker had wide experience in paramililtary operations as a US General; (3) Walker was active underground in the anti-Castro movement; (4) Walker was known to have successfully attacked Adlai Stevenson in Dallas only 30 days before JFK arrived, and didn't even get his hand slapped for that; (5) Walker was a locally respected leader of the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, the White Citizens Councils and even the KKK all throughout the South; and (6) Walker's publisher, whose office was inside Walker's personal home in Dallas, was Robert Allen Surrey, who was also the publisher for the American Nazi Party. Edwin Walker was clearly washed up for mainstream politics by the middle of 1962, but he was by no means washed up in right-wing politics in 1963. Other reasons to name Walker as the lead of the Dallas team include: (i) Walker had a personal correspondence with Gerry Patrick Hemming, as shown by his personal papers at the Briscoe Center; (ii) Walker entertained Interpen members at his home in Dallas in April/May 1963; (iii) Loran Hall visited Walker's home in Dallas after he was arrested in October, 1963; (iv) Walker told the Warren Commission that he contributed money to the DRE; (v) Walker gave at least one speech alongside Carlos Bringuier and Kent Courtney at a right-wing rally; and (vi) Walker's standing among the right-wing in Dallas was so solid that hundreds would have marched at his request. Now, Larry, I want to focus on your team, "tactical coordinator." Although there is no doubt that David Morales would insist on being the leader of his own crew from A to Z, there is also little doubt that Morales would need to defer to the local contact in Dallas for intelligence about the Dallas environment. You mention in your book, SWHT/2010, that such a tactical coordination would require obtaining the latest information about the JFK motorcade schedule and route, without raising suspicion. Even though Jack Ruby knew many DPD officers through his striptease nightclub in Dallas, this was not a boasting point among DPD officers. It was something they preferred to remain quiet on the red light district at night. Even Jack Ruby himself asking for JFK motorcade data would risk raising eyebrows here and there. No -- the best bet for obtaining official JFK motorcade data would be through official channels -- from the conservative and even ultra-conservative workers already inside the Dallas City Hall. It isn't the Carousel Club connection that would be the most secret, but the John Birch Society connection -- that would certainly be the most insidious, quiet and innocent connection possible, with direct access to Dallas City Hall records. Now, proving this will be difficult, because it will mean obtaining the cooperation of children of Dallas City workers about their parents' political affiliations with the John Birch Society. (The John Birch Society is still in existence, and will not release its membership list histories to any outsiders.) Still, it's not technically impossible. The questions remaining to be asked would then entail the negotiations between the Miami Team (under David Morales) and the Dallas Team (under Edwin Walker). I think it is anything but certain how those negotiations would have proceeded. Both men were very bull-headed. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I'm currently looking even deeper into the Edwin Walker theory of the JFK murder, and here's where it's leading me: 1. Walker had connections to the DRE, and even with Carlos Bringuier, directly. Bringuier appeared on the radio with Lee Harvey Oswald, as part of a deliberate effort to frame Oswald as a Communist supporting Fidel Castro. 1.1. Yes, I'm proposing that Oswald was cooperating with Bringuier. Bringuier was working with Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Ed Butler to "sheep-dip" Oswald as a Castro-loving Communist in order to frame Oswald for the JFK murder. 1.2. Oswald was ignorant of that plot. Instead, Oswald was led to believe that he could get an instant Visa into Cuba if he was an FPCC officer. So, by using "street credentials" in newspaper, police records, radio and TV, he could convince the 'stupid' clerks at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City to give him an instant visa. 1.3. The evidence appears to show that Oswald believed this, although his handlers knew it to be false. They were "punking" Oswald, and probably laughing their heads off back in New Orleans while Oswald was in Mexico City. 1.4. While in Mexico City, the rogue CIA member of the plot, David Morales, used his crew to impersonate Lee Oswald and Silvia Duran in a call from the Cuban consulate to the USSR consulate, knowing full well that the conversation would be bugged. The impersonators fooled the USSR consulate clerk into saying the name, "Valery Kostikov," a known KGB agent. The intent was to solidify Oswald's image as a Castro-loving, Communist defector and collaborator with the KGB. 1.5. (This part of the plot would backfire on David Morales, since his superiors in the CIA, who knew nothing about Morales' plot, started a mole-hunt inside the CIA, looking for a mole, since they knew for a fact that the impersonators were inside people. Bill Simpich proved very well that there was indeed a mole-hunt. This is the best evidence I know to show that the official CIA was not part of the JFK murder plot, although they took a leading role in the JFK cover-up.) 2. Before Walker instigated the riots at Ole Miss in 9/1962, he wrote an open letter to JFK about the crisis which can be read at this URL: http://www.pet880.com/images/19620926_EAW_Open_Letter.JPG 2.1. Notice that this letter, on the very eve of the Ole Miss riots, complains far more about Cuba than about Ole Miss. 3. Walker, after he was acquitted by a Grand Jury in 1/1963 for his role in the Ole Miss riots, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed, decided to take a cross-country speaking tour with Billy James Hargis, entitled, the Midnight Ride. 4. One source claims that the main theme of Walker's speeches on the Midnight Ride was CUBA. 5. If so, then the Cuban Exiles in Miami, Louisiana and Dallas would look to Edwin Walker as a LEADER. 6. Walker was indeed a leader among the ultra-right-wing. Even though he was washed up for mainstream politics, Walker still had a loyal following among fanatics in rightist causes -- like the Cuban Exiles on the one hand, but also like the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, the White Citizens Councils on the other hand. 7. In the world of politics at this time, Americans would be the leaders, and Cuban Exiles would be the followers. 8. The murder of JFK in Dallas requires a Dallas leadership. Even Larry Hancock admitted that the CIA could not and would not go into Dallas without a Dallas coordinator. (Yet I disagree with Larry Hancock when he names Jack Ruby as that coordinator.) 9. I am now looking at a 2009 book, entitled, A DEEPER, DARKER TRUTH, by Don T. Phillips. This book tells of advanced photographic technology being used to analyze photographs of Dealey Plaza taken on 11/22/1963. 9.1. This book suggests that the Grassy Knoll shooter, known as the "badge man," can be shown to be, by sensitive technology breakthroughs in photo-analysis, none other than J.D. Tippit. 10. If J.D. Tippit was a grassy knoll shooter, then we have more reason to believe young Mike Robinson who overheard DPD officer Roscoe White confess to killing DPD officer J.D. Tippit in cold blood. 11. This also raises the specter of Ricky White's personal claim that his father, DPD officer Roscoe White, was one of the grassy knoll shooters as well. 12. The common link between Roscoe White, J.D. Tippit and Ex-General Edwin Walker was the ultra-right-wing. 13. The 1971 book by William Turner (Power on the Right) says that all DPD officers in 1963 were unofficially required to be members of the John Birch Society, the Minutemen or the KKK, and preferably all three, to qualify for a job on the DPD Force. 14. It was admitted about Roscoe White that he was a member of the Minutemen and the John Birchers, as I recall. 15. I haven't read anything about J.D. Tippit's political affiliation. I would appreciate more information on this topic. 16. In Dallas, the most popular ultra-right-wing leader was Ex-General Edwin Walker. The evidence continues to mount up that portrays Edwin Walker at the center of the Dallas plot, which was an ultra-rightist plot that engaged Cuban Exiles and their supporters in the mammoth effort to murder JFK in public. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Once again, Ernie Lazar is having one of his rants. He now admits that I'm right about the FBI and the John Birch Society, but now he claims that this was all his idea own in the first place. As for John Rousselot, Ernie did send me a summary report from the FBI about this John Birch Society mouthpiece, and the FBI did indeed report that Rousselot was once an Editor of the American Opinion magazine. But without even investigating Rousselot's income, the FBI merely interviewed 33 of Rousselot's closest friends, and verified that the Congressman had no prior arrests or convictions. . This FBI investigation was obviously a formality, evidently done for the convenience of President Reagan to shoo his rightist pal into some temporary, "advisory" office somewhere, now that Rousselot had reached the age of 60. Probably Reagan owed him a political favor. It was interesting, though, that the names of these 33 friends were BLANKED OUT, yet one of them was recognizable by his Title, former "Secretary of Agriculture under the Eisenhower Administration in 1952." That would be Ezra Taft Benson, the racist leader of the Mormon Church in the 1950's and 1960's, and a stalwart supporter of the John Birch Society. What a surprise that Benson would give Rousselot a five star recommendation. A few interesting tidbits about Rousselot did show up -- his work history is obscured by "destroyed records" until age 29. Also, his college grades showed an average GPA of 4.3 out of a range of 8.0. In other words, Rousselot was a C student. Well, that was better than Ex-General Edwin Walker, another John Birch Society leader, who was a "D" student at West Point. As for Harry Dean, Ernie continues to try to cloud the truth -- accusing Harry Dean of having claimed to be an official, paid, FBI Informant -- which has always been a total lie. The evidence shows that this lie was used by the FBI fifty years ago to throw researchers off of the Harry Dean trail. Then, to cover his own lies, Ernie has the NERVE to call me a xxxx -- multiple times -- in public. What a maroon. Anyway -- if this was the good old days when we had a MODERATOR on the EDUCATION FORUM, Ernie Lazar would have been suspended long ago. Sadly, this is no longer the case, and the FORUM must somehow tolerate this maroon going forward. So, once again I'll fix my FORUM settings to "Ignore" all the posts by Ernie Lazar. I recommend that you, dear reader, do the same. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

David, the incident you're recalling is probably this one, which occurred in the Spring of 1973, five years before Morales died. The scene is in southern Arizona, south of Wilcox and near the Mexican border, where David Sanchez Morales was building his retirement home. CIA Chief of Covert Operations, Rocky Farnsworth, held a dinner party in Arizona, and introduced David Morales to his business associate, Bob Walton along with Ruben Carbajal, their wives and some relatives. During that party Morales boasted that that he installed the best security system in the USA in his new house. Thinking Morales was worried about burglars, Walton said, "What do you need so much security for, you're still 30 miles from Mexico." Morales replied, "I'm not worried about those people, I'm worried about my own." Walton asked, "What do you mean?" Morales replied, "I know too much," and then he changed the subject. The dinner party ended up at 11pm, and then the men went off to drink by themselves until daybreak. During that bout, Walton got tired of the small talk so he asked David Morales about himself. Morales began telling his war stories, and becoming animated about it. Morales, for example, is credited for capturing and executing Che Guevarra. Then Morales turned the light back onto Walton. Walton told about his University days, and then at Harvard Law school, when he was head of a student group which invited JFK to speak at Cambridge. At the mention of JFK, Morales jumped up and shouted, "That no good son of a bitch mother f%*#r! " Morales screamed about watching his men get slaughtered at the Bay of Pigs, "all because of JFK." Walton says this rant about JFK went on for several minutes as Morales paced up and down the room. Suddenly Morales stopped. Sat down, composed himself. And then, quietly, as if only to himself, he concluded: "Well, we took care of that son of a bitch, didn't we?" Walton looked at Ruben Carbajal, who just looked back at Walton and nodded his head. IMHO, the weight of the evidence about David Sanchez Morales is overwhelming. He had means, motive and opportunity. IMHO, Morales is the highest-ranking CIA officer who can be easily linked to the murder of JFK. Others are suspect -- but Morales is virtually certain. What David Morales lacked could be supplied by fanatic leaders outside of the CIA. For example, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier would supply Lee Harvey Oswald, perfectly framed. For another example, Ex-General Edwin Walker would supply an organized militia of Minutemen from Dallas, Texas, completely aware of the terrain, and perfectly positioned within the DPD to obtain schedules and other official information without raising suspicion. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

You see, Ernie, it's precisely because we're paying attention that we can all see that you're holding back vital data. No, Ernie, you're mistaken. All of the many records that the FBI has released about Harry Dean (which you used to claim never existed) all verify that (I) Harry Dean really did communicate with the FBI in Chicago as he always claimed; (II) Harry Dean really did belong to the 26th of July Movement in Chicago as he always claimed; (III) Harry Dean was an officer of the FPCC in Chicago as he always claimed; (IV) FBI really did communicate with the FBI in Los Angeles as he always claimed; (V) Harry Dean really was active with the John Birch Society and Minutemen in the Los Angeles area as he always claimed. Your blindness to these clear and general facts makes me question your judgment more and more. Ernie -- I'm surprised at you. While I never claimed that the FBI investigated the John Birch Society (that has been your own hobby horse) I have always promoted the facts that show that J. Edgar Hoover was nevertheless personally annoyed with their Un-American ideology, and he did collect information about them, and had an FBI file made on their organization. I can't believe, Ernie, that you're ignorant of the fact that in late January, 1959 (only 6 weeks after the JBS was founded by Robert Welch) the FBI Milwaukee field office SAC, sent a memo to Hoover from his source who attended a JBS recruiting meeting where Mr. Welch fired up the room. The source said: "The meeting was conducted by Welch in a very secretive manner. Those in attendance were instructed not to divulge what had transpired to their office personnel or even to their wives at this juncture.” [HQ 62-104401, #6; 1/20/1959 SAC Milwaukee to J. Edgar Hoover.] And I refuse to believe that you're ignorant of the fact, Ernie, that after that memo, FBI HQ sent memos to all SAC's of all FBI field office, alerting them about the JBS and Robert Welch, and Welch's semi-secret book, "The Politician." Hoover's very own memo stated: “This book attacks the reputation of the President of the United States, particularly chapter nine, which is a violent attack on President Eisenhower.” [HQ 62-104401, #10; 3/6/1959 Hoover memo.] I know you're aware that the FBI never launched a formal investigation of the JBS, Ernie, but how could you possibly be ignorant of the fact of the FBI SAC Letter of 3/10/1959 which responded to Hoover's alarm by saying: “The personnel of your office should be made aware of Welch’s activities and contemplated plans. You must be certain that your employees are alerted to promptly report to the Bureau any information concerning further activity by Welch in this regard. In the event information is received regarding any activity of Welch in the furtherance of setting his plan into operation, no investigation should be made but the Bureau should be promptly advised.” [sAC Letter 59-13, 3/10/1959] Surely, Ernie, you can't be ignorant of the fact that FBI Chief Inspector W.C. Sullivan wrote an alerting memorandum to Alan H. Belmont (Assistant to the Director, in charge of the FBI Domestic Intelligence Division) about the John Birch Society, saying: "The supporters of this organization and those influenced by the vicious propaganda it has been putting out are typical of the fanatics who have been attempting lately to disparage and discredit Bureau speakers who have been giving audiences a true, factual picture concerning the nature of the threat which communist activities in this country represent." [HQ 62-104401-791, 3/9/1961, W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont]. I can't believe, Ernie, that you're ignorant of the fact that the FBI Dallas office received reports that Dallas JBS members claimed that the FBI was supporting them! Surely you must know that J. Edgar Hoover himself instructed the FBI Dallas office to tell those JBS knuckleheads "in no uncertain terms to cease and desist from making any statements such as those set out above...indicating the Bureau is in agreement with or in back of any of their activities." [HQ 62-104401, No. 1443, 9/29/1961 reply by Hoover to Dallas SAC] Finally, Ernie, I just can't believe that you're ignorant of the fact that at his press conference on November 18, 1964, J. Edgar Hoover said this: "Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism." [HQ 62-104401, No. 2381, 11/20/1964 and HQ 100-114578-152, 10/22/1965]. So, Ernie, you see -- and all your readers can see -- once again you overstate your case, you're too quick to attack, to accuse and to insult, and really, you don't seem to check your facts as well as you claim to. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

If the FBI failed to mention Rousselot's membership and advocacy of the John Birch Society in their investigation of him for a position at the White House, then they were seriously derelict in their duties. Thankfully, the paltry few pages of "research" that Ernie has posted here does not represent an FBI investigation, but mainly consists of (1) several pages of the intent to investigate; and (2) a few interviews with Rousselot's close friends and neighbors all of whom said he was a great guy, good neighbor, no drugs, no criminal record, and best of all, was once a Congressman in California. In other words -- it barely scratches the surface of a true investigation. Insofar as there really was an FBI investigation of John Rousselot, and insofar as John Rousselot failed to obtain a full-time position with the Reagan White House, we must therefore conclude that Ernie Lazar continues to withhold vital information about the John Birch Society and John Rousselot. Why? For what purpose? Could it be because any official light on the John Birch Society would show them in an unflattering position -- and by proxy, John Rousselot would also be shown in an unflattering position? At least Harry Dean is honest about it -- he admits he was once a member of the JBS, that disloyal organization that accused US Presidents of being Communists, Communist-controlled, Communist-dupes and so on -- but Harry Dean quit the JBS and criticized them fiercely afterwards. It was, after all, according to Harry Dean, leading members of the John Birch Society, like Congressman John Rousselot, Ex-General Edwin Walker, and frequent speakers like Guy Gabaldon and Loran Hall, who conspired during the second week of September, 1963, at a Southern California office of the John Birch Society, to organize and finance their participation of the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK in Dallas in November of that year! The evidence continues to pour forth from history and research. Experts like Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have narrowed our field of suspects to those involved in feverishly Anti-Castro people, like those mentioned above, and including rogue CIA agents like David Morales and David Atlee Phillips, as well as Cuban Exile trainers and leaders like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall, with their comrade Larry Howard, whose name was on the lease of the Lousiana paramilitary training camp used by the paramilitary Minutemen along with Cuban Exiles in the DRE and Alpha/66 led by Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Beckham. Guy Banister was also a leading member of the John Birch Society as well as the Minutemen. The visits of Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gerry Patrick Hemming at the home of Ex-General Walker in Dallas throughout 1963 is confirmed by actual correspondence between Walker and Hemming in the personal papers of Edwin Walker currently stored at UT Austin. The field is narrowing. We are getting closer and closer to naming the ground-crew with every passing month. And the closer we get, the more brightly the banner of the John Birch Society shines in that billboard in the background, screaming, IMPEACH EARL WARREN! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo